« Previous | Main | Next »

First cold snap of the season

Paul Hudson | 15:23 UK time, Thursday, 25 October 2012

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

Page 1 of 2

  • Comment number 1.

    "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. "

    Whilst the Met Office report:-

    "Top ten: Mildest temperatures recorded last night"

    I think they were referring to Monday 22nd and I don't think they are claiming that they are records? They just seem to have listed the 10 warmest places?

    https://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/top-ten-mildest-temperatures-recorded-last-night/

    I wonder if such announcements will become a regular feature?

  • Comment number 2.

    I have just got some Cold Snap out of the freezer for dinner to celebrate Diwali lights turn on in Barnsley

  • Comment number 3.

    October looking to be sub 1961-1990 average for UK which means only 4 months this year have been above average so far in a period since 1988 where it's normal to have at least 8 months above average. Are November and December going to rise above the average?

  • Comment number 4.

    Strange how these cold snaps are becoming more and more regular now the sun has gone into a slumber.

    Interesting stuff about the Michael Mann. I wonder how the upside down sediments will look in court?

  • Comment number 5.

    3. ukpahonta wrote:

    "... only 4 months this year have been above average so far in a period since 1988 where it's normal to have at least 8 months above average."

    Sorry, what do you mean by "in a period since 1988"? Have we suddenly got a new start point from which to adjudge 'average'?

    According to the MO's own data (since 1910), five months are above average and four are below average. I prefer to follow the MO's advice and base averages on the previous 30 years. Using that baseline yields the same 5/4 warmer/cooler result.

    Another point worth making is that already in 2012 two months (Feb and March) are inside the top ten warmest on record. No month has been in the top ten coolest on record.

    According to the MO data, UK to date is about +0.3C above its Jan-Sep average.

  • Comment number 6.

    Newdwr54, are any of your figures significant? I suspect not. Hey but why worry about significance when we can turn sediments upside down.

  • Comment number 7.

    #5

    'According to the MO's own data (since 1910), five months are above average and four are below average. I prefer to follow the MO's advice and base averages on the previous 30 years. Using that baseline yields the same 5/4 warmer/cooler result.'

    That's the sort of thing I'm interested in, do you have a source?

    I was looking at monthly HadCET (since 1669) mean from:
    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/data/download.html
    using a standard 1961-1990 average.

  • Comment number 8.

    NASA Combined Land surface air sea surface water -

    1880–1889 −0.274 °C (−0.493 °F)
    1890–1899 −0.254 °C (−0.457 °F)
    1900–1909 −0.259 °C (−0.466 °F)
    1910–1919 −0.276 °C (−0.497 °F)
    1920–1929 −0.175 °C (−0.315 °F)
    1930–1939 −0.043 °C (−0.0774 °F)
    1940–1949 0.035 °C (0.0630 °F)
    1950–1959 −0.02 °C (−0.0360 °F)
    1960–1969 −0.014 °C (−0.0252 °F)
    1970–1979 −0.001 °C (−0.00180 °F)
    1980–1989 0.176 °C (0.317 °F)
    1990–1999 0.313 °C (0.563 °F)
    2000–2009 0.513 °C (0.923 °F)

    BEST
    In an op-ed published in the New York Times on 28 July 2012, Richard Muller announced further findings from the project. He said their analysis showed that average global land temperatures had increased by 2.5 °F (1.4 °C) in 250 years, with the increase in the last 50 years being 1.5 °F (0.8 °C), and it seemed likely that this increase was entirely due to human caused greenhouse gas emissions. His opening paragraph stated:

    "Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."

    Ironically, Judith Curry was a member of that team. Ironically Anthony Watts said he would stand by Muller's results until he read the results. Hmmm!

    Global temp records here Doctor Keith Strong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsDFji7DwyQ

  • Comment number 9.

    Richard Muller was a fake sceptic.

    https://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/23-Medievalglobalwarming.html

    Now the question is why would you lie about someone converting from scepticism to fanaticism when you knew you were not being fully honest?

    If global warming was such an open and shut case, you would not need to fabricate.

  • Comment number 10.

    6. PingoSan wrote:

    "are any of your figures significant?"

    What do you mean by 'significant'?

    Also, didt you ask ukpahonta the same question?

    If not, why not?

  • Comment number 11.

    7. ukpahonta:

    UK data from the MO are available here: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/datasets/

    Make sure you select 'date order'. Then select 'UK - Mean Temp'.

    The HadCET data is too region specific.

  • Comment number 12.

    9. PingoSan:

    If Muller was a 'fake sceptic' (ha!) since 2003, then one must ponder on the wisdom and foresight of one Willard Anthony Watts, North California resident, who gave Muller and the BEST project his unambiguous backing - until he found out their results!

    Talking about 'fake sceptics'....?

  • Comment number 13.

    From the previous topic:

    #72. - theelasticjesuz wrote:
    "BTW I do have a petrol driven car and I do eat meat. But that isn't to say that I wouldn't jump at the chance to drive something more eco-friendly if the forecourts weren't full of petrol, petrol or diesel engines and fuel stations weren't controlled by Exxon, Exxon, Exxon, Chevron, BP, BP, BP, and Shell. "
    Wonderful to have choice in this great free market, is it not?"
    You do have a choice.
    *if* you are really so concerned about "climate change", or even the environment in general, you could have tailored your lifestyle to match those concerns by not having a car at all and only using public transport. It's always someone else's fault.

  • Comment number 14.

    #1. - greensand wrote:
    "I think they were referring to Monday 22nd and I don't think they are claiming that they are records? They just seem to have listed the 10 warmest places?"

    Yes, it's difficult to know what the purpose of that list was. It does just seem to be a list of the 10 warmest places, and I think it is linked to the fact that a warm spell had been forecasted. No doubt we will get a list of the 10 coldest places in due course.
    There was a list of the top ten coldest temperatures in the UK since 1961, no doubt designed to show that there have been none since 2010.
    https://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/top-ten-coldest-recorded-temperatures-in-the-uk/

  • Comment number 15.

    I'm not sure about this being the "first cold snap of the season".
    On the NE coast, the temperatures are forecast to fall to about 3c, for a short period, but on the 10th, I recorded a temp. of below 2c and figures of around 3c between October 14th and 17th.
    Last night, one of the forecasters on the BBC news channel said it was the first cold weather "this winter", which is strange, considering it's still Autumn. I notice that Paul hasn't fallen into that trap. One at least expects the BBC forecasters to know when the seasons begin and end.

  • Comment number 16.

    I remember Watts being warned at the time (by lots of his blog followers) not to to trust Muller. He was well aware of the risk, but was prepared to give Muller the chance to prove himself genuine. In my opinion, Muller has wrecked his credibility through his inappropriate behaviour ever since. That is to say, while I don't doubt that his BEST project is a genuine attempt to reconstruct an accurate temp record, I do think that he's gone about it in the wrong way, both professionally and personally. As far as I know, BEST still hasn't passed peer review and there has already been criticism from both consensus and sceptic sides.
    Losing credibility from the sceptic side is of course, no problem for Muller - that's hardly going to affect his career. However, I doubt if the consensus side would now trust him with their preliminary data either, and that's the sting in the tail. He appears to be 'Billy no mates' at the moment.

