« Previous | Main | Next »

A step forward in forecasting cold winters?

Paul Hudson | 15:16 UK time, Thursday, 11 October 2012

Sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) has been the 'in' topic in meteorological circles in the last couple of years, ever since the severe winter of 2009/2010 in which December was the coldest since the late 19th century.

SSW is linked to sudden large increases in temperature over a few days in the stratosphere over the Arctic.

This temperature change cause winds to reverse their normal direction.

For some time, forecasters have noted that a sudden weakening in high altitude winds in the stratosphere was often followed in winter by blocking surface weather systems.

These blocking weather systems tend to bring much colder conditions across Europe and the UK from the east, stopping milder air pushing in from the Atlantic.

There have been notable successes from observing this phenomenon on shorter time scales.

A week before the onset of severe cold that begun at the end of November 2010, stratospheric warming was observed, which led to a forecast which successfully included a risk of cold conditions developing across the UK.

The cold weather which occurred in 2006 and 2010 also coincided with sudden stratospheric warming.

But it would be much more helpful if the onset of such severe weather could be forecast further ahead, and that is what researchers at the Met Office have been working on, publishing research in Environmental Research Letters last month.

A breakthrough came last year when scientists at the Met Office demonstrated a clear link between stratospheric influence on climate during a sudden stratospheric warming, with easterly winds burrowing down through the atmosphere to affect the jet stream.

Following on from this, researchers at the Met Office have produced a model that is better at simulating stratospheric warming, which may give forecasters a better chance of signalling cold winters in future.

By using this new model with data available from autumn 2009, the Met Office showed that they could have seen the cold coming well in advance.

But blasts of cold weather are not always due to SSW.

There are several competing influences each winter, such as Atlantic sea surface temperatures, volcanic eruptions, snow cover and solar forcing.

For example, the research highlights the deep solar minimum as a contributory factor to the observed severe weather conditions in 2009/2010.

But separating their effects, and establishing which has the largest impact, remains a big headache for forecasters.

Follow me on twitter @Hudsonweather

Comments

Page 1 of 2

  • Comment number 1.

    Well, well. About time they noticed that a warming stratosphere pushes the climate zones equatorward so that the polar air masses expand and spill out across the middle latitudes.

    When the sun was more active the stratosphere cooled and the climate zones shifted poleward.

    When the sun became less active following the peak of cycle 23 the stratosphere stopped warming and we have since seen more so called SSW events with a negative Arctic Oscillation and more surges of cold air equatorward.

    Full description of the processes involved and the implications here:

    https://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6645

    "How The Sun Could Control Earth's Temperature"

    and more here:

    https://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8723

    "CO2 or Sun?: Which one really controls Earth’s surface temperatures ?"

    As they admit:

    "the research highlights the deep solar minimum as a contributory factor to the observed severe weather conditions in 2009/2010"


    On that basis they must logically accept that the level of solar activity does indeed affect stratospheric temperatures and in turn the net position of the climate zones as I have been pointing out for several years.

    The trouble is that an active sun COOLS the stratosphere and an inactive sun WARMS the stratosphere which is the opposite of established climatology.

    That pretty much does for the CFC scare too in the process.

    I do believe they are getting there.

  • Comment number 2.

    1. Stephen Wilde wrote:

    "The trouble is that an active sun COOLS the stratosphere and an inactive sun WARMS the stratosphere which is the opposite of established climatology."

    By what mechanism does increased solar output cool the stratosphere? Is this mechanism described in the peer reviewed literature?

  • Comment number 3.

    #1. - Stephen Wilde wrote:
    "That pretty much does for the CFC scare too in the process."
    Does that mean that CFCs didn't cause the hole in the ozone layer?

  • Comment number 4.

    Indeed, how does it happen?

  • Comment number 5.

    uhh..I'm confused...surely you're not suggesting this isn't related to the extra amount of C02 humans are pumping into the atmosphere? The author of this piece should be dismissed summarily.Please get a competent global warming fanatic to analyse the weather in a rational and objective fashion.

  • Comment number 6.

    Read my articles.

    The mix of wavelengths and particles from the sun varies when solar activity varies and alters ozone concentrations differentially at different heights.

    The consequent changes in stratospheric temperatures then allow the climate zones and jetstream tracks to shift so that global cloudiness and albedo changes thus altering the amount of solar energy able to enter the oceans to fuel the climate system.

    When the sun is active the thermosphere and troposphere warm but the stratosphere and mesosphere cool.

    The opposite when the sun is less active.

    As far as I an tell that scenario fits all the available observations and the above post from Paul shows that some scientists are beginning to realise it.

  • Comment number 7.

    #5. - kingkpp wrote:
    "uhh..I'm confused...surely you're not suggesting this isn't related to the extra amount of C02 humans are pumping into the atmosphere? The author of this piece should be dismissed summarily.Please get a competent global warming fanatic to analyse the weather in a rational and objective fashion."
    I can't tell whether you are being sarcastic or not!

  • Comment number 8.

    There was never much an arctic ozone hole forming in the Arctic, at least not on the scale of the Antarctic.

    The reason is the temperature difference. The Antarctic is much colder and so more Polar Stratospheric Clouds form that are key because on these clouds chlorine reactions occur that are produce the molecules that break down ozone.

    When they flew a plane across the Antarctic ozone hole one summer in the 80s they found a strong anti-correlation between the levels of such chlorine molecules and ozone.

  • Comment number 9.

    Horrific grammar in my last comment. sorry.

  • Comment number 10.

    Related or the same?

    "Arctic summer wind shift could affect sea ice loss and U.S./European weather, says NOAA-led study"

    "Changes in summer Arctic wind patterns contribute not only to an unprecedented loss of Arctic sea ice, but could also bring about shifts in North American and European weather, according to a new NOAA-led study published today in Geophysical Research Letters."

    https://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20121010_arcticwinds.html

  • Comment number 11.

    6. Stephen Wilde wrote:

    "Read my articles."

    Why?

  • Comment number 12.

    Interesting piece Paul,

    Sudden stratospheric warmings (SSWs) are indeed vital events. They are essentially driven by certain shifts in the jet stream which are driven by PREDICTABLE changes in solar activity and sun-earth magnetic connectivity, and are associated with cold winter blasts in Europe and USA.
    Through this understanding at WeatherAction we, as you know, forecast the cold snowy blasts of 09/10 and the snowy and coldest Dec in 100 years in 2010 while the Met Office gave their usual misleading mildisms.

