Weather

Summer is here at last

Summer is with us at last, with high pressure now building across the country.

A very weak weather front on Sunday may increase cloud for a time possibly leading to one or two showers. There is also a chance of a little sea fret at times along the coast.

But most of us will see a lot of very warm sunshine in the coming days.

And we’ve waited some time for it. It’s the first prolonged warm spell of summer weather since July 2006.

That’s more an illustration of just how bad summers have been in recent years, rather than it being anything out of the ordinary.

It also means that the Great Yorkshire Show, the biggest agricultural show in England, will enjoy a dramatic change of fortunes next week.

Last year the show was cancelled, the only time it has happened because of adverse weather in its 155 year history.

This year the only problem will be cooling the livestock, with temperatures at the showground in Harrogate likely to approach 80 degrees Fahrenheit at times.

The good news is that the atmosphere will become ‘blocked’ and such patterns can take a long time to break down.

It means that the fine weather is likely to last until the middle of July.

After that, there is a signal for more unsettled conditions to develop.

But that’s a long way off in forecasting terms.

For now, confidence is high that warm summery weather will be with us for some time to come.

Follow me on twitter @Hudsonweather

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments.

  • Comment number 103. Posted by greensand

    on 11 Jul 2013 21:48

    Some people were debating water vapour, emissions and the present day temperature "hiatus" (not my word), those with such interest may be interested in:-

    "Susan Solomon: “There’s another term – Solar forcing – which I didn’t include”"

    "....Basically, Prof Soloman says the hiatus is due to a combination of two factors: A reduction in stratospheric water vapour concentrations, and the effect of volcanic SO2 based aerosols getting into the stratosphere from smaller than expected volcanoes...."

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/07/11/susan-solomon-theres-another-term-solar-forcing-which-i-didnt-include/#more-13528

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 103: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 103: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 102. Posted by ashleyhr

    on 11 Jul 2013 17:22

    Met Office expecting a scorcher on Saturday (for some):
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2013/hot-weather

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 102: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 102: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 101. Posted by ukpahonta

    on 11 Jul 2013 11:06

    'The global climate-modelling groups that took part in the IPCC's experiments invested a substantial portion of their modelling time to produce the first systematic predictions of how the global climate will evolve in the coming years. These models predict cooler temperatures: on average 15% less warming over the next few decades compared with standard climate projections.'

    http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-forecast-for-2018-is-cloudy-with-record-heat-1.13344?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20130711#/hazy

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 101: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 101: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 100. Posted by ashleyhr

    on 10 Jul 2013 23:01

    I've just spotted this!
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/forecast/#?tab=fiveDay&fcTime=1373410800
    Scorching Nor'nIron. Will be of interest to Newdwr.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 100: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 100: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 99. Posted by greensand

    on 10 Jul 2013 21:18

    94. QuaesoVeritas

    "If I may interject!"

    You are always welcome QV!

    "Personally I wouldn't bother looking at hindcasts, for the very reason that they are hindcasts and therefore SHOULD reflect actuall observed historical temperatures, which of course do exhibit the approx. 60 year cycles."

    Good point, makes sense and I have better things to do!

    "You can also get model data using (I think) KNMI climate explorer, which Lucia Liljegren does, but I am not familiar with that system."

    Every time I attempt to familiarise with KNMI the mist comes down, I have a block with that system! Might have another look this winter.

    " If you want any guidance on using the IPCC data, let me know."

    Thanks for the offer, if I give it a go and if I get in a mess I will sure let you know.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 99: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 99: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 98. Posted by RobWansbeck

    on 10 Jul 2013 21:09

    @87, Lazarus wrote:

    “ Take Richard Muller a physics professor who made may [sic] a statement sceptical of climate change. “

    Richard Muller has never been 'sceptical of climate change', e.g.

    "Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate." - Richard Muller, 2003

    Richard Muller's 'Skeptic' label came about because he recognized and publicly acknowledged the flaws in the work of Michael Mann.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 98: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 98: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 97. Posted by greensand

    on 10 Jul 2013 21:02

    Once again thanks DW, interesting stuff but I am wary of too many assumptions:-

    "Real world temperatures, those at the leading edge of the 30 year average, would of course be falling if this were the case."

    "Real world temperatures" are falling, the 10 year rate of warming ("those at the leading edge") is very slightly negative. This can only happen if real world temperature are falling.

    If however you are referring to "again just assuming that the 30-year UKMO forecast continues beyond 2017..." (which it does not) then you are not referring in any way to "Real world temperatures"

    I have purposely not attempted to assume any numbers it just adds confusion. I am just questioning the principle of the cycle. We know not what the future holds but we do have actual observational data from which there appears to be a growing realisation that the cycle is at least a possibility and the time for confirmation/bust is getting close.

    -------------------------------------------------

    "If a 10 year trend gives us an idea as to direction of the broader 30-year flow, then it is of course useful."

