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

2015-08-20 Thread 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 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 

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

2015-08-20 Thread 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

2015-08-20 Thread 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 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 

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

2015-08-20 Thread 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 
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 

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

2015-08-20 Thread 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*
 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:
 

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

2015-08-20 Thread 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*
http://www.realclearpolicy.com/authors/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