First Post for New Website

16 Comments

This has been way more time-consuming than I expected.

Anyhow, the site is up, hopefully it is useful in some way.

Let me know if you spot any mistakes, or have any links, improvements, ideas.

Thanks

16 Comments

  1. Dag Lindgren

    Reply

    Very nice site. But when I glued the link on twitter, no good attractive graph appeared. Try to mend that!

      • Dag Lindgren

        Reply

        I placed https://parisagreementtemperatureindex.com/ on twitter but that gave no graph, only after click.
        And if I glue a graph clicking it did not lead to the site.
        A for me surprising problem was the low interest on twitter.
        I have around thosand followers on twitter but mostly interested in Swedish forestry, and not global climate,. around 50 of my followers are important “high quality followers. I got only one “like” click but that was from high quality follower recently chair of the natural conservation organsition of Sweeden with more than 200 000 members. Less than 200 views.
        Try again after May release.

  2. Dag Lindgren

    Reply

    Congratulationes! Your site is more appealing and more informative than any alternative I seen! Please continue and update every month! Looking forward to the May update!
    Keep to surface temperature do not disturbe by other things! Leave that to others!
    Climate is more than temperature. Perhaps some other word?
    You have a rubric and “definition” that 1.5 C is reached when 1000 days pass that. I do not like that, even if climate if “climate” become 1.4 C permanent you would reach more than 1000 days after some time.
    You make non linear fits which indicate that climate heating accelerates. But that is partly misleading, the past year has been unusally warm! The is a partly regular pattern how the oceans absorbe heat (la nina) and also other phenomenons. Look on the past! It would be very suprising if the “accerelation” did not look less dramatic if looking backwards 2026. Maybe a note on that.

    • parisagreementtemperatureindex.com

      Reply

      >>Congratulationes
      Thanks. The site was conceived as a place to explain my graphics

      >>Please continue and update every month! Looking forward to the May update!
      Yes, I’m thinking once a month.
      Especially if I can automate more of it, so it is leff of a faff to produce.

      >>Keep to surface temperature do not disturbe by other things! Leave that to others!
      Not quite sure what you means, but I guess as a general point yes, I’ll try and stick to purely data relevant points. Is there anything you think should be removed?

      >>Climate is more than temperature. Perhaps some other word?
      Fair point. I’m open to suggestions. I’ll think on it.

      >>You have a rubric and “definition” that 1.5 C is reached when 1000 days pass that.
      The title was partly to give the graphic a story.
      I didn’t mean it as “any milestone will have 1000 individual days above that milestone, before “The Climate” (or better term) is passed that value. It does look like that will be the case for 1.5C though.

      >>You make non linear fits which indicate that climate heating accelerates.
      I’ll have to think on this one. I’ll try a few different methods, to understand your point about whether my methods overstate the acceleration. At the moment I have a pretty basic smoothing technique. I was just trying to get a believable year for when a climate milestone was passed.
      Different tehcniques, give slightly different trend lines, and therefore slightly different years.
      All the believable trend lines were within 1-2 years of the values in the graphic.
      When I used x-year-running-average the line just runs underneath the data points.

      • Dag Lindgren

        Reply

        Who am I?
        I thought about the global warming earlier, how it affected and how we could react. I give a link to part of “my” web. Almost 60 years ago I studied metheorology at University corresponding to half a year of study. As a professor forest genetics at the faculty of forest sciences I was one of those who had the closest contacts with the faculty meteorolog. We must know something about the conditions future trees will be exposed to for giving advice how to plan the forest seed supply.

        I am now rather senile, forget more and more and does not function well. But still I make a presentation at an international conference in a few weeks, from abstract I extact some clima considerations :
        “Seed orchards are key to increasing resources for the future.
        Dag Lindgren “Forests are fundamental for good livelihoods.. They reduce impact of weather variations. They absorb carbon from the atmosphere and replace fossil carbon. Seed orchards create more renewable resources, which replaces fossil. Faster sequestering of carbon dioxide is a likely effect. Human has an accelerating impact on environments, seed sources should adapt to that! Under climate change, the adaptability of local populations is replaced with assisted migration, where seed orchards are efficient.”

