« Previous | Main | Next »

Blame the jet stream for the coldest winter since '78/79

Paul Hudson | 16:06 UK time, Monday, 1 March 2010

Across the UK, using the UK national temperature dataset which started in 1914, it's been the coldest winter since 1978/79 and was the 7th coldest winter since these records began. Even more impressive were the figures for Scotland, which show it was the coldest winter there since 1962/63.

I've been asked many times what has caused this winter to be the coldest for over 30 years, coming so soon after last winter which was the coldest since 1996/1997. Furthermore is there a connection between these two cold winters, and the succession of poor summers we have experienced?

There is a common factor in both this winter's cold, and the wet summers we experienced in 2007, 2008 and 2009. It's down to the position of the jet stream. In summer when it's to the north of us, our weather is usually warm and settled. When it's over or to the south of us, summers are usually wet and cooler. In winter, a more southerly jet stream leaves us open to cold conditions to the north and east. Normally the jet stream in winter ensures generally mild, and at times wet and windy weather across our shores.

So what has forced the jet stream to assume, on average, a more southerly track over the last 2 or 3 years?

The answer, it seems, could, at least in part, be down to solar influences. Over the last 3 years solar activity has been very low, a subject I've written about before.

In 1972, Professor Lamb of the University of East Anglia conducted research into the effect of solar activity on weather patterns across the Atlantic. He found in his paper that there was a tendency for higher pressure on average in Iceland during solar cycle minima, based on data from 1750-1958. When pressure is higher over Iceland, the jet stream takes on a more southerly track.

More recently in 2005, Bochnicek and Hejda showed that during Jan to March from 1963-2001 high geomagnetic activity was nearly always associated with a positive North Atlantic oscillation (NAO); with low geomagnetic activity associated with negative NAO.

The NAO has been strongly negative this year, and often leads to more blocking (colder) weather in winter. The earth's geomagnetic field is strongly influenced by solar activity.

According to Professor Joanna Haigh at Imperial College London there is now evidence that, on average, the jet stream is slightly further north when the Sun is more active, and further south during periods of lower solar activity. This signal is small, and difficult to detect in innately very variable meteorological data, but the Imperial team is now beginning to explain how it may come about. When the Sun is active it emits much more ultraviolet radiation and this UV is absorbed by the ozone in the stratosphere, causing that region of the atmosphere (above about 15 km altitude) to warm up. This results in a change in temperature structure which influences the winds at this level, the jet streams and the circulation of air below.

More interestingly, the cold winters of 1986/87, and 1995/96 all occurred during solar minimum.

The relationship is not perfect, indeed the cold winters of 1978/79 and 1981/82 actually occurred close to a solar cycle maximum, an indication that there are other factors involved. But it's interesting that the only 4 winters of any note from a cold point of view in the last 25 years, in which most winters have been mild or very mild, actually occurred during these solar cycle minima. And the last 3 poor summers have also being during this solar minima, too.

Winter 2009-2010 statistics

Across the UK, using the UK national temperature dataset which started in 1914 it's been the coldest winter since 1978/79, and was the 7th coldest winter on record. The mean temperature (average of daytime and night-time temperatures) for 2009/2010 was 1.59C; colder than 1981/82 (2.12C) but not as cold as 1978/79 (1.17C).

For Scotland, the mean temperature for winter came in at 0.27C, making it the coldest since 1962/63 (0.16C).

The local statistics for winter in Yorkshire indicate it has been the coldest for over 30 years at Linton-on-Ouse in North Yorkshire, too. The mean figure from 1st December 2009 to 28th February 2010 was 1.56C, colder than 1981/82 (Mean 1.64C), but not as cold as 1978/79 (mean 0.8C).

Because of technical issues Leeming's figures are not yet available.

For Waddington, in South Lincolnshire, (this winter 2.3C), it's been the coldest since 1981/82 (2.1C).

Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 5:50pm on 01 Mar 2010, ScudLewis wrote:

    @Paul - cheers for the post. Was looking at Professor Joanna Haigh's work last week - all very interesting stuff.

    Currently watching the live feed from Science and Technology Committee's hearing on leaked data from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit - fascinating too!

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 6:49pm on 01 Mar 2010, Simon H wrote:

    The jet streams are clearly huge factors in natural temperature variation on a hemispheric scale, as we've been able to observe in the last few years. How do the many-degree temperature variations, as dictated by natural jet stream paths, compare with the temperature variation of ~1.6 degree per century attributed to man-made global warming?

    Sometimes it seems that man's asserted influence on climate is, in reality, about as significant as a sand castle's effect on the tide.

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 6:56pm on 01 Mar 2010, Jill Stokes wrote:

    As far as I am aware Spring starts at the vernal equinox around 21st March, not as implied on the BBC today 1st March.

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 7:13pm on 01 Mar 2010, Joe wrote:

    Thanks Paul for a very interesting blog,I'd just like to know were was the jet stream during the ice age.
    Joe

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 7:39pm on 01 Mar 2010, Spanglerboy wrote:

    So, Paul, weather and climate are more closely related than some would have us believe. Until we know what drives the weather, we have little chance of understanding what drives the climate.

    I think I will remain skeptical for a bit longer.

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 8:08pm on 01 Mar 2010, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    Jill Stokes - #3.
    "As far as I am aware Spring starts at the vernal equinox around 21st March, not as implied on the BBC today 1st March."
    It's not just the BBC. Winter has been traditionally defined as December - February, by the Met. Office, probably for convenience as much as anything. The M.O. summarises it's records in months and to calculate the true seasonal averages would have been difficult in the past, although it should be relatively simple now, with the aid of computers. I doubt if anyone has any actual figures for the astronomical seasons. However, until that is done, we are comparing like with like, so the comparison is valid.

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 9:20pm on 01 Mar 2010, SheffTim wrote:

    Hi Paul.

    Another factor in the southward shift of the Jet Stream is the current quite strong El Nino in the Pacific. The southward shift of the Jet's course, as you said, is responsible for steering the storm train that produced a deluge and floods on Madeira and also helped steer cyclone Cynthia towards Spain and France this weekend.

    El Nino is also helping to steer moisture rich winds across America towards the USA eastern seaboard (which has seen very heavy snowfalls during February), where it collides with colder Arctic air forced southwards by the large anticyclone positioned over Greenland.

    This El Nino also caused major floods in Bolivia, Chile and Mexico and major storms and flooding on the Californian coast, whilst Ecuador had its worst drought in 40 years.

    On the other side of the Pacific many regions are suffering drought. Singapore's February 2010 was the driest month in 140 years, since 1869, when records of rainfall first started. The Philippines and Thailand are also facing droughts.

    I've put together a webpage tracking some of the factors behind this January and February's anomalous weather; in particular the negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation (+the NAO), its effect on the Jet Stream, plus the El Nino.
    http://sites.google.com/site/whythe2009winterissocold/

    As we move deeper into spring El Nino (though starting to weaken) is likely to influence European weather more than the Arctic Oscillation; we could be seeing more reports of high impact weather events.

    One or two US forecasters that have been looking at monthly cycles of the Arctic Oscillation & believe it could deliver another major snowstorm in March, in the USA at least.
    http://www.youtube.com/user/THEMasco1010#p/a/u/1/aSBuizXf5lo

    I don't think we can afford to relax just yet.
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    On the discussion as to when the seasons start.

    The Roman calendar began the year and the spring season on the first day of March, with each season occupying three months.

    In 1780 the Societas Meteorologica Palatina, an early international organization for meteorology, defined seasons as groupings of three whole months.

    Ever since, meteorologists all over the world have used this definition. So, in meteorology for the Northern hemisphere: spring begins on 1 March, summer on 1 June, autumn on 1 September, and winter on 1 December.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_%28season%29
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Season

    The Celtic calendar called the spring equinox 'mid-spring'.

    Different latitudes have different seasons. Some parts of the tropics of course have only two seasons - wet and dry.

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 01:52am on 02 Mar 2010, Boleslas_Broda wrote:

    Wow.

    Nicely done webpage, SheffTim.

