Ask me what I use day in and day out.
its not NCEP.
been there done that… it was lousy
U cant even find the data sources for NCEP
U have never used it. U dont know what it is.
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Steven Mosher
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Steven Mosher
yep tony
You will note the date.
Subsequent to that I found a MUCH MUCH better source for airports
the GHCN Metadata wasnt good enough.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by beththeserf
Germany should exit.
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by -1=e^iπ
“The article you linked is only concerned with agricultural productivity.”
Yes. One merely needs to change the dependent variable to GDP per capita and add more explanatory variables.
“What about the effect of climate and other geography on political factors? (An example might be the full work-day, unbroken by the “siesta” common in Mediterranean climates.)”
If climate affects political or cultural factors, which in turn affect economic output, then if you try to explain differences in economic output across the globe and you have climate variables as explanatory factors, then the indirect affects will show up in the estimates of the impacts of climate on economic output.
“Relatively easy but likely incorrect.”
Probably, but what is a better alternative?
↧
Comment on The Siddhartha heuristic by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #188 | Watts Up With That?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by genghiscunn
Angela Merkel turned up at Greek immigration. The immigration officer asked: “Occupation?” Merkel replied: “No, just visiting.”
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by justinwonder
Interesting. In my experience, few people, even the middle class, have air conditioning in their homes. However, I have seen news articles that say it is growing rapidly, but from a small base. About 11% of Brazilian households had AC in 2007. Most AC is in businesses, especially large retailers, supermarkets, and malls. I hate heat, so when I am in Brazil I usually head to a mall just for relief. High electricity costs would hurt other businesses like manufacturing, which they can hardly afford given their overall political and economic conditions and their lack of global competiveness. They are joined at the hip to China right now, selling commodities, so the slow down has really hurt, which has aggravated the political situation. I feel terrible for them – the average person, and that means below middle class, really suffers.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ragnaar
It is generally accepted that plowed fields absorb sunlight and create updrafts. Tarmac probably does the same. Airports like to cut down trees and clear as much space as they can. So we’d have vertical and horizontal flows. Does tarmac and plowed earth lead or lag the Spring warming cycle as compared to vegetation covered ground? I’d say the sunlight drives the cold out of the earth, it’s being absorbed. There may be hourly and seasonal variations because of an early absorption phase and latter emission phase.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Jim D
“Denial in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary is either devious or insane.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lance-simmens/turn-up-the-heat-on-clima_b_7828020.html
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Vaughan Pratt
@Ragnaar: Regional sensitivity would be interesting to look at.
Agreed. Take the region to be the surface of Venus. Sensitivity should be around 400 °C/doubling of CO2.
If that seems a tad high it’s because doubling the CO2 in Venus’s atmosphere would raise its troposphere from 60 km to 120 km, since most of Venus’s atmosphere is CO2. (A bit less if compression is taken into account.) Venus’s surface temperature is determined largely by its lapse rate of around 7 °C/km. Assuming the troposphere remains at around 220 K despite the rise in altitude of 60 km, the extra altitude of the troposphere will add 7*60 = 420 °C to the surface temperature.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Don Monfort
We didn’t know there was a critique of Lomborg in THE GUARDIAN, yimmy. That settles it. We are now eager to cough up the mere $3 trillion. Your work here is done. You can move on now. Those characters at WUWT desperately need saving. Harangue them for a few years.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Vaughan Pratt
According to NOAA’s own NCEP data, June is 6th warmest since 2000 ,exceeded by 1998,2002,2005,2006,2007. How is that to be reconciled?
Easy.
1. Monthly temperatures are meaningless because they fluctuate at random. You need a minimum of a five-year average before such comparisons are meaningful.
2. Since you didn’t give the URL of where you found the data, you could say anything you like and no one could contradict you.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Don Monfort
Little yimmy trusts international studies. Nothing to do with Obama. International stuff is golden. Albania to Zimbabwe. Very reliable.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Vaughan Pratt
@DW: <i>I thought in AGW land use changes were supposed to account for about a third of the warming.</I>
<a href="http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/landuse/houghton/1850-2005.txt" rel="nofollow">CDIAC data</a> has land use changes holding steady at around 1.5 GtC/year. (Around 1990 it was as high as 1.9 GtC/yr, but by 2005 had dropped to below 1.5 GtC/yr.)
CDIAC shows <a href="http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/Global_Carbon_Project/Global_Carbon_Budget_2014_v1.1.xlsx" rel="nofollow">fossil fuel emissions (including cement)</a> as 6.13 GtC/yr in 1990, rising to 9.86 GtC by 2013.
So in 1990 the fraction was 1.9/(6.14+1.9) = 0.24 or about a quarter. So your figure of a third might have been true in 1970 or 1980.
Today however it would be around 1.5/(10+1.5) = 0.13, closing in on an eighth.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by mosomoso
Seems Angela had to remind the Irish about not spending a penny. Now they only Euronate.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Vaughan Pratt
@AK: I’ve been suggesting (in comments) here for years that whaling might have played a part in CO2 increases.
By what mechanism?
And can you quantify it?
Around 30% of fossil fuel emissions is being absorbed by each of the ocean and the land, leaving 40% in the atmosphere, in excellent agreement with the observed increase in atmospheric CO2.
Do you have numbers that support whaling as a source of increasing CO2?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Vaughan Pratt
@bts: Was – it – ever – about – the – science – ? – ?
Quite right, Beth. The prevailing sentiment here on CE has never been about the science, Judith’s best intentions notwithstanding.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Vaughan Pratt
I read the link. “Far below” looked more like “about equal”.
Which means that if this keeps up for the second half of 2015, this year will have had double the average catastrophic losses of the past five years.
It’s also worth noting that such losses have been increasing dramatically over the past half century.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by beththeserf
Homogenisation is to Eu politics as it homogenisation
is to ACORN temperature add-justments. With the aim
of cultural et AL homogenisation, optimistically called
harmonisation, about 70% of new legislation in the
member states of the heavily centralised EU, in one
way or another, originates in Brussels.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by freeHat
“Denial in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary is either devious or insane.”
Meh, giving the co-opted meaning more weight by associating it with the original meaning. Mangled.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
