Feb 8, 2010 9:01 PM Posted by davidbernard Did you notice?! It was cold this morning. Almost everyone fell in the 40s! We will see it a bit warmer on Tuesday but another cold front arrives Tuesday night. It stays pretty cool for the middle of the week with the chance of chilly lows by Thursday morning. If clouds remain extensive, then overnight lows might not get as cold. Here are this morning's readings. FORT LAUDERDALE INTL 49
FORT LAUDERDALE EXEC 46
MIAMI INTERNATIONAL 51
OPA LOCKA AIRPORT 48
PEMBROKE PINES 47
POMPANO BEACH AIRPORT 47
WEST KENDALL 47
WEST PALM BEACH 44
Feb 8, 2010 12:00 AM Posted by davidbernard A rather strong cold front arrives Tuesday night. Clouds may linger Wednesday and Thursday and temperatures might not reach 70! Otherwise, it's pretty nice most of the week with only some showers Tuesday evening and again on Friday.
Feb 1, 2010 10:04 PM Posted by davidbernard Miami and Key West set a daily rainfall record today. Here are the details from National Weather Service Miami RECORD EVENT REPORT NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE MIAMI, FL 835 PM EST MON FEB 01 2010 RECORD DAILY MAXIMUM RAINFALL SET AT MIAMI AT MIAMI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, 2.90 INCHES OF RAIN FELL TODAY. THIS AMOUNT BREAKS THE PREVIOUS DAILY RECORD RAINFALL TOTAL OF 1.09 WHICH WAS SET ON THIS DATE IN 1976. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECORD EVENT REPORT NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE KEY WEST, FL 450 PM EST MON FEB 1 2010 RECORD DAILY MAXIMUM RAINFALL SET AT KEY WEST A RECORD DAILY RAINFALL AMOUNT OF 1.60 INCHES WAS SET AT THE KEY WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT TODAY. THIS IS MORE THAN DOUBLE THE OLD RECORD OF 0.71 INCHES SET IN KEY WEST ON FEBRUARY 1 1919. Jan 29, 2010 11:10 PM Posted by davidbernard Biggest and Brightest Full Moon of 2010
Robert Roy Britt
Editorial Director
SPACE.com Robert Roy Britt
editorial Director
Tonight's full moon
will be the biggest and brightest full moon of the year. It offers
anyone with clear skies an opportunity to identify easy-to-see features
on the moon.
This being the first full moon
of 2010, it is also known as the wolf moon, a moniker dating back to
Native American culture and the notion that hungry wolves howled at the
full moon on cold winter nights. Each month brings another full moon name.
But why will this moon be bigger than others? Here's how the moon works:
The
moon is, on average, 238,855 miles (384,400 km) from Earth. The moon's
orbit around Earth – which causes it to go through all its phases once
every 29.5 days – is not a perfect circle, but rather an ellipse. One
side of the orbit is 31,070 miles (50,000 km) closer than the other.
So
in each orbit, the moon reaches this closest point to us, called
perigee. Once or twice a year, perigee coincides with a full moon, as
it will tonight, making the moon bigger and brighter than any other full moons during the year.
Tonight it will be about 14 percent wider and 30 percent brighter than lesser full Moons of the year, according to Spaceweather.com.
As a bonus, Mars will be just to the left of the moon tonight. Look for the reddish, star-like object.
Full moon craziness
Many people think full moons cause strange behavior among animals and even humans. In fact several studies over the years have tried to tie lunar phases
to births, heart attacks, deaths, suicides, violence, psychiatric
hospital admissions and epileptic seizures, and more. Connections have
been inclusive or nonexistent.
The moon does have some odd effects on our planet, and there are oodles of other amazing moon facts and misconceptions:
- A full moon at perigee also brings higher ocean tides. This tug of the moon on Earth also creates tides in the planet's crust, not just in the oceans.
- Beaches are more polluted during full moon, owing to the higher tides.
