Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 Next
Comments 97301 to 97350:
-
archiesteel at 13:40 PM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
@pirate: "My purpose of posting the comment about the AP Physics students was not to imply any scientific basis to discredit AGW, but to show that public perception of AGW is very different than what you may think." Sorry, but that stinks of sample bias. You are basically saying that one classroom represents what "public perception of AGW" is. Nearly every poll on the subject shows that a majority of the people accept AGW theory, including in the US. A recent Rasmussen poll said that: "Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters see global warming as at least a somewhat serious problem, with 33% who see it as a Very Serious problem. Thirty-eight percent (38%) are not concerned about global warming, including 17% who say it is Not At All Serious." Note that Rasmussen is generally perceived to have a slight conservative bias, so I think these numbers are not exaggerated. So, for what it's worth, it seems that public perception of AGW is quite different from what *you* think. -
Rob Painting at 13:17 PM on 29 January 2011Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
CC @ 54 - I'm not saying your point isn't valid, but trying to address every error or diversion simply dilutes the message. Thanks for highlighting this though, it's worthy of its own rebuttal. -
Marcus at 12:30 PM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
So, I took a look at the Survey from Pirate, & its the most biased piece of rubbish I've ever seen. How could anyone judge if the planet were warming or cooling over the past 100 years when looking at a graph with a 50,000 year scale? Total nonsense. The last question is also extremely loaded, given that many renewable energy technologies are *very* reliable (you might say *more* reliable-as renewable energy can be better scaled to demand than coal or nuclear power) & have far lower environmental impacts than coal or nuclear power. I think this "survey" reveals a lot about how survey results can be skewed by the bias of the person designing the survey. -
Marcus at 12:24 PM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Pirate, the only reason Fossil Fuels are so cheap is because-from the outset-they've enjoyed enormous financial support from Governments across the world. They still enjoy these subsidies in *spite* of them being mature industries. Next time try couching the question about renewable energy by adding in how much the fossil fuel industry is currently costing tax payers. -
Marcus at 12:21 PM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Good point, JMurphy. The "Skeptic" logic-if it can be called that-is akin to saying that: as forest fires can occur naturally, then no human can ever be responsible for forest fires. That is, of course, a total logical fallacy-whether applied to climate change or possible arson ;). -
Ron Crouch at 10:28 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
I know I'm off topic. Sorry. The part that gets me the most is when people like James Inhofe make statements to the effect that CO2 is a colourless, odourless, non-toxic gas. That should be a great comfort to any submariner. Just think of the money that could be saved by removing all those CO2 scrubbers from subs. Nothing could be finer than to suffocate in an oxygen rich environment (contaminated with say <4%? CO2). -
Albatross at 10:21 AM on 29 January 2011Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
BP @31, "My scatterplot above is also for global ACE and as such, it is meaningful indeed." Well, you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how misguided it may be and no matter how unscientific. I can try and hook you up with Christopher Monckton if you like... As I'm sure you know, TCs are primarily a tropical phenomenon except on those occasions when they undergo extra-tropical transition. So your scatterplot might have been more "meaningful" or convincing had you looked at OHC (or SSTs) for the tropics, instead of lower-tropospheric temperatures for the globe (from a group/product with a less than reputable history). -
Albatross at 10:13 AM on 29 January 2011Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
BP @31, "But the real insult is that the National Hurricane Center of the U.S. of A. still does not have the facts for 2010, although the year is somewhat over." Sigh, read this, issued on 29 November 2010. -
michael sweet at 10:09 AM on 29 January 2011Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
