Roger Pielke (right) claims NCDC removed weather station data to dodge public scrutiny. (Source: University of Colorado)
Posted on 08/11/2007 1:27:55 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Roger Pielke (right) claims NCDC removed weather station data to dodge public scrutiny. (Source: University of Colorado)
***************************************************************
The theory of global warming began to explain one simple set of factsm-- surface temperature monitoring stations have shown a roughly one degree rise over the past century. But just where does these temperature readings come from? Most are reported by volunteer stations, usually no more than a thermometer inside a small wooden hut or below a roof overhang. In the US, 1,221 such stations exist, all administered by the National Climatic Data Center, a branch of the NOAA.
Two months ago, I reported on an effort to validate this network. A volunteer group headed by meteorologist Anthony Watts had found serious problems. Not only did sites fail to meet the NCDC's requirements, but encroaching development had put many in ridiculously unsuitable locations -- on hot black asphalt, next to trash burn barrels, beside heat exhaust vents, even attached to hot chimneys and above outdoor grills.
Soon thereafter, a Seattle radio station interviewed the head of the NCDC, Dr. Thomas Peterson, informed him of the effort and quizzed him about the problems. Three days later, the NCDC removed all website access to station site locations, citing "privacy concerns." Without this data (which had been public for years), the validation effort was blocked. No more stations could be located.
Scientists were quick to respond. Climatologist Roger Pielke from the University of Colorado called the act a "coverup" and said it was designed to prevent public scrutiny. More shockingly, he revealed that researchers had been for years pressuring the government to validate the network themselves, and that the NCDC had begun to do j so, but cancelled the project and refused to make the data public, presumably to avoid this sort of scandal. Joined by Watts and others, Pielke called upon the government to recant.
The resulting furor forced the NCDC to again made site locations public. But so far, they've failed to address to root of the problem, which is the wholly unsatisfactory locations of many of their recording sites, loations which make the resulting data unreliable, and compromise a dataset upon which much of US energy and environmental policy is based.
Useful information!!!
NOAA hasn’t changed data yet. They show 1998 #1, 2006 #2, and 1934 #3..
http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/
GLOBAL WARMING
A fraudulent notion based on corrupted data *
The central contention of these pages is that for over a decade the IPCC has published global temperature trends distorted by purely local warmth from Urban Heat Islands (UHI’s). These spurious trends have been promoted as “smoking gun” evidence of greenhouse warming. The data were generated by Dr. P.D. Jones and others (1986, 91 & 94), mainly from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia at Norwich in the UK. The CRU and the IPCC claim that our atmosphere has warmed by ~0.6 to 0.8 degrees Celsius since the late 19th Century, and ascribe most of this to an enhanced greenhouse effect.
Ever since the beginning of the greenhouse scare, astute observers have suspected that urban heat was responsible for a large slice of the purported warming. The IPCC has stonewalled, telling policymakers that the urban heat island issue has “...been taken account of.” This site proves the contrary. There is simply no systematic compensation for urban warming in the Jones dataset. Occasionally there is a slight adjustment in a record for a site change or other anomaly but the majority of records are used “raw”. This applies even to large cities with large, documented heat islands – e.g. Los Angeles, Chicago, Sydney, Johannesburg etc. etc. In recent years, two independent remote sensing methods – nightlight pictures and infrared heat imaging – have clarified the extent of urban heat islands. Their evidence is incontrovertible. Nightlight images show that the bulk of CRU’s records come from lit areas of the surface. Infrared imaging shows that many are from cities with huge heat islands – enough to raise the annual average temperature by 2-3 degrees Celsius compared to the surrounding countryside.
The problem should have been obvious all along. The UHI was first identified in London 200 years ago, and many studies have shown that it can raise the temperature even in small towns. But political correctness, a desire not to “rock the boat”, the corrupting influence of “greenhouse funding” on the science and sheer wishful thinking have made the urban heat island a tabu subject in the greenhouse debate. This site breaks that tabu. It turns the spotlight on individual city records included in the CRU dataset, and also examines the CRU results for various “grid cells” across the globe. It leaves no doubt that the CRU temperature graphs are contaminated with pervasive and substantial urban heat which has nothing to do with greenhouse gases. Satellite images of night lights have been published by NASA and give a good indication of the location of urban areas over the entire earth. Taking the same midwest USA area as the Infra Red image above, this is a small preview of how the Jones / IPCC temperature stations are dominantly located in urban regions...
(or, as any cook will tell you, it’s always hotter in the kitchen...)
Easy. It did not pick up the tab for the results back then. Not like today.
I am not saying there are not shining examples of those who hold a job, do their stuff, and live a relatively normal life, but there is a lot of disfunction out there we all end up paying for. YMMV.
One more thing, though. I do not think it should be a federal deal, but a state/local one. Once the borders are secure, y'all are down to homegrown, anyway.