  • Comment number 17.

    My subjective impression is that these Arctic blasts are frequently predicted to be over the UK, but actually end up being of relatively short duration and further east than predicted. Any thoughts?

  • Comment number 18.

    #11 newdwr54

    Thanks for the link, I get the same result, didn't think that the data would be that different, just less of it.

  • Comment number 19.

    "My subjective impression is that these Arctic blasts are frequently predicted to be over the UK, but actually end up being of relatively short duration and further east than predicted. Any thoughts?"

    That used to be the case until around 2008. Since then, the solar minimum has led to soggy summers and cold winters. Cold plunges tend to cover all of Europe rather than just the east. The prime reason for this is the now semi-permanent Greenland high. Once meteorologists understand why this happens, we will start to see more accurate seasonal forecasts, and less of the BBQ Summer sort.

  • Comment number 20.

    PingogSan,
    Thanks for your views. This Arctic outbreak certainly seems to support my subjective impression and its duration over the UK look like being pretty much over by Sunday with Europe getting the worst of it. However it will be interesting to see how further incursions persist over the winter. Incidentally, for those of us in the eastern Grampians this is not our first cold snap of the autumn, with Braemar getting down to -8C earlier this month.

  • Comment number 21.

    "Incidentally, for those of us in the eastern Grampians this is not our first cold snap of the autumn, with Braemar getting down to -8C earlier this month."

    Nice to hear another reader of this blog has a more pleasant environ than these lowlands of Mancunia! We're a bit of a snow desert here - stopped from the snow by the Atlantic of westerlies, and by the Pennines of easterlies. It takes something special.

  • Comment number 22.

    19. PingoSan wrote:

    "That used to be the case until around 2008. Since then, the solar minimum has led to soggy summers and cold winters."
    _______________________

    But the solar minimum has not led to reduced global surface temperatures, apparently.

    Since 2008 we have so far seen the warmest or joint warmest year on record globally (2010); a continuation of the global upward long term average temperature; an actual rise in the temperature trend and, in the US at least, the warmest land temperatures in a record that started in 1895.

    Maybe it's just as well we're at a solar minimum?

  • Comment number 23.

    *if* you are really so concerned about "climate change", or even the environment in general, you could have tailored your lifestyle to match those concerns by not having a car at all and only using public transport. It's always someone else's fault.

    Whhoooooooah. He who is without sin usually throws a wet fish back in his own mush.

    Pretty tetchy and assumptive aren't we sweety pie?

    Who said I don't use public transport? As for tailoring a lifestyle let me refer you to the facts of life.

    Figs as of 2011 (in BILLIONS) thats 9 noughts - 000,000,000))

    1 Royal Dutch Shell Market value: Sales: 278.19 Profits: 12.52 Assets: 287.64 Market value: 168.63168.63

    2 BP Sales: 239.27 Profits: 16.58 Assets: 235.45 Market value: 167.13

    3 GAZPROM Sales: 115.25 Profits: 24.33 Assets: 234.77 Market value: 132.58

    4 Exxon: Sales: 275.56 Profits: 19.28 Assets: 233.32 Market value: 308.77

    5 Petrobras Sales: 104.81 Profits: 16.63 Assets: 198.26 Market value: 190.34

    6 TOTAL Sales: 160.68 Profits: 12.10 Assets: 183.29 Market value: 131.80

    7 Petro China Sales: 157.22 Profits: 16.80 Assets: 174.95 Market value: 333.84

    8 Chevron Sales: 159.29 Profits: 10.48 Assets: 164.62 Market value: 146.23

    9 Eni: Sales: 121.01 Profits: 6.27 Assets: 163.52 Market value: 82.22

    10 Conoco-Philips: Sales: 136.02 Profits: 4.86 Assets: 152.59 Market value: 72.72

    Now, I'm not going to waste precious time doing the math since I leave that to you sad people who are hellbent on proving an 'Al Gore World Bank conspiracy'.

    But needless to say I understand your fear that your pensions are ultimately tied up in one of the ten firms above which ultimately means you ALLOW them to control everything in your life since there is very little in the western (and now eastern) lifestyle that doesn't involve using oil in one way or another. From the type of engine, to cost of engine, to cost of transportation, cost of food, cost of labour, cost of grocery bill...cost of...E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G (including your pension sweety pie).

    Now, if I weren't such a cynic I could joke and say that free market Capitalism is no different to Stalin styled Communism:

    1 chairman/ 30,000 shareholders or politburo members/ millions of gullible idiots who think the system is the best thing sinced sliced bread.

    But I won't say it since you're not political in any way, shape, or extreme, are you?

    That's why, in 1968 when Ford and GM kicked up a st

  • Comment number 24.

    continued...
    That's why, in 1968 when Ford and GM kicked up a stink about the NEW catalytic converter that would revolutionise the engine by reducing CO (that's monoxide sweety) and LEAD, and therefore reduce the blankets of pollutant smog over US cities) AND then SCIENTISTS said, "Hold on, there might be a downside because although they will reduce monoxide they will INCREASE the AMOUNT of DIOXIDE entering the atmosphere," NOT YOU, or any of your cronies down at Easybuck Autos batted an eyelid.

    So, when did you bat an eyelid? Twenty years later when a very subtle campaign masterminded by Frederick Seitz at the George C Marshall Institute (the very man who was employed by Philip Morris to convince the world that smoking did NOT cause lung cancer) began throwing doubt on the AGW science.

    And who was the paymaster general behind George Marshall and therefore Seitz? Oh yes, Exxon.

    So who else had connections with George C Marshall and CATO and HEARTLAND and CEI and AFP and many others sponsored either by Exxon or Koch (the largest US private company)?

    Now lets see -

    As well as Frederick Seitz: Jeff Kueter President, Robert Jastrow, William OKeefe, Bruce Ames
    Willie Soon, Margo Thorning, Ross McKitrick, David R. Legates, Sherwood Idso, Craig Idso,James R. Schlesinger, Howard Kleinberg, Rodney W. Nichols, Patrick J. Michaels
    Thomas L. Clancy Jr, William Happer, Willis M. Hawkins, Bernadine HealyJohn H. Moore, Robert Sproull, Chauncey Starr, Lynn Wallis, Mark Herlong, Roger Bate,
    Henry Miller, Michael Gough, Stephen McIntyre, Jeffrey Marsh, W. David Montgomery, Michael E. Canes, Leonard Bernstein, Jeffrey Salmon, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier, Gregory Canavan, John Christy, Roy W. Spencer
    James J. O'Brien, Richard Lindzen, David Henderson, Eric P. Loewen, Roger Cohen...

    Oh yes. A regular who's who of climate deniers.

