« Previous | Main

Global and regional climate update

Paul Hudson | 16:15 UK time, Tuesday, 29 January 2013

Is recent flooding and heavy rainfall unusual?

I've written at length about the excessive rainfall the UK has experienced, particularly last year but also since the late 1990's; six out of the years from 1998 to 2012 are in the top ten wettest on record, based on Met Office rainfall data which began in 1910.

There are various theories as to why our summers have been so wet, and why the jet stream has been further south than normal.

It's worth remembering as exceptional as the last few years have seemed, climate history shows us that flooding in the UK has always been normal.

This point is highlighted in research which was carried out by Durham University following the serious summer floods in 2007 and highlighted on the Watts Up With That website this week.

The research is five years old, but it rings very true today, and the prediction made in 2008 of increased flooding and heavy rainfall in subsequent years has proved to be all too correct.

The author Professor Stuart Lane looked back at rainfall patterns starting in the mid 1700's.

He concluded that our climate has always fluctuated between very wet and very dry periods, some of which lasted for a few decades.

Crucially the period from the early 1960's to the late 1990's saw far fewer river flooding episodes compared with before the 1960's and after the 1990's.

Ominously, he points out that because more than three quarters of our flood records started during the 1960's, when there were far fewer river flooding episodes, we have underestimated the frequency of flooding.

And this has a knock on effect as to how much flood plain development local authorities will allow.

It's a vicious circle as more flood plain development is likely to make any future flooding even worse.

The article on the Durham University website can be found by clicking here.

UK weather outlook:

The heavy snow that brought disruption to parts of the UK on Friday has melted rapidly as a result of milder air and rainfall.

The next 48 hours will be dominated by a very common January weather pattern, with a powerful jet stream bringing rain or showers to all areas, accompanied by strong to gale force winds.

There's uncertainty about Friday's weather though, with an Atlantic depression expected to bring rain to parts of the UK.

Just how far north the rain will come is open to question, but with colder air pushing southwards as it clears away, some of it could turn to snow.

2012 Global temperatures:

Provisional Met Office figures show that 2012 was the 9th warmest on record, 0.45C above the 1961-1990 average. This is very close to their prediction for 2012 which was for a global temperature 0.48C above the 1961-1990 average.

According to the UAH satellite temperature measure, 2012 was also the 9th warmest on record.

Follow me on twitter @Hudsonweather

Comments

Page 1 of 2

  • Comment number 1.

    "Is recent flooding and heavy rainfall unusual?"

    Yes it is. Strange that you should post this today without linking to this which I also noticed today;

    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/01/new-climate-change-data-shows-a-warmer,-wetter-world

    "The UK's Met Office has just published observations from over 6000 temperature and 11,000 precipitation stations around the world, which look specifically at how extreme events have changed between 1901 and 2010."

    "The world has got warmer and generally wetter since the beginning of the 20th century, according to new data just released by the Met Office and a global team of experts. With an extra 50 years worth of observations, the new data tracks how high temperatures and heavy rainfall extremes are becoming more frequent due to climate change."

    Worth reading the whole article and the research is published here;
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50150/abstract

  • Comment number 2.

    @1

    Doesn't the MO data refers to 20th Century worldwide, Paul is referring to historic data to 1700 for UK.

    It would be useful if MO could publish data as far back.

  • Comment number 3.

    Mango See;
    Statistics for December and 2012 - is the UK getting wetter?

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

    I think the graph answers the question and shows that it is generally following the trend of the research I posted the link to.

  • Comment number 4.

    @3

    I must be misunderstanding what you are trying to say Laz, but the graph shows 50 years, whereas Paul is talking about 300 years.

    Take a look at this chart, based on the Durham data, for the period 1766-2012
    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/image15.png

  • Comment number 5.

    #2. - MangoChutney wrote:
    "Doesn't the MO data refers to 20th Century worldwide, Paul is referring to historic data to 1700 for UK
    It would be useful if MO could publish data as far back."

    Paul is referring to the UK data series, which starts in 1910.

    The MO publishes two sets of data, one the UK series, which starts in 1910 and another the HadUKP series, which starts in 1766, but the oldest data only covers England & Wales:

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/datasets/

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadukp/data/download.html

    According to HadUKP, England & Wales rainfall in 2012 was 1244.7mm, almost identical to the 1247.3mm recorded in 1768.

  • Comment number 6.

    Oops, I forgot to mention that EW rainfall in 1872 was 1284.9mm.

  • Comment number 7.

    @5

    You sure, QV?

    It's worth remembering as exceptional as the last few years have seemed, climate history shows us that flooding in the UK has always been normal.

    This point is highlighted in research which was carried out by Durham University following the serious summer floods in 2007 and highlighted on the Watts Up With That website this week.

    The research is five years old, but it rings very true today, and the prediction made in 2008 of increased flooding and heavy rainfall in subsequent years has proved to be all too correct.

    The author Professor Stuart Lane looked back at rainfall patterns starting in the mid 1700's.

    Ok, I should have said E&W not UK.

  • Comment number 8.

    #3. -Lazarus wrote:
    "I think the graph answers the question and shows that it is generally following the trend of the research I posted the link to."

    Only since 1960.
    Why do you and the MO ignore data prior to that?

  • Comment number 9.

    #7. - MangoChutney wrote:
    "You sure, QV?"

    Sure about what?

  • Comment number 10.

    I am confused by Paul's comment that:

    "Provisional Met Office figures show that 2012 was the 9th warmest on record, 0.45C above the 1961-1990 average. This is very close to their prediction for 2012 which was for a global temperature 0.48C above the 1961-1990 average. "

    Current data files show annual figures as:

    HadCRUT3 = 0.394c

    HadCRUT4 = 0.434c

    As far as the MO prediction of 0.48c is concerned, I think that HC3, since that was the dataset which was in place at the time.

    So the MO were 0.086c too high with their prediction.

    In fact the actual figure was closer to the lower limit of predictions (0.34c), than the central estimate.

  • Comment number 11.

    @9 You said Paul refers to UK data series, which is correct. He also refers to the E&W data going back to 1700's (Durham Uni).

