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.
Possibly related posts:
- Are islands really getting that sinking feeling?
- Long live the Urban Heat Island Effect
- Met Office uses backyard homemade weather station
- Monster Washington snowstorm screws up new NOAA Climate Change office announcement, but website ready to go with its propaganda
- Czechgate: Part Two – The GISS rape of Prague
John O
How careless to lose 806 weather stations,every one knows that the more readings you have ,the more accurate the mean.
Losing[or discarding] 13% of the total would mean a significant shift in the resultant mean ,I trust it was the “Hottest” stations they “lost”,but somehow I do not think so.
Perhaps they arrived at skewed result and for the science had to change it.?
This is the new science….you don’t use data to get results. The new science decides what result it wants, then it skewers information, lies, cheats, and covers up to ensure the result they want is “proven”. I’m thinking that we have been too harsh on attorneys over the years and really should have been coming up with scientist jokes.
Dr. Gudrun Eussner wrote to the CDU Bundesgeschäftsstelle of ClimateChancelor Merkel asking about Climategate…
Here is the disgusting anser, they heard about it but climategate is the hoax!!! muuuuaaaahhhhhh they are really that kind of ignorantarroganta..holes
Sehr geehrte Frau Dr. Eussner,
haben Sie vielen Dank für Ihr Schreiben vom 22. Dezember.
Für die CDU gibt es trotz der angeblichen „ClimateGate-Affäre” keinen Zweifel am anthropogenen Klimawandel: Der Klimawandel ist Realität – er beschleunigt sich und wird zur Gefahr für jetzige und kommende Generationen. Es ist unsere Aufgabe, die Schöpfung zu bewahren. Es ist das Ziel der Union, die globale Erwärmung und ihre Folgen zu begrenzen, um Wohlstand und Entwicklungschancen jetziger und zukünftiger Generationen zu sichern. Die CDU setzt in der Klima- und Umweltpolitik auf Anreize und marktwirtschaftlich orientierte Instrumente statt nur auf staatliche Regulierung und Vorschriften. Dabei sind wir uns sicher: Klima- und Umweltschutz bewahrt unsere Lebensgrundlagen und schafft gewaltige Potenziale für Wachstum und Beschäftigung. Die CDU hat in den vergangenen vier Jahren entscheidend dazu beigetragen, dass Deutschland in der Klimapolitik eine Führungsrolle in der Welt übernommen hat. Mit der deutschen EU-Ratspräsidentschaft (2007) kamen verbindliche Beschlüsse zum Klimaschutz auf europäischer Ebene.
Da der Klimawandel aber nicht nur eine europäische, sondern eine globale Herausforderung ist, bedarf es globaler Anstrengungen. Unser Ziel ist ein verbindliches Klimaschutzabkommen auf der Weltklimakonferenz in Kopenhagen, welches neben Industriestaaten auch Schwellen- und Entwicklungsländer – entsprechend ihren Möglichkeiten – beim Klimaschutz mit einbindet. Bei den Verhandlungen werden wir uns für eine faire Lastenverteilung einsetzen, die vergleichbare Wettbewerbsbedingungen schafft und Produktionsverlagerungen in Länder ohne Klimaschutz verhindert. Wir sind zu einer angemessenen Finanzierung von Technologietransfer-, Waldschutz- und Anpassungsprojekten bereit.
Wir sehen im marktwirtschaftlich orientierten europäischen Emissionshandelssystem einen zielführenden Weg zu einer ausgewogenen Balance zwischen Ökonomie und Ökologie. Der Emissionshandel ist das vorrangige Klimaschutzinstrument. Er soll perspektivisch zu einem globalen Kohlenstoffmarkt ausgebaut werden. Wir werden Initiativen ergreifen, um regionale Handelssysteme zu verbinden und in das internationale Handelssystem schrittweise weitere Bereiche, wie z. B. den Luft- und Seeverkehr, mit einzubeziehen.
