U.S. has COOLED .4 deg celsius since 2005. Number of special weather events,.ie tornadoes, fires, hurricanes, has significantly reduced over past decade.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... g-cooling/




Is it good news that the government got away with this bullshit for so long?kalm wrote:If the article is correct this is good news.


Yep...detecting tornadoes ≠ more happening.GannonFan wrote:The NOAA has said for years that the number of severe tornadoes has been steady, i.e. there's been no correlation between rising temperatures and an increase in the number of severe tornadoes. There has been an increase in the total number of tornadoes over the past 50 years or so, but almost all of that has been due to improved methods of detecting tornadoes, especially the small, F1 ones, that went undetected prior to better measuring tools.

I lean towards thisclenz wrote:Yep...detecting tornadoes ≠ more happening.GannonFan wrote:The NOAA has said for years that the number of severe tornadoes has been steady, i.e. there's been no correlation between rising temperatures and an increase in the number of severe tornadoes. There has been an increase in the total number of tornadoes over the past 50 years or so, but almost all of that has been due to improved methods of detecting tornadoes, especially the small, F1 ones, that went undetected prior to better measuring tools.
We've had quite a few the past couple weeks here in the Eastern Iowa area - almost all of them F2 or smaller, including the 2 or 3 last night.
Of the roughly 10-12 the last 2 or 3 weeks I'd bet only 4 or 5 would have been "confirmed" prior to 10-15 years ago.
It's a lot like peanut allergy or autism stats. Is it happening more or being diagnosed/caught because of better medical technology?
Wasn't the big surge in autism due to a change in the definitions as well as more diagnoses?clenz wrote:Yep...detecting tornadoes ≠ more happening.GannonFan wrote:The NOAA has said for years that the number of severe tornadoes has been steady, i.e. there's been no correlation between rising temperatures and an increase in the number of severe tornadoes. There has been an increase in the total number of tornadoes over the past 50 years or so, but almost all of that has been due to improved methods of detecting tornadoes, especially the small, F1 ones, that went undetected prior to better measuring tools.
We've had quite a few the past couple weeks here in the Eastern Iowa area - almost all of them F2 or smaller, including the 2 or 3 last night.
Of the roughly 10-12 the last 2 or 3 weeks I'd bet only 4 or 5 would have been "confirmed" prior to 10-15 years ago.
It's a lot like peanut allergy or autism stats. Is it happening more or being diagnosed/caught because of better medical technology?
http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2012/06/ ... sis/15957/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;A new study suggests that changes to autism diagnosis criteria may be more to blame for rising rates of the developmental disorder than anything else.
Since the 1960s, autism prevalence rates have skyrocketed from 4 in 10,000 children to a current reported rate of 1 in 88. The reason behind the rise, however, has remained unclear.
Now researchers are shedding new light on the trend by applying current diagnostic criteria to data from a 1980s study on autism prevalence in what’s believed to be a first-of-its-kind analysis.
That last few summers haven't been nearly as unbearable as they used to be and our winters are getting worst.travelinman67 wrote:NOAA finally releases REAL data. Admits having "adjusted" U.S. data since 2005.
U.S. has COOLED .4 deg celsius since 2005. Number of special weather events,.ie tornadoes, fires, hurricanes, has significantly reduced over past decade.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... g-cooling/
Same up hereIbanez wrote:That last few summers haven't been nearly as unbearable as they used to be and our winters are getting worst.travelinman67 wrote:NOAA finally releases REAL data. Admits having "adjusted" U.S. data since 2005.
U.S. has COOLED .4 deg celsius since 2005. Number of special weather events,.ie tornadoes, fires, hurricanes, has significantly reduced over past decade.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... g-cooling/
Don't get me wrong, Gold Bond sales continue to do well down here, but the last 2-3 summers were nothing compared to the summers in the early 2000s or even the 1990s.

CitadelGrad wrote:Is it good news that the government got away with this bullshit for so long?kalm wrote:If the article is correct this is good news.
Have you asked yourself why the government would go to such great lengths to lie about climate data?

Ibanez wrote:How do we know this is the real data? Can we trust NOAA? OWLS!