    Laz claims recent heavy rain and flooding is unusual and cites the MO data going back only 100 years, but when compared with almost 300 years worth of data, it's not so unusual

  • Comment number 12.

    mangochutney - more importantly, how did you set the bold text in your post @5. I'm sure we would all like to know how to do that.

  • Comment number 13.

    10. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "I am confused by Paul's comment that"

    And in "encouraging openness and transparency" you can add the "WMO Average" into the mix!

    To the best of my knowledge the MO make their forecasts against their own metric, hence the need to cross reference with the WMO Averages. Also they cannot be aware of what predictions the other contributing elements are making.

    The way it is published is far from clear and it is difficult to understand why there should be such a lack of clarity.

  • Comment number 14.

    Here are the 2013 forecasts so far submitted
    Not many entries as yet
    Met Office WMO forecast is +0.57
    The figures in brackets show the degree of error for 2012 and 2011 entries

    “Warmists”
    +0.57 * Met Office (+0.08,+0.09)
    Newdwr54 (+0.05:N/A)
    John Cogger (+0.03:N/A)

    “Neutralists”
    Mr Bluesky (+0.02:N/A)
    Lazarus (+0.02:N/A)
    quake (+0.01:+0.36)
    Paul Briscoe (0:2012 winning entry 0.4)
    Gagetfriend (0:+0.30) (2012 winning entry 0.4)
    +0.48 NeilHamp (0:-0.08)(2012 winning entry 0.4)

    “Coolists”
    +0.35 Lateintheday’s Holly Bush (-0.03,No entry)
    QuaesoVeritas (-0.06:+0.31)
    millinia (-0.11:+0.24)
    LabMunkey (-0.11:+0.25)
    +0.43 ukpahonta (-0.12:0) (2011 winning entry 0.35)

  • Comment number 15.

    are you serious?

    if so use the "". To close bold ""

    all without quotes of course

    I tried italics using "i" instead of "b" but didn't work with try "em" to see if that works

  • Comment number 16.

    Thanks Neil.

    My guess is +0.50 for HadCRUT4 in 2013.

  • Comment number 17.

    uh! start again:

    "less than sign", followed by "b", followed by "greater than sign" to open bold

    "less than sign", followed by "/", followed by "b", followed by "greater than sign" to close bold

    for italics

    as above but substitute "em" for "b"

  • Comment number 18.

    #14 NeilHamp

    Put me down for 0.38C to get the ball rolling.
    Previous comment click to link.

    Just testing the functionality
    I didn't think that it was allowed on here!

    What a difference this will make

  • Comment number 19.

    Re my post #13, I've just worked out that the figure of 0.45c for 2012 is the MO provisional figure from their 2013 forecast in December, which actually refers to a figure produced in November, and which was based on a combination of HadCRUT4, NOAA/NCDC and NASA/GISS.
    But of course that figure has been rendered obsolete by the fall in December temperatures, which the MO clearly didn't expect. Hopefully they will issue a revised figure shortly.
    I am not entirely sure that it is "fair" of the MO to use HadCRUT4 in this average, since it is not clear that the 2012 prediction was based on that dataset.

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

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

  • Comment number 20.

    For what it's worth, my prediction for the 2013 global temperature anomaly, based on HadCRUT4, is 0.41c.

  • Comment number 21.

    A comment from Jim Steele (Director Sierra Nevada Field Campus, emeritus, San Francisco State University) in response to Leif Svaalgard would tie in well with the graphs provided at Lazarus's link

    Indeed warming took off in the 1970′s. The PDO ocean regime shift happened in 1976. It was reorganized ocean temperatures, pressure systems and marine ecosystems from the Arctic to the Antarctic. The PDO is is a natural oscillation, that intensifies during eras of high solar activity and weakens under low activity. The trend towards a negative PDO and low solar output predicts that warming will stop and should cool over the next decade. CO2 theory predicts warming should accelerate. The current warming plateau suggests the PDO is a better predictor of climate change, but it will take the net decade to determine who the real deniers are.

    Coralline Algae and the Case for Natural Climate Change

  • Comment number 22.

    I'll go for +0.51 based on whatever series is in use by 2014! I'm completely confused by 2012 as it is, god knows what series the MO are talking about and what we are actually predicting against!

    My method is simple, MetO prediction minus 0.05. This year I'm going slightly lower.

  • Comment number 23.

    #17. - MangoChutney wrote:
    "as above but substitute "em" for "b""

    It also appears that you can combine both for bold italics in the preview, but not in the actual post.

    But why "em" for italics?
    Possibly stands for "emphasis"?
    It also appears to work with "i"

  • Comment number 24.

    Don't tell Piers you can change to bold and italics....

  • Comment number 25.

    It also appears to work with "i"

    Apparently in the preview but not the post!

  • Comment number 26.

    @QV Yup, i tried - use em for emphasis

  • Comment number 27.

    #22. - john_cogger wrote:
    "I'll go for +0.51 based on whatever series is in use by 2014! I'm completely confused by 2012 as it is, god knows what series the MO are talking about and what we are actually predicting against! "

    Same here.
    I think that might partially be the intention!

  • Comment number 28.

    but let's not divert the thread

  • Comment number 29.

    #21. - ukpahonta wrote:
    "A comment from Jim Steele (Director Sierra Nevada Field Campus, emeritus, San Francisco State University) in response to Leif Svaalgard would tie in well with the graphs provided at Lazarus's link"

    When did Lazarus post that link?

    Anyway, that blog article includes the comment:

    "There is a caveat to the new analysis, warn the scientists. As the IPCC noted in its 2012 Special Report on Extreme Events ( SREX), there are large data gaps in some areas of the world, particularly Africa and northern South America. According to the new study, this means that the coverage is "still insufficient to provide a truly global picture of changes in extremes"."

    I also wonder how many measurements there are of rainfall over the oceans.

  • Comment number 30.

    #29 QV

    When did Lazarus post that link?


    First post on this thread!

    "Lazarus's link" points to the same page as:
    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/01/new-climate-change-data-shows-a-warmer,-wetter-world
    in my #21, perhaps making it bold will stand out better.

  • Comment number 31.

    #30. - ukpahonta wrote:

    "First post on this thread!"

    Oops, how did I miss that?
    Is my face red!

  • Comment number 32.

    mango - I'm afraid I was serious. I don't post comments for a living and I'm not of the facebook/twitter generation either so I've never been taught any the basics.

