« Previous | Main | Next »

Dry weather returns to UK following 2nd wettest year

Paul Hudson | 11:27 UK time, Thursday, 3 January 2013

UPDATE at 1pm on Mon 7th Jan

2012 was provisionally 3rd wettest on record according to the England & Wales rainfall series which started in 1766, behind 1872 and 1786. December was also the wettest since 1978 in the same dataset.

ENDS

2012 averaged across the UK was the second wettest on record in data which stretches back to 1910, falling short of a new record by only 6.6mm.

In total 1330.7mm fell last year, compared with the average of 1154mm.

A new record has been set across England and Wales with 1205mm of rain.

And locally new records have been set for Yorkshire, with 1230.8mm (136% of average) and Lincolnshire with 841.3mm (135% of average).

It's been a remarkable run of wet years in the UK since 1998; 6 years are now in the top 10 wettest - 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2008 & 2012.

Even more striking are figures based on the much longer England and Wales rainfall data series, first started in 1766.

2012 is provisionally in the top 4 wettest in 246 years (the other years being 2000, 1872 & 1786).

Also of significance is that 2012 is the only year in this 246 year data set in which 2 calendar months set new records for rainfall: April and June.

2012 has certainly been a remarkable year which has seen the jet stream too far south for long periods of time.

But weather patterns are very different as we head into early 2013. The jet stream has re-positioned itself further north, with high pressure building across the country.

This means an emphasis on much drier weather across the UK as whole in the next few days, which will come as a huge relief to many, although rain is expected early next week.

Follow me on twitter @Hudsonweather

Comments

Page 1 of 2

  • Comment number 1.

    I like it when Paul mentions 'You will be unlucky if you get caught in a shower' because I know he means me I now take an umbrella :) (Viewer participation or is it precipitation :/)

  • Comment number 2.

    So I see it's getting wetter, it is me or is this cyclical every 115 years (ish) for the wettest years?

  • Comment number 3.

    The UKMO and the BBC are putting a lot of emphasis on the claim that 2012 is the second wettest in the U.K., "since records began", but as Paul points out, that is only based ond the regional dataset which goes back to 1910, a little over 100 years.
    Virtually no mention is made of the HadUKP dataset, which for England & Wales, starts in 1766, in which, the year 2012 was only the 4th wettest in on record and not as wet as 1872 and 1786.
    The BBC even said today that the 2000 was "the wettest ever year". Clearly they haven't heard of the HadUKP data series.
    The UKMO is also guilty of "short-termism", when it claims that "extreme daily rainfall" events are becoming more frequent, by only using figures since 1960.
    Correlation of UKMO daily rainfall figures for England & Wales, which go back to 1931, with annual rainfall figures, suggest that it is quite likely that the frequency of such events was as high as it is now, during the 1920's, 1870's and possibly the 1770's.

  • Comment number 4.

    I heard Roger Harribin twadling on about this earlier on the Today program and now Paul presents a precis of the same story. I was under the impression that HADUKP\EWP was updated on the 5th of the following month after being 'quality controlled' - yet today is only the 3rd? Are the figures being banded about today provisional or MOHC 'finalised' ones?

  • Comment number 5.

    In the past the MO have announced rainfall figures via the BBC, before the period in question is actually over.
    On June 30th 2010, the MO announced that rainfall from January to June 2010 in the UK was the lowest since 1929, with a figure of 356.8mm to the end of june.
    This was based on provisional figures calculated before the end of June.
    It turned out that the actual rainfall figure was 362.5mm, making it only the driest since 1953, not quite as impressive. Note that back then, they were claiming that low rainfall was a sign of "climate change".
    The problem is that the MO don't announce the revised figures as widely as the original ones and all the media and the public remember is the original announcement.
    Actually all MO rainfall figures should be considered "provisional" as they can be changed several years after they were originally published.
    I recently noticed that daily rainfall figures going back approximately 10 years had been changed, making it necessary for me to completely re-calculate some analysis I had done on the figures.
    It is quite possible that at some point in the future, the rainfall figures for 2012 will be revised downwards, thus changing it's ranking since 1910, but nobody will ever hear about that.

  • Comment number 6.

    The Met Office and the BBC, yet again, conveniently forget that conclusions FOLLOW data quality control. Clearly it's still more important to get the message out there than it is to ensure it's the right message.

  • Comment number 7.

    The following is from the pen of Philip Eden in the Sunday Telegraph 30th Dec 2012. The bold is mine

    Record rainfall and dull days will put 2012 in history books

    The England and Wales precipitation series is a record of monthly rainfall statistics that extends to 1766. There are other rainfall series, notably for Britain and its constituent countries, but all of these date from 1910 only. For a true historical perspective, we need to refer to the one that began in 1766.

    The amount of rain that has fallen so far in 2012 has been 47.24in, which is about 126 per cent of the long term average. The only years that were wetter than 2012 in the two-and-a-half century long record were 2000 with 48.33in, 1872 with 50.59in, 1852 with 47.76in and 1768 with 49.11in. There were only four instances in 247 years. Therefore, we can say that, on average, a year as wet as 2012 has a one-in-60 chance of recurring…….


    Philip Eden
    Past vice president of the Royal Meteorological Society.

    There is a lot more in the article but I can’t find it online, so no link.

  • Comment number 8.

    whatever happend to the mediterranean climate, the hotter drier summers the milder winters?

    they are basically making it up as they go along now, with any weather patterns pointed to as as undeniable proof of global warming, climate change or whatever daft description they decide upon

  • Comment number 9.

    #7. - greensand wrote:
    "There is a lot more in the article but I can’t find it online, so no link."
    I don't think the Philip Eden articles in the S.T. are available on line, but I think I will be able to obtain a copy.
    In my post #3, I meant 1768, not 1786.
    Paul H. says that according to HadUKP, 2012 was wetter than 1852, although the MO data files haven't been updated yet with December.
    I don't think that the fact that there have been two "once in 60 year" years since 2000 is significant, as that could happen at random.
    There is no doubt that we are currently experiencing higher than average rainfall and more days with higher than average rainfall, but I don't think there is any evidence to attribute that to "climate change".
    What *really* annoys me is that the MO and the BBC are repeating the misleading statement that "records began in 1910", when for England & Wales they began in 1766.

  • Comment number 10.

    "Statistics for December and 2012 - is the UK getting wetter?"

    "Provisional statistics from the Met Office show 2012 was the second wettest year in the UK national record dating back to 1910, and just a few millimetres short of the record set in 2000."

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2013/2012-weather-statistics

    The UK founded in 1910, re-calibrated in 1960, now with a 1981-201o average, the wonders of the moving feast.

  • Comment number 11.

    3. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "Virtually no mention is made of the HadUKP dataset, which for England & Wales, starts in 1766, in which, the year 2012 was only the 4th wettest in on record and not as wet as 1872 and 1786."

    How do we know that if (as you say in #9) "the MO data files haven't been updated yet with December"?

    I'm not saying you're not right; I'm just wondering if you have some information that I've missed.

  • Comment number 12.

    Funny in spring how they were saying that we were in serious danger of drought and that it would take years to fill the water table. 9 months later.

  • Comment number 13.

    #11. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "How do we know that if (as you say in #9) "the MO data files haven't been updated yet with December"?"

    I assumed that based on what P.H. said above, i.e.
    "2012 is provisionally in the top 4 wettest in 246 years (the other years being 2000, 1872 & 1786)."
    I assumed that this meant it was provisionally higher than 1852 but lower than 2000. If 2012 had been wetter than 2000, it would have been in the top 3 etc.
    Not sure where Paul gets the provisional figure from.

  • Comment number 14.

    goodish point @12 . . .

    The weather doesn't really respect man-made calendars so it is a pretty wet 9 month period - whatever the stats may or may not say.

    On an earlier thread, I mentioned something similar to ukip but this time regarding the dry 1975/76 period. The 'clowns' runing the place foolishly said it would take years to fill up the ressies etc. . . took about 4 weeks!

    Also mentioned what Prof H Lamb had identified 40 years ago as patterns were becoming more fixed for longer periods. Let's go and re-invent the wheel . . . .

  • Comment number 15.

    10. greensand wrote:

    "The UK founded in 1910, re-calibrated in 1960, now with a 1981-201o average, the wonders of the moving feast."

    I applied the MO's method of using 30 year average precipitation every 10 years (from the 'Annual average UK rainfall according to 30-year averages' table in your link) to the HadUKP data.

    There are 22 of these distinct three-decade long periods so far in HadUKP. There are certainly ups and downs if you join the dots between these data, but there is also an overall upward trend, with the latest full 30 year period (1981-2010) being higher than any other (they start at 1771-1800 and end at 1981-2010).

    Hard to know what, if anything, to read into this. We always have to take into account the UK's unique geographical location WRT the rest of Northern Europe, exposed as we are to the North Atlantic Current, with all the fun that brings.

    But based on full three decade averages, rainfall does appear to be increasing according to data from the HadUKP record. If the period 1991-2020 extends this rise (and 2012 data suggest that it may be on course to do so), then we might be able to say something about it with more confidence.

  • Comment number 16.

    The UAH temperature anomaly for December = 0.202c, compared with 0.282c in November.
    N.H. = 0.142c, v 0.299c
    S.H. = 0.261c, v 0.265c
    This makes the annual figure 0.161c compared with 0.130c for 2011, and makes 2012 the 9th warmest on record.
    A bit lower than I would have expected from AQUA CH5, and I had been about to post that I didn't think there would be much change in the figures last month, but I am glad I didn't.
    Not sure if this will be reflected in other data series.

  • Comment number 17.

    15. newdwr54 wrote:

    "I applied the MO's method of using 30 year average precipitation every 10 years (from the 'Annual average UK rainfall according to 30-year averages' table in your link) to the HadUKP data."

    Interesting, but the whole point is that the MO chose not use HadUKP data, they used “the UK national record dating back to 1910”

    Hence, "The UK founded in 1910, re-calibrated in 1960, now with a 1981-2010 average, the wonders of the moving feast."

    The HadUKP data has been showing an increasing trend over the whole of the 247 year record. I have charts checking it 2 years ago as then it had been predicted that the reducing trend in precipitation observed since 2000 would continue and lead to increasing incidents of drought in the UK?

  • Comment number 18.

    16. QuaesoVeritas:

    Thanks for that. December 2012 becomes the sixth warmest December in the UAH record. One effect of this month's value is that it pushes the UAH 30-year trend back up to +0.17 C/dec.

    A point to note about this is that during 2013 the start end of the 30-year trend is going to come across some relatively cool temperatures, particularly the 1984/85 period. January 1984 was -0.42 in UAH and 1984 is the coolest year in their record. 1985 wasn't much warmer.

    Fans of only using 15 years data should note that the extreme El Nino warming of 1998, which is currently warm-loading the start end of that period, will be over by October 2013.

  • Comment number 19.

    #18. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "Fans of only using 15 years data should note that the extreme El Nino warming of 1998, which is currently warm-loading the start end of that period, will be over by October 2013."
    Not sure who the fans of using 15 years data, but they will no doubt extend that to 16, 17, 18, as 1998 moves further into the past and the period of low trends gets longer.

  • Comment number 20.

    "2012 has certainly been a remarkable year which has seen the jet stream too far south for long periods of time. "


    I've been flagging that up for 5 years now having first noted the reversal of trend beginning around 2000.

    Our CO2 was supposed to push the jets poleward and indeed they did shift poleward during the warming spell.

    Now we have them way south despite even more CO2.

    Meanwhile the sun has gone quiet and a new paper links solar activity to the intensity of the AO and AAO which I have been pointing up for some time.

    I don't think they have the diagnostics right yet though and I explained in 2010 how I thought it worked.

    It will be interesting to see how it turns out when more data is available.

  • Comment number 21.

    20. Stephen Wilde wrote:

    "Our CO2 was supposed to push the jets poleward... "

    Can you provide a reference for that assertion please, Stephen?

  • Comment number 22.

    Just to put this year in perspective I have looked at the Met office web-site for the data-set of England and Wales (E&W) rainfall since 1766 (I need to get out more!). At present the data only run up to the end of November, but elsewhere on the Met Office web-site today's news release gives a preliminary E&W rainfall total for 2012 of 1205mm. Actually this would make 2012 only the FIFTH wettest since 1766 behind 1872 (1284.9mm); 1768 (1247.3mm); 2000 (1232.5mm) and 1852 (1213mm).

