"camjay" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 22, 11:26 am, "Philip Eden" philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom
wrote:
"Joe Egginton" wrote :

I never trust anyone that says "the average" of anything. The average
is
a very crude measure. I rather be told the standard deviation it gives
a
much more clear measure.

To prove my point a little joke: Three hunters were in the forest,
they
saw a bear, one of the hunters said," I'll shoot him easy", the bear
moved
at the last minute, and the shot went two inches to the left. The
second
hunter said,"Bad luck, I'll show you how a proper hunter does it!", He
got
his aim, just has he shot he slipped on the wet ground the the shot
went
two inches to the right of the bear. The third hunter said," No point
in
me taking a shot, on average we've shot the bear!".

And of course there are over 6 billion people on this planet with
above-the-average number of legs.

below the average, surely...

No, above. Brain in gear, please, camjay.

Philip

On Oct 21, 11:06 pm, Scott W wrote:
The botanist has added his two penneth to the debate in a rather
interesting piece in the comment section of today's (Monday) Times...
It starts:

"Am I worried about man-made global warming? The answer is "no" and
"yes".

No, because the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction has come up
against an "inconvenient truth". Its research shows that since 1998
the average temperature of the planet has not risen, even though the
concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has continued to
increase.

Indeed, since last summer, it's actually been getting colder in the
northern hemisphere.

Scott W wrote:
The botanist has added his two penneth to the debate in a rather
interesting piece in the comment section of today's (Monday) Times...
It starts:

"Am I worried about man-made global warming? The answer is "no" and
"yes".

No, because the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction has come up
against an "inconvenient truth". Its research shows that since 1998
the average temperature of the planet has not risen, even though the
concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has continued to
increase.

Yes, because the self-proclaimed consensus among scientists has
detached itself from the questioning rigours of hard science and
become a political cause. Those of us who dare to question the dogma
of the global-warming doomsters who claim that C not only stands for
carbon but also for climate catastrophe are vilified as heretics or
worse as deniers..."

The full article is at

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle2709551.ece

The following appears on the Met Office Hadley centre website. It does not
support the assertion that the Hadley Centre has come up against an
"inconvenient truth".

The graphs of global temperature have always shown a marked fluctaution from
year to year as there are many factors affecting global temperatures.

Alan
11 October 2007

Following the High Court ruling on the climate change film An Inconvenient
Truth - by Al Gore, the Met Office today welcomes the outcome.

The Met Office advised the Department for Children Schools and Families
(DCSF) on the guidance that will now go with the film, and also helped all
those involved in the case gain a complete understanding of what is known
about climate change and where uncertainties remain.

Director Climate Science John Mitchell said: "The Met Office is pleased that
the evidence for climate change had been accepted in a British court of law
in line with the IPCC findings that warming our planet is unequivocal, and
that it is very likely that most of this warming is caused by man-made
greenhouse gases.

"We welcome the fact that such an accessible film is being shown to schools
so that young people will be informed on climate change and encouraged to
engage with the issues that will affect their future."

The Met Office continuously works closely with DCSF, providing educational
aids on both weather and climate change.

On Oct 22, 9:31 am, Graham P Davis wrote:
Dave Ludlow wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:06:51 -0700, Scott W
wrote:

...the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction has come up
against an "inconvenient truth". Its research shows that since 1998
the average temperature of the planet has not risen, even though the
concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has continued to
increase.

GW crusaders, is that right or wrong?

As to whether 1998 was the warmest year, it depends whose data you believe.
The Hadley data says 1998 but that from NASA says 2005. The problem I have
with the Hadley data is that it only uses areas with data. Now, some (or
many?) might see that as obviously the correct way of using the data.
However, this leads to the area warming the fastest, the Arctic, being
largely ignored.

As I understand their methods, the NASA data is expressed as anomalies and
these are interpolated over data-sparse areas so that the Arctic is
included. I'm not sure whether even this method correctly reflects the
amount of warming over the Arctic. This is an accepted method for dealing
with scattered data, for instance, the Met Office has used it for many
years in producing its SST analyses.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, one could have said in 1998 that the Earth
hadn't warmed in the past 8 years and in 1990 that it hadn't warmed in the
past 9 years.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman, not newsboy.
"What use is happiness? It can't buy you money." [Chic Murray, 1919-85]

The validity of the Hadley data must depend on how large an
area it ignores and what weight is given to the data from sparse
areas. If the area is not too large I would instinctively favour the
NASA method. How large is the difference, anyway?
I don't understand your last sentence. It implies that in
1998 the earth was no warmer than it was in 1990, and in 1990 was no
warmer than in 1981, which cannot be so. Did you mean *since* 1998?

