|
Post by Belushi TD on Feb 21, 2009 0:17:50 GMT
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess "German Shepherd"
;D
Belushi TD
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Feb 21, 2009 0:48:28 GMT
Thanks Belushi, You are probably right.
Doggone Dopey by the way is a retired greyhound.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 21, 2009 4:40:22 GMT
Hadcrut (observed ground temperatures) shows 1901 to 1919 almost .6 degreeC below the "normal" you selected. Why not select that as normal?This a pointless discussion because 1. The period used to define "normal" doesn't matter. My original point is still valid. 2. Surface temperature observations on a global scale only go back to ~1880 so you can't use any period before that. 3. Satellite observations only go back 30 years so you can't use any period before that. 4. It doesn't matter what base period is used as it has no effect whatsoever on the trends. I think the point is precisely that changing temperature is the "normal" state, thus there is no normal temperature. Which of course creates a big problem when the biggest argument for AGW is increasing temperatures and no other known explanation. Seems to me the ONLY explanation with leaks in the bottom is AGW.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Feb 27, 2009 1:18:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 27, 2009 1:44:12 GMT
Hadcrut (observed ground temperatures) shows 1901 to 1919 almost .6 degreeC below the "normal" you selected. Why not select that as normal?This a pointless discussion because 1. The period used to define "normal" doesn't matter. My original point is still valid. 2. Surface temperature observations on a global scale only go back to ~1880 so you can't use any period before that. 3. Satellite observations only go back 30 years so you can't use any period before that. 4. It doesn't matter what base period is used as it has no effect whatsoever on the trends. I think the point is precisely that changing temperature is the "normal" state, thus there is no normal temperature. Which of course creates a big problem when the biggest argument for AGW is increasing temperatures and no other known explanation. Seems to me the ONLY explanation with leaks in the bottom is AGW. This was the reason for the question - in 4 centuries time will we still be referring to 2 decades from 1980? It seems to me that it is a kind of cherry-picking just because they are 'useful dates'. Normal to me would be a rolling average ideally of a far longer period and from my understanding of the paleo temperatures - we are actually in a colder period of this inter-glacial.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 27, 2009 9:47:58 GMT
This was the reason for the question - in 4 centuries time will we still be referring to 2 decades from 1980?
It seems to me that it is a kind of cherry-picking just because they are 'useful dates'.
Normal to me would be a rolling average ideally of a far longer period and from my understanding of the paleo temperatures - we are actually in a colder period of this inter-glacial.
How would a "rolling average" work and how would it tell us anything. If warming/cooling is happening then the rolling average would move higher/lower. Obviously this means the anomalies would remain more or less constant which might be your intention - but this would completely mask what is happening. I'm puzzled as to why anyone thinks this matters. If you have a problem with the periods used, then create your own version of the data sets using a base period of your choosing. It's a trivial exercise.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Feb 27, 2009 12:26:34 GMT
UAH Ch. 4 data is now below 2008 levels, after running warmer most of the year so far...
A couple notes about the .307 UAH anomaly for January: 1) though much warmer than last January, it was still cooler than 6 of the past 7 Januaries, and 2) the cooling effects of La Nina have not even kicked in yet.
Remember, there is a 4-5 month lag from ENSO anomalies to surface temperature effect...in 2007, ENSO hit -1 anomalies in late September. In 2008, that didn't happen until December. The real cooling from this La Nina will kick in this spring....watch for the temp anomalies to drop substantially March-May.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Feb 27, 2009 13:56:51 GMT
UAH Ch. 4 data is now below 2008 levels, after running warmer most of the year so far... A couple notes about the .307 UAH anomaly for January: 1) though much warmer than last January, it was still cooler than 6 of the past 7 Januaries, and 2) the cooling effects of La Nina have not even kicked in yet. Remember, there is a 4-5 month lag from ENSO anomalies to surface temperature effect...in 2007, ENSO hit -1 anomalies in late September. In 2008, that didn't happen until December. The real cooling from this La Nina will kick in this spring....watch for the temp anomalies to drop substantially March-May. Don't tell anyone in ND this -- they'll go berserk.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 28, 2009 2:21:23 GMT
I am in ND, and with the average temps in Dec 5.6F below 130 year averages, and Jan 6F below 130 year averages. OK, I have not gone beserk yet, but sure am tired of -24F nights, which we had AGAIN last night.
Looks like we are headed for another 500 Growing degree day defficiency during the summer of 2009. I do wish the sun would kick in, and that warming would come back.
|
|