I’m off on a small adventure today, chasing and logging a USHCN weather station which had been misidentified in the early days of the surfacestations project.
One of the results of the project is that it forced NCDC to provide better metadata in their online MMS database. This includes adding a USHCN flag to identify which stations were in fact USHCN from the more numerous COOP stations. When we started, lat/lons were coarse, and there was no such identification. Now there is and ID and the lat/lons are accurate enough to locate the stations reliably.
I have a feeling this one will be interesting, given the description of the location.
In the meantime, talk quietly amongst yourselves, don’t make be come back here.
😉
Enjoy your adventure Anthony.
During my 35 years of storm watching in the Chicago suburbs, I just witnessed something new.
This storm announced it arrival with a constant low rumbling, and some very agitated, boiling clouds.
It produced some moderate wind gusts, a brief heavy rain, and some pea sized hail.
The new part was the constant low rumble, which preceded the storm for 20 minutes, continued during the rain and hail, and lasted another 20 minutes until the storm departed.
There were no individual lightning bolts or thunderclaps, just the low rumbling (I assume it was lightning in the cloud tops).
Pretty cool!
Hexe Froschbein says:
August 13, 2011 at 1:18 pm
“It’s not the global warming per se, but that just like the real AGW, this ‘feature’ totally destroys the fun of the game by introducing tedious make work, a digital version of German recycling (aka washing your litter and separating it into 9+ containers)”
Heh. We’re not the only crazies on the planet.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/militant-environmentalists-call-for-executions-and-decisive-ecological- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB1o-Pt7FCo&NR=1
(h/t Marc Morano)
Leonard Weinstein says:
August 13, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Leonard did you assume the area of ocean would remain the same as now or did you allow for the increased area of ocean due to the land flooding?
More on the Charles Monnett story. This reminds me of the sotry in July where it was showd that the EPA grants money to environmental groups that then sue them to push their agenda forward. The article here and numerous other places ( http://americaswatchtower.com/2011/07/09/the-epas-circle-of-trust )
Now read this article ( http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/13/watchdog-group-slams-epas-scientific-integrity-proposal/ )
Do they look familiar? Check out their leftist web site http://www.peer.org/
Their phone number is (202) 265-7337 which ironically is also the same number for a Patagonia store in Washington, DC.
Research skills, I has them
As a complete non-scientist I am curious regarding the question whether there is a greenhouse effect on Venus with all its high atmospheric CO2 content. A guy I came across via Google says NO, there isn’t, but I am not competent to find out whether there is some merit in his argument and its implication regarding AGW, or whether it’s balderdash. Here’s the link: http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
Comment anyone?
In all seriousness I wish to know why the bottoms of the oceans are much colder than the surface.
I know the surface gets sunlight during the day and radiates heat at night.
What I don’t understand is why radiant heat is not trapped at the bottom.
Why is IR radiation from the surface not been trapped at the bottom of the ocean?
Apropos of nothing I present…
http://www.hattricksilkies.com/116450033_4266fb5229_o.jpg
To confirm Alvin’s Patagonia claim….he’s correct.
Patagonia
200 P St Nw, Ste 240
Washington DC 20036
202-265-7337
PEER
2000 P Street NW, Suite 240
Washington, DC 20036
phone:
(202) 265-7337
….But look what PEER has to say about “scientific integrity”….
http://www.peer.org/campaigns/whistleblower/scientific/index.php
@Bob Diaz. I get 187 meters without getting fancy.
To keep tempers under control, an excellent method is to challenge opponents to make a bet against you on future global temperatures (per GISS) or ice extent on Intrade. Both sides can then sit in silent satisfaction awaiting vindication and making the other guy pay for his sins. (You may not enlighten them, but you’ll lighten them.)
Here’s the link: https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventClassId=20
@Bob Diaz. Or 97 m depending on how much ice you believe is in the Antarctic (30 million m^3 here, 62.5 million in my last post – there seem to be wide ranges out there).
Laurie Bowen says:
August 13, 2011 at 1:26 pm
As for the increase in sea levels, for me that would depend on whether you think continents can float or rise with the sea level . . .
===========================================================
exactly….
There will be no measurable sea level rise at all…
…the UofColorado is having to add to the measured sea levels now because the weight of all the new water is making the sea floor sink…..pushing it down…………….That is the way they explain the lack of measured sea level rise…….
So, the more ice melts, the more water goes into the oceans, the more weight pushes the sea floor down more……no measured sea level rise at all
pokerguy says:
August 13, 2011 at 12:34 pm
What can skeptics do? Never get mad in conversation.
pokerguy says:
August 13, 2011 at 12:34 pm
“But beyond that, what do you guys think we lay skeptics can do, if anything, to enlighten people? We can read the blogs, we can donate money to them, but every time I even bring the subject up among my liberal friends, it takes about 5 seconds before tempers flare. It just seems so hopeless for now…”
Item number one is take every opportunity to write letters to your local newspapers, if you are in a position to reveal your identity. (Isn’t it a sad day in America when such a thing must be said?) These are focused letters about specific events so that you capture the attention of your local audience. Do your homework and focus on details.
Item number two is volunteer to give lectures in schools. Such volunteering is to be arranged with individual teachers not school bureaucrats.
Item number three is attend official meetings of local government agencies whose planning addresses climate change in some way. Do your homework. Explain how risky it is to dedicate large amounts of dollars to mitigation.
Item number four is the same as three except do it with federal agencies, especially anything involving your congressional representative. Notice that you are lobbying your local and federal officials.
