No raw data there just post processed data. Give me the raw data.

magicalhippo 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If you want the raw data, you'll have to go dig in the archives to find the log books and card decks.

This[1] paper goes into some detail on how the digital records were constructed from the log books, card decks and such. This[2] paper deals with an update of those digital records, including new digitization efforts. You can download the raw digital data from ICOADS here[3].

[1]: https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1987)068%3C1239:ACOADS%3E2... A Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set (available on the hub of science)

[2]: https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.4775 ICOADS Release 3.0: a major update to the historical marine climate record (open access)

[3]: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/international-comprehensive-o...

▲

ori_b 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Petabytes of it around. Here's a small sunset: https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/

Would you like more, or do you plan on analyzing the first few petabytes first?

▲

tonymet 5 hours ago | parent [-]

He means the original recordings. There were no digital recordings in 1880. Different apparatus, different methods. That’s the point

▲

dpkirchner 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They can speak for themselves, you and I don't really know what they want, or what they think counts as "raw" data.

	▲	tonymet 17 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Regardless, ascii encoding isn’t raw data. You’re making software engineer assumptions. Statistical noise is introduced 4-5 steps before the data is recorded digitally. Even after it’s digitized, more noise is introduced through recording errors and normalization. To understand the original distribution, the entire workflow needs to have been recorded

▲

ori_b 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Ah, so a painfully obvious attempt at moving goalposts and showering people with bullshit.

	▲	tonymet 16 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I don’t think this is appropriate language