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/

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

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"

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

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?

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...

"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.

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

"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.

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