« Previous | Main | Next »

Unsettled June weather to extend into July

Paul Hudson | 15:30 UK time, Monday, 4 July 2011

Despite the warm and sunny conditions in the last few days, the unsettled weather which plagued much of June looks set to return.

June turned out to be wet across the UK, dominated by low pressure. Averaged across England & Wales, 122% of average rainfall was recorded.

In our region, for a change, the highest rainfall figures were in eastern areas, where rain is needed most.

For example at Coningsby, in drought order hit Lincolnshire, 77mm of rain was recorded, compared with the average of 54mm - 143% of the average.

In Skipton 73mm of rain fell, compared with their average of 77mm; at Dishforth 52mm of rain was recorded, very close to their long term average for June.

It was also the coolest June for 12 years, based on Central England Temperature data.

The ridge of high pressure which has produced fine & warm conditions in the last few days is starting to give way, and later tomorrow low pressure will be firmly back in charge of our weather.

There will be some rain for most areas in the following week or so - quite often in the form of showers, some of which will be heavy and thundery, so there will be some drier brighter spells in-between.

The weather chart below for Friday indicates unsettled conditions across the whole of the country.



The jet stream which controls our weather is to blame, once again positioning itself to the south of the UK.

It's still early days, but with the half way stage of summer approaching, so far only Piers Corbyn at Weather Action can claim any success with this summer's forecast.

He argued consistently that Summer 2011 would be unsettled because of, in part, continued weak solar activity, which would at times push the Jet stream further south than normal.

Longer term, heading towards mid-July, there are signs that although westerly winds will dominate, pressure may build in southern areas, leading to traditional set up across the UK.

This would mean the driest conditions would be in more southern and eastern parts of the UK, with most rainfall in more northern and western areas.

This is exactly the type of weather pattern that is most common across the British Isles at this time of year.

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    Piers Corbyn seems to have some skill at longer range weather forecasts. Can't say I like his presentation skills very much. Blue and yellow never did it for me

    smoke me a kipper

  • Comment number 2.

    But I thought global warming meant that the Jet Stream was supposed to go further north? Another failed prediction - we're still waiting for the snow-less winters too!

  • Comment number 3.

    So Piers Corbyn has successfully predicted that the "type of weather pattern that is most common across the British Isles at this time of year" would be common across the British Isles this time of year?

    Amazing. Did he also predict that either Oxford or Cambridge would win the boat race?

    As for his long term forecasting ability, not so fast. In September 2008 he said the following: "Global warming is over... the world is now cooling and will continue to do so." http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1771

    There followed the warmest continuous 12 and 18 month periods in both the NASA and UAH records, and the warmest or second warmest calendar year on record (2010).

    So there are definite limits to Mr Corbyn's powers of prescience.

  • Comment number 4.

    I am surprised to hear that this June was the coolest for 12 years based on CET.
    Maybe it's because I live in the North, (outside the CET triangle), but it seemed to me to be quite a warm June.
    I suppose the figures don't lie however!

  • Comment number 5.

    #3. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "As for his long term forecasting ability, not so fast. In September 2008 he said the following: "Global warming is over... the world is now cooling and will continue to do so." http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1771
    There followed the warmest continuous 12 and 18 month periods in both the NASA and UAH records, and the warmest or second warmest calendar year on record (2010)."
    I am generally not impressed by Corbyn, but I must defend him on this one.
    Are temperature figures over a 12 or 18 month period statistically significant?
    Based on previous discussion of cooling over 10 year periods, I suspect not.
    I also notice that you haven't mentioned RSS, NCDC/NOAA or HadCRUT3.
    In fact, based on the HadCRUT3 10 year linear trend, global temperatures are now falling at the fastest rate for 34 years. Although that may not be statistically significant either, it is more likely that they are falling than that they are rising.

  • Comment number 6.

    Actually, I make it the coolest June since 1991 based on CET.
    This year the figure was 13.8c, while both 2008 and 1999 were 13.9c and 1991
    was 12.1c.

  • Comment number 7.

    5. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "Are temperature figures over a 12 or 18 month period statistically significant?"

    Definitely not. However, if we entered a period of 'global cooling' in 2008, then should we really expect to immediately see the 12 and 18 warmest consecutive months on record? We also saw the warmest or second warmest calendar year on record, according to 'all' reputable global databases. Is this in any way consistent with the claim that the world entered a period of global cooling in 2008?

    Note that I am not 'borrowing' warmth from pre Sept 2008 - I am using data from months that 'all' occurred after that date.

    This last point also addresses your comment "based on the HadCRUT3 10 year linear trend, global temperatures are now falling at the fastest rate for 34 years".

    The problem with using a rolling trend is that it always has, as its last point of data, temperatures that occurred just 120 months ago. Each value in a rolling ten year trend is precisely 10 years old. It gives no perspective on the multi-decadal trend.

    Temperatures exactly ten years ago were already exceptionally high. They remain exceptionally high. A slight dip in an exceptionally high temperature series is of no particular significance. It's like Rangers or Celtic having a mid-season away draw against Falkirk.

    6. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "Actually, I make it the coolest June since 1991 based on CET."

    Me too. Perhaps Paul got his '1' and '2' in the wrong order?

  • Comment number 8.

    As a result of the below "normal" CET figure for June 2011, the 12 month rolling average figure has fallen from 9.77c in May, to 9.65c, compared to an annual "normal" figure of 9.45c.
    The 12 month rolling average had fallen steadily from a peak of 11.6c in May 2007,
    to a low of 8.85c in December 2010, and has been rising since then, but it is too soon to say if the latest fall is a temporary slowdown in the rising
    trend, or the beginning of a return to the declining trend.

  • Comment number 9.

    My weather station recorded the rainfall in Ossett at just 34mm for June which certainly isn't a wet month.

