

Stevenson Screen placement in relation to heated buildings- click for larger image

Today I received an email that contained some startling revelations about the Weather Stations that were put in place on the DEW Line, a network of cold war era radar monitoring stations in Canada and Alaska, that have now been abandoned. It makes for interesting reading. The sender Robert J. Chouinard was stationed at one of these and responsible for the weather observations. I don’t doubt the accuracy of his report.
You see, in the early to mid 60’s, during the height of the cold war, I was stationed in the Canadian Arctic as a radar and communications technician on the Distant Early Warning Radar Line (DEW Line). Besides our main objective of spotting Russian bombers coming over the pole to drop atomic bombs on North American cities, we were tasked with making weather observations and synoptically reporting to a data collection center somewhere down south. This was well before satellites and maybe even before mainframe computers were employed for this task. The synoptic reports were compiled by elves and analyzed by someone who was supposed to know what they were doing. Their objective was to forecast the immediate weather which they didn’t do very well. The whole process was considered a joke by everyone who was involved in the process but we had to play along with the charade.
For numerous reasons many reports were fabricated. No one imagined their fabrications would comprise a data set that would, in future years, be used to detect minor global warming trends and trigger a panic in the world.
Some of the reasons why the reports were fabricated:
1. Their purpose was only to help with, what was considered, the futile efforts at weather forecasting, not studies on global warming. (The significance of the difference between -55F and -45F was not appreciated. Both temperatures would freeze your balls off. So why split hairs?)
2. Often, this activity interfered with our primary objective. This was because of manning problems which would take a lot of explaining and which I will not go into.
3. Some of the other reasons for fabricating reports:
(a.) physical discomfort of leaving a warm environment and venturing out into the extreme weather conditions to read mercury thermometers located about 200 ft. from the living modules.
(b.) fear of frost bite, getting disoriented by limited visibility, or being mauled by marauding polar bears. (Did you know that more Eskimos get killed from polar bears in Greenland than die of heart attack? I have always been stoic about dying, but being mauled by a polar bear was my greatest nightmare.)
(c.) plain old laziness.
–
When you feed this tainted old data into computers for analysis, well GIGO. I realize that the referenced study covered a later period but I doubt that the human element changed much. What more can I say?

Indeed, the human element has always been the weakest point of any of our temperature measurement systems, otherwise NCDC would not need FILNET to “fill in” missing data from stations by interpolating other data from nearby stations.
Missing data happens even when polar bears aren’t prowling between you and the thermometer. For example, look at this B91 form provided by the Marysville California observer (PDF format). Note all the missing days. Thanks to NCDC’s FILNET program, those missing days get made up into a complete data set much like the data on the DEW line did. With a “best guess” programmed into a data sorting and analysis program.
Fabricating or guessing data is usually met with serious repercussions in other fields, yet the current state of climate science seems to accept FILNET created data or data from remote outposts like these without question. My question is, if the human network is this unreliable, how do you know that the data from nearby stations your are interpolating from isn’t a product of “just plain laziness”?
I wonder how well the Russians did with their temperature data gathering in similar remote outposts?
UPDATE: Name of DEW line observer added with permission, and new photo added at 7:30AM 7/18/08
UPDATE2: Some clarifications from the original source have been added below.
Dear Mr. Watts:
Here is some follow-up information which you can do with as you wish. Maybe you could post it as a comment.
Robert J. Chouinard
All DEW line radar and communication technicians (radicians) used to receive a two week crash course in weather reporting, which included identifying and naming various types of clouds. It is this familiarity with clouds that alerted me to the strange cloud formations resulting from weather modification programs such as the laying down of chemtrails. For some time I have been reading of other peoples observations which confirmed my suspicions until finally I read an article on the net based on an anonymous individual blowing the whistle on the extent, purpose, and science of this illegal and secretive experiment.
I reported this article to Fred Singer who forwarded it on to Tim Bell who graciously replied to me what he knew about this program. He finished by remarking about how difficult it is to figure out what is happening naturally with the weather when it is being manipulated. I remarked about resulting erroneous data and offered my experience on the DEW line as another example of erroneous data. Fred Singer passed my comments on to Anthony Watts who took an interest in reposting it. I didn’t expect this old post which originally evoked a ho hum response to be as well received as it has been on this blog.