        Yesterday I stood a cold hour swinging a placate in a weekly demonstrataion by earlier Fridaygs For Future now changed to People For Future. Each week they stand where for 300 weels without interruption and I come maybe 10 times a year to demonstrate my support. I am really worried that Man does too little to assure we got a future and the not less than linear increase in CO2 not visible disturbed by the Paris agreement is one sign.
        Guess you should remove our conversion when the May 24 update come But now I hope it stimulates your thinking….

  3. Dag Lindgren

    Reply

    You write “Sometimes people use the last 30 years to be “the climate”, and then give values relative to that.” It is metheorological standard to use 30 years period to describe climate, now the “normal” period is 1991-2020. Comparing the climate on different places a meteorologist would use the average in that period. But of cause other methods should be used to describe the fast global warming. But a more polite formulation could be used.

  4. Dag Lindgren

    Reply

    From now I comment on https://downto.dagli.se/ so I can edit and express more, and will probable not somment any more here. It will be visible where and I probably extend my comments at least to the beginning of June and then believe it has helped you in improving site. If you want contact with me you can use my email. I think I help the future by comment to you. And my philosphy that even not helåful comments are better than no comments as it helps to stimulate the brain to improve. You can remorve my comments which concerns the site. I am disspointed that noone else has commented. I do not dare to keep comments on my site open it comes so much spam.
    Gratulations to help me think about the future climate by trying to understand better what the cirucmstances are.

  5. Dag Lindgren

    Reply

    I suggest you present what I roughly expressed on twitter and it is also roughlly on https://downto.dagli.se/ .
    The duration for passing a milestone till next is passed get dramatically shorter. Both for first day and for first month a new temperature milestone occurs. I develop more on my site https://downto.dagli.se/.
    I mentioned it for days in an earlier comment but not for months.
    You have not yet mentioned this very evident and surprising phenomenon! Do I express it badly? As far as I understand I am still the only in the world who observed it! Is that right?
    It is hard to explain, but I hypothize the reason is that variations in temperature among days and months is increasing by time. Thats reasonable and in agreement with opinions, but can the effect be so quantatitive dramatic?
    I still has an email at my earlier university employer dag.lindgren@slu.se if you want to cmment where

    • parisagreementtemperatureindex.com

      Reply

      Hi Dag,
      I have been focussing on writing an application, so that I can automate the updates more quickly, pull down latest data, process data, create csv files, with built-in sanity checks etc … the first version I posted on the website / twitter used a lot of manual steps, and required a lot of time-consuming manual checks to avoid mistakes. It is pretty much done, but more testing and refinement to go. This will also make it much easier to try different graphics, and different data sources.
      I’m waiting for climate reanalyzer to post all the April dates.
      Climate Reanalyzer provides the copernicus data in 2 sources, and each has a slightly different way of calculating the anomalies using 1850-1900 baseline. At the moment, I’m getting the daily anomalies to be 0.02C apart (although the yearly averages are identical), so a bit more work to reconcile the differences, and compare the values to explicitly published values. E.g. the copernicus annual bulletins.
      I will be getting back to the website, and update the cumulative count images, and make some more changes to the websites. I have adjusted the website already quite a bit, based on your feedback.
      The “Climate passes at ” … I have been thinking more on this, trying various trend line algorithms, and looking at posts / graphs by various top climate scientists. TBD.
      Thanks

      • parisagreementtemperatureindex.com

        Reply

        Hi Dag,
        It’s going to take a bit longer than I thought.
        The exact method of rounding the anomalies, and handling of leap-years has a bit of judgment to it.
        This makes a difference to the number-of-days past a milestone.
        I’m doing a bunch more sanity checks, to make sure the data matches any published temperature daily anomalies.
        … also more sanity checks to make sure the monthly/yearly average anomalies match anything explicitly stated by.
        In terms of the actual daily temperatures, it only makes 0.01C difference
        … but this can mean the difference of crossing/not-crossing a temperature milestone.
        So I want to get the logic / maths right once-and-for-all, and then leave it, rather than continually tweaking it.
        E.g. In the 30,802 days since 1940 it affected about 700 days being 0.01C different in my programatic output vs my manual version, and about 30 days were affected in terms of above / below a threshold.
        All very geeky, but might as well try and come up with a process that won’t change into the future.

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *