http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/

Definite drop in temps there coinciding by the way with the drop on sun spot numbers .
But hey but what do I know. Nothing

On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:10:34 -0800 (PST), Lawrence Jenkins
wrote:
But hey but what do I know. Nothing

You've realised!

--
Freddie
Castle Pulverbatch
Shropshire
221m AMSL
http://www.hosiene.co.uk/weather/
http://twitter.com/PulverbatchWx for hourly reports

On Friday, 6 December 2013 00:30:15 UTC, Freddie wrote:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:10:34 -0800 (PST), Lawrence Jenkins

wrote:

But hey but what do I know. Nothing



You've realised!



--

Freddie

Castle Pulverbatch

Shropshire

221m AMSL

http://www.hosiene.co.uk/weather/

http://twitter.com/PulverbatchWx for hourly reports


Thanks for reading and taking the time to respond.

Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Friday, 6 December 2013 00:30:15 UTC, Freddie wrote:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:10:34 -0800 (PST), Lawrence Jenkins

wrote:

But hey but what do I know. Nothing


You've realised!



--

Freddie

Castle Pulverbatch

Shropshire

221m AMSL

http://www.hosiene.co.uk/weather/

http://twitter.com/PulverbatchWx for hourly reports


Thanks for reading and taking the time to respond.
----------------------------------------------------------
Well it's either a badly presented graph or it's the longest continous
drop of the running mean since 1860!
Dave

On Friday, December 6, 2013 12:30:15 AM UTC, Freddie wrote:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:10:34 -0800 (PST), Lawrence Jenkins

wrote:

But hey but what do I know. Nothing



You've realised!



--

Freddie

Castle Pulverbatch

Shropshire

221m AMSL

http://www.hosiene.co.uk/weather/

http://twitter.com/PulverbatchWx for hourly reports

At last. Maybe we'll now have no more silly posts like this.

On 06/12/2013 01:31, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Friday, 6 December 2013 00:30:15 UTC, Freddie wrote:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:10:34 -0800 (PST), Lawrence Jenkins
wrote:

But hey but what do I know. Nothing

You've realised!

His knowledge is actually negative.
He sets out to deliberately mislead and misinform.

----------------------------------------------------------
Well it's either a badly presented graph or it's the longest continous
drop of the running mean since 1860!
Dave

It is a 10 year running mean and as such the values from 2003 onwards
are the averages of 9,8,...1 readings and so are dominated by the last
few years one of which was negative. It is an artefact of the smoothing!

The long term sliding 10 year mean will correct itself when the full
data are available, but the smoothed graph has a misleading artefact at
the end of its range.

FWIW here is the actual Zurich sunspot number graph over approximately
the same period. Note how at 1820 sunspot cycle was weak and the anomoly
was warm. The strongest sunspot cycle by far was in 1960 but if anything
it was cooler around then.

http://sidc.oma.be/sunspot-index-graphics/wolfaml.php

Whilst it is true that sunspot activity makes a tiny change to TSI and a
slightly larger change to UV (which may affect UK winter weather - the
jury is still out on that one) it is also true that the lying dittoheads
have been clutching at this sunspot cycle straw forever.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/12/2013 01:31, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Friday, 6 December 2013 00:30:15 UTC, Freddie wrote:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:10:34 -0800 (PST), Lawrence Jenkins
wrote:

But hey but what do I know. Nothing

You've realised!

His knowledge is actually negative.
He sets out to deliberately mislead and misinform.

----------------------------------------------------------
Well it's either a badly presented graph or it's the longest continous
drop of the running mean since 1860!
Dave

It is a 10 year running mean and as such the values from 2003 onwards
are the averages of 9,8,...1 readings and so are dominated by the last
few years one of which was negative. It is an artefact of the smoothing!

The long term sliding 10 year mean will correct itself when the full
data are available, but the smoothed graph has a misleading artefact at
the end of its range.
------------------------------------------------
I know that. But surely the rest of the graph is as well. It is still
the largest consecutive drop in rate of coolong since 1860 in the CET. I
wasn't drawing any great conclusions from that but it is what is and
should be recognised as such.
Dave

On 06/12/2013 10:42, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/12/2013 01:31, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Friday, 6 December 2013 00:30:15 UTC, Freddie wrote:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:10:34 -0800 (PST), Lawrence Jenkins
wrote:

But hey but what do I know. Nothing

You've realised!

His knowledge is actually negative.
He sets out to deliberately mislead and misinform.

----------------------------------------------------------
Well it's either a badly presented graph or it's the longest continous
drop of the running mean since 1860!
Dave

It is a 10 year running mean and as such the values from 2003 onwards
are the averages of 9,8,...1 readings and so are dominated by the last
few years one of which was negative. It is an artefact of the smoothing!

The long term sliding 10 year mean will correct itself when the full
data are available, but the smoothed graph has a misleading artefact
at the end of its range.
------------------------------------------------
I know that. But surely the rest of the graph is as well. It is still
the largest consecutive drop in rate of coolong since 1860 in the CET. I
wasn't drawing any great conclusions from that but it is what is and
should be recognised as such.
Dave

I don't know that is true. 1837-1841 looks similar to me and the
features at 1812-1841 and 1982-2010 look broadly comparable.

Even taking it at face value I don't think it is anything other than
recession towards the mean after an exceptionally high excursion in 1998
- basically yet another variant of the pick the hottest ever year and
show that some years after that have lower temperatures.

I don't like smoothed graphs like this without error bars on them.
(or for that matter even number of point filters applied to data)

11 year filtering would be altogether more satisfactory for claimatic
trends since it would average out any solar sunspot cycle components.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Friday, 6 December 2013 10:42:29 UTC, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:

On 06/12/2013 01:31, Dave Cornwell wrote:

Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

On Friday, 6 December 2013 00:30:15 UTC, Freddie wrote:

On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:10:34 -0800 (PST), Lawrence Jenkins

wrote:



But hey but what do I know. Nothing



You've realised!



His knowledge is actually negative.

He sets out to deliberately mislead and misinform.



----------------------------------------------------------

Well it's either a badly presented graph or it's the longest continous

drop of the running mean since 1860!

Dave



It is a 10 year running mean and as such the values from 2003 onwards

are the averages of 9,8,...1 readings and so are dominated by the last

few years one of which was negative. It is an artefact of the smoothing!



The long term sliding 10 year mean will correct itself when the full

data are available, but the smoothed graph has a misleading artefact at

the end of its range.

------------------------------------------------

I know that. But surely the rest of the graph is as well. It is still

the largest consecutive drop in rate of coolong since 1860 in the CET. I

wasn't drawing any great conclusions from that but it is what is and

should be recognised as such.

Dave



We must be heading for an iceage !

Keith (Southend)
http:www.southendweather.net
"Weather Home & Abroad"

On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 10:42:29 +0000
Dave Cornwell wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/12/2013 01:31, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Friday, 6 December 2013 00:30:15 UTC, Freddie wrote:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:10:34 -0800 (PST), Lawrence Jenkins
wrote:

But hey but what do I know. Nothing

You've realised!

His knowledge is actually negative.
He sets out to deliberately mislead and misinform.

----------------------------------------------------------
Well it's either a badly presented graph or it's the longest
continous drop of the running mean since 1860!
Dave

It is a 10 year running mean and as such the values from 2003
onwards are the averages of 9,8,...1 readings and so are dominated
by the last few years one of which was negative. It is an artefact
of the smoothing!

The long term sliding 10 year mean will correct itself when the
full data are available, but the smoothed graph has a misleading
artefact at the end of its range.
------------------------------------------------
I know that. But surely the rest of the graph is as well. It is still
the largest consecutive drop in rate of coolong since 1860 in the
CET. I wasn't drawing any great conclusions from that but it is what
is and should be recognised as such.

No. Assuming the graph is a 10-yr running mean, each point on the
curve for the rest of the graph is based on 10 years data, the past five
years do not have the same amount of data and so should be ignored
until another five years have passed.

Also, if it is a 10-year running mean, that would the wrong length to
choose as it must have errors due to the solar cycle - assuming the
solar cycle has any effect on temperature. For that reason, I use an
11-year running mean although I guess it's not perfect due to variation
in the cycle.

Having said all that, I have a strong suspicion that it's not a running
mean at all. My 11-year rolling mean does not show the decline as
consecutive, the means centred on 2006 and 2007 both being warmer than
2005. Ignoring similar little kinks, 1948-67 takes some beating with
the jump on the MO graph in 1969 not appearing on mine until 1962 and
being much smaller. Make that 'strong suspicion' a certainty.



--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. Mail: 'newsman' not 'newsboy'.
'Don't let old age put you off starting complicated jigsaws. If you
don't finish, it will give guests something fun to do at your funeral.'
- Bridget&Joan's Diary.