« Previous | Main | Next »

Poor summer weather to continue well into July

Paul Hudson | 14:42 UK time, Monday, 2 July 2012

UPDATE at 5PM

According to the Met Office, averaged across the UK, June 2012 has been the wettest since records began in 1910, the coolest since 1991, and the second dullest since records began (record for lowest sunshine in June is still 1987).

ENDS

It will come as no surprise that June in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire has turned out to be one of the wettest on record - in fact second only to the incredibly wet June of 2007 which saw some of the worst widespread summer flooding that the region has ever seen, with Sheffield and Hull hit particularly hard.

Bingley, in the Pennine hills of West Yorkshire has recorded 212.8mm this month, compared with the average which is 70mm. But this is quite a bit short of the 283mm which was recorded in June 2007.

Sheffield is also well short of what was recorded in 2007, when 286mm (463% of average) fell; not only was June 2007 the wettest June on record in the city, but their wettest month ever in 125 years of records.

It's also been the second wettest June in Lincolnshire. Coningsby recorded 141mm in the month, compared with their average of 50mm.

The reason for the on-going poor weather has been the unusual positioning of the jet stream, which continues to be too far south than normal.

This point is graphically illustrated by the fact that June has been in the top 3 most cyclonic (low pressure) Junes in 140 years of records.

And there's still a chance that when official Met Office statistics are published later today or tomorrow, that averaged across the UK as a whole, June 2012 has been the wettest on record.

It's also been cold - with June the coolest since 1991 - and one of the dullest on record too.

Of course June has just seen a continuation of the cool and wet weather which began at the end of March.

At Linton-on-Ouse in North Yorkshire, for example, April, May & June combined have been the wettest on record (data back to 1939), with the wet spell only punctuated by one spell of fine warm weather towards the end of May.

And for those of us desperate for a change to more settled weather, there is little to suggest an improvement anytime soon.

Current indications are that low pressure will dominate our weather until at least the middle of July, if not beyond.

This means that one or two fine days are possible, in an overall unsettled and at times wet picture.

Follow me on twitter @Hudsonweather

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    "Met Office 3-month Outlook
    Period: May – July 2012 Issue date: 26.04.12
    The forecast presented here is for May and the average of the May-June-July period for the United Kingdom as a whole. This forecast is based on information from observations, several numerical models and expert judgement.

    SUMMARY – PRECIPITATION:
    For UK-average rainfall, the predicted probabilities slightly favour above-normal values during both May and May-June-July. However, confidence in this prediction is not high, and there is still a significant probability of below-normal rainfall. Whilst the wet weather of recent weeks will have had a positive effect on soil moisture, with all that that implies for agriculture, it is unlikely to have had a significant impact on groundwater supplies. With the forecast for May and May-June-July not favouring a continuation of the current very wet spell, groundwater resources in southern, eastern and central England are very unlikely to recover during this period.
    The probability that UK-average rainfall for May-June-July will fall into the driest of our five categories is around 15%, whilst the probability that it will fall into the wettest of our five categories is around 30% (the 1971-2000 climatological probability for each of these categories is 20%)."

    How much do they spend on their computers? How much did Piers Corbyn laptop cost, probably not 33 million pound sterling?

    Surely it is obvious by now that even though Piers doesn't always get it right, his forecasts are much more precise and valuable than the Met Office.

    Many years ago the magazine Analog carried a fact article about astrology, the science of the position of heavenly bodies. It featured someone who made radio propagation predictions using the position of the planets [ very valuable and profitable in those days ] and weather predictions using the same technique. For a year they logged the forecasts from the USA weather service and made predictions using a roulette wheel. From memory [ my magazine copy was lost during a house move ] was the weather bureau approx 50%, the roulette wheel approx 50% and the astrology based predictions better than 70%.

  • Comment number 2.

    Clearly the Met Office is not fit for purpose - in fact the Met Office is harmful to the country. It should be closed down forthwith.

  • Comment number 3.

    #1 Did the prediction, by Piers Corbyn 6 weeks previously, for thunderstorms with very large hailstones on the 29th June not come a day early on the 28th? There's a credibilty gap here. Would £40million be enough?

  • Comment number 4.

    As I said before on a par with 2007 just a little less water possibly a nice September and October coming again at least that will be something to look forward to weather wise.

  • Comment number 5.

    "Matt Ridley: The Met Office’s Green Bias"

    http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/6088-matt-ridley-the-met-offices-green-bias.html

    "Now look at the curriculum vitae of the chairman of the Met Office, Robert Napier. He is also chairman of the Green Fiscal Commission and the World Conservation Monitoring Centre, and has been a director of the Carbon Disclosure Project, the Alliance of Religions and Conservation and the Climate Group. He is so high up in the church of global warming, he is a carbon cardinal. I am sure he is a man of great integrity, but given this list you have to wonder if one of the organisations he chairs does not occasionally — and perhaps unconsciously — aim to please him with warm long-range forecasts."

  • Comment number 6.

    A remarkable period of gloom and a remarkable piece of jet stream behavior. I guess if this sticks until mid July we can expect it to see the summer out. What sort of a record will that be I wonder?

    Regarding the comments above:# 1,2,3

    Either one believes that evidence should be based on scientific principles and methods or not I suppose.

    The likes of Corbyn I would put in a similar catagory to "alternative medicine". One can always find plenty of people who swear blind that it cured them - but there is no scientific basis for their claim. All one can say is that following a period of treatment their health improved (usually by their own assessment). That is not the same as proving that the AM caused the improvement.

    Whether the Met office is or is not always right, or that Corbyn et al may sometimes turn out to be right is not the basis for assessing the truth. Unless the methods and results of both are subject to peer scientific scrutiny (which PC is not) then one can argue forever (and subjectively) about accuracy.

    Of course if one prefers to adhere to a world of hearsay, claim and counterclaim, artful conviction and passionate appeal over scientific analysis - then in the end I guess, one is in danger of being convinced that almost anything could be true.

    Isn't this the point of the last 300years or so of intellectual endeavour?

  • Comment number 7.

    While it is true that the regional rainfall data series, which covers the entire UK, did start in 1910, the HadUKP series for England & Wales, starts in 1766 and it will be interesting to see if the June figure in that series is an all time record.
    Unfortunately the equivalent figures for Scotland & N.Ireland only go back to 1931, so it isn't possible to produce figures for the entire UK going back as far as 1766.

  • Comment number 8.

    Of course if one prefers to adhere to a world of hearsay, claim and counterclaim, artful conviction and passionate appeal over scientific analysis - then in the end I guess, one is in danger of being convinced that almost anything could be true.


    True, I almost fell for the cAGW fallacy
  • Comment number 9.

    The HadCRUT3 global anomaly figures for May were issued by the MO on June 30th.
    Global = 0.474c
    N.H. = 0.614c
    S.H. = 0.335c
    The global figure is slightly below the other series, after adjusting to the same base period, except for RSS, which was by far the lowest.
    The N.H. HadCRUT3 figure was lower than all of the other series but the S.H. figure was second highest, being only slightly lower than UAH.
    The global figure compares with my estimate of 0.4c, based on the AQUA CH5 temperature for May.

  • Comment number 10.

    #1. - oldgifford wrote:
    "Met Office 3-month Outlook
    Period: May – July 2012 Issue date: 26.04.12"
    Thanks for posting that, I was looking for it but couldn't find it.
    Should there not be a forecast for June-Aug by now?

    "Surely it is obvious by now that even though Piers doesn't always get it right, his forecasts are much more precise and valuable than the Met Office."
    Do you have access to Piers Corbyn's full forecast?
    I have never seen one which is as precise as the MO one, so I can't judge how accurate they are.
    "Many years ago the magazine Analog carried a fact article about astrology, the science of the position of heavenly bodies. "
    I am afraid that I have to disagree that astrology is a science.
    Whatever method the person used to produce the radio propagation predictions, I doubt it it was strictly speaking astrology.
    I can accept that the positions of the planets might influence radio propagation but that would surely be based on physics, rather than astrology.
    Does Piers Corbyn use astrology to predict the weather?

  • Comment number 11.

    "Met Office 3-month Outlook
    Period: July – September 2012 Issue date: 20.06.12"

    "The probability that UK precipitation for JulyAugustSeptember will fall into the driest of our five categories is around 20% whilst the probability that it will fall into the wettest of our five categories is also around 20% (the 1971- 2000
    climatological probability for each of thesecategories is 20%)."

    Yup, that should do it!

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/6/3/A3-plots-precip-JAS.pdf

    H/T matthu @ BH

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/unthreaded/?currentPage=2

  • Comment number 12.

    The met office forecast was a probability forecast.

    Piers forecasts have a great way of being a day late or early which helpfully means the 'R' periods can cover an awful long time.

  • Comment number 13.

    The Met Office forecast IS a probability forecast as is every forecast.

    What has a Piers forecast got to do with a Met Office forecast?

  • Comment number 14.

    @13 greensand

    Well as he was mentioned as some alternative in posts 1 and 3, I thought I was allowed. My mistake. Met office is rubbish booo hisss. All hail Piers!

  • Comment number 15.

    #5. - mjmwhite wrote:
    "Matt Ridley: The Met Office’s Green Bias"
    I see nothing wrong with the M.O. having a "Green Bias".
    What I object to is their bias towards the assumption of "climate change".
    Unfortunately, there seems to be an assumption, by bodies such as the GWPF, that if you are "green", that if you don't believe in "climate change", you are also not "green" and are completely in favour of destroying the planet. I think this is mainly due to the fact that most environmentalist bodies, such as Greenpeace, jumped on the "climate change" bandwagon without any regard for the actual evidence, something which I think will eventually backfire on them.
    I consider myself to be, unashamedly, "green" and concerned about the environment. The fact that I am sceptical about "climate change", does not mean I am in favour of "fracking", burning fossil fuels, large cars and air travel, and it doesn't mean I am against wind turbines. I see nothing contradictory in this.

  • Comment number 16.

    @14 john cogger

    "I thought I was allowed"

    Who said you aren't? I asked what Piers has to do with the MO forecast for the next 3 months? Is that how you intend to evaluate it? To compare UKMO v Piers?

    From what I can see the MO are saying "average" if you equate that to "Met office is rubbish booo hisss. All hail Piers!" So be it!

    Personally I have no view on Piers, I have no involvement with his organisation, the UKMO and their forecasts are an entirely different matter.

    I will just wait and see how "OUR" UKMO forecast actually pans out.

  • Comment number 17.

    @15 QV

    "The fact that I am sceptical about "climate change", does not mean I am in favour of "fracking", burning fossil fuels, large cars and air travel, and it doesn't mean I am against wind turbines. I see nothing contradictory in this."

    This point has irked me for years, I am probably one of the "greenest" on this and many other blogs. I grow my own veg, I recycle all and everthing, I make my own compost, I have reduced my energy consumption by nearly 40%, I rarely fly, I do have a car but in the lowest emmisions rating and I drive about half the UK average mileage per annum.

    Yet I am an infidel because my comprehension of the scientific method, the same comprehension, that lead me to make the above lifestyle decisions leave me no alternative but to question the unproven CAGW fervour.

    I have spent many engineering years and have many scars as a result of unproven fervour. Bias has no place in science. Only cold plain unadulterated logic will provide the way forward.

  • Comment number 18.

    Yes, we've certainly had some rain.

    I took my son to the Freeman Hospital in Newcastle for a check-up on Thursday afternoon. Drove there, no bother, nice weather, everything went fine then when we were waiting at reception to make a further appointment I noticed that it was dark outside, really dark with the occasional bright flash.

    We got out and headed for the car park ticket machine. While we were putting the coins in the machine a few large drops of rain started to fall. As the machine was in a shelter and there was obviously going to be a bit of a splash I decided to run to the car myself and bring it around to pick up my wife and son.

    I got to the car relatively dry but as I was heading for the exit pea sized lumps of hail were hitting the bonnet. Although very loud it wasn't really a problem until I approached the exit barrier when the real deluge started.

    I don't know if meteorologists have a word for it but it wasn't rain; it was more like being sprayed with a fire-hose.

    Big problem, I had to open the car window to put the ticket in to open the barrier. Bigger problem, the window motor had packed up a couple of weeks ago and I hadn't got round to fixing it.

    I had to open the door, reach out to put the ticket in and close the door. Three or four seconds if that. I might as well have jumped into a swimming pool.

