I don't normally link to CiF articles (fish, barrel etc) but this is a classic of the genre:
That snow outside is what global warming looks like. Unusually cold winters may make you think scientists have got it all wrong. But the data reveal a chilling truth...
The global temperature maps published by Nasa present a striking picture. Last month's shows a deep blue splodge over Iceland, Spitsbergen, Scandanavia and the UK, and another over the western US and eastern Pacific. Temperatures in these regions were between 0.5C and 4C colder than the November average from 1951 and 1980.
But on either side of these cool blue pools are raging fires of orange, red and maroon: the temperatures in western Greenland, northern Canada and Siberia were between 2C and 10C higher than usual. Nasa's Arctic oscillations map for 3-10 December shows that parts of Baffin Island and central Greenland were 15C warmer than the average for 2002-09. There was a similar pattern last winter. These anomalies appear to be connected...
According to Nasa's datasets, the world has just experienced the warmest January to November period since the global record began, 131 years ago; 2010 looks likely to be either the hottest or the equal hottest year. This November was the warmest on record.
There is much hilarity and mirth in the comments section, I like this one best:
geoffthechaste: At last Monbiot has reverted to his true role of investigative journalist. He has unearthed the fascinating fact that the anomalous warming is where there are no inhabitants and no thermometers. This could be the scoop of his career.
What puzzles me is why he compares the November average for the cooler areas with the November average for the period 1951-80; states that other areas were warmer 'than usual' but without stating the period he's using for comparison; he then compares the December figures for the warmer areas with the average for 2002-09; he then rounds off by claiming that the January to November 2010 period was the warmest in 131 years.
I reckon that climate change 'scientists' are just overgrown schoolboys who are trying to get their revenge on maths teachers who always insist that you have to "show your workings".
"But I don't want to show my workings, sir, it's so boring! Anyway, I'm going to get a job where I don't have to show my workings, like climate change 'scientist'. So there!"
A simple solution
1 hour ago
22 comments:
I was thinking along the same lines, and my latest posting reflects this. Great minds think alike. Do you happen to be a moggy?
CC, no, human. That's a fine post of yours, but you're not much one for hyperlinks, are you?
Looking for something positive, it must be conceded that Monbiot (or a Grauniad subbie) is the first person writing in the media for some time who appreciates that "data" is plural.
"But the data reveal a chilling truth" is enough to warm the cockles of an old pedant's heart.
Or indeed the cockles of an old pain-in-the-arse's heart, which is the view my wife takes.
FT: "Monbiot is the first person writing in the media for some time who appreciates that "data" is plural."
Don't you mean: "Monbiot is the first person writing in the media for some time who appreciates that "data" are plural."?
Most of my posts are for scratching - hence the lack of hyperlinks. I take it that you were directed to my profile?
CC, yup, I went via profile.
MW
formertory is, I think, correct in writing that "data is plural". He is talking grammar, not discussing data. He could have said in response, say, to somebody writing "MW's posts is generally of a high standard", that the word "posts" in that sentence is not singular but plural and should be followed by "are" not "is". Similarly he writes (and approves) that data, as used in Monbiot's article, is plural.
Coincidentally, this was posted today.
U, of course he's correct :-)
(for some reason your comment went to Spam. Hmm.)
"What puzzles me is why he compares the November average....."
I think the technical term for it is "cherry-picking", an activity that seems to be the main method of collecting data for climate scientists.
B, are you suggesting that a serious climate change expert would 'cherry pick'? Surely not!
Does anyone else have those horrible dreams where you are at a wedding and Moonbat is marrying Yazzer, and you wake up screaming at the reception speeches?
WOAR, I'm happy to answer "No" to that question.
Don't you mean: "Monbiot is the first person writing in the media for some time who appreciates that "data" are plural."?
MW: No, sir, I meant exactly what I wrote. The use of the inverted commas to specify the word or the concept of "data", as opposed to the actual data under discussion, means that in this case, the singular construction are correct.
Oh bugger.
(PS Thanks, Umbongo!)
You have to remember that industries who have paid unecessary green taxes for decades now may decide to ask for it back ?
The warmists have to go all the way to their Alamo ,they have no choice now.
"B, are you suggesting that a serious climate change expert would 'cherry pick'? Surely not!"
I am sure they have a different term for it, like "curve smoothing" or "data normalisation".
FT, I were joking!
Anon, indeedy. Problem is, they are taking us all with them :-(
B, I think the term is "sending a message".
FT, I were joking!
Dammit. Sneaky, you accountants :o)
The thought that went through my head on reading Monbiot's screed is how utterly absurd the very concept of "global average temperature" is. Of course the good Professor Lindzen has been going on about that very thing for a decade and more, but I'm not as clever as him.
MW, I think the comment about not showing his working is a bit disingenuous. The Guardian piece says to look at his website for references, and the version on there is positively festooned with links and references to academic papers.
That may also answer the question about why different periods have been used for different points - he is quoting other people's papers, and they may have drawn on different data.
I've not had time to look through all those references and see if they make the points he's claiming for them, or whether they are reasonable in their use of different period etc., but the beauty of a nicely referenced version like this is that it is possible for those with the time to check the working.
TFB, that's another good point. The only bit on his Wiki page which I can even vaguely understand is this:
" A sea surface temperature increase in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth's atmosphere.
"This hypothesis suggests a negative feedback which would counter the effects of CO2 warming by lowering the climate sensitivity."
But I might be wrong.
Anon, fair play, but what about those Climategate chaps?
MW, re Climategate chaps, I think there are plausible justifications from both sides.
If they really believe in AGW, and having used good scientific methods they feel the case is pretty solid, then the very high level of badgering from those on the other side of the argument (who are not averse to cherry picking themselves) would understandably cause them to go into their shells, and only try to present the best stuff. Human nature.
If, on the other hand it's corruption or group-think, then they would also want to cherry pick and mis-represent their data.
Given that there are plausible explanations either way I don't think the revelations tell us much about which is the case. But in general I would support better access to scientific information - journal fees to read papers are very expensive if you aren't in a university, and much of the knowledge has been generated by people in universities paid for by our taxes (up until now, anyway...).
"But I don't want to show my workings, sir, it's so boring! Anyway, I'm going to get a job where I don't have to show my workings, like climate change 'scientist'. So there!"
I can't stress how epicly brilliant that throwaway quip is.
Post a Comment