« Previous | Main | Next »

Antarctica sea ice & latest global temperatures

Paul Hudson | 16:05 UK time, Monday, 12 November 2012

ANTARCTICA

The record breaking Arctic sea ice minimum recorded this summer (based on satellite data) was well documented in the media and on this blog.

Conversely, at the other end of the world, little mention was made of the Antarctica ice extent which approached a record high in September, according to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC).

According to new research conducted by the British Antarctic Survey, published in Nature Geoscience, changing wind patterns around Antarctica are thought to have caused the increase in ice, with wind flows pushing sea ice outwards helping to increase its extent.

Climate models have failed to reproduce this overall increase in sea ice.

The new research says that sea ice is not able to expand by the same mechanism in the Arctic because if winds push the ice away from the pole it quickly hits land, as the Arctic is an ocean surrounded by a continent - whereas because Antarctica is a continent surrounded by water, ice can expand.

But according to the British Antarctic survey, the Arctic is losing sea ice five times faster than the Antarctic is gaining it.


Latest Global temperatures

Global temperatures in October remained at elevated levels.

According to the UAH satellite measure the global temperature was 0.331C above the 30 year running average in October.

Adjusted to the standard 1961-1990 measure, global temperatures were 0.584C above average, making it the 2nd warmest October globally since the start of satellite data in 1979.

These warm global conditions are despite temperatures in equatorial Pacific areas remaining neutral.

In fact, a continuation of neutral temperature conditions (neither colder La Nina nor warmer El Nino) are now favoured during the Northern Hemisphere winter, and the El Nino watch has been cancelled.

Follow me on twitter @Hudsonweather

Comments

Page 1 of 2

  • Comment number 1.

    Your off message paul, always expect the AGE inquisition.

  • Comment number 2.

    1. cmdocker:

    I don't know what the "message" is supposed to be, but the above post simply states that the relatively slight expansion in Antarctic winter sea ice extent is caused mostly by changes in wind patterns, and that October 2012 was the second warmest in the UAH record (it's also the second warmest in the NASA record, which goes back to 1880).

    So what's the message, and how is Paul "off" it?

  • Comment number 3.

    perhaps cmdocker considers PH a coolist?

  • Comment number 4.

    It's hardly global warming is it? It's looking more and more like urban warming with a bit of cyclicity in Arctic sea ice (countered by Antarctic sea ice). It doesn't even need explaining. Rural stations have barely warmed at all.

  • Comment number 5.

  • Comment number 6.

    Rural stations have warmed as fast, if not faster, than urban stations. The fastest warming parts of the world, such as the antarctic peninsula and the arctic are more rural areas.

  • Comment number 7.

    Also of course the oceans, surface and atmosphere show warming so the cause cannot be urbanization.

  • Comment number 8.

    """ ukpahonta wrote:
    A bit of breaking controversy for Auntie:
    https://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/11/12/bbc-climate-28-revealed.html"""


    The BBC really are lurching from crisis to crisis arnt they - these so called 'experts' that shaped BBC policy look very much like activists to me

  • Comment number 9.

    #6. - quake wrote:
    "Rural stations have warmed as fast, if not faster, than urban stations. The fastest warming parts of the world, such as the antarctic peninsula and the arctic are more rural areas."

    If that is true, it could be due to the fact that the warming in urban areas has reached a saturation point and that rural areas are starting to receive heat input from the urban areas, i.e. the urban areas are acting like radiators of heat.
    Of course that might not apply directly to polar regions, but some of those temperatures are in any case estimated.

  • Comment number 10.

    So let me get this straight:

    Arctic ice is decreasing because of global warming and is disastrous

    Antarctica ice is increasing despite global warming and must be ignored?

  • Comment number 11.

    As a result of my specific request, the global monthly and annual time series for HadSST3 have now been added to the MO website.

    The figures for HadSST3 are as follows:

    Global = 0.432c, compared with 0.429c for September.

    This compares with a figure of 0.428c, versus 0.449c for September in the case of HadSST2, i.e. HadSST3 has gone up slightly, whereas HadSST2 went down.

    For some reason they haven't yet put up a link to the HadSST3 hemispheric data files yet but I have put in another request.

  • Comment number 12.

    #8 openside50

    'The BBC really are lurching from crisis to crisis aren't they'

    It seems that the list of people involved in the current bout of crisis were attendee's at the meeting in 2006.
    Not that there could be any link between setting the direction that the BBC takes at the CMEP seminars and current affairs broadcasting as the BBC charter expressly states the impartiality of the service!

  • Comment number 13.

    openside50 wrote:

    "So let me get this straight:"

    Not even close. Arctic ice is being lost at "five times faster than the Antarctic is gaining it". That is by using every credible measure; extent and volume This may be having serious impact on the weather;
    https://climatecrocks.com/2012/11/08/dr-jeff-masters-why-did-sandy-take-such-an-unusual-track/

    Antarctica has increased sea ice extent but this no where near balances the Ice loss globally;
    https://climatecrocks.com/2012/11/08/new-video-antarctic-versus-arctic-ice-apples-and-oranges/

  • Comment number 14.

    ukpahonta wrote:

    "A bit of breaking controversy for Auntie:
    https://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/11/12/bbc-climate-28-revealed.html"

    I don't understand. What is the controversy here. Is it just that you don't like who the BBC gets opinions from?

