Weather

UPDATE at 1pm on Mon 7th Jan

2012 was provisionally 3rd wettest on record according to the England & Wales rainfall series which started in 1766, behind 1872 and 1786. December was also the wettest since 1978 in the same dataset.

ENDS

2012 averaged across the UK was the second wettest on record in data which stretches back to 1910, falling short of a new record by only 6.6mm.

In total 1330.7mm fell last year, compared with the average of 1154mm.

A new record has been set across England and Wales with 1205mm of rain.

And locally new records have been set for Yorkshire, with 1230.8mm (136% of average) and Lincolnshire with 841.3mm (135% of average).

It's been a remarkable run of wet years in the UK since 1998; 6 years are now in the top 10 wettest - 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2008 & 2012.

Even more striking are figures based on the much longer England and Wales rainfall data series, first started in 1766.

2012 is provisionally in the top 4 wettest in 246 years (the other years being 2000, 1872 & 1786).

Also of significance is that 2012 is the only year in this 246 year data set in which 2 calendar months set new records for rainfall: April and June.

2012 has certainly been a remarkable year which has seen the jet stream too far south for long periods of time.

But weather patterns are very different as we head into early 2013. The jet stream has re-positioned itself further north, with high pressure building across the country.

This means an emphasis on much drier weather across the UK as whole in the next few days, which will come as a huge relief to many, although rain is expected early next week.

Follow me on twitter @Hudsonweather

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments.

  • Comment number 125. Posted by ukpahonta

    on 8 Jan 2013 20:12

    #112 QV

    'I can't wait to see the longer range projections from HadGEM3 in the IPCC AR5 report.'

    Don't hold your breath they won't be in there.

    Experimental is the correct terminology for this model there haven't been enough runs yet to provide data for papers to be submitted to the IPCC. AR5 will still be using models used for AR4, it's a dead duck in the water before it is published.

    The change to 5 year from 10 has been explained as greensand noted earlier but I suspect that there is also the problem of model output divergence over longer time periods which doesn't go down well in the commercial sector.

    One thing to keep an eye out for is climate variability instead of climate change, variability being the short time scale changes, or natural variability which they expect to be overrun by long term AGW????

    Perhaps the commercial sector is now paying better for the MO than the research sector, cuts in grants etc. end of an era as they say.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 125: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 125: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 124. Posted by QuaesoVeritas

    on 8 Jan 2013 20:02

    #117. - blunderbunny wrote:
    "I think the climate sceptical bloggers of the world are due their own Nobel Peace Prize, simply for saving the world a shed load of what would have been wasted money."

    I agree, but I regret that we will largely remain unsung heroes.
    It would be nice if eventually, Al Gore had his taken away from him!
    I think there is a long way to go before the war is won, especially since the proponents of climate change are controlling the dissemination of the news.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 124: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 124: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 123. Posted by greensand

    on 8 Jan 2013 18:43

    122. QuaesoVeritas wrote:


    "But would it not also have been true in the case of the previous forecast?"

    QV, I was not referring to the "forecast" itself but rather the focus of the forecast. The implication of the explanation "The long-term global warming trend from anthropogenic climate change is largely irrelevant to them – they need to know about climate variability at regional and local scales over the next few years, especially in precipitation..........This is the main thrust of developing the climate models here at the Met Office.”

    I don't believe any forecast especially those about the future, but a change in focus by the MO towards shorter term predictions is possible. There can be no doubt as we have all observed their DePreSys Decadal excursion has not been a success. Something had to change.

    I don't do forecasts, but I do keep a close eye on those made by our government's advisers.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 123: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 123: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 122. Posted by QuaesoVeritas

    on 8 Jan 2013 18:33

    #121. - greensand wrote:
    "That explanation was given by the UKMO's "Head of the Climate Impacts strategic area, which includes climate impacts research and also the climate change consultancy unit.""

    In which case it must be true.

    But would it not also have been true in the case of the previous forecast?

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 122: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 122: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 121. Posted by greensand

    on 8 Jan 2013 18:26

    118. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "Do you *really* believe that explanation?"

    QV what are you suggesting?

    That explanation was given by the UKMO's "Head of the Climate Impacts strategic area, which includes climate impacts research and also the climate change consultancy unit."

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 121: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 121: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 120. Posted by QuaesoVeritas

    on 8 Jan 2013 18:25

    Also, the HadSST2 anomaly figures for November and December have now been updated.
    December's global figure is 0.342c, compared to November's 0.399c.
    The N.H. figure is 0.437c, down from 0.487c and the S.H. figure is 0.248c, down from 0.310c.
    RSS don't publish an ocean/land split, and UAH haven't published their's yet, so it's difficult to say whether the above will result in a fall in global HadCRUT3, although I suspect it will. Even the moderate fall in UAH would suggest a fall in HadCRUT3 of 0.05c to 0.08c.
    UKMO HadSST3 figures for December haven't been published yet.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 120: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 120: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 119. Posted by QuaesoVeritas

    on 8 Jan 2013 18:07

    RSS temperature anomaly for December = 0.101c, compared with 0.195c for November.
    N.H. down from 0.232c to -0.002c
    S.H. up from 0.156c to 0.208c.

    There seems to have been a rapid fall in the N.H. temp. anomaly, partially offset by a rise in the S.H. anomaly.

    There are also indications via the Blackboard site that there has been a big fall in the NASA/GISS anomaly, although those figures are not yet confirmed.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 119: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 119: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 118. Posted by QuaesoVeritas

    on 8 Jan 2013 18:00

    #116 - greensand wrote:
    "I think ukpahonta tried to shed some light on the length of the forecast. He pointed at the following posted by RB at Tallbloke’s"

    Do you *really* believe that explanation?

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 118: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 118: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 117. Posted by blunderbunny

    on 8 Jan 2013 17:50

    I think the climate sceptical bloggers of the world are due their own Nobel Peace Prize, simply for saving the world a shed load of what would have been wasted money. Shame that the other side have already managed to collect quite a bit of cash and expenses. Plus, let's not forget all those airmiles and hotel points ;-)

    Whilst Bloggers, tend to blog from where ever they are in the world and they think that we're the environmentally unfriendly ones...

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 117: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 117: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 116. Posted by greensand

    on 8 Jan 2013 17:48

    Blunder & QV

    I think ukpahonta tried to shed some light on the length of the forecast. He pointed at the following posted by RB at Tallbloke’s

    Richard Betts says:
    January 7, 2013 at 11:36 am

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/01/05/major-change-in-uk-met-office-global-warming-forecast/

    “Although some decision-makers (such a major infrastructure owners) are thinking decades ahead, most people and companies only need to look at the next few years. The long-term global warming trend from anthropogenic climate change is largely irrelevant to them – they need to know about climate variability at regional and local scales over the next few years, especially in precipitation. Although we have made progress in forecasting on these timescales, there is still a lot more to do before we can make really useful forecasts. This is the main thrust of developing the climate models here at the Met Office.”

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 116: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 116: 0
    Loading…
More comments

More Posts

Previous

Next