I guess we can all rest easy now - global warming is obviously a total hoax.

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Meade Dillon via Mercedes <
mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote:

> A little something to liven up the list!
>
>
> http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2015/08/20/the_latest_climate_kerfuffle_1397.html
>
> August 20, 2015The Latest Climate Kerfuffle*By* *Patrick Michaels*
> <http://www.realclearpolicy.com/authors/patrick_michaels/>
>
> Are political considerations superseding scientific ones at the National
> Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration?
>
> When confronted with an obviously broken weather station that was reading
> way too hot, they replaced the faulty sensor — but refused to adjust the
> bad readings it had already taken. And when dealing with "the pause" in
> global surface temperatures that is in its 19th year, the agency threw away
> satellite-sensed sea-surface temperatures, substituting questionable data
> that showed no pause.
>
> The latest kerfuffle is local, not global, but happens to involve probably
> the most politically important weather station in the nation, the one at
> Washington's Reagan National Airport.
>
> I'll take credit for this one. I casually noticed that the monthly average
> temperatures at National were departing from their 1981-2010 averages a
> couple of degrees relative to those at Dulles — in the warm direction.
>
> Temperatures at National are almost always higher than those at Dulles, 19
> miles away. That's because of the well-known urban warming effect, as well
> as an elevation difference of 300 feet. But the weather systems that
> determine monthly average temperature are, in general, far too large for
> there to be any significant difference in the *departure from average* at
> two stations as close together as Reagan and Dulles. Monthly data from
> recent decades bear this out — until, all at once, in January 2014 and
> every month thereafter, the departure from average at National was greater
> than that at Dulles.
>
> The average monthly difference for January 2014 through July 2015 is 2.1
> degrees Fahrenheit, which is huge when talking about things like record
> temperatures. For example, National's all-time record last May was only 0.2
> degrees above the previous record.
>
> Earlier this month, I sent my findings to Jason Samenow, a terrific
> forecaster who runs the *Washington Post*'s weather blog, Capital Weather
> Gang. He and his crew verified what I found and wrote up their version,
> giving due credit and adding other evidence that something was very wrong
> at National. And, in remarkably quick action for a government agency, the
> National Weather Service swapped out the sensor within a week and found
> that the old one was reading 1.7 degrees too high. Close enough to 2.1, the
> observed difference.
>
> But the National Weather Service told the Capital Weather Gang that there
> will be no corrections, despite the fact that the disparity suddenly began
> 19 months ago and varied little once it began. It said correcting for the
> error wouldn't be "scientifically defensible." Therefore, people can and
> will cite the May record as evidence for dreaded global warming with
> impunity. Only a few weather nerds will know the truth. Over a third of
> this year's 37 90-degree-plus days, which gives us a remote chance of
> breaking the all time record, should also be eliminated, putting this
> summer rightly back into normal territory.
>
> It is really politically unwise not to do a simple adjustment on these
> obviously-too-hot data. With all of the claims that federal science is
> being biased in service of the president's global-warming agenda, the
> agency should bend over backwards to expunge erroneous record-high
> readings.
>
> In July, by contrast, NOAA had no problem adjusting the global temperature
> history. In that case, the method they used *guaranteed* that a growing
> warming trend would substitute for "the pause." They reported in *Science
> *that
> they had replaced the pause (which shows up in every analysis of satellite
> and weather balloon data) with a significant warming trend.
>
> Normative science says a trend is "statistically significant" if there's
> less than a 5 percent probability that it would happen by chance. NOAA
> claimed significance at the 10 percent level, something no graduate student
> could ever get away with. There were several other major problems with the
> paper. As Judy Curry, a noted climate scientist at Georgia Tech, wrote,
> "color me 'unconvinced.'"
>
> Unfortunately, following this with the kerfuffle over the Reagan
> temperature records is only going to "convince" even more people that our
> government is blowing hot air on global warming.
>
> *Patrick Michaels is director of the Center for the Study of Science at the
> Cato Institute.*
>
>
>
> -------------
> Max
> Charleston SC
> _______________________________________
> http://www.okiebenz.com
>
> To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
>
> To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
> http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
>
>
_______________________________________
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

Reply via email to