BP: Do I understand you to claim that since the Atlantic ACE was at the lower end of an extraordinarily high prediction that means it was low? Albatross has cited data that show the Atlantic ACE was high in 2010 and you need to admit that. Your claiming that we should rely on a tiny percentage of the data (USA landfalling hurricanes) instead of the entire record is unscientific. The remainder of the hurricane record is not as bad as you claim. You need to drop this claim as it hurts what is left of your reputation. -
Albatross at 10:08 AM on 29 January 2011Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
BP @31, OK, still waiting for your to acknowledge and retract your erroneous statement made at 28 which I pointed out at 30. "But the real insult is that the National Hurricane Center of the U.S. of A. still does not have the facts for 2010, although the year is somewhat over." Enough with the juvenile insults from you BP. "Sit down please, you have not listened." And again with the juvenile insults from you BP. In fact, I would argue that your post @30 breaks the house rules. Moderator? I'll address the issue with your scatterplot in another post. -
Paul D at 09:36 AM on 29 January 2011Animated powerpoint of the Indicators of Warming
Oops, didn't think of pressing buttons! Thanks Ron. Joel. Neo Office is pretty much redundant now, it runs using X11. Open Office now have a native version for the Mac. Although maybe if you have a PowerPC Mac, you have to use Neo Office?? -
Berényi Péter at 09:23 AM on 29 January 2011Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
#29 muoncounter at 06:54 AM on 29 January, 2011 Great! I'll alert the National Hurricane Center to stand down. Good idea. Their prediction in August 2010 for annual North Atlantic ACE was between 148×104 kt2 & 236 ×104 kt2. The actual figure is something like 163-170 (if we go with Dr. Jeff Masters or Dr. Ryan N. Maue). That's in the lower quarter of the forecast, i.e. close to the lower end of it. But the real insult is that the National Hurricane Center of the U.S. of A. still does not have the facts for 2010, although the year is somewhat over. The alleged cherrypick of using just the Atlantic (a big cherry, that one) was initially your move. Sit down please, you have not listened. That one is accumulated intensity of hurricanes making landfall in the US since 1863. It just puts things into historical perspective and the US was chosen only because old hurricanes there are well documented. It has nothing to do with North Atlantic ACE (as 2010 clearly shows). Here and now we are talking about the satellite era, for which we have pretty accurate global estimate for ACE including tropical storms that do not make landfall anywhere. And no, the North Atlantic is not a big cherry, it's less than 8% of the surface of the globe. As I have said, global ACE for 2010 was low. My scatterplot above is also for global ACE and as such, it is meaningful indeed. -
Ron Crouch at 09:14 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
I think they are waiting for global warming to manifest itself as a physical being Daniel. Then they can dust off the Buffalo Rifles and kill it. After all if you can't see it, hear it, touch it, or smell it -- then it doesn't exist. Right? Nope -- wrong again!Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Nothing to see here, no extra CO2, nada. Like ze Spanish Inquisition, nothing to see. -
PT_Goodman at 08:40 AM on 29 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
The "Global Warming and Cold Winters" post is quite good, but it over-simplifies things in a way that I found confusing. Since the air pressure at any point is almost exactly equal to the weight of the air above, per unit area, and the density of air depends (inversely) on the temperature, one would think that the result would be a low pressure system. My guess is that the author is talking about polar air that, even warmed by the ocean, is colder than air to the south, and is therefore more dense than air to the south. So the result would be high pressure relative to conditions to the south. Does this make sense? -
Daniel Bailey at 08:28 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
@ 96 Thanks, Ron. Saw that some time back. The scenarios are always being reworked, being "living" documents. The Joint Chiefs have scenarios for almost any eventuality (including a "Chicxulub"-scale impactor). What is probably lacking is the political will of their masters to let loose their leashes... The Yooper -
Ron Crouch at 08:19 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
#95 Daniel They may not be as prepared as everyone thinks. See here -
