Frequent cold records being set

[Stratos Ferric]

And therein lies the problem. Everyone quotes different figures. Sincere apologies if I'm mistaken but I do believe 'twas you TWS who reported recently that the warming amounted to 0.5F over 100 years. It seems that no-one really knows for sure,perhaps there's been no warming at all,or maybe a cooling over that time. I'm not seriously suggesting that's the case,just pointing out that the common man has absolutely no way of knowing, and judging by the discrepancy between 'authorities' they don't either!

As far as those Greenlanders were concerned,SF and Mycroft,we do have thermometers plus technology beyond their ken and we wouldn't have noticed a thing either without them! Which brings me back to my point of a while ago re. examining the minutiae and making mountains out of molehills. Is 0.5F (or thereabouts) such a big deal over 100 ish years? I think not,that's assuming it's correct. Slightly OT here and very rough but let's assume that 50% of that has been caused by anthro CO2;that makes it responsible for around 0.25F increase in 100 years. Is this really cause for end of world,planet busting scenarios? Nope,compared to what's gone before without us lot around it's precisely nothing.

Maybe not, but in my little essay in another place I argue exactly why we ought to be concerned, rather than dismissive, given what's at risk. Every house that ever burned down started with a spark and an initial ignition of something combustible. In the case of every disaster that there ever was - with the exception of sudden catastrophic failure - there was a period in which decisive action could have been taken, but wasn't, often because people like you reasoned that there was no risk (high profile cases of abuse that are missed by social services are classic examples of type, but far from being the only good instances). On occasions such reasoning is correct, on others it is not, but simply dismissing is carelessness with potentially catastrophic consequences.

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

I dont disagree at all SF, but in the scheme of things, Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Many personal, group, national and global 'incidents' could have been avoided with Hindsight, but alas, they are not.

[Stratos Ferric]

Agreed and in a proper statistical analysis outliers would be taken into account. We could argue all day about statistics but we have to reach a point where we accept one or other methods of quantifying climate variability. The mean global value is the best 'headline' value that we have but no serious 'scientist' (including us lay-scientists ) is going to accept either the mean value on its own or isolated extreme outliers without proper statistical coroberation.

Wysiwyg, I think you need to clarify this proper treatment of outliers in the context of this discussion. For example, CET does not exclude any data, however exceptional. Nor I expect would ANY global assessment. The production of long time series mean data has to be based on consistent use of source data.

I am not aware of any legitimate statistical treatment of "outliers". The best that can ever be done is that a t-test (or variant depending on sample size and data type) be run to demonstrate the extent to which an individual data point, or value, might be considered to be a random event as opposed to being consistent with the expected population profile of the larger data population.

If I am measuring something, and the measurement process is proven NOT to itself influence the outcome, then by definition all data is valid. The issue is actually whether or not an event is typical, and then the extent to which an atypical event is indicative of some fundamental shift in behaviour.

It's not a different subject though - the hopes and dreams of humankind are pinned against this sort of statistic. I believe it doesn't actually mean anything more than the averaging of numbers in a telephone book. I think that it doesn't actually tell us anything.

If all we had was a crude average then, at present, I agree - it would tell us little. The fact that we have good history, coupled with spatial and temporal breakdowns, does let us convert, fairly well, the raw data into useful information.

[wysiwyg]

The concept of telephone 'numbers' as numbers is flawed imo. They are actually a ) codes such that we could equally well have assigned letters or arbitrary symbols to represent unique identifiers for each station and, b ) they do not relate to any physical variable quantity in the way that temperature 'numbers' do

I fully accept what you are saying

But .... I can't accept that notion that if the UK cooled by some 2C and then France heated up by 2C the climatic disasters that would entail in those countries would be catastrophic (I think) The 'global mean' between the two, though, would not even register a blip.

Perhaps it's just me, huh?

Ok I see where you are coming from with this. I think the problem here is something that I maybe alluded to a post or so ago. The mean 'on its own, in isolation is meaningless'. However, when we use the term mean in these types of debates it is a misrepresentation of what we are actually quoting simply because we are not attaching any statistical significance.

In your examples you would have maybe three or four hundred point readings of temperature averaged together to give a pair of averages, one for the UK and one for France. In relation to each other they would be statistically significant. If we then take another say five hundred readings from around the globe then the significance of the UK and France's mean values are much less regardless of whether they add or subtract from the overall mean for the globe. We may or may not choose to remove these two values based on whether they are outliers or not. Agreed if we remove one and not the other then we would skew the data and it may well be meaningless. However, I think in reality that we would want to look at these individual data points in relation to whether they are anomalous for their region and as both of these figures probably would be then I guess they would both bite the dust as far as including them in the overall mean. Again if you take the second example you gave whereby we could cause a 1 deg c shift in the global mean this would again only be significant if we saw varience of our other 498 worldwide readings on these levels. If every one of the 500 readings bar UK and France showed varience of the order of +/-0.05 deg C then the UK and France would clearly be outliers and we would remove them.

Wysi

[Stratos Ferric]

I dont disagree at all SF, but in the scheme of things, Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Many personal, group, national and global 'incidents' could have been avoided with Hindsight, but alas, they are not.

No: they could have been avoided period. More often than not that they weren't avoided is not down to lack of hindsight, but down to lack of adherence to process. The Herald of Free Enterprise did not sink because of a lack of hindsight. It sank because processed designed to keep the ferry afloat were abandoned. Cars crash not because of a lack of hindsight, but because drivers stop paying attention to what they are doing, or misjudge risks; i.e. they don't follow process. The only time hindsight is a legitimate excuse is when an event has not previously happened: Kegworth is the best example of that in recent times; 9/11 arguably maps.

... If every one of the 500 readings bar UK and France showed varience of the order of +/-0.05 deg C then the UK and France would clearly be outliers and we would remove them.

Wysi

You simply cannot ever say that. The best you can suggest is that statistically they are anomalous to the rest of the population, however this might mean that they do not belong to the population.

If the measurement is arrived with robust and reliable kit then data cannot be excluded, period. In the case you suggest the better argument is that the world is warming but the UK and France, for some reason, locally are not.

The fact that data don't fit the norm is never, on its own, sufficient justification for excluding them.

[wysiwyg]

You simply cannot ever say that. The best you can suggest is that statistically they are anomalous to the rest of the population, however this might mean that they do not belong to the population.

If the measurement is arrived with robust and reliable kit then data cannot be excluded, period. In the case you suggest the better argument is that the world is warming but the UK and France, for some reason, locally are not.

The fact that data don't fit the norm is never, on its own, sufficient justification for excluding them.

Agreed - I somewhat oversimplified my argument in response to a relatively simplified example previously quoted by VP.

[Thundery wintry showers]

We're not talking about climate shifts though, just the average temp of the Earth - the amount of energy present in the atmosphere. The average temperature of the Earth rising is exactly that, it doesn't claim to measure anything else.

Of course, the Northern hemisphere could warm 5c and the southern could cool 5c and that wouldn't register at all. It's a different subject though, global warming just is about average global temperatures. It's not nonsense because it is what it is.

Well said- I was going to post something along those lines, but Magpie beat me to it!

With regards the anomalies, okay, if Britain warmed by 2C and France cooled by 2C we might survive. But if you added 3C to the global temperature baseline, that might change to a 1C warming in France and 5C (!) warming in Britain, which may well be very problematic. The mean global temperature is indeed a useful indicator as local weather and global climate are not entirely separate things- the atmospheric circulation patterns are a global phenomenon, and adding 0.5C to the global temperature means 0.5C of extra warmth, averaged globally, within the circulation. In particular, Britain and France tend to be affected by the same weather systems so there's no way that Britain would warm by 2C and France cool by 2C, say.

The thing about problems and hindsight is that in this case, we are looking into a problem which, as far as inertia and apathy and burial of heads in the sand is concerned, is analogous to many past, avoidable, tragedies. Past tragedies can often be used as a learning experience, and if we're not careful we could add to the list of tragedies that could have been avoided, but weren't, for recurring reasons that we don't learn from.