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 09:34am on 02 Mar 2010, John Marshall wrote:

    The answer to our cooler summers and colder winters is 'in part' due to the sun. Only in part Paul?
    Since the sun drives all climatic influences on the planet, it is the ONLY heat source we have to do this, then it is all down to the sun. Whether the lower solar input affects the positioning of the jet streams is up for debate. I would guess that not enough is known for this debate to be meaningful. At least it has nothing to do with CO2!
    I do know that Spain has had record snow falls this year. They even had some in Malaga which in itself is a record, but this was short lived. Some parts of Spain had enough snow to reduce mobility of the local economy to zero with schools and roads closed and power cuts. ( The local police close roads as a matter of course in snow conditions regardless of type of vehicle even 4x4's).So Spain was like the NE of England for a time this February.

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 09:36am on 02 Mar 2010, Andy Fisher wrote:

    As a well known believer in global warming amongst my friends, I have been assuring them that our recent cold winter is a result of such global warming. This, of course, receives derisory comments in return.
    However, I have a strong feeling that there is indeed a distinct link between our cold winter, the levels of snow we have received and the global warming going on in the world today.
    Simply, there has been much reduced cloud cover during this, and the last two, winters. I think you reported during one of your recent forecasts that January had been the coldest for a certain period but also the driest and sunniest.
    As we all know, if there's no cloud cover, night time temperatures drop dramatically in winter and this seems to have been the case throughout much of this last winter. Overall temperatures have struggled to rise much above freezing for a very long period because of this.
    The outcome is that, when the reduced number of rain showers do eventually arrive, they hit very cold air and fall as snow rather than our "normal" rainfall.
    I suspect that, as global warming takes hold, this may well be a trend - very warm summers and colder and snowier winters.
    Of course, if the Gulf Stream fails through increased ice melt in the polar regions, then our winters will become suddenly much colder and global warming would then have caused a substantial drop in western European temperatures!
    Are my theories correct?

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 11:13am on 02 Mar 2010, PingoSan wrote:

    Andy,

    If the air source was not cold enough then showers would fall as rain in winter even if surface temperatures were below zero prior to the rain arriving.

    Clear high pressure systems allow near-surface temperatures to get very low but there will usually be a warmer layer of air slightly aloft (an

    We get our coldest spells when there is a snowfall which remins unmelted and the weather then changes to the clear high pressure system, as the white surface enhances radiation.

    Globally averaged ice extent is actually around the long-term mean, I suggest you look at the raw data rather than alarmist media organisations.

    The Gulf Stream is highly unlikely to fail outside of the imagination of movie directors and alarmist quangos.

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 12:41pm on 02 Mar 2010, John Marshall wrote:

    #10 Andy, no.
    Global temperatures have fallen over the last 12-15 years as has solar input, due to lower sunspot activity. The lower solar activity has caused an increase of cosmic ray input which encourages the formation of low level cloud due to increased nucleation. This causes a higher planetary albedo increasing reflection of solar radiation. In other words a negative feedback effect.
    Oceanic water temperatures have also fallen, as measured by the Argo buoy system, which is a far more important parameter than air temperature. A lower sea temperature causes a weaker El nino which we have at the moment. But all this is solar driven because heat is required and the sun is the only heat source we have. ( geothermal heat accounts for up to 30W/sq.m maximum so can be discounted as a climate driver)
    #11 pingosan, the Gulf Stream has failed mant times since the opening of the Atlantic 100M odd years ago. We do not know why.

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 12:57pm on 02 Mar 2010, SamuelPickwick wrote:

    I am not surprised that your argument that warming causes cooling is treated with derision. It is a nice example of the bizarre doublethink of global warming believers. If your argument did have any partial validity ( I don't know whether it does or not) it would be an argument for a negative feedback - the warming would be reduced - something which the warmists generally don't believe in.

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 1:27pm on 02 Mar 2010, ScudLewis wrote:

    Well fact fans - 2009/10 Winter @ 2.43C has come in at number 59 in coldest winters since 1659! That's impressive.

    So - if we have AGW (1.5C warmer than natural), then under natural conditions we would have been in the top 20 coldest? Just a thought!

    Also - have been looking at winter trends [roughly] - looks like the following:

    # a warming trend from 1809 to 1859
    # an ever so slight cooling (although a bit flat) 1859 to 1909
    # a cooling trend from 1909 to 1959
    # then an equal warming trend from 1959 to 2009

    Any thoughts? Looks like a pattern of sorts.

    Have a look yourself at climate-graphs.co.uk

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 1:42pm on 02 Mar 2010, Graham P Davis wrote:

    PingoSan,

    Not only is the area of ice in the Arctic still below the average for the past thirty years, that average itself is below the longer-term average. Also, don't forget, the thickness of the ice is about half what it used to be.

    You are correct about the Gulf Stream. The only way that can fail is for the Earth to stop spinning and we'd have a lot more to worry about in that case than global warming. Having said that, the warm-water circulation of which the Gulf Stream is a part, has undergone sudden changes in the past and will do so again.

    The ocean currents in the North Atlantic have two stable circulations. In the one existing now, the warm North Atlantic Drift (NAD) forks off the main clockwise circulation and runs NE past the UK and Norway. In the second scenario, the circulation of the warm water slows and the NAD disappears. To the north of the clockwise warm circulation, there develops an anticlockwise cold circulation fed by the Labrador and East Greenland currents. Instead of the NAD, an extension of the cold Labrador current runs East towards the UK and then NE'wards.

    When the NAD ceases, the effect is a lowering of temperatures over NW Europe but not to the ridiculous levels that have been suggested by green extremists and alarmist media.

    These sudden changes in climate and ocean currents that I've described are not a recent discovery, contrary to what the BBC program "The Big Chill" suggested. Not that it was the program-makers' fault, they did not appear to exaggerate what the scientists were saying. I first came across this information over forty years ago.





    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 1:51pm on 02 Mar 2010, alan white wrote:

    Hi Paul,yourself and other NEWS/WEATHER people have been telling us its been the coldest winter since 1979,the thing I,d like to know is has it been the SNOWIEST,by that I mean NUMBER OF DAYS WITH SNOW FALLING and NUMBER OF DAYS WITH SNOW LYING,I live in Doncaster and we dont get much snow,but this year according to my diary during December 2009,January and February 2010 we have had 16 days falling snow and 31 days with some lying snow,which I think is the most since 1979,although we had more depth of snow in 1981/1982 but it came down in much fewer days,THANK YOU.

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 2:46pm on 02 Mar 2010, Lazarus wrote:

    Spanglerboy wrote:

    "So, Paul, weather and climate are more closely related than some would have us believe."

    I don't think Paul said that at all. The position of the Jet Stream affects our weather, or at a push you might call it the local climate. It does not add heating or cooling to the globe and climate in general.

    ***
    John Marshall wrote:

    "The answer to our cooler summers and colder winters is 'in part' due to the sun. Only in part Paul?
    Since the sun drives all climatic influences on the planet, it is the ONLY heat source we have to do this, then it is all down to the sun."

    Not really John. It may be the only source of heat, though some must be generated internally, be we have a roof over our heads. If the atmosphere did not trap heat Earth would have the same climate as the moon. Simple physics really.

    John Marshall Also wrote:

    "Global temperatures have fallen over the last 12-15 years as has solar input, due to lower sunspot activity."

    No they haven't;

    http://climate-graphs.co.uk/graphs/global_image.php?SelectSeries=RSS&SelectTwo=None&SelectThree=None&SelectRes=Annual&StartYear=1994&EndYear=2009&SelectDiv=NO

    So it can't be due to lower sunspot activity can it?

    ***
    PingoSan wrote:

    "If the air source was not cold enough then showers would fall as rain in winter even if surface temperatures were below zero prior to the rain arriving."

    This is true but not really relevant. Warmer air holds more moisture which can then be transported to other areas of the atmosphere cold enough for it to form snow.

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 3:00pm on 02 Mar 2010, Lazarus wrote:

    ScudLewis wrote:

    "Well fact fans - 2009/10 Winter @ 2.43C has come in at number 59 in coldest winters since 1659! That's impressive."

    I find it disappointing. Only 59th when it looked to be 6th or 7th? I certainly felt cold enough for it to be higher than that. Where did you get the info? What year do the records start?

    "Any thoughts? Looks like a pattern of sorts."

    I would say warming from 1909 to about 1945, then cooling for about a decade before warming again. I suppose it all depends on how we choose to divide it up and what peroid lenth we pick. As for a pattern, I don't know, other than it seems to be warming decade by decade since 1900.

