Poorly sited U.S. temperature instruments not responsible for artificial warming

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 5:57 PM GMT on January 25, 2010

Share this Blog
4
+

Former TV weatherman Anthony Watts, who runs the popular global warming contrarian website, "Watts Up With That", was convinced that many of the U.S. network of surface weather stations had serious flaws in their siting that was causing an artificial warm bias in the observed increase in U.S. temperatures of 1.1°F over the past century. To address this concern, Watts established the website surfacestations.org in 2007, which enlisted an army of volunteers to travel the U.S. to obtain photographic evidence of poor siting of weather stations. The goal was to document cases where "microclimate" influence was important, and could be contaminating temperature measurements. (Note that this is a separate issue from the Urban Heat Island, the phenomenon where a metropolitan area in general is warmer than surrounding rural areas). Watts' volunteers--650 strong--documented the siting of 865 of the 1,218 stations used in the National Climatic Data Center's U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) for tracking climate change. As reported in Watt's 2009 publication put out by the Heartland Institute, the volunteers "found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat." Watts surmised that these poorly-sited stations were responsible for much of the increase in U.S. temperatures over the past century, due to "a bias trend that likely results from the thermometers being closer to buildings, asphalt, etc." Watts concluded, "the U.S. temperature record is unreliable. And since the U.S. record is thought to be the best in the world, it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable".


Figure 1. A poorly sited temperature sensor in Marysville, California, used for the USHCN. The sensor is situation right next to an asphalt parking lot, instead in the middle of a grassy field, as it is supposed to be. The sensor is also adjacent to several several air conditioners that blow their exhaust into the air nearby. Image credit: surfacestation.org.

Analysis of the data disagrees with Watts' conclusion
While Watts' publication by the Heartland Institute is a valuable source of information on siting problems of the U.S. network of weather stations, the publication did not undergo peer-review--the process whereby three anonymous scientists who are experts in the field review a manuscript submitted for publication, and offer criticisms on the scientific validity of the results, resulting in revisions to the original paper or outright rejection. The Heartland Institute is an advocacy organization that accepts money from corporate benefactors such as the tobacco industry and fossil fuel industry, and publishes non-peer reviewed science that inevitably supports the interests of the groups paying for the studies. Watts did not actually analyze the data to see if taking out the poorly sited surface stations would have a significant impact on the observed 1.1°F increase in U.S. temperatures over the past century. His study would never have been publishable in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.


Figure 2. Annual average maximum and minimum unadjusted temperature change calculated using (c) maximum and (d) minimum temperatures from good and poor exposure sites (Menne 2010). Poor sites showed a cooler maximum temperature compared to good sites. For minimum temperature, the poor sites were slightly warmer. The net effect was a cool bias in poorly sited stations. The dashed lines are for stations ranked by NOAA, while the solid lines are for the stations ranked by surfacestations.org.

Fortunately, a proper analysis of the impact of these poorly-sited surface stations on the U.S. historical temperature record has now been done by Dr. Matthew Menne and co-authors at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). In a talk at last week's 90th Annual Meeting of the American Meteorological Society, Dr. Menne reported the results of their new paper just accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research titled, On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record. Dr. Menne's study split the U.S. surface stations into two categories: good (rating 1 or 2) and bad (ratings 3, 4 or 5). They performed the analysis using both the rating provided by surfacestations.org, and from an independent rating provided by NOAA personnel. In general, the NOAA-provided ratings coincided with the ratings given by surfacestations.org. Of the NOAA-rated stations, only 71 stations fell into the "good" siting category, while 454 fell into the "bad" category. According to the authors, though, "the sites with good exposure, though small in number, are reasonably well distributed across the country and, as shown by Vose and Menne [2004], are of sufficient density to obtain a robust estimate of the CONUS average". Dr. Menne's study computed the average daily minimum and maximum temperatures from the good sites and poor sites. The results were surprising. While the poor sites had a slightly warmer average minimum temperature than the good sites (by 0.03°C), the average maximum temperature measured at the poor sites was significantly cooler (by 0.14°C) than the good sites. As a result, overall average temperatures measured at the poor sites were cooler than the good sites. This is the opposite of the conclusion reached by Anthony Watts in his 2009 Heartland Institute publication.

