The ' I NEED TO SCREAM' thread.

[Bobby]

Sorry didnt make myself clear, excuse me for that. I am not saying they are making anything up, I am simply stating a fact that a lot are forced into this area when they dont really have the heart for it - no motivation breeds sloppy science

Well, that's not much of an arugment against global warming is it though? Again, you are not really concentrating on the science. Even if they aren't motivated, and they're only doing it for grants, and the science is "sloppy", is it wrong? Can you disprove the science? Also, it's not just a few scientists, it's thousands and thousands all over the world, including major scientific organisations such as NOAA, NASA, the Royal Society, USGS and so on.

Ah, but there's a conspiracy going on?

No?

Edited September 13, 2007 by Magpie

[Slinky]

Ah, but there's a conspiracy going on?

I doubt anyone is suggesting this Devonian? It is a fact that you have a better chance of getting funding because its the 'fad' at the moment.

Well, that's not much of an arugment against global warming is it though? Again, you are not really concentrating on the science. Even if they aren't motivated, and they're only doing it for grants, and the science is "sloppy", is it wrong? Can you disprove the science? Also, it's not just a few scientists, it's thousands and thousands all over the world, including major scientific organisations such as NOAA, NASA, the Royal Society, USGS and so on.

No?

Sorry again :lol: you seem to be under the impression I am against GW?? I am on the fence on that Magpie, as both sides of the argument and the science behind both sides is compelling so being totally honest, not a clue have I!

What I am against is the media band wagon........

[Devonian]

I doubt anyone is suggesting this Devonian? It is a fact that you have a better chance of getting funding because its the 'fad' at the moment.

Hey, I make a allegation without evidence, just like you do

Seriously, I don't think there is a conspiracy or that there is significant poor science.

I know of a first class graduate going to do research on his topic (climate related) at the place where you would expect the best to go.

[Nick F]

What I am against is the media band wagon........

Hopefully not many who come on here follow the media bandwagon, but rather ascertain and talk about the scientific facts. There's too many mis-informed stories floating around in the media to give them any credibility.

[biffvernon]

Oh and if anyone has been foolish enought to waste their time actually reading the Daily Mail article, you'd better read this piece by Fergus Brown as well http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/09/13/uns...t-air/#more-369

Edited September 13, 2007 by biffvernon

[Bobby]

Sorry again you seem to be under the impression I am against GW?? I am on the fence on that Magpie, as both sides of the argument and the science behind both sides is compelling so being totally honest, not a clue have I!

What I am against is the media band wagon........

Ok, just as long as we concentrate on the science, because that's what really matters. Look at that and then make your mind up me thinks, the media and government are just a load of creeps who like hyping up things for whatever reason. I'm no expert in this field, far from it, and you certainly can't rely on the media or anybody else. Hell, don't even listen to the scientists, just the science. I think it's fair to say there is far more published sceintific evidence for global warming than against it.

[Slinky]

Hey, I make a allegation without evidence, just like you do :lol:

Seriously, I don't think there is a conspiracy or that there is significant poor science.

I know of a first class graduate going to do research on his topic (climate related) at the place where you would expect the best to go.

Where have I made an allegation without evidence? I have seen many examples of poor science on GW, when pushed as to why often the reason is they felt pressured into it. Maybe I should not take them at their word? But then where do you stop...

I know countless others doing research on GW and shoddy research at that!

We could be here all night but alas I have Papers to read yet. I will say if there is a conspiracy they are bloody good as it would be an amazing feat!

Again GW I do not know, What i am against is the needless hype

[noggin]

Oh and if anyone has been foolish enought to waste their time actually reading the Daily Mail article, you'd better read this piece by Fergus Brown as well http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/09/13/uns...t-air/#more-369

Genuine question, biffvernon......why are you so dismissive of the article?

[Slinky]

Ok, just as long as we concentrate on the science, because that's what really matters. Look at that and then make your mind up me thinks, the media and government are just a load of creeps who like hyping up things for whatever reason. I'm no expert in this field, far from it, and you certainly can't rely on the media or anybody else. Hell, don't even listen to the scientists, just the science. I think it's fair to say there is far more published sceintific evidence for global warming than against it.

Thanks I should of stated my 'grump' more clearly

[Devonian]

Where have I made an allegation without evidence? I have seen many examples of poor science on GW, when pushed as to why often the reason is they felt pressured into it. Maybe I should not take them at their word? But then where do you stop...

I know countless others doing research on GW and shoddy research at that!

As evidence name one such paper please.

[biffvernon]

Genuine question, biffvernon......why are you so dismissive of the article?

Just read the Open Mind blog at http://tamino.wordpress.com/. He puts it all quite neatly.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I did not create this thread as a joke, mearly to prove to everyone how much a subject like AGW can be grabbed by popular culture and blown into an uncontrollable monster, hence the title "THE I NEED TO SCREAM THREAD".

Sorry - my clumsy use of language I think. I meant the thread had turned into a joke, not that the original concept was.

Sweet baby Jesus, I argree with OON.

We're best friends now!

[West is Best]

Sorry folks - been with Little WIB this evening so haven't finished the data analysis I started looking at earlier, but it is very interesting.

In addition to the facts I posted about the last 2 years against the 1971-2000 average I've been looking at cool months and cool seasons against the last 10 years. The argument put by Stratos Ferric, no less, is that we should look at the most recent rolling 10 year mean because this is the best indicator if any climate change trends are discernible against the general upward movement e.g. an acceleration or a slowdown.

I am not suggesting (yet) from my analysis that there are signs of a cooldown, but I am suggesting this is data and these are facts that require examining.

I have examined the past 10 years of rolling means (September 1997 to August 2007) on the Hadley CET - which it's worth remembering is the longest running temperature series in the world and, I would argue, therefore a reasonable micro-measurement of the macro changes in the world's climate; assuming that there is any correlation between global climatic variation and central English temperatures. I think I should add to that my disquiet about some methods of measuring temperatures elsewhere in the world e.g. from satellites, and I am not convinced by the soundness of all the data being pumped out ... but that's a different point for now.

What do we see by looking at cold spells during the last ten years?

1. Only one month in ten years has matched or exceeded 2.0C below the average: March 2006. It is as much of a cold outlier as September 2006 was a warm one (2.0C above the average).

2. Several whole seasons have been below the 10 year mean, as one would expect. The standout season is winter 2005/6 which was 1.1C below the average. Remember that doesn't even include that March 2006 figure.

3. The run of months from November 2005 to April 2006 is by far the coldest spell of weather in the past 10 years: by an enormous margin. When we bear in mind the warm spell of summer 2006 we should bear this in mind. There were 5 consecutive below average months.

4. Summer 2007 was nearly 0.9C below the 10 year average, only matched by 1998/9 as the equal coldest summer of the past 10 years. So for all the warm talk we've actually now had two long and substantial cold spells in the past 18 months.

5. 17 months matched or exceeded 1.0C below average (the official designation by the Met Office of 'well below' average). They are spread fairly evenly through the 10 years, with a noticeable gap between October 2003 and November 2005. There have been 2 of these months already this year: already matching 2006. The figures for these well below average months are:

1998 3

1999 1

2000 2

2001 5

2002 0

2003 2

2004 0

2005 1

2006 2

2007 2 * with 4 months still to go.

I'd like to add more but am in bed so ... did the rise in temps actually peak between 2002 and 2005? Notwithstanding summer 2006 there is a case to be made. More tomorrow!

[cyclonic happiness]

Sorry - my clumsy use of language I think. I meant the thread had turned into a joke, not that the original concept was.

We're best friends now!

No offence taken

[parmenides3]

A day away doing other things and all this! I've missed all the fun. CH, I am going to cut to the chase this time.

Doubt the media; whether it's the Daily Mail or the Independent, approach with caution.

Doubt the politicians; though all of the politicians I have met are incredibly hard working people who are trying to do a difficult job as well as they can, a part of their job is to push their party's policy, challenge their opponents and avoid saying anything which could be twisted by others - which often makes it hard to say anything at all.

Doubt anyone who makes any of the following claims: 'It's a conspiracy', 'there is no scientific consensus', 'It can be proven that it is all natural'.

Hard though I find it to say this, if you really feel strongly enough, doubt the science, but if you do, understand what the limits of your understanding of it is, and that in a bet on who is more likely to be wrong between a member of the general public and a scientist on a matter of science, youll win more if you always bet on the scientist.

Some things, though, really should be beyond rational doubt by now (which doesn't mean people can't have their own doubts based on their feelings and intuitions).

There is no doubt that Global warming is a real and observed phenomenon.

There is no doubt that Carbon Dioxide plays a significant role in contributing to Global warming.

There is no doubt that many other phenomena also contribute to Global warming, to a lesser degree, or with less permanence than Carbon Dioxide.

There is no doubt that climate models are imperfect ways of making projections or predictions about the future, but also there is very little doubt that the Global temperature will continue to rise for a long time yet.

