Discussion > I'll bet not a lot of people know this
Alan
Sorry mate just seen your post. The reason I did about using one data point to represent a large area is that theoretically you can do that. Practically it might not be so good. However if you had a clean room with environment control you maybe could do that. But yes it's odd for a global temperate field.
Micky H Corbett
I think the selecting mechanism is that in order to be an alarmist commenter you have to be arrogant enough to not even hear criticism.
==================
kim
Why is it so unlikely that one point could approximate for the whole of the UK? Clearly the weather varies vastly across the country, but the weather is exactly not what is being measured. As average global temperatures rise I'd expect average local temperatures to rise, independent of where the 'local' is placed. Is there anyone who would not expect that? The rise may be more in the Arctic, but would anyone expect the average difference across 10 degrees of the globe to be significant? The only reason I see to want more than one point for the UK is noise reduction.
Raff
As average global temperatures rise I'd expect average local temperatures to rise, independent of where the 'local' is placed. Is there anyone who would not expect that?
Well, Raff, I'm not sure I'd 'expect' that, even if it sounds plausible.
As an example, I remember in East Anglia, it was sometimes very cold in winter due to cold from winds blowing from the North East (Siberia?). In contrast, I think that in South West England, winters are often mild because of warmth carried by the sea from the South West (the Gulf Stream?).
It does not seem to obvious to me that, in the event of the climate changing, the two effects would change in step such that measurements made in, say, Norwich, would precisely follow those in, say, Plymouth.
Martin A
One of the major flaws in this argument is that the assumption is one of uniformity; there has been a monitoring station in that vicinity for x years, thus any changes to the instrument readings must be valid – there appears to be no accounting for changing location, local environment, instruments, or observers. Let us assume that the site selected for measurements in, say, 1960, for England was close to its centre, like, say, Oadby, in Leicestershire; far enough outside Leicester to avoid building encroachment, and close enough to a crossroads, for ease of communication. All good, logical reasons for its adoption… except, with the 20/20 vision that hindsight gives us, this now puts it in the middle of a major dual carriageway in a sprawling conurbation. What a silly choice…
So, what precautions are being taken to ensure that this anomaly does not happen, or is accounted for? It would appear, none whatsoever; indeed, it would appear that those sites that possibly do have some uniformity, such as those in Paraguay (or is it Uruguay?), are suitably “adjusted” to take this into account; thus, where the temperature trend was downwards, they are now “homogenised” to show an upward trend. And there appear to be many folks for whom this sort of deception is quite a “normal” scientific practice. Hmmm. Are we anywhere near Billingsgate? There must be a reason for that odd smell…
Radical Rodent
I am indebted to MartinA for asking essentially the same question I posed to aTTP, but in a different format. And a question I believe I did not get an adequate answer.
I now ask a related question relating to the same statement made by Raff. He wrote "as average global temperatures rise I'd expect average local temperatures to rise, independent of where the "local" is placed". Well no, with local temperatures varying differently according to the influence of different oceanically determined cycles, I would not expect this statement to be true. The El Nino and La Nina events affect different parts of the globe differently. Similarly with the Pacific and North Atlantic cycles.
In a similar fashion, the LIA and MWP are categorized by some as not being global phenomena. If you accept this, then once again local changes would not reflect global changes.
Alan Kendall
Raff,
One point could provide a 'representative' temperature of the UK, but it would not necessarily close to the 'average' temperature of the UK, and its distance from the 'average' could change frequently for the reasons outlined by Maritn A above.
Steve Richards
In a similar fashion, the LIA and MWP are categorized by some as not being global phenomena. If you accept this, then once again local changes would not reflect global changes.
+1
splitpin
In a warming world, I expect temperatures to rise more or less everywhere. Why wouldn't they when there are such effective mechanisms for transporting heat around? There may be local exceptions where circulation patterns change; if such exceptions remain small (East Anglia, say) then they are unlikely to affect global averages; if they are comparable in size to the thermometer spacing, then the large area correlation you say doesn't exist, does.
