It Is Official Himalayan Glaciers Are Not In Trouble

[MSimon]

According to the Holy IPCC.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/20/i ... lt-fiasco/

Unholy me said so 4 or 5 days ago.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... lting.html

My rule in climate science: if a sceptic says it is warming - I trust.

If a believer says it is cooling - I trust.

The "argument against interest" principle. All else have to provide properly vetted open source data, algorithms, and checked code.

Hide the Decline

[MSimon]

Of course if "an Ice Age is coming" becomes the new reason du jour for increasing funding for climate science the above principles will have to be reversed.

[Josh Cryer]

I heard the guy who made the claim originally had poor eyesight and misread a paper.

Poor eyesight, ruins whole reports.

The RealClimate take on the matter is the most neutral (after having read that WUWT article).

[MSimon]

I heard the guy who made the claim originally had poor eyesight and misread a paper.

Poor eyesight, ruins whole reports.

The RealClimate take on the matter is the most neutral (after having read that WUWT article).

Only 10 years to correct the data. Not bad for climate science. And who held on the longest? The head of the IPCC.

Bias? What bias?

[Josh Cryer]

Science is slow. IPCC will retract it. The head was an idiot for defending it as adamantly as he did.

[MSimon]

Science is slow. IPCC will retract it. The head was an idiot for defending it as adamantly as he did.

I think he gave up yesterday after a vigorous defense. The vigorous defense coming after the source retracted.

There is something rotten in climate science.

[Josh Cryer]

I think he gave up yesterday after a vigorous defense. The vigorous defense coming after the source retracted.

It was a short time period between New Scientist and his retraction, he had to be sure. No gimmies in science.

[MSimon]

I think he gave up yesterday after a vigorous defense. The vigorous defense coming after the source retracted.

It was a short time period between New Scientist and his retraction, he had to be sure. No gimmies in science.

It was a flat out retraction. How much more certainty do you need? Not a refutation. A fookin RETRACTION.

It just goes to show you Pachauri has an agenda.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/0 ... erest.html

At least some newspapers in India think so. The above link has a picture of a front page.

[CaptainBeowulf]

And, there's this:

http://www.canada.com/technology/Scient ... story.html

The crux of the article:

"In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada.

Worse, only one station -- at Eureka on Ellesmere Island -- is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.

The Canadian government, meanwhile, operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, and more than 100 above the Arctic Circle, according to Environment Canada."

[MSimon]

And, there's this:

http://www.canada.com/technology/Scient ... story.html

The crux of the article:

"In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada.

Worse, only one station -- at Eureka on Ellesmere Island -- is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.

The Canadian government, meanwhile, operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, and more than 100 above the Arctic Circle, according to Environment Canada."

I would have to assume that all that data was clogging up their computers so they had to cut back.

Or maybe the polar bears were hungry due to global warming and ate the data. Humans are so mean to the bears.

I believe Michael Man said you only need 50 stations to represent the world. So there are still too many in Canada. Some one will have to be held accountable for making the scientist's jobs so difficult.

[MSimon]

Worse, only one station -- at Eureka on Ellesmere Island -- is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.

And that in an unusually warm place.

Fortunately it can be used to homogenize the missing data from the North Pole.

Not to worry. I am assured the method is peer reviewed. Nothing to see here. The scientists have the situation perfectly under control.

[MSimon]

http://www.canada.com/technology/Scient ... story.html

Mr. D’Aleo and Mr. Smith say NOAA and another U.S. agency, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) have not only reduced the total number of Canadian weather stations in the database, but have “cherry picked” the ones that remain by choosing sites in relatively warmer places, including more southerly locations, or sites closer to airports, cities or the sea -- which has a warming effect on winter weather.

Over the past two decades, they say, “the percentage of [Canadian] stations in the lower elevations tripled and those at higher elevations, above 300 feet, were reduced in half.”

Using the agency’s own figures, Smith shows that in 1991, almost a quarter of NOAA’s Canadian temperature data came from stations in the high Arctic. The same region contributes only 3% of the Canadian data today.

Mr. D’Aleo and Mr. Smith say NOAA and GISS also ignore data from numerous weather stations in other parts of the world, including Russia, the U.S. and China.

They say NOAA collects no temperature data at all from Bolivia -- a high-altitude, landlocked country -- but instead “interpolates” or assigns temperature values for that country based on data from “nearby” temperature stations located at lower elevations in Peru, or in the Amazon basin.

How can those bums accuse the nice scientists of fraud? It is unprecedented.

[Josh Cryer]

GISS only uses stations with 20 monthly records or more, and with a date period of several decades. You can't blame GISS for the meteorologists cutting back stations.

[Josh Cryer]

I would have to assume that all that data was clogging up their computers so they had to cut back.

Budget cuts more likely. Why have a station in the middle of nowhere with a low population, etc.

[MSimon]

I would have to assume that all that data was clogging up their computers so they had to cut back.

Budget cuts more likely. Why have a station in the middle of nowhere with a low population, etc.

There is evidence that the stations are still there. Take the Canada situation for instance. The Russians have complaints.