« Previous | Main | Next »

Jet stream set to spoil summer again

Paul Hudson | 16:32 UK time, Monday, 23 July 2012

After a fine and warm weekend across much of the country, temperatures today have reached 80 degrees Fahrenheit in Bridlington in East Yorkshire for the first time this summer - although similar values were reached in places for a time during late May.

It's certainly come as a welcome relief after a what's been a dreadful summer so far, which, according to Philip Eden writing for weather online, has been the worst first half of summer on record (summer for climatological reasons is June, July and August).

But in typical British fashion it looks like the summery conditions will prove to be short lived, with much of the country by the end of the week again under the influence of low pressure, bringing cooler and unsettled conditions, as the jet stream once more heads south.

For our region, wednesday will be the transition day, with more cloud in general and possibly the odd light shower. After that the more unsettled conditions will slowly take hold from the north.

And with the jet stream likely to remain further south than normal as we head into early August, unsettled & cool weather will once again dominate our weather.

Follow me on twitter @Hudsonweather

Comments

Page 1 of 2

  • Comment number 1.

    Heck of a coincidence that there was a huge CME a few days ago, just before the Jet Stream shifted North and now it's moving back South again. It would be interesting if this was repeated during the next year, solar max for SC24!

  • Comment number 2.

    The jet stream shifted slowly poleward during the late 20th century warming spell from around 1975 to about 2000.

    I first noticed that the poleward drift stopped around 2000 then in 2008 I started pointing out that fact in blogs and commented that I saw evidence of an erratic equatorward drift which has since become more pronounced.

    During the 50s and 60s the jets were about where they are now and it seems that in the LIA they were even further south and in the MWP further north.

    Meanwhile those shifts appear to correspond to changes in the activity levels of the sun. I have explained how it could work (here and elsewhere) on a number of occasions.

  • Comment number 3.

    Stephen

    Good to hear from you, do you have anything current for us, I think the last post I saw was at Tallblokes late last year?

  • Comment number 4.

    Hi ukpahonta.

    What do you want to know ?

    From my point of view the ongoing climate observations continue to support my New Climate Model.

    There are a number of specific climate events that could consign it to the dustbin but none of them have happened so far.

  • Comment number 5.

    Yes, it has been glorious here for the last few days - but I can well believe Philip Eden's comments.

    Just a few more "nature notes" - for those of you that think this weather is a bit of unimportant variation.

    Went on a walk this WE to check on Grasshopper numbers (as I've not heard any "sing" yet this year). On a good piece of chalk grassland over about a third of a mile - only counted about 10 grasshoppers- only one of which was mature. Normally one would expect about 10 per sq. metre or so on this site and they are normally mature from about mid June onward. A total population collapse presumably due to wetness and lack of sun.

    Many wild cherries remain almost leafless following the disease brought by April May June cold & wet.

  • Comment number 6.

    To Stephen Wilde above:

    What does the wider climate science fraternity think of your "New Climate Model"? Presumably you have had or are intending to have it published in a proper science journal, rather than just untested blogs, as it does sound rather important.

    Otherwise we will never know whether there is anything to it or not, will we?

  • Comment number 7.

    jkiller56

    The climate establishment is ignoring it but there has been a favourable response across the blogosphere.

    Perhaps it has not been completely ignored because there is now active research in the areas that are critical such as upper atmosphere temperature trends in response to solar variability and the degree of meridionality, zonality and latitudinal positioning of the jets and climate zones.

    Furthermore lots of other bloggers have a grip on individual components but I think I am the only one to have presented a coherent overview that fits a wide variety of,if not all, observations and complies with the basic physics.

    My approach has been to put it out there and compare to observations as they arise.

    So far so good.

    My hypothesis does however require one critical component, namely a reverse sign temperature response to solar variability in the stratosphere and mesosphere. Without that I would need a serious rethink.

    For the jetstreams to behave in the way I propose we need a naturally cooling stratosphere when the sun is active and a naturally warming stratosphere when the sun is inactive.

    Apparently there is now evidence to support that in the region above 45km and I am awaiting further data with interest.

    At present I have no idea how to present it in a form that would be aceptable to a proper science journal nor the time and funds to arrange it but it is out there and if proved correct I am sure someone will volunteer assistance and / or funds. Even if not, the evidence is in the public domain that I diagnosed the correct climate mechanisms first.

    Hopefully :)

  • Comment number 8.

    Stephen

    Do you feel that we will be having an extensive period of more Southern jet stream activity than Northern, opposite of what we have been used to in the latter period of the 20th century?
    Perhaps in the same manner we will have a decade or two with more negative ENSO than positive.

  • Comment number 9.

    ukpahonta

    If the sun stays quieter than it was during the late 20th century then for so long as that continues I expect to see the Arctic Oscillation more negative than it was then, the jets more equatorward and / or more meridional, global cloudiness greater and less energy getting into the oceans with a slow fall in ocean heat content and eventually a slow fall in troposphere temperatures.

    So far, the effect of the quieter sun has only been to stop the warming trend but the sun is less active than it has been since the late 19th century so if that continues we should soon see an actual fall.

    My main reservation is that it is a bit early for us to have passed the peak of the current warm period so I would have thought that there should be a period of more active sun again before we properly start the decline towards the next period similar to the LIA and the Dark Ages.

    However, unless the sun does pick up in cycles 25 or 26, then I'd guess that we are already at or just passing the peak warmth.

    Note that due to the scale of chaotic variability within the climate system and the confounding effects of ocean cycles I try only to deduce longer term climate shifting on multidecadal timescales. I leave it to others to try to use solar behaviour to predict or account for shorter term weather events.

    I will be unsurprised if short term bursts of intense solar activity could cause short term shifts in jetstream behaviour. Even so, given the mobility of the jets both latitudinally and longitudinally, I think it would still be hard to reliably predict the regional weather consequences.

  • Comment number 10.

    As regards ENSO a positive phase gives stronger El Nino relative to La Nina (a warming troposphere) whilst a negative phase gives weaker El Nino relative to La Nina (a cooling tropophere).

    I see the role of solar activity levels as further skewing that balance thus:

    i) A period of more active sun reduces global cloudiness by causing a more positive Arctic Oscillation (AO) which draws the jets and climate zones poleward to reduce global cloudiness and allow more energy into the oceans. That skews ENSO further in favour of El Nino relative to La Nina.

    ii) A period of less active sun increases global cloudiness by causing a more negative AO which pushes the jets and climate zones more equatorward to induce more global cloudiness allowing less energy into the oceans. That skews ENSO against El Nino relative to La Nina.

    As regards the existence of ENSO in the first place I have a suggestion for that too.

    Due to the current landmass distribution the ITCZ is on average north of the equator. The result is that there is a differential in solar energy entering the oceans north and south of the equator.