Why did the poorly sited stations measure cooler temperatures?
The reason why the poorly-sites stations measured cooler temperatures lies in the predominant types of thermometers used at the two types of sites. An electronic Maximum/Minimum Temperature System (MMTS) is used at 75% of the poor sites. These MMTS sensors are attached by cable to an indoor readout device, and are consequently limited by cable length as to how far they can be sited from the building housing the indoor readout device. As a result, they are often located close to heated buildings, paved surfaces, air conditioner exhausts, etc. It turns out that these MMTS thermometers have a flaw that causes them to measure minimum temperatures that are slightly too warm, and maximum temperatures that are considerably too cool, leading to an overall cool bias in measured average temperatures. In contrast, only 30% of the "good" sites used the MMTS sensors. The "good" sites predominantly used Liquid in Glass (LiG) thermometers housed in wooden shelters that were more easily located further from the buildings where the observers worked. Since the poorly-sites stations were dominantly equipped with MMTS thermometers, they tended to measure temperatures that were too cool, despite their poor siting.


Figure 3. Comparison of U.S. average annual (a) maximum and (b) minimum temperatures calculated using USHCN version 2 temperatures. Temperatures were adjusted to correct for changes in instrumentation, station relocations, and changes in the time of observation, making the trend from good sites show close agreement with poor sites. Good and poor site ratings are based on surfacestations.org. For comparison, the data between 2004 - 2008 taken by the new high-quality U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN, black dashed line) is shown, and displays excellent agreement for that time period. Image credit: Menne 2010.

Independent verification of recent USHCN annual temperatures
Clearly, the siting of many of the surface stations used to track climate change in the U.S. is not good. To address this issue, in 2004 NOAA created the U.S. Climate Reference Network, a collection of 114 stations in the continental United States for the express purpose of detecting the national signal of climate change. The stations were sited and instrumented with climate studies in mind, and can provide an extremely high-quality independent check on the old USHCN network. Each of 114 stations at 107 locations (some stations were installed as nearby pairs) is equipped with very accurate instruments in a triplicate configuration so that each measurement can be checked for internal consistency. As shown in Figure 3, the USCRN air temperature departures for 2004 - 2008 are extremely well aligned with those derived from the USHCN version 2 temperature data. For these five years, the the difference between the mean annual temperatures measured by the old USHCN compared to the new USCRN was just 0.03°C, with a mathematical correlation coefficient (r-squared) of 0.997. Menne et al. concluded, "This finding provides independent verification that the USHCN version 2 data are consistent with research-quality measurements taken at pristine locations and do not contain spurious trends during the recent past even if sampled exclusively at poorly sited stations. While admittedly this period of coincident observations between the networks is rather brief, the value of the USCRN as a benchmark for reducing the uncertainty of historic observations from the USHCN and other networks will only increase with time". The authors finally concluded, "we find no evidence that the CONUS temperature trends are inflated due to poor siting".

Crediting Anthony Watts
The surfacestations.org effort coordinated by Anthony Watts has made a valuable contribution to science, helping us better understand the nature of the errors in the U.S. historical temperature data set. In his talk last week at the AMS conference, and in the credits of his paper, Dr. Menne had some genuinely grateful comments on the efforts of Anthony Watts and the volunteers of surfacestations.org. However, as of this writing, Watts has made no mention on surfacestations.org or on wattsupwiththat.com of Dr. Menne's study.

I'll have a new post Wednesday or Thursday.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 379 - 329

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30Blog Index

Quoting JFLORIDA:


Oh so now some one needs to be back there in the Holocene taking pictures? - this is redicouls - you souldnt be on a scientific site if you do not accept scientific study.

Thats just the bottom line.

Why did you ask if you didnt want to accept the truth.


LOL in order for something to be proven scientifically, one must use the exact same measuring tools throughout the entire experiment. not sketchy estimates from thousands of years ago and varying pictures from today
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
Read the study! Decide for yourself.
Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
Honestly can one really trust this graphic..........PLEASE!

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting tornadodude:


that didnt answer my question tho. glaciers reached pretty far south at one point, well before humans influenced any part of the climate. they melted. why?

Because with the begein of the holocene it went warmer and human civilization first started to appear around aprox. 40.000 years ago and than we had the holocene revolution (the one before the industrial) - starting around 10.000 years ago.
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 11 Comments: 2032
I appreciate you trying to help me understand your side, but can you please answer my question? also, what process do they use to determine that the ice melt going on right now is occurring more rapidly then it did thousands of years ago?
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
Quoting tornadodude:


so not proven by any means, right?




read it its actually interesting.
Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
Quoting tornadodude:


that didnt answer my question tho. glaciers reached pretty far south at one point, well before humans influenced any part of the climate. they melted. why?


