Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) (uk.sci.weather) For the discussion of daily weather events, chiefly affecting the UK and adjacent parts of Europe, both past and predicted. The discussion is open to all, but contributions on a practical scientific level are encouraged. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi
I read an article in the Guardian today and it has me puzzled. Lord Stern states in the third paragraph of that article that climate change has arrived and is now happening. This may be correct , but what he says next to support his claim is not: "Four of the five wettest years recorded in the UK have occurred from the year 2000 onward" "Over that same period, we have also had the seven warmest years" With regard to the rainfall in the UK I use as my evidence the UKP dataset maintained by the UKMO and which dates back to 1766, and is in fact the oldest instrumental record of its kind in the world. Image:England Wales Annual Rainfall (1766-2013) You will see from the graph of the England Wales Precipitation series that only two and not five of the years since 2000 are in the top five wettest years (2000 & 2012), the next 21st century year 2002 appears at number 11. So instead of four out of five its 2 out of 5, or to be fair its 2 out of 10! What a whopper. The second one is worded ambiguously in my opinion - what I think he's trying to say is that 7 of the warmest years have occurred since 2000. As far as I can tell Lord Stern is still talking about the 'UK', as he was in the sentence before with regard to rainfall. So he is talking about UK temperatures and not global temperatures, and therefore I use as my evidence here the Central England Temperature series, which is also maintained by the UKMO and dates back in its monthly form to 1659. Image:Monthly CET Annual Anomalies for 1908 - 2013 As you can see in the rank tabulated list above, of the top 'seven warmest years', only three of the top seven occurred in this century 2006 (#1), 2011 (#2) and 2002 (#5), so why did Lord Stern say that 'we had the seven warmest years' when we only had three? I'm obviously missing something or other here, and I'm sure someone will explain what Lord Stern did mean in his article and point out what evidence he is using to support his claims about the five wettest and seven warmest years in the UK. Believe it or not, I'm a climate change agnostic, but I do have a passion for weather statistics, and hate it when someone is being more than a little misleading in using them! Bruce. http://xmetman.wordpress.com/2014/02...get-his-facts/ |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 14/02/2014 16:57, exmetman wrote:
Hi I read an article in the Guardian today and it has me puzzled. Lord Stern states in the third paragraph of that article that climate change has arrived and is now happening. This may be correct , but what he says next to support his claim is not: "Four of the five wettest years recorded in the UK have occurred from the year 2000 onward" "Over that same period, we have also had the seven warmest years" With regard to the rainfall in the UK I use as my evidence the UKP dataset maintained by the UKMO and which dates back to 1766, and is in fact the oldest instrumental record of its kind in the world. Image:England Wales Annual Rainfall (1766-2013) You will see from the graph of the England Wales Precipitation series that only two and not five of the years since 2000 are in the top five wettest years (2000 & 2012), the next 21st century year 2002 appears at number 11. So instead of four out of five its 2 out of 5, or to be fair its 2 out of 10! What a whopper. The second one is worded ambiguously in my opinion - what I think he's trying to say is that 7 of the warmest years have occurred since 2000. As far as I can tell Lord Stern is still talking about the 'UK', as he was in the sentence before with regard to rainfall. So he is talking about UK temperatures and not global temperatures, and therefore I use as my evidence here the Central England Temperature series, which is also maintained by the UKMO and dates back in its monthly form to 1659. Image:Monthly CET Annual Anomalies for 1908 - 2013 As you can see in the rank tabulated list above, of the top 'seven warmest years', only three of the top seven occurred in this century 2006 (#1), 2011 (#2) and 2002 (#5), so why did Lord Stern say that 'we had the seven warmest years' when we only had three? No idea. OTOH taking your top 7 (funny choice I prefer top 10 or 20 ToTP style) 21st Century 3 out of 14 = 21% 20th Century 3 out of 100 = 3% (and they are all in the 1990's) BTW What was special about 1949? that put it in the top 7? If you wanted to highlight it you could more reasonably point out that 6 out of the top seven warmest years have occurred since 1990. I'm obviously missing something or other here, and I'm sure someone will explain what Lord Stern did mean in his article and point out what evidence he is using to support his claims about the five wettest and seven warmest years in the UK. Believe it or not, I'm a climate change agnostic, but I do have a passion for weather statistics, and hate it when someone is being more than a little misleading in using them! Bruce. http://xmetman.wordpress.com/2014/02...get-his-facts/ How interesting. I had taken his claims at face value without actually bothering to go back to the primary sources. I hope he can back up his claims as the AGW deniers will otherwise pounce on any minor mistake. Thanks for looking into it. I think we will need to get hammered badly at least at another couple of times like this winter before the last few true sceptical scientists (as opposed to deniers for hire) will admit that AGW is real. I don't ever expect to see Lord Lawson, Monckton or Delingpole recant. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
exmetman writes: I read an article in the Guardian today and it has me puzzled. Lord Stern states in the third paragraph of that article that climate change has arrived and is now happening. This may be correct , but what he says next to support his claim is not: "Four of the five wettest years recorded in the UK have occurred from the year 2000 onward" "Over that same period, we have also had the seven warmest years" With regard to the rainfall in the UK I use as my evidence the UKP dataset maintained by the UKMO and which dates back to 1766, and is in fact the oldest instrumental record of its kind in the world. Image:England Wales Annual Rainfall (1766-2013) snip I suspect that he is using the Met Office's "official" series for the UK only going back as far as 1910, which seems to be the only rainfall data that the Met Office is interested in using in its press releases nowadays. -- John Hall "He crams with cans of poisoned meat The subjects of the King, And when they die by thousands G.K.Chesterton: Why, he laughs like anything." from "Song Against Grocers" |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 14/02/2014 16:57, exmetman wrote:
Hi I read an article in the Guardian today and it has me puzzled. Lord Stern states in the third paragraph of that article that climate change has arrived and is now happening. This may be correct , but what he says next to support his claim is not: "Four of the five wettest years recorded in the UK have occurred from the year 2000 onward" "Over that same period, we have also had the seven warmest years" With regard to the rainfall in the UK I use as my evidence the UKP dataset maintained by the UKMO and which dates back to 1766, and is in fact the oldest instrumental record of its kind in the world. Image:England Wales Annual Rainfall (1766-2013) You will see from the graph of the England Wales Precipitation series that only two and not five of the years since 2000 are in the top five wettest years (2000 & 2012), the next 21st century year 2002 appears at number 11. So instead of four out of five its 2 out of 5, or to be fair its 2 out of 10! What a whopper. The second one is worded ambiguously in my opinion - what I think he's trying to say is that 7 of the warmest years have occurred since 2000. As far as I can tell Lord Stern is still talking about the 'UK', as he was in the sentence before with regard to rainfall. So he is talking about UK temperatures and not global temperatures, and therefore I use as my evidence here the Central England Temperature series, which is also maintained by the UKMO and dates back in its monthly form to 1659. Image:Monthly CET Annual Anomalies for 1908 - 2013 As you can see in the rank tabulated list above, of the top 'seven warmest years', only three of the top seven occurred in this century 2006 (#1), 2011 (#2) and 2002 (#5), so why did Lord Stern say that 'we had the seven warmest years' when we only had three? I'm obviously missing something or other here, and I'm sure someone will explain what Lord Stern did mean in his article and point out what evidence he is using to support his claims about the five wettest and seven warmest years in the UK. Believe it or not, I'm a climate change agnostic, but I do have a passion for weather statistics, and hate it when someone is being more than a little misleading in using them! Bruce. http://xmetman.wordpress.com/2014/02...get-his-facts/ The sources the noble Lord used for his Stern Report (2006?) were widely criticised - not so much for being inaccurate, but that he twisted them to mean what he wanted them to mean. He quoted a report by someone whose name I forget to make a point, but the author categorically denied that what he had written meant what Stern assumed it did. -- Brian W Lawrence Wantage Oxfordshire |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 12:27:10 PM UTC, Brian Lawrence wrote:
