|
Post by glc on Apr 22, 2009 20:57:38 GMT
Yes indeed, why not tell it to me. I'm in the UK, and I'm over 50. And I dont believe you. Your memory and accounts of the UK weather do seems somewhat..selective... Are you saying that the weather in the UK in the past decade or so is no different to what it was in the 1960s and 1970s. You are quite definitely in a minority. What's more the data shows that it is your memory that is somewhat selective - and I'm not just talking about Met Office records. Get hold of Armagh (NI) data or Valentia (Rep of Ireland) data which is much vaunted in sceptic circles or any of the local weather stationd data and the story is the same. The UK has warmed significantly over the past 35 years. Note the graph shows it isnt terribly better than 1960-90 (a nicely cherry-picked date range, that, it was bl**dy cold in 1960-80). First of all, it doesn't matter what base period is chosen - the shape of the anomaly plot will look the same. It's just a plot of temperatures relative to a given base. Secondly, you complain about using 1960-1980 because that was a "cold period"?? What point are you trying to make. Initially, I thought you were trying to say there had been little change over the years - but by the end of your post you're moaning about the "bl**dy cold in 1960-80". The last 2 summers have been interesting because a few people hace actually remarked
|
|
|
Post by astrodragon on Apr 23, 2009 7:39:44 GMT
Yes indeed, why not tell it to me. I'm in the UK, and I'm over 50. And I dont believe you. Your memory and accounts of the UK weather do seems somewhat..selective... Are you saying that the weather in the UK in the past decade or so is no different to what it was in the 1960s and 1970s. You are quite definitely in a minority. What's more the data shows that it is your memory that is somewhat selective - and I'm not just talking about Met Office records. Get hold of Armagh (NI) data or Valentia (Rep of Ireland) data which is much vaunted in sceptic circles or any of the local weather stationd data and the story is the same. The UK has warmed significantly over the past 35 years. Note the graph shows it isnt terribly better than 1960-90 (a nicely cherry-picked date range, that, it was bl**dy cold in 1960-80). First of all, it doesn't matter what base period is chosen - the shape of the anomaly plot will look the same. It's just a plot of temperatures relative to a given base. Secondly, you complain about using 1960-1980 because that was a "cold period"?? What point are you trying to make. Initially, I thought you were trying to say there had been little change over the years - but by the end of your post you're moaning about the "bl**dy cold in 1960-80". The last 2 summers have been interesting because a few people hace actually remarked Stop putting words in my mouth. You stated that anyone in the UK over 50 would agree with you. I dont. I never said anything about the UK warming or not over the last 30 years. so stop dragging in statements you claim I made that I didnt. In other words, stop lying. It doesnt mater what base range is chosen? Oh, really? So we can just choose a cold/warm year (as appropriate) and use that as our baseline, cant we, since the base range is immaterial. If you cant stand people calling you on your statements, stop making them (up)
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 23, 2009 9:49:58 GMT
You stated that anyone in the UK over 50 would agree with you. I dont. I never said anything about the UK warming or not over the last 30 years. so stop dragging in statements you claim I made that I didnt. In other words, stop lying I'm puzzled as to what you are saying. In an earlier post I wrote “If you somehow think that the CET region has not warmed in the last 30 or 40 years - try telling that to someone around here who is over the age of 50.”To which you gave the following reply: “Yes indeed, why not tell it to me. I'm in the UK, and I'm over 50. And I dont believe you. Your memory and accounts of the UK weather do seems somewhat..selective...”Now you say you never said anything about “the UK warming” – not directly you didn’t but you did say you didn’t believe me when I when I said it had warmed. What was the point of your post? What is it that I said which you don’t believe? On the issue of the base period chosen by the Met office, it’s simply a convention which began before 2000. In actual fact they tend to use the 1971-2000 now as that is the 3 most recent complete decades. The plot I think you are referring to still uses 1961-90 and, in this particularly case, the base period chosen may possibly be relevant, but not much and it’s easy enough to check comparisons with other periods. For what it’s worth if you used the 1971-2000 period the black line would, on average, be about 0.3 deg higher than the current 1961-90 line. This is not a particularly useful plot for looking at long term trends – it’s more for daily or short term statistics. Though, it should be noted that the 1961-90 period is warmer than the average of the entire CET series, so your claim about the “cold” 1960-80 period is not correct in the long term context. In general, though, with respect to anomaly plots the base period is not relevant. Finally, .... If you cant stand people calling you on your statements, stop making them (up) I have debated with people (both sceptics and warmers) who actually know what they're talking about and am accustomed to having my statements challenged. This is not a problem for me - how about you?