Chris3699 at 08:05 AM on 29 January 2011It's cooling
Thanks, KR. I looked him up and he certainly has provoked a few strong opinions. He seems like a renegade who enjoys stirring up trouble for its own sake. -
Daniel Bailey at 08:03 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
@ michael sweet (94) The world will reel under the logistics of supporting millions of climate refugees. When those millions become tens of millions, borders will collapse. If those tens of millions become hundreds, civilization collapses as well. The US military has many planning scenarios already in place for that eventuality. Pray they go unneeded. The Yooper -
michael sweet at 07:41 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Pirate: The pre human climate changes you have referenced are certainly true. They show that with the current forcings (not including BAU increases) we can expect all of southern Florida and most of Bangladesh to be under water in the future. I defined that as abnormal. You have not defined what is abnormal for you. How about if you add this question to your poll: Can the people from Bangladesh come and live in your city when theirs is underwater from CO2 pollution? Would you pay more for electricity if it kept the Bangladeshis in Bangladesh? You would get different responses. When millions of pepople become climate refugees (like has already happened in Pakistan) that is a recipe for disaster and war. That is abnormal weather for me. -
Albatross at 07:12 AM on 29 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
Michael @27, Thanks Michael-- you are probably speaking from experience :) You are right, it did take a while to pull it all together, over an hour in fact. -
Albatross at 07:10 AM on 29 January 2011Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
BP @28, "According to them, North Atlantic ACE was indeed somewhat above average," Oh come now, that is a demonstrably false statement BP. This is what the NHC had to say: "According to NOAA the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season, which ends tomorrow, was one of the busiest on record. In contrast, the eastern North Pacific season had the fewest storms on record since the satellite era began. In the Atlantic Basin a total of 19 named storms formed – tied with 1887 and 1995 for third highest on record. Of those, 12 became hurricanes – tied with 1969 for second highest on record. Five of those reached major hurricane status of Category 3 or higher. From Dr. Jeff Masters' blog: "This year's Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) index was 163, putting it in 13th place for ACE since 1944. A "hyperactive" hurricane season is considered to have an ACE index of >175% of the median. According to Wikipedia, median ACE measured over the period 1951–2000 for the Atlantic basin was 87.5, so 2010 is a hyperactive year by that definition (183% of the median.)" Professor Maue at FSU obtained an ACE of 170 for the N. Atlantic in 2010, the 11th highest since 1950, and highest since 2005. Please retract your erroneous statement BP. -
michael sweet at 07:07 AM on 29 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
I hope people recognize that it takes a lot of time for Albatross to link all those studies. In addition to reading them he has to find them for this reference. It is clear that Trenberth is qualified to discuss the probability of recent floods being due to AGW and not natural variation. On the other hand, WUWT and Humanity Rules are speaking from a complete lack of knowledge. They have not even read the background but they are willing to speculate about things they have not thought about in depth. Choose who you believe. -
JMurphy at 06:56 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Pre-human forest fires are what they are. They happened and there is no denying them. To some, that obviously means something... -
Albatross at 06:55 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Apirate @89, You seem to have elected to completely miss the point about DB's post....no? M&M 2010 has already been questioned widely by real climate scientists, and the analysis has been found to fall short. You can read all about it here at the journal. I suspect Dan provided that particular graphic to appease contrarians b/c it was generated by "skeptics". Regardless, it seems that you are seeing only what you want to see. Here is a much better reconstruction for the last 2000 years, not 1000 as M&M10 did, by Ljungqvist (2010):
And here is another Hockey Stick published only days ago:
There are enough Hockey Sticks out there to equip a couple of NHL teams.
