Re: OT: Hot, Flat and Crowded
- From: Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid>
- Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:11:13 +0000
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 00:31:46 +0100, "Bill Sloman"
<bill.sloman@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schreef in
bericht news:shu6m4pctve7l9kku8v3kmikrdo27ldunp@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 07:04:24 +0000 (UTC), don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Don
Klipstein) wrote:
Such as the downward correction by Hansen in 2001 that the wingnuts
latched onto? It appears to me that it is the one that changed USA's
"contiguous 48's hottest decade" from the 1990's to the 1930's.
Also, I like to describe 1998's warmth beyond "trend curve" as an
anomaly - greatest El Nino on record.
The cooling of late 2007 through most of the first half of 2008 is
almost to similar extent an anomaly - greatest La Nina in 20 years.
Don't you love how AGW-denialists like to latch onto a 10-11 year period
begining with such a major El Nono and ending with such a major La Nina?
What's so bad about reporting the 1979-2008 stretch as a whole? One
source cited favorably by The Register in their "A Tale of Two
Thermometers" article is currently saying (as of 1/5/09) rising trend of
.157 degree K or C per decade.
That is RSS/MSU determination of lower troposphere temperature trend
from satellite data.
http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_amsu_trend_map_tlt
1st of the 4 line graphs, after the 4 color-coded global maps.
- Don Klipstein (don@xxxxxxxxx)
The real "wingnuts" are those posing as "engineers" and claiming we
can measure the "average temperature" of the earth to an accuracy of
"0.157°C", let alone find trends in such crap data.
What chutzpa!
Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson reminds us of his special powers once
again.
Jim gives a proper engineers response, not a political-religious
response.
As far as Crut-3V measurements are concerned the max and min readings
from each station are averaged to give "the average temperature". If
the temp is 30C for 16 hours and 10C for 8 hours then "the average
temperature" is 20C rather than 23.3C. Then allow for all the site
problems and measurement errors and heat island effects which will
give high raw readings.
Then the individual crud is compensated and averaged and then
recompensated to allow for the fact that there is not a proper
distribution of measurement sites.
For Siberia, for example, a totally inadequate number of masurement
sites are overweighted to try and compensate for the lack of data
points.
After all this you have the magic "average world temperature" for the
day.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OT: Hot, Flat and Crowded
- From: bill . sloman
- Re: OT: Hot, Flat and Crowded
- From: Don Klipstein
- Re: OT: Hot, Flat and Crowded
- From: Jim Thompson
- Re: OT: Hot, Flat and Crowded
- References:
- Re: OT: Hot, Flat and Crowded
- From: Bill Sloman
- Re: OT: Hot, Flat and Crowded
- From: Raveninghorde
- Re: OT: Hot, Flat and Crowded
- From: bill . sloman
- Re: OT: Hot, Flat and Crowded
- From: Raveninghorde
- Re: OT: Hot, Flat and Crowded
- From: Don Klipstein
- Re: OT: Hot, Flat and Crowded
- From: Raveninghorde
- Re: OT: Hot, Flat and Crowded
- From: Eeyore
- Re: OT: Hot, Flat and Crowded
- From: Don Klipstein
- Re: OT: Hot, Flat and Crowded
- From: Jim Thompson
- Re: OT: Hot, Flat and Crowded
- From: Bill Sloman
- Re: OT: Hot, Flat and Crowded
- Prev by Date: It's official...
- Next by Date: Re: A question for management types.
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: Hot, Flat and Crowded
- Next by thread: Re: OT: Hot, Flat and Crowded
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading