PDA

View Full Version : Environment MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data


KILLER_CLOWN
11-02-2008, 10:06 AM
Rick C. Hodgin
TG Daily
Friday, Oct 31, 2008

Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature - and not the direct result of mans contributions.

Methane - powerful greenhouse gas

The two lead authors of a paper published in this weeks Geophysical Review Letters, Matthew Rigby and Ronald Prinn, the TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry in MITs Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science, state that as a result of the increase, several million tons of new methane is present in the atmosphere.

Methane accounts for roughly one-fifth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, though its effect is 25x greater than that of carbon dioxide. Its impact on global warming comes from the reflection of the suns light back to the Earth (like a greenhouse). Methane is typically broken down in the atmosphere by the free radical hydroxyl (OH), a naturally occuring process. This atmospheric cleanser has been shown to adjust itself up and down periodically, and is believed to account for the lack of increases in methane levels in Earths atmosphere over the past ten years despite notable simultaneous increases by man.

More study

Prinn has said, The next step will be to study [these changes] using a very high-resolution atmospheric circulation model and additional measurements from other networks. The key thing is to better determine the relative roles of increased methane emission versus [an increase] in the rate of removal. Apparently we have a mix of the two, but we want to know how much of each [is responsible for the overall increase].

The primary concern now is that 2007 is long over. While the collected data from that time period reflects a simultaneous world-wide increase in emissions, observing atmospheric trends now is like observing the healthy horse running through the paddock a year after it overcame some mystery illness. Where does one even begin? And how relevant are any of the data findings at this late date? Looking back over 2007 data as it was captured may prove as ineffective if the data does not support the high resolution details such a study requires.

One thing does seem very clear, however; science is only beginning to get a handle on the big picture of global warming. Findings like these tell us its too early to know for sure if mans impact is affecting things at the political cry of alarming rates. We may simply be going through another natural cycle of warmer and colder times - one thats been observed through a scientific analysis of the Earth to be naturally occuring for hundreds of thousands of years.

Project funding

Rigby and Prinn carried out this study with help from researchers at Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Georgia Institute of Technology, University of Bristol and Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Methane gas measurements came from the Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE), which is supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Australian CSIRO network.

http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/content-view-39973-113.html

MagicHef
11-02-2008, 06:52 PM
He who smelt it dealt it.

WoodDraw
11-02-2008, 08:49 PM
That headline is bogus. Here's the article from Reuters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE49T0AD20081030

A couple key quotes:

Methane, the primary component of natural gas, has more than doubled in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times, but stayed largely stable over the last decade or so before rising in 2007, researchers said on Wednesday.

This stability led scientists to believe that the emissions of methane, from natural sources like cows, sheep and wetlands, as well as from human activities like coal and gas production, were balanced by the destruction of methane in the atmosphere.


Methane is destroyed by reaction with an atmospheric "cleanser" called the hydroxyl free radical, or OH. The researchers theorized that the rise in methane might be due in part to a decline in OH.

The researchers said it is too soon to tell whether the one-year rise in the amount of atmospheric methane is the start of an upward trend or a short-lived anomaly.


The new research does nothing to discredit the "global warming theory", especially since methane levels have been stable for a decade. If all global warming gasses had been stable for the past decade, we wouldn't be talking about global warming.

The research only states that methane levels unexpectedly went up in one year, and that the increase was probably not directly caused by man made pollution.

KILLER_CLOWN
11-02-2008, 09:08 PM
Blog: Science
Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
Michael Asher (Blog) - February 26, 2008 12:55 PM



World Temperatures according to the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction. Note the steep drop over the last year.Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.


Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.

Update 2/27: The graph for HadCRUT (above), as well as the linked graphs for RSS and UAH are generated month-to-month; the temperature declines span a full 12 months of data. The linked GISS graph was graphed for the months of January only, due to a limitation in the plotting program. Anthony Watts, who kindly provided the graphics, otherwise has no connection with the column. The views and comments are those of the author only.

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

T-post Tom
11-02-2008, 09:32 PM
The new research does nothing to discredit the "global warming theory", especially since methane levels have been stable for a decade. If all global warming gasses had been stable for the past decade, we wouldn't be talking about global warming.

The research only states that methane levels unexpectedly went up in one year, and that the increase was probably not directly caused by man made pollution.

very true.

tiptap
11-02-2008, 10:03 PM
Just a few things:

1) No one questions that the Sun is one of only two sources of heat for the Earth. The internal Earth's heat is 2nd to the dominant heat source of the Sun for the surface.
2) But it has been known for 100 years and verified time after time that the flow of energy from the Sun and the Earth, treated as black body thermodynamic interactions, do not account for the temperatures on earth. That interaction only gets Earth's temperature to around minus 40 degrees (C or F).
3) Energy and temperature are not the same. And it is the Energy balance that is the fundamental in making determinations. Temperature is subject to constraints such as change of state.
4) If there hadn't been a HUGE lost of Polar Ice, then the small drop (yes small drop the statement about 100 year comparison is flat out wrong) the last year might be an encouraging indication of change afoot. Instead it is just a short term reflection of a large part of the energy balance going to change the state of ice to water.
5) Please post the record cold for any state (the whole state) for any month for the last 12 years. I for a while posted monthly reports of just that kind of data. And there are no record coldest entries for any state. (I do state that this year did see temperatures in some states hit cold temperatures that at least could be tabulated as Much Below Normal levels not seen for any of the previous 12 years, but not record cold.)

WoodDraw
11-02-2008, 11:36 PM
Blog: Science
Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
Michael Asher (Blog) - February 26, 2008 12:55 PM

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

Of course, the original source of the numbers came out and disputed DailyTech's conclusions.

The global warming skeptics accuse the other side of making far reaching claims based on dubious science, but in this thread alone you've posted two early scientific studies based on short time frames and made far reaching claims.

KILLER_CLOWN
11-02-2008, 11:58 PM
Global warming is junk science and has been proven wrong, the temperature trend is downward but i guess that is to be ignored.

