## Blog About Code Contribute GISTEMP Goals Status 

# Clear Climate Code

The 1990s station dropout does not have a warming effect Posted by drj | Filed under announcement Tamino gives his results for his GHCN based tempera ture reconstruction . It is well worth reading. He also gives a comparison between s tations that are reporting after 1992, and those that “dropped out” before 1992. He concludes that there is no significant difference in the overall trend. In oth er words refuting the claim that the 1990s station dropout has a warming effect. His res ults are preliminary and for the Northern Hemisphere only. Tamino’s analysis use only the land stations; in or der to write this blog post I tweaked ccc-gistemp so that we can produce a land index ( python tool/run.py -s 1-3,5 now skips step 4, avoids merging in the ocean data, and effectively produces a global average based only on land data). It is very easy to subset the input to ccc-gistemp and run it with smaller input datasets. So in this case I can split the input dat a into stations reporting since 1992, and those that have no records since 1992, and run ccc-gistemp separately on each input. I created tool/v2split.py to split the input data. Specifically I ran step 0 (which merges USHCN, Antarctic, and Hohenpeissenber g data into the GHCN data) to create work/v2.mean_comb then split that file into those stations reporting in 1992 and after, and those not reporting after the cutoff . Then I ran steps 1,2,3, and 5 of ccc -gistemp to create a land index: 

# Category goals policies status announcement Uncategorized 

## Page 1 of 16 Clear Climate Code » Blog Archive » The 1990s station dropout does not have a warming ...

7/29/2010 http://clearclimatecode.org/the - 1990s - station - dropout - does - not - have - a - warming - effect/It is certainly not the case that the warming trend is stronger in the data from the post -cutoff stations. [edit 2010-03-22: In a subsequent post I add trend lines to this chart ] The differences between these results and Tamino’s are interesting. Both show good agreement for most of the 20th century. These data show more divergence than Tamino’s in the 1800’s. Is that because we’re using Southern Hemisphere data as well, or is it because of the difference in station combining? Further investigation is merited. We hope to make “experiments” of this sort easier t o perform using ccc-gistemp and encourage anyone interested to download the code and play with it. Update Update: Nick B obliges with a graph of the differen ces: 

## Page 2 of 16 Clear Climate Code » Blog Archive » The 1990s station dropout does not have a warming ...

7/29/2010 http://clearclimatecode.org/the - 1990s - station - dropout - does - not - have - a - warming - effect/Tags: gistemp Permalink | Comments (41) | Feb 26, 2010 

## 41 Responses to “The 1990s station dropout does not have a warming effect”

carrot eater

Says: February 26th, 2010 at 4:23 pm 1. Re the 19th century difference: Even in the NH, und ersampling will be a bit worse back then. But take the SH data (already undersampled) and split it into two bits, and it could be pretty bad. So I think the difference will be how the grid boxe s are used, along with using SH. Tamino is using coarse grid boxes. GISS i s using distanceweighted interpolation to points within smaller gri d boxes. With undersampling, this will likely have some impa ct. With wellsampled data, it won’t matter. Zeke Hausfather

Says: February 26th, 2010 at 4:39 pm 2. Thanks for the timely analysis drj. 

## Page 3 of 16 Clear Climate Code » Blog Archive » The 1990s station dropout does not have a warming ...

7/29/2010 http://clearclimatecode.org/the - 1990s - station - dropout - does - not - have - a - warming - effect/Any chance it would be easy to whack another mole b y generating a similar graph for all urban stations in the U.S. an d all rural stations, to tackle the contrarian argument du jour: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/26/a-new-paper-c omparingncdc-rural-and-urban-us-surface-temperature-data/ ? lucia Says: February 26th, 2010 at 4:53 pm 3. Is that because we’re using Southern Hemisphere dat a as well, or is it because of the difference in station combining? Fur ther investigation is merited. Are there fewer thermometers in the 1880? Is mal-di stribution more obvious? If the answers are yes, the difference in the mean may just be a consequence of uncertainty in the mean using a smal ler number of measurements aggravated by sub-optimal distribution for determining the area averaged temperature. Also, because you use the anomaly method, unless yo u did something unconventional, your two versions are forced to mat ch on average during the shared baseline. If there are real diffe rences arising from using different stations, the consequence of those differences will be more visible further away from the baseline periods . I would not be at all surprised to see the various versions of computing the surface trend diverging as the trends go back i n time. drj Says: February 26th, 2010 at 5:04 pm 4. @lucia: I have access to same data as you do when i t comes to answering the thermometers question, but I assume y ou also know the answer. And yes, of course poor sampling will lead to more divergence, in probability. GISTEMP uses the anomaly method, and ccc-gistemp is an emulation of it, so yes. And yes, that will force the average ov er the base period to match. The choice of base period is irrelevant to t he trend, however. drj Says: February 26th, 2010 at 5:08 pm 5. 