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Oct 22, 9:31 am, Graham P Davis wrote:
Dave Ludlow wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:06:51 -0700, Scott W
wrote:

...the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction has come up
against an "inconvenient truth". Its research shows that since 1998
the average temperature of the planet has not risen, even though the
concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has continued to
increase.

GW crusaders, is that right or wrong?

As to whether 1998 was the warmest year, it depends whose data you
believe. The Hadley data says 1998 but that from NASA says 2005. The
problem I have with the Hadley data is that it only uses areas with data.
Now, some (or many?) might see that as obviously the correct way of using
the data. However, this leads to the area warming the fastest, the
Arctic, being largely ignored.

As I understand their methods, the NASA data is expressed as anomalies
and these are interpolated over data-sparse areas so that the Arctic is
included. I'm not sure whether even this method correctly reflects the
amount of warming over the Arctic. This is an accepted method for dealing
with scattered data, for instance, the Met Office has used it for many
years in producing its SST analyses.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, one could have said in 1998 that the Earth
hadn't warmed in the past 8 years and in 1990 that it hadn't warmed in
the past 9 years.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman, not newsboy.
"What use is happiness? It can't buy you money." [Chic Murray, 1919-85]

The validity of the Hadley data must depend on how large an
area it ignores and what weight is given to the data from sparse
areas. If the area is not too large I would instinctively favour the
NASA method. How large is the difference, anyway?

I meant to give some links to sites and forgot. Sorry. Have a look at
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/...rid/2007/1.gif to see the huge
area of the Arctic that is ignored by the Hadley dataset.

The NASA data has an anomaly of +0.71C for 1998 and +0.76C for 2005. So far,
this year is running at +0.75C.

I don't understand your last sentence. It implies that in
1998 the earth was no warmer than it was in 1990, and in 1990 was no
warmer than in 1981, which cannot be so. Did you mean *since* 1998?


My last sentence repeats what the AGW-deniers are saying. In 2007, they are
saying that the Earth is no warmer than in 1998. Equally, they could have
said *in* 1998 that the Earth is no warmer than in 1990, etc. To try and
make it clearer, *in* 1998, the warmest year on record was 1990. You have
misquoted me in alleging that I'd said that 1990 was no warmer than 1981.
You wouldn't have known that it was warmer until *after* 1990 so you could
have said *in* 1990 that the Earth hadn't warmed in the last 9 years!

By the way, could you please use a news-reader that ignores signatures?

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman, not newsboy.
"What use is happiness? It can't buy you money." [Chic Murray, 1919-85]

camjay wrote:

On Oct 21, 11:06 pm, Scott W wrote:
The botanist has added his two penneth to the debate in a rather
interesting piece in the comment section of today's (Monday) Times...
It starts:

"Am I worried about man-made global warming? The answer is "no" and
"yes".

No, because the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction has come up
against an "inconvenient truth". Its research shows that since 1998
the average temperature of the planet has not risen, even though the
concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has continued to
increase.

Indeed, since last summer, it's actually been getting colder in the
northern hemisphere.

I agree that it got colder in the northern hemisphere after last summer, but
then it started getting warmer during the spring. It does this every year
in case you hadn't noticed.


--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman, not newsboy.
"What use is happiness? It can't buy you money." [Chic Murray, 1919-85]

On Oct 22, 4:09 pm, Graham P Davis wrote:
Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Oct 22, 9:31 am, Graham P Davis wrote:
Dave Ludlow wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:06:51 -0700, Scott W
wrote:

...the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction has come up
against an "inconvenient truth". Its research shows that since 1998
the average temperature of the planet has not risen, even though the
concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has continued to
increase.

GW crusaders, is that right or wrong?

As to whether 1998 was the warmest year, it depends whose data you
believe. The Hadley data says 1998 but that from NASA says 2005. The
problem I have with the Hadley data is that it only uses areas with data.
Now, some (or many?) might see that as obviously the correct way of using
the data. However, this leads to the area warming the fastest, the
Arctic, being largely ignored.

As I understand their methods, the NASA data is expressed as anomalies
and these are interpolated over data-sparse areas so that the Arctic is
included. I'm not sure whether even this method correctly reflects the
amount of warming over the Arctic. This is an accepted method for dealing
with scattered data, for instance, the Met Office has used it for many
years in producing its SST analyses.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, one could have said in 1998 that the Earth
hadn't warmed in the past 8 years and in 1990 that it hadn't warmed in
the past 9 years.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman, not newsboy.
"What use is happiness? It can't buy you money." [Chic Murray, 1919-85]

The validity of the Hadley data must depend on how large an
area it ignores and what weight is given to the data from sparse
areas. If the area is not too large I would instinctively favour the
NASA method. How large is the difference, anyway?

