« Previous | Main | Next »

The Beast from the East is lurking

Paul Hudson | 13:54 UK time, Wednesday, 5 December 2012

There is now growing consensus between most weather computer models that cold air from the east is likely to spread across Britain next week.

If so, it will be the first time since March that high pressure has properly dominated our weather, and will end a long sequence of at times record breaking wet weather.

And it looks to be a classic winter-time set up, with a powerful anticyclone developing across Scandinavia and into western Russia, pulling in cold easterly winds across a large part of the country, hence the old saying 'the beast from the east'.

The diagram below is what's known as an 'ensemble mean' from the ECMWF model for the middle of next week.



The computer program is run 51 times, each time with slightly different starting conditions.

The solutions are then compared, and give forecasters an indication as to how likely a particular outcome is.

From the midnight run of the computer, 41 out of 51 of the solutions suggest an easterly weather pattern developing next week, with varying degrees of cold.

10 solutions do not agree with this cold easterly outcome, hence there is still some uncertainty. But, there's clearly a large majority in favour of this scenario at the moment.

What is much less certain is how much snow is likely to be associated with this change in the weather.

Quite often in these situations, there's a distinct lack of precipitation apart from wintry flurries which can develop as the air picks up moisture as it heads westwards across the North Sea.

But some solutions are suggesting 'disturbances' in the easterly flow, which would bring the risk of more general snowfall.

And of course there's always the risk of milder air trying to re-assert itself from from the west, which would also bring the risk of snow.

At the moment though, the cold but relatively dry scenario is the most likely outcome.

One way or the other, our weather is likely to become more seasonal in the lead up to Christmas.

Follow me on twitter @Hudsonweather

Comments

Page 1 of 2

  • Comment number 1.

    looks like ideal weather for the windfarms to show us what they can do. Haha

    in the meantime I'm dusting down the 4x4 and breaking out the leg lagging

  • Comment number 2.

    I've got my logs ready for when the wind turbines stop.

  • Comment number 3.

    My American friend suggests I buy a snow rake, to stop damage to roofs when piled high with snow, especially flat ones.

  • Comment number 4.

    But weren't we told by those expert climate scientists that snowfalls were a thing of the past? Have we been misled?

    You can follow the puny amount of wind power produced during this cold spell at www.bmreports.com - it will make sorry reading.

  • Comment number 5.

    I see us solar coolists are being proved right once again! We should prepare for more cold winters to come, it's becoming a trend following the sun going into hibernation.

  • Comment number 6.

  • Comment number 7.

    At least it was good propoganda to support the investments the BBC's pension fund has made in "green technology" companies.

  • Comment number 8.

    There's no indication of solar cooling. According to UAH satellite temperature records October just passed was the 2nd warmest since 1980. September was the 3rd warmest. November data isn't in yet but it looks like it too will be 2nd warmest.

    I wouldn't call that global cooling. Especially as we are just short of an El Nino. Imagine how much warmer it would be if there was an El Nino.

    For that matter imagine how much warmer it would have been if the Sun wasn't quiet. Shouldn't we be more concerned that CO2 seems powerful enough to have overpowered the cooling power of a quiet Sun? What happens when the solar cooling stops, or even reverses?

  • Comment number 9.

    or to put it another way. . . we're at (or about) solar max with positive sst's in the ENSO regions and yet we haven't seen a step jump. There seems to be little sign of a re-charged warm pool waiting to spring a large El Nino on us, despite the double dip 'La Nina that would not die'.
    I don't think there's much sign yet of either warming or cooling.

  • Comment number 10.

    9.lateintheday wrote:

    “There seems to be little sign of a re-charged warm pool….”

    Yeh, and at present there does not appear to be much re-charging going on. The Cloudiness/OLR at the date line has been held at the 1979-2010 climatology for most of the year.

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

    Are the above average SSTs producing a level of cloud cover sufficient to restrict insolation, but not releasing enough energy through evaporation to produce a step change?

    Also I wonder how much energy Typhoon Bopha has taken out of the Western Pacific warm pool? The effects of Sandy are still evident in the Atlantic:-

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

    With the warm pool having more “strength in depth” maybe the effect of Bopha will not be as evident as Sandy, but it must have an effect.

    Which way now? Nobody knows! Is there sufficient energy in the warm pool or will SSTs fall below average facilitating further energy transfer?

    Time will tell

  • Comment number 11.

    PingoSan seems to think that the cold weather disproves global warming. In fact the opposite is true. There is a good article in this month's Scientific American which explains why an unusually warm arctic leads to colder winters in Europe and N America. The reduced polar vortex leads to a greater probability of negative arctic and and atlantic oscillations which result in the classic pattern of cold air being drawn East from Siberia. This year we have the added problem of a developing el Nino.

  • Comment number 12.

    Some may be interested in this at “Notrickszone”:-

    “Brutal Cold Headed For Europe And North America – Solar And Ocean Cycles Bode Of An Approaching Little Ice Age”

    http://notrickszone.com/2012/12/05/brutal-cold-headed-for-europe-and-north-america-solar-and-ocean-cycles-bode-of-an-approaching-little-ice-age/

    Not the alarmism bit, we all know about “Smokin’ Joe”, but the solar info introduces a new, well new to me, metric – “Accumulated Sunspotanomaly until 47 month after cyclestart”

    There are just too many differing solar theories and metrics for me to gain any confidence.