## Page 4 of 16 Clear Climate Code » Blog Archive » The 1990s station dropout does not have a warming ...

7/29/2010 http://clearclimatecode.org/the - 1990s - station - dropout - does - not - have - a - warming - effect/@Zeke: Not until Monday, and maybe not then. If how ever you have a handy list of Rural and Urban stations, do please c ut the input data yourself! carrot eater

Says: February 26th, 2010 at 5:15 pm 6. Zeke: You might be asking the wrong guys. That part icular assertion is about the USHCN adjustments, I’m pretty sure. Those adjustments are already baked in, before GISS or ccc starts doing a nything. You’ll want to go to the USHCN web page, get the ra w data, TOB adjusted data, and final adjusted data, and go from there. If you must cheat, the NCDC has made the code available for the ir adjustments, but I think simple comparisons of the raw and final set s would suffice, for starters. lucia

Says: February 26th, 2010 at 5:38 pm 7. @drj– 

## I have access to same data as you do when it comes to answering the thermometers question, but I assume you also know the answer. The answer to what? I suspect we are talking at cross purposes because I used rhetorical questions, which I actually know should be avoided in blog comments. They cause confusion, and that’s my fault. What I meant to communicate was that to extent that the answer to my rhetorical questions are yes (and I suspect they ar e even without looking or running any code), I think we should expect see divergences in computed anomalies in the early thermometer record. I appears we agree on the effect of statistical unc ertainty on divergence back in the early record. My take is that statistic al uncertainty may be sufficient explanation of the approximately 0.2C di fference in 

## Page 5 of 16 Clear Climate Code » Blog Archive » The 1990s station dropout does not have a warming ...

7/29/2010 http://clearclimatecode.org/the - 1990s - station - dropout - does - not - have - a - warming - effect/temperature anomalies computed using the two differ ent thermometer sets back in 1880-1900. [ed: corrected "1990" to "1 900"] Do we more or less agree on that? Or do you think i t’s something else? I am also saying that — without looking at the code or data — if we look at any T_anomaly vs. Time graph, and there are real differences (or even difference resulting from statistical uncertainty) those will appear larger far from the baseline periods. This effect should b e rather data independent because its a direct consequence of the anomaly method. So, for example, if you happened to re-baselined us ing 1880-1900, the match would look poor now, and good back then. I th ink that sort of rebaseline would be misguided because it makes no sen se to baseline to a period with larger measurement uncertainties– but t hat is what would happen if we did pick that period. Anyway: Once aga in, the reason we see the slight mismatch back in 1880-1900 [ed: and again] is at least partly related to the choice of baseline. Do we agree? So, it seems to me the fact that differences betwee n results using precut off and post-cut off thermometers are visible w ay back in 1900 is both because a) we know there were fewer thermometers so ‘noise’ alone can cause this to occur even if there is no bias associated d ropping out thermometers and b) the anomaly method does have a tendency to force agreement in the average during the baseline period. So no matter th e cause of differences, they will be more noticeable far from the baseline period. Anyway, I think your post is useful. To my knowledg e that makes the fourth post that shows the drop out in thermometers does not cause a bias in the long term trend. Nick.Barnes

Says: February 26th, 2010 at 5:42 pm 8. Zeke: although we’re not set up to do experiments w ith the NCDC datasets, it would be very easy for us (or for you) to do a ccc-gistemp run without any US data. The GHCN data, which is th e great preponderance of our input dataset, is raw. 

