4 replies to this topic

[benbakelaar]

http://blog.wired.co...now_on_its.html

I consider this irresponsible reporting, as the chart is presented out of context, with no link to the original research or producers. What does it really mean to compare March and May 2007 averages to 1961-1990 averages across such a wide cell coverage? In my opinion - this is just the type of thing that gets sensationalized in the media and leads to public pressure and policy decisions which are not helpful in the long run.

I really want to make some of these myself... does anyone have any pointers on where the data is available (public?), the technique most likely used to generate this (I assume some sort of cell grouping), and specific functions inside a GIS product that could help me produce more of these?

[MapMedia]

The map is good, assuming they are comparing against the average (anomalies included) march-may period of 30yr historic period (1960-90).
There is probably a few NOAA/NWS papers on global mapping methods to produce this map. Northern latitudes experienced the greatest
departure from 30yr historic avg in March-May 07 period.

[frax]

Ben,

The data is most likely based on the data from the Climate Research Unit, out of University of East Anglia: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/. I have done similar maps myself.

Here are some other examples:
Map that I think we prepared for IPCC TAR
Map, based on a paper published this year

I don't really agree with you that this is that irresponsible - the map is quite straightforward, I think, at first glance...

[benbakelaar]

Chris and Hugo, just to clarify, I was pointing out the blog post as irresponsible, not the map or the data. Somewhat sensational title, "From now on it's all anomalies", with no context, on Wired.com, a major internet destination. I was wrong however, there is a link back to the original site - it's not live though.

[MapMedia]

Well the +/- from historic average is a depart from the norm, an anomaly. But to say the future will be as such, and remain an 'anomaly' is silly, and no surprises there, coming from Wired, whom I've always seen as being anti-environmental and status-quo.