Heartland Institute documents reveal strategy of attacks against climate science

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 3:15 PM GMT on February 17, 2012

Share this Blog
67
+

Documents illegally leaked from the Heartland Institute, one of the most active groups engaged in attacking the science of climate change, provide an unprecedented look into how these groups operate. The story was broken Tuesday by DeSmogBlog, a website dedicated to exposing false claims about climate change science. The documents reveal that donors to Heartland included oil billionaire Charles Koch, and Heartland has spent several million dollars over the past five years to undermine climate science. Tens of thousands of dollars are slated to go this year to well-known climate contrarians S.Fred Singer, Craig Idso, and Anthony Watts of the Watts Up With That? website. Naturally, the leaked documents have lit up the blogosphere, but none of the revelations are particularly surprising. The U.S. has a very successful and well-funded climate change denial industry, primarily funded by fossil fuel companies, that has spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the past few decades on a PR campaign against climate change science. I made a lengthy post on the subject in 2009 called, The Manufactured Doubt industry and the hacked email controversy. I won't say more here, but getenergysmartnow.com has compiled a long list of blogs that have interesting posts on the Heartland Institute affair for those interested in following this story.



Eight books challenging the Manufactured Doubt industry
Important scientific findings should always be challenged with the goal of finding flaws and improving our scientific understanding. But there's nothing a scientist hates more than to see good science attacked and the reputations of good scientists smeared in name of protecting corporate profits or ideology. A number of scientists have fought back against the recent unfounded assaults on climate change science by publishing books calling attention to the Manufactured Doubt industry's tactics and goals. Anyone priding themselves on being a open-minded skeptic of human-caused global warming should challenge their skepticism by reading one of these works. I thought so highly of Unscientific America, Merchants of Doubt, and Climate Coverup, that I donated 50 copies of these books to undergraduates at the University of Michigan last year. Here's a short synopsis of eight books published in the past three years defending climate change science against the attacks of the Manufactured Doubt industry:

Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming, by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway. If you're going to read one book on the attacks on climate science, this should probably be the one--Dr. Oreskes, a history professor at UC San Diego, was voted climate change communicator of the year in 2011. A review of Merchants of Doubt and a video of her defending her book against skeptics is at climateprogress.org, my favorite website for staying current on the politics of climate change. From the review: "Make the journey with them, and you’ll see renowned scientists abandon science, you’ll see environmentalism equated with communism, and you’ll discover the connection between the Cold War and climate denial. And for the most part, you’ll be entertained along the way."

Climate Cover-up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming, by desmogblog.com co-founders James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore. The main author, James Hoggan, owns a Canadian public relations firm, and is intimately familiar with how public relations campaigns work. It's another fascinating and very readable book.

Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future, by science writer Chris Mooney. He writes a blog focusing on science communication called the intersection. This is a fantastic book, and should be required reading for all college science majors.

Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand, by Haydn Washington and John Cook. John Cook writes for one of my favorite climate science blogs, skepticalscience.com, which focuses on debunking false skeptic claims about climate science. The book does a great job debunking all the classic climate change denial arguments.

Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health, by George Washington University epidemiologist David Michaels, who now heads the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA). This meticulously-researched book has just one chapter on climate change, and focuses more on tobacco and hazardous chemicals. About the the tobacco industry's Manufactured Doubt campaigns, Michaels wrote: "the industry understood that the public is in no position to distinguish good science from bad. Create doubt, uncertainty, and confusion. Throw mud at the anti-smoking research under the assumption that some of it is bound to stick. And buy time, lots of it, in the bargain". The title of Michaels' book comes from a 1969 memo from a tobacco company executive: "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy".

The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines, by climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann. Dr. Mann is the originator of the much-debated "hockey stick" graph of global temperatures over the past 1,000 years, which looks like a hockey stick due to the sharp increase in temperatures in recent decades. This book just came out last week, and I hope to write a review on it this spring. Dr. Mann is one of the main contributors to my favorite web site for staying current on climate change research, realclimate.org. John Cook of skepticalscience.com wrote a review, calling it "an eye-opening account of the lengths the opponents of climate science will go to in their campaign to slander climate scientists and distract the public from the realities of human caused global warming."

Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America by Shawn Lawrence Otto. I haven't had a chance to read this one yet, but it looks interesting. A review by Katherine O’Konski of Climate Science Watch called the book "a fascinating look at the status of science in American society."

The Inquisition of Climate Science, by Dr. James Lawrence Powell, a geochemist with a distinguished career as a college teacher, college president, museum director, and author of books on earth science for general audiences. I haven't read it, but John Cook of skepticalscience.com wrote a review, calling it "a must-read for anyone who wishes to understand the full scope of the denial industry and their modern day persecution of climate science."

Have a great weekend, everyone! I'll be taking a few vacation days next week, and wunderground meteorologist Angela Fritz will probably be doing most of the blogging for me during the coming week.

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: 280 - 230

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 | 30 | 31 | 32Blog Index

Quoting Jedkins01:


Here is the link to Tampa rainfall:Link


I'm really hoping the dual pole upgrade will take care of this, I have seen too many rain events be highly underestimated by doppler radar around here for whatever reason. I have also seen radar way overestimate rain totals in different parts of the country, but for some reason it seems to be more often underestimation around here.


This all the more states the importance of additional rain gauge data for the NWS since sometimes doppler radar can be way off like it has been today. For whatever reason rain rates were much heavier than the radar thought.


Dual pol will make an improvement, but it is still just a remote sensing tool. Even though we use rain gauges as the "right" answer, they still have uncertainty as well. This is why we typically use a combination of rain gauges and radar estimates along with forecaster experience to make our QCed best-estimate rainfall products in the NWS for river forecasting.

As far as additional rain gauges... totally agree there. I've heard anecdotes of people thinking that they can remove rain gauges - and even river gauges - based upon radar data and models being able to handle it on their own. I doubt this will ever become possible.

On a side note, one of the better rainfall estimation systems that updates in realtime (as in, not a delayed gauge-radar multisensor product) would be the NMQ data being tested by NSSL/OU:
http://nmq.ou.edu/
Looks like it did slightly better in the Tampa area, showing a few areas near 1.0" accumulation.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:
18Z gfs snowfall:



Actually agrees quite well with the 18Z NAM, and the NAM is being considered an "outlier" and the Euro is "genius". That makes the Euro the outlier right now....
Member Since: September 3, 2011 Posts: 13 Comments: 3477
278. HadesGodWyvern (Mod)
Japan Meteorological Agency
Tropical Cyclone Advisory #6
TROPICAL DEPRESSION 01
6:00 AM JST February 18 2012
==================================

SUBJECT: TROPICAL DEPRESSION IN SOUTH CHINA SEA

At 21:00 PM UTC, Tropical Depression (1004 hPa) located at 9.6N 113.4E has 10 minute sustained winds of 30 knots with gusts of 45 knots. The depression is reported as moving west at 7 knots.

Dvorak Intensity: T2.0

Forecast and Intensity
========================

24 HRS: 8.9N 111.4E - 35 knots (CAT 1/Tropical Storm)

The next tropical cyclone advisory from Japan Meteorological Agency will be issued at 0:50 AM UTC..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
bbl
Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4488
Have a Good Weekend Folks and stay safe and tuned to your media and weather radios this weekend if you might be affected by the frontal passage......We need the rain but not the strong wind/storms so let's see what happens.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
18Z gfs snowfall:

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
PROBABILISTIC HEAVY SNOW AND ICING DISCUSSION

Excerpt:

ALL-IN-ALL...POTENTIAL FOR 6-12 INCHES WILL REMAIN HIGHEST ACROSS THE MNTNS IN WRN VA...ACROSS MUCH OF SRN WV...AND ERN KY. FCST CONFIDENCE DECREASES TOWARD I-95 INCLUDING THE MID ATLC CITIES...THOUGH BECAUSE OF THE SPREAD OF POSSIBILITIES HPC HAS INCLUDED A MOD RISK OF AT LEAST 4" INTO NRN AND CEN VA...ALONG WITH A SLIGHT (1 IN 10) RISK OF 8 INCHES. STAY TUNED.

THE PROBABILITY OF SIGNIFICANT ICING IS LESS THAN 10 PERCENT.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Good news for me: 18Z GFS is slightly stronger and further north than the 12Z. And I was being bashed on americanwx.com for not agreeing with the south trend....


hr 57 GFS 18Z
Member Since: September 3, 2011 Posts: 13 Comments: 3477
Quoting TomTaylor:
Wrong. Temperatures have warmed slightly over the last decade.

To the second bold, conceptually speaking you have it completely wrong. Anthropomorphic Global warming theory has to do with the evidence that greenhouse gases trap outgoing long wave radiation (infrared radiation...or heat) at increasing levels when higher concentrations of these gases are present. That is the theory. The idea of the globe warming x amount of degrees in the next decade is a prediction. These predictions are based off current trends and model predictions, they are simply a forecast, not a theory.

The theory is true and will remain true even if the global temperatures cool. The prediction is what gets proven wrong when global temperatures cool, NOT THE THEORY.


Fine you win. The theory that greenhouse gases trap outgoing long wave radiation is correct. However the prediction that this will have any impact on our climate is in question here.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
climate change denial group/ im not sure either way yet but hope they are right
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:
You WON'T want to miss my forecast tonight. There's a little of everything for the weekend : Sun, Heavy Rain, Strong storms, Warm, Wind, Cold...and what's this? Is that SNOW? Can't be for here, right? Details at 5! - Meteorologist Robb Ellis" -- Local met.



YOU CANT MISS THAT ONE!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
"You WON'T want to miss my forecast tonight. There's a little of everything for the weekend : Sun, Heavy Rain, Strong storms, Warm, Wind, Cold...and what's this? Is that SNOW? Can't be for here, right? Details at 5!" -- Local met.

Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 32802
203 Neapolitan "I guess the dream of some denialists is that if some alternative energy firms go belly-up, that means alternative energy isn't viable..."

And so very true. Darn near every aircraft and car company that has ever existed has gone belly up... which is why almost nobody flies or owns cars nowadays.
Then again, firms falling by the wayside could be signs of a maturing industry; often accompanied by commodetization of what were once custom products.

Solyndra's business plan was that it would be cheaper-per-watt to produce inefficient solar panels. Then the Chinese proved that they could make&sell the far more efficient solar panels even cheaper-per-watt than Solyndra's break-even sales point.

BeaconPower is only peripherally involved in wind and solar. The main reason for Beacon's existence is load-balancing for utilities buying(&importing) electricity from fossil-fuel plants to prevent rolling brown-outs and blackouts arising from significant short-term changes in consumer demand.
Currently, nearly all load-balancing is done by putting peak-power plants online and taking them offline, and by starting up and shutting down individual generators at baseline powerplants. Besides wear&tear on systems-controllers' nerves -- it takes tens-of-minutes to balance a system, by which time consumer-demand might well have significantly changed once again -- the many abrupt temperature changes in the power-generating machinery is rough on parts; including parts of the transmission-grid.
AND peak power is VERY expensive compared to baseline power.
BeaconPower gambled on using electric-motors to spin up mechanical flywheels to store excess-to-consumer-demand power, then spinning the flywheels down to run generators to provide power as consumer demand went up. With the added PLUS that power from their flywheels could be cycled in minutes rather than tens-of-minutes.
Unfortunately for BeaconPower, molten metal salt batteries and lithium(whatever) batteries have become very competitive in price-per-kilowatt-hour in dealing with load-balancing -- with certain signs of becoming far cheaper yet in the near future -- PLUS the charge from the power grid to&from discharge into the grid switchover time is in seconds rather than minutes.

It's only incidentally that the improvements in flywheel batteries and chemical batteries also make it easier to deal with putting wind and solar power online.
So what have the bankruptsies proven?
Only that wind and solar power are becoming more economically competitive with fossil-fuel power. Heck they're already beating the more expensive peak-power fossil-fuel plants.
Member Since: August 21, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 4860
Quoting WxGeekVA:


I don't have one yet.... Right now I think 4-8 inches but I won't make a final call until the 0Z models tonight


No balls... :p haha
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:




its starting!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting LargoFl:
pinellas surely had an inch or more, it poured rain for hours, steady, no let up


Yeah I live in north Central Pinellas, my gauge technically picked up a little more than 1.10 but I suspect I had about 1.50, the reason why is it rained for a good while and yet wasn't responding at first, so I checked on it and found 2 frogs were living inside the rain gauge and were blocking the electronics from detecting rain, I removed them safely to a better hiding spot of course!

But yeah, it rained steady for a good while, and where had a few 5 to 10 minute heavy down pour periods from some embedded convection as well.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:


So final prediction for snow amount for you? I want a picture with a ruler to see how close!


I don't have one yet.... Right now I think 4-8 inches but I won't make a final call until the 0Z models tonight
Member Since: September 3, 2011 Posts: 13 Comments: 3477
Quoting WxGeekVA:


No it's going DOOMANNULPINHOLULAR and will be a cat 6 by Tokyo....


So final prediction for snow amount for you? I want a picture with a ruler to see how close!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Final bulletin has been issued for the SE Pacific invest.

Yes, that's right SE Pacific, south of the Galapagos islands. It was never strong enough to reach tropical storm classification, but it did (and still does) have a closed LLC and winds of around 15 knots.




(click for satellite loop)
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358
And here it is folks..why you never elect a conservative majority.


Canadian government is 'muzzling its scientists'

The Canadian government has been accused of "muzzling" its scientists.

Speakers at a major science meeting being held in Canada said communication of vital research on health and environment issues is being suppressed.

Government experts tracked a new ozone hole, but were not allowed to give interviews

(might not seem that bad, but this is the second thing I've heard in the last 24 hours of our government taking away freedom of speech)
Member Since: November 19, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 1286
Quoting weatherh98:


tropical/subtropical!!!!


No it's going DOOMANNULPINHOLULAR and will be a cat 6 by Tokyo....
Member Since: September 3, 2011 Posts: 13 Comments: 3477
Quoting WeatherNerdPR:

It's going annular!


tropical/subtropical!!!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:


Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129780
Quoting aburttschell:


My contention is that the most recent data, albeit a small point in time compared to the earths existence, is the most credible data we have. And how is 30 years any more reliable when comparing it to the even to existence of man? Thats approximately .05% compared to .017%. The IPCC projected the earth would warm 1 C the first decade of the 21st century and instead it has actually cooled slightly. This doesn't allow for questioning? How can a theory predicated on the warming of 1 C in the first decade of this century and 4 C-6 C by the end of the century not be called in to question when the earliest results show the exact opposite happening?
Wrong. Temperatures have warmed slightly over the last decade.

To the second bold, conceptually speaking you have it completely wrong. Anthropomorphic Global warming theory has to do with the evidence that greenhouse gases trap outgoing long wave radiation (infrared radiation...or heat) at increasing levels when higher concentrations of these gases are present. That is the theory. The idea of the globe warming x amount of degrees in the next decade is a prediction. These predictions are based off current trends and model predictions, they are simply a forecast, not a theory.

The theory is true and will remain true even if the global temperatures cool. The prediction is what gets proven wrong when global temperatures cool, NOT THE THEORY.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358
Quoting WeatherNerdPR:

It's going annular!


Just hope that it does not go annual.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
Quoting MAweatherboy1:

Is that a pinhole eye forming?

It's going annular!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting WeatherNerdPR:

I see an eyewall forming...very menacing.

Is that a pinhole eye forming?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting SPLbeater:


Giovanna never held a candle to that thing!
You rolling them extra fat today SPL.? Giovanna is a killer and caused devastation...pfft
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting hydrus:


I just saw that, it's very similar to the 12Z NAM today...
Member Since: September 3, 2011 Posts: 13 Comments: 3477
Was thinking about driving to Mobile Alabama tonight to do some storm chasing and filming tomorrow. Not sure what the situation will be like tomorrow because it could get out of hand very fast. I'm not a professional but know a good amount about weather. Do you guys think that would be a good place to set up? Also do you think this storm could be more then I could handle for not being a professional meteorologist? Thanks
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ScottLincoln:


You might be confusing producers of methane with changes in production of methane. They are, in fact, different. Similar to why C02 can be produced by natural sources but if those sources change slowly, the climate is at equilibrium; thus a rapidly increasing production from an anthropogenic source can change the concentration enough to cause in energy imbalance.

99.9% of the methane produced every year could be from natural sources, but if the planet was at equilibrium with that 99.9%, then 0.1% changing rapidly could still cause climatic changes.

I'm not sure what connection you are trying to make between methane on Mars and methane on Earth.


The only reason I mentioned Mars was because I thought it was cool, it gives the very real chance of microorganisms on the red planet.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MAweatherboy1:

Former TD One... Very menacing looking


Giovanna never held a candle to that thing!
Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4488
Quoting ScottLincoln:


It would appear as if he was referring to the original source of the graphic, or made a mistake on which post he was referring to. At least that was how I took it.
No, this time I was indeed referring to "EllenPettit" as a sockpuppet--the same person behind such clever handles as "NaplesdWebDesigner56", "EPAsupporter56", "Xvrus2000", and "GiovanniDatoli" (and about a hundred others, most of them banned). Same old childish game by the same old tiresome person...

Anyway, for the "it's been cooling since 1998" crowd--that includes you, Cat5--I present this yet again:



Denialism. Is. So. Very. Monotonous... ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13790
Quoting uncwhurricane85:


why does everybody have to be a smarta*s in this blog and just answer a simple question i dont want your address. im just wondering where the freezing rain was, because its either going to be a rain or snow event, there is no low level cold layer to produce freezing rain! i was just wondering where you were because myself am in the dc metro area.



lol i aint tryin to be smart, just givin a bit o humor to de blog :D


I am in Sanford, North Carolina. Hopefully it wont be freezing rain, just snow. then i can take pictures and rub it in to my 'friends' in wilmington lol.
Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4488
Quoting Xyrus2000:


A) Not in climatological sense. Natural variation can cause hot and cold spikes, which is why data over multiple decades is used to minimize the noise that weather introduces.

B) Those years are used because analysis is performed over multiple decades. It's not cherry-picking. Any climatological starting point (> 30 years) over the past century shows the exact same thing; rapidly warming temperatures.Cherry picking is choosing a data point that is sure to skew the results in your favor, which is what deniers absolutely love to do.

You don't really seem to understand what "rapid" means. Let me illustrate. The last temperature optimum warmed the planet by 6 C. This occurred over a period of 15,000 to 20,000 years. Over the past century, we have seen about 1 C of warming, with a projected warming of 4 C-6 C by the end of the century.

In climatological terms, that is break-neck speed. Only during extinction events has climate changed at such a rapid speed.

C) It is compared to what they were experiencing. And they may experience it again in the future. That's weather. Climate would be them seeing this every year over a span of 20-30 years.

Regardless, global warming does not mean it will be warm everywhere. The average temperature will increase, but how that specifically affects different regions on the globe is determined by the dominant weather patterns.