## Page 6 of 16 Clear Climate Code » Blog Archive » The 1990s station dropout does not have a warming ...

7/29/2010 http://clearclimatecode.org/the - 1990s - station - dropout - does - not - have - a - warming - effect/As for the UHI adjustments done in GISTEMP: they do not adjust rural stations at all. Only urban stations are adjusted, and urban stations which cannot be adjusted are dropped. See our current step2.py . Zeke Hausfather

Says: February 26th, 2010 at 5:59 pm 9. Carrot, Good catch. I forgot that GISS used adjusted USHCN (but raw GHCN) data as inputs. cce Says: February 28th, 2010 at 8:06 am 10. Off topic, but I noticed that GISS has switched to using night lights for all of its urban adjustments, not just the US48. Ar e you guys privy to those changes? They write: January 16,2010:The urban adjustment, previously ba sed on satelliteobserved nightlight radiance in the contiguous Unit ed States and population in the rest of the world (Hansen et al., 2001), is now based on nightlight radiances everywhere, as described in an upcoming publication. The effect on the global temperature t rend is small, that change reduces it by about 0.005 °C per century. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/ cce Says: February 28th, 2010 at 8:18 am 11. Also, I noticed with the newest USHCN_V2 data, GIST EMP’s lower 48 analysis shows a bit more warming that it had previ ously. In fact, both 1998 and 2006 are now warmer than 1934. Hansen et a l. 2001 had stated that they couldn’t declare a warmer year tha n 1934 until it was exceeded by at least 0.1 degrees, and the new figur e for 1998 exceeds that (2006 is 0.1 warmer).

Nick.Barnes

Says: February 28th, 2010 at 9:16 pm 12. cce@10: Yes, I’d noticed the GISTEMP change, a few lines in STEP2/text_to_binary.py to fish a different field o ut of the station metadata file. I’ll be making a matching change in our sources before our 0.4.0 release. 

## Page 7 of 16 Clear Climate Code » Blog Archive » The 1990s station dropout does not have a warming ...

7/29/2010 http://clearclimatecode.org/the - 1990s - station - dropout - does - not - have - a - warming - effect/cce@11: GISTEMP, and ccc-gistemp, doesn’t include a “lower 48 analysis”. 95% of the world’s population wouldn’t k now what a “lower 48 analysis” might be. I do know, and I also know it w ould cover about 1/60 of the global surface, so temperatures there a re not very relevant to our results. When you say “I noticed”, whereabou ts did you notice this? Can you provide a link? drj Says: February 28th, 2010 at 9:39 pm 13. @cce, @Nick.Barnes: “lower 48′′ may be a reference t o GISTEMP’s figure D . In my opinion this is wildly parochial. cce Says: February 28th, 2010 at 9:40 pm 14. The results of the lower 48 analysis is here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt It was very relevant during the so-called “Y2K” con troversy and is the primary reason why so many people belive the ’30s w ere warmer than recent years. That is, they confuse the US with the world. I noticed the change when I looked at the updated g raph of US temperature: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.lrg. gif 1998 and 1934 have been statistically tied for a nu mber of years (I believe since the TOBS improvements incorporated in 2001), but now 1998 is back to being significantly warmer than 193 4. Zeke Hausfather

Says: March 1st, 2010 at 6:54 am 15. Hey now, Figure D was rather useful as a validation tool in testing my recent foray into gridded temperature analysis :-p http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/Pic ture68.png Comparing GISS-temp to adjusted GHCN temp for the g lobe is less interesting, since the methods are rather different . drj Says: March 1st, 2010 at 9:55 am 16. @Lucia: I do not think we are talking at cross purp oses. 

## Page 8 of 16 Clear Climate Code » Blog Archive » The 1990s station dropout does not have a warming ...

7/29/2010 http://clearclimatecode.org/the - 1990s - station - dropout - does - not - have - a - warming - effect/It’s fine to ask rhetorical questions (although I d o have a tendency to answer rhetorical questions). But since you and I b oth know the answers to your rhetorical questions, I wasn’t sure what th e point was. You ask if I agree “that statistical uncertainty ma y be sufficient explanation of the approximately 0.2C difference in temperature anomalies computed using the two different thermome ter sets back in 1880-1990′′. Well, yes; I already said “poor samplin g will lead to more divergence, in probability”. You also ask if I agree that “the reason we see the slight mismatch back in 1880-1990 is at least partly related to the choi ce of baseline”. Well, yes, partly, but that doesn’t seem to be a very int eresting statement. Plainly the divergence between the two series is gr eater in the 1800’s than the other parts of the series and that is not entirely a choice of base period. Offsetting the shorter series so that two series have the same average over their common period we get:

and we can see that the 1800’s still have greater d ivergence. Of course we are in broad agreement, but I still th ink there is room for further investigation. In particular I think we can learn a bit more than “it’s just statistcal noise”: How much the difference between this analysis and Tamino’s is down to difference of station combination method ? How much is down to different data? (and how much is es sentially 

