We have had a disappointingly mild winter.
You will easily notice the bias in that sentence. Friends and long-time readers will know that I love snow, for many reasons. The data from the Meteorological Office puts the winter (1 December - 29 February) into context, using a technique that I've mentioned before - ranking the specific period against the rest of the data set.
So, by any measure, it was a wet and mild winter. Far more rain than usual (across the country), and temperatures were above average.
This was posted on Facebook, a website renowned for its lack of intelligent and considered discussion, and known for the sharp-shooting debates. Was it really wetter than usual? Is global warming to blame? Is this an upward trend (there is insufficient data here) or a fluke?
And then there's the series of distraction questions - how long have records been held? Have the temperature and rainfall data been recorded since the same original date? Is any of that relevant? No.
In my experience, analysis is hard, but anybody, it seems, can carry out the interpretation. However, interpretation is wide open to personal basis, and the real skill is in treating the data impartially and without bias, and interpreting it from that viewpoint. It requires additional data research - for example, is February's data an anomaly or is it a trend? Time to go and look in the archive and support your interpretation with more data.
 |
| It snowed on two days... |
You will easily notice the bias in that sentence. Friends and long-time readers will know that I love snow, for many reasons. The data from the Meteorological Office puts the winter (1 December - 29 February) into context, using a technique that I've mentioned before - ranking the specific period against the rest of the data set.
So, by any measure, it was a wet and mild winter. Far more rain than usual (across the country), and temperatures were above average.
This was posted on Facebook, a website renowned for its lack of intelligent and considered discussion, and known for the sharp-shooting debates. Was it really wetter than usual? Is global warming to blame? Is this an upward trend (there is insufficient data here) or a fluke?
And then there's the series of distraction questions - how long have records been held? Have the temperature and rainfall data been recorded since the same original date? Is any of that relevant? No.
In my experience, analysis is hard, but anybody, it seems, can carry out the interpretation. However, interpretation is wide open to personal basis, and the real skill is in treating the data impartially and without bias, and interpreting it from that viewpoint. It requires additional data research - for example, is February's data an anomaly or is it a trend? Time to go and look in the archive and support your interpretation with more data.
No comments:
Post a Comment