snowsure
-
Posts
223 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by snowsure
-
-
I appear to be missing something here; What happened 1970-1978? 8 years without cold? How about 1987-1991?
Why have you picked ranges 1962-1970, 1978-1987 and 1991-2006?
Again, apologies for being thick. Interesting post though. One that, I am sure, will continue to cause discussion.
-
Hence, whilst your point seems smart, it is flawed in that it breaches the normal convention, which would be, 2.2 + 2.4 = 4.6 which rounds to 5. If you want to round the inputs then, properly, it would be 2 + 2 = 4 +/- 1.
Thank you. Your comment seems compimentary.
I was just having a bit of fun there. However, the point that I wanted to make is that the admiration of number is not shared by all people. I am glad that noggin liked it though. I aim to please!
However, many people do not understand statistical convention so they are not happy to know that 2+2=4 has a +/- 25% tolerance to be taken into account due to rounding errors. As such, some people will not accept anything other than hard fact that is consitently proven to be correct even under rigorous conditions.
People do right to have a healthy disregard for "random-science" but they do wrong to be wasteful of their money when it impacts on other peoples lives.
Make electricity 50 times more expensive and that will curtail peoples expenditure in that direction (Again I say, we will use the internet less. I still do not use my computer on a Sunday, thus reducing my carbon footprint and my electricity bill!)
Hard economics works much better than legislation, in my opinion. (Unless legislation is backed up with a judicial system that is effective!)
-
Could it be CO2? It appears to have occured when CO2 reached a tipping point. Perhaps the synoptics suggest that it shouldn't be happening but it is, so something isn't right.
Good job the climate isn't like that, isn't it.
-
2.2+2.4=4.6
Rounded we can say that 2+2=5
My model works, doesn't it?
-
Bugs me too, and bizarrely it seems to happen whichever machine I'm using which rather implies the problem is not a glitch in the software at my end.
Further consideration must be given to the PICNIC problem. i.e. Problem In Chair Not In Computer.
If it happens no matter which computer you use then, as the common factor, could it be you?
-
The thundersnow event was 28 January 2004, when temperature falls like Stephen Prudence described were a widespread event, and resulted in the thundersnow.
Late February 2004 did have heavy snowstorms in many parts, which tended to melt in the sun during the day as the northerly, while cold, was not exceptionally so.
I'd call September 2007 'near average' but there will be regional variation- parts of the country will be more like 'slightly above average'.
My weather records show wintry with heavy snow 26th - 30th Jan 2004 and also 5cm snow on 25/2/04 and heavy snow on 27th/2/04, staying on the ground for 4 days due to the cold.
-
Perhaps the fact that Climate Science deals with the future is part of the problem.
Some people can accept explainations of the past but the future is too chaotic to comprehend. It consists of ranges of temperatures which, if forecast last than 10 days hence tend to be accurate. Any further out than that and it appears that the models are not right. They may be in the right area but if "scientists" are to be respected, the general public perhaps expect better results from their predictions.
I suggest that not enough people undertsand the scientific method and the part that exlpains in forecasting. (I for one know far too little acout climatology but I am less ignorant day on day. Ask me about Astrophysics though!)
-
Just to play devil's advocate, I would also say that we would expect 30 years of warming within a millennia of cooling in just the same way that a cool month would be expected within a warming year!
However, looking back through the first few pages of this thread again (ain't hindsight brill!) I would say that a "normal" month should not be so suprising but, for some, it is. If I found £1 today and £1 tomorrow, would I find £1 on the third day? On balance, I do not amass money through finding it so I assume that, over the year, I will lose as much as I find.
Just the same with cooling for some (or warming for others.)
-
Due to my old bunions playing up, I am revising upward to 10.7oC
-
... that said, I don't think t is a measure of pure kinetic energy, that measure is momentum (speed x weight).
KE = 1/2 m v^2
On a diurnal basis, and we'll see some of this tonight, the presence of cloud when all else is more or less the same will make a difference of perhaps 2 or 3C, simply because energy flux is dampened.So either the cloud cover is at the same temp as the air at ground level, thus stopping thermal energy transfer or the cloud temp is increasing more. Either one of these right?
...The last run of three cold months: Nov 2005 - April 2006 (bet that surprised you!).
It does because that is more than 3 months!
-
... Temperature is an expression of energy flow, and the temperature we measure is reradiated energy.
Temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy, or total internal energy, of molecules within matter. Nowt to do with energy flow.
Other than that, a most welcome reply. Again, thanks for educating me/us!
Out of interest, if we had 4 consecutive months of below average CET, would that make you question the trend?
-
Ah, hang on, we're confusing two things there. What the plots show is the monthly change, in each month: i.e how much does a September cool: this is much more a matter of energy flux with the apparent movement of the sun towards the horizon than climatic variability. There is no reason to suppose that with GW the rate of cooling would change in any particular month; it is just as likely that all that happens is that each month gets a degree or so warmer. For example, in stead of cooling from, say, 14 to 12C on average, we star to see 15 to 13C.
But does that not equate to my net-worth point? The starting point of September surely influences that finishing temperature, doesn't it? And doesn't that rely on the August temperature? Or are you saying that climate doesn't have memory?
...The 'industry standard' isn't in any way subjective, it's a statistical rule. What we choose to call an 'outlier' is up to us in a way, however, there is popular misconception that just because a data point appears to be a long way outside the norm, it is statistically significant (i.e. it isn't just a chance occurrence). That's why it's always best to look for patterns and trends, and hence why the debate about whether this summer marks the start of cooling is way too premature.
But if we continue to wait for a trend to form, the general opinion will be that the climate is, again, normal. Let's compare 1997-2007 with 1987-1997 and 1977-1987. I understand the role of a 10 year rolling average but it somehow seems inadequate in being diagnostic of current weather. A CET of -4 oC for October 2007 would not show up for several months, by which time cooling could be well underway. You use of rolling data seems too cautious. Perhaps I am too much of a knee-jerk reactionary!
Don't understand that: can you clarify? What 'pivotal page'? What 'recounting'?Your post said that using individual data was like trying to ascertain the plot of War and Peace from one individual page. I suggest that the correct page may elicit much of the plot to a reader. I do not know if such a page exists within the mighty book!
-
Thanks for the post SF. Again, you help me to put into context my simple point of view. From your graphs, I see that the 2005 cooling was outside 75% the years regarding closing-opening. As I quite shambolically put it, that is a lot of cooling! What I do not understand is this; If 2005 was within a normal range, and it is outside where about 75% of the data is, then all the last 30 years have been normal. So, by your reckoning, there has been no unexpected change for September in the last 30 years. Why doesn't GW affect September?
Making a single year-on-year comparison is statistically about as useful as reading one page of War and Peace and expecting to divine the whole plot.What if you read the pivotal page with all the re-counting of what happened? There is one!
I also feel that the industry standard point remains unanswered. Is it subjective?
-
SS, not quite sure what you're querying or saying there. I agree '05 cooled, though I'm not sure anyone has said otherwise: likewise, as per my original point, '06 was very steady. As to 'what's normal', it doesn't exist as a point, it's a range, and this year is well within that range; last year clearly was not. We're always going to have months and years above and below the running mean, that data on its own is meaningless.
Please can you clarify how the range is calculated (e.g. which years are used, etc)?
Is there an "industry standard" for such a range? Would I be able to talk about "the range" of CET to all learned people without further explaination?
As to whether your perception of my point being meaningless is valid I say this; Last year my net worth was less than this year. No amount of range comparison would dispute this point. It is, for me, better to look at year-on-year variances as this is able to give a real comparison with something concrete. As many people say; There are lies, damned lies and statistics. I prefer facts. Not that I am right or wrong. I am perhaps just less complex than others.
-
9.4 oC due to comparisons with 1993. (I averaged 1993 and 1994 Oct data!)
-
Well, given that last September was no.1 in the all time list we shouldn't be surprised that this month is cooler, and that much is very clear. I'd also agree that the cooling is more obvious: last September was remarkable, above almost anything else bar the temperature itself, for the consistency from start to finish.
Do you feel that Sep 06 was so remarkable? Look here for the Sep 06 and 05 chart. Now that cooling looks remarkable. Sep 05 was warmer by the mid-point than Sep 06.
However, I feel that I am prehaps concurring with your initial post i.e. We won't get the usual prolonged cooling in the latter parts of Sep 07. The only difference is the lower temperatures in the first half of the month.
The question is now: What is classed as normal for September? If we accept the rolling 10 year mean as normal then this month could be sub-normal.
-
Looking at Philip Eden's analysis of Sep 07 compared to Sep 06, would you agree that this month is both cooler and also cooling more than Sep 06?
-
This all appears to be going way off my original question which was:
If we assume that GW is happening, what will the likely outcome be? Will it be runaway GW or not?
You have nothing to lose by assuming, for the sake of this thread, that GW is happening.
It is a thought-experiment, if you like.
-
Without addressing specific posters on here, it appears that most think GW is not going to be the thing that "wipes us out." It is not perceived as the greatest threat to civilisation. It is happening but something is stopping many intelligent people from doing something about it.
Try this It will ease your conscience if nothing else!
If you don't you become a crash test dummy of earth.
Let's stop arguing about whether it is happening or not. Assume it is and do your bit to make the world a slightly better place.
-
I suspect we'll end up with a planet ~2-4C warmer and local weather varying around that new norm. But, doesn't the evidence suggest it will take a long time for C02 concs to fall and thus for a cooling event/the anthro effect to happen/wear off?
Shame that we can't make the CO2 precipate out of the atmosphere. Any ideas how? How about some endothermic reactions in the atmosphere to cool it down?
If less thermal and radiant energy is reflected back into space we have an energy imbalance to deal with as well.
Many people are starting to think "outside of the box" on this issue. Should we have human intervention with a human caused problem or do we sow as we reap?
-
Quite a different angle for you to view this from. Time for some inductive reasoning.
Assume that GW is happening. One of two things will happen as a result; Either we will have runaway GW or GW will cease at some point. So if we are to have runaway GW then, let us face it, we are done for.
However, if we do not have runaway GW then, at some stage, we will have a cooling event. What I wonder is why are we arguing about whether GW is happening when a more valuable argument would be: "Where will we end up?"
This would unify the 2 camps (not a bad thing) and then we can all deal with the future events. Humans do not deal too well with the future. We appear to be a little short sighted.
Personally, I assume this will be too difficult for some people to deal with.
-
This thread is akin to a car crash where 2 groups who disagree on which way to go and then cause a pile-up. I am now rubber-necking whilst learning nothing about the accident that is beneficial to me (save for the fact that 1 person went the wrong way, to the consternation of the other driver!)
The thread asks quite clearly "What should I be thinking about GW?" Well, I hope that you find that it is impossible. It divides the world into 2 camps. The most eloquent camp will probably convince most people!
-
Cheers for that SF..
The reason I asked the question was after a hobble down to the local Coop. The heat that the brickwork was radiating was very noticeable in the cool evening air, after that wall being exposed to the sun all afternoon on a 24oC day. I've always questioned the heat island effect but now I need to be arms length from a bit of support, it really made me think again. Add to that the "cloud" and you do start to realise the possibility that things could be warming.
I really do think that this global minima is the thing that needs to be looked at more.
SF - great set of data and notes. Hopefully I can come-back with some questions regarding them.
PP - Imagine a world of more precipitation. The heat stored in the brick, etc is quite easily liberated thus facilitating cooling. Not an open and shut case yet, in my opinion. If we have more rainfall, the night time minima may start to respond.
-
Funniest thing that I have read for a long time. Keep it up!
:unsure:
Where has the winter cold gone?
in Spring Weather Discussion
Posted
Perhaps a little naughty to include the 1963 episode; At 50 days, it seems a little bit of an outlier and skews the data. It suggests that the average number of sun zero winter days has gone from 18 to 14 yo 6.
However, a 5 or 10 year rolling mean plot demonstrates that we are in a period of rapidly decreasing days with a temp<0*C.
Does your sequence show the CET zone? Would we see the same with temperature records from, say, a more northerly area?