Der Klimawandel erfordert aber auch Strategien zur Anpassung an seine regional ganz unterschiedlichen voraussichtlichen Auswirkungen. Wir werden uns für den Schutz besonders sensibler Naturräume, wie des Wattenmeeres und der Alpen, sowie den Waldumbau hin zu klimaresistenteren Wäldern und für die Stärkung des Hochwasserschutzes einsetzen. Wir wollen verstärkt in ausreichende Wasserrückhalteräume, in die Sicherung der Wasserressourcen und in die stärkere Vernetzung der Wasserversorgungen investieren. Es wird die Hälfte der Erlöse aus dem Emissionshandel für den Klimaschutz verwandt. Außerdem werden 500 Mio. Euro bis 2012 und ab 2013 jährlich 500 Mio. Euro aus den Emissionshandelserlösen für den Schutz der Regenwälder verwandt. Aber auch in Deutschland setzen wir uns ambitionierte Klimaschutzziele. So werden wir den CO2-Ausstoß bis 2020 gegenüber 1990 um 40 Prozent senken und die Energieeffizienz im selben Zeitraum verdoppeln. Darüber hinaus wollen wir den Anteil erneuerbarer Energien am Stromverbrauch auf 30 Prozent bis 2020 steigern. Wir wollen die Förderung Erneuerbarer vermehrt an dem Ziel einer wirtschaftlichen und bedarfsgerechten Energieversorgung ausrichten. Die Mittel für die energetische Gebäudesanierung wurden auf 1,4 Mrd. Euro jährlich und im Rahmen der Konjunkturpakete nochmals erhöht. Wir wollen die gewaltigen Effizienzpotenziale nutzen, die im Gebäudesektor schlummern. Durch kluge Anreize wollen wir die Mieter-Vermieter-Problematik bei der Gebäudesanierung überwinden.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Joscha Nollet
Team Bürgerservice der CDU-Bundesgeschäftsstelle
translation:
Dr. Gudrun Eussner wrote to the federal office of the CDU Angela Merkel ClimateChancelor asking about Climategate …
Here is the disgusting anser, they heard about it but climategate is the hoax! muuuuaaaahhhhhh they are really that kind of ignorantarroganta holes ..
Dear Dr. Eussner,
Thank you very much for your letter of 22 December.
For the CDU, despite the alleged “affair ClimateGate” no doubt on anthropogenic climate change: Climate change is a reality – he speeds up and becomes a threat to present and future generations. It is our responsibility to preserve creation. It is the aim of the Union, global warming and its consequences limited in order to ensure prosperity and development opportunities for current and future generations. The CDU is in the climate and energy policy on incentives and market-oriented instruments, rather than on government regulation and legislation. We are sure: the climate and environment keeps our vital natural resources and creates huge potential for growth and employment. The CDU has been instrumental in the past four years means that Germany has taken a leadership role in climate policy in the world. With the German EU Presidency (2007), binding decisions on climate change came at a European level.
Because climate change is not only a European but a global challenge that requires global efforts. Our goal is a binding agreement on climate change on the world climate conference in Copenhagen, in addition to tying in industrialized countries and emerging and developing countries – according to their capacity – with the global climate. During the negotiations we will work for a fair burden-sharing, creates the level playing field and prevent the relocation of production to countries without climate change. We have to appropriate funding for technology transfer, forest protection and adaptation projects ready.
We see in the market-oriented European emissions trading system has a goal-oriented way to a smooth balance between economy and ecology. Emissions trading is the primary climate instrument. He is to be expanded perspective to a global carbon market. We will take steps to join regional trading systems and to integrate into the international trading system more progressive areas such as aviation and maritime transport, with.
Climate change also requires strategies to adapt to its expected impact regionally very different. We will work to protect particularly sensitive natural areas, such as the Wadden Sea and the Alps, and the forest conversion towards climate-resistant forests and for the strengthening of flood protection. We want to invest more in sufficient Wasserrückhalteräume in securing water resources and the greater connectivity of water supplies. It is used half of the proceeds from emissions trading for climate protection. In addition, 500 million euros in 2012 and from 2013 a year 500 million euros from the emissions trading revenue for the protection of the forests are being used. But even in Germany, we set ourselves ambitious climate protection goals. So we will reduce CO2 emissions by 2020 compared to 1990 by 40 percent and double the energy efficiency in the same period. In addition, we intend to increase the share of renewables in electricity consumption to 30 percent by 2020. We intend to focus increasingly on the promotion of renewable goal of economic and energy demand. The funds for energy efficient building renovation was to 1.4 billion euros a year, and under the stimulus package was again increased. We want to use the enormous potential for efficiency, sleep in the building sector. By clever incentives, we are to overcome the tenant-landlord problem with the building renovation.
Sincerely,
Joscha Nollet
Team Citizen of the CDU federal office
THX!!!
Who could argue with Nollet’s response to Eussner, that climate change is a reality. Afterall, climate change has been with us for the past 4+ billion years, so that would seem to be a “no-brainer”. Of course, that’s the typical response and not the issue.
