Is there a "Temperaturegate" brewing in the U.S.?

Question

Is it time for all of us..... Warmers and Skeptics....to demand that Congress conduct an investigation??

February 24, 2010 
A Pending American Temperaturegate
By Edward R. Long

"We have been repeatedly told (perhaps "lectured" is a better word) the past twenty years that global warming is occurring. With Climategate and subsequent confessions and bailouts by scientists at the CRU, Penn State, Arizona State, IPCC, et al., we are learning that little to none of the factual content in their "peer reviewed" articles is true. The Medieval Warming Period did occur, and it was warmer than currently; the oceans are not going to flood the plains; and the Arctic Ocean may not be turning into a summer water park. 

Of course, the mainstream media, especially in the United States, has reported little of this news, and President Obama appears not to be well-informed. But now the global warming story grows more interesting because here in America, we may have our own little "gate." I will call it ATG, for "American Temperaturegate."

"NOAA's National Climatic Data Center  (NCDC) informs us, based on their "Adjusted Data" for the period from the last decade of the 19th century to 2006, that the temperature for the contiguous U.S. has increased at a rate of 0.69oC/century. NCDC arrives at this conclusion by massaging raw data from a set of meteorological stations located in the contiguous U.S. which they selected on the basis of a 2.5-degree latitude- and 3.5-degree-longitude grid…... 

The most-asked question, most recently by D'Aleo and Watts, is whether the NCDC's reported increase is correct. Perhaps the value is due to a dominant use (over-selection) of stations in urban locations or because of other issues, such as leaving out stations at higher altitudes for the more recent history and retaining them for the more distant past."  

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/a_pending_american_temperature.html

February 24, 2010
EPA Claims they have the real data, and do not need ……. IPCC data
Russ Steele

"In answering Senator Jim Inhofe question about the use of the IPCC reports, the"gold standard for climate change legislation" the EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said the EPA has US data that supports global warming, so there was no need for the IPCC data. Really?

According to NOAA/NCDC the US is warming at 0.69oC/century, based on their adjusted temperatures.  

However, they will not reveal the computer code  and the decision process they use to make those adjustments,  so we can not determine what fudge factors the NCDC might be using."
  
http://ncwatch.typepad.com/

Incipient_planck · Accepted Answer

I agree.  Tests should be done and their methods and their science scrutinized.   How they came up with these numbers are important because they reveal the thought processes.

Then you get individuals hailing the accuracy of satellite images because they basically comport to surface temperatures.   Well without a rawinsonde,  the temperature profile for a given area is not that accurate.   In IR imagery the image is based on reflectivity with the highest tops standing out the most.   Large sheets of dense cirrus and the tops of large thunderstorms can appear the same.  

As for weather balloons (rawinsonde),   those are very far and few between.   Meaning that an accurate accounting of what is going on all the way up from the lowest part to the highest is not being recorded.  Skew-t's are a useful tool but for the reasons above,  their usefulness is limited.

Surface temperatures are collected at mainly airports.  The sensing equipment at most of those places are pretty accurate.   Over the years many sites are now AWOS or automated weather observation sites.   Computer sensors can even give the height of clouds bases up to a certain point.    But low level clouds can go undetected.  The satellite uses visual and infrared images with both having limitations as to their usefulness.

A lot of weather reports come from PIREPS.   These are the pilots descriptions of what they see.  If they are ascending or descending,   they can accurately tell you cloud tops and bases.   They could be one of the best tools for reporting weather at various altitudes and it is real time as well,  not just each 12 hrs.  00 and 12z.   

Saying that satellites prove anything more than a good guess is erroneous.   Like the PIREP or some unofficial observation,  they are useful tools but in no way conclusive.

Anonymous · Answer

As a climate scientist, I would welcome an open investigation. Let’s have a look at Senator Inhofe’s emails - and Gore’s as well (what will deniers say when there are no emails between Gore and scientists or climate research institutions?).

In fact, let’s have it on TV. Climate scientists can present their case and deniers can present theirs. Then each side gets to address the claims of the others. And, I think there should be a big scoreboard with real-time counts of lies, distortions, misrepresentations, and links to political activist groups and industry.

Everyone should be required to make public their education and training relevant to the issue. Everyone busted for blatant lying should be forced to admit it openly via every available media outlet.

Anonymous · Answer

CO2 from the abuse of fossil fuels does a lot more that just make it a bit warmer ON AVERAGE.  Just basing your findings solely on temps is not very scientific.  There is nothing wrong with thermometers.  The rapid increase in CO2 in the oceans is still happening.  We heard all this noise 20 years ago when the IPCC was formed to answer the questions that were asked.   Now, when the facts are presented, the cry go out again for 20 more years of 'research' to hopefully 'disprove' the evidence collected so far.

Dana1981 · Answer

If you really believed the adjusted data was "massaged", all you would have to do is analyze the raw data for yourself.  Like this guy did:

"The claim that the station dropout is responsible for any, let alone most, of the modern warming trend, is utterly, demonstrably, provably false. The claim that adjustments introduced by analysis centers such as NASA GISS have introduced false warming is utterly, demonstrably, provably false."

You lose.

Anonymous · Answer

"And President Obama appears not to be well-informed."

Ha ha, that's been the hallmark of this man's entire Presidency. He's still going on about climate change.

Benjamin · Answer

No. The deniers have been questioning the surface temperature record since, like, forever. Any claims of a "Temperature-gate" are baseless. 

Global warming is now unequivocal. Temperatures as reconstructed from satellites data is in high agreement with  temperatures collected from the surface[1]. There are also numerous natural signs that the world is warming, such as (A) melting glaciers; (B) an increasingly rapid rate of sea level rise; (C) a dramatic reduction in Arctic ice cover in recent years, which includes the summer minimum, winter maximum, thickness and the fact the older ice has been replaced by newer "rotten" ice; (D)  Spring is arriving earlier; (E) a poleward migration of some plant and animal species, (F) etc...

Franky D · Answer

There should be but if there is it will be ignored just as Europe's climate gate was ignored.  Global warming has been a proven fraud and a hoax.  An Amber alert has been issued for Al Gore.

Didier Drogba · Answer

No single example of these discoveries is itself the last 'nail in the coffin' of AGW but it's like Chinese water torture - drip, drip, drip - or should I say ice torture?

timothy p · Answer

What would be the harm in reviewing the Information?  Why the battle over scientific review?  By definition, if you can't question it then it isn't science.

Anonymous · Answer

http://www.surfacestations.org

Let's hope so. I love to see liberals, and especially liberals who lie, squirm.

Trending News

Is there a "Temperaturegate" brewing in the U.S.?

11 Answers