And your graph is, once again, flawed. You can always go and get the data yourself from GISS and generate your own plots according to well established scientific and mathematical methods instead of linking to others (which have been ripped apart many times here and elsewhere). The only problem is, if you actually used real methods of analysis, you'd come to the same conclusion the Koch brother's funded climate study did; the planet is getting warmer.


My contention is that the most recent data, albeit a small point in time compared to the earths existence, is the most credible data we have. And how is 30 years any more reliable when comparing it to the even to existence of man? Thats approximately .05% compared to .017%. The IPCC projected the earth would warm 1 C the first decade of the 21st century and instead it has actually cooled slightly. This doesn't allow for questioning? How can a theory predicated on the warming of 1 C in the first decade of this century and 4 C-6 C by the end of the century not be called in to question when the earliest results show the exact opposite happening?

This is a serious question btw and leads to my major contention towards AGW. This, in conjunction with CO2 being the variable that effects climate. There are hundreds of thousands of underwater volcanoes, with the overall increase in volcanic activity above ground is not logical to assume the same could be happening under water? Could this vast amount of energy not contribute to ocean temps? And why sun cycles so quickly discredited when past climate events are tied to decreased and increased activity? These are my reservations when it comes to climate change. I'm not claiming to be as well informed as some as you but I do have some common sense, there are a number of ways to look at the same situation.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MAweatherboy1:

Former TD One... Very menacing looking

I see an eyewall forming...very menacing.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting SPLbeater:


Mars. its a cool place, alot of red dust and very cold.


why does everybody have to be a smarta*s in this blog and just answer a simple question i dont want your address. im just wondering where the freezing rain was, because its either going to be a rain or snow event, there is no low level cold layer to produce freezing rain! i was just wondering where you were because myself am in the dc metro area.
Member Since: August 4, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 572

Former TD One... Very menacing looking
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Jedkins01:
Man radar really messed up BIG on rainfall estimation today, I picked up 1.10 inches of rain even though doppler radar thinks I got only a trace!

If you think I may be exaggerating, an official rain gauge near Tampa also received a similar amount as me, Tampa International Airport, also received over 1 inch of rain but the radar storm total thinks they have only had a trace!

Here is the link to Tampa rainfall:Link


I'm really hoping the dual pole upgrade will take care of this, I have seen too many rain events be highly underestimated by doppler radar around here for whatever reason. I have also seen radar way overestimate rain totals in different parts of the country, but for some reason it seems to be more often underestimation around here.


This all the more states the importance of additional rain gauge data for the NWS since sometimes doppler radar can be way off like it has been today. For whatever reason rain rates were much heavier than the radar thought.
pinellas surely had an inch or more, it poured rain for hours, steady, no let up
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The CMC also has a big shot of cold air in 144 hours..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
So...

this year, we'll have dual polarized radar for tracking tornadoes and hurricanes.

I wonder how much improvement we'll see in intensity and track forecasts?

Of course, for hurricanes the only radar stations in truly relevant locations regarding 3 to 5 day forecasts are in Puerto Rico and Key West, maybe Miami, seeing as how most of the other locations are such that the hurricane would need to be already near final landfall to even be on the radar.


At least hopefully it will allow more accurate and precise information about rainfall potentials in various bands, and so on.
Member Since: January 25, 2012 Posts: 33 Comments: 1520
Man radar really messed up BIG on rainfall estimation today, I picked up 1.10 inches of rain even though doppler radar thinks I got only a trace!

If you think I may be exaggerating, an official rain gauge near Tampa also received a similar amount as me, Tampa International Airport, also received over 1 inch of rain but the radar storm total thinks they have only had a trace!

Here is the link to Tampa rainfall:Link


I'm really hoping the dual pole upgrade will take care of this, I have seen too many rain events be highly underestimated by doppler radar around here for whatever reason. I have also seen radar way overestimate rain totals in different parts of the country, but for some reason it seems to be more often underestimation around here.


