<div>I don't have the time or the full scientific qualifications necessary to sort through the rampant junk science regarding climate change on the Internet. I focus on credible peer reviewed science publications or statements from well published scientists currently publishing on climate science, assuming, I think correctly, that most of the garbage science is filtered out. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Are you suggesting there is more reliable scientific work done outside the peer review system for science publishing, than within? There is a huge potential for dishonesty and shoddy science on many of the Internet websites that make claims of doing reliable science on climate, when they have not passed a rigorous scientific peer review process. I have no significant evidence at this time to call E. Michael Smith's (aka "Chiefio") work on climate "science."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>However, I do study peer reviewed publications and papers for critical analysis of the science arguing for anthropogenic climate warming. I will include below references to peer reviewed papers authored in part by climate scientists Roger Pielke Sr. and/or Jr, claiming a warming bias and other errors or misstatements originating from GISS temperature analysis, posted to the "Pielke Research Group: News and Commentary" website Jan. 16, 2010. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>This was posted at this time I think in part because GISS/climate scientist James Hansen et. al. recently issued a statement regarding 2009 annual global average surface temperature as tied for the second warmest year in 130 years, and the southern hemisphere in 2009 as the number one warmest year:</div>
<div> <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100115_Temperature2009.pdf">http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100115_Temperature2009.pdf</a> </div>
<div>----------------------</div>
<div>This analysis no doubt will arouse the ire of many anthropogenic warming skeptics, and much critical response from those arguing for a cooling trend in global climate. </div>
<div>----------------------</div>
<div>E. Michael Smith is not mentioned as an author in the papers listed on the Pielke website info pasted in below, but given I have not read all these papers, I do not know if the specific charges he has raised regarding manipulation of temperature data are addressed.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>However, I found a source with an e-mail address for E. Michael Smith, that appears to quote him directly, regarding his temperature data error analysis allegations, which clearly involve implications of fraud among some climate scientists, not just incompetence:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/40749822.html">http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/40749822.html</a></div>
<div>
<p>E. Michael Smith at <a href="mailto:pub4all@aol.com"><u>pub4all@aol.com</u></a></p>
<p>Comment below from website above:</p>
<p>Smith says after awhile, it became clear this was not a random strange pattern he was finding, but a well designed and orchestrated manipulation process. "The more I looked, the more I found patterns of deletion that could not be accidental."</p>
</div>
<div>-------------------------------</div>
<div><a href="http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/">http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/</a></div>
<div><br><font size="2"><font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f5f5f5">January 16, 2010 </font></font></div>
<h2><a title="Permanent Link to NASA GISS Inaccurate Press Release On The Surface Temperature Trend Data" href="http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/nasa-giss-inaccurate-press-release-on-the-surface-temperature-trend-data/" rel="bookmark"><font color="#000000">NASA GISS Inaccurate Press Release On The Surface Temperature Trend Data</font></a></h2>
<div class="entry">
<div class="snap_preview">
<p><strong><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">UPDATE PM JANUARY 16 2010 – Jim Hansen has released a statement on his current conclusions regarding the global average surface temperature trends [and thanks to Leonard Ornstein and Brian Toon for alerting us to this information]. The statement is </span><a href="http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100115_Temperature2009.pdf"><font color="#1c9bdc">If It’s That Warm, How Come It’s So Damned Cold?</font></a><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline"> by James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Makiko Sato, Ken Lo</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><strong>My comments below remain unchanged. Readers will note that Jim Hansen does not cite or comment on any of the substantive unresolved uncertainties and systematic warm bias that we report on in our papers. They only report on their research papers. This is a clear example of ignoring peer reviewed studies which conflict with one’s conclusions. </strong></strong></p>
<p><strong>***ORIGINAL POST***</strong></p>
<p><strong>Thanks to Anthony Watts for alerting us to a news release by NASA GISS (</strong><strong><a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/15/hansen-responds-to-john-colemans-kusi-special-report/#more-15286"><font color="#1c9bdc">see</font></a>) which reads</strong></p>
