I agree!  How about a government research grant to develop a green alternative, 
implement the solution(s) in some target cities and compare vs a control group 
to see if the urban heat island condition can be reduced...
Max Dillon
Charleston SC
'87 300TD
'95 E300

On August 20, 2015 8:12:32 PM EDT, Scott Ritchey via Mercedes 
<mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote:
>I think blacktop paving contributes to GW.  I think this every time I
>cross a parking lot in summer.  We should rip it all up, especially in
>cities where there is so much of it.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mercedes [mailto:mercedes-boun...@okiebenz.com] On Behalf Of
>> Meade Dillon via Mercedes
>> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 4:26 PM
>> To: Mercedes <mercedes@okiebenz.com>
>> Cc: Meade Dillon <dillonm...@gmail.com>
>> Subject: [MBZ] OT More NOAA bias toward Global Warming
>> A little something to liven up the list!
>> e_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
>> Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration?
>> When confronted with an obviously broken weather station that was
>> 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
>> surface temperatures that is in its 19th year, the agency threw away
>> sensed sea-surface temperatures, substituting questionable data that
>> 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
>> temperatures at National were departing from their 1981-2010 averages
>> couple of degrees relative to those at Dulles — in the warm
>> 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
>> 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
>> out — until, all at once, in January 2014 and every month thereafter,
>> departure from average at National was greater than that at Dulles.
>> The average monthly difference for January 2014 through July 2015 is
>> degrees Fahrenheit, which is huge when talking about things like
>> 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
>> who runs the *Washington Post*'s weather blog, Capital Weather Gang.
>> 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
>> But the National Weather Service told the Capital Weather Gang that
>> will be no corrections, despite the fact that the disparity suddenly
>> 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
>> days, which gives us a remote chance of breaking the all time record,
>> also be eliminated, putting this summer rightly back into normal
>> 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
>> over backwards to expunge erroneous record-high readings.
>> In July, by contrast, NOAA had no problem adjusting the global
>> history. In that case, the method they used *guaranteed* that a
>> warming trend would substitute for "the pause." They reported in
>> *that they had replaced the pause (which shows up in every analysis
>> 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
>> 'unconvinced.'"
>> Unfortunately, following this with the kerfuffle over the Reagan
>> 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
>To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
>To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:

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

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:

Reply via email to