HadCRUT and other datasets

[krw]

Eeyore wrote:
James Arthur wrote:
Meanwhile people love "kitchen remodels"--commonly $20-30k to re-arrange
things, landfill the old cabinets, creating no new value. I'd rather
have the insulation.[1]
Yes quite. The amount of money that 'goes down the toilet' every 10 ? years with a new kitchen is a
disgrace.


[1] But it wouldn't save me any money--I use neither heat nor cooling.
How do you manage that ?

Graham
As our fathers did and humankind has done since time began: When it's
hot, I eat less, wear less, exercise more, and adapt. Physically. Then
I'm comfortable. Avoiding air conditioning speeds the adaptation.

I don't know about yours, but my father owned a furnace, as did his.

When it's cold, I wear more, eat more, stack more comforters on the bed,
and I'm comfortable.

You must live in a moderate climate.

Yes, fairly. Mostly 40s to 90s. In Vermont I might well use a heater.

Don't live in Vermont, anymore (Yay!). ;-) It still gets cold
(IIRC, touched about -10F once last winter).

I did go all winter in Bavaria, Switzerland, and the Italian Alps once
without ever wearing a coat...

I see people on park benches who seem to be happy with only
newspapers. ;-)

...and spent non-air conditioned summers in New Orleans, running in the
35c / 90% r.h. heat. If you stick with it--either one--you do get used
to it.

No, you don't. You may accept it, but you never get "used to it".

In my Dad's place many winters ago (1993?) the heat pump couldn't keep
up with the -26 F cold snap. Brownouts were looming & the radio pleaded
for voluntary conservation, so we just donned our down jackets and
turned the darn thing off entirely. Cold, but not too terribly bad.

I'm not much in favor of frozen pipes either.

I've spent time in +140 F, and at least as cold as -40 F. Cold is
better--you can always wear more, and if you can't take it any more at
least the cold will let you lay down and die!

Heat has killed a few too. ISTR a pile of Eropeons dieing of heat
stroke a couple of years back.

I don't think you can ever physiologically adapt to a daily 100 F swing.
I've experienced it, but that requires clothing, shelter, planning, etc.

etc. == furnace. ;-)

 

[James Arthur]

James Arthur wrote...

No, you don't. You may accept it, but you never get "used to it".

Maybe you've not tried hard enough? I've done it several times. Still
do every season, though not to the same extent since it's mild here.
And the g/f too, in sympathy. You can and do adapt, physically.

It's just getting warm here. A week ago 80ºF made me sweat, hot. Now,
today, I'm comfortable in 84ºF, not sweating at all. I'm adapting.

Before 1960 or so Southerners lived without a/c. People around the
world still do--e.g. Baghdad, Bangkok--and they're not at all miserable.

Of course it's miserable if you're overly "insulated" (fat), and being
fit improves heat tolerance a whole bunch. And you time the heat of
digestion to after the heat of the day. Common sense stuff.

I'm not much in favor of frozen pipes either.

Pipes? REAL men don't need 'em.

Heat has killed a few too. ISTR a pile of Eropeons dieing of heat
stroke a couple of years back.


etc. == furnace. ;-)

I was remembering something closer to sweaty hard travel by day, 70ºF in
the blazing sun, and -30ºF by night, snug in a tent.

We had a "fir"nace, but no furnace.


But all this misses the real point: you don't have to go to extremes.
Being just a little flexible in your comfort zone can cut your energy
use a lot. For me, now, 100%.

In the old days the New Orleans office-ladies would set the a/c to 64ºF
in the dead of summer. Then, when it was finally getting pleasantly
cool, to 82ºF mid-winter. Cool or hot, they always wanted the opposite.
Maddening.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[James Arthur]

Heat has killed a few too. ISTR a pile of Eropeons dieing of heat
stroke a couple of years back.

Yeah, 2003. Some 35,000 died I think the best estimate is today. About
15x Katrina, super-preventable, slow-moving, totally foreseeable, with
no flooding, no mass displacement, loss of roads, power, or
communications, etc.

Ah, here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave

I'm sure a carping, critical, ill-informed "know"-body could drum up all
sorts of conspiracy / racism / herd-thinning / cost-saving "early
retirement" / evil leader / and other nonsense theories about it, along
with some wry observations about the cradle-to-grave and other
protections of socialized governments.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[krw]

Maybe you've not tried hard enough? I've done it several times. Still
do every season, though not to the same extent since it's mild here.
And the g/f too, in sympathy. You can and do adapt, physically.

Yes, I have tried hard enough and have no interest in trying harder.
I remember walking out of the terminal in Huntsville AL. a few years
back. It was about 95/95. No thanks! They can keep it.

It's just getting warm here. A week ago 80ºF made me sweat, hot. Now,
today, I'm comfortable in 84ºF, not sweating at all. I'm adapting.

Neither are exactly "hot". I rather like the mid-80s.

Before 1960 or so Southerners lived without a/c. People around the
world still do--e.g. Baghdad, Bangkok--and they're not at all miserable.

They don't know any better.

Of course it's miserable if you're overly "insulated" (fat), and being
fit improves heat tolerance a whole bunch. And you time the heat of
digestion to after the heat of the day. Common sense stuff.

I tend to work in the "heat" of the day. Helps pay for the heat in
the night.

Pipes? REAL men don't need 'em.

REAL men certainly do. REAL men like women around. ;-)

I was remembering something closer to sweaty hard travel by day, 70ºF in
the blazing sun, and -30ºF by night, snug in a tent.

We had a "fir"nace, but no furnace.

Well, fir gives off bunches of heat when it burns.

But all this misses the real point: you don't have to go to extremes.
Being just a little flexible in your comfort zone can cut your energy
use a lot. For me, now, 100%.

I'm not about to cut back further. I don't heat much above 62F, or
turn the AC on when it's not going to be above 90F for a couple of
days. I'm not about to go further. As I pointed out before, the
reason I work is to be comfortable. There is no reason not to be.

In the old days the New Orleans office-ladies would set the a/c to 64ºF
in the dead of summer. Then, when it was finally getting pleasantly
cool, to 82ºF mid-winter. Cool or hot, they always wanted the opposite..
Maddening.

Every place I've worked is like that. Either it's hot or freezing.
At my CPOE it was so cold last week I considered breaking out the
sweaters. It was 95F outside. Nuts!

 

[Don Klipstein]

...and spent non-air conditioned summers in New Orleans, running in the
35c / 90% r.h. heat. If you stick with it--either one--you do get used
to it.

Not even New Orleans achieves 35 degrees C and 90% RH at the same time.

Common in many tropical and subtropical and hotter humid contental areas
are days when sometime during the day the temperature gets to 35 degrees C
and sometime during the day the RH gets to 90%. But not both at the same
time.

35 degrees C (95 degrees F) and RH of 90% at the same time is a dew
point a hair over 33 degrees C, or a hair under 92 degrees F.

Weather.com offers a dewpoint map of the "48 states". I look at this
awfully often and have done so for a few years already. So far, the
highest figure I ever saw there is 83 degrees F (Gulf coast area of USA,
last year). Second-highest I ever saw on that dewpoint map was 82 degrees
F, for spotty highpoints in the mid-July 1995 heatwave as it progressed
through USA's "rustbelt". Most years, the highest I see (checking several
dozen times per year, mostly in the summer) is 81 degrees F somewhere or
other in the Gulf Coast area.

The highest dewpoint that Philadelphia officially had in the past 30
years, as far as I know, was during an absolutely freakish heatwave, at 4
PM July 15 1995. The dewpoint was officially 82 degrees F then. The
official temperature then was 102 F. The official RH then was 54%. When
I mention this to those who survived this, they say, "What have you been
smoking to say only 54% humidity?". The heat index was 129 degrees F
there and then.
Second place dewpoint in Philadelphia in the past 30 years as far as I
know was 79 degrees F, at a bad time of day on a bad day in July 1988. A
little later that day the heat index hit 118 or 119 or so degrees F - with
temperature around 98 F and dewpoint around 77-78 F (RH low 50's).

On most days when Philadelphia has an "Excessive Heat Warning" or an
"Urban Heat Warning" or a "Heat Advisory", the RH at time of high
temperature is in the 40's or upper 30's and the temperature in degrees F
is 2 digits.

Once I was at DisneyWorld (Florida) during a heat warning or advisory
or the like in July. Dewpoints were only in the upper 70's F.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

 

[Don Klipstein]

Heat has killed a few too. ISTR a pile of Eropeons dieing of heat
stroke a couple of years back.

How about the 600-or-so body count in Chicago in mid-July 1995 when the
temperature got to 106 degrees F (about 41 degrees C) with dewpoint in the
upper 70's degrees F?
Dewpoint probably got to about 80-81 degrees F at a time other than peak
temperature. The official low temperature was 81 F on 12/13/95 and 84 F
on 12/14/95. The heat index probably peaked around or somewhat above 130
degrees F on 12/13/95 there.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

 

[Eeyore]

Maybe you've not tried hard enough? I've done it several times. Still
do every season, though not to the same extent since it's mild here.
And the g/f too, in sympathy. You can and do adapt, physically.

It's just getting warm here. A week ago 80ºF made me sweat, hot. Now,
today, I'm comfortable in 84ºF, not sweating at all. I'm adapting.

Before 1960 or so Southerners lived without a/c. People around the
world still do--e.g. Baghdad, Bangkok--and they're not at all miserable.

They don't work as fast as we do though.

Graham

 

[Don Klipstein]

Yes, I have tried hard enough and have no interest in trying harder.
I remember walking out of the terminal in Huntsville AL. a few years
back. It was about 95/95. No thanks! They can keep it.

By any chance do you mean 95 degrees F at 95% RH? That is dewpoint of
about 93.3 degrees F, which IIRC is close to the world record in some Red
Sea area.

I would not count on dewpoint being what some radio station says with
possible 1.75 hour lag for temperature well-in an urban heat island while
a suburban area has dew.

I look at the dewpoint map ("48 staes") available at weather.com quite a
bit, and highest I ever saw so far is 83 degrees F (in a gulf coast
location last summer). Most years, the highest I see is 81 degrees F
(Gulf coast or Florida), even while checking dozens of times every summer.

95 F temperature with 83 F dewpoint has RH in the upper 60's. RH higher
than that close-enough-to-only occurs when the temperature is lower than
95 F.
RH of 80% with dewpoint of 83 F occurs when the temperature is 89-90 F.
RH of 90% with dewpoint of 83 F occurs when temperature is about 86-87 F.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

 

[Eeyore]

Yeah, 2003. Some 35,000 died I think the best estimate is today. About
15x Katrina, super-preventable, slow-moving, totally foreseeable, with
no flooding, no mass displacement, loss of roads, power, or
communications, etc.

Ah, here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave

I'm sure a carping, critical, ill-informed "know"-body could drum up all
sorts of conspiracy / racism / herd-thinning / cost-saving "early
retirement" / evil leader / and other nonsense theories about it, along
with some wry observations about the cradle-to-grave and other
protections of socialized governments.

I gather many deaths could have been prevented had the imprtance of drinking
more water in such temps been better understood by the general public.

Graham

 

[James Arthur]

Not even New Orleans achieves 35 degrees C and 90% RH at the same time.

Common in many tropical and subtropical and hotter humid contental areas
are days when sometime during the day the temperature gets to 35 degrees C
and sometime during the day the RH gets to 90%. But not both at the same
time.

35 degrees C (95 degrees F) and RH of 90% at the same time is a dew
point a hair over 33 degrees C, or a hair under 92 degrees F.

Weather.com offers a dewpoint map of the "48 states". I look at this
awfully often and have done so for a few years already. So far, the
highest figure I ever saw there is 83 degrees F (Gulf coast area of USA,
last year). Second-highest I ever saw on that dewpoint map was 82 degrees
F, for spotty highpoints in the mid-July 1995 heatwave as it progressed
through USA's "rustbelt". Most years, the highest I see (checking several
dozen times per year, mostly in the summer) is 81 degrees F somewhere or
other in the Gulf Coast area.

The highest dewpoint that Philadelphia officially had in the past 30
years, as far as I know, was during an absolutely freakish heatwave, at 4
PM July 15 1995. The dewpoint was officially 82 degrees F then. The
official temperature then was 102 F. The official RH then was 54%. When
I mention this to those who survived this, they say, "What have you been
smoking to say only 54% humidity?". The heat index was 129 degrees F
there and then.
Second place dewpoint in Philadelphia in the past 30 years as far as I
know was 79 degrees F, at a bad time of day on a bad day in July 1988. A
little later that day the heat index hit 118 or 119 or so degrees F - with
temperature around 98 F and dewpoint around 77-78 F (RH low 50's).