On 14/02/2014 16:57, exmetman wrote: Hi I read an article in the Guardian today and it has me puzzled. Lord Stern states in the third paragraph of that article that climate change has arrived and is now happening. This may be correct , but what he says next to support his claim is not: "Four of the five wettest years recorded in the UK have occurred from the year 2000 onward" "Over that same period, we have also had the seven warmest years" With regard to the rainfall in the UK I use as my evidence the UKP dataset maintained by the UKMO and which dates back to 1766, and is in fact the oldest instrumental record of its kind in the world. Image:England Wales Annual Rainfall (1766-2013) You will see from the graph of the England Wales Precipitation series that only two and not five of the years since 2000 are in the top five wettest years (2000 & 2012), the next 21st century year 2002 appears at number 11. So instead of four out of five its 2 out of 5, or to be fair its 2 out of 10! What a whopper. The second one is worded ambiguously in my opinion - what I think he's trying to say is that 7 of the warmest years have occurred since 2000. As far as I can tell Lord Stern is still talking about the 'UK', as he was in the sentence before with regard to rainfall. So he is talking about UK temperatures and not global temperatures, and therefore I use as my evidence here the Central England Temperature series, which is also maintained by the UKMO and dates back in its monthly form to 1659. Image:Monthly CET Annual Anomalies for 1908 - 2013 As you can see in the rank tabulated list above, of the top 'seven warmest years', only three of the top seven occurred in this century 2006 (#1), 2011 (#2) and 2002 (#5), so why did Lord Stern say that 'we had the seven warmest years' when we only had three? I'm obviously missing something or other here, and I'm sure someone will explain what Lord Stern did mean in his article and point out what evidence he is using to support his claims about the five wettest and seven warmest years in the UK. Believe it or not, I'm a climate change agnostic, but I do have a passion for weather statistics, and hate it when someone is being more than a little misleading in using them! Bruce. http://xmetman.wordpress.com/2014/02...get-his-facts/ The sources the noble Lord used for his Stern Report (2006?) were widely criticised - not so much for being inaccurate, but that he twisted them to mean what he wanted them to mean. He quoted a report by someone whose name I forget to make a point, but the author categorically denied that what he had written meant what Stern assumed it did. Brian W Lawrence Wantage Oxfordshire There you go again, trying to bend the facts to cast far more doubt on the Stern review, than there actually is worldwide. The Stern review was accepted by far more than it was challenged, especially in Governmental circles in the UK and EU, though there is a body of opinion from some economists which says he was wrong to varying degrees. Other economists wrote such things as the review "removes the last bastion of support for the "Do Nothing" brigade on climate change" and that; "Now, doing nothing is not an option." A little research (it's not hard) and not reliance on your memory would remove the question mark after 2006 and the rather silly comment about "a report by someone whose name I forget". Just a small other technicality - it's a review, not a report. How can you say, about the facts in his review, that he "twisted them to mean what he wanted them to mean" whilst possessing so little knowledge about the review? Again, you've written this from the point of view that you don't like the conclusions. Why? |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
You've all entirely missed the point I was making in my original post. I did provide evidence that Stern was talking out of his arse, and from evidence provided by the UKMO, but of course my post has ended up being hijacked and ended up in the land of phantom posts never to see the light of day. I suppose, I only myself to blame, for trying to comment on a subject so heated (parden the pun) as global warming...
