Slashdot Mirror

Uhh, we predicted the exact path of this storm last Monday, nearly a full week before it hit.

Who is "we"? The NHC's predicted track showed it headed for Bermuda until Wednesday.

The U.S. National Weather Service seems careful not to overstate. Then again, few people seem to even understand the difference between a Watch and a Warning. For this storm there is an oddball bureaucratic classification thing keeping the NWS's Hurricane Center from posting tropical warnings north of North Carolina. Kinda amusing... it's a PDF at the top of the Hurricane page... http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ They are handing off to local offices and two more obscure divisions mid-storm: http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/ and http://www.opc.ncep.noaa.gov/

The U.S. National Weather Service seems careful not to overstate. Then again, few people seem to even understand the difference between a Watch and a Warning. For this storm there is an oddball bureaucratic classification thing keeping the NWS's Hurricane Center from posting tropical warnings north of North Carolina. Kinda amusing... it's a PDF at the top of the Hurricane page... http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ They are handing off to local offices and two more obscure divisions mid-storm: http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/ and http://www.opc.ncep.noaa.gov/

The U.S. National Weather Service seems careful not to overstate. Then again, few people seem to even understand the difference between a Watch and a Warning. For this storm there is an oddball bureaucratic classification thing keeping the NWS's Hurricane Center from posting tropical warnings north of North Carolina. Kinda amusing... it's a PDF at the top of the Hurricane page... http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ They are handing off to local offices and two more obscure divisions mid-storm: http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/ and http://www.opc.ncep.noaa.gov/

One interesting aspect about this storm is the snowfall. Snowfall is expected in WV and KY. Moisture from the storm is wrapping around into cold air in the higher elevations. A hurricane producing snow, how unusual! http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCPAT3+shtml/291149.shtml?

The polar orbiting satellites are the quiet achievers of weather forecasting. Everyone sees the geostationary sat images on TV and think that's it, but there's a lot more going on with the polar sats.

They orbit north/south over the poles at about 800km. They are sun-synchronous (so the sun is always behind them illuminating the earth on their daylight run) and they do an orbit about every 90 minutes or so. The earth turns underneath them as they orbit, so they cover the entire globe. The current POES status is here

They transmit a heap of data - the data I receive here in Australia is the APT transmissions, which is 4 x 4 km per pixel resolution images in the visible and IR wavelength, which run constantly. As the satellite clears the horizon, you pick up the signal at two lines per second and about 15 minutes later on a directly overhead pass it sets again and you've got a nice, 2000km x 4000km image of your immediate area, just like if it came off a fax machine. The two wavelengths offered in the analog mode give you a visible image and allow you to read temperatures, so you can find thunderheads and cold fronts, for example. The APT transmissions just require a 137Mhz FM receiver and a simple antenna to pick up, so it's easy to get images.

They also have a digital mode - HRPT - with the entire range of 6 imaging sensors onboard and 1x1km per pixel resolution and you can do a lot with that - highlight vegetation, measure and and sea surface temps, locate and track fires and such.

Onboard there are also charge sensors for measuring auroral densities, and you can visit a webpage that shows the current auroral activity. The satellites can also receive, process and retransmit data from Search and Rescue beacon transmitters, and automatic data collection platforms on land, ocean buoys, or aboard free-floating balloons, as well as detect and map the ozone holes that appear yearly over the poles.

Their capabilities completely outclass the geosynchronous satellites and I hope that NOAA gets their act together and back on track with the launches.

The polar orbiting satellites are the quiet achievers of weather forecasting. Everyone sees the geostationary sat images on TV and think that's it, but there's a lot more going on with the polar sats.

