Weather

Ground water levels remain unseasonably high across parts of Yorkshire following the very wet conditions this summer, according to the Environment Agency.

Although autumn is traditionally the wettest season of the year, the land is more saturated than normal because of excessive rainfall since the end of March, leading to an increased risk of further river flooding throughout the remainder of the year.

In fact with little if any evaporation during the winter months, rivers are likely to remain susceptible to further flooding until spring next year, when evaporation rates increase once more and the land is given a chance to dry out.

October continued the wet theme, turning out to be another disappointing month.

Rainfall averaged across England and Wales was 120 per cent of the 1981-2010 average. This means that only 22 Octobers were wetter in the last 100 years.

It was colder than average too, with a Central England Temperature of 9.7C, making it the coldest October since 2003. This is 1C below the 1981-2010 average, and in the last 100 years only 27 were colder.

The first half of November is likely to remain unsettled, with further rain expected at times.

Follow me on twitter @Hudsonweather

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments.

  • Comment number 62. Posted by newdwr54

    on 12 Nov 2012 22:18

    48. NeilHamp wrote:

    "I have now found this prediction made in 2008"

    In which case accept my apologies for the above posts. I'm just in following a long day and in 'mono-read' - one post at a time is all I can handle (probably more than I can handle) before posting a response.

    "No doubt QV will tell what the mean change (I hesitate to say drop) in global temperature has been since 2009."

    No doubt the venerable QV will correct me (if he hasn't already posted on this - I'm still in mono-read). Archibald was specifically referencing UAH, and he was discussing the global trend 'since the peak in 1998'. The peak in 1998 was April, and the trend at Archibald's time of writing (March 2008), was -0.06C per annum, according to him (though I can't replicate that using the UAH data).

    The current UAH (v. 5.5) trend since April 1998 is +0.01C per decade. So temperatures have not cooled, nor have they remained steady - they have warmed. The exact opposite of what Archibald predicted relative to 1998 has occurred in solar cycle 24 so far.

    • 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 12 Nov 2012 22:01

    47. NeilHamp wrote:

    ".... this solar cycle has at least another 10 years to run so [Archibald's] 2009 paper seems to suggest 2.2 degrees drop by 2023. There is still plenty of time to see a drop in global temperatures."

    But this is contradicted by his 2008 presentation (and you'll see from the text in his 2009 published paper that it was also written in 2008).

    The 2008 presentation unambiguously states on page 29 that a cooling of -0.2C per month is predicted following the month of solar minimum in 2009 (which was January).

    Nothing in his later paper contradicts this. Archibald expected the cooling to commence from the start of solar cycle 24. You're attempting to shift goalposts that Archibald has already firmly concreted in place for himself.

    • 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 12 Nov 2012 21:52

    46. At 14:04 12th Nov 2012, NeilHamp wrote:

    "#36 Not yet found your 2008 prediction for David Archibald"

    You can find all these predictions from papers posted at Archibald's own website: http://www.davidarchibald.info/

    The cooling prediction should be of -0.2 C per annum, not per month. (I posted the correct figure in my long forgotten post at WUWT.) The prediction that global temperatures would fall from -0.06C per annum (relative to 1998) would "accelerate" to -0.2C per annum following the month of solar minimum in 2009 can be found in his March 2008 presentation 'Solar Cycle 24: Implications for the USA'. It's on page 29.

    His prediction that during solar cycle 24 (which started four years ago) mid latitude regions, including the USA, would be -2.2C below the average seen during solar cycle 23 can be found in the abstract of his March 2009 paper 'Solar Cycle 24: Implications and Expectations.

    Hope this helps; though I can't help wondering how hard you searched when you apparently didn't even check out the website of the person who I clearly stated was making the claims.

    • 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 newdwr54

    on 12 Nov 2012 21:35

    43. greensand wrote:

    "Are you alright DW? I do trust you are not becoming anxious?"

    I felt OK at the time; but maybe that was just nervous tension, awaiting Archie's reply?

    • 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 12 Nov 2012 20:04

    Sorry, a typo on the above figures, these are the global ones should read:

    Global average = 0.428c, compared with 0.449c for September.

    So these point to a small fall in global HadCRUT3, without taking land temperatures into account.

    • 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 QuaesoVeritas

    on 12 Nov 2012 19:58

    The HadSST2 anomaly figures for October are as follows:

    Global average = 0.428c, compared with 0.429c for September.
    N.H. = 0.517c, compared with 0.598c for September.
    S.H. = 0.338c, compared with 0.300c for September.

    On their own, these figures would suggest a very little change in the global HadCRUT3 figure, a fall in the N.H. figure, and a rise in the S.H. figure, but land surface temperature figures could alter that.

    As far as I can tell, the MO are still not publishing HadSST3 anomaly figures in the same format as HadSST2.

    • 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 jkiller56

    on 12 Nov 2012 18:48

    Greensand# 32/33

    Me as TEJ - you must be joking! Time alone would prevent me from writing all that stuff; in fact I didn't have time to even read it all. Though thanks for the compliment.

    No, I prefer climate scientists to do my number crunching for me, that way I can be more assured that the results are sound. Never fear, when the scientific consensus changes their mind - so shall I.

    And by the way- what I write is not ALL meant that seriously.

    • 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 12 Nov 2012 18:00

    #48. - NeilHamp wrote:
    "This would suggest a 1 degree drop by 2014, which I agree does not look likely.
    No doubt QV will tell what the mean change (I hesitate to say drop) in global temperature has been since 2009."

    Thanks for handing me this "poisoned challice"!
    It all depends how you look at it, but taking HadCRUT4 and HadCRUT3 annual figures, they are:

    2009 0.489 0.439
    2010 0.540 0.499
    2011 0.399 0.347
    2012 0.431 0.392 (to September)

    With an average fall of 0.2c per year, that means the HadCRUT4 temp. for 2012 should be about -0.31c, which is clearly not the case.
    Of course it may be argued that the full effect might not kick in until the later part of the cycle, but I still think the fall of -2.2c over the cycle is highly unlikely.
    I don't know why these people go in for extreme, if not impossible claims. Personally I would have gone for a fall of 0.22c, which would still have been exceptional. Maybe he got his decimal point in the wrong place.

    • 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 QuaesoVeritas

    on 12 Nov 2012 17:26

    I notice that my comment in #51, that the average max. would be expected in January 2015, appears to contradict my comment #53 that the average max. might be around April 2012.
    That is because when I wrote comment #51, I had forgotten that the average max. is not centred around the middle of the 11 year cycle.
    It's a while since I looked at these figures.

    • 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…
  • Comment number 53. Posted by QuaesoVeritas

    on 12 Nov 2012 17:21

    #49. - greensand wrote:
    "One thing that does intrigue me at present is when could we realistically expect to observe any possible subsequent effects of a “quiet” sun? We know there is a minimum in each cycle so no change a minimum is a minimum; simplistic I know but has some logic? So any effect, if there is an effect, is more likely to be related to the intensity of the solar max and we are not there yet? Or are we? Or is it as some say that there will need to be a series of quiet cycles before any effect could be observed?"
    Like you, I am not convinced by the solar cycle theories, but I do dabble a bit, just to check.
    I think that the "quiet sun" is referring to the max., but all minimums are not the same. I did find a correlation between both the length of a solar cycle and the preceding minimum 12 month ma, on the maximum in the following cycle, which did suggest that cycle 24 would produce a low maximum.
    Previous 12 month average minima have ranged from about 0 to 12 and each increase of 1 in the minimum seems to add about 6 (on average) to the maximum SSN of the next cycle. The minimum for cycle 23 was 1.68, so that pointed to one of the lowest maximums for cycle 24.
    However, as I say, the length of the previous cycle also seems to have an influence, with each additional 2 months deducting about 2 from the next max. SSN (on average).
    I estimated a maximum 12 month average of 85 and so far it has only reached 67.5 and may have peaked. The "average" peak in a cycle is not centred half way through the 11 year period, but turns out to be around month 34 out of 121 in the approximately 11 year cycle.
    If cycle 24 started in July 2009, then that would put the average max. around April 2012, so we may have seen the peak and the remainder of the cycle may see very low SSN figures.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 53: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 53: 0
    Loading…
More comments

More Posts

Previous