    However maybe we are about to have a "real world experiment"

  • Comment number 13.

    12. greensand wrote:

    Sorry 12 should have been posted on the previous thread, ho hum,

  • Comment number 14.

    @12 greensand

    The problem I have with Joe is that every year for the last few (3,4,5?) have been the start of a cooling period. Cooling will start next year, ok the next...UAH goes -ve for one month and its the start, again, until the month is over...

    Works opposite way too of course. Slight to no warming means scientists get hard questions, not sure the basic explaintions (was easier to keep it basic when C02 and temps both on the up) of whats happening helps them now, as explainations look shiffty.

  • Comment number 15.

    14. john_cogger wrote:

    "The problem I have with Joe"

    Joe is a showman, his job is to get the punters to enroll and he is in competition with other showmen. The problem I have is when other more trusted and restrained organisations feel that they have to compete with or react to the showmen.

    Leave them to it, they stand or fall on their predictions and of course so do the more stayed organisations.

    There is just one point at present that is in Smokin' Joe's favour, he made his prediction 5 days before this post, so is he ahead of the game this time? Don't know, didn't pay too much attention but I think his prediction was for 15 days in 3 x 5 day chunks, so far the first 5 days looks OK. Only time will tell about the rest.

    Anyhow Joe was not the point of my comment, just sort of came attached.

  • Comment number 16.

    Better buy that new snow shovel then before the 'Beast Of Bolsover' and his colleagues make a mess of the economy and the price goes up

  • Comment number 17.

    I would trust the beast of Bolsover, more than the beast of Gideon.

  • Comment number 18.

    Autumn confirmed as coldest since 1993 and the year is on track to be second coldest since 1996.

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/coldest-autumn-in-uk-since-1993/

  • Comment number 19.

    Hmm, the November RSS global anomaly is 0.195c, down from 0.294c in October.
    N.H. = 0.232c, compared with 0.317c and S.H. is 0.157c, compared with 0.270c.
    On the face of it, quite a surprising fall in temperature.
    My prediction at the end of November was 0.398c, but I think I said that looked odd, so I wouldn't necessarily expect similar falls in the other anomalies.
    The figure of 0.195c is similar to the 0.190c in 2007, which produced a UAH of 0.1c and a HadCRUT3 of 0.269c.

  • Comment number 20.

    19. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "Hmm, the November RSS global anomaly is 0.195c,"

    Hmm, indeed! Thanks for info QV. I take it UAH is in "recalibration"

    They diverged this time last year I wonder if it is anything to do the Arctic Ice reforming?

    www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH-LT-vs-RSS-LT-1981-2010-base-period.png

  • Comment number 21.

    #20. - greensand wrote:
    "They diverged this time last year I wonder if it is anything to do the Arctic Ice reforming?"

    It may well be due to the different approaches to the arctic/antarctic regions.
    RSS only measure to 82.5 north and -70 south. I had some e-mail correspondence with them, which I can't locate at the moment, but I think they said that they thought that the figures futher north/south were unreliable. I don't think they even extrapolate into those regions, whereas UAH do.

  • Comment number 22.

    Potentially a good opportunity for 'the beast from the east' but most likely the regime will modify and milder atlantic air will be across the UK by mid-December.

    However, as others have said - there is little correlation between UK (England) temperatures and actual weather and global weather. Not sure that El Nino / La Nina events are that predictable either.

    Oh well, " I'm dreaming of a ***** christmas . . . . " you fill in the blanks . . . .

  • Comment number 23.

    Guido is Rejoicing

    "Ice To See You, To See You Ice"

    "Global Warming is over"

    "Good news. It seems the glaciers are not melting. Eco-loons had predicted glaciers in the Himalayas would be gone by 2035, but with 100cm of fresh snowfall in November, the Times of India reports that “the abundance of snow on the mountains has rejuvenated nearly one thousand glaciers in the Himalayas."

    “While scanty snowfall and rising temperature in last decade had sparked the possibilities of fast shrinking of glaciers, good spells of snowfall in last three years have changed the trend with glaciers almost growing to their original size.”

    "It’s over! Rejoice!"

    http://order-order.com/2012/12/06/ice-to-see-you-to-see-you-ice/

    Read the original:-

    Times of India

    http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-12-03/india/35569707_1_bara-shigri-glaciers-snowfall

  • Comment number 24.

    "It seems the glaciers are not melting..."

    Ha ha ha. Might seem like that to someone who only reads denierblogs instead of science journals.
    The world's glaciers have lost 2,200 cubic miles of ice since 1960 and the decline is accelerating

    https://koshland-science-museum.org/sites/default/files/images/GlacierDecline.jpg

    Don't you even embarrass yourself with your vacuous nonsense?

    And yes - it's true. Glaciers over 17,000 ft in the Himalayas are getting more snow because the atmosphere now holds 7% more moisture than it did 50 years ago.