    So actually, it IS someone else's fault. Because while I'm headbutting a brick wall that are the ten most profitable companies in the world (that are terrified of losing control); while I'm fighting and endless stream of disingenuous scientists who forgot their scruples when the cheque came through the post; when I'm fighting a whole western civilisation and politicians who are terrified what will happen to pensions should another cleaner and greener method/company come along...?????

    But what's even funnier - though I'm not laughing - are the subsidies given to OIL and ENERGY companys in general is garagantuan compared to the wind turbines%2

  • Comment number 25.

    A very interesting view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMTVGBGs_40

    Watch it quick, because there appear to be attempts to remove it from general access.

    The interview with Fred Singer at 19:20-22:00 is quite telling. PBS tactfully fail to mention that recent leaks from the wonderful Heartland Institute indicate that good old Fred is in receipt of $5,000 per month, plus expenses from that venerable organisation.

    I don't believe that are getting their money's worth.

  • Comment number 26.

    newdwr54 . .
    tempted to suggest that we need at least 17 years before we see the effect of the low solar cycle!
    As always, you're quick assume that solar cycle effects are limited to the here and now. You may be right, but it's highly unlikely since 70% of the planet surface is covered by water, which just happens to be a good heat storage medium.
    I find it interesting that we're so close to solar max and yet we haven't seen a step jump. Just a flattening of trend since the last maximum. Of course this could still happen, but isn't it overdue?
    On your sea ice post earlier, I noticed that the dates of 'step change melt' that you identified were between 3-4 years after an el nino spike. Anything in that?

  • Comment number 27.

    Why do these comments take an age to load?


    continued...

    But what's even funnier - though I'm not laughing - are the subsidies given to OIL and ENERGY companys in general is garagantuan compared to the wind turbines you keep blaming for the hikes in your energy bills.

    In 2010, fossil-fuels Inc fleeced a massive $500 billion from taxpayers worldwide. Why? To fix the price. Make it appear cheaper so you clever people don't have to pay the true market cost, which of course you don't directly, but DO INDIRECTLY through your taxes. LMAO. You could not make it up.

    Keep taking the tablets you champions of freedom and integrity and keep fiddling them numbers from HADCRUT.

    BTW The person who accused Richard Muller of playing for the side of truth and integrity all along, why didn't you voice your concerns when BEST first set up camp. I know, the same reason you didn't say anything when scientists first warned that CATS had a dark side.

    Happy conveniencing you convenient conveniencers.

  • Comment number 28.

    #27. - theelasticjesuz wrote:
    "Why do these comments take an age to load?"
    Because their too big!
    For someone who said we shouldn't talk about economics, you talk a lot about it!

  • Comment number 29.

    A yellow warning for snow has been issued for the North and East.
    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/warnings/
    Seems short-lived and I doubt if we will get much snow but you never know,
    sometimes we get caught with a heavy fall when the wind is in the right direction.

  • Comment number 30.

    @ newdwr54

    On it now. Downloading it also, just in case. So far damming enough to post up again on my own channel. Cheers.

  • Comment number 31.

    26. lateintheday wrote:

    "tempted to suggest that we need at least 17 years before we see the effect of the low solar cycle!"

    No, because the 11 year solar cycle is just one of the reasons that we need at least 17 years to ID a human impact on climate.

    Re the proximity to solar max: it's going to be a very low solar peak; in fact several informed commentators believe it has already passed - whoosh - just like that.

    But as mainstream climate scientists have repeatedly advised the likes of Joe Bastardi, Piers Corbyn, Don Easterbrook et al: insolation doesn't really matter in the current context. It's been well and truly out-gunned.

    Recent greenhouse gas enhancement should easily offset the modest negative change in insolation. We'll know soon enough.

  • Comment number 32.

    @QV

    "Because their too big!
    For someone who said we shouldn't talk about economics, you talk a lot about it!"

    So I take you're scepticism is borne through observation and understanding of the science as opposed to what they print in the Daily Mail?

    The scientists didn't politicise AGW. The oil industry did. And then they got their buddies down Fleet Street to shout their favourite swear word at the gullible masses - TAX.

  • Comment number 33.

    @newdwr54

    17:50 PBS vid. And I quote: "Going down the up escalator."
    Plenty of that going on, on this blog. Sigh.

  • Comment number 34.

    33.theelasticjesuz:

    'American politics is being defined by huge sums of money..." [John Kerry].

    I think Bob Inglis came over well (36:00-37)

    The North Carolina comedy starts after that...

  • Comment number 35.

    elastic@24 . . .
    "Because while I'm headbutting a brick wall that are the ten most profitable companies in the world (that are terrified of losing control); while I'm fighting and endless stream of disingenuous scientists who forgot their scruples when the cheque came through the post; when I'm fighting a whole western civilisation and politicians who are terrified what will happen to pensions should another cleaner and greener method/company come along...?????"

    I think you need to speak with someone. Seriously. This is not meant as a joke or sniping criticism. You're clearly a bright chap/woman who appears incredibly passionate about the subject. If you genuinely feel this way, you really should consider the possibility that you've invested way too much of yourself in this 'fight'.

  • Comment number 36.

    newdr54
    "But as mainstream climate scientists have repeatedly advised the likes of Joe Bastardi, Piers Corbyn, Don Easterbrook et al: insolation doesn't really matter in the current context. It's been well and truly out-gunned."

    You really are intent in ignoring what people actually say and replacing it with TSI. You'll be pleased to know it's very frustrating at times.

  • Comment number 37.

    I think ''theelasticjezus'' has his/her own agenda.

    Insolation doesn't matter? It is the only external energy we get so I think it does.

  • Comment number 38.

    @lateintheday

    If I've invested too much of myself then why do you guys spend so much precious time on this blog trying to defend opinions which, time and again, have been proven wrong?

    As for John Marshall, and 'having my own agenda.'

    Yes. I have. Stating the facts. Plain and simple.

    You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

  • Comment number 39.

    @newdwr54

    Bob Inglis. Yes, it's nice to see that some Republicans still have some integrity.

    Likewise Richard Alley and the less prominent Katherine Heyhoe. It must be difficult for a Republican-voting (and registered) scientist (especially one of Alley's calibre) to be scrutinised by hostile Republican congressman who are intent on singing the lobbyist tune.

  • Comment number 40.

    39. theelasticjesuz:

    As far as I'm aware, even James Hansen of GISS has publicly stated that he is a life long Republican, with quite conservative values on most issues. Katherine Hayhoe is a devout 'born again' Christian from the Bible Belt.

    'Climate sceptics' in the US in particular seem to particularly dislike and attack scientists who express political or religious values that they themselves hold. It's as if they don't want such people as members of their 'club'.

    To me this supports my opinion that many, if not most, US 'climate sceptics' have formed their opinions based on their ideological outlook, rather than on rational consideration of the evidence.

    Here in UK/Europe it may be slightly different, especially with regard to the religious outlook. Most European societies have developed a (in my view) healthy disrespect for religious fundamentalism, and so are less likely to take Biblical verses, etc as literal truth, as some prominent US politicians, incredibly, still do (or pretend to).

