Jan
Crooked climatologists drop 806 (cold?) weather stations in a single year
What the Climategate scandal is uncovering is a growing litany of evidence to prove cynical cherry picking of the climate data by certain biased key climatologists to artificially make the planet appear warmer than it is. As that fine writer of the ‘Daily Telegraph’, James Delingpole so eloquently puts it, “To understand its significance you need first to be aware of one of the most contentious points about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)–the reliability of weather station records and the Urban Heat Island effect (UHI). For chapter and verse, your man is Anthony Watts – creator of the now legendary Watts Up With That and also of this wonderfully informative site Surface Stations.
“Put very simply, there is great concern among sceptics that the data records used to support the IPCC’s claims about “unprecedented” and catastrophic late 20th century global warming are untrustworthy. Not only do these records rely on a dwindling number of weather surface stations whose readings have been skewed either by relocation or by the warming effects of the cities which have grown around them over the years. But also, the raw data may have been tampered with by activist scientists with a specific political agenda – as for example we saw in this story about some very dubious temperature records in Darwin, Australia.”
I have done my own investigations for readers at Climategate.com and wish to report very disturbing little-known facts from that other fine source, Chiefio, who has conducted admirable analysis on this.
Chiefio reports that 806 weather stations were dropped from the total of 6000 worldwide temperature stations in a single year with no explanation from the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) data. GHCN is a database of temperature, precipitation and pressure records managed by the National Climatic Data Center, Arizona State University and the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. Absent any public statement from climatolgists for such a strange act, I can only speculate that this a deliberate attempt to cause an artificial warming of the data set. I can think of no other valid scientific reason.
Would someone please ask GCHN to make a public statement as to why they tried to secretly “lose” weather stations when surely more data is better than less? I’ve listed the stations that have been dropped, on page two of this article. It’s quote long, if you’d like to see it click here.
As an update I’ve just posted a query on chiefio’s site so that we can more efficiently co-ordinate the efforts we are all making on climategate.com with the excellent work of E.M. Smith.
Here’s a copy of my post:
Chiefio, I wanted to touch base with you to ensure that the work we do at climategate.com dovetails efficiently and productively into your highly important contribution so we can help get your message to the widest possible audience. I was pleased that my recent article, based on your fine analysis drew in new readership and questions have been raised as to how to mobilise enthusiastic readers keen to offer their services voluntarily.
Our site is growing quickly and covers a broad spectrum from diehard climate followers to newbies looking for reliable climate info. We want to give both a ready primer to the issue as well as a regularly updated page for well-informed readers. In this regard I would be most grateful if you would, when not inundated, point me, a jobbing writer with far, far more legal than science expertise, in the right direction.
I’ve just posted a response on TWAWKI regarding those global dropped sites that aren’t included in Anthony Watt’s United States study and as you highlight, the issues are far graver globally where reliable info is scant. I’m hesitant to give further advice until I’ve discussed this with you.
Therefore, I’d be most grateful if you could advise me where to focus my efforts so I can help support your work to the best of my ability. I’d also like to write further articles on our site as we follow your investigations.
Many thanks and keep up the great work.
John
John O’Sullivan
Seriously John..you have far too much time on your hands.
Steve: what is it that you do elsewhere; that is, when not posting less than brilliant observations on climategate.com ?
[...] this month we brought you the story regarding the outrageous dropping of 806 ‘cold’ weather stations in one year. Now we bring you a follow up story that shows this controversy is not going to go [...]
This contribution is based on an article of d’Aloe that has been singing around for a few weeks now.
However, the cause for the alledged drop in stations is not a conscious weeding out by IPCC conspirators as d’Aloe so bluntly states. What happened is that since 1990 the difference between ‘modern’ stations with on-line access and ‘old-fashioned’ stations that rely on paper, has shifted.
The ‘old-fashioned’ stations still rely their data, but it must be processed by hand, and it can take years before they finally are integrated.
d’Aloe knows this, as he has admitted on his blog. He has consciously choosen to present this as a conspiracy and disappearing of stations. Does this make him a liar? I am afraid so.
Cannot agree with Paai. Curaçao is a “modern” on-line station; and even if it isn’t (yes, I could be wrong!), it has disappeared completely from the list. Whatever d’Aloe says, this has nothing to do with a “since 1990″ drop.