The "Inconvenient " Typo. . . .
The errors are in a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N.-affiliated body. All the mistakes appear in a subsection that suggests glaciers in the Himalayas could melt away by the year 2035 - hundreds of years earlier than the data actually indicates. The year 2350 apparently was transposed as 2035.
NOAA – Data In / Garbage Out
According to sayanythingblog.com:
. . . .climate centers have also been manipulating worldwide temperature data in order to fraudulently advance the global warming political agenda. . . .
Although satellite temperature measurements have been available since 1978, most global temperature analyses still rely on data captured from land-based thermometers, scattered more-or-less about the planet. It is that data which NOAA receives and disseminates – although not before performing some sleight-of-hand on it.
Smith has done much of the heavy lifting involved in analyzing the NOAA/GISS data and software, and he chronicles his often frustrating experiences at his fascinating website. There, detail-seekers will find plenty of them, divided into easily-navigated sections—some designed specifically for us “geeks,” but most readily approachable to readers at all technical strata.
Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1500 of the 6000 thermometers in service around the globe.
Now, 75% represents quite a drop in sampling population, particularly considering that these stations provide the readings used to compile both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) datasets. The same datasets, incidentally, which serve as primary sources of temperature data not only for climate researchers and universities worldwide, but also for the many international agencies using the data to create analytical temperature anomaly maps and charts.
Yet, as disturbing as the number of dropped stations was, it was the nature of NOAA’s “selection bias” that Smith found infinitely more troubling.
It seems that stations placed in historically cooler, rural areas of higher latitude and elevation were scrapped from the data series in favor of more urban locales at lower latitudes and elevations. Consequently, post-1990 readings have been biased to the warm side not only by selective geographic location, but also the anthropogenic heating influence of a phenomenon known as the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI).
[...]
And that’s exactly what we’d be were we to surrender our freedoms, our economic growth, and even our simplest comforts, to duplicitous zealots before checking and double checking the work of the prophets predicting our doom should we refuse.
Read the whole thing.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/bombshell_u.s._climate_data_faked/
