Replies

You also may be interested at least 1-2 paragraphs of my post #121 this thread.

Maintaining databases of information during the last 30 years has been incredibly difficult, and often requires reformatting the data and re-saving to a different media every 5 years or so at great expense.

Some here have said “it's not expensive to store 20Tb of info.” Well, not today, but no more than 20 years ago, it cost $10/Mb for Disk Storage - so $2Million/20Tb - and that does not include the space for the 200,000 Winchester drives, the air conditioning to keep them running, cost of translating the paper, paper tape and mag tape records to format for the drives, or maintaining the indexing to keep it from being useless. It isn't the case that this wasn't ever converted to digital, either, but that much of that conversion would have been originally put on paper-tape or 9-track or 7-track mag tapes, and may never have been put on hard drives after that.

Again - I'm not forgiving the CRU people on this basis- I've addressed what I think of them in post#121.

I understand your point, but it's irrelevant in my view. First, if the data was supposedly dumped in 1980, then the validity of the current assessments should always include the disclaimer that the raw data was not accessed by the scientists doing the analysis. When they publish data that claims to reflect measured values over the past century, most who read those papers will assume that the analysis is based on primary data, not secondary data. This is really not much better than a meta-analysis study, and those are notoriously useless.

Second, whereas it might take lots of data storage space to store data analysis, it doesn't take a ton to archive measured temperatures. If temperature was measured every hour, for 100 years, that would be only 876,000 separate data points. You could easily write those numbers down on less than 2000 pieces of paper, less than the size of the current health care bill. The only reason they may have had too much data to store is if they had massaged it so much already that there were file upon file of altered data. I just don't buy the data storage issue.

You can't have it both ways. You can't stand by the quality of your data, and then say that a lot of your assessment is based on raw data that you've never seen.

These guys really irritate me. Science is an incredibly hard profession that involves struggling for money, lots of disappointing experimental results, and for most scientists obscurity outside of a relatively small circle of peers. When arrogant butt heads like the ones involved in the released emails are exposed writing about essentially destroying the credibility of other scientists, there is no room for excuses. They need to be investigated and they need to be able to prove the credibility of their findings. Their funding should be suspended until they have sufficiently proved that they are objective truth driven members of the scientific community, not self-annointed climate rock stars.

...............Maintaining databases of information during the last 30 years has been incredibly difficult, and often requires reformatting the data and re-saving to a different media every 5 years or so at great expense...........

Yeah I agree, but I don’t understand.

If these “scientists” are constantly revising, smoothing, and “improving the models”, that must mean that the beginning of any formula must start with the base number that they are modifying. Since they’re not using a Friden totalizer, or a slide rule, each model must contain the beginning number before it was modified, in digital format.

Thus, isn’t all the data already in digital form, useable in todays format?? Then can’t they take their model output, run the formula backwards to solve for the unmodified data??

Color me stupid!