    Ukpahonta - excellent work with the bold and italics. I shall have a go myself.

    John Cogger@ 24 - comment of the year. (so far)

  • Comment number 33.

    apologies litd, i thought you knew what to do, but were pulling my leg

  • Comment number 34.

    :-)

  • Comment number 35.

    OK, I have looked at the MO forecast for 2012 again and it is clear (to me) that they were referring to HadCRUT3, not HadCRUT4.
    What I don't think is clear is whether they were referring to HadCRUT3 in isolation, or the WMO average, which includes NASA/GISS and NCDC/NOAA.
    However, I have calculated the various annual anomalies for the last 15 years, using the latest figures, and adjusting NASA/GISS and NCDC/NOAA to 1961-90 and the results are as follows:

    2010 0.499 0.540 0.575 0.534 0.536 1 0.550 1
    2005 0.474 0.534 0.565 0.528 0.522 2 0.542 2
    1998 0.517 0.523 0.525 0.508 0.517 3 0.519 3
    2003 0.459 0.496 0.505 0.497 0.487 4 0.500 4
    2002 0.456 0.485 0.515 0.488 0.487 5 0.496 5
    2009 0.439 0.489 0.505 0.471 0.472 6 0.488 8
    2006 0.427 0.491 0.505 0.473 0.468 7 0.490 7
    2007 0.402 0.478 0.535 0.467 0.468 8 0.493 6
    2004 0.431 0.438 0.435 0.453 0.440 9 0.442 10
    2012 0.394 0.434 0.475 0.448 0.439 10 0.452 9

    2001 0.399 0.433 0.435 0.426 0.420 11 0.431 11
    2011 0.347 0.399 0.455 0.409 0.404 12 0.421 12
    2008 0.312 0.383 0.405 0.389 0.369 13 0.392 13
    1999 0.263 0.298 0.305 0.330 0.299 14 0.311 14
    2000 0.239 0.291 0.315 0.304 0.286 15 0.303 15

    The columns are, year, HC3, HC4, NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC, MEAN USING HC3, RANK, MEAN USING HC4, RANK.

    It will be seen that using HC3 to calculate the mean, 2012 is 10th, using HC4 it is 9th. Of course, using HadCRUT3 alone, it would rank only 11th, since it is a smidgen lower than 2001. The value of 0.45c is only valid if you use HadCRUT4, and of course, NASA/GISS and NCDC/NOAA.

    It will be interesting to see what "spin" the MO puts on these figures, when it eventually produces the final figures.

  • Comment number 36.

    Bob Tisdale has January provisional global sea surface temperatures at +0.15 deg C down -0.066C on Dec 12.

    Also has a provisional ENSO 3.4 down -0.397C at -0.40C.

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/01/28/preliminary-january-2013-sea-surface-temperature-anomaly-update/#respond

    Not sure, looking at the weekly figures BT’s appear to be a bit on the low side? Is there a little battle is starting in the ENSO region, are there signs of a warm pool developing? :-

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC007&year=2013&month=01

    Though no signs on the surface up towards Japan

    http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif

  • Comment number 37.

    #18. - ukpahonta wrote:

    "What a difference this will make"

    Now, can you tell me how to do indented quotes?

    And how to format data better, while you are about it (only joking).

  • Comment number 38.

    #37 QV

    hehe!

    "less than"blockquote"greater than" ...Text... "less than"/blockquote"greater than"

    Other formatting, italics, bold etc can be used within the blockquote

  • Comment number 39.

    "Lazarus's link" is a little more complex but if you can crack this it's usefull.

    Using "(" instead of les than, and ")" instead of greater than:

    (a href="....Web page link....")(b)"(em)...Text...(/em)"(/b)(/a)

    "" are required around the ....Web page link....
    and the ...Text... is what is displayed

  • Comment number 40.

    35. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    “However, I have calculated the various annual anomalies for the last 15 years”


    Thanks QV, interesting numbers!

    "It will be interesting to see what "spin" the MO puts on these figures, when it eventually produces the final figures."


    Doubt that any interpretation they arrive at will involve using the lowest number, but maybe it is the last year of such confusion, HadCRUT4 has been introduced along with WMO Average, can’t be anything else, or am I being naive?

  • Comment number 41.

    What have i started! lol

    Back to the topic guys!

  • Comment number 42.

    41. MangoChutney wrote:

    "What have i started! lol"

    Been doing it for a month or two, not always worth the effort.

  • Comment number 43.

    #42 greensand

    Did this get enabled at the time we spotted a site update? I'm sure that I tried formatting previously and it didn't work.

  • Comment number 44.

    43. ukpahonta wrote:

    “Did this get enabled at the time we spotted a site update? I'm sure that I tried formatting previously and it didn't work.”

    Possibly, it would make sense, I tried along time ago and no joy, but I can remember using it earlier this month to emphasize a point.

    Just had a look back and that was at 21:08 12th Jan 2013, when we were discussing “Met Office scale back global warming forecast”. It was the post before “Dry weather returns to UK following 2nd wettest year” when the update happened so it looks as though you are right.

    I did think I had used it earlier because I just did the Jan 12 comment without thinking, but I am not going back looking, maybe I just assumed from using other blogs?

  • Comment number 45.

    BBC IT, as informative as a MET office scientist on christmas Eve.

    Perhaps we weren't supposed to get the features until the press office have been informed, wonder if the IT tech was off on his hols the day after.

  • Comment number 46.

    QV,

    Re earlier comments,

    I think the MO figure of +0.45 for 2012 comes from the Jan-Dec average of HadCRUT4, NOAA and GISS base-lined to 1961-1990. At least that figure comes to +0.45 and they mentioned using all three data bases on their 2012 update:
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/2013-global-forecast

  • Comment number 47.

    The AMSU ch.5 figure for January shows a high trend for the start of 2013
    It is higher than 2010 which had a value of +0.539 for January HadCRUT4
    This would be a big rise against the December 2012 figure

  • Comment number 48.

    Another chance to test the "experts" this weekend.

    Piers going for extreme wintery with snow more than rain.

    Met Office going for a cold Saturday night returning to milder Sunday, mainly rain instead of snow.

    Shovels or umbrellas?

  • Comment number 49.

    #46. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "I think the MO figure of +0.45 for 2012 comes from the Jan-Dec average of HadCRUT4, NOAA and GISS base-lined to 1961-1990. At least that figure comes to +0.45 and they mentioned using all three data bases on their 2012 update:"

    Yes, it does look like that, although how they got a figure of 0.45c BEFORE the December figures were published I don't know. Of course without the inclusion of upwardly adjusted NASA/GISS figures, the WMO average would have been lower.
    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/more-on-giss-tampering/
    It appears that the MO doesn't even trust HadCRUT4 figures any more.

  • Comment number 50.

    #47. - NeilHamp wrote:
    "The AMSU ch.5 figure for January shows a high trend for the start of 2013
    It is higher than 2010 which had a value of +0.539 for January HadCRUT4
    This would be a big rise against the December 2012 figure"

    I don't think that comparison of the AMSU ch5 figure with past years is a reliable guide any more. I believe that even Roy Spencer is ignoring it now.
    It was already very high in December 2012 and that would have suggested an increase in the December UAH figure, not a decline.

  • Comment number 51.

    @48 ukpahonta

    Piers' forecast was for heavy snow and blizzards and 'very cold' from the 29th - 31st/3rd. No mention of gale force winds or heavy rain.

    I'll let you judge how close he has been so far.

  • Comment number 52.

    DW & QV

    49. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    #46. - newdwr54 wrote:

    "I think the MO figure of +0.45 for 2012 comes from the Jan-Dec average of HadCRUT4, NOAA and GISS base-lined to 1961-1990."

    Is it possible that what we are looking at is Dec 11 to Nov 12 and not Jan 12 to Dec 12?

    This has been known before, “the temperature over the last 12 months"?

    The MO forecast:-

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

    Was released on the same day 20th Dec, as the HadCRUT4 figure for Nov 12?

    Whilst I can see the MO taking a stab at their own metric for Dec 12, it is a bit of a stretch to see them also including their best estimate of the others, or is it? The apparent need for no deviation between the different data sets is a constant cause for concern, I would like to see some competition, it used to exist.

    I haven’t checked on Dec 11 to Nov 12, might do if time allows, not really an issue other than being curious.

  • Comment number 53.

    #51 john_cogger

    I'll let you judge how close he has been so far.


    He is making fairly bold statements currently so it should be easily checked:

    There IS something very special going on this week in the way the Sun will make changes to the Earth's climate, so for the sake of argument, lets call it a "live experiment" between Astrophysics and Meteorology.

    Please have an open mind for the outcome of this event during the next few days

    Climate Realists

    My mind is open and waiting!

  • Comment number 54.

    I have been looking at the data for the decadal forecast which the MO sent me, and attempting to match that with the graph on the MO web page:
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc

    One thing which puzzles me is the statement that the thin blue lines show the range of forecasts. Presumably they mean the range within the 10 ensembles used to create the forecast. However, I have calculated the max & min ensemble values and included them on the graph, and while they are similar, they are not identical. On the MO graph, the max. line appears to rise to about 0.65 and then falls to about 0.57c, while the actual max. only goes to 0.62c then falls to 0.59c. Similarly the min. line rises to about 0.33c then falls to about 0.25c, while the actual figures rise to 0.36c then falls to 0.29c. Both the actual max and min figures show an increase at the end, while the ones on the MO graph don't.
    Can anyone think what the MO might mean by this, other than the max/min range of the ensembles. I suppose it's possible that they are using the original ensemble data before the 12 month averages are calculated, but the graph does say:
    "All data are rolling annual mean values."
    If anyone here feels like doing the sums, I will post the actual ensemble figures here.

  • Comment number 55.

    #53. - ukpahonta wrote:
    "He is making fairly bold statements currently so it should be easily checked:

    There IS something very special going on this week in the way the Sun will make changes to the Earth's climate, so for the sake of argument, lets call it a "live experiment" between Astrophysics and Meteorology."

    Not sure that there is anything in that which is specific enough to check, unless there is more detail in the actual forecast.

  • Comment number 56.

    54. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    “If anyone here feels like doing the sums, I will post the actual ensemble figures here.”

    Yes please QV, though I have a few commitments at present, but I am willing to give it a go. Probably cause more confusion.

    Did you finally resolve the “date/timing” (i.e. 2013.00 = the rolling 12 mth average for 2013) to your own satisfaction? Still puzzling to me, though I have not yet managed to work the “mean” data you kindly provided earlier. Could this be the cause of the apparent discrepancies?

  • Comment number 57.

    @QV

    Further to 56 above my ongoing concern stems from gridding the forecast plot. It starts at the end of 2012 and finishes at the end of 2017. The value for 2017.75 - 0.407 is “printed” on the chart at the end of 2017 not the end of 2018?

    If they really do mean that the 2017.75 is the number for the 12 mths ahead and therefore expect 2018 to average +0.407C are we not looking at a “6 year forecast” finishing with levels lower than present? That will gain the attention of a few (if not many)! Will have to find time and review with the ensemble mean.

  • Comment number 58.

    #55 QV

    If it happens then I get the impression we will know about it:

    The above is the start date of the latest and second R5+ Solar/Lunar event of the year from Piers Corbyn. The first R5+ event troubled the Met office a great deal and they issued a "rare" Red warning as the weather conditions in the UK went from bad to worse!

  • Comment number 59.

    #56. - greensand wrote:
    "Did you finally resolve the “date/timing” (i.e. 2013.00 = the rolling 12 mth average for 2013) to your own satisfaction? Still puzzling to me, though I have not yet managed to work the “mean” data you kindly provided earlier. Could this be the cause of the apparent discrepancies?"

