Evaluation 412 by Anon (session_user_id: 98d5fa7f341ee8656869412294fb41323cc0f0ce)
What is your overall decision about this article?
Are the selection criteria for the stations well explained? Or, if this project does not have to do with time series met. stations, are the premises of the project well thought out and explained? Is it a topic of special interest? (It doesn't have to be, but if it is, say so).
No stations were selected nor any of the AR5 models were simulated. The premises of the project were well thought out and a good explanation of the current climate issue as well as the carbon cycle was given. But the author went way over the 300-500 word guidelines and number of images requested. Approximately 1250 words were used without the reference and notes section. Seven beautiful images were downloaded and used but we were restricted to only 2 images.
Are the conclusions of the report quantitatively supported by the data?
Yes but again this project did not use the data from the time serious browser. The data come from other sources such as NOAA and NASA data.
Are the data stations well quality-controlled?
Author states that he had to manually write down the stations but in the report it is not clear how these stations were used for the analysis if they were used at all (no indication). There is no analysis of C02 and forcing at site near Seattle Washington reported in the assignment or in the reference section. Needs lots of polishing to reduce its size and to focus on what was asked to use.