On 07/12/2013 18:11, exmetman wrote:
Hi

I know I have come in a bit late on the debate about the Met Office graph but my take on it is that if it were a 10 year centre moving average, then the smoothing line would have stopped in 2008, and because it dosent it strongly suggests that the latest values are for the period 2003-2013, and as such are as valid as the rest of the moving average series.

No. That isn't what they have done. The smoothed line is a weighted low
pass filter kernel applied to the data combined with some sort of ad hoc
extension to the end of the series based on recent means.

Since there was one aggressively low spike recently this biasses the
results. I get more or less the same graph but slightly spikier using a
basic boxcar average and 11 bins. If I use a Gaussian filter 1/e at 5
years exp(-t^2/5) I could reproduce their curve more or less exactly.

Their full dataset for seasonal and monthly is available online back to
1659. One interesting observation is that the years around 1730 were
actually as warm as it is now if the series is accurate back then.

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/data/download.html

I would have thought that the UKMO would have to be extremely careful about how the latest data is derived and have plumped for plotting the 10 year average (2003-2013) at the end of the 10 years i.e. 2013.

No. That isn't what they have done. The values plotted for years closer
to the end of series than 5 years are biased (compromised) by the
unstated assumptions they have made to extend the time series. This is
actually rather bad practice given that the deniers will attempt to put
their own twisted spin on it to pretend that AGW isn't happening.

Perhaps its worth getting in touch with them to find out.

Bruce.



--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 09/12/2013 08:38, Martin Brown wrote:

basic boxcar average and 11 bins. If I use a Gaussian filter 1/e at 5
years exp(-t^2/5) I could reproduce their curve more or less exactly.

Ooops typo ^^^^^^^^ should read exp(-(t/5)^2)

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

I decided to have a closer look at the Met Office CET graph, and see if I could match what they had come up with as regards that moving average. I then wrapped up the graphs in a blog about recent changes in CET.

The article in the usual place if you are interested:

http://xmetman.wordpress.com/2013/12...rature-series/

On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 17:55:32 UTC, exmetman wrote:
I decided to have a closer look at the Met Office CET graph, and see if I could match what they had come up with as regards that moving average. I then wrapped up the graphs in a blog about recent changes in CET.



The article in the usual place if you are interested:



http://xmetman.wordpress.com/2013/12...rature-series/

Well Bruce that still is a downward trend, right?

On Sunday, December 8, 2013 9:38:08 PM UTC, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, December 8, 2013 9:27:13 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

On Sunday, 8 December 2013 18:51:11 UTC, Dawlish wrote:



You lie.







What its not looking like Christmas? Suit yerself scrooge



Didn't think you could back your lies.

Still waiting. If you want to lie about me, I expect you to back it with evidence. If you can't; you lie.

On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 19:22:34 UTC, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, December 8, 2013 9:38:08 PM UTC, Dawlish wrote:

On Sunday, December 8, 2013 9:27:13 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:



On Sunday, 8 December 2013 18:51:11 UTC, Dawlish wrote:







You lie.















What its not looking like Christmas? Suit yerself scrooge







Didn't think you could back your lies.



Still waiting. If you want to lie about me, I expect you to back it with evidence. If you can't; you lie.

Did they call you when you was young 'Let it Go Garvey', You really have a screw loose if you are trying to deny the fact that you've upset quite a few people over the years . I should have added to that list Jim Cannon.

On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 8:59:24 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 19:22:34 UTC, Dawlish wrote:

On Sunday, December 8, 2013 9:38:08 PM UTC, Dawlish wrote:



On Sunday, December 8, 2013 9:27:13 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:







On Sunday, 8 December 2013 18:51:11 UTC, Dawlish wrote:















You lie.































What its not looking like Christmas? Suit yerself scrooge















Didn't think you could back your lies.







Still waiting. If you want to lie about me, I expect you to back it with evidence. If you can't; you lie.



Did they call you when you was young 'Let it Go Garvey', You really have a screw loose if you are trying to deny the fact that you've upset quite a few people over the years . I should have added to that list Jim Cannon.

When idiots like you lie and say things about me in public that are simply untrue, don't start wailing that it's all unfair and that no-one should question you. The only reason you did that was to get as personal as you can (after saying that you never get personal - one of the best laughs the newsgroup has had in years).

You said what you did, as you couldn't find any other arguments to counter the fact that you are the single foulest and foul-mouthed contributor to the newsgroup. I never "let things go" when I'm dealing with an idiot that squirms. We have to put up with your far-right wing nonsense and your hatred of your locality, your country, the MetO and other government institutions on a daily basis. I am not the only person that finds you obnoxious in your comments, as you have read and I'll comment whenever I feel it is fitting, with no deference to you.

Go on. Spew some more foulness. Or how about the weak little threats? From you, they are so hilarious.

On 10/12/2013 17:55, exmetman wrote:
I decided to have a closer look at the Met Office CET graph, and see if I could match what they had come up with as regards that moving average. I then wrapped up the graphs in a blog about recent changes in CET.

The article in the usual place if you are interested:

http://xmetman.wordpress.com/2013/12...rature-series/

I had a play with their data in Excel and the best fit filter (by eye)
is exp(-2.1t^2) with t in years relative to filter position.

The normalised filter kernel I found best fits their smoothed graph is
numerically

0.0205 0.0437 0.0786 0.1196 0.1539 0.1674 0.1539 0.1196 0.0786 0.0437 0.0205

Summed over 11 elements it is very close to reproducing all the features
of their graph. NB using the extended time series it is also obvious
that they have a pretty bad systematic error on the pre 1780 data shown
on the plot as compared to the reality (where data exists).

I am curious about the warm period around 1733 was that reported in the
press or reflected in unusually good UK harvests? It was warmer back
then than it is now and only the period 1993-2010 is actually higher.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown