snowsure
-
Posts
223 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by snowsure
-
-
... Correlations test an independent variable and a dependent variable; what you've drawn is effectively a time series, where any year's value is dependent on that of the year before (since we know climate exists within fairly narrow bounds when we have had a big dip the likelihood is that we will then see an upswing, and v.v.)
Hi SF
As you know, I like learned responses on this forum even when I have difficulty understanding them! This is not a dig at you but an ackowledgement of my inability to understand to your depth of knowledge. I am but a simple bloke!
So, to come to your first point. If we have 12 months of decreasing temperatures and they were shown on the same time series could it be possible to use a large enough rolling average to "hide" the data? Say a 10 year rolling average over 50 years? What about the last 2 months CET? Does their lack of statistical significance make the likelihoods of a new trend invalid?
The acid test, in the series you've given, of whether or not there's warming or cooling is to sum the value of each point: what you will then have is the sum change in temperature across the entire series, and THAT (and that alone) will be the indicator of trend. For any data set starting at zero, where the sum of the point as you've derived them is positive, the overall trend in the data will always be of the same sign as the sum itself. The more interesting question, derived differently, is whether or not the relationship is significant, and, in any case, irrespective of any degree of correlation, whether or not there is genuine cause and effect at work.Is it a statistical suicide to look at the, say, 1900 to 1960 CET record and then try to predict the post 1960 results? A model that can accurately predict the previous 47 years will possibly be able to predict the next 5, 10 or 20 years. Has this been done?
Once again SF, thanks for your input. You do not go down in my estimation even though your CET punt for August was, shall we say, wildly wrong!
-
I did not say I was trying to manipulate anyone. I said, affiliating science to religion is manipulation when it is done to reassure the masses, cajole the populace. Look at history folks, plenty of examples there.
My religion? Born and brought up C 0f E, sunday school followed by church every Sunday, reading lessons etc. Now? Erm, everyday religion, ethos of life probably more akin to Pagan. Still go to church occasionally, open to the possibility of a God but wouldn't want to give him/her a name. How about you?
I am a practising Roman Catholic who teaches Physics at a Catholic secondary school. My degree is in AstroPhysics. I have never had a problem reconciling religion and science even though my faith has been tested on several occasions.
Are you more pantheistic than pagan?
-
This isn't about AGW/sceptic debate, this is manipulation, an altogether more dangerous, insidious thing.
I disagree. I do not think that you are trying to manipulate anyone with this thread.
You perhaps see religion as the antithesis of science. Is science your "religion"? Are your beliefs based on scientific discovery? If so you will see this document as a contradiction to your viewpoint.
In fact, I suggest that you view religion as evil (Definition - morally bad; wicked. Harmful or intending to harm. Oxford dictionary.)
This is perhaps an over-simplification of the situation but it is my interpretation of it.
-
Next we'll be throwing assertions at Rob McElwee because a drug dealer agrees with his weather forecast for next weekend ......
Good point Essan. Not sure if the great McElwee is religion or science in your interpretation though!
I always thought that Science makes discoveries but doesn't dictate how to live where-as Religion dictates how to live based on doctrines that are not prone to change.
They are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps Religion is the constraining influence on Scientific advancement. Without a moral code, we would eliminate ourselves (all that has been "created") very quickly.
-
Having read this report for the first time today I see no problem with any of the content.
In fact, I ask this: What part of this one page article can you disagree with?
It talks of a moral obligation to protect the earth. It talks of reckless human activity that has damaged the balance of resources on the earth.
Perhaps this is best summed up with the one sentence:
"We believe that the protection of life on Earth is a profound moral imperative."
Or is it that the belief in God scares you more than climate change?
-
I have enjoyed all 17 pages of this forum despite the occasional lack of maturity. However, the one thing about the exceptional winters (47, 63, et al) is that they were exceptional and not the norm. I was born in 1972, thus my formative memories about winter are of the snowy episodes that seemed to happen every 3 or 4 years from 1979 onwards.
To someone born in 1952, I assume that the weather patterns from 1959 to 1967 were formative for them. It was always thus. In the same way that you can age someone based on their favourite "Blue Peter" presenter, so can you age someone based on their idea of normal winter or summer weather. It will be interesting to see if my daughter (born 1996) has a different perception of winter weather to some older person who remembers the "real" winters of yester-year.
