UPDATE: A good photo of one of the Russian stations has been found, see below after the “read more” link.
As most readers know by now, the problematic GISTEMP global temperature anomaly plot for October is heavily weighted by temperatures from weather stations in Russia.
GISTEMP 11-12-08 – Click for larger image
Like in the USA, weather stations tend to be distributed according to population density, with the more populated western portion of Russia having more weather stations than the less populated eastern areas such as Siberia. To illustrate this, here is a plot of Russian Weather Station locations from the University of Melbourne:
Click picture for larger image, source image is here
Interestingly, the greatest magnitude of the GISTEMP anomaly plot for October is in these mostly unpopulated areas where the weather station density is the lowest. While I was pondering this curiosity, one of the WUWT readers, Corky Boyd, did a little research and passed this along in email:
…Posters at Watts Up have commented on the ongoing consistently high anomalous temperatures from Russia. I have noticed this too. In light of the erroneously posted data for October, I took a look at the monthly NCDC climate reports back to January 2007. By my eyeball estimate the results from Russia are almost all on the high side. . Some I classified as very highs are massively high. Of the 21 months reported, only 2 appeared to be below average.
Category 2007 2008 (9 months)
Very high 6 4
High 3 1
Average 2 3
Low 0 1
Very Low 1 0
Is there a way to validate or invalidate GISS data by comparing it to RISS? Does it strike you as odd that the verifiably erroneous data has shown up in the same area that was suspect in the first place? Could there be a pattern?
Corky also sent along a series of images depicting global near surface and ocean temperature anomalies from NOAA. Here is the most recent one from September 2008:
I was curious if indeed there was any pattern to the Russian anomaly, so I decided to animate the last year and a half worth of images. You can see this animation below. It is about 1 megabyte in size, so please be patient while it downloads.
Click for full sized animation
What I found interesting was that the January 2007 anomaly (the last time we had a “global heat wave”) was primarily in the northern Russian and Asian. According to January 2007 UAH satellite anomaly data, the Northern Hemisphere had a whopping anomaly of +1.08°C and the “northern extent” was even greater at +1.27°C, the largest anomaly ever in the Northern Extent dataset
Curiously though, the very next month, the Russian anomaly virtually disappears and is replacing with cooling, though a sharp boundary to warming now exists in Asia. It was as if somebody threw a switch in Russia.
Click for larger images
In March 2008, a very large positive anomaly returned in Russia, and again in April evaporated with the same abruptness as the Jan-Feb 2007 transition. Again almost as if a switch was thrown.
Click for larger images
Such abrupt repeated changes don’t seem fully natural to me, particularly when they occur over the same geographic location twice. I realize that two events don’t make a trend, but it is curious, given that we now have had a problem with Russian weather data again that caused GISS to announce the “hottest October on record”.
I also noticed that in the animation from the anomaly maps, there does not seem to be much of an anomaly in the summer months.
This made me wonder what some of those weather stations in Russia might be like. So I went to the Russian Meteorological Institute website at http://www.meteo.ru/english/
I know from John Goetz work as well as this artcle in Nature that Russian weather stations had been closing with regularity due to the trickle down effects of collapse in the former Soviet Union. Though some new ones are being built by outside agencies, such as this one sponsored by NOAA in Tiksi, Russia.
Click for a larger image
What I found interesting in the NOAA press release on Tiksi, was this image, showing weather stations clustered around the Arctic:
Click for a larger image
The interesting thing is that all these stations are manned and heated. The instruments appear to be “on” the buildings themselves, though it is hard to tell. One wonders how much of the building heat in this tiny island of humanity makes it to the sensors. The need for a manned weather station in the Arctic always comes with a need for heat.
I was hoping my visit to the Russian Meteorological institute website might have some particulars on the remaining weather stations that have not been closed. I didn’t find that, but what I did find was a study they posted that seems to point to a significant warm temperature anomaly in Russia during winters between 1961 to 1998:
Fig. 1. Linear trend coefficient (days/10 years) in the series of days with abnormally high air temperatures in winter (December-February), 1961-1998.