    And one typo - 2035 instead of 2350 - in a 3,000 page report. Spotted and corrected by a climate scientists 5 years ago. Woop de doo. That all you've got?
    Climate "skeptick" Fred Singer had 122 proven errors in one book.
    Didn't notice you carping on about that 5 years later.

  • Comment number 25.

    I watched Philip Avery's forecast on the BBC site last night. There was no big high pressure forcing the easterly flow from early next week, but a large low pressure in western Russia/southern Baltic. This is basic stuff, what happened to the computer model?

  • Comment number 26.

    @ 24. Leslie Graham

    O dear, O dear, what an extraordinary reaction to what should be considered good news.

    May I respectfully suggest that if you really do have an issue with this article that you take it up with the Times of India and Guido?

    I am sure they will be pleased to receive your input.

  • Comment number 27.

    "The Beast from the east is lurking" is as good a description as any but not just from the implied severe cold pool waiting to 'pounce'.

    I would contend it is a good description as it is painfully difficult for computers to get a handle on the outcome - as usual UK will most likely be near or on the balancing point on the see-saw with two 'fatties' either side! There does appear to be deep cold air over the near continent and it is this relatively dense pool which might upset the programs' usual west to east protocol. Once cold air is in place computer models do tend to blast milder air into UK rather more quickly than it sometimes turns out - with further 'unexpected' transport chaos.

    But then synoptic weather forecasting would be boring without this 'theatre' !

  • Comment number 28.

    Just checked in again at the BBC site and they are still running the non -high pressure forecast. Now if the computer can get it bahookie over mammary gland to this extent and we have a low pressure to the east and not a high pressure then what faith can we put in a forecast dependent on a blocking high when there is no blocking high?

  • Comment number 29.

    25. Boanta wrote:

    "I watched Philip Avery's forecast on the BBC site last night."

    Thanks, just had a look and I see what you mean. We have to be a little careful as the chart posted by our host above is valid for Thursday 13th Dec. However it does show a high over Russia at 1035 where as the BBC are showing 1004 on Tuesday. Will that change happen between Tuesday and Thursday? I am assuming that they are both 500hpa, not clear on the Beeb site?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2635167

  • Comment number 30.

    #24. - Leslie Graham wrote:
    "And yes - it's true. Glaciers over 17,000 ft in the Himalayas are getting more snow because the atmosphere now holds 7% more moisture than it did 50 years ago."

    Clearly you are a member of the "everything is caused by climate change" fraternity, so there is little point in trying to convince you otherwise.

    10000 years ago, Britain was covered in ice a mile thick.
    Was it a good thing or a bad thing that it melted?
    Britain and the U.S. reduced CO2 emissions last year, while those in China and India increseased. I suggest that you take the problem up with the Chinese and Indian Governments and see how they react.

  • Comment number 31.

    There is a headline on the Express.co.uk which reads "Coldest week for 20 years is on way", but as far as I can see, the article starts out on the subject of the economy and morphs into one about the weather and I can't make much sense of it. I might buy the actual newspaper to see if it makes any more sense.
    The part about weather includes the following paragraph:
    "Temperatures in Britain have already sunk lower than the North Pole this week with Svalbard, Norway – the world’s most northerly settlement – hitting -8.5C, which was considerably warmer than some parts of the UK."
    Someone should point out to these idiots that Svalbard is about 1000km from the North Pole.

  • Comment number 32.

    There was an item on Radio 4 this morning, by Roger Harrabin, saying that the Doha climate change talks were a shambles, but I can't find anything about it on the BBC web page, only this from the 5th. I haven't checked the BBC News Channel yet.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20613915
    I suppose this is all the fault of "sceptics" sabotaging the talks.

  • Comment number 33.

    32. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    “There was an item on Radio 4 this morning, by Roger Harrabin”

    If it is the same one I caught, the majority of the blame seemed to be directed at the chairmanship of the Qataris. Along the lines of it being a mistake to have taken up the offer to stage it there as they did not appear to be concerned about securing a resolution? Also something about one of the organisers being an ex OPEC chair?

    Plus the usual “disappointment” about the USA, “especially as Obama had been re-elected.”

    There will be a full PM shortly. Harrabin, however did float the outside chance of talks going on until Monday, but I got the impression that even he did not want that to happen.

  • Comment number 34.

    #33. - greensand wrote:
    32. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "Plus the usual “disappointment” about the USA, “especially as Obama had been re-elected.”

    There will be a full PM shortly. Harrabin, however did float the outside chance of talks going on until Monday, but I got the impression that even he did not want that to happen."
    That's the one.
    I think his words were "heaven forbid".
    Poor Obama has been a major disappointment to everyone who thought he was the new Messiah. I am old enough now not to put any hope into expecting Politicians solving anything, only making things worse. I think there has been a decline in the standard of democratically elected leaders, due to elections becoming popularity contests. It is perhaps ironic that probably the most effective government in the world is the undemocratic one in China.

  • Comment number 35.

    there was an article on radio 4's 'material world' yesterday discussing Doha. They had interviews with Miles Allen and a woman called Hika (with a German sounding surname).
    Should be available on Iplayer.

  • Comment number 36.