    I also accept at face value that the motivation of several posters on this site, such as QV and Greensand, and, occasionally, late in the day and ukpahonta (and others) is basically scientifically motivated.

    Having said that, I doubt that any of them have much formal scientific education in the specific areas of atmospheric or environmental science. I have some education in the latter, but am by no means an expert.

    I also suspect that they are (like me) white males, at or rapidly approaching the 'autumn of our lives' (to put it poetically), reasonably well off and quite conservative, politically (but not necessarily Conservative Party voters).

    Many of us who choose to participate in the 'climate debate', I suspect, fit these criteria. I stand to be corrected... and no doubt will be in due course??

  • Comment number 41.

    #29 QV

    October CET will be lower than average, it's noticeable.

  • Comment number 42.

    PingoSan 21: Well you could try a ski trip to Canada where resorts are opening earlier than at any time on record and some areas in BC are getting record snowfalls. Closer at home, the Cairngorms look due to get more snow on Monday night.

  • Comment number 43.

    @newdwr54

    Seems like it might be time to join in fray again.....

    I don't know about anyone else, but I fairly fed up with being portrayed as some sort of neo-conservative, I do occaisionally play up to this, but only to wind-up the trolls..... well it has to be done sometimes ;-)

    I'm a socialist, an atheist, a physicist and I'm most definitely not a CAGW believer, indeed in the past, I used to class myself as an environmentalist...... It's only recently in the last 7 or 8 years, that I've really been unable to label myself as green, something that really quite annoys me...... and the worst thing about it all is that I'm not alone in this, there are many of me..... many that were once happy to be considered green, that can do so no longer, because of the closed, nasty and vindictive mind sets of those that support the CAGW meme. It's really time to stop, trying to manufacture a false consensus, to embrace uncertainty and to re-enter the debate.......

  • Comment number 44.

    Blunderbunny 43: I have a great deal of empathy with you on this. I am a social democratic Scottish nationalist( but not SNP) ecologist, who was involved in several conservation organisations during the anti-Sitkaphrenia tax relief forestry scams of the 70,80 and 90s. I remain an anti-establishment land use and land tenure reformer to this day. I too no longer wish the 'enviromentalist green tag to apply to me for much the same reasons as yourself. Further, I do not want Scotland, a country that only produces 0.05% of world anthropogenic CO2 to become an ROC windfarm colony for either Scottish or British sectional vested interests using CAGW concerns as cover.

  • Comment number 45.

    #38 TEJ
    Well not all facts are ''facts''. some facts come from poor sources so are actually opinion or cherry picked from a list. I list the BBC and Guardian as two of those producing these so called facts. Continually repeating rubbish does not render such rubbish as factual only rubbish.

  • Comment number 46.

    #43. - blunderbunny wrote:
    "It's only recently in the last 7 or 8 years, that I've really been unable to label myself as green, something that really quite annoys me...... and the worst thing about it all is that I'm not alone in this, there are many of me..... many that were once happy to be considered green, that can do so no longer, because of the closed, nasty and vindictive mind sets of those that support the CAGW meme. It's really time to stop, trying to manufacture a false consensus, to embrace uncertainty and to re-enter the debate......."
    It isn't just the proponents of CAGW.
    What I find annoying is that many "sceptic" websites have been using the term "green", and "tree-hugger" as a term of abuse towards proponents of CAGW, on the assumption that if you are a sceptic, you cannot be a "green" or concerned about the environment.
    I think this arises from the fact that many "green" pressure groups have jumped on the "climate change" bandwagon, because it suited their purposes financially to do so.
    I an unashamedly a "green" and am generally concerned about the environment, but that doesn't mean I accept all of the claims surrounding "climate change" without question. Initially I accepted many of the claims, but soon came to realise that they didn't always stand up to scrutiny.
    Like you, I am an atheist, and I suppose I am a believer in the free-market, but not if it means damaging the environment. I think that these days, there is so little difference between the main parties that only an american would say that you are a "socialist" if you vote Labour/Democrat or a "capitalist" if you vote Conservative/Republican. Like it or not, Britain is a "socialist" society and was so, even under Margaret Thatcher. The Chinese, who are theoretically under a "Communist" government, probably have the most "free-market" economy in the world, and are doing the most damage to the environment.

  • Comment number 47.

    theelasticjesuz wrote:
    "So far damming enough to post up again on my own channel."

    A where would that channel be?

    BTW if anyone hasn't see it, this documentary from a few years back is extremely enlightening;
    https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=522784499045867811

  • Comment number 48.

    @John Marshall et al.

    And I repeat...If you people are so convinced there's some foul play going on then I suggest you band together and present your findings to the respective academic institutions or Court of Law (since you all seem to be insinuating a colossal fraud is taking place).

    I won't hold my breath.

  • Comment number 49.

    @Lazarus

    It's the third incarnation and I don't bother with it as much as I would like. Time constraints etc. And 'Third' because I got sick and tired of the very trolls that the users of this blog accuse me of being.

    Watch these videos and you might begin to understand where I am/was coming from. Again, it's the 2nd time I've loaded them

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkpdkK6qhW4
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfpoX4S8Rnk

    Enjoy...or perhaps not.

  • Comment number 50.

    theelasticjesuz wrote - "And I repeat...If you people are so convinced there's some foul play going on then I suggest you band together and present your findings to the respective academic institutions or Court of Law (since you all seem to be insinuating a colossal fraud is taking place)."

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/23/breaking-mann-has-filed-suit-against-nro/

    the game's afoot

    Dr. Michael Mann also sued Tim Ball and the Frontier Center For Public Policy for libel.

    https://drtimball.com/

  • Comment number 51.

    @mjmwhite

    ?

    Don't do WUWT or Tim Ball. But what has any of this got to do with you lot not having the courage of your convictions. Stop quoting silly links to dubious sites and take the IPCC to court. It really is that simple.

    And please hurry cos I haven't had a good belly laugh in a long while.

  • Comment number 52.

    Dr Michael Mann the creator of the Hockey Stick graph suggesting that the MWP and the Little Ice age did not exist and that the warming since the end of the little ice age is caused by the human race has taken legal action against some people accusing them of damaging his reputation. That would be his reputation as a serious and competent climate scientist.

    Who do you think will win???

  • Comment number 53.

    I'd be very surprised if Mann doesn't come out on top. He's a very clever chap and his lawyers won't be mugs either. I doubt if the science will be tested at all. More likely they will stick to the FACT that (like it or not) Prof Mann IS a highly regarded expert and the negative comments could cause harm to his career and reputation unless withdrawn. I suspect that both sides will see the potential for huge financial losses and reach a settlement. Clearly Mann's legal team think that such a settlement is likely to mean a retraction and an undisclosed compensation. In order to make it an attractive proposition to both sides, the compensation may be a relatively minor sum.

    Whether his hockey stick(s) is good or bad science won't come into it. Moreover, I think newdwr54 has pointed out in the past that the possibility of a significant MWP and LIA is within the error bands of Mann's hockey stick.

    The recent NIWA judgement shows that the courts will generally bow to the consensus expert opinion - that's how the system works. Despite its inherent weakness, there is no better way.

  • Comment number 54.

    Falsely claiming to be a Nobel Peace Laureate in your complaint is a very poor way to start a defamation case.

  • Comment number 55.

    From Skepticslscience.com with reference to Mann's book 'Hockey Stick and Climate wars."

    "NOTE: Anthony Watts recently blogged about The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, followed shortly by an influx of negative Amazon reviews (those WUWTers are fast readers) and a torrent of "Unhelpful" ratings applied to any positive reviews of the book. So to ensure a degree of fairness, be sure to have a look through the reviews and rate the reviews appropriately (feel free to give my review, which has been targeted quite heavily by the unhelpful brigade, a helpful rating).

    Nuff said.

    AS for Hockey sticks and MWPs - https://www.skepticalscience.com/monckton-myth-13-magical-ipcc.html

    And as Dana Nuccitelli eloquently points out -

    "Monckton's favorite argument is "climate sensitivity is low". But if the MWP was particularly hot, that means there was a fairly large temperature change about 1,000 years ago. The hotter the peak of the MWP, the larger the temperature change, and the more sensitive the climate was to the factors causing that change (mainly increased solar activity and decreased volcanic activity). Arguing for a hot MWP is arguing for a high climate sensitivity to these natural factors, and if the climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance caused by a change in solar or volcanic activity, there's no reason it wouldn't also be sensitive to changes in greenhouse gases as well.

    In short, a hot MWP also means a high climate sensitivity. By arguing for a hot MWP, Monckton is contradicting his own favorite argument."

    Double nuff said.

  • Comment number 56.

    @newdwr54

    "I also accept at face value that the motivation of several posters on this site, such as QV and Greensand, and, occasionally, late in the day and ukpahonta (and others) is basically scientifically motivated."

    Perhaps. But which science are we talking about? The 2nd Law Thermodynamics which deals with increasing entropy? Or the WUWT version which has convinced the many non-scientific sceptics that nothing can slow down the rate at which heat escapes into the universe?

    The next time someone argues the Watts version of Thermodynamics, ask them if they're wearing any clothes...and why?

    That should stump them for a while.

  • Comment number 57.

    Some posts which are relevant to the current talking points:

    Potential bias in 'updating' tree-ring chronologies using regional curve standardisation: Re-processing 1500 years of Torneträsk density and ring-width data

    Thomas M Melvin t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk
    University of East Anglia, UK
    Håkan Grudd
    Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
    Keith R Briffa
    University of East Anglia, UK
    ' The new chronologies presented here provide mutually consistent evidence, contradicting a previously published conclusion (Grudd, 2008), that medieval summers (between 900 and 1100 ce) were much warmer than those
    in the 20th century.'
    https://hol.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/10/26/0959683612460791.abstract

    LIMITS OF CARBON DIOXIDE IN CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING
    Northern California Section
    American Nuclear Society
    Bryce Johnson
    May 23, 2012

    'Cloud cover, by itself, lowers world temperature'
    https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/bryce-johnson-co2.pdf

  • Comment number 58.

    There is also an update to the post, previously linked at The Blackboard, showing science in action:
    https://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/pinatubo-climate-sensitivity-and-two-dogs-that-didnt-bark-in-the-night/

    Also, as it's a Sunday night, a little more reading:
    'Now here's a different way of seeing 2011, in that for the recent term, it has been the third coldest of the last 15! 2012 is starting out even lower, and will likely be the winner as the “coldest” of what will now become a 16 year timeframe.'

    https://www.colderside.com/Colderside/Temp_%26_CO2.html

  • Comment number 59.

    QV, did the MO place any restrictions on the use/publication of the Decadal Forecast data provided 12 months ago?

    If not could you please post the “ensemble means” for the period 2012.75 to 2013.67? Provided that you are happy it would not adversely impact upon your line of communication with the MO.

    TIA

  • Comment number 60.

    greensand,

    This is a change from the normal forecast:
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif

  • Comment number 61.

    ukpahonta

    "This is a change from the normal forecast"

    Yup, it is and differs from:-

    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/gpc-outlooks/el-nino-la-nina

    But checking back to June we get an idea of how difficult it is to forecast ENSO.

    There have been a few elements that still promote a El Nino event in the near future, one being BOM's "Cloudiness" metric, which sadly has gone all 2010? Or maybe they are trying out a hindcast/forecast amalgam?

    https://www.bom.gov.au/climate/mjo/graphics/region.ts.dateline.gif

  • Comment number 62.

    The Japanese think a slightly more negative outcome for the immediate, select ENSO 2 year forecast:

    'Regional forecast: Most part of the Southern Hemisphere will experience warmer-than-normal climate in austral summer. In particular, east of Brazil will be in a warmer and drier than normal condition in the following seasons. Europe, US, and southern Canada will experience colder-than-normal in boreal winter. We, however, expect warmer-than-normal climate in the central Russia, northern Canada, Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia. We expect an above-normal wet condition in southern China and Japan this winter. '
    https://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d1/iod/e/seasonal/outlook.html

  • Comment number 63.

    Interesting ukp, thanks will watch with interest.

  • Comment number 64.

    I think the key quote from the latest Briffa paper is:-

    If the good fit between these tree-growth and temperature data is reflected at the longer timescales indicated by the smoothed chronologies (Figures 5c and S20d, available online), we can infer the existence of generally warm summers in the 10th and 11th centuries, similar to the level of those in the 20th century.

    I wonder how Micheal Mann will receive this latest paper

  • Comment number 65.

    #59. - greensand wrote:
    "QV, did the MO place any restrictions on the use/publication of the Decadal Forecast data provided 12 months ago?

    If not could you please post the “ensemble means” for the period 2012.75 to 2013.67? Provided that you are happy it would not adversely impact upon your line of communication with the MO."

    I can't see any mention of any specific restriction in the e-mail, but that doesn't mean there isn't a more general restriction, in small print, somewhere on the MO web-site, which I am unaware of. My line of communication is only via the "contact us link" on the website.
    Anyway here are the figures from 2012.00 to 2014.00:
    2012.00 0.396
    2012.08 0.412
    2012.17 0.423
    2012.25 0.433
    2012.33 0.442
    2012.42 0.451
    2012.50 0.459
    2012.58 0.461
    2012.67 0.464
    2012.75 0.472
    2012.83 0.485
    2012.92 0.501
    2013.00 0.514
    2013.08 0.525
    2013.17 0.536
    2013.25 0.539
    2013.33 0.545
    2013.42 0.550
    2013.50 0.556
    2013.58 0.566
    2013.67 0.571
    2013.75 0.572
    2013.83 0.575
    2013.92 0.572
    2014.00 0.568
    Subsequent communication confirmed that the figures are "rolling annual means" and, for example, that the figure for 2012.00 is the forecast for 2012, relative to the 1971-2000 mean.
    Possibly the best thing for you to do is to independantly ask the MO for the figures corresponding to the forecast, and see if they send the same ones. They should have the figures to hand as a result of my enquiry.