  • Comment number 15.

    7. quake wrote:
    “Also of course the oceans, surface and atmosphere show warming so the cause cannot be urbanization.”

    Still do not have my laptop and data back so will have to rely on WfT.

    HadCRUT3 the latest 30 year trend (360 months) is 0.0151/C per year.

    HadCRUT3 consists of :-

    Land – CRUTEM3
    Latest 30 year trend CRUTEM3 = 0.0212 per year

    Ocean – HadSST2
    Latest 30 year trend HadSST2 = 0.0131 per year

    So for this particular dataset there is a significant difference in the warming trends.

    Can’t do HadCRUT4 yet but looking at the numbers QV has been posting I would not expect any significant difference.

    Don't like quoting numbers without having the ability to check, but I have no doubt somebody will.

  • Comment number 16.

    #14. - Lazarus wrote:
    "I don't understand. "
    Somehow, that doesn't surprise me!

  • Comment number 17.

    #2 newdwr54. I do not think that the Antarctic sea ice increase was slight it was a record for the 30 years worth of satellite data. There is a 60 odd year cycle of ice at both poles and as one increases the other reduces. It is striking how much sea ice is north of the Antarctic circle this winter (SH) which will have been in sunlight.
    Those working at BAS seem to panic over the smallest thing.

  • Comment number 18.

    #14 Lazarus

    'I don't understand. What is the controversy here. Is it just that you don't like who the BBC gets opinions from?'

    To quickly bring you up to speed, a FOI request to the BBC requesting the attendees at a climate policy direction meeting in 2006 was refused. In fact the process went through to the court system where a six year legal battle has ensued culminating recently with a decision going to the BBC in a finale that had Helen Boaden, director of BBC News, in the witness stand.
    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/29/boaden_tribunal_information_refusal/

    This is the Helen Boaden that attended the meeting in 2006, along with George Entwistle, Steve Mitchell and Peter Rippon.

    The controversy is that the list of 'opinion setters' has been freely found on the internet making the whole six year legal battle not only a complete waste of time but also license payers money to a speculated six figure number. All to cover a statement made about the change in BBC climate reporting policy after it had been noticed that a wavering in the charter rules was apparent and an excuse was required, apparently.

  • Comment number 19.

    18. ukpahonta wrote:

    "All to cover a statement made about the change in BBC climate reporting policy after it had been noticed that a wavering in the charter rules was apparent and an excuse was required, apparently."

    Long. long, way to go with this issue, time will tell. But if it does become evident that the BBC retrospectively used this meeting as the reason/excuse for moving outside the bounds of their charter, then there are some serious questions to be answered.

  • Comment number 20.

    Current irrelevant happenings at the BBC in order of irrelevance:

    -A list of attendees at a BBC meeting 6 years ago.
    -Anything about Jimmy Savile
    -Newsnight

    Only made relevant by people declaring them as crises.

    Things that are perhaps more relevant that are pushed off the headlines:

    -Continued eurozone financial cloud including political and economic unrest in Greece
    -Civil war in Syria and potential for Iran/Israel hostilities

  • Comment number 21.

    I liked the attendance of Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy. I guess they need to ensure that even jokes are on message.
    I worked at the BBC for 10 years and took great pride in that before the need to move back north led me to the dark-side of commercial television. I don't think I would have the same pride these days.

  • Comment number 22.

    @20, quake wrote:

    “ Continued eurozone financial cloud … “

    I didn't think that that was a crisis; I thought it was the intention of your friends.

    What else could you possibly expect when ludicrous carbon targets based on unbalanced reporting force industries out of Europe?

  • Comment number 23.

    Quake @ 6
    "Rural stations have warmed as fast, if not faster, than urban stations. The fastest warming parts of the world, such as the antarctic peninsula and the arctic are more rural areas."

    Very funny. I hope your tongue doesn't get stuck there permanently.

  • Comment number 24.

    #20. - quake wrote:
    "Current irrelevant happenings at the BBC in order of irrelevance:

    -A list of attendees at a BBC meeting 6 years ago."

    If so irrelevant, why did the BBC wish to keep it a secret?

  • Comment number 25.

    #21. - RobWansbeck wrote:
    "I liked the attendance of Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy. I guess they need to ensure that even jokes are on message. "

    That isn't as daft as it sounds.
    You only have to listen to programmes such as "The Now Show", to know that even comedy on the BBC is biased in favour of "climate change". They even get away with making up "facts", and exaggerations, because that is apparently allowed in comedy programmes. However, it's all part of the propaganda.

  • Comment number 26.

    @25 QuaesoVeritas

    "That isn't as daft as it sounds.
    You only have to listen to programmes such as "The Now Show", to know that even comedy on the BBC is biased in favour of "climate change". They even get away with making up "facts", and exaggerations, because that is apparently allowed in comedy programmes. However, it's all part of the propaganda."

    Hmmm either the BBC is biased propaganda machice or they see that the overwhelