Painting urban rooftops white has a very real benefit, if carried out in a
systematic and coordinated way.  Start with new buildings, then retrofit in
stages.

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Max Dillon via Mercedes <
mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote:

> 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!
> >>
> >>
> >
> http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2015/08/20/the_latest_climate_kerfuffl
> >> 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
> >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
> _______________________________________
> 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