    Met Office 'long range' models however are of negative value. While recognizing the importance of the stratosphere they have no idea WHY the stratosphere changes and therefore can forecast nothing in long-range. They will never produce reliable long range forecasts and what they are doing will continue to mislead the public. What they do is not just a waste of taxpayers money but their consistent diabolically opposite to reality long range 'forecasts' are a massive BURDEN on the British economy because they point official bodies and farmers in the wrong direction. The bbq summers which came as floods, the mild winter months which turned to snowmadegons and the drought with floods (LOL!!) this Spring come to mind.

    The problem is they start from the premises that weather causes weather. This is true about one day ahead and reasonably true two days ahead but the further ahead you look the less true it becomes and solar influence rules all. Will they ever learn? To be frank the Met Office and the BBC are not interested in advancing forecasting science - ie by applying solar drivers - because to do so sounds the death-knell of their CO2 delusionism and 'weather drives weather' concepts. They will only change if forced to do so by the coming public revolt against massive energy price hikes which are a direct consequence of CO2 delusionism and government backed thieving from us all - electricity and gas users - to pay for prayer wheels (wind farms) and other silly green money wasters.

    THIS October is interesting both from the point of view of fine spells and cold/stormy blasts of interest in this post and I suggest people pop along to our WeatherAction(.com) website to get forecasts of some important events coming THIS MONTH.

    Happy weather, Piers Corbyn ARCS, MSc, FRAS, FRMetS

  • Comment number 13.

    Piers Corbyn and Stephen Wilde on the same discussion, very good this blog is turning into Paul.

    I remember posting on a weather forum a few years ago about the solar impacts on the weather, starting with the soggy 2007 summer due to the jet stream sinking south (against the CO2 hypothesis). Ever since then we have been on a cooling trend in the UK.

    The reverse of this happened when the sun was very noisy during the 2nd half of the 20th century, causing the beneficial warming of the climate which improved crop yields and led to decent economic growth. Warmth is good for us; such a shame it isn't going to last now the sun needs a rest.

  • Comment number 14.

    And if you're looking for a reason behind rising food prices, you can also look to the sun. The anti-correlation between sunspots and food prices was discovered over 300 years ago. https://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=686

  • Comment number 15.

    Good to see Stephen and Piers here again.

    It's becoming obvious that the Met and climate scientists in general are taking greater notice of natural variability in a more open manner. Lets hope that this is translated into AR5 so that the advice to policy makers becomes more relevant to reality than theory.

    If the advice our government is being given is to develop and plant more drought resistant crops then the near future will not only provide an energy crisis but also a risk of reduced local growing capability leading to higher prices of basic requirements in a time when the opposite is required.

    Your thoughts gentlemen on how an extended neutral ENSO state combined with a more southernly jet stream and a quiet sun will translate into conditions for next years growing season locally?

  • Comment number 16.

    Piers, you too forecast a continuation of the drought in the UK this year https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNVUroWwhJc
    You've also forecast white Christmasses that were green, coldest May in 100 years that was average, a complete washout for The Olympics that turned out nice. You're great at writing forecasts that cover every eventuality, but that seems to be the extent of your skills.
    Interesting blog post Paul and good to see how the Met Office are still striving for the holy grail of forecasting.

  • Comment number 17.

    #8. - quake wrote:
    "There was never much an arctic ozone hole forming in the Arctic, at least not on the scale of the Antarctic."

    I took Stephen Wilde's comment in post #1, that "That pretty much does for the CFC scare too in the process.", to mean the Antarctic.

  • Comment number 18.

    The usual lies and libel from warmist/modellers eg Athena2. Get a life guys! Anything but the matter under discussion! Anyhow rather than pathetic 'assessment' by selected errors and false claims from people who 'cherry-miss' our success and can forecast nothing in long range; some facts:

    1. Our WeatherAction long range forecasts have 85% success rate for extreme events independently measured, and are advancing in scope.
    - https://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact45 pdfs
    How about you A2?

    2. My Xmas bets over the years (not always for snow btw) have made overall profit as have weather bets overall - £14,000 profit until we were banned by William Hill. How about your success rate 'Athena2'? Why do you prefer to be annon?

    3. Our forecasted extreme cold spell(s) in May were a tremendous success. Ask the bees and flowers and gardeners! The fact the cold stopped for a week at end of May 2012 does not negate this. See https://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews12No26.pdf
    As usual you people distort and do not fairly represent our full forecast(s).

    4. What you say about the Olympics (in London which is what the forecast was for under Boris's request, rather than events held outside London which were finer at times and obviously, because finer weather makes better TV, reported for relatively longer) is just a lie. Remember the downpour on the stadium on the opening evening (which Met Office 12 hours before had said would be dry all evening)? That fully confirmed our warning of a high risk of such events in the SouthEast that evening. Remember the cyclists crashing in the rain and the archers stopping the contest? Remember the 'brollies up again' on TV day after day. We said it would improve later ('Complete washout' was made up by you/some media/ both) which it did but sooner so eg 2 days (9th & 10th Aug) were fine not wet.
    https://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews12No35.pdf
    https://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews12No36.pdf


    For latest comments on coming + future weather and a video of what I said on Alan Titchmarsh show (eg about end Oct) see
    https://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=496&c=5

    Thanks, Piers Corbyn

  • Comment number 19.

    15. ukpahonta wrote:

    "Your thoughts gentlemen......will translate into conditions for next years growing season locally?"

    Do you remember this?:-

    "The hottest year since 1659 spells global doom"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1536852/The-hottest-year-since-1659-spells-global-doom.html

    "The warmest April to October period was reported with a mean temperature of 14.6C. The warmest autumn was measured with a mean temperature of 12.6C.

    Central England had the warmest ever growing season, surpassing 1959 and 1995. Scientists say the year was probably the warmest on record in central England."

    Well this year April to October(to date) mean temperature stands at 12.6C, still a lot of October to come but as April to September is only 12.9C can't see much improvement in the seasonal number.

    Don't know what the next year is going to bring but as a "grower" on a very small scale much rather have 2006 temps than this year's.

    The chart of CET growing season shows a familiar pattern an increase from approx 12.5C to 13.5C - 1900 to 1950, back down to 12.5C in approx 1950 and flat till about 1970 then steady rise to 14.5C in 2006. Since 2006 there seems to be a step down similar to the one circa 1950, but much too early to confirm.

  • Comment number 20.

    #19 Greensand

    Growing season length in days
    1961-1990 average 252

    2000 330
    2005 247
    2006 269
    2007 303
    2008 249
    2009 298
    2010 255
    2011 279

    https://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/statistics/climate_change/1715-summary-report-on-the-change-of-thermal-growing.pdf

    2012 possibly around 230 days so far, 249 end of Oct, 279 end of Nov!

