The Scandal of Climate Data Cover-up
Weather station data hidden from public; scientists allege government cover-up
by Michael Asher at Daily Tech.
The theory of global warming began to explain one simple set of facts-- 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 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, locations which make the resulting data unreliable, and compromise a dataset upon which much of US energy and environmental policy is based.
Ed. It seems it is not just the UN's IPCC data that needs far close scrutiny.
Posted on Thursday, August 9, 2007 at 09:36AM
by
Peter C Glover
in Science
|
2 Comments
|
1 Reference
Peter C Glover
in Science
|
2 Comments
|
1 Reference
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to FriendReferences (1)
References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
-
Response: kulartinuminto 39 postall about kulartinuminto and top news
Reader Comments (2)
I am perpetually stunned by the lack of simple perspective on the whole global warming question. From the beginning I have been floored by the lack of the simplest consideration of past climate change. A more classic example of not being able to see the forest for the trees has never existed. This is so ridiculously simple it almost doesn't deserve to be daylighted.
Worried about climate change are you? How worried are you? 40-60cm sea level rises are worrisome to you? The Goracle's 20-feet of rise in the next little while have you upset?
Get real! Stop looking at the trees and behold the forest of climate change events that have happened over and over again in the Pleistocene Epoch (last 1.6 million years). Sixteen times actually. But these only managed a 120 meter sea level change each, about 400 feet each time, 300 feet below present to about 100 feet above. Five times the Goracle's and 50 times NOAA/EPA.
A more regular geologic clock does not exist, and especially over the past 0.03% of geologic time. One hundred thousand year long ice ages and from 10-20k year long interglacials (global warmings). Just so we are all on the same page, we have been in the present interglacial for the past 11,500 years, we are 100 feet below the typical average peak in sea level, and according to Arctic sedimentologists, the trigger event seems to be the melting away of the Arctic ice cap. Which, by the way, is progged to occur in the year 2070, in case you wondered.
These slides into a 100k year Pleistocene ice age are long and slow, lots of time for stupid people to make fatal mistakes, selecting the smaller braincased amongst us out in the most rapid encephalization of mammals known from the fossil record (from 500cc to 2,500cc in 2 million years). Yes. Like it or not, not only are we dependent upon climate change for our our own evolution, it is responsible for our present ability to process data.
Such as it is.
To mercilessly drive that point into your consciousness go and find some time/temperature charts of the Vostok oxygen 18 data. Look it over carefully and see if you agree with this statement.
"As the long slow slides into an ice age wore on, our numbers increased steadily such that at the bottom of each 100k year long deep freeze, with populations of all kinds of life ballooning out of control below the miles thick ice sheets, a gigantic bloom of greenhouse gases resulted, propelling us almost instantly into an period of global warming, which due to the ever increasing temperatures and arable land resulted in less and less of us, thence the long slow slide into the next ice age.
Brilliant huh? Reverse that and you have it.
Oh, and if you are worried about CO2, then you should be. At 0.04% of the atmosphere, and 20% of GHG potential assigned to it, this is one hot gas. So hot somebody had best patent it. If you divide 20% by 0.04% you will see what I mean. CO2 at 0.04% of the atmosphere has an ability to absorb heat 500 times better than you might otherwise believe. So, instead of 0.04%, what if we sandwich some pure CO2 between two layers of oven grade steel. We would have 100% not 0.04%, which should net us a factor of 2,500 thermal absorption. Right?
Your typical average air compressor can achieve an 8:1 compression, so if we compressed the CO2, achieving 8 times more CO2 between those steel cases, we might get something like a factor of 20,000. Right?
Which makes it the best insulator known to homo sapiens. Whom has only been here since the penultimate deglaciation of 120-130k years ago. Right before we began the long slow slide into the Wisconsin ice age. So best get those patent applications filed for CO2.
Because the math for the other possibility is much easier to understand.
Ever hear of summer? Ever hear of winter? What causes summer and winter? Ever notice the sun higher in the sky during summer, longer days? Ever notice the sun lower in the sky during winter, shorter amounts of daylight? I don't know about you, but here in the northern hemisphere, the number of hours of daylight is getting less and less. Right up to the winter solstice (near Christmas).
This is caused by the 23.5 degree tilt of our rotational axis, which leans us closer or farther away from the sun during summer and winter, respectively. Surprise surprise.
How much further? I was afraid you wouldn't ask! Well, if the earth is 8,000 miles in diameter, it would have to be something less than this, right? Well the difference tends to be a few thousand miles.
So, doing the math, the difference between summer and winter is a matter of 23.5 degrees times two (47 degrees) and a few thousand miles distance from the sun.
Now, fewer of you still would know that the earth's orbit around the sun is not a circle. It is an ellipse. An ellipse with a period. The earth is presently about 93 million miles away from the sun, and that aforementioned difference of 47 degrees and a few thousand miles is responsible for the difference between summer and winter. The eccentricity in our orbit is 2%, or about 1.7 million miles.
Starting to get it?
OK! Allright! I will explain it. If the difference between summer and winter is 47 degrees and a few thousand miles on a 93 million mile orbit, would it get at all colder if instead of a few thousand miles we are a few million miles further away?
If you muttered ice age then you just figured this whole debate out.