That, folks, is a tantrum.

Yup. And given that I’ve published the relevant bits of the code along with the effects of that code on the product in postings here on WUWT which have been moderated and /or read, in many cases by our host, I think it is demonstrably false to say “no understanding of the processing algorithms”.

While I’d felt a bit like I was pushing the envelope into a “too tech” computer geek flavor … I’m now happy I did so; since is serves as an existence proof that the “processing algorithms” have been discussed here.

http://www.shpltd.co.uk/sheehan-venus.pdf

The bit about Mars being in late northern spring looks like an error on the “Mars Today” web site. According to this site

http://www.dustymars.net/2010_MARS.htm

the southern summer solstice was May 22, 2009 (scroll down to “Calendar of Events”).

Now if can only persuade my wife to get me a telescope for her birthday… :-)

Not exactly…. If (big IF) Betelgeuse went nova 600 years ago, then the GCRs will be arriving about the same time we see the nova… and it’s this year, during a deep solar minimum, it could have a major effect on cloud formation which would have a major effect on climate. Cold is a worse killer than heat.

“It’s possible we’re observing the beginning of Betelgeuse’s final collapse now.

If so, the star, which is 600 light-years away, will already have exploded — and we’ll soon be in for a spectacular, and perfectly safe, interstellar fireworks show.”

That future perfect tense illustrates the problem, An event that is present or even future from the frame of reference of the earth, is past from the frame of reference within which the event occurred.

This seems to be a good site

http://www.astro.illinois.edu/~jkaler/sow/betelgeuse.html

“An example of confusion about Mars is found in the famous canals on Mars, They reportedly were first observed by Italian priest Pietro Secchi in 1876. Then Giovanni Schiaparelli published a map of Mars in 1877. He assigned names to bright and dark features which included a large number of straight-line features that Schiaparelli and Secchi called “canali.” The mistranslation in English-speaking countries of “canali” into “canal,” instead of the correct “channel,” brought a misleading connotation of artificial construction by Martians that had not been intended by Schiaparelli and Secchi.”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525695,00.html

Mega Cosmic Rays during a solar Minimum.

Draw your own conclusions.

REPLY: Covered a half dozen times at least- seasonal adjustment to compensate for meltwater on top of the ice, which would ordinarily be viewed as “open water”. – Anthony

Lets do this responsibly and look at both sides of the debate without being arseholes and admit ” painfull as it may be” when you are wrong. There is no shame in being honest.

Hot City or Global Warming?
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/06/hot-city-or-global-warming/

Overall one would have to say the Bureau data suggests no significant warming over the last century and in particular the last 3 decades in Victoria. On the other hand it does show significant UHI. Consider that an increase of 1.5C in the minimums for Melbourne over the last 3 decades corresponds to 5C per century. Averaging the minimum and maximum readings yields a rise from 14.7C to 15.7C over 30 years equating to 3.3C per century and Melbourne is far from the worst city in the world for UHI. Look also at how non linear the UHI rise really is. Compare that with a linear allowance of 0.06C per century. For that to be appropriate it would mean that only 1 in 50 sites is showing the same degree of UHI as does Melbourne and the other 49 show no UHI at all, even then the linear allowance is not correct.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Sea Level… Still no update one year later.

http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/mbb/mbb10/sum07.html
Glaciers… At least three years behind.

It seems that these critical times would at least demand timely data updates.

Alert readers will have noticed the fewer-than-normal postings over the last couple of weeks. This is related mostly to pressures associated with real work (remember that we do have day jobs). In my case, it is because of the preparations for the next IPCC assessment and the need for our group to have a functioning and reasonably realistic climate model with which to start the new round of simulations. These all need to be up and running very quickly if we are going to make the early 2010 deadlines.

The emboldened portion just kills me, and I think it speaks volumes!