From the Russian study they write:
For the winter period 1961-1998, most of the stations under considerations exhibit a tendency for fewer minimum temperature extremes. Maximum (in absolute value) coefficients of the linear trend were obtained in the south of the country and in eastern Yakutia.
Whenever I read about elevated minimum temperatures, I tend to suspect some sort of human influences such as UHI, station siting, or irrigation (humidity) which tend to affect Tmin more than Tmax.
In Northern Russia Siberia, I wouldn’t expect much in the way of irrigation. So that leaves station siting and UHI as possible biases. UHI seemed doubtful, given that many of these Russian Stations in Siberia are in remote areas and small towns.
So I decided to put Google Earth to work to see what I could see. One of the stations mentioned in a recent post at Climate Audit cited the station of Verhojansk, Russia, which has temperatures conveniently online here at Weather Underground.
From the Navy Meteorological exercise I found that Verhojansk has a wide variance in temperature:
Verkhojansk is located in a treeless shallow valley. There is snow on the ground during winter months; it melts in the spring. Verhojansk experiences the coldest winter temperatures of any official weather station outside of Antarctica. Verhojansk has Earth’s most extreme temperature contrast (65oC) between summer and winter. Which of the following indirect factors contribute to this extreme seasonal variation?
From the GHCN station inventory file at NCDC I found that Verhojansk, Russia had a lat/lon of 67.55 133.38 which when I put it in Google Earth, ended up in a mud flat. The Google Maps link from Weather Underground was no better, also off in a field.
Looking in NCDC’s MMS station database yeilded better luck, and I found a more precise lat/lon of 67.55,133.38333 There was very little other helpful information there on the station.
The station appeared to be located in town, though I have no way of verifying the exact location. The lat/lon may be imprecise. But something curious popped out at me as I was scanning the Google Earth image of Verhojansk looking for what might be a weather station – it looks like pipes running across the surface:
Click for larger image
These “pipes” appear to go all over town. Here is a closer view, note the arrow to what I think might be the weather station location based on the fencing, objects on the ground that could be rain gauges or shelters, and what looks like an instrument tower:
Click for larger image
I was curious about what these pipes could be, it certainly didn’t look like oil pipelines, and why where they so close to houses and building and seem to network all over town. Doing a little research on Russian history, I found my answer in the pervasive “central planning” thinking that characterized Russian government and infrastructure. It’s called “District Heating“
From Wikipedia:
District heating (less commonly called teleheating) is a system for distributing heat generated in a centralized location for residential and commercial heating requirements such as space heating and water heating.
But for Russia there was this caveat:
Russia
In most Russian cities, district-level combined heat and power plants (Russian: ТЭЦ, Тепло-электро централь) produce more than 50 % of the nation’s electricity and simultaneously provide hot water for neighbouring city blocks. They mostly use coal and oil-powered steam turbines for cogeneration of heat. Now, gas turbines and combined cycle designs are beginning to be widely used as well. A Soviet-era approach of using very large central stations to heat large districts of a big city or entire small cities is fading away as due to inefficiency, much heat is lost in the piping network because of leakages and lack of proper thermal insulation [10].
I should also point out that district heating is not limited to Russia, but is in many northern European countries. It seems quite prevalent in cold Euro-climates, and even extends into Great Britain.
So I searched a bit more, and found some pictures of what Russian district heating looks like from the ground. Here is one from Picasaweb from somebody’s trip to Russia:

Click for source image.
Note the pipes in the photo above are not insulated.
I also found a very interesting picture of steam pipes, also uninsulated, from a trip report to the “hot zone” of Chernobyl:

And finally a picture of Krasnoyarsk thermal power station Number 1 that has recently been in the news, according to Reuters due to a burst steam pipe:

Click for larger image – Note the pipes coming out to the left of the power station. You can see steam pipes around the city in this Google Maps view here.
