Weather

UPDATE at 6pm Friday 31st August

Last night was the coldest August night on record at Leeming (1.1C, records to 1945) and Bradford Lister Park (2.8C, records to 1908).

Summer at Leeming was the fourth wettest, and the dullest on record.

At Sheffield Weston Park it was also the fourth wettest summer in records which date back to 1882, with 2007, 1912 and 1956 all wetter than this summer.

ENDS


The Met Office have said that summer 2012 will be the second wettest (summer is June, July and August combined for statistical purposes) on record across England and the UK as a whole, using rainfall data back to 1910.

So far 367mm of rain has fallen, compared with 384mm which was recorded in 1912.

It's also been the dullest summer since 1980, and cool, with mean temperatures 0.4C below average,

It adds to a depressing sequence of summers across the country, with the last 6 years all being wetter than average.

Moreover 2 of the 3 wettest summers on record have happened in that time - 2007 and 2012.

The reason for our poor summers is the jet stream.

It's been consistently too far south over the last few years, and is the reason why we've experienced some cold winters recently, too.

The big question is why is the jet stream behaving in this way?

There are two current theories, which I detailed in my earlier blog which you can read here.

One is linked to melting Arctic ice, which fell to a satellite record low on Monday.

The other theory suggests it's down to the protracted low solar activity over the last few years, as happened in the early 1800's.

And if the early 1800's are anything to go by, poor summers and cold winters may be something we need to get used to in the next few years.

Follow me on twitter @Hudsonweather

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments.

  • Comment number 63. Posted by greensand

    on 6 Sept 2012 22:26

    @60. newdwr54 wrote:

    "If you want to delve into thousandths of a degree or more, then it was +0.1798 C."

    Will not argue I have it at +0.0179C

    Last number Aug 82 to Jul 12 +0.0164, 8.5% below Dec 2003

    As we have a difference and I can be a bit Phil Jones with Excel I have checked Oct 2005 at WfT:-

    "#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0177609 per year"

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/gistemp/to:2005.83/last:360/trend

    and their last GISS LOTI is:-

    "#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0163835 per year "

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/gistemp/last:360/trend

    I am not saying I am correct, far from it, only that I have tried to obtain confirmation from another source.

    Also I cannot see how a flat line or reduced increase in global temps can produce an increasing trend, it is just not possible.

    Anyhow I will go away and check again as the chart I have does not show that the Dec 2003 rate has been exceeded, by either GISS or HadCRUT 3 or 4 that is, as far as 4 goes.

    • 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 6 Sept 2012 22:05

    #61. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "I think 100 years is too long. I think it loses its dynamic effect over that time-scale, because most of the climate variables (cycles) that we know of operate on scales much shorter than that."
    I would have thought that would be an advantage as far as as establishing a "normal" figure was concerned. The last thing you need is a constantly changing "normal" figure.
    It's like establishing the "normal" temperature of a human body, by including periods of illness, such as a fever.

    • 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 newdwr54

    on 6 Sept 2012 21:51

    52. QuaesoVeritas:

    "From what I can tell, the WMO recommended 30 year period is for the calculation of "normals", not trends and even so, it is entirely arbitrary."

    I share your confusion over what the WMO means.

    "...I prefer at least 100 years, if available, using the median rather than the mean."

    I think 100 years is too long. I think it loses its dynamic effect over that time-scale, because most of the climate variables (cycles) that we know of operate on scales much shorter than that.

    • 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 newdwr54

    on 6 Sept 2012 21:40

    51. greensand wrote:

    "GISS 30 year monthly rolling rate of warming peaked in Dec 2003, since then it has reduced by approx 8.5%."

    GS, just to be clear, I'm using the GISS data as published here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

    It's the combined 'Land-Surface Air and Sea-Surface Water Temperature Anomalies'. You may be using one of the other sets found here:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

    I've checked it again. In Dec 2003 the 30 year rolling trend (i.e. from Jan 1974-Dec 2003) was +0.18 C above per decade. If you want to delve into thousandths of a degree or more, then it was +0.1798 C.

    As far as I can see this value was surpassed several times. October 2005, at +0.1806 per decade is the highest I can see, and has yet to be exceeded, so far. If this is wrong then anyone with access to that NASA data and a spreadsheet can point it out to me.

    • 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 ukpahonta

    on 6 Sept 2012 19:30

    It would of been abandoned due to polluting of the Martian atmosphere!

    • 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 6 Sept 2012 19:04

    Imagine if James Hansen was in charge of doing the calculations for putting Curiosity on Mars?

    • 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…
  • Comment number 57. Posted by openside50

    on 6 Sept 2012 18:25

    true quaeso - rocket science is hard science - 1+1=2 is hard science

    'it might do this or it might do that' is pseudo science

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 57: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 57: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 56. Posted by QuaesoVeritas

    on 6 Sept 2012 17:45

    #54. - openside50 wrote:
    "you dont have to be a rocket scientist to see whats happening"
    Don't you mean "climate scientist? :)
    Actually "rocket science" isn't all that complicated, not as complicated as "climate science" at any rate.
    Very predictable Newtonian physics. If we could predict the climate as accurately as we can predict the velocity and motion of a rocket, we wouldn't have a problem.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 56: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 56: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 55. Posted by QuaesoVeritas

    on 6 Sept 2012 17:40

    Regarding trend periods and the WMO, I quote from this interview with Michel Jarraud, Secretary General of the WMO:
    "So you see the trend is continuing but at the same time we have a lot of variability, natural variability, so this trend is a trend on top of the variability so you cannot look at individual years to look at the trend you need to look at long enough periods. At WMO we tend to recommend that we look at ten, or for some applications thirty year, averages to be able to look at this long-term trend. But the long-term trends are clear. This decade, the last decade, which finished this year is the warmest ever."
    http://www.rtcc.org/climate-change-tv/unfccc-videos/michel-jarraud-world-meteorological-organization/
    It actually classifies a 10 year average as a long-term trend.
    Clearly the concept of 10 year rolling trends hasn't yet reached the WMO.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 55: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 55: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 54. Posted by openside50

    on 6 Sept 2012 17:37

    no global warming detected for 14 years

    no sign of the predicted milder winters, warmer drier summers in the uk

    no sign of any increase in major storm events (their latest alarmist bodyswerve now that warming has ceased)

    lots of increases in green taxation

    you dont have to be a rocket scientist to see whats happening

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 54: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 54: 0
    Loading…
More comments

More Posts

Previous

Next