"Waghorn" wrote in message
...

Martin

Not sure what anybody is trying to get at here but current thinking is that
temperature records should exhibit power law scaling typical of non linear
systems. For an apparent contradiction to this in the CET -

Scaling of Central England Temperature Fluctuations?
Joanna Syrokaf and Ralf Toumif
Abstract
Central England temperature fluctuations are found to be monoscaling
with long-range dependence. Monoscaling can be explained in terms of
the dominance of Gaussian temperature advection. Simulations of the
UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre general circulation model do not
capture many of these features.
Atmospheric Science Letters
Volume 2, Issues 1-4 , June 2001, Pages 143-154
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/1530261X

also see-
http://www.copernicus.org/EGS/egsga/...ts/aai0997.pdf


David,

Thanks for those links. I have copied the abstract from the second link
below because it tends to back up what I am thinking;

-------------------------------------

TESTING FOR SCALING AND PERSISTENCE IN COUPLED OCEANATMOSPHERE
CIRCULATION MODELS
J.Syroka and R.Toumi
Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Imperial College
A simple and effective method to test the Hadley Centre climate model
simulations for persistence and non-stationarity on a range of time scales
is introduced. Surface daily temperature fluctuations for three regions are
examined: Central England, Eastern Tropical Pacific and global. It is found
that different versions of the climate model systematically underestimate
the persistence of global mean temperatures. The anti-persistence in the
El-Nino region is also underestimated by the model. Scaling behaviour seen
in the Central England temperature record is only reproduced by one version
of the model. These inadequacies may be due to insufficient ocean
atmosphere coupling within the modelled climate system. Systematic
underestimates of model variability imply reduced confidence with which an
anthropogenic signal may be detected.

--------------------------------------

I wrote;
"Alastair McDonald" k wrote
in message ...

"Martin Dixon" wrote in message
...
I on the other hand am surprised that so many stations are above CET. My
own readings are -0.6C (mean 4.6), and I am not usually that far out!

I have recoded only three below CET monthly averages in the past two
years, but that includes two of the last three months.

No, I'm not going to claim that it is further evidence of Global Cooling
:-)

But will you accept that the reason that your readings are exceptions is due
to the chaotic nature of weather and climate, and not just random chance :-?

Cheers, Alastair.

It is the power law scaling, (due to chaos not chance) which lets Martin's
figures go in the opposite direction to the CET.

The Hadley Centre model is wrong because it cannot reproduce this
power law effect. (They use a linear approach to the feedback from water
vapour instead of a large positive feedback which would produce the
chaotic effect seen.)

The chaotic nature of weather and climate has resulted in the "reduced
confidence with which an anthropogenic signal may be detected" amongst
many in this newsgroup and the general public. Once you see that the
weather is chaotic and not random, then it is obvious that climate change
is happening.

Cheers, Alastair.

PS I did a little editting to improve readablity, but have not changed the
sense of what went before, I hope!