|
|
|
Post by astrodragon on Apr 23, 2009 18:37:50 GMT
You stated that anyone in the UK over 50 would agree with you. I dont. I never said anything about the UK warming or not over the last 30 years. so stop dragging in statements you claim I made that I didnt. In other words, stop lying I'm puzzled as to what you are saying. In an earlier post I wrote “If you somehow think that the CET region has not warmed in the last 30 or 40 years - try telling that to someone around here who is over the age of 50.”To which you gave the following reply: “Yes indeed, why not tell it to me. I'm in the UK, and I'm over 50. And I dont believe you. Your memory and accounts of the UK weather do seems somewhat..selective...”Now you say you never said anything about “the UK warming” – not directly you didn’t but you did say you didn’t believe me when I when I said it had warmed. What was the point of your post? What is it that I said which you don’t believe? On the issue of the base period chosen by the Met office, it’s simply a convention which began before 2000. In actual fact they tend to use the 1971-2000 now as that is the 3 most recent complete decades. The plot I think you are referring to still uses 1961-90 and, in this particularly case, the base period chosen may possibly be relevant, but not much and it’s easy enough to check comparisons with other periods. For what it’s worth if you used the 1971-2000 period the black line would, on average, be about 0.3 deg higher than the current 1961-90 line. This is not a particularly useful plot for looking at long term trends – it’s more for daily or short term statistics. Though, it should be noted that the 1961-90 period is warmer than the average of the entire CET series, so your claim about the “cold” 1960-80 period is not correct in the long term context. In general, though, with respect to anomaly plots the base period is not relevant. Finally, .... If you cant stand people calling you on your statements, stop making them (up) I have debated with people (both sceptics and warmers) who actually know what they're talking about and am accustomed to having my statements challenged. This is not a problem for me - how about you? Putting things in pretty colours is all very well, but doesn't actually affect an argument. Ah, so now disagreeing with you means I dont know what I'm talking about? Since the data is (or at least should be) there, why not show us a plot against the means for say the last 60 years. That would give a reasonable time frame that covers both warm and cold phases. The period you have chosen (to show that its warmer this year than the mean) IS cherry picked. 1960-80 was a cold period, and much of the 80's werent THAT wonderful. So lets see what this year looks like against a reasonable sample period. My feeling is that it will be within reasonable error limits - in other words, this year so far is continuing the cooling we've seen heer over the last few years. And saying its ok because the Met Office selected it....well. Ignoring the MO's bias towards GW, the MO's forecasts are of such accuracy to show they couldnt find their ass with both hands, a compass, and a GPS. Any forecasts they give more than a few days in advance, youd get just as good results looking at your bit of seaweed. remind us again what their forcast for the winter just past was again...? Sorry, but the MO (or at least their official pronouncements) is just another branch of the Governments AGW lobby machine. Now come on, there is lots of weather data for the UK, I'm sure you can find something neutral for a longer period. Show us that as your benchmark, and I'll take much more notice of it. Supplying selected data from a suspect source satisfies noone but yourself
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 23, 2009 21:49:25 GMT
Now come on, there is lots of weather data for the UK, I'm sure you can find something neutral for a longer period. Show us that as your benchmark, and I'll take much more notice of it. Supplying selected data from a suspect source satisfies noone but yourself What about Armagh data? or Valentia data? I'm not going to a load of trouble only for you to dismiss it as "corrupt" or "fraudulent". I wouldn't disagree with you over their predictions, but there is no reason to think that the Met Office fiddle the temperature data. Update: Actually I'm not sure it's down to me to provide an alternative data source. I'm happy with the Met Office data. If you have a problem then you find something which contradicts it. I will, however, provide a link to the CET record (back to 1772) here hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/Notice the increase in temperatures towards the end of the 20th century and the fact that 1960-80 is warmer than the early part of the 20th century and most of the 19th century. Now go to page 21 of this link www.arm.ac.uk/preprints/445.pdf Fig 9 shows the plots of 4 locations. The 2 in the middle are Armagh (lower) and CET (upper). Notice how they track each other and how both rise in the late 20th century. The other 2 (Uppsala/Stockholm and Eastern US) also exhibit similar behaviour and CET and Armagh. If the CET record is corrupt then it's not evident in the Butler et al comparison plot. I use Armagh data because it's generally reckoned by sceptics (including David Archibald) to be unaffected by non-climate factors.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Apr 24, 2009 0:24:27 GMT
On a lighter note, I thought people might like to hear about crazy, but normal, temperatures forecast for here in Ottawa Canada
Friday Low 1 C High 21 C Saturday Low 13 C High 26 C Sunday Low 19 C High 26 C Monday Low 13 C High 26 C Tuesday Low 5 C High 13 C Wednesday Low 2 C High 12 C
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 24, 2009 4:35:19 GMT
Notice the increase in temperatures towards the end of the 20th century and the fact that 1960-80 is warmer than the early part of the 20th century and most of the 19th century. Now go to page 21 of this link So you got enough land there to start a vineyard GLC?