    That differential builds up over time until it reaches a level whereby the excess energy in the southern oceans must be released to the northern oceans despite the constraining effect of the Earth's rotation acting via the ocean circulation and the wind patterns set up by that rotation.

    That energy release from southern to northern oceans happens periodically in pulses hence the ENSO process.

    The role of the level of solar activity is then to skew the balance between El Nino and La Nina during the ENSO process depending on whether the net effect of solar behaviour is warming or cooling.

  • Comment number 11.

    On several occasions now I've had the feeling that when we get bad weather in summer the sea ice levels often take a dive and when we get good weather the sea ice loss often stalls. Almost as if a whole "weather swap" thing is going on.

    Maybe I've just missed contrary cases though, I haven't looked at actual data. But anecdotally if we return to rain and clouds next week I wouldn't be surprised if the sea ice falls to a new record low.

  • Comment number 12.

    Yes, I noticed a few days ago in my local forecast that the temps. took a bit of a nosedive from wed/thurs, so I suspected that the jetstream was moving south again.
    The latest NCEP GFS extended forecast on the Ryan Maue site looks cool for the u.k. from the 28th to Aug. 4th, and there are some negative global anomalies.
    http://policlimate.com/weather/current/ext_raw_temp_c.html

  • Comment number 13.

    Stephen

    I may be wrong but I foresee three possibilities for SC24:

    1) It's just a slow start and more vigorous activity this winter will bring a higher max next year returning the NH Jet Stream to the North more consistently giving UK more warm conditions as we have grown accustomed to..... unlikely I think but a lot of people are depending upon this.

    2) There is an elongated max at current average levels giving the occasional 'burp' that produces more extreme variability with Jet Stream swinging North and South regularly with the attached weather patterns...... possible, but is this what we currently witnessing?

    3) There is a much lower than normal max over next year with activity tailing off to what we would consider an extended minimum with Jet Stream sitting further South over the UK for longer periods giving us weather similar to what we have experienced so far this year....... plausible but not even considered a risk by Met Office or IPCC.

    As far as SC25,26 then I defer to those such as yourself that have a longer viewpoint.
    I do hope that there is a greater solar influence on policy in AR5 as U turns tend to come too late for us little people.

  • Comment number 14.

    Paul. According to the BBC web site, next week is going to be 23 C every day, which seems to contradict what you are saying.

  • Comment number 15.

    #14. - Tim wrote:
    "Paul. According to the BBC web site, next week is going to be 23 C every day, which seems to contradict what you are saying."
    What is the location?
    23c isn't particularly warm for London!

  • Comment number 16.

    Stephen Wilde, is this the most comprehenisve description of your New Climate Model or do you have any more detailed papers available?
    http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/ANewAndEffectiveClimateModel.pdf

    Do you have any links to your comparisons of your model to observations?

  • Comment number 17.

    OPatrick

    That is the most comprehensive overview (also published and discussed at WUWT) but I have gone into some more specific details here:

    http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/How%20The%20Sun%20Could%20Control%20Earths%20Temperature.pdf

    as regards the actual mechanism

    and here:

    http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/TheSettingAndMaintainingOfEarth.pdf

    As regards the basic system energy content

    and here:

    http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/TheUnifyingTheoryofEarthsClimate.pdf

    as to how it all fits together.

  • Comment number 18.

    QuaesoVeritas. 23 C is warm enough. Who's bothered about London any way, I thought this was geared to Yorkshire. Is God showing his displeasure at them having the Cartel for the Olympics?

  • Comment number 19.

    "having the Cartel for the Olympics"

    seems more like a curse to me. I am glad I am not commuting in London next week.

  • Comment number 20.

    Glad to see Stephen Wilde getting a decent outing and no spurious IPCC CO2 interjections claiming it's all to do with excess energy from the water vapour!

    The climate models are arranged to prove this. They exaggerate IR absorbed in the atmosphere by a factor of 5 then offset it by exaggerated cloud albedo. The net result is to have the same average heat input but, because evaporation kinetics are a strong function of the air/sea temperature difference, you get imaginary positive feedback via the water cycle due to the difference between sunlit and cloudy ocean evaporation. Very clever: took some spotting.

    Add to this that because CO2 is in IR self-absorption mode by ~200 ppmV, there can be no CO2-AGW and you see how badly deceived we have been.
    This is not to say there is no CO2 danger - that comes if extra acidity in the oceans changes the type of phytoplankton that dominate, with a significant potential effect on cloud albedo.

  • Comment number 21.

    17. Stephen Wilde:

    I'm sure it was an over-site, but in the update (which is dated 05 September 2011) to your January 2009 essay 'The Unifying Theory of Earth’s Climate', you missed the opportunity to update many of your graphs.

    For example, the UAH data had been updated to August 2011 by the time of your last revision, yet your graph ("Figure 3- Falling Temperatures") still finishes it at Dec 2008. Fig. 3 shows the UAH 'r-squared' value from Jan 02 to Dec 08 as -0.35; but in fact by August 2011 this figure was +0.005, and it remains positive at the moment.

    Your Fig. 5 meanwhile ends at the 'beginning' of 2008. You somehow omitted the rest of the 2008 data, even though your essay was published when this was readily available. That's a pity, because if you'd included the rest of the 2008 data it would have neatly answered the question you posed in your caption for Fig. 5 - "Sea Level Rise, has it peaked?". *Emphatically not* was already the answer by the time you published your essay.

    About two monthys after your data in Fig.5 abruptly stops, sea levels reached a new (then) peak of 47.3 mm, which is 2.2mm higher than the highest peak in your graph. Overall, since 2008, despite two recent La Nina events, long term sea level rise has continued at a consistent rate (currently 3.1 mm/yr +/- 0.4mm), last peaking about 6 weeks ago at 56.3mm, or 11.2mm above the highest peak in your graph: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

    There appear to be several other graphs that require updating (the ENSO data ends in 2003, for example), and you might wish to consider doing this when you next revise your paper?

  • Comment number 22.

    Hmm I thought the theory was about solar influence on UK weather not global temperature. If considering global temperature the jet stream becomes less important and factoring in the influence of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is a must.

  • Comment number 23.

    Quake. It is a curse unless you are a rich non domicile tourist in London, I don't think the people of London had realised how much the event would disrupt them, until all the VIP lanes close down. What concerns me is the black hole, once the true cost of the games comes to light. Wouldn't the money be better spent on creating jobs in renewable energy, so that we can trade these products with the rest of the world.

  • Comment number 24.

    newdwr54

    I would expect that the approach of the cycle 24 solar maximum albeit a weakish one would be responsible for any recent deviations from the longer term trend.

    My main interest is in the inflection points that seem to have occurred shortly after 1998 rather than individual ups and downs since then.

    It is clear that the slopes of temperature rise and ocean heat content increase are no longer as they were.

    Meanwhile the stratosphere is no longer cooling and cloudiness has increased as jetstream meridionality increased.