- In
reality, there's no such thing as a full moon. The full moon occurs
when the sun, Earth and the moon are all lined up, almost. If they're
perfectly aligned, Earth casts a shadow on the moon and there's a total lunar eclipse. So during what we call a full moon, the moon's face is actually slightly less than 100 percent illuminated.
- The moon is moving away as you read this, by about 1.6 inches (4 cm) a year.
The moon illusion
Finally,
be sure to get out and see the full moon as it rises, right around
sunset. Along the horizon, the moon tends to seem even bigger. This is
just an illusion.
You can prove to yourself
that this is an illusion. Taking a small object such as a pencil
eraser, hold it at arm's length, and compare its size to that of the
moon just as it rises. Then repeat the experiment later in the night
and you'll see that the moon compares the same in both cases.
Alternately, snap two photos of the moon, with a digital camera or your
cell phone, when the moon is near the horizon and later when it's
higher in the sky. Pull both photos up on your computer screen and make
a side-by-side comparison.
Astronomers and psychologists agree the moon illusion is just that, but they don't agree on how to explain it. Jan 27, 2010 9:42 PM Posted by davidbernard  Cyclone Olivia 1996 Mt. Washington in New Hampshire now longer holds the world record for highest wind gust. After years of verification, that title now goes to Barrow Island, Australia. FROM MPR NEWS by Paul Huttner For 62 years Mt. Washington, New Hampshire claimed the title of
world's worst weather. Well, at least the highest wind gust ever
recorded.
That record was literally blown away this week.
A panel of scientists from the World Meteorological Organization
confirmed this week that Barrow Island, Australia is now owner of the world's highest wind gust. The peak gust of 253 mph was recorded during the passage of Tropical Cyclone Olivia on April 10th, 1996.
That eclipsed the 231 mph wind gust recorded on Mt. Washington in
1934 by 22 mph. The Mt. Washington gust stood as the world record for
62 years.
The World Meteoroloigcal Organization's Commission for Climatology's panel of scientists reviewed several wind gusts recorded during Olivia's passage. They looked at
gusts of 186 mph, 229 mph and 233 mph which helped support the
conclusion that the reading was accurate.
The 3-second gusts were recorded by a heavy duty 3-cup Synchrotac
anemometer operated by the Chevron Corporation at the 33 foot level
above ground. Barrow Island is located 31 miles off the northwest coast
of Australia. Jan 26, 2010 10:20 PM Posted by davidbernard It's severe weather awareness week in South Florida. We don't see a lot of severe weather in the winter, but that is not always the case. One big exception are El Nino winters. We are currently in one. February and March seem to be the most common months for severe thunderstorms and/or tornadoes in South Florida during El Nino events. Here is a statement from the National Weather Service. FLORIDA SEVERE WEATHER AWARENESS WEEK
THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE WILL ISSUE A PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT
EACH DAY NEXT WEEK
FOCUSING ON A SPECIFIC WEATHER HAZARD.
ON MONDAY, JANUARY 25, THE
HAZARD WILL BE LIGHTNING.
ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 26, MARINE HAZARDS AND
RIP CURRENTS WILL BE DISCUSSED.
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27 WILL COVER
TORNADOES AND THUNDERSTORMS, AND WILL FEATURE A STATEWIDE TORNADO
DRILL BEGINNING AT 800 AM AND CULMINATING WITH A TEST TORNADO
WARNING AT 1010 AM.
THURSDAY, JANUARY 28 WILL HIGHLIGHT HURRICANES
AND FLOODING.
FRIDAY, JANUARY 29 WILL END THE WEEK WITH HEAT, COLD
AND WILDFIRE THREATS BEING DISCUSSED.