Same planet but different perceptions of the same year based on prior experience. As such, this winter could be a real winter for one group but nothing but a few flakes for another group! I do not think that it is proper for posters on here to challenge others idea of an excellent winter prospect.
-
The Migration charts seem to have dates for the likes of Swallows and Swifts very late on departure. Normally the Swifts have gone before the August bank Holidays. Swallows tend to head off late September. So I would say that the people that have sent in the reports to the BTO dont know the difference between these birds and have in fact reported House Martins. Any thoughts on this.
Always a possibility. However I assume that people accessing the BTO website do so as they have an acceptable level of ornithological knowledge, unlike the avergae man in the street who doesn't know the difference between a House sparrow and a Dunnock.
I must agree that the dates seem quite late in the year. I would like to see a year-on-year variation chart for the most common/easily recognisable species. Trends are always better than snap-shot pictures IMO.
-
Forgive me if i'm being a little thick, I'm not a statistician, but the graph doesn't really show anything other than that temperatures vary year after year in a non-linear manner.
I suggest that if you took any 30 year period from anywhere in the CET series and recorded the data in same way then the line would follow a similar track.
Again, sorry if I'm misinterpreting but that's all I get from it.
I am at the same place as you AM (i.e I am not a statistician.) Looking for a pattern is not meant to be difficult.
If the climate was getting warmer I would expect there to be a preponderance of temperature increases year on year. As such, I do not feel that warming is yet happening in this linear manner.
I am sure that I could select a 30 year period with either a +ve or a -ve correlation if I wanted to but that proves nothing (except that warming/cooling has occured in the past and will do so again.)
The aim of the graph was to show people that looking for a pattern without knowing what the data shows is outside most peoples comfort zone. For example, you said what you thought the data was, not what the likely trend was.
However, I am sure a statistician will damn me for employing such spoil tactics. This was the equivalent to blind-tasting a wine. I understand peoples reluctance to get involved.
-
Thanks for taking part in my little experiment. There are some obvious notable exceptions on this link; people who are not comfortable working with "unknown" data perhaps?
The source of the data is the CET (well done Candice!) from 1974 to 2006. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadle.../HadCET_act.txt
The graph depicts annual variances i.e. the first data point is the difference between 1975 and 1974. The next is the difference between 1976 and 1975, etc. This may not be the standard way of looking for a correlation. However if I want to know if I am going to run out of money I look at how much money I had this month, last month, etc and see where the trend is taking me.
Results are :
+ve 5 people
-ve 1 person
No correlation 3 people
Statistically insignificant as TWS says in my opinion.
Once again, thanks those of you brave enough to have a go.
SS
-
And so the debate rages on...to the point where I'm losing interest.
Who's to say that in ten years' time there'll not be a massive campaign afoot to use those 4x4's as much as possible,reopen the pits for the coal and generally produce as much CO2 as possible to try and fend off the coming ice age? Wouldn't surprise me in the least going on the track record of trends,predictions,bandwagons etc,etc. If AGW exists(which I seriously doubt)then all the activists had better pack their bags and go to China and India to preach. Turn the bath taps on full,then try to bale the water out with a thimble before it overflows. That's what any effort here would amount to compared to the input from developing far Eastern countries.
Ever get the feeling you're being taken for a mug? I'm afraid that the vast majority of people are so gullible that if some 'sciency' type came on television saying that we have to curtail sunbathing because it is depriving another part of the world from their share of sunlight,they would believe it! Whether they would act on it is another matter.
Good words on the whole laserguy!
Until such time as we are asked to use electricity to fend off a coming ice age, I am, from this point forward, not going to use the Internet on a Sunday. In fact, I am going to attempt to use as little electricity as possible every Sunday. I will attempt to not drive on a Sunday.
In fact, anyone who lived before the advent of 24 hour shopping will recognise my actions as those that were once the "norm." Keep Sunday Special could cause a potential 14% reduction in my CO2 omissions. This will perhaps have an impact on the economy as a whole but it will save me money, give me back some time with my family and reduce the impacts of GW.
-
Well, I don't think any good school should teach anything as fact, apart from that things that are actually fact. But for science, children are taught what is believed is true, not what is true. That's how I think it should be anyway. The theory of evolution is regarded by scientists as true, the theory of AGW is also believed by scientists in general to be true.
IMO I do not think that science is taught by giving a series of truths to pupils.
In fact, it is best to tell pupils that it is not true that water boils at 100 deg C, it is just that the best theory with evidence to support it suggests that water boils at 100 deg C. This will continue to be believed until another scientist disproves it and then has his theory adopted by the scientific fraternity.
The scientific method is far, far more than truth. If you want truth, look at Philosophy.
-
I think you're a trickster and it is a 'sunshine plot' for Formby last wednesday........
You scallywag, you.
The timescale is appropriate for the discussion of climate change (IMO) and the region covered as well as the source of the data will stand be classed, by most, as acceptable.
Does Formby have such a "wild" variation of sunshine over a day/week/month/season/year/decade/century...
-
swifts have all but gone, they go early.
I have kept a note of the arrival/departure dates of the swifts, swallows and house martins in my part of Doncaster since 1994.
Swifts not seen in Doncaster for 3 days now so I assume that they left on 17 August. Swallows and HM still here.
2006, the swifts were still here on 24 August
2005, no swifts from 21 August
2004, no swifts from 18 August
2003, no swifts from 30 August
2002, no swifts from 18 August
2001, no swifts from 31 August
I remember asking Tony Soper, in 2004, what the earlier departure of the swifts meant. "It means that they will arrive in Africa earlier!" was his answer.
Earlier records are in another location at the moment.
-
Most people would admit under oath that they probably look at the preferred outcome of a data set before drawing their conclusions. So, thought I, why not ask people's opinion of trends in a graph without declaring what the data set is drawn from?
I will declare that it looks at changes in temperature (degree Celsius) from one data entry to the next. I will not declare at this stage what the time interval is between data entries.
This may be uncomfortable for some of you as it could, perhaps, expose you as a sympathiser for "the other side."
I will post, on Thursday 23rd, the source of the data.
Please tell me if you think that the megatrend is positive, negative or if there is no obvious trend.
-
And are the Economic models as comparatively "simple" as the Climate models?
I would never make that supposition, but models of different things (like the difference between Economic models and Climate models) will not have the same correlation between simplification and precision.
Can I recommend a book called "Critical Mass" by Phillip Ball? (http://www.philipball.com/ ) He noticed many similarities between economic and scientific models.
Hard work to read so it must be a good book in my opinion!
-
... but I am firmly of the opinion that any sentence which contains the words 'government','scientist',and 'climate change' (formerly known as 'global warming') isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Governments and scientists DO have a vested interest. Governments because of the looming energy crisis over fossil fuel depletion,(and the convenience of having a new tax revenue source) and scientists (how many tens of thousands of them does it take to keep coming to the same conclusion) because they've got a nice secure job on the back of all this.
Our government decided to react over the threat from terrorism by deploying troops (and loadsaresources) to foreign lands as well as funding anti-terrorism resources in this country.
If our government really (and I mean really )believed that climate change is a threat to us, I would expect them to deploy our money to effect a solution. For example I would expect them to make the new generation of small co2 emission cars available to all people in this country at an affordable price via some type of government subsidy. Instead we have to make the choices. I am not able to afford a new low emission £15k+ car so I act where I can to have less ecological impact whilst driving my 2003 Saab estate. I will also have to pay the new green taxes (whatever they are!) so it looks as though someone is profiting from the hysteria regarding the impending doom.
I assume that capitalism is not a good vehicle for dealing with a society wide problem!
-
I think the term 'global warming' has acquired a lot of negative baggage because of the associations with human activity. In fact, I see nothing wrong at all with the use of the phrase, as it accurately describes current climate change (i.e. the globe, as a whole, is getting warmer). That's probably why many members refer to "AGW" rather than just "GW".
Hi TWS
Certainly global warming as an identification tag has negative associations but it is also, for some pedants, misleading. I feel that whilst the GMST is increasing, not all areas of the globe are warming. This is the fuel for the denialists in my opinion. "Climate change" is a more easy-to-embrace tag that is more able to withstand rebuttal.
-
If you're going to apply that argument then it becomes like an argument about who owns the Falklands. It rather depends on what scale you choose to look and how far you choose to go back. Yes, climate always changes; what the "natural" change loby might explain is why the sudden acceleration in the warming if this is just a normal reflex?
I reckon that when we find the first signs of extra terrestrial life we will quickly find other signs. Likewise with GW; we are looking more for these changes thus the forcing is perhaps one of extra vigilance rather than solely anthropogenic emissions.
