Wednesday, July 14, 2010
9 comments:
Dear Anonymous,
UPDATE: The spambots got clever so the verification is back. Apologies
Some of the regulars here are having trouble telling the anonymice apart. Please add some distinguishing name to your comment such as Mickey, Minnie, Mighty, or Fred.
You can stretch the comment box for more space
The management.
I don't know, but I also don't know how you can have a negative area.
ReplyDeleteI don't like graphs where the axes go someplace impossible. In this case, I don't even understand why it happened. It's not as if that's what the program automatically did to center the data on the chart.
Toldja it was simple:) Eli has been looking at this damn thing for years and today it struck him.
ReplyDeleteThat's all it was? Well, I still ponder: what on earth software comes up with that as default axes?
ReplyDeleteMonckton has now posted at WUWT asking for people to flood Abraham's university with calls for disciplinary action. As a consequence, I have posted this:
ReplyDeleteWe the undersigned offer unreserved support for John Abraham and St. Thomas University in the matter of complaints made to them by Christopher Monckton. Professor Abraham provided an important public service by showing in detail Monckton’s misrepresentation of the science of climate, and we applaud him for that effort, and St. Thomas University for making his presentation available to the world.
If you support Abraham, please visit Hot Topic and leave a comment in support.
http://hot-topic.co.nz/support-john-abraham/
Hey, there's a whole thread at RC full of complaints that their posts are not simple enough. As to Carrot Eater's question about what kind of dumb software does this sort of stuff, the kind students use on their lab reports.
ReplyDelete(If you look at it the ordinate has 20 units exactly. The software probably forces it to some multiple of ten)
I expect it is a work in progress. The lower section is probably meant to contain the anomaly, cf
ReplyDeletehttp://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png
Richard C
Something on the line that current year's ice cover last week is similar/higher to the average of the last X years. The eternal weather versus climate issue.
ReplyDeleteMickeyMinnieMouseJon
Richard C is correct, they butchered the update. Since this is linked they right one will show up today and Eli will paste the old one in.
ReplyDeleteNot-munchkin class, but confusingly dual purpose. Richard C has it - The +3 to -3 zone is used for producing the anomaly graphs. You can see it on the global graph lower on the page, where total extent and anomaly appear on the same chart.
ReplyDeleteIn September 2007, by CT's calculations, sea ice extent dropped below 3 million sq kms. The "tale of the tape" graph charts anomalies over 30 years, but if you look at September 2007, a little bit of red intrudes at the top of the chart - this is the actual extent measurement dipping into the area reserved for the anomaly.
Duckseason