  • Comment number 10.

    8. QuaesoVeritas:

    This is a perfect example of the limitations of using short term rolling averages and trends on a long term data set.

    The CET 30 year temperature trend is currently running at +0.5 C per decade. You chose to highlight a rolling 12 month figure.

    I must ask why you think this is significant?

  • Comment number 11.

    #7. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "Definitely not. However, if we entered a period of 'global cooling' in 2008, then should we really expect to immediately see the 12 and 18 warmest consecutive months on record? "
    Actually, it is NOT unexpected. I don't know the details of what Corbyn said, and he may be slightly off in the timing, but in own view, we have reached the top of a sine wave like temperature curve, so for a while we will "coast" at a similar level to before, with some temperatures above and some below previous levels.
    We will only see a more substantial and clearer decline in annual figures when we progress into a more pronounced period of decline.
    "The problem with using a rolling trend is that it always has, as its last point of data, temperatures that occurred just 120 months ago. Each value in a rolling ten year trend is precisely 10 years old. It gives no perspective on the multi-decadal trend."
    Yes, that's sort of stating the obvious. Have made it clear that the decline is over a 10 year period. The perspective is clear when you look at how the 10 year trend has change over the last 150 years. The probability is that it is more likely that temperatures are falling over that period than not. I appreciate that it is inconvenient for you to accept that temperatures are probably falling, but it will become increasingly difficult to deny this as time goes on. I suspect your attitude might be different if temperatures were rising over that period.


  • Comment number 12.

    #10. - newdwr54 wrote:
    This is a perfect example of the limitations of using short term rolling averages and trends on a long term data set.
    The CET 30 year temperature trend is currently running at +0.5 C per decade. You chose to highlight a rolling 12 month figure.
    I must ask why you think this is significant?
    Because it tells us what is happening now, not over the last 30 years.
    The 30 year figure didn't tell us that the last 3 winters were likely to be colder than normal, the rolling 12 month figure did.
    I put it to you that you only prefer the 30 year figure because it is rising and you don't like the 12 month average because it has been falling.

  • Comment number 13.

    11. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "...we have reached the top of a sine wave like temperature curve, so for a while we will "coast" at a similar level to before, with some temperatures above and some below previous levels"

    No disrespect QV (and I do respect your views) but that sine wave gives you a lot of good surfing potential. It can go up, and it can go down, or it can stay the same - for years maybe. You can take a very long ride on that wave without having to get wet.

    I ask you this question: Why was Gavin Schmidt so confident in January 2011 that this year would fit 'easily' in the top ten warmest on record (it already is in GISS and it's on the periphery of the others at the moment, less than half way through the published annual data)?

    How come, if we entered a cooling trend in 2008, someone knowledgeable about climate science can make such a prediction with such confidence and get it so right? Is this just luck on his part? Has he benefited from yet another unexplained delay in the expected cooling?

    (What is it that is delaying the cooling that you are expecting by the way?)

    No, the books balance very firmly in favour of the scientists on this issue in my view.



  • Comment number 14.

    2009-2010 El Nino did the most to delay the cooling so I guess that 2011 is going to be quite a significant year in both camps.

    'Current observed trends, along with forecasts from a majority of the ENSO models, indicate ENSO-neutral will continue through the Northern Hemisphere summer 2011 (three-month average in the Nino-3.4 index between –0.5°C and +0.5°C; Fig. 6). Thereafter, most models and all multi-model forecasts (shown by the thick lines) predict ENSO-neutral to continue through the remainder of 2011. However, the status of ENSO beyond the Northern Hemisphere summer remains more uncertain due to lower model forecast skill at longer lead times, particularly during this time of year.'
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.pdf

  • Comment number 15.

    #13. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "No disrespect QV (and I do respect your views) but that sine wave gives you a lot of good surfing potential. It can go up, and it can go down, or it can stay the same - for years maybe. You can take a very long ride on that wave without having to get wet."
    Not really. The sine wave of temperature change appears to have a period of about 60 years, so it can only go down for the next 30 years. Individual years could show increases and not invalidate the overall pattern, but the general trend will be down.
    "I ask you this question: Why was Gavin Schmidt so confident in January 2011 that this year would fit 'easily' in the top ten warmest on record (it already is in GISS and it's on the periphery of the others at the moment, less than half way through the published annual data)?
    How come, if we entered a cooling trend in 2008, someone knowledgeable about climate science can make such a prediction with such confidence and get it so right? Is this just luck on his part? Has he benefited from yet another unexplained delay in the expected cooling?"
    He was confident because he clearly believes that the warming trend is going to continue uninterrupted, in accordance with most predictions. It is too soon to say he has "got it right" and as I have already said, I think that the most likely outcome for this year is that it will finish the 11th warmest in the HadCRUT3 record and GISS is likely to be similar.
    The trend in GISS, along with the other anomaly series, since the beginning of 2010 is strongly downward, and GISS fell faster than all of the other series last month. The anomalies may rise in June, but the short-term trend is downwards.
    "(What is it that is delaying the cooling that you are expecting by the way?)"
    There is no "delay in the cooling". It's just that the precise point in the cycle is difficult to evaluate.
    The mistake that Schmidt, and the IPCC modellers have made is in assuming that the upward trend is constant. In fact, while there is a long-term upward trend,
    there appear to be cyclical phases within that trend. We have just been through an upward phase, and we are about to enter a downward phase. The next low point in temperature rises will be around 2039, and next high point will be around 2071.
    You only have to look at recent temperatures so see that we are in a cooling phase. You will no doubt say that is due to where we are in the El Nino/La Nina cycle, but that is all part of t

  • Comment number 16.

    Continued:
    You only have to look at recent temperatures so see that we are in a cooling phase. You will no doubt say that is due to where we are in the El Nino/La Nina cycle, but that is all part of the complex picture.
    One issue I have with the Corbyn prediction are the words "continue to do so". It isn't clear to me what is meant by that, but I see this as a cooling phase in a generally rising trend, rather than a permanently cooling trend.

  • Comment number 17.

    #7 - newdwr54 wrote:
    "The problem with using a rolling trend is that it always has, as its last point of data, temperatures that occurred just 120 months ago. Each value in a rolling ten year trend is precisely 10 years old. It gives no perspective on the multi-decadal trend."
    I only just noticed your statement that "each value in a rolling 10 year trend is precisely 10 years old".
    Not sure what you mean by that. The rolling 10 year linear trend is always calculated over the last 10 years (actually 120 months). Obviously, some figures are 10 years old and some are only 1 month old. If the trend is falling, the more recent figures are lower than the older figures, otherwise the trend would not be falling.


  • Comment number 18.

    QV

    'The mistake that Schmidt, and the IPCC modellers have made is in assuming that the upward trend is constant. In fact, while there is a long-term upward trend,
    there appear to be cyclical phases within that trend. We have just been through an upward phase, and we are about to enter a downward phase.'

    I wonder if we are to expect a revised prediction from the model outputs, will this take the form of extending the same predictions to say 2150 or a reduction in the predicted temperature increase at 2100. Either way it implies a lessening of the catastrophic element and also introduces the premise that the effect of CO2 on global temperatures is not as strong as thought, if it can be overturned by aerosols or natural cycles.
    I think I am right with the figure of 0.3C rise per decade due to the steady increase in CO2 which also indicates that if we have a decade or two of stagnating or falling temperatures then we must expect a decade or two of 0.6C rise per decade to achieve the model outputs. So how does this tie in with the steady rise of CO2?

    Are we starting to say that the temperatures of the last decade are not a plateau but a 0.2-0.3C fall from where it should be, for theoretical temperatures. Again this causes concern in the fact that either the empirical data is wrong or the theory is wrong, so which has to be modified?

  • Comment number 19.

    Will the South West trend of wind continue over the weekend to ensure that the S.Y.C. North Sea Yacht Race from Scarborough to Holland starting at 1900 8/7/11 is sailed rather than motored as the wind has a nasty habit of going round to the South East just as the race starts?

  • Comment number 20.

    newdwr54 @ 13 asked
    "How come, if we entered a cooling trend in 2008, someone knowledgeable about climate science can make such a prediction with such confidence and get it so right? Is this just luck on his part? Has he benefited from yet another unexplained delay in the expected cooling?"

    You've asked this before on a previous thread and I answered with something like, because temps don't change much from year to year. This time round, I quickly checked the numbers on the wikipedia site for the top 20 warmest years. While this is more QV's territory than mine, I would say that the year to year temp variation since 2000/2001 (about +0.13) has been plus or minus 0.07 at most. In order NOT to qualify for top 10 status, this year would have to see a year to year drop of 0.1. This seems particularly unlikely, since ocean heat content has flattened (like atmospheric temps) rather than dropped significantly.

    Schmidt studied maths.

  • Comment number 21.

    Also, to put my last comment into a perspective and (perhaps) lend support to QV's 10 year rolling trend analysis, there were a number of smaller year to year variations in those stats. For example, 2006/2007 was -0.012. Now if temps were to drop from 2010 levels by this margin for 5 consecutive years, I suspect each of those years would also qualify for the top ten. By 2015, one might say there was a clear downward trend after those five consecutive years. Newdwr54, no doubt, would argue that the 2005 - 2015 was the warmest decade on record.
    Which method is best? In my opinion, neither. When viewed together, they just give you a broader perspective - it's like walking around a statue rather than viewing from only one point.

  • Comment number 22.

    Britain is set to face an increase in harsh winters, with up to one-in-seven gripping the UK with prolonged sub-zero temperatures, a study has suggested.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14029995

    Absolutely no mention of CO2............ from the Beeb!!!!

    Auntie, welcome back in from the warmth.

  • Comment number 23.

    #18. - ukpahonta wrote:
    "I wonder if we are to expect a revised prediction from the model outputs, will this take the form of extending the same predictions to say 2150 or a reduction in the predicted temperature increase at 2100. "
    I honestly can't see the IPCC models in AR5 reducing the predicted temperatures by 2100. It would just be too embarrassing for the IPCC. I don't know how they are going to achieve that however. Someone said that there are going to be more models in the AR5 scenarios, which I again find puzzling. If they are so certain about the science, I would have expected a reduction in the number of models, not an increase. The problem might be that more institutions want in on the act. The more the merrier, since the errors in the models will average each other out. If the science really is settled, why don't they get together and design a single model?
    I can't remember if I mentioned here that I had e-mailed "Environment Canada", pointing out that their model was amongst the worst (cheeky I know), and part of the reply was:
    "It is the case that the Canadian model contributed to the IPCC AR4 tended to overestimate warming in the 20th century, and this is well known. Since then, considerable effort has been devoted to improvements that have led to a new model whose results will be contributed to the upcoming IPCC Fifth Assessment. "
    When they say that the above is "well known", I presume they mean amongst the other climate scientists, and NOT the general public.

  • Comment number 24.

    #22. - ukpahonta wrote:
    "Britain is set to face an increase in harsh winters, with up to one-in-seven gripping the UK with prolonged sub-zero temperatures, a study has suggested."
    An interesting article, although I am left slightly confused over whether or not we are going to get colder winters or not according to this study.
    When I looked at the relationship between low sunspot numbers and cold winters, I couldn't find a definitive link. I did however, find some evidence of a link between low sunspot numbers and extreme temperatures, either cold or warm, which in a way is demonstrated by the example in the article of both the coldest and 5th warmest winters being during the maunder minimum.
    Also, Lockwood is quoted in the article as saying:
    "There were colder winters in Europe. That almost certainly means, from what we understand about the blocking mechanisms that cause them, that there were warmer winters in Greenland,"
    It sounds from that quote as if he doesn't really know whether Greenland was warmer or not.