The problem is whether man is contributing to this ongoing climate change. In particular, the question is whether anthropogenic global warming is a reality. But the only possible mechanism for AGW is because of the contribution to CO2 related to man’s activities. But, as it turns out, CO2 is a trace gas, currently less than 4/100 of one percent by volume of the atmosphere, and there is no evidence (none, zero, nada), either historic or current, that CO2 is a driver of temperature. In fact, the only established relationship between CO2 and temperature is that CO2 is released by the oceans hundreds of years after a temperature increase. (Sorry about that algore!)
There is another issue related to temperature. Even a casual look at the process involved in obtaining land surface temperatures, namely the follow-up machinations related to such things as changes in site locations, instrumentation upgrades, local environment influences, missing data, adjustments to time of day, averaging mins and maxes, estimating and eliminating heat sink influence, and extrapolating local information to massive areas where no readings are available could easily overwhelm any possibility of accurate results. The only reason for this not happening would be that there are so many different and large errors introduced that there is a good chance some will offset others. Finally, this eggregious problem which cannot be dealt with by even very honest and conscientious workerfs, is then subject to various bogus machinations by the CRUs. It’s hard to make up stuff that is this bizarre!
“It is our responsibility to preserve creation.”
Based on what authority is it our responsibility to save creation?
Sorry. Based on what authority is it our responsibility to preserve creation?
Its been very apparent that any data that did not ‘comply with the desired result’ was removed/omitted, so why not drop a few weather stations as well. Who’s going to miss 806 of them…..
As suspicious as I am of these people, where is the proof they dropped “cold” stations?
Go to the WattsUpWithThat website – Anthony Watkins has been specializing in this area for quite some time.
Alan..
good question
Steve,
Yes, it is a very good question. But then where is the “proof” of anything these agencies do? The taxpayers that fund these agencies are offered results but curiously are rarely offered details of the process. Why are these same agencies demonstratively so reluctant to offer any of their data to enhance the scientific process? Isn’t that the “good question” raised here – the actual forest you are tyring to hide behind the trees?
After all, is the missing GHCN explanation of how they arrived at the end result of eliminating 806 weather stations in a single year not the very reason for this post? On the other hand, if the GHCN had been more forthcoming to begin with, there would be no reason for this post. I’m suprised that doesn’t seem to interest you post climategate revelations…or anyone else that presumably would logically be interested in the truth. Sigh, If only Phil Jones last name was Nixon….
Thanks
I agree it is likely they’re removing colder points but considering the urban heat island effect is getting publicity, along with Climategate, maybe they’re cleaning up their act and removing stations subject to UHIE?
If the actual data is available then best to actually compare, rather than presume. I don’t think they’re in a position now to expect the benefit of the doubt – but let’s clear up the doubt anyway.
No they are not cleaning up their act. This information is not something that came about post Climategate, it’s something that is old. For an In depth look around the world try here for GHCN Analysis:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/
And here for GIStemp Analysis, including dissecting the GISS code:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
I had a look at the Canadian locations. Very few looked like they were subject to UHI effect (Newmarket, Windsor University, Lethbridge, and Ft St John are the only ones I noticed that might have seen significant urban expansion). Most are out-in-the-bush stations, some of which (Port Nelson, Ruttan Lake, Joutel) might have stopped recording. Also some are stations that might have very long-term records, which I would have thought would be especially useful to keep in the data set.
[...] 800 "cold" weather stations, it is no wonder the alarmists think the world is warming. http://www.climategate.com/climatolo…-a-single-year [...]
Are you sure there are no weather stations in Bolivia? The following GHCN map shows there is:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/caption.php?fig=fig1
I found this link from this page:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php
If you download the actual dataset from NOAA (which I have) and look there is no data from Bolivia after 1989.
here is the link to the datasets:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2
Forgot to add this in prior to submit. The physical stations are still in place NOAA who runs GHCN has no say over that, but they don’t use the data from those stations anymore. They did the same thing in the northern parts of Canada.
Can’t wait to hear how much the earth warmed up in December 09 and January 10′. You know it’s coming.
[...] E.M. Smith, also catches some fake data in the Canada map. Also, alarmist climatologists wouldn't drop 806 cold weather stations in a year would they? Would [...]
[...] Smith, also catches some fake data in the Canada map. Also, alarmist climatologists wouldn’t drop 806 cold weather stations in a year would they? Would they? Sphere: Related [...]
Thanks for anecdotal reports. It’s painstaking work to go through all 806 stations and confirm conclusively whether such stations are rural or urban and thus likely to be subject to the urban heat island effect (UHI). Surprise, surprise, explanations for dropping the 806 stations are not yet forthcoming from NASA, CRU or NOAA. NASA are already guilty of denying one FOIA.
