mpaul
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by mpaul on Oct 5, 2009 13:39:01 GMT
Also, there had been a good solar flux graphic site that was recently squelched due to "expiration" of site "rental", or whatever. Pls inform site location good solar flux graph. With all due respect, the solar flux graph here at SC24 is not really that great. Thanks. PM
|
|
|
Post by glc on Oct 5, 2009 19:11:13 GMT
RSS is +0.476
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Oct 7, 2009 15:48:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sfbmikey on Oct 8, 2009 19:16:50 GMT
weird. another spikey UAH number that seems -way- higher than direct experience would indicate (northern hemisphere is +.554? I am in that hemisphere, aren't I?).
|
|
|
Post by glc on Oct 8, 2009 22:24:33 GMT
weird. another spikey UAH number that seems -way- higher than direct experience would indicate (northern hemisphere is +.554? I am in that hemisphere, aren't I?). Possibly - but presumably only in a relatively small region of it. I assume you don't live in Russia.
|
|
|
Post by astrodragon on Oct 9, 2009 10:35:34 GMT
Maybe I'm being paranoid, but why is it the big (positive) anomolies nearly always seem to be somewhere like the arctic, or Siberia, where the reporting network is nonexistant of definately iffy??
It seems odd, given the law of averages, that we rarely seem to see these in areas where people live or where there is good data coverage (not always, there are some, but it seems heavily weighted in favour of empty areas...)
|
|
|
Post by glc on Oct 9, 2009 18:20:52 GMT
Maybe I'm being paranoid, but why is it the big (positive) anomolies nearly always seem to be somewhere like the arctic, or Siberia, where the reporting network is nonexistant of definately iffy??
It seems odd, given the law of averages, that we rarely seem to see these in areas where people live or where there is good data coverage (not always, there are some, but it seems heavily weighted in favour of empty areas...)
RSS and UAH are satellite measurements. The benefit of satellite measurements is that they give uniform areal coverage so a region cannot have a warm/cold bias due to too few sensors . If, however, you are suggesting that UAH, for example, cannot be trusted, then bear in mind that John Christy and Roy Spencer who analyse UAH data have both co-authored papers which disagree with the more extreme AGW hypotheses. Both Spencer and Christy appeared on the UK CH4 Programme "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Both are leading AGW sceptics.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 9, 2009 23:22:00 GMT
Maybe I'm being paranoid, but why is it the big (positive) anomolies nearly always seem to be somewhere like the arctic, or Siberia, where the reporting network is nonexistant of definately iffy??
It seems odd, given the law of averages, that we rarely seem to see these in areas where people live or where there is good data coverage (not always, there are some, but it seems heavily weighted in favour of empty areas...) RSS and UAH are satellite measurements. The benefit of satellite measurements is that they give uniform areal coverage so a region cannot have a warm/cold bias due to too few sensors . If, however, you are suggesting that UAH, for example, cannot be trusted, then bear in mind that John Christy and Roy Spencer who analyse UAH data have both co-authored papers which disagree with the more extreme AGW hypotheses. Both Spencer and Christy appeared on the UK CH4 Programme "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Both are leading AGW sceptics. They are both leading AGW realists, not skeptics.
|
|
|
Post by astrodragon on Oct 10, 2009 9:41:10 GMT
Maybe I'm being paranoid, but why is it the big (positive) anomolies nearly always seem to be somewhere like the arctic, or Siberia, where the reporting network is nonexistant of definately iffy??
It seems odd, given the law of averages, that we rarely seem to see these in areas where people live or where there is good data coverage (not always, there are some, but it seems heavily weighted in favour of empty areas...) RSS and UAH are satellite measurements. The benefit of satellite measurements is that they give uniform areal coverage so a region cannot have a warm/cold bias due to too few sensors . If, however, you are suggesting that UAH, for example, cannot be trusted, then bear in mind that John Christy and Roy Spencer who analyse UAH data have both co-authored papers which disagree with the more extreme AGW hypotheses. Both Spencer and Christy appeared on the UK CH4 Programme "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Both are leading AGW sceptics. I'm just pointing out how the big hot anomalies always seem to be where no-one is. And as to the arctic - the satellites dont cover the arctic. So satellite data is irrelevant - yet again, its extrapolated. Just because they disagree with the most extreme AGW theories doesn't mean they dont believe in it.
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Oct 10, 2009 13:17:43 GMT
The AMO dropped quite a bit in Sept. .110 Down from .282 in July and .205 in August.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 10, 2009 14:00:48 GMT
Maybe I'm being paranoid, but why is it the big (positive) anomolies nearly always seem to be somewhere like the arctic, or Siberia, where the reporting network is nonexistant of definately iffy??) UHI?
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Oct 10, 2009 14:52:21 GMT
Thanks to neilhamp for this reference. When we look at Dr. Spencer's UAH site, we should remember that it is the monthly anomoly from the 1979 - 1998 average that is charted and reported. Dr. Spencer is quite clear about this in the legend of the vertical axis and in the paragraph below the plot.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Oct 10, 2009 15:00:23 GMT
They are both leading AGW realists, not skeptics. Given what is being observed, would not " AGW realist" be a synonym for " AGW skeptic"? As for myself, I have finished caulking the house and will buy a snow shovel as soon as they are available down here.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 10, 2009 15:54:15 GMT
They are both leading AGW realists, not skeptics. Given what is being observed, would not " AGW realist" be a synonym for " AGW skeptic"? As for myself, I have finished caulking the house and will buy a snow shovel as soon as they are available down here. No, a realist is one who has a very open mind to data etc. A skeptic will cherry pick data to suit their needs. The realist is not scared to say the globe was warming and look for the reasons why, and note as of the last 10 years it has been cooling, and look for reasons why.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 10, 2009 16:27:34 GMT
They are both leading AGW realists, not skeptics. Given what is being observed, would not " AGW realist" be a synonym for " AGW skeptic"? As for myself, I have finished caulking the house and will buy a snow shovel as soon as they are available down here. You will know its bad if I have to get a snow-shovel down here in Florida
|
|