Mizzou_8541
11-03-2008, 12:02 AM
That headline is bogus. Here's the article from Reuters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE49T0AD20081030

A couple key quotes:





The new research does nothing to discredit the "global warming theory", especially since methane levels have been stable for a decade. If all global warming gasses had been stable for the past decade, we wouldn't be talking about global warming.

The research only states that methane levels unexpectedly went up in one year, and that the increase was probably not directly caused by man made pollution.


I choose to believe the guys at MIT over you. No offense.

WoodDraw
11-03-2008, 12:27 AM
I choose to believe the guys at MIT over you. No offense.

Me too. Here's the MIT news release. Point me to the conclusions there that state they are "baffled by global warming" and that their study "contradicts scientific data". You won't find it.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/methane-tt1029.html

In fact, they say that the only reason they released the initial findings so quickly was because of the "important consequences of global warming."

No offense taken, by the way.

WoodDraw
11-03-2008, 12:34 AM
Global warming is junk science and has been proven wrong, the temperature trend is downward but i guess that is to be ignored.

One year isn't a trend. And, let's not be so dense to think that only global warming gasses effect the year-to-year fluctuations in temperatures.

And I'd be wary about saying anything is junk science and has been proven wrong based on a blog.

KILLER_CLOWN
11-03-2008, 12:41 AM
One year isn't a trend. And, let's not be so dense to think that only global warming gasses effect the year-to-year fluctuations in temperatures.

And I'd be wary about saying anything is junk science and has been proven wrong based on a blog.

Ha, i'm basing it on overwhelming information not "a blog".

KILLER_CLOWN
11-03-2008, 12:44 AM
Evidence of sunspot involvement in climate change compelling

Published: 31 Oct 08 - 0:00
Over the last few years, the evidence that sunspots on our sun are directly related to climate change on earth has been steadily increasing.
I explained the exact proposed mechanism in some detail previously. Great work in this field is being carried out by Dr Henrik Svensmark and coworkers in Denmark and elsewhere.

Briefly, the mechanism is that cosmic rays impact on the earth from deep space. These cosmic rays penetrate our atmosphere and lead to the formation of cloud cover. The cosmic rays nucleate sites in the atmosphere, from which clouds form from the natural water vapour.

If one puts a spoonful of coffee powder into a cup of microwaved water, the water forms bubbles of foam on the coffee grains. This is basically the same principle as the cosmic rays forming clouds in the atmosphere.

The earth’s magnetic field, which acts as a shielding, is altered by the sun’s activity, which, in turn, is indicated by means of the number of sunspots. As the earth’s magnetic shield varies, so the cloud cover varies. Few sunspots mean a weaker earth shield, which means more cosmic rays, which mean more clouds, which mean a cooling earth.

The correlation for this effect, going back thousands of years, is good, remarkably so. Scientifically, this looks believable, and it is consistent with the theory and observation.

In contrast, the argument that man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) is causing warming does not fit the facts at all. Firstly, there was no indus- trial CO2 produced in vast quanti- ties when the Roman Warming period occurred, or when the Medieval Warming period occurred. Both are well documented in various archives, such as the historical and archaeological.

But there is more – global warming is extremely complex, and it is really nave to believe that a relatively simple theory will explain it satisfactorily. It is far too simple just to say: CO2 traps heat and, therefore, more CO2 means more heat, and so we have global warming.

As the makers of heat-seeking missiles know very well, the CO2 in the atmosphere has ‘windows’ in it. This means that certain ‘heat frequencies’ pass through the atmosphere easily but other frequencies are trapped. It is these windows that the missile uses to hunt its prey. As a consequence, there are ‘frequency bands’ related to the CO2 cover of the earth. In various ‘bands’, the infrared passes through easily, or not so easily.

Further, CO2 can trap incoming heat from space and outgoing heat being radiated from the earth. The frequency bands linked to the CO2 also become saturated – they cannot just keep sucking up more and more heat. Essentially, this CO2 argument is very complex.

Over the last century, the temperature changes in our planet’s atmosphere, let alone ground and sea, just do not match the atmospheric CO2 concentration at all. This is cause for warning bells that, perhaps, this whole CO2 argument is not correct.

In comparison, the cosmic ray and sunspot information match well. However, as I have said, this whole atmospheric temperature issue is very complex, and no capable scientist in the field is going to say otherwise.

Right now, we have been experi- encing a rather long period of sunspot inactivity on our sun, some 200 days plus. This has happened before.

Formal sun- spot data collection started in 1749 and has been monitored ever since. But long before that date, sunspots were known and informal measurements were taken. It is, therefore, known that the Little Ice Age, which took place from the midseventeenth century to the eighteenth century, was preceded and paralleled by a period of some 50 years with a virtual absence of sunspots, according to informal records.

In more recent times, we have had relatively long periods without sunspots. This year, we passed the mark of 200 days without sunspots, which is unusual. In fact, the sun has been blanker now than in any other year since 1954, when it was spotless for 241 days, and this year is now being called the sun’s quietest year of the space age.

The sun was also very quiet in 1913, so runs of 200-plus spotless days are rare, but not that rare. As I have already said, the global warming and cooling issue is complex, and so a run of 200-plus days without sunspots cannot be compared to a 50-year quiet period during the Little Ice Age, but it is cause for some scientific thinking.

Further, a cooling that could be initiated by a lack of sunspots will induce other climatic effects that will either favour warming or cooling. The jury is still out on exactly what happens, but the evidence for sunspot involvement in climate change is just too compelling for it to be brushed aside by those who want to cling to the simplistic idea that man-made CO2 is the only factor.

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article.php?a_id=145646

KILLER_CLOWN
11-03-2008, 12:52 AM
EcoAmerica Poll: Climate skeptics are the majority, not the minority

Watts Up With That?
Tuesday, Oct 28, 2008

Only 18 percent of survey respondents strongly believe that climate change is real, human-caused and harmful.

Yes you read that correctly, it is all in this article on the Nature Conservancy webpage. And that goes along with what was discovered in June this year by the newspapers UK Guardian and Observer, which reported that:

The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem…

The Nature Conservancy story citing 18 percent, is citing the American Climate Values Survey (ACVS), conducted by the consulting group EcoAmerica It also found that political party affiliation is the single largest indicator as to whether people see climate change as a threat.

It seems it is all political, as there are some other fascinating tidbits. For example:

Convinced it’s happening: 54 percent of Republicans, 90 percent of Democrats.
Think that weather has gotten more severe: 44 percent of Republicans; 77 percent of Democrats.
Noticed the climate changing: 54 percent of Republicans; 84 percent of Democrats.
Trust Al Gore when he talks about global warming: 22 percent of Republicans; 71 percent of Democrats.
Trust environmentalists who talk about global warming: 38 percent of Republicans; 71 percent of Democrats.
Trust anyone who talks about global warming: 39 percent of Republicans; 75 percent of Democrats.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/27/ecoamerica-poll-climate-skeptics-are-the-majority-not-the-minority/

KILLER_CLOWN
11-03-2008, 12:59 AM
Global Warming? or Global Governance?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4860344067427439443

WoodDraw
11-03-2008, 01:04 AM
Global Warming? or Global Governance?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4860344067427439443


Jeeze - this would be like me posting an Al Gore video in response to you. So far your overwhelming evidence consists of an op ed by a member of a conservative environment group, a poll of the public, and some google video. Consider me underwhelmed.

Give me some legitimate, peer reviewed, scientific stuff that I can read without tearing out my hair. I'm not a global warming apologist, but I'm not going to go round for round with you using these half assed sources.

KILLER_CLOWN
11-03-2008, 01:14 AM
Jeeze - this would be like me posting an Al Gore video in response to you. So far your overwhelming evidence consists of an op ed by a member of a conservative environment group, a poll of the public, and some google video. Consider me underwhelmed.

Give me some legitimate, peer reviewed, scientific stuff that I can read without tearing out my hair. I'm not a global warming apologist, but I'm not going to go round for round with you using these half assed sources.

watch the video and get back to me as it seems you do not know what your talking about.

WoodDraw
11-03-2008, 01:23 AM
watch the video and get back to me as it seems you do not know what your talking about.

I'll watch it tomorrow, but a quick google search doesn't show me much to think it'll be reliable. All of the backing organizations have preconceived agendas. I don't like watching a pro video and then an anti video; things are never that black and white. Conspiracies bore me...

KILLER_CLOWN
11-03-2008, 01:26 AM
I'll watch it tomorrow, but a quick google search doesn't show me much to think it'll be reliable. All of the backing organizations have preconceived agendas. I don't like watching a pro video and then an anti video; things are never that black and white. Conspiracies bore me...

It's not a conspiracy this is hard scientific data, btw I have watched an inconvenient truth.

tiptap
11-03-2008, 08:59 AM
The movie has the same nay sayers I have been reading for the last decade. It isn't like I was convinced by Al Gore. I started looking at this question over 15 years ago and at that time I was skeptical. It had always been my thought that the US would be the Saudi Arabia of Coal after Oil played out. It was a homey type of political/economic view. I want the US to be prosperous. And at THAT time the sunspot and sun cycle alternate explanation could not be dismissed. But what was true is that going forward the predictions would diverge. The actual last decade follows the predictions of GreenHouse Gases and not the cyclical effects of Sun Spots ALONE. (I say alone because presently we are in a sun spot lull and therefore overall less solar flux and so an expectation of relative lower temperatures.) But again like 15 years ago when sun spot activity INCREASES the temperatures will again advance to settle at still higher temperatures. No one denies Sun Spots influences climate. But it doesn't account for the increase in temperatures over the last part of the 20th Century.

As far as finding weather disasters to prove the point of Global Warming and they were always such weather disasters, that is not the argument.

Polar Ice is melting. That is a trend seen in all measuring tools from Navy Nuclear Submarine data to modern Satellite observations. And that is not a weather event. That is Climate Change.

The increase in temperature is despite world wide evidence of LESS solar energy reaching the ground from air pollution. (Yes air pollution has helped block solar impact working against the Green house effect) We are getting higher temperatures with less energy. And that is understood from the GreenHouse effect.

The hockey stick complaint was resolved. The complaint is old. And there are NO, ABSOLUTELY NO record lows across the WHOLE of any of the US States since 1993. NONE. And over that period of time there should be at least one with 99% confidence level IF THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURES have not risen. The bell shape curve for the last 15 years are not just skewed like the 1930's decade measurements but are actually shifted.

Mizzou_8541
11-03-2008, 09:20 AM
I'll watch it tomorrow, but a quick google search doesn't show me much to think it'll be reliable. All of the backing organizations have preconceived agendas. I don't like watching a pro video and then an anti video; things are never that black and white. Conspiracies bore me...

You have to admit there are compelling arguments for both sides...

FishingRod
11-03-2008, 09:27 AM
Save the World.

Eat a Cow

J Diddy
11-03-2008, 09:27 AM
Save the World.

Eat a Cow

I'm gonna do my part at lunch.

KILLER_CLOWN
11-03-2008, 09:37 AM
The hockey stick complaint was resolved. The complaint is old. And there are NO, ABSOLUTELY NO record lows across the WHOLE of any of the US States since 1993. NONE. And over that period of time there should be at least one with 99% confidence level IF THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURES have not risen. The bell shape curve for the last 15 years are not just skewed like the 1930's decade measurements but are actually shifted.

NOAA: U.S. breaks or ties 115 cold and sets 63 new snowfall records

Watts Up With That
Friday, Oct 31, 2008

Of course many of you that live in this weather already know this, but there is an early start to winter this year, not only in the USA, but also in London, where it snowed in October for the first time in over 70 years.

So far, no mention of this broadly distributed U.S. record event in the mainstream media. There are a few individual mentions or record lows in Florida. See this Google News search.

