7-Day Forecast Courtesy NWS
Friday, June 10, 2005
It's not the heat . . .
Steve Scolnik @ 3:30 PM
Although the Washington metro area is again failing to reach an official 90-degree mark after hitting 90 for the first time this year on Wednesday, there's no doubt what season we're in. Dewpoint is a more consistent measure of moisture in the air than relative humidity, and anything above 65 starts to feel muggy. Readings in the low 70s are downright uncomfortable, and we are seeing dewpoints today mostly 75 or above. The prize for most mugginess this afternoon goes to Culpeper's sweat-soaked 77. This level of juiciness is very conducive to the development of showers and thunderstorms, and radar shows these starting to develop, but so far they are mainly confined to the mountains west of I-81. Dulles reported light rain at 4:00.
Outlook
Showers and thunderstorms will continue to develop through this evening. The chance that any given location will receive measurable rainfall is about 40%. Lows tonight will be in the low 70s to about 70 in the outlying areas. Tomorrow will see continued humidity and highs in the upper 80s, but a slightly lower chance of afternoon or evening showers.
Arlene Update
As of the 2pm advisory, a tropical storm warning is in effect from Grand Isle, Louisiana to St. Marks, Florida. A hurricane watch is in effect from the mouth of the Pearl River to Panama City, Florida. Arlene had peak winds of 60 mph and was moving toward the north at 13 mph. Some strengthening is forecast, and it is possible the storm could reach hurricane force before landfall tomorrow on the northern Gulf Coast.
It's the duplicity
(As usual, any opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the management of CapitalWeather.com or its advertisers. Responsible replies are welcome.)
While Arlene spins in the Gulf, the article in the N.Y. Times earlier in the week noting that the White House altered government climate reports to reflect its own political views has been generating a world-wide vortex of indignation. A Google News search turned up over 300 references at last check. The Guardian in Britain had an article yesterday titled, "Ex-oil lobbyist watered down US climate research." In typical British understatement, it refers to the White House claim that the editing was "part of our inter-agency review process" by saying that "it is customary for scientific papers to be edited by other scientists." Philip Cooney, the former American Petroleum Institute lobbyist who did the editing, is a lawyer (sorry, Matt) with no scientific training.
Editorial opinion has been overwhelmingly negative. The Times, in an editorial titled, "A (White) House Party for Lobbyists", sees a larger pattern of "erosion of the regulatory framework protecting the country's air, water, public lands and wildlife, combined with a chronic unwillingness by the administration to address difficult environmental issues." It notes that this "is hardly the first time this administration has tinkered with the truth." Under the heading "Climate Reports, Edited to Fit", the Times publishes 5 letters on the subject today, 4 of which are critical of the White House. The one positive letter attempts to quibble with the issue of impacts on Arctic natives by citing a result regarding Antarctic snowpack. Um, excuse me, but the last time I looked, the Antarctic was still located at the SOUTH POLE, which is inhabited only by scientists. And who wrote this letter? A senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. That would presumably be the same Competitive Enterprise Institute which, according to Sen. Joe Lieberman, was exchanging emails with Mr. Cooney in 2003 in which the CEI director referred to a White House request to "clean up this mess." The "mess" they were referring to was the submission by the State Dept. to the U.N. in May 2002 of a report which embarrassed the White House by finding that increasing greenhouse gases were contributing to global warming. In August 2003, the CEI filed suit against the government to invalidate an earlier study whose results were the basis of the May 2002 State Dept. report.
There are also critical editorials from those hotbeds of anti-petroleum sentiment, Houston and Austin. The Houston Chronicle, under the title, "The Bush administration's solution to global warming is a good copy editor", criticizes the effects of a "see no warming, hear no warming, speak no warming" attitude. It goes on to say that "it is impossible to solve the problem if leaders refuse to acknowledge the facts and alter them to fit existing policy." The Austin American-Statesman titles its editorial "Spinning science". It says, "The Bush White House has built a reputation of being untrustworthy, and the Cooney episode doesn't help. That mistrust is added to the administration's penchant for secrecy and its efforts to keep the American people in the dark too frequently."
From the other Washington, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has an editorial called "Climate Change: Spinning global science". It calls the administration's attitude a "head-in-the-sand posture." The P-I's (admittedly unscientific) online poll shows a 77% yes response to the question, "Is global warming something to worry about?"
Outlook
Showers and thunderstorms will continue to develop through this evening. The chance that any given location will receive measurable rainfall is about 40%. Lows tonight will be in the low 70s to about 70 in the outlying areas. Tomorrow will see continued humidity and highs in the upper 80s, but a slightly lower chance of afternoon or evening showers.
Arlene Update
As of the 2pm advisory, a tropical storm warning is in effect from Grand Isle, Louisiana to St. Marks, Florida. A hurricane watch is in effect from the mouth of the Pearl River to Panama City, Florida. Arlene had peak winds of 60 mph and was moving toward the north at 13 mph. Some strengthening is forecast, and it is possible the storm could reach hurricane force before landfall tomorrow on the northern Gulf Coast.
It's the duplicity
(As usual, any opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the management of CapitalWeather.com or its advertisers. Responsible replies are welcome.)
While Arlene spins in the Gulf, the article in the N.Y. Times earlier in the week noting that the White House altered government climate reports to reflect its own political views has been generating a world-wide vortex of indignation. A Google News search turned up over 300 references at last check. The Guardian in Britain had an article yesterday titled, "Ex-oil lobbyist watered down US climate research." In typical British understatement, it refers to the White House claim that the editing was "part of our inter-agency review process" by saying that "it is customary for scientific papers to be edited by other scientists." Philip Cooney, the former American Petroleum Institute lobbyist who did the editing, is a lawyer (sorry, Matt) with no scientific training.
Editorial opinion has been overwhelmingly negative. The Times, in an editorial titled, "A (White) House Party for Lobbyists", sees a larger pattern of "erosion of the regulatory framework protecting the country's air, water, public lands and wildlife, combined with a chronic unwillingness by the administration to address difficult environmental issues." It notes that this "is hardly the first time this administration has tinkered with the truth." Under the heading "Climate Reports, Edited to Fit", the Times publishes 5 letters on the subject today, 4 of which are critical of the White House. The one positive letter attempts to quibble with the issue of impacts on Arctic natives by citing a result regarding Antarctic snowpack. Um, excuse me, but the last time I looked, the Antarctic was still located at the SOUTH POLE, which is inhabited only by scientists. And who wrote this letter? A senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. That would presumably be the same Competitive Enterprise Institute which, according to Sen. Joe Lieberman, was exchanging emails with Mr. Cooney in 2003 in which the CEI director referred to a White House request to "clean up this mess." The "mess" they were referring to was the submission by the State Dept. to the U.N. in May 2002 of a report which embarrassed the White House by finding that increasing greenhouse gases were contributing to global warming. In August 2003, the CEI filed suit against the government to invalidate an earlier study whose results were the basis of the May 2002 State Dept. report.
There are also critical editorials from those hotbeds of anti-petroleum sentiment, Houston and Austin. The Houston Chronicle, under the title, "The Bush administration's solution to global warming is a good copy editor", criticizes the effects of a "see no warming, hear no warming, speak no warming" attitude. It goes on to say that "it is impossible to solve the problem if leaders refuse to acknowledge the facts and alter them to fit existing policy." The Austin American-Statesman titles its editorial "Spinning science". It says, "The Bush White House has built a reputation of being untrustworthy, and the Cooney episode doesn't help. That mistrust is added to the administration's penchant for secrecy and its efforts to keep the American people in the dark too frequently."
From the other Washington, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has an editorial called "Climate Change: Spinning global science". It calls the administration's attitude a "head-in-the-sand posture." The P-I's (admittedly unscientific) online poll shows a 77% yes response to the question, "Is global warming something to worry about?"
|
| Link |
Email this post
Email this post
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Archives by week: