Climategate

Deep Easterly

Deep Easterly wrote: »

Will do up Belmullet's data into chart later on. Doland Baker, try adding a linear trend line into the graph, as it usual gives a fairly good indication of what what way data is heading.

Good idea.. My excell skills are not that good! OK if I rtfm

OK I've done a couple of trendlines one for the whole series and one for a 10 year average, I have also changed the vertical scale to make it easier to read.

Deep Easterly

Belmullet data only goes back to 1961, but here is a quick chart of yearly means for the station for the 61-08 period:

Deep Easterly

Deep Easterly wrote: »

Belmullet data only goes back to 1961, but here is a quick chart of yearly means for the station for the 61-08 period:

Just for comparative purposes I have done another chart for just 1961 - 2008

Mothman

Deleted User wrote: »

Thanks,I've just downloaded the data, I have found dublin and did a quick squirt into excell, and ther appears to be no major changes over the 160 years of data, but it is clear that recent winters are less severe than those in the middle of the 20th century.

If it is Dublin Airport then it is bad example to use because the station was moved fairly recently, I think the mid 90s. The new site is a colder site.

Belmullet also has an issue that has I believe has compromised the site during recent years.

Good work though DB and DE

Mothman

Mothman wrote: »

If it is Dublin Airport then it is bad example to use because the station was moved fairly recently, I think the mid 90s. The new site is a colder site.

Belmullet also has an issue that has I believe has compromised the site during recent years.

Good work though DB and DE

Source file information

Number= 039690
Name= DUBLIN AIRPORT
Country= IRELAND
Lat= 53.4
Long= 6.3
Height= 68
Start year= 1851
End year= 2009
First Good year= 1851
Source ID= 30
Source file= Jones+Anders
Jones data to= 1991
Normals source= Data
Normals source start year= 1961
Normals source end year= 1990
Normals= 5.1 5.0 6.3 7.9 10.6 13.4 15.1 14.8 13.1 10.8 7.2 6.0
Standard deviations source= Data
Standard deviations source start year= 1941
Standard deviations source end year= 1990
Standard deviations= 1.5 1.6 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.2 1.0 1.3
Obs:

OK I've repeated the exercise for Malin head.

Number= 039800
Name= MALIN HEAD
Country= IRELAND
Lat= 55.4
Long= 7.3
Height= 20
Start year= 1890
End year= 2009
First Good year= 1890
Source ID= 33
Source file= Jones+Anders
Jones data to= 2001
Normals source= Data
Normals source start year= 1961
Normals source end year= 1990
Normals= 5.4 5.2 6.3 7.7 10.0 12.4 13.9 14.1 12.8 10.8 7.6 6.4
Standard deviations source= Data
Standard deviations source start year= 1941
Standard deviations source end year= 1990
Standard deviations= 1.2 1.3 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.7 1.1
Obs:

This chart looks a lot scarier because it starts with a particurlary cool period and ends with a warm one.

Mothman

I have the Dublin AP file but don't know when I'll get to look at it. I am confused with regard what data is being used. When the climate station at Dublin AP opened escapes me at moment, but I think in the 40s, so where is the data from before then?

And just to clarify re Belmullet, the issue I refer to was mentioned to me in passing and I can't share it here, but I think it may be quite a recent one (past 5 years) because I can't see anything vastly different when viewing the satellite photos from 1995,2000 & 2005.

Finally another chart with a longer timeline, Stockholn.

Number= 024851
Name= STOCKHOLM
Country= SWEDEN
Lat= 59.3
Long= -18.1
Height= 44
Start year= 1756
End year= 2009
First Good year= 1756
Source ID= 35
Source file= Jones+Anders
Jones data to= 2000
Normals source= Data
Normals source start year= 1961
Normals source end year= 1990
Normals= -3.6 -3.8 -0.8 3.7 9.4 14.5 16.2 15.5 11.5 7.3 2.1 -1.6
Standard deviations source= Data
Standard deviations source start year= 1941
Standard deviations source end year= 1990
Standard deviations= 3.2 3.6 2.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.6 2.1
Obs:

One thing I've noticed in all of the charts is the fact that the variations have increased in the final ten years or so, I wonder how much of this could be explained by the use of modern measuring methods as opposed to manual reading of mechanical instruments!

Also note where all the source data came from!

Just for the craic, I have redone the Dublin charts just with the January and July Temperatures.



It appears that the winters have become less cold rather than the summers getting warmer?

Any statisticians around? Seems to me like the deviation from the mean is as large in most cases, (but not all), and in some larger than the change from the start to the end. In my opinion either:

A) the time frame is not long enough to be conclusive
or
the increase is within natural variation

of course in combination with thousands of other weather stations around the world it might change things. Also bear in mind that Ireland is one of the places expected to be least effected by rising temperatures!

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Also bear in mind that Ireland is on of the places expected to be least effected by rising temperatures!

Yes that's true, the Atlantic is the prime driver of the weather here.

Edit: OK here's one from De Bilt, in the Nederlands.



And one for St Petersburg



Plus one from Hobart Australia (note dodgy info around 1880)

still, overall changes are within the overall range even if you do not include the recent say 30/40years for the purpose of the range and yet include it for the trend!

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

still, overall changes are within the overall range even if you do not include the recent say 30/40years for the purpose of the range and yet include it for the trend!

The only trend that is appearing, is that the winters are less severe, but as you say they are all small in comparison with the yearly variations that have been seen in the past.

What about different scales on the side

for example:



and



are both images showing the exact same trend and data, just the side scale is different

Meanwhile at Copenhagen:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6762640/Copenhagen-climate-summit-global-warming-caused-by-suns-radiation.html

Global warming is caused by radiation from the sun, according to a leading scientist speaking out at an alternative "sceptics' conference" in Copenhagen.

Professor Henrik Svensmark, a physicist at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen, said the recent warming period was caused by solar activity.

He said the last time the world experienced such high temperatures, during the medieval warming period, the Sun and the Earth were in a similar cycle.

Professor Nils-Axel Morner, a geologist from Stockholm University, said sea level rise has also been exaggerated by the “climate alarmists” using computer models.

He said observational data from lake sediments, coast lines and trees show sea levels have remained stable.

Professor Cliff Ollier, another geologist from the University of Western Australia, also said the environmental lobby have got it wrong on ice caps. He said the melting of ice sheets is caused by geothermal activity rather than global surface temperatures.

Professor Ian Plimer, from the University of Adelaide, claimed carbon dioxide from volcanoes rather than humans is driving warming as part of a natural process.

The meeting was organised by Danish group Climate Sense and the lobby group Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT).

Craig Rucker, Executive Director of CFACT, admitted the organisation have taken funding from Exxon Mobil in the past but pointed out that many environmental groups are also receiving funding from major corporations.

e04bf099

At the absolute minimum, we know that the science is not "out" and there are many many theories that are faaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrr more probable than the current vomit coming out about links to carbon. The vomit might be correct, but it certainly isn't proven or definite, like we are led to believe by our idiot media and the manipulative politicians. I'm not talking conspiracy theories here. It is common knowledge and perfectly out in the open that they wish to give more power to the executive branches of governments around the world, after the success of China. Enda Kenny wants to get rid of the senate ffs, and he repeatedly discusses talking about making the executive branch of government more effficient. Thats what Lisbon was all about. And thats fine. There are many good reasons for doing this. I would fall on the side of a decent debate, and thats all. I don't have strong convictions either way.

But using lies and deceit to buffer this project and damaging the credibility of scientific enquiry is pure madness! I would call these proponents of anthropogenic change insane on a level comparable to Europeans in the first 50 years of the 20th century.

Not that all greens are insane. If you're a proponent of resourcism and new economic theories then fine. Thats a legitimate position. But if you believe in lying to the worlds population to get your ideology past the post then you are clearly stupid, naive and mad!

PatHawkins

Did anyone know what happened to that "barbecue summer"?

PatHawkins

I have a question,

an "expert" was on the news the other day. He claimed that 8 of the ten warmest years every occured in the last decade.

This is clearly outright lies, the BBC have even admitted that the world has cooled since 1998.

This sham is quickly falling apart.

nilhg

PatHawkins wrote: »

I have a question,

an "expert" was on the news the other day. He claimed that 8 of the ten warmest years every occured in the last decade.

This is clearly outright lies, the BBC have even admitted that the world has cooled since 1998.

This sham is quickly falling apart.

Well think about it, if 1998 was the warmest year on record, then by definition the world has cooled since, that doesn't preclude 8 of the ten warmest years having occured this decade.

If you think it's lies fine just show us a link that demonstrates that.

asdasd

Lawson pointed out that it were as if population growth had stalled in the UK, but continued to fluctuate around but below the level in 1998. You could say that population had stalled, or you could say that 8 out of the last ten years had seen the biggest UK population ever.

Or with the Irish economy? Recession? Nope 2008 and 2009 are in the top ten of GDP ever. It probably is that all of the top ten years for the Irish economy were in the last decade ( which is the case unless 2009 is less than 1999).

And so on.

True, but misleading.

nilhg

nilhg wrote: »

Well think about it, if 1998 was the warmest year on record, then by definition the world has cooled since, that doesn't preclude 8 of the ten warmest years having occured this decade.

If you think it's lies fine just show us a link that demonstrates that.

the hypothesis it that as CO2 ++ then Temp ++ , clearly it should be warmer in 2009 than is was in 1998 now that we are 11 years on for the hypothesis to hold true

asdasd

asdasd wrote: »

Lawson pointed out that it were as if population growth had stalled in the UK, but continued to fluctuate around but below the level in 1998. You could say that population had stalled, or you could say that 8 out of the last ten years had seen the biggest UK population ever.

Or with the Irish economy? Recession? Nope 2008 and 2009 are in the top ten of GDP ever. It probably is that all of the top ten years for the Irish economy were in the last decade ( which is the case unless 2009 is less than 1999).

And so on.

True, but misleading.

lol

Good analogy!

nilhg

Deleted User wrote: »

the hypothesis it that as CO2 ++ then Temp ++ , clearly it should be warmer in 2009 than is was in 1998 now that we are 11 years on for the hypothesis to hold true

Yes in simple terms you would expect that, but we all know that the earth's climate is not a simple system.

I'm just saying that despite the opinion expressed ,what the man on the news said is compatible with the truth, I'm not saying it's right (though I suspect it is) but it's not obviously wrong.

Interesting Data from Australia!
Do we have similiar graphs?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Interesting Data from Australia!
Do we have similiar graphs?

Here is a link to some data from Armagh http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/stationdata/armaghdata.txt

I may graph it later unless some else volunteers first

http://www.met.ie/climate/climate-data-information.asp

Most historical data held by Met Éireann are not available on this Web Site. A range of Climate data and products can be obtained by completing an Order Form or by contacting Climate Enquiries. There are charges for the supply of climate data.

^^ An absolute disgrace. Information collected using taxpayers money and they want to charge us for it. It should be open, free and importantly because they are carbon taxing us now the information should be transparent.

:mad:

OK as promised here is the rainfall in Armagh chart, looks quite level to me...

Just an observation - over in the snow threads the computer models are only reliable a few days out. How can the climate models be anyway accurate!