  • Comment number 25.

    i thought snow was going to be a thing of the past. i wish these idiots would make up their mind

  • Comment number 26.

    Don't get too excited about Piers Corbyn. For those who remember - my "hunch" spoof forcast is also proving largely correct! (see earlier blogs).

    I am not surprised that June has been "cool" - I would guess this is much to do with night time temps which were at times, close to ground frost levels.






  • Comment number 27.

  • Comment number 28.

    QV
    I think the low sunspot numbers are just an indicater of a quiet sun. There seems to be a relationship with a quiet sun and blocking cyclones moving further from the Earths poles during the hemispheres winter season, as seen in the Northern Hemisphere last winter and the Southern hemisphere this winter.

    The connection betwwen UK going colder and Greenland becoming warmer is a recent connection as there is no dataset for Greenland during previous minimums to prove it happened in the past. Of course a warming Greenland in winter is possibly the difference between -26C and -25C.

    The positive from a peer reviewed study like this is, obviously, that the Government has requested the information to pass to local Councils in order to prepare for winter when ordering grit etc.
    Lets hope it is taken seriously in the public sector, even though it gives more of an impression that guesswork is involved rather than evidence.

  • Comment number 29.

    Revise that to -12C to -10C, found a referrence.
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/greenland/vintheretal2006.pdf

  • Comment number 30.

    Now we have the complete opposite of IPCC predictions.
    Ice age by 2040 according to Nils-Axel Mörner published in Energy and Environment

    http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/Moerner_Science_environm_sea_level_3_11_Paper_534.pdf

  • Comment number 31.

    "Britain is set to face an increase in harsh winters, with up to one-in-seven gripping the UK with prolonged sub-zero temperatures, a study has suggested.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14029995

    Absolutely no mention of CO2............ from the Beeb!!!!

    Auntie, welcome back in from the warmth."

    That's because Richard Black didn't write it. He must be seething not to have been able to put his spin on it.

  • Comment number 32.

    20. lateintheday wrote:

    "In order NOT to qualify for top 10 status, this year would have to see a year to year drop of 0.1. This seems particularly unlikely, since ocean heat content has flattened (like atmospheric temps) rather than dropped significantly."

    In 2008 temperatures were -0.07C below the current top 10 warmest years, and -0.13C below the warmest. It would be very easy to get a prediction like Schmidt's wrong, so close are the margins. Recall that in January 2011, when he made the prediction, we were in the midst of a strong La Nina event and the northern hemisphere was experiencing one of its worst winters on record.

    Very few people were predicting that 2011 would come inside the top 10 warmest years on record at that time. Some people were suggesting that global cooling had begun (again).

    And s QV says, it isn't over yet. There is still a good chance that Schmidt's prediction will fail (as far as hadcrut is concerned anyway).

  • Comment number 33.

    This new paper appears to acknowledge the lack of warming between 1998 and 2008 and blame it at least partially on increased sulfur emissions due to a large increase in coal consumption in China, combined with the solar cycle and the change from El Nino to La Nina. Ithttp://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/pnas-201102467.pdf

  • Comment number 34.

    Warnings of another severe Northern hemisphere winter this year. My gut feeling is that Schmidt's prediction will be wrong.

    http://www.irishweatheronline.com/news/climate-news/ireland-and-uk-could-face-further-severe-winter-weather/24971.html

  • Comment number 35.

    30. ukpahonta:

    We only have to wait 31 years to see if Mörner is right about this one.

    Another classic from E&E.

  • Comment number 36.

    #32. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "Very few people were predicting that 2011 would come inside the top 10 warmest years on record at that time. Some people were suggesting that global cooling had begun (again)."
    Not sure about that. Certainly the UKMO were, albeit in December 2010:
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2010/record-temperatures
    The central prediction then was 0.44c, which would make 2011 the 6th warmest, although the predicted range of between 0.28c and 0.6c would put it anywhere between 13th and 1st, so whatever happens, the MO will claim they were correct.
    Maybe Schmidt was basing his predictin on that of the UKMO.
    As far as I know the UKMO are also still predicting that "about half" of the years between 2010 and 2019 will be warmer than 1998, although they have previously predicted that half of the next 5 years would be warmer.


  • Comment number 37.

    Please can you give a few more comments and views in your next blog to Joe Bastardi's recent forecast that we are entering into a major la nina phase hence extremely harsh winters. He's also claimed that our last 2 winters in Britain were not harsh. Please i know winters i few months away but ive just seen an article posted in the bbc enviroment section. There seems to be more and more growing coverage on the issue

  • Comment number 38.

    #30. - ukpahonta wrote:
    "Now we have the complete opposite of IPCC predictions.
    Ice age by 2040 according to Nils-Axel Mörner published in Energy and Environment"
    I don't think this is entirely new research and I think that E & E is a "sceptical" publication, but it is interesting that the prediction of low temperatures around 2040 concides almost exactly with what I would expect from the cyclical patterns in the 50 year rolling linear trend, which I expect to be at a low point in 2039 (see my post #15). I should point out that those patterns are based entirely on the actual Monthly HadCRUT3 data and consequently, must take into account all known and unknown influences on past temperatures.

  • Comment number 39.

    #37. snowscoming wrote:
    "He's also claimed that our last 2 winters in Britain were not harsh."
    I suppose, strictly speaking, that is correct, compared with some winters which we have had in the past.

  • Comment number 40.

    36. QuaesoVeritas:

    Thanks for that. The current year to date (Jan-May) hadcrut3v figure is +0.309C, making it the 13th warmest YTD in the record. (The variance adjusted figure was 0.333C for May.)