  • Comment number 66.

    #55 TEJ
    Do you have any data to show increased solar activity? 10Be for instance or is your claim another leap of faith. MWP climate was certainly not CO2 caused, according to alarmists, because atmospheric CO2 levels were low back then, again according to the alarmists.
    #56 TEJ
    The 2nd law states that entropy must increase. It does not preclude the use of insulation which slows but not stop the route to entropy. It also means that energy within a system cannot increase without input from outside that system. Otherwise 1st law is violated together with 2nd law.

  • Comment number 67.

    65. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    “…..independently ask the MO for the figures corresponding to the forecast, and see if they send the same ones.”

    Will do QV, I am back in mega computer problems at the moment so many thanks for the data, it helps me answer a specific question from elsewhere.

    My 2 month old, new, all singing and dancing laptop has fried its CPU! Having diligently backed it up using the manufacturers recommended system I find that at present I cannot load the data on to this old machine. Probably wouldn’t help anyway as the graphics card is u/s making it virtually impossible to scroll a spreadsheet.

    I will get back to you when I have contacted the MO. Might leave it until I get up and running properly again. The issue is in the hands of “tech support” - offspring

    Once again thanks for your help.

  • Comment number 68.

    @John Marshall

    Let me just clarify my postion.

    I hope to every person's respective God that you guys are right. Because, I'm not sure I like the alternative. However, I trust the figures from 'mainstream academia' for the simple reason that they, like me, truly do hold a position of impartiality.

    You see, your default position is AGW is either a hoax or over-exaggerated. Meaning, whatever conclusions you draw will always be biased towards the result you WANT to see.

    Now

    a] Solar activity. ? I don't understand your point. Where have I implied there is increasing solar activity? There isn't. Not unless you refer to the normal ebb and flow of the 11 year cycle. Confused.

    b] MWP (and LIA). Or rather the deniers obsession of. Whether the MWP was great or small, caused by a supernova or the wicked witch of the East, it has absolutely (I can hear the groans) no bearing on the fact that CO2 levels have been rising for the past 150 years...along with (now here's a coincidence) temperature. Now, given glacial periods are pretty regular since we have expert knowledge of obliquity, precession etc etc AND since we can chart with some confidence the distance between A + B, then it is down to you to prove unequivocally that recent temp rise is part of a natural cycle and not anthropogenic in cause.

    b] 2nd Law. ?. The most vivid evidence that infrared radiation can cool something below the temperature of its surroundings – in seeming contradiction to the 2nd Law — is what happens on a clear calm night. 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.

    There is no way for cooler air aloft coming down to the surface to be causing this effect because when air descends from any altitude, it will always be warmer (not colder) than its surroundings, due to adiabatic compression.

    Therefore, we have a cold air layer sandwiched in between two warmer layers, becoming colder still as night progresses. Is this a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics? No, because the entire depth of the atmosphere – as a system — is indeed losing infrared energy as a whole to the cold depths of outer space.

    The same thing happens to the top of your car when the sun sets…it cools by infrared radiati

  • Comment number 69.

    @JohnMarshall (2)

    ...radiation to a temperature cooler than the air, and as a result is often the first place you will see dew form.

    The last few paragraphs of 'In defense of the Greenhouse effect' by Roy Spencer, and written, it would seem, because he was sick and tired of idiots who get their reasons for AGW denial from the science academy of Anne Coulter's armpit.

  • Comment number 70.

    #68. - theelasticjesuz wrote:
    "However, I trust the figures from 'mainstream academia' for the simple reason that they, like me, truly do hold a position of impartiality. "

    Does that mean that they are always correct?

  • Comment number 71.

    71. @QV

    Does that mean you are?

    In the same way you and your merry little gang scrutinise each other's findings, so do those whose work is under a little more scrutiny than yours - hence their figures being open to scrutiny and your persistence in finding flaws in said figures.

    Of course they make mistakes. But not very often. As do computers, and humans who don't key in the right coordinates thus giving NASA the impression that AGW is in fact the urban heat island effect.

    Given that the consequences of being wrong about AGW are considerably less frightening than being right, I don't think Phil Jones et al sit at their desks hoping for + rather than -: just so he can say to QuaesoVeritas, "I told you so."

  • Comment number 72.

    #68 TEJ
    So you admit that adiabatic compressive heating is a true effect, that is something.
    Cool dense air does descend and quite violently, see Katabatic winds. This cold dense air does warm as it descends but at the adiabatic lapse rate. It can arrive at the surface having warmed but still colder than the surface. It helps to cool the surface.
    I have explained above why I object to the GHG theory, and with it the AGW connection. I will not clutter this site with a repeat which you obviously will not read. If heat could usefully be transferred from cold to hot, without the use of external energy, then a PPM would be possible. It is not

  • Comment number 73.

    #49. - theelasticjesuz wrote:
    "Watch these videos and you might begin to understand where I am/was coming from. Again, it's the 2nd time I've loaded them"

    I finally worked up the strenth to watch your videos, but I am afraid I only got as far as the term "climate denial".
    What exactly does that mean?
    Who is denying there is a climate?

  • Comment number 74.

    Just be sure you understand which 'climate' people are being accused of denying!

    'Climate change
    Climate change refers to a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer). Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.

    Note that the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines 'climate change as: 'a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods'. The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between 'climate change' attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and 'climate variability' attributable to natural causes.
    See also: Climate variability.
    https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/518.htm

  • Comment number 75.

    #74. - ukpahonta wrote:
    "See also: Climate variability. "
    Thanks,

    I notice that the definition of both "climate change" and "climate variability" include anthropogenic external forcing, and it all seems to hinge on how persistent the change is. So a few years of bad weather isn't "climate change".

  • Comment number 76.

    The recent Daily Mail article claimed that monthly HadCRUT4 temperature records confirmed that "Global Warming stopped 16 years ago", or that "there has been no global warming since 1997", although those claims have been challenged, with accusations of "cherry picking" the dates used.

    I have now had a chance to look at the latest HadCRUT4 figures to see how true those claims are, and compare them with HadCRUT3 figures.

    The longest period over which there has been no positive trend in HadCRUT4, at the end of August, is 11.83 years.
    This compares with a period of 12.58 years in the case of HadCRUT3. It was true that the trend in HadCRUT3 was negative over a period of between 15.5 years and 14.58 years, but since the trend over the periods between 14.5 and 12.67 years was slightly positive again, I don't think it is justifiable to use the longer period. There is no such longer term period of negative trend in HadCRUT4, although there are lower positive trends over approximately the same periods.