I wonder if a FOIA request would be helpful in determining if John O’Sullivan is in fact a lawyer. If not, maybe we could at least find out what a ‘legal advocate’ is.
…”Thanks for anecdotal reports..” Yes, it’s obvious you have a special affection for anecdotal reports. After all, it is painstaking work to actually read real science papers rather than the more exciting articles you post here. But then you aren’t really interested in what’s happening are you. I don’t think you’re even really interested in the politics – only in pumping life into wild conspiracy theories.
You were amusing to us in the beginning, something to laugh at, poke fun at. But, we’ve grown bored with you now. Find a new act, or find a new site where you can try and get some attention.
Yes…I agree..I originally jumped in here as I thought there was an opportunity to engage with some people from the ‘other side’ but it has become boring..and depressing to see how polarized this entire subject has become with no real attempt for people from either side to really communicate.
I must admit that I haven’t noticed any ‘fun’ being poked at me but am glad I was able to afford a few laughs.
Great Steve!! Now go back under Al’s desk where you belong!!! He’ll poke some fun at you!
Oh and by the way for someone who wants to have a dialogue on here you sure spend a lot of time belittling, insulting, and being an asshole in general.
Steveie, you don’t have to pump life into conspiracy theories on this one! (In fact, the only conspiracy theory afoot is the one accusing man of AGW. There is no evidence.
[...] Smith, also catches some fake data in the Canada map. Also, alarmist climatologists wouldn’t drop 806 cold weather stations in a year would they? Would [...]
Well I must say I never stooped to calling anyone an asshole..and my most egregious behaviour was in trying to get John O’Sullivan to come clean about his so-called ten years of litigation. And I don’t think this a spurious request. If he wants to be taken seriously in his mission to bring the dastardly scientists to justice he should be more open about his credentials.
Why should he?
What are your qualifications by the way? Let us know then maybe you’ll be taken seriously, though i somehow doubt it.
Just off out to get my suntan topped up as the suns shining, it maybe minus 2 but i don’t let a minor detail like that get in my way
This is embarrassingly obvious but just for you..I have not insinuated that I have any special credentials..have not alluded to my ten years ‘litigating’ government corruption cases etc. and so have no reason to reveal any credentials. Mr. O’Sullivan, on other hand, repeatedly talked of his illustrious career in litigation but refuses to show that he has in fact done so or that he is, in fact, anthing more than a semi competent crime writer.
“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….”
These combined “cynical” actions by questionable agenda-driven scientists (which post climategate appear more like Keystone cops)have resulted not in the intended purpose of enlisting more devotees to their cause but in converting former skeptics into cynics in their own right. Ah, the irony.
806 stations?
My spreadsheet counts 1341 in that list, with :
0 duplicates in the 9-digit identifier;
62 exact duplicate station names;
898 exact duplicate alphanumeric tags.
What am I missing?
This is for starters. More have been dropped, like 789880 DR. A. PLESMAN AP Curaçao Neth. Antilles (where I live).
I was able to confirm ChiefIO’s results. The station count for the U.S. (in the GHCN v2_mean file) dropped from 1177 to 136 in April 2006. I was able to confirm this by importing the data and by doing a simple count of all station IDs beginning with “425″ for the year 2006. It is a trivial task for an application developer to write the code to import this data and then analyze it. Replicating this is a nothing deal.
The most significant thing to note is that most of the stations left in the U.S. are airports (for the years 2006 and going forward). In other words, the scientists in charge of this project have decided that going forward the best place to detect an anthropogenic global warming signal is at sites that are also the most contaminated (with UHI). This is pretty much indisputable, imho. Oceans of concrete plus hot jot exhaust equal idyllic conditions for climate measurement. Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge.
Harold et al. Thank you for adding to the analysis intelligently by contributing facts rather than ad hominems. Others would be wise to confine themselves to facts rather than seeking to shoot the messenger – the tactic of desperation in any debate.
John O’Sullivan..
A simple request..no ad hominem attacks..could you please show us that you are indeed a bona fide lawyer and supply us with some evidence of your last ten years litigating governmental malfeasance? No one is shooting any messenger here..just trying to ascertain whether the messenger is indeed to be listened to.
Mr. O’Sullivan – it’s your website, you can do what you like, but in some cases I’d advocate that ad hominem attacks are perfectly justified. Sometimes the messenger IS the problem, especially when dealing with lunatics.