So all this begs the question:
If Russian weather stations are located in cities that have this district heating plan, and a good percentage of the pipes are uninsulated, how much of the waste heat from the pipes ends up creating a local micro-climate of warmth?
Remember when I said that the NOAA map anomalies centered over Russia seemed to be prevalent in winter but not summer? It stands to reason that as winter temperature gets colder, more waste heat is dumped out of these inefficient systems to meet the demand. Basically, we have an active UHI situation in the city that increases in output as temperatures drop.
In the areal photos above of Verhojansk, it appears that some pipes are insulated (white, what appears to be main lines) while others are rust brown, and appear near buildings and dwellings.
I got to thinking about why these pipes might be uninsulated. First there is the classic inefficiency and carelessness of Soviet workmanship, but another thought occurred to me: Russian people might like it that way. Why? Well imagine a place where you walk to the market every day, even in subzero temperatures. Since many of these pipes seem to follow streets and sidewalks, wouldn’t it be a more pleasant walk in winter next to a nice toasty steam pipe?
Steve Mcintyre wrote about this station at Climate Audit, citing a puzzle in the data, here is an excerpt of his post:
Verhojansk
Now there are many puzzles in GHCN adjustments, to say the least, and these adjustments are inhaled into GISS. Verhojansk is in the heart of the Siberian “hot spot”, presently a balmy minus 22 deg C. The graphics below compare GISS dset0 in the most recent scribal version to GISS dset 2 (showing identity other than small discrepancies at the start of the segment); the right compares GISS dset0 to the GHCN-Daily Average.
Over the past 20 years, the GISS version (presumably obtained from GHCN monthly) has risen 1.7 deg C (!) relative to the average taken from GHCN Daily results.
Left- GISS dset 2 minus Giss dset0 [[7]]; fight – Giss minus GHCN Daily
What causes this? I have no idea.
Maybe it’s the steam pipes. We need to send somebody to Russia to find out. Of the many station lat/lons I looked at, Verhojansk was the only one I found with enough Google Earth resolution to see the steam pipes. Maybe the heart of our Russian temperature anomaly lies in central heating.
George Costanza could be right.
UPDATE: The photo below shows the Verhojansk Meteorological station and it’s instruments. Hat tip to Jeff C. for the photo below:

Direct URL to the photo above here
Note the cable going to the Stevenson Screen suggesting automated readings. Also note the vertical plume at left.
The station can be seen from Google Earth here
Sponsored IT training links:
We offer guaranteed success in 1z0-050 exam with JN0-304 online training. Also get free download link for HP0-S26 exam.














A question for Leif Svalgaard: Given that the TSI varies within quite narrow bounds, might not the rate of change–rather than just the level–have an effect upon climate? I’m thinking here of the Earth and its oceans along with clouds acting as a capacitor-resistor system for thermalizing SW radiation, with some characteristic global time constant.
Basil,
What I’ve seen in paleoclimatology is pretty basic analysis of single time series. For proper estimation, one needs cross-spectrum analysis between a calibration signal and field data, as well as optimal reconstruction filtering. Please don’t get me started on a fuller discussion right now. I’m obligated to complete a pressing project.
UIHE. If you go here
http://en.allmetsat.com/metar-taf/united-kingdom-ireland.php?icao=EGLL
You’ll see a temp difference of 2 degrees C between Heathrow airport and Northolt Aerodrome – even though they are only 6 miles apart.
I don’t think FLIR is the proper term when referring to infrared (IR) aerial or satellite images in general. An IR image from any technology is the starting point; we might care about the technology when doing detailed analysis of the image.
I’ve ever seen a Red Siberia
Anomalifluous ice bear lair.
Stare ye must, but never fear ya’,
I’d redder see than ever be there.
=====================
Basil (08:11:52) :
How do you get an average (green line) before ~1964 when there is no data for Oulu or Moscow?
Moscow data goes back to 1958. Climax data back to 1952.