As for the 0.5C in 100 years, of which 0.25 might be down to AGW (which is well within the range of possible scenarios), it's not quite as simple as that. For starters, I quoted 0.5C in 50 years- the 100-year warming is nearer 0.7C because of the warming between 1910 and 1940. Furthermore, I'd say at least 0.4C of this warming occurred in the last 30 years- that's a rate of over 1C per decade. I'd agree that if the current rate of warming was to continue we don't have a lot to worry about, but the concern is that the rate of warming may well increase substantially if we keep up the way we're going.

[stewfox]

the 100-year warming is nearer 0.7C because of the warming between 1910 and 1940. Furthermore, I'd say at least 0.4C of this warming occurred in the last 30 years- that's a rate of over 1C per decade.

No thats 0.1c a decade

As I've said before, if the next 5 years are cooler than the last 5 years, now that would be interesting and may suggest something. Next 10 years cooler than the last 10 years would suggest something even more concrete. Let's wait for that before anyone even suggests we are cooling. Or continuing to warm indeed.

But some people want to spend trillions now to avoid 'global warming 'what do you do ??

[wysiwyg]

But some people want to spend trillions now to avoid 'global warming 'what do you do ??

Vote them out of office!

[noggin]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...mp;in_a_source=

Yes, I know it's the Mail. Yes, I know the headline is a bit iffy. But, at least it is some media coverage about the widespread and record cold weather going on in the NH at the moment.

Even the article itself refers to the fact that this stuff doesn't get reported in the media.

There is some sort of conference going on somewhere on 2nd-4th March where scientists from all over the world will be questioning the IPCC reports and, presumably, putting alternative theories up for discussion. That should be interesting, not only from the POV of what these theories are, but also WRT the amount of media coverage it gets.

I'll see what more I can find out about it.

PS How utterly beautiful is that frozen waterfall in Estonia.......

Edited February 21, 2008 by noggin

[laserguy]

Up to now, the mainstream media has ignored the cold reality of the Earth's known cooling cycles. They have been in complete thrall to the howling of Al Gore with his endless lies about an imminent warming. Given the accolade of a Nobel Prize and even a Hollywood Oscar, why should people unschooled in science believe otherwise?

The United Nations International Panel on Climate Change whose reports have been based, not on hard science such as observations of solar activity, but on flawed, often deliberately false computer models, has been the driving factor behind the global warming hoax. What better way to assert political and economic control over the Earth than to create a global crisis? To their credit, many participants in the IPCC have protested these reports.

Large numbers of scientists have sold their soul to the global warming lies in order to receive millions in research grants, but increasingly other scientists have been coming forth to tell the truth. On March 2-4, several hundred will convene in New York for the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change to offer papers and serve on panels disputing and debunking the global warming hoax.

In response to your post,Noggin. The above is an extract from this:

http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=265816

I posted this elsewhere and got hammered just because it mentions Dr.Tapping somewhere along the way!

[noggin]

Thanks for that, laserguy.......I knew I'd seen it somewhere!

I must dig out my hard hat for the robust discussions which will, no doubt, arise here after the conference.

[Devonian]

Up to now, the mainstream media has ignored the cold reality of the Earth's known cooling cycles. They have been in complete thrall to the howling of Al Gore with his endless lies about an imminent warming. Given the accolade of a Nobel Prize and even a Hollywood Oscar, why should people unschooled in science believe otherwise?

The United Nations International Panel on Climate Change whose reports have been based, not on hard science such as observations of solar activity, but on flawed, often deliberately false computer models, has been the driving factor behind the global warming hoax. What better way to assert political and economic control over the Earth than to create a global crisis? To their credit, many participants in the IPCC have protested these reports.

Large numbers of scientists have sold their soul to the global warming lies in order to receive millions in research grants, but increasingly other scientists have been coming forth to tell the truth. On March 2-4, several hundred will convene in New York for the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change to offer papers and serve on panels disputing and debunking the global warming hoax.

In response to your post,Noggin. The above is an extract from this:

http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=265816

I posted this elsewhere and got hammered just because it mentions Dr.Tapping somewhere along the way!

You got 'hammered' because it's claims someone said something when in fact they said the opposite. Why is getting to the truth so wrong, and why do you persist in posting something based on error?