    We eventually got home safe and sound but I have never seen anything remotely like the quantity of water that fell from the sky in only a few minutes.

  • Comment number 19.

    Greensand. I agree with your ideals. What I don't agree with is being taxed for green issues, which make no difference and employing people in worthless jobs. At the end of the day, companies need to be as efficient as possible to make profits and finding alternates to petrol fuel will be the 2nd industrial revolution. How can we store lightning strikes and re use that energy. Nicola Tesla invented a free energy that was never brought into being, because we couldn't be exploited through it. A few months ago we talked about a low water table, now it is over flowing. The next thing we will be talking about is that the world is becoming a colder place. What creates the weather is much more powerful than most people can imagine.

  • Comment number 20.

    Are the 1981-2010 temperature averages available yet and if so, why are the 1971-2000 figures still being used?

  • Comment number 21.

    #13 One costs the taxpayer millions and the other costs the taxpayer nothing. If the former gets it wrong, they still get the millions and if the latter does not please his funders, he goes bust.

  • Comment number 22.

    3.At 18:14 2nd Jul 2012, Boanta wrote:
    #1 Did the prediction, by Piers Corbyn 6 weeks previously, for thunderstorms with very large hailstones on the 29th June not come a day early on the 28th? There's a credibilty gap here. Would £40million be enough?

    10. At 20:42 2nd Jul 2012, QuaesoVeritas wrote:
    “I have never seen one which is as precise as the MO one, so I can't judge how accurate they are.”

    Met office precise? Ask my wife how often they get it wrong with the local evening forecast for the next day, all of 12 hours ahead.

    Doesn’t plan the washing for the next day because rain [frogs, flies, lice, boils and locusts not included, though occasionally they do forecast thunder and hail ] is forecast and then it is fine all day and vice versa.

    “I am afraid that I have to disagree that astrology is a science. Whatever method the person used to produce the radio propagation predictions, I doubt it it was strictly speaking astrology.”

    Astrology was the science of old civilisations, e.g. Babylon before the world knew the sun was the centre of the universe, so you can call it the study of the position of the heavenly bodies. You can now use astrological charts to give you the position of the planets etc, and yes he did use them as they were freely available for his radio propagation predictions as computers were not available to individuals in the 1960s. Now whether or not the astrologers can use their ‘science’ to predict which day to buy or sell your stocks and shares or start a new love life is, in my opinion, somewhat highly dubious. Curiously the article studied the astrological charts of USA presidents who died violently in their terms of office and found that Kennedy was born in a similar conjunction, I wish I hadn’t lost that article.

    At 19:18 2nd Jul 2012, jkiller56 wrote:
    “The likes of Corbyn I would put in a similar catagory to "alternative medicine". One can always find plenty of people who swear blind that it cured them - but there is no scientific basis for their claim.”

    Scientific basis, see Piers’ website - Early Weather Action (Solar Weather Technique) skill was independently verified in a peer-reviewed paper by Dr Dennis Wheeler, University of Sunderland, in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Vol 63 (2001) p29-34.

    What other evidence do you require?

    How come Piers stays in business then if his work is rubbish? His predictions must be good enough for organisations to continue to pay him. He doesn’t get our taxes to keep him in business.

    Check out his website, his latest news item says “ UK & Ireland - Floods warned by WeatherAction 5 weeks ahead AND Again WeatherAction correctly warned Met Office would under-estimate deluges in short range. Solar-based science can dramatically improve storm & flood warnings without a penny more being wasted on new super computers and outdated CO2 delusional ‘science’.”
    See www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=465&c=1

    As, greensand wrote: ref. the Met Office forecast.
    "The probability that UK precipitation for JulyAugustSeptember will fall into the driest of our five categories is around 20% whilst the probability that it will fall into the wettest of our five categories is also around 20% “

    You call that a forecast? And it only cost £33 million pounds plus the bonuses to staff for continually getting it wrong.

  • Comment number 23.

    "Check out his website, his latest news item says “ UK & Ireland - Floods warned by WeatherAction 5 weeks ahead AND Again WeatherAction correctly warned Met Office would under-estimate deluges in short range."

    That's not a forecast because it's already happened. A prediction given now for the latter half of July would be a forecast.

    The old problem is that after an event a vague forecast can be "reworded" to fit what happened. Parts that don't fit can be removed and parts that kind of fit can be emphasized.

    For example if I predict hail, snow, rain, floods and a heat wave for August and we get a heat wave, I could point out that "I successfully fore-casted a heat wave" without pointing out all the other options. What is needed is for me to provide the forecast BEFORE events unfold so that people know exactly it was that I was forecasting so they can be sure I am not fitting past words to what happened.

  • Comment number 24.

    #20. - Boanta wrote:
    "Are the 1981-2010 temperature averages available yet and if so, why are the 1971-2000 figures still being used?"
    Yes, the 1981-2010 averages are available, or at least can be calculated but I don't know if using them would make much difference to the probabilities, or if they did, whether that would be meaningful.
    I think that the use of a 30 year period and which 30 year period as "climatology" is determined my the WMO, but there seems to be remarkable inconsistency in which 30 year period is used for any given data series.
    Personally I think that a 30 year period is too short to determine whether the frequency distribution of annual rainfal figures is "normal".
    The MO forecast states that:
    "The probability that UK-average rainfall for May-June-July will fall into the driest of our five categories is around 15%, whilst the probability that it will fall into the wettest of our five categories is around 30% (the 1971-2000 climatological probability for each of these categories is 20%)."
    It looks to me as if the categories are by definition each 20% of the range of rainfall for 1971-2000, but if that is the case, it is puzzling why the probability of rainfall being in the wettest category is 30%.
    Looking at the actual rainfall figures, the mean for May to July for 1971-2000 is 177mm, but the the actual figures for individual years are not equally distributed around the mean, with 12 years below the mean and 18 above, i.e. skewed towards the high end, which is possibly the explanation for the higher probability for the wettest category.
    In fact, the most likely range is between 180 and 190mm (6 years), i.e. higher than the mean, but there is also a peak between 120 and 130mm (4 years) and between 220 and 230mm (4 years), so it seems that this is an example of "average" rainfall not necessarily being "normal" rainfall.
    Having said all that, I don't think that forecasting by statistical analysis of past figures is acceptable for the MO and doesn't require a huge super-computer to calculate.
    I think that a much longer period, say 100 years would be better to calculate a frequency distribution, and I might do that when I get the time.
    No doubt, someone with a better understanding of statistics than me will challenge me on the above.

  • Comment number 25.

    At 09:34 3rd Jul 2012, quake wrote:

    "Check out his website, his latest news item says “ UK & Ireland - Floods warned by WeatherAction 5 weeks ahead AND Again WeatherAction correctly warned Met Office would under-estimate deluges in short range.

    "That's not a forecast because it's already happened. A prediction given now for the latter half of July would be a forecast."

    That's the forecast he issued 5 weeks before hand, he doesn't publish his forecasts to non subscribers because then he wouldn't have business, that's obvious.

    Some say he should publish his methods in detail, before they will believe him, it’s like asking Coca-Cola to reveal its recipe. Personally if someone could cure me of my arthritis I wouldn't mind going to a cross-roads at midnight and rub the affected parts with a live toad as long as it cured me. I wouldn't care how they discovered it.

  • Comment number 26.

    #22. - oldgifford wrote:
    "Met office precise? Ask my wife how often they get it wrong with the local evening forecast for the next day, all of 12 hours ahead. "
    Unfortunately, I think you may be confusing "precision" and "accuracy".
    It is possible for a forecast to be precise but to be inaccurate, and vice versa, to be imprecise and accurate. In fact, the more imprecise a forecast is, the more likely it is to be judged accurate. I am not saying that the MO forecasts are more accurate than those of WeatherAction, but in my experience, they are more precise.
    It is perhaps because MO forecasts are so precise that they are judged inaccurate. If they just said something like "it's going to rain in the south of England sometime tomorrow", they might be correct, whereas if they said "it's going to rain between 16:00 and 19:00 in Dover", they might be incorrect.
    Until both forecasts are presented in an equally precise manner, it will be impossible to judge which is the most accurate.
    I will comment further on astrology when I have more time.

  • Comment number 27.

    From Paul's original post:
    "It's also been cold - with June the coolest since 1991 - and one of the dullest on record too."
    Actually, I disagree, it hasn't been "cold", it's been marginally cooler than normal.
    It's just that we have become used to temperatures being higher than normal.

  • Comment number 28.

    #25. - oldgifford wrote:
    "Some say he should publish his methods in detail, before they will believe him, it’s like asking Coca-Cola to reveal its recipe. Personally if someone could cure me of my arthritis I wouldn't mind going to a cross-roads at midnight and rub the affected parts with a live toad as long as it cured me. I wouldn't care how they discovered it."
    Actually, I don't expect P.C. to publish his methods or forecasts ahead of time. I understand that he has a commercial interest in maintaining secrecy of his methods and not publishing forecasts to those who do not pay for them.
    However, I expect that he would publish fully detailed and precise forecasts, retrospectively, thus allowing them to be verified, in the same manner as those issued by the MO can be.
    If the forecasts are as accurate as claimed, this can *only* be to his advantage, as then everyone will know how accurate they are and he will gain more business as a result.

  • Comment number 29.

    The Met Office is a serious and dangerous embarrassment to the world - if they can't predict the weather 3months ahead why should we believe their predictions for 50 or 100 years ahead and their recommendations in the "great climate debate"

  • Comment number 30.

    @29 H2S04

    Embarrassment to the world?

    Come back when you learn the difference between the weather and climate. Then you might stop embarrassing yourself.

  • Comment number 31.

    @30 Well John I reckon I've struck a raw nerve with you. I do know the difference between weather and climate.Do you know the difference between facts, theories and hypotheses?

  • Comment number 32.

    John Cogger. The met office can't even get it right on a daily basis, never mind monthly and over a 10 year period. Reminds me of WMD's, which was another warning given by our so trust worthy government.

  • Comment number 33.

    @32 Tim

    Again you bring WMD's into it? Well some people beleived the earth was flat, science proved it wasn't. Has no connection to climate change but hey I might as well throw it in the mix. Scientists were right on that, so on your logic they must be right on global warming.

    Robin Cook was right on WMD's...if he then supported the warmest view this might blow your mind!

  • Comment number 34.

    17. greensand wrote & 15 QV:

    Re being both 'green' and 'sceptical': we all tend to be shoe-boxed according to our opinion on climate science.

    I'm living proof that the corollary position is also true. I work in a highly polluting industry and usually take several short-haul holidays a year. I make no special effort to to be green, and I tend to feel an involuntary antipathy for 'bunny huggers' of all description.

    While I've adopted an advocacy position that is pro-AGW, I've done so on scientific rather than ideological grounds. I certainly have no interest in chastising people for their lifestyle choices; as I would resist any criticism of my own.

    Yet I often find myself being boxed in as a "warmist", "eco-loon" or "greeny" (among the milder adjectives). I guess being pigeon-holed goes with the territory, but it's the same for both 'sides'.

  • Comment number 35.

    In general I have to agree with the posters who say the Met Office's 'long-term' (i.e. 3-month) UK forecasts have been completely wrong so far since May at least. Worse than useless, even.

    I got into a bit of an acrimonious ding-dong with Piers Corbyn here on the previous thread for stating my opinion, which I still regard as 'fair comment', that Piers was wrong with both his initial winter 2011/2012 long range forecast (made in October 2011 in Madrid), and in his April forecast: in which he said May 2012 would be the coldest, or inside the top 5 coldest Mays in 100 years in E/SE England.

    So it's also 'fair comment' to say that the MO's long-range UK forecast has proved to be no more accurate than Corbyn's, and in some respects even less accurate. In my opinion this indicates that there is currently no method, described or otherwise, that consistently and accurately forecasts regional weather beyond a few days or a week at most.

  • Comment number 36.

    At 10:25 3rd Jul 2012, QuaesoVeritas wrote:
    “However, I expect that he would publish fully detailed and precise forecasts, retrospectively, thus allowing them to be verified, in the same manner as those issued by the MO can be.”

    He has an archive of his forecasts on his website so you can check them out and see what he says and he has various studies of his accuracy.

    “I am not saying that the MO forecasts are more accurate than those of WeatherAction, but in my experience, they are more precise.”

    Well we get precise forecasts for the Bristol area to hour by hour and I’m not the only one that thinks the forecasts have got more inaccurate over the last couple of years.