Why don’t you read what the messenger is posting, follow links and come to your own conclusions about AGW, is that so difficult for you to comprehend.
What relevance is it whether he is a Lawyer, Butcher , Baker or Candlestickmaker?
Let’s turn the tables and ask what’s your occupation ? I’d like to know then i can decide if its worth reading your postings or not. After all you could be Al Gores butler…
At the moment you sound like a record stuck in the groove
There you go Meenie. I see John responded to you, although he certainly did not need to. Now please STFU about it–you’re embarrassing yourself.
Mennie, I have litigated for over ten years in the New York State Supreme Court NYS Division of Human Rights, NYS Appellate Division: Third Dept. The US federal Court, the UK criminal court. I have expertise in NYS human rights law and spoliation law. I am a retiree now living in the UK where I work as a writer. I have published both fiction and non-fiction mostly crime related. I don’t come on here to sell my services as a lawyer because (1.) I do not possess a licence to practice law and (2.) this is a CLIMATE debating forum. These are the facts. If you want to check these fact then go look in those places. Your obsession with me is unhealthy and indicates your intent is merely to seek to discredit the messenger by ad hominem because you lack the intelligence or knowledge to rebut the message on CLIMATE.
Thanks John O’Sullivan for partially answering my queries.. litigation refers to contesting in legal proceedings..I could claim that I have litigated just because I have defended myself in court..we still don’t know if you have studied law or ever did have a ‘license’ to practice law. But I’m tired of asking..
I agree that this is a climate debating forum and wish that the debate would stick to debating the merits of the science regarding climate and avoid the rhetoric and downright character assassination that is offered as rational discourse. But of course, when the debate is primarily political..well, let me re-state that. Rather when the debate is pseudo-political on the surface but is, in fact, paranoid conspiracy driven..(socialist takeover of the planet etc.) the science becomes perverted to support this ideology.
Much of your input to this space has been of the paranoid conspiracy flavour..relying on conspiracy sites like Prison Planet for your research offering as ‘evidence’ contextless innuendo that is not supported by facts ( the purloined emails) papers and op-ed pieces that are highly questionable and/or have been refuted, and referring to research scientists as criminals and nazis..hardly a rational or scientific approach. Nor that of a true lawyer, for that matter.
Aside to EDITOR:… Referring to me as Meenie…Haven’t heard that somewhat adolescent attempt at humour since about grade 5 and then, as now , it was delivered by someone who had no other way of rebuttal, desparate to make a point – any point – to save face.
Science will win out in the end..of that I’m positive and although deniers like yourselves will muddy the water and slow things down for awhile you won’t be able to stop the rational and sane changes that are required to ensure that we have a habitable planet for those that follow us. In the meantime, enjoy talking to yourselves in the echo chamber here..truly the world is moving on.
John, just to set the record straight this is not my website. I merely contribute articles and research to the site voluntarily because I am passionate about the climate debate, the legal issues and government corruption. As I have said before, I have litigated in government corruption cases and know from experience the enormous obstacles involved in proving a grand conspiracy.
OK. You’re on here so much I assumed it was your website. Anyway I feel the grand conspiracy, which is why I’m on here. Actually I don’t have a horse in either race, I just want the truth, regardless, and I definitely resent what I see has been going on. I’ts ruined my faith in a lot of scientists, the UN, our’s and other governments (ruined hell, it increased the disgust I already have for most of them). But I feel the truth will win one way or the other. Either people will start figuring things out, or the climate will prove what’s going on and remove all doubt.
Has anyone here written an article or commentary on what the effect would be on global crop production if we are indeed entering another “maunder minimum”? This question is far more important that “climate gate”. The world won’t care who lied if they have nothing to eat.
Paul, that’s an excellent idea. I’ll look into it when I can.
Regarding global production of food in an increasingly cold environment is subject to, among other things, a general law in anthropology which asserted the further away from the equator the larger the animal. Grown horses transported from the Panhandle of Texas to the Billings, Montana, area gained about 200 pounds. My limited experience suggested the same rule held for grain production per acre. In the early 1970s irrigated wheat near Del Rio, Texas, made about 18-20 bu./acre. In the panhandle it was around 40 bu./ac. At the same time in Idaho they were producing up to 80 bu./ac. I assumed it was increased sunlight which made the difference. However, today, technology will have increased the production by a factor of (guessing here) of three times those yields in the corn belt over the 1970s period.
If the cold brings clouds, rain and snow it will mean less sun light, and more crop damage. Perhaps others will know more than I.