...Because Libertarians are Democratic-Party-funded pro-abortion, open borders to unlimited immigration, drug-legalizing radicals who would argue a brick wall into crumbling on its own.
I saw a news show about this and the temp sensors were placed in some of the most silly places, like next to air conditioner units spewing heat.
One of the things that gets me is that the two graphs referenced with the new data don’t use the same axes.
From “Real climate”
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D_mid.gif
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif
I was wondering what that was. A 12 gauge takes it out - easily...
Because the overwhelming majority of Americans acknowledge that only dumbasses or excuse makers think smoking weed is okay, coupled with the fact that they also like the idea of actually having a national border.
I reckon that is why.
B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa ------
I'm suddenly reminded of something I read in 'Heart of the Hunter' written by Laurens Van Der Post...
...somewhere in a play by Aristophanes a naked man on all fours, his behind pointing to the sky, crawls on the stage. "What does he think he is doing?" one character asks. Another answers, pointing at the behind: "It is learning to be an astronomer."
/PING-PONG for later reading.
I reckon if some folks like being smothered by a lying government because it keeps someone else from getting high, they’re getting the government they deserve.
Bump.....
1) This problem was resolved within a few days: The weather data wasn't what was taken down, it was the site contact information. Dr. Pielke played a role in straightening it out, and appropriate station contact information was made available sometime around a month ago.
2) This IS the survey that led to the discovery of NASA's GISS glitch. The survey is still in progress.
The detection of the glitch was a side-effect of the survey. The USHCN adjusts the data from their network. The GISS treats a generally unspecified subset of the USHCN as raw data and adjusts further...so the claim that the GISS error is minor is still open to question, and to further revelation.
Correction (of information, not of quotation):
The effect of the correction of that particular bug alone on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought),
Well, the only problem with that it that we all end up getting the government THEY deserve. (And no, I don't do drugs.)
The USHCN is the United States Historical Climate Network, a group of data collection sites which was designated, circa 1990, and is described by the NOAA as a "High Quality" network. Part of the criteria for being designated as part of the USHCN network was that the site had to be at least 80 years old, and to have had few environment changes, and few substantial site moves over its history. The sites were originally set up not for climatology, but rather for weather forecasting, which is just fine collecting data in cities to predict what the weather will be like where people actually live. One of the recurring problems with the network is that since the early 80s the sties have been transitioning over to MMTS sensors, which appear to have been set up with a very short standard cable length...which resulted in sensor stations being moved adjacent to buildings. If you look at the picture of Detroit Lakes, you will see a little louvred box, which is a Stevenson hut...the old style station. If you look at the pole with the little cylindrical louvred object on top, that is the MMTS temperature guage which replaced it.
Here is the NOAA guideline for the temperature guage siting (Somewhere I have a link to how they classify the station quality, and the margins of error for each class, but can't locate it right now): Temperature sensor siting: The sensor should be mounted 5 feet +/- 1 foot above the ground. The ground over which the shelter [radiation] is located should be typical of the surrounding area. A level, open clearing is desirable so the thermometers are freely ventilated by air flow. Do not install the sensor on a steep slope or in a sheltered hollow unless it is typical of the area or unless data from that type of site are desired. When possible, the shelter should be no closer than four times the height of any obstruction (tree, fence, building, etc.). The sensor should be at least 100 feet from any paved or concrete surface.
The USHCN Network, per the NOAA:
Strengths of the U.S. Historical Climate Network: The USHCN is a high-quality network of COOP stations with maximum, minimum, and mean temperature and precipitation, specially selected for analyzing long-term variability and change in the 48 contiguous United States. The stations in the network were chosen based on length of record, spatial distribution, and to minimize the number of station changes that can affect the homogeneity of the record. A methodology has been developed and is applied to test known station changes for their impact on the homogeneity, and data are adjusted if the change causes a statistically significant change in the time series. An urban warming correction based on population is also applied. The data set is a consistent network through time, which minimizes any biasing due to network changes through time.
Weaknesses of the U.S. Historical Climate Network: The start date for stations in the USHCN vary so that the stations used to compute the national value may change from year to year, especially for the earliest years. At present, ancillary variables are not available in the USHCN. Information for geographical sub-regions such as climate regions, river basins, and agricultural regions are currently not available, although they could be computed eventually. Data for the USHCN are not available in near real-time status.
Our Recommendations: We recommend using USHCN whenever possible for long-term climate analyses. The careful selection of each station and the series of adjustments applied to the data make the USHCN database the best long-term monthly temperature and precipitation data set available for the contiguous United States. It provides an accurate, serially complete, modern historical climate record that is suitable for detecting and monitoring long-term climatic changes. Other data sets, such as the Climate Division Dataset, may produce misleading trends due to artificial station changes. When performing analyses on scales smaller than regional, we recommend a review of the metadata in order to identify the stations most suitable for specific research needs.
Ping. You’ve gotta see this!
McIntyre has come up with some absurd examples of that assumption as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
