Comments on: Rasmus, the Chevalier and Bucket Adjustments

By: Trying to break RSS… « Does This Break It?

Trying to break RSS… « Does This Break It? — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 19:53:57 +0000

[...] new paper in GRL takes on the well-known buckets-vs-inlets issue (Steve McIntyre also visited the issue several times) related to ship based sea surface temperature measurements and as a result, produces [...]

By: Resolving the biases in century-scale sea surface temperature measurments reveals some interesting patterns | Watts Up With That?

Sun, 07 Oct 2012 18:36:11 +0000

[...] new paper takes on the well-known buckets-vs-inlets issue (Steve McIntyre also visited the issue several times) related to ship based sea surface temperature measurements and as a result, produces [...]

By: The Team and Pearl Harbor « Climate Audit

The Team and Pearl Harbor « Climate Audit — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:46:36 +0000

[...] (Note – May 2008): see current discussion here and Dec 2007 post here [...]

By: Nature "Discovers" Another Climate Audit Finding « Climate Audit

Nature "Discovers" Another Climate Audit Finding « Climate Audit — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 21:43:54 +0000

[...] Well, folks, the discontinuity may have been overlooked by Hadley Center, CRU, NOAA and NASA and by the stadiums of IPCC peer reviewers, but it wasn’t overlooked here at Climate Audit. The absurdity of Team bucket adjustments had been discussed in two early CA posts (here, here, here ). In March 2007, after publication of Kent et al 2007 showed the prevalence of buckets as late as 1970 (discussed here), I showed in a post entitled The Team and Pearl Harbour that this directly contradicted the Team’s Pearl Harbor adjustment and even showed the impact of a more plausible phasing in of bucket adjustments (see below). The issue was re-visited in Dec 2007 here. [...]

By: More Misrepresentations from RealClimate « Climate Audit

More Misrepresentations from RealClimate « Climate Audit — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:00:31 +0000

[...] December 2007, still long before Thompson et al, I discussed bucket adjustments again, noting the impact of the Folland adjustments on earlier work (referring [...]

By: More on the National Geographic Decline « Watts Up With That?

More on the National Geographic Decline « Watts Up With That? — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 06:43:36 +0000

[...] in the recent record is likely from the 1941 sea surface temperature (SST) adjustment. See here, here, and here for discussion of this adjustment. There is an abrupt jump [...]

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Thu, 29 May 2008 17:22:48 +0000

Bump. This thread was a more recent consideration of bucket adjustments than the March 2007 thread, including a useful discussion of what people thought pre-Folland bucket adjustments. I recommend re-reading it.

By: Willem Kernkamp

Willem Kernkamp — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 05:54:46 +0000

1. I think the dust bowl/firestorm effects could have been extended if it caused increased albedo in the polar regions.

2. The number of aircraft actively deployed may have peaked at 15,000 mostly operating at low altitudes. The impact of modern civil aviation could well be far larger. Under the right conditions con trails can turn a clear sky overcast. Adoption of polar routes may have reduced sea ice thickness by reducing winter radiation losses.

A hypothesis based on 1 and 2 would read that cause 1 initiated a cool period which was terminated by the advent of the jet age (cause 2).

I think we have gone of topic here, sorry,

Will

By: Evan Jones

Evan Jones — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 21:04:17 +0000

Thanks, all. I’ll look into this further when i get the chance.

By: Mike Davis

Mike Davis — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 05:12:57 +0000

Steve: They were discussing Above ground testing and I suggested tooking at the history of the Nevada Test site as that was where the tests were conducted. other than first in NM and the ones in South PAC and ther is a lot of info at that site.