    All at a time of less active sun.

    quake

    Jetstream behaviour around the world and in both hemispheres is what matters most.

    You can factor in GHGs by proposing an effect on the jets but it is miniscule compared to the solar and oceanic natural shifts which is why the jets are no longer drifting poleward despite still increasing CO2.

  • Comment number 25.

    quake; because CO2 is by ~200 ppmV in IR self-absorption mode, there can be no CO2-AGW, physics unknown to climate science but standard in spectroscopy.

    The false belief [in climate science] that the Earth has to radiate as a black body in a vacuum is behind the imaginary concept that the absence of band IR at TOA proves absorption of those bands in the atmosphere.

    In reality, GHGs in self-absorption must switch off IR band emission from the Earth's surface. The quenching of IR band emission, called line inversion in spectroscopy, restricts IR emission to the 'atmospheric window' and non self-absorbing IR bands.

    Thus there can be no CO2-AGW and the GHE is a fixed value for all water planets.

  • Comment number 26.

    "Jetstream behaviour around the world and in both hemispheres is what matters most. You can factor in GHGs by proposing an effect on the jets"

    All that matters is energy in vs energy out. The impact of GHGs is to reduce energy out such that the climate must reorganize to rebalance. With everything else held constant temperatures must rise 1C to regain rebalance if CO2 is doubled. That's approximately as much warming between the little ice age and today.

    Not factoring in the ongoing CO2 rise will result in any estimates of future global temperature to be seriously incorrect.

  • Comment number 27.

    Re 25: "because CO2 is by ~200 ppmV in IR self-absorption mode"

    The radiation models used by climate scientists are quite accurate compared with what actually happens in the atmosphere. The models are afterall based on the same measurements and observations used by the military over many decades for the purposes of designing missiles. If climate models are wrong on radiation then heat seeking missiles must be wrong too. It's the same science.

  • Comment number 28.

    quake,

    Jet stream behaviour and the position of the climate zones is the climate mechanism that adjusts energy in to equal energy out.

    You cannot change those things without changing the rate of energy flow from surface to space.

    So, with the rate of energy flow from surface to space changing there is no need for a temperature rise because everything else is NOT held constant.

    GHG's reduce the rate of energy out but the circulation changes to speed it up again for a zero net effect.

    System energy content is set by surface atmospheric pressure plus top of atmosphere insolation and the atmospheric circulation always reconfigures to maintain energy out = energy in at top of atmosphere for any particular surface pressure and level of insolation.

    The atmosphere expands and contracts as necessary to maintain equilibrium at top of atmosphere with no net global change in surface temperature required except regionally as a result of a redistribution of the climate zones.

  • Comment number 29.

    quake; GHGs make it more difficult for the energy to get out hence the Earth's temperature does rise. However, there is no and can be no accumulation of energy in the atmosphere or the seas from GHGs in the self-absorbing mode [no increase in absorptivity as concentration rises].

    The IPCC science that purports such an accumulation of energy is based on a physical model, direct thermalisation by collision with O2/N2, precluded by quantum exclusion. In 1993, Will Happer warned of this but was ignored.

    14 years of no warming has been the clincher.

  • Comment number 30.

    Don't try to convince me, convince the fields of physicists and climate scientists and overturn the textbooks. I am literally parroting what they say.

    By the way there has been warming in the last 14 years.

  • Comment number 31.

    Total Precipitable Water has also been decreasing slowly for 14 years!

  • Comment number 32.

    12---I was unable to respond to your last post on the previous blog as the thread was closed by the administrator. You will see that in the period 16 -19th July it actually says in relation to Scotland 'less wet LATER'( my capitalisation), by definition meaning that it must have been more wet earlier. Pot kettle and black applies.

  • Comment number 33.

    quake: Regarding heat seeking missiles, I have had the same from Steve Mosher. I told him the two-stream approximation works fine [the emissivity/absorptivity errors cancel out] except when you get to boundaries.

    Thus at TOA, the modellers assume Kirchhoff's Law of Radiation applies at serious non-equilibrium. It cannot so there is no 238.5 W/m^2 down. That implies the direct thermalisation IR physics is wrong too.

    That extra energy has to be countered. Houghton's mistaken understanding of the emissivity of the atmosphere [he claims it is black body, later grey body] and the same claim for the Earth's surface made up by the 333 W/m^2 'back radiation' gives the imaginary extra 94.5 W/m^2 hence the imaginary positive feedback.

    No competent scientist would have made that assumption. I have had a [Met. Office?] modeller trying to convince me with a trick that it's valid but that trick assumes Kirchhoff's law applies to severe non-equilibrium, not possible.

    You cannot magick energy out of the aether. UK Government knows there is a serious problem and the politicians bought by the carbon traders are desperately trying to hold the line. they will fail because it will destroy the economy.

  • Comment number 34.

    33---Aye, and now Osbornes is realising that

  • Comment number 35.

    24. Stephen Wilde wrote:

    "It is clear that the slopes of temperature rise and ocean heat content increase are no longer as they were."

    It all depends on where you decide to start and finish your data. For instance, @ Fig. 3, which is labelled "Falling Temperatures", in the essay you updated in September 2011, for no explained reason you choose to start the UAH data at Jan 2002 and end it in December 2008.

    This is despite the fact that UAH data through to August 2011 was available to you at the time of the update, and its addition would have radically altered the regression slope in you graph, making it positive rather than negative.

    All can play that game. If we take, say, the last five years in UAH data then we get strong warming: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2007.5/plot/uah/from:2007.5/trend Some people might call this a 'cherry-pick', and it is. Just as the selection of 2002-2008 is a 'cherry-pick'.

    The slopes within temperature data always show radical changes over terms as short as five or seven years. Therefore it is clearly rash to attempt to draw conclusions about long term climate changes from these shorter periods.

    It appears from your comments that you have no intention of updating the graphs in your essay? In which case, it's fairly obvious why none of your papers have been accepted for peer review.

  • Comment number 36.

    "Therefore it is clearly rash to attempt to draw conclusions about long term climate changes from these shorter periods."

    I don't. You do.

    I simply note the inflection points around 2000 and see that there are similar inflection points but in the opposite direction in the mid 70s.

    The mid 70s is when the sun became more active after a relatively quiet cycle 20 and the time around 2000 is the time when the sun became less active on the decline from strong cycle 23.

    I will update the graphs after a suitable period of time when the effect of the upswing of cycle 24 has dissipated.

    I am playing a long game here, not quibbling about short term ups and downs.

    As for peer review the modern and more reliable method is open review in the blogosphere not closed door review by a few mates.

  • Comment number 37.

    36---Talking about the long game, you might find the implications from the work of the team led by Julia Brigham Grette at El'gygytgyn , Northeast Siberia very interesting. Even just googling Julia Brigham Grette describes research at El'gygytgyn would work and it's also now on youtube.

  • Comment number 38.