Here, from NOAAs National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), is a list of these new or tied records for October 29th, 2008.

I find the -25 below in Alaska interesting, since it bested the old record by 4 degrees.


Here are the 115 new or tied low temperature records:

The table below has been formatting to fit the blog, Here is a direct link to the original data from NCDC

29 October 2008 Record
New (83)
Tied (32) Previous
Record Previous
Year Period
of
Record
CIRCLE HOT SPRINGS, AK -25.0F -21.0F 2001 44
TONSINA, AK -17.0F -16.0F 1985 42
CAMP HILL 2 NW, AL 21.0F 25.0F 1968 76
HAMILTON 3 S, AL 23.0F 24.0F 1968 45
CENTREVILLE 6 SW, AL 26.0F 28.0F 2001 32
MUSCLE SHOALS AP, AL (KMSL) 27.0F 28.0F 1952 67
GREENVILLE, AL 28.0F 29.0F 2001 78
GENEVA #2, AL 29.0F 29.0F 2001 32
HIGHLAND HOME, AL 29.0F 30.0F 1976 112
HUNTSVILLE INTL AP, AL (KHSV) 30.0F 30.0F 2005 50
MONTGOMERY AP ASOS, AL (KMGM) 31.0F 32.0F 2001 60
ATMORE, AL 32.0F 33.0F 2001 48
MOBILE RGNL AP, AL (KMOB) 32.0F 36.0F 1987 60
FAIRHOPE 2 NE, AL 33.0F 34.0F 1952 89
CODEN, AL 34.0F 35.0F 1957 43
DAUPHIN IS #2, AL 47.0F 48.0F 2001 32
BOONEVILLE 3 SSE, AR 28.0F 29.0F 1993 30
MURFREESBORO 1 W, AR 29.0F 29.0F 1993 33
SPARKMAN, AR 29.0F 29.0F 2005 40
FORDYCE, AR 30.0F 30.0F 1993 71
ROHWER 2 NNE, AR 31.0F 32.0F 1997 47
WEST MEMPHIS, AR 31.0F 33.0F 1976 45
BLYTHEVILLE, AR 32.0F 32.0F 1939 79
EUDORA, AR 32.0F 32.0F 1997 45
PERRY, FL 29.0F 32.0F 1987 71
TALLAHASSEE WSO AP, FL (KTLH) 29.0F 31.0F 1987 63
GLEN ST MARY 1 W, FL 29.0F 32.0F 1957 80
MAYO, FL 30.0F 30.0F 1957 57
NICEVILLE, FL 31.0F 33.0F 2001 62
JACKSONVILLE INTL AP, FL (KJAX) 33.0F 39.0F 1987 60
APALACHICOLA AP, FL (KAAF) 34.0F 41.0F 1976 76
PENSACOLA RGNL AP, FL (KPNS) 36.0F 38.0F 1968 60
TAMPA WSCMO AP, FL (KTPA) 42.0F 45.0F 1963 75
ORLANDO INTL AP, FL (KMCO) 43.0F 49.0F 1952 54
DAYTONA BEACH INTL AP, FL (KDAB) 44.0F 46.0F 1957 60
KISSIMMEE 2, FL 44.0F 45.0F 1968 46
VERO BEACH INTL AP, FL (KVRB) 46.0F 48.0F 1943 57
FT MYERS PAGE FLD AP, FL (KFMY) 47.0F 47.0F 1910 109
WEST PALM BCH INTL AP, FL (KPBI) 49.0F 51.0F 1944 69
MIAMI INTL AP, FL (KMIA) 55.0F 61.0F 1968 60
FT LAUDERDALE INTL AP, FL (KFLL) 55.0F 62.0F 2006 35
KEY WEST INTL AP, FL (KEYW) 61.0F 66.0F 1957 56
NAHUNTA 6 NE, GA 28.0F 30.0F 1957 45
PLAINS SW GA EXP STN, GA 30.0F 30.0F 2001 52
BLAKELY, GA 31.0F 34.0F 1976 95
ALBANY CAA AP, GA 31.0F 35.0F 1952 33
BRUNSWICK, GA 39.0F 40.0F 1957 90
CASSODAY, KS 24.0F 24.0F 1993 46
IOLA 1 W, KS 26.0F 26.0F 1980 48
HOMER 3 SSW, LA 27.0F 33.0F 2001 55
BASTROP, LA 29.0F 31.0F 2005 78
ASHLAND, LA 30.0F 32.0F 2005 54
MONROE ULM, LA 30.0F 32.0F 2005 31
ALEXANDRIA AP, LA (KESF) 31.0F 31.0F 2005 56
MANSFIELD, LA 33.0F 34.0F 2005 32
JONESVILLE LOCKS, LA 33.0F 39.0F 2005 36
SLIDELL, LA 34.0F 35.0F 1957 52
BUNKIE, LA 34.0F 34.0F 1957 50
RED RVR RSCH STN, LA 34.0F 35.0F 2001 31
RESERVE, LA 35.0F 35.0F 1913 101
BOYCE 3 WNW, LA 39.0F 41.0F 2001 31
GALENA, MO 22.0F 25.0F 1963 43
MT VERNON M U SW CTR, MO 22.0F 25.0F 1980 48
BUFFALO 2 N, MO 22.0F 23.0F 1980 44
WASOLA, MO 25.0F 26.0F 1952 61
HICKORY FLAT, MS 26.0F 27.0F 2001 51
OAKLEY EXP STN, MS 27.0F 28.0F 2001 37
WINONA 5 E, MS 28.0F 28.0F 2001 54
GRENADA 5 NNE, MS 28.0F 29.0F 1957 53
MCCOMB AP, MS (KMCB) 31.0F 34.0F 1957 60
WIGGINS, MS 32.0F 34.0F 1957 52
ROLLING FORK, MS 32.0F 35.0F 2005 35
PASCAGOULA 3 NE, MS 33.0F 33.0F 1987 71
YAZOO CITY 5 NNE, MS 33.0F 33.0F 1963 46
GRANDFATHER MTN, NC 17.0F 17.0F 1968 52
SUPERIOR 4E, NE 20.0F 21.0F 1991 53
TUSKAHOMA, OK 24.0F 31.0F 1973 46
MARIETTA 5SW, OK 25.0F 26.0F 1952 67
LINDSAY 2 W, OK 27.0F 31.0F 1993 43
KEYSTONE DAM, OK 28.0F 29.0F 1980 41
PERRY, OK 28.0F 28.0F 1980 89
BROKEN BOW DAM, OK 32.0F 32.0F 1973 34
SANDHILL RSCH ELGIN, SC 30.0F 30.0F 1976 50
DICKSON, TN 23.0F 23.0F 1952 106
AMES PLANTATION, TN 28.0F 29.0F 2001 31
JOHNSON CITY, TX 28.0F 34.0F 1970 41
GILMER 4 WNW, TX 28.0F 30.0F 1952 72
MT VERNON, TX 28.0F 35.0F 1973 42
SMITHVILLE, TX 28.0F 34.0F 1957 81
WARREN 2 S, TX 29.0F 33.0F 1957 32
WEATHERFORD, TX 29.0F 29.0F 1913 103
EMORY, TX 29.0F 35.0F 1995 42
GREENVILLE KGVL RADIO, TX 30.0F 30.0F 1952 103
MADISONVILLE, TX 30.0F 31.0F 1955 61
CENTERVILLE, TX 30.0F 33.0F 1970 65
KERRVILLE 3 NNE, TX 31.0F 36.0F 2006 34
CENTER, TX 31.0F 31.0F 1952 65
FOWLERTON, TX 32.0F 32.0F 1970 52
HILLSBORO, TX 32.0F 32.0F 1913 97
HENDERSON, TX 32.0F 36.0F 1973 67
AUSTIN BERGSTROM INTL, TX (KAUS) 33.0F 37.0F 1970 35
CLEVELAND, TX 33.0F 35.0F 1965 44
HONDO MUNI AP, TX (KHDO) 34.0F 40.0F 1993 37
GRAPEVINE DAM, TX 35.0F 35.0F 1910 66
LONGVIEW 11 SE, TX 35.0F 38.0F 1993 33
LA GRANGE, TX 36.0F 38.0F 2005 46
TOWN BLUFF DAM, TX 36.0F 37.0F 2001 37
JACKSONVILLE, TX 36.0F 36.0F 1970 44
VICTORIA ASOS, TX (KVCT) 37.0F 40.0F 1980 53
STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX 37.0F 38.0F 1970 40
EL CAMPO, TX 38.0F 39.0F 1970 36
MATAGORDA 2, TX 40.0F 40.0F 1952 78
ARANSAS WR, TX 40.0F 46.0F 1980 35
POINT COMFORT, TX 42.0F 43.0F 2007 48
RAYMONDVILLE, TX 45.0F 45.0F 1970 92

Here are 163 new or tied lowest high temperature records for October 29th, 2008

Here is a direct link to NOAAs NCDC data for these records:

29 October 2008 Record
New (120)
Tied (48) Previous
Record Previous
Year Period
of
Record
BRIDGEPORT 5 NW, AL 49.0 55.0 2001 44
SAND MT SUBSTN, AL 50.0 50.0 1952 59
MOULTON 2, AL 51.0 53.0 1973 49
TALLADEGA, AL 52.0 55.0 1973 107
CLANTON, AL 52.0 53.0 1910 110
SYLACAUGA 4 NE, AL 52.0 56.0 1997 46
BELLE MINA 2 N, AL 52.0 53.0 1952 57
VERNON, AL 54.0 55.0 1973 49
HAMILTON 3 S, AL 54.0 58.0 1968 45
GREENVILLE, AL 55.0 59.0 2001 78
JASPER, AL 55.0 55.0 1976 45
EVERGREEN, AL 55.0 57.0 1910 83
THORSBY EXP STN, AL 55.0 57.0 1997 50
BREWTON 3 SSE, AL 57.0 60.0 1958 79
CODEN, AL 59.0 59.0 1997 44
MARSHALL, AR 52.0 52.0 1969 54
FT BRAGG 5 N, CA 53.0 53.0 1953 72
FERNANDINA BEACH, FL 64.0 64.0 2001 109
ST PETERSBURG, FL (KSPG) 64.0 64.0 1952 96
GAINESVILLE RGNL AP, FL (KGNV) 64.0 64.0 2007 45
ST AUGUSTINE LH, FL 66.0 69.0 1987 34
KEY WEST INTL AP, FL (KEYW) 71.0 74.0 1987 56
FT LAUDERDALE INTL AP, FL (KFLL) 76.0 78.0 1989 35
ALPHARETTA 4 SSW, GA 49.0 53.0 1959 41
GAINESVILLE, GA 49.0 49.0 1910 103
ALLATOONA DAM 2, GA 50.0 53.0 1953 43
DALLAS 7 NE, GA 51.0 55.0 1976 50
ELBERTON 2 N, GA 51.0 51.0 1910 68
HARTWELL, GA 51.0 53.0 2001 94
TOCCOA, GA 51.0 51.0 1910 105
SILOAM 3 N, GA 56.0 56.0 2003 46
MAUNA LOA SLOPE OBS 39, HI 48.0 48.0 1976 49
NORMAL 4NE, IL 45.0 45.0 1988 31
PERU, IL 46.0 46.0 1988 45
COLUMBIA CITY, IN 39.0 41.0 1968 44
PORTLAND 1 SW, IN 41.0 43.0 1976 30
BLUFFTON 1 N, IN 42.0 44.0 1980 36
NEW CASTLE 4 SSE, IN 42.0 42.0 1968 58
BAXTER, KY 44.0 49.0 1968 56
WEST LIBERTY 3NW, KY 45.0 46.0 1973 56
MT VERNON, KY 45.0 48.0 1980 49
JAMESTOWN WWTP, KY 47.0 48.0 1976 31
MONTICELLO 3 NE, KY 47.0 47.0 1980 52
PAINTSVILLE 1 E, KY 47.0 51.0 2003 30
BRADFORDSVILLE, KY 48.0 48.0 1968 44
BARBOURVILLE, KY 48.0 50.0 1953 54
FROSTBURG 2, MD 37.0 39.0 1976 36
SAVAGE RVR DAM, MD 39.0 41.0 1976 56
EMMITSBURG 2 SE, MD 48.0 48.0 1965 50
CUMBERLAND 2, MD 50.0 50.0 2002 32
IONIA 2 SSW, MI 39.0 42.0 1988 69
LAPEER WWTP, MI 40.0 41.0 2006 56
GROSSE POINTE FARMS, MI 44.0 44.0 2006 57
SHELBINA, MO 48.0 48.0 1980 62
WELDON SPRING NWS, MO 50.0 50.0 1976 42
PORTAGEVILLE, MO 50.0 50.0 1976 41
RIPLEY, MS 50.0 54.0 1968 66
INDEPENDENCE 1 W, MS 51.0 52.0 1976 50
IUKA, MS 51.0 57.0 1997 30
PONTOTOC EXP STN, MS 51.0 54.0 1968 55
HICKORY FLAT, MS 52.0 52.0 1980 51
WINONA 5 E, MS 52.0 54.0 1997 54
HOLLY SPRINGS 4 N, MS 52.0 54.0 1976 46
EUPORA 2 E, MS 53.0 55.0 1976 76
GRENADA 5 NNE, MS 53.0 56.0 1997 53
CALHOUN CITY, MS 53.0 59.0 1980 52
BELZONI, MS 55.0 57.0 1976 76
NORTH WILKESBORO, NC 48.0 52.0 1976 53
YADKINVILLE 6 E, NC 48.0 51.0 2003 50
STATESVILLE 2 NNE, NC 50.0 52.0 2003 101
ALBEMARLE, NC 53.0 55.0 2003 96
CLAYTON WTP, NC 55.0 55.0 2001 47
LEWISTON, NC 55.0 56.0 2005 52
ELIZABETHTOWN 3 SW, NC 56.0 60.0 2005 47
CAPE HATTERAS MITCHELL, NC (KHSE) 56.0 56.0 1976 51
FLEMINGTON 5 NNW, NJ 42.0 45.0 1976 110
NEW BRUNSWICK 3 SE, NJ 43.0 44.0 1976 40
DELHI 2 SE, NY 33.0 35.0 1952 75
BINGHAMTON WSO AP, NY (KBGM) 33.0 33.0 1952 60
WARSAW 6 SW, NY 35.0 35.0 1965 53
BAINBRIDGE 2 E, NY 35.0 39.0 1939 56