    Also putting it into the perspective of this long time series and the Met Office press releases that claim this is part of a long-trend of increasing rainfall...... It is interesting to note that the last 10 years (2003-12) now have a mean E&W rainfall of 936.9mm). This is only 2.7% above the mean for the entire period 1766-2012 of 917mm. The decade ending 2010 had a mean of 946.5mm. But we only have to go back to the 1970s to find a decade with a mean rainfall of 884.2mm (3.6% below the 1766-2012 mean).

    It is plain from these figures that the rainfall of England and Wales cycles up and down over time and there is no consistent pattern. Yes, we are in a 'wet spell' of years, but even then we have only had a run of 5 consecutive 'Wet' years (years with above average rainfall) in recent times (1998-2002), consider the 1870s when there were 9 consecutive such wet years (1875-1883)...... Way before global warming.

  • Comment number 23.

    19. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "Not sure who the fans of using 15 years data..."

    Not aimed at you QV, honest.

    "... but they will no doubt extend that to 16, 17, 18, as 1998 moves further into the past and the period of low trends gets longer."

    That remains to be seen. But if a significant El Nino in the next two years weights the near end of a 15/16 year trend that no longer has a counterbalancing El Nino warming period at the far end, then I suspect we might see some judicious back-stepping by the current "15/16 years primacy" proponents.

  • Comment number 24.

    I remember the comment that the melting of the Polar ice-caps had pushed the Gulf stream to the south of the UK and this was pulling in the rain fronts. The next week the same Gulf stream was back to the north of Britain! Another "theory" made up on the hoof up the shoot. I have said before, can anyone express what the rain records showing the most rainfall since 1910 would be expressed as a percentage of the time that "climate change" has been taking place? I would imagine you would need quite a large piece of paper to get all the zeros in following O.! In other words to claim it has any relevance is utter tosh!

  • Comment number 25.

    Just noticed the post at

    15. At 19:44 3rd Jan 2013, newdwr54 wrote:
    10. greensand wrote:

    "There are 22 of these distinct three-decade long periods so far in HadUKP. There are certainly ups and downs if you join the dots between these data, but there is also an overall upward trend, with the latest full 30 year period (1981-2010) being higher than any other (they start at 1771-1800 and end at 1981-2010)."

    Well, using that method for the England and Wales data - the 30 year running mean for the most recent 30-year period (1983-2012) would give the highest mean rainfall in the series - at 948 mm. But it only just claims the 'crown' - the 30 year period ending 1939 had 946mm and the 30 year period ending 1886 had 943mm. Using different lengths of periods for 'averaging' produces different figures - this is a statistical effect. But, for the 'record', the wettest 'decade' in the E&W record still remains the ten years 1874-1883, with a mean rainfall of 1017.2mm - well above the 936.9mm of the last 'decade' (2003-2012).

  • Comment number 26.

    Hudsonfan: - I think you should be cautious about some of your conclusions eg ' I remember the comment that the melting of the Polar ice-caps had pushed the Gulf stream to the south of the UK and this was pulling in the rain fronts. The next week the same Gulf stream was back to the north of Britain! Another "theory" made up on the hoof up the shoot' Perhaps I should explain something about the Gulf Stream - it is a large oceanic current covering some pretty vast distances (eg from 1 side of the Pacific to the other side of the Atlantic oceans) and, like other ocean currents & the Jet Stream, has been known to move or change direction on occasions. Given the tiny size of the UK in relation to these oceans, the movement of direction from the south to the north is really not that surprising or significant, pretty normal in fact and hardly evidence that the comment you quote is some kind of 'theory' made up on the hoof. Also, why do you describe 'climate change', a growing body of peer reviewed scientific evidence currently accepted by around 97% of the global scientific community, as some sort of potential theoretical anomaly which may or may not be happening? (I take it from your inclusion of quotes around the term that this is your meaning). Given the breadth of acceptance around the world, coupled with the multilateral attempts by bodies as diverse as the United Nations, the UK Met Office, the governments of virtually every major super power in the world, I find this description to be an extraordinary position to take.

  • Comment number 27.

    #24. - Hudsonfan wrote:
    "I remember the comment that the melting of the Polar ice-caps had pushed the Gulf stream to the south of the UK and this was pulling in the rain fronts. The next week the same Gulf stream was back to the north of Britain! Another "theory" made up on the hoof up the shoot."

    Are you sure that you don't mean "Jet stream", rather than "Gulf stream"?

  • Comment number 28.

    #22. - Leedschris wrote:
    "Just to put this year in perspective I have looked at the Met office web-site for the data-set of England and Wales (E&W) rainfall since 1766 (I need to get out more!). At present the data only run up to the end of November, but elsewhere on the Met Office web-site today's news release gives a preliminary E&W rainfall total for 2012 of 1205mm. Actually this would make 2012 only the FIFTH wettest since 1766 behind 1872 (1284.9mm); 1768 (1247.3mm); 2000 (1232.5mm) and 1852 (1213mm). "
    I missed that figure in the table at the bottom of the page. I guess they must be referring to HadUKP although they don't say so. If so, strange that P.H. should say that 2012 was provisionally in the top 4 though.

    "It is plain from these figures that the rainfall of England and Wales cycles up and down over time and there is no consistent pattern. Yes, we are in a 'wet spell' of years, but even then we have only had a run of 5 consecutive 'Wet' years (years with above average rainfall) in recent times (1998-2002), consider the 1870s when there were 9 consecutive such wet years (1875-1883)...... Way before global warming."
    We seem to be "singing from the same song sheet"!

  • Comment number 29.

    Message 24

    I think you are confusing the Gulf Stream (warm oceanic current in the North Atlantic) with the Jet Stream (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_stream)

  • Comment number 30.

    @ 24 & 29

    I think ashleyhr is indeed correct - the Jet-stream can and does move quite quickly depending how the upper air troughs and ridges shift/stick and the varying wavelengths of winter/summer. By comparison, ocean currents such as the Gulf-stream are generally relatively constant.

    On a related point, it might soon become a new Paul Hudson thread/talking point in a few days as the main Jet out of Newfoundland towards UK (resulting in the succession of systems dumping much wet recently) could end up being much further south by the end of next week allowing colder PC air to migrate towards the UK. . . Oh the fun of UK winters ! Well actually, the fun of our synoptic weather 365.