There is no doubt that changes in the Global climate will be complex and difficult to predict, but the chances of them being beneficial to us or to nature are very low, and get lower as the temperature increases.

There are many issues relating to climate change, and many uncertainties and many things with high probabilities, but nothing I have studied in the past year or more has led me to believe that any of these things are worth doubting, whilst at the same time, much of what I have read had led me to believe that sitting on the fence about climate change is no longer a viable option.

Hopefully, this will help you in your search to find out what you believe yourself.

Regards to all,

:)P

PS: yes, biff, that was me who said that on 'open mind'. :)P

[Stratos Ferric]

...whilst at the same time, much of what I have read had led me to believe that sitting on the fence about climate change is no longer a viable option.

...

Good post, the only part of which I disagree with is the above. It is still viable; so is walking across a motorway. I'd substitute for 'viable' the phrase 'informed'.

...In addition to the facts I posted about the last 2 years against the 1971-2000 average I've been looking at cool months and cool seasons against the last 10 years. The argument put by Stratos Ferric, no less, is that we should look at the most recent rolling 10 year mean because this is the best indicator if any climate change trends are discernible against the general upward movement e.g. an acceleration or a slowdown.

I am not suggesting (yet) from my analysis that there are signs of a cooldown, but I am suggesting this is data and these are facts that require examining.

... More tomorrow!

WiB, for pity's sake: I have never said 'look at the ten year average'. I have said, for the umpteenth time, that in a changing climate the ten year rolling average, when comapred to the thirty year mean, is the better indicator of sort term change. The maths of this is simple but rather than attempt to put it into words anyone pondering on it should look at the graph I posted on this thread last night. And when I say 'look at the rolling mean' what I intend is 'look at the trend line'.

I agree, it is data, but as presented it is proving nothing.

Except that chart stops at 2004. ...

No it doesn't.

The last gridline might be 2004, but if you look at the plot there are data points to the right: two of them. I'll leave you to do the maths on that.

Stratos's data only goes up to 2004, so the CET for 2005: 10.5, CET for 2006: 10.8, warmest on record.

If you added the most recent data it would merely underline the trend.

TWS, I expect far better of you! Do they no longer teach students to read graphs and interpolate between available grid lines.

Edited September 14, 2007 by Stratos Ferric

[Stratos Ferric]

Seeing as this is a very "current" thread, I thought I'd chuck these 500 scientists in....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1811

It's natural cycles, y'know.

Not that the authors have any vested interest of course. I am also amused by the inference that because the last warming period could not possibly have been anthropogenic, neither can this one. And though they claim to have debunked 500 reports (we only have their word for the robustness of their analysis), are we to suppose that there are not far more pieces of analysis produced over the past 5-10 years that are compelling?

Noggin, when you read these articles does your brain only 'see' the bits you want to believe? Are you incapale of reading any article with a sceptical or critical mind (i.e. looking for the reasons why it might be wrong or assessing the balance of the approach taken).

What I love most of all is the weay that the responses to these things, where they support the sceptical view, are more often than not written by people blathering on about how much all this is going to cost them. I.e. I am not going to support anything, no matter how well researched it might be, that is going to take pounds out of my pocket.

Yes but the baseline is far too long SF, at least to show meaningfully if there has been any correction. I think what we need is a 10 year baseline with all the months plotted against the mean for 1996-2005. It would just be interesting to see if there are any signs that all is not (quite) going according to the warm up script, that's all. I'm due a lesson in Excel so if I get time I'll see if I can whip one up later.

However, I'd also like just to point out for the record that the title of the thread was about the need to scream and, for myself, I just wished to register my disquiet at a lot of the nonsense that has been appearing in the media, and the barefaced insouciance of some in the scientific community for blaming both hot dry summers and soaking deluge ones on the same cause. Disingenuity doesn't even come close to describing some of the posturing on this. Ulitmately it brings the science of GW into massive disrepute, and that should be of real concern.

OON - if you don't like it you don't have to join it. No-one is forcing you to enter the debate. It's a free forum, afterall, so you can dip in and dip out of threads and stay away from others.

WiB, the baseline was chosen because Noggin suggested that there had been equally warm periods before. Had I cut the data at 1940 then you can bet that Noggin's selective capacity for critical thinking would havebeen back accusing me of masking some data.

