Quiet spell of autumn weather on the way

Thursday 18 October 2012, 16:23

Paul Hudson Paul Hudson

After what has seemed like a relentless period of unsettled weather stretching back to the end of March, it's nice to be able to report that a quieter spell of weather seems likely next week - although talk of an 'Indian Summer', for our region at least, is a little far-fetched.

Friday and Saturday look generally dry, although there will be some fog to contend with in the mornings.

The change will come courtesy of a warm front which will bring some rain and drizzle from the southeast later on Sunday.

Thereafter, the good news is that a ridge of high pressure will dominate our weather, meaning much drier weather on the whole next week.

And at first glance, it is easy to get carried away with the fact that the air which is on its way from the continent is warm.

But, unfortunately for us, it has to travel across the North Sea.

And as it does so, the warmer air coming into contact with the colder North Sea is likely to generate extensive low cloud at times.

In these situations it is possible to get quite high temperatures - for example where there is shelter from the prevailing south-easterly wind, like west of the Pennines, or areas where the warm air only has to travel across a short sea track, like southern parts of the UK.

But for our part of the world, skies are likely to be predominantly cloudy - although with light winds and generally dry conditions (apart from drizzle which can form in extensive low cloud), it should be an improvement compared with what we've been used to.



And let's hang on to the possibility that even here cloud breaks can occur in this set up, leading to at least the chance of some warm sunshine at times.

Follow me on twitter @Hudsonweather

Comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 41.

    QV 8&15

    Some good reading found over the weekend after my interest was triggered:

    'We are currently in the warm phase of the AMO (since 1995) and the cool phase of the PDO (flickering since 1999; decisively cool since 2008). The previous similar regime was in the 1950’s, which was characterized by above average rainfall in the Sahel and south Asia, drought in the southwest U.S., and many intense hurricane landfalls in the U.S. Based upon previous regime shifts, it might be anticipated that this regime will continue for at least another decade.'
    http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/04/scenarios-2010-2040-part-iii-climate-shifts/

    Includes an update, Tomas Milanovic provides a summary and interpretation of Tsonis (2007). Which inspired the authors of the paper below.

    'Proxy and instrumental records reflect a quasi-cyclic 50-to-80-year climate signal across the Northern Hemisphere, with particular presence in the North Atlantic.'
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/p1275t4383874p65/fulltext.pdf

    The authors of which present their paper in a guest post at:
    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/guest-post-atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation-and-northern-hemisphere%E2%80%99s-climate-variability-by-marcia-glaze-wyatt-sergey-kravtsov-and-anastasios-a-tsonis/

    'This line of inquiry was motivated by related previous research of Tsonis et al. (2007) and Swanson and Tsonis (2009), whose work identified five intervals throughout the 20th century during which certain high-frequency indices synchronized. Three of these five intervals coincided with multidecadal hemispheric climate-regime shifts, which were characterized by a switch between distinct atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns, a reversal of NHT trend, and by altered character of ENSO variability. Our results provide a more detailed picture of these “successful” (~1916, ~1940, and ~1976) and “unsuccessful” (~1923 and ~1957) synchronizations among the higher-frequency indices. '

    There's that 1976 climate shift again with other examples and all tied in with oceanic oscillations.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 42.

    Speaking of climate shifts:

    The David Rose 'No global cooling for 16 years' MoS article (which was accompanied by a graph showing the past 15, not 16 years) has come in for some criticism, and rightly so, in my view. I think probably the best so far is that by Grant Foster (aka 'Tamino'): http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/temperature-analysis-by-david-rose-doesnt-smell-so-sweet/

    By starting his analysis of HadCRUT4 in September 1997 (although he doesn't make it clear that he started on that exact month), Rose's data immediately rings 'cherry pick' alarm bells. Rose later claimed that he chose 1997 because "that’s when the previous warming trend stopped" (quote and link in the first link above).

    Tamino uses data from 1975, which really did see a trend shift, but even the past 30 years' data are sufficient to show why Rose thought he could get away with making his 'trend shift' claim: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1982.67/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1982.67/to:1997.67/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.75/to:2012/trend

    There was fairly strong warming between September 1982 and August 1997; then much weaker warming between September 1997 and August 2012. So a shift in the trend, right? Not so.

    Tamino points to a very simple way of demonstrating that Rose's claim is utterly wrong. All you have to do is take the above WfT graph and add the linear trend over the full 30 year cycle: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1982.67/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1982.67/to:1997.67/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.75/to:2012/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1982.67/trend

    The linear trend between September 1982 and August 2012 is actually *stronger* than it was between September 1982 and August 1997. There has been no slow down in the long term trend whatsoever.

    The only thing short periods within a longer term (minimum 30 year) temperature series show is that, while natural variability is continuous, the fluctuations it drives have minimal impact on the long term trend.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 43.

    QV#38

    Well, repeat or not, I hope you enjoy the "weirding" prog.

    Mind you, whatever the content, I wouldn't want to convey the impression that I actually thought it was a GOOD programme. Too "flash, bang wallop".

    But that's what you get when the BBC are forced to chase the ratings game. Can't have science programmes that are too serious - or else the "Daily Mail" brigade start bleating on about having to pay the license fee for programmes they never watch.

    So there has to be lots of jumpy camera "action", random lightening flashes and other assorted silliness to keep them awake - the poor dears!

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 44.

    #42

    lolwot, makes the same case with the same enthusiasm over on Judith Currys blog, currently probably the main discussion (third post) on the plateau in global temperatures. Soon rebutted though:
    http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/21/sunday-mail-again/#comment-258399

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 45.

    #42. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "The linear trend between September 1982 and August 2012 is actually *stronger* than it was between September 1982 and August 1997. There has been no slow down in the long term trend whatsoever. "

    A clever trick, but it doesn't alter the fact that the trend over the period 1997 to 2012 is lower than that over the period 1982 to 1997.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 46.

    #43. - jkiller56 wrote:
    "But that's what you get when the BBC are forced to chase the ratings game. Can't have science programmes that are too serious - or else the "Daily Mail" brigade start bleating on about having to pay the license fee for programmes they never watch. "
    Personally I think the BBC are making too many documentaries at the moment, often duplicating the subject matter. There just isn't time to watch them all.
    I think the licence fee should be halved to force them to make less programmes.

    "So there has to be lots of jumpy camera "action", random lightening flashes and other assorted silliness to keep them awake - the poor dears!"
    I agree, which is why I haven't watched it again. I just couldn't take any more of the gimmicks. Too many directors trying out fancy techniques instead of concentrating on the subject.
    The funniest one was the one about "dark matter", which they seemed to illustrate by some sort of black goo.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 47.

    44. ukpahonta wrote:

    "Soon rebutted though:..."

    Your link took me to a remark on Curry's blog by Latimer Alder. This poster states: "When T(t2) =T(t1) that says that it hasn’t warmed between t1 and t2."

    If that statement refers to the period highlighted by Rose, i.e. Sept 1997 to August 2012, then first of all it's not true. The trend between those dates is a rising trend. It's very slight, but it's there nevertheless.

    More importantly, 15 years is too short a period from which to detect an AGW signal. That would be true even if it had cooled slightly, or even if it had warmed strongly over that period. Santer et al. (2011) claimed that 17 years is the minimum from which an AGW signal can be identified from temperature data, with 32 years being sufficient to confirm the signal. The latter figure tallies with the WMO's recommended 30 years.

    At the minute, the 32 year trend in HadCRUT4 is +0.16C/decade; the 17 year trend is +0.10C/decade. If we reach August 2014 and the 17 year trend (i.e. since September 1997) is flat or cooling, then David Rose is entitled to make his 'no warming' argument. Presently he can't make a scientifically compelling case, in my view.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 48.

    45.QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    I wrote: "The linear trend between September 1982 and August 2012 is actually *stronger* than it was between September 1982 and August 1997. There has been no slow down in the long term trend whatsoever. "

    QV wrote: "A clever trick, but it doesn't alter the fact that the trend over the period 1997 to 2012 is lower than that over the period 1982 to 1997."
    ______________________

    It's not intended to alter any facts QV. What it does do is reject David Rose's claim that "the previous warming trend stopped" in September 1997.