I meant to give some links to sites and forgot. Sorry. Have a look athttp://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/tgrid/2007/1.gifto see the huge
area of the Arctic that is ignored by the Hadley dataset.

The NASA data has an anomaly of +0.71C for 1998 and +0.76C for 2005. So far,
this year is running at +0.75C.

I don't understand your last sentence. It implies that in
1998 the earth was no warmer than it was in 1990, and in 1990 was no
warmer than in 1981, which cannot be so. Did you mean *since* 1998?

My last sentence repeats what the AGW-deniers are saying. In 2007, they are
saying that the Earth is no warmer than in 1998. Equally, they could have
said *in* 1998 that the Earth is no warmer than in 1990, etc. To try and
make it clearer, *in* 1998, the warmest year on record was 1990. You have
misquoted me in alleging that I'd said that 1990 was no warmer than 1981.
You wouldn't have known that it was warmer until *after* 1990 so you could
have said *in* 1990 that the Earth hadn't warmed in the last 9 years!

By the way, could you please use a news-reader that ignores signatures?

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman, not newsboy.
"What use is happiness? It can't buy you money." [Chic Murray, 1919-85]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah! If you'd said "at the beginning of 1998 (or 1990)" all
would have been clear immediately. I have no dispute with what you
are saying, in that case.
As for ignoring signatures, I have no idea how to do that,
other than by rubbing them out. What's the problem, anyway?

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

"camjay" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 22, 11:26 am, "Philip Eden" philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom
wrote:
"Joe Egginton" wrote :

I never trust anyone that says "the average" of anything. The average
is
a very crude measure. I rather be told the standard deviation it gives
a
much more clear measure.

To prove my point a little joke: Three hunters were in the forest,
they
saw a bear, one of the hunters said," I'll shoot him easy", the bear
moved
at the last minute, and the shot went two inches to the left. The
second
hunter said,"Bad luck, I'll show you how a proper hunter does it!", He
got
his aim, just has he shot he slipped on the wet ground the the shot
went
two inches to the right of the bear. The third hunter said," No point
in
me taking a shot, on average we've shot the bear!".

And of course there are over 6 billion people on this planet with
above-the-average number of legs.

below the average, surely...

The vast majority of people have two legs but because of the tiny
mumber of people with zero or one leg, the average number of legs will
be something like 1.999999.

I suspect you were thinking that the average number of legs is below
two, which is the way this little teaser is sometimes phrased
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:34:23 +0100, "Philip Eden"
philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote:

"Scott W" wrote :
...the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction has come up
against an "inconvenient truth". Its research shows that since 1998
the average temperature of the planet has not risen, even though the
concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has continued to
increase.

Come on guys ... you're not taken in by this crude manipulation,
are you? You don't identify a trend by picking the warmest
year on record (warm because of the rampant El Niño occurring
at the time ... all El Niño years are globally warm) and then comparing
that with subsequent years. If you select your start and finish points
you can prove anything.

And Dr Bellamy thinks he can get away with calling a graph of global
temperature "research" without being accused of being misleading.

Now that I can see what he's done, I thought I'd do a bit of my own
manipulation... err, calculation... to test Dr Bellamy's assertion.
So I went to the Hadley dataset:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm downloaded the
ascii file and calculated the mean global temperature anomaly for the
9 years up to and including the warmest year (1998) and for the 9
years since then (though 2007 is of course incomplete).

I did it this way to be as generous as possible to Dr Bellamy over the
relevant timescale (his choice, "since 1998" so about 9 years). The
result is not unexpected:

1990-1998 +0.230 deg C (includes the warmest year on record)
1999-2007 +0.409 deg C (2007 being incomplete).

Needless to say, if the quote is accurate, I am now somewhat sceptical
of his motives.

--
Dave

Tudor Hughes wrote:


As for ignoring signatures, I have no idea how to do that,
other than by rubbing them out. What's the problem, anyway?


I could suggest that not using Google groups would be a good start as any
decent news-reader would identify the "-- " as the start of a signature and
ignore it when replying - but I won't bother. ;-)

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman, not newsboy.
"What use is happiness? It can't buy you money." [Chic Murray, 1919-85]