Pamela Gray (08:01:23) :
would prefer a big thick table book with lots of full sized pictures
Kluwer is in the business of publishing dense and pricey ‘science’ books [ 🙁 ] There are already coffee-table Sun books. Of course, I would like to have time to do everything…
Bob Williamson:
– “Now all I need to do is wake up the rest of the world and the task of changeing our future will be well on track. Well done – Keep up the good work.”
Your spelling is as bad as your … I hesitate to call it science, or sarcasm.
I have no doubt, however, that your treatise will find a large audience of scared sheep who have zero faith in themselves, humanity as a whole and our glorious leaders – not necessarily in that order.
Makes you wonder even more about what I call the “Great Mysterious Trans-Siberian Heat Wave”.
As pointed out in this story, according to the data, the geographic area that has experienced the greatest amount of “global warming” is Siberia.
This brings up an interesting question: If Siberia is experiencing so much drastic “Global Warming”, why don’t we ever hear more about it?
You can hardly pick up a newspaper or watch the evening news without seeing a story about how Global Warming is responsible for yet another horrible disaster. Whether it be forest fires (even those that turned out to be set by arsonists), severe rain storms, draughts, floods and failed levees, tornados, hurricanes, and every other form of “bad weather”, they are nearly all being blamed in the media on Global Warming. I have also seen where Global Warming is to blame for a deadly bridge collapse, marathon runners dieing mid-race, crop failures from heat, cold, drought and floods, migrations, increases and decreases and various insects, species becoming endangered and extinct, the spread of all kinds of diseases, and such bizarre things lower circumcision rates in Africa, and and the list goes on and on. The general rule seems to be if something bad happens, it must be somehow caused due to global warming.
Yet in all the news regarding all the disasters being caused by global warming occurring all around the globe, I couldn’t locate a single global warming disaster coming from Siberia. In fact, the only significant newsworthy recent weather related natural disaster I could find in Siberia was in 2001.
“The worst flooding in a century followed the frigid region’s harshest winter on record, when temperatures dropped to negative 40 degrees Celsius (negative 40 degrees Fahrenheit) for days.”
http://www.redcross.org/news/in/flood/010530siberia.html
“There were warnings earlier this year that Siberia and the Russian Far East could be affected by floods, following one of the harshest winters on record, when temperatures plunged to -50 Celsius.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1340441.stm
You would think that if global warming were striking Siberian as bad as the temperature anomaly maps indicate, we would see horrific tornados, flooding, droughts, and every other AGW induced disaster relentlessly clobbering Siberia.
You would think that if global warming were striking Siberia, you would see photos in the National Geographic and other pro-AGW magazines, of glaciers melting, frozen tundra thawing, animals threatened, and other photo evidence of Global warming.
You would think that if global warming were indeed striking Siberia at a rate of 10 times that of the rest of the world, you would hear reports of mass extinctions, natural habitat destruction and/or migrations of all sorts of native species.
You would think that with all the hype and hysteria over global warming, the one area that has apparently experienced the most warming the past 10 years, and showing the degree of massive warming that is forcast for the rest of the globe in the next century, would become the “poster child” for the global warming cause.
But in many searches, I came up completely empty of any anecdotal evidence whatsoever of any signs of global warming actually occurring in Siberia nor causing any of the problems that are forcast for the rest of us when “we warm up” as much as they have.
This leaves me to basically one of two conclusions: either, one: Siberia is experiencing run-away global warming, but it is having no negative effects; or two: Siberia is NOT experiencing warming and the temps shown on anomaly maps are not accurate.
For others – I was shown this in a round about type of way (thanks to “waterspout” on http://theweatheroutlook.com ) and wondered what it would look like in woodfortrees.
Here we have a 45 year trend from 1935 to 1979 –
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1935/to:1979/trend
Surely CO2 was rising all that time? Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge.
John S. (10:32:13) :
Given that the TSI varies within quite narrow bounds, might not the rate of change–rather than just the level–have an effect upon climate?