    #35. - lateintheday wrote:
    "there was an article on radio 4's 'material world' yesterday discussing Doha. They had interviews with Miles Allen and a woman called Hika (with a German sounding surname).
    Should be available on Iplayer."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01p42w8/Material_World_06_12_2012/

    "Quentin Cooper asks how to make talking about climate change less boring, and interviews DNA pioneer James Watson on the reissue of his classic work The Double Helix."

    Boring - climate change?
    Surely not.
    I didn't listen to this yesterday because I am sure it was a different subject on my programme guide.
    Anyway, I will listent to it on iPlayer - thanks.

  • Comment number 37.

    Now on the BBC website:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20639215

    "Developing countries say there is a lack of ambition among richer countries to cut greenhouse gases faster."

    Presumably by "richer" countries, they must mean India and China - they can't possibly be referring to the U.K., since we are deep in debt and probably will be for decades.

  • Comment number 38.

    Oh, and the U.K. and the U.S.A. are already reducing Co2 emissions (probably due to economic decline in the case of the U.K.), while India and China are increasing theirs.

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/fossil-fuel-emissions-2011/

    At this rate, U.K. emissions will be zero in 15 years.

  • Comment number 39.

    I wonder if the BBC are going to be reporting on this comment made by a speaker at the Doha conference

    “In the 16 years we have been coming to these conferences, there has been no global warming,”

    Interesting comment, sense at last I thought

  • Comment number 40.

    @ 38. QuaesoVeritas

    Thanks for the link, if I have got the numbers right, China is increasing CO2 emissions each year by double what the UK emits in a year.

    So each year China adds the equivalent to 2 more UKs

  • Comment number 41.

    wait a minute Greensand . . . are you seriously suggesting that more UK windfarms wont make a 'significant contribution' to cutting worldwide CO2 emissions? I'm staggered! Do the government know about this? If not, they should be told straight away since otherwise, they may accidentally pursue an entirely unfeasible energy policy.

  • Comment number 42.

    41. lateintheday wrote

    ". . are you seriously suggesting that more UK windfarms wont make a 'significant contribution' to cutting worldwide CO2 emissions?"

    What me? Well, now you come to mention it, the numbers do make it rather obvious!

    Sort of reminds me of (courtesy of Urban Dictionary:-

    Doing "something" into the wind

    "1. Engaging in a pointless activity; something futile."

    "2. Undertaking a task in such a way as to make undesirable consequence to yourself likely, when avoiding those consequences would have been easily achieved by a simple change in direction or approach."

    No direct link, it has "something" in it.

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/

  • Comment number 43.

    #39. - openside50 wrote:
    “In the 16 years we have been coming to these conferences, there has been no global warming,”

    Who said that - do you have a link?

    Was he forcibly ejected?

    Of course, he probably said something like "but that doesn't mean there is no global warming"

  • Comment number 44.

    #42. - greensand wrote:
    "2. Undertaking a task in such a way as to make undesirable consequence to yourself likely, when avoiding those consequences would have been easily achieved by a simple change in direction or approach."

    But think of all the jobs it provides!

  • Comment number 45.

    44.QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "But think of all the jobs it provides!"

    I have, it is one of the reasons why China's CO2 emissions are increasing by 10% every year.

  • Comment number 46.

    Just checked the latest BBC website update and there is still no sign of 'a powerful anti-cyclone developing over Scandinavia', though they are still going for the low pressure over the Baltic Republics pushing cold air eastwards over the UK.

  • Comment number 47.

    QV

    'Who said that - do you have a link?

    Was he forcibly ejected?'

    It was said by he who cannot be named and yes he got a red card and an early bath. Deported apparently.

    The truth is dangerous.

  • Comment number 48.

    lateintheday

    'wait a minute Greensand . . . are you seriously suggesting that more UK windfarms wont make a 'significant contribution' to cutting worldwide CO2 emissions? I'm staggered! Do the government know about this? If not, they should be told straight away since otherwise, they may accidentally pursue an entirely unfeasible energy policy.'

    As reported in the Grauniad recently there are plans to build 1200 coal fired power stations worldwide at the moment. Once they are up and running they will wipe out any savings in CO2 emissions from the UK's burgeoning population of windmills in about 20 minutes. And our government chose to sentence pensioners to fuel poverty and drive industry abroad rather than facing this simple fact. Words fail me. Actually they don't but they would not get past moderation.

  • Comment number 49.

    Does anyone know if the snow will reach Eastbourne.

  • Comment number 50.

    #47. - Spanglerboy wrote:
    "It was said by he who cannot be named and yes he got a red card and an early bath. Deported apparently."

    Thanks, that's very helpful.

  • Comment number 51.

    #39. - openside50 wrote:
    "I wonder if the BBC are going to be reporting on this comment made by a speaker at the Doha conference"

    Is this what you were talking about?:

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/07/fox-paints-birthers-climate-change-antics-as-se/191735

  • Comment number 52.

    QV you got it. Just don't mention the name or we will be invaded by the SWAT team from True Believer Central.

    In the meantime keep up the good work.

    PS if you could send a bit of global warming my way I would be very grateful. It's fir cone freezing in this tent!

  • Comment number 53.