## Page 9 of 16 Clear Climate Code » Blog Archive » The 1990s station dropout does not have a warming ...

7/29/2010 http://clearclimatecode.org/the - 1990s - station - dropout - does - not - have - a - warming - effect/uninteresting variation due to poor sampling). A no rthern hemisphere graph from ccc-gistemp will help with that. Nick.Barnes

Says: March 1st, 2010 at 12:46 pm 17. cce@14: Ah, yes, figure D. That was originally in H ansen et al 1999. I am reading that paper now. It describes in great detai l an algorithm similar, but not identical to the GISTEMP algorithm (the mai n differences I see are that it uses a 2-degree grid, and has less flex ible UHI adjustment). I imagine it then area-weights the series for grid sq uares which include parts of the “lower 48′′. Because this figure is so very parochial, it’s not very high on my list of priorities to reproduce it. I might send email to G ISS to ask how it is done. It would be the work of a few minutes to gene rate a US-only graph, by running gistemp using lower-48 data only, but that isn’t what Hansen et al 1999 describes. Without running any code at all, I can speculate th at changes in this chart over time might be caused by the switch from USHCNv1 to USHCNv2 input datasets. cce Says: March 1st, 2010 at 3:01 pm 18. Nick, I’m pretty sure the USHCNv2 changes are the cause. They began using it in November. I don’t think they updated the figure D graphic and table until February. Also be sure to read Hansen et al. 2001 if you have n’t already, “A closer look at United States and global surface temperatur e change,” which is the most recent paper to describe GISTEMP. The Blackboard » A simple model for spatially-weigh ted temp analysis

Says: March 1st, 2010 at 6:03 pm 19. [...] stations with records post-1992 to those with out, to quickly replicate the work that Tamino and the CCC folks di d on addressing E.M. Smith’s whole station dropout [...] Turboblocke

Says: March 1st, 2010 at 9:13 pm 20. Sorry if this is mentioned elsewhere, but why are y ou referring to station drop out, when in fact it is actually old station d ata being added? 

## Page 10of 16 Clear Climate Code » Blog Archive » The 1990s station dropout does not have a warmi ...

7/29/2010 http://clearclimatecode.org/the - 1990s - station - dropout - does - not - have - a - warming - effect/http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcnmonthly/images/ghcn_temp_overview.pdf See section 2, Sources “When possible, we tapped re lated projects for potentially useful data. For example, NCDC recently collected and processed station normals for the per iod 1961–90 as a contribution to WMO (WMO 1996a). On occasion, a WMO member country supplied year/ month sequential data in addition to the 30-yr mean s and other statistics...” carrot eater

Says: March 2nd, 2010 at 12:02 am 21. Turboblocke: sensible people know the history of ho w the GHCN was built. But the blog terminology was set by certain conspiracy theorists, so ‘drop’ is what sticks. ‘Drop’ is also less cumbe rsome than other semantic constructions. Czy spadek liczby stacji ma wpływ na trendy? | Prog nozy numeryczne GFS/WRF

Says: March 2nd, 2010 at 10:27 am 22. [...] tym, po za autorem bloga OpenMind, czy Doskon aleSzare zajęli się równieŜ autorzy CCC-GISTEMP. Co jest tu istotne? Na łoŜono na siebie wykresy pokazujące przebieg odchyleń globalnych dla [...] The Blackboard » Timeline of “The march of the ther mometers” meme

Says: March 3rd, 2010 at 3:03 pm 23. [...] Clear Climate Code, Feb. 26, 2010 compares GI SSTemp type calculations of global surface temperature anomalie s based on the “full” and “cut-off” thermometer set. They find no major d ifferences between the two traces. [...] Spencer’s UHI -vs- population project – an update « Wott's Up With That? Says: March 5th, 2010 at 10:29 pm 24. [...] concluded that the bias is actually toward sl ightly under-reporting the warming. See Open Mind, Clear Climate Code, The Blackboard and Menne, 2010 (described at Skeptical [...] A mistaken message from IoP? - InfoSmell.com Says: March 6th, 2010 at 5:40 pm 25. 