However I still believe in climate change rather than Global Warming.
-
Well I don't make forecasts but I warned during May, that the charts had a "June 1958" tinge to them, which meant trouble. I said on The WeatherOutlook forum that if they become entrenched then expect a wet period.
You have my greatest respect, Mr Data! Did May have a May 1958 tinge? I know this is too simplistic as the chaotic nature of nature (sic) does not give to prediction. What does this hold for July?
Rather than looking at current synoptics, is it feasible to consider previous weather patterns to steer our predictions toward a different type of forecasting? Does climate have memory?
-
found this
nigel
Due to my limited knowledge of meteorology I do not know what the picture shows (except of course it was a synoptic view of the weather on 2 June 1975 wrt 850 hPa temp.) Did they predict this weather back in 1975?
-
But according to Philip Eden it isn't unusual so the assumption may be wrong http://www.weatheronline.co.uk/feature/2007/06/06_pe.htm
Having said that, it does seem to me that on rainfall we're starting to get to a quite unusual position (actually all the more so given the warmth of the month).
This reminds me synoptically of June 1988 - almost a mirror image. I remember an incredible day near where OON lives with driving rain and a howling gale near the end of the month I think.
Good reference to the "flaming June" article but my assumptions are based on local (i.e across Yorkshire) conditions and do not consider Philip's excellent work on CET or his above mentioned article.
Either way, anyone know of any forecasters that spotted, in advance, the heavy rain and subsequent cooling Northerlies?
-
Assuming that the weather is classed as "unusual" at the moment in the UK, is anyone aware of a forecaster who predicted this unusual weather in, say, May 2007?
I say "assuming...unusual" as I do not wish to enter a semantic discussion regarding whether the current weather is unusual or not. I have seen on the bonhomie back-slapping forums elsewhere on the internet that a CET of about 15 oC is expected even though here, in South Yorkshire, we have been upgraded to water-bed owners without any additional outlay!
Whichever forecaster spotted a cold run of Northerlies at the end of a torrential 96 hours of rain is surely worth his/her salt.
Certainly feels more like April than June. Is it April 2008 early or April 2007 late?
-
I don't think it really matters Mondy, but I am sure alot of people here have the appropriate letters after there name.
Me I am BSc Environmental Science with a Thesis in combatting AGW 10 years ago.
Bsc in Astrophysics. However, I can differentiate between there and their!
-
... but it would be good to gauge where the rest of the sceptics are: at what point in terms of accrued data / evidence would you accept the thesis of GW / AGW. At least then we know whether your scepticism is founded on a rigorous statistical position, or simply an absoute refusal ever to accept AGW.
If I think of how weather patterns have changed for me (35 years living in the same locality) I would have to accept that climate change is real and starting to have a major impact on some of the seasons. The climate shift is however still subtle. If I compare this Jan/Feb to Jan/Feb 1998 (this first year of data recording for me) I see no major change. The crocuses were 6cm high on 9th Jan 1998. On Jan 20th this year they were 6cm high.
Feb 8th 1999 was cold with snow flurries.
Feb 2000, dry and mild
Feb 2001, cold and sleety
Feb 2002, cold
Feb 2003, Frosty
Feb 2004, mild
Feb 2005, snowy
Feb 2006, mild
Feb 2007, snow
However, and this is the crux of the matter, we are not limited to local conditions anymore. I see in Kittila that the temp is -20oC just as it has been for the last few weeks. We hear of more odd weather events now. We are starting to think that what is happening to others is also happening to us.
It is surely important to seperate the pre and post internet ages as their influence on our perceptions are very different. I would suggest that people who live in ignorance of other events around the world would have a different take on AGW than some of the anoraks (me included!) on this site who are actively searching for evidence to back-up or help forge their position.
As a one time believer in the climate flip-flop scenario (William H Calvin) I now think that the climate is not on the verge of a massive overnight climate shift. However I reckon that what happens last year will probably happen next year, but to a more or less degree! Subtlety reigns supreme 99% of the time with the earth. We experience chaotic random events on an earth-wide scale very, very rarely.
Can you spot the trend in this data?
in Space, Science & nature
Posted
Thanks for imparting your knowledge there SF. I am certain that I am not the only one who will benefit from it. I must admit that I take an all too simplistic view on climate. This web site certainly helps folk like me to learn more.
I look forward to your examples whenever they become forthcoming.