|
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "exmetman" wrote in message ... Hi I read an article in the Guardian today and it has me puzzled. Lord Stern states in the third paragraph of that article that climate change has arrived and is now happening. This may be correct , but what he says next to support his claim is not: "Four of the five wettest years recorded in the UK have occurred from the year 2000 onward" "Over that same period, we have also had the seven warmest years" With regard to the rainfall in the UK I use as my evidence the UKP dataset maintained by the UKMO and which dates back to 1766, and is in fact the oldest instrumental record of its kind in the world. Image:England Wales Annual Rainfall (1766-2013) ================================================== That is for England and Wales, not the UK. ================================================== You will see from the graph of the England Wales Precipitation series that only two and not five of the years since 2000 are in the top five wettest years (2000 & 2012), the next 21st century year 2002 appears at number 11. So instead of four out of five its 2 out of 5, or to be fair its 2 out of 10! What a whopper. The second one is worded ambiguously in my opinion - what I think he's trying to say is that 7 of the warmest years have occurred since 2000. As far as I can tell Lord Stern is still talking about the 'UK', as he was in the sentence before with regard to rainfall. So he is talking about UK temperatures and not global temperatures, and therefore I use as my evidence here the Central England Temperature series, which is also maintained by the UKMO and dates back in its monthly form to 1659. Image:Monthly CET Annual Anomalies for 1908 - 2013 ================================================== ====== Again, that is the Central ENGLAND temperatures, not UK or even England and Wales. ================================================== ====== As you can see in the rank tabulated list above, of the top 'seven warmest years', only three of the top seven occurred in this century 2006 (#1), 2011 (#2) and 2002 (#5), so why did Lord Stern say that 'we had the seven warmest years' when we only had three? I'm obviously missing something or other here, and I'm sure someone will explain what Lord Stern did mean in his article and point out what evidence he is using to support his claims about the five wettest and seven warmest years in the UK. Believe it or not, I'm a climate change agnostic, but I do have a passion for weather statistics, and hate it when someone is being more than a little misleading in using them! ============================================= AFAIK The Met Office UK statistics, which are based on official weather stations readings, only run from ~1910. ============================================= Hope this helps, Cheers, Alastair. |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Monday, February 17, 2014 8:02:17 PM UTC, Alastair wrote:
============================================= AFAIK The Met Office UK statistics, which are based on official weather stations readings, only run from ~1910. ============================================= Hope this helps, Cheers, Alastair. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Rowley told me 'The 'national series' is a UK-wide, gridded dataset that only extends back to 1910'. So it's been massaged to give an areal average. I don't much like raw data being messed about like this but I suppose no there no alternative. Len Wembury |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Len Wood" wrote in message ... On Monday, February 17, 2014 8:02:17 PM UTC, Alastair wrote: ============================================= AFAIK The Met Office UK statistics, which are based on official weather stations readings, only run from ~1910. ============================================= Hope this helps, Cheers, Alastair. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Rowley told me 'The 'national series' is a UK-wide, gridded dataset that only extends back to 1910'. So it's been massaged to give an areal average. I don't much like raw data being messed about like this but I suppose no there no alternative. Len Wembury But isn't the CET just a massaged set for a (small) region of the UK? OTOH, it is longer but is it accurate? Cheers, Alastair. |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Monday, February 17, 2014 11:53:30 PM UTC, Alastair wrote:
"Len Wood" wrote in message ... On Monday, February 17, 2014 8:02:17 PM UTC, Alastair wrote: ============================================= AFAIK The Met Office UK statistics, which are based on official weather stations readings, only run from ~1910. ============================================= Hope this helps, Cheers, Alastair. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Rowley told me 'The 'national series' is a UK-wide, gridded dataset that only extends back to 1910'. So it's been massaged to give an areal average. I don't much like raw data being messed about like this but I suppose no there no alternative. Len Wembury But isn't the CET just a massaged set for a (small) region of the UK? OTOH, it is longer but is it accurate? Cheers, Alastair. I recommend you read the article by Mike Kendon and Dan Hollis in Weather, Feb 2014, p37-41, concerning areal averages and anomalies and the pitfalls. There is a difference between volume anomalies and map anomalies. Len Wembury |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Lord Corbyn of Borough picks his winter forecast amateur champion | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Lord (very when it comes to AGW) Stern | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
PWS can't even be bothered to get their facts right... | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Lord Stern's dodgy dossier exposed | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
Bushy salami: Latest update: Bushy Salami heads toward the TSA on I-495 at 90 MPH with his newly purchased Belfort Instruments wind speed direction indicator mounted on top of th etaxi which he hailed from his inground cave! | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) |