I was reading an article online and came across something very interesting. This article shows a very clear link between data collection and warming
observed from 1990 to 2000.
In 1990 the number of observation stations dropped dramatically. Most were rural stations. Coincidentally at the very same time observed surface
temperatures increased. The evidence is clear that surface observations now have a very warm bias with the elimination of rural observation stations
and a heavy U.S. bias with a majority of the stations being in the U.S. So basically U.S. metro areas heavily skew temperature readings.
With this kind of poor data collection and contamination of data it is basically useless to use this information in any kind of accurate scientific
reporting.
Read more here....
icecap.us...
|
good find.
their data is cooked anyway, see:
www.dailytech.com...
originally posted at:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
there *is* conflicting data, in abundance, it's become simply fashionable to be a doomsayer with a totalitarian bent (air tax anyone?), that's all.
a few years ago, only conspiracy wackos were supposed to be doomsayers, today, even that niche is being trampled over by the mainstream,
unfortunately.
see this post for a few samples
[edit on 19.12.2007 by Long Lance]
|
The Urban Heat Island Effect, I think it's called.
It's worrying that we are not being presented with all the facts.
Here's a good site with good info for those who still have an open mind and haven't joined in the
hysteria.
|
Along the same lines, many temp observation stations in the former USSR were abandoned after the break-up in '91. Many of these were in colder
climates. The loss of these low temp data points skewed the mean upward.
|
