Two reports this week have dealt a blow to the government’s unconstitutional efforts to regulate carbon dioxide. The EPA agency is attempting to bypass the constitutional mandate that any regulation must come from congress and doing so by using failing IPCC and laboratory climate models and NOAA data.
General Accounting Office (GAO) report this week took NOAA to task for station siting issues:
“NOAA does not centrally track whether USHCN stations adhere to siting standards…nor does it have an agency-wide policy regarding stations that don’t meet standards.” The report continues, “Many of the USHCN stations have incomplete temperature records; very few have complete records. 24 of the 1,218 stations (about 2 percent) have complete data from the time they were established.” GAO goes on to state that most stations with long temperature records are likely to have undergone multiple changes in measurement conditions.
The report shows by their methodology that 42% of the network in 2010 failed to meet siting standards. Some of the stations that were worst offenders of siting quality have been removed since the non-governmental, all volunteer, not for profit surfacestations.org project photographic assessment of well over 1000 of the 1200 US climate stations in the USHCN network published its findings. Here is an example of a before and after station in Ardmore, OK, within a few feet of the traffic intersection at City Hall. Remember that sensors are supposed to be 100 feet away from any heat soruce.
Ardmore USHCN station , MMTS temperature sensor, January 2009
Ardmore USHCN station , MMTS temperature sensor removed, March 2011
As Anthony Watts the former TV meteorologist behind the surfacestations.org effort and author of the report and then peer review paper on the station quality issues notes: “While NCDC has gone to great lengths to defend the quality of the USHCN network, their actions of closing them speak far louder than written words and peer reviewed publications.
Here is the GAO summary. By the way Anthony and I had published a global data assessment white paper that we both evolved into a series of independent peer reviewed papers that documents the siting and many other issues with global data. Our motivation is simply before we spend trillions of dollars we don’t have on an issue that is either non existent or exagerrated, we should be working with trustworthy data.
EPA IN THE SPOTLIGHT
Meanwhile, tthe Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Inspector General issued a report that found that the EPA did not follow their own rules and safeguards when making their finding that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. The EPA’s determination has led to a mountain of Clean Air Act regulations that could cost an stimated 1.4 millions US jobs.
“Throughout the past two and a half years, the Environmental Protection Agency has used its ‘endangerment finding’ as a reason to roll out red tape that destroys jobs across America. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has regularly assured Congress and the American people that its finding is based on sound scientific practices.
“It’s clear we’ve all been repeatedly misled. The endangerment finding was based on political expediency – not scientific standards. In fact, the Inspector General reported today that the Agency didn’t even follow its most basic rules. It didn’t conduct peer reviews and it didn’t follow the required record keeping process.”
I was part of a large team that submitted much evidence to the EPA that they were relying on false science and not doing their own proper assessment in making their decisions to try and drastically reduce carbon dioxide.
Whereas we all support reasonable efforts to eliminate real pollution from the air and water, carbon dioxide is n ot a pollutant but a plant fertilizer. We breathe out with every breathe 40,000 ppm CO2 into an atmosphere that contains 393 ppm CO2. In most workplaces and classrooms and even in your kitchen or dining room where your family have breakfast or dinner, CO2 levels can rise to 1500-2000ppm
Most cities have CO2 levels up to double that in the rural air. No harmful effects are observed. CO2 meanwhile has had a huge beneficial effect on plants. Did you know they pump in 1000ppm CO2 into many nursery greenhouses?
As Princeton’s Wil Happer noted that California orange groves are about 30 percent more productive today than they were 150 years ago because of the increase of atmospheric CO2. This has been shown in many experiments with other plants and crops. The first chart is actually from a UN publication.
Temperatures stopped warming globally in the later 1990s.
The tropics and southern hemisphere has shown no statistically significant changes since 1979. Sea levels have actually fallen the last two years.
The media and the enviros like to tell you it is far worse than the IPCC thought. Those that look and see the truth, post on the peer review paper that recently said the heat was playing “Where’s Waldo” hiding in the oceans below 1000 meters – though not specifiying how it got there. In actual fact if heat was hiding in the oceans, expansion of the oceans and rising sea levels would occur.
AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION
Finally I would take to task the American Lung Association who is running ads with a baby carriage with a child coughing while a narrator tells us to urge congress not to take away EPA power to control pollution (implied CO2).
I have had bronchial asthma since childhood. We have come a long way controlling real pollution. Polllution still exists and remedied. But CO2 is a not a health risk and that iss the primary focus of the EPA’s regulatory assault on America. The EPA and APHA even phonied up data to present to congress impliying a health risk from climate change. The government financially supports the ALA who sadly like the EPA did not do its homework before their campaign.
By the way, though NOAA was careless (and at NCDC guilty of some steps that were over the line in data management and assessment) in its climate monitoring efforts, I do not fault at all the many hard working and dedicated NOAA forecasters nationwide who take their jobs seriously and do an excellent job warning the public about weather hazards. They have saved many lives I worked over the years with many of them and applaud the great work they do.
I know this is a weather blog and some of you will have a different opinion on climate change and its causes, but we hope you will keep an open mind and look at the information. If you have questions or comments or requests for more information please write me at email@example.com.
This by the way is not politically driven. I spent my entire meteorological career working with and looking at real data and was inspired by some of the giants in meteorology and climate to look at the oceans (Jerome Namias, first Director of Long Range Forecasting for the USWB – now NWS and later chief meteorologist at Scripps), the cycles on the sun (MIT’s Hurd ‘Doc’ Willett) and urbanization (Helmut Landsberg, the father of climatology). I also know and work with many thinking people on both ends of the politcal spectrum that share many of my views.
My successes over the years because I didn’t regard models and most recently the GFS as God’s Forecasting System. I used real data and historical analogs, my own statistical models and empirical rules as a check on model guidance. Many of my 250 students when i was a professor have gone onto very successful careers in meteorology and I am proud of what they have accomplished. My goal as a teacher was to teach them how to think not what to think, unfortunately the latter is a direction education has gone in this country in recent years.