I’ve moved to WordPress. This post can now be found at Met Office Involved In Different Type Of Cover-Up
#################This morning I opened the Met Office’s HADCRUT3 webpage…
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/hadcrut3.html
…scrolled down to the graph of the annual data, then shifted to the right. What I saw caused me to laugh. They’ve got an advertisement covering the last 5 to 6 years of data, and you can’t close the ad.
http://i45.tinypic.com/vq4k9h.pngHere’s the graph without the ad:
http://i49.tinypic.com/68y2x3.png
15 comments:
Just make your window wider and that will not happen anymore.
You are right, Anonymous, but changing the zoom of the webpage from 100% makes the text for the rest of the page so small it's impossible to read, and I've got a 19 inch monitor.
Should one be expected to change the zoom everytime they visit a webpage?
Just make your window wider and that will not happen anymore.
Yeah, maybe, but how could this just be an innocent glitch? They do know the size of the vast majority of monitors, and the standard viewing defaults for internet browsers.
Just because you're paranoid does not mean people aren't out to get you.
If this is a joke then a bit of humor will not harm anyone.
But the title, given the current media storm about hacked e-mails, make it an inconvenient, paranoid appearance.
But is still a joke, or not?
And any paranoid appearance will melt as icecream under the summertime sun as the year 2009 data enter the graph: this is a hot year, specially in the oceans!
Thanks to the El Niño that Bob so much like.We could have:
1)A Moderate El Niño:this will make the year a near record or slighlty record warm year.
2)If this bad Boy("El Niño" means "The Boy" in Spanish, referring to Jesus Christ in Christmas)grow to a Big one, all records will be shattered.
Stay tuned.
By the way, Mr. Bob Tisdale,
two questions:
1)Your analysis seems pretty good, and well better than some papers accepted in GRL , including a paper blaming ENSO for late 1900s warming that has been described as an "atrocious paper" by the climate community, because it eliminate linear trends.
As all your analysis is about NONLINEAR ENSO effects(quite the opposite of that "atrocious paper" and practically every ENSO-related paper so far), why you don't send a paper to GRL?
Your paper will be surely a lot better that the paper I referred. If they accepted such a crap some months ago, your paper will surely pass.
So, why you don't publish a paper and your discussion will be seen by everyone that doesn't follow your blog. Wouldn't that be great?
2)Doesn't seems strange to you that such a series of warming ENSO cycles doesn't happened in the last 2000 years?
That is, if this a natural warming cycle of high ENSO activity, why are we at 2000 year record high temperatures?
Specially in the Arctic, where, according to a recent paper, the last 100 years shattered a 2000-year-long cooling trend (the MWP and LIA did not seem to have affected the Arctic, so the figure is a clear a downward trend, with little noise until 100 yeras ago,when the temperatures go 2ºC up!In just 100 years!).
There is something very anomalous in the last 100 years. If it not AGW, what else could be?
Anonymous 4:50PM: You wrote, "But the title, given the current media storm about hacked e-mails, make it an inconvenient, paranoid appearance."
Inconvenient? For whom? Paranoid? In what respect?
You asked, "But is still a joke, or not?"
If you leave the Internet Explorer zoom at 100% as most people do, the graph is covered by the ad. That's not a joke.
But the reason I wrote this post was because the poorly placed advertisement made me laugh. It covered the inconvenient decline in surface temperatures from 2005 to 2008. And note that I avoided the over-used "hide the decaline."
Anonymous 5:24PM: You asked, "why you don't publish a paper and your discussion will be seen by everyone that doesn't follow your blog. Wouldn't that be great?"
I'm a blogger, not a scientist. Decades ago I wrote papers. I'm retired now. I do this for fun.
You asked, "Doesn't seems strange to you that such a series of warming ENSO cycles doesn't happened in the last 2000 years?"
Sorry to reply with a question, but on what are you basing this claim?
I don't think Anonymous meant the zoom feature.
Increase the size of the browser window!! I can see the whole thing without going full page. This works on Safari 4(Apple PPC) and IE8 w/ XP and Windows 7.
kuhnkat: I go full screen and still have the ad covering the graph.
