The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
Again, this is not science. If you only select data that supports your hypothesis you are not testing. This is data that is heavily relied upon by the U.N. IPCC to report the threat of a warming climate. The evidence becomes less and less convincing every day.
2 comments:
Where are you getting all this stuff? I haven't found a good climate change skeptics web site.
This linked through "The Telegraph", an article by James Delingpole. One good site is http://climatedebatedaily.com/, which has articles from both sides of the debate. http://climateaudit.org/ might be referred to as a skeptic site, but it is really devoted to testing the data presented, which is the same as skepticism to those who worship at the Church of Manbearpig.
Post a Comment