Cause the sun came out and heated Mother Earth during a small period of time.....Sun Flare up has been going on for some time....Many beleive (scientist) that the sun is about to enter a cooling phase......you think the earth will cool some then if that happens.....I bet it cools.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
tornadodude, also this might intrest you

http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/19climgeol.html
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 11 Comments: 2032
Have you all noticed that the South Pole is running colder below normal according to Dr. Masters red / blue dot mape.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting drg0dOwnCountry:
A good start is here tornadodude

Ice sheets are the largest glaciers. These enormous masses of ice are not visibly affected by the landscape as they cover the entire surface beneath them, with possible exception near the glacier margins where they are thinnest. Antarctica and Greenland are the only places where continental ice sheets currently exist. These regions contain vast quantities of fresh water. The volume of ice is so large that if the Greenland ice sheet melted, it would cause sea levels to rise six meters (20 ft) all around the world. If the Antarctic ice sheet melted, sea levels would rise up to 65 meters (210 ft).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier


that didnt answer my question tho. glaciers reached pretty far south at one point, well before humans influenced any part of the climate. they melted. why?
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
Quoting tornadodude:
Please answer this question about the glaciers:

The glaciers have been around for a long time, and extended as far south as southern Indiana. How much of that melted in the last 150 years during the industrial revolution that is blamed for GW? Who's to say that the glaciers havent been melting at this same rate since before we started tracking them? Obviously they have been melting for a loooooong time. The only record of glaciers pre satellite and cameras is the topography of the earth. This reveals that at one point, the earth was widely covered with glacial ice. How much of this melt has occurred since before we tracked it? At what rate have the glaciers been melting ever since the end of the ice age?


Rates of Deglaciation during the Last Glaciation and Holocene in the
Cordillera Vilcanota-Quelccaya Ice Cap Region, Southeastern Peru

Measured deglacial rates at the end of the 20th century far exceed modeled rates for paleoglaciers and provide strong evidence for enhanced global temperatures (Thompson et al., 2000). However, by applying the most rapid rates to the volumes of the past, complete deglaciation would occur in a matter of
centuries.


There are some nice exhaustive studies of Andes Glacier retreat in there too.

Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
TornadoDude you ever Snow Skied at Paoli Peaks.....in French Lick....

Used to go sking there between 12am - 6am.....heck they made there own glacier i think i remember them making snow....LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting tornadodude:
355 anyone?
A good start is here tornadodude

Ice sheets are the largest glaciers. These enormous masses of ice are not visibly affected by the landscape as they cover the entire surface beneath them, with possible exception near the glacier margins where they are thinnest. Antarctica and Greenland are the only places where continental ice sheets currently exist. These regions contain vast quantities of fresh water. The volume of ice is so large that if the Greenland ice sheet melted, it would cause sea levels to rise six meters (20 ft) all around the world. If the Antarctic ice sheet melted, sea levels would rise up to 65 meters (210 ft).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 11 Comments: 2032
Quoting tornadodude:
Please answer this question about the glaciers:

The glaciers have been around for a long time, and extended as far south as southern Indiana. How much of that melted in the last 150 years during the industrial revolution that is blamed for GW? Who's to say that the glaciers havent been melting at this same rate since before we started tracking them? Obviously they have been melting for a loooooong time. The only record of glaciers pre satellite and cameras is the topography of the earth. This reveals that at one point, the earth was widely covered with glacial ice. How much of this melt has occurred since before we tracked it? At what rate have the glaciers been melting ever since the end of the ice age?


Dude i have lived in Indiana for a long time and don't recall seeing many Glaciers.......LOL...I must be really young or they melted very fast........LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting tornadodude:
Please answer this question about the glaciers:

The glaciers have been around for a long time, and extended as far south as southern Indiana. How much of that melted in the last 150 years during the industrial revolution that is blamed for GW? Who's to say that the glaciers havent been melting at this same rate since before we started tracking them? Obviously they have been melting for a loooooong time. The only record of glaciers pre satellite and cameras is the topography of the earth. This reveals that at one point, the earth was widely covered with glacial ice. How much of this melt has occurred since before we tracked it? At what rate have the glaciers been melting ever since the end of the ice age?
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
yes it has there have been areas in the high arctic that contain petified trees that which comes from tropical climates at one time the north pole and surrounding region was a tropical paradise


Shooohs......be very very quite..i'm hunting wabbits........LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TampaSpin:


So you only want to trust the scientists that you want to listen too and ignore the others that have other opinions....OK! Nice research! I have read a ton of stuff on this subject and have my own conclusion and opinion just as you. Amazing that as much as the GW people still push only a small percentage of people still believe there is a major problem...as long as Grant money floods for research why would anything other than death to the world every find anything different. Follow the money and you will find what you want.