I will provide, at some point in the next 3-4 days, a thorough analysis, but however you carve up the monthly extremes, you cannot change the red line on the graph from last night. It's like hoping that a replay of a goal scored against your football team, when viewed from a different camera angle, will somehow conspire to keep the ball out of the net after all.

As I said in my long post last evening, I do agree that the media's tendency to blame every weather event on GW is misguided and incorrect.

[Stratos Ferric]

Terrific post Devonian.

Fantastic post Os. What rhetoric.

[West is Best]

I will provide, at some point in the next 3-4 days, a thorough analysis, but however you carve up the monthly extremes, you cannot change the red line on the graph from last night. As I said in my long post last evening, I do agree that the media's tendency to blame every weather event on GW is misguided and incorrect.

SF - what I really want is a baseline of just the last 10 years i.e. one that will enable us to see any recent trends. I suspect it will not entirely match the warm up script. If I get time I'll do it, but I have other duties at the moment! You can go on as much as you like about the graph not stopping at 2004 but the increment is so minute as to be as impossible to read as every sentence that you use double quotation marks i.e impossible to read.

I'm not disputing the GW over the past 100 years. What I'm interested in is whether there are signs of a change.

P3 - completely accept your point made elsewhere about the CET, though I did also say that. If there's a correlation between the micro-climate in central England and the macro GW then it should still show on the CET series though. We know that it has been showing in terms of the warm-up.

OON: 'Reason for edit: If I was going to annoy someone, I'd make sure it wasn't the person who I often relied on to bail them out at a later date'. Fair enough, but if I don't agree with everything you write, nor particularly the manner in which you put it, does it mean I am unable gently to say so simply because you have been so 'helpful' to me? I think you were being very unnecessarily rude about a good thread that's all. Being comrades hopefully means you don't take exception to me occasionally failing to see eye to eye with you?!

Edited September 14, 2007 by West is Best

[noggin]

Noggin, when you read these articles does your brain only 'see' the bits you want to believe? Are you incapale of reading any article with a sceptical or critical mind (i.e. looking for the reasons why it might be wrong or assessing the balance of the approach taken).

No and no. See the temperature monitoring station thread for a great deal of scepticism! B)

Noggin's selective capacity for critical thinking

It strikes me, Stratos, that this description could well be applied to most people.

It is funny, though.......

[Stratos Ferric]

SF - what I really want is a baseline of just the last 10 years i.e. one that will enable us to see any recent trends. I suspect it will not entirely match the warm up script. If I get time I'll do it, but I have other duties at the moment! You can go on as much as you like about the graph not stopping at 2004 but the increment is so minute as to be as impossible to read as every sentence that you use double quotation marks i.e impossible to read.

...

WiB, don't be silly.

The size of the increment matters not. My ten year old daughter could spot that that graph didn't stop at 2004. It's lke looking at a map of England and saying the M1 stops at Leeds, simply because Leeds is the last big town on the map. It goes several miles past Leeds. If you look at the graph there are clearly TWO yellow blobs to the right of the gridline labelled 2004.

You can carve up the data the way you suggest but it's a classic example of abuse of stats. I culd look at Leeds United's form in the last ten matches of last season and argue that they shouldn't have been relegated. If you want to see a trend you need a long enough running mean. Yes, you can have a ten year baseline, but it needs to be of a big enough sample, otherwise the data set is too small to have any statistical validity whatsoever.

Let me give you an easy example. If I want to know whether there is inherent bias in the machines used by Camelot for Lotto, then I would not just produce one set of balls. Seeing as how this would draw only seven balls out of a possible 49 this could not prove anything at all.

Being able to run analysis on a spreadsheet does not relate to analytical competence any more thanbeing able to sit behind the wheel of a car relates to driving ability.

I will produce you a ten year plot later on, but it will be of a ten year running mean, compared with, as ever, the thirty year mean. Looking at the last two or three points in that plot, however, will prove nothing, for all thatit opens up hypotheses to be watched for over coming months. Perhaps this later is a much more fruitful avenue for us all.

[West is Best]

WiB, don't be silly.

The size of the increment matters not.

No you're missing my point. The plot is so small that it can't possibly show the most recent trends, if there are any. Which I'm beginning to think is just what you want?!

I've produced it all into Excel and if I can find out how I'll post it up. As I've mentioned elsewhere, winter 2005/6 and summer 2007 buck the trend. Are they the first signs of a cooldown ...?

(Actually it wasn't even just winter 2005/6 it was the run from Nov 05 through to the exceptionally below average March 06)

If you want to see a trend you need a long enough running mean. Yes, you can have a ten year baseline, but it needs to be of a big enough sample, otherwise the data set is too small to have any statistical validity whatsoever.