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Should wer stick to the topic of this thread and, as hard as it may be, avoid veering off topic?

Yeah.

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

Over and over again, the same arguments batted back and forth. And what really worries me is the possibility that these arguments are a microcosm of what is happening globally. To my mind there should be two clear and distinct discussions going on.

1. Certainly from a theoretical and empirical perspective there is value in striving for proof one way or the other, although this at present seems a very confused area, largely because there is not even a clear point to work towards in terms of what actually constitutes incontrivertible evidence whether warming is happening or not, never mind whether man is contributing to it.

2. To my mind it is almost impossible to argue against the fact that there is a reasonable possibility the earth is warming, and additionally that man is to a greater or lesser extent contributing to this. Please note, all I am saying here is that the possibility exists. And surely that is the critical point. As long as there is a even the possibility then to do nothing is to be negligent in the extreme. Whilst the possibility of AGW exists, and this will be true until there is absolute and incontrovertible proof to the contrary, then every single person on this planet has an obligation to do everything they can to minimise that risk. And this is where I think the real problem lies. By all means all you 'AGW is a myth' people continue to present your arguments and do your work to prove this. I will be absolutely over the moon if someone can show me absolute proof that AGW is not happening. I completely agree that AGW has not been proved as a fact, but then neither has it been disproved.

So, in essence, what I am saying is that by all means carry on the theoretical work, continue with the evidence gathering and analysis. But in the meantime, whilst the possibility exists that our activities are contributing to carbon based global warming, every single one of us is obliged to try and change our lifestyles to in order to reduce our carbon-generating activities. As long as there is the possibility that warming is happening and it is in any way being exacerbated by our activities, then we must try and curb those particular activities.

I suspect this is the real problem though. Many people hate feeling compelled, they hate feeling obligated to behave in a certain way, and therefore whenever a situation arises which places such compulsion and obligation upon them, then they will cast around in every direction to find reasons (excuses) why they don't have to...............

And with regards to individual cold weather records being set, whilst in time they may be proved to be part of something statistically significant in terms of the overall patterns and therefore arguments, in isolation they certainly do not prove anything one way or the other.

Edited February 21, 2008 by Pennine Ten Foot Drifts

[full_frontal_occlusion]

Why is getting to the truth so wrong, and why do you persist in posting something based on error?

Because he (laserguy) doesn't believe the AGW theory and has drawn a different conclusion from that article. It's human nature for everyone to have their own evidence-threshold before acceptance.

He's entitled to his opinion, which is not me saying I think AGW is incorrect, just protecting the right have a different viewpoint.

ffO.

EDIT: Sorry OON, posted before I saw your comment. Please feel free to remove as you wish.

Edited February 21, 2008 by full_frontal_occlusion

[Devonian]

Because he (laserguy) doesn't believe the AGW theory and has drawn a different conclusion from that article. It's human nature for everyone to have their own evidence-threshold before acceptance.

He's entitled to his opinion, which is not me saying I think AGW is incorrect, just protecting the right have a different viewpoint.

ffO.

EDIT: Sorry OON, posted before I saw your comment. Please feel free to remove as you wish.

Indeed, I'm fine with people, lazerguy for example, disagreeing, having differing opinion - for that matter I don't mind it being said I'm wrong, that's debate for you.

But, what I'm not fine with is an article that is simply, plainly, wrong. It misquotes Dr Tapping, and so badly it give the impression his view is 180 degrees opposite to what it really is - no ifs, no buts, that's what it does. One has to ask, why it does that?

Do we want people to be so mislead?

[Osbourne One-Nil]

But it has little to do with the topic of this thread so please.....think about how hard it is for us to deal with this area when things like this constantly happen.

[Stratos Ferric]

...

And with regards to individual cold weather records being set, whilst in time they may be proved to be part of something statistically significant in terms of the overall patterns and therefore arguments, in isolation they certainly do not prove anything one way or the other.

Quite. There don't seem to be many being set this past couple of weeks.

[Chris Knight]

Quite. There don't seem to be many being set this past couple of weeks.

Quite. As might be expected at the end of the northern winter by accepted seasonal definition. However, extreme events are continuing worldwide:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear...eb/hazards.html