    Of course, it is possible to claim that there has been no "significant" warming over longer periods, if the positive trend is very low. If you take the figure of +0.05c/decade as the definition of this, then the longest period over which there has been no "significant" warming in HadCRUT4 is 12.83 years, compared with 16.17 years in the case of HadCRUT3. The actual trend in HadCRUT4 between January 1997 and August 2012 is 0.047c/decade, which just falls below the above definition of "significant", BUT after that, there were periods with trends of over 0.05c/decade (reaching 0.081c/decade over the a period of 13.5 years, so I personally don't think it is reasonable to say that there has been no warming for 16 years.

    Using the same definition of "significant" in negative trends, i.e. -0.05c/decade, the only period over which it could be argued that there has been actual cooling in HadCRUT4 is 10.8 years, with a figure of -0.052c/decade, although in the case of HadCRUT3, it could be argued that there has been "significant" cooling for 11.75 years. However the figure of +/- 0.05c/decade is entirely arbitrary and not based on any statistically calculated value.

    The above figures should also been seen in the context of the fact that the trend in HadCRUT4 reaches a peak of 0.175c/decade over a period of 28.5 years, and the trend over the last 80 to 100 years is a fairly constant 0.071 to 0.074c/decade.

  • Comment number 77.

    @QV

    "The above figures should also been seen in the context of the fact that the trend in HadCRUT4 reaches a peak of 0.175c/decade over a period of 28.5 years,"

    What are the dates of the 28.5 years, I am partially flying blind here (still no access to my data) but I have a note of HadCRUT4 - 30 year rolling trend peaking at 0.199c/decade in Dec 2003 and the last 30 years ending in Aug 2012 showing a 0.165c/decade trend?

    Fairly sure those were using the latest numbers, maybe I should wait until I get the data back:-)

  • Comment number 78.

    #77. - greensand wrote:
    "What are the dates of the 28.5 years, I am partially flying blind here (still no access to my data) but I have a note of HadCRUT4 - 30 year rolling trend peaking at 0.199c/decade in Dec 2003 and the last 30 years ending in Aug 2012 showing a 0.165c/decade trend?"
    Sorry, you are correct, I should have said "the trend in HadCRUT4 UP TO AUGUST 2012, reaches a peak of 0.175c/decade over a period of 28.5 years"
    Otherwise, if it makes any sense, the highest trend over any period between 10 and 100 years, up to Aug. 2012, was 0.175c/decade, over the last 28.5 years.
    I am sorry for not making that clear.
    I also agree that the 30 year trend to Dec. 2003 was 0.199c/decade and the 30 year trend to Aug. is 0.165c/decade.

  • Comment number 79.

    @78 QV

    "Otherwise, if it makes any sense, the highest trend over any period between 10 and 100 years, up to Aug. 2012, was 0.175c/decade, over the last 28.5 years."

    Right, got it now, thanks.

  • Comment number 80.

    #67 QV

    Out of curiosity, where did you determine the +0.05C/decade from, as in statistically significant?

  • Comment number 81.

    @John Marshall.

    "If heat could usefully be transferred from cold to hot, without the use of external energy, then a PPM would be possible. It is not."

    1. So please tell me....2 stars. Star A is hotter than star B. In which direction is the NET flow of energy and does Star A absorb radiant energy from Star B?

    2. Next: Lone hot jar of water versus hot jar of water sitting alongside warm jar of water. Which cools fastest - lone hot water or hot water alongside warm water?

    And when you've worked out the answer does it mean the presence of the warm jar was sending energy into the hot jar, or was it simply REDUCING THE RATE OF COOLING of the hot jar?

    3. Does Kirchoff's law pertain to one layer or also the layers immediately above and below?

    ----
    QV - climate denial v alarmist(?) You do the math.

  • Comment number 82.

    #80. - ukpahonta wrote:
    "Out of curiosity, where did you determine the +0.05C/decade from, as in statistically significant?"
    As I said:
    "However the figure of +/- 0.05c/decade is entirely arbitrary and not based on any statistically calculated value."

  • Comment number 83.

    #81. - theelasticjesuz wrote:
    "QV - climate denial v alarmist(?) You do the math."
    Are you saying that the term "climate denialist" is equivalent to "alarmist"?

    If anything, it is the "alarmists" who are the "climate denialists".

  • Comment number 84.

    @QV

    It's now the 331st month in a row where the global temperature has been above the 20th century average.

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/9

    If anything you live in an alternate reality.

  • Comment number 85.

    #82 QV

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

    'The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator can be used to test this question. The trend in the HadCRUT4 global surface temperature dataset since 1997 is 0.084 ± 0.152°C per decade (although we have not yet updated the HadCRUT4 data, the GISS and NCDC datasts show a similar warming trend since 1997). While the trend is not statistically significant, the central value is positive, meaning the average surface temperature has most likely warmed over this period.'
    https://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/16/daily-mail-global-warming-stopped-wrong?CMP=twt_gu

  • Comment number 86.

    77 & 78 - GS and QV.

    The 30 year trends for the main global data sets (per decade to September 2012 for all except HadCRUT3 and 4, which both end August 2012) are:

    HadCRUT3: +0.15
    HadCRUT4: +0.17
    UAH: +0.16
    RSS: +0.15
    GISS: +0.17
    NOAA: +0.16

    This makes both the mean and the median figure +0.16C warming per decade with a modest range of 0.02C (i.e. +/- 0.01C either side of the average).

    A 2011 paper, 'Global temperature evolution 1979–2010' (Foster & Rahmstorf), statistically removed the 'signals' of ENSO, volcanic activity and solar cycles from the global temperature data over 32 years and found average underlying warming of +0.17C/decade, stating "This is the true global warming signal".

    The WMO recommended period of 30 years as the classic period from which to infer trends from surface temperature data therefore appears to have some merit. It seems that, judged over 30 years, the short term noise of ENSO, solar and volcanic is absorbed and the underlying signal emerges.

  • Comment number 87.

    #81
    Net flow from hot to cold.

    Water experiment- the hot jars will cool at the same rate given the same ambient temperature. Unless you have actually done an experiment that shows something else.

    Your heat flow beliefs would expect a vacuum flask of warm water getting warmer due to re-radiated heat across the vacuum walls. Experience shows that the flask cools but at a slow rate.

    Look at the WUWT experiment run by Anthony Watts during last year's Gore rubbish 24hour climate program.

    Last blog I meant PMM not PPM. Error due to finger fumble.

  • Comment number 88.

    #84. - theelasticjesuz wrote:
    "It's now the 331st month in a row where the global temperature has been above the 20th century average."

    I am not denying that fact.
    What is at issue is the cause and/or future projections.
    I note that once again you have failed to answer my question.
    Why use the term "climate denier", and not "climate change denier"?
    The former implies that someone is denying there is a climate.

  • Comment number 89.

    Monthly Global HadCRUT4 for September:
    GLOBAL = 0.524c, compared with 0.529c for August.
    N.H. = 0.682c compared with 0.696c
    S.H. = 0.365c compared with 0.365c (no change)
    The HadCRUT3 figures are:
    GLOBAL = 0.520c, compared with 0.513c for August.
    N.H. = 0.685c, compared with 0.687c for August.
    S.H. = 0.355c, compared with 0.338c for August.

