Weather

Amounts of snow across some parts of our region are the deepest since December 2010, with 21 cms being reported at Pateley Bridge in Nidderdale at midday, and a notable 18 cms in the middle of Sheffield at Weston park.

Waddington in Lincolnshire is reporting 14 cms of snow.

There are some big contrasts though, with only 2cms reported at Church Fenton in the Vale of York.

The snow, on Friday and last night, was forecast well in advance and first signalled at the beginning of last week.



But contrary to what was expected by most computer models at that time, the weather front last night did not bring a change to milder conditions, with very cold continental air now with us for the rest of the week.

Further snowfall is likely on the North York moors tonight, but for many it should become dry, with the main hazard being that of widespread ice.

Patchy rain, sleet and snow in coastal areas tomorrow will push inland to affect some areas, but further snowfall amounts will be small.

A change to milder weather will come at the weekend, with rain, preceded by some snow; the last week of January looks much milder with rain at times.

The thaw, when it comes could be rapid and with the ground already saturated from last year's excessive rainfall, flooding is likely to be a concern.

Follow me on twitter @Hudsonweather

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments.

  • Comment number 136. Posted by greensand

    on 28 Jan 2013 16:29

    134. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "I was using 0.117c for HadCRUT3 but I am not sure if that is correct."

    Thanks QV, just checked back and I was using 0.12c for HC3 and not 0.15c, that is something to do with SSTs! Should not rely on memory, especially my own, need to go back and check again.

    Once again thanks for the data, will plot it and see how it pans out.

    I emailed the MO a few weeks ago and they confirmed that they will be keeping HC3 updated for “quite awhile” no plans at present to discontinue, but no actual date for any potential change given.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 136: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 136: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 135. Posted by NeilHamp

    on 28 Jan 2013 16:26

    Wow! QV this is a dramatic reduction from their forcast at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/2013-global-forecast

    "20 December 2012 - 2013 is expected to be between 0.43 °C and 0.71 °C warmer than the long-term (1961-1990) global average of 14.0 °C, with a best estimate of around 0.57 °C, according to the Met Office annual global temperature forecast."

    Are they hedging their bets or is 0.57 on a different basis?
    Which one do I include in my 2013 Met.Office forecast?

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 135: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 135: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 134. Posted by QuaesoVeritas

    on 28 Jan 2013 14:08

    #133. - greensand wrote:
    "I take it will be HadCRUT4? If so what difference do you have between the two bases? I think HadCRUT3 was about 0.15 but I seem to have about 0.11 for HC4?"

    I am not sure whether we know which it is.
    The decadal forecast itself makes reference to 1998 being the warmest year on record, which is the case with HadCRUT3 but not HadCRUT4.
    I'm also fairly sure that I worked out that the Hadley element of the observed temperatures on the graph, were based on HadCRUT3.
    The HadCRUT3 anomaly for 1971-2000 is only 0.0897c, but the anomaly for 1961-90 itself is -0.0277c (minus). So on the assumption that 1961-90 should be zero, I was using 0.117c for HadCRUT3 but I am not sure if that is correct.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 134: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 134: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 133. Posted by greensand

    on 28 Jan 2013 13:27

    131. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    “I have received confirmation from the MO”

    Thanks QV, the average numbers are good.

    “The anomaly figure is relative to 1971-2000, not 1961-1990.”

    I take it will be HadCRUT4? If so what difference do you have between the two bases? I think HadCRUT3 was about 0.15 but I seem to have about 0.11 for HC4?

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 133: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 133: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 132. Posted by QuaesoVeritas

    on 28 Jan 2013 13:24

    Here is a comparison of the temperatures forecasted in the 2011 and 2012 decadal forecasts for 2013 to 2017, and the changes:

    2013 0.514 0.360 -0.154
    2014 0.568 0.405 -0.163
    2015 0.579 0.443 -0.136
    2016 0.621 0.479 -0.142
    2017 0.687 0.456 -0.231