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 3:12pm on 02 Mar 2010, PingoSan wrote:

    "Not only is the area of ice in the Arctic still below the average for the past thirty years, that average itself is below the longer-term average. Also, don't forget, the thickness of the ice is about half what it used to be."

    There are two poles and Antarctic sea ice is on a multi-decadal increase.

    We do not have decent data on the thickness of ice - or has ex-scientist Phil Jones been making things up here too?

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 4:18pm on 02 Mar 2010, Chris wrote:

    @John Marshall:
    You keep repeating the same old mantra. Yes almost all of the energy in our atmosphere and oceans comes from the sun, and no CO2 does not generate heat, but greenhouse gases, like CO2, control just how much heat is retained in the atmosphere and not radiated into space. It does, undoubtedly, play a part in the climate of our planet, and other planets in our system.

    Repeating the same stuff as you do to almost every one of Paul's blog entries does not make you right, it just makes you a person who repeats himself.

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 4:21pm on 02 Mar 2010, ScudLewis wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 22. At 4:27pm on 02 Mar 2010, ScudLewis wrote:

    @Lazarus RE:"Where did you get the info? What year do the records start?"

    MET OFFICE: SEASONAL CENTRAL ENGLAND TEMPERATURE, 1659 TO 2010
    http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/ssn_HadCET_mean_sort.txt

    "Rank (for DJF) = #59 / DJF TEMP = 2.43C / YEAR = 2010"

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 4:51pm on 02 Mar 2010, oldgifford wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 24. At 4:52pm on 02 Mar 2010, Lazarus wrote:

    PingoSan wrote:

    "We do not have decent data on the thickness of ice - or has ex-scientist Phil Jones been making things up here too?"

    Actually we do for the Arctic;

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL039035.shtml
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml

    And a loss of mass in the Antarctic;

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5768/1754

    However I have seen claims that some climate models predict Antarctic ice thickness increasing in some areas due to increased precipitation.

    I also find it disingenuous to be accusing someone of something they have never been found guilty of.

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 7:31pm on 02 Mar 2010, PingoSan wrote:

    Re Lazarus, no. 24 - no stable series of raw data exists, as we've seen from the Jones/Climategate scandal we need to see the raw data or check if the climate study is likely to have been manipulated and if contrary to the required conclusion then suppressed/deleted.

    Climate studies post-1990 will all need to be re-assessed and properly peer reviewed. It is essential that occurs due to the importance of the science and the emerging facts about how data has been handled in the field during the last two decades.

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 7:39pm on 02 Mar 2010, ScudLewis wrote:

    Seems I have been falling fowl of the moderators - apologies - not ment to link to pdfs or txt files, will remember next time.

    Anyway - will re-post part 1

    @Graham P Davis - worth reading the following:

    MET Office: Global climatic impacts of a collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation [Feb 2001]
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/publications/HCTN/

    "In the first five decades after the collapse surface air temperature response is dominated by cooling of much of the Northern Hemisphere (locally up to 8C, 1-2C on average) and weak warming of the Southern Hemisphere (locally up to 1C, 0.2C on average). Response is strongest around the North Atlantic but significant changes occur over the entire globe and highlight rapid teleconnections."

    Oh and re-watching BBC 'The Big Chill' - chances of a 1962 style winter - 1 in 7!

    The good news - "After about 100 years the model’s thermohaline circulation has largely recovered, and most climatic anomalies disappear"

    Some interesting reads here too...

    Re-post part 2

    @Lazarus - get info about CET from MET:
    http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/data/download.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 10:23pm on 02 Mar 2010, Lazarus wrote:

    PingoSan wrote:

    "no stable series of raw data exists, as we've seen from the Jones/Climategate scandal we need to see the raw data or check if the climate study is likely to have been manipulated and if contrary to the required conclusion then suppressed/deleted."

    Prof Jones had nothing to do with the data, raw or other wise concerning Polar Ice measurements. For instance the first paper I linked to used 42 years of declassified US military submarine sonar measurements.The second used measurements from GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite gravity mission to determine the ice mass-loss for the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets and the third was also satellite data.

    You said,"We do not have decent data on the thickness of ice", this is wrong, therefore it is logical to conclude that any point or argument you make relying on this error cannot be as credible.

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 10:32pm on 02 Mar 2010, Lazarus wrote:

    ScudLewis wrote:

    "Seems I have been falling fowl of the moderators - apologies - not ment to link to pdfs or txt files, will remember next time."

    I have fallen fowl too. It is really annoying and bizarre that this is the BEEB policy. Apparently you cannot link to any file that requires additional software to view but .pdf are such a standard that most browsers handle them with a plugin the same way with other files like Java which do not result in posts being modded.

    "Lazarus - get info about CET from MET:"

    I'll have a look when I get time but I prefer;

    http://climate-graphs.co.uk/graphs/index.php

    Which allows you to experiment with different data sets and time scales very quickly. I found it through a poster on here.

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 08:46am on 03 Mar 2010, PingoSan wrote:

    Lazarus, you have not provided the full raw data and codes, adjustments and algorithms used to interpret the sparse data. This is essential in this debate rather than just linking to an abstract. We have seen in the Climategate Scandal how scientists colluded to hide inconvenient data, so unfortunately trust has been destroyed. We need to see the full raw and methods data before trusting, otherwise it is not science.

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 10:03am on 03 Mar 2010, oldgifford wrote:

    no idea why the moderators couldn't make sense of my last post,perhaps because I included the abstracts, however possible links between magnetism and climate can be found in these papers:

    Fluteau et al 2006F.; Courtillot, V.; Gallet, Y.; Le Mouel, J.; Genevey, A.
    Does the Earth's Magnetic Field Influence Climate?

    Courtillot, V., Gallet, Y., Le Mouel, J. L., Fluteau, F. & Genevey, A. 2007
    Are there connections between the Earth’s magnetic field and climate?
    Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 253, 328–339. (doi:10. 1016/j.epsl.2006.10.032)

    Yves Gallet, Agnès Genevey, Maxime Le Goff, Frédéric Fluteau, Safar Ali Eshraghi,
    Possible impact of the Earth's magnetic field on the history of ancient civilizations,
    Earth and Planetary Science Letters Volume 246, Issues 1-2, 15 June 2006, Pages 17-26 doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2006.04.001

    Vladimir Bakhmutov
    The connection between geomagnetic secular variation and long-range development of climate changes for the last 13,000 years
    Quaternary International 149 (2006) 4–11. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2005.11.013

    J. W. King
    Weather and the Earth's magnetic field
    Nature 247, 131 - 134 (18 January 1974); doi:10.1038/247131a0

    Peter Thejll, Bo Christiansen, and Hans Gleisner
    On correlations between the North Atlantic Oscillation, geopotential heights, and geomagnetic activity
    Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 30, No. 6, 1347, Doi:10.1029/2002gl016598, 2003

    Luis Eduardo Antunes Vieira
    Geomagnetic modulation of clouds effects in the Southern Hemisphere Magnetic Anomaly through lower atmosphere cosmic ray effects
    Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, L14802, Doi:10.1029/2006gl026389, 2006

    Climate Change And The Earth’s Magnetic Poles, A Possible Connection.
    Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, January 2009 , pp. 75-83(9)
    Adrian K. Kerton MSc.

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 11:06am on 03 Mar 2010, John Marshall wrote:

    #17 Lazarus. your graph, which was from RSS, was this drawn before or after RSS applied the corrections which lowered temperatures. They now agree with UAH which shows a 12-15 year drop of 0.7 degree.
    I keep saying that air temperature is not the defining criteria but sea water temperature! This has, according to the Argo buoy system, fallen. We are also arguing about such small temperature changes that some even fall within the error bands so changes are questionable.
    I also mentioned that geothermal heating was a maximum of 30W/sq m so would not affect climate. This is completely ignored by Trenberth in his depiction of atmospheric heat flux in his paper which the IPCC take as heaven sent truth but is in fact complete rubbish because so much of it is guessed and an important part of which violates the laws of Thermodynamics.
    The strength of the earth's magnet field is bound to have some affect on radiation received, it certainly helps save the earth from some of the dangerous solar radiation. The magnetic field will vary and it reverses as well. In fact we are due a reversal if past history is looked at but as we still do not understand this phenomenon so we cannot say if or when this could happen.

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 2:50pm on 03 Mar 2010, Lazarus wrote:

    PingoSan wrote:

    "Lazarus, you have not provided the full raw data and codes, adjustments and algorithms used to interpret the sparse data."

    I am interested in the science, I have no need of lists of numbers that I couldn't understand - that is what scientists are for.

    You specifically said; "We do not have decent data on the thickness of ice" and I have shown that not only is this incorrect but several papers have been written about the data.

    However if you are now admitting that you are wrong and are now saying that the 'data on the thickness of ice' is flawed than that is a different argument.

    This puts you in the position where you can either substantiate your claim with evidence - links to show these data sets are under investigation perhaps, or your claims can be viewed as unsubstantiated and unscientific opinion that suffers from all the personal bias that such opinions do and unlikely to be taken seriously because of this.

    I am unaware of any concerns about the integrity of this military and satellite data.

    You also wrote;
    "We have seen in the Climategate Scandal how scientists colluded to hide inconvenient data".

    I may be showing my age and appear very old fashioned in holding the view of innocent until proven guilty, but until such times that trial by media, no doubt following a witch hunt and preceding a Kangaroo court, become law, I must remain set in my ways.

    +++++++++

    John Marshall wrote:

    "#17 Lazarus. your graph, which was from RSS, was this drawn before or after RSS applied the corrections which lowered temperatures."

    Sorry John but you are incorrect. My graph was drawn the day I posted the comment. It is from a graph construction site that has all the latest data sets and allows the construction of graphs for different series and over different time scales;

    http://climate-graphs.co.uk/graphs/index.php

    I would recommend using it to confirm not only what others claim but also to try things for yourself before making erroneous claims.

    "They now agree with UAH which shows a 12-15 year drop of 0.7 degree".

    Yes they do agree so you are again incorrect as they do not show a drop but an increase in temperature. In fact if you compare both RSS and UAH over a 15 year period, the UAH shows the most warming;

    http://climate-graphs.co.uk/graphs/global_image.php?SelectSeries=UAH&SelectTwo=RSS&SelectThree=None&SelectRes=Annual&StartYear=1995&EndYear=2009&SelectDiv=NO

    Since your basic claims are at odds with the empirical data, I see no reason to accept them as credible.

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 8:45pm on 03 Mar 2010, PingoSan wrote:

    No Lazarus I am saying that you are making conclusions when there aren't secure enough data to back them up.

    The Climategate Scandal data is all public if you would like to see for yourself how scientists have been colluding to hide data, trash the peer review process and ignore freedom of information laws/requests. I can't help you however if you need to wait for others to make your mind up for you rather than looking at the clear evidence yourself.

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 10:12pm on 03 Mar 2010, Lazarus wrote:

    PingoSan wrote:
    "I can't help you however if you need to wait for others to make your mind up for you rather than looking at the clear evidence yourself."

    I am interested in the science not conspiracy theories. I will accept the results of the inquiries being held regardless of the findings. Will you accept them or only if they support your bias? Because you are probably as qualified as I to judge the contents of the emails, which is not being a climatologist, is not at all. So I'm not about to let media spin tell me what to think.

    Remember, without apology, you are the one who has been found to be making claims that you not only have been unable to support but are evidently wrong.

    Climategate has nothing to do with Sea Ice thickness, so are using one unproven allegation to dismiss all data sets that do not tell you what you want to hear.

    If you have any acceptable science to back up your points I am interested in what you have to say, otherwise please accept my apologies for assuming that your personal opinions without credible evidence are worthless.

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 12:44pm on 04 Mar 2010, PingoSan wrote:

    It is clear the UEA inquiry is going to be a whitewash as it is not independent of the UEA. I am still waiting for the raw data to appear so please stop the bleating and finger-pointing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 1:21pm on 04 Mar 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 37. At 3:30pm on 04 Mar 2010, Boleslas_Broda wrote:

    @35

    It is clear, if PingoSan's views are representative of others' (which I expect they are), that a slippery slope has been descended.

    a.) Don't like the results, clearly the people who produced the undesired results are untrustworthy;
    b.) Investigate the 'untrustworthy' people producing the unhappy results by FOI requests, a lot of them;
    b-corollary.) People under investigation are always guilty, else they wouldn't be being investigated;
    c.) The 'guilty' people resent the slow cumbersome FOI process and seek to balk it;
    d.) Balking FOI is an untrustworthy act and a sign of guilt of one actual form of wrongdoing;
    d-corollary.) People guilty of one form of wrongdoing are presumed guilty of all forms, in particular of those forms most convenient to those who did not like the initial undesired results;
    e.) The investigators have some (however tenuous) connection to the target of the investigation;
    e-corollary.) You just can't trust judges, they spend so much time in the company of criminals;
    f.) People who associated with the guilty are themselves suspect, so any investigation they do is going to be a whitewash;

    Which, if you're comfortable going through life thinking that way, more power to you.

    For myself, even if I accepted the radical measure of dropping all data collected since 1990 by all scientists everywhere, it would make no difference to the decisions to be made.

    Before 1990, it was manifestly evident that human GHG emissions were responsible for a dramatic CO2 concentration increase in the atmosphere, that the atmosphere's carbon budget was being eroded without control, and that this would inevitably cumulatively lead to bad results in the climate over the long term, in terms of uncertainty, climatic conditions not seen on the planet since the rise of the human species, loss of ice cover, positive feedbacks, changing weather patterns and the need for expensive changes by nations to accommodate these shifts.

    All the temperature data collected since 1990 has more or less only led to refinement of the hypothesis, and tended to confirm an already proven theory.

    And even if this argument were not true, if the historical fact of the GHG measurements known by now for decades were not established, how does the usual mantra of "not proven yet, do nothing" constitute sound policy?

    'Do nothing' is the measure recommended when all ventures will lead to worse results than inaction.

    Someone who has fallen down the slippery slope so far as to distrust all institutions completely could hardly then argue that continuing to behave as government and corporate institutions have up to now is the right course.

    The less one accepts the science, the more consistent it would be to act vigorously and immediately to reduce GHG emissions.

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 4:22pm on 04 Mar 2010, bandythebane wrote:

    I do not know you Boleslas, but are you actually a scientist?

    You eem to think this whole thing is about personalities. It isn't. It is about facts and theories that can be defended by facts. If th e facts have been manipulated and are no longer to be trusted then there is nothing to do except to go back and check them.

    And what makes you think the problem is entirely post 1990? Giss has been amending 19th century data post 2000 and no one outside of GISS has any clear idea why.

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 5:59pm on 04 Mar 2010, astatine wrote:

    @38

    I don't know whether Boleslas_Broda is a scientist, but I am, and I'd like to chip in here and point out that it's precisely those conducting the current witch-hunt against climate science who are trying to make this about personalities. You make what would be a perfectly reasonable comment starting "If the facts have been manipulated and are no longer to be trusted..." but seem to forget that nothing of the sort has thus far been proved. There's been a lot of mudslinging from various directions, and many of the comments on blogs (this one included) run pretty close to being libellous. But the various inquiries called to investigate allegations of scientific misconduct have yet to report. Except, of course, for the recent inquiry into Michael Mann's conduct, which concluded that there was neither evidence of collusion to manipulate data, nor to pervert the peer review process. The fact that several commentators here and elsewhere have pre-judged the inquiries as a "whitewash" makes it seem pretty clear that their interest is agenda-driven.

    So, fine, you think that the current theories cannot be supported by the facts?
    Go ahead, then, and publish a counter-argument in a reputable scientific journal.
    If you are not happy with the way that GISS analyses its data, go ahead and make your own analysis, and publish that too in a reputable scientific journal. And when you've done those two things, let's see whether the scientific community at large is convinced by your criticisms. If you want to make this about facts, theories and the scientific method, could you perhaps take a look at the behaviour of the contrarian camp with something like the same sense of indignation you seem to reserve for the mainstream camp?

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 6:40pm on 04 Mar 2010, Lazarus wrote:

    PingoSan wrote:

    "It is clear the UEA inquiry is going to be a whitewash as it is not independent of the UEA. I am still waiting for the raw data to appear so please stop the bleating and finger-pointing."

    I'm not sure if this is aimed at me as I have tried to stick with the science and avoid the tin foil hat conspiracy theories but it does seem to be.

    So is your reasoning really that the US naval data on Ice thickness since the Cold War, the measurements by the GRACE satellite, and all other techniques to measure ice mass are worthless because you think a University / Professor is guilty of something that hasn't been proven?

    Is this truly the position you are debating from? No related facts, research or empirical evidence on the actual subject? And you expect people who are actually interested in the science to accept this as rational and mature?

    Personally I think that to claim that such data never existed is demonstrably worse than anything the UEA have so far been guilty of.

    Just as an aside, and I hope I don't regret getting involved in the politics of 'Climategate', but the reason why the investigation was called by the UEA is that there was not sufficient evidence for any other authority to carry out one.

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 6:48pm on 04 Mar 2010, Lazarus wrote:

    bandythebane wrote:
    "If th e facts have been manipulated and are no longer to be trusted then there is nothing to do except to go back and check them."

    Indeed, and the facts should be available for anyone with a genuine concern and the qualifications to be checked. But any one with an agenda can make unsubstantiated claims so while the facts have not been shown to be anything other than the facts, we must accept that the conclusions drawn from them are the best we have based on the best information we have.

    Anything else would lead to paranoia and we would be constantly checking everything and accepting nothing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 6:57pm on 04 Mar 2010, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    It may interest those reading this blog that I have just discovered that the Met. Office has decided to discontinue it's seasonal forecasts and replace them with a rolling 3 month "scientific outlook", which will be updated each month. The first one to be issued later in March. Part of the reason given was: "Seasonal outlooks are challenging but useful at a global and regional level. At local level, expectation for this type of outlook has to some extent moved beyond the current limits of science."

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 8:00pm on 04 Mar 2010, PingoSan wrote:

    At least the Met Office are being open that their computer models and data aren't very good by stopping seasonal forecasts - I wonder if Paul Hudson has any comment on this and what was discussed behind the scenes? Aren't we all glad that Copenhagen was a failure so these dodgy data (I include the ice stuff Lazarus is obsessed about in this) can be corrected before we take any further significantly costly decisions based on poorly written computer code, hidden data, and manipulated results.

    The precautionary principle - better to spend more on the science before it costs us a packet down the line. It's not as if we have money to spare at the moment on more expensive white elephant windmills, etc.

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 9:25pm on 04 Mar 2010, Barry Woods wrote:


    Nothing new under the sun, with respect to man's sense of self-imprtance, and now we have the AGW delusion.

    repeat after me the IPCC/Gore mantra: "the sky is falling. The sky is falling"

    ( a couple of extracts from a much longer article)

    The 1870's ------------------------

    "The climate of New-York and the contiguous Atlantic seaboard has long been a study of great interest. We have just experienced a remarkable instance of its peculiarity. The Hudson River, by a singular freak of temperature, has thrown off its icy mantle and opened its waters to navigation.” – New York Times, Jan. 2, 1870


    The 1920-30's ----------------------

    “The discoveries of changes in the sun's heat and southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to the conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age – Time Magazine, Sept. 10, 1923

    Headline: “America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise” – New York Times, March 27, 1933

    “America is believed by Weather Bureau scientists to be on the verge of a change of climate, with a return to increasing rains and deeper snows and the colder winters of grandfather's day.” – Associated Press, Dec. 15, 1934


    The 1970's ----------------------

    Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor, "the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born.” – Newsweek magazine, Jan. 26, 1970

    “The United States and the Soviet Union are mounting large-scale investigations to determine why the Arctic climate is becoming more frigid, why parts of the Arctic sea ice have recently become ominously thicker and whether the extent of that ice cover contributes to the onset of ice ages.” – New York Times, July 18, 1970


    http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2010m3d2-Arctic-Ocean-is-warming-icebergs-growing-scarcer-reports-Washington-Post

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 10:23pm on 04 Mar 2010, Lazarus wrote:

    PingoSan wrote:

    "(I include the ice stuff Lazarus is obsessed about in this) can be corrected"

    You brought 'the ice stuff' up and specifically said; "We do not have decent data on the thickness of ice" and I have shown that not only is this incorrect but several papers have been written about the data.

    I have only asked you to support you claims with evidence. I can only assume you have none.

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 11:14pm on 04 Mar 2010, ScudLewis wrote:

    Anyone able to explain why the oceans are not showing any warming trend - see graph 1900 to 2009 for ENSO / PDO / AMO.

    http://climate-graphs.co.uk/graphs/ocean_image.php?SelectSeries=PDO&SelectTwo=ENSO&SelectThree=AMO&SelectTemp=None&SelectRes=Annual&StartYear=1900&EndYear=2009

    Actually - to be fair - the only 1 with a warming trend is ENSO - and that could be due to it being in a warming phase (a shorter time period too) - as it tracks the others very well.

    Was a bit surprised by this as expected that there would be more of a warming trend - am I reading this correctly?

    When compared to Hadley data - there is an interesting feature since 2000:

    http://climate-graphs.co.uk/graphs/ocean_image.php?SelectSeries=PDO&SelectTwo=AMO&SelectThree=ENSO&SelectTemp=HADLEY&SelectRes=Annual&StartYear=1900&EndYear=2009

    Any thoughts anyone? Why the strange correlation between ocean temps and Hadley data?

    All very interesting.

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 00:28am on 05 Mar 2010, SheffTim wrote:

    Looking at likely in the week ahead (and the influence of the position of the Jet Stream) Accuweather are forecasting 'high winds, heavy rain, and heavy snows are expected across Europe's southern tier.' http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/25726/very-stormy-southern-europe.asp

    For a map showing current and anticipated positions of the Jet Stream MetCheck have a page doing just that.
    http://www.metcheck.com/V40/UK/FREE/jetstream.asp

    'Two people were killed on Wednesday (03/03/10) on a cruise ship in the Mediterranean when 26-foot waves crashed into the ship near Marseille.'
    http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/25676/waves-slam-mediterranean-cruis.asp

    There are currently four active storm systems in the Atlantic with more expected to form. Storms like the one that slammed into France and Spain on the last weekend of February could be repeated. This could also affect UK weather too.

    It is likely parts of the USA will have more snowfall during March. (It is also now Tornado season)
    Several forecasters now think it possible that eastern USA may see another heavy snowstorm in the 2nd half of March.

    I've again just updated the page I've been running on the causes and impacts of this winter's unusual weather as more information is analysed and released about all February's weather (and the meteorological winter) as a whole. Quite a few records have been broken.
    http://sites.google.com/site/whythe2009winterissocold/

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 03:10am on 05 Mar 2010, Boleslas_Broda wrote:

    SheffTim, have you linked to the New York Times article (presumably, also reported elsewhere) about the release of methane from the Siberian seabed?

    Your Google-fu appears strong, so I'm coming to rely on you to find things I've missed, and to find higher quality sources.

    It may help formulate answers to ScudLewis' question. Or not.

    Oh, btw, bandythebane, I'm a gravedigger to answer your question.

    Though the yarns I could spin about scientists..

    One scientist told me this story about the record-keeping in the medium-sized research institute he worked at (so much, much larger than the CRU). The files were always kept in paper, stored in a vault in the basement. Every few years, the vault would be expected to fill, so the paper would be [1] copied to microfiche (this was in the late 1990's, long after the cost of electronic storage would have been far lower than this scheme), and then [2] the microfiche sent to a central repository, after which [3] the paper would be shredded and disposed. It seems one year, the clerk who copied files to microfiche scheduled a vacation (for her honeymoon) at the time of step [1]; the manager of the facility resolved this by simply reversing the order of steps [1] and [3], thus shredding all the paper files and then.. oh, after the shredding, the flaw in this plan was discerned.

    What a knee-slapper. Those scientists and file keeping. Funny people.

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 04:46am on 05 Mar 2010, TJ wrote:

    #48 Gravedigger - you comment:

    "What a knee-slapper. Those scientists and file keeping. Funny people."

    And we are being asked to TRUST these guys with a huge slice of our future.

    Now do you understand all the commotion?

    Game, set and match I think.

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 10:29am on 05 Mar 2010, ScudLewis wrote:

    A follow on from my Ocean question posted earlier.

    Met Office analysis reveals 'clear fingerprints' of man-made climate change
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/05/met-office-analysis-climate-change

    "Climate scientists say the 100 studies of sea ice, rainfall and temperature should help the public to make up their own minds on global warming"

    "Over 80% of the heat that's trapped in the climate system as a result of the greenhouse gases is exported into the ocean and we can see that happening"
    Peter Stott (MET)

    Is Stott's comment at odds with the data for 109 years for the oceans showing a no warming trend - am I missing something or misreading the data? Or is it that the oceans just don't hold on to temp and ultimately just pass it on the the air with no effect on its long term ave.? With such a short time-scale, is anything 'provable'?

    On a lighter note - this made me chuckle (clever & funny):
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mTLO2F_ERY

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 11:20am on 05 Mar 2010, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    #47 - SheffTim

    "It is likely parts of the USA will have more snowfall during March. (It is also now Tornado season)"
    Yet no tornadoes in February, for the first time in 60 years:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/hi/news/newsid_8546000/8546373.stm

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 12:13pm on 05 Mar 2010, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    #50. - ScudLewis
    "Met Office analysis reveals 'clear fingerprints' of man-made climate change"
    I have read the press release on this and it contains no evidence whatsoever of man-made climate change. It does provide evidence of climate variablility but that is not in doubt. The only evidence that this is man-made seems to be that there is no other explanation and that "the climate system is changing in a number of ways which follow the pattern of climate change predicted by computer models. The only plausible explanation is that changes are happening as a result of human activity, including man-made greenhouse gas emissions."
    Unfortunately the M.O. seems unable to shake itself out of the mind-set that all climate change is man-made. Climate change may well be man-made but this proves nothing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 3:32pm on 05 Mar 2010, Boleslas_Broda wrote:

    @49 Titus

    Trust is a funny thing, yes.

    In perspective, the humour of my story springs from the intention to retain records frustrated by poor grasp of what a paper shredder does -- the actual experimental results were doubtless sound enough before this snafu, and the institute's many very demanding clients have never complained about the quality of its science, to my knowledge; compare with the standard practice of multinational corporations of destroying all records more than one year old -- which while the head office claims is housekeeping to reduce clutter, the fact that in most automakers, oil companies, or tobacco companies of any size it is a firing offense to be in possession of an email or paper document older than one year makes it seem rather more important than a janitorial function.

    So while it's possible to find cause to distrust some scientists about finding their files, I save my larger distrust for those corporate entities that conspire to destroy all potential evidence as corporate policy. But at least such corporations don't go around making up incredible tales and planting them in the media as sci.. oops, they've been known to do that, too.

    Those funny guys.

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 5:24pm on 06 Mar 2010, Lazarus wrote:

    ScudLewis wrote:

    "Is Stott's comment at odds with the data for 109 years for the oceans showing a no warming trend - am I missing something or misreading the data?"

    On the Met site it claims;
    "Warming oceans — temperature increases have been observed over the last 50 years in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Ocean basins. These cannot be attributed to changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions or variations in ocean currents, such as El Niño."
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2010/pr20100305.html

    I tried to view this report on-line but it appears it may only be published in print as I could not find it on the site from the organisation that published it;
    http://wires.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WiresJournal/wisId-WCC.html

    I assume that the actual publication will list the 110 papers that we used including the ones on ocean temps.

    Could certainly do with this to check out the claims.

    +++++++++++++++

    QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "The only plausible explanation is that changes are happening as a result of human activity, including man-made greenhouse gas emissions."
    Unfortunately the M.O. seems unable to shake itself out of the mind-set that all climate change is man-made. Climate change may well be man-made but this proves nothing."

    Science doesn't actually 'prove' anything but surely if 'The only plausible explanation is that changes are happening as a result of human activity', it is strong evidence supporting the theory.

    Wasn't it Sherlock Holmes who said when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

    Nobody has ever published a solid alternative theory to explain the current warming trend, nor one that explains why the rise in GHGs we can measure wouldn't cause such warming.

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 12:11pm on 07 Mar 2010, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    # 54 - Lazarus
    "Wasn't it Sherlock Holmes who said when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

    No it wasn't.
    AFAIK, Sherlock Holmes was a fictional character and didn't exist.

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 2:08pm on 07 Mar 2010, Lazarus wrote:

    QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "No it wasn't.
    AFAIK, Sherlock Holmes was a fictional character and didn't exist."

    I don't like to spoil your pedantry but fictional characters are still attributed with saying things.

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 2:23pm on 07 Mar 2010, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    #56. Lazarus wrote:
    "I don't like to spoil your pedantry but fictional characters are still attributed with saying things."
    Of course, but that doesn't mean that we can place any significance on what they say.
    In any case this is more like "when we have eliminated those things we are unaware of".
    The models have been created on the underlyng assumption that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses cause warming. Hence, the logic is that if it is getting warmer it must be due to greenhouse gasses. False logic.

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 5:17pm on 07 Mar 2010, Lazarus wrote:

    QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "The models have been created on the underlyng assumption that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses cause warming. Hence, the logic is that if it is getting warmer it must be due to greenhouse gasses. False logic."

    The 'underlyng assumption that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses cause warming'? Are you suggesting that this 'assumption' may be incorrect?

    It has been known for over a hundred years that adding CO2 and similar GHGs to the atmosphere increases its infrared opacity, and when this happens, more energy from sunlight enters Earth’s atmosphere than escapes. The atmosphere must heat up on average.

    This is well established physics. There is no scientific debate about this fact, and nobody has ever published a “zero-warming” theory to explain how it could be otherwise.

    So your argument is actually claiming it is false logic to test a scientific theory based on established principles of physics. I would suggest that is not logical at all.

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 7:19pm on 07 Mar 2010, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    #58 - Lazarus wrote:

    "The 'underlyng assumption that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses cause warming'? Are you suggesting that this 'assumption' may be incorrect?"
    It is demonstrably incorrect, since atmospheric temperature has not risen since 1998, (let alone accellerated, as predicted by the models), despite the continued increase in CO2 levels. This proves that there are other factors involved which outweigh the effects of CO2. Since the whole of AGW is based on the premise that it is CO2 which is causing the rise in temperature, if temperatures are not rising in accordance with that theory, then there must be something wrong with the theory. Or are you saying that CO2 is not the main cause of warming?

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 8:05pm on 07 Mar 2010, Lazarus wrote:

    QuaesoVeritas

    What you claim is pure belief unsupported by science. There has been a temperature rise since 1998 - logically how could there not be if the last decade was the warmest on record.

    I think you actually need to dismiss the politics that are forming you judgements and engage with the science.

    The following link explains your misconceptions and links to at least a half dozen pieces of supporting science.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

    I repeat, the greenhouse effect works and that conservation of energy is settled science. It has been known for over a hundred years that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its infrared opacity, and when this happens, more energy from sunlight enters Earth’s atmosphere than escapes. The atmosphere must heat up on average. There is no scientific debate about this fact, and nobody has ever published a “zero-warming” theory to explain how it could be otherwise.

    How sound is that argument when there has been warming since 1997;

    http://climate-graphs.co.uk/graphs/global_image.php?SelectSeries=HADLEY&SelectTwo=None&SelectThree=None&SelectRes=Annual&StartYear=1997&EndYear=2009&SelectDiv=NO


    And there has been warming since 1999;

    ]http://climate-graphs.co.uk/graphs/global_image.php?SelectSeries=HADLEY&SelectTwo=None&SelectThree=None&SelectRes=Annual&StartYear=1999&EndYear=2009&SelectDiv=NO

    You can try any other year too. So logically there has been warming since 1998 only cherry picking the year and data set gives you the the result you need and some might conclude that you were being VERY selective and picking your data just to support your beliefs.

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 8:33pm on 07 Mar 2010, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    #60 - Lazarus wrote:

    "What you claim is pure belief unsupported by science. There has been a temperature rise since 1998 - logically how could there not be if the last decade was the warmest on record."
    Because (according to HadCRUT3), temperatures reached a peak in 1998 and have subsequently fallen. The statements that last decade was the warmest on record but temperatures are now falling are not mutually exclusive.
    If you had a body temperature of 40c about 8 hours ago, which has subsequently fallen to 38c, with ups and downs in between, would you still say your temperature was going up? Yes, you still have a high temperature but it is lower than before.
    In any case, the argument is not whether temperatures are going up or down, but why are they not higher, if CO2 is entirely responsible?


    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 09:52am on 08 Mar 2010, Lazarus wrote:

    QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    You have taken the record all time high temperature and claimed temperatures have fallen from then, and yes the the temperatures have never been as high as that single data point but you might as well take an all time low and claim temperatures have risen since. Either case tell us nothing about whether temperatures trends are rising or falling and AGW theory only claims the atmosphere must heat up on average over decades.

    I have already suggested you need to engage with the actual science and now it seems you may have to do that from a basic level.

    You wrote;
    "the argument is not whether temperatures are going up or down, but why are they not higher, if CO2 is entirely responsible?"

    Global temperatures are not outside predicted ranges. How high do you believe they should be and do you have any research to support this belief?

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 11:14am on 09 Mar 2010, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    #62 - Lazarus wrote:
    "Global temperatures are not outside predicted ranges. How high do you believe they should be and do you have any research to support this belief?"
    According to a graph in a report published in support of the Met. Office/Hadley press release "Four Degrees and Beyond" (Sept. 2009), which stated that by the end of the first decade of this century (i.e. 2009), temperatures should have been approximately 1c above the pre-industrial (1861-90) average, This press release claimed that if greenhouse gas emissions continued to rise unchecked, "global warming" would exceed 4c above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. In fact, by 2009, warming had only reached 0.73c compared to "pre-industrial" levels, after peaking at 0.8c in 1998. The comparison with "pre-industrial" levels is the normal one used, although that is rarely mentioned and I suspect that most people wouldn't know that, when discussing future temperature rise. The 1c rise prediction was the average of a range of predictions but the alarmists rarely mention the lower end predictions. The problem was that the starting points of many of the higher predictions were higher than the ACTUAL temperature anomaly in the year 2000 and could therefore not have been correct, which invalidated the average projection.

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 12:32pm on 09 Mar 2010, Lazarus wrote:

    QuaesoVeritas,

    No links to support your case? How do I know the context of your assertions with out extensive and time consuming checking? How do I know that even if they were true they were widely accepted by climatologists?

    "In fact, by 2009, warming had only reached 0.73c compared to "pre-industrial" levels, after peaking at 0.8c in 1998."

    Not this again! Global temperatures didn't peak, if they did there would be discernible cooling since 1998 but the last decade was the hottest. 1998 is only a single data point.

    "The 1c rise prediction was the average of a range of predictions but the alarmists rarely mention the lower end predictions."

    I have no time for 'alarmists', including those who claim there is nothing to be alarmed about, if the research suggest otherwise. I am only interested in the science and 0.8 degrees (or even 0.73) is within predicted ranges. It is also most likely caused by the rise in GHGs and as GHGs are still rising, temperature on average will continue to rise. I see little point in arguing that they are not high enough yet.

    But you still have not made any case for why current levels of Co2 should be higher.

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 2:02pm on 09 Mar 2010, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    #64. - Lazarus wrote:
    "No links to support your case? How do I know the context of your assertions with out extensive and time consuming checking? How do I know that even if they were true they were widely accepted by climatologists?"
    Here is a link to the M.O. Press release.
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/news/latest/four-degrees.html
    However, there is no ling to the report and the graph. You will have to ask for those, as I did.

    ""In fact, by 2009, warming had only reached 0.73c compared to "pre-industrial" levels, after peaking at 0.8c in 1998."
    Not this again! Global temperatures didn't peak, if they did there would be discernible cooling since 1998 but the last decade was the hottest. 1998 is only a single data point."
    Only time will tell, until it is beaten, it is a peak. The M.O. say that this year will be hotter, so we know by the end of the year. Have you actually looked at the HadCRUT3 data? The only reason there doesn't appear to have been a more pronounced fall, is the fact that 1999 and 2000 were relatively cool.

    "But you still have not made any case for why current levels of Co2 should be higher."
    Didn't say that. I said current temps. should be higher based on the rate of CO2 rise. The upward trend of CO2 concentrations is inexorable, yet global temperature rise, at the very least, has slowed to almost zero. Why?
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full
    If there had been a similar fall in CO2 concentration, I would accept the theory, but there hasn't. I am not saying that CO2 isn't part of the problem, only that it is not the entire problem (as implied by the obsession on CO2 emission reduction as a "cure" for climate change).
    Possible explanations:
    1. Other factors outweigh CO2 concentrations.
    2. CO2 measurements wrong.
    3. Temperature measurements wrong.
    I am not even saying that we shouldn't reduce CO2 emissions, and find alternative energy sources and stop polluting in general, as there are other reasons to do so, but the idea that reducing CO2 emissions will cure all of the earth's environmental problems and restore the climate to some fictional "stable" state, which existed in the past, is ludicrous.

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 2:28pm on 10 Mar 2010, Lazarus wrote:

    Second time replying to this, the first seems to have got lost.

    Since this has turned into a very similar topic to what you are discussing in the newer thread you may reply and continue there if you wish.

    QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    “Here is a link to the M.O. Press release.”

    That is about a possible 4c rise by the end of the century. There is no reference as to what the temperature should be now or that it should be higher.

    “Only time will tell, until it is beaten, it is a peak. The M.O. say that this year will be hotter, so we know by the end of the year. Have you actually looked at the HadCRUT3 data?”

    Yes I have looked at the data and 1998 is still just a single anomalously high data point that climatologists have never said was caused by AGW. It was due to a particularly strong El Nino, there was another in 2002 and one at present, hence the record temperatures in the southern hemisphere. It is expected to peter out during our summer so that is why the Met say it should be a warm one but I’d be surprised if you can find a Met Office official who has said ‘this year WILL be hotter’. It seems you are lining up your straw men well in advance.

    “The only reason there doesn't appear to have been a more pronounced fall, is the fact that 1999 and 2000 were relatively cool.”

    Have you looked at the data? 1999 and 2000 were the 3rd and 5th hottest years on record at that time. Since every year since then has been hotter still and the last decade the hottest on record, it does throw a rather large wrench in your, ‘its getting cooler’ assertion.

    “Didn't say that. I said current temps. should be higher based on the rate of CO2 rise. The upward trend of CO2 concentrations is inexorable, yet global temperature rise, at the very least, has slowed to almost zero. Why?”

    Because the theory says temperatures should rise on average and that is exactly what has happened. No climatologist ever suggest that they would rise year on year with Co2. Temperatures actually fell in the 40s and 70s but the average and the over all trend is ever upwards.

    “Possible explanations:
    1. Other factors outweigh CO2 concentrations.
    2. CO2 measurements wrong.
    3. Temperature measurements wrong.”

    What about a Martian Death Ray? It is another possible explanation but there is no more evidence for it than there is for those in your list. In fact since those in your list have been seriously researched by scientists there is actually more evidence against your other possibilities than there is for it being naughty Martians.

    At least you seem genuinely interested in the science and haven’t gone down the conspiracy theory road. But here is the problem with your position; you not only need to believe there is another possibility but you give that unknown and perhaps non existent possibility so much bias you have let it outweigh all the empirical evidence and research. This is irrational. Wouldn’t the rational thing to do be to accept that the science is currently the best information we have to base anything on?

    If you accept the science you can never be wrong because if another possible explanation is found through research and accepted by the scientists you will have accepted that too. But the logical position to hold at present is that there isn’t another possible explanation lurking undiscovered and in all likelihood they will not be.

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 4:41pm on 10 Mar 2010, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    #66 - Lazarus wrote:

    "QuaesoVeritas wrote:
    “Here is a link to the M.O. Press release.”
    That is about a possible 4c rise by the end of the century. There is no reference as to what the temperature should be now or that it should be higher."
    As I said in my earlier post, that was in a graph which was in a document which was not included in the press release. I had to ask for the additional document.
    "so that is why the Met say it should be a warm one but I’d be surprised if you can find a Met Office official who has said ‘this year WILL be hotter’. It seems you are lining up your straw men well in advance."
    Not me, the Met. Office:
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091210b.html
    Quote:
    "The latest forecast from our climate scientists, shows the global temperature is forecast to be almost 0.6 °C above the 1961–90 long-term average. This means that it is more likely than not that 2010 will be the warmest year in the instrumental record, beating the previous record year which was 1998."
    "What about a Martian Death Ray?"
    Now you really are being silly!

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 12:45pm on 11 Mar 2010, Lazarus wrote:

    QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    “As I said in my earlier post, that was in a graph which was in a document which was not included in the press release. I had to ask for the additional document.”