No I trust reviewed scientific study not political sites.

I trust the Natural narrative. Not a blog of people not traveled at all.
Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
Quoting CaneWarning:


Is a $1000 a month bill in the summer way over the average?


I came in late on this discussion but it aroused my curiosity, so I calculated the monthly average for our 2009 electric bill. - It is $18.57. BTW we live in SW Michigan
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
355 anyone?
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
Quoting TampaSpin:


It is.......and how much! Please tell us all with all your scientific consensus that the earth has never went through this before without human help. I believe earth has warmed and cooled all by itself before has it not?
yes it has there have been areas in the high arctic that contain petified trees that which comes from tropical climates at one time the north pole and surrounding region was a tropical paradise
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:
GW and GC have been going on since the beginning of the earth and will continue with or without Man's influence.

So you just pull that out of nowhere knowing that no humans exited then and we have over 5 billion now.

Ill trust the scientists on something this important. Hopefully when our time comes the rest of the world will be a little more empathetic.


So you only want to trust the scientists that you want to listen too and ignore the others that have other opinions....OK! Nice research! I have read a ton of stuff on this subject and have my own conclusion and opinion just as you. Amazing that as much as the GW people still push only a small percentage of people still believe there is a major problem...as long as Grant money floods for research why would anything other than death to the world every find anything different. Follow the money and you will find what you want.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TampaSpin:


It is.......and how much! Please tell us all with all your scientific consensus that the earth has never went through this before without human help. I believe earth has warmed and cooled all by itself before has it not?
The problem to begin with, is the speed in which the greenhouse gas gets released into the atmosphere. There is no comparable event in earth history. The PETM which stands for an abrupt climate shift, took several thousand years to emerge and lasted around 180.000 years.
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 11 Comments: 2032
Quoting JFLORIDA:


Its still dissipating - it wasn't that deceiving. Some people see what they want in pictures.

Like I said I went and looked.



dude, that totally works both ways...
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
Please answer this question about the glaciers:

The glaciers have been around for a long time, and extended as far south as southern Indiana. How much of that melted in the last 150 years during the industrial revolution that is blamed for GW? Who's to say that the glaciers havent been melting at this same rate since before we started tracking them? Obviously they have been melting for a loooooong time. The only record of glaciers pre satellite and cameras is the topography of the earth. This reveals that at one point, the earth was widely covered with glacial ice. How much of this melt has occurred since before we tracked it? At what rate have the glaciers been melting ever since the end of the ice age?
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Well like I said we know how much CO2 (and other GH gasses) is/are put in, we know it warms, we know by how much.

Thats scientific consensus.

You can "believe" whatever you want too. The damage is still occuring.


It is.......and how much! Please tell us all with all your scientific consensus that the earth has never went through this before without human help. I believe earth has warmed and cooled all by itself before has it not?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
GW and GC have been going on since the beginning of the earth and will continue with or without Man's influence.

So you just pull that out of nowhere knowing that no humans exited then and we have over 5 billion now.

Ill trust the scientists on something this important. Hopefully when our time comes the rest of the world will be a little more empathetic.
Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
Quoting TampaSpin:


Again you post very deceiving pics from several hundred feet in differece.....LMAO....OMG


Its still dissipating - it wasn't that deceiving. Some people see what they want in pictures.

Like I said I went and looked.
Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
Well like I said we know how much CO2 (and other GH gasses) is/are put in, we know it warms, we know by how much.

Thats scientific consensus.

You can "believe" whatever you want too. The damage is still occuring. You should read up on the study before you disparage the findings. IMHO.

Im out.
Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
Quoting fetoau:
OK Folks,

I am a glutton for punishment. Made one post (my one and only until this one) in reference to GW with a date error and got flamed. But since I obviously have no sense, I am going to try again.

GW and GC have been going on since the beginning of the earth and will continue with or without Man's influence.

Does Man's existence influence the changes? Without a doubt!!!

Is man's influence, to date, significant to the changes to GW/GC? I doubt it!!!



Forgive me for saying so.......but, are you trying to make to much sence. You can't do that.....LOL.....Nice post!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:


Changes in the Qori Kalis Glacier, Quelccaya Ice Cap, Peru, are shown between 1978 (top) and 2002.