<p><strong><em><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">“NASA has not been involved in any manipulation of climate data used in the annual GISS global temperature analysis. The analysis utilizes three independent data sources provided by other agencies. Quality control checks are regularly performed on that data. The analysis methodology as well as updates to the analysis are publicly available on our website. The agency is confident of the quality of this data and stands by previous scientifically based conclusions regarding global temperatures.” (GISS temperature analysis website: </span></em><a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/" target="_blank"><em><font color="#000000">http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/</font></em></a><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline"><em>)”</em> [note: I could not find the specific url from NASA, so I welcome being sent this original source].</span></strong></p>
<p><strong>This statement perpetuates the erroneous claim that the data sources are independent [I welcome information from GISS to justify their statement, and will post if they do]. This issue exists even without considering any other concerns regarding their analyses.</strong></p>
<p><strong>I have posted a number of times on my weblog with respect to the lack of independence of the surface temperature data; e.g. see</strong></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/further-comment-on-the-surface-temperature-data-used-in-the-cru-giss-and-ncdc-analyses/"><font color="#1c9bdc">Further Comment On The Surface Temperature Data Used In The CRU, GISS And NCDC Analyses</font></a></strong></p>
<p><strong><a title="Permanent Link to An Erroneous Statement Made By Phil Jones To The Media On The Independence Of The Global Surface Temperature Trend Analyses Of CRU, GISS And NCDC" href="http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/an-erroneous-statement-made-by-phil-jones-to-the-media-on-the-independence-of-the-global-surface-temperature-trend-analyses-of-cru-giss-and-ncdc/" rel="bookmark"><font color="#1c9bdc">An Erroneous Statement Made By Phil Jones To The Media On The Independence Of The Global Surface Temperature Trend Analyses Of CRU, GISS And NCDC</font></a><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">.</span></strong></p>
<p><strong>There remain also important unresolved uncertainties and systematic biases in the surface temperature data used by GISS [and CRU and NCDC] which we reported in the peer reviewed literature, i.e.</strong></p>
<p><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline"><strong>Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: </strong></span><strong><a href="http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-321.pdf"><font color="#1c9bdc">Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends</font></a><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229</span></strong></p>
<p><strong>with only one Comment in the literature on just two of our issues by the CRU group</strong></p>
<p><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline"><strong>Parker, D. E., P. Jones, T. C. Peterson, and J. Kennedy, 2009: C</strong></span><strong><a href="http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-321b.pdf"><font color="#1c9bdc">omment on Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface temperature trends</font></a><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">. by Roger A. Pielke Sr. et al.,J. Geophys. Res., 114, D05104, doi:10.1029/2008JD010450</span></strong></p>
<p><strong>which we refuted in</strong></p>
<p><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline"><strong>Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2009: </strong></span><strong><a href="http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-321a.pdf"><font color="#1c9bdc">Reply to comment by David E. Parker, Phil Jones, Thomas C. Peterson, and John Kennedy on “Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends</font></a><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D05105,<br>
doi:10.1029/2008JD010938</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline"><strong>with the referees agreeing with our Reply (</strong><strong><a href="http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/reply-by-pielke-et-al-to-the-comment-by-parker-et-al-on-our-2007-jgr-paper-unresolved-issues-with-the-assessment-of-multi-decadal-global-land-surface-temperature-trends/"><font color="#1c9bdc">see reviews contained within this post</font></a>).</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline"><strong>The NASA GISS (and NCDC and CRU groups) have also not responded to the systematic warm bias that we reported in</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline"><strong>Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2009: </strong></span><strong><a href="http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/r-345.pdf"><font color="#1c9bdc">An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere</font></a><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D21102, doi:10.1029/2009JD011841.</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline"><strong>Klotzbach, P. J., R. A. Pielke, Sr., R. A. Pielke, Jr., J. R. Christy, and R. T. McNider (2010), </strong></span><strong><a href="http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/r-345a.pdf"><font color="#1c9bdc">Correction to “An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere”, </font></a><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">J. Geophys. Res., 115, D01107, doi:10.1029/2009JD013655.</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><strong>The GISS news release is symptomatic of the continued attempt to ignore science issues in their data analysis which conflict with their statement in the press release. This is not how the scientific process should be conducted. </strong></strong></p>
<p><strong><strong>We urge, based on the exposure of such type of behavior in the CRU e-mails; i.e. see</strong></strong></p>
<p><strong><a href="https://www.createspace.com/3423467"><strong><font color="#1c9bdc">The Crutape Letters</font></strong></a><strong><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline"> by Steven Mosher, Thomas W. Fuller, 2010 ISBN/EAN13: 1450512437 / 9781450512435</span></strong></strong></p>
<p><strong><strong><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">that the suppression of alternative viewpoints ends.</span></strong></strong></p>
<p><strong></strong></p></div></div>
<div>------------------------------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 1/17/10, <b class="gmail_sendername">Paul Rumelhart</b> <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><br>You have a higher opinion of the climate science peer review process than I do. I think this kind of grassroots science is necessary until changes are made to make the peer review process in this area more transparent. <br>
This guy is not publishing papers in peer reviewed climate science journals. That I know about, anyway. What he is doing is working with publicly available data sets and is using publicly available temperature modeling software and is blogging about what he finds. You can download the data sets, the gistemp software, and in some cases software that he has written to make data conversions easier. With access to a linux box or virtual machine and some knowledge of programming, you can replicate what he is doing yourself. I believe he even has instructions on his website to help you get the gistemp software installed.<br>
<br>If you wish to blow this off as science unworthy of critical attention, that's your prerogative.<br><br>Paul<br><br>Ted Moffett wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><span class="q">Apparently I failed to be specific enough in my request for verification of certain statements you wrote regarding research you referenced from E. M. Smith, aka "Chiefio," on climate science. You made a specific implication regarding */climate scientists errors in temperature data/* */gathering,/* /*based on Smith's research.*/ In quoting you below my statements in this post, I will in bold italics highlight the essential statement involved.<br>
I requested support for this statement you wrote, support sourced from a */credible peer reviewed science journal./* Based on what you stated was research conducted by a so called "E. M. Smith" */(you did not verify this is a "real" name, which I requested),/* temperature data has been gathered (regardless of the number of temperature stations),/* in a way to slant the results toward warmer temperatures,*/ which could imply the climate scientists involved in this effort are incompetent and/or corrupt. Unless I misread or misunderstood, you did not offer any peer reviewed source from a credible science journal to support this implication /*specifically*/ /*addressing E. M. Smith's research,*/ /*nor did you reference any peer reviewed science publications by the Smith in question.*/<br>
/*Instead, you sourced a peer reviewed science journal article regarding temperature data errors, that did not specifically address E. M. Smith's work, as far as I determined. The*/<br>*//* Unless you can offer a reference from a credible peer reviewed science journal regarding "E. M. Smith's" climate science research, I do not regard Smith's analysis of climate science as worthy of study.<br>
*/-------------------------------/*<br>Paul Rumelhart wrote:<br> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-January/068125.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-January/068125.html</a><br>
A programmer named E. M. Smith has done some work with the GISS dataset (I've been using the NCDC one). He has found that many of the measuring stations which are used for temperature reconstructions across the globe have been removed from the global temperature data sets for recent years. In fact, the data drops off quickly starting in the 80's (at least in the dataset I've been working with).<br>
<br>*/He has done some research into which stations have been removed, and has apparently found that lots of higher altitude stations have been removed, which would have shown cooler temperatures - leading to a corresponding rise in the average temperatures over the years./* He has a blog which covers this (he goes by the alias "chiefio"). Here is an entry in the blog giving an overview of this topic:<br>
<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/gistemp-a-human-view/" target="_blank">http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/gistemp-a-human-view/</a><br>------------------------------------------<br>
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br><br></span><span class="q"> On 1/16/10, *Paul Rumelhart* <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a> <mailto:<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br></span><span class="q"> He's just a guy with a blog. He's looking at public data and is<br> interpreting the results himself.<br><br> I would bring up the possible "gaming" of the peer review system<br>
as implied by some of the Climategate emails, but since I can't<br> find any peer reviewed references making this claim I guess it<br> can't be true.<br><br> I know the numbers of temperature stations drop off precipitously,<br>
