https://www.sciencealert.com/giant-blobs-in-the-pacific-ocean-finally-have-their-origins-revealed
A new study from an international team of researchers, and involving some detailed computer simulations, has linked the blobs to a reduction in aerosol emissions in China – so a policy designed to improve environmental conditions may have also come with negative consequences attached.
Bogsnorkler said:
https://www.sciencealert.com/giant-blobs-in-the-pacific-ocean-finally-have-their-origins-revealedA new study from an international team of researchers, and involving some detailed computer simulations, has linked the blobs to a reduction in aerosol emissions in China – so a policy designed to improve environmental conditions may have also come with negative consequences attached.
Huh. Interesting. So Chinese aerosols were artificially reducing the effects of CO2 on climate. Cleaning up those aerosols has stopped masking that effect.
Michael V said:
Bogsnorkler said:
https://www.sciencealert.com/giant-blobs-in-the-pacific-ocean-finally-have-their-origins-revealedA new study from an international team of researchers, and involving some detailed computer simulations, has linked the blobs to a reduction in aerosol emissions in China – so a policy designed to improve environmental conditions may have also come with negative consequences attached.
Huh. Interesting. So Chinese aerosols were artificially reducing the effects of CO2 on climate. Cleaning up those aerosols has stopped masking that effect.
I have often wondered if the occurrence of heat surges following major international economic downturns was a coincidence.
I see pseudo-skeptic Spencer hasn’t updated his graph for April yet.
I wonder why that would be?
The Rev Dodgson said:
I see pseudo-skeptic Spencer hasn’t updated his graph for April yet.
I wonder why that would be?
So it’s plateaued.
and fk CHINA of course
The Rev Dodgson said:
I see pseudo-skeptic Spencer hasn’t updated his graph for April yet.I wonder why that would be?
Is there something special about 13 months? Why use a 13 month average?
buffy said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
I see pseudo-skeptic Spencer hasn’t updated his graph for April yet.I wonder why that would be?
Is there something special about 13 months? Why use a 13 month average?
I don’t know, but the Internet says:
“Remember, the choice of 13 months is somewhat arbitrary, but using an odd number of months allows centered plotting without time lag between the two plotted time series”
I suspect it may also generate false 13 year cycles, which would be a good thing for a climate pseudo-skeptic, but I guess that effect would be fairly small.
The Rev Dodgson said:
buffy said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
I see pseudo-skeptic Spencer hasn’t updated his graph for April yet.
I wonder why that would be?
Is there something special about 13 months? Why use a 13 month average?
I don’t know, but the Internet says:
“Remember, the choice of 13 months is somewhat arbitrary, but using an odd number of months allows centered plotting without time lag between the two plotted time series”
I suspect it may also generate false 13 year cycles, which would be a good thing for a climate pseudo-skeptic, but I guess that effect would be fairly small.
What’s special about 13 * 12 versus any other 13N cycle¿
SCIENCE said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
buffy said:
Is there something special about 13 months? Why use a 13 month average?
I don’t know, but the Internet says:
“Remember, the choice of 13 months is somewhat arbitrary, but using an odd number of months allows centered plotting without time lag between the two plotted time series”
I suspect it may also generate false 13 year cycles, which would be a good thing for a climate pseudo-skeptic, but I guess that effect would be fairly small.
What’s special about 13 * 12 versus any other 13N cycle¿
If one part of the year tends to be hotter than average, then the 13 month rolling average will have a false peak when any month from that period is included twice, and vice versa.
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
I don’t know, but the Internet says:
“Remember, the choice of 13 months is somewhat arbitrary, but using an odd number of months allows centered plotting without time lag between the two plotted time series”
I suspect it may also generate false 13 year cycles, which would be a good thing for a climate pseudo-skeptic, but I guess that effect would be fairly small.
What’s special about 13 * 12 versus any other 13N cycle¿
If one part of the year tends to be hotter than average, then the 13 month rolling average will have a false peak when any month from that period is included twice, and vice versa.
Oh right you mean 13 month cycles¿
SCIENCE said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:
What’s special about 13 * 12 versus any other 13N cycle¿
If one part of the year tends to be hotter than average, then the 13 month rolling average will have a false peak when any month from that period is included twice, and vice versa.
Oh right you mean 13 month cycles¿
OK, that does seem to be what I meant.