Again your post is very deceiving pics from several hundred feet in differece.....LMAO....OMG
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:
If anyone actually cares about the Andes Galcers and the people that are connected to them on a subsistence level (just about 30 million - so no alarm) here is a link :

Small Glaciers Of The Andes May Vanish In 10-15 Years

In ten to fifteen years' time, the small glaciers of the Andes, which constitute 80% of all the glaciers in the tropical regions of that mountain chain, are likely to have vanished.

That is the main conclusion reached after studies conducted on the Chacaltaya glacier in Bolivia and the Antizana glacier in Ecuador.


So, your saying that because this glacier is melting it is because of GW. Has that glacier been there for a million years and just all of a sudden started melting. I believe the article said its been melting for a very long time and they are trying to figure out if the process has been speeded up, if i read it correctly. Sorry, I read it quickly and might have missed some details.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
ok, about the glaciers.

They have been melting for a loooooooong time. At one point the glaciers were in southern indiana and now they arent, man made global warming to blame????
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
JFlorida -- I've got a friend that says the glacier reductions have nothing to do with warming -- most or all are due to "cold weather dry evaporation". Trying to make me believe they are all receding because it is "colder & drier." Yeah, whatever.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
By the way, if I had the chance to go visit Yellowstone and see all of its wonders tomorrow, I'd go in a heartbeat. It probably won't fully wake up anytime soon (stress the probably -- but that is part of the fun, isn't it?)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:


Changes in the Qori Kalis Glacier, Quelccaya Ice Cap, Peru, are shown between 1978 (top) and 2002.
Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
343. Skyepony (Mod)
97S is new.. 20kts 1007mb
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 208 Comments: 39074
Quoting TampaSpin:


Those Pictures are very misleading. Taken a several different Feet apart. I could lay an ice cube on a table and take a close up and step back 10 ft and it looks like a tiny spik also......Very misleading....IMO!


well read the story below its part of several studies.
Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
Yeah Tampa -- Utah's seismic monitoring group has put out 3-4 press releases on Yellowstone this week, each time stating it is likely tectonic and not underground magma movement. I stress the word "likely" -- which does not mean "absolutely". They are not 100% certain why the earth is shaking in the exact same spot for a full week now. The earthquake swarm is most likely not the forebearer of bad things coming, but I'm certainly keeping at least one eye on this sleeping dragon -- Yellowstone is BY FAR the biggest terrestrial disaster that could hit the United States. Read the National Geographic article on Yellowstone from a few months ago and you'll realize just how much fun and joy comes out of that wonder of nature every 600,000 - 700,000 years. (Oh, by the way, last major eruption -- 642,000 years ago.)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:


The pictures above are the Chacaltaya Glacier circa 1940 and 1982, top row, and 1996 and 2005, bottom row.

''Chacaltaya has disappeared. It no longer exists.''

%u2013Edson Ramirez, head of a team of international scientists that has studied the glacier since 1991


Bolivia's Chacaltaya Glacier Melts to Nothing 6 Years Early

At some unknown moment early this year, Bolivia's 18,000-year-old Chacaltaya Glacier once the highest ski resort on Earth officially vanished.

Its meltdown began in the mid-1980s. In 1998, Dr. Ramirez predicted its complete disappearance in 2015.


Those Pictures are very misleading. Taken a several different Feet apart. I could lay an ice cube on a table and take a close up and step back 10 ft and it looks like a tiny spik also......Very misleading....IMO!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Winter Weather Advisory

URGENT - WINTER WEATHER MESSAGE
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE INDIANAPOLIS IN
1143 PM EST MON JAN 25 2010

...WINTER WEATHER ADVISORY IN EFFECT UNTIL NOON EST TUESDAY...

.AN UPPER LEVEL DISTURBANCE ACROSS NORTHEASTERN ILLINOIS AT
11 PM EST IS EXPECTED TO DROP SOUTHEAST ACROSS CENTRAL INDIANA
OVERNIGHT. 1 TO 2 INCHES OF SNOW IS EXPECTED BY LATE TUESDAY
MORNING WITH THE HIGHEST AMOUNTS EXPECTED ALONG AND NORTH OF
INTERSTATE 70. THE POWDERY SNOW COMBINED WITH WIND GUSTS TO 30 MPH
ARE EXPECTED TO RESULT IN VERY SLICK AND SNOW COVERED CONDITIONS
ON UNTREATED ROADS THROUGH TUESDAY MORNING.

MOTORISTS SHOULD BE ALERT TO SLICK...SNOW COVERED ROADS AND
VISIBILITIES LESS THAN A MILE AT TIMES DO TO THE BLOWING SNOW.
MOTORISTS SHOULD ALLOW PLENTY OF EXTRA TIME DRIVING OVERNIGHT AND
THIS MORNING.

