Comments on: GAO Report on Data Sharing in Climate Science

By: John F. Pittman

John F. Pittman — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:13:20 +0000

Sometimes there are conceptual problems; I asked specifically for the actual data that Hansen et al , used for GISS analysis of surface temperature change

J. Hansen, R. Ruedy, J. Glascoe, and M. Sato

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York
Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, J. Glascoe, and Mki. Sato, 1999: GISS analysis of surface temperature change. J. Geophys. Res., 104, 30997-31022, doi:10.1029/1999JD900835. The response was

A search was conducted utilizing the information you provided. Let me know if this is responsive to your request.

1 NASA will provide the data that GISS has which is the closest thing NASA has to raw data. Those data are available to the requester on the GISS web site.

2 If the requester means by “raw” the original reports from the 31 sources, GISS is not in possession of those data. If requester wants to see all original reports, including the reports from the 8000 weather stations, we would suggest he contact NOAA as NASA does not have those data.

So, is the data that was used in 1999 actally on-site? I was not provided a link. This response was to a FOIA request. If the data has changed, it would not be the same (see Steve’s thread on the changes made after he identified the “Y2K” type error). If the data is there, why wasn’t a link provided?

By: Gerald Machnee

Gerald Machnee — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:42:51 +0000

Re #18 – BBBBBut you are dealing with a Hockey Team, not golfers.

By: Bishop Hill

Bishop Hill — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:51:35 +0000

Is there a definitive list of all the data/code which has been requested and not delivered up? I wonder if those of us who don’t have the scientific know-how to contribute directly to the discussions here, might do their bit by putting pressure on politicians to get the data released.

By: EddieQ

EddieQ — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:29:26 +0000

#18 MarkR; Aye, there must be teeth. A pro golfer signing an incorrect scorecard? Has any golfer even inadvertantly done that more than once? Disqualification is immediate and final, “for the encouragement of others,” and golf’s purity and spirit … (DQ any research team not archiving original data and methods, until it is.)

By: Larry

Larry — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:41:38 +0000

I think it’s pointless to even dignify the question of how onerous archiving that data is. It’s part of the job. It has to be done. Period. If you don’t do it, you haven’t completed the job.

I think that if the standard contract language stated that you don’t get the final payment until it’s done and verified, and the funding agencies enforced that clause, this would quickly become a non-issue.

This would also generate a niche for auditors (ahem!) to verify that the data has been properly archived. Would this make research more expensive? Yes. Would it be worth it, to have quality externally enforced? Certainly.

By: Richard

Richard — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:01:44 +0000

Archiving data does not have to take a significant amount of time or funds. Our engineering reports have an appendix that contains the original (sometimes hand written) raw data and subcontractor reports. All that is done is to put page numbers on the copies so that they can be referenced in the main report.

By: Hans Erren

Hans Erren — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:35:08 +0000

James, AGREED, whats with this qualified scientist BS?! So Joe from Hoboken gets ahold of the data. Is he going to build an A-bomb?! Remember the peer reviewed mantra. What could possibly go wrong with more brains looking at it? I have published and I quite frankly dont give a POOH who has access to the data, as it means little to anyone but the qualified scientist. Restriction of data access on the basis of qualification is egocentric and self-serving.

Back in the old days, scientists published tables with data in an appendix. see eg:
Svante Arrhenius, Ueber den Einfluss des Atmosphärischen Kohlensäurengehalts auf die Temperatur der Erdoberfläche, Bihang till Kongliga Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar, Stockholm 1896, Band 22 Afd I N:o 1, p1-101.

By: JC

JC — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:19:53 +0000

If I were the GAO, I’d be worried about being seen as targeting climate science unless I took action on bad data sharing in all sciences, which is a very tall order. In Computer Science, funded by NSF CISE, I’m not sure anybody does data sharing.

I’m not saying this to defend GAO or bad science across the board, and I realize that climate science has huge public policy implications, but imagine what the NYT headline would look like if the GAO (or NSF for that matter) fulfilled your request.

By: Hasse@Norway

Hasse@Norway — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:04:44 +0000

Why don’t someone write a book about the lack of data access among climate scientist. The attacks from the AGW crowd would give it plenty of publisisty. Easily top 100 best seller in the US.

My guess is that if it is well written and exact it would be a bombshell. I think the reason why they don’t want to show their data ,apart from the data not beeing able to pass scrutiny. Is that most people don’t care to look into the problem closely enough.

If they did people wouldn’t like descisions beeing made without proper research.

By: Geoff Sherrington

Geoff Sherrington — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:25:35 +0000

Re #20 James Bailey

Yes, and the research is funded in part with my Australian taxes. Why does some American bureaucrat assume a position of refusing to give it back to me? I might not be a “fellow researcher” in terms of being a USA buddy, but I think you’ll see my position. Quite frankly, many USA space programs including the Armstrong one would not have been possible wothout Australian data sharing – from Australia to the USA. Reciprocal arrangements seem fair. By the way, in which country did Lonnie Thompson takes his cores – The USA?