    You know that before I started typing this, I thought I understood it but now I am not so sure.
    The graph says the first forecast period is November 2012 to October 2013. Yet the first forecast is against 2012.83, which would make 2012.92 December 2012 and 2013.00 January 2013.
    So I still don't see how it can be the average for 2013, unless the average is displayed at the beginning of the period. In my experience, averages are always either displayed at the end of a period or in the centre, not the beginning.
    Of course it is possible that the person communicating with me has got it wrong and I think I am going to have to seek further confirmation. I think this also probably covers your question in #57.
    When I tried to post all of the ensemble figures, I got an error message, so I will have to post them in chunks.
    2012.83 0.39 0.37 0.37 0.35 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.39 0.31 0.29
    2012.92 0.40 0.37 0.38 0.35 0.34 0.38 0.35 0.41 0.31 0.29
    2013.00 0.42 0.38 0.39 0.35 0.34 0.38 0.34 0.43 0.29 0.28
    2013.08 0.42 0.37 0.39 0.35 0.34 0.38 0.34 0.44 0.28 0.27
    2013.17 0.43 0.37 0.40 0.37 0.35 0.39 0.31 0.45 0.27 0.25
    2013.25 0.43 0.38 0.41 0.39 0.38 0.39 0.28 0.45 0.26 0.25
    2013.33 0.43 0.38 0.43 0.39 0.38 0.39 0.26 0.47 0.27 0.26
    2013.42 0.45 0.36 0.43 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.27 0.48 0.28 0.29
    2013.50 0.45 0.37 0.45 0.41 0.40 0.41 0.26 0.49 0.30 0.31
    2013.58 0.45 0.36 0.47 0.43 0.41 0.42 0.25 0.49 0.31 0.31
    2013.67 0.45 0.35 0.49 0.43 0.42 0.42 0.23 0.50 0.32 0.32
    2013.75 0.46 0.33 0.50 0.44 0.43 0.43 0.23 0.49 0.33 0.33
    2013.83 0.47 0.33 0.51 0.45 0.44 0.41 0.24 0.48 0.34 0.33
    2013.92 0.47 0.32 0.52 0.48 0.44 0.40 0.25 0.47 0.36 0.34
    The columns are ensembles 1-10
    More to follow.

  • Comment number 60.

    Here are the figures for 2014/15:

    2014.00 0.45 0.32 0.51 0.47 0.45 0.41 0.27 0.45 0.38 0.34
    2014.08 0.45 0.30 0.50 0.47 0.45 0.42 0.27 0.42 0.42 0.36
    2014.17 0.45 0.28 0.52 0.48 0.46 0.44 0.30 0.41 0.45 0.35
    2014.25 0.45 0.26 0.54 0.48 0.45 0.45 0.33 0.40 0.49 0.35
    2014.33 0.46 0.26 0.54 0.47 0.45 0.44 0.36 0.39 0.51 0.36
    2014.42 0.46 0.27 0.54 0.47 0.45 0.43 0.38 0.37 0.53 0.35
    2014.50 0.47 0.27 0.54 0.47 0.44 0.43 0.40 0.36 0.55 0.36
    2014.58 0.48 0.28 0.54 0.46 0.44 0.43 0.42 0.35 0.56 0.36
    2014.67 0.49 0.29 0.54 0.46 0.42 0.42 0.44 0.35 0.56 0.34
    2014.75 0.49 0.30 0.55 0.46 0.43 0.43 0.45 0.35 0.56 0.33
    2014.83 0.48 0.31 0.54 0.45 0.43 0.43 0.46 0.37 0.57 0.32
    2014.92 0.47 0.31 0.54 0.45 0.44 0.43 0.46 0.37 0.58 0.30
    2015.00 0.47 0.32 0.55 0.45 0.43 0.43 0.49 0.40 0.59 0.30
    2015.08 0.47 0.34 0.56 0.46 0.42 0.43 0.52 0.41 0.58 0.27
    2015.17 0.46 0.35 0.56 0.46 0.41 0.41 0.55 0.41 0.57 0.26
    2015.25 0.46 0.37 0.55 0.47 0.40 0.42 0.55 0.44 0.57 0.25
    2015.33 0.45 0.38 0.55 0.49 0.42 0.45 0.55 0.46 0.58 0.25
    2015.42 0.45 0.40 0.55 0.48 0.42 0.47 0.54 0.49 0.58 0.25
    2015.50 0.46 0.41 0.55 0.48 0.42 0.49 0.54 0.52 0.58 0.23
    2015.58 0.44 0.43 0.55 0.50 0.42 0.48 0.53 0.53 0.57 0.24
    2015.67 0.42 0.44 0.55 0.49 0.42 0.49 0.55 0.55 0.56 0.25
    2015.75 0.41 0.46 0.55 0.48 0.41 0.49 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.26
    2015.83 0.40 0.49 0.55 0.47 0.40 0.50 0.56 0.56 0.55 0.27
    2015.92 0.39 0.51 0.56 0.46 0.39 0.52 0.55 0.57 0.54 0.30

  • Comment number 61.

    And those for 2016/17:

    2016.00 0.39 0.51 0.56 0.45 0.38 0.52 0.54 0.57 0.55 0.32
    2016.08 0.40 0.52 0.56 0.44 0.37 0.52 0.52 0.58 0.55 0.35
    2016.17 0.38 0.53 0.55 0.42 0.37 0.54 0.49 0.59 0.53 0.38
    2016.25 0.38 0.53 0.53 0.40 0.35 0.53 0.51 0.60 0.51 0.40
    2016.33 0.36 0.54 0.55 0.39 0.34 0.52 0.52 0.60 0.50 0.41
    2016.42 0.34 0.53 0.56 0.39 0.32 0.53 0.54 0.58 0.49 0.41
    2016.50 0.32 0.52 0.57 0.40 0.31 0.52 0.55 0.57 0.48 0.43
    2016.58 0.31 0.51 0.59 0.37 0.32 0.52 0.55 0.57 0.47 0.42
    2016.67 0.31 0.51 0.61 0.37 0.32 0.53 0.55 0.56 0.46 0.42
    2016.75 0.32 0.51 0.61 0.40 0.31 0.54 0.55 0.55 0.44 0.41
    2016.83 0.33 0.51 0.60 0.41 0.31 0.53 0.56 0.55 0.43 0.42
    2016.92 0.34 0.49 0.62 0.41 0.31 0.50 0.59 0.54 0.41 0.40
    2017.00 0.35 0.48 0.62 0.42 0.33 0.47 0.59 0.52 0.40 0.38
    2017.08 0.36 0.47 0.61 0.43 0.34 0.45 0.59 0.49 0.37 0.38
    2017.17 0.38 0.46 0.59 0.44 0.35 0.41 0.61 0.48 0.36 0.38
    2017.25 0.38 0.46 0.60 0.44 0.38 0.41 0.61 0.45 0.36 0.36
    2017.33 0.39 0.46 0.57 0.44 0.39 0.41 0.60 0.43 0.34 0.35
    2017.42 0.41 0.45 0.56 0.44 0.41 0.39 0.59 0.42 0.31 0.34
    2017.50 0.43 0.46 0.53 0.42 0.42 0.38 0.58 0.42 0.28 0.32
    2017.58 0.44 0.45 0.51 0.42 0.42 0.38 0.58 0.41 0.28 0.31
    2017.67 0.45 0.42 0.48 0.43 0.43 0.36 0.59 0.40 0.29 0.30
    2017.75 0.45 0.40 0.47 0.40 0.43 0.35 0.60 0.39 0.29 0.29

    Sorry, forgot to post this earlier.