INZ021-028>031-035>049-051>057-060>065-071-072-261245-
/O.NEW.KIND.WW.Y.0002.100126T0443Z-100126T1700Z/
CARROLL-WARREN-TIPPECANOE-CLINTON-HOWARD-FOUNTAIN-MONTGOMERY-
BOONE-TIPTON-HAMILTON-MADISON-DELAWARE-RANDOLPH-VERMILLION-PARKE-
PUTNAM-HENDRICKS-MARION-HANCOCK-HENRY-VIGO-CLAY-OWEN-MORGAN-
JOHNSON-SHELBY-RUSH-SULLIVAN-GREENE-MONROE-BROWN-BARTHOLOMEW-
DECATUR-JACKSON-JENNINGS-
INCLUDING THE CITIES OF...LAFAYETTE...FRANKFORT...KOKOMO...
CRAWFORDSVILLE...ANDERSON...MUNCIE...INDIANAPOLIS...TERRE HAUTE...
SHELBYVILLE...BLOOMINGTON...COLUMBUS...SEYMOUR
1143 PM EST MON JAN 25 2010

...WINTER WEATHER ADVISORY IN EFFECT UNTIL NOON EST TUESDAY...

THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN INDIANAPOLIS HAS ISSUED A WINTER
WEATHER ADVISORY FOR SNOW AND BLOWING SNOW...WHICH IS IN EFFECT UNTIL
NOON EST TUESDAY.

1 TO 2 INCHES OF SNOW ALONG WITH BLOWING AND DRIFTING SNOW ARE
EXPECTED THROUGH NOON EST TODAY. MOTORISTS SHOULD BE ALERT TO
SLICK...SNOW COVERED ROADS AND VISIBILITIES LESS THAN A MILE AT
TIMES DO TO THE BLOWING SNOW. MOTORISTS SHOULD ALLOW PLENTY OF
EXTRA TIME DRIVING OVERNIGHT AND THIS MORNING.

PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...

A WINTER WEATHER ADVISORY FOR BLOWING SNOW MEANS THAT
VISIBILITIES WILL BE LIMITED DUE TO STRONG WINDS BLOWING SNOW
AROUND. USE CAUTION WHEN TRAVELING...ESPECIALLY IN OPEN AREAS.

A WINTER WEATHER ADVISORY FOR SNOW MEANS THAT PERIODS OF SNOW
WILL CAUSE PRIMARILY TRAVEL DIFFICULTIES. BE PREPARED FOR SNOW
COVERED ROADS AND LIMITED VISIBILITIES...AND USE CAUTION WHILE
DRIVING.

&&

$$

KOCH





Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
Quoting 1900hurricane:

Deduct letter grades? Wow, that is a light punishment. Here at Texas A&M University, citing Wikipedia can lead to academic probation and possibly even expulsion!


Same here at Purdue. It and plagiarism get you in a lot of trouble
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
000
NWUS56 KHNX 240058
LSRHNX

PRELIMINARY LOCAL STORM REPORT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY CA
457 PM PST SAT JAN 23 2010

..TIME... ...EVENT... ...CITY LOCATION... ...LAT.LON...
..DATE... ....MAG.... ..COUNTY LOCATION..ST.. ...SOURCE....
..REMARKS..