Mr. Bob Tisdale:
Well my comment about publishing papers is at the same time a question(that you answered) and a compliment. Nobody else seem to have made such a detailed analysis about ENSO and Global Warming. Given the current critical situation and its profound political ramifications, maybe is the time to return to work and publish a paper that , by the way, would be a GREAT PAPER!
2)The 2000 year temperature anomaly data is the PALEOCLIMATE DATA FROM VARIOUS PROXIES(ice cores from Greenland and Antartica, lake and marine sediments,etc,etc,etc).
In the 2007IPCC Assesment Report, there is a whole chapter about paleoclimate data. Over 2000 years, as you go backward,the errors grow. In that report, there are various graphs.
There are various mean temperature reconstructions, and a final graph that is not alike the former 2001 hockey-stick-like but is instead like a big snake(think a python or anaconda)witha head in the present and a fat body 2000 years ago.
In the Anaconda graph(formely the hockey-stick)the LIA and MWP are visible, but as you reach the MWP we are entering the Anaconda stomach(quite lage errors)
What is remarcable is that the early 20th century warming is within the natural variability, but the post-1970s ,or the head of the snake, is well ouside it.
Think about it:
The Anaconda graph is 1ºC fat, or a series of anomalies that do not superate +-0,6ºC in the Anaconda meanders(or MWP and LIA).
Now we have +0,5ºC between 1900 and 1970(so barely inside the variability range). Now in 2009 we have an ADDITIONAL +0,6ºC, well ouside any variability in the last 200 years.
So the Climate snake Head(last 40 years) seems really really upset, something has perturbed it beyond any variability of the last 2000 years.
You could download the chapter "Paleoclimate"(if you have already done it)from 2007 IPCC Assesment Report.
I said:
"Now we have +0,5ºC between 1900 and 1970(so barely inside the variability range). Now in 2009 we have an ADDITIONAL +0,6ºC, well ouside any variability in the last 200 years."
I want to say:
"So we have +0,5ºC between 1900 and 1970(so barely inside the variability range). Now in 2009 we have an ADDITIONAL +0,6ºC, well ouside any variability in the last 2000 years."
The second source is the Science Magazine paper:
"Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term
Arctic Cooling" by Darrell S. Kaufman et al.
Now I just quote the conclusions:
"The strongest trend in our proxy temperature
reconstruction is the millennial-scale cooling of
–0.22°C (+-0.06°C) per 1000 years. The cooling corresponds
with the slow reduction in summer insolation
at high northern latitudes, driven by orbital forcing(...)"
"The warming
during the 20th century (and first decade of the 21st
century) contrasts sharply with the millennial-scale
cooling, with the last half-century being the warmest
of the past two millennia. Our synthesis, together
with the instrumental record, suggests that the most
recent 10-year interval (1999–2008) was the warmest
of the past 200 decades. Temperatures were about
1.4°C higher than the projected value based on the
linear cooling trend and were even more anomalous
than previously documented."
Striking is the fact that in te graph the MWP and LIA anomalies are not visible. So LIA and MWP doesn't appear to have affected the Arctic, but something very BIG happened in 20th century.
So Arctic Warming is unprecedented in the last 2000 years. If the cause isn't AGW, what else could have triggered it?(remember it must be something that not ocurred in the last 2000 years before the 20th century)
Anonymous 10:37PM: You seem well read in paleoclimatological studies that support your point of view. Personally, I find the subject to be too open to researcher interpretation (of tree rings and other proxies) to afford it much time. Of my 250+ posts, two maybe three of them deal with paleoclimatology, and they illustrate periods when temperatures were warmer than today, which is the only reason I posted them. So you’re preaching to someone who’s really not listening. If you’d like to discuss paleoclimatological methods, I’ll suggest ClimateAudit.
http://camirror.wordpress.com/
If you’d like to read studies that suggest the temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period were warmer than today, Craig and Sherwood Idso have assembled a long list at CO2Science.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
Regards
Bob,
what resolution screen are you using? The 2 screens I am on are 1280x720 and 1400x900.
Just dropped my screen resolution to 1024x768 and at full screen I see the problem!! You need at least 1152 width to not have the problem.
Since a lot of mobile platforms are using smaller screens it does raise your question as to whether someone is being sneaky!!
kuhnkat: You asked, "what resolution screen are you using?"
What was provided as a default->800x600. I, like many people, have never adjusted it, because I liked it just as it was.
Post a Comment