TSI varies through the year ~100 times as much as it does over a solar cycle. http://www.leif.org/research/Erl76.png shows the annual [very regular] variation of TSI. The Figure is a superposition of all measurements 2003-2007. If you look very carefully you might see some very small wiggles on the curve. These are caused by solar activity. I don’t think the climate would react to those in any big way, but I’m open for suggestions as how it might work.
Leif Svalgaard (11:07:55) :
Basil (08:11:52) :
“How do you get an average (green line) before ~1964 when there is no data for Oulu or Moscow?”
Moscow data goes back to 1958.
I forgot to say that the blue line [for Moscow] is simply hidden behind the green line [the average of only one station is the station itself, so the two curves would fall on top of one another].
Leif Svalgaard (11:48:02) : Your comment is awaiting moderation
John S. (10:32:13) :
The Figure is a superposition of all measurements 2003-2007.
2003-2007 should be 1996-2007. A full cycle goes into the plot. Note that the data is plotted as a function of day [month] within the year, so the cyclic variation is the not that of the solar cycle, but of the annual cycle. The plot is not an average of the 11 years, but the curves for each year plotted on top of the other years.
Leif,
The annual cycle is separate matter. I had in mind the secular rate of change oF TOA insolation over not just the Wolfe cycle, but over a group of cycles. Any thoughts on that?
Following a few threads – thanks Anthony for this delightful detective work and making an otherwise intense struggle more fun.
Birders in Britain are marveling at the non-arrival of thousands of Siberian geese, swans, ducks and waders that usually come here for their winter holidays. Apparently it is warm enough for them back home.
NOAA once had a series of beautiful circumpolar maps of Arctic temperature means for each month – and I once logged January temps for 1930, 1980,1990 and 2000 to watch the evolving patterns – you could see a see-saw effect, when Alaska in the west cooled, central Siberia was warm. I wish they still had them available – they didn’t respond to email inquiries as to what happened to them – anybody know? The current Siberian ‘warmth’ – I have no doubt has nothing to do with CO2, but everything to do with a disarranged standing wave of the jetstream that also coincides with the solar minimum (2007 & 2008 it shifted both summers and dumped on Britain the rain it normally dumps on Norway – by way of driving the Atlantic storm tracks.
Drew Shindell at NASA associates a shifted jetstream with Maunder Minimum scale lows in magnetic flux. Such shifts also effect the cloud spatial patterns – as important as any potential effects on cloud seeding – if you shift cloud south from the NW Atlantic areas of permanent heat loss, or otherwise lower cloud density in that region, then you get a contrary cooling effect compared to cloud changes further south – the warm ocean surface waters ( built up between 1980-2000) are exposed to northern night sky and lose heat. Look at the losses of heat from Pacific region off Alaska and the PDO cycle( NOAA SST data sets) – the warmwater pool has now gone. Same will happen to the Atlantic – but the pool is deeper and it will take another season or so. Meanwhile, recent simulations (Gilbert Compo, Colorado Uni – supported by NOAA) show that most land-surface ‘global’ warming is caused by heat transfer from the oceans. This works well for Alaska, most of the Arctic and Western Europe.
However, my guess is that the anomalous Siberian weather systems have been affected by the jetstream pulling in warmer air from central Asia. Similar effects occurred during the Maunder Minimum in Europe when northern and western Europe suffered cold and wet, whereas Saharan air masses were drawn into the Mediterranean. Bad harvests all round.
And to Leif – Svensmarks’ book should be studied not just for the science – but also the sociology of the science institutions’s response – it is a rather journalistic and scientifically frustrating but nevertheless worthwhile read.