Now if I didn't think I knew you better I'd say you have completely changed your position because the facts are suddenly inconvenient! That was exactly the position I argued against you 4 or 5 months ago. I can dig out the exact conversation in the archives if you like, but Snowmaiden will confirm. As you yourself said, any trends will show up against the 10 year mean.

[Gray-Wolf]

GW agrees! Leave off GW I say!...........

[Stratos Ferric]

...Now if I didn't think I knew you better I'd say you have completely changed your position because the facts are suddenly inconvenient! That was exactly the position I argued against you 4 or 5 months ago. I can dig out the exact conversation in the archives if you like, but Snowmaiden will confirm. As you yourself said, any trends will show up against the 10 year mean.

No, apologies, I'm not making myself clear. My point is that a ten year mean is just that, a ten year mean. As I'm reading your post I am in interpreting your desire as meaning 'I want to look at each month on its own'. My point is that looking at data points in isolation is meaningless. I'm more than happy to produce a "blown up view" (and have many tiomes before on here) - the chart the other night had a long time scale, as I have already stated, because Noggin's / Jethro's (I'm sorry, I can't remeber which of the two it was, which says something about all three of us) hypothesis (we have been warmer before) demanded it, so let's not suggest that I'm trying to maks anything.

I was mid response to your fresh thread when the programme locked - most irritating - and will re-respond seprately in there anyway. I will produce a shorter view for you later, but to be meaningful you HAVE to use bulked data.

re read my third para in my last post on here to get my point please. I am in no way contradicting myself, nor would I, because the points I made previously were borne out of robust methodology, NOT personal preference to produce a particular outcome. In fact, lest you doubt this, even if our climate DID start to cool slightly now, the thirty year running mean would continue to trend upwards for quite a while; the ten year is a much more sensitive instrment, but STATISTICALLY it is rather less robust WHEN USED FOR INFERENTIAL STATISTICS i.e. if you wanted to test a hypothesis the smaller size of the data set means that there is much more margin for error, and confidence in conclusions is much lower.

[Stratos Ferric]

...

I've produced it all into Excel and if I can find out how I'll post it up. As I've mentioned elsewhere, winter 2005/6 and summer 2007 buck the trend. Are they the first signs of a cooldown ...?

(Actually it wasn't even just winter 2005/6 it was the run from Nov 05 through to the exceptionally below average March 06)

...

I shall answer this point here, since you've raised it. First off, hats off for looking at the numbers, would that more people would do the same.

My concern in your analysis is that you are focussing exclusively on looking for cold, therefore, surprise surprise, what you see is...

In between the two cold periods you mentioned we happened to have the warmest measured period in our history. In laymans' terms you are focussing on one step back a couple of years ago, and, perhaps, a current movement - length as yet unknown - of perhaps another half a step back. You are overlooking three or four big steps forward between times. This was my point about the fact that you cannot, by slicing and dicing a trend, make the numbers do something else (not withouth breaking the rules of robust analysis, anyway, e.g. by deleting or cherry picking data - I have seen people do this in the past, literally wiping points off a plot because they didn't fit the desired curve). We may be cooling at present, but we are still, in terms of twelve month rolling average, a long way above where we were in September 2005.

I am NOT arguing frm a biased position here, I am simply trying to make sure we adhere to the rules of proper and objective analysis, and this was my (erased) point previously: the proper process is:

data - anlaysis - nterpretation - information. Starting from a desire to prove something (hypothesis testing) is all well and god, but if you're testing you realy need to test not only for what you're looking for, but also for other arguments as well.

If I went out into my paddock and picked a load of daisies I could come back into the house, put them into a vase, and suggest to somebody that I have a field full of [nothing but] daisies, and loking at the vase, somebody who hadn't sen the paddock might have to agree on the basis of the data I chose to present. Of course, what I wouldn't be telling anyone is that I only chose to pick daisies; there's far more grass, dandelion, docks and nettles, but my vase doesn't demonstrate that. Had I wanted to produce a FAIR representation then I would have gridded the paddock, and used random numbers to decide the precise locations from which I picked the flowers, or I might have paced around and ery second pace picked what was at the tip of my boot.

Like I say, I'll run some numbers for you later: what I won't do is provde ANY interpretation, I'll eave that to you lot and let's see what we conclude. I'll then pass some observations afterwards, ONLY IF REQUESTED.

Edited September 14, 2007 by Stratos Ferric