|
Post by hrizzo on Sept 5, 2014 6:54:40 GMT
Thank you, icefisher. Ratty, I refered to the WUWT article for that reason. As far as I can see, It doesn´t explain it. Nevertheless, I have found another very interesting article (in Spanish) with a superb graphic on the theme. I am trying to delve into its making, but if anyone wants to take a look at it, here you have the link: diablobanquisa.wordpress.com/2013/10/25/y-que-dicen-los-satelites-esmr-1972-1978/
|
|
|
Post by hrizzo on Sept 4, 2014 12:59:23 GMT
duwayne The original image was this: and it comes from from page 224 of IPCC FAR WG1 Nevertheless, I searched and found a graph at wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/18/sea-ice-news-volume-3-2/The original is too big to publish here (I don´t know how to downsize images in the phorum), but I translated the legends into Spanish and saved it like this:
|
|
|
Post by hrizzo on Sept 3, 2014 16:55:33 GMT
¿An eruption of liquefied thiotimoline?
|
|
|
Post by hrizzo on Sept 2, 2014 7:25:13 GMT
I think that is extremely and increasingly important that someone, with appropiate skills and knowledge, gets to the task of incorporate this old IPCC graph: to the present ones that show the extent since 1979.
|
|
|
Post by hrizzo on Aug 22, 2014 17:27:32 GMT
Thanks, ratty and magellan, but after reading ratty´s doc mine looks shamefully disorganized. I´ll try to better it before I make it public.
|
|
|
Post by hrizzo on Aug 22, 2014 9:03:49 GMT
Through the years I have saved quite a lot (increasing every day), in a .doc file. It is half Spanish, half English. If anyone wants to get it, just explain me how I can attach it here.
|
|
|
Post by hrizzo on Aug 21, 2014 7:07:19 GMT
Ratty: We do change the climate, but not in a significant way. Sigurdur: Locally, I strongly agree with you, but globally... we are just a feather on a pond.
|
|
|
Post by hrizzo on Aug 20, 2014 14:59:12 GMT
I holidayed there as boy 30 years ago, bet it's seen a few changes. Here on Dartmoor (Devon, UK) it was a brisk 6°C this morning, now 9°C and raining. The record low in Tenerife were shivering 9.4ºC at 02:15 in the morning on January 29th, 1950, in Santa Cruz de Tenerife, north of the island. The south is always warmer and dryer. Just the perfect place to live, those "islands of the eternal spring".
|
|
|
Post by hrizzo on Aug 20, 2014 7:56:06 GMT
You should try Playa Las Américas, Tenerife South: Warm and low humidity all year round.
|
|
|
Post by hrizzo on Aug 11, 2014 16:13:37 GMT
Shouldn't that read "West Antarctic glacier melt due to volcanoes and global warming"? What global warming? According to Professor Phil Jones there has been no statistically-significant global warming from 1995 to 2010, as he told to the BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stmAnd, of course, since 2009:
|
|
|
Post by hrizzo on Aug 5, 2014 6:52:40 GMT
Sigurdur says
"It is unbelievable that anyone would criticize these pristine scientists. Look how wonderfully the records match!"
You are right! After all, those zealous political scientists have to cope every thay with those ugly facts that nature throws to their chiefs´ theory, and they do that not only with hard work and creativity using their dear computers but also with shameless fidelity to their well earned salaries.
They are almost heroes.
|
|
|
Post by hrizzo on Aug 4, 2014 6:08:51 GMT
Evidently, anthropologic global warming in action.
|
|
|
Post by hrizzo on Jul 15, 2014 7:52:02 GMT
Thanks slh1234; I know the problem with getting the shutter open at "just the right time" .... almost every time I try to take animal pictures, they turn their rear ends to me. I did get a good one of a headless sheep though .... A trick from an old photographer (when machines were mechanical) is to press the button when the movement begins (like when a smile is beginning to form), not when it is fully formed. The problem with electronic machines is that they have a slower response, so you must press the button even a fraction of a second before. In principle, never take the photo when everything is "perfect"; you will never get it.
|
|
|
Post by hrizzo on Jun 15, 2014 12:27:16 GMT
Then when Argo observations showed that the ocean was cooling over the past decade they started throwing out the coldest buoys based upon a theory of pressure leakage (suggesting buoys dove deeper than recorded and reported cooler than reality temperatures for the depth strata) because they were not properly reflecting the thermal expansion of the ocean. Icefisher, do you have a link to check data on those maquinations? I like to have papers or articles to file, specially when the perpetrators boast of them, like Hansen and his "recalibration" of data to reduce "imbalances" with models because they (the data from reality) were "implausible" (http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/13421/2011/acp-11-13421-2011.pdf)
|
|
|
Post by hrizzo on Jun 13, 2014 18:27:19 GMT
Hrizzo, Sorry to be a spoil sport but while observing this thread I've noted you taken the discussion off course. Your input is valuable and worthwhile and I hope you stick around. However... The dialogue has branched into two paths and has become an equivocal discussion. (Thank you Dr. Nugent) The board discussion is El Nino and you have diverged into Astrology. Astrometeorology is being discussed "as" Astrology and I will argue they are not the same. I will put forth an "assumption" what became know as astrometeorology started with very early attempts to understand the relationship of humans to the physical world. Patterns were observed, recorded, and early attempts were made to organize then utilize these observations. Those observations were subject to test and verification as years went forth. Forecasts were made and predictions were placed. That's pretty close to what science is. In astrology we can question free will, in meteorology there is no free will. Yes, I understand perfectly the difference. In fact, I should say that astrometeorological assertions are somewhat compelling and, in my opinion, possible as an interesting conjecture... that must be examined under the lens of scientific method. But let me to point two things: 1 - It was not me that introduced the defense of astrology and its position as a part of science after the scientific component, astronomy, came to be leaving behind witchcraft, and 2 - What I did said is that for astrometeorology to be considered something beyond a cute proposition, it had to make numerical and clear explanation of past phenomena and predict clearly and numerically future facts of reality. So far, astrometeorology is not different from AGW; none of them has made scientific verifiable predictions nor has explained past climate facts.
|
|