## Page 11 of 16 Clear Climate Code » Blog Archive » The 1990s station dropout does not have a warmi ...

7/29/2010 http://clearclimatecode.org/the - 1990s - station - dropout - does - not - have - a - warming - effect/[...] more vehement in recent months even though th e code base and data have been available for years and clearly demo nstrate that the criticisms are [...] Kasowanie stacji raz jeszcze | Prognozy numeryczne GFS/WRF Says: March 7th, 2010 at 8:34 am 26. [...] jak metoda CAM stosowana przez CRU). MoŜna o tym przeczytać tutaj, a takŜe tutaj, tutaj,tutaj i tutaj. Jasne j est, Ŝe Watts i D’Aleo się mylą, a oskarŜenia pod adresem NOAA są [...] Scientific replication is not rote repetition « Rea rranging the Deckchairs Says: March 7th, 2010 at 11:26 am 27. [...] A replication from clear climate code [...] Climate Update » Blog Archive » A mistaken message from IoP? Says: March 7th, 2010 at 7:26 pm 28. [...] more vehement in recent months even though th e code base and data have been available for years and clearly demo nstrate that the criticisms are [...] GISTEMP: High Alt, High Lat, Rural « The Whiteboard Says: March 8th, 2010 at 2:13 pm 29. [...] drj @ Clear Climate Code http://clearclimatecode.org/the-1990sstation-dropout-does-not-have-a-warming-effect/ [...] Zero Carbon » A mistaken message from IoP? Says: March 8th, 2010 at 9:22 pm 30. [...] more vehement in recent months even though th e code base and data have been available for years and clearly demo nstrate that the criticisms are [...] Emission Trading - Page 124 - Renovate Forums Says: March 8th, 2010 at 10:10 pm 31. [...] without the actual programs, and with the sam e or different data sets as has been done by Tamino, clearclimatecode, The Blackboard, The Whiteboard and others. woodbe. ________________ __ Admission of the week: [...] Steven mosher

Says: March 9th, 2010 at 5:46 am 32. This is great. 

## Page 12 of 16 Clear Climate Code » Blog Archive » The 1990s station dropout does not have a warmi ...

7/29/2010 http://clearclimatecode.org/the - 1990s - station - dropout - does - not - have - a - warming - effect/Can you guys either post the data tables or calcula te trend lines for both cases. drj Says: March 9th, 2010 at 8:03 am 33. @Steven: secret fact about Google charts: the data is in the URL for the image. Right click on the graph and select “Copy Im age Address” (or whatever is equivalent in your browser), then paste that into a document: http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=lc&chds=- 100,100&chtt=Global+Temperature+Anomaly |Land+Stations&chdl=post -cutoff|pre-cutoff&chdlp=t&chd=t:9,-7,27,9,15,1,5,- 32,-13,22,-9,-29, -33,-28,-15,-16,-5,-1,-14,-21,1,1,-21,-29,-36,-25,- 5,-32,-25,-26,- 14,-19,-29,-23,1,3,-12,-37,-27,-8,-13,6,-10,-13,-11 ,-14,6,-9,-2,- 23,-1,3,1,-11,2,-6,6,16,21,-1,9,7,9,5,12,-1,-2,10,- 1,-9,-18,-3,2,11,- 8,-8,-17,9,11,7,1,11,5,2,-24,-17,-9,-2,-13,0,4,-9,- 4,19,-6,-1,- 21,16,6,13,26,38,7,33,13,11,17,32,41,28,48,43,12,18 ,31,45,37,39,70,45,41,56,68,65,58, 77,66,73,55,73, -999%7C-25,-9,-14,-17,-55,-26,-37,-64,-41,-6,-41,-7 2,-55,-60,- 65,-54,-53,-22,-14,-32,-9,-9,-33,-42,-48,-35,-21,-4 9,-43,-41,-28, -35,-28,-28,0,11,-27,-65,-36,-9,-19,-12,-13,-16,-16 ,-19,3,-6,2,- 23,-3,2,5,-14,5,-10,0,9,12,2,20,16,14,2,11,2,2,12,- 4,-5,-9,-2,6,13,- 7,-8,-27,4,13,6,1,8,5,6,-28,-12,-4,-3,-5,10,9,-21,- 12,16,-14,0,- 19,19,6,13,25,35,9,37,3,18,22,48,46,28,54,46,-999,- 999,-999,-999,- 999,-999,-999,-999,-999,-999,-999,-999,-999,-999,-9 99,-999,- 999,-999,-999&chxt=x,y,r&chxl=0:%7C1880%7C%7C%7C%7C %7C%7C% 7C%7C%7C%7C1890%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C1900%7 C% 7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C1910%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C % 7C%7C%7C1920%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C1930%7C%7 C% 7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C1940%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C % 7C%7C1950%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C1960%7C%7C%7 C% 7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C1970%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C % 7C1980%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C1990%7C%7C%7C%7 C% 7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C2000%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C% 7C2010%7C1:%7C%7C-0.5%7C+0.0%7C+0.5%7C%7C2:%7C%7C-0 .5% 7C+0.0%7C+0.5%7C&chco=ff0000,0000ff&chs=440×330 See that list of mostly 2 digit numbers separated b y commas? That’ s the two data series (separated by %7C in the middle). T he numbers are the actual anomalies in centikelvin (or 0.01 °C if you prefer). -999 is “no data”. 