0800 AM HEAVY SNOW GIANT FOREST 36.56N 118.76W
01/23/2010 E70.0 INCH TULARE CA MESONET

ELEV 6650 SNOTEL

0800 AM HEAVY SNOW QUAKING ASPEN 36.12N 118.54W
01/23/2010 E96.0 INCH TULARE CA MESONET

ELEV 7200 SNOTEL

0800 AM HEAVY SNOW BIG MEADOWS 36.72N 118.84W
01/23/2010 E44.0 INCH TULARE CA MESONET

ELEV 7600 SNOTEL

0800 AM HEAVY SNOW BEACH MEADOWS 36.13N 118.29W
01/23/2010 E44.0 INCH TULARE CA MESONET

ELEV 7650 SNOTEL

0800 AM HEAVY SNOW CASA VIEJA MEADOWS 36.20N 118.27W
01/23/2010 E59.0 INCH TULARE CA MESONET

ELEV 8300 SNOTEL

0800 AM HEAVY SNOW TUNNEL GUARD STATION 36.37N 118.29W
01/23/2010 E50.0 INCH TULARE CA MESONET

ELEV 8900 SNOTEL

0800 AM HEAVY SNOW WET MEADOWS 36.35N 118.57W
01/23/2010 E86.0 INCH TULARE CA MESONET

ELEV 8950 SNOTEL

0800 AM HEAVY SNOW PASCOES 35.97N 118.35W
01/23/2010 E75.0 INCH TULARE CA MESONET

ELEV 9150 SNOTEL

0800 AM HEAVY SNOW FAREWELL GAP 36.41N 118.58W
01/23/2010 E95.0 INCH TULARE CA MESONET

ELEV 9500 SNOTEL

0800 AM HEAVY SNOW CHAGOOPA PLATEAU 36.50N 118.44W
01/23/2010 E68.0 INCH TULARE CA MESONET

ELEV 10300 SNOTEL

0800 AM HEAVY SNOW CRABTREE MEADOW 36.56N 118.35W
01/23/2010 E52.0 INCH TULARE CA MESONET

ELEV 10700 SNOTEL

0800 AM HEAVY SNOW UPPER TYNDALL CREEK 36.65N 118.40W
01/23/2010 E57.0 INCH TULARE CA MESONET

ELEV 11400 SNOTEL

0800 AM HEAVY SNOW LOWER KIBBIE RIDGE 38.03N 119.88W
01/23/2010 E72.0 INCH TUOLUMNE CA MESONET

ELEV 6700 SNOTEL

0800 AM HEAVY SNOW GRAVEYARD MEADOW 37.47N 119.29W
01/23/2010 E80.0 INCH MADERA CA MESONET

ELEV 6900 SNOTEL

0800 AM HEAVY SNOW HUNTINGTON LAKE 37.23N 119.22W
01/23/2010 E76.0 INCH FRESNO CA MESONET

ELEV 7000 SNOTEL

0800 AM HEAVY SNOW CHILKOOT MEADOW 37.41N 119.49W
01/23/2010 E110 INCH MADERA CA MESONET

ELEV 7150 SNOTEL

0800 AM HEAVY SNOW TAMARACK SUMMIT 37.17N 119.20W
01/23/2010 E96.0 INCH FRESNO CA MESONET

ELEV 7550 SNOTEL

0800 AM HEAVY SNOW GREEN MTN 37.56N 119.24W
01/23/2010 E80.0 INCH MADERA CA MESONET

ELEV 7900 SNOTEL

0800 AM HEAVY SNOW TENAYA LAKE 37.84N 119.45W
01/23/2010 E75.0 INCH MARIPOSA CA MESONET

ELEV 8150 SNOTEL

0800 AM HEAVY SNOW HORSE MEADOW 38.16N 119.66W
01/23/2010 E101 INCH TUOLUMNE CA MESONET

ELEV 8400 SNOTEL

0800 AM HEAVY SNOW TUOLUMNE MEADOWS 37.87N 119.35W
01/23/2010 E45.0 INCH TUOLUMNE CA MESONET

ELEV 8600 SNOTEL

0800 AM HEAVY SNOW KAISER POINT 37.30N 119.10W
01/23/2010 E112 INCH FRESNO CA MESONET

ELEV 9200 SNOTEL

0800 AM HEAVY SNOW AGNEW PASS 37.73N 119.14W
01/23/2010 E70.0 INCH MADERA CA MESONET

ELEV 9450 SNOTEL

0800 AM HEAVY SNOW UPPER BURNT CORRAL 37.18N 118.94W
01/23/2010 E70.0 INCH FRESNO CA MESONET

ELEV 9700 SNOTEL

0800 AM HEAVY SNOW CHARLOTTE LAKE 36.80N 118.42W
01/23/2010 E52.0 INCH FRESNO CA MESONET

ELEV 10400 SNOTEL

0800 AM HEAVY SNOW VOLCANIC KNOB 37.39N 118.90W
01/23/2010 E60.0 INCH FRESNO CA MESONET

ELEV 10500


&&
THESE ARE SIX DAY SNOTEL DATA ESTIMATES FOR THE PERIOD NOON SUNDAY
JAN 17 THROUGH 800 PM FRIDAY JAN 22, 2010.
$$
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cchsweatherman:


Just want to ask everyone a question here.