  • Comment number 21.

    20. ukpahonta wrote:

    Growing season length in days
    1961-1990 average 252

    ukp - Many thanks for the link, new to me, will have a good look.

  • Comment number 22.

    "Your thoughts gentlemen on how an extended neutral ENSO state combined with a more southernly jet stream and a quiet sun will translate into conditions for next years growing season locally?"

    I generally prefer to leave forecasting to others such as Piers.

    My interest is in getting the right basic diagnosis for longer term global climate changes since we have been let down by the climate establishment in their lazy and inappropriate emphasis on CO2.

    Generally though the UK should be on track for shortening growing seasons over time but individual years can vary greatly due to blocking of the zonal air flow as per Paul's post above.

  • Comment number 23.

    #22

    Perhaps AR5 will be less catastrophic:

    'AS THE world's elite global warming experts began poring over the drafts of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report this week, one leading scientist believes the process shouldn't be happening at all.

    ''I think it will be less successful than the last assessment, and I think it will be blander - I'm disappointed in what I've seen so far,'' said Kevin Trenberth, the head of the climate analysis section at the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research.'
    https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/too-many-researchers-spoil-climate-studies-20121011-27fpm.html

  • Comment number 24.

    #21 Greensand

    Another metric that seems to show little variability until a shift in the mid seventies. What is it about this time period, a search on '1976 climate shift' provides a wide range of information but no solid theory on source?

  • Comment number 25.

  • Comment number 26.

    "a search on '1976 climate shift' provides a wide range of information but no solid theory on source?"

    That was around the time that solar activity perked up again after the relatively quiet cycle 20.

    In my view the active cycles 21, 22 and 23 pulled the climate zones poleward again reducing global cloudiness and allowing more solar energy into the oceans for a warming effect.

    We saw the same process during active cycles 17,18 and 19 hence the warm 1930s especially in the USA.

    During cycle 20 there was a sight cooling.

    So up tp 2000 we had three separate spells of solar behaviour and all three showed a consistent system response.

    Now with the quiet solar cycle 24 we are already back into circulation patterns similar to the cooler 1960s so that makes 4 spells of varying solar behaviour and a consistent system response to every one.

    How much more evidence is needed ?

  • Comment number 27.

    And cycle 25, is there evidence pointing to it being quieter than 24?

  • Comment number 28.

    "And cycle 25, is there evidence pointing to it being quieter than 24?"

    Not really but I think it likely.

    The predictions for cycle 24 were initially that it would be highly active but they have been scaled way back in response to actual developments.

    The fact is that we don't know what the sun is likely to do from one cycle to the next.

    However those who propose astronomic influences on the sun's internal behaviour did anticipate the quieter spell now in progress.

    One such was Timo Niroma (now deceased) here:

    https://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html

    I prefer to reserve judgment on the causes of solar variability. My interest is in the effects of solar variability and they seem to be air circulation changes shifting the climate zones to and fro latitudinally with a consequent effect on the global energy budget.

    Interestingly it is not raw solar output that matters but rather the proportion of that output able to get past the clouds and into the oceans.

  • Comment number 29.

    11.
    At 23:33 11th Oct 2012, newdwr54 wrote:

    6. Stephen Wilde wrote:

    "Read my articles."

    Why?

    ==============================================
    A very concise summary of the debate on climate science going on right now - why should anyone bother to investigate an increasingly attractive hypothesis, and one that will avoid unnecessary taxes, when you claim it's wrong without even reading up on it. Quite an admission.

  • Comment number 30.

    'Interestingly it is not raw solar output that matters but rather the proportion of that output able to get past the clouds and into the oceans.'

    Is this indicating that TSI is the most useful metric, dependent upon the amount that actually reaches the ocean surface?

    What about the CME's and Coronal holes, do you think that we should be be able to better determine influences on the environment as these events occur against a quieter background or do you know of any current studies that might find this period advantageous to expanding our knowledge of Sol?

    Should we see variability in jet stream position due to a single CME or a spike in geomagnetic activity in relation to a coronal hole as it traverses across our plane?

  • Comment number 31.

    "Is this indicating that TSI is the most useful metric, dependent upon the amount that actually reaches the ocean surface?

    No, because TSI varies very little and not enough to explain observations. What does change much more is the mix of wavelengths and particles capable of affecting the net balance of the ozone creation / destruction processes. I think that is what affects the temperature of the stratosphere and thus the height of the tropopause and the latitudinal positions of the climate zones.

    "Should we see variability in jet stream position due to a single CME or a spike in geomagnetic activity in relation to a coronal hole as it traverses across our plane?"

    For me, such short term events get absorbed into short term chaotic variability but Piers claims to be able to discern the effects of such short term events despite that.

    On the long term the climate changes from Mediaeval Warm Period ( active sun with zonal poleward jets) to the Little Ice Age ( quiet sun with meridional equatorward jets) to the late 20th century warming period (active sun with zonal poleward jets) are most instructive.

    On that long timescale we see exactly the same system response to solar variability as we saw from 1900 onwards but written on a 1000 year timescale.

    That cannot be mere coincidence.

  • Comment number 32.

    'I think that is what affects the temperature of the stratosphere and thus the height of the tropopause and the latitudinal positions of the climate zones.'

    Might that possibly then tie in with Marcel Leroux's theory, recently highlighted by his deletion from Wikipedia:

    'In his theory, this migration and the extent of the Meteorological Equator are the consequence of continuous meridional exchanges in the denser, lower layers of the atmosphere, which circulation is governed by the incessant ballet of the Mobile Polar Highs or Anticyclone Mobile Polaire, 1.5 km high, 3,000 km diameter discoid, lenticular cold air-masses anticyclones originating from the poles, whose strength and frequency depends directly on the thermal polar deficit. Cooling spurns an accelerated circulation while warming will slow the general circulation and exchanges.'
    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/marcel-leroux-wikipedia/

    Would love to be able to justify a copy of his book!

  • Comment number 33.

    Yes, Marcel's description of Mobile Polar Highs fits very well.

    The idea would be that when the sun is less active the stratosphere warms due to reduced net ozone destruction (more ozone present) especially above the poles so that the height of the tropopause falls more at the poles than at the equator.

    That alters the slope of the gradient of tropopause height between poles and equator which causes the climate zones to slide equatorward beneath the tropopause.

    The result is more clouds, less energy into the oceans and a cooling climate system.

    Those Mobile Polar High pressure cells develop in the enlarged cold polar air masses and are then able to drift down across the mid latitudes which blocks the normal zonal (west to east) air flow for variable periods of time.

    Thus the current observation of increased 'blocking' more meridional jets and greater extremes across mid latitudes is actually a sign that the system has begun cooling.

    The Earthshine project confirms a higher global albedo and increased global cloudiness beginning around 2000 which correlates with the decline from solar cycle 23.

  • Comment number 34.

    I think there was a report a couple of years back, about the rapid contraction of the exosphere in response to the deep solar minimum. At the time, most scientists were of the opinion that this layer was too sparsely populated (atomically) for it to have any influence on our climate. Is that still the case?

  • Comment number 35.

    The atmosphere from mesosphere upwards is very thinly populated by molecules but that doesn't seem to be an obstacle to thermal effects being transmitted downwards.

    After all, the air density just above the tropopause and within the stratosphere is very thin compared to the density at the surface but the mere fact that there is a temperature inversion at the tropopause puts a cap on convective activity from the surface.

    What seems to matter most is the vertical temperature profile as a whole and for Earth that is largely dictated by ozone amounts at different levels reacting to incoming solar energy.

    The presence of ozone in the stratosphere is what causes the temperature inversion at the tropopause in the first place.

    The height of the tropopause and the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles detrmines the sizes, positions and intensities of the permanent climate zones beneath the tropopause.

    When those climate zones move about or change relative to one another we then perceive climate change and ultimately those changes depend on the amount of solar energy able to enter the oceans.

    As for the current size of the atmosphere (including the exosphere) I believe it is now larger than it was at the last solar minimum but still less than was customary during the recent warming period of the late 20th century.

    As long as the atmosphere stays contracted then the tropopause will remain lower at the poles, the jets will continue to loop about meridionally, global cloudiness will stay higher than it was and the oceans will cool, eventually affecting global air temperatures.

  • Comment number 36.

    The September NASA/GISS anomalies have just been published:
    Global = 0.60c, compared with 0.57c for August.
    N.H. = 0.75c, compared with 0.66c for August.
    S.H. = 0.46c, compared with 0.47c for August.
    After adjustment to 1961-90, the above are equivalent to 0.49c, 0.686C and 0.323c, respectively.
    These figures seem confirm that the ground based anomalies for September will not show such large increases as the satellite based ones, with little change in the S.H.
    If HadCRUT3 retains the same differential to GISS that it did in August, the September anomaly will be about 0.55c, compared to 0.508c last month.
    As HadCRUT4 currently seems to be running about 0.02c higher than HadCRUT3, that would put the Sept. HadCRUT4 figure at about 0.57c.

  • Comment number 37.

    Marcel Leroux's deletion from Wikipedia by William Connelley was an absolute disgrace.

  • Comment number 38.

    36. QuaesoVeritas:

    Thanks for that.

    That makes September 2012 the joint third warmest globally in the NASA record (since 1880). The ten warmest Septembers in the NASA record have all occurred since 2002.

    As you say, based on the UAH anomaly period (1981-2010) the NASA figure is actually lower than both UAH and RSS satellite values; about a tenth of a degree lower than UAH.

  • Comment number 39.

    #37. - PingoSan wrote:
    "Marcel Leroux's deletion from Wikipedia by William Connelley was an absolute disgrace."

    I must admit that I wasn't familiar with the author or his work, before you mentioned this.

    What I don't understand is why his book is so expensive at £158 on Amazon, in particular, why the Kindle edition is, at £110.97. Surely Kindle editions can be reproduced electronically for virtually zero cost?

    I don't understand why any entry on Wikipedia should be removed, if it is factual.
    The removal is under appeal however, and can apparently still be read in the article history.

  • Comment number 40.

    "N.H. = 0.75c, compared with 0.66c for August.
    S.H. = 0.46c, compared with 0.47c for August."

    I would expect to see any change in trend start in the southern oceans given that the process follows any increase or decrease in solar energy entering the oceans.

    The fact that SH is now less anomalously warm than NH is significant in my opinion.

  • Comment number 41.

    "I don't understand why any entry on Wikipedia should be removed, if it is factual.
    The removal is under appeal however, and can apparently still be read in the article history."

    Exactly. I suspect Marcel Leroux is more famous now than before William Connolley went on his mission to wipe out of history, 1984-style, anyone who disagrees with the CO2 groupthink.

    In fact the whole sorry saga probably makes him even more deserved of a Wikipedia article!

    There are a whole bunch of nobodies on Wikipedia whose articles are left up.

    I provide you James Hansen as an example.

  • Comment number 42.

    Amazing what you find when you start off on a journey. This is 'WHY' you should grasp the opportunity to read up on subjects!

    'Historical (proxy) evidence of Arctic temperatures suggest an approximately equal role for the Moon's declination cycle and the Sunspot cycle (11/12 years), in the ratio of 3:5. But in high latitudes, the double Sunspot Cycle or Solar Magnetic Reversal (at 22.24 years), is more important, so the ratio would be 6:10, creating a well known 111 year periodicity. An interesting link with planetary cycles exists at a triple ratio figure : 317.749 years (7 Uranus-Saturn laps/ 16 Saturn-Jupiter laps/ 17 lunar declination cycles). A storminess record in geomorphic (that is, physical) form is preserved in a “staircase” of 184 isostatically uplifted beach lines on Hudson Bay (Fairbridge and Hillaire-Marcel” 1977, Nature. Vol. 268), which date back to more than 8,000 years. Their extraordinary regularity is duplicated in other parts of the Arctic, which denies any theory of randomness in storminess cycles. Their mean periodicity is about 45 years, but secondary modulation appears at 111 years, 317 years, and longer intervals.'
    https://www.crawfordperspectives.com/ClimateKeplerianPlanetDyna.htm

  • Comment number 43.

    #40. - Stephen Wilde wrote:
    "The fact that SH is now less anomalously warm than NH is significant in my opinion."

    But the S.H. anomalies have been running below N.H. since about 1998, although the diversion of S.H. from N.H., started in the early 1970's (at least in the case of GISS).
    In fact, it has just struck me that the main reason that the rate of increase in global temperatures has been lower since 1998, is the the lower rate of increase in the S.H.

  • Comment number 44.

    #42. - ukpahonta wrote:
    "Amazing what you find when you start off on a journey. This is 'WHY' you should grasp the opportunity to read up on subjects!"
    Well, I am afraid you lost me after the first two sentences.
    Surely this is not suggesting that Uranus, Saturn and Jupiter have any influence on "storminess"?

