Posted on 03/31/2006 8:24:12 AM PST by cogitator
CO2 is a well-mixed gas in the atmosphere. There is variability right at the surface of the ocean, for example, where there is air-sea gas exchange, but once you're 500 meters over it there's not much difference. Now, they do CO2 measurements on Mauna Loa because it samples the global atmospheric circulation; the fact that they see the basic seasonal variability cycle every year indicates that CO2 must mix quickly. There might a bit of hemispheric variability, of course.
I think it was PBS's "Secrets of The Dead" that had an episode on the Scott expedition.
It was based on a book that uncovered Scott's reliance on his very qualified
meterologist.
Turns out the meterologist did years of Antartic observations...but didn't
know that about one of every 15 years there is a temperature inversion.
This is what caught Scott's group in that vise-grip of much colder than
normal temps.
Why do all these climate reports sound the same but, different? Same source?
Said comment has nothing whatsoever to do with my question. What was the base temperature for the "warming". And yes, it DOES make a difference.
The paper doesn't present a "base" temperature. It only reports trends. My guess would be that it's pretty darned cold (being that this is temperatures at significant altitude over Antarctica in winter).
I also looked at the stuff plotted at junkscience.com (DaveLoneRanger asked me to do this). The plots are also anomalies and not actually the temperature values. To get the actual values would require digging into the actual data sets, and I don't know how to do that, nor do I have the time to try. If someone has a lot of time on their hands...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.