    It will give an idea but any move/change in direction must be significant. The 10 year is by nature more volatile. You will know what I mean by "significant" if you check out the downward movement of the 10 year rate from its peak in early 2002. If the 60 year cycle plays out we should expect an upward move of equal "significance". Likewise if such a move is observed prior to the expected cycle timing it must question the existence of the cycle.
    -------------------------------------

    "But in isolation a 10-year period can be used to project a false forecast of future likely climatic trends and is therefore subject to misuse."

    I agree with the above for an "in isolation a 10-year period", but "The Last 10 years" is a forever moving feast that can never be "in isolation" or "cherry picked" and as such is a verifiable source of what is happening in the real here and now. When the 10 year trend turns upwards you will understand and will become one of its greatest champions and I will agree with you!

    Misuse comes from spin, interpretation and assumptions not from facts and data.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 97: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 97: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 96. Posted by RobWansbeck

    on 10 Jul 2013 20:40

    @83, Lazarus writes:

    “ If the last 30 years had been plotted, as is normal with climate data, those trends would have been even further within the model runs. “

    If you still believe that real-world temperatures are 'well within expected projections' then there is little I can say to alter that delusion.

    As for 'If the last 30 years had been plotted'? The last 30 years were plotted.

    I'll leave the cherry-picking to climate 'scientists'.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 96: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 96: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 95. Posted by newdwr54

    on 10 Jul 2013 19:57

    90. greensand

    "... if the 60 year cycle is confirmed around 2015/17 we will be less than half way down a 30 year down leg and possibly facing a further 15/17 years of a continuing decrease in the rate of warming which, if the cycle plays out, will not bottom until sometime in the 2030s?"
    ___________________________________________________

    If we assume that the warming rate predicted by the UKMO will span beyond the next few years, then yes. The 60 year trough won't come until round the late 2020s/early 2030s if our assumptions are granted and if my calculations are right (?). This is still referring to 'rates' of rise, as opposed to what we might call 'actual' temperature fluctuation.
    ______________________________________________

    "I haven't done any work on GCMs and their predictions but I am sure I haven't heard of any forecasting the rate of warming to continue decreasing over a period of 30 years 2003 to approx 2033?"
    ______________________________________________

    I'm not sure about what the 30-year rate predictions are; so you could well be right there. However, again just assuming that the 30-year UKMO forecast continues beyond 2017, then the thirty year average temperature would continue to rise until the late 2020s/early 2030s. So we'd have the odd situation in which 30-year rates of warming troughed while 30-year average temperatures peaked. Real world temperatures, those at the leading edge of the 30 year average, would of course be falling if this were the case.
    _________________________________________

    Re model data: I'm afraid I have no better access to computer model programmes than you do.
    __________________________________________________

    "One last point, this is why the decadal rate of warming is significant it tells the effect it is having on the longer 30 year trend. If the 60 year cycle is confirmed or not we will know when the bottom is possibly about to be reached because the decadal rate will go above the longer 30 year rate."
    __________________________________________________

    If a 10 year trend gives us an idea as to direction of the broader 30-year flow, then it is of course useful. But in isolation a 10-year period can be used to project a false forecast of future likely climatic trends and is therefore subject to misuse. That applies in both directions, of course.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 95: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 95: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 94. Posted by QuaesoVeritas

    on 10 Jul 2013 18:52

    #90.greensand

    "I haven't done any work on GCMs and their predictions but I am sure I haven't heard of any forecasting the rate of warming to continue decreasing over a period of 30 years 2003 to approx 2033?"

    If I may interject!

    As far are IPCC models are concerned, probably only those within the "commitment" scenario which assumed zero growth in greenhouse gasses from 2000.

    "Maybe the interesting thing to do would be to run a least squares on the GCMs hindcast data to see if the previous 60 year cycles appear. I would be very interested in doing it but don't know how to get the data, if you or anybody else knows how to get it I would appreciate being pointed in the right direction.

    Some data from IPCC AR4 scenarios is available from this site:

    http://www.ipcc-data.org/sim/gcm_global/index.html

    Unfortunately the data is in absolute temperature terms (degrees kelvin), so you would have to work out the anomalies yourself, by calculating the 1980-99 means and annual differences for each model. This seems to produce the correct results in relation to the mult-model means, except that it was as a result of doing this that I came to the conclusion that those MMMs were actually calculated using the averages for 1980-2000.

    Personally I wouldn't bother looking at hindcasts, for the very reason that they are hindcasts and therefore SHOULD reflect actuall observed historical temperatures, which of course do exhibit the approx. 60 year cycles.
    Having said that, a lot of the hindcasts don't even match the observed temperatures, so to that extent, they don't fully exhibit the approx. 60 year cycles as well as the observed temperatures do.

    You can also get model data using (I think) KNMI climate explorer, which Lucia Liljegren does, but I am not familiar with that system. I prefer to get data from as near the original source as possible.

    If you want any guidance on using the IPCC data, let me know.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 94: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 94: 0
    Loading…
More comments

More Posts

Next