  • Comment number 62.

    QV

    Don't the previous decadal forecasts normally run Nov-Oct? Just something in the back of my mind that I read somewhere.

    Averaging the monthly data xxxx..83 to xxxy.75 for 12 months gives;

    2013 0.43 0.37 0.43 0.39 0.38 0.40 0.29 0.46 0.29 0.29
    2014 0.47 0.29 0.53 0.47 0.44 0.43 0.34 0.40 0.48 0.35
    2015 0.45 0.39 0.55 0.47 0.42 0.46 0.53 0.47 0.57 0.27

    Averaging the ten ensembles gives:

    2013 0.37
    2014 0.42
    2015 0.46

    which doesn't look far from the graph thick blue line starting 2013

  • Comment number 63.

    correction:

    2015 0.45 0.38 0.55 0.47 0.42 0.45 0.53 0.46 0.57 0.27

    followed by:

    2016 0.36 0.52 0.57 0.41 0.35 0.52 0.54 0.58 0.51 0.38
    2017 0.39 0.46 0.56 0.43 0.38 0.42 0.59 0.46 0.34 0.35

    2013 0.37
    2014 0.42
    2015 0.45
    2016 0.47
    2017 0.44

  • Comment number 64.

    62. ukpahonta wrote:

    "Don't the previous decadal forecasts normally run Nov-Oct? Just something in the back of my mind that I read somewhere."

    I am quite sure that the "original" prior to the infamous Xmas Eve 2012 ran Sept to Aug. Have had PC issues throughout the last year and cannot find my relevant data, but of course it is backed up somewhere:-)

    Do you still have links to them on the MO site can’t make the ones I have work.

  • Comment number 65.

    49. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "... how they got a figure of 0.45c BEFORE the December figures were published I don't know. Of course without the inclusion of upwardly adjusted NASA/GISS figures, the WMO average would have been lower."

    Can you confirm that if the GISS figure had not been adjusted, then the 2013 average based on GISS, NOAA and HadCRUT would have been 0.44 instead of 0.45?

    That's what I make it at present, though I haven't had time to check whether all my data sets are updated. The difference between 0.44 and 0.45 is measured in the thousandths of a degree centigrade when rounding is taken into consideration.

  • Comment number 66.

    #64 greensand

    September 2010. All data are rolling annual mean values. The gap between the black and blue curves arises because the last observed value represents the period November 2009 to October 2010 whereas the first forecast period is September 2010 to August 2011.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20111018064128/http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc

  • Comment number 67.

    @66. ukpahonta:

    Thanks UK, not quite sure how but have just fallen across:-

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/science/specialist/long-range/global/decadal_fc.html

  • Comment number 68.

    @53 ukpahonta

    The cynic might sugest that the MetO forecast is looking better for a match midweek and please forget the bold predictions for this weekend...

  • Comment number 69.

    All data are rolling annual mean values. The gap between the black and blue curves arises because the last observed value represents the period November 2011 to October 2012 whereas the first forecast period is November 2012 to October 2013.

    With HadGEM3 they have moved the forecast period into line with the observed data.

  • Comment number 70.

    #67 greensand

    I think that you have stumbled upon the old stuff that has now been replaced, look at the difference in the URL links:
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/science/specialist/long-range/global/decadal_fc.html
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc

  • Comment number 71.

    "The above is the start date of the latest and second R5+ Solar/Lunar event of the year from Piers Corbyn. The first R5+ event troubled the Met office a great deal and they issued a "rare" Red warning as the weather conditions in the UK went from bad to worse!"

    An R5 Solar/Lunar event...

    I am guessing that's Corbyn forecast terminology from his secret forecasting technique. The one that's supposedly so much better than the open forecast methods being used around the world by eg the Met Office. But that's okay because why shouldn't he make profit off it?

    Of course there is the minor issue of thousands of people dying around the world each year for want of better extreme weather forecasting. Am I to believe Corbyn sleeps at night knowing that he's making a little personal profit at the expense of hiding a method that would save thousands of lives per year if only he open sourced his superior lunar/solar method?

  • Comment number 72.

    ERUPTING MAGNETIC FILAMENT: As expected, an unstable filament of magnetism curling over the sun's northeastern limb erupted today. NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory recorded the blast at approximately 0515 UT on Jan. 31st:


    I wonder if this is what Piers was expecting?

    Despite the obvious energy of the blast, very little of the filament actually flew into space. The sun's gravity pulled most of the debris back to the stellar surface. So this eruption was primarily photogenic, not geoeffective.

    spaceweather.com

  • Comment number 73.

    I'm with Quake, it's a disgrace...... ploughing public funds into a failing research of CAGW when there is under funded solar physics to be augmented so that our public bodies can catch up to the advances of the private sector and issue advice with enough forewarning that could make the difference to millions of peoples lives.

    Somebody write to the Daily Mail to get a fund going for a bigger computer in Exeter ther's work to be done!
    =:-)

  • Comment number 74.

    Re the Daily Expresses's annual "Coldest Winter in 100 years" story highlighted by Paul Hudson a couple of months ago.

    I know CET isn't "the UK" as such, but as a canary in a cage it looks like CET is going to come in around -0.2C below the January average, making the met. winter (Dec-Feb) so far -0.1C below average.

    I think this makes winter 2012/13 so far the 40th "coldest winter in the UK" in the past 100 years.

