Mein Blog
Erfolgreiche Ausstellung in Völklingen |
| Veröffentlicht von hanne am 18/09/2010 |
heute,am 19.09.2010 erreichte unsere Josy ihr drittes V1 mit allen Anwartschaften.
Frau Edith Schön schrieb folgenden Bericht:
kompackte,kräftige Hündin,Kopf zum Körper passend, dunkelbraunes Auge-korr.getr.Ohren,trockener Hals,tiefe Brust-ausgeprägte Vorbrust-Läufe korr.gestellt und gewinkelt-mittelhartes schwarzes Haarkleid,zügige Bewegung-aufmerksames Wesen-Sichelrute.
Wir sind sehr stolz auf unsere KLEINE
Zuletzt geändert am: 18/09/2010 um 20:34
ZurückKommentare
| Klubsieger | von Gast am 27/09/2010 um 20:36 |
| Hallo Josy, ich und mein Anhang gratulieren Dir von ganzem Herzen zum Klubsiegertitel. Ich wußte es bereits als ich Dich das letzte mal in Müchen sah, dass Du es schafst und ich denke, Du wirst noch viele andere Titel holen. Liebe Grüße (auch an Dein Frauchen und Herrchen sowie an unsere beiden Schwesten Janka und Jana, meine Mama Ira, meine beiden Tanten Franzi und Fergie und meinen Opa Felix) Jazzy mit Anhang |
|
| DANKE | von Gast am 28/09/2010 um 07:24 |
| hallo liebe Schwester Jazzy ganz herzlichen Dank für den lieben Eintrag.Das hat mich ganz besonders gefreut. Auch Du Schwesterlein,wirst es noch schaffen--ist garnicht so schwer! Ich liebe Dich,Jazzy! Grüß Deine Herrchen und Frauchen ganz herzlich von mir und unseren Schwestern--natürlich auch Mama Ira. |
|
| LelOEjomWJCYin | von Gast am 09/05/2013 um 10:53 |
| You're the one with the brains here. I'm wtaching for your posts. | |
| RXHMCHnXsHsmkG | von Gast am 11/05/2013 um 08:04 |
| I really neeedd to find this info, thank God! | |
| IgiGVzdtm7 | von Gast am 06/07/2013 um 05:52 |
| Dear Dizzyringo,I don't really think that the nuamircel size of the anomaly is something that a scientist - or even a man in the street - should be interested it. It depends on conventions.As you correctly point out in 1), the anomaly only makes sense relatively to a base point. But there is clearly no "God-given" base point for the calculation of an anomaly.So at different moments, different teams take the base point value to be the average of all their data, e.g. 1850-2010, or just 1960-1990 data, or 1950-2000, or any interval you can think of.Generally, the surface station records go to more distant past than the satellite record, so their base point contains many more "colder" years, and the anomalies are therefore higher than they are for the satellite record. This is on top of the fact that the satellites see a slower warming trend.Obviously, if we calculated the anomaly relatively to the average of a period that includes the last ice age but not the previous interglacial, the anomaly would be higher by several degrees. That would imply exactly nothing - it's a pure convention. There is clearly no "right" temperature.The additive uncertainty doesn't pose any problem as long as you calculate the differences of the anomalies only. In particular, if you decide which year on the observational record is the warmest one, it's not affected by the additive shift - by the choice of the base point.So I kind of disagree with your priorities. The information about the ranking of the years is much more objective, convention-independent, and therefore physically more interesting information than the nuamircel size of the anomaly.For Central England, even if you included the whole record since 1659, the base point wouldn't shift much - the anomaly would still be well below 2 C, to say the least.At any rate, the differences in the temperatures of individual years during the last 150 years are tiny - all of them fit within 1 C - and this is how Nature naturally behaves. Even a healthy human body doesn't keep a constant temperature with a better accuracy.Best wishesLubos | |
| TZr1jAIl | von Gast am 07/07/2013 um 14:43 |
| For the man in the street, it would be hefupll if:1. the basis of the anomaly is defined2. The size of the anomaly was givenwhen the MSM reported the purported "hottest" year.It was quite by chance that I discovered in my research that the rating is based on a comparison with the end of the 19th Century - i.e. 1899 or so. And then, as you so correctly quote, the anomaly is about .5 to .9 of one degree, depending on the situation.If this is made clear to the public then this would put the whole warming stuff into perspective. Actually, I would have thought the comparison with the CET - which runs from the early 1600s - is much more useful. | |
Kommentar hinzufügen
