Comments on: Weather Stations Disappearing Worldwide

By: Internal Report Says U.N. Climate Agency Rife With Bad Practices « Watts Up With That?

Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:05:44 +0000

[...] Says U.N. Climate Agency Rife With Bad Practices 4 12 2008 Perhaps now the problems with disappearing weather stations and slow or non-existent updates of GHCN weather data can be explained. The U.N. appears to be [...]

By: GISS, NOAA, GHCN and the odd Russian temperature anomaly - “It’s all pipes!” « Watts Up With That?

Sat, 15 Nov 2008 22:26:51 +0000

[...] know from John Goetz work as well as this artcle in Nature that Russian weather stations had been closing with regularity due [...]

By: John.St

John.St — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 00:51:28 +0000

If you are really interested in global temperatures, do read:
Jones, Wigley & Wright, “Global temperature variations between 1861 and 1984″, Nature 322, 31st July 1986, p.430ff.

Since 1986 the temperature data, which are published and used, are “corrected” data, where about 960,000 sets of data from the period 1861-1945 have been removed because “this difference is also **likely** to reflect a non-climatic inhomogenity in either the MAT data or the land data, **probably** the former.”

The article contains lots of “considered”, “thought to have”, “suggesting”, “generally assumed”, “likely”, etc.

The temperatures have been reduced by – (two examples from the list: 1861-73: -0,4 C; 1942-45: -0,54C).

The actually measured temperatures were published in Oort et. al.: “Historical trends in the surface temperature over the oceans based on the COADS”, Climate Dynamics 2, pp. 29-38, 1987.

By: Grujeff Sons

Grujeff Sons — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 18:47:05 +0000

the big drop off of stations in 1990 was equal to about 30 % of the stations . The average temperature increases about 1 degree celsius during the drop off in number of stations. Thats accordign to one graph I saw, and that 30% decrease in stations represented about 1500 ground stations. P.s. the raw temperatures from the stations are also changed according to formulas that are used to account for and discount the effects of “heat islands” and what have you, so we have to have a lot of faith in those people crunching those numbers. P.s a 30% decrease in stations and a .2% increase in Kelvin temperature ( that is what a 1 celsius increase is equal to in Kelvins which is on a scale of 450 points. look it up) happened around the same time. + on another note: look up the effects of volcanic ash on light getting through the armosphere at the hawai stations in the early 90′s from Pintatubo.

By: New AMS draft policy statement links Hurricane Katrina and climate « Watts Up With That?

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 04:48:29 +0000

[...] and is in need of more attention and funding. Given the recent study by John Goetz that shows a number of weather stations worldwide have been closed, and with my surfacetstations.org project finding stations placed in sub-optimal locations like [...]

By: Solomon Green

Solomon Green — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:10:12 +0000

As with Mike Stallard, I got this site through Christopher Booker. I am no scientist but, as an actuary, I understand statistics a little bit. It is interesting that last month I dined together with about thirty other actuaries to listen to Piers Corbyn an astrophysicist rubbishing much of the climatechange/globalwarming/allduetomanmadeCO2 theories. None of those actuaries present believed that the theory was justified by the statistics.

By: Mike Stallard

Mike Stallard — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 17:48:03 +0000

Will you allow me, a total non scientist, to thank you all for a very scholarly and scientific approach? I got to your site through Christopher Booker in the (English) Sunday Telegraph. He has never let me down yet and this time, he has come up trumps!
Thank you all – and keep up the science!

By: An Inquirer

An Inquirer — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 19:38:43 +0000

I am sorry, Anthony, to bother you, but could you do some appropriate snipping of Matt Beck’s postings. Not only are they offensive to me without any intellectual contribution, but I also like to send students to this blog. It would be entirely inappropriate to send my students to such vulgar language.

REPLY: I had planned to leave them up long enough for him to realize his own mistake, but I’ll do some editing now.

By: Evan Jones

Evan Jones — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 17:43:31 +0000

This whole thing raises up the gridding issue.

We have had to deal with just about every calculation and adjustment issue going on around this-here science. I sure wish there was SOME sort of measure we could count on.

For example, CO2 measurement. (I know about the Beck study, and I know it has been “refuted” but questions remain.)

Does anyone know how I would go about calculating how much CO2 a city puts out if there is a huge firestorm and it burns to the ground? There were a half dozen firestorms at least during WWII (not including the A-Bombs) yet there is a slight depression in the CO2 measurements. This raises my suspicions as to the accuracy/coverage of Antarctic ice core measurements for this purpose.

By: David P

David P — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:07:33 +0000

Also, I was wondering if anyone has run a test to determine the correlation between the rate of decline of reporting stations and the climbing surface temp trend, rendered graphically? The decline in # of stations is very evident by 1990, and gets worse. Is it a coincidence that so much of the “warming” troubling AGW proponents has occurred since then?

By: David P

David P — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:01:39 +0000

For the layman, that little vid display leaves the distinct impression that a “global mean surface temp” derived from those increasingly sparse observation points is a complete fiction, or, at best, a very shaky guess. Yet those measurements appear to be at the foundation of AGW data analyses. Am I missing something?

By: Matt Beck

Matt Beck — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 07:42:32 +0000

Hello? What’s happening?

REPLY: Its called a moderation que, Pacific Standard Time, and I’m asleep at the time you posted the comment. You might want to pay closer attention to the message posted after pressing “submit” or read the policy page before hurling insults because you didn’t get what you wanted immediately.

By: Matt Beck

Matt Beck — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 07:38:38 +0000

F*** y**

REPLY: Above comment was edited by moderator for cleanliness.

By: Matt Beck

Matt Beck — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 07:38:11 +0000

Why was my comment deleted?

By: Matt Beck

Matt Beck — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 07:36:13 +0000

A couple grammatical nits to pick: First, to “beg the question” means to commit the logical fallacy of assuming the truth of the proposition one intends to prove. It is not synonymous with the phrase “raises the question,” which was how you employed it here. Second, the word “irregardless” is of highly dubious authenticity and ought to be replaced with “irrespective” or simply “regardless.”

(Hey, it’s the reason you keep a blog, right?)