  • Comment number 75.

    70. ukpahonta wrote:

    I think that you have stumbled upon the old stuff that has now been replaced,


    Not sure UK, they are close but different?

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/science/specialist/long-range/global/decadal_fc.html

    http://somethingtododownthepub.com/2013/01/02/met-temperature-predictions/graph2011/

  • Comment number 76.

    #75 greensand

    Yes they do look different under scrutiny.

    The page that you found though is not available for general viewing as set up in their web robot control:

    Disallow: /science/specialist/

    Which normally means that it has been superceded by more current pages and will be eventually removed or it's an area reserved for restricted use.

    I suspect that the graph that you have found is an earlier version of the 2011 graph but just with Hadley data, the 2011 graph includes Giss and NCDC.

    Perhaps I should tag it into my page.

  • Comment number 77.

    76. ukpahonta wrote:

    I suspect that the graph that you have found is an earlier version of the 2011 graph but just with Hadley data, the 2011 graph includes Giss and NCDC.


    Yup that could be it, though must admit that things like “web robot control” are well beyond me! Just had a look at “Page Info” and note:-

    “DC.Date.Created 2008-11-19”

    But suppose that could be the start of a series?

    Perhaps I should tag it into my page.


    Sounds like a good idea, I can remember asking the MO why they had changed from producing the chart just against their own metric.

  • Comment number 78.

    #62. - ukpahonta wrote:
    "which doesn't look far from the graph thick blue line starting 2013"

    Sorry, but I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at.

    The forecast figures are already 12 month rolling averages, and I have been told by the MO that 2013.00 = the figure for 2013, so I don't see the point in averaging them again.

    Based on 2013.00 = 2013 etc, the annual figures are:

    2013 0.360
    2014 0.405
    2015 0.443
    2016 0.479
    2017 0.456

    These figures aren't very different to yours, so the thick blue line would look similar but bear in mind that the graph uses monthly rolling averages, hence the big fall in the line to 0.407c at the end (2017.75).

    I think that the thick blue line exactly matches the rolling monthly averages, vertically, but my issue is that the thin blue lines don't seem to match the max/min ranges.

  • Comment number 79.

    #64. - greensand wrote:
    "I am quite sure that the "original" prior to the infamous Xmas Eve 2012 ran Sept to Aug. Have had PC issues throughout the last year and cannot find my relevant data, but of course it is backed up somewhere:-)"

    The data from the previous forecast, sent to me by the MO, started in 2011.67, which does correspond to Sept. but I am not sure about running from Sept. to Aug.
    The annual figure for 2012 was supposedly against 2012.00, in the same way as 2013 is against 2013.00, (if what the MO told me is correct).

  • Comment number 80.

    #65. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "Can you confirm that if the GISS figure had not been adjusted, then the 2013 average based on GISS, NOAA and HadCRUT would have been 0.44 instead of 0.45?

    That's what I make it at present, though I haven't had time to check whether all my data sets are updated. The difference between 0.44 and 0.45 is measured in the thousandths of a degree centigrade when rounding is taken into consideration."

    I take it you mean HADCRUT4?
    I am not sure, and the situation is complicated by the fact that all NASA/GISS annual figures have been adjusted, resulting in a change to the 1961-90 base period average.
    Anyway, I have calculated the average based on the previous data file and I get an average of the 3 datasets of 0.433c using HC3 and 0.446c, so I don't think that using the revised NASA/GISS figures makes a lot of difference.

  • Comment number 81.

    #74. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "I think this makes winter 2012/13 so far the 40th "coldest winter in the UK" in the past 100 years."

    I didn't think that the original Express headline ever made any sense.
    Of course such lurid headlines sell newspapers.
    I even bought one to see what they meant by it.
    The annoying thing is that nobody will ever take them to task and ask them to explain how they got it so wrong, or the forecasters who allegedly provided the forecasts.

  • Comment number 82.

    70.At 23:42 31st Jan 2013, ukpahonta wrote:

    "#67 greensand
    I think that you have stumbled upon the old stuff that has now been replaced, look at the difference in the URL links:"

    Surely the link greensand posted is the same one as the archived one you posted?
    Both seem to start in 2011, and therefore seem to be the 2011 forecast.
    The two you have posted here are to the the same one as greensand posted (i.e. the 2011 forecast) and the latest 2013 forecast.
    However, we seem to have lost the 2012 forecast.

  • Comment number 83.

    @QV 82.

    Check the 2 links in 75 above, apart from one only having the HadCRUT plot, take a look at the relationship of the "thick blue line" and the "white line" in each. Also where the blue starts in relationship with the previous black line/lines

  • Comment number 84.

    83.At 11:46 1st Feb 2013, greensand wrote:
    @QV 82.

    "Check the 2 links in 75 above, apart from one only having the HadCRUT plot, take a look at the relationship of the "thick blue line" and the "white line" in each. Also where the blue starts in relationship with the previous black line/lines"

    Yes, but I was referring to the graph to which you posted the link in #67, which is the same as the first one in #75, and the archived one which ukpahonta posted in #66, which looks the same to me. I think that is the 2011 forecast, which I think would only have HadCRUT data on it.

    The second one in #75 is different, and I think it is the 2012 forecast, i.e. the one starting in late 2011 and which we no longer seem to have a direct link to on the MO site.
    Having said that, I am confused by all of the graphs and may be wrong.
    There are links elsewhere, comparing 2012 with 2013, which may confirm what I am saying.

  • Comment number 85.

    This gif file compares 2012 with 2013.
    It's a bit difficult to compare this with the "down the pub" graph, but I think the 2012 one is the same.
    http://i46.tinypic.com/123147s.gif

  • Comment number 86.

  • Comment number 87.

    84. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    “Yes, but I was referring to the graph to which you posted the link in #67,”

    Ah right I think I see where the confusion may have come from. The reason for posting the chart in 67 was because it came from the MO site with a different URL, not that it was different to that in 66. Until then it was thought to no longer be available other than in the archive.

    However when I checked it against another copy, the second in 75, I noticed the differences.

    I have not studied the differences in any further detail because as like you ”I am confused by all of the graphs and may be wrong”

    Might steal myself later on and see if any of it is relevant or should be confined to the past.

  • Comment number 88.

    For QuaesoVeritas, greensand et al

    I follow the comments on this blog and all the analysis of data series - which are always interesting but I need to ask a question please. Where is all this leading, what is the objective, what is it you are all seeking. Is it to identify a more efficient and reliable accuracy of prediction or to challenge the interpretation of the various data series originators? Will the work on data that many of you painstakingly undertake lead to the identification of an apparently elusive conclusion?

  • Comment number 89.

    #88. - chris wrote:
    "I follow the comments on this blog and all the analysis of data series - which are always interesting but I need to ask a question please. Where is all this leading, what is the objective, what is it you are all seeking. Is it to identify a more efficient and reliable accuracy of prediction or to challenge the interpretation of the various data series originators? Will the work on data that many of you painstakingly undertake lead to the identification of an apparently elusive conclusion?"

    One might ask that about any activity.
    The alternative is an apathetic acceptance of anything you are told by "experts" and empty discussion based entirely on opinion.
    Hopefully the objective is a better understanding of the facts.

  • Comment number 90.

    88. chris wrote:

    “Where is all this leading, what is the objective, what is it you are all seeking. Is it to identify a more efficient and reliable accuracy of prediction or to challenge the interpretation of the various data series originators?”

    Hi Chris,

    “Where is all this leading”– Don’t know, nobody knows, new data, new interpretations!

    “what is it you are all seeking” – Can’t speak for all but for me, knowledge, understanding, comes a lot better if you work it through.

    “Is it to identify a more efficient and reliable accuracy of prediction” – For me definitely not, don’t do predictions, try as hard as possible to stick to actual observational data.

    “or to challenge the interpretation of the various data series originators” – Yes, maybe, possibly when enough comprehension is gained. “interpretation” being two fold both the data sets and the surety of the predictions by those compiling the data sets.

    Over the years I believe I have gained a lot of insight and knowledge from asking questions, none the least of myself. Whether, on this subject, I have gained anything meaningful to anybody but myself is a mute point as it is of no concern to me.

    Anyway should we not expect all citizens to take every interest in the greatest ever threat to mankind’s wellbeing?

  • Comment number 91.

    The ENSO area “battle” continues.

    The “warm pool” is gaining size and is now east of the DL:-

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgibin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC007&year=2013&month=01

    OLR is reducing, at its lowest point since the 2010 El Nino:-

    http://cawcr.gov.au/staff/mwheeler/maproom/OLR/ts.r4.l.gif

    Not a decisive move, not yet. Trade winds have weakened but are forecast to increase again later next week.

  • Comment number 92.

    This might be of interest to the more weather centric:-

    "Weather Services International: After Early January Thaw, Much of Northern Europe to Experience Deep Freeze in February"

    http://www.wsi.com/9d932f9d-565a-4423-b3b4-68d3d63fedd4/news-scheduled-forecast-release-details.htm

    I don't know who WSI are or if they have any credence in these matters.

  • Comment number 93.

    #88 Chris

    Painstakingly undertake translates to having fun.

  • Comment number 94.

    Message 74

    This website has the January CET (excluding the final two days) as being somewhat colder than you suggest - around 1 Celsius below the mean:
    http://www.climate-uk.com/

  • Comment number 95.

    Parts of western Scotland were slightly 'mild' overall during January, but everywhere else was rather cold overall.

  • Comment number 96.

    #94 ashleyhr

    Jan average (1961-1990) is 3.8C
    Jan average (1981-2010) is 4.4C

    The site you link to are using the later I suspect.

  • Comment number 97.

    #94. - ashleyhr wrote:
    "This website has the January CET (excluding the final two days) as being somewhat colder than you suggest - around 1 Celsius below the mean:
    http://www.climate-uk.com/"

    The Philip Eden CET is NOT the official figure, although I believe that he claims it is more consistent with historical CET records.

    The MO site is the sources of the official figure so far:

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html

    The actual provisional CET to January 3oth is -0.2c, BUT the provisional figure always tends to overstate CET due to technical reasons, so it may be -0.3c.

    The figure for December as +0.1c, so that would make the cumulative figure about
    -0.1c to the end of January.

  • Comment number 98.

    #87. - greensand wrote:

    "Ah right I think I see where the confusion may have come from. The reason for posting the chart in 67 was because it came from the MO site with a different URL, not that it was different to that in 66. Until then it was thought to no longer be available other than in the archive."

    But ukpahonta subsequently posted in #70:

    "I think that you have stumbled upon the old stuff that has now been replaced, look at the difference in the URL links:"

    But the links which ukpahonta posted were comparing your link, which is to the 2011 forecast, and the latest 2013 forecast, so of course they were different.

    As I have said, your link and ukpahonta's archive link are to the same forecast, i.e. the 2011 one.

    I don't think that there is a link any more to the 2012 forecast on the MO website but that appears to be the one on the "downthepub" link.

  • Comment number 99.

    #98 QV

    The link that greensand posted used to be the URL for the decadal forecast. So if you clicked on the "decadal forecast" link on the MO website that is where it would take you. Now if you click on "decadal forecast" on the MO website it takes you to the new URL which is the 2013 forecast.

    The previous URL which greensand managed to find has been removed from all the MO pages and should not be accessable.

    The archive link that I provided was through the Wayback Machine web pages which is a web archiving tool and takes snapshots of sites on specified dates that you can go in and access, even when the pages have been 'disapeared' by their owners.

    The 2012 forecast may still be around on the MO website but as with greensands link it will not be obviously accessable to the general user.

  • Comment number 100.

    Official CET for Jan 2012 is -0.3C, making the CET winter anomaly so far (Dec-Jan) -0.1C.

    I think average temperature during February in the CET region would have to be below -9.0C if last year's annual Daily Express prediction of "coldest winter in 100 years" is to prove accurate. (Although CET doesn't represent UK temperatures as a whole of course.)

    The previous coldest February in CET during the past 100 years was -1.9C; so -9.0C this years looks unlikely, especially considering that CET started February with warmer than average temperatures. However, temperatures for the week ahead look a little below average in that region, with some ground frost at night possible.

    Anything above +4.1C for February 2013 would put winter 2012/13 slightly above the CET average for the past 100 years.

 

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.