    Thanks Boanta, here is a link:

    http://community.adn.com/node/161680

    For me the takeaway point from her video is that when the Antarctic Peninsula is stripped away the Arctic subsequently becomes much warmer.

    Let me describe how that plays under my hypothesis.

    Zonal / poleward jets result in a faster air circulation around the poles with warmer air trying to approach the poles but being prevented from reaching the pole itself so the actual pole becomes colder.

    Warmer air circulating faster around Antarctica would obviously strip down the Antarctic Peninsula over time. The warm air would cut the peninsula away leaving a more circular Antarctic.

    However more zonal / poleward jets also reduce global cloudiness to let more energy into the oceans which increases ocean heat content and skews ENSO in favour of warm El Ninos relative to cool La Ninas.

    That warmer ocean water eventually circulates to the Arctic Ocean and makes the entire Arctic warmer.

    Exactly as per the observations of Julia.

    Now, on the timescales she mentions the main factor is Milankovitch cycling but the same principle would apply to lesser forcings such as solar variability on the observed 1000 year timescale of Roman Warm Period to Dark Ages to Mediaeval Warm Period to Little Ice Age to Current Warm Period.

    The clincher is that during the late 20th century warming period we did indeed observe melting of the Antarctic Peninsula (but not the interior which actually cooled) whilst at the same time or shortly afterwards the Arctic has warmed.

    A perfect validation of my hypothesis but I await more findings to establish a proof.

  • Comment number 39.

    @35, newdwr54 wrote:

    “ It appears from your comments that you have no intention of updating the graphs in your essay? In which case, it's fairly obvious why none of your papers have been accepted for peer review. “

    Perhaps you should direct your criticism at the multitude of papers by 'real' climate scientists that have passed peer review even though they used out of date proxies and removed decades of data.

  • Comment number 40.

    38---Thanks Stephen. I'm something of an 'Alaskophile' and have been there several times in both a professional capacity( I'm a fish biologist with a special interest in Arctic Charr) and socially, so your link is greatly appreciated. Right now BTW, Alaska is having a very cool summer and indeed there's been fresh snow in Barrow.
    I have a long term interest in El'gygytgyn, because, due to its long isolation and absence of full glaciation, the charr population there is expressing extreme polymorphism and physiological adaptation--an Arctic Galapagos if you like.
    However great the paleo-climatic and paleo-ecological intrinsic value of the research, for me the revelations of multiple 'super-interglacials' with world and especiallypolar temperatures very much warmer than today, where the Greenland and Antarctic icesheets basically disappeared many times, really takes the 'boo' out of the AGW 'boogieman' we have been threatened with for years.

  • Comment number 41.

    36. Stephen Wilde:

    The period I use for inferring climate trends from temperature data is 30 years - the period recommended by the WMO. When you apply that criterion to all the main global temperature data sets you get a very consistent value. In HadCRUT, NASA, NOAA, UAH and RSS it is +0.16C per decade (+/- 0.01C) *warming*.

    "I simply note the inflection points around 2000 and see that there are similar inflection points but in the opposite direction in the mid 70s."

    If you look at the rolling 30 year trend then there is an upturn in the mid 70s and a downturn around the mid 2000s. But this is just a *trend*, i.e. a 'rate' at which temperatures are rising. For instance, based on the 30 year rolling trend, temperatures were rising at a rate of +0.19C per decade around 2005; currently they're rising at +0.16C per decade.

    The point is they're are still rising, not falling, as one would expect with a reduced solar output (and as Don Easterbrook clearly expected according to that essay of his you cited).

    However if you use exactly the same temperature data and apply a rolling 30 year *average*, which is a reflection of actual temperatures and not just the rate at which they change, then there is no such downturn from 2005. Using the 30-year rolling average, there has been a near-continuous linear rise since the mid 1970s, right through the 2000s and it's still rising today.

    "I will update the graphs after a suitable period of time when the effect of the upswing of cycle 24 has dissipated."

    Rather than acknowledge that there has been, as far as you're concerned, some very difficult-to-explain warming since 2008, you're waiting for a downturn before updating your graphs. In my view that is a very selective and non-scientific approach. What reputable journal do you expect would permit publication of that sort of material?

  • Comment number 42.

    39. RobWansbeck wrote:

    "Perhaps you should direct your criticism at the multitude of papers by 'real' climate scientists that have passed peer review even though they used out of date proxies and removed decades of data."

    Can you give a specific example?

  • Comment number 43.

    Re 40: "However great the paleo-climatic and paleo-ecological intrinsic value of the research, for me the revelations of multiple 'super-interglacials' with world and especiallypolar temperatures very much warmer than today, where the Greenland and Antarctic icesheets basically disappeared many times, really takes the 'boo' out of the AGW 'boogieman' we have been threatened with for years."

    I would think it's more a cause for concern that the poles can get so hot in response to such a small change in Earth's orbit. It suggests the climate, or at least the polar climates, contain a strong positive feedbacks. Feedbacks stronger than contained in current climate models.

    I suspect in coming years the arctic may reveal some disturbing insights, with the greenland ice sheet this year showing it's most widespread level of melt recorded to date.
    http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/07/unprecedented-greenland-ice-sheet-surface-melt-.html

    And arctic sea ice concentration flirting with record lows, despite not nearly as optimal conditions for melt as seen in 2007.
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

  • Comment number 44.

    #32. - Boanta wrote:
    "12---I was unable to respond to your last post on the previous blog as the thread was closed by the administrator. You will see that in the period 16 -19th July it actually says in relation to Scotland 'less wet LATER'( my capitalisation), by definition meaning that it must have been more wet earlier. Pot kettle and black applies."
    My apologies.
    It does appear that I have missed the word "later" from my quote. This was not deliberate and I have been trying to work out how this could have happened. I think it may have been due to the fact that, being unable to cut and paste from the document, I transcribed it manually and my eye may have jumped to the end of the 20 to 23rd forecast line, which does not include "later".
    However, I don't think that the inclusion of "later" means that you can infer that the forecast of "Torrential rain, major river flooding, damaging hail, high tornado risk and thunder", applied equally to Scotland as to England, Wales and Ireland, since Scotland is not mentioned in that list of locations. On the other hand, were such weather conditions actually experienced in the locations mentioned?
    I think that this sort of ambiguity is precisely the problem with WeatherAction foreasts, as it means that everyone can put their own interpretation on the forecasts and claim accuracy or inaccuracy as desired. I think it would be much better if the forecast were in a much less ambiguous format, which would prevent any such misunderstanding.

  • Comment number 45.

    "Rather than acknowledge that there has been, as far as you're concerned, some very difficult-to-explain warming since 2008"

    I don't think so:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2012-0-37-deg-c/

    You are just relying on the 2010 El Nino peak. It has come down again since.

    I have always acknowledged that the ocean cycles introduce short term effects that overlay the solar signal and that is all that you are relying on to salvage your position.

  • Comment number 46.

    #43. - quake wrote:
    "I suspect in coming years the arctic may reveal some disturbing insights, with the greenland ice sheet this year showing it's most widespread level of melt recorded to date."
    The most widespread level of SURFACE melt recorded since SATELLITE records began?
    Apparently such melting occurs regularly every 150 years or so, although I don't entirely understand how they can know that:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/24/greenland-ice-sheet-thaw-nasa

    "Lora Koenig, another Goddard glaciologist, told Nasa similar rapid melting occurs about every 150 years. But she warned there were wide-ranging potential implications from this year's thaw."

  • Comment number 47.

    44---Your apology is accepted and now we can get back to more amicable 'ding dongs'. Thanks.

  • Comment number 48.

    43---Yes I think you are right in that we just don't know enough about orbital/solar forcing/feedbacks and outcomes. We know for sure however that we can't invoke anthropogenic CO2 in the massive meltdowns of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice. Perhaps we should just consider this as 'normal' in the geochronological sense and scale of things.

  • Comment number 49.

    Dear Paul,
    I see that some of your bloggers completely dismiss and assume
    that rising temperatures have nothing to do with large emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Could an explanation be offered as to why the forecast models
    are showing rather a large pool of 564 dm (subtropical)air sitting over Southern Greenland the next few days especially as we are meant to be in a period of relatively low solar activity?

    Yours A

  • Comment number 50.

    "Could an explanation be offered as to why the forecast models
    are showing rather a large pool of 564 dm (subtropical)air sitting over Southern Greenland the next few days"


    Why would it be anything do do with human emissions of CO2 rather than just an upswing of the more meridional jets ?

    CO2 was supposed to be making the jets more zonal not meridional.

  • Comment number 51.

    Solar output is not only heat and light but a varied collection of outputs one being the solar magnetic field which has a great influence on temperature/climate. At the moment this is at low level.

    Jet streams are too large an effect to blame human intup. Models might get that answer but we all know how poor models are.

  • Comment number 52.

    in all seriousness stephen it is very rare that the 564 line should manifest itself over Greenland. I recall that there were odd pools in late July 2006 never saw it happen through the eighties/nineties. But the pool forecast is simply the largest I have ever seen forecast. Obviously it remains to be seen that this actually happens in the next few days.
    Yes it's a large meridonial advection and break off of very warm air. That's fact but that's not enough for me. Actually I believe somebody else has remarked that glacial melt is high this year in Greenland. A few days of this could be interesting.

  • Comment number 53.

    45. Stephen Wilde wrote:

    "You are just relying on the 2010 El Nino peak. It has come down again since."

    In Figure 3 of your January 2009 essay you used a short period of UAH data ending in December 2008. December 2008 was the 22nd straight month in which the ENSO index had been negative, and there was an 11 month long La Nina event within that period. The cooling effect this had on global surface temperatures is clearly visible in the UAH temperature series you linked to.

    So it's fair to say, using your own observation above, that the cooling trend depicted in your Fig. 3 is strongly reliant on the 2008 La Nina, which bottomed out in Jan and Feb that year and continued until June. You can't have it one way and not the other.

    As I said before, I prefer the WMO's recommended period of 30 years for inferring climate changes from temperature data. It irons out short term ENSO, volcanic and solar fluctuations.

    Using just a few years' data and ending it at the lowest (or highest) point in the past decade, then not updating the data when you have the opportunity to do so despite knowing that it has radically changed, can hardly be described as an even-handed approach.

  • Comment number 54.

    Greenland ice core data shows that this maximelt event is normal at a 150 years cycle, as demonstrated in the ice core data. If this water, which is ''fresh'' has no place to run and escape it will be the first to freeze in about 3 months.
    It is no good predicting climate doom and gloom and then state that this event is cyclic and has happened many times back which NASA stated in their press release.
    A bit of a foot shooting.

  • Comment number 55.

  • Comment number 56.

    "Using just a few years' data and ending it at the lowest (or highest) point in the past decade, then not updating the data when you have the opportunity to do so despite knowing that it has radically changed"

    That is a false accusation.

    The important periods are around 1975 and 2000. There was a change in trend on both occasions in a variety of climate parameters. Those changes have not been eliminated by more recent events although the second of the two is a little less pronounced at present.

    The recent uptick is most likely temporary and due to the building peak of solar cycle 24.

    There is no point attaching weight to shorter term changes as you are doing.

    You are accusing me of the very behaviour that you are indulging in.

  • Comment number 57.

    Yes I see that 97% of the Greenland surface showed some signs of melt. Well that looks likely to be repeated again in the next few days. I've been keeping an eye on the charts over Greenland these last 6 years and I have to say there have been some quite unusual setups synoptically up there. In some ways the present situation is one step on from what happened during the highly unusual spell from the last week in November 2010 to the end of December 2010. Whilst we were shivering with the 528 and even the 510 line over us the 546 line was covering southern Greenland for much of the time. Whilst we were enduring -5 to -20 they were basking in temperatures of +12 to +13C and then there was that cyclogenic event over the centre of the ice cap mid December 2010 a most curious event.

  • Comment number 58.

    56. Stephen Wilde:

    "That is a false accusation".

    It's not an accusation at all; it's an observation of what you've actually done.

    In your 2009 essay (here: http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/TheUnifyingTheoryofEarthsClimate.pdf ) in Figure 3 (page 2) you show UAH data starting in Jan 2002 and ending in Dec 2008. There are a number of points here:

    1. Why did you start the UAH data for Figure 3 in 2002, when you have said several times now that "the important periods are around 1975 and 2000". Why not start your data in 2000? I note that the UAH trend between 2000 and 2008 is positive; whereas the trend between 2002 and 2008 is negative.

    2. You had the opportunity to update your charts in September 2011, by which point UAH data up to August 2011 was available. The trend in UAH between Jan 2002 and August 2011 is positive. Yet you chose not update the charts, leaving Figure 3 ending at 2008 and marked "Falling temperatures".

    "There is no point attaching weight to shorter term changes as you are doing."

    By using just seven years data, terminating it at the end of the coldest year in the past decade, and marking it "Falling temperatures" it is *you* who is attaching weight to short term changes, not me. I've said twice already that, per the WMO advice, 30 years is required to accurately infer patterns of climate change from temperature data.

    "You are accusing me of the very behaviour that you are indulging in."

    The opposite is true.

  • Comment number 59.

    @42, newdwr54 wrote:

    “ Can you give a specific example? “

    Mann et al 2008 uses Law Dome 1997 rather than the 2003 version.

  • Comment number 60.

    Is that it?

    In a paper that utilised literally hundreds of proxy data from all across the world to determine surface temperature variation over the past two millennia, your case rests on an allegation that one of these (ice cores from one region of Antarctica) was based on data that was not quite the latest then available?

    OK. Let's assume you're not clutching at straws here.