|
|
|
Post by astrodragon on Apr 24, 2009 11:58:38 GMT
Now come on, there is lots of weather data for the UK, I'm sure you can find something neutral for a longer period. Show us that as your benchmark, and I'll take much more notice of it. Supplying selected data from a suspect source satisfies noone but yourself What about Armagh data? or Valentia data? I'm not going to a load of trouble only for you to dismiss it as "corrupt" or "fraudulent". I wouldn't disagree with you over their predictions, but there is no reason to think that the Met Office fiddle the temperature data. Update: Actually I'm not sure it's down to me to provide an alternative data source. I'm happy with the Met Office data. If you have a problem then you find something which contradicts it. I will, however, provide a link to the CET record (back to 1772) here hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/Notice the increase in temperatures towards the end of the 20th century and the fact that 1960-80 is warmer than the early part of the 20th century and most of the 19th century. Now go to page 21 of this link www.arm.ac.uk/preprints/445.pdf Fig 9 shows the plots of 4 locations. The 2 in the middle are Armagh (lower) and CET (upper). Notice how they track each other and how both rise in the late 20th century. The other 2 (Uppsala/Stockholm and Eastern US) also exhibit similar behaviour and CET and Armagh. If the CET record is corrupt then it's not evident in the Butler et al comparison plot. I use Armagh data because it's generally reckoned by sceptics (including David Archibald) to be unaffected by non-climate factors. You're the one making the claims, I dont consider it unreasonable to expect you to get & process the data to back them up... On a quick examination, the Armagh data does show that 1960-80 (at least) was a cool period. Which rather shows I was right about the cherry-picking of the data comparison period, doesn't it.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 24, 2009 19:16:46 GMT
On a quick examination, the Armagh data does show that 1960-80 (at least) was a cool period. Which rather shows I was right about the cherry-picking of the data comparison period, doesn't it. No it doesn't. The mean annual temperature for the entire record (1796-2002) is 9.00 deg. The mean annual temperature for the period 1960-1980 is 9.16 deg, so the 1960-1980 period in Armagh was a warmer than the ~200 year average. oh yeah ... and another thing. As I said in a previous post, David Archibald, among others, has given his blessing to the Armagh Observatory temperature record. It is supposed to have no urban heat or siting problems, yet I have just checked the most recent 30 year trend in the data (1973-2002) and guess what - the trend is +0.35 deg decade. Armagh appears to be warming at twice the rate of the GISS global record.
|
|
|
Post by alex4ever on Apr 24, 2009 21:08:31 GMT
I have evidence about it too. The well known Armagh sausages. dont you guys know it? www.goodfoodireland.ie/Member195/Moyallon-Foods-Armagh.htmlArmagh Sausages, the sausages being cooked by the warm enviroment of Armagh itself! ;D (The first person to call gets it at a bargain price!) (This post was made due to strong ice accumulation, so i posted that to "break the ice" a little)
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Apr 25, 2009 10:44:15 GMT
oh yeah ... and another thing. As I said in a previous post, David Archibald, among others, has given his blessing to the Armagh Observatory temperature record. It is supposed to have no urban heat or siting problems, yet I have just checked the most recent 30 year trend in the data (1973-2002) and guess what - the trend is +0.35 deg decade. Armagh appears to be warming at twice the rate of the GISS global record. LOL, I think you need to spell out in no uncertain terms (probably at the start AND end) that your concern is with the quality of the datasets and NOT that you've gone for anthropogenic global warming hook, line and sinker. Side note about the data...I get the distinct impression that the cold period is actually sort of hiding the UHI data. Let's face it, the one place you don't look for signs of warming, is in a time of cooling. The post-WWII period was one of massive land-use changes, industrialization and...covering everything with roads/parking lots. Thankfully we'll get SOME idea of what affect this has had once the surface station audit is more complete. Maybe something, maybe nothing. Also note, UHI still constitutes a form of AGW, it just has nothing to do with CO2. Its main impact (as I'm sure you're aware) is just pollution of the record. Remaining stations simply tend to be near urbanized areas.
|
|
|
Post by frankthetank on Apr 25, 2009 13:41:56 GMT
Started off April on a cool note (we were a couple degrees below normal about a week back) but after the last few days i think that we are probably "normal" or a little above for the month of April. Now...yesterday was amazing!
Rochester, MN hit the record for the warmest April day on record with a high temp of 92F...!!!
La Crosse, WI (where i live) hit the daily record (old was 87F) with a temp of 90F, which ranks #7 on the list of warmest April days on record.
Today we FINALLY got rain...we are still severly below normal on precip, but the GFS is still showing some drought busting rains tomorrow and on Monday.
I planted tomatoes in the garden last weekend, the earliest i ever have.... The apricots and plums are blooming, pear/peach/apple are getting close. No late season cold snaps!
|
|
|
Post by gahooduk on May 1, 2009 0:35:42 GMT
Mike well following on, but not wishing to spoil the thread...i pass the cemetery where Karl marx is buried everyday on the way to work....ironic it is situated now in the highest value property area in north london..$USA1m fora 3 bedroom House are considered low
|
|
|
Post by byz on May 3, 2009 13:15:18 GMT
Well Spring has truly sprung here in the SE of the UK potatoes growing nicely. Still getting some frosts at night but definitely a more temperate feel However rain on its way
|
|
dresi
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 120
|
Post by dresi on May 4, 2009 5:57:11 GMT
So above-average April ended. Temperatures were around 4-5°C higher then normal. Nothing unusual because January was below-average and February and March exactly average. But what bothers me is drought. For five weeks no decent rain. There is a lot of dust in the air. It's starting to show on nature and summer temperatures will hit us this weekend
|
|