    The above figures are a bit lower than I had expected, based on other monthly anomaly series.

  • Comment number 90.

    #86. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "This makes both the mean and the median figure +0.16C warming per decade with a modest range of 0.02C (i.e. +/- 0.01C either side of the average)."

    Yes, much lower than the 0.23c/decade forecast by IPCC scenario A1B, and even than the 0.18c/decade forecast in the "commitment" scenario, which assumed zero growth in greenhouse gasses since the year 2000.

    So it appears that since the level of greenhouse gasses has increased, that has had a negative effect on temperatures!

  • Comment number 91.

    @86. - newdwr54 wrote:

    "The 30 year trends for the main global data sets (per decade to September 2012 for all except HadCRUT3 and 4, which both end August 2012) are:"

    In the case of the terrestrial data sets significantly lower than they were at their peak in Dec 2003. Indicating that the rate by which this planet is warming is slowing.

    In the case of HadCRUT4 it is down by 17%, HadCRUT3 even greater at 20% and GISS lower but still off by 10%. Percentages are approx, will confirm when/if I get my data back, but you can check as can everybody else.

    Since 2003 the 30 year trends have all set successive lower highs and lower lows i.e. a downward trend. Will it change? I don't know, but we do know that unless new highs are recorded the 30 year trend will continue in a downward trend.

  • Comment number 92.

    Those pesky guys at the GWPF are at it again, fancy reporting on something published in a journal.

    'Earth’s climate is controlled by the global balance of energy. Radiation from the Sun heats up the planet while heat energy is re-radiated into space through complex interactions of land, sea and air. The journal Nature Geoscience has just published an update about the balance that controls Earth’s temperature and overall climate. Scientists conclude the global balance of energy flow within the atmosphere and at Earth’s surface cannot be accurately measured using current techniques and is therefore uncertain. The current uncertainty in this net surface energy balance is an order of magnitude larger than the changes associated with greenhouse gasses. In short, previous estimates of climate change are invalid, swamped by fundamental uncertainty.'
    https://www.thegwpf.org/doug-hoffman-new-global-energy-balance-data-shows-climate-models-profoundly-uncertain/

  • Comment number 93.

    90. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "Yes, much lower than the 0.23c/decade forecast by IPCC scenario A1B..."

    Scenario A1B is represented by a range of projections. You may have chosen the multi-model mean? However you neglect to mention that current temperature rise is within the range of the model runs.

    "So it appears that since the level of greenhouse gasses has increased, that has had a negative effect on temperatures!"

    In the context of the 30 year term required to iron out the noise of ENSO, etc, that statement is a non sequitur.

    So it appears that since the level of greenhouse gasses has increased, that has had a negative effect on temperatures!

  • Comment number 94.

    The Met Office appears to be having problems getting a grip on their forecast for the onset of the UK winter:-

    Temperature

    “Indications from the models favour slightly higher than average pressure to the north of the UK and slightly lower pressure over southern Europe. This would suggest a weakened westerly tendency which could allow a greater than average incidence of cold blocking patterns. This is more marked in the forecast for November than for the November-December-January period.

    However, the lack of strong influences suggests that predictability for this year is likely to be low. Therefore confidence in the forecast is relatively low.

    The curves in Figure T2 show a small shift towards colder than average values for November and November-December-January, slightly increasing the probability of well below average temperatures from the climatological level.”

    Read it all:-

    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/r/m/A3-plots-temps-NDJ.pdf


    Precipitation, is seen as being normal

    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/6/A3-plots-precip-NDJ.pdf

    Apologies if already posted

  • Comment number 95.

    91. greensand wrote:

    "In the case of the terrestrial data sets significantly lower than they were at their peak in Dec 2003. Indicating that the rate by which this planet is warming is slowing."

    More accurate to say "has slowed" than "is slowing", since we don't know what its long term plans are.

    You've correctly described the trend as a 'rate of rise', because many people seem to think that a reduction in the 'rate' at which temperatures rise equals a reduction in 'actual' temperatures, or 'cooling'.

    If you take the 30 year rolling average temperature data over the same period, then there are very few negative months in the past 10 years (if any, in some data sets).

  • Comment number 96.

    89. QuaesoVeritas:

    Thanks for the HadCRUT updates.

    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.

    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.

  • Comment number 97.

    "More accurate to say "has slowed" than "is slowing", since we don't know what its long term plans are."

    A trend is determined by the setting of highs and lows. A series of higher highs and higher lows is an increasing trend. A decreasing trend is when there are successive lower highs and lows.

    So when the 30 year trend was setting higher highs and higher lows was it increasing or had it increased? The only time we could correctly say it had "increased" was after Dec 2003 when it peaked. Until then it was increasing.

    Since Dec 2003 it has been setting lower highs and lower lows. The only time we can correctly say it has "slowed" rather than is slowing is when the trend changes and reaches either status or resumes an upward trend until then it is demonstrating a slowing trend.

    It will continue in its slowing trend until actual new highs are recorded. This is not about anything "climate" it is just the mathematics of the present situation. If you keep adding no increase into a trend it can only go one way.

  • Comment number 98.

    @QV
    "I note that once again you have failed to answer my question.
    Why use the term "climate denier", and not "climate change denier"?
    The former implies that someone is denying there is a climate."

    Why use the term alarmist when the appropriate term is 'concerned.' STALEMATE.

    Funny old thing, the English Language.

    ----
    @John Marshall

    1. JM: "Net flow from hot to cold."

    TEJ: So the hot star receives no radiant energy from the cooler star?
    Think carefully before you answer.

    2. JM: Your heat flow 'beliefs' (Emph) TEJ) would expect (Emph TEJ) a vacuum flask of warm water 'getting warmer' (Emph TEJ) due to re-radiated heat across the vacuum walls. Experience shows that the flask cools but at a slow rate.

    Answer without added sarcasm:
    Hot jar water cools faster than warm jar of water until both reach equilibrium. Why? Is it because the presence of the warm jar was sending energy into the hot jar (your implication from your lofty scientific position). NO! The warm jar was just REDUCING THE RATE OF COOLING of the hot jar.

    However, were the hot jar of water by itself it would cool even more rapidly.

    The climate system is like the hot jar having an internal heating mechanism (the sun warming the surface), but its ability to cool is reduced by its surroundings (the atmosphere), which tends to insulate it.

  • Comment number 99.

    97. greensand wrote:

    "A trend is determined by the setting of highs and lows. A series of higher highs and higher lows is an increasing trend. A decreasing trend is when there are successive lower highs and lows."

    I'm not disputing that. But it doesn't follow that a trend that is currently decreasing will continue to do so. The best that can be said about it is that, at this point, it is decreasing; but it might just as well well start to increase again.

    A football team that is on top of the league but has lost its last 3 games is still on top of the league.

  • Comment number 100.

    The HADCRUT numbers are out for Sep (at last!!). Look at the numbers for all four sets here.

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/10/31/global-temperature-updateseptember-2012/

 

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.