On most days when Philadelphia has an "Excessive Heat Warning" or an
"Urban Heat Warning" or a "Heat Advisory", the RH at time of high
temperature is in the 40's or upper 30's and the temperature in degrees F
is 2 digits.

Once I was at DisneyWorld (Florida) during a heat warning or advisory
or the like in July. Dewpoints were only in the upper 70's F.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

http://weather.neworleans.com/auto/neworleans/history/airport/KNEW/1994/7/2/DailyHistory.html

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[James Arthur]

I gather many deaths could have been prevented had the imprtance of drinking
more water in such temps been better understood by the general public.

Graham

Definitely. A little bit of public education goes a long way.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[James Arthur]

They don't work as fast as we do though.

Graham

Agreed--in super-hot weather you have to slow down. A swim here and
there is nice too.

When I was in Bangkok, completely NOT adapted, we absolutely wilted,
laying useless under the fan in the heat and humidity. Then I picked up
the paper and saw New Orleans (which I'd left some years before) ... was
hotter!

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Don Klipstein]

http://weather.neworleans.com/auto/neworleans/history/airport/KNEW/1994/
7/2/DailyHistory.html

New Orleans lakefront, July 2 1994:

Maximum temperature 95 F
Minimum temperature 77 F

Maximum humidity 90%
Minimum humidity 42%

Have a look at the hourly chart below the graphs. The temperature and
relative humidity at each hour are shown.

When the temperature was 95 F, the relative humidity was 42% (2 PM).

When the relative humidity was 90%, the temperature was 79 F (5 AM).

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

 

[James Arthur]

New Orleans lakefront, July 2 1994:

Maximum temperature 95 F
Minimum temperature 77 F

Maximum humidity 90%
Minimum humidity 42%

Have a look at the hourly chart below the graphs. The temperature and
relative humidity at each hour are shown.

When the temperature was 95 F, the relative humidity was 42% (2 PM).

When the relative humidity was 90%, the temperature was 79 F (5 AM).

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

Well then damnit, I suppose if mustn't have been at the same time.
Revise my story to "running when it was 90-95ºF, then started to rain,"
whatever that computes to. E.g., two days hence.


Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:44:34 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan


Note:  Sorry for the delayed reply.  I've had a bit of excessive
entertainment.  I passed one kidney stone, fired one customer, and now
there's a rather large brush fire in the area.

In this case, you're correct.  Water vapor is an aerosol and should
not be classed as a gas.

Wrong. Water vapour is a gas. Clouds are aerosols of liquid water.

<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142>
   The overlaps complicate things, but it's clear that water
   vapour is the single most important absorber (between 36%
   and 66% of the greenhouse effect), and together with clouds
   makes up between 66% and 85%. CO2 alone makes up between
   9 and 26%, while the O3 and the other minor GHG absorbers
   consist of up to 7 and 8% of the effect, respectively.

As for my possession of any clues, I am not an expert on the topic of
climate change.  I am not a climatologist, weather researcher, or
computer model builder.  I have a well tuned BS filter.  I do read
extensively on global warming.  At this point, I'm still undecided on
many aspects of global warming.


Perhaps, but I certainly wood.  I've done some public speaking and
fairly good at promotion and propoganda.  Converting science into
politics is an art that most technical people do rather badly.  Graham
has a good start on the methodology, but has a long way to go before
he can be as smooth and accomplished at presenting his facts as Al
Gore.


I think I understand the question.  Politically, the difference is
that most water vapor emissions are not man made, while the increase
in CO2 emissions is substantially man made (ignoring bovine
flatulence).  If it's man made, the presumption is that it can be
mitigated.  If it's natural, mother nature will have a fit if we mess
with her processes.

Wrong answer. CO2 has a half life in the atmosphere of about 800
years, while H2O equilibrates with the ocean surface within a few
weeks. You've come to right conclusion, but you missed a fairly
important step in the reasoning.