-
muoncounter at 06:54 AM on 29 January 2011Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
#28: "North Atlantic ACE was indeed somewhat above average, even if at the lower end of the forecast" Great! I'll alert the National Hurricane Center to stand down. Large-scale climate features strongly influenced this year’s hurricane activity, as they often do. This year, record warm Atlantic waters, combined with the favorable winds coming off Africa and weak wind shear aided by La Niña energized developing storms. The 2010 season continues the string of active hurricane seasons that began in 1995. But short-term weather patterns dictate where storms actually travel and in many cases this season, that was away from the United States. The jet stream’s position contributed to warm and dry conditions in the eastern U.S. and acted as a barrier that kept many storms over open water. Also, because many storms formed in the extreme eastern Atlantic, they re-curved back out to sea without threatening land. The alleged cherrypick of using just the Atlantic (a big cherry, that one) was initially your move. As we've said, this question isn't a settled one; no one even knows the proper metric to use. -
Ron Crouch at 06:44 AM on 29 January 2011Animated powerpoint of the Indicators of Warming
The Ville When the presentation opens in Impress did you try the left mouse button to advance frames? -
muoncounter at 06:37 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
#88: "Pre-human climate change is what it is. It happened and there is no denying it." No one denies that. However, there is no causal connection between climate change on the geologic (presumably what you call 'pre-human') time scale and the climate change here and now. That's what you're missing; or do you actually believe that unrelated events have exactly the same cause? See Climate's changed before or CO2s been higher in the past and take further 'pre-human' commentary there. -
Albatross at 05:32 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Pirate @88, "The textbook actually supports your premise of AGW." You have got to be kidding..."premise"? AGW is a theory, or as the national academy of sciences is on the record saying, "fact". Sorry, but you are displaying your inability to objectively present the facts about climate science and AGW Pirate. -
Albatross at 05:24 AM on 29 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
HR @23, I'm sorry to hear that you read WUWT. That site is the very anti-thesis of science. I second Michael, you have provided nothing but some musings (probably reinforced by the propaganda at WUWT). Do you and Watts deny that precipitable water vapour (PWV) content has increased by about 5% in the last 30-40 years? Do you deny that PWV is a necessary condition for precipitation, and source of latent energy? Research has repeatedly shown the importance of moisture in modulating storm intensity and rainfall rates (e.g., Crook 2006, MWR; Lenderink and Meijgaard (2008, Nature). Trenberth has many observations and papers which support his statements concerning the frequency of droughts and extreme rainfall (some examples here and here), heat waves (e.g., here) and the acceleration of the hydrological cycle (e.g., here). Trenberth has worked extensively in this area (see list here). I am in a rush so this is by no stretch of the imagination a comprehensive list. As much as Anthony Watts et al's disinformation machine would like to have you believe, Trenberth is not talking out of his hat HR. Tamino has also had a look at the data here and here. Now I do agree with you that these events need to be studied and I will bet my house that real scientists are already hard at work doing just that, while the likes of Watts do nothing but pontificate and talk out of their hats. And don't come back with "but blocking is natural". That is a red herring. the 2003 European heat wave was also caused by a naturally blocking event (surprise surprise) but this is what subsequent research by Stott et al.(2004, Nature)found: "...we estimate it is very likely (confidence level >90%) that human influence has at least doubled the risk of a heatwave exceeding this threshold magnitude." That is what happens when warming from an extreme blocking event is superimposed on an underlying warming trend. The European event was also a beautiful example of the impact of positive feedback cycle (here and here). Time to for you and Watts to finally accept that were are disrupting the climate system HR. -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:20 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
I wonder, if these repondents were polled on it ahead of time, if they would say that they will agree to pay to rectify a pathetic financial fiasco generated by careless banking practices? mmmmm... Well, that is off topic and I expect will be deleted but it would be as skillfull a survey question as the ones included in that little poll concocted by pirate. How about a question like this: 3 different oncologists tell you that you have cancer and it's likely to be malignant. Another oncologist, retired 10 years ago and holding a quirky reputation tells you yeah, you might have it, but it'll probably go away and if not it's a good thing anyway. Would you still seek treatment and be ready to pay for it? I wonder, has anyone estimated the price of fossil fuels if they were to completely loose all forms of susbidies? -
apiratelooksat50 at 04:46 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Sweet @ 84, Their survey, not mine, was again based on guidance from their textbook. The textbook actually supports your premise of AGW. Pre-human climate change is what it is. It happened and there is no denying it. Providing DB's second graph based on projections would surely bias the results. 60% of the respondees were willing to pay extra for renewable energy to reduce CO2 emissions. Fossil fuel based energy is cheaper and more reliable currently and for some projected time. Other than nuclear, some work is still required to effectively use alternative energy on a large scale. (FWIW, I like alternative energy where applicable.) -
NickD at 04:30 AM on 29 January 2011Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming
Has there been any comments (here or elsewhere) on the paper by Knox & Douglass from 2010 regarding their findings refuting, apparently, Trenberth's analysis? I know there was some discussion on Curry's blog, but I prefer to not dive into the comment section over there. Thanks. -
apiratelooksat50 at 04:15 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Alb @85, They went all over the site, but mainly concentrated on the two threads concerning CO2 lagging temperatures, and the natural cycles that were posted here within the last few weeks. -
apiratelooksat50 at 04:11 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
From the McShane and Wyner paper that DB pulled the graphs from @ 66. Abstract: We find that the proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random series generated independently of temperature. Furthermore, various model specifications that perform similarly at predicting temperature produce extremely different historical backcasts. Finally, the proxies seem unable to forecast the high levels of and sharp run-up in temperature in the 1990s either in-sample or from contiguous holdout blocks, thus casting doubt on their ability to predict such phenomena if in fact they occurred several hundred years ago. This is the graph as it appears in the paper.
Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] The graph I used came from here. -
Albatross at 04:04 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Pirate, "I simply showed them the graphs and articles from this site (yes, SKS only!) and asked their opinions." Which graphics exactly (links please) and what did you say about them? Thanks. -
michael sweet at 04:02 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Pirate: Your survey on line provides data that shows historic prehuman climate change and then asks if humans are causing current climate change. That biases the result. If you provided DB's second graph you sould get a completely different result. The deniers current theme is that climate change is normal and we cannot do anything about it. They used to say climate change was not happening, but that has been proven wrong. Additionally you ask if people will pay to reduce CO2. People always say they do not want to pay for changes. It is not clear that renewable energy will be more expensive than fossil fuels once the fossil fuel subsidies are removed. Certainly in 100 years fossil fuels will be more expensive- they will be used up. Students know what your opinions are even if you do not state them. Their friends have your class. Your position was clear from your first post here on SS. The framing of the on line survey is an example of your position. I only needed to read one question to see the point of the survey. Many students are concerned about climate change. Whether or not enough are interested is still to be determined. Right now it looks grim in the USA. My skeptical student tell me that they will not change their position until their house is flooded. It is not enough if Australia (or Texas) is hit. -
Albatross at 03:58 AM on 29 January 2011Animated powerpoint of the Indicators of Warming
Rob @13, "If each of those indicators had a small notation referencing a peer reviewed paper or two." Good idea...I second that. This graphic could be a great teaching tool. -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:56 AM on 29 January 2011Animated powerpoint of the Indicators of Warming
The Ville... I got the file to work with Keynote 5.0. -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:54 AM on 29 January 2011Animated powerpoint of the Indicators of Warming
You know something that would make this a much more powerful presentation? If each of those indicators had a small notation referencing a peer reviewed paper or two. That would change this from an interesting graphic into a powerful graphic. -
apiratelooksat50 at 03:40 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
DB @ 66, Where did you get the second graph in this comment? It is not the same one labeled Figure 16 in the original paper.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Pardon for the delay in responding; been a little preoccupied with life, the universe and everything. Inre the graph from #66, I intentionally used the "Skeptic's" darling, the McShane and Wyner graph, adapted by Wag here. See also here, here and here for supporting discussion and sources. -
michael sweet at 03:39 AM on 29 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
Humanity Rules: If you want to claim that Trenberth is "exaggerating" you need to provide some data and or cite a reference to back up your claim . You saying "I doubt it" is not reasonable. If you want to convice anyone that what you say is worth listening to you need to start citing data. According to the NCDC, 2010 was the wettest year globaly on record (since 1900). Just eyeballing this graph
wet is increasing, although there is a lot of noise. AGW theory predicts that the rain will fall more in the wet places and the dry places will get drier. that is what is being observed.
Why do you keep harping on El Nino causing the heat during 2010? All the record years are El Nino years.