ALTHOUGH SOUTH FLORIDA IS BLESSED WITH NICE WEATHER MOST OF THE
YEAR, IT IS NOT IMMUNE TO HAZARDOUS WEATHER. A TOTAL OF 8 PEOPLE
DIED IN SOUTH FLORIDA AS A RESULT OF WEATHER RELATED HAZARDS IN
2009, WITH AN ADDITIONAL 14 PEOPLE INJURED. AS IS NORMALLY THE CASE
EACH YEAR, RIP CURRENTS LED ALL HAZARDS WITH 5 DEATHS AND 8
INJURIES, WITH TWO DEATHS ATTRIBUTED TO LIGHTNING AND ONE TO COLD
EXPOSURE/HYPOTHERMIA.
SOUTH FLORIDA WAS HIT BY TWO SEVERE FREEZES IN 2009, ONE ON JANUARY
21/22 AND THE OTHER ON FEBRUARY 5. ANOTHER SEVERE FREEZE OCCURRED
LESS THAN TWO WEEKS AGO. THE COMBINATION OF THESE FREEZE EVENTS
CAUSED SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE TO CROPS, WITH LOSSES FROM THE 2009 EVENTS
ALONE ESTIMATED AT OVER $60 MILLION.
2009 MARKED THE FOURTH YEAR IN A ROW THAT SOUTH FLORIDA WAS NOT
DIRECTLY IMPACTED BY A HURRICANE. IN FACT, NO TROPICAL SYSTEMS
IMPACTED SOUTH FLORIDA LAST YEAR, THE FIRST TIME SINCE 2003 THAT
SOUTH FLORIDA WAS NOT EVEN INDIRECTLY IMPACTED BY A TROPICAL
CYCLONE. NEVERTHELESS, THIS SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED AS A SIGN OF
THINGS TO COME IN FUTURE HURRICANE SEASONS. STATISTICALLY SPEAKING,
SOUTH FLORIDA REMAINS THE MOST HURRICANE-PRONE PART OF THE UNITED
STATES.
DESPITE THE WETTER AND STORMIER THAN NORMAL 2009 RAINY SEASON, LESS
TORNADOES AND SEVERE THUNDERSTORMS WERE NOTED THAN IN PREVIOUS
YEARS. SIGNIFICANT FLOODING TOOK PLACE ON JUNE 5 ON MIAMI BEACH
WHERE OVER NINE INCHES OF RAIN FELL IN JUST OVER 2 HOURS, CAUSING
WATER TO ENTER STRUCTURES AND SEVERELY FLOOD STREETS. AN EVEN
HEAVIER RAIN EVENT OCCURRED ON THE EVENING OF DECEMBER 17 IN
NORTHEAST MIAMI-DADE AND SOUTHEAST BROWARD COUNTIES, CAUSING MAJOR
FLOODING OF OVER 80 BUILDINGS AND SEVERELY INUNDATING LARGE PORTIONS
OF NEIGHBORHOODS FROM DANIA BEACH SOUTH TO DOWNTOWN MIAMI.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON SEVERE WEATHER AWARENESS WEEK, AS WELL AS
YOUR ONE-STOP SOURCE OF WEATHER INFORMATION INCLUDING WARNINGS AND
FORECASTS, PLEASE VISIT THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN MIAMI
WEBSITE AT WEATHER.GOV/SOUTHFLORIDA.
Jan 25, 2010 9:44 PM Posted by davidbernard Here's an ooops! from the global warming crowd. Look for more of these "revelations" to seep out over the next couple of years. Again, you sure couldn't find this ANYWHERE in the mainstream media.
From The Times
January 23, 2010
UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in reportThe Indian head of the UN climate change panel defended his position yesterday
even as further errors were identified in the panel's assessment of
Himalayan glaciers.
Dr Rajendra Pachauri dismissed calls for him to resign over the
Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’s retraction of a prediction that
Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.
But he admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section of
the report, and said that he was considering whether to take action against
those responsible.
“I know a lot of climate sceptics are after my blood, but I’m in no mood to
oblige them,” he told The Times in an interview. “It was a
collective failure by a number of people,” he said. “I need to consider what
action to take, but that will take several weeks. It’s best to think with a
cool head, rather than shoot from the hip.”
