Weather

We have to go back to the first week of December for the last time high pressure was in charge across the UK.

 

It’s another example of how remarkably unsettled the weather has been in the last few months.

 

There was another eye-opening statistic from climatologist Philip Eden, writing in the Sunday Telegraph, who has calculated that February was the most cyclonic of any month in 142 years of records.

 

Bearing in mind the second half of February is, especially across some eastern areas, one of the driest and settled periods of the year, it again illustrates how remarkable our weather has been this winter.

 

But after a three month wait, there’s reason to be optimistic.

 

An area of high pressure will develop this weekend, with many parts of the country then enjoying a prolonged spell of fine weather which should last at least until the end of next week.

 

At this time of year the day to day details will prove tricky to get right.

 

There’s likely to be some low cloud or fog in places which may be slow to clear, and frost will be an issue at night.

 

But by day there’ll be some pleasant spells of spring sunshine developing, with temperatures reaching levels that should be well above average for the time of the year.

 

What a contrast that will be with March last year, which was the coldest based on CET data since 1892, with some heavy falls of snow.

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments.

  • Comment number 34. Posted by lateintheday

    on 13 Mar 2014 14:59

    "The rules on rounding are very clear. If it's 5 or above you round up."
    For amusement only, remember that rounding isn't always as simple as seems. Error can magnify with simple rules and this has caused a few embarrassing mistakes in the past.

    Take your 0.497 for example - clearly less than half of 1.
    0.497 rounds to 0.5 which rounds to 1.

    Hey - maybe that's where the late 20thC warming came from - AGW rounding procedures!

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 34: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 34: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 33. Posted by newdwr54

    on 13 Mar 2014 10:46

    31. ukpahonta

    My point isn't about residual uncertainty, which exists in all global temperature data sets, not just satellite or UAH in particular. My point is that there are small but significant differences between the monthly UAH 'best estimate' announced by Roy Spencer on his blog and the final published 'best estimate' figure in the UAH data set.

    Namely that in his monthly blog update, on 5 occasions out of the last 14, Roy Spencer has published a 'best estimate' figure different to the official 'best estimate' figure published by UAH. Also, on each occasion Spencer's blog figure has been lower than the official UAH figure. Lastly, he has not made a single correction to any of the previous figures he's published on his blog.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 33: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 33: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 32. Posted by newdwr54

    on 13 Mar 2014 10:36

    30. RobWansbeck

    ".... it appears that the original figures are more accurate and the 'official' figures have been rounded up so the 'error' is actually on the high side rather than the low side."

    The rules on rounding are very clear. If it's 5 or above you round up. For example, in Spencer's blog, the January 2013 figure to 3 decimal places is 0.497 :http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2014-0-17-deg-c/ Yet the UAH published figure for Jan 2013 to 2 d.p. is 0.51: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt 0.497 does *not* round to 0.51, it rounds to 0.50. Do you disagree? Spencer's 3 digit blog figure is simply different from the figure UAH used to calculate its final published figure. It has to be.

    Using the last month as a further example, Spencer states the UAH Feb figure to two decimal places in his headline "UAH Global Temperature Update for February 2014: +0.17 deg. C" and publishes it to 3 d.p. as 0.172. But the final Feb 2014 UAH figure get published as 0.18 deg C. 0.172 does not round to 0.18. Do you disagree? So the three digit figure published by Spencer on his blog is *not* the final figure on which the official UAH update was based.

    This is true for 5 out of the 14 monthly updates currently published on Spencer's blog. He correctly rounds the 3 d.p. figure on his blog to a 2 d.p. figure in the headline, only for the official UAH value to be ranked upwards. Spencer is evidently not publishing the final UAH 'best estimate' value on his blog. No problem if he's just giving a rough early idea; but if that's the case then he should make the necessary corrections in his subsequent updates.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 32: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 32: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 31. Posted by ukpahonta

    on 12 Mar 2014 08:58

    Monitoring Climate Change using Satellites: Lessons from MSU
    Residual uncertainty work in collaboration with John Christy, Roy Spencer and David Parker
    http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/itwg/itsc/itsc13/session9/9_3_thorne.pdf

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 31: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 31: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 30. Posted by RobWansbeck

    on 12 Mar 2014 00:50

    @newdwr,

    Firstly, I'll admit that rounding before division is not the best of maths but it has no significant effect on the result given the error margins.

    I agree that there are propaganda consequences but I'm happy to let Mann concentrate on the propaganda and leave Spencer to deal with the science.

    As for 'always in the same direction', I must admit that I haven't looked in great detail but from two examples that I have looked at it appears that the original figures are more accurate and the 'official' figures have been rounded up so the 'error' is actually on the high side rather than the low side.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 30: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 30: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 29. Posted by newdwr54

    on 11 Mar 2014 22:08

    Rob and Litd,

    It's not so much the trivial amounts involved, it's the fact that it happens so often and *always* in the same direction. Also the fact that it's never corrected even long after the official data are issued.

    And small numbers can have significant consequences, at least as far as perception is concerned. As mentioned above, the 0.01 deg C in Feb was the difference between tied 9th warmest and 12th warmest Feb on record. Another top 10 warmest month is always a bad look if you're arguing against AGW.

    Everyone knows the psychological difference between £9.99 and £10.00. Likewise 0.29 looks that bit better than 0.30 when you're arguing against AGW. That's happened twice within the past 14 months in Dr Spencer's blog. Both incorrect values stand uncorrected.

    You can call me a pedant, but that's the way I see it. I imagine that if someone like Michael Mann were playing fast and loose with the facts in the same way, we'd soon hear about it.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 29: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 29: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 28. Posted by lateintheday

    on 11 Mar 2014 20:35

    newdwr54 - that's an awful lot of fuss over a rounded hundredth if you ask me. Why not head over to GISS to see where the real action is.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 28: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 28: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 27. Posted by RobWansbeck

    on 11 Mar 2014 18:36

    A little bit of rounding:

    (0.325 + 0.019)/2 = 0.172

    (0.33 + 0.02)/2 = 0.175 or 0.18

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 27: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 27: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 26. Posted by newdwr54

    on 11 Mar 2014 17:39

    Hate to say 'I told you so', but 'I told you so': http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/blogpaulhudson/posts/Wettest-winter-in-at-least-248-years?postId=118863912#comment_118863912

    Roy Spencer's tally is once again lower than the official UAH value for Feb: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt Once again, no attempt has been made by Dr Spencer to rectify this, or the 4 previous other low readings still on his blog.

    Now if Phil Jones at UEA or Gavin Schmidt at GISS did something like this, then I'm sure no one would have a word to say about it. Would they?

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 26: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 26: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 25. Posted by JaimeJ

    on 11 Mar 2014 09:41

    Wow, one really warm dry day on Saturday - still very windy mind - then cold yesterday, not much sun. Very cool today with brisk N' Easterly. Tomorrow, maybe settled and fine with light winds, but still cool, then back to brisk to strong westerlies/n'westerlies according to forecast. Excuse me if I remain distinctly unimpressed with our fine, dry settled start to spring after a thoroughly miserable winter and, in fine English tradition, moan like hell about the weather - and the flies which now are emerging in hordes (as none of the little sods were nixed by even one day of decent frost)!

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 25: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 25: 0
    Loading…
More comments

More Posts

Previous

Next