    If this is a valid problem, i.e. if it in any way invalidates the conclusions of Mann et al 2008, then a peer reviewed rebuttal of the paper would already have been published, or at least be in the process of publication. Is this the case?

    Because if it's not, then all you have is yet more bluster and hand waving from the usual suspects.

  • Comment number 61.

    "Why not start your data in 2000?"

    Simply because we all know of the warming trend pre 2002 (which is 'around' 2000).

    The chart from 2002 to 2008 when I wrote the article shows a decline.

    If one then adds the period 2008 to 2010 it is true that there is then a very slight positive slope but that slope is far shallower than the pre 2002 slope hence my assertion that there was an inflection point around 2000. Even including data to 2011 that inflection point is still present.

    If we then add the period 2011 to date the positive slope reduces again leaving the whole recent period pretty much flat so again my point is correct.

    The fact is that we have been moving solar activity up towards a solar maximum for the past several years so one would expect that to mitigate against the effects of La Ninas and add to the effects of El Ninos.

    Thus the slight recovery from the negative slope would be a result of the approaching solar maximum and nothing to do with CO2.

    If we go into a weak cycle 25 then the negative slope should intensify. If that does happen then my point will be proved.

    Quite simply the slope is greater for the 15 years pre 2002 (and pre 2000) than it is after 2002 (or 2000) and only by cherry picking can one get the slope to increase again and that is what you are doing.

  • Comment number 62.

    As regards that misleading Greenland ice melt story see here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/25/paging-aps-seth-borenstein-hey-seth-wheres-the-beef/

  • Comment number 63.

    61. Stephen Wilde:

    "Quite simply the slope is greater for the 15 years pre 2002 (and pre 2000) than it is after 2002 (or 2000) and only by cherry picking can one get the slope to increase again and that is what you are doing."

    But as I've repeatedly said, the WMO advice is to infer climate trends from 30 years continuous temperature data. By breaking it up into smaller periods you're doing the very thing you're admonishing others for.

    Furthermore, all you're doing is dividing periods up into 'fast' warming and 'less fast warming': it's all still *warming*, not cooling in any way.

    OK Stephen, it appears that we will have to agree to disagree on this, and I hope there are no hard feelings.

    The truth, as they say, will out. If global temperatures (not just the trends in temperature) really do start to fall in a significant way after the peak in solar cycle 24, then AGW theory is probably wrong. If they don't, then your 'solar hypothesis' is probably wrong.

    Can we agree on that much at least?

  • Comment number 64.

    I can certainly accept that if cooling doesn't begin within the next 5 years (provided the sun stays inactive) then my climate hypothesis would be in difficulty.

  • Comment number 65.

    "But as I've repeatedly said, the WMO advice is to infer climate trends from 30 years continuous temperature data. "


    I am inferring temperature trends from the 60s to mid 70s when there was a slight cooling trend, thence from the mid 70s to around 2000 when there was a warming trend and finally from around 2000 to date when the positive or negative nature of the trend depends on cherry picking either way.

    That represents 52 years and so is compliant with WMO recommendations.

    Interestingly a number of climate parameters all changed together at both inflection points and all correlated with a change in solar behaviour.

    The truth will out, as you say.

  • Comment number 66.

    I don't see any inflection point around 2000. Here's the UAH trend up to 2000:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/to:2000/trend

    If we extend that trend to present it fits the data to date:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/to:2000/trend/plot/uah/from:2000/trend/offset:-0.07/detrend:0.02
    Ie what's happened since 2000 appears no different than expected from a continuation of the 1979-2000 trend.

  • Comment number 67.

    With regard to cooling since 2002, bear in mind that solar activity has been strongly negative since 2002 as can be seen from this sunspot graph:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:2002

    The ENSO trend has also been negative since 2002. woodfortrees doesn't have an graphable ENSO index but here's a graph of (scaled) ENSO showing it's declining trend since 2002:
    http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/uah_enso.jpg

    The graph above is actually an estimate of ENSO's impact on UAH since 2002-2012 by scaling ENSO to UAH. The estimated cooling due to ENSO (more La Ninas, less El Ninos since 2002) is about 0.15C cooling.

    Likewise there's an estimate from the solar cycle cooling since 2002 too, about 0.05C cooling:
    http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/uah_solar.jpg

    In total that's about 0.2C cooling from 2002-2012 due to ENSO and the solar cycle.

    Yet UAH doesn't show 0.2C cooling from 2002-2012, it shows 0.03C warming. Which suggests something other than the solar cycle and ENSO has picked up the shortfall. Ie something has caused approximately +0.23C warming since 2002. Which is of course in line with expectations of continued global warming of approximately that rate.

    In short though, once you do take into account the fluctuations of the Sun and ENSO there's nothing to suggest the warming has stopped. ENSO can't get much lower than it already is (2 double dip la ninas per 1 el nino is about as low as it gets). To date the Sun hasn't shown any extra cooling beyond it's cycle alone. Without a source of extra cooling it just won't be able to affect a ~0.2C decade on decade warming in the longterm.

  • Comment number 68.

    @60, newdwr54 asks:

    “ Is that it? “

    You asked for 'a specific example' and I gave one.

    The specific example I gave is by no means the only issue in a paper that considered sediment build-up caused by ditch digging to be a valid temperature proxy (and passed peer review) but that's another issue.

    Journal peer review is well past it's sell by date as far as science is concerned ; it's a bit like playing chess by post in a country that has a very unreliable postal service. I'll concede that it is politically important but it is rapidly being replaced by open review; no competent scientist would wait for a journal to publish a 'peer reviewed rebuttal of the paper' if they had seen a web-based rebuttal.

    The recent withdrawal of a paper by Gergis et al is a good example. The peer reviewers failed to notice that the authors hadn't detrended their data even though they claimed that this was an important part of the procedure. Expert climate scientists failed to notice this but it didn't get past the far more expert eye of the 'blogosphere'.

  • Comment number 69.

    quake

    You can play around with charts however you like but it isn't seriously contended by anyone other than you that the pre 2000 warming rate has continued since then.

    As for a negative ENSO and weak sun the full effects have been offset for a while by the approaching cycle 24 peak and by lots of residual heat in the oceans from the previous several strong solar cycles.

    It took decades to warm up and it will take decades to cool down. The full cycle MWP to LIA to date is 1000 years but you expence the whole thing to turn around instantly.

    I don't know exactly how long it will take to establish a clear downtrend and nor does anyone else.

  • Comment number 70.

    That should be expect not expence, trying to type too fast.

  • Comment number 71.

    "You can play around with charts however you like but it isn't seriously contended by anyone other than you that the pre 2000 warming rate has continued since then."

