Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
When you read a large number of the e-mails, it becomes clearer and clearer just how much their data must be massaged and adjusted in order to reach the results they have. I don't say that their adjustments are good or bad, simply that the mere making of so many free-hand adjustments reduces the possibility that their conclusions are in fact correct. It's very hard to tell, without digging into the raw data which they won't release, how much of the claimed warming is really real, and how much shows up only because of the assumptions and conclusions and adjustments they have chosen to use.
Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.
They are hiding behind alleged confidentiality agreements they supposedly have with scientists who, according to them, provided some of the data. But they won't even so much as identify, as best I can tell today, those scientists, so that the data could be requested from them directly. Scientists who refuse to release raw data when serious questions are raised about their conclusions are not real scientists, and their work is entitled to no credibility whatsoever. As for due time, the House has passed an enormous "cap and trade" bill based on the conclusions of the global warming scare crowd... these scientists who refuse to release their data. I've got no problem waiting for more research... so long as we don't enact massive tax increases and other major interference in the economy while we wait. They are the ones demanding immediate action, however, so they have no right to say "let's wait for more data and more research" before releasing the data which they claim supports their fatalistic conclusions.
A computer-implemented method, comprising: associating a sparkline with a location in a document to provide a visual representation of one or more data values included in the document; associating with the sparkline a data source within the document including the one or more data values;
That's part of Claim 1. Here's Claim 6 in its entirety:
6. A computer-implemented method, comprising: associating a sparkline with a location in a document to provide a visual representation of one or more data values included in the document; associating with the sparkline a data source within the document including the one or more data values; generating the sparkline by generating the visual representation based on the one or more data values with a matrix of points to be presented at the associated location in the document; presenting the sparkline at the associated location in the document; and configuring the sparkline to be regenerated when one or more of the data values in the data source change.
Putting a graph in-line with text. What a really novel concept! In fact, sparklines, as described by Prof. Tufte, are primarily for the purpose of being included in a particular location in the document, in-line with other text. There's no novel "method" of doing this presented. The flowchart for the process given in the illustrations provided with the application is the same as any flowchart for dynamically presenting data in graphical form: generate the chart; look to see if the data has been changed; if yes, change the chart and regenerate. Frankly, I don't see what the patent covers that's any different from what MS' charting functions already provide. The examples given with the patent all show data embedded in a cell (which would be a welcome change, and perhaps is novel), but the text of the claims simply says "a location in the document" and surely current Excel charts are placed in some location in their document, though not actually within a cell. If the novelty is the method for embedding graphs generally in a cell, then that would really need to be spelled out more, and of course the "sparklines" label would be inaccurate.
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. - Voltaire