Weather

After a relentlessly gloomy week, much clearer but colder air is on its way from the Arctic in the next 12 hours, giving us our first cold snap of the season, albeit a short lived one.

Some of us, mainly in eastern parts of the region will see showers, and the air will be cold enough for some of these to have a wintry flavour - with hail, sleet and some snow.

By Friday night, the North York moors and Wolds could have a slight covering of snow, as you can see on the figure below, although this will melt very quickly on Saturday.



Further west, skies will be mainly sunny on Friday and Saturday, with excellent visibility for those who enjoy a bracing walk in the Pennines, but a widespread frost expected at night.

It's perfectly normal to get a cold snap at this time of the year, and it will prove to be temporary, as less cold Atlantic air moves back in on Sunday, bringing cloud and some rain.

But it comes after what has been quite an exceptional few weeks of below average temperatures.

According to climatologist Philip Eden, the period from mid-September to mid-October was the coldest such period since 1974, and in the last century only 1952 and 1905 was colder.

As for next week, it's a familiar story, with low pressure set to dominate, leading to changeable and unsettled weather across many parts of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, with temperatures at best close to average.

But with winds from the west, there will be some dry, bright weather at times, with eastern areas most favoured.

Follow me on twitter @Hudsonweather

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments.

  • Comment number 120. Posted by theelasticjesuz

    on 1 Nov 2012 21:00

    120. @lateinthehead

    "Having read (again)..."

    Why didn't you question the ambiguity (?) the first time of reading, or does it only become of interest when a so-called 'alarmist' draws attention to it?

    "Cutting and pasting requires little to no understanding of the science."

    Pretty much like sticking MO figures into an excel spreadsheet and cherry-picking the 'downs' of the 'up escalator,' to prove a point that only exists in the fuddled mind of the denialist zealot.

    Other than that, I really don't give a hoot what you think.

    • 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 lateintheday

    on 1 Nov 2012 17:49

    Having read (again) the Spencer link it's certainly debatable whether any of the words plasticjesus uses are in fact his own. Cutting and pasting requires little to no understanding of the science. Perhaps Rob was correct earlier in the thread.

    That said, if anyone can explain (in simple terms) this paragraph from Spencer, I'd appreciate it. It doesn't appear to make sense to me. As though there is an important step missing.

    "The Earth’s surface cools by losing infrared radiation, which then chills the air in contact with it. This nighttime cooling causes a thin layer of cold air to build up near the surface…even though it is colder than the ground below the surface, or the air immediately above it."

    Does he mean that as the surface radiates, eventually it reaches a temp below that of the surface air and then by conduction, absorbs heat from the very bottom of the atmosphere? How thin is this chilled layer?

    • 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 theelasticjesuz

    on 1 Nov 2012 13:58

    @John Marshall

    "Do the experiment."

    I don't need to. Roy Spencer already did it for me. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/

    Certain things are open for debate, but certain things aren't.

    • 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 greensand

    on 1 Nov 2012 13:02

    @113 QV

    "You really need to see the figures in graphical form in order to fully appreciate the true picture."

    Exactly, can't comment on the "trend in the trend" until I get my data back along with a working computer, but have no worries in taking your and DW's word for it, though at present not sure what the timescale is.

    Re the MO 3 month prediction I forgot to post the link to the "Contingency planners" page:-

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/publicsector/contingency-planners

    The links to the forecasts are at the bottom of the page.

    • 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 QuaesoVeritas

    on 1 Nov 2012 12:53

    #108. - NeilHamp wrote:
    "Here are our forecasts for 2012"

    Thanks for the update.
    The YTD figure does seem to be getting close to the predictions at the higher end of the range, including that of the MO.
    I calculate the HadCRUT4 figure to be 0.432c, which assuming no fall in the anomaly could reach 0.46c, so they may claim they were close, using that dataset.

    • 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…
  • Comment number 115. Posted by John Marshall

    on 1 Nov 2012 12:39

    #98 TEJ
    you asked for net flow which is hot to cold. There will be a flow from cool to hot but the hot will not increase its heat content.

    The jar experiment:- the lone jar will cool. The two jars- the hot jar will cool and add some heat to the cooler jar which will lose heat if warmer than ambient. The hot jar will cool at the same rate as the lone jar given the same start and ambient temperature.