They orbit north/south over the poles at about 800km. They are sun-synchronous (so the sun is always behind them illuminating the earth on their daylight run) and they do an orbit about every 90 minutes or so. The earth turns underneath them as they orbit, so they cover the entire globe. The current POES status is here

They transmit a heap of data - the data I receive here in Australia is the APT transmissions, which is 4 x 4 km per pixel resolution images in the visible and IR wavelength, which run constantly. As the satellite clears the horizon, you pick up the signal at two lines per second and about 15 minutes later on a directly overhead pass it sets again and you've got a nice, 2000km x 4000km image of your immediate area, just like if it came off a fax machine. The two wavelengths offered in the analog mode give you a visible image and allow you to read temperatures, so you can find thunderheads and cold fronts, for example. The APT transmissions just require a 137Mhz FM receiver and a simple antenna to pick up, so it's easy to get images.

They also have a digital mode - HRPT - with the entire range of 6 imaging sensors onboard and 1x1km per pixel resolution and you can do a lot with that - highlight vegetation, measure and and sea surface temps, locate and track fires and such.

Onboard there are also charge sensors for measuring auroral densities, and you can visit a webpage that shows the current auroral activity. The satellites can also receive, process and retransmit data from Search and Rescue beacon transmitters, and automatic data collection platforms on land, ocean buoys, or aboard free-floating balloons, as well as detect and map the ozone holes that appear yearly over the poles.

Their capabilities completely outclass the geosynchronous satellites and I hope that NOAA gets their act together and back on track with the launches.

epsilon's url needs a final 'l'.

like this

The text is taken from actual advisories.
epsilon
zeta

The text is taken from actual advisories.
epsilon
zeta

1. Precipitation:
You have to consider that the land types are different for the northeast states compared to southeast states such as Florida. Florida has soil in which the rain drains out of much quicker. In addition, engineering designs are different for states that generally get less rain than the southern states. The HDSC calculates precipitation Recurrence Intervals for engineering design purposes. For example, Florida sees a mean annual maximum precipitation of about 5 inches in 24 hours compared to 2.5 inches in 24 hours in the northeast. This discrepancy is much larger when you look at recurrance intervals of >10 years (9 compared to 5 inches). This event has the potential to drop 100 year rainfall on the northeastern states. It will last a few days, but MOST of the rain will fall in one day.

2. Wind:
This will likely transition into an extratropical cyclone. extratropical (mid-latitude) storms have weaker winds than hurricanes, but are over a much larger area. Most hurricanes have severe wind damage only a few miles from the center in the eye-wall. Tropical storm strength winds extend out further, but even those don't usually extend out far in most storms (obviously there are exceptions such as Hurricane Ike). An extratropical cyclone's winds will cause moderate damage over a very large area. The other thing to consider are trees. Trees in the north are much less resistant to the wind, especially since most still have their leaves this time of the year. The winds in this storm won't be as deadly as a hurricane's, but will be a HUGE issue for damage and power outages.

Storm surge:
This is a page with estimated storm surge. This storm will also stick around for a while, so it will be able to pile more and more water up against the shore, as well as have a chance to coincide with astronomical high tides. There are many places in NYC that will flood (although they will be properly evacuated).

3. People
If the center hits around southern New Jersey, this storm will directly affect Washington DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, NYC, etc. This is a very large amount of people to worry about. These people are used to Nor' Easters but this should be much stronger than a typical Nor' Easter.

I do understand why you think this is being over-hyped, especially when you compare it to the smaller but much more powerful hurricanes that strike the south. Overall, I don't expect this storm to cause many deaths; I think the people will generally be prepared. I do see this storm causing a lot of damage and long-lasting power outages. When you have these affects over such a large area, it could take time to get back to business as normal. Lastly, you should look for more information on Irene because it was very damaging, especially with the flooding in NY and VT, where both the infrastructure and the land type is not used to that kind of rain.

1. Precipitation:
You have to consider that the land types are different for the northeast states compared to southeast states such as Florida. Florida has soil in which the rain drains out of much quicker. In addition, engineering designs are different for states that generally get less rain than the southern states. The HDSC calculates precipitation Recurrence Intervals for engineering design purposes. For example, Florida sees a mean annual maximum precipitation of about 5 inches in 24 hours compared to 2.5 inches in 24 hours in the northeast. This discrepancy is much larger when you look at recurrance intervals of >10 years (9 compared to 5 inches). This event has the potential to drop 100 year rainfall on the northeastern states. It will last a few days, but MOST of the rain will fall in one day.