However, judging from the responses to this post, I fear that I have left some distorted impressions. First, most of us radicians started out being quite fastidious but priorities have a way of getting in the way. Liquor was never the problem. We were on shift when we did our weather reports and drinking during working hours was never allowed. Remember our first objective was a very serious one – to detect enemy aircraft during the cold war era. I arrived at Fox-1 one year after the photo of the polar bear was taken, in the summer of 1962, at the start of the Cuban missile crisis. None of us were in a mood to fool around. Being stuck on the DEW line after a nuclear exchange did not appeal to any of us.
I alluded to manning problems so maybe I should offer some details. Our employer, Federal Electric of Paramus, N.J., was the sub contractor to the USAF. They were not a nice company to work for and consequently when I arrived there was an ongoing attempt to organize a union, which went nowhere during my subsequent 4 ½ years of employment. Because of the tension resulting from the Cuban missile crisis and company related morale problems there was a mass walkout which meant that the rest of us were pressed to work double shifts for which we were promised to be paid overtime. (We never were paid). Weather reporting was a low priority for which we didn’t have the manpower so reports got fabricated. Once bad habits are formed it’s hard to break them.
I cannot speak for other people at other sites or in better times but the low priority of the task, I suspect, prevailed and inspired compromised reporting.
About polar bears:
I said “Did you know that more Eskimos get killed from polar bears in Greenland than die of heart attack?” Someone doubted this so I tried to find my source, to no avail. I have a son who is a doctor in Denmark who is contemplating working in Greenland for a few years. He grew up hearing stories of his maternal great-grandfather during the Klondike gold rush and my DEW line stories so he got the idea of carrying on the family “tradition”. I relayed this information about polar bears to him along with an Internet reference which, unfortunately, is no longer active. So, take this information with a grain of salt, if you like.
Polar bears were always a threat on the DEW line, especially at certain times of the year. I thought I was about to be devoured by one at Fox-1 on a very cold, dark night in 1962. I was concentrating on reading the thermometer from the Stevenson Screen when the station chief’s pet husky came up behind me and jumped up on my back. I had a minor heart attack on the spot. I’m happy to say that that was my only “polar bear” experience.

Anthony,
I’m somewhat disturbed by this story (confession) and some of the responses by your readers. Many of these remote sites and bases were manned 24/7 by dedicated Air Force weathermen many of whom I knew back in the early to mid 60’s. I’ve never known one of them to admit to such low-life behavior. We were taught that the accuracy of the data was paramount and not anything to compromise. In fact, fudging the “official” weather observations was a courts martial offense. All of our forms were checked for accuracy and inconsistencies before being mailed off to Ashville. Some of the more remote radar sites, manned mostly by civilian contractors, probably had some individuals who resented being tasked with an “extra” job. I’m not sure to what extent this information was used but I’m sure it was merely supplemental. There does exist years of accurate data from places such as Frobisher Bay, Thule, Sondrestrom, Saglek Bay, Goose Bay, etc., and in Alaska from such diverse locations as Cape Lisburne to Middleton Island.
I hope the author of this expose’ was an exception to the rule. If he had worked for me he would have found himself breaking rocks at Leavenworth then living the rest of his life as a federal criminal.
of blatant disregard of ethics and out and out
REPLY: I found it disturbing too. But I also found it quite plausible given what I’ve learned about human tasked weather data gathering in general. Like any organization there are always those that toe the line, and do a good job as a matter of pride, and then there are the slackers.
How would you know if someone had fudged data, if it were within range of expectations? For example if they guessed -45F when it was actually -50F ? With the distances between stations, the 5 degree difference is quite possible.
The mentions of the cold war bring up a perhaps paranoid irony. Remember during that time that the idea was to spend the USSR into oblivion? I recall there being quite a few fake technologies to get the Soviets thinking that we were further along on some projects than we really were; in effect trying to spur their spending on all the more. Wouldn’t it be a kick in the pants if global warming were the reverse form of this trickery? Both China and the former Soviet Union promulgating the existence and severity of global warming, full well knowing that neither of their countries would have to cave to any sort of environmental demands (why start now?) while the US would more than willingly take on any number of expensive/disruptive solutions to prevent the ‘problem’?
Okay, a question for statisticians: Does this DEW data situation mean that we have more noise around the true number, or numbers that are biased in one direction, or just plain garbage?
Tony wrote:
> I wonder how well the Russians did with their temperature
> data gathering in similar remote outposts?
Soviet-era temperature reports became a contest in misreporting wintertime temperatures in order to qualify for larger heating oil subsidies.
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html#comment-125343
OT…but too unreal to pass up.
On the other side of the world:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080718/ap_on_sc/brazil_dead_penguins
Check out the last few paragraphs and chalk another one up on the list of “Global Warming is Causing…” Cracks me up, and from a biologist no less.
Maybe send some polar bears south to eat the penguins before they wash up in Rio? If only the poor polar bears knew how to charter a flight.
Hans,
I have been thinking about performing the same test. Since you are only interested Anthropogenic greenhouse gases – CO2 – your test must be performed in a desert where you can exclude the water vapor vapor caused greenhouse effect. Holland is not an ideal location to perform such a test.
This thread on swag reports reminds me of a short science fiction story by Isaac Asimov, “The Maciine that Won the War”.
http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:0UNhMkakWCYJ:www.pointpark.edu/files/mba580_themachinethatwonthewar.pdf+asimov+%22the+machine+that+won+the+war%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us
I think that the radiative forcing would give the biggest effect in conditions when the atmosphere is loosing heat through radiation.
No, the GH effect is largest when outgoing radiation is at its maximum and that will typically be in the middle of the day when the Earth’s surface is gaining the most heat from the Sun.
Whether the Earth’s surface is warming or cooling has no direct effect on the GH effect. Although the reverse is true.
Otherwise Hank, don’t use min and max temperatures as day night temperatures. Generally both min and max temperatures occur in the daytime.
How much longer will this house of AGW cards stand up?
I heard this totally unverified anecdote, which sounds to me like it is true and possibly quite prevalent.
Much of Australia is sparsely populated and recording temperatures would be the job of the shire clerk, often the only public employee for a considerable distance around.
The story goes that this particular shire clerk liked to go to the next town (town is a rather grand term for a place that might have a hundred or so people) to drink with his mates on the weekend. His only duty over the weekend was to record temperatures. So he would fill in the weekend values on a Friday and put it in the mail to be collected on a Monday, because he typically returned after the weekly mail collection. And as a result the weekend temperature data for this location were entirely fictional for many years.
I’ve really been enjoying your blog. So much so that I want to syndicate it on BustaBlog, a new blog network. You will earn money from your posts by doing nothing more than you’re are doing now.
For more information: Visit Bustablog.com/Syndication
papertiger: loved the Rush quote! I had thought of it immediately upon reading this post!
MattN,
I am sorry to disappoint you, but unfortunately the the house of AGW cards can exist for a very long time. You see the AGW movement is a political , not a scientific, or public policy issue. The scientific issues sink in the crossfire of competing claims and unfortunately the political audience tunes out pretty quickly. There are only two ways that the AGW movement can be stopped.
1., there is an effective legislative opposition which is able to draw attention to the enormous costs vs. the very uncertain and in most likely hood minor, or non-existent benefit of mandated major CO2 emission reductions.
2., there is rapid and undeniable Global Cooling which will totally undercuts the AGW argument politically as well as scientifically.
While I am hopeful, I am not optimistic.
Alan McIntire, I was thinking of that same Asimov story as I was reading this great thread.
The really scary part of all this is that climate science isn’t the only area affected by unreliable or bogus data. The same problem is found to some extent in nearly every aspect of our lives.
[shudder] Did it suddenly get colder in here?
“Who Goes There?”
