You forgot to include Global Cooling that was popular in the 1970s

Global Cooling = AGW

I was only trying to lighten up the debate here your Lordship. I don’t want you going off in tears like last night.

Now to the shocking document to which you refer.

I see you peruse some detailed and unbiased scientific journals, personally I always give the SMH the highest credibility. Perhaps the Beano Guide to Glacier Shrinkage may contain further data. But moving on…

The data appears to come from (once again) the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, an august body that is currently being investigated for forging data to further its ends.

Seriously LF, isn’t there ANY other research body in the world that produces this data. Why is it always CRU?????? Smell a rat???? Cos I do…

Incidentally, the link provided doesn’t go to the data, but to a press release.

But lets take a look at it anyway.

First, remove ANY reference to the individual year. As my grandmother used to say, “one swallow does not a summer make”, and so too, one hot summer means bugger all. We are dealing with statistical evaluation of thermal trends here, not “Wow its hot today”.

This mans we can remove most of what Pittman says. Three heatwaves, fourth hottest summer since 1850 etc. all good media hyperbole, but in fact completely unscientific.

Now lets look at that last sentence.

“Globally, the combined sea surface and land surface air temperature for January to October this year is estimated at 0.44 degrees above the 1961 to 1990 annual average of 14 degrees, making it likely 2009 will rank in the top 10 years on record”.

I assume he means 1850-2009 when he says “on record”. That’s 159 years. Agreed?

Top ten in 159. Do you want me to tell you the statistical likelihood of that occurring randomly?

I guess you already see the flaw….

the article says:

This information was fed to three analysis centres, including one maintained jointly with the British Met Office by the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, which has been at the centre of the climate email affair, after its computers were hacked.

The other two analysis centres are the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Goddard Institute of Space Studies at NASA.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

I didn't claim that SMH a 'detailed and unbiased scientific journal'. I simply posted a link from today's newspaper to get you back on topic.

I would like it if you could post your evidence that proves that AGW is a myth.

I have never claimed AGW was a myth. I have consistently said I dont know if it is real or not. what I have said is that the siocentific research being used is not sufficiently transparent and robust.

I develop predictive analytical systems that forecast the future with reasonable confidence. We do this with huge data warehouses and multidimensional analytical software. We take the data and develop trends and patterns. (our data is probably bigger than the CRU database).

Interestingly Mrs Fields Cookies were very early adopters of the technology. They developed their own network, and fed in regional conditions and events, and cookie sales. After a few years the system was able to predict demand with a reasonable level of accuracy. There is an article about it here:

http://dssresources.com/interviews/f...s04092004.html

I mention MFC because I read an article about them years ago, and that picked up my interest in predictive analytics.

MFC were interested in daily or even hourly predictions, because they guaranteed each cookie was freshly baked. They wanted to know how many to bake, hour by hour, on any given day, to avoid wastage.

Most of my work now is monthly and more usually annually.

I usually tell clients I have a 5/3 rule. Give me 5 years of historical data, and I can predict the next 3. I estimate confidence in the predicted years to be 80%, 70% and 60%. There is no point in 50% confidence about predictions, since obviously you may as well toss a coin.

We take any internal data that may have an impact, and add external data. CPI, exchange rates, stick market indices, even things like the Big Mac index. We then adjust each in multidimensional cubes, by weighting against other data. That’s the hard bit. The world Bank uses one that a colleague of mine designed, where one single cube =420,933,006,799,944,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0 00,000 (420.933 Duodecillion) data points. Thats a big cube.

But by using data we can provide reasonably accurate predictions of the future. Read Professor Ian Ayres book “Super Crunchers” to have a better idea.

I may not be a climatologist. But I work with data to predict the future, and that is exactly what the climatologists are doing. And from what I have seen and read about CRU, they are doing it wrong.

The above is confirmation of the real problem with this subject. People do not really listen to what others are saying, and just assume that any questions to get to the real facts are denying it even exists. When all parties almost certainly actually realise that something is happening, but not exactly what for certain.

I have to agree with you on this ABC. It's the nature of the debate that is important here. Slaphead has, on a couple of occasions, said that he is unsure of the sources of AGW. He hasn't said that he doesn't believe in it, just that he feels that the science/modeling that has lead to it has been at fault.

Lord Farquar, on the other hand, appears to assume that because Slaphead is questioning the data/methods/analysis used, then it must follow that he is an AGW denier.

This is the same reaction that we see mirrored in the scientific community, which is stifling debate and open discussion on the issue. As soon as anybody stands up and questions the nature/quality/veracity of the data, they are instantly decried as being deniers. This instantly closes down any valid discussion about the topic, in the same way that discussion of the existence of god was snuffed out in dark ages.

Unfortunately, until we can get away from this quasi-religious attitude towards null and alternative hypotheses, I don't think that we are going to advance our understanding of the subject.


S

We were having a good argument until you came along, with rational thinking.

I was doing well with my 4ft penis theory.

That would require large underpants.

Its much easier to predict demand for cookies at 4pm today in Detriot than to predict the weather.

Give me five years of demand for Honda cars in Australia, and I can tell you how many will sell in January 2010 with considerable accuracy. They can be subject to foreign exchange variations and global economic factors, affected by competitor campaigns etc, but I can calculate how many will sell. I can even do it region by region, dealership by dealership, or even salesman/woman by salesman/woman.

Airline ticket sales to the UK on Christmas day? Easy.

But to tell you how hot it will be tomorrow with any degree of accuracy?

Very hard indeed.

It does, yes.

The BOM does it quite well with their computers(!)

This reminds me of another debate...

My blackberry tells me (1630 today) tomorrow will be H30 L21. That’s a 9 degree spread. To get 80% accuracy then they need to be within a degree either way.

Lets see.

But wait. Google weather says H23 L18. WTF. That’s a 5 degree spread anyway.

Stop!! Weather.com says H26 L20.

BOM says (city) H26 L19.

Who to believe…..