Educated Opinions on Climate change - a denouement or a hoax? 25

[NomLaser]

It seems that NASA was busy editing data as well.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/...ement-over-1998-1934-u-s-temperature-ranking/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/...he-other-side-now-online-all-five-parts-here/

I haven't had a chance to watch the videos from John Coleman yet. From what I have gathered he is a well respected meteorologist in Cali. I may be understating his credentials, I haven't dug any further than reading these articles and looking at a few of the emails.

So much for having a good historical record to fall back on.

One of the biggest rebuttals that I keep hearing is from warmists is, "surely NASA isn't involved in some massive cover-up to manipulate data...that would take a large amount of coordination and communication." It does appear that UEA wasn't the only data record holder that was changing their data to support AWG. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't this now cover the three holders of the temperature datasets and show that they all manipulated the data?

 

[rb1957]

geez, we nearly went a month without a post !

i'll watch those vids tonight

 

[NomLaser]

yeah well i have been busy and didn't check Eng-tips at all over the holidays and work has been crazy for the past 2 weeks.

 

[jmw]

Some insightful stuff when you follow the links to here:

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/gistemp-a-human-view/

It really does make you wonder.
If this was work attempted to be presented by an undergraduate, they be slung out.
The migration of temperature stations to warmer climates is interesting, plus the "deletion" of weather stations in the north ("deletion": I didn't understand if this was just data that was excluded from the data sets or whether thes stations had actually dissappeared).

This really has been a major scam.
The thing is, the "don't confuse weather with climate " cries that now erupt from warmists (who were themselves keen to seize on every individual event and claim it a result of warming) is slightly set back when the UK/s met office uses the same computer and programs for both Climate change and weather.
So I'm led to believe.

I just heard the MET office on the radio defending itself (rather than their chairman's 25% pay rise).
An obviously under pressure spokesperson said "I can't guarantee what weather you'll get in your garden."

Ironically, the collapse in belief in AGW, the sudden airing of "denier" perspective in the mainstream media and TV shows such as the one linked above, probably owes as mch to the current cold weather as to the science. One has to presume that a significant proportion of AGW believers only ever believed it because Gore told them, they liked the movie, they believed the "consensus" stories and they trusted the scientists and the journalists, not because they read or understood the science. Well, fair does. All the while the warmers camp were prepared to accept support on that basis, so now they discover it is a two edged sword and science or not, it is a long cold snap with 1200 or more records broken in the USA that may have overnight washed out that support. That, I suggest, is why the MSM may be starting to open up a bit.



JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[owg]

Thanks NomLaser for those links. I have doubted the temperature record for some time but I had no idea it was so bad. I know its complicated, but I would be interested to see if the "6000" TIs and their "average" readings for say 1985, could be reduced so that the 1500 or so remaining match locations of the currently remaining TIs. So now we could compare the average of the 6000 to the average of the 1500 for say 1985. If the 1500 average is significantly hotter than the 6000 average that would suggest that cold TIs had been removed from the sample. I would prefer that this be done with raw data, even if a few TIs have been moved across the street or their shields have fallen off.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[NomLaser]

owg

I believe that has already been done and was shown that the colder stations were removed. I could be wrong but that's what I have gathered so far as to the big stink of it has been. I plan on catching up on some reading this weekend and plan to dig into everything surrounding this new info.

 

[ewh]

Here's a related news story out of San Diego -->

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.html

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[NomLaser]

ewh. that's episode 4 of 4 of the videos that i posted a link to. KUSI is the station that John Coleman is a meteorologist at and hosted the 1-hr program.

 

[rb1957]

back to jmw's comment ...
"Ironically, the collapse in belief in AGW, the sudden airing of "denier" perspective in the mainstream media and TV shows such as the one linked above, probably owes as mch to the current cold weather as to the science."

i think the economy has alot to do with it too ... you want us to spend what ?, i need to put bread on the table. also maybe i can save some money being more conscious of what i'm spending on fuel?

 

[NomLaser]

When the EPA came out and declared a natural occurring gas (and plant food) a hazard and pollutant, that should have threw up several flags then. No one really seemed to notice though.

 

[eliebl]

Just because the EPA declared something a hazard does not necessarily make it so. I laughed at that one too.

 

[cranky108]

The EPA in the past declaired several chemicals as bad for the enviroment, or a possible carcengion. Will those be investigated again?

What about freon, PCB's, and DDT? Where the past clames realistic?

 

[GregLocock]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18363-debate-heats-up-over-ipcc-melting-glaciers-claim.html

Well done Fred.

Cheers

Greg Locock

I rarely exceed 1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight

 

[NomLaser]

TY Greg. I read that at

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/...chauris-arrogance-claim-backfires/#more-15350

as well. Looks like IPCC is starting to crumble.

I finally got a chance to watch the videos on Sunday and they are made pretty well. I wish that they would have put them out in better quality video format though.

 

[ewh]

You're right, NomLaser... same videos. I had tried to post a link listing all four episodes, but you did beat me to it.

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[NomLaser]

eliebl (Mechanical)
17 Jan 10 11:36
Just because the EPA declared something a hazard does not necessarily make it so. I laughed at that one too.

Maybe not but it does give them the ability to regulate it without Congress approval (or buy-in from constituents).

 

[josephv]

Hi NomLaser,

Do you know which natural occurring gas and plant food were declared hazards by the EPA?

The reason I ask is because labeling something "natural occurring" does not make it safe. For instance, lead, mercury and cadmium are natural occurring. Furthermore, even something as benign as salt can cause damage in high concentrations. Another example is high concentrations of phosphate in lakes that cause eutrophication.

http://toxics.usgs.gov/definitions/eutrophication.html

Cheers,

 

[NomLaser]

Carbon Dioxide and that is my final answer Regis

 

[josephv]

Actually, the EPA "identified six greenhouse gases that pose a potential threat".

Furthermore, what you wrote is misleading since the EPA did not say that CO2 is in itself a hazard, but rather the effects of CO2 and other greenhouse gases on the earth's climate make them a threat to public health/welfare.

"Additional impacts of climate change include, but are not limited to:

* increased drought;
* more heavy downpours and flooding;
* more frequent and intense heat waves and wildfires;
* greater sea level rise;
* more intense storms; and
* harm to water resources, agriculture, wildlife and ecosystems."

Here is the full link:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpres...0ef7df675805295d8525759b00566924!OpenDocument

 

[NomLaser]

Thanks joseph for clarification. I still don't see where they are saying that it's the effects rather than the gas itself that are the issue and what they want to control. They state that the 6 gasses contribute to pollution, even though CO2 isn't a pollutant. Still I would rather not argue semantics over the legal verbiage that they put out rather that they listed CO2 as a pollutant.