[Vision2020] Despite La Nina, Moscow's Meteorological Winter (Dec./Jan./Feb.) Saw Below Ave. Precipitation

[Craine Kit]

The official state archives for climate data -- including the original  
observer's records -- was part of the Department of Biological and  
Agricultural Engineering at the University of Idaho. It was called  
"Idaho Climate Services". The BAE department still lists the services  
and has some data at http://snow.cals.uidaho.edu/index.html. I'd  
suggest calling the department to find out how to get the entire data  
set -- or where to find it if the records have been relocated.

As for "quality" control, that means the observer records are reviewed  
for potential human errors such as having a high temperature of 81 in  
January or snow in August. Missing temperature data are also estimated  
based on observations in the surrounding areas if possible. Overall,  
the review is intended to increase the accuracy and reliability of the  
data.


Kit Craine
Former database manager and quality control supervisor, Idaho Climate  
Services

On Mar 10, 2011, at 11:22 AM, Ted Moffett wrote:

> Don't apologize if there is nothing to apologize for... But if so, for
> penance, I recommend you directly contact NASA's Gavin Schmidt or
> James Hansen at Goddard Insitute for Space Studies to explain your
> profound theories regarding why their climate science is as unrelibale
> as you emphatically assert it is... Of course, they might just laugh,
> or not bother with a response.  But I have corresponded briefly with
> Schmidt, to receive my encrypted marching orders to advance the
> political takeover of public climate science education to promote the
> great anthropogenic global warming hoax that one day, as a card
> carrying member of the Knights Carbonic, will lead us to total world
> domination.  Unfortunately, our plans were partially revealed in
> emails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit of East Anglia
> University in the United Kingdom, but we have regrouped with much
> tighter security protocols:  Read here:
> http://www.monbiot.com/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/
> -----------------------
> I attempted to find data on local precipitation direcly form the U of
> I weather station from whatever source would offer the most "raw" data
> (Whatever that is!  Read "A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate
> Data, and the Politics of Global Warming
> ": http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=12080
> ) but had problems accessing the website (even assuming I had the
> correct website...).
>
> Maybe someone knows the most direct source for the U of I weather
> station's entire historical data set?
>
> Someone once sent me an actual page of U of I weather station data
> with all the data for the month of Dec. 1968, the month of the record
> coldest day for Moscow, Idaho, Dec. 30, at 42 below F., that might
> have come from the NCDC ( http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/cd/cd.html ).
> It featured a note that the data are "quality controlled" and "may not
> be identical to the original observations."  See what mean about so
> called "raw" data?  The Knights Carbonic are everywhere!
>
> Here is a part of the page in question:
>
> Station: MOSCOW U OF I
> State: ID County: LATAH Standard Time: PACIFIC
> Record of Climatological Observations
> These data are quality controlled and may not be identical to the
> original observations
>
> --------------------------
> Anyway, I suspect your Moscow average monthly precipitation graph is
> based on incorrect or incomplete data, or the data is misintrepreted.
>
> I found two other sources for Moscow, Idaho average monthly
> precipitation, and both agree exactly with weather.com, showing Dec.
> at 3.14 inches, Jan. at 2.99 inches and Feb. at 2.52 inches (8.65
> total for meterorological winter).  The first website below asserts
> the source as the U of I weather station:
>
> http://www.idcide.com/weather/id/moscow.htm
>
> Normal Precipitation
> (MOSCOW U OF I Weather station, 1.63 miles from Moscow)
> Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
> Inch 2.99 2.52 2.57 2.52 2.62 1.87 1.12 1.19 1.28 2.01 3.54 3.14 27.37
>
> ----------------
> The same values for monthly average precipitation are listed at this
> website, giving a NOAA station ID:
>
> NOAA Station ID: ID106152
>
> http://www.climate-charts.com/USA-Stations/ID/ID106152.php
> ----------------
> I think it likely that weather.com simply posts the U of I or
> NOAA/NCDC data on Moscow's weather, without keeping the "raw" data on
> their website.
> ------------------------------------------
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>
> On 3/9/11, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 03/09/2011 01:46 PM, Ted Moffett wrote:
>>> Good grief!
>>>
>>> You take the time and trouble to graph out precipitation data from
>>> another website, yet you don't simply search the weather.com website
>>> to find the info you ask for that is easy to find?
>>>
>>> More head games, I guess...
>>>
>>> WTF!
>>>
>>> But I'll play along with your game...
>>
>> The truth is, I had taken my lunch hour to gather that data and was
>> already running late for getting back to work.  I didn't think I  
>> had the
>> time to search for the link, compare numbers, and to try to find out
>> where they both gathered their data from.  If you thought that I was
>> trying to manipulate you or if you thought this was unforgivable
>> behavior on my part, I apologize.  It had taken me longer to gather  
>> the
>> data and make the chart than I had at first anticipated.
>>
>>> Read at weather.com website the historical average precipitation for
>>> each month of the year for Moscow, Idaho, showing Dec. at 3.14  
>>> inches,
>>> Jan. at 2.99 inches and Feb. at 2.52 inches, for a total of 8.65
>>> inches for the meteorological winter:
>>> http://www.weather.com/outlook/driving/interstate/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/83843?s_oid=http://www.weather.com/outlook/driving/interstate/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/83843&s_oidt=0
>>> ---------------
>>> As to differences between the weather data you offered and
>>> weather.com, I have no clue.
>>
>> Me neither.  If I can find the time soon, I'll try to find out what  
>> data
>> sources they use and report back.  I have a couple of other  
>> projects in
>> the pipeline, though, so it might take me some time.
>>
>> Thank you for the link.
>>
>>> Call NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.  Maybe climate
>>> scientists Gavin Schmidt (
>>> http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/gschmidt.html ) or James Hansen (
>>> http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html ) can resolve the
>>> discrepancy!
>>>
>>> Just joking...
>>>
>>> By the way, you might want to study this important research on  
>>> climate
>>> noted below from Goddard, from those climate science government  
>>> funded
>>> politically biased incompetents or frauds... (scathing sarcasm
>>> scarcely disguised):
>>>
>>> http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20101014/
>>
>> I have a couple of comments on this study (I've snipped some of the
>> article for brevity):
>>
>>> How Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature
>>> October 14, 2010
>>>
>>> Water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's
>>> greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study
>>> shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the
>>> atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.
>>>
>>
>>> The climate forcing experiment described in Science was simple in
>>> design and concept — all of the non-condensing greenhouse gases and
>>> aerosols were zeroed out, and the global climate model was run  
>>> forward
>>> in time to see what would happen to the greenhouse effect
>>
>> This study is describing the outputs of a climate model that they
>> developed, using assumptions they think are true.
>>
>>> "Our climate modeling simulation should be viewed as an experiment  
>>> in
>>> atmospheric physics, illustrating a cause and effect problem which
>>> allowed us to gain a better understanding of the working mechanics  
>>> of
>>> Earth's greenhouse effect, and enabled us to demonstrate the direct
>>> relationship that exists between rising atmospheric carbon dioxide  
>>> and
>>> rising global temperature," Lacis said.
>>
>> I would agree that this simulation should be viewed as an experiment,
>> *after* it has been validated by real-world observations.  Until  
>> then,
>> as far as I can tell from this article, it's not an "experiment",  
>> it's a
>> description of a hypothesis.  The fact that their computer simulation
>> suggested this hypothesis is beside the point.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================