The NASA files (and 1934 vs 1998)

15 Jan 2010

Released as a result of a US Freedom Of Information requests regarding, amongst other things, the squabble over whether the hottest year in the USA was 1998 or 1934. (By the way, how do they get away with adjusting the historical data DOWNWARDS? - 1934 was at one time .5 C higher than 1998 and over the years was repressed until they were equal.)

http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2010/783_NASA_docs.pdf

Bishop Hill has found this gem of letter from the dear ol' Beeb to NASA in 2007.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2....ml#entry6328439

The Bish says: "Here's the fair and balanced BBC approaching NASA for an interview, in another email from the NASA collection... Can anyone tell the difference between James and a green campaigner?"


From: James Morgan-GW
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:00:21 +0100
To: Leslie.M.McCarthy
Subject: BBC TV series

Dear Lesley,
I am a researcher from the BBC, in the UK. I am developing a landmark television series, looking at the effects of artificial chemicals (all things toxic!) on our environment on a global scale. It will be the ultimate global health check - an update on where we stand now, 45 years since Rachel Carson wrote her influential and controversial book Silent Spring. Using similar headings as Carson for the chapters in her book, the six episodes will be as follows:

Planet
Oceans (and Rivers)
Humans
Insects, Soils and Funghi
Animals, Birds & Fish
Our Green Mantle (trees, plants etc)

Regarding the first episode, "Planet", I am keen to speak to NASA scientists who are using satellites to measure atmospheric pollution from space. Your colleague Rob, in the Goddard media relations office, has recommended four scientists, who you may be able to put me in touch with:

James Hansen, Drew Schindel, Gavin Schmidt, Reto Reudy

I am keen to get a clear and informed idea of how the Earth has changed in the past four decades, how NASA is measuring these changes, and how we could illustrate these changes in a TV programme in the future. Also, I would like to know about any new and positive developments where chemicals which have been a problem in the atmosphere have been remedied by new and advanced methods?

I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
James

.....

All things toxic in the atmosphere? That would be CO2, then?

....

How the comparison between average US temp for 1934 and 1998 evolved

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_tZroioKRjYM/S0....934+vs+1998.jpg


"It seems the temperature readings were adjusted six times after analysis in July 1999 indicated that the temperature anomaly for 1934 was nearly 60% higher than for 1998. See the above graphic for how GISS adjusted 1934 down and 1998 up until 1998 was warmer than 1934 (the January 2007 analysis) or at least virtually indistinguishable (the March and August 2007 analyses)...

In the UK CRU case, the Medieval Warm Period vanished to present a "nice tidy story". In the US GISS case, a nearly 60% temperature anomaly difference vanished to show that 1998 was as warm as 1934! Are these guys serious scientists or just skilled magicians?"

http://tvpclub.blogspot.com/2010/01/us-version-of-climategate-coming.html

Summer 1934: Statewide Heat Wave

Fremont Messenger, July 25, 1934, detail: "During the heat wave in which the temperature reached a record of 108.5 in Cincinnati, thousands of residents sought relief in the public parks. A mother and baby are shown trying to sleep in the park."

More evidence of NASA's warm bias?

A tip about NASA.

Up until earlier today they had a page on their website http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ saying:

“Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres, and may disappear altogether in certain regions of our planet, such as the Himalayas, by 2030″

Now, without comment they have amended it to “Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa”

Not only did they get it wrong, they got it very wrong. Then to hide embarrassment they changed their story without any comment at all. No public admission of error, just a simple rewriting of history.

What faith can you have in NASA to be objective if they act in such an unscientific manner and without accountability or responsibility?

20 Jan 2010
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/19/ne....ped-for-launch/