Quote:
Originally Posted by cementor
Sorry but I disagree with this statement vehemently. What may appear to be insignificant is in my opinion critical. There used to be over 400 temperature stations in Canada with more than 20% in high altitude, cold evirons, has been reduced to less than half that total with less than 10 left in those same cold evirons, with saignificant effect on the overall numbers. Similar data site reductions were done with Russia Territories as well.
It is like taking the temperature data from Texas and saying that data is representative of the entire US. It simply is untrue. Particularly if you are comparing to data from years past that included data from North Dakota and Montana. I hope this makes clear my concern.
|
I just want to point out the fact that there is no such thing as a perfect dataset, and that statistical methods have been developed to tak into account gaps in data. I'm not saying that these methods are perfect, or even that they're always adequate. What I am saying is that unless you fully understand the methods being used by these researchers to analyze the data, you're not really in a position to offer a critique. Perhaps you do understand the methods. As far as I can tell, that would place you in the minority of folk who complain about closed cold weather monitoring stations.
Besides, one doesn't necessarily need weather data from colder environs to determine whether trends indicate that warming is occurring. If warming is occurring, it should be evident everywhere, not just the colder places.
Quote:
|
That isn't the biggest problem. The UK Climategate and NOAA datasets are the main data sets that are distributed to Universities and Scientific outlets world wide. If that data is tainted (or even isn't apples to apples) and I believe it is, then the studies done out of these institutions of higher learning are slanted thru no fault of their own. The conclusions drawn are true based on the data they have been supplied, unfortunately it was agendized. Much of this is born out by the actual documents from the emails from the UK. These documents allude to the burying of data, and the repression of papers and conclusions that don't agree with their point of view.
|
I've worked with NOAA data before, and as far as I can tell each data point is associated with a monitoring station via an ID number. In principle it should be trivial to exclude from analysis data from any selection of monitoring stations. In other words, any bias present in the NOAA dataset would be easy to account for. So unless you have some sort of methodological analysis of specific instances where bias hasn't been accounted for, you're just blowing smoke here.