I've verified that personally.<br> Here are some links I've found to the temperature station drop off<br> phenomenon:<br><br> An interesting mpeg of station counts by month from the University<br> of Delaware (pay close attention to 1990 - present):<br>
<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://climate.geog.udel.edu/~climate/html_pages/air_ts2.html" target="_blank">http://climate.geog.udel.edu/~climate/html_pages/air_ts2.html</a><br></span> <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://climate.geog.udel.edu/%7Eclimate/html_pages/air_ts2.html" target="_blank">http://climate.geog.udel.edu/%7Eclimate/html_pages/air_ts2.html</a>><span class="q"><br>
<br> A graphic showing station record length, station counts, and<br> coverage:<br> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://climate.geog.udel.edu/~climate/html_pages/air_ts2.html" target="_blank">http://climate.geog.udel.edu/~climate/html_pages/air_ts2.html</a><br>
</span> <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://climate.geog.udel.edu/%7Eclimate/html_pages/air_ts2.html" target="_blank">http://climate.geog.udel.edu/%7Eclimate/html_pages/air_ts2.html</a>><span class="q"><br>
Note that by "coverage", they mean "is within 1200km of a<br> temperature station", which is about the distance from here to<br> Provo, Utah.<br><br> Here is a link to a paper published in Climate Research that calls<br>
into question the claim that non-climatic effects such as economic<br> activity and socio-political concerns have been removed from the<br> gridded surface temperature data. The authors find a warming bias<br> in the data based on such things as the lack of surface station<br>
data because of political unrest in countries such as the old<br> Soviet Union and China, as well as other concerns such as the<br> ability for countries with economic troubles to purchase and keep<br> up temperature recording equipment.<br>
<br> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/gdptemp.html" target="_blank">http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/gdptemp.html</a><br></span> <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.uoguelph.ca/%7Ermckitri/research/gdptemp.html" target="_blank">http://www.uoguelph.ca/%7Ermckitri/research/gdptemp.html</a>>
<div><span class="e" id="q_1263dee0f6ea3b44_9"><br><br> I'm sure there are others out there.<br><br> Paul<br><br> Ted Moffett wrote:<br><br> Please cite a credible peer reviewed science journal<br> publication where the E. M. Smith (or is this name false?) in<br>
question has published this work on temperature data that you<br> reference.<br> If the information on temperature data you provide is not<br> sourced from a peer reviewed credible science journal, I'm not<br>
going to spend time contemplating it in detail.<br> Junk science on climate issues on the Internet is so rampant,<br> someone could spend all their waking hours separating the<br> wheat from the chaff. The peer review process in science<br>
publishing greatly reduces the garbage science that a person<br> would otherwise have to sort through.<br> Can you offer information on the professional qualifications<br> of E. M. Smith that render his climate science work credible?<br>
I found information on E. M Smith's qualifications on the<br> "Musings from the Chiefio" blog, but they offer no reason to<br> take his work on climate science seriously (<br> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://chiefio.wordpress.com/about/" target="_blank">http://chiefio.wordpress.com/about/</a> ). With admitted limited<br>
effort, I found no references to */any/* "E. M. Smith" peer<br> reviewed climate science publications. He misspells<br> "Bachelors" when he informs he has a "Bachlors in Economics."<br>
Of course, sometimes peer reviewed science journals make<br> mistakes, and junk science slips past the peer review process.<br> And there are no doubt worthwhile ideas that are not published<br> in peer reviewed journals.<br>
But I don't find credible the allegation that there is a vast<br> international conspiracy among scientists (or widespread<br> incompetence) to fabricate a hoax or manufacture faulty<br> science that is deceiving the world about human impacts on<br>
climate. Given the consensus on this issue, this is what<br> would need to be occurring for the professional science from<br> nations around the world to be in error while also in such<br> compelling agreement that human impacts on climate are profound.<br>
E. M. Smith's (or whoever he or she is) professional<br> background, from his blog:<br> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://chiefio.wordpress.com/about/" target="_blank">http://chiefio.wordpress.com/about/</a><br>
<br><br> Paper Trails<br><br> I have an Bachlors in Economics from the U.C. system. I also<br> have a pot load of credits from some various Community<br> Colleges in everything from “Transistor and Semiconductor<br>
Theory” to “American Sign Language”. Oh, and a load of<br> graduate level Education Theory units needed to get a teaching<br> credential from the California State University system. And<br> dozens and dozens of “industrial” classes that various<br>
employers sent me off to over the years. Everything from the<br> RAMIS II database system on IBM mainframes (All of it. Every<br> class for the 13 or 14 volumes of the manual set. I was a<br> consultant on it for the maker and they had us “do it all”.)<br>