CitadelGrad wrote:Is it good news that the government got away with this bullshit for so long?kalm wrote:If the article is correct this is good news.
Have you asked yourself why the government would go to such great lengths to lie about climate data?


It has been good news for decades ever since the left tried to lie about the next ice age......failed and then lied about global warming. My guess is now they will lie about...........the next ice age.kalm wrote:If the article is correct this is good news.


You no I wasn't referring to that part, Spanos.CID1990 wrote:CitadelGrad wrote:
Is it good news that the government got away with this bullshit for so long?
Have you asked yourself why the government would go to such great lengths to lie about climate data?
lol
asking klam loaded questions

No, but you were being hoisted on your own petardkalm wrote:You no I wasn't referring to that part, Spanos.CID1990 wrote:
lol
asking klam loaded questions

When it's shown other than in an opinion piece that NOAA willfully withheld data, I'll pass judgement.CID1990 wrote:No, but you were being hoisted on your own petardkalm wrote:
You no I wasn't referring to that part, Spanos.

What he meant to say.kalm wrote:When the liars confess, I'll stop repeating their lies...though, I'll always defend them.CID1990 wrote:
No, but you were being hoisted on your own petard

I checked for news articles this morning regarding this and there were none...just a bunch of references to the whatsupwiththat.com. The article you posted didn't have a link to NoAA's information. It's cute how selectively skeptical you are.travelinman67 wrote:What he meant to say.kalm wrote:
When the liars confess, I'll stop repeating their lies...though, I'll always defend them.

Or why they would go to such lengths to lie about freedom and democracy..?CitadelGrad wrote:Is it good news that the government got away with this bullshit for so long?kalm wrote:If the article is correct this is good news.
Have you asked yourself why the government would go to such great lengths to lie about climate data?

It was Steve Goddard who discovered the tampering, and has been cited by numerous websites and publications. Here's his original post, with discussion:kalm wrote:I checked for news articles this morning regarding this and there were none...just a bunch of references to the whatsupwiththat.com. The article you posted didn't have a link to NoAA's information. It's cute how selectively skeptical you are.travelinman67 wrote:
What he meant to say.

Like I said...travelinman67 wrote:It was Steve Goddard who discovered the tampering, and has been cited by numerous websites and publications. Here's his original post, with discussion:kalm wrote:
I checked for news articles this morning regarding this and there were none...just a bunch of references to the whatsupwiththat.com. The article you posted didn't have a link to NoAA's information. It's cute how selectively skeptical you are.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data ... ushcngiss/
There have been subsequent posts with state specific analysis, discussion of the so-called "zombie" sites, and rationalization of the zombie data, with at least one alarmist even suggesting ALL the zombie sites were always hotter, therefore, USHCN was reasonable to remove those sites from the study and substitute ESTIMATED readings which, by coincidence, changed the results 180 degrees.
Perfectly
Reasonable
![]()
You've already been handed the advantage of Google editing/blocking anti AGW search results. If you REALLY want to be perceived as having an open mind, you should become familiar with the non-alarmist research.
Go back to practicing...look at Cream's White Room. Mostly rhythm with Clapton throwing in some finger muting to augment...pretty cool.

Accuracy.kalm wrote:Like I said...travelinman67 wrote:
It was Steve Goddard who discovered the tampering, and has been cited by numerous websites and publications. Here's his original post, with discussion:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data ... ushcngiss/
There have been subsequent posts with state specific analysis, discussion of the so-called "zombie" sites, and rationalization of the zombie data, with at least one alarmist even suggesting ALL the zombie sites were always hotter, therefore, USHCN was reasonable to remove those sites from the study and substitute ESTIMATED readings which, by coincidence, changed the results 180 degrees.
Perfectly
Reasonable
![]()
You've already been handed the advantage of Google editing/blocking anti AGW search results. If you REALLY want to be perceived as having an open mind, you should become familiar with the non-alarmist research.
Go back to practicing...look at Cream's White Room. Mostly rhythm with Clapton throwing in some finger muting to augment...pretty cool.
...I am slow