And Oulu ‘trends’ – you miss a trick if you focus on trends. Look at cycles and ‘pulses’ as well. The 1990 solar max produced a deeper pulse (about 25%) than 1980 and the 2000 max a less deep but longer pulse – so IF Svensmark is right (and Usoskin, and if you study ISCCP data sets you CAN see some cloud cycles coincident with the solar cycles) then these pulses will have thinned the cloud more and lead to equivalent pulses of warm water at equatorial latitudes – the 1980 pulse was topped by the 1990 pulse and then the 2000 was lower – no overall trend, but a PATTERN with time-lags (Charles Perry at USGS is on to this for the Mississipi basin hydrology) -these pulsed waters get dispersed north and south – when southward they steadily lose heat and there is much less ‘global warming’ signal in the southern oceans, whereas when north, the water accumulates in gyres – and again in cycles of warm and cold phases (PDO 30 years, NAO 10/20 and 60 years). Each warm water pool phase dumps heat to the eastwards in response to jetstream driven storm tracks. The Pacific pool was exhausted by 2006 and that feeds back to equatorial regions to suppress the amplitude of ENSO (as in the expected high 2007 El Nino that turned into a squib).
By the way – I checked out Landscheidt as you suggested – I think the quote you had that he expected the ‘1990 minimum’ was from the original German and he meant ‘post-1990 minimum’, because in his English book of 1989, he shows a clear understanding that 1990 was going to be the grand maximum of the cycle and then ‘after’ that comes the Minimum – he thus correctly predicted 1990 as the maximum. The 2000 peak was 30% lower, which he predicted. He expected the 2010 peak to be another 30% down and then down again to the Maunder type Minimum (or 85% probability) by 2030. He also said 1998 would be the last big El Nino (NASA couldn’t do that), that 2002 would be smaller (it was) and thereafter La Nina would prevail ( it has). He also stated in his 2003 peer-reviewed paper in Energy & Environment (Interscience Publishing) that the last El Nino would mask the post-1990 decline in global temperatures (with time lags of 8 years from solar max to temperature max), and that 2007 would be the first year that ‘global cooling’ would become noticeable! Spot on! Hadley expected 2007 to be THE record year for global warming with a massive El Nino (and they published that in January 2007).
And finally!!! You will have a laugh at this one….Landscheidt, for all his expertise in solar cycle astrology (along with Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Brahe and others) used only Newtonian mechanics to make his predictions – using the equations for transfer of angular momentum and torque changes in the rotation of the sun -check out his long term wave-form graphs of harmonic cycles caused by the oppositions of the giant planets and 400 year cycles – they look just like the beryllium-10 and c-14 graphs. Maybe just coincidence. But I look at his accuracy compared to NASA and Hadley and think maybe all those satellites and computers haven’t told us much more than Newtonian mechanics could have done – if we had listened!
Apparently Landscheidt worked closely with NASA until Hansen took over. Maybe his other hemispheric involvement in astrology (the only discipline I am aware of that studies cycles in human consciousness) counted against him. You know how prejudiced some scientists can be!
I am still looking at all this! And keeping an open mind.
Yes, all Russian district heating pipes are lagged (otherwise they will not work), and yes the lagging is often poor. But that is not the problem. In short, if you are pumping X kilowatts into a city, via district heating, then X kilowatts are will eventually be emitted by that city.
This is compounded by the fact that (in the ’90s) none of the flats I lived in Russia had thermostats. Thus even when it was minis 30 outside, you would see flat after flat with the windows open, to regulate the heat inside the flat. Efficient, Russia is not, and I would guess that its ‘efficient’ district heating uses more energy than US heating systems.
The temperature anomoly may also be compounded by atmospheric high pressure systems. These trap low-level air beneath descending air, causing a temperature inversion. This low-level inversion may well trap a lot of heat from the town, and I presume the air can radiate this back down to the ground. Inversions in the Arctic can be very low indeed, perhaps only 1000 ft above the town.
Are these high Russian temperature anomolies linked to high pressure systems over Russia in any way? (High pressure tends to be linked to cold temperatures (in the winter), the very time when the district heating would be working at maximum.)
Can somebody give (or link to) a brief background explaining how U.S. GISS Stevenson screens were placed in Russia in the first place?
I’d like to know more about when they were placed, how they chose locations, who is monitoring them. How this data is transmitted to U.S.
Reader’s Digest version preferred, if there is such a thing.