  • Comment number 31.

    newdwr54

    "From 1979 to 2001, the Northern Hemisphere's jet stream moved northward on average at a rate of about 1.25 miles a year, according to the paper published Friday in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. The authors suspect global warming is the cause, but have yet to prove it."

    from here:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24228037/

    and I clearly recall a Discovery Channel programme blaming the poleward shift on our emissions.

    and here:

    http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/jet-stream-global-warming-47042103

  • Comment number 32.

    #30 chris

    Much talk of an imminent SSW that could provide us with some winter weather before the month is out, not so much if it's going to happen now but where it's going to effect and how long it will last.

  • Comment number 33.

    31. Stephen Wilde:

    Thanks. The abstract of the GRL paper discussed in your first link states:

    "Further observations and analysis are needed to confidently attribute the causes of these changes to anthropogenic climate change, natural variability, or some combination of the two." http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL033614/abstract

    The authors didn't claim that there was a specific link between CO2 concentrations and the lateral position of the jetstreams; just that their poleward movement between 1979 and 2001 may have been influenced by climate change, whether human-caused or otherwise.

    I think therefore that your earlier comment: "Our CO2 was supposed to push the jets poleward and indeed they did shift poleward during the warming spell. Now we have them way south despite even more CO2" is pushing it a bit.

  • Comment number 34.

    The only things happening more frequently these days are the U-turns from the alarmists

    It was only a few short months ago that we were told the UK was entering a drought period that could last for decades, crops dying in the field for lack of water, global warming - 100% guaranteed proof it was effecting our climate

    Now we have been innundated with the liquid stuff they have the bare faced cheek to suggest that too is a sure sign of aforementioned global warming

    Stop already we have had enough of this garbage

  • Comment number 35.

    At 26. I meant the jet stream, not the Gulf stream, sorry! It was still used as an explanation to the rain by the Met.Office and the next week it was to the north again. I said them, do we assume that the Polar ice has refrozen in a week? There is masses of science giving contrary views as to the cause of global warming. My view is as always, it has been occuring for millions and millions of year without any input from mankind and will carry on doing so whether we are here or not! The money being wasted would be better spent mitigating the effects of inevitable change, flood defences and desalination plants in Africa etc. Nature rules the plant, always has and always will and to suggest that we can alter nature is arrongant rubbish!

  • Comment number 36.

    Can't edit @ 35 Meant "Nature rules the planet etc. Mind you, it rules plants as well!

  • Comment number 37.

    Happy New Year Gentlemen and Ladies.

    An interesting article on WUWT:

    “AGW Bombshell? A new paper shows statistical tests for global warming fails to find statistically significantly anthropogenic forcing”

    “…We show that although these anthropogenic forcings share a common stochastic trend, this trend is empirically independent of the stochastic trend in temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcing, aerosols, solar irradiance and global temperature are not polynomially cointegrated. This implies that recent global warming is not statistically significantly related to anthropogenic forcing. On the other hand, we find that greenhouse gas forcing might have had a temporary effect on global temperature.”

    Is this the killer statistical analysis that will finally kill off the AGW religion? I guess not as there is too much vested interest, imagine the Governments that have pushed massive subsidies into green ventures saying we were wrong, I don't think so.

  • Comment number 38.

    openside50 wrote:

    "Now we have been innundated with the liquid stuff they have the bare faced cheek to suggest that too is a sure sign of aforementioned global warming"

    But by every statistical measure the globe has a clear warming trend and periods of droughts and floods have always been what has been predicted from the earliest scientific papers on the subject.

    In a paper 14 years ago "Conceptual Framework for Changes of Extremes of the Hydrological Cycle with Climate Change", Trenberth stated;
    "...an increase in heavy precipitation events should be a primary manifestation of the climate change that accompanies increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase downwelling infrared radiation, and this global heating at the surface not only acts to increase temperatures but also increases evaporation which enhances the atmospheric moisture content. Consequently all weather systems, ranging from individual clouds and thunderstorms to extra tropical cyclones, which feed on the available moisture through storm-scale moisture convergence, are likely to produce correspondingly enhanced precipitation rates. Increases in heavy rainfall at the expense of more moderate rainfall are the consequence along with increased run off and risk of flooding."

    The problem with AGW deniers is that they refuse to look at all the science, the big picture. Any extreme weather event in the last decade or two can be compared to previous events that were similar or even more extreme but no previous decade can be found with the sheer frequency of climate extremes we have experienced over the last few years.

    As Paul states above "in the UK since 1998; 6 years are now in the top 10 wettest" and globally we have the 14 of the warmest years in the last 16. Similar examples exist for all other climate indicators, sea ice, snow cover, glaciers etc. I suspect the amount of sand for climate 'keptics' to bury their heads in must also be increasing dramatically.

  • Comment number 39.

    newdwr54.

    I was not 'pushing it' at all.

    "In a change that is consistent with global warming computer models, the jet streams that govern weather patterns around the world are shifting their course"

    Read more: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/jet-stream-global-warming-47042103#ixzz2H2BqZuZr

    In other words the models upon which the entire AGW scenario depends were predicting a poleward shift.

    Your attempt at denial was transparent and damaging to your credibility.

  • Comment number 40.

    Lazarus.

    You need to get out more.

    Read some history, including perhaps the diaries of Samuel Pepys who described some pretty diverse and by present standards weird UK weather during a climate cooling spell.

    The warming spells for the UK are pretty benign with long spells of pleasant weather off the south west Atlantic at any time of year.

    Cooling spells produce nasty stuff from all directions.

  • Comment number 41.

    #38. - Lazarus wrote:
    "But by every statistical measure the globe has a clear warming trend and periods of droughts and floods have always been what has been predicted from the earliest scientific papers on the subject."

    But didn't we have droughts and floods in the past, before the warming we know about?
    In fact, it is not possible to detect any evidence to support the "theory" that rainfall in England & Wales has been influenced by any warming which has taken place.
    Simply because droughts and floods have been predicted, doesn't prove that they were caused by climate change, because they have always happened. Predicting that what has happened in the past will continue into the future doesn't prove the climate is changing, it proves it ISN'T changing.
    Based on the provisional figure for England & Wales, the 30 year MA rainfall will be 948mm at the end of 2012. It was 943mm in 1886 and 946mm in 1939.
    Between 1808 and 1852, the 30 year average increased from 870mm to 921mm.
    Between 1871 and 1886, it increased from 879mm to 943mm.
    Between 1913 and 1939, it increased from 880mm to 946mm.
    And of course, between those increases, the 30 year average fell again.
    Here are some examples of "extreme" variability in annual rainfall figures in the past:
    1770 1079.4
    1771 792.9
    1772 1031.8
    1773 1033.8

    1780 699
    1781 734.2
    1782 1109.3

    1788 612
    1789 1109.3

    1792 1116.8
    1793 776.7

    1815 799.3
    1816 1007.1

    1820 775.8
    1821 1038.3

    1851 780.5
    1852 1213

    Between 1854 and 1859, there were 3 years with under 800mm of rain and none with over 1000mm
    Between 1872 and 1882, there were 6 years with over 1000mm of rain and none with under 800mm.

    You may argue that I am cherry-picking but so are the Met. Office at the moment.

  • Comment number 42.

    #40. - Stephen Wilde wrote:
    "Read some history, including perhaps the diaries of Samuel Pepys who described some pretty diverse and by present standards weird UK weather during a climate cooling spell."

    I might also suggest having a look at some old copies of "Whitaker's Almanack" and having a look at the "Storms and Floods" section.

    The one for 1895-96 ends with the following words (referring to global weather):
    "This brings to a close a more than usually disasterous period, both in it's destructiveness to property and the accompanying loss of life which it entailed."

  • Comment number 43.

    39. Stephen Wilde:

    Your quotation comes from an interpretation of the original paper, not from the original paper itself.

    Your initial statement: "Our CO2 was supposed to push the jets poleward..." is not supported by Archer & Caldeira (2008), even if some interpreters think it is.

    Do you have another source?

  • Comment number 44.

    41. QuaesoVeritas:

    Would you not accept that the overall trend is upward? Charting the 30 year trends there seems to be an upward rise overall.

    Admittedly this comes in fits and starts; but for example, the 30 year average did not rise above 946 mm/yr at any time in the HadUKP before 2006.

  • Comment number 45.

    I have been trying to look at the Conservative Mp's in Sheffield, but the boundaries have been changed around that much the last 100 years, it is hard to make a true comparison. Same with the weather reporting.

  • Comment number 46.

    In addition to their comments on wettest year on record the Met.Office have also made pronouncements on global temperatures for 2013

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/2013-global-forecast

    2013 is expected to be between 0.43 °C and 0.71 °C warmer than the long-term (1961-1990) global average of 14.0 °C, with a best estimate of around 0.57 °C, according to the Met Office annual global temperature forecast.

    Looking at the table they provide 0.57, if it arises, would be the hottest year on record

  • Comment number 47.

    45. Ukip:

    Hope you're putting the snow shovels to good use?

  • Comment number 48.

    #44. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "Would you not accept that the overall trend is upward? Charting the 30 year trends there seems to be an upward rise overall."

    Yes, but I don't think that there is any evidence that the trend is increasing.
    I am not sure what you mean by "charting the 30 year trend", but ALL of the 10, 20, 30, 50 and 100 year rolling trends were higher in the past than they are now.

    A comparison of trends in England & Wales, over various periods between 1882 and 2012 (per decade):

    PERIOD ------ 1882 ------ 2012
    10 ------ 192.8 ------ 179.1
    20 ------ 119.3 ------ 4.2
    30 ------ 88.0 ------ 23.1
    50 ------ 23.7 ------ 14.4
    100 ------ 8.7 ------ 2.2


    Note that the trends over periods of 20 years and over are FAR lower than they were in 1882.

    Don't say that I am "cherry-picking" by using 1882, since that is effectively what the M.O. is doing by using current figures.

    "Admittedly this comes in fits and starts; but for example, the 30 year average did not rise above 946 mm/yr at any time in the HadUKP before 2006."

    Between 1884 and 1892, the 30 year average was consistently over 930mm and reached 943mm in 1886. I would suggest that this is not significantly different to recent rainfall levels, i.e. we are going though a similar period of rainfall levels to those in the late 1800's.
    The problem is that by claiming that "records began in 1910", and not mentioning HadUKP records prior to that, the UKMO is, to say the least, being "economic with the truth". They only give publicity to what suits their "climate change" agenda, and as a result, the public is left with a misleading impression. This is propaganda pure and simple. Not only that, but out of apparent ignorance, the BBC is effectively part of the propaganda machine.

  • Comment number 49.

    #46. - NeilHamp wrote:
    "2013 is expected to be between 0.43 °C and 0.71 °C warmer than the long-term (1961-1990) global average of 14.0 °C, with a best estimate of around 0.57 °C, according to the Met Office annual global temperature forecast."

    Looking at the table they provide 0.57, if it arises, would be the hottest year on record"

    I have commented on this before, but technically, the temperature isn't "expected" to be anywhere near either 0.43c or 0.71c, since they are at the extreme ends of probability, i.e. 2.5%.
    Effectively, what they are saying is that it is equally likely that the anomaly will be 0.43c as it will be 0.71c, which I think is ridiculous.
    What this means is that it is equally likely that the temperature in 2013 will increase by 0.26c over 2012, than it will fall by 0.02c!
    Do any of even the ardent warmists here think that makes any sense?
    In view of past predictions, I think that the MO forecast had to be marginally higher than any previous year, but I have a feeling that (if it is given the publicity it deserves), they will be looking very foolish by the end of 2013.

  • Comment number 50.

    I have just noticed that the HadUKP data files for 2012 have been updated.
    The final EW figure for 2012 is 1244.7mm, making it the third wettest after 1768 (1247.3mm) and 1872 (1284.9mm).
    I wonder how much publicity the MO will give to this?
    If the MO do mention it, they will probably say that the older figures are not reliable.

  • Comment number 51.

    Hmm, the ranked total is 1244.7, but the figure in the monthly file is 1244.8, not that it makes much difference, but it would be nice if the MO files were consistent.

  • Comment number 52.

    The confirmed figure for 2012 makes a difference to the trend comparison in my post #48. The new figures are:

    PERIOD ------ 1882 ------ 2012
    10 ------ 192.8 ------ 200.8
    20 ------ 119.3 ------ 9.9
    30 ------ 88.0 ------ 25.7
    50 ------ 23.7 ------ 15.3
    100 ------ 8.7 ------ 2.5

    The figure over the last 10 years is now higher than in 1882, which I think illustrates the point that the MO are reacting to short-term trends.

  • Comment number 53.

    48. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "...ALL of the 10, 20, 30, 50 and 100 year rolling trends were higher in the past than they are now."

    I certainly accept that. But a trend only measures rates of rise and fall, it doesn't necessarily give an indication of total rainfall.

    For instance the 30 year trend ended 1882 you quote above tells us that between 1853 and 1882 rainfall in England and Wales rose at a rate of 88 mm per decade on average. But the average amount of rainfall over that same period was 928 mm per year. Whereas, although rainfall only increased by ~25 mm/yr in the thirty years from 1983 to 2012, average rainfall in that period was 948 mm per year.

    So it's fair to say that the period 1983 to 2012 was 'wetter' overall than the period 1853 to 1882 on average. I think that's the point the Met Office is making; total levels of rainfall averaged over 30 years have recently been at their highest levels historically. I'm not suggesting that this should be regarded as a reliable indicator of global or even regional climate change.

  • Comment number 54.

    49. At 10:55 5th Jan 2013, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "Effectively, what they are saying is that it is equally likely that the anomaly will be 0.43c as it will be 0.71c, which I think is ridiculous."

    Yes, effectively it's a range between +0.4 and +0.7 with a most likely value of +0.6. We'd never get away with such open estimates on the annual 'just for fun' straw poll.

    Speaking of which, I'd plump for +0.5 (HadCRUT4 now, I presume?) if Neil feels like running it again. (I think anyone on 0.41 or 0.42 is looking a likely winner for 2012, which used HadCRUT3. My own humble estimate of 0.45 came true in HadCRUT4, but I'm not allowed to change the rules retrospectively, I suppose.)

  • Comment number 55.

    The misleading rainfall figures issue seems to have been picked up on Bishop Hill.
    I haven't had a chance to read all of the comments yet.
    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/1/5/england-and-wales-rainfall-trends.html

  • Comment number 56.

    #54. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "Speaking of which, I'd plump for +0.5 (HadCRUT4 now, I presume?) if Neil feels like running it again. (I think anyone on 0.41 or 0.42 is looking a likely winner for 2012, which used HadCRUT3. My own humble estimate of 0.45 came true in HadCRUT4, but I'm not allowed to change the rules retrospectively, I suppose.)"

    I think we should run the poll again this year, although I haven't yet worked out what my estimate would be.
    We might also have a go at the annual rainfall figure for the UK and/or England & Wales, as it may be a contentious issue.

  • Comment number 57.

    I will start the poll again this year
    The likely winning entry for 2012 is somewhere amongst the neutralists
    Bracketed figures are the 2011 entry

    “Warmists”
    +0.48 Met Office (+0.44)
    +0.45 Newdwr54 (N/A)
    +0.43 John Cogger (N/A)

    “Neutralists”
    +0.42 Mr Bluesky
    +0.42 Lazarus
    +0.41 quake (+0.36)
    +0.40 Paul Briscoe
    +0.40 Gagetfriend (+0.30)
    +0.40 NeilHamp ( +0.27)

  • Comment number 58.

    Hi Paul

    Have you had the memo yet ?

    Global warming has gone all lukewarmy all of a sudden - check out the revised
    MO graphs - expect this is going to be a big story in the MSM - NOT.

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/01/05/major-change-in-uk-met-office-global-warming-forecast/

  • Comment number 59.

    #58 - jazznick wrote:
    "Global warming has gone all lukewarmy all of a sudden - check out the revised
    MO graphs - expect this is going to be a big story in the MSM - NOT."

    It's hard to tell due to the different base period, but this looks significant.
    Does it contradict the recent forecast for 2013?
    It looks like I will have to send another request to the MO for the actual figures behind this forecast.

  • Comment number 60.

    QV

    You can see the different decadal predictions here:
    http://somethingtododownthepub.com/

    Let me know if you get a response from the MO.

  • Comment number 61.

    57. NeilHamp:

    What happened to the 'coolists'?

    Name and shame!

  • Comment number 62.

    newdwr45,
    I do admit that it was my own version of "hide the decline"
    I will publish the full list when the final result is declared

  • Comment number 63.

  • Comment number 64.

    #60. - ukpahonta wrote:
    "You can see the different decadal predictions here:
    http://somethingtododownthepub.com/
    Let me know if you get a response from the MO."

    Thanks for the link. I will keep you updated on the MO response.

    One thing which is obvious, apart from the fact that the new forecast falls after approx. 2016, instead of rising, is that it only goes to 2017, while the previoius one went to 2021, so how can they still call it a "decadal" forecast"?

    It's difficult to tell from the graph, but the blue line seems to be around 0.4c in 2013. According to HadCRUT4, the period 1971-2000 was about 0.107c warmer than 1961-90, so the equivalent forecast v 1961-90 would be about 0.51c, which is a bit lower than the recent best estimate annual forecast of 0.57c published by the MO in December. So on the face of it, they may have reduced their forecast for 2013, but it's hard to be certain without the actual numbers.
    It would help if all of the MO forecasts were relative to the same base period.




    Let me know if you get a response from the MO.

  • Comment number 65.

    Has there been periods of dramatic climate change involving both warming and cooling. The answer is of course YES! Why do we imagine that this time we are in a unique situation and even more incredible we can do anything about. I suppose if the "climate scientists" had the nerve to say "it has happened before and had nothing to do with CO2s" the funding would end and they would have to find something else to do. Hopefully it will involve the truth.

  • Comment number 66.

    QV

    You may find it interesting to follow some of the links in the comments at:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/01/05/major-change-in-uk-met-office-global-warming-forecast/
    I'm posting under Lord Beaverbrook but you will probably recognise others.

  • Comment number 67.

    Can someone confirm whether the data used by the MO for their decadal forecast is a separate data set to hadCRUT4?

    It seems to have a different start date, a different warmest year and different monthly/annual values.

    If this is the case, then it's possible that people are reading a little too much in to its implications.

  • Comment number 68.

    Re above:

    Hold on. It's just struck me between the eyes.

    They're using HadCRUT4 but have adjusted it to a 1971-2000 baseline. Why do they do this?!

    Just when you think you're starting to get a grasp of it the MO go and throw another trip step in.

  • Comment number 69.

    Hold on again.

    It can't be HadCRUT4, because 1998 isn't the warmest year in that data set. The curtain descends once more.

    Help.

  • Comment number 70.

    #67. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "Can someone confirm whether the data used by the MO for their decadal forecast is a separate data set to hadCRUT4?"

    The latest graph says "Observed (black, from Hadley Centre, GISS and NCDC)", so I guess it is an average of the three. Given that last years graph looked the same as this year, and HadCRUT4 wasn't available then, I would guess HadCRUT3 was used.

    Having said that, I have just had a go at averaging the 3 based on 1961-90 and I can't match the graph, in particular the big drop around 2008. It's similar, but not identical. Maybe because I was using monthly figures not annual.
    I will have another go tomorrow when I have got more time.
    Also I will have a look at the data they sent last time to see if the figures are on that.

  • Comment number 71.

    Looks like a combination of metrics applying a 12 month mean (such as wood for trees index)
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1990/mean:12

  • Comment number 72.

    70. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    Thanks QV. We are united once more; this time in our common bewilderment at the Met Office's press releases.

    One thing for certain (well, +90% confidence) the figure of +0.43 average forecast between 2013 and 2017 is based on the 1971 - 2000 anomaly of whichever set they're using.

    If it was HadCRUT4 say, then I calculate that we'd need to add +0.11 to that value (because +0.11 is the average anomaly between 1971 and 2000 in HC4). It's a very rough approximation.

  • Comment number 73.

    I read the UKMO article some time ago and although I am far from being a statistician it is terrribly strange.. on one hand they talk about a 90% confidence interval while persisting with 10% above and below.

    Then in another section re verification they describe a 5-95% CI when commonly in science we would quote a 95%CI which of course is + 2.5 or -2.5 ( 2sd )

    Does anyone understand this?

  • Comment number 74.

    Does anyone understand this?

    My view at present is that it is a typical example of West Country graffiti.

    Maybe we will eventually be given the something that is credible, scientifically understandable and falsifiable. Until then it remains as it is and as it was meant to be PR graffiti!

    I fully agree with the sentiments above, base periods should not change. Does anybody have a reason, other than to confuse, to change any terrestrial data set base from 61-90? There is a very good reason why the satellite data sets are different and I could understand ONE single change to match satellite and terrestrial but this is smacks of the same as the accountancy industry using its own language to determine its own moving metric.

  • Comment number 75.

    Can anyone translate this into something I can understand?

    Met Office

    For 2013

    The probability that UK precipitation for January-February-March will fall into the driest of our five categories is around 15% and
    the probability that it will fall into the wettest category is around 20% (the 1981-2010 probability for each of these categories
    is 20%).

  • Comment number 76.

    #75. - oldgifford wrote:
    "Can anyone translate this into something I can understand?"
    I interpret it as follows:
    The normal probability (based on 1981-2010) that the period will be dry or wet, is 20%, i.e. equally likely.
    The forecast probability that it will be dry is only 15%, so in effect they are saying that it is marginally more likely to be wet, but whatever happens, they will claim they are correct.
    Not much use as a forecast really, but it seems to be the way things are going.
    They way I look at it is that if the best they can do is base forecasts on actual past probilities, they don't need multi-million pound computers, since they could do it on a p.c.

  • Comment number 77.

    Someone posted a link to an animated gif on "The Blackboard", which illustrates the changes quite well:
    https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-0e9S3JvjWrg/UOmGJq06wYI/AAAAAAAABDY/3UHjSSHTfKo/s670/metOffice20112012DecadalForecast.gif
    Note that the new central forecast is roughly where the lower range on the previous forecast.

  • Comment number 78.

    ukpahonta,

    I received a reply from the MO saying my request has been passed to the "Climate Change Enquiry Co-ordinator", but that person is only employed part-time, so it may take a while.

  • Comment number 79.

    QV

    Richard Betts has posted a reply over at Tallblokes.

    As I suspected the new model used is HadGEM3 which looks to be aimed at more commercial needs of mid range forecasts, 2-3 years for business use, which is why it is now limited to 5 year predictions.
    See the thread for details.

  • Comment number 80.

    Thanks ukpahonta

    Good work, well done. I am slowly getting some understanding.

    On an entirely different subject I am going to make the nearest I will ever get to a prediction. I reckon Dec 2012 HadSST3 will be approx +0.38C making it slightly lower than Nov which was +0.40C. My own little “retrospective forecast”?

  • Comment number 81.

    76.
    At 13:11 7th Jan 2013, QuaesoVeritas wrote: The forecast probability that it will be dry is only 15%, so in effect they are saying that it is marginally more likely to be wet, but whatever happens, they will claim they are correct.
    Not much use as a forecast really, but it seems to be the way things are going.

    I guess I should have added the sarc suffix to my post, really they should be ashamed of taking taxpayers money when they come out with a forecast like that. Will be interesting to see what really happens.

  • Comment number 82.

    ENSO regions have cooled off a bit according to the BOM wrap up. Still got that large pool of sub surface cool water too. Is that likely to reach the surface at any time or does the upwelling only/mainly occur close to the coast?

  • Comment number 83.

    LITD

    “ENSO regions have cooled off a bit according to the BOM wrap up”

    Yup and confirmed by Reynolds ENSO area SST’s:-

    http://nomad1.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?ctlfile=oiv2.ctl&ptype=ts&var=ssta&level=1&op1=none&op2=none&day=03&month=jan&year=2012&fday=02&fmonth=jan&fyear=2013&lat0=-5&lat1=5&lon0=-170&lon1=120&plotsize=800x600&title=&dir=


    “Is that likely to reach the surface at any time or does the upwelling only/mainly occur close to the coast?”

    Not sure, but you can keep an eye on the movement of warm/cool surface anomalies here:-

    http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sfc_daily.php?plot=ssa&inv=0&t=cur

    Updated daily

  • Comment number 84.

    #79. - ukpahonta wrote:
    "Richard Betts has posted a reply over at Tallblokes.

    As I suspected the new model used is HadGEM3 which looks to be aimed at more commercial needs of mid range forecasts, 2-3 years for business use, which is why it is now limited to 5 year predictions.
    See the thread for details."

    Whatever the reason for the change in the forecast, if we assume that the new one is correct then by definition, the previous one was wrong and those of us (unqualified ignoramuses), who said that it was biased towards excessive temperatures, were correct.

    Or can there not be "right and wrong" in forecasting models, only differences?

  • Comment number 85.

    #69. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "It can't be HadCRUT4, because 1998 isn't the warmest year in that data set. The curtain descends once more.
    Help."
    Having done the sums, I am almost certain that the thick black line is the running
    12 month average of HadCRUT3, NOAA & GISS, monthly figures after adjustment to 1971-2000.
    The fainter black lines are the individual figures but you can't tell which is which as they are all the same colour.
    For example the faint line which rises above the black line in 1998 is HadCRUT3, whereas the faint line which falls below the black line in 2000, is GISS.

  • Comment number 86.

    #71. - Pkthinks wrote:
    "Looks like a combination of metrics applying a 12 month mean (such as wood for trees index) "
    Similar but not quite the same (see above).
    Is there an explanation of how WFT calculate their index?
    I suspect that it includes UAH/RSS.
    For some reason the MO don't use those.

  • Comment number 87.

    QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "But didn't we have droughts and floods in the past, before the warming we know about?"

    Yes we did and that is my point. Every climate event in the last decades can be compared to some previous historical event. Australia has had wild fires before but when has it had them so widespread and at the same time it has a record breaking heatwave? England has had floods before but when has it ever been so widespread with so many records broken? We often hear complaints about people building on flood plains but flood plains exist that haven't before due to areas getting more rain than ever recorded. The US had a tornado outbreak over Christmas, unusual but not unheard of but when has it ever happened in a year when so many of it's high temperatures records have been broken?

    Its not the fact that there is a particular flood or drought, it is the sheer number with other climate extremes occurring in the same period.

    Stephen Wilde thinks I should get out more and read some history but that is exactly what he hasn't done. At no time in recorded history have these types of warming and extreme events occurred within the same time span.

  • Comment number 88.

    #87. - Lazarus wrote:
    "We often hear complaints about people building on flood plains but flood plains exist that haven't before due to areas getting more rain than ever recorded."

    There are no more flood plains now than in the past, only more homes built on them.
    Where there are rivers, there are flood plains, but rain ends up in rivers more quickly than before because of the change in land use. This is confirmed by the Environment Agency.
    Total rainfall in England & Wales this year is less than in 1768 and 1852.

  • Comment number 89.

    #87. - Lazarus wrote:
    "At no time in recorded history have these types of warming and extreme events occurred within the same time span."
    There is no way of proving that there are more extreme events now than in the past. Communications, and records are better now than they were in the past.

  • Comment number 90.

    #86 re QuaesoVeritas ? explanation for WFT index

    Yes, there is quite a nice page explaining this and the baseline adjustments required

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes#wti

    I presume they leave out UAH and RSS as they independantly allow for regional oceanic effects which are already more exagerated in the satellite measurements. That is my simple understanding of the HadGem3 model

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/modelling-systems/unified-model/climate-models/hadgem3


    http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes#wti

  • Comment number 91.

    #84 QV

    I'm getting the feeling that even the Met Office are removing the catastrophic side of things, so it's a move in the right direction. I don't think you will ever get an admission of being wrong, it's not part of the script.

  • Comment number 92.

    78. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "I received a reply from the MO saying my request has been passed to the "Climate Change Enquiry Co-ordinator", but that person is only employed part-time, so it may take a while."

    I guess the 'climate change co-ordinator' is the same person who writes the press releases then?

  • Comment number 93.

    The news about the lower Met. Office temperature forecasts has "broken" on the BBC this morning, with an item by Roger Harribin on the R4 News this morning.
    I can't find anything on the website and I haven't had a chance to check the T.V. yet.
    Hopefully this will be the topic of the next Paul Hudson blog!

  • Comment number 94.

    The announcement was fairly low in the running order on the 8am R4 news, but it didn't appear in the 9am news at all.

  • Comment number 95.

    @QV 93.

    Yes, I heard this too both at 6.30 on the news bulletin (without Harrabin) and at 7.00 (with).
    He is still pushing the idea that once CO2 induced warming has a chance to re-establish itself over the 'temporary' (5 yr or so) ocean/solar influences we will all warm up again.
    It looks, however, like we will be having to wait a good bit longer before the cooling signals let go and one wonders how, at the end of this 5 yr period, he will re-sell
    CO2 warming to a chillier world.

  • Comment number 96.

    #94 QV

    Yes you're right, a low profile piece on the 8am and nowt at 9. Perhaps too many folk are dependent on the gravy train of funds for there to be too much made of this and that's why it isn't yet being treated as a revelation! We'll no doubt 'watch this space' !

  • Comment number 97.

    As we are approaching the dreaded 100 comments I have just been back and checked the previous thread and still cannot access “Page 2” or “Last” by the normal route of simply clicking on it. So maybe somebody in “moderation” could flag up the fault?

    For those who are not aware there is a work around, right click on “Page 2” or “Last” and select open in new tab. This appears to have the added bonus that when renewing the page it does not default back to Page 1.

  • Comment number 98.

    There was a very short item about it on the BBC News Channel around 9:40, but if you blinked you would have missed it. Much more time was given to the new David Bowie album release, a much more important subject. No appearance by Roger Harribin but that might come later.
    For some reason the news reader was laughing when she read the bit about the MO forecast and had to apologise. Not sure why she was laughing, the previous item had been about mass shootings in the U.S.A.

  • Comment number 99.

    BOM latest ENSO forecast:-

    "POAMA Long-Range Outlook"

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/poama2.4/poama.shtml

    Not sure if I am reading this correctly but it appears to show that they see an increasing probability of “Model cool frequency” towards the middle of the year and “Model neutral frequency” reducing until August.

    Interesting, did not expect that, time will tell how good a forecast it turns out to be.

  • Comment number 100.

    #97. - greensand wrote:
    "As we are approaching the dreaded 100 comments I have just been back and checked the previous thread and still cannot access “Page 2” or “Last” by the normal route of simply clicking on it. So maybe somebody in “moderation” could flag up the fault?"

    Strange, I don't seem to have that problem. Which browser are you using?
    I am using IE8. Anyway, the work around is quite useful in it's own right, to stay on the second page.
    Sorry that this post is pushing us evern closer to 100, but I suppose it was going to happen sooner or later.

 

Page 1 of 2

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.