    Thanks for that article veritas - it was a load of hogwash of course as most alarmists blogs are

    "Monckton was removed from the 2012 UN climate talks in Doha, Qatar, after impersonating a delegate from Myanmar in order to misleadingly claim that there has been "no global warming at all" for 16 years"

    He didnt impersonate the mayamar delegate and he didnt mislead anyone about the lack of warming for the last 16 years

    Thanks for the link though

  • Comment number 54.

    #53. - openside50 wrote:
    "He didnt impersonate the mayamar delegate and he didnt mislead anyone about the lack of warming for the last 16 years"

    So is the picture on the blog a fake?

  • Comment number 55.

  • Comment number 56.

    "So is the picture on the blog a fake?"

    he did not have accreditation to speak being there merely as an observer, he spotted an empty seat, sat down pressed the button that you use to request to speak and was put through

    him being sat in the myanmar seat does not mean he was impersonating the myanmar delegate

    funny how so many who applaud the various stunts pulled by greenpeace and co seem outraged at Monckton doing something as banal as speaking into a mocrophone

    and even more outrageous telling the truth

  • Comment number 57.

    #55. - Spanglerboy wrote:
    "see video here"

    Thanks, I don't suppose this will ever find it's way onto BBC t.v.

    I can imagine that the delegates at the conference would be horrified at having to listen to the truth for a change.

    This reminds me of the fairy tale about the "Emporer's New Clothes".

  • Comment number 58.

    This reminds me of the fairy tale about the "Emporer's New Clothes".

    and me!

  • Comment number 59.

    So the picture of him on the blog was a fake.
    Outrageous!

  • Comment number 60.

    Of course, I meant to say:
    This reminds me of the fairy tale about the "Emperor's New Clothes".

  • Comment number 61.

    It is quite revealing how some react to what, given their fears, is effectively good news.

  • Comment number 62.

    Just on a point of order, the claim that "there has been no global warming at all" in the past 16 years is flat *incorrect*, even if we confine ourselves only to the main global surface and lower troposphere data sets and ignore seal level rise, ocean heat content increase and rapid glacial and sea ice decline over that period.

    Every global surface and lower troposphere temperature data set we have shows warming over the past 16 years. The average of HadCRUT4, NASA, NCDC, RSS and UAH is +0.1C increase per decade. That's a faster rate of increase than was seen on average over the 20th century.

    UAH satellite data show warming at a rate of +0.15C/decade over the past 16 years; more than twice the average 20th century rate. Using the WMO's standard metric of 30 years, all data sets show warming at a rate of +0.16C/decade (+/- 0.01C).

    The 'rate of warming' table Monckton posts on the WUWT article (which he does not attribute) states that the global warming rate between 1997 - 2012 is "0.0 C/century". In fact, only one data set is flat since 1997: RSS satellite. The average of the above mentioned data sets since 1997 is in fact +0.6 C/century. According to both NASA and UAH it is +1.0 C/century in that period.

    So it's good fun clowning around, and you have to admire his 'chutzpah' to a certain extent; but at least one of his so-called *truths* is plainly *untrue*. Don't let it spoil the party.

  • Comment number 63.

    Dave Britton of the Uk Met Office 15.10.2012 in response to the David Rose article in the Mail

    'We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.'

  • Comment number 64.

    63. Spanglerboy:

    The Rose article cherry-picked September 1997 as its start date. Monckton specifies 1997-2012 in his WUWT article; implying Jan 1997 - present.

    We don't know what data set Monckton used for this (because he doesn't bother to tell us), but we know it wasn't HadCRUT4, because the HadCRUT4 trend since Jan 1997 is +0.5 C per century, not "0.0 C".

    Here is the UAH satellite trend since 1997: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/uah/from:1997/trend

    According to Monckton this should be "0.0 C/Century". According to Christy and Spencer it's +1.0 C/century. NASA's is even higher: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1997/plot/gistemp/from:1997/trend

    So who should we believe?

  • Comment number 65.

    So who should we believe?

    Dont get hung up about it. Global temperature anomalies are not reality. Reality is the temperature outside at this moment. Reality is that we will always have extreme weather because that is how it is! Reality is that some winters will be cold and snowy and some will be mild and wet or dry or somewhere in between. Reality is also accepting that which we cannot change. We cannot change the climate so dont get hung up about it.

    Good night. Sleep tight.

  • Comment number 66.

    62. newdwr54 wrote:

    Whoa, yo dude, respect, you really have trained on!

    No BS, your comment is a true Tour de Force, I congratulate you, a lot of good work in there.

    However eventually we have to make ourselves aware of what is actually happening in the here and now:-

    The HadCRUT4 chart below shows the present 30, 15 and 10 year trends

    http://i49.tinypic.com/b3oifn.jpg

    All three trends are falling, the 30 year (blue) trend has reduced 25% over the last 9 years, since March 2007 the 15 year (red) trend has shed 85% and the 10 year trend is now negative.

    Whilst it is recognised that the 15 and 10 year are not “climatically” significant, keep your eye on them, they are, at present dictating the direction of the 30 year trend.

  • Comment number 67.

    'We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.'

    in other words Monckton was correct because that shows there has been no statistically significant warming in that period

    it is a cause of great amusemnt to me, the way many on the alarmist side try and wriggle out of agreeing in any way whatsover with that plain and simple fact

    their usual method is simply to say 'its not true there has been no warming'

    being too addicted to their cause to admit even, to make the more honest admission - that there has if any, been very very very little

  • Comment number 68.

    Statistical significance works both ways. Monckton can't claim there's been no warming for 16 years if the error bars support the possibility of substantial warming.

    0.03C/decade, but what is the +- uncertainty on that figure? Ie how high could it be?

  • Comment number 69.

    65. Spanglerboy wrote:

    "Reality is the temperature outside at this moment."

    Doesn't that depend on where you are?

  • Comment number 70.

    68. quake wrote:

    "Statistical significance works both ways."

    The beauty/lunacy of error bars/statistical significance is that can you choose yours and I choose mine? The ensemble is produced in order to negate the inevitable inconclusive/nonsensical discussions.

    I have always been happy to accept the ensemble mean. Report against the ensemble mean and respect will follow. Spin it within the "error bars" snd as John Cogger said earlier (14) "makes explanations look shifty"

  • Comment number 71.

    uncertainty ranges are important.

    Two periods can have the same trend of 0.03C/decade but if one has uncertainty of +-0.01C/decade and the other has uncertainty of 0.03C/decade +- 0.3C the conclusions drawn from them are very different.

    The former implies very little warming with confidence. The latter implies nothing, anything is possible from large cooling to large warming, usually a sign that the period chosen is too short to draw a conclusion.

  • Comment number 72.

    66. greensand wrote:

    "The HadCRUT4 chart below shows the present 30, 15 and 10 year trends: http://i49.tinypic.com/b3oifn.jpg "

    No it doesn't GS. What it shows are the *rolling trends* over 30, 15 and 10 years. As we have discussed many times, the lines on graphs portraying trends do not represent real world temperatures; they represent *rates* of temperature change.

    A falling trend just shows that the 'rate' at which temperatures are rising has slowed; it does not show that temperatures are no longer rising.

    The 30 year trend is the one to keep an eye on, but here are the current 30, 15, 10 and 5 (why not) year trends in HadCRUT4: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1982/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1982.83/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.83/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002.83/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2007.83/trend

    Everything on that graph less than 30 years is affected by 'noise' in the climate system (ENSO, Solar, aerosols). Anything over 17 years is affected by the underlying trend. 30 years is as close as we're going to get to an estimate of the present rate of 'global warming'.

  • Comment number 73.

    71. quake wrote:

    "Two periods can have the same trend of 0.03C/decade but if one has uncertainty of +-0.01C/decade and the other has uncertainty of 0.03C/decade +- 0.3C the conclusions drawn from them are very different."

    Yes quake, quite agree, the problem is we only have one period, the present. and that shows that the rate or of warming is declining. Its predecessors, 15 and 10 year trends indicate an acceleration of the rate of decline.

    This is not hypothetical, it is just an actual fact, is it "a sign that the period chosen is too short to draw a conclusion" only time will tell!

    But if you want a clue keep yur eyes on the 15 and 10 year trends, they will tell you the direction the 30 year trend will eventually take.

    http://i49.tinypic.com/b3oifn.jpg

  • Comment number 74.

    and newdr - why have you suddenly started quoting trends in the 'per century' range?

  • Comment number 75.

    #68. - quake wrote:
    "Statistical significance works both ways. Monckton can't claim there's been no warming for 16 years if the error bars support the possibility of substantial warming.

    0.03C/decade, but what is the +- uncertainty on that figure? Ie how high could it be?"

    Or, how low could it be?

    That is something the "warmists" can't contemplate and rarely mention.

    Monckton can make the claim as long as "warmists" insist that there has been warming when there could have been cooling.

    The truth is, we don't really know. It's slightly more likely that it is warming, but it is possible that it there is no warming or that there is cooling.

  • Comment number 76.

    Re Felix #49

    The latest models mainly revert to atlantic influence from about Thu next week - prior to that some snow might fall in eastbourne.

    I have to say these blogs are becoming rather predictable (unlike the climate). Regardless of the TOPIC commenced by Paul Hudson the main contributors (who appear in every topic) immediately slide into discussion of climate change, the possible causes and critique of the various tools measuring variances and trends - incessantly repeating what was 'done to death' in the previous blog.

    Whilst I have no doubt those matters relating to long term climate change are very important, I think it is unnecessary to swamp every topic with relentless chatter about HadCRUT et al. . . . .

    Perhaps the host could set up a separate continuous blog where the endless prattlings (which will not make a jot of difference to anything least of all the climate) can be aired without curing the insomnia of the rest of us.

    Apologies to anyone who I may have offended . . .

  • Comment number 77.

    Felix 49 and Chris 76: Yeah, 'the beast from the east' was actually a blow up poodle inflated by CO2. It cost about £47 million.

  • Comment number 78.

    The Doha talks seem to be concentrating on possible compensation by the "rich" countries (because we caused "climate change") of the developing nations who might suffer the effects of "climate change").