    This is true whether Roes's phrase "the previous warming trend" means the 15 years prior to September 1997, or right back to 1975, when the last statistical 'shift' was confirmed.

    In both cases the long term trends (1975-2012 or 1982-2012) are warmer than the short term trends that led up to 1997 (1975-1997 or 1982-1997). So whatever else it did, the warming trend did *not* stop in 1997 as Rose claimed. The only way he can claim that it did is to divide the surface temperature record into discrete 15-year-long segments.

    Per my reply to ukpahonta above, for a variety of valid scientific reasons you can't legitimately do that.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 49.

    The JAXA Arctic sea ice extent is still above 2007 and 2011, the previous two lowest years, on the same date, and is currently increasing at a much faster rate than normal for the time of year.
    However, while the extent is catching up on the next lowest year, 2008, there seems to be no immediate prospect of it exceeding that year at the moment.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 50.

    #47 Newdwr54

    If two years is what it takes for you to be convinced then that is fine, each at their own pace.

    Lucy is doing some exciting technical stuff over at The Blackboard that if correct gives upper and lower bounds to climate sensitivity that basically rule out CAGW.
    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/pinatubo-climate-sensitivity-and-two-dogs-that-didnt-bark-in-the-night/

    'Allowing for uncertainties in the temperature and flux datasets, the response from Pinatubo is compatible with a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of between 0.9 and 1.7C, with a ML value around 1.4C. Outside this range from 0.9 to 1.7C, it is not possible to obtain simultaneous matches to temperature and energy balance data within a temperature excursion range of 0.5 to 0.7C. '

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 51.

    This made me chuckle.
    Peter Gleick (amazingly) on a WUWT post comments
    "Climate science is based on physics, models, and observations. Of course the science isn’t “settled” or “incontrovertible” but it sure is solid. . . .I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.”

    Gary Mount responded
    "Gravity can be measured to at least 15 significant digits. Climate scientists don’t even know what the value of the first digit for climate sensitivity is . They aren’t even sure of the sign (negative or positive)."

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 52.

    51. lateintheday wrote:

    "Gary Mount responded
    "Gravity can be measured to at least 15 significant digits. Climate scientists don’t even know what the value of the first digit for climate sensitivity is . They aren’t even sure of the sign (negative or positive).""

    Can you (or Gary Mount) name any working climate scientist who thinks the climate sensitivity of CO2 is likely to be negative?

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 53.

    Your use of 'likely' sums it up nicely thanks newdr54.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 54.

    50. ukpahonta wrote:

    "If two years is what it takes for you to be convinced then that is fine, each at their own pace."

    I note that you require me to wait a further two years into the future, rather than for you or David Rose to simply cast your range back a further two years into data we already have, pre September 1997.

    By August 2014 I'd expect both the 32 and the 17 year trends in HadCRUT4 to still be positive. We'll have to wait and see.

    And then presumably we will just have to wait *another* two years? It's a bit like that time in January 2010 when Rose claimed that a new mini ice age had already started: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

    2010, of course, turned out to be either the warmest or joint warmest year on record.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 55.

    49. QuaesoVeritas:

    Two predictions about Arctic sea ice extent in 2013:

    1. Arctic sea ice extent will expand back out to its usual 15m km2 +/- 300,000 km2 (NSIDC) by March 2013.

    2. (With less confidence) Arctic sea ice will recover from the 2012 low in September 2013, but will still fall below the minimum extent seen in 2011 (i.e. below 4.6m km2).

    The first prediction is non-controversial and easy to make. It's based on the last 10 year average Arctic maximum extent with standard deviations. (Note, it says nothing about the volume of the ice.) It would be a major surprise if Arctic sea ice does not reach somewhere close to its 10 year average maximum extent in 2013.

    The second prediction is more out on a limb. It's based on the observation that since 2001 there have been three very steep year-on-year declines in minimum Arctic sea ice extent. These were:

    i) 2001-2002;
    ii) 2006-2007;
    iii) 2011-2012.

    Following the steep declines at i) and ii) above, while sea ice extent recovered a little, it did not reach the extent from which the major decline fell. In other words, while 2003 and 2004 both saw higher minimum extents than 2002, they were both below the extent set in 2001.