Why would you assume this source as unreliable?
If you have reason for concern you can have a look at the references. I guess this is just another opinion you just injected into this discussion.
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 11 Comments: 2032
Quoting WunderFul:
Mother nature might yet have the last laugh. One supervolcano mega-eruption, and both global warming and overpopulation go bye bye. We have become pretty arrogant as a species. I do think we are impacting global temps through our emissions, but I also believe nature reigns supreme. If we keep pushing the envelope of our species' biosustainability, mass die off or extinction is the likely outcome -- any study of biological history shows this to be true. Of course, too many of us make our living/fortune on cheating the planet and each other, so I don't anticipate we'll change until we reach a crisis point. Hate to be cynical, but I see it getting worse before it gets better. On a related note, anybody been watching this earthquake swarm in Yellowstone that is now approaching 1,300 tremors this week????
been watchin but according to the officials there is nothing to be concearn about but like my wife says cause thats what there payed to say in order to maintain order
Member Since: Posts: Comments:


The pictures above are the Chacaltaya Glacier circa 1940 and 1982, top row, and 1996 and 2005, bottom row.

''Chacaltaya has disappeared. It no longer exists.''

%u2013Edson Ramirez, head of a team of international scientists that has studied the glacier since 1991


Bolivia's Chacaltaya Glacier Melts to Nothing 6 Years Early

At some unknown moment early this year, Bolivia's 18,000-year-old Chacaltaya Glacier once the highest ski resort on Earth officially vanished.

Its meltdown began in the mid-1980s. In 1998, Dr. Ramirez predicted its complete disappearance in 2015.
Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
Quoting WunderFul:
Mother nature might yet have the last laugh. One supervolcano mega-eruption, and both global warming and overpopulation go bye bye. We have become pretty arrogant as a species. I do think we are impacting global temps through our emissions, but I also believe nature reigns supreme. If we keep pushing the envelope of our species' biosustainability, mass die off or extinction is the likely outcome -- any study of biological history shows this to be true. Of course, too many of us make our living/fortune on cheating the planet and each other, so I don't anticipate we'll change until we reach a crisis point. Hate to be cynical, but I see it getting worse before it gets better. On a related note, anybody been watching this earthquake swarm in Yellowstone that is now approaching 1,300 tremors this week????


Yellowstone Recent Status Report, Updates, and Information Releases
YELLOWSTONE VOLCANO OBSERVATORY INFORMATION STATEMENT
Monday, January 25, 2010 12:27 PM MST (Monday, January 25, 2010 1927 UTC)


Yellowstone Volcano
44°25'48" N 110°40'12" W, Summit Elevation 9203 ft (2805 m)
Current Volcano Alert Level: NORMAL
Current Aviation Color Code: GREEN

The earthquake swarm on the northwest edge of Yellowstone Caldera that began on January 17, 2010 continues. There is still no indication of premonitory volcanic or hydrothermal activity.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cchsweatherman:


Just want to ask everyone a question here. I see that quite a few people cite Wikipedia as a source. Why do people cite such a source? Its probably the worst possible source anyone can use since Wikipedia can be manipulated so easily and really isn't truly objective. Most college professors would deduct letter grade(s) from research papers for using Wikipedia as a source.

Deduct letter grades? Wow, that is a light punishment. Here at Texas A&M University, citing Wikipedia can lead to academic probation and possibly even expulsion!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Ok the climate cycle thing is not valid here - the population is 6,692,030,277 as of 2008. Forget the wildlife and the pollution for a moment - you cant have radical swings in climate now.
Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
Big discovery for biogenic magnetite
Earth and Planetary Sciences Department, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064

One of the most significant characteristics of the Anthropocene (the present age of geologic time) is the rate at which humans are perturbing the global carbon cycle. The potency of carbon dioxide and methane as greenhouse gases and their effects on Earth's temperature balance is well established (1), and the myriad of climate and ecological changes and feedbacks in response to this abrupt warming is the focus of much ongoing research (1, 2). The geologic record is one of our greatest assets in understanding the short- and long-term environmental responses to extreme fluctuations in the carbon cycle, and the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which occurred ≈55 million years ago, is an ideal analogue for the Anthropocene. The PETM is marked by an abrupt negative carbon isotope excursion that indicates a massive injection of light carbon into the oceans and atmosphere over a period of a few thousand years. This perturbation to the carbon cycle resulted in supergreenhouse conditions that persisted for as long as 180,000 years. Mean annual temperatures and deep and surface ocean temperatures at all latitudes rose by 5–8°C (3). Terrestrial plants and mammals diversified and radiated, and new marine microorganisms evolved and flourished while others disappeared forever. In this issue of PNAS, Schumann et al. (4) report evidence for new microorganisms that appeared and disappeared with the PETM, signaling another specific ecological response to the biogeochemical changes associated with this extreme warming event.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/46/17595.full
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 11 Comments: 2032

Viewing: 379 - 329

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

Local Weather

Overcast
54 °F
Overcast