[…] My Karma ran over your Dogma wrote this in Watts Up With That? on July 18, […]
roentgen… don’t even whisper (“Wouldn’t it be a kick in the pants if global warming were the reverse form of this trickery?”).
That would be the unkindest cut of all…
Here in New Hampshire, there was a bit of a brouhaha this past winter, somewhat sarcastically referred to as “snowgate” over snow totals, and how they are measured in Concord. This only came to light because we were closing in on the all-time record snowfall of 122 inches, set in 1873. Apparently, snow totals are being done by individuals now, due to the fact that 10 or 15 years ago, there was a reorganization of the weather service forcing the closure and consolidation of offices nationwide. Here is the link to an article about it in the Concord Monitor:
Something doesn’t measure up
The system is a bit lacking, shall we say.
I’ve always felt that the global warming theory was highly unreliable, if not completely fabricated to bring in more dough for sketchy scientists.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
http://will86aber.wordpress.com/2008/07/19/penndel-borough-and-robbins-ave/
“Who Goes There?” – John W Campbell Jr.
Maybe we should insist on blood tests for Al Gore. It could explain a lot about him.
Bruce,
The method of measuring snowfall as described in the article is a surefire way to guaranteed inaccuracy. We have a similar setup in central Maine and I can recall several instances where the snowfall totals were changed/revised/amended after-the-fact. The most accurate way of measuring snow is to obtain a water equivalent to
compare against what is measured on the snow boards. However, measuring snowfall is more talent than science. The 12″ of dry fluffy stuff that comes off the Great Lakes on frigid January days is a lot different than the 6″ of traffic choking slush from a Nor’easter. The texture of the snow combined with the wind factor goes a long way in determining how “accurate” the measurement will be. This is the way its always been. We are just adding to the aggravation by relying solely on snowboard measurements by part-time help. I guess we’ll just have to ignore future “records.”
“It is this familiarity with clouds that alerted me to the strange cloud formations resulting from weather modification programs such as the laying down of chemtrails. ”
Uh, oh … “chemtrails” is a buzzword used by the loonies. At this point I am not sure I am going to believe a word this person is saying without further confirmation … which considering the number of people that served up there over the years, shouldn’t be too hard to get.
http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=137 is a column by Joe D’Aleo about issues at New York City’s Central Park temperature record and questionable adjustments that make warming appear.
More relevant to the thread is a claim I heard, I no longer have it, that reported New York’s snow measurements of the Blizzard of 1978 are poor. Well into the storm the responsible parties stopped taking measurements in part because it was so nasty out and in part because they figured any new snow would just compact the old by the same amount. Measuring snowfall is an art, as is measuring snow on the ground. The official rules for both tasks aren’t quite okay and could be improved on. In general things are better than in the 1970s, but not perfect.
http://richaucoin.com/_wsn/page4.html has some notes about a 2006 storm in New York with questionable snow amounts. It’s unfortunate that Concord NH’s snow record got fouled this year. I live about eight miles from the airport which is near the measurement site and could’ve helped out. My snowfall beat Concord’s record, but there were a couple storms where I got much more than they did.
I generally don’t pay much attention to arguments about changes in snowfall implying something about climate change. Over long enough time it does, but individual year’s variances are so great all I can do is shake my head in amazement. One might think that I get more snow than southern New England, and I did by a huge amount last season. OTOH, in 2004/2005 southern New England had more thanks to a couple major coastal storms that didn’t reach this far in. See my http://wermenh.com/sdd/index.html for more. Heck, see my http://wermenh.com/blizz78.html about the Blizzard of 1978. Somewhat to my amazement, several people find it via search engines every day.
crosspatch in the reference to chemtrails click on the word “article” to access the reference which you might find compelling enough to turn you into a “loonie” yourself.
rrrobbie (15:47:53) :
crosspatch in the reference to chemtrails click on the word “article” to access the reference which you might find compelling enough to turn you into a “loonie” yourself.
rrrobbie,
I made the mistake of clicking on the “article” and now have to agree with Crosspatch.
Chemtrails=Loonies. What a crock of malarkey. Either these people are complete dingbats or, at best, mediocre story tellers.