    The same is true with 2008-2011, all of which had higher minimum extents than 2007, but all of which fell below the extent set in 2006.

    So I'm betting that the same will hold true for the decline seen between 2011 and 2012. 2013 Arctic sea ice minimum extent will probably recover from the 2012 low, but it's unlikely to fall under the extent set in 2011.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 56.

    55.

    Sorry, last sentence should finish:

    "... [minimum 2013 extent] is unlikely to be above the extent set in 2011".

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 57.

    I wonder how long it will before someone describes the current extended period of mist and fog as "weird weather", for autumn.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 58.

    I thought a BBC blog would have a better informed conversation about AGW (Yes! It is folks) but alas I stumble upon the same data-mined, biased twaddle that fills Youtube. If any of you non-believers can cite one ref against AGW without introducing the word 'economics' into your argument then fire away. Better still, DO NOT CITE WUWT (you sensible 'realist' (LOL) atheists know what I'm talking about) or Stephen McKintyre, Ross McKitrick, Ball, Balluinas, Pat Michaels, etc etc or any of the long train of 'sensible realist scientists' who accidentally stumbled upon Heartland, the CEI, Americans for Prosperity, CATO, George C Marshall Inst and every other puppet organisation funded by Big Oil.

    Oh...and his Lordship Lord Christopher Monckton (the guy who regularly gets eaten for breakfast by decent journalists (WITH bona fide science degrees) like Peter Hadfield (Potholer54, to all you people who pretend not to frequent Youtube).

    For QueasoVeritas: I wonder how long before someone describes the hottest decade on record as NOT being the hottest decade on record; before record melt in the arctic is NOT record melt in the arctic, before we realise the 11 million hectares of deforestation per annum is but a figment of Al Gore's imagination, and that the world is about to be taken over by a communistic green sludge from Alpha Obama. ?!?

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 59.

    #58. - theelasticjesuz wrote:
    "For QueasoVeritas: I wonder how long before someone describes the hottest decade on record as NOT being the hottest decade on record; before record melt in the arctic is NOT record melt in the arctic, before we realise the 11 million hectares of deforestation per annum is but a figment of Al Gore's imagination, and that the world is about to be taken over by a communistic green sludge from Alpha Obama. ?!?"

    It's good to have a newcomer to the blog, especially of the "warmist" persuasion, since the discussion has been getting a bit stale of late. Better to "mine data" than to ignore it, when it contradicts your assumptions.

    What has deforestation got to do with "climate change"? Personally I am against deforestation (assuming you mean the rain-forest) but it is a separate issue to "climate change".

    I'm still trying to work out what the last part of the above means. Is this a correct reading of it?

    "I wonder how long before we realise that the world is about to be taken over by a communistic green sludge from Alpha Obama. ?!?"

    Can you clarify that?

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 60.

    @58 theelasticjesuz wrote:

    "the same data-mined, biased twaddle that fills Youtube"

    Don't do Youtube, only do data

    "without introducing the word 'economics'"

    Don't do economics, only do data

    "DO NOT CITE WUWT"

    Don't cite WUWT, only do data

    Only do data, actual observational data, isn't that what AGW is based upon?

    Enjoyed the rant, knock yourself out, I am sure that at present the BBC really appreciates a little light relief from the colonies!

 

Page 3 of 5

This entry is now closed for comments

Share this page

More Posts

Previous
A step forward in forecasting cold winters?

Thursday 11 October 2012, 15:16

Next
First cold snap of the season

Thursday 25 October 2012, 15:23

About this Blog

Hello, I’m Paul Hudson, weather presenter and climate correspondent for BBC Look North in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. 

Blog Updates

Stay updated with the latest posts from the blog.

Subscribe using:

What are feeds?

About Paul

I worked as a forecaster with the Met Office for nearly 15 years locally and at the international unit, after graduating with first class honours in Geophysics and Planetary physics at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne in 1992. I then joined the BBC in October 2007, where I divide my time between forecasting and reporting on stories about climate change and its implications for people's everyday lives.

BBC Local

Get the latest news, sport, weather, travel and features from your local area.

Archive posts

For Paul's previous blogs, please click here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/archives.shtml