Second Cycle 24 spot a “Tiny Tim” spot

The disturbed magnetic area I mentioned yesterday has finally turned into what appears to be a real sunspot, but it is quite small:

Since magnetograms weren’t available to Galileo, Wolf, and Maunder, I wonder if a spot this small would have been detected in their time? Perhaps many of the spots in the period of the Maunder minimum were just to small to detect?

The solar flux is still quite low at 69, so we have a fairly quiet sun.

UPDATE: The spot remains without a number, and as seen (or not) on the latest SOHO MDI image, it is fading from view. It remains visible on the magnetogram. SIDC has a writeup about it here.

Gore to press: Stay Out!

Credit: Robert Vamosi / CNET Networks

First you have to wonder what global warming has to do with a computer security conference (RSA) in the first place, but then the real surprise comes when you find that Al Gore did not allow any members of the press to attend.

One blogger, Tim Wilson, with press credentials writes:

Gore, who reportedly receives $100,000 for personal appearances, apparently has a standard contract that bans the fourth estate from all of his speeches. No one seems to know why, and we can’t ask — on account of we’re out here, and he’s in there.

This lack of free press access peeved more than a few reporters:

CNET: http://www.news.com/8301-10789_3-9917347-57.html

Wired: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/03/al-gore-says-no.html

Information Week:
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/04/al_gores_top_se.html

Silicon Alley Insider:
http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/4/why_does_al_gore_hate_the_press_

Computerworld:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/why_is_al_gore_dis_inviting_press_and_analysts_at_rsa

and many more…

But I suppose when the “debate is over” why do you need the press around? Gore’s standard speaking contract was published by The Smoking Gun, and it is apparently not just this RSA conference, but ALL such contracted appearances Gore bans the press from.

Gore’s Contract:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0717071gore1.html

Reporters and those pesky questions they ask, how inconvenient.

 

A German analysis of changes in HadCRUT: Adjustments called into question

There is a WordPress blog called Http://klimakatastrophe.wordpress.com that recently did an analysis of some changes in the way Hadley Climate Research unit presents its HadCRUT data. They suggest that HadCRUT has been doing some adjusting, and gotten closer to GISS. It has been translated into English with the help of WUWT reader Pierre Gosselin and shown below, but you can read the original in German here:

http://klimakatastrophe.wordpress.com/2008/04/13/das-met-office-hat-seine-hardcrut3-datenbasis-der-giss-nasa-datenbasis-angeglichen/

Lets all do some investigation into this to see what is actually going on and if the claim holds up.

UPDATE: There is something wrong with this analysis, possibly a comparison to two data sets that are land and SST rarher than the combined HadCRUT index. Please don’t reference this story until I can hear from the original writer.

UPDATE2: This analyis has confirmed errors, disregard it. I’m not sure if this was accidental or intentional, but the HadCRUT data has not been modified as the German blog author claims.

UPDATE3: Thanks to readers Nick Stokes and Pieree Gosselin, a corrected analysis has been posted, see it here:

http://klimakatastrophe.wordpress.com/2008/04/13/das-met-office-hat-seine-hardcrut3-datenbasis-der-giss-nasa-datenbasis-angeglichen/

 

The Met Office adjusts its HadCRUT3-database to better match the GISS NASA database.

Written on Sunday, 13 April, 2008

GISS Global temperature of NASA has shown substantial deviations over the last years when compared to the other three data sets of global temperature (HadCRUT3, RSS and UAH), particularly for March 2008. Now the Met Office has itself apparently decided to adjust HadCRUT3 databases to better match GISS values. See the following diagrams:

The database is shown by the black points with red line (moving annual average), how it appeared last week by the Met Office. The circles with blue line (moving annual average) represent the new, highly corrected database. So far I haven’t been able to find any reason for this, or why this correction took place.

As the lower part of the illustration shows, on a long-term basis, the annual average (the red line), was corrected approx. 0.1°C. The month of March was adjusted from 0.166 to 0.43°C. Thus around 0.264°C. Recently the Met Office has again changed its presentation of the annual average temperatures. The start of 2008 was particularly cold, and led to a temperature dive in the yearly series. For this reason the temperature was removed from the early 2008 series.

Now we have a massive problem. Because of the corrections, the surface measured temperatures (GISS, HadCRUT3) show a trend which no longer agrees with the satellite measurements (RSS, UAH).

Two groups seem to have formed, using different calculation and presentation methods for global temperature. This circumstance is obviously due to missing climate warming. Such adjustment attempts are not only dubious, but also cast great doubt on these (Hadley, GISS) climate scientists, and risk losing credibility.

Update: As I have just determined, the monthly average values are constantly changing, and that going all the way back to 1850. It is constantly being readjusted…to be more and more in line with GISS database.

Conditions 11.01.2008

2007/01 0.923
2007/02 0.680
2007/03 0.595
2007/04 0.634
2007/05 0.522
2007/06 0.531
2007/07 0.545
2007/08 0.589
2007/09 0.520
2007/10 0.525
2007/11 0.432

Conditions 18.03.2008

2007/01 0.632
2007/02 0.520
2007/03 0.441
2007/04 0.473
2007/05 0.374
2007/06 0.377
2007/07 0.403
2007/08 0.370
2007/09 0.409
2007/10 0.360
2007/11 0.266
2007/12 0.202
2008/01 0.056
2008/02 0.194

Conditions 11.04.2008

2007/01 0.366
2007/02 0.361
2007/03 0.310
2007/04 0.286
2007/05 0.265
2007/06 0.332
2007/07 0.354
2007/08 0.282
2007/09 0.294
2007/10 0.228
2007/11 0.149
2007/12 0.112
2008/01 0.116
2008/02 0.154
2008/03 0.166

Conditions 13.04.2008

2007/01 0.632
2007/02 0.520
2007/03 0.441
2007/04 0.472
2007/05 0.375
2007/06 0.376
2007/07 0.403
2007/08 0.370
2007/09 0.414
2007/10 0.356
2007/11 0.265
2007/12 0.201
2008/01 0.056
2008/02 0.187
2008/03 0.430

In my Plots of 11.04.2008 I used the values of 11.04.2008.