Solar ... In the news

Leeds_Solar

I must be bored.



What the longer running means do is to even out the cyclical factors such as the ocean cycles, and solar cycles, and reveal the underlying long term trend.

I don't really see how anyone could argue that the long term trend isn't rising significantly.

I've added the 50 year average done using Zeupater's method for comparison, I assume it's pretty obvious that this line in no way corresponds to the actual data, and has falsely been moved to the right by 25 years.

Leeds_Solar

zeupater wrote: »

I'm afraid that history is best written on a contemporaneous basis

maybe, but unless you're claiming to have been contemporary of the climate scientists operating at the time, you don't actually have much relevant contemporary experience to bring to the table.

Would you similarly use the current GCSE physics syllabus as evidence of the consensus understanding of the higgs-bosun particle? I doubt it, as that would plainly be ridiculous.

zeupater

Leeds_Solar wrote: »

If you really do know what you're doing, then you would be deliberately misleading people, but I suspect you've really accidentally misled yourself.

You wouldn't use wide rolling means for a short dataset, they wouldn't be appropriate, you need long datasets to make wide running means a useful tool to be used.

You can't get a 50 year rolling mean for 2013, that data set would currently end in 1988, all you've done is to move the 1988 figure to 2013 and pretend that it's in any way relevant to 2013 (excluding the Dr Who potential t obtain data from the next 25 years).


the dataset is fine, but it tells you very little about the actual global situation - no single data point could, so it's a bit wrong to start referencing it when discussing global temperature trends.

It's why the error bands get so much bigger as the longer term temperature datasets go back further in time to the point where there's only a few datasets, or even back to the point where the CET is the only direct datapoint, and proxies have to be used for the temperatures elsewhere.

Hi

I take it you haven't looked then ? .... why so shy ? ... it's easy, the calculations are easy, the charts are easy ... look at it and do it, stop obfuscating if it takes more than a couple of hours of your allocated lifespan, it's got to be better than regurgitating the peer-reviewed work of others ...

When you drive your car you achieve a MPG for that journey, which affects the average for that hour, that day, the previous 7 days, the month and whatever other timescale else you consider worthy of analysis. The historical average is changed daily, today's average for all periods is relevant today, not 6 months ago for a 12 month average ....

... try it, don't comment on the accuracy of the dataset or it's relevance to global climate ... you never know, as an expert, you may just learn something which will spark some original thought, or simply avoid the opportunity & seek the collective safety of the herd ... what you do with it on other datasets if you actually have a look is up to you ....

Now, what does it tell you about warming and cooling trends, in England, over the last 350 years, and what's happening now, today, that's 2013 ? ....

Data, I love data, I understand data .... lateral thinking, what's that then ?


HTH
Z

Leeds_Solar

here's a novel thought, why don't you explain what exactly it is that you think this graph of the CET dataset is telling you.

zeupater

Leeds_Solar wrote: »

I must be bored.



What the longer running means do is to even out the cyclical factors such as the ocean cycles, and solar cycles, and reveal the underlying long term trend.

I don't really see how anyone could argue that the long term trend isn't rising significantly.

I've added the 50 year average done using Zeupater's method for comparison, I assume it's pretty obvious that this line in no way corresponds to the actual data, and has falsely been moved to the right by 25 years.

Hi

Nice chart, now try it the way I explained it .....

Using HadCET would give you ~200 years more data to understand what's going on (including representations of periods of significant temperature changes throughout Europe ... yes you can see when Napoleon marched on Moscow, and icefairs were held on the Thames, which seem to be missing from HadCRUT3 ! ) even if you don't seem to appreciate that a dataset is just a dataset for this exercise .... leave aside the 1961-1990 data as it's irrelevant, just look at the annual data on your spread-sheet and then chart only the differences between the periods, ie 1, 1-Av5, Av5-Av10, Av10-Av20, Av20-Av50 ...

It really does tell you something, I just hope that I don't need to explain as it's extremely obvious ....

HTH
Z

The_Green_Hornet

Life in parts of the planet will start to be wiped out by climate change within two decades – far sooner than previously predicted, research shows.

Earth Doomed Within 20 Years

Ecosystems will be destroyed and economies crippled, dealing a blow to global food supplies, experts say.

In just over 30 years, local weather norms across the world will be consigned to history as we reach the point of ‘climate departure’.

‘Within my generation, whatever climate we were used to will be a thing of the past,’ said Dr Camilo Mora, of the University of Hawaii.

The scientists used the minimum and maximum temperatures from 1860 to 2005 to define the historic bounds of climate variability.

Leeds_Solar

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Nice chart, now try it the way I explained it .....

Using HadCET would give you ~200 years more data to understand what's going on (including representations of periods of significant temperature changes throughout Europe ... yes you can see when Napoleon marched on Moscow, and icefairs were held on the Thames, which seem to be missing from HadCRUT3 ! ) even if you don't seem to appreciate that a dataset is just a dataset for this exercise .... leave aside the 1961-1990 data as it's irrelevant, just look at the annual data on your spread-sheet and then chart only the differences between the periods, ie 1, 1-Av5, Av5-Av10, Av10-Av20, Av20-Av50 ...

It really does tell you something, I just hope that I don't need to explain as it's extremely obvious ....

HTH
Z

lol - I just rechecked your method and realised what you were getting at.



I'm guessing that you're reading some significance into the downward trend at the end of the series if you use your method of averaging the previous 50 years.

All this graph is actually showing is that you're using the wrong data - or in other words, it actually is showing the warming trend as one set of data is effectively 25 years older than the other.

yes I appreciate this is the Hadcrut data still, but I really don't see the point in wasting my time an further with this nonsense.

have a little think about how you've actually manipulated the data and what the graph you've produced actually means please.

Leeds_Solar

that graph looks even better if you add a linear trendline to it - easily enough to bamboozle the easily confused into thinking that black is actually white, and there's some significance to a downward trend in the graph.

Leeds_Solar

This is what's generally likely to happen when you start thinking that you're cleverer than all the world's climate scientists,and have come up with some form of novel statistical analysis that gives the lie to their presentation of the data.

Chances are that you've just missed some glaring error in your method.

zeupater

Leeds_Solar wrote: »

maybe, but unless you're claiming to have been contemporary of the climate scientists operating at the time, you don't actually have much relevant contemporary experience to bring to the table.

Would you similarly use the current GCSE physics syllabus as evidence of the consensus understanding of the higgs-bosun particle? I doubt it, as that would plainly be ridiculous.

Hi

I agree, I wouldn't, but dare say, both the examination board who set the syllabus and the publishers of contemporaneous textbooks would be far more likely to ....

Regarding the particle physics, I would simply take the view that the 'higgs-bosun' didn't actually exist!. However, as for the 'Higgs boson', at some time in the future, I would hope that the history concerning it's (/their ?) existence would be based on contemporaneous accounts, not upon a simple count of papers on both sides of the debate for it's (/their ?) existence prior to discovery and the number if times each paper had been cited over the next 15 years ...

HTH
Z