I've looked at a few UK temperature records and they all seem to have gone steadily up. Is there somewhere that is going down?
Raff
Raff. If one believes that the LIA and the MWP were regional phenomena, essentially confined to the North Atlantic region, then here is a case where a large regional area displayed a cooling event. This seems to go against your opening sentence (11.07pm, Apr 15).
Which bit of climate change orthodoxy are you rejecting?
Alan Kendall
Sorry been away on family duties. MartinA you asked what I meant by "entropic", it was clumsily put, but I meant that the data sets, according to GISS have a very low probability of being correct. So the source data has high entropy, it then passes through a channel, the adjustments, where the data are adjusted for things like altitude, location and time of observation and interpolations made where no data are available adding, in my view, to the entropy.
geronimo
Alan Kendall
I see no reason why an overall warming trend should not be accompanied by local cooling.
Western Europe is warmer than the norm for its latitude due to the AMOC. An AMOC weakening would cool us closer to that norm.
That may be under way. Measures of sinking rates in the Greenland Sea show a reduction in water entering the thermohaline circulation and a persistent cool spot has formed off Greenland.
Entropic man
Martin A
You remember the "lazy wind". ☺
Growing up in the Fens I was taught that the freezing lazy wind begins in the Ural mountains. It blows westwards across the Steppes, the Baltic, the North German plain, the Netherlands and the North Sea.
It becomes a lazy wind because it never has to go round an obstacle. When it hits you it goes straight through.
Entropic man
And for how long has the measurement of sinking rates in the Greenland Sea been under way?
Radical Rodent
Goodness, EM grew up in the Fens (as did my better half).
He's a bog- hopper.
I don't want to go any further with this, I believe the wife sometimes reads what I write; my granddaughter certainly does.
Alan Kendall
Alan Kendall
It is worse than you think. I moved to Ulster forty years ago and turned from an English bog hopper into an Irish bog hopper.☺
Entropic man
Radical Rodent
The first measurement was by a Captain Ellis in 1751.
More reliable measurements began in the late 1800s. IIRC the first papers suggesting a weakening in the flow were published about 20 years ago
Entropic man
Radical Rodent
There are paleo precedents. Research Heinrich events.
Entropic man
Alan Kendall
If one believes that the LIA and the MWP were regional phenomena, essentially confined to the North Atlantic region, then here is a case where a large regional area displayed a cooling event. This seems to go against your opening sentence
I don't see why. You'll have to explain it (especially since if they were regional, the world wasn't warming and so my "In a warming world" doesn't apply).
I jumped in at the end of this thread and didn't read what went before in detail, but I got the impression that "sceptics" were arguing that temperature correlations across large regions don't exist and therefore there are not enough thermometers to measure warming. Others suggest 60 or 100 is enough. This makes me wonder how many thermometers or proxies there were around the world outside Europe in the LIA or MWP. A lot more than 60 I expect otherwise "sceptics" would be admitting that the LIA and MWP are not the rocks they like to tie their horse to.
Wait a minute, what am I saying. It is a violation of the "sceptical argument exclusion principle", isn't it? Argument for the LIA being global and argument against temperature correlation across wide areas shall not be used together...
Raff
Raff, your horse is tied to Mann's Hockey Stick. How is that dependable or reliable? How many treemometers was that based on?
What are you saying about your logic exclusion principle? That all evidence that does not comply with the Holy Hockey Stick is null and void presumably, because the sanctity of Mann must not be challenged? 21st century climate science is an expert in history, geography, archaeology, botany, written records etc etc.?
golf charlie
Heh, it's 'horses' and we don't tie them to rocks, like the adamantine one to which you are tied.
================
kim
CO2 as climate control knob is your one trick pony, tied fast as sacrifice to the rampaging gods of Nature.
===================
kim
Goodness, tis like stereo: Kim in one ear, Ayla in the other.
Alan Kendall
Some climate scientists need to have their rocks tied to different horses. It would have unprecedented consequences, that would be worth repeating, and would help them to shriek the same tune, in very high voices.
golf charlie
You've confirmed mine. Thanks.