  • Comment number 45.

    40. Stephen Wilde wrote:

    "The fact that SH is now less anomalously warm than NH is significant in my opinion."

    Not sure what you mean by "now"?

    SH has been consistently cooler than the NH for the past 15 years, and the warming trend in the SH is much slower than NH over the past 30 years.

    This is consistent with the accelerated ice loss seen in the NH, which has reduced its albedo and increased its capacity to absorb solar energy. It's also consistent with the relative distribution of land mass between the NH and SH; with the SH having more ocean and with the ocean tending to lag the land temperature rise.

    Both of these effects were widely predicted. There is nothing unusual or unexpected about the pattern of recent NH/SH surface temperatures.

  • Comment number 46.

    #45. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "This is consistent with the accelerated ice loss seen in the NH, which has reduced its albedo and increased its capacity to absorb solar energy."

    You seems to be suggesting that the relative warming of the N.H. is caused by ice loss, rather than the other way around.

    "Both of these effects were widely predicted. There is nothing unusual or unexpected about the pattern of recent NH/SH surface temperatures."

    It's funny that the term used in the media is always "global warming", but never "N.H. warming". I don't think that much emphasis has been given to the difference in warming between the N.H. and S.H.

  • Comment number 47.

    46. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "You seems to be suggesting that the relative warming of the N.H. is caused by ice loss, rather than the other way around."

    Ice and snow loss is one of the main feedback mechanisms for warming. Once the process starts it amplifies itself. The question is what started it?

    "I don't think that much emphasis has been given to the difference in warming between the N.H. and S.H."

    Possibly not in the media, but it was well covered in the last IPCC report. Not all regions of the world are warming; some are even cooling. I make NASA's SH 30 year trend +0.1C/decade, with NH about 3 times faster.

    HadCRUT4 is in good agreement with that.

  • Comment number 48.

    I read a post concerning Southern Hemisphere temperature adjustments recently (Jo Nova site?) looking at Alice Springs in particular. IIRC, the adjustment added around 3 degrees to the warming trend which was not apparent or observed in something like 8 of the ten nearest sites. Nevertheless, the effect of the adjustment was huge in the Southern Hemisphere record - around 0.2 I think.
    Sorry to be so vague - but I have a tendency to go on random walks, clicking on links as I browse through comments.

    QV@44 There is of course the barycentre theory. While unproven and perhaps somewhat unlikely, the correlations between planetary orbits and the sun's activity keep cropping up. Anything which could affect our star's activity, could therefore affect Earth's weather/climate indirectly.

    Yes, correlation is not causation, but has any serious research funding been available for investigating this?

  • Comment number 49.

    #48. - lateintheday wrote:
    " Anything which could affect our star's activity, could therefore affect Earth's weather/climate indirectly."
    Since the masses of Uranus, Saturn and even Jupiter are miniscule in comparison to the Sun, I don't see how they can influence it's activity. But maybe I am being prejudiced.
    Has there been a problem with the blog - I couldn't read the comments for a while.

  • Comment number 50.

    newdwr54,

    I have noticed that in our discussion about our arctic ice "bet", you said:
    "...Arctic sea ice extent will stay below the level of the 2007 extent minimum right through September 2012."

    Did you really mean September 2012?

    For some reason I got it into my head that you meant 2013, hence my comment that it might go above 2007 in October.

  • Comment number 51.

    #41. - PingoSan wrote:
    "In fact the whole sorry saga probably makes him even more deserved of a Wikipedia article!"

    I notice that there is an extensive Wikipedia page for Adolf Hitler, including a list of his writings, and a description of the contents of Mein Kampf.

    If that is permissable, what is the problem with Marcel Leroux and his book?

    Is the denial of "climate change" now a more worse crime than wishing to exterminate the Jews?

  • Comment number 52.

    There is a lot more ocean in the SH

  • Comment number 53.

    Was he deleted because he isn't famous enough? Hitler is a pretty infamous historical figure. If I tried to add myself to wikipedia I am sure I would be deleted too.

  • Comment number 54.

    #53. - quake wrote:
    "Was he deleted because he isn't famous enough? Hitler is a pretty infamous historical figure. If I tried to add myself to wikipedia I am sure I would be deleted too."
    I take it from that comment that he created the Wikipedia entry himself.
    If that is the case, is there a rule against such entries?

  • Comment number 55.

    #44 QV

    Do a search on 'Fairbridge and Hillaire-Marcel 1977, Nature. Vol. 268' they are cited in a wide variety of fields referencing solar cycles. The link with other planetary cycles is probably a side issue. They study physical evidence of a connection between events here on Earth and the solar cycle, something that could be missing from current models.

  • Comment number 56.

    50. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "I have noticed that in our discussion about our arctic ice "bet", you said:
    "...Arctic sea ice extent will stay below the level of the 2007 extent minimum right through September 2012."

    Did you really mean September 2012?"

    Yes. And it did. Not even I would bet that it would stay below that level until September 2013! However, I accept it was an honest misunderstanding, and the terms of the bet are therefore null and void.

    Most likely the Arctic sea ice by area will recover to +/- 10% of its normal maximum extent this winter. However, the ice will be very thin and weak, as it was last winter.

  • Comment number 57.

    Re 56:

    "Most likely the Arctic sea ice by area will recover to +/- 10% of its normal maximum extent this winter. However, the ice will be very thin and weak, as it was last winter."

    And I should have added, by March 2013 Anthony Watts, etc will be heralding the 'recovery' of the Arctic sea ice; same as he does every year around that time.

  • Comment number 58.

    52. greensand wrote:

    "There is a lot more ocean in the SH"

    Yup. And it takes it a lot longer to react to warming.

  • Comment number 59.

    'The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,’ Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America’s Georgia Tech university, told me yesterday.

    ‘Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.

    ‘It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.'
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

  • Comment number 60.

    #56. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "Yes. And it did. Not even I would bet that it would stay below that level until September 2013! However, I accept it was an honest misunderstanding, and the terms of the bet are therefore null and void."
    Just as well no money was involved.
    I think I was probably influenced by the fact that on the 27th, it was virtually impossible for the extent to exceed 2007, so your prediction wasn't particularly courageous!

  • Comment number 61.

    As far as I can see, there are no monthly time-series data on the MO website for HadSST3, in the same format as HadSST2, HadCRUT3/4 etc.
    All there seems to be is a time series for individual grid squares, which is in a file too large to load into an Excel spreadsheet.
    I asked if the monthly global time-series was going to be put on the web site and they said that it would be added to the "to-do" list. I take that to mean that they hadn't intended to add it until I asked.

  • Comment number 62.

    #59. - ukpahonta wrote:

    "The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,’ Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America’s Georgia Tech university, told me yesterday."
    I notice that Prof. Jones has stated his belief that the decade beginning in 2010 will be 0.17c warmer than the previous decade, presumably based on HadCRUT4.

    Based on HadCRUT4, the mean global temperature for the 10 years to 2009 was 0.452c, and the mean to 2011 is 0.470c, an increase of 0.018c.

    In order for the mean temp. to 2019 to be 0.682c, (0.452c + 0.170c), there will need to be an average increase between 2011 and 2019 of 0.0745c p.a., which would make the final figure for 2012 = 0.474c, and the figure for 2019 = 0.995c.

    Otherwise, in predicting that this decade will be 0.17c warmer than the previous one, he is in effect, predicting that the global temperature anomaly in 2019 will be almost +1.0c warmer than 1961-90.

    Of course, if the temperature rises more slowly than the average during the short-term, the figure for 2019 will have to be correspondingly higher.

    The required average increase also implies that all of the years from 2013 onwards, will have to be warmer than 2010.

    I wonder if Prof. Jones' prediction is based on computer model outputs or is just a number he has plucked out of the air?

    Of course, by 2019, they may have introduced HadCRUT5 or HadCRUT6!

  • Comment number 63.

    O.K., I have spotted my basic error in the above!
    In order to be 0.17c warmer than the 2000-2009, this decade would have to be an average of 0.622c, not 0.682c.
    The revised figure would require an average annual increase of 0.058c, and would result in a figure of 0.863c by 2019.
    Obviously the revised figure is lower, but I would say still quite unlikely.
    Based on the revised average, 2013 would not need to be warmer than 2010, but years from 2014 onwards would be.
    Also, before anyone else points it out, if the rise in the short-term were higher than average, the final figure in 2019 would need to be lower.

  • Comment number 64.

    So if its the sun (the star of our solar system) & not Co2 causing weather will there be another act of parliment passed against the sun causing climate change like they've done for Co2 ?
    How would you tax the sun then... any suggestions ?
    This would mean we have been "Miss Sold" emmision taxes baised on CO2
    So would I be able to claim back my unfair road tax like PPI ?

  • Comment number 65.

    That's some strange graphing by the Daily Mail. First the X-axis is wrong. The HadCRUT4 data they've plotted is from September 1997 and August 2012, but it is drawn as if it runs from Jan 1997 to August 2012. As a result of this the data plotted appears 7 months earlier than it should. For example the plot shows a 0.82C spike in HadCRUT4 in May 2006, but in the actual data this spike occured in January 2007:
    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.1.1.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt

    That's a minor plotting error though.

    More weird is that they've altered the plotted September 1997 and August 2012 points to fit their conclusion. The actual HadCRUT4 values for these months are:
    September 1997 = 0.475C
    August 2012 = 0.526C

    Yet in the article they've drawn them both as 0.5C, seemingly so they could claim both months are the same. I guess the artist decided the data didn't fit the labels so adjusted the data to fit!

  • Comment number 66.

  • Comment number 67.

    #65.At 14:53 14th Oct 2012, quake wrote:
    That's some strange graphing by the Daily Mail. First the X-axis is wrong. The HadCRUT4 data they've plotted is from September 1997 and August 2012, but it is drawn as if it runs from Jan 1997 to August 2012.

    I think that the graph starts half-way between Sept. 1997 (0.456c) and Oct. 1997 (0.553c), and ends between July 2012 (0.469c) and Aug. 2012 (0.526c). I know this seems odd, but there it is. Essentially what whoever prepared the graph is saying is that the temp. was approx. 0.5c around those dates.

    As for why the data is about 7 months out, that almost sounds as if some sort of smoothing was used, e.g. a 13 month running mean, but that isn't the case.

    I notice that the graph is annotated with the name "BEN WELLER", but all I can come up with on Google for that name is a fashion photographer, maybe that's him!

  • Comment number 68.

    66. ukpahonta:

    Well done for linking to that. You've gone up in my estimation (not that I expect that to be of any great consolation to you).

  • Comment number 69.

    #68 newdwr54

    Thank you, I'm glad that you realise the need to put both sides of the argument forward when an article about climate is published in the media so that ordinary folk like ourselves can see that it may be exaggerated to increase impact of the story. I'm sure that you will continue to do the same.

    Perhaps, although I doubt it, you would would also find it hypocritical if the same response from the MET was not directed to all articles of an exaggerated nature that were published. Not that I would suggest that there is any bias in a publicly funded organisation towards a policy based stance rather than a scientific one.

    A real shame that some of the staff there who tweet their objections to catastrophic weather stories do not get the opportunity to release a post on the blog! Perhaps then the communication of science to the public would take on a real meaning.

  • Comment number 70.

  • Comment number 71.

    I notice that according to JAXA, the sea ice extent increased by 152,187 square km on the 14th, and was within 176,719 square km of the 2007 figure on the same date.
    If it continues to increase at that rate, it may go above 2007 on the 17th/18th.

  • Comment number 72.

    It's a while since I looked at the MO Decadal forecast figures, but I thought that I would compare them with Prof. Jones forecast of this decade being 0.17c warmer than the last decade.
    As far as I can tell, the MO forecast, after adjustment to 1961-90, is predicting a temp. of about 0.913c for 2019, and a 2010-19 mean of around 0.7c, which would be 0.25c higher than 2000-2009, so in comparison with that, Prof. Jones prediction seems conservative.
    It leads me to wonder why Prof. Jones isn't quoting the central MO forecast figures.

  • Comment number 73.

    I have re-read the e-mail I received from the MO in January, on the subject of the decadal forecast, and using their interpretation of the data, the decadal mean for 2010 to 2019 would be 0.678c, i.e. 0.227c higher than 2000-2009.
    Also, taking the central figures minus 1 SD, the 2010-19 mean would be 0.595c or 0.191c higher than 2000-09. Using this method, there is actually a projected fall in the temp. for 2015, entirely due to a jump in the standard deviation that year.
    So it looks like Prof. Jones's estimate could be based on a lower confidence range of the MO decadal forecast.

  • Comment number 74.

    Just for the record, NOAA has published global temperature data for September: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/9

    (Nice to beat QV to it for once.)

    NOAA shows +0.67C above 20th century average. Joint warmest September since 1880.

  • Comment number 75.

    Sorry, Paul, but the very cold recent December you allude to was December 2010 not December 2009.