The IPCC’s 2007 report, which won it the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the
probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps
sooner is very high”.
But it emerged last week that the forecast was based not on a consensus among
climate change experts, but on a media interview with a single Indian
glaciologist in 1999.
The IPCC admitted on Thursday that the prediction was “poorly substantiated”
in the latest of a series of blows to the panel’s credibility.
Dr Pachauri said that the IPCC’s report was the responsibility of the panel’s
Co-Chairs at the time, both of whom have since moved on.
They were Dr Martin Parry, a British scientist now at Imperial College London,
and Dr Osvaldo Canziani , an Argentine meteorologist. Neither was
immediately available for comment.
“I don’t want to blame them, but typically the working group reports are
managed by the Co-Chairs,” Dr Pachauri said. “Of course the Chair is there
to facilitate things, but we have substantial amounts of delegation.”
He declined to blame the 25 authors and editors of the erroneous part of the
report , who included a Filipino, a Mongolian, a Malaysian, an Indonesian,
an Iranian, an Australian and two Vietnamese.
The “co-ordinating lead authors” were Rex Victor Cruz of the Philippines,
Hideo Harasawa of Japan, Murari Lal of India and Wu Shaohong of China.
But Syed Hasnain, the Indian glaciologist erroneously quoted as making the
2035 prediction, said that responsibility had to lie with them. “It is the
lead authors — blame goes to them,” he told The Times.
“There are many mistakes in it. It is a very poorly made report.”
He and other leading glaciologists pointed out at least five glaring errors in
the relevant section.
It says the total area of Himalyan glaciers “will likely shrink from the
present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035”. There are
only 33,000 square kilometers of glaciers in the Himalayas.
A table below says that between 1845 and 1965, the Pindari Glacier shrank by
2,840m — a rate of 135.2m a year. The actual rate is only 23.5m a year.
The section says Himalayan glaciers are “receding faster than in any other
part of the world” when many glaciologists say they are melting at about the
same rate.
An entire paragraph is also attributed to the World Wildlife Fund, when only
one sentence came from it, and the IPCC is not supposed to use such advocacy
groups as sources.
Professor Hasnain, who was not involved in drafting the IPCC report, said that
he noticed some of the mistakes when he first read the relevant section in
2008.
That was also the year he joined The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in
Delhi, which is headed by Dr Pachauri.
He said he realised that the 2035 prediction was based on an interview he gave
to the New Scientist magazine in 1999, although he blamed the
journalist for assigning the actual date.
He said that he did not tell Dr Pachauri because he was not working for the
IPCC and was busy with his own programmes at the time.
“I was keeping quiet as I was working here,” he said. “My job is not to point
out mistakes. And you know the might of the IPCC. What about all the other
glaciologists around the world who did not speak out?”
Dr Pachauri also said he did not learn about the mistakes until they were
reported in the media about 10 days ago, at which time he contacted other
IPCC members. He denied keeping quiet about the errors to avoid disrupting
the UN summit on climate change in Copenhagen, or discouraging funding for
TERI’s own glacier programme.
But he too admitted that it was “really odd” that none of the world’s leading
glaciologists had pointed out the mistakes to him earlier. “Frankly, it was
a stupid error,” he said. “But no one brought it to my attention.”