This all the more states the importance of additional rain gauge data for the NWS since sometimes doppler radar can be way off like it has been today. For whatever reason rain rates were much heavier than the radar thought.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting uncwhurricane85:


where are you?


Mars. its a cool place, alot of red dust and very cold.
Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4488
lol TD One is gone already xD
Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4488
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting SPLbeater:


the GFS has me with an inch of snow...and I beleive the NWS is going to follow.

This morning, NWS said A 40% chance of rain on Sunday night. NOW...it says a 40% chance of freezing rain.


where are you?
Member Since: August 4, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 572
Quoting aburttschell:


A) If the temperatures are going down, that's cooling correct?

B) Okay so picking a date in the 70's or 80's isn't cherry picking. Furthermore, according to most theories we were supposed to be nearing the rapid global warmth, so the fact that there was actually cooling the last decade is pertinent.

C)The European cold snap is not over, in fact Eastern European countries such as Romania are still experiencing chilling temps. Furthermore, over 650 people have died. And to the "two or three month cold snap comment" per chart its obviously been longer than two or three months.

Oh and here is more cherry pickin' for you



A) Not in climatological sense. Natural variation can cause hot and cold spikes, which is why data over multiple decades is used to minimize the noise that weather introduces.

B) Those years are used because analysis is performed over multiple decades. It's not cherry-picking. Any climatological starting point (> 30 years) over the past century shows the exact same thing; rapidly warming temperatures.Cherry picking is choosing a data point that is sure to skew the results in your favor, which is what deniers absolutely love to do.

You don't really seem to understand what "rapid" means. Let me illustrate. The last temperature optimum warmed the planet by 6 C. This occurred over a period of 15,000 to 20,000 years. Over the past century, we have seen about 1 C of warming, with a projected warming of 4 C-6 C by the end of the century.

In climatological terms, that is break-neck speed. Only during extinction events has climate changed at such a rapid speed.

C) It is compared to what they were experiencing. And they may experience it again in the future. That's weather. Climate would be them seeing this every year over a span of 20-30 years.

Regardless, global warming does not mean it will be warm everywhere. The average temperature will increase, but how that specifically affects different regions on the globe is determined by the dominant weather patterns.

And your graph is, once again, flawed. You can always go and get the data yourself from GISS and generate your own plots according to well established scientific and mathematical methods instead of linking to others (which have been ripped apart many times here and elsewhere). The only problem is, if you actually used real methods of analysis, you'd come to the same conclusion the Koch brother's funded climate study did; the planet is getting warmer.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
JTWC has issued its final warning on long lived TD One. It's very rare that a storm survives this long.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
Aburttschell is right it technically has cooled for the last decade.

GISS anomaly 2002 was 0.79 for 2011 it was 0.77

HADCRUT anomaly 2002 was 0.455 for 2011 it was 0.342

NCDC anomaly 2002 was 0.5923 for 2011 it was 0.5117

I don't see warming do you
This is why we look at trends, not two specific points on a graph. Take the graph below for example. If we look from point A to point B there is little to no change at all. However it is clear if we look at the overall trend of the graph, it is going up.




The same thing can be applied to any temperature graph and that is exactly what you are doing. Think of it this way, it's climate change. As in the climate is changing over time or Change/Time. That is how we find trends; by looking at change over time. The more points you use to determine your change over time, the more accurate your assessment of the data's trend will be. So when you use the bare minimum of two points, you get literally the worst possible sample of what is really going on with your data.

If we go back to the graph above I could pick two points to show where there was no change (A and B) and I can even pick two points to show where the rate of change was negative. Yet, obviously, the overall trend is a positive rate of change.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358

Viewing: 280 - 230

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 | 30 | 31 | 32Blog 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
29 °F
Overcast

JeffMasters's Recent Photos

Lake Effort Snow Shower Over Windsor, Ontario
Sunset on Dunham Lake
Pictured Rocks Sunset
Sunset on Lake Huron