This is D's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following D's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
D
Recent Activity
Oops! I meant to say that since CH4 in the arctic is about 110% of its global level then its 'contribution' to GHG warming of the arctic should be about 10% greater than its contribution globally. Not that CHG warming of the arctic is overall 10% greater than it is globally. J. Dunlap
Toggle Commented Sep 9, 2012 on Minimum open thread at Arctic Sea Ice
If I am not mistaken the way to read the upper graph is that the Blue points are verified data, the Green are points that failed validation and the Orange point are waiting verification. So there are no data points after Dec 31, 2010 that are validated yet. Is this mistaken? Another point. Lodger stated that the methane load in the arctic amounts to about a 235 ppm CO2e addition to the CHG load in the arctic. I think this may not be accurate. If one goes here http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/atmospheric-greenhouse-gas-concentrations-2/assessment they find that the 2009 global level of GHG give a CO2e of 439 ppm. I quickly looked at 2009 levels of CO2 and CH4 and the change since then does not come close to the number one would get from the 235 addition. The CH4 levels in the arctic are about 10% higher than the global average so it would seem more accurate to say that heating potential in the arctic due to CHGs is about 110% of the global average. I think. Am I misunderstanding something? J. Dunlap
Toggle Commented Sep 9, 2012 on Minimum open thread at Arctic Sea Ice
Twemoran, Hi. Re: "There is something amiss at the Barrow site - the latest updates have removed the anomaly and now show a descending average for methane through the later half of the year." I try and follow, but sometimes you guys lose me. I have gone through all permutations of how to graph the methane data on the site below for Barrow and the latest numbers are still there like they were a week ago. All of 2011 colored as preliminary. Only 12/2010 and older colored as verified. I see the latest 2011 numbers as 2170, 2175, 2195 (estimated from graph) for the last 3 data points. Where am I getting lost in this discussion. Thanks. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=BRW&program=ccgg&type=ts
Hi, Sorry if this question is unsophisticated and general knowledge, but I am confused. When I see comparisons of area and extent from different years that makes sense to me. But when I see comparisons of anomolies as FrandD made above it seems like an apples to oranges or moving goal post situation. If the current anomoly is calculated from a 79-08 running mean and 2007 was calculated from a 75-04 running mean, as I think it was, are not the different years values not directly comparible? The mean value is on a constant decrease is it not? So 2011's anomoly includes the incredibly low value of 2007 in the mean. What would 2011's anomoly value be if it was based upon the same numbers as 2007's was? Would not the anomoly be much larger. If we are comparing 2007 to 2011 is that not the only way to really compare them? Could someone provide a little instruction here as I assume that FrankD knows what he is doing and I just do not understand what is going on? Thanks, Wyoming
Toggle Commented Oct 20, 2011 on October 2011 Open Thread at Arctic Sea Ice
D is now following The Typepad Team
Oct 20, 2011