Weather

Provisional Met Office statistics show that September across the UK was wetter than normal with 112mm, or 117% of the long term average.

It was also cooler but sunnier than normal.

Regionally, the North of England was much wetter than the rest of the country, with 133mm of rain, which is 165% of average, making it the wettest since September 2000.

It was also the 6th successive month where rainfall was above normal.

There were contrasts across our region though.

Yorkshire received 125mm or 170% of average rainfall, but Lincolnshire was much drier, with only 43.4mm or 80% of the long term average.

The unsettled theme looks set to continue, with more rain tonight and early next week, which could be potentially heavy, although the weekend is looking fine and dry.

Normally at the start of the month I update the UAH satellite global temperature for the previous month, for no other reason than it's published before any of the other measures.

But for technical reasons, which you can read about here, this is not yet available.

Follow me on twitter @Hudsonweather

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments.

  • Comment number 67. Posted by newdwr54

    on 11 Oct 2012 12:25

    65. QuaesoVeritas:

    Yes, the UAH rolling 10 year trend (+0.02) includes September, while the HadCRUT4 trend (-0.04) is to August. If HadCRUT4 reaches +0.55C or above in September then I think it will bring the 10 year trend up to -0.03C/decade? It's still quite a bit cooler than UAH v5.5.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 67: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 67: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 66. Posted by QuaesoVeritas

    on 11 Oct 2012 11:58

    #64. - oldgifford wrote:
    "Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming."
    I read that to mean that it is assumed that only the deficiencies in the models is preventing them proving that exceptional events are linked to climate change.
    What they really mean is that "eventually we will create models which prove that such events are linked to "climate change".
    Actually I don't think that any model will ever prove that.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 66: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 66: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 65. Posted by QuaesoVeritas

    on 11 Oct 2012 11:54

    #63. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "Over the past 10 years UAH v5.5 is running warmer than HadCRUT4 by +0.06C per decade (UAH shows +0.02 warming and HadCRUT4 shows -0.04C cooling in the past 360 months). "
    Is the UAH trend to September? I believe that to August it was only 0.011c/decade, which is strictly comparible with the HadCRUT4 figure.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 65: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 65: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 64. Posted by oldgifford

    on 11 Oct 2012 11:23

    Hi Guys,

    Not seen this reported on the BBC, I wonder why?

    From Nature: Extreme weather

    Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming.

    http://www.nature.com/news/extreme-weather-1.11428

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 64: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 64: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 63. Posted by newdwr54

    on 11 Oct 2012 11:22

    Comparing HadCRUT4 with UAH v5.5 the 30 year trend is identical in both, to the 1/1000th of a degree (both +0.165C per decade).

    Over the past 10 years UAH v5.5 is running warmer than HadCRUT4 by +0.06C per decade (UAH shows +0.02 warming and HadCRUT4 shows -0.04C cooling in the past 360 months).

    Overall there is very good agreement among all the data sets, especially over the longer (30 year) period. In the last 30 years global temperatures have risen at an average rate of about +0.16C per decade.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 63: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 63: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 62. Posted by QuaesoVeritas

    on 11 Oct 2012 11:05

    The global HadSST2 anomaly for September is 0.453c, compared with 0.440c for August.
    N.H. is 0.608c, compared with 0.589c and S.H. is 0.298c, compared with 0.290c.
    I haven't looked at the precise figures yet, but this suggests a small rise in global and N.H. HadCRUT3 and very little change in the S.H. Otherwise not such large increases as those suggested by UAH & RSS. However, this is uncertain, given the influence of land temperatures in the N.H.
    HadCRUT4 uses HadSST3 data but I haven't been able to locate the monthly time-series data files for that dataset yet.
    greensand, do you know a location of the HadSST3 monthly time series in plain text format?
    The only files I can find are here, but they are in compressed format and none of them seem to be equivalent to the data files available for HadSST2.
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/download.html

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 62: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 62: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 61. Posted by greensand

    on 11 Oct 2012 10:12

    @60 lateintheday wrote:

    "Greensand . . well I'm confused."

    Sorry LITD probably me that is causing the confusion. In their justification for HadCRUT4 the MO did say that, amongst other issues, there was a lack of Arctic/Canadian data. They stated that they had data in that area in the 90's but not "now". "Now" being 2005-2010, prior to HadCRUT4, which would re-introduce the Arctic/Canadian data.

    My question was why did we not have the data in the 2005-2010 period? If the exclusion during the 2005-2010 period now partly justifies a whole lot of work to produce HadCRUT4 why were the stations removed in the first place? Also how is it possible to know how consistant a database is if the geographical input is changeable? Yes stations will come and go, or be off-line for a period and a gridded product will cope well. But a whole bunch of Canadian/Arctic data? The inclusion/exclusion appears to have come about via a decision process? Probably a damn good reason but it is not obvious.

    Also not sure if HadCRUT3 has the Canadian/Arctic data included after 2010? But not going there as HadCRUT3 will fade away. Always concerns me that the owners of the various databases both terrestrial and satellite take great solace in producing numbers that very closely match each other. Has not always been the case Phil Jones used to champion his HadCRUT numbers over GISS.

    History shows that most people benefit from having their suppliers in competition.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 61: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 61: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 60. Posted by lateintheday

    on 11 Oct 2012 08:56

    Greensand . . well I'm confused.
    According to one link, Hadcrut4 is designed to better represent the global temperature record through the use of more arctic data - the inclusion of which, leads to a comparative warming of the more recent record. Yet as you point out, they've dropped a whole host of northerly canadian stations, which had been used previously.
    You would have thought that since the warming 'signal' is strongest at northerly latitudes, the arctic data might have been added to the existing canadian station data. Instead it's almost like they've replaced them.

    As you say, there may well be a good reason for this - perhaps it's a business/contractual thing?

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 60: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 60: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 59. Posted by greensand

    on 11 Oct 2012 08:30

    "Pacific eases further away from El Niño thresholds"

    Latest Enso Wrap-Up

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

    Not clear cut though, a sub sea cool east and warm west divide is developing. If the trade winds continue to slow the warm west could move to the east.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC007&year=2012&month=10

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 59: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 59: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 58. Posted by QuaesoVeritas

    on 11 Oct 2012 07:36

    #57. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "I based the '55 versions' notion on the fact that the previous UAH version was v5.4 and the latest is v5.5, so it seemed to me that they just go up in incremental steps? Apologies if this is wrong."

    On the contrary, I think it is I who probably needs to apologise.
    I was convinced that I had read that it was changing from v5 to v6, but I see it's from v5.4 to v5.5.
    However, since it's going from v5.5 to v6, I don't think it's 55 versions, obviously somewhere between 5 and 55!

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 58: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 58: 0
    Loading…
More comments

More Posts

Previous

Next