Jan 25, 2010 8:33 PM Posted by davidbernard Here is an interesting article about man caused global warming. You really have to dig to find this stuff! I like this article because it explains the lack of actual temperature data that has been taken the past 25 years and how the location of climate data has largely shifted from rural locations to urban ones. Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg
By Marc Sheppard
Not
surprisingly, the blatant corruption exposed at Britain’s premiere
climate institute was not contained within the nation’s borders. Just
months after the Climategate scandal broke, a new study has uncovered compelling evidence that our government’s
principal climate centers have also been manipulating worldwide
temperature data in order to fraudulently advance the global warming
political agenda. Not only does the preliminary report indict a broader network of conspirators, but it also challenges the
very mechanism by which global temperatures are measured, published,
and historically ranked. Last
Thursday, Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo and computer
expert E. Michael Smith appeared together on KUSI TV to discuss the Climategate -- American Style scandal they had discovered. This time out, the alleged perpetrators are the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). NOAA
stands accused by the two researchers of strategically deleting
cherry-picked, cooler-reporting weather observation stations from the
temperature data it provides the world through its National Climatic Data Center(NCDC). D’Aleo explained to show host and Weather Channel founder John
Coleman that while the Hadley Center in the U.K. has been the subject
of recent scrutiny, “[w]e think NOAA is complicit, if not the real ground zero for the issue.” And
their primary accomplices are the scientists at GISS, who put the
altered data through an even more biased regimen of alterations,
including intentionally replacing the dropped NOAA readings with those
of stations located in much warmer locales. As
you’ll soon see, the ultimate effects of these statistical
transgressions on the reports which influence climate alarm and
subsequently world energy policy are nothing short of staggering. NOAA – Data In / Garbage Out
Although
satellite temperature measurements have been available since 1978, most
global temperature analyses still rely on data captured from land-based
thermometers, scattered more or less about the planet. It is that data
which NOAA receives and disseminates – although not before performing
some sleight-of-hand on it. Smith
has done much of the heavy lifting involved in analyzing the NOAA/GISS
data and software, and he chronicles his often frustrating experiences
at his fascinating website.
There, detail-seekers will find plenty to satisfy, divided into
easily-navigated sections -- some designed specifically for us “geeks,”
but most readily approachable to readers of all technical strata. Perhaps
the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted
from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service
around the globe. Now,
75% represents quite a drop in sampling population, particularly
considering that these stations provide the readings used to compile
both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN)
datasets. These are the same datasets, incidentally, which serve as
primary sources of temperature data not only for climate researchers
and universities worldwide, but also for the many international
agencies using the data to create analytical temperature anomaly maps
and charts. Yet
as disturbing as the number of dropped stations was, it is the nature
of NOAA’s “selection bias” that Smith found infinitely more troubling. It
seems that stations placed in historically cooler, rural areas of
higher latitude and elevation were scrapped from the data series in
favor of more urban locales at lower latitudes and elevations.
Consequently, post-1990 readings have been biased to the warm side not
only by selective geographic location, but also by the anthropogenic
heating influence of a phenomenon known as the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI). For
example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in
1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling
while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s
right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.”
And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described
as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate
summers. Smith
also discovered that in California, only four stations remain – one in
San Francisco and three in Southern L.A. near the beach – and he rightly observed that It
is certainly impossible to compare it with the past record that had
thermometers in the snowy mountains. So we can have no idea if
California is warming or cooling by looking at the USHCN data set or
the GHCN data set.
That’s
because the baseline temperatures to which current readings are
compared were a true averaging of both warmer and cooler locations. And
comparing these historic true averages to contemporary false averages –
which have had the lower end of their numbers intentionally stripped
out – will always yield a warming trend, even when temperatures have
actually dropped. Overall,
U.S. online stations have dropped from a peak of 1,850 in 1963 to a low
of 136 as of 2007. In his blog, Smith wittily observed that “the
Thermometer Langoliers
have eaten 9/10 of the thermometers in the USA[,] including all the
cold ones in California.” But he was deadly serious after comparing
current to previous versions of USHCN data and discovering that this “selection bias” creates a +0.6°C warming in U.S. temperature history.
And no wonder -- imagine the accuracy of campaign tracking polls were Gallup to include only the replies of Democrats in their statistics. But it gets worse.