There are more. I bet you get the picture.
All these efforts are mutually supportive. When you can quote a communication from Congressman Handsome in one of your letters to the editor, people begin to take notice.
Mike Hoffman,
For starters, Huffman ignores albedo.
That’s more than enough for me.
u.k. (us) says:
Aug. 13, 2001 at 1:32 pm
We get that rumbling thunder frequently here in N.E. Colorado. We have always called it “hail” thunder. It means that someone, close-by and soon, will be getting hail. We had that kind of thunder twice last week, on both Tuesday and Wednesday, and although I did not get hail at my house, there was hail within a few miles of me both days, breaking windows and devastating corn and hay fields. Since it is so flat and treeless here, we can see storms coming and going for great distances, so I have wondered if that thunder has to do with our geography. ( apparently not ) It can rumble for up to an hour at a time, and as with your experience, we see very little lightning.
http://www.9news.com/news/article/212935/188/Large-hail-sweeps-through-Sterling-causes-damage-
watch the slideshow for an idea of the hail size
Mike,
Right from this very fine website:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/06/hyperventilating-on-venus/
Here’s one I have been dwelling on…….
In minerals exploration and assessment of drill core data, we have a whole discipline known as geostatistics – which in effect says that knowing the data at a point is not enough, we need to also look at its (three dimensional) location. This way, we avoid overweighting or underweighting (say) three high samples collected close together, commpared to a lower one more distant.
Simple question – given that some weather stations reportedly show warming, and some show cooling, how is handled in working out global temperature shifts?
Viz – is each station weighted according to the surface area between it and the next adjacent station? Looking at the post a few weeks ago, it seems to me we have clusters of lots of weather stations in developed locations which show warming. But in less developed locations (or on oceans) we have sparse stations, some showing cooling. Surely we don’t weight these all equally in working out global “average” temperatures, do we?
Anybody?
Roger Sowell says:
August 13, 2011 at 11:25 am
I read Merchants of Doubt, by Naomi Orestes and Erik Conway sometime last year. I don’t have it handy to refer to Chapter 6. I picked it to read because as it was referred to as being one giant ad hominen.
It was.
John
Mike
This is a college course lecture and explains how the basic CO2 warming equations were derived.
He derives them for the earth , mars and Venus.
He does correct for albedo which is quite high for Venus.
Just another comment on sea level. Apparently the rate of sea level rise is increasing even though sea level is, or has been falling. Reason given is adjustments neccessary because of the La Nina cooling. Does anyone have a recollection of University of Colorado doing downward adjustments to compensate for the 1998 and 2010 El Nino’s.
Why am I expecting an answer in the negative?
And shouldn’t there be a physical, rather than virtual increase, because of all the heat being stored (allegedly) in the deep ocean.
Pokerguy, I have two most maddening things for me:
1) The historical and archealogical record CLEARLY show natural variations in global and regional “temperatures”.
2) The argument from ignorance. “The warming can’t be from anything we can think of, therefore it must be due to THIS thing we just made up”.
This is an admittance that the TEAM doesn’t know, ie, is ignorant, therefore what they say MUST be true. Let’s face it, we don’t know everything, our understanding is incomplete. And, BTW, fode the “precautionary principal”.
OK 3 things:
3) The assumption of computer models over real data.
BTW In describing paranoid “results of global warming”, most deserts are COLD and dry, not HOT and dry, yet the drought argument is used to represent the effects of global warming. A warmer world would bring Northern Canada and Siberia into agricultural production; these are the two largest land areas of the planet. We could feed billions more.
BBTW Temperature is NOT the correct measure, energy is.
pokerguy But beyond that, what do you guys think we lay skeptics can do, if anything, to enlighten people?
..
I even bring the subject up among my liberal friends, it takes about 5 seconds before tempers flare.
JK:
1. Try asking them for the evidence that underlies their belief. Pin them down for real evidence.
2. Ask them what percentage of annual CO2 emission is from mother nature. (96% of CO2 emission is natural NOT man made.)
3. Ask them what percentage of the greenhouse effect is due to CO2? (Less than 1/2)
3. Ask them if they know that Al Gore lied about the Greenland ice cores – they show warming first, followed by CO2 increase 800 years later on average.
More at sustainableOregon.com
Thanks
JK
Surface area of a sphere is 4*pi*R*R
Mean radius of the earth is 6,371 km
Surface area of the earth is 510,064,366 km^2 (assuming a sphere)
Oceans are 71% of earth’s surface or 362,145,700 km^2
Greenland land ice volume est at 5,100,000 km^3
Antarctic land ice volume est at 30,000,000 km^3
Total land ice (35,100,000 m^3) divided by surface area (362,145,700) m^2 is 0.097 km or 97 m.
Ignores glaciers (are most land-locked?), isostatic effects of extra water (puts downward pressure on ocean bottom), increasing ocean percent as water rises, non-spherical nature of the earth, inability of New Yorkers to notice the difference and ice in the scotch (although that shouldn’t be a problem if you don’t empty your glass).
Has anyone read the science fiction book ‘Directive 51’ by John Barnes and his sequel to it ‘Daybreak Zero’? They are about a group of ideological environmentalists initiating a total all out terrorist war on industrialized society. War as in billions people killed by the ideological environmentalists.
It is fiction and it is very grim reading, but I recommend them for a shock value view of possibilities for our future given the current values of existing ideological environmentalists . . . . .
John