We had a talk at work today by a chap (eminent mathematician I think) about looking at the distribution of extremes in the temperature record and trying to say something about detection. The problem is that extremes are statistically rather unstable and all he could say was that he didn’t detect GW; he didn’t appear to understand that all that means is that his method isn’t very powerful…
I’ve just downloaded Gmail drive for windows. There is a linux version, this is the windows one (shame, I didn’t even add a z). Via the medium of sending emails to your google account, it lets you store files remotely. For photos, flickr is more useful 🙂 but for general files it might be fun. It seems to work.
So says the Independent (though not quite in those words). The Indie is probably the most climate-sensitive newspaper in the UK. And $400M is pretty big. But rather than bash LR, or Exxon (disclaimer: I have in the past benefited from the sale of Exxon shares, and may in the future), I’ll inquire *why* LR has ended up with so much dosh, and what this means.
Continue reading “Lee Raymond retires with stonking payoff”
Swisseduc.ch has some nice pix of retreating glaciers over the last 30-odd years. No, its not *proof* of GW, of course; just more evidence in the same direction.
I’ve just found a couple of letters in Nature (subs req) re the “leaking” of the AR4. Climate: open review may ease acceptance of report by Michael MacCracken, saying As executive director of the Office of the US Global Change Research Program from 1993 to 1997, I was responsible in 1995 for urging adoption of the national review process of the IPCC report that is questioned in your News story. And Climate: US has always made IPCC drafts available says Harlan L. Watson;In fact, US procedures, first published in the Federal Register in 1995, reflect our longstanding commitment to open IPCC reviews. Under the 1995 procedures, we provided paper copies of IPCC draft reports to any individual upon request
Continue reading “Leaking of AR4 precedented”