  • Comment number 41.

    #40. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "The current year to date (Jan-May) hadcrut3v figure is +0.309C, making it the 13th warmest YTD in the record. (The variance adjusted figure was 0.333C for May.)"
    I have never been able to find out precisely how the "variance adjusted" figure is arrived at. I don't think it is the one which is normally quoted, so I don't usually take much notice of it.
    Also, bear in mind that the UKMO don't calculate the annual mean, or presumably that for any period longer than a month, by simply averaging the monthly figures, although of course the CRU do.


  • Comment number 42.

    QuaesoVeritas:

    Just a general question re your 30 year rolling trend. I have calculated this using hadcrut3v by running the 30 year linear trends from 1850, so the first value is at 1879, they then run consecutively until end 2010.

    The resultant graph gives a series of peaks and troughs and, as you have said, we appear to currently be descending into one of the troughs.

    But would you agree with me that each of the three peaks is a fair bit higher (warmer) than the last, and that the later trough bottoms at a much higher (warmer) level than the earlier one? Indeed, the trend in the 30 year data is +0.136C per century.

    First and foremost: have I done this correctly?

    Secondly: if so, then would you agree that although there are certainly cyclical peaks and troughs, there is 'still' an underlying upward trend in overall temperatures?

  • Comment number 43.

    #33 QV

    The paper raises a relevant question of the amounts of CO2 and SO2 that affect the global temperatures.

    'CLP Power's export of 3.1 billion kWh of electricity to the Mainland in 2004 has resulted in the emission of some 11,800 tonnes of sulphur dioxide, 6,100 tonnes of nitrogen oxide and 290 tonnes of respirable suspended particulates, which accounted for 12%, 7% and 4% of the total emission of the respective pollutants in Hong Kong in 2004. Owing to the emission of 2.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, the emission of greenhouse gases represented 6% of their total emission in Hong Kong. If CLP Power ceases to export electricity to the Mainland, it will reduce local emissions immediately, thus helping Hong Kong to meet the 2010 emission reduction targets and reduce air pollution.'
    http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200603/29/P200603290137.htm

    11,800 tonnes of sulphur dioxide, 2.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in the above example and the sulphur dioxide output reverses the effect of the global temperature increase related to overall CO2 emissions.

    I'm no scientist but I would love to see the figures looked over by those that are.

  • Comment number 44.

    41. QuaesoVeritas:

    I thought the variance adjusted value was the one more often quoted and the one that the CRU 'stand by'. It is certainly the one used by 'woodfortrees' and other sites.

  • Comment number 45.

    #40. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "The current year to date (Jan-May) hadcrut3v figure is +0.309C, making it the 13th warmest YTD in the record. (The variance adjusted figure was 0.333C for May.)"
    Sorry another follow up to this post.
    I just checked the official UKMO annual HadCRUT3 data file, and the figure quoted for 2011 so far is 0.279c, compared to the figure calculated using the simple average on the monthly figures of 0.302c. Assuming the UKMO YTD figure is calculated using the same method as the annual figure, it is the one which is most equivalent to the predicted figure of 0.44c, so that would seem that they are further away from the prediction than your figures would suggest.


  • Comment number 46.

    #42. - newdwr54 wrote:
    First and foremost: have I done this correctly?

    Secondly: if so, then would you agree that although there are certainly cyclical peaks and troughs, there is 'still' an underlying upward trend in overall temperatures?

    I think you have done a 30 year rolling trend, rather than a 50 year rolling trend,
    Actually, I haven't done a 30 year rolling trend, so I have nothing to compare what you say with, but it does sound generally correct. I also agree that there is a generall upward trend. I don't think I have ever denied this, only that the long-term upward trend is lower than the current one.
    Also, I notice that you are using HadCRUT3v, whereas I am using the more commonly quoted HadCRUT3.

  • Comment number 47.

    #44. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "I thought the variance adjusted value was the one more often quoted and the one that the CRU 'stand by'. It is certainly the one used by 'woodfortrees' and other sites."
    As far as I know, the most common is the non-variance adjusted figure. It is certainly the one quoted by the UKMO and in this recent Information Sheet by Phil Jones.
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

  • Comment number 48.

    newdwr54@32
    "In 2008 temperatures were -0.07C below the current top 10 warmest years, and -0.13C below the warmest. It would be very easy to get a prediction like Schmidt's wrong, so close are the margins."

    I don't usually argue the numbers since others, including yourself, are obviously much more comfortable handling the various data sets than myself. The list I was looking at was from wikipedia, (20 warmest years on record) NCDC using 1901 - 2000 global mean of 13.9 C.

    My point was about single year to year variation. So, the 2008 (0.4842) example you use should be viewed against the previous year (2007 =0.5509) to see the comparative drop which is around 0.07.

    What I'm saying is that for the last ten years, there hasn't been a year to year drop/rise above this 0.07 figure and often, the change is smaller. So starting off with a 2010 temp anomaly of 0.6171, this year would have to break the 10 sequence of modest year on year variation and be in the order of 0.1 or thereabouts. At the time of his prediction, Schmidt will have been aware of the ENSO forecasts and OHC. He would have seen nothing there to suggest that this year would break that sequence.

    Caveat - I'm not entirely sure that I know what I'm doing! Could be looking at the wrong list for a start.

  • Comment number 49.