Prior
to publication, NOAA effects a number of “adjustments” to the
cherry-picked stations’ data, supposedly to eliminate flagrant
outliers, adjust for time of day heat variance, and “homogenize”
stations with their neighbors in order to compensate for
discontinuities. This last one, they state, is accomplished by
essentially adjusting each to jibe closely with the mean of its five
closest “neighbors.” But given the plummeting number of stations, and
the likely disregard for the latitude, elevation, or UHI of such
neighbors, it’s no surprise that such “homogenizing” seems to always
result in warmer readings. The chart below is from Willis Eschenbach’s WUWT essay, “The smoking gun at Darwin Zero,” and
it plots GHCN Raw versus homogeneity-adjusted temperature data at
Darwin International Airport in Australia. The “adjustments” actually
reversed the 20th-century trend from temperatures falling at
0.7°C per century to temperatures rising at 1.2°C per century.
Eschenbach isolated a single station and found that it was adjusted to
the positive by 6.0°C per century, and with no apparent reason, as all
five stations at the airport more or less aligned for each period. His
conclusion was that he had uncovered “indisputable evidence that the
‘homogenized’ data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions
about whether the earth is warming.”
WUWT’s
editor, Anthony Watts, has calculated the overall U.S. homogeneity bias
to be 0.5°F to the positive, which alone accounts for almost one half of the 1.2°F warming over the last century. Add Smith’s selection bias to the mix and poof – actual warming completely disappears! Yet believe it or not, the manipulation does not stop there. GISS – Garbage In / Globaloney Out
The
scientists at NASA’s GISS are widely considered to be the world’s
leading researchers into atmospheric and climate changes. And their
Surface Temperature (GISTemp) analysis system is undoubtedly the
premiere source for global surface temperature anomaly reports.
It then puts the merged data through a few “adjustments” of its own. First, it further “homogenizes” stations, supposedly adjusting for UHI by (according to NASA)
changing “the long term trend of any non-rural station to match the
long term trend of their rural neighbors, while retaining the short
term monthly and annual variations.” Of course, the reduced number of
stations will have the same effect on GISS’s UHI correction as it did
on NOAA’s discontinuity homogenization – the creation of artificial
warming. Furthermore,
in his communications with me, Smith cited boatloads of problems and
errors he found in the Fortran code written to accomplish this task,
ranging from hot airport stations being mismarked as “rural” to the
“correction” having the wrong sign (+/-) and therefore increasing when
it meant to decrease or vice-versa. And
according to NASA, “If no such neighbors exist or the overlap of the
rural combination and the non-rural record is less than 20 years, the
station is completely dropped; if the rural records are shorter, part
of the non-rural record is dropped.” However,
Smith points out that a dropped record may be “from a location that has
existed for 100 years.” For instance, if an aging piece of equipment
gets swapped out, thereby changing its identification number, the time
horizon reinitializes to zero years. Even having a large enough
temporal gap (e.g., during a world war) might cause the data to “just
get tossed out.” But
the real chicanery begins in the next phase, wherein the planet is
flattened and stretched onto an 8,000-box grid, into which the time
series are converted to a series of anomalies (degree variances from
the baseline). Now, you might wonder just how one manages to fill 8,000
boxes using 1,500 stations. Here’s NASA’s solution: For
each grid box, the stations within that grid box and also any station
within 1200km of the center of that box are combined using the
reference station method.
Even on paper, the design flaws inherent in such a process should be glaringly obvious. So
it’s no surprise that Smith found many examples of problems surfacing
in actual practice. He offered me Hawaii for starters. It seems that
all of the Aloha State’s surviving stations reside in major airports.
Nonetheless, this unrepresentative hot data is what’s used to “infill”
the surrounding “empty” Grid Boxes up to 1200 km out to sea. So in
effect, you have “jet airport tarmacs ‘standing in’ for temperature
over water 1200 km closer to the North Pole.” An isolated problem? Hardly, reports Smith. From KUSI’s Global Warming: The Other Side:
“There’s
a wonderful baseline for Bolivia -- a very high mountainous country --
right up until 1990 when the data ends. And if you look on the [GISS] November 2009 anomaly map,
you’ll see a very red rosy hot Bolivia [boxed in blue]. But how do you
get a hot Bolivia when you haven’t measured the temperature for 20
years?”