## Page 13 of 16 Clear Climate Code » Blog Archive » The 1990s station dropout does not have a warmi ...

7/29/2010 http://clearclimatecode.org/the - 1990s - station - dropout - does - not - have - a - warming - effect/This is true for most (all?) of the charts I’ve pre pared for this blog. They’re made with Clear Climate Code’s vischeck.py tool . drj Says: March 9th, 2010 at 8:08 am 34. Trend calculation was always on the todo list; now I’ve created Issue 49 so that we have a permanent reminder. drj Says: March 12th, 2010 at 7:45 am 35. @Steven: Trends calculated, updated chart in a newer blog post Dane CRU – średnie globalne anomalie temperatury | Prognozy numeryczne GFS/WRF

Says: March 18th, 2010 at 6:23 pm 36. [...] przypomnieć, Ŝe chłopaki z ccc-gisstemp potwi erdzają dokładnie to samo w stosunku do analizy GISS. Wygląda więc na to , Ŝe problem ów wylągł się jedynie w głowach [...] Scholars and Rogues » Climategate accusations shriv el under the glare of multiple investigations Says: April 19th, 2010 at 11:20 am 37. [...] that better statistical methods would have ch anged the results – NASA, NCDC, and now multiple different amateur reco nstructions have all replicated the basic results of CRU using the s ame raw data CRU [...] » Af hverju eru færri veðurstöðvar og hver eru áhri f þess? Loftslag.is

Says: May 16th, 2010 at 5:20 pm 38. [...] greining var einnig gerð af Clear Climate Cod e, sem bar einnig saman hitastigsgögn fyrir stöðvarnar sem duttu út o g þær sem haldið var [...] D’Aleo at Heartland: An Apple a Day « The Whiteboar d Says: May 25th, 2010 at 4:40 am 39. [...] Clear Climate Code, Feb. 26, 2010 compares GI STEMP type calculations of global surface temperature anomalie s based on the “full” and “cut-off” thermometer set. They find no major d ifferences between the two traces. [...] The Effect of Station “Dropout” on Gistemp | PeterO'Neill's Blog Says: June 25th, 2010 at 3:01 am 40. 

## Page 14 of 16 Clear Climate Code » Blog Archive » The 1990s station dropout does not have a warmi ...

7/29/2010 http://clearclimatecode.org/the - 1990s - station - dropout - does - not - have - a - warming - effect/[...] results have been published recently at ClearClimate Code and by Tamino at “Open Mind”. This post provides further d etail of the effect at [...] Prawdziwe „Climategate” | Prognozy numeryczne GFS/W RF Says: July 18th, 2010 at 6:42 pm 41. [...] kompletnie się mylili. Więcej na ten temat tu taj. Na stronie projektu ccc-gistemp takŜe moŜna znaleźć dowody, Ŝe skasowan ie znacznej ilości stacji nie miało Ŝadnego wpływu na obserwowa ne trendy. [...] 

## Leave a Reply

Name (required) (required)

Mail (will not be published) Mail (will not be published) (required) (required)

Website

Submit Comment 

## Page 15 of 16 Clear Climate Code » Blog Archive » The 1990s station dropout does not have a warmi ...

7/29/2010 http://clearclimatecode.org/the - 1990s - station - dropout - does - not - have - a - warming - effect/

## RECENT POSTS ccc-gistemp release 0.5.1 Opening up the IPCC Airport Warming OKCon CCC Presentation Trendy! 

## ARCHIVES July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 

## META Log in Valid XHTML XFN WordPress  Powered by 

## Page 16 of 16 Clear Climate Code » Blog Archive » The 1990s station dropout does not have a warmi ...

7/29/2010 http://clearclimatecode.org/the - 1990s - station - dropout - does - not - have - a - warming - effect/