Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => The Environment => Topic started by: litespeed on 30/01/2010 21:27:36
-
Has anyone else heard of this? Is it true? http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html
"Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe."
"For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.” And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate summers."
I am skeptical. For one thing, I have not heard of it before from either side of the climate debate. In addition, it just sounds to fantastic. FEWER weather stations!!! And I don't buy the idea they are replaced by satellites. Satellites have all sorts of data acquisition issues. For instance fixed and floating bouys are actually used to help CALIBRATE the Sea Surface Temperature satellites.
The satellites only record the top 'skin' temperature which varies diurnally and also is affected by cloud cover and wind-chill. The bouy's take temperatures at a depth of one meter, where the temperature is isolated from cloud cover and many other surface variables.
And the same thing goes for land stations. They take their measurement about five feet off the ground in a shaded and ventilated box. The surface temperature around the box will vary greatly with cloud cover, humidity, rain and wind chill, among other factors.
So. If NOAA really HAS reduced its ground weather stations by 75%, some real explaining is in order. Especially since such stations provide a continuous data set for perhaps a hundred years or so? Now 75% of them are gone or not included!
-
I'd like to hear it verified by a few other sources first, especially as that particular article is clearly biased right from the start...
Not surprisingly, the blatant corruption exposed at Britain’s premiere climate institute...
...which is a bit premature because the issue is still under investigation. Still, that's never stopped people from condemning a suspect before all the evidence is in if it suites their personal views.
This is funnily ironic really, as the article is promoting its own view and omitting some of the facts, which is just what it's accusing the CRU and NOAA of doing.
-
Okay, it's a legitimate question. there is two ways to see it. That the less data is due to global warming alarmists, like most of the worlds climate scientists as well as governmental organizations as NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOOA) etc then are members of a worldwide conspiracy for ? W O R L D P O W E R ? or something to that matter, and the enslavement of you of course.
Or?
Could it mean that that they don't have the time, means or resources to collect all data?
---Quote---
Environment Canada says climate scientists who track global temperature trends may be underestimating the amount of warming in the Canadian Arctic, because they are working with data from a declining sample of weather stations across the region.
A U.S. government agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, compiles an important database of historic surface temperatures, based on readings from thousands of local weather stations across the planet. The raw data is obtained from the World Meteorological Organization, which receives temperatures from national governments around the world.
The number of local stations included in that database has dropped precipitously in recent years. In Canada, for example, temperature measurements for the 1970s were sampled from nearly 600 stations across the country, compared to only 35 stations today.
Only one station — Eureka, on Ellesmere Island — is included in the 2009 database to measure the temperature for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle, even though the federal government still operates more than 100 stations in the high Arctic. . .
Joseph D'Aleo, a meteorologist, and E. Michael Smith, a computer programmer — both well-known climate change skeptics — say that while high Arctic stations accounted for almost a quarter of NOAA's overall Canadian temperatures in 1991, the region accounts for only three per cent of the same data today.
However, D'Aleo and Smith's claims were dismissed in a report published online Thursday by The Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media. It said the sampling of weather stations around the world has declined in recent years, not because fewer stations are being included in the temperature records, but because of time delays in collecting data from individual stations.
Station sampling from the 1970s appears high in number today, only because "those records were collected years and decades later through painstaking work by researchers. It's quite likely that, a decade or two from now, the number of stations available for the 1990s and 2000s will exceed the (number) reached in the 1970s."
On Friday Gavin Schmidt, a senior climatologist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said NOAA and NASA don't choose which stations to include in their database — that's decided by national bodies like Environment Canada which feed information to the World Meteorological Organization.
---End of quote--
So the 'conspiracy' would then be located in the 'national bodies like Environment Canada which feed information to the World Meteorological Organization.'? So are those the guys planning to take over my world? And is it the whole world? Or just Canada?? Let us look at their 'conspiracy' some more.
Those evil supermind's waiting to steal my freedom of ?? thought ?? Speech ??
No - C L I M A T E - or as we say locally - Weather.
--Quote---
Sujata Raisinghani, Environment Canada spokeswoman, was quoted as saying that "it's not clear why fewer Canadian weather stations are being included in global temperature records than in the past."
She also said only 35 of the 600 weather stations in Canada in the 1970s are folded into the World Meteorological Organization and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration global databases, along with only our Eureka station out of 100 Arctic stations operated today.
'During the 1995 federal government cuts, as an Environment Canada scientist, I was ordered to provide station data in order to cut up to 70 per cent of our hydrological inland water stations for B.C.
This was just part of cutting lighthouses, weather stations, hydrological stations and networks, etc.
Simultaneously, 40,000 federal engineers and scientists were laid off by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien.
Environment Canada research was deliberately decimated, data collection was to stop and future research was only to use old stale data. As a scientist, in good conscience, where public health and safety was concerned, I could not continue.
Just before Prime Minister Paul Martin left office, he said Canada would be relying on the U.S. for weather forecasting. As a result, I get far more accurate forecasts from Seattle.
Sampling 35 data sites across all of Canada to represent our country's climate is not a new concept, but sampling only one station for all of North America's Arctic is stretching climate-change credibility. It's a disservice to scientific research and researchers.'
Susan Rowntree
Victoria.
--End of Quote---
"only 35 of the 600 weather stations in Canada in the 1970s are folded into the World Meteorological Organization and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration global databases, along with only our Eureka station out of 100 Arctic stations operated today."
Let me see then?
Ahh, the E* V *I *L -- S* U* P* E *R* M *I *N *D *S will then be ?
What ? Their Prime minister(s) possibly? in collaboration with 'evil minded' economists and civil servants perhaps, enslaving the good citizens of Canada, and therefore, The United States Of America, and as we all know that nothing exist outside USA, therefore it naturally, as an inevitable consequence, will be the whole world they take over :)
I kind'a love it ::))
and isn't this one even lovelier.
"Just before Prime Minister Paul Martin left office, he said Canada would be relying on the U.S. for weather forecasting. As a result, I get far more accurate forecasts from Seattle."
If we should look to a 'conspiracy' I would say it belongs to those not wanting to face the consequences of a global warming, as possibly those politicians worrying over the possible consequences to their political 'stability' if the situation became even clearer..
And this summary took me more time to write than to find the evidence searching the net?
And no, it's not from 'realclimate' either :)
---
Sources: The Ottawa Citizen (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/sports/Fewer%20temperature%20reports%20could%20underestimate/2476467/story.html) And The Victoria Times Colonist. (http://www.timescolonist.com/technology/Weather+data+lost+1995+budget+cuts/2520945/story.html)
===
In fact it stinks, but not as you thought Litespeed.
It seems as if Canada don't want to know?
Sheer stupidity.
And it made me curious too, Canada has a lot of resources it wants to use, right?
And global warming shouldn't stop them right? He** it's their country, right?
Yep, it is :)
Take a look at this Suddenly the world hates Canada (http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/15/suddenly-the-world-hates-canada/) And I'm sure there are more to it than that, but I'm not out to hang out any Country. Sh* they're just one in the bunch of Countries saying one thing whilst doing another. And it works, as long as one don't look to close.