Of course, you already
know the answer: GISS simply fills in the missing numbers – originally
cool, as Bolivia contains proportionately more land above 10,000 feet
than any other country in the world – with hot ones available in neighboring stations on a beach in Peru or somewhere in the Amazon jungle. Remember
that single station north of 65° latitude which they located in a warm
section of northern Canada? Joe D’Aleo explained its purpose: “To estimate temperatures in the Northwest Territory [boxed in green above], they either have to rely on that location or look further south.” Pretty slick, huh? And
those are but a few examples. In fact, throughout the entire grid,
cooler station data are dropped and “filled in” by temperatures
extrapolated from warmer stations in a manner obviously designed to
overestimate warming...
...And convince you that it’s your fault.
Government and Intergovernmental Agencies -- Globaloney In / Green Gospel Out
Smith attributes up to 3°F (more in some places) of added “warming trend” between NOAA’s data adjustment and GIStemp processing.
That’s over twice last century’s reported warming.
And
yet, not only are NOAA’s bogus data accepted as green gospel, but so
are its equally bogus hysterical claims, like this one from the 2006
annual State of the Climate in 2005 [PDF]:
“Globally averaged mean annual air temperature in 2005 slightly
exceeded the previous record heat of 1998, making 2005 the warmest year
on record.”
And
as D’Aleo points out in the preliminary report, the recent NOAA
proclamation that June 2009 was the second-warmest June in 130 years
will go down in the history books, despite multiple satellite
assessments ranking it as the 15th-coldest in 31 years. Even
when our own National Weather Service (NWS) makes its frequent
announcements that a certain month or year was the hottest ever, or
that five of the warmest years on record occurred last decade, they’re
basing such hyperbole entirely on NOAA’s warm-biased data. And how can anyone possibly read GISS chief James Hansen’s Sunday claim
that 2009 was tied with 2007 for second-warmest year overall, and the
Southern Hemisphere’s absolute warmest in 130 years of global
instrumental temperature records, without laughing hysterically? It's
especially laughable when one considers that NOAA had just released a statement claiming that very same year (2009) to be tied with 2006 for the fifth-warmest year on record. So
how do alarmists reconcile one government center reporting 2009 as tied
for second while another had it tied for fifth? If you’re WaPo’s Andrew Freedman, you simply chalk it up to “different data analysis
methods” before adjudicating both NASA and NOAA innocent of any
impropriety based solely on their pointless assertions that they didn’t
do it. Earth to Andrew: “Different data analysis
methods”? Try replacing “analysis” with “manipulation,” and ye shall
find enlightenment. More importantly, does the explicit fact that since
the drastically divergent results of both “methods” can’t be right,
both are immediately suspect somehow elude you? But
by far the most significant impact of this data fraud is that it
ultimately bubbles up to the pages of the climate alarmists’ bible: The
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment
Report. And wrong data begets wrong reports, which – particularly in this case – begets dreadfully wrong policy.
It’s High Time We Investigated the Investigators
The final report will be made public shortly, and it will be available at the websites of both report-supporter Science and Public Policy Institute and Joe D’Aleo’s own ICECAP. As they’ve both been tremendously helpful over the past few days, I’ll trust in the opinions I’ve received from the report’s architects to sum up.
This from the meteorologist:
The biggest
gaps and greatest uncertainties are in high latitude areas where the
data centers say they 'find' the greatest warming (and thus
which contribute the most to their global anomalies). Add to that no
adjustment for urban growth and land use changes (even as the world's
population increased from 1.5 to 6.7 billion people) [in the NOAA data]
and questionable methodology for computing the historical record that
very often cools off the early record and you have surface based data
sets so seriously flawed, they can no longer be trusted for climate
trend or model forecast assessment or decision making by the
administration, congress or the EPA.