    How did you know about it and to ask for it? What do you claim it actually shows and what is graphed? When was it complied to show that current temps should be higher? What do I need to ask for and who do I ask it of?

    “Not me, the Met. Office:”

    Firstly, just to clarify, this link is about global temps so it is still possible that the UK will have a cold, wet, traditionally British summer and for the global temps to be exceptional.

    But unfortunately you don’t even need to read past the title to see that you have over played your case and spun the article to suit your agenda.

    The head line is ‘Climate *COULD* warm to record levels in 2010’. The very first paragraph states that due to an El Nino it is ‘very *LIKELY* that 2010 will be a warmer year globally than 2009’ not the claim of certainty you have suggested by saying it *WILL* be warmer than 1998.

    Why do you need to distort and misrepresent what they have said and cherry pick lines like;

    “This means that it is more likely than not that 2010 will be the warmest year in the instrumental record, beating the previous record year which was 1998."?

    Which again claims no certainty and the following paragraph clearly states ‘A record warm year in 2010 is not a certainty’.

    So why do you need to distort things so? Is it because if we don’t get a new record year you can use the old ‘if the Met Office can’t predict the weather this year how can they predict the climate in 50 years’ fallacy wile conveniently forgetting that they never said such a thing and it was just a straw man argument you created?

    “Now you really are being silly!”

    There is no difference between what is obviously silly and what may sound plausible but has compelling evidence against it.

    You failed to comment on the observation that it is rational to accept the theory with the most compelling evidence and irrational to accept some others in the hope that future evidence may become available.

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 4:03pm on 11 Mar 2010, ashleyhr wrote:

    The final UK seasonal mean, according to the Met Office website (I had to search a bit on the website on 5 March to find this) was 1.59 Celsius - making the winter of 2009-10 the seventh coldest UK-wide since the records began in 1914. In Scotland the final seasonal mean was 0.27 C - still making it the second coldest winter on record after only 1962-63 (which was much more severe than this winter in the south of the UK).

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 4:49pm on 11 Mar 2010, ashleyhr wrote:

    To back up my comment at 16.03, still being moderated, if you type 1.59 in the Search box on the Met Office website, and then click on the link labelled UK you get the Areal series of monthly and seasonal data for the UK - and the Winter 2010 figure of 1.59 is now shown in the table.

    I think the Met Office should display this final 2009-10 figure more prominently on the website - rather than the provisional figure (1.51) that only covered the period up to 24 Feb.

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 6:03pm on 11 Mar 2010, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    #68 - Lazarus wrote:
    "How did you know about it and to ask for it? What do you claim it actually shows and what is graphed? When was it complied to show that current temps should be higher? What do I need to ask for and who do I ask it of?"
    I didn't know, I just assumed, since there was no detail in the press release. I'm afraid you will have to do the rest yourself. If you don't believe me, then so be it.

    "The head line is ‘Climate *COULD* warm to record levels in 2010’. The very first paragraph states that due to an El Nino it is ‘very *LIKELY* that 2010 will be a warmer year globally than 2009’ not the claim of certainty you have suggested by saying it *WILL* be warmer than 1998.

    Why do you need to distort and misrepresent what they have said and cherry pick lines like;

    “This means that it is more likely than not that 2010 will be the warmest year in the instrumental record, beating the previous record year which was 1998."?

    Which again claims no certainty and the following paragraph clearly states ‘A record warm year in 2010 is not a certainty’."

    Not an absolute 100% certainty, but "more likely than not".

    "So why do you need to distort things so? Is it because if we don’t get a new record year you can use the old ‘if the Met Office can’t predict the weather this year how can they predict the climate in 50 years’ fallacy wile conveniently forgetting that they never said such a thing and it was just a straw man argument you created?"

    Actually, it's the M.O. who want it both ways. If the year is a record, they will say they predicted it (just wait), but if it isn't, they will say they said it wasn't certain. Similar to winter seasonal forecast which originally said there was a 25% (as far as I recall) chance of a cold winter. The have made a similar forecast of "about half" of the next 5 years being above 1998 and "at least half", in another article.

    "There is no difference between what is obviously silly and what may sound plausible but has compelling evidence against it."

    So you are saying that "Martian Death Rays" are equally as likely as errors in recording temperatures/and or CO2 levels or that CO2 may not be the only cause? I suggest you write to Dr Roy Spencer and tell him:
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/

    "You failed to comment on the observation that it is rational to accept the theory with the most compelling evidence and irrational to accept some others in the hope that future evidence may become available."

    I don't accept any other theories, I just don't entirely accept the CO2 theory. A theory, is only the current best guess, until a better one comes along.

    Let's wait and see who is correct.

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 6:09pm on 11 Mar 2010, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    #70 - ashleyhr wrote:
    "To back up my comment at 16.03, still being moderated, if you type 1.59 in the Search box on the Met Office website, and then click on the link labelled UK you get the Areal series of monthly and seasonal data for the UK - and the Winter 2010 figure of 1.59 is now shown in the table.

    I think the Met Office should display this final 2009-10 figure more prominently on the website - rather than the provisional figure (1.51) that only covered the period up to 24 Feb."

    Some things are hard to find on the M.O. website. They often "publish" things very quietly, or not at all. A typical example was the decision to discontinue seasonal forecasts. They only published a press release after Paul published his blog on the subject. You can almost guarantee, that if this winter had been much warmer than usual, it would have been given high prominence. I'm not sure if this is deliberate or if it is just the result of the current blinkered attitude.

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 11:13am on 12 Mar 2010, Lazarus wrote:

    QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    “If you don't believe me, then so be it.”

    Would it be wise to believe someone whose claims are not supported by the evidence?

    Who says; “Met Office/Hadley press release "Four Degrees and Beyond" (Sept. 2009), which stated that by the end of the first decade of this century (i.e. 2009), temperatures should have been approximately 1c above the pre-industrial (1861-90) average”, when it doesn’t mention what temperatures should be by the end of the first decade of this century – it doesn’t mention it at all despite what they claimed!

    That says they have a graph but doesn’t say what data it graphs but that it is available from only one source at special request but doesn’t say who to request it of? So this graph isn’t easily available from anywhere else but just happens to support their claims that are not at all supported in the press release "Four Degrees and Beyond".

    And these claims come from someone who without apology spins "more likely than not", which can mean anything from 51% - 49% and above, to mean 2010 *WILL* be hotter than 1998.

    Who says it is OK to distort the truth because they believe the MO would do it.

    Would you trust someone whose logical is so demonstrably flawed and biased?

    Just some thoughts….

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 3:11pm on 12 Mar 2010, ashleyhr wrote:

    The Met Office have replied as follows to a message I sent to them on 11 March about their website's coverage of winter 2009-10:

    "Thank you for your email.

    The winter 2009-2010 mean temperature for the UK is given on this page http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/2010/winter.html as 1.6 C.

    This page was updated last Friday (5th March) - previously this included the statistics for the first two months (December 2009 and January 2010 only).

    The datasets in which the mean temperature for the UK is given as 1.59 C (to 2d.p.) are at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/datasets/index.html# - showing this winter as the seventh coldest in the series. The datasets here would have been updated on Thursday afternoon (4th March).

    It does take a few days for the updates to appear after the end of the month as we have to carry out a Quality Control check on the data and generate these statistics.

    I suspect you are referring to this page: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2010/pr20100301.html and we have been in touch with our Press Office to get this page updated.

    I hope this helps."

    The page they say will be updated was the one giving details that excluded 25-28 February.

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 9:43pm on 12 Mar 2010, Mark Taylor wrote:

    Seeing that this thread still seems to be active, and given the 'coldest winter' in the title, I just thought I'd mention that the February NASA numbers are out, and the 3-month 'winter', ie Dec, Jan, Feb we've just had comes out at .66 over the long-term mean, which makes it the second hottest since 1880.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

    I suppose you could change the thread to "the coldest winter since '08/09"...

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 11:26pm on 12 Mar 2010, Lazarus wrote:

    Mark Taylor wrote:
    "which makes it the second hottest since 1880"

    I guess that is globally? Since it now seems that 9 out of the last 10 years were in the top 10 hottest on record and this year again tipped to be well within the top 10 it isn't surprising.

    Yet perversely and against these simple facts there are those who claim warming has stopped and the planet is now cooling.

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 10:31am on 18 Mar 2010, Jarl Ahlbeck wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.