Climate Change Temperature Records

[nonethewiser]

Good to see cold weather return, just how it should be in January.

No way as cold as remember it in childhood where days would turn into weeks of freezing weather.

 

[Drummer]

We have lived in the same house for over 40 years, I planted two apple trees to shade the south facing windows in the kitchen and my husband's birthday is March 14 mine is April 13th, the children September 5th and November 9th.
I have seen the blossom on the apple trees appearing ever closer to my husband's birthday than mine through the decades, and the leaves changing colour later in the year.
It is one tiny plot of land, and there have been a few fluctuations, but the trend is pretty obvious.
To have a cold winter with snow in November - never seen that in a generation, is bad enough - but for it to be the year when winter fuel payments were stopped is rather dismal.

 

[Docb]

Just found this thread. The idea that the met office did not know what they were doing when it came to assessing temperature trends and were deliberately skewing data to get a preferred result is just plain daft. End of story.

 

[Amity Island]

Just found this thread. The idea that the met office did not know what they were doing when it came to assessing temperature trends and were deliberately skewing data to get a preferred result is just plain daft. End of story.

Temperature (at survey stations) is something that is measured not estimated?

The findings are currently lodged with the Secretary of State for Science, Information and Technology responsible for the Met Office.

Email can be read here.

Letter to Peter Kyle MP – Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology.

On the 19th July 2024, following correct protocol, I emailed my constituency MP, Rosie Duffield, asking her to forward a report I had produced onto Peter Kyle MP (above) in his capacity of Secretar…

tallbloke.wordpress.com

 

[Docb]

@Amity Island - Dunno if you have ever tried to collect data in quantity to try and analyse anything but I can assure you that it is not straightforward. Compromises always have to be made and I personally am content that the Met Office are probably in the best position to make them with regard to collecting weather data.

The e-mail you refer to is quite interesting in that it goes to great length to question a small part of the data implying that is enough to invalidate the data set as a whole. Steers very clear of any numerical assessment. Food for the gullible is my assessment.

Global temperatures are rising, a few patched holes in the Met Office data set will not alter that assessment. The logic that this is coincident with increasing industrialisation and burning of fossil fuels is compelling.

 

[CliffH]

@Amity Island - Dunno if you have ever tried to collect data in quantity to try and analyse anything but I can assure you that it is not straightforward. Compromises always have to be made and I personally am content that the Met Office are probably in the best position to make them with regard to collecting weather data.

The e-mail you refer to is quite interesting in that it goes to great length to question a small part of the data implying that is enough to invalidate the data set as a whole. Steers very clear of any numerical assessment. Food for the gullible is my assessment.

Global temperatures are rising, a few patched holes in the Met Office data set will not alter that assessment. The logic that this is coincident with increasing industrialisation and burning of fossil fuels is compelling.

I have no interest in debating climate change - but I do retain a small interest in statistical analysis, even though it's been many years since I carried out any research or analysed data in significant quantities. So, I read the email!

One thing that interests me is how data from 'closed' sites are represented: from skimming the email, it seems as if the data from closed sites are simply extrapolated forwards, which practice appears to be of dubious validity.

 

[Amity Island]

@Amity Island - Dunno if you have ever tried to collect data in quantity to try and analyse anything but I can assure you that it is not straightforward. Compromises always have to be made and I personally am content that the Met Office are probably in the best position to make them with regard to collecting weather data.

The e-mail you refer to is quite interesting in that it goes to great length to question a small part of the data implying that is enough to invalidate the data set as a whole. Steers very clear of any numerical assessment. Food for the gullible is my assessment.

Global temperatures are rising, a few patched holes in the Met Office data set will not alter that assessment. The logic that this is coincident with increasing industrialisation and burning of fossil fuels is compelling.

The climate change science is far too complex for many (including me) to grasp, too many interconnected factors. However, I think there appears to be valid issues with the temp findings, which have been handed to the government to offer their response.

 

[Docb]

My concern about this was more about the approach than climate science. Challenging data by trying to raise doubts over small parts of the data set is weak. It is an approach used by those motivated by politics rather than trying to properly evaluate the worth of a dataset in search of the best analysis that can be got from the data.

I have alluded before to the work I was involved in with regard to sewage spillages where those involved did not agree with Thames's waters interpretation of their data set. It took a few years and a lot of analysis by several very competent retired engineers and scientists to get Thames Water to change their position on sewage spillages. Between us we extracted and re-evaluated a lot of data from TW and did our own work to provide missing pieces. We worked slowly, carefully and patiently with TW to get them to accept that their assertion that spillages were due to "extreme weather" was only part of the story. Underinvestment in the sewage system leaving deteriorating underground pipe work which then allows ingress of groundwater is just as big a problem. That really was an inconvenient truth which many in TW appreciated but the organisation as a whole did not want talked about because of the commercial and reputational implications.

The point I make is that if you want to change the mindset of a large organisation, you need to put in the hard miles. You need to understand the data, evaluate it and present a credible alternative interpretation. You need to acquire data yourself to fill in gaps. You then need to work to open a dialogue to make progress.

The arguments ultimately live or fall by the quality of the technical work, not the politics. Writing long emails to here today and gone tomorrow politicians are of no lasting value.