Roger
Pielke Sr. has suggested: “...that we move forward with an inclusive
assessment of the surface temperature record of CRU, GISS and NCDC. We
need to focus on the science issues. This necessarily should
involve all research investigators who are working on this topic, with
formal assessments chaired and paneled by mutually agreed to climate
scientists who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the evaluations.” I endorse that suggestion.
Certainly,
all rational thinkers agree. Perhaps even the mainstream media, most of
whom have hitherto mistakenly dismissed Climategate as a uniquely
British problem, will now wake up and demand such an investigation.
And this from the computer expert: That
the bias exists is not denied. That the data are too sparse and with
too many holes over time in not denied. Temperature series programs,
like NASA GISS GIStemp try, but fail, to fix the holes and the bias.
What is claimed is that "the anomaly will fix it." But it cannot.
Comparison of a cold baseline set to a hot present set must create a
biased anomaly. It is simply overwhelmed by the task of taking out
that much bias. And yet there is more. A whole zoo of adjustments are
made to the data. These might be valid in some cases, but the end
result is to put in a warming trend of up to several degrees. We are
supposed to panic over a 1/10 degree change of "anomaly" but accept 3
degrees of "adjustment" with no worries at all. To accept that GISTemp
is "a perfect filter". That is, simply, "nuts". It was a good enough
answer at Bastogne, and applies here too. Smith,
who had a family member attached to the 101st Airborne at the time,
refers to the famous line from the 101st commander, U.S. Army General
Anthony Clement McAuliffe, who replied to a German ultimatum to
surrender the December, 1944 Battle of Bastogne, Belgium with a single
word: “Nuts.”
And that’s exactly what we’d be were we to surrender our freedoms, our economic growth, and even our simplest comforts to duplicitous zealots before checking and double-checking the work of the prophets predicting our doom should we refuse.
Jan 22, 2010 10:23 PM Posted by davidbernard We had all that heat in November and December and then came the bitter blast! Well it looks like the dry season of extremes is continuing. RECORD EVENT REPORT NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE MIAMI, FL 510 PM EST FRI JAN 22 2010 .RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE TIED AT MIAMI A RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE OF 86 DEGREES WAS SET AT MIAMI TODAY. THIS TIES THE OLD RECORD OF 86 SET IN 1990. Jan 20, 2010 7:33 PM Posted by davidbernard Here's an event from FAU in Boca Raton. Sounds fun and interesting! FAU’s
Astronomical Observatory to Host
Open Dome Event: ‘Mars at Opposition to the
Sun’
BOCA
RATON, FL (January 20, 2010)
– Florida Atlantic University’s Charles E. Schmidt College of Science
Astronomical Observatory will host an open dome event for the observation of
Mars at opposition to the Sun. The event will take place on Friday, January 29
from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. in the observatory, which is located in FAU’s College of
Science and Engineering building, Room 434, 777 Glades Road, Boca Raton
campus.
“If
you have ever wanted to have a good look at Mars, this is the time to do it,”
said Eric Vandernoot, astronomy coordinator in the department of physics at
FAU.
January
29 is the day when Mars will be closest to the Sun until February 2012. This
opposition occurs every 780 days. As it is in opposition, the planet will be
visible best at midnight when there is the least amount of visual distorting
atmosphere between Earth and the planet. Mars, the fourth planet from the Sun in
the Solar System, is sometimes referred to as the “Red Planet due to the iron
oxide on its surface giving it a reddish appearance.
FAU's
Astronomical Observatory is housed under a four-meter dome and has a telescope
that is mounted on a small platform at the top of the stairs looking out over
the roof to see the city of Boca Raton and the space
beyond.
FAU
students, faculty and staff, as well as the local community, are encouraged to
come by to witness this occurrence.
For
more information, contact Eric Vandernoot at 561-297-3380 or evandern@fau.edu. | |