    Do the experiment.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 115: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 115: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 114. Posted by QuaesoVeritas

    on 1 Nov 2012 12:33

    #85. - ukpahonta wrote:

    "Just thought it may be a bit low. According to Dana Nuccitelli 0.084C/decade is not significant for the period in question:"

    Sorry for not replying earlier.

    It may well be "low" in a truly statistical sense. It was just the figure I chose to try and define whether it was possible to say that temperatures were really rising or falling, rather than using simply positive or negative numbers. I haven't worked out yet (if it is possible) how to calculate probability ranges using excel.

    I don't understand how Skeptical Science can say that the trend since 1997 "is 0.084 ± 0.152°C per decade (although we have not yet updated the HadCRUT4 data)".
    As I understand it, the Daily Mail article was based on HadCRUT4 data up to August 2012, but the trend they quote appears to be based on the figures to end 2010 only. Maybe they didn't have the later figures when they did the calculation, but it still means they are not comparable. If they were responding to the DM article, they should have used the most recent data available.

    I have used their calculator to calculate the trend to August (1997.58 to 2012.67) and it comes out at 0.033 ± 0.136°C and that to September 2012 (1997.66 to 2012.75), comes out at 0.033 ± 0.137°C. However, I am not sure if I am using the trend calculator correctly, since I get trend figures of about 0.047c over those periods. I assume that when Nuccitelli says the trend isn't significant, it was because it was within the probability range, and that is still the case. However, the positive trend is declining and when it is negative, even though that may not be statistically significant, it will still be "most likely", in the terms they have used for the positive trend.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 114: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 114: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 113. Posted by QuaesoVeritas

    on 1 Nov 2012 11:42

    As greensand says, the 30 year trend in both HadCRUT3 and HadCRUT4 both seem to have peaked in December 2003, at 0.195c/decade and 0.199c/decade respectively. While there have been rises and falls since then, the general trend has been down.
    One thing is certain, the "trend in the 30 year trend", as far as records exist, is not random, but there does seem to be a cyclical pattern in the rolling 30 year trend, similar to that in the 50 year trend, with the previous highs being in Feb. 1946, with figures of 0.174c/decade for HadCRUT3 and 0.153c/decade for HadCRUT4.
    There were low points of -0.083c/decade in HadCRUT3 and -0.074c/decade in June 1907, and of -0.055c/decade in HadCRUT3 in April 1967 and -0.033c/decade in HadCRUT4 in April 1969, otherwise, highs and lows at approximately 60-65 year intervals, so if the past pattern is repeated, there may be another low around 2027-9, but it seems unlikely that the trends will go negative then, although the trend over the previous 30 years might be very low.
    As newdwr54 says, the "trend in the trend" is increasing, BUT as we now appear to have passed the latest peak in the 30 year trend, so it is misleading to assume that it represents the long-term trend.
    You really need to see the figures in graphical form in order to fully appreciate the true picture.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 113: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 113: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 112. Posted by QuaesoVeritas

    on 1 Nov 2012 11:31

    #104. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "as I've just attended the local Halloween fireworks display with the family"

    At what point did we start having annual firework displays in connection with Halloween? For me, Guy Fawkes is more than enough.
    Anway, is it "p.c." to be attending firework displays, when they are adding all of that CO2 to the atmoshere?

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 112: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 112: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 111. Posted by QuaesoVeritas

    on 1 Nov 2012 11:11

    #96. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "I think that makes August 2012 the joint warmest in the HadCRUT3 record, and fourth warmest in HadCRUT4? In terms of 2012 to date, HadCRUT3 is now +0.40C for the year."
    I think you are correct. It seems a bit ironic that HadCRUT4 is relatively lower than HadCRUT3, in terms of past August figures. I wonder how long they are going to continue updating HadCRU3, as it only adds to the confusion. Maybe until the end of the year.

    "Have you noticed that AQUA ch.05 is being updated again? Don't know if the problem's been resolved, but if it has, then despite the gap in the data, October may have been exceptionally warm by the looks of it."

    Thanks, I hadn't noticed. It certainly seems higher than recent years. I don't know how much point there is in monitoring the AQUA figures any more.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 111: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 111: 0
    Loading…
More comments

More Posts

Previous

Next