REPLY: Readers digest version – the screens have nothing at all to do with GISS. They are operated by the Russian Meteorological agency, which reports to the World Meteorological Organization, which in turn produces the GHCN data product (Global Historical Climatological Network)
GISS uses the data from GHCN. GISS has no weather instruments of their own. All they have is desks and computers and some scientists that use them. – Anthony
John S. (12:26:01) :
The annual cycle is separate matter. I had in mind the secular rate of change oF TOA insolation over not just the Wolfe cycle, but over a group of cycles. Any thoughts on that?
The secular change is even smaller than the min-to-max change. So I would expect an even smaller influence. How does the climate know to react differently to a photon that is part of the secular change than to any other photon? and how to find it among the thousands of other photons? If the annual cycle is a separate matter [and how does climate know that], what would happen if we increased the annual cycle? double it? make it 100000 times stronger? when would it stop to be a ‘separate’ issue?
Peter Taylor (12:46:47) :
Drew Shindell at NASA associates a shifted jetstream with Maunder Minimum scale lows in magnetic flux.
Except that the magnetic flux was not any less back then. Shindell used the old Hoyt&Schatten TSI-reconstruction that had a very large [more than 10 times what we think today] variation built in.
Svensmarks’ book should be studied not just for the science – but also the sociology of the science institutions’s response – it is a rather journalistic and scientifically frustrating but nevertheless worthwhile read.
I think the worthwhile sociology is in Svensmark’s struggle rather than in the ‘science’ [judging from his papers, at least]. Velikovsky had problems too, and Erich von Daniken, and many others, even Alfred Wegener…
The Landscheidt ‘predictions are no more than simple-minded extrapolation, just look at http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html and make your own predictions.
Other strange stories for investigation:
How Stevenson screens became the subject of commemorative stamps.
http://www.cira.colostate.edu/cira/RAMM/hillger/shelters.htm
How having a weatherman for a father affected the author of: Kidnapped, The Strage Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Treasure Island, and… The Wrong Box
Leif,
Individual photons, of course, know nothing. The secular accumulation of their effects in the climate system, however, shows pronounced multidecadal variability that is difficult to explain convincingly in terms of purely internal response modes. Thanks for your opinion. I was looking for data.
John S. (16:39:39) :
Individual photons, of course, know nothing. The secular accumulation of their effects in the climate system, however, shows pronounced multidecadal variability that is difficult to explain convincingly in terms of purely internal response modes. Thanks for your opinion. I was looking for data.
To make the above statement you must have the data you need for such a statement. I would like to see that as well, and also why it is difficult to explain. There are many things that are difficult to explain, but happen nevertheless, e.g. the solar cycle itself.
Leif, what coffee table books? I have found paperbacks, small books, etc, but what coffee table books?
Pamela Gray (19:32:04) :
what coffee table books?
this one
alternative URL:
http://www.amazon.com/Sun-Earth-Sky-Kenneth-Lang/dp/0387304568/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227063291&sr=8-19
Pamela Gray (19:32:04) :
what coffee table books?
or this one. somewhat more expensive, but features me, so highly recommended 🙂
http://www.amazon.com/Sun-Space-Astronomy-Astrophysics-Library/dp/3540769528/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product
Correction of my comment above. Robert Louis Stevenson’s father was a British civil engineer, not a weatherman.
WRT the web site linked above, the commemorative stamps, “aerogram” and letterhead logos show apparently accurate images of Stevenson screens as they were deployed in different parts of the world. The Russian boxes all come equipped with a handy stepladder, as in the photo at the top of the thread. Guidelines for the boxes are that the instrument gauges should be at a height of 1.5 meters, or above the highest expected accumulation of snow for that location.
Here’s one from the People’s Republic of China, featuring a progressive family working in the country at the tail-end of the cultural revolution (1978). I wonder if Stevenson boxes acutally figure in these people’s “modern” (at the time) cultural identity – or if this was a WMO publication, with some other intent – in other words, “spin”.
http://www.cira.colostate.edu/cira/RAMM/hillger/China.1387_large.jpg