    #48. - lateintheday wrote:
    "Caveat - I'm not entirely sure that I know what I'm doing! Could be looking at the wrong list for a start."
    Don't worry, I don't really think anyone really knows what they are doing.
    The list you are looking at appears to be correct for NCDC, and is generally correct for other anomalies, including HadCRUT3. However there are some slight differences between the NCDC and HadCRUT3 "top 20" and the sequence within the list, the most significant being that according to NCDC, 2005 was the warmest year, while according to the UKMO, it was 1998. However, that didn't stop the UKMO using the fact that according to NCDC, 2010 was almost as warm as 2005, as evidence that 2010 might have been the warmest year.
    Remember as well that because NCDC anomalies are relative to 1901-2000, it's anomalies will always be higher than those of HadCRUT3. To bring them approximately in line, you have to deduct 0.138c from NCDC.
    Having said that, I agree with your premise that for this year to be outside the top 10, the fall from last year will have to be unusually large, which is probably why Scmidt and the UKMO thought they were safe to make the prediction.
    However, note that the YTD figure for HadCRUT3 is currently 0.226c below the equivalent YTD figure for 2010 and 0.217c below the 2010 annual figure.
    Also, according to HadCRUT3, there was a fall of 0.254c between 1998, (the last El Nino year), and 1999, (something both Schmidt and the UKMO don't seem to have taken into account), so this year currently seems to be performing similarly to 1999.

  • Comment number 50.

    Thanks for that QV - felt like I was out of my comfort zone.
    I note that the ENSO 'ensemble forecast' is still showing a possible return to la nina conditions by September. That's not going to help Mr Schmidt's prediction. Without wishing to count chickens, it would be rather amusing just to see Schmidt's response if he's out-forecast by oft ridiculed Joe Bastardi.

  • Comment number 51.

    47. QuaesoVeritas:

    If that's the case then I stand corrected.

    I've used hadcrut3 unadjusted to run the 50 year trends (assuming 0.44 for 2011) and find the long term trend to be +0.6C per century and the trend since 1979 to be +2.45C per century. Does that sound right? It looks a bit high. Also, there is no sign of a dip yet in the latest peak.

    (I should correct #42 above, instead of +0.136C per century the hadcrut3v long term 30 year trend is currently +1.36C per century.)

    I'll try to get back to you later re the year to date averaging. I'm not quite sure how MO are doing it.

  • Comment number 52.

    48. lateintheday:

    I see what you mean now. Yes, that's probably a fair point you make based on NOAA. But there can be quite big differences in values year on year. For instance 2009 was warmer than 2008 by 0.118C in HadCRUT3.

  • Comment number 53.

    #51. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "I've used hadcrut3 unadjusted to run the 50 year trends (assuming 0.44 for 2011) and find the long term trend to be +0.6C per century and the trend since 1979 to be +2.45C per century. Does that sound right? It looks a bit high. Also, there is no sign of a dip yet in the latest peak."
    I am not sure if you are talking about the linear trend figures or a trend in the trend?
    According to my figures, the current 50 year linear trend is around 1.4c/century and it's true that it's not actually falling yet. If the figure of 0.6c is a trend of the trend, it's probably overstated because we are near a peak. The way I look at it is the change from trough to trough, which is about 0.5c.
    Are you using monthly or annual figures?

    "I'll try to get back to you later re the year to date averaging. I'm not quite sure how MO are doing it."
    I e-mailed the UKMO and got the following reply:
    "We average together the maps for the available months to get an average for the year so far in each 5-degree grid cell. We then take the area-weighted average of those grid cells to get northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere averages. The global average is the arithmetic mean of the two hemispheric values."

    Which is the same way they calculate the annual figure. That means that you have to use 0.279c for a true comparison with other years, if you are using UKMO annual figures but not CRU annual figures. The interesting thing is that before the fall in the monthly figure this month, the YTD annual figure was only 0.277c.


  • Comment number 54.

    Wrong again Paul! Piers Corbyn of Weather Action is not the only one that can claim success with this summers forecast. You have done this a few times now but what about James Madden of Exacta Weather.

    Check out his summer forecast that was published in January way before Piers below:

    http://www.exactaweather.com/UK_Long_Range_Forecast.html

    Then as publication evidence there is this sunday sun article below from the 10th April 2011 which states

    "But, sun worshippers have been warned to make the most of the hot weather as long range forecasters say the outlook for the summer is gloomy".

    James Madden said judging by "solar activity and the current ocean atmosphere across the globe, the UK could see more rain and a dip in temperatures in June, July and August. He said: "Based on the factors covered, the summer as a whole could unfortunately be colder than average with above average rainfall".

    "In my opinion, odds of a barbecue summer for this year are slim."


    What does everyone else reckon? and you Paul? I am not sure that this voluntary weather service and James Madden get the credit they deserve!!!

  • Comment number 55.

    Are we facing another icebox winter?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/the-northerner/2011/jun/22/winter-forecast-sharrow-bay-miller-howe-tesco-stockton-on-tees-campaign-for-wool

    Be afraid. Be quite afraid. One of the north's leading amateur forecasters says that next winter in the region is going to break all records.

    James Madden got things right ahead of last December's icy lows, which killed my cordyline palm along with almost all the others north of Birmingham (and many south).

    Now he says: "The UK should be bracing itself for well below average temperatures and widespread heavy snowfall throughout the winter of 2011/2012, which will result in the fourth bad winter in succession for the UK, and will prove to be the worst of them all."

    The prediction is based on Gulf Stream temperatures, solar activity and the cooling of oceans through the La Nina concept. It isn't quite as appealing as the fir cones and hedgehogs monitored by dear old Bill Foggitt of Thirsk, but 29-year-old Madden is gradually building up similar form. Let's come back to this in December – I promise to – and see if he's got it right again.

  • Comment number 56.

    Itssn: Yes, let's remember in December to compare his forecast with actual observation.

    I'm hoping he's right: another severe winter will give the rotten tottering Global Warming edifice another shove. Wake up, BBC! The general public are ever more scornful of the great hoax. We see through it; who at the BBC will challenge the gross waste of public money in measures to combat this ficticious threat?

  • Comment number 57.

    #55. - itssn11 wrote:
    "Now he says: "The UK should be bracing itself for well below average temperatures and widespread heavy snowfall throughout the winter of 2011/2012, which will result in the fourth bad winter in succession for the UK, and will prove to be the worst of them all."
    One thing I noticed about his winter forecast dated May 30th was that he shows two images of sunspots, to illustrate how low the numbers currently are. The first one shows sunspots during the maximum of 2001 and the other how they are now.
    However, this is misleading since we have not yet reached the maximum point in this cycle. In fact, the maximum phase of this cycle isn't due for at least another 12 months. Either he isn't aware of that or he is being deliberately misleading. Lets see how things compare when we are actually in the maximum phase.

  • Comment number 58.

    The Exactaweather winter forecast of May 30th doesn't say when the sunspot image from 2001 was taken, but judging from the number of spots, it may have been September of that year, when the ssn reached over 150.
    By my calculations, the equivalent date in the current cycle would be February 2014.

  • Comment number 59.

    I have just looked at the Winter forecast dated January 30th., in which there are also comparative images of the sun.
    Madden states that:
    "The fact also still remains that we should now be in a solar maximum. So let's take a look at how the sun should look during a solar maximum below. See Fig.1"
    Fig. 1 shows lots of spots and is dated 2003, which was actually after the peak of cycle 23. In comparison, Madden shows an image of the sun dated February 13th 2008, which is very near to the end of cycle 23 and therefore has few spots. He then goes on to show another image of the sun from January 2011, which again has few sunspots. However, there were images of the sun during January 2011 which did have sunspots on them, which he could have chosen. I have been photographing sunspots since last July, and while they have been somewhat scarce, they have been there. The impression given by Madden's images is that there haven't been any.
    How Madden works out that we should have been in a sunspot maximum in January 2011 is beyond me, since based on sunspot numers, we were then only 19 months into a cycle of potentially 132 months and a maximum wouldn't normall be expected to start until around month 45.

  • Comment number 60.

    It has just struck me that what Madden *may* mean is that based on an average 11 year/132 month cycle, cycle 24 should have started about 17 months earlier and consequently, by now we should be in the maximum of cycle 24.
    However even by adding 17 to 19, that would only put us at month 36, which would still be earlier than the normal start of the maximum phase.
    The fact remains however, that solar cycles do not all last 11 years. Cycle 23 was longer than average and cycle 24 started late, but that does not mean we should now be at maximum. The maximum phase will occur at the normal point in the cycle based on the later start. It is true that a late start to a cycle does normally point to a low maximum, but I don't expect anything along the lines of the "maunder minimum". Personally I think that the worst we can expect is something like the cycles which occurred between 1884 and 1929, which didn't produce particularly cold winters for the time. I also still feel that Madden's images are a bit misleading.

  • Comment number 61.

    # itssn11 @55

    Not another one. If he does have a record like Bill Foggitt, we have little to worry about. So please do come back to us in December - don't forget now!

    And what about that scorching August?

    The odds are looking a bit thin. As a rule a the weather pattern in July portends that of August (hence St Swithin's law). There are exceptions - most recently 2006 when many were expecting a continuation of July's record heat, which had it come would have added up to one of the greatest "flag cracking" summers of all time. But it all fizzled out. Perhaps this year may do the reverse but don't hold your breath.

    Not sure where it leaves the great Bastardi's "decent British summer" (whatever that means) either.

    Still, "it's not over 'till the fat lady sings".....

  • Comment number 62.

    Why does the bbc web forecast for my region (Hull) have sunny spells all day tomorrow (7th July), but your forecast on tonight's Look North has showers on and off for most of the day. The same applies to overnight temperates which have always varied widely. Surely both versions of the forecast are based on the same data? Or maybe it depends on what Peter Levy has to say.

  • Comment number 63.

    53. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "I am not sure if you are talking about the linear trend figures or a trend in the trend?"

    It is the trend within the trend. And I used annual figures for convenience (assuming 2011 as 0.44 as you suggested was probable).

    Now that you have explained how the MO work out their YTD values I can confirm that I am none the wiser (their fault, not yours).

    No wonder people are sceptical about climate science.

  • Comment number 64.

    #62. - ccs wrote:
    "Why does the bbc web forecast for my region (Hull) have sunny spells all day tomorrow (7th July), but your forecast on tonight's Look North has showers on and off for most of the day. The same applies to overnight temperates which have always varied widely. Surely both versions of the forecast are based on the same data? Or maybe it depends on what Peter Levy has to say."
    Because the BBC website forecast is virtually useless. It is based on the M.O. forecast but is updated less often, so essentially there is no point in using it. Plus, it probably isn't even for Hull. If you want the unadulterated M.O. forecast, then go to the M.O. website, don't bother with the BBC version.

  • Comment number 65.

    #63. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "It is the trend within the trend. And I used annual figures for convenience (assuming 2011 as 0.44 as you suggested was probable)."
    I don't think I did!
    The figure of 0.44c is the UKMO estimate and I actually think it is most unprobable.
    I think the annual figures will give you a similar curve but without the detail.
    If you get the time to do the calculations using the monthly figures, I would be in a position to confirm individual monthly figures. Plus there is a graph based on monthly figures on the climate4you website.


  • Comment number 66.

    Going back a bit to the item discussed # 22/24 about looming severe winters and whether or not this might be compared with the Little Ice Age (or even whether the LIA actually existed):

    As I understand the history, the phenomenon was much more profound than just more frequent severe winters over Europe (which there were, as well as mild ones and some very warm summers).

    Surely,the extremes in Europe coincided with greater arctic cold as well: extinction of Greenland colonies; periods of semi permanent sea ice causing near collapse and depopulation of Iceland: retreat of fish stocks southward and severe hardships in Norway, Faeroes etc. wandering Eskimos turning up in Scotland!(for example).

    This suggests that the cooling enveloped the Arctic and was not just a case of increased blocking balanced with mild conditions in Greenland such as we expect and generally get today. So I would suggest, the LIA and today are not really comparable - (and I am puzzled that Lockwood might think the LIA did not really exist).

  • Comment number 67.

    QuaesoVeritas,

    I am not sure what point you are trying to make about the SOHO images and how this may alter Madden's summer and winter forecast. He often comments on the fact that there are many other factors to consider such as; geomagnetic index, solar flux, position and rotation of sunspots, and the solar flares produced. Is he not also trying to illustrate the difference in colour? As I always thought the colour of a star come from the temperature? He has never said as much in his forecasts so I could be wrong, Unless SOHO have changed their image picture processing for some reason???

    QuaesoVeritas, How certain are you with your calculations of February 2014 for solar max? as you stated in the post above?

    I have read NASA literature from their own website and David Hathaway who claims to have cracked the suns conveyor belt as far back as 1890 states a return to solar max conditions in 2010, then 2011, then 2012, and now June 2013. He also claimed that solar cycle 24 would be one of the strongest on record, yet now he has said that we are about to experience the smallest sunspot cycle in over 100 years. It is quite clever what you have found there but irrelevant in my eyes as the science on this is a very dark area from my viewpoint. I think it is quite clear what Madden is trying to say, according to all NASA predictions we should now be in solar maximum conditions. Just to highlight on this little issue I will provide you with a NASA link below titled "solar cycle 24 Begins" dated Jan. 10, 2008: and what Hathaway actually said then in comparison to now above:

    "Intense solar activity won't begin immediately," notes Hathaway. "Solar cycles usually take a few years to build from solar minimum (where we are now) to Solar Max, expected in 2011 or 2012."

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/10jan_solarcycle24/

    Are you still certain in regards to your February 2014 calculation QuaesoVeritas?

    I can provide you with all the other NASA links on request if you like?

    One final thing QuaesoVeritas as you seem very knowledgeable to me. What is your take on the Gulf Stream/North Atlantic Drift? Should we be as concerned as Madden states? I found the comparative data that he posted on that very interesting, and even more so the quote he referred to from Matthew Fontaine Maury who was nicknamed "scientist of the seas".

    "A SIMPLE calculation will show that the quantity of heat discharged over the Atlantic from the waters of the Gulf Stream in a winter's day would be sufficient to raise the whole column of atmosphere that rests upon France and the British Islands from the freezing point to summer heat" (Maury, Physical Geography of the Sea, 1855).

  • Comment number 68.

    NOAA just released June Arctic Sea ice data - 2nd lowest June on record - after 2010: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/. So I guess you could say either that the long term decling trend in Arctic Sea ice is continuing apace, or else that global cooling has begun!

    Good. Keeps everyone happy.

  • Comment number 69.

    how about using Gordon Brown's technique . .
    arctic sea ice continues to show strong growth at -30,000 square miles per day.

    This decline had better slow soon or JB's prediction for 2011 is going down the pan. I think he had it around 5.5m at min for this year, which would've been some turnaround from 2010.

  • Comment number 70.

    #67. - itssn11 wrote:
    "Is he not also trying to illustrate the difference in colour? As I always thought the colour of a star come from the temperature? He has never said as much in his forecasts so I could be wrong, Unless SOHO have changed their image picture processing for some reason???"
    One thing I am certain of, is that there is absolutely no significance in the colour or the sun in the images. That is probably due to differences in the imaging techniques between the different images. If the sun does start to change colour, then you really need to worry!
    "How certain are you with your calculations of February 2014 for solar max? as you stated in the post above?"
    Actually I don't think I said that. My current estimate is between April 2012 and December 2012. That is based on my own calculations of when this cycle started and where we are in the cycle, using sunspot numbers, not on a theoretical starting point based on 11 year cycles, which seems to be the case with Madden.
    " He also claimed that solar cycle 24 would be one of the strongest on record, yet now he has said that we are about to experience the smallest sunspot cycle in over 100 years."
    That is probably based on the fact that cycle 24 was late in starting and that points to low sunspot numbers. However I don't think this cycle will be lower than that of cycle 16, which peaked in 1928.

    "Just to highlight on this little issue I will provide you with a NASA link below titled "solar cycle 24 Begins" dated Jan. 10, 2008: and what Hathaway actually said then in comparison to now above:
    "Intense solar activity won't begin immediately," notes Hathaway. "Solar cycles usually take a few years to build from solar minimum (where we are now) to Solar Max, expected in 2011 or 2012.""
    This cycle may have started in January 2008 based on the appearance of a reversed polarity sunspot, but in terms of actual sunspot numbers, I don't believe it started until July 2009. What Hathaway says seems to tie in roughly with what I say. He says 2011 or 2012 but based on my start date, I say 2012.

    I am not really knowledgeable about anything, and I didn't really read what Madden said about the Gulf Stream (got sidetracked by the sunspot issue), but I do know that it conveys a vast amount of energy to the UK and Europe. I heard once that the heat is equivalent to thousands of power stations (possibly millions), and without it, we would be as cold as Eastern Canada. However, I don't think%2

  • Comment number 71.

    The final sentence should have read:

    However, I don't think we need to be concerned about it based on the sunspot situation.

  • Comment number 72.

    #69. - lateintheday wrote:
    "This decline had better slow soon or JB's prediction for 2011 is going down the pan. I think he had it around 5.5m at min for this year, which would've been some turnaround from 2010."
    Presumably square miles, not square kilometers!

  • Comment number 73.

    hah - the m was supposed to be 'million' square miles but the way its going, it could be square metres.

  • Comment number 74.

    has doncaster fallen off your weather map as it appears to have vanished of your day time and evening weather map thanks jeff baldwin doncaster

 

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.