2. Wind:
This will likely transition into an extratropical cyclone. extratropical (mid-latitude) storms have weaker winds than hurricanes, but are over a much larger area. Most hurricanes have severe wind damage only a few miles from the center in the eye-wall. Tropical storm strength winds extend out further, but even those don't usually extend out far in most storms (obviously there are exceptions such as Hurricane Ike). An extratropical cyclone's winds will cause moderate damage over a very large area. The other thing to consider are trees. Trees in the north are much less resistant to the wind, especially since most still have their leaves this time of the year. The winds in this storm won't be as deadly as a hurricane's, but will be a HUGE issue for damage and power outages.

Storm surge:
This is a page with estimated storm surge. This storm will also stick around for a while, so it will be able to pile more and more water up against the shore, as well as have a chance to coincide with astronomical high tides. There are many places in NYC that will flood (although they will be properly evacuated).

3. People
If the center hits around southern New Jersey, this storm will directly affect Washington DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, NYC, etc. This is a very large amount of people to worry about. These people are used to Nor' Easters but this should be much stronger than a typical Nor' Easter.

I do understand why you think this is being over-hyped, especially when you compare it to the smaller but much more powerful hurricanes that strike the south. Overall, I don't expect this storm to cause many deaths; I think the people will generally be prepared. I do see this storm causing a lot of damage and long-lasting power outages. When you have these affects over such a large area, it could take time to get back to business as normal. Lastly, you should look for more information on Irene because it was very damaging, especially with the flooding in NY and VT, where both the infrastructure and the land type is not used to that kind of rain.

Collectibles? Since there is no free market in whale oil you have to go out of country, but it's bought and sold today, not as a collectible item, it has various uses, especially in cosmetics.

I'm a little confused, since I am not an expert on climatology, but this [source] seems to suggest that the global oceanic thermal energy (aka "heat content") has risen. The point of my post is that "the temperature is constant" is only one part of a complicated issue. Your ice tea is "warming up" while it is sitting out, but its temperature stays constant as long as the ice cubes haven't melted. "I'll give you 1/4 success on that one."

You forgot about the new ice cubes forming at the other end of the cup.

I'm a little confused, since I am not an expert on climatology, but this [source] seems to suggest that the global oceanic thermal energy (aka "heat content") has risen. The point of my post is that "the temperature is constant" is only one part of a complicated issue. Your ice tea is "warming up" while it is sitting out, but its temperature stays constant as long as the ice cubes haven't melted. "I'll give you 1/4 success on that one."

You forgot about the new ice cubes forming at the other end of the cup.

I'm a little confused, since I am not an expert on climatology, but this [source] seems to suggest that the global oceanic thermal energy (aka "heat content") has risen. The point of my post is that "the temperature is constant" is only one part of a complicated issue. Your ice tea is "warming up" while it is sitting out, but its temperature stays constant as long as the ice cubes haven't melted. "I'll give you 1/4 success on that one."

I'm a little confused, since I am not an expert on climatology, but this [source] seems to suggest that the global oceanic thermal energy (aka "heat content") has risen. The point of my post is that "the temperature is constant" is only one part of a complicated issue. Your ice tea is "warming up" while it is sitting out, but its temperature stays constant as long as the ice cubes haven't melted. "I'll give you 1/4 success on that one."

But this is what everybody keeps forgetting: it isn't just a timing (distance) signal. You have more information than that. The relative positions of the satellites themselves are known.

Did you see the paper I linked? It uses exactly this idea (the relative positions of the satellites) to do the calculations, completely eliminating the need to worry about time. Still, this reduces the number of equations from 4 (one for each satellite, involving position and time) to 3 (involving only position). But if you begin with only 3 satellites, you end up with 2 equations involving only position, which consists of 3 variables (x,y,z). So, I still don't understand how you can calculate the position of the receiver with only 3 satellites.

About differential GPS: from what I understand, you still need 4 satellites in addition to the ground station. The ground station just broadcasts the difference between the signals received from the satellites and the signals you'd get if there were absolutely no errors (it can do that because it knows its exact location and also the trajectories of the satellites). This information can then be used by GPS receivers to correct their readings and improve accuracy. That's still not perfect, because the corrections are exact only at the exact position of the ground station; so the farther you are from the station, the worse the correction gets (still, Wikipedia suggests that the corrections are still useful hundreds of miles away from the ground station).

It's interesting to note that initially, differential GPS was used to completely bypass the signal degradation that was built in the GPS system (the satellites used to intentionally introduce random errors in their time signals, a "feature" called "selective availability"). The differential GPS correction was so successful that "selective availability" became pointless, and in 2000 the US decided to stop degrading the GPS signal.

I suspect the request to "share" frequencies with weather balloon transmitters has less to do with available bandwidth and more to do with a relative lack of industry who will be able to stand up this time to object. Weather balloons typically transmit at less than 300 milliwatts. If they couldn't figure out how to keep their land based-transmitters from overpowering 50 watt gps signals, I don't see how high-altitude balloons signals will fare any better.

... the laws of physics are exactly the same for human generated carbon dioxide as for carbon dioxide measured in a laboratory...

There's the problem right there. To mangle the quote: You can't very well dust CO2 for fingerprints.

No, but you can get a pretty good idea of how much is getting into the atmosphere from the Mauna Loa data: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full

And we have a pretty good numbers for how much coal is burned worldwide:
http://gregor.us/coal/the-world-turns-to-coal/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

So, unless you're suggesting some hithertofore unsuspected place that the CO2 from burning that coal is going, I'd say it's a pretty definitive smoking gun.

Nuclear power has an very low deaths per kWh, even when you include chernobyl, 3mile island and fukushima ( http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html ). chernobyl is a terrible design (as the coolant boils, the reaction goes faster. fail), nothing like that could happen in any modern (by which i mean anything made in last few decades).

Switching to any other form of power generation will cost lives.

From a environmental point of view, suppose japan can build enough wind and solar to replace nuclear (big job on the scale of a war effort), if they did that along side nuclear they would be reducing carbon emissions. if you do it instead of nuclear then you are standing still. Now take a look at this http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ and have a read of IPCC, and explain how we are going to not hit 400 ppm.

Wow, this page is so incredibly slow and clunky. Google, you can do SO MUCH better. Come on.

Meanwhile, http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ provides all the information you could want about the storm, and it loads instantly.

Sometimes all you need is the content.

Sure there is some youtube links on Google's mashup site.

More timely information can be found on the National Hurricane Center's interactive website

Intensity isn't everything. Location matters too. Isaac is weaker, sure, but it's expected to strengthen in the Gulf a little and the predicted path near landfall is surprisingly similar to that of Katrina, kind of on the east side of New Orleans or over the top. That's the worst situation for landfall in that area, because the counter-clockwise flow of the hurricane will tend to push the water up into Lake Pontchartrain on the north side of the city and up the canal system that connects the city to the ocean on the SE side. A Category 2 is not nearly as bad as the stronger hurricanes, but it's still bad depending upon timing with respect to tides and how long the rainfall lingers. The predictions for storm surge don't look too serious so far (look at the maps of "storm surge probabilities" and "storm surge exceedance" at the National Hurricane Center), but they're still looking at a 50% chance of exceeding a metre or so (looks like the max is 3-5 feet at the 50% confidence level). This *should* be inside the levee limits. The system *should* be able to handle that, but complicated systems have a habit of failing in inconvenient ways. Hopefully people are taking the evacuations seriously in the areas where it's been recommended.

Yes, and like Florida. I can't imagine why you think one should never have conventions in the Southeast because of hurricane season. After all, Florida isn't the only state to get them. North Carolina, Louisiana, and Texas get roughly half as many hurricanes each.

8PM 3-day cone is out. Doesn't reach Miami. Center of 5-day cone passes well West of Tampa early Tues morning (2AM). If the hurricane were to follow that track Tampa won't experience anything worse than it gets during a heavy afternoon thundershower during the summer. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at4+shtml/234951.shtml?3day#contents

The National Hurricane Center shows the 3 and 5 day prediction cones. The 3 day cone is just now touching the tip of Florida. Miami is well inside the 5 day cone, and Miami will definitely be inside the 3 day cone shortly. 5 day cones are somewhat speculative, but once an area is within the 3-day cone, assume it will get hit. The NWS says that they have two hurricane hunter planes up taking observations, and the data from those will feed into the prediction computation for 0000 UTC, in less than 2 hours. So check back then.

If Miami is in the 3-day cone after the next update, it's going to get hit. Remember, hurricanes are typically about 300 miles across. The question is then how bad things will get. Current prediction is it hitting as a Category 1 hurricane, which is not too bad. It might reach Category 2.

The convention starts a day after the hurricane hits, so many people will be arriving just as the storm hits on Sunday. Flight cancellations are likely. The "Welcome event" at the ballpark, scheduled for Sunday, will probably be cancelled. (It's a domed ballpark, so maybe not. But attendance will be down.) Probably by Tuesday or Wednesday, Tampa will be cleaned up and running again. The convention schedule, though, calls for the official vote on the Republican presidential nomination to be made Monday evening. Don't be surprised if that slips to Tuesday.

The convention center is right on the waterfront ("awesome waterfront views"), so flooding from storm surges is a strong possibility. There are probably crews placing sandbags right now.

That's a good question; I described the difference between climate and weather at the beginning of my article. I later updated it with a better analogy from NOAA: One way to distinguish between weather and climate is that the climate of your hometown will determine how many sweaters you have in your closet. The weather will determine if you should be wearing a sweater right now.

Many times the climate being discussed is global, so an average is taken over the entire Earth. For global temperatures, Santer et al. 2011 shows that one needs to average over ~17 years of data to obtain statistically significant climate trends. Here's another explanation by Tamino. Also, the Skeptical Science trend calculator helps visualize statistical significance.

FTA

The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6F, 3.3F above the 20th century average, marking the hottest July and the hottest month on record for the nation. The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936 when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4F.

What they are not saying is that this was computed using the data from the old COOP/USHCN network; if they had used the new high quality, U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), the results for CONUS, July 2012 is mean temp of 75.74F, of course don't believe me just go to Report Page download some data and see for yourself; it doesn't take a PhD to load a .csv into a spreadsheet and to a Tmax + Tmin /2.

FTA

The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6F, 3.3F above the 20th century average, marking the hottest July and the hottest month on record for the nation. The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936 when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4F.

What they are not saying is that this was computed using the data from the old COOP/USHCN network; if they had used the new high quality, U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), the results for CONUS, July 2012 is mean temp of 75.74F, of course don't believe me just go to Report Page download some data and see for yourself; it doesn't take a PhD to load a .csv into a spreadsheet and to a Tmax + Tmin /2.

Fourth warmest June since records began Unless things were dramatically different in July, I think it's safe to assume that global warming has "stopped".

The Mauna Loa CO2 record goes back 50 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

Obviously that's CO2 at a particular spot on the planet --- there are plenty of other records though. Here's a great animation from NOAA showing global CO2 distribution and putting recent changes in the context of the last million years or so. It takes a few minutes to watch, but it's worth seeing to the end, in my opinion.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html

Yet more scaremongering from the statistically-incompetent Jim Hansen. Regarding the heat wave in Russia, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a press release entitled "Natural Variability Main Culprit of Deadly Russian Heat Wave That Killed Thousands"; the press release is based on a paper that was published in Geophysical Research Letters. Another paper, published in the same journal, concluded that "the heat wave falls within the realm of natural variability ... [and] appears not to be the product of long-term climate changes". Also, some researchers in Germany analyzed the data and published a paper, entitled "Large scale flow and the long-lasting blocking high over Russia", which says that the heat wave "appears as a result of natural atmospheric variability".

In short, the claim about Russia is false. The claim about the European summer of 2003 is also debunked. (I am not familiar with Texas.) And why does Hansen not mention extreme cold recently in Alaska?—is that also due to global warming? Bad weather has always existed.

Could you please cite papers describing that the Earth has cooled and warmed for thousands of years on a 150 year (on average) cycle? That's not something I've ever heard of.

At best to find global temperatures as high as they are now you have to go back to the Medieval Warm Period around 1,000 years ago and more likely you have to go back to the Holocene Optimum 8,000 years ago when the state of the Milankovitch Cycles favored a warmer planet. You might even have to go back to the previous interglacial period over 100,000 years ago when sea level was 20-40 feet higher than it is now. Also you need to show how what is happening now matches the patterns of earlier warming cycles. Hint, it doesn't much. If it did scientists would have a better handle on how things will change as the current warming period progresses.

I did a quick search and found this FAQ answer that discusses current changes in relation to past ones.

Scepticism requires admitting you're wrong when the evidence is against you. Climate change deniers don't do that - when the evidence they're collecting gives an answer they don't like (as happened with Watt's last attempt to find flaws in the NOAA surface station network), they just pretend it didn't happen and carry on.

Borehole reconstructions are routinely done and consistent with other proxies as well as with the instrumental surface record.

Good point.

Indeed, that's why there is the (growing) Climate Reference Network. The USCRN is a smaller subset of stations which are carefully chosen in terms of siting and instrumentation and carefully monitored in a way that couldn't realistically be done with all stations. The results from the USCRN are then compared with the broader results in both localized and aggregate comparisons and used A) to help refine the adjustment algorithms used to detect and compensate for localization biases, and B) to determine the accuracy of the aggregate results.

Mod this one up if you have the points.

Borehole reconstructions are routinely done and consistent with other proxies as well as with the instrumental surface record.

Yep and here's NOAA's extrodinary evidence debunking Watts' extraordinary claims. It's a blindingly simple statistical experiment that you can do yourself. Here's the youtube video about it that Watt's tried to take down with dubious DCMA notices. It's not a total loss though, it's true he has collected the best database on the condition of US weather stations (which NOAA used to debunk his claims in the pdf). Such a database sounds like it might be useful for improving the stations but the pdf above list several reasons as to why it might not be so useful.

An intellectually honest person (ie: an amateur scientist), would take those sort of criticisms seriously and either rebut them or withdraw the claim. Watts' behavior is little better than a youtube troll, I suspect he gets a buzz out of the attention.

Indeed, that's why there is the (growing) Climate Reference Network. The USCRN is a smaller subset of stations which are carefully chosen in terms of siting and instrumentation and carefully monitored in a way that couldn't realistically be done with all stations. The results from the USCRN are then compared with the broader results in both localized and aggregate comparisons and used A) to help refine the adjustment algorithms used to detect and compensate for localization biases, and B) to determine the accuracy of the aggregate results.

AGW wins again on the data.

Actual published, peer-reviewed work analyzing his "work" has reached precisely the opposite conclusion.

Ahh, that would be the peer-reviewed work that was "prematurely published", "using a subset of the site classifications that Anthony [Watts] has completed (and, moreover, the site classification data they used has not even gone through final quality assurance checks!)"--"They used only ~40% of the USHCN sites yet over 87% have actually been surveyed by Anthony’s volunteers." (http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/professional-discourtesy-by-the-national-climate-data-center/)

No, he's a well known denier (probably *the* most well known among lay people). He's not a climatologist; he's a local meteorologist for a small Fox affiliate in southern California. And this is unpublished, and will almost certainly be ripped to shreds when it gets submitted, like most of the other trash he submits. He's funded by the Heartland Institute (a conservative organization that takes industry money and uses it to push various forms of denial of interest to them, including things like global warming denial (funded by Koch Industries), denial of the links between tobacco and cancer (funded by Philip-Morris), etc.)