    Personally I would be quite happy to see an agreement on this, because it might necessitate the establishment of a "Climate Change Compensation Court" (CCCC), in which claims for compensation would be challenged in a legal sense, and those claiming compensation would have to put forward evidence to prove that any event was caused by "climate change", and the matter would have to be discussed in the open. Or do these countries think that we will just pay up automatically, every time they put in a claim for compensation, every time they have above average rainfall, or below average rainfall or above average temperatures or below average temperatures?

  • Comment number 79.

    #76. - chris wrote:
    "Regardless of the TOPIC commenced by Paul Hudson the main contributors (who appear in every topic) immediately slide into discussion of climate change, the possible causes and critique of the various tools measuring variances and trends - incessantly repeating what was 'done to death' in the previous blog."

    If you look back to the early days of these blogs, you will see that is how it has always been.

    This is a "Weather and Climate Change" blog, and furthermore, if it wasn't for those of us who are posting in a more general sense (although NOT off topic), there would be so few posts that it is possible that the blog might have been closed down by now due to lack of posts.

  • Comment number 80.

    "69. At 23:49 7th Dec 2012, newdwr54 wrote:
    65. Spanglerboy wrote:

    "Reality is the temperature outside at this moment."

    Doesn't that depend on where you are?"

    Aah Grasshopper, man who call you uncle may indeed be nephew.

    Chris 76 - sorry this is the children's playroom. You want next door :)

  • Comment number 81.

    Re my post #31, I notice that I didn't post a link to the original Express article. The latest version of the article, which is the one which appeared in the actual newspaper, is now here:
    http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/363062/Coldest-week-for-20-years-is-on-way
    However, the original one, which started out as a discussion of the economy but which morphed into the weather article is still available here:
    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=10724
    I think the transition is somewhere in the 5th paragraph.
    Unfortunately some of the original article is still not available.
    The original article said it had already been "colder than the north pole", based on temperatures in Svalbard, but the new version says it will be, based on a figure of -15c, but I still don't know on what basis that is justified.

  • Comment number 82.

    80, 69, 54,65. Reality is that a very expensively created computer model predicted a powerful anticyclone over Scandinavia, whereas this did not happen and indeed instead a major low pressure is going to develop over the southern Baltic. Expound please.

  • Comment number 83.

  • Comment number 84.

    74. openside50 wrote:

    "newdr - why have you suddenly started quoting trends in the 'per century' range?"

    Because as I mentioned at 64, I was referring to Monckton's 'rates of warming' table in his WUWT post, which is stated in 'per century' figures.

    As I mentioned above, Monckton does not supply sources for any of the rates he claims in that table. His claim that there has been 0.0 C per century warming between 1997 - 2012 is only true in one global data set (RSS). The four other main global data sets show average warming of +0.6 C, and NASA and UAH show +1.0 C in that period.

  • Comment number 85.

    83---Ah yes, it certainly would appear so. Did Weatheronline's computer cost as much as the Met Office one and did the taxpayer cough up for it? Scandinavia anti-cyclone my bahookie.

  • Comment number 86.

    83 & 85

    The eastern beastie is still showing a presence by end of second week in December. It ain't too far away. The two fatties are still battling - the current models considering the 'fight' (or front) to be about 500 miles further east by this time next week!

    Either way the synoptic weather still looks entertaining over the next 15 days - either more rain, hill snow and wind with maybe a cameo from 'the beast' by 20th to look forward to.

    One model indicates lots of troughing towards the south-east as the systems come up against the european cold air - just needs a breakaway low to develop and slide into france to pull colder air our way. It may be up to 500 miles distant but even at 15 kts it is here in less than 36 hours.

    All very typically December and nice to see typically December - but whatever the forecast models indicate (beyond about 120 hours) the weather will be its own boss and do whatever it wants.

  • Comment number 87.

    86.

    Never mind - one of the 51 models will be right - just which one this time eh?

    41 said "beast" last time and 10 were "skeptical". Consensus got that one wrong
    and mis-led all the conventional forecasters and the public.

    Sold a few newspapers.

    Seems like a parallel to something else...can't put my finger on it though......

  • Comment number 88.

    87 To be correct . . . .majority not consensus !

    But jazznick, you're right (including your last para) . . . and as I said at 86:

    All very typically December and nice to see typically December - but whatever the forecast models indicate (beyond about 120 hours) the weather will be its own boss and do whatever it wants.

  • Comment number 89.

    86: 500 miles further east! Is the MO computer predicting weather for Russia?

  • Comment number 90.

    87: Aye,the people with the mega expensive computer and the big salaries got their money for naff all.

  • Comment number 91.

    86--French low? What about that Scandinavian high?

  • Comment number 92.

    #91 "86--French low? What about that Scandinavian high"?

    The cold air over russia/scandinavia and any associated high pressure will need a mechanism to ridge westwards for that cold air to migrate to the UK. A fall of pressure over france - possibly by a breakaway low pressure development - would provide an easterly to the north of the low and to the south of the high/ridge and facilitate the movement of any cold air towards uk.

    It is all academic at this stage as the models will change much in the coming days (I know why bother? but they're not bad 5 to 7 days out). The cold air is never far away to the east (not unusual at this time of the year) and for example a recent model shows the axis of troughing to be roughly SW of Iceland to the east of Italy midway through the third week in Decemeber - the UK is on the mild side of that orientation. At the start of the fourth week the axis is more from S of Greenland to central france with the UK on the cold side.

    keeeeeep smiling . . . .

  • Comment number 93.

    The first admission of the 'beast being tamed' this morning( Andrew Marr show) Wonder who let the anthropogenic CO2 out of the toy poodle.

  • Comment number 94.

    Did anyone ask at the conference in Doha
    1) Has there been climate change before?
    2) Is the present change the most dramatic in the history of the world?

    The answers are of course yes and no. What they did agree was to "limit global average temperature rises to 2C" What a load of arrogant tosh.
    I'll say it again, nature rules the planet, always has and always will and to suggest that puny mankind can alter the naturally occuring patterns of climate change is complete and utter rubbish!

  • Comment number 95.

    Oh er um and BTW, Piers Corbyn's forecast was nearer the mark.

  • Comment number 96.

    #94. - Hudsonfan wrote:
    "What they did agree was to "limit global average temperature rises to 2C" What a load of arrogant tosh."

    There was a rep. from "Friends of the Earth" on the BBC News channel, complaining that more had not been done by developed countries to reduce CO2 emissions. He also said something like "given that the U.S. had just been hit by Hurricane Sandy, you would think that they would be more in favour of reducing emissions. Unfortunately the interviewer didn't point out that a) Hurricane Sandy was not caused by "climate change" and that hurricanes happened long before "climate change" is supposed to have started.
    He also failed to point out that both the U.S. and the U.K. actually reduced CO2 emissions last year, and of course, that global temperatures have actually fallen over the last 10 years and may not have increased for longer than that.
    Otherwise, those who argue the "climate change" case, can say anything they like on the BBC, without challenge.
    Unfortunately I didn't record the interview in question and didn't get the name of the Friend of the Earth rep.

  • Comment number 97.

    94. Hudsonfan wrote:

    "Did anyone ask at the conference in Doha
    1) Has there been climate change before?
    2) Is the present change the most dramatic in the history of the world?

    The answers are of course yes and no."

    And the third question that you don't ask is:

    3) Can the present rate of climate change be explained using only natural variation?

    The answer to which is "no".

    "I'll say it again, nature rules the planet, always has and always will and to suggest that puny mankind can alter the naturally occuring patterns of climate change is complete and utter rubbish!"


    That amounts to an argument from incredulity. The fact is that every national scientific academy and every geophysical institution of national or international significance in the world agrees that, by altering the chemistry of the atmosphere, "puny mankind" has and is altering the climate.

  • Comment number 98.

    96. QuaesoVeritas:

    Whilst hurricanes aren't caused directly by climate change, hurricane strength is sustained by warm sea surface temperatures and the damage they inflict on landfall is obviously increased by higher sea levels.

    The coastal waters off the US Eastern Seaboard were at record high temperatures this summer and autumn. Coastal waters around New York are on average 1 ft higher than they were 100 years ago.

    Increased SSTs and sea levels are largely attributed to 'global warming'. In which case, whilst global warming didn't cause Sandy, it helped sustain it as the tropical storm with the lowest ever central pressure on record in the North Atlantic, and increased the damage caused by the sea surge created by the storm and tidal influences.

    As for using just ten years to suggest a temperature trend, that is not to be taken seriously (whether it's warming or cooling). Climate scientists themselves have stated in the peer reviewed literature that around 17 years are required to identify an AGW signal from the noise of natural climate variability (which no scientist denies exists). Over 17 years all the current global data sets show warming.

  • Comment number 99.

    #98. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "Whilst hurricanes aren't caused directly by climate change"

    Thanks for admitting that.

    whilst global warming didn't cause Sandy,"

    Again, thank you.

    "Climate scientists themselves have stated in the peer reviewed literature that around 17 years are required to identify an AGW signal from the noise of natural climate variability (which no scientist denies exists). Over 17 years all the current global data sets show warming."

    So now you have to go back 17 years to demonstrate warming. When the period extends to 18, 19 and 20 years, will you accept there has been no warming?

    I suspect when this happens, the period required to demonstrate no warming will coincidentally be increased to 18, 19 or 20 years.

    According to figures by Stephen Goddard (Real Science), hurricanes hitting the U.S. have declined since the 1940's and were and was higher in the 1890's.

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/12/09/major-hurricanes-in-the-us-peaked-from-1930-to-1950/

    You probably will disagree with Goddard's conclusions, but if so, please explain why.

    You have to admit that the case for "climate change" is looking increasingly tenuous. It's just that some people haven't recognised that yet. I go as far as to predict that by the time of the next U.N. climate talks there will still have been no warming and the talks will be looking increasingly irrelevant, although of course, this will not prevent "climate change" believers blaming every single unusual weather event on "climate change".

  • Comment number 100.

    #97. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "3) Can the present rate of climate change be explained using only natural variation?"

    What is the "present rate of climate change"?

    N.B. not temperature change, but "climate change" as a result of warming.

 

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.