Re: [MBZ] OT More NOAA bias toward Global Warming

[Andrew Strasfogel via Mercedes]

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 
> >> Cc: Meade Dillon 
> >> 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*
> >> 
> >>
> >> 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.
> >

Re: [MBZ] OT More NOAA bias toward Global Warming

[Max Dillon via Mercedes]

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 
 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 
>> Cc: Meade Dillon 
>> 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*
>> 
>> 
>> 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

Re: [MBZ] OT More NOAA bias toward Global Warming

[Mountain Man via Mercedes]

Max wrote:
> A little something to liven up the list!

It ain't good to find bad things that nobody can do something about.
Can Jimmy solve his cancer?
Can we make the globe cooler?
Can elections change USA goobermnt?
Why bother talking about unsolvables?
Maybe I should talk about the rusted 240D I used to have that is now a
toaster oven - so what.
Nice information but nothing is gonna happen and nothing that can
happen will happen.
Cynical - yes!!
Hopeful - yes!!
But not on soo many issues in media these days.
mao

___
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

Re: [MBZ] OT More NOAA bias toward Global Warming

[Scott Ritchey via Mercedes]

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 
> Cc: Meade Dillon 
> 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*
> 
> 
> 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 gove

Re: [MBZ] OT More NOAA bias toward Global Warming

[Rich Thomas via Mercedes]

I see 3 issues:

1.  Is GW happening?

2.  If Yes, what is causing it?

3.  If Yes to 1 and to 2 something within our control, then what is to 
be done about it, by whom, who pays, who controls the spending, etc.?


--R



On 8/20/15 4:31 PM, Andrew Strasfogel via Mercedes wrote:

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*
>
>
>Are political considerations superseding scientific ones at the National
>Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration?


___
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

Re: [MBZ] OT More NOAA bias toward Global Warming

[Andrew Strasfogel via Mercedes]

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*
> 
>
> 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.