{"id":240646,"date":"2010-01-28T06:01:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-28T11:01:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/papundits.wordpress.com\/?p=30554"},"modified":"2010-01-28T06:01:00","modified_gmt":"2010-01-28T11:01:00","slug":"yet-more-reason-to-suspect","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/240646","title":{"rendered":"Yet More Reason To Suspect"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>By Andrew Bolt<\/strong><\/p>\n

Once you start digging, there\u2019s no end to the dirt:<\/p>\n

\n

Two months after \u201cclimategate\u201d cast doubt on some of the science behind global warming, new questions are being raised about the reliability of a key temperature database, used by the United Nations and climate change scientists as proof of recent planetary warming. <\/em><\/p>\n

Two American researchers allege that U.S. government scientists have skewed global temperature trends by ignoring readings from thousands of local weather stations around the world, particularly those in colder altitudes and more northerly latitudes<\/a>, such as Canada. <\/em><\/p>\n

In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada. Worse, only one station\u2014at Eureka on Ellesmere Island\u2014is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle. <\/em><\/p>\n

The Canadian government, meanwhile, operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, and more than 100 above the Arctic Circle, according to Environment Canada.Yet as American researchers Joseph D\u2019Aleo, a meteorologist, and E. Michael Smith, a computer programmer, point out in a study published on the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute, NOAA uses \u201cjust one thermometer [for measuring] everything north of latitude 65 degrees.\u201d … <\/em><\/p>\n

Mr. D\u2019Aleo and Mr. Smith say NOAA and another U.S. agency, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) have not only reduced the total number of Canadian weather stations in the database, but have \u201ccherry picked\u201d the ones that remain by choosing sites in relatively warmer places, including more southerly locations, or sites closer to airports, cities or the sea\u2014which has a warming effect on winter weather. <\/em><\/p>\n

<\/span>Over the past two decades, they say, \u201cthe percentage of [Canadian] stations in the lower elevations tripled and those at higher elevations, above 300 feet, were reduced in half.\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n

Using the agency\u2019s own figures, Smith shows that in 1991, almost a quarter of NOAA\u2019s Canadian temperature data came from stations in the high Arctic. The same region contributes only 3% of the Canadian data today.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

UPDATE<\/strong><\/p>\n

Anthony Watts offers a preliminary rebuttal <\/a>to the US National Climatic Data Center paper <\/a>that says he\u2019s wrong to say its poorly sited weather stations – many in areas increasingly urbanised or surrounded by more sources of heat – have overestimated recent warming. For a start, the NCDC paper discussed only Watts\u2019 early work on 43 per cent of its network – even though he warned the results were unrepresentative and not yet checked for quality:<\/p>\n

\n


\nThe problem is known as the \u201clow hanging fruit problem\u201d. You see this project was done on an ad hoc basis, with no specific roadmap on which stations to acquire. This was necessitated by the social networking (blogging) Dr. Pielke and I employed early in the project to get volunteers. What we ended up getting was a lumpy and poorly spatially distributed dataset because early volunteers would get the stations closest to them, often near or within cities. <\/em><\/p>\n

The urban stations were well represented in the early dataset, but the rural ones, where we believed the best siting existed, were poorly represented. So naturally, any sort of study early on even with a \u201csignificant sample size\u201d would be biased towards urban stations\u2026 <\/em><\/p>\n

This is why I\u2019ve been continuing to collect what some might consider an unusually large sample size, now at 87%. We\u2019ve learned that there are so few well sited stations, the ones that meet the CRN1\/CRn2 criteria (or NOAA\u2019s 100 foot rule for COOPS) are just 10% of the whole network\u2026 <\/em><\/p>\n

When you have such a small percentage of well sited stations, it is obviously important to get a large sample size, which is exactly what I\u2019ve done. Preliminary temperature analysis done by the Pielke group of the the data at 87% surveyed looks quite a bit different now than when at 43%\u2026 <\/em><\/p>\n

When our paper with the most current data is completed (and hopefully accepted in a journal), we\u2019ll let peer reviewed science do the comparison on data and methods, and we\u2019ll see how it works out. Could I be wrong? I\u2019m prepared for that possibility. But everything I\u2019ve seen so far tells me I\u2019m on the right track.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Andrew Bolt<\/em><\/a> is a journalist and columnist writing for <\/em>The Herald Sun<\/em><\/a> in Melbourne Victoria Australia.<\/em><\/p>\n

Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt\u2019s Blog<\/a><\/p>\n

Posted in America (USA), Blundering Bureaucrats, Canada, Climate Alarmists, Climate Change, Environment, Environmental activists, Fear-mongering, Fraud\/Waste, Global Warming, Liberals, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, Politics, Power Hungry, Propaganda Tagged: Andrew Bolt, Climate Change Fraud, Climate Change Religion, Climategate, Global Warming Alarmism, Global Warming Hype, Tony, UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) \"\"<\/a> \"\"<\/a> \"\"<\/a> \"\"<\/a> \"\"<\/a> \"\"<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Andrew Bolt Once you start digging, there\u2019s no end to the dirt: Two months after \u201cclimategate\u201d cast doubt on some of the science behind global warming, new questions are being raised about the reliability of a key temperature database, used by the United Nations and climate change scientists as proof of recent planetary warming. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4200,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-240646","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/240646","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4200"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=240646"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/240646\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=240646"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=240646"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=240646"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}