    It doesn't matter what people think. UAH data simply doesn't support the idea that warming has slowed down since 2000. How can it be claimed that warming slowed down after 2000 when the data since 2000 has LIFTED the rate of warming since 1979?
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/to:2000/trend/plot/uah/trend

    "As for a negative ENSO and weak sun the full effects have been offset for a while by the approaching cycle 24 peak and by lots of residual heat in the oceans from the previous several strong solar cycles."

    I took into account the approach to solar cycle 24 peak, it's included in the negative solar trend since 2002. Both ENSO and solar activity decline from 2002-2012 suggest that global temperatures should have fallen.

    Ocean heat content is also still rising, so not only is the atmosphere still warming but the oceans are gaining more heat. This is despite much lower solar activity.
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

    Either the Sun has negligible influence on global temperature, or it's significant impact is being overshadowed by warming from another source, probably CO2. I go with the latter.

  • Comment number 72.

    As a matter of interest, there is a report on WUWT from a scientist actually in the area of Greenland previously reported to have melted in a ''massive surface melt''. It would appear that the report was not correct. Now the reported melted area has refrozen. The event was over in a day and due to a current of warm air which has now ceased. Temperatures are back to -10C or so. Melting events occur frequently during the summer and water escapes down crevasses to the ice base but due to the nature of Greenland, a depression below the ice, the water remains in situ. Meltwater remaining on the surface refreezes. The reporting scientist works on a base on the ice cap. Again actual observation confounds models and satellite radar which is easily misread.

  • Comment number 73.

    "How can it be claimed that warming slowed down after 2000 when the data since 2000 has LIFTED the rate of warming since 1979?"


    The freak 1998 El Nino LIFTED the rate. The stasis since 2000 has LOWERED the rate. The net effect since 'around' 2000 which includes 2002 and 1998 is approximately flat.


    Ocean heat content has very recently risen a bit because the double La Nina allows more energy to accumulate in the oceans. La Nina is a recharge phase. However the recharge has not been as much as was expected as compared to recharges during the strong solar cycles of 21 to 23.

    Since 2003 ocean heat content is not rising as rapidly as it was during the late 20th century strong solar cycles. It is clearly tailing off with the weaker sun but not all ocean basins have fallen into line as yet.

    There is still lots of residual warmth in the system which takes time to peak and dissipate.

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/october-to-december-2011-nodc-ocean-heat-content-anomalies-0-700meters-update-and-comments/

    The sun's significant impact is being overshadowed by lengthy ocean lag times due to the huge thermal inertia of the oceans.

  • Comment number 74.

    Stephen Wilde @69 . . . "It took decades to warm up and it will take decades to cool down. The full cycle MWP to LIA to date is 1000 years but you expence the whole thing to turn around instantly."

    Yes, unfortunately the most common AGW view in these parts is that solar forcing is completely balanced within each solar cycle - there can be no 'carry over' to the next cycle. Nor can there be any other measure than TSI. Nor can there be any offset or adjustment regarding the ENSO state of the planet when solar activity peaks or troughs.

  • Comment number 75.

    Cooling would take decades but not to start. Given the sun and enso and pdo switch cooling should have started years ago. Yet warming has continued.

  • Comment number 76.

    The Greenland "ice melt" was reported on the BBC R4 Today programme 7 o'clock news, yesterday as follows:
    "The U.S. space agency, NASA, says almost all of the surface ice on Greenland melted to some extent this month, in the biggest thaw seen since satellite observations began almost 30 years ago. An estimated 97% of the ice sheet's surface was affected, compared with the previous record of 55%. For the first time since 1889, melting even occurred in Greenland's coldest places."
    On first hearing this sounded alarming, especially if you missed the "30 years ago", and "since 1889", bits.
    I notice that this item was considered less important than the story about the 11 year old boy who managed to board a Jet2 flight without a passport etc.
    The BBC website covered the subject in more detail, in an apparently anonymous article:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18978483
    I wondered how much of this melt might be due to solar radiation, rather than temperature, since it is possible for snow to melt due to the sun's rays, even when the actual temperature is below freezing.

  • Comment number 77.

    #75. - quake wrote:
    "Cooling would take decades but not to start. Given the sun and enso and pdo switch cooling should have started years ago. Yet warming has continued."
    Warming has not "continued". There is no warming trend in HadCRUT3 over the last 12 years or so.
    Based on the approximately 60 year cycle in the temperature trend, we are currently at a peak of warming. The rise in temperatures is slowing, but we probably won't see a significant fall in temperatures for a few years. On the other hand, I think it is unlikely that we will see any new record annual global temperatures over the next 10 years.
    Compare this with the UKMO prediction that about half of the years between 2010 and 2015 would be warmer than 1998, based on HadCRUT3.

  • Comment number 78.

    "Warming has not "continued". There is no warming trend in HadCRUT3 over the last 12 years or so."

    There's no contradiction between the two. Warming can continue and yet there can be no warming trend in HadCRUT3 over the last 12 years. The reason being is that the warming I am talking about is longterm.

    For example here's the running 10 year mean of hadcrut3 plus in red is a line of best fit from 1979-2000 (it's +0.15C/decade)
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/mean:120

    There's no obvious slowdown in the data since 2000 to break that trend. Even though the same data does exhibit a flat short-term trend since 2000, it doesn't show up on the 10 year running mean, and won't necessarily ever do if the warming continues.

  • Comment number 79.

    #78. - quake wrote:
    "There's no contradiction between the two. Warming can continue and yet there can be no warming trend in HadCRUT3 over the last 12 years. The reason being is that the warming I am talking about is longterm."
    If your annual income had reached £51,700 in 1998 and then proceeded at the following amounts subsequently, would you say that your income was "continuing to increase"?
    1999 26300
    2000 23900
    2001 39990
    2002 45600
    2003 45900
    2004 43100
    2005 47400
    2006 42700
    2007 40200
    2008 31200
    2009 43900
    2010 49900
    2011 34500
    2012 30600

    I don't think you would. Of course, when you take inflation into account, it would be even worse. In the case of temperature, the equivalent of inflation is the rate at which temperature was predicted to increase over the period.

  • Comment number 80.

    To determine if my income was continuing to rise I would look at the trend in the data over decades to determine how fast income was rising. The trend by the end of 1998 is +1,600 a year and the trend line at the end of 1998 has reached +30,000.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:1999/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:1999

    For income to stop rising after 1998 I would expect it to average at 30,000 a year since then. Yet the average since 1998 is about 40,000. So yes I would say it's continued to rise.

  • Comment number 81.

    so we're not in recession then? George will be pleased!

  • Comment number 82.

    "#File: hadcrut3vgl.txt
    #
    #Time series (hadcrut3) from 1850 to 2012.25
    #Selected data from 1998
    #Least squares trend line; slope = -0.00171062 per year
    1998 0.42017
    2012.25 0.395793
    #Data ends
    #Number of samples: 2
    #Mean: 0.407981"

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend

  • Comment number 83.

    #82. - greensand wrote:
    "http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend"
    Plotting from 1998 seems unlikely to convince Quake.