    However, 2009-10 was the colder December-February winter of the two (the seventh coldest in official records and almost as cold as 1962-63 in northern Scotland).

    I'm keeping an 'eye' on Tropical Storm Rafael...

  • Comment number 76.

    "the onset of severe cold that begun at the end of November 2009...". Again this happened in 2010. The prolonged very cold winter of 2009-10 only started around mid December (the cold weather started earlier in December in 2008).

  • Comment number 77.

    "the soggy 2007 summer due to the jet stream sinking south (against the CO2 hypothesis)...". Not necessarily. A rapidly warming Arctic, with much sea ice vanishing in summer - as in 2012 - may reduce temperature differences between polar and tropical air masses. This may weaken the jet stream and associated depressions, meaning they wander further south.

    Does Piers Corbyn still think the moon affects our weather?

  • Comment number 78.

    #74. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "(Nice to beat QV to it for once.)"
    Yes, my computer has been down today, after I opened it up for a clean.
    Then it refused to boot up several times, but I have now got it working again.
    The increase in global NOAA is slightly higher than for GISS, but lower than for UAH & RSS. It possibly points to a slightly higher estimate for HadCRUT3 of around 0.56c.

  • Comment number 79.

    Another attempt to post this:

    "the soggy 2007 summer due to the jet stream sinking south (against the CO2 hypothesis)...". Not necessarily. A rapidly warming Arctic, with much sea ice vanishing in summer - as in 2012 - may reduce temperature differences between polar and tropical air masses. This may weaken the jet stream and associated depressions, meaning they wander further south.

    Does Piers Corbyn still think the moon affects our weather?

  • Comment number 80.

    #77. - ashleyhr wrote:
    "Does Piers Corbyn still think the moon affects our weather?"
    In the recent interview on the Alan Titchmarsh Show, the Moon was mentioned but I can't remember whether it was Piers or Mark Thompson, who also claims to be able to forecast weather using Astronomy.

  • Comment number 81.

  • Comment number 82.

  • Comment number 83.

    78. QuaesoVeritas:

    Yes, good agreement between NOAA and GISS. The satellites, especially UAH, show stronger warming for September.

    Odd that Stephen Goddard overlooks this.

  • Comment number 84.

    75. ashleyhr wrote:

    "Sorry, Paul, but the very cold recent December you allude to was December 2010 not December 2009."

    Good spot ashleyhr. I'd wondered about that, because I normally just use the UK or NI data, and assumed that Paul was using E/NE England.

    But you're right; Dec 2009 was cold, but it wasn't in the top ten coldest on the UK 1910 - present record, never mind "since the late 19th century".

    That applies to both UK as a whole and (even more so in fact) to E/NE England.

    But even the best of us can make the odd mistake. Just as long as it doesn't become a habit.

    I would hate to see Paul go the same way as Joe Bastrardi.

  • Comment number 85.

    Message 84

    I think Piers Corbyn corrected the date in passing earlier in the thread; I posted first and then read the comments later.

  • Comment number 86.

  • Comment number 87.

    As far as I know, which isn't much, the hurricane that Michael Fish mentioned was, believe it or not, an actual hurricane not the storm that hit England. Real hurricanes move north-east after hitting America and the dying embers can hit Britain although they usually pass to the north.

  • Comment number 88.

    One thing I had noticed about HadCRUT3, is that the average annual anomaly for the period 1961-90 was -0.0261c.
    Since the anomalies are supposed to be relative to 1961-90, that figure should, in theory, be zero and indeed, the average HadCRUT4 anomaly for the period 1961-90 is -0.0006c, effectively zero.

    Consequently, in order to "correct" HadCRUT3 figures, i.e. adjust them to themselves, and compare them to HadCRUT4, it is theoretically necessary to add 0.0261c to all of the annual figures.
    The published annual HadCRUT3 anomaly figure for 2011 is 0.346c, compared with the HadCRUT4 annual figure of 0.399c, a difference of 0.053c, but after adjustment of the HadCRUT3 figure to 0.372c, the difference is only 0.027c.

    While the figure of -0.0261c is the annual average, the figures for individual months vary considerably, with the largest being -0.0417c in March and the smallest being -0.0204c in August. In general, the adjustments are lower in summer.

    When these adjustments are made to 2012 monthly HadCRUT3 anomaly figures, the current annual average (to August), increases from 0.388c to 0.419c, compared with the HadCRUT4 annual average of 0.420c, i.e. almost identical. The individual monthly adjusted HadCRUT3 figures are very close, and in some cases higher than the equivalent HadCRUT4 figures.

    The figures for individual months are as follows, with the first figure being unadjusted HadCRUT3, then the adjusted figure, the HadCRUT4 figure and finally the difference between adjusted HadCRUT3 and HadCRUT4.

    MONTH HADCR3 HADCR3A HADCR4 DIFF.
    (A) (B) (A-B)
    2012/1 0.217 0.250 0.288 -0.038
    2012/2 0.193 0.220 0.209 0.011
    2012/3 0.305 0.347 0.339 0.008
    2012/4 0.481 0.519 0.514 0.005
    2012/5 0.475 0.513 0.516 -0.003
    2012/6 0.477 0.506 0.501 0.005
    2012/7 0.448 0.470 0.469 0.001
    2012/8 0.508 0.528 0.526 0.002

  • Comment number 89.

    Don't know if this helps!

    'Over both the land and marine domains considerable care has been taken in calculating the base period values for the 1961-90 period. However, as all regions don't have complete data for this 30-year period, the anomaly data do not average exactly to zero for this 30-year period. This also applies to the global and hemispheric average series as well as the individual grid-box series. However, the IPCC optimally averaged global and hemispheric time series (see later web address) are constrained to have anomalies that average to zero over 1961-90.'

    'We have really averaged grid-box temperature anomalies (using the HadCRUT3v dataset), with weighting according to the area of each 5° x 5° grid box, into hemispheric values; we then averaged these two values to create the global-average anomaly. However, the global and hemispheric anomalies used by IPCC and in the World Meteorological Organization and Met Office news releases were calculated using optimal averaging. This technique uses information on how temperatures at each location co-vary, to weight the data to take best account of areas where there are no observations at a given time. The method uses the same basic information (i.e. in future HadCRUT3v and subsequent improvements), along with the data-coverage and the measurement and sampling errors, to estimate uncertainties on the global and hemispheric average anomalies. Our alternative technique (used here) produces no estimates of uncertainties, but our results generally lie within the ranges estimated by optimum averaging. The constraint that the average be zero over 1961-90 in the optimal averages also adds a small offset compared to the other data described here.