NORWICH, NY 36.0 37.0 1925 99
WATERTOWN AP, NY (KART) 37.0 39.0 1962 59
ELMIRA, NY 38.0 38.0 1928 112
PORT JERVIS, NY 40.0 40.0 1952 113
YORKTOWN HTS 1 W, NY 40.0 43.0 1976 43
WEST POINT, NY 42.0 42.0 1952 108
CADIZ, OH 39.0 41.0 1910 102
COSHOCTON AG RSCH STN, OH 40.0 42.0 1980 51
STEUBENVILLE, OH 40.0 41.0 1952 66
NEWARK WTR WKS, OH 42.0 42.0 1952 73
HANNIBAL L&D, OH 42.0 43.0 1976 33
NAPOLEON, OH 42.0 46.0 1980 39
NEW LEXINGTON 2 NW, OH 43.0 43.0 1952 66
WASHINGTON COURT HOUSE, OH 44.0 45.0 1968 81
BRADFORD RGNL AP, PA (KBFD) 31.0 35.0 2002 51
PLEASANT MT 1 W, PA 33.0 35.0 1959 55
DUBOIS FAA AP, PA (KDUJ) 34.0 38.0 1968 41
FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA 35.0 39.0 1976 41
WELLSBORO 4 SW, PA 36.0 37.0 1980 74
HAWLEY 1 E, PA 36.0 44.0 1997 82
CHALK HILL 2 ENE, PA 37.0 43.0 1990 31
MATAMORAS, PA 37.0 45.0 1965 42
TOWANDA 1 S, PA 38.0 39.0 1925 114
CONFLUENCE 1 SW DAM, PA 39.0 40.0 1957 62
TIONESTA 2 SE LAKE, PA 40.0 40.0 2001 65
WAYNESBURG 1 E, PA 41.0 44.0 1976 47
STEVENSON DAM, PA 42.0 43.0 2001 39
HAMBURG, PA 43.0 43.0 1907 67
WEST CHESTER 2 NW, PA 44.0 44.0 1976 103
LEWISTOWN, PA 46.0 47.0 1997 66
LONG CREEK, SC 49.0 52.0 1952 54
CHESTER 1 NW, SC 51.0 52.0 1959 76
PICKENS, SC 52.0 54.0 1952 57
SUMTER, SC 54.0 58.0 2001 81
CALHOUN FALLS, SC 54.0 55.0 1925 90
MANNING, SC 56.0 58.0 2001 35
BAMBERG, SC 56.0 57.0 1959 56
ANDREWS, SC 58.0 58.0 2001 37
ALLARDT, TN 43.0 44.0 1968 78
MONTEAGLE, TN 44.0 45.0 1952 68
TAZEWELL, TN 46.0 50.0 1976 42
LIVINGSTON RADIO WLIV, TN 48.0 50.0 1973 43
NEAPOLIS EXP STN, TN 49.0 52.0 1976 31
PORTLAND SEWAGE PLT, TN 50.0 51.0 1976 52
COVINGTON 3 SW, TN 50.0 51.0 1976 109
LINDEN WTP, TN 50.0 53.0 1976 45
SMITHVILLE 2 SE, TN 51.0 54.0 1976 36
SELMER, TN 51.0 54.0 1976 50
PULASKI WWTP, TN 51.0 57.0 2001 50
LEXINGTON, TN 51.0 51.0 1968 41
RIPLEY, TN 51.0 53.0 2002 43
MARTIN U OF T BRANCH E, TN 52.0 52.0 1976 72
CHEATHAM L&D, TN 52.0 54.0 1976 35
BROWNSVILLE, TN 52.0 52.0 1973 101
ATHENS, TN 52.0 52.0 1976 46
WYTHEVILLE 1 S, VA 39.0 41.0 1893 86
ABINGDON 3 S, VA 40.0 52.0 2006 36
BLACKSBURG NWSO, VA 40.0 46.0 1976 54
PULASKI 2 E, VA 40.0 43.0 1968 53
SALTVILLE 1N, VA 40.0 50.0 1968 49
GRUNDY, VA 42.0 47.0 1968 44
STAFFORDSVILLE 3 ENE, VA 42.0 48.0 2001 37
LURAY 5 E, VA 46.0 46.0 1976 66
STERLING RCS, VA 50.0 51.0 2002 31
WEST ALLIS, WI 43.0 44.0 1954 46
SNOWSHOE, WV 24.0 29.0 2005 31
TERRA ALTA #1, WV 31.0 40.0 1967 43
BELINGTON, WV 35.0 41.0 1976 41
ROWLESBURG 1, WV 36.0 40.0 1976 66
SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV 37.0 43.0 1976 41
BUCKEYE, WV 37.0 42.0 1968 46
FAIRMONT, WV 39.0 43.0 1952 102
ELKINS RANDOLPH CY AP, WV (KEKN) 39.0 39.0 1952 82
WESTON, WV 39.0 39.0 1925 106
CLARKSBURG 1, WV 39.0 44.0 1934 83
UPPER TRACT, WV 39.0 39.0 1910 38
OAK HILL, WV 40.0 45.0 1976 67
MORGANTOWN L&D, WV 40.0 42.0 1980 62
WEST UNION 2, WV 41.0 45.0 1976 35
MIDDLEBOURNE 3 ESE, WV 41.0 48.0 1980 66
GASSAWAY, WV 41.0 47.0 1952 54
PINEVILLE, WV 42.0 48.0 1976 62
GRANTSVILLE 1 ESE, WV 42.0 48.0 1976 43
BLUESTONE LAKE, WV 42.0 46.0 1976 65
DUNLOW 1 SW, WV 44.0 47.0 1997 36
RIPLEY, WV 44.0 44.0 1988 61
PARKERSBURG, WV 44.0 44.0 1952 82

Here are the 63 snowfall records:

Direct link to NOAAs NCDC data for snowfall records

29 October 2008 Record
New (63)
Tied (0) Previous
Record Previous
Year Period
of
Record
ASHFIELD, MA 1.5 in 0.0 in 2007 30
EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA 0.1 in 0.0 in 2007 46
MC HENRY 2 NW, MD 9.0 in 2.0 in 2006 37
FROSTBURG 2, MD 3.4 in 0.7 in 2006 36
SANDUSKY, MI 0.5 in Trace 1925 99
MAPLE CITY 1E, MI 0.3 in Trace 1993 49
MARSHALL, NC 1.0 in 0.2 in 1910 109
GRANDFATHER MTN, NC 0.5 in Trace 1973 53
MT WASHINGTON, NH (KMWN) 10.1 in 9.5 in 2000 60
POTTERSVILLE 2 NNW, NJ 2.0 in 0.0 in 2007 40
NEW BRUNSWICK 3 SE, NJ 1.5 in 0.0 in 2007 40
FLEMINGTON 5 NNW, NJ 1.0 in 0.8 in 1965 110
HOOKER 12 NNW, NY 19.0 in 3.5 in 1968 97
STILLWATER RSVR, NY 13.0 in 2.0 in 1990 83
TUPPER LAKE SUNMOUNT, NY 13.0 in 2.0 in 1934 109
LOWVILLE, NY 9.0 in 3.0 in 1893 116
PISECO, NY 8.0 in 1.0 in 2006 65
HIGHMARKET, NY 5.2 in 3.0 in 1965 84
NEWCOMB, NY 4.8 in 1.0 in 1965 49
CANTON 4 SE, NY 4.5 in 1.5 in 1962 115
INDIAN LAKE 2SW, NY 3.0 in 1.5 in 2006 109
ROCK HILL 3 SW, NY 2.3 in 0.0 in 2007 45
FRIENDSHIP 7 SW, NY 2.0 in 1.3 in 2006 39
LOCKE 2 W, NY 2.0 in 0.0 in 2007 76
BINGHAMTON WSO AP, NY (KBGM) 0.6 in 0.4 in 1952 60
JAMESTOWN 4 ENE, NY 0.5 in 0.0 in 2007 48
YOUNGSTOWN WSO AP, OH (KYNG) 1.6 in 0.6 in 1952 74
CLEVELAND WSFO AP, OH (KCLE) 0.3 in Trace 2003 60
RIDGWAY, PA 6.0 in Trace 1987 115
MEYERSDALE 2 SSW, PA 3.0 in Trace 2006 45
DUNLO, PA 3.0 in 0.5 in 2006 60
SOMERSET, PA 2.8 in 1.4 in 2006 59
MAHANOY CITY 2 N, PA 2.1 in 0.0 in 2007 36
EBENSBURG SEWAGE PLT, PA 2.0 in 1.0 in 1965 44
KANE 1NNE, PA 2.0 in 1.0 in 1965 114
CONFLUENCE 1 SW DAM, PA 2.0 in Trace 1965 62
MERCER, PA 2.0 in Trace 1990 58
GLEN HAZEL 2 NE DAM, PA 2.0 in 1.5 in 2006 66
CHALK HILL 2 ENE, PA 1.2 in Trace 1987 31
BOSWELL, PA 1.0 in Trace 1965 48
PORT ALLEGANY, PA 1.0 in 0.5 in 2006 60
TIONESTA 2 SE LAKE, PA 0.8 in 0.5 in 1965 87
SLIPPERY ROCK 1 SSW, PA 0.7 in Trace 2006 59
FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA 0.7 in Trace 1990 45
PITTSBURGH WSCOM 2 AP, PA (KPIT) 0.6 in 0.4 in 1952 63
BUFFALO MILLS, PA 0.3 in Trace 1965 84
MATAMORAS, PA 0.3 in 0.0 in 2007 104
MT MANSFIELD, VT 12.0 in 4.0 in 2006 53
ROCHESTER, VT 2.5 in 1.0 in 2000 79
MORRISVILLE 4 SSW, VT 1.4 in Trace 2007 46
ESSEX JUNCTION 1 N, VT 1.2 in Trace 2000 36
NEWPORT, VT 1.2 in 1.1 in 2000 78
ST ALBANS RADIO, VT 1.0 in 0.3 in 1992 30
CORINTH, VT 1.0 in 0.0 in 2007 60
SNOWSHOE, WV 8.0 in 1.0 in 1995 33
BAYARD, WV 5.5 in 1.5 in 1952 106
TERRA ALTA #1, WV 5.0 in 1.5 in 2006 60
GLADY 1 N, WV 4.4 in Trace 2005 35
VALLEY HEAD, WV 3.2 in 2.0 in 1952 70
BELINGTON, WV 1.6 in Trace 1968 70
BARTOW 1 S, WV 0.5 in 0.1 in 2006 64
ROCK CAVE 2 NE, WV 0.5 in 0.0 in 2007 55
SUTTON LAKE, WV 0.1 in 0.0 in 2007 91

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/30/chill-in-the-air-part-2-us-breaks-or-ties-115-of-cold-and-sets-63-new-snowfall-records/

jidar
11-03-2008, 09:46 AM
The debate about mans impact on global warming is all but over. With that in mind we're left to argue the effects of it, and what if anything should be done about it.
Even the neocons have changed their story from saying it's untrue to saying it doesn't matter that much.

The only people left with the opposite view are a few people on the Internet who didn't get the memo.

KILLER_CLOWN
11-03-2008, 09:55 AM
The only people left with the opposite view are a few people on the Internet who didn't get the memo.

Jidar=yet to get the memo, what a surprise. Tell us how Pharmaceuticals are going to save us, you can be sure were listening.

jidar
11-03-2008, 10:01 AM
Jidar=yet to get the memo, what a surprise. Tell us how Pharmaceuticals are going to save us, you can be sure were listening.

We're

KILLER_CLOWN
11-03-2008, 10:09 AM
We're

golf :clap:

tiptap
11-03-2008, 02:25 PM
NOAA: U.S. breaks or ties 115 cold and sets 63 new snowfall records

Watts Up With That
Friday, Oct 31, 2008

Of course many of you that live in this weather already know this, but there is an early start to winter this year, not only in the USA, but also in London, where it snowed in October for the first time in over 70 years.

So far, no mention of this broadly distributed U.S. record event in the mainstream media. There are a few individual mentions or record lows in Florida. See this Google News search.

Here, from NOAAs National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), is a list of these new or tied records for October 29th, 2008.

I find the -25 below in Alaska interesting, since it bested the old record by 4 degrees.


Here are the 115 new or tied low temperature records:

The table below has been formatting to fit the blog, Here is a direct link to the original data from NCDC

29 October 2008 Record
New (83)
Tied (32) Previous
Record Previous
Year Period
of
Record
CIRCLE HOT SPRINGS, AK -25.0F -21.0F 2001 44
. . . .
SUTTON LAKE, WV 0.1 in 0.0 in 2007 91

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/30/chill-in-the-air-part-2-us-breaks-or-ties-115-of-cold-and-sets-63-new-snowfall-records/


If you choose October 29th (my birthday was that on purpose) of 2001 you can get a total of 133 new or tied lows. And 2001 was an unusually warm year, as was the month of October in that year. So choosing well you can get screwy results. But the actual number here as the measured low temperature IS NOT THE SAME as the average temperature for that day being the lowest for a 24 hour period.

Now I have to wait a few days yet to see if any States in the US had a RECORD AVERAGE LOW temperature for October 2008. Alabama looks promising from your sample of one day. But I bet not.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/records/index.php?ts=daily&elem=mint&month=10&day=29&year=2001&submitted=Get+Records#recs

KILLER_CLOWN
11-03-2008, 02:30 PM
If you choose October 29th (my birthday was that on purpose) of 2001 you can get a total of 133 new or tied lows. And 2001 was an unusually warm year, as was the month of October in that year. So choosing well you can get screwy results. But the actual number here as the measured low temperature IS NOT THE SAME as the average temperature for that day being the lowest for a 24 hour period.

Now I have to wait a few days yet to see if any States in the US had a RECORD AVERAGE LOW temperature for October 2008. Alabama looks promising from your sample of one day. But I bet not.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/records/index.php?ts=daily&elem=mint&month=10&day=29&year=2001&submitted=Get+Records#recs

so you are taking the average temperature for the entire day? sounds like semantics to me.

tiptap
11-04-2008, 10:40 AM
so you are taking the average temperature for the entire day? sounds like semantics to me.

That is the difference between integration and only talking about the initial conditions. That is the difference between volume and a linear measurement. That is the difference between energy movement through the atmosphere and an arbitrary measuring system. It is like taking a single picture or having a movie of an event.

Demonpenz
11-04-2008, 11:46 AM
If mit students were so smart why didn't they make it to the ncaa tourney instead?

Friendo
11-04-2008, 11:50 AM
If mit students were so smart why didn't they make it to the ncaa tourney instead?

they're still on probation--don't you recall that pocket-protector recruiting scam from a couple of years back?