    When I asked the Met Office for rainfall records for our area and their forecasts, they said they didn’t archive their forecasts, can you believe that?

  • Comment number 37.

    @36 oldgifford

    I only found an archieve of his 'hits' not of the full forecast? Can you pint to where they are?

  • Comment number 38.

    #34. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "While I've adopted an advocacy position that is pro-AGW, I've done so on scientific rather than ideological grounds. I certainly have no interest in chastising people for their lifestyle choices; as I would resist any criticism of my own. "

    I find it harder to understand how anyone can believe in man made "global warming", yet is not prepared to make personal lifestyle changes, than someone who is environmentally concerned but doesn't believe in "climate change".
    If those who believe in "climate change" are not prepared to take individual action to limit their carbon footprint, then what are the rest of us supposed to do?
    I have read that Al Gore consumes 20x the average (american) household's amount of electricity p.a., but that is apparently o.k., as presumably he is rich enough to offset his emissions and pretend that his lifestyle is carbon-neutral.

  • Comment number 39.

    @36 oldgifford

    Ah found it. Last thing in there are March 2010. I'm sure they can be compared to what happened.

  • Comment number 40.

    #36. - oldgifford wrote:
    "He has an archive of his forecasts on his website so you can check them out and see what he says and he has various studies of his accuracy. "
    Is the archive available to non-subscribers and are they in a form which would make it possible to verify their accuracy. As with the MO, the problem is finding actual observations to match the forecasts.

    “Well we get precise forecasts for the Bristol area to hour by hour and I’m not the only one that thinks the forecasts have got more inaccurate over the last couple of years."
    I think it is difficult to tell if forecasts are getting more inaccuate, if they are becoming more detailed. That would require a great deal of work to confirm, which should be being done by the MO in an open and transparent way.

    "When I asked the Met Office for rainfall records for our area and their forecasts, they said they didn’t archive their forecasts, can you believe that?"
    I can well believe that. My own research suggests that nobody ever checks the accuracy of forecasts for individual locations. I would like to see t.v. weather forecasters preceding their forecasts every day, with a detailed evaluation of how accurate the previous forecast was.
    In some correspondence on the subject with the MO, one of their replies included the following comment:
    "First of all I hope it is reassuring to know we agree that our current verification web pages provide an inadequate level of detail and we are sorry that these do not seem as transparent as they might be for public consumption with understanding."

  • Comment number 41.

    @34 newdwr54

    "While I've adopted an advocacy position that is pro-AGW"

    So just what are you advocating?

  • Comment number 42.

    John Cogger. I bring WMD's in, because it is as bad as believing in Global warming caused by man, certain people have an agenda to raise tax's and create worthless jobs, that create no benefit to the economy. The same type of people are behind both bad thought patterns. You will have a job finding out Robin Cookes belief on Global warming, unless you contact the spirit world. I suspect Robin Cooke was too sensible to fall for the conspiracy.

  • Comment number 43.

    QuaesoVeritas. You hit the nail on the head, Al Gore is an hypocrite. People like him and prince Charles spring to mind, they fly all around the world, travel all around the country in the car or via helicopter and have the cheek to lecture the rest of us on it. The inconvenient truth video is good for insomnia, but not much else, it is a shame it was used to brain wash children in schools.

  • Comment number 44.

    @40 QuaesoVeritas

    There are some here -

    http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact46

    Though it can be hard to compare like with like.

    His mean temp forecast for March 2010 was for somewhere between 0 to -1.5 below the 1961 - 1990 average. The CET was 6.1 which is 0.4 above average. But he gives 2 zones which cover the UK 0 to -0.8 in the south east and -0.7 to -1.5 in the north. Neither zone he gives matches the CET zone, so is it fair to use it to compare?

  • Comment number 45.

    @42 Tim

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/jun/10/society.g8

    "It also needs to recognise the urgency of bringing climate change under control in the near future. There is something almost reassuring about targets for greenhouse gas emissions half a century from now. Not a single member of the present House of Commons will still be there in 2050, if indeed rising sea levels have not by then obliged parliament to relocate from the Thames flood plain. It is easy for us to nod agreeably to tough targets so far in the future.

    The harsh reality is that we do not have 50 years to get climate change under control. The government convened an international conference of scientists earlier this year which produced alarming evidence that we may have less time than we thought to stabilise climate change. If we do not cut carbon emissions over the next decade, then the process may become irreversible."

    Robin Cook wrote that.

  • Comment number 46.

  • Comment number 47.

    #44. - john_cogger wrote:
    "There are some here -
    http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact46
    Though it can be hard to compare like with like."
    Yes, I found those, although I must admit I find the format of the forecasts a bit distracting.
    Looks like a lot of work to do precise comparisons.

  • Comment number 48.

    I see that the MO is to strenthen it's collaboration with NOAA on space weather.
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/space-weather-announcement
    However, the purpose of this seems to be related to it's effects on technology, satellites etc, rather than to apply it to terrestial weather forecasting.

  • Comment number 49.

    41. greensand wrote:

    "So just what are you advocating?"

    That AGW theory is right.

  • Comment number 50.

    49. newdwr54

    "That AGW theory is right."

    So what do you advocate that the human race does about it?

  • Comment number 51.

    John Cogger. It shows that Robin Cooke was a little flawed in his thinking and not as congruent as I thought.

  • Comment number 52.

    This quote from wiki sums it all up for me. Global warming conspiracy theory is a collection of allegations that, through worldwide acts of professional and criminal misconduct, the science behind anthropogenic global warming has been invented and is being perpetuated for financial or ideological reasons. Proponents of such allegations refer to the scientific consensus as a "global warming hoax",[1] or "global warming fraud".

  • Comment number 53.

    Robin Cook, warns us about Iraq, no-one listens. Warns us about climate, ?

  • Comment number 54.

    It's a pity the BBC forecast accuracy trial didn't get off the ground, that would have helped a lot. From what I can see of PC's stuff he gets it right most of the time so picking on bits that are not correct is not representative. As to global warming/climate change etc, I see the IPCC is not now going to choose the 'best' scientists to work on its reports, but a politically correct choice based on location and gender. I guess that says it all.

    I did download an ephemeris programme some time ago to see if I could spot any obvious correlations between weather and planetary positions, but never got round to doing anything with it, however the whole thing seems very complicated. There is an excellent ongoing review of possible climate contributors at Tallbloke’s Talkshop, and again it suggests that the single CO2 theory, of which, models produce consistently incorrect results, is just too simplistic.

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/

  • Comment number 55.

    #53. - quake wrote:
    "Robin Cook, warns us about Iraq, no-one listens. Warns us about climate, ?"
    Robin Cook wrote that in June 2005, since when, the trend in global temperatures, by all measures, has declined, despite the inexorable rise in CO2 levels.
    Cook was not a climate expert and like many of us, was no doubt taken in by the alarmist propaganda of the time.
    I am sure that if he were alive today that Cook would have the intelligence to question the validity of the predictions, since evidence continues to mount that they were, at the very least, exaggerated.
    In any case, as greensand has implied, even if we were to accept that "global warming" and "climate change" are facts, what are we supposed to do about it, especially since, even those who apparently advocate action, are not prepared to make changes to their lifestyles.
    All we hear from "activists" is vague pleading that "we must do something", but what? Even the U.K. Government, which still pays lip-service to a belief in "climate change", is not prepared to take any action which puts economic growth at risk, or upsets the motorists.
    Even Rajendra Pachauri, "the world's leading climate scientist" (who's qualifications appear to be in industrial engineering as far as I can tell), appears to have lost faith in the ability of governments to take action.
    http://www.rtcc.org/living/dr-rajendra-pachauri-time-to-forget-governments-and-use-people-power-to-fight-climate-change/

  • Comment number 56.

    #22. - oldgifford wrote:
    "Astrology was the science of old civilisations, e.g. Babylon before the world knew the sun was the centre of the universe, so you can call it the study of the position of the heavenly bodies."
    As you say, Astrology was developed at a time when everyone thought that the planets, including the sun, revolved around the Earth. They knew nothing of gravity or solar wind. At the time, it could have been considered a "science", but not now.
    It is a while since I looked into Astrology, but to the best of my recollection, it relies on the relative positions, i.e. angles, or aspects of the planets relative to one another, and not to their actual locations in the solar system. So the conjunction two planets has a powerful influence, even though those two planets are in reality nowhere near each other in the solar system.
    In any case, as far as I am aware, WeatherAction uses the influence of "solar weather", to make it's forecasts. If anything, that is astrophysics, not astrology, which invokes no known forces to make it's predictions.
    Incidentally, I notice that the "methodology" page on the WeatherAction web site has the message "This page is being updated - please try later." Does anyone know how long that has been the case? Maybe we are about to be given some more information!

  • Comment number 57.

    I talk about a 2nd industrial revolution, where by free energy is used to power things, as per Nicolas Tesla's concept, that was ignored, because it couldn't be used to exploit people. I am sure that we could harness the energy from electrical storms to power cities. The problem is government makes 70% from each gallon we purchase, so why would they like to see change. Shortly the whole cartel will collapse. At the same time I pour scorn on anybody who suggests man is causing the world to become a warmer place. But I do want to live in a cleaner more sustainable world, not reliant on the middle east and being exploited by the government.

  • Comment number 58.

    Not only is the jet stream a little south but according to the current ocean temperature data, from NOAA, the Gulf Stream is some 2C lower than normal. Would also have an impact on both temperature and precipitation levels.

  • Comment number 59.

    55. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "Robin Cook wrote that in June 2005, since when, the trend in global temperatures, by all measures, has declined, despite the inexorable rise in CO2 levels."

    From what I can see, according to UAH data anyway, the 'trend' in temperatures since June 2005 (June 05 - May 12) is positive, at +0.10 C/decade (and likely to rise slightly once June data are issued).

    As far as actual temperatures are concerned, in the 84 months since June 2005 (June 05 - May 12), the average global monthly temperature has been +0.17C above the UAH average. In the 84 months leading up to June 2005, the average global monthly temperature was +0.13C above the UAH average.

    By both measures temperatures have increased appreciably since June 2005. Unless I'm misinterpreting UAH, then I don't see how your statement above is valid.

  • Comment number 60.

    #55 QV wonders what we have to do to counter climate change.
    Well, nothing given that:-
    1. Climates have always changed,

    2. All changes that we have recently experienced are within the natural variation we have recorded, so how do we find the supposed human input?

    3. Ice core records from Antarctica, for the past 100,000 years and using the Oxygen18 high resolution data, show that for 90% of this period temperatures have been +2C over today's.

    4. There is no research, using observations as opposed to models, that prove that CO2 drives temperature. In fact the reverse is shown to be true. Temperature drives CO2 levels.

    5. What does QV propose is done by ourselves to chjange what is clearly driven by natural drivers many of which we are ignorant as to cause and effect.

    Pachauri was qualified as a railway engineer but later studied economics in which he gained his doctorate. Given the extent of Indian railways perhaps he was not very good at his engineering. A PhD in Economics no way makes you a climatologist. So he is not qualified for the job he holds which he has clearly displayed in the past.

  • Comment number 61.

    To quote that temperatures have changed by 0.10C over a year when temperatures are read to 0.5C is a little strange.

    Also wet air will contain more heat than dry air whilst being at the same temperature so is temperature a good metric for climate when heat input is the real driver?

  • Comment number 62.

    My solar based forecast for July 2012 has weeks 3&4 of July as having the weakest solar signal for this summer, so I see July getting cooler and wetter in the second half.

  • Comment number 63.

    #60. - John Marshall wrote:
    "5. What does QV propose is done by ourselves to chjange what is clearly driven by natural drivers many of which we are ignorant as to cause and effect."
    I don't propose anything, I ask those who believe in "climate change" what they propose.
    You will notice that I said "even if we were to accept that "global warming" and "climate change" are facts". I didn't say that I did accept them as facts.
    I agree entirely with your other points.

  • Comment number 64.

    It's settled science that rising CO2 has a substantial warming influence on the planet. At the rate we are increasing CO2 it is very likely that the warming caused by it will dominate over all other factors.

    This is because there was 0.8C warming in the 20th century. Proxy evidence suggests that was an unusually large amount of warming for a single century. How much temperature change should we expect nature to produce over this century? 0.8C cooling to 0.8C warming seems a reasonable range. In contrast the CO2 rise we are leading to is going to produce far more warming than that, even on the low side.

    As a result the change in global temperature this century is going to be dominated by man and not the Sun or any other body.

  • Comment number 65.

    61. John Marshall wrote:

    "To quote that temperatures have changed by 0.10C over a year when temperatures are read to 0.5C is a little strange."

    I don't know where you get the idea that "temperatures are read to 0.5C" from? Monthly temperature values are often quoted to four decimal places. UAH's popular list, which is the one I used, goes to two d.p.s (hundredths of a degree): http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

    The UAH data since June 2005 shows a warming 'trend', i.e. a 'rate', of +0.1 C per decade. That equates to a rate of +1.0 per century, which is a higher rate of warming than was observed throughout the 20th century. Other data sets suggest cooling over the same period, as QV says.

    In fact a warming or cooling trend is irrelevant anyway over such a short time scale, but QV did say there had been cooling 'by any measure'; not according to UAH though.

    "Also wet air will contain more heat than dry air whilst being at the same temperature so is temperature a good metric for climate when heat input is the real driver?"

    The warmer the air the more water vapour it contains. It is the initial warming of the air that increases its water content, not vice versa. Also, the atmosphere has a very efficient moisture removal system, as we've seen so far this summer, unfortunately!

  • Comment number 66.

    #59. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "By both measures temperatures have increased appreciably since June 2005. Unless I'm misinterpreting UAH, then I don't see how your statement above is valid."
    My statement was based on an average of all of the main temperature series, hence my "by all measures" wording. I should have made that clearer. I accept that taken individually, UAH is the one series which shows a slight rise, although I calculated it at 0.077c/decade.
    I probably would have been better off saying there has been no significant rise in global temperatures, despite the increase in CO2 or predicted rises in temperature.

  • Comment number 67.

    #65. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "but QV did say there had been cooling 'by any measure'; not according to UAH though. "

    No, I said "by all measures", which I think is slightly different, although I accept that I didn't make it clear what I meant by that!

  • Comment number 68.

    60: John Marshall:

    In response to your points and from my understanding of the science, which is no doubt limited:

    1. All agree that climate has always changed.

    2. Recent changes are well within the natural variation; however the 'causes' for the recent changes cannot be fully explained without including increased CO2 from human activity. The causes of the previous changes can be explained by natural variability (orbital cycles, solar activity, volcanism, etc).

    3. There were probably 4 or 5 periods during the past 100,000 years when temperatures were above those of today, interspersed between periods of extreme cold. At the end of the Younger Dryas (~ 11,000 years ago) temperatures rose by +7C in about 50 years, according to Greenland ice cores. The point is that human 'civilisation' has never endured such large climatic changes, warm or cold, at least not on this global scale.

    4. Re: "There is no research, using observations as opposed to models, that prove that CO2 drives temperature" see here: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=evidence+that+co2+drives+climate&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

    5. The commonly argued case is that capping CO2 levels at 350 ppm should forestall the very worst of a warming climate. Above that there is a sliding scale of increasingly detrimental impacts on food production, human health, water supplies, coastal communities and damage to ecosystems.

    RK Pachauri is the chairman of the IPCC, which is essentially a peer review body as far as its scientific Working Group is concerned. As such, his role is to oversee the assessment by specialists of the latest scientific material, as well as all the material provided by all the other IPCC Working Groups. Therefore Pachauri does not need to be a climate scientist, any more than the president of NASA needs to be an astronaut.

  • Comment number 69.

    #68. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "RK Pachauri is the chairman of the IPCC, which is essentially a peer review body as far as its scientific Working Group is concerned. As such, his role is to oversee the assessment by specialists of the latest scientific material, as well as all the material provided by all the other IPCC Working Groups. Therefore Pachauri does not need to be a climate scientist, any more than the president of NASA needs to be an astronaut."
    I think that John Marshall's comments were a response to a lin to an article on the "Response to Climate Change" website (which appears to be pro-climate change), by Ed King, in which he described him as "The world's leading climate scientist". I have no idea whether this description was meant seriously.

  • Comment number 70.

    This article backs up what I have been thinking, we are now ushering in a period of colder weather, there will probably be a cycle of 30 to 40 years of colder weather. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/07/35-years-ago-today-global-cooling-caused-severe-wind-damage/

  • Comment number 71.

    Based on the AQUA ch5 temperature data to the end of June, I expect the June UAH anomaly to be about 0.35c, +/- 0.05c, although I will be very surprised if it is in the lower half of this range.
    This of course compares with last months figure of 0.29c.

  • Comment number 72.

    71. QuaesoVeritas:

    If you're right then that would push the long term linear trend in UAH back up to +0.14 C/decade. Personally I think June might be a little higher in UAH; maybe 0.38 - 0.45?

    If my (fairly ragged, it has to be said) CH5 prediction based on previous ENSO 3.4 values is anywhere near right, then there should be a slight rise in CH5 over the next week, followed by a fairly sharp fall into the second week of July.

    Overall, my crude model predicts that July will pan out about average in CH5. August is looking very warm, though.

    I stress this is very uncertain and is solely based on the simple relationship between weekly ENSO 3.4 temps and AQUA CH5, given an 8 - 9 week lag.

  • Comment number 73.

    #72. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "Personally I think June might be a little higher in UAH; maybe 0.38 - 0.45?"
    As I said, I wouldn't be surprised at 0.4c, but I think that 0.45c is pushing it a bit!

    "If my (fairly ragged, it has to be said) CH5 prediction based on previous ENSO 3.4 values is anywhere near right, then there should be a slight rise in CH5 over the next week, followed by a fairly sharp fall into the second week of July. "

    The extended GFS forecast on the Ryan Maue website seems to be showing generally below normal temps. in the U.K. and a fall in global temperatures up to July 20th, with even some negative anomalies near the end. Having said that, I think that the figures on that forecast may depend on what time of the day you look at and all of the lowest figures seem to occur at the 12:00 time slot.
    http://policlimate.com/weather/current/ext_raw_temp_c.html

  • Comment number 74.

    73. QuaesoVeritas:

    From your link, there seems to be some sort of almighty heat wave going on in north Asia.

    I haven't heard anything about this. Is it so?

  • Comment number 75.

    #74. newdwr54 wrote:
    "From your link, there seems to be some sort of almighty heat wave going on in north Asia.
    I haven't heard anything about this. Is it so?"
    On the other hand, it is very cold in NE Asia and elsewhere.
    Not sure, I think the map may be approximately correct but may exaggerate anomalies at certain times of the day. I suspect it might be comparing a location's mid-day temp. with average daily temp. for example, but I can't be sure.

  • Comment number 76.

    @74 newdwr54

    Seems to be warm everywhere at present:-

    http://wxmaps.org/pix/clim.html

    But as QV says whilst Maue has the globe cooling over the next few weeks, and I am equally quizical of the methodology, but trend wise for the last 6 months or so he seems to be getting there. But I have no conviction about the actual numbers, only the trend, getting warmer, getting cooler etc.

    It will be interesting to watch as the expected ENSO change gets established. Keep a watch at:-

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC007&year=2012&month=07

    Whilst a classic Nina to Nino transposition is evident it is noticable that the Nino anomalies are not intensifying. Time will tell.

  • Comment number 77.

    in S25 at 11pm last night, it sounded as though an avalanche of water was coming down. I would be really interested to know how much water fell in that short period of time.

  • Comment number 78.

    #65 newdwr54 claims that temperatures are measured to 100th's of a degree. Perhaps they are but:-

    1. Normal surface measuring stations, in Stephenson Screens, are accurate to 0.5C because they are read by humans and these are the most numerous stations.

    2. Perhaps electronic thermometers can achieve that accuracy but such a thermometer will get a reading change by a small change of position, a few meters, which is not of use to a climate scientist.

    3. Heat is the more important metric not temperature. Air saturated with water holds far more heat that the same volume of dry air at the same temperature.

    #64 Quake seems to think that the science is settled. No it is not. The science is far from even being known let alone settled.
    The APU has stated that the GHG theory is incontrovertible but the mass of the proton is not incontrovertible is also another of their claims. The mass of the proton has yet to be determined accurately but global warming is settled. What stupidity.

  • Comment number 79.

    "#64 Quake seems to think that the science is settled. " That's their opinion, but anybody who uses common sense will see that it isn't true.

  • Comment number 80.

    It's settled science that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it absorbs infrared. It's settled science that the Earth must emit infrared radiation into space to "cool down". It's settled science that the CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs a lot of this outgoing radiation and therefore the Earth must be warmer to push sufficient radiation out. It's settled science that an increase in CO2 will absorb more outgoing radiation, and settled science that this result will cause the Earth to warm up in response.

    When it comes to numbers it's settled science that the temperature increase is substantial. The mainstream thought on the impact of rising CO2 from human activity is that it will end up warming the Earth several degrees C. Even minority opinions think it will warm the Earth at least one degree C. In either case this is more warming than was seen over the entire 20th century, and so CO2 alone emitted by man stands to dominate global temperature change of the next 200 years.

    This is settled because there's no evidence currently to contest this. Maybe there will be in the future, but it would require an "everything we know is wrong" kind of discovery. Possible but unlikely. We might also discover one day that the Earth is older than 5 billion years. Seems unlikely now and the science is settled that it's about 4.5 billion years old. Who knows but wishful thinking about very unlikely possibilities of future discoveries doesn't suffice as an argument against overwhelming current evidence on matters.

  • Comment number 81.

    78: "1. Normal surface measuring stations, in Stephenson Screens, are accurate to 0.5C because they are read by humans and these are the most numerous stations."

    A single screen might have a precision of 0.5C, but the average of two screens has a precision of 0.25C. The reason global temperature can be measured to fine precision is that it's the average of a lot of measurements.

  • Comment number 82.

    Oldgifford #22

    Proof of Corbyn's authenticity - where?

    On Corbyn's website you say. Gosh, pardon me- it MUST be true then!

    With people like you no wonder he stays in business. But give me Russell Grant any day!

  • Comment number 83.

    To various above-

    Why don't people who believe in AGW give up their high carbon lifestyles? An interesting question. Perhaps it's a bit like not cutting out fatty food or alcohol even though you know it's bad for you? Let's face it, none of us are anything like as rational as we think we are.

    Some do of course make changes for environmental reasons whether "believers" or not. But do any really do enough to be classed as a serious effort? At risk to life and limb on a busy main road for example, I sometimes cycle the 6 miles to work - luckily I do not have to look "presentable" when I get there! I grow some ( but nowhere near all) my food, drive a little car, minimise water use etc. I would not kid myself that this is anywhere near adequate however. But, as Gandhi said - "become the change you want to see".

    Many people who advocate lifestyle change are often young urbanites or the comfortably retired. They don't have to rush to distant demanding jobs each day while getting the kids ready for school and then rushing home again before checking on their aged mother who lives 30 miles away(among other things). Such is life for many.

    Personally, I think individual effort in an society of profligate global economics will have little effect. So its down to the politicians then - who of course are faced with the same problems. Who will be the rich nation who will pay to make the world better for everyone? Judging by the various "Earth summits" - no one in a hurry. And thanks to "Daily Mail" style populist manipulation- in the Uk it's risky for politicians to threaten vested interests beyond perhaps a bit of wind farm bribery- (neatly paid for by DM readers!) This is why the DM and many others are anti AGW of course - it makes us so cross and morally outraged that we should involuntarily have to sacrifice anything for the common good-thus selling excellent copy. And TECHNOLOGY will save you if environmental alarms turn out not to be a complete fiction anyway!

  • Comment number 84.

    Reading through an old book I came across the following :
    "Clouds obstruct the passage of radiation of all wavelengths, both to and from the earth. the sun's radiation is almost entirely reflected back to space from the top of the cloud, while the whole spectrum of the earth's long-wave radiation is absorbed and re-radiated, much of it downwards towards the earth again. The cloud layer acts as a thermostat;for if the temperature of the earth's surface rises, increased evaporation gives increased cloud, which cuts off more of the sun's radiation;and similarly if the temperature falls, less of the sun's radiation is reflected owing to diminished cloud"

    This of course is pretty obvious but it strike me that we are doing much navel gazing into the trivial levels of CO2 without concentrating on the big picture. Is it because we haven't got a record of cloud cover to correlate with global temperatures (whichever version is used for guessing the "true" temperature) and cannot therefore predict the effects?

 

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.