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 132: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 132: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 131. Posted by QuaesoVeritas

    on 28 Jan 2013 13:14

    I have received confirmation from the MO that there is no restriction in the distribution of data from the latest "decadal forecast".
    Rather than post the individial ensemble figures, I will post the averages, which I have had to calculate myself from the ensemble figures.
    I have also had it confirmed that these figures are rolling 12 month averages and that the figure for 2013 corresponds with 2013.00 etc, which I find odd (I would have expected it to be against 2013.92), but that is what they say.
    The anomaly figure is relative to 1971-2000, not 1961-1990.
    2012.83 0.352
    2012.92 0.358
    2013.00 0.360
    2013.08 0.358
    2013.17 0.359
    2013.25 0.362
    2013.33 0.366
    2013.42 0.376
    2013.50 0.385
    2013.58 0.390
    2013.67 0.393
    2013.75 0.397
    2013.83 0.400
    2013.92 0.405
    2014.00 0.405
    2014.08 0.406
    2014.17 0.414
    2014.25 0.420
    2014.33 0.424
    2014.42 0.425
    2014.50 0.429
    2014.58 0.432
    2014.67 0.431
    2014.75 0.435
    2014.83 0.436
    2014.92 0.435
    2015.00 0.443
    2015.08 0.446
    2015.17 0.444
    2015.25 0.448
    2015.33 0.458
    2015.42 0.463
    2015.50 0.468
    2015.58 0.469
    2015.67 0.472
    2015.75 0.474
    2015.83 0.475
    2015.92 0.479
    2016.00 0.479
    2016.08 0.481
    2016.17 0.478
    2016.25 0.474
    2016.33 0.473
    2016.42 0.469
    2016.50 0.467
    2016.58 0.463
    2016.67 0.464
    2016.75 0.464
    2016.83 0.465
    2016.92 0.461
    2017.00 0.456
    2017.08 0.449
    2017.17 0.446
    2017.25 0.445
    2017.33 0.438
    2017.42 0.432
    2017.50 0.424
    2017.58 0.420
    2017.67 0.415
    2017.75 0.407

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 131: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 131: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 130. Posted by greensand

    on 28 Jan 2013 13:07

    126. QuaesoVeritas wrote:
    “Actually, I have to disagree slightly with greensand on this one.”

    Thanks QV, point taken, I did say it was noisy and therefore not a hard and fast rule:-

    “It also shows how the 30 year trend is led by the shorter 10 and 15 year trends. Yes it is noisy; it is to be expected, especially with the 10 year trend. But basically if the short term trends (red and yellow) are lower than the long term then the long term will reduce, if they are higher the long term trend will increase. It is not precise, never will be, but it does show that the shorter term trends have a relevance. Provided that is that they are rolling trends based on the latest timescale.”

    Possibly where I said “basically” I should have used “generally”.

    At the present time, the here and now, with all three, 30 year, 15 year and 10 year trends pointing downward I cannot see how putting lower values, from the shorter term trends into the longer term trend can do anything other than reduce it further. I stand to be corrected and would appreciate your further comments.

    Yes there will be variations/bounces but the overall downward trend cannot change until the shorter trends have higher values than the longer trend. It is not precise but it is the best leading indicator we have. In other words how can the 30 year trend rise from now on if the shorter trends remain at a lower level?

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 130: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 130: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 129. Posted by QuaesoVeritas

    on 28 Jan 2013 13:02

    123.At 10:43 28th Jan 2013, quake wrote:
    "Here's the 10 year mean of global temperature since 1970 showing no sign of slowdown. By slowdown I mean compared to the trend over the period 1970-1998."

    Actually the 10 year mean does show a clear slowdown since about 2002, with two actual declines in the average since then.
    A flattening out in the moving average does indicate a slowdown in the increase in temperatures.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 129: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 129: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 128. Posted by QuaesoVeritas

    on 28 Jan 2013 12:43

    #122. - NTropywins wrote:
    "There is no doubt that global temperatures follow an approx 60 year cycle. It is difficult to see a CO2 fingerprint in the data. Science used to require that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Climate science not so much."

    I have to say that I think that the "CO2 fingerprint" may be in the fact that the peaks and troughs in the trends "appear" to be getting higher, based on what limited temperature data we have.

    Of course, that could also be due to some other factor which is increasing temperatures.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 128: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 128: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 127. Posted by QuaesoVeritas

    on 28 Jan 2013 12:35

    #116. - newdwr54 wrote:

    "Tend to agree with all. Just should point out that a trend represents a rate of warming or cooling; not 'actual' warming or cooling. To illustrate this, try charting the 30-year rolling trend in HC4 against the 30-year rolling average temperature. You'll probably need to use separate y-axis to get the full impact."

    Yes, but if the 30 year trend ever returns to zero, or near zero, then by definition there will have been zero or near zero warming over the last 30 years.
    The 30 year moving average tells us NOTHING about how temperatures have changed over the last 30 years, because the earlier moving averages included data from before the start of the latest 30 year period.
    Otherwise, an increase in the 30 year average in 2012 only tells us that temperatures have increased between 1982 and 2012.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 127: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 127: 0
    Loading…
More comments

More Posts

Previous

Next