VillagePlank

The running mean difference is tending towards zero in the last few years, and this supports your case of a warmer climate, not a cooler one. It tells us exactly what it says on the tin, doesn't it? I suggest you take that up with all of the major climate centres who regularly represent their data as differences against all sorts of averages. The hockey stick graph, whether you accept its findings or otherwise, is one such graph. :o

Yes, GW, I agree. It is the rate of change rather than the magnitude of change that looks alarming, here. I'll have to do the whole series I have from c1700 to see if there has been any other period with the same rate of change. There is a peculiar cooling period between 1960 and 1990, though (cool years against their 30 year mean, that is) which hints that 1930-1960 was a period of climatic cooling, not warming. Has anyone got any ideas for a rolling CET mean. I chose 30 years because that's what everyone else seems to agree is a reasonable measure of climate; should we be looking at smaller cycles, or larger ones, for instance?

The presumption of incessant warming, of course. Read your parenthesised comments. You might indeed be correct, but as we're trying to start from first principles here (as much as we can - I can't get hold of weather station data without paying) so any presumption of warmth is summarily excluded :o

Two more graphs for you guys to muse over.

No problems. This graph, as I've said before, is simply a cursory analysis. There are mistakes in the graph (mathematical ones) which I will correct fairly shortly.You are incorrect in your analysis, though, mainly because you arrive at the table with a presumption. I can forgive that: but just this once . . . :lol:

Yes it is :lol: This was a cursory analysis; I am well aware of the pitfalls of using graphs - see my posts elsewhere :lol: I intend to I'm working on it, I'm working on it.Mods; perhaps a new thread for CET graphs?

Each bar represents the percentage difference of that years average temperature when compared to the average of that year's previous 30 years. The recinding of magnitude of the cluster to the right 'should' mean that the climatic variation of the thirty years before it is now becoming the 30 year mean. Hence, the difference from the last 30 year climatic norm to tend towards zero (which it is, apparently, doing) The most interesting thing, in my opinion, is the frequency of anomlies that appear in three year clusters. Does anyone have any ideas why this might be the case?

I edited and added that point, I think, while you were writing this post

Sorry for swaying the topic, but here's my (very) cursory analysis of the last 100 years from the Hadley CET series: I've left it unannotated, as it requires some explanation, so here were my methods: (i) Average CET for each year (ii) SMA (Simple moving average (mag 30) on data from (i) (iii) % difference of (i) and (ii) (iv) trendline is a further 30 year SMA of the % difference. Therefore the vertical axis is the % deviation from the 30 year mean, the y axis is time ascending. Effectively, the zero base line represents the 30 year average up to (but not including) that year. The bars up and down represent each year's percentage deviation from the 30 year mean. The black line is the 30 year moving average of that difference. The reason for this method was not to measure magnitude of change, but rather to visualise clusters of cold, and warm periods. It is a 'coincidence' that the black trend line apparently demonstrates global warming. What I find interesting is the cluster to the right which shows a sudden onset of large positive anomalies from the mean, gradually recinding. You should be aware that as the atmopshere warms you would expect the % deviation to rescind on the basis that a warmer atmosphere becomes the 30 year 'norm' Interesting observation is that there are a high frequency of either positive or negative groups that come in threes; does anyone know of any reasoning that might explain triplet years (or thereabouts) of cold or warm years? This graph forms no explanation, nor prediction of future events. The data is available from the MetO website, and my methods are simple, and clear, and the graph is repeatable. What d'you guys think?

I saw the program on contrails, and although the evidence presented was convincing, it was also mostly cirumstancial, and didn't seem to be subject to vagueries of rigour normally associated with the scientific evidence - it was, I thought, at the stage where a phenomenon measured was worth investigating further.

Entirely unfair comparison.All charts that visibly show global warming, show it as a deviation from the mean, and not as absolute values. This chart show's solar activity as absolute values. Perhaps you'd like to re-express that data so it is in the same semantic format? (What would you say if the difference from the solar mean is the same order of magnitude as the difference of Earth surface temperature from the mean? Would you therefore be forced to conclude there is a correlation? - Just for fun . . . . ) Cheers.

Indeed; that is the crux of the matter

The source marked on the graph reads 'SOURCE S.Baliunas and W.Soon/Astrophysical Journal' It's referenced here but I can't find the exact article. A quick Google on the author's shows at least Balinus to be somewhat sceptical of AGW here Here is one for the sceptics. This is fun. Pick a point of view and you can get any info you need to support it

It's a graph; you'll know I don't trust them by now, but here's a proposition, with the source. I've no idea on the reliability of source, either, or whether the astrophsyics journal is well respected, or not. This seems like a very well written piece with each 'fact' cross referenced with it's source.

No! The odds on winning the lottery are 13.9m:1; does a winner exercise each combination to win the lottery? Of course not. Try an experiment; get a coin and flip it 20 times - do you believe the distribution of heads/tails will be equal? Try it 100 times, 1000 times, 10,000 times; the more you approach the limit (tending towards infinity) the closer to the expected distribution you will get. Probability is concerned with an infinite, not restricted, series.Roll a die. You get a 1. What is the probability of getting a 1 next time? 1/6, not the common misconception that by rolling the 1 you reduce your chances of getting a 1 next time. Each time you roll the die you have a 1/6 chance of getting any of the six numbers. This is the case if you have a 20,000 die: Each number has a 1/20,000 chance of occuring. On that basis clusters are expected. Take, for example, my coin flip experiment: THHTHHTTTTTTTHTHTTHH. 12 T, 8 H. I'm afraid you'll have to take my word for the accuracy of the reported results (they are, actually, what happened) What can we say. We can say that there is, if taken in isolation, a statistically significant cluster of T's to the left of the middle. We can say, that there is a (very) slight bias to T given the usage of a 5p (2000 issue) coin. But we can also say that the frequency of H increase as we head towards the last one. Is this meaningful? In this simple experiment - of course not! What's amusing is the human beings ability to match patterns. My simple series can be extrapolated onto the paleo-record (at many scales) The cluster of T's of course is the Maunder minimum, the greater frequency of H's is AGW, and on we go. Can we derive any meaningful content from this. No! It's just fun with probabilities; but you can see how, if you do not understand what it means - ie it's semantics - then you can extrapolate, and worse, provide reasoning and logic that supports your claim. No parmenides, you are right. The possibility of a cluster occuring anywhere in the sequence is equiprobable.

Format's not a problem, I am a programmer by day. almost as bad as being an accountant . . .I've avoided the Met CET series as they've already been processed, and are already a mean which, I think, introduces some flattening of bumps and humps. I've asked them for the data for one station but they claimed that I wanted it for commerical purposes (not true) and wanted to give me a formal business quote. Charming. The gist of my approach was to strip back to first principles, much in the vein of what you are saying, and actually have a look at what the data, rather than some media outlet, says it means. Make me own mind up, if you will. I was keeping magnetism in my back pocket for a rainy day I'll check out the data soon, and report back!! Many thanks, btw. Cheers

I agree. Yes, you're being cheeky He was the first person ever to explain, in writing, about the scientific method. Most people attribute such a thing to Galileo; but they're wrong. Galileo did, of course, use Gilbert's method. But the predictions made in the past to not concur with observations made today. On that basis it might be considered reasonable to assume that climatology is incapable of producing, implementing, and testing a working hypothesis. I do not, actually, think that this is true, because there is the clear argument that climatology has moved on a long way in the last 30 years. There are, I'm sure, countless examples where the 'weight of scientific evidence' especially when evidence is produced under the guise of consensus, has been proven to be invalid. I'll have a look around, and I'm sure I'll find some. The first example is the American dreamt theory of eugenics . . . scientifically valid under the weight of what we knew at the time, but, I hope, everyone will agree, a complete and utter waste of time. I'll dig out the details. oooh yes, please

Karl Popper also wrote Common sense inclines, on the one hand, to assert that every event is caused by some preceding events, so that every event can be explained or predicted. Do you believe this to be the case regarding the weather on a particular day, 6 months from now, at noon? I'd like to see you try William Gilbert of Colchester, whom, I believe, deserves pride of place in any account of the scientific method, was the first person to clearly set out in print the essence of the scientific method: In the discovery of hidden causes, stronger reasons are obtained from sure experiments and demonstrated arguments than from probable conjectures and the opinions of philosophical speculators of the common sort . . .De Magnete,1600 Gilbert believed, as the majority of scientists believe today, that good science requires a hypothesis that makes a prediction; the prediction occurs, the science is validated, and then the method is verified (blindly) by peers. The key, of course, is demonstrated arguments of which, with global warming, there are none. We cannot predict the Co2 output of the human race, because we cannot predict what size the population will be; even the IPCC reports accept this: this is, of course, only relevant if you believe that Co2 is the prime forcing mechanism of recent warming. Can you name one climatological prediction that has ever actually occured that, statistically, justifies the proposition? I can think of many, but none have come true. I will investigate further the notion that we can measure the earth's temperature, so, as of yet, I cannot comment upon it. Certainly not! We do not even know whether the human population will love the warmer climate if it occurs at all

This is what I find, generally, objectional.Science is about finding the truth; if you have the truth, and you can prove that you have the truth, then that is enough. Instead we get words such as 'agreement,' 'consensus' and the such like. If there's absolute proof, then let's have it out in the open. If there isn't, then admit there isn't. I often read statements that 'the world is warming - this is a fact' This may, or may not, be true; this may or may not be an established scientific fact. I cannot find any corroberating source data that confirms this, nor will the agencies who, I'm sure, have the data, release it to me for my own personal analysis. Graphs, as I've said (and hopefully justified) elsewhere on this forum, are not a reliable source of data. They can, and often are, skewed beyond all pale to represent a view that cannot be justified, verified, or validated. Thus, I am forced to conclude, that the majority of debate is based on 'second-hand' opinion; apart from the obvious symbiotic osmosis to current scientific opinion, I can see no way that someone (such as myself) can independently verify any claims that are being made. This is a (very) unfortunate observation which leads to conclusions that are, at the very very least, unpalatable and disarming, and one is left to muse on what, rather than an apolitical search for truth, stinks of politics, money, and worst of all corruption of the very principles that ensure scientists maintain the search for truth: this is an endeavour that has, by historical induction, proved itself many times over to ensure not only the survival of the species, and the extension of our lifetimes, but increased the possibility of providing a standard of living that one can only dream of. The mode of inquiry for the justification of either the world is warming, the world is not warming, or the world is cooling, do not, to me, appear to follow any of the sound scientific principles first used in De Magnete and, of course, which have been used consistently well for centuries, regardless of technological aptitude, or aspect.

I have no access to the source data or techniques and, like you, are regurgitating points of view derived from those of others. In my opinion, the jury is still out. If the climatology community cannot agree on what is and what isn't good science then I think I have every right to suspect guises of political, or fiscal gain; which not only does not make for good science, it is, I think, appalling science. A quick google finds about as many articles for the graph as against it. The most recent official speech (11th July 2006) from Edward Wegman, chair of the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics says: It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility. Overall, our committee believes that Dr. Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis Furthermore he contends that: Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported by the MBH98/99 analysis. As mentioned earlier in our background section, tree ring proxies are typically calibrated to remove low frequency variations. The cycle of Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age that was widely recognized in 1990 has disappeared from the MBH98/99 analyses, thus making possible the hottest decade/hottest year claim. However, the methodology of MBH98/99 suppresses this low frequency information. The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable. I have no idea how reliable the committee, nor it's constituents or governing body are. For all I know they are funded by Esso, BP, or worse Exxon * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * If you want (or need) a line of defence then the most logical form is to dismiss the importance of the graph corrected, or otherwise (so, by implication, whether or not Mann's work is good or bad, it will always stand as irrelevant) The original graph purports to show that the most recent years have a significantly unmatched (in the last millienium) rise in temperature anomaly against the mean. The corrected version shows that it's happened before. If you consider that this is not a claim that either supports nor disproves GW then you are well on your way. GW claims that the atmosphere is warming regardless of what it has done in the past. The Earth was certainly immensely warm when the Earth was first coagulating, but, I presume you agree, that is entirely, and justifiably irrelevant. What I think is relevant is the question: is mankinds impact on our biosphere the primary driver for the current warming trend? Effectively, I would argue, that the questions being asked are the wrong ones; or at least a question where the answer you will receive will have no bearing on the outcome you are trying to predict. I am still stuck on finding verifiable data that shows a global warming trend, so all this hockey-stick talk leaves me way out on a limb. I should learn to keep my mouth shut! (That, unfortunately, is the best line of defence I could dream up as a retort after a few pints of Guinness, sorry , there are holes in it - I'll leave it to the reader to have fun with it )

"Last year Mann and some colleagues set up a Web site, www.RealClimate.org . . ." from here about half-way down.

It is therefore unfortunate that the 'hockey stick' graph has been shown to be the result of bad handling of data by Mann. The 'corrected' version still contains the apparent warming period late last century but shows it to be neither here nor there when compared to recent geological history. Even worse Mann and his associates used a rather odd alogorithm to analyse his data, and this algorithm will turn anything into a hockey stick; including, apparently, trendless data generated by a computer. This is no attempt to discredit work done by scientists in the quest for truth; even strong advocates of global warming remain shocked and dismayed at such abuse of scientific principles. Now where's that IPCC report . . .

As I am sure you are aware 98/100 is just as probable as 1/100. A random series always contains 'clusters' that do not describe an infinite series.[edit]OK, I'm being a touch pedantic[/edit]

Although I am no expert in the history of British climate, are we trying to claim that a drought this 'severe' has never occured before? Does the reasoning therefore follow that this is a justification for global warming? My (very) cursory understanding of these things leads me to believe that we should be looking at frequency of occurence, and not existence of occurence. If I'm right, and I could wholly be wrong, then when was the last time we suffered such a drought? I, of course, define drought as a period with low rain. What low is? I have no idea. I am uncomfortable with current meteorological trends towards arbitrary mean averages that appear to suit other purposes. Absolute values, I think, will suffice?

I'll argue with you if you want to