to “online automated” certification “classes” in Sun’s flavor<br> of Unix so that a vendor I worked for could keep their sales<br> certificate. And about 9 units toward an MBA (but that’s<br> another long story…) that I may finish some day, or maybe not.<br>
<br> I did pick up a Lifetime Teaching Credential at the Community<br> College Level from the State of California (they don’t make<br> those any more, but I’m “grandfathered”) in Data Processing<br> and Related Technologies and have taught for a few years at a<br>
local community college. Fun gig.<br><br> Wouldn’t mind doing it again. But lots of places now want a<br> Microsoft Certification and, well, I’m just not interested in<br> that, and never will be. (I can “do” MS stuff, and have; but<br>
see no reason to send MS even more money. Gates has enough.)<br> The idea that a manufacturers certificate (for which you must<br> pay a bundle every couple of years) would trump a formal<br> Credential (and all the mandated training including graduate<br>
level education theory) is, IMHO, broken; but such is life.<br> Why one needs Microsoft (or Red Hat) to tell you (for a large<br> fee) “what you know”; is beyond me. That’s what the C.V. and<br> Credential are for…<br>
<br> Oh, and the Institute For The Certification of Computing<br> Professionals (ICCP) has what they called their “capstone”<br> certification, the CDP, that I also hold. Why? Don’t ask why…<br> it seemed like a good idea at the time…<br>
<br> ------------------------------------------<br><br> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br> On 1/16/10, *Paul Rumelhart* <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a><br>
</span></div> <mailto:<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> <mailto:<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>
<div><span class="e" id="q_1263dee0f6ea3b44_11"><br> <mailto:<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>>>> wrote:<br>
<br><br> I'm replying to myself because I got to wondering if Windows<br> and/or most people's email clients natively handle png files,<br> since it is an open source format. So I'm attaching the same<br>
files after converting them to ..jpgs.<br><br> Paul<br><br> Paul Rumelhart wrote:<br><br> Some of you know that I was at one time playing around with<br> graphing global temperature data in order to satisfy my<br>
curiosity on a number of points related to global<br> warming. I<br> wish I'd stuck with it. It turns out that someone else<br> (probably many others) has been doing the same thing. A<br>
programmer named E. M. Smith has done some work with<br> the GISS<br> dataset (I've been using the NCDC one). He has found that<br> many of the measuring stations which are used for<br>
temperature<br> reconstructions across the globe have been removed from the<br> global temperature data sets for recent years. In<br> fact, the<br> data drops off quickly starting in the 80's (at least<br>
in the<br> dataset I've been working with).<br><br> He has done some research into which stations have been<br> removed, and has apparently found that lots of higher<br> altitude<br>
stations have been removed, which would have shown cooler<br> temperatures - leading to a corresponding rise in the<br> average<br> temperatures over the years. He has a blog which<br>
covers this<br> (he goes by the alias "chiefio"). Here is an entry in the<br> blog giving an overview of this topic:<br> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/gistemp-a-human-view/" target="_blank">http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/gistemp-a-human-view/</a><br>
<br> I have not tried to analyze the stations that drop off<br> of the<br> NCDC data set yet, perhaps I can get a little work done on<br> that soon.<br><br> I'm also attaching a couple of graphs that I created<br>
from the<br> NCDC data which graph the station counts by years.<br> These are<br> from the global minimums data sets, both normal and<br> adjusted.<br> I hadn't yet gotten to graphing station counts for the<br>
global<br> means and global maximums data sets. All uniques<br> stations and<br> sub-stations are counted, which will mean that some<br> sub-stations are counted twice if the thermometer is<br>
moved or<br> something in that year. I was at one point trying to<br> find out<br> why these counts dropped off so quickly. It makes<br> sense that<br> the number of stations would increase over the years,<br>
but why<br> the dramatic decrease in station counts? I had originally<br> thought that perhaps there are delays in collecting data<br> together, but 20-30 year delays? That doesn't seem<br>
plausible.<br><br> By the way, I learned of this work that E. M. Smith has<br> been<br> doing by watching John Coleman's hour long news special<br> titled<br> "Global Warming - The Other Side". You can find links<br>
to the<br> various parts of this here:<br> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/14/john-colemans-hourlong-news-special-global-warming-the-other-side-now-online-all-five-parts-here/" target="_blank">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/14/john-colemans-hourlong-news-special-global-warming-the-other-side-now-online-all-five-parts-here/</a><br>
<br><br> Even I thought this video was a bit high in the<br> sensationalist<br> and propagandist categories, but it did cover many of the<br> standard skeptical viewpoints that I've run into. It<br>
might be<br> worth watching, even if you're completely convinced we're<br> cooking ourselves with carbon dioxide.<br><br> Paul<br><br><br><br><br></span></div></blockquote>
<br><br></blockquote></div><br>