EPA Claims they have the real data, and do not need the phony 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.  We learned about the CRU fudge factors by studying the computer code.

The American Thinker has an interesting analysis this morning of what those factors might be by Edward R. Long a retired NASA scientist.  He concludes in A Pending American Temperaturegate:

1) The rate of increase for rural locations, based on as-measured (raw) values, is small  (if not, in effect, zero) at 0.11 oC/century.

2) There is definitely a UHIE in that the urban raw data has a rate of increase of 0.72oC/century. This tells us that man has caused warming in urban locations. This finding should not surprise anyone. On the other hand, because the rural value is 15% of the urban value, the UHIE has not caused warming in the rural locations, and it certainly has not caused a global sense of warming other than the aspect that the urban location values when averaged with the rural values produce an average increase which is larger than that of the rural alone.

3) The rural + urban value for the adjusted data, 0.65oC/century, is still less than the 0.69oC/century published by the NCDC. Thus, likely, there are more urban than rural sites used by the NCDC. 

4) And this is the "Temperaturegate" aspect: The NCDC's massaging -- they call it "adjusting" -- has resulted in an increase in the rural values, from a raw value of 0.11oC/century to an adjusted value of 0.58oC/century, and no change in the urban values. That is, the NCDC's treatment has forced the rural value to look more like that of the urban. This is the exact opposite of any rational consideration, given the growth of the sizes of and activities within urban locations, unless deception is the goal.

Full article is here. If this is the data that EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is planning on using, they might want to reconsider the source. Bring on "Temperaturegate"