-
caerbannog at 03:32 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Ed Davies at 00:03 AM on 27 January, 2011 @caerbanog #7, are the extra readings the ones differentiated by the "duplicate" field or just the "modifier"? I have to admit that I couldn't understand the description of the duplicate field so my own version of this just ignores it and uses the last data value for each station, but it does take the modifier as part of the station identification. I think that the duplicate number refers to duplicated time-series -- i.e. data with id #'s that vary by only the duplicate number should be identical (or nearly so). Not really clear as to why it's there (but haven't really investigated it). My new procedure simply merges all temperature data associated with a given WMO # (sans modifier and duplicate number) into a single time-series. Since I'm just doing straightforward averages in the merging process, the presence of duplicates will have no impact on my results. After I compute merged temperature time-series (one per WMO id), I then proceed with the anomaly calculations. The new results aren't all that different from the old results, but there is a visibly smaller difference between the "raw" vs. "adjusted" results in the early 20th Century with the corrected approach. If you plot out NASA's "Northern Hemisphere" and "Northern Latitudes" temperature results (data available at: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt), you will find that the "dumb average" approach (with WMO stations merged first) produces a post-1970 warming rate that lands in-between NASA's NH and NL warming rates (which certainly makes sense, intuitively). -
apiratelooksat50 at 03:17 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
My purpose of posting the comment about the AP Physics students was not to imply any scientific basis to discredit AGW, but to show that public perception of AGW is very different than what you may think. If the AGW hypothesis does bear fruit, and there are true negative effects that might possibly be addressed by proactive reduction of CO2 emissions, then these are the people that must be convinced. They are our future leaders. As far as my influencing these students with my viewpoints, trust me it did not happen. This was the one and only time I've had any contact with them. I simply showed them the graphs and articles from this site (yes, SKS only!) and asked their opinions. It wasn't until the end of the period that I voiced my thoughts. Glenn @ 73 - You make some good points and if we can carve some time out of their curriculum, I will do just that. Here is a link to a survey my Environmental Science students are conducting as a project. They followed a guide in their textbook while developing this survey to minimize any bias. Other than supplying computer access, I was hands-off. Click here to take surveyModerator Response: [Daniel Bailey] You should learn a better differentiation between a hypothesis and a theory. It might also be a good idea to have your students read this as well. -
citizenschallenge at 03:02 AM on 29 January 2011Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
SEA LEVEL ACCELERATION Monckton - "In the 11,400 years since the end of the last Ice Age, sea level has risen at an average of 4 feet/century, though it is now rising much more slowly because very nearly all of the land-based ice that is at low enough latitudes and altitudes to melt has long since gone." Monckton - "It (satellite altimetry data) is a dizzying 1 ft/century – not vastly greater than the 8 inches/century that had previously been inferred from tide-gauges." ~ ~ ~ ~ Sounds to me like the man is saying sea levels have been rising by 8 inches per century, (coming down from 48" per). That this rate of sea level rise ended about 6,7 thousand years ago and that sea levels have remain remarkably stable since then. . . seems not an unimportant distinction to make clear to folks and lurkers. -
Byron Smith at 02:37 AM on 29 January 2011Animated powerpoint of the Indicators of Warming
Another minor suggestion: snow cover --> summer snow cover. -
Joel3937 at 02:08 AM on 29 January 2011Animated powerpoint of the Indicators of Warming
@The Ville, NeoOffice is a build of OpenOffice specifically for Macs. I am running NeoOffice 3.1.2 and the slide show works. -
Yvan Dutil at 01:33 AM on 29 January 2011Rescue Climate Data
Here is a related paper describing the project. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/gilbert.p.compo/20CRv2_Compoetal2010.pdf -
Chris G at 01:30 AM on 29 January 2011Animated powerpoint of the Indicators of Warming
Oops, not a particularly good example. That article does not really support the point I was testing. -
Chris G at 01:25 AM on 29 January 2011Animated powerpoint of the Indicators of Warming
Nice work John. Regarding the earlier Spring, I would hazard a guess that there is also a later Fall. In which case, it might be more accurate to say 'Longer warm seasons', 'Longer summers', or I suppose, 'Shorter winters' . It is a minor difference, but it would more accurately describe the situation. For instance, there is this, Late leaf fall. -
Yvan Dutil at 01:16 AM on 29 January 2011Rescue Climate Data
If you want to know what can be done with these data. I suggest this powerpoint presentation,. www.usclivar.org/Meeting_Files/Reanalysis2010/Monday/Compo.ppt Results are amazing at the end of 19th century. In the future, it is expected that reconstruction could be decent up to 1900.
Prev 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 Next