    Quake, incidentally, why use HadCRUT3vgl, i.e. the variance adjusted version, which is not the one normally quoted.
    I have never been able to find an explanation of what "variance adjusted" means.
    I assume it is not superior to the unadjusted figure, since the UKMO and/or CRU don't normally use it.

  • Comment number 84.

    @83. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "Plotting from 1998 seems unlikely to convince Quake."

    You are probably right especially as it was the date that Quake used.

  • Comment number 85.

    If this shows global warming stopped in 1998:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:1998/trend

    So global temperature should have followed this path for warming to have continued? http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend/detrend:-0.22301888/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:1998/trend

    Why is a 0.2C jump required in 1998?

  • Comment number 86.

    "So global temperature should have followed this path for warming to have continued?"

    I don't know what global temperatures should have done, nobody does.

    But what we do know is what global temperatures did do. There is no slant, no interpretation on the following, it is simply verbatim from the source:-

    "#File: hadcrut3vgl.txt
    #
    #Time series (hadcrut3) from 1850 to 2012.25
    #Selected data from 1998
    #Least squares trend line; slope = -0.00171062 per year
    1998 0.42017
    2012.25 0.395793
    #Data ends
    #Number of samples: 2
    #Mean: 0.407981"

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend

    It quite clearly states that the hadcrut3vgl "Least squares trend line; slope" from 1998 to present is negative.

    It is just a plain and simple fact, nothing more, nothing less. At present this record shows no warming since 1998.

    1998 0.42017
    2012.25 0.395793

    Mean: 0.407981

    Does this mean that the warming trend we have been experiencing since the LIA has ended? Who knows? I don't. But the facts are the facts. It does not matter how they are "spun" or "interpretated" the present day HadCRUT3 slope since 1998 is negative.

  • Comment number 87.

    Like I said, "Warming can continue and yet there can be no warming trend in HadCRUT3 over the last 12 years"

  • Comment number 88.

    #87. - quake wrote:
    "Like I said, "Warming can continue and yet there can be no warming trend in HadCRUT3 over the last 12 years""
    You never explained why you prefer HadCRUT3v.

  • Comment number 89.

    "Like I said, "Warming can continue and yet there can be no warming trend in HadCRUT3 over the last 12 years""

    Quake I will leave you with your own logic, other than to point out that it is in excess of 14 years.

    But who knows what tomorrow or even today brings? Especially as I don't think WfT is up to date? The last data entry for HadCRUT3 both "vgl" & "gl" appears to be March of this year? But if my fag packet calcs are correct (far from being a given) after the addition of the two missing months the slope is still negative.

  • Comment number 90.

    Temperature worries are not required. It has been reported, by Anthony Watts, that NASA, NOAA et al have inflated recent temperatures to fit the models. By inflated I mean ''falsified the data''.

    If these people do that ask why, is it because they need to remain on the gravy train.

  • Comment number 91.

    #89. - greensand wrote:
    "But who knows what tomorrow or even today brings? Especially as I don't think WfT is up to date? The last data entry for HadCRUT3 both "vgl" & "gl" appears to be March of this year? But if my fag packet calcs are correct (far from being a given) after the addition of the two missing months the slope is still negative."
    WfT seems to get it's data from the CRU site, which hasn't been updated since March. The MO site has been updated to May but doesn't seem to have access to HadCRUT3v.
    Based on the May HadCRUT3 figures, there has been some sort of negative trend for 15.3 years to 14.17 years, but there is a small positive trend for the periods between 14.08 and 12.58 years and a continuous negative trend for periods between 12.5 years and 10 years, which is why I said about 12 years in my earlier post. It is true however, that there is a slightly negative trend over 15.3 years, although I think it is saver to say no positive trend over that period.
    I don't know about HadCRUT3v, since I never use it, (I don't understand how it is derived), but I will download that and check if there is much difference.

  • Comment number 92.

    I just remembered another reason I don't use data from the CRU site, as the data in the files is arranged in rows for years and columns for months, rather than a continuous sequence as in the case of the UKMO files.
    The CRU data therefore requires some manipulation before it can be used in a spreadsheet.

  • Comment number 93.

    91 & 92 QV

    Many thanks for the detail and I concur with your statement "I think it is safer to say no positive trend over that period."

  • Comment number 94.

    As far as I can tell, the HadCRUT3v figures make very little difference to the trends.
    The 10 year trend is slightly higher and the 30 year trend is slightly lower.
    Trend still negative over 15.3 and 12.5 years.
    5, 10 and 30 year moving averages are slightly lower.

  • Comment number 95.

    http://notrickszone.com/2012/07/26/extremely-unusual-cold-deviation-of-20k-now-occurring-over-antarctica/

    'For weeks I’ve been observing extreme, unusual deviations from the mean by as much as -20°K. Even in Australia it’s been too cold. What’s the reason for this cold over there, the powerful Antarctic polar circulation?

    While the media remains locally fixated on a warm June in the US, it is ignoring an extreme cold event in a region that is supposed to be a “canary in the coal mine”.'

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/snow-blankets-parts-of-south-africa/2011/07/26/gIQATnQkaI_blog.html

    '“Snow is not unheard of but it is usually not this extreme,” said national weather service forecaster Karl Loots.' [South Africa]

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/rare-snowstorm-cold-blast-hit-new-zealand/2011/08/16/gIQAfK4BJJ_blog.html

    'The wintry blast is being described as a once-in-a-lifetime event,
    bringing snow to the capital city of Wellington and as far north as the
    Auckland region for the first time since the 1970s.'

    Buy snow tyres, gloves and logs. Climate change is happening and it's getting much colder.

  • Comment number 96.

    Whats going on at WUWT?

  • Comment number 97.

    Re 88. At 08:39 27th Jul 2012, QuaesoVeritas wrote:
    "You never explained why you prefer HadCRUT3v."

    I don't, I just always by habit use the first one on the list. They are so similar I assume it doesn't matter which is used.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1970

  • Comment number 98.

    Re 90. At 11:25 27th Jul 2012, John Marshall wrote:
    "Temperature worries are not required. It has been reported, by Anthony Watts, that NASA, NOAA et al have inflated recent temperatures to fit the models. By inflated I mean ''falsified the data''."

    Watts is wrong. BEST showed the warming isn't inflated.

  • Comment number 99.

    @90 John Marshall

    Not sure Watts is ever as direct as to say things are falsely inflated. He knows exactly why adjustmenst are made. And plenty of skeptics on there (Mosher et al) will happily explain why it's done and why it's correct.

  • Comment number 100.

    NeilHamp@96

    Guess we'll just have to wait until Sunday evening to find out. It could be something very big - a lot of speculation over at BH - I just hope this isn't a bad case of trolling...
    Something a little more significant than another bunch of leaked 'team' e-mails would be nice!

 

Page 1 of 2

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.