|
Post by Ratty on Oct 19, 2018 10:20:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 10, 2018 17:00:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Nov 15, 2018 15:27:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Nov 15, 2018 16:50:05 GMT
I have AccuWeather and they don't seem to push AGW at all. The Weather Channel seems to have Al Gore as their senior climatologist.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Nov 15, 2018 20:17:02 GMT
BBC doing same thing here 😝
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 16, 2018 1:58:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 16, 2018 20:13:35 GMT
Great share Code!
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Nov 16, 2018 21:02:16 GMT
It is good info.....however (and this is all over FB, ive got tired of pointing this out there.....)
In true NASA fashion, they are not suggesting this has repercussions for surface tenps...
We may draw our own conclusions on this, but this statement is widely being used by anti-agw groups as a NASA acceptance of solar rather then co2 influence, which it isn't.....
Space weather have included this metric on their home page under sunspot numbers....
|
|
|
Post by RicksFormula on Nov 16, 2018 22:23:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 16, 2018 22:57:21 GMT
From Britannica (a neutral source): "Little Ice Age (LIA), climate interval that occurred from the early 14th century through the mid-19th century, when mountain glaciers expanded at several locations, including the European Alps, New Zealand, Alaska, and the southern Andes, and mean annual temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere declined by 0.6 °C (1.1 °F) relative to the average temperature between 1000 and 2000 ce." www.britannica.com/science/Little-Ice-AgePinatubo managed around 18 months of cooling (and some argue about that) so what kind of volcanism would lead to 4 centuries or more of major cooling? NASA drops even lower in my estimations.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Nov 16, 2018 23:14:08 GMT
From Britannica (a neutral source): "Little Ice Age (LIA), climate interval that occurred from the early 14th century through the mid-19th century, when mountain glaciers expanded at several locations, including the European Alps, New Zealand, Alaska, and the southern Andes, and mean annual temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere declined by 0.6 °C (1.1 °F) relative to the average temperature between 1000 and 2000 ce." www.britannica.com/science/Little-Ice-AgePinatubo managed around 18 months of cooling (and some argue about that) so what kind of volcanism would lead to 4 centuries or more of major cooling? NASA drops even lower in my estimations. Tambora blew up in 1815, but the CET had already dropped to a low point BEFORE the eruption ... and in a solar cycle minimum. Insult to injury.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 23, 2018 22:10:51 GMT
2 More New Climate Reconstructions Indicate Rapid COOLING In The Last 100+ Years
By Kenneth Richard on 22. November 2018 The evidence that “global” warming has not been global in scale continues to accumulate. Two more new reconstructions from the Western Pacific (He et al., 2018) and subpolar North Atlantic (Orme et al., 2018) indicate that modern temperatures have continued to decline since the onset of the Little Ice Age. These add to the nearly 300 graphs published in the scientific literature since 2017 showing that there is nothing unusual, unprecedented, or remarkable about the temperatures changes in the last 150 years.notrickszone.com/2018/11/22/2-more-new-sea-surface-reconstructions-indicate-rapid-cooling-in-the-last-100-years/
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 4, 2018 20:23:09 GMT
OK I hope this is a simple question The current method of obtaining a daily 'average' 'temperature' is to take the highest temperature recorded and the lowest temperature recorded in a day. Then the mean of those two numbers is calculated and called (incorrectly) the daily average. I say incorrectly as spikes up and spikes down are given the same weight as 12 hours at a temperature But that is not my query. If I have a month where the top temperature is 20C every day but the lowest temperature is 5C, 5.1C, 5.2C, 5.3C, 5.4C, 5.5C, 5.6C. The mean will be 12.5, 12.55, 12.6, 12.65 etc This means a rise in the mean of the two temperatures by 0.05C So do the climate 'scientists' then add that 0.05C as a daily rise to the top temperature as a linear projection claiming that "the temperature" will rise by 7*0.05 -> 0.35C every week? Or do they say more correctly that the top temperature will remain at 20C as it has for the last week? I have a suspicion that they use the rise in daily mean, rather than the top or bottom observations.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Dec 5, 2018 1:15:23 GMT
OK I hope this is a simple question The current method of obtaining a daily 'average' 'temperature' is to take the highest temperature recorded and the lowest temperature recorded in a day. Then the mean of those two numbers is calculated and called (incorrectly) the daily average. I say incorrectly as spikes up and spikes down are given the same weight as 12 hours at a temperature But that is not my query. If I have a month where the top temperature is 20C every day but the lowest temperature is 5C, 5.1C, 5.2C, 5.3C, 5.4C, 5.5C, 5.6C. The mean will be 12.5, 12.55, 12.6, 12.65 etc This means a rise in the mean of the two temperatures by 0.05C So do the climate 'scientists' then add that 0.05C as a daily rise to the top temperature as a linear projection claiming that "the temperature" will rise by 7*0.05 -> 0.35C every week? Or do they say more correctly that the top temperature will remain at 20C as it has for the last week? I have a suspicion that they use the rise in daily mean, rather than the top or bottom observations. Ask Harry?
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Dec 5, 2018 1:26:46 GMT
OK I hope this is a simple question The current method of obtaining a daily 'average' 'temperature' is to take the highest temperature recorded and the lowest temperature recorded in a day. Then the mean of those two numbers is calculated and called (incorrectly) the daily average. I say incorrectly as spikes up and spikes down are given the same weight as 12 hours at a temperature But that is not my query. If I have a month where the top temperature is 20C every day but the lowest temperature is 5C, 5.1C, 5.2C, 5.3C, 5.4C, 5.5C, 5.6C. The mean will be 12.5, 12.55, 12.6, 12.65 etc This means a rise in the mean of the two temperatures by 0.05C So do the climate 'scientists' then add that 0.05C as a daily rise to the top temperature as a linear projection claiming that "the temperature" will rise by 7*0.05 -> 0.35C every week? Or do they say more correctly that the top temperature will remain at 20C as it has for the last week? I have a suspicion that they use the rise in daily mean, rather than the top or bottom observations. I believe your suspicion is likely correct.
|
|