Actual published, peer-reviewed work analyzing his "work" has reached precisely the opposite conclusion.

To me, the bit which is most difficult to explain is that the last 328 months, planetwide, have been warmer than average Source. Temperatures have been above seasonal average since Feb 1985. I know "random" includes sometimes long streaks, but 328 is a long, long streak

NASA doesn't record much temperature data that I'm aware of. That's the bailiwick of NOAA and the National Weather Service. In other countries their national weather services record the data. NOAA does maintain a worldwide database of temperatures, both raw and adjusted, through the National Climate Data Center and that's the data that NASA uses. The raw data the CRU deleted is still available from the original sources. No one had to start from scratch.

Just checked the PJM dashboard, which shows what's going on for the power grid in the northeastern US. They haven't put up a Solar Magnetic Disturbance Warning for this event.

NOAA predicts a maximum A index of 25 and a maximum K index of 3 at low latitudes, 6 at high latitudes (Canada, roughly). PJM says they issue an alert when there's an A index of 40 or above or a K index of 5 or above. K=6 and 7 level events aren't serious problems; trouble occurs around 8 and 9.

The last event that caused a blackout was in 1989. Since then, more monitoring gear has been added and plans made for when this problem occurs. The basic effect is that the solar wind induces DC currents in the earth, causing a huge ground loop between distant grounding points. This causes DC current to flow through AC high tension lines, which heats up transformers and causes some confusion in measurements. Those DC currents are constantly monitored. When DC flows are observed, the AC currents on the line have to be reduced to prevent transformer overheating. It's an operational problem, but not a disaster.

(If you're really interested in this topic, here's the PJM training presentation that covers solar and magnetic disturbances. This is the perspective from the people who operate the power grid. "When solar magnetic disturbance is confirmed, Salem 1 and 2 units will reduce to 80% power and Hope Creek to 85% power...")

I assume it's just a cosmic coincidence that NOAA's Space Weather Alerts and Warnings Timeline chart looks like a cross between Space Invaders and Missile Command? Big yellow bars of light barely missing pixelated aliens as they descend from the sky?

While the news before the fact is great for those of us living some place with a chance of catching the aurora, I don't think there is any indication there will be strong geomagnetic storms. NOAA Space Weather Center is predicting only storm level of G1 with a chance of G2, which happens quite frequently. Usually if something big is coming, their alert timeline lights up with a lot more than a G1 or warning of A > 20. I've made a habit of taking the 10 seconds to check their alert page every time a relative links or talks about a story of some massive geomagnetic storm coming, and pretty much every time it shows (both before and after) that it was something minor that happens with a frequency of more than once a month.

While the news before the fact is great for those of us living some place with a chance of catching the aurora, I don't think there is any indication there will be strong geomagnetic storms. NOAA Space Weather Center is predicting only storm level of G1 with a chance of G2, which happens quite frequently. Usually if something big is coming, their alert timeline lights up with a lot more than a G1 or warning of A > 20. I've made a habit of taking the 10 seconds to check their alert page every time a relative links or talks about a story of some massive geomagnetic storm coming, and pretty much every time it shows (both before and after) that it was something minor that happens with a frequency of more than once a month.

It is possible mother nature could counterbalance increasing CO2 levels by putting CO2 consuming organisms in to overdrive.

If this happened, we'd see CO2 levels first increase, then eventually level off as CO2-consuming organisms proliferated. It hasn't: CO2 is still increasing. There's a graph of atmospheric CO2 for the last 50 years here. (Scroll down to the second graph.)