A paper published today in Theoretical and Applied Climatology finds that the data homogenization techniques commonly used to adjust temperature records for moving stations and the urban heat island effect [UHI] can result in a “significant” exaggeration of warming trends in the homogenized record.
According to the authors, “Our analysis shows that “data homogenization for [temperature] stations moved from downtowns to suburbs can lead to a significant overestimate of rising trends of surface air temperature.”
The paper corroborates the prior work of Anthony Watts, Joseph D’Aleo, et al, finding leading meteorological institutions in the USA and around the world have so systematically tampered with instrumental temperature data that it cannot be safely said that there has been any significant net “global warming” in the 20th century.
I understand that raw data sometimes needs to be adjusted to compensate for confounding effects, but in climate science these adjustments seem to all be in one direction — that of increased warming with time.
It seems that they also have no standard for making adjustments to the recorded temperature data. It is basically made up to suit the desired outcomes.
Just like socialist economic and political theory.
In other words … Complete BS …
Kind of like installing the instruments at airports in the blast zones for the jet exhaust? How many degrees upward would those average out to over a year of data mining?
Manipulation of data towards the intended outcome has become the “new science” of the “new scientists”.
and t’is easy to over come such “errors”, just install a new unit at the new location and compare data for a while, job done, and much more “accurate” than the adjustment route, rite john bleate!!!!
Pathetic.
When the only conclusion one can reach is; The data is so abused we can discern no information from it.
Massive firing of uncivil servants is called for.
The in car digital readout of outside temperature is a perfect tool to explain the Urban Heat Island effect.
Who are you gonna believe as you commute to the city, your lying eyes or the official expert opinion that the effect is insignificant?
Also I am amazed by people who can pull 0.01 accuracy from data with error bands of +/- 1 to 4 degrees.( eyeball error, mercury/alcohol thermometer variants)
But there is the “proof” the IPCC needs.
All the warming is man made.
Manufactured that is.
Or should that be Mannufactured by Jones?
Much of the surface of the planet is seawater, so why are the thermometers on land?
give the Mann a ceegar
and why are they almost randomly installed around the world
Mann is a icon with his very own video. Good music never goes out of style.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc
Data quality and spurious adjustments seem to be a constant source of irritation. The best solution I’ve read is to use the best of the best sites -rural, long records- to calibrate nearby stations. Homogenizing iffy data that is contaminated by UHI, etc. skews all the data. It is my understanding that the homogenization is standard practice. It would be nice if before and after adjustment charts were standard in reporting because it would make clear that all adjustments serve to either increase present temps or, more commonly, decrease past temps to make the temp rise look more dramatic.
Torture the data long enough, and it will confess.
What? Leftist climate scientists are a bunch of dishonest zealots!
Say it isnt so 🙂
Weather monitoring stations are typically located at airports. Rural stations with long records don’t show the warming that’s claimed.
Another inconvenient truth the AGW zealots ignore. It’s not surprising to find that much of the warming is an urban heat-island effect.
NASA or NOAA only has one weather station in the Canadian Arctic and it’s almost right on 60° and they extrapolate its temperatures for the whole region; the Australian weather service has only one weather station in one of the (smaller) Aussie states (I can’t recall which one) and they extrapolate its temperatures for the whole region. Does that sound like science?
NASA or NOAA only has one weather station in the Canadian Arctic and it’s almost right on 60°
Any station at 60° is hardly characteristic of the Canadian Arctic
The govt of Canada has an extensive array of long term, stable, weather monitoring stations at small communities across the Canadian Arctic. An analysis of data from these these stations shows warmer Winters, slightly warmer Spring and little or no change in Summer and Fall average temperatures. The true ‘un-fudged’ climate data are freely available from the Environment Canada website for anyone to see for themselves.
A professor used $1-million in Canadian science grants as a piggy bank to finance personal travels and his private business, newly disclosed documents have revealed.
The professor expensed trips to science conferences he did not attend, rented apartments for extended stays outside the country, loaned business associates money, and bought gear that had nothing to with his research, according to documents describing the misconduct.
Postmedia News obtained the documents, using the Access to Information Act, from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council that distributes close to $1-billion a year to academics across Canada.
The council will not name the scientist, saying it must “protect” his identity because of the Privacy Act. It is also refuses to identify the university involved, despite NSERC’s recent pledge to be more transparent about academics who misuse taxpayers’ money.
The documents do, however, give a glimpse of one of the council’s most protracted, contentious and serious misconduct cases to be publicly disclosed.
NSERC was keen to see the professor criminally charged, but the RCMP and federal lawyers decided against it, which means the case will remain shrouded in secrecy.
The 1,295 heavily redacted pages released by NSERC indicate the professor was an academic star. He had received $1-million in funding from various science agencies, almost half of it from NSERC, when questions arose about where the money was going.
The grants were supposed to pay for the professor and his graduate students to explore bright and innovative scientific ideas.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/01/28/professor-used-1-million-science-grants-as-a-piggy-bank-to-finance-personal-travels-and-private-business/
If one was looking for a cover up on “star quality” professors, a good bet would be one of these:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadas-200-million-lure-pulls-in-19-big-name-researchers/article1367542/
Very embarrassing considering government involvement and the money in play. Enough digging would get a name, but in all probability no one will bother.