    The present optimal averages with annual uncertainties are accessible from the Hadley Centre (Link broken - UKPahonta). The data include values filtered to show decadal and longer-term variations and uncertainties. This replaces the IPCC 2001 version at the above site (see Parker et al. 2004). All other versions of global and hemispheric temperature anomalies are only steps to the IPCC series. '
    https://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

    'The annual global (and hemispheric) mean values for each year given on our web site differ slightly from those given on the hadobs web site. All hemispheric averages are calculated from the grid box values available in each hemisphere, weighted to account for the different surface areas represented by each grid box. The global value is the mean of the two hemispheric averages. The CRU and Met. Office (hadobs) values are identical for the monthly global and hemispheric values, but for the annual averages CRU calculates this as the average of 12 monthly values, whereas the Met. Office calculates the annual average temperature anomaly for each grid box and then the hemispheric and global means from that. If the data coverage were the same for all 12 months, the two methods should give the same result, but if the data coverage varies during the year, small differences arise between the two methods. '
    https://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

  • Comment number 90.

    #89. - ukpahonta wrote:
    "Don't know if this helps!"
    I am not entirely certain that it does!
    Do you have a URL for the whole of the above quote?
    Since the CRU HadCRUT3 monthly figures are identical to the MO figures,
    the mean monthly anomaly for 1961-90 would be the same.
    It would be nice to see the "IPCC optimally averaged global and hemispheric time series", but that link is broken, so a link to the actual text would be useful.
    What surprised me was how close the adjusted HadCRUT3 figures were to the HadCRUT4 figures.
    Other dataset providers seem to be able to get their mean for their base period to be approximately zero, so I don't understand why the MO/CRU couldn't do that in the case of HadCRUT3, especially since they seem to have managed it for HadCRU4.
    The Period over which the mean anomaly in HadCRUT3 is zero is actually December 1964 to November 1994, that's 3 years and 10 months out!
    Personally I think this might be due to retrospective adjustments over the years, so starting afresh with HadCRUT4 has cured the problem.

  • Comment number 91.

    JAXA extent up another 237,188 square km yesterday, now within 54,062 square km of the 2007 value for the same date.
    At this rate the 2012 extent is almost certain to go above 2007 soon.

  • Comment number 92.

    It looks like daily AQUA temperature figures are no longer being updated.
    Hardly surprising really!

  • Comment number 93.

    #90 QV

    'Do you have a URL for the whole of the above quote?'

    As in the above post:

    https://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
    Answers to Frequently-asked Questions, bottom section of page.

    https://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
    Footnote.

  • Comment number 94.

    #93. - ukpahonta wrote:
    "As in the above post:"

    Sorry for missing the obvious!

  • Comment number 95.

    further to my comment@48 I've found that link regarding temp adjustments in the Southern Hemisphere/Alice Springs etc.

    It was a recent (October) post at tallblokes talkshop titled 'chunder down under'. He reckons that . . .
    "We are now in a position to conclude that the GHCN v3.2 warming adjustments applied to the GHCN v2 records in and around Alice Springs have manufactured approximately 2C of nonexistent warming since 1880. Spread over an area of 1.5 sq km this adds only about 0.02C of non-existent warming to the global land surface air temperature series, but it adds about 0.2C of nonexistent warming to the series in the Southern Hemisphere, where there’s a lot less land."

  • Comment number 96.

    JAXA ice extent up 295,781 square km, now 154,844 square km above the 2007 extent figure on the same date.
    Currently heading in the direction of the 2011 extent and may exceed that soon.
    The daily change on the 16th appears to be the largest recorded over the Sept. to Nov. period since 2002.
    https://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

  • Comment number 97.

    #95. - lateintheday wrote:
    "We are now in a position to conclude that the GHCN v3.2 warming adjustments applied to the GHCN v2 records in and around Alice Springs have manufactured approximately 2C of nonexistent warming since 1880. Spread over an area of 1.5 sq km this adds only about 0.02C of non-existent warming to the global land surface air temperature series, but it adds about 0.2C of nonexistent warming to the series in the Southern Hemisphere, where there’s a lot less land."

    Instinctively I feel that a false warming of 2c over an area of only 1.5 square km is unlikely to result in a warming of 0.2c over the whole S.H. or 0.02c over the entire planet.

    Would this not imply a land area in the S.H. of only 15 square km and for the globe of 150 square km?

    Since the actual land area of the S.H. is approximately 15 MILLION square km, the S.H. figure would be approximately correct if the area around Alice Springs were 1.5 MILLION square km, but the total area of Australia is about 7.7 million square km and that of the Northern Territories is about 1/6 of that, i.e. 1.35 million square km, so the figures would be approximately correct if the area involved were the whole of the Northern Territories, not just the "area around Alice Springs".

    There again, the land surface area of the globe is approximately 510 million square km, so the effect on the entire global temperature would only be approximately 0.005c, IF the area involved were the whole of the Northern Territories.

  • Comment number 98.

    Well QV, even I know what you mean - it doesn't seem likely. However, Tallbloke does run through some of the numbers in the post and I'm sure you would spot a calc error on this scale.
    If you haven't read the post, then as I understand it, the data from nearby stations (which are actually not nearby because we're talking about Australia) don't appear to warrant a adjustment of any kind since they are mostly in agreement. A minority (couple of stations) which showed some warming have therefore had a massively disproportionate effect because the majority of stations were adjusted to match the minority.
    Worth a read - even if to pull apart.

  • Comment number 99.

    #98. - lateintheday wrote:
    "Worth a read - even if to pull apart."

    I'll have a look at it.
    If I am correct, I can't believe that nobody else has spotted it, so there may be
    something in the full article which explains the apparent discrepancy.

  • Comment number 100.

    lateintheday,

    While the quote from the article you posted does say 1.5 sq km, earlier in the article, it says:

    "The seven stations combined cover approximately 1.5 million sq km, or 1% of the Earth’s total land surface area."

    So he apparently is taking about a much larger area, although the phrase "area around Alice Springs" is strictly correct, I think it is a bit misleading.

    Also, in trying to find the total land are of the planet, I mis-read the figure for the total surface area as the total land area.
    The actual total land area is about 149 million square km, so the figures in the article are approximately correct, if you assume an area of 1.5 million square km is involved.

    So it seems the confusion is due to the fact that the area was given as only 1.5 square km, instead of 1.5 million square km, in the section you quoted.

    I haven't read all of the comments on the article, so someone may have pointed that out, but it obviously hasn't been corrected yet.

 

Page 1 of 2

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.