Nov 29 2009
One other aspect of the data I was analyzing in the long post below is the fact it uses a CRU generated comparison of a 2008 temp run (b) with a 2005 run – all captured in a pdf file made in July of this year. One has to wonder how CRU was able to do this data run when it supposedly lost the data many years ago? I guess Dr Jones can answer that for us all.
Updates below the fold
Final Update: (all following updates preceded this one) Good news from an interesting source. Charles Johnson notes the poor reporting misses a key statement from Jones
The research unit has deleted less than 5 percent of its original station data from its database because the stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends, Jones said.
Johnson also confirms my speculation the data exists in the US;
Refuting CEIâ€™s claims of data-destruction, Jones said, â€œWe havenâ€™t destroyed anything.The data is still there â€” you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center.â€
As I suspected and showed below, the raw data could not have been deleted. So now we have something to look forward to now that CRU as agreed on full disclosure. Those challenging CRU need to keep their feet on the ground and their wild rhetoric in check.Â - end update
Update: The latest claim CRU “dumped” their data cannot be true unless Jones and Co. did so very recently (maybe to make good on their threat to avoid FOI responses):
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals â€” stored on paper and magnetic tape â€” were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue.
This is a complete crock. As I noted, there is a very important file call idl_cruts3_2005_vs_2008b.pdf in the data dump. The data graphed runs through 2008, while the file creation was in July 2009.
Check out this quarter from Vietnam (MAM):
See the purple data run from 2008, with updated values? Â How could they produce this without the quarterly raw data?Â Let me blow up the 200o’s and you can see the extended data which had to be added:
Here’s another example where the 2005 data has been corrected with an change in sign:
How did CRU correct the 1940’s data in this (and many, many other Pacific graphs) if the data was destroyed in the 1980’s? I think someone is trying to cover up something here.
Update: And how did CRU generate this report on measurement uncertainty in 2005 without the raw data??
Update: Reader Crosspatch notes the other evidence this ‘loss’ is all a lie:
There are two things that prove that the raw data was still there recently:
Harryâ€™s attempts to read the raw data in and re-create the original database as evidenced in his now famous README file.
Jonesâ€™ own comment that he would sooner delete the data than hand it over would say that he believed the data to exist at the time he made that comment.
The â€œDog ate it before Phil arrivedâ€ story is bogus.
I was going to mention the HARRY_READ_ME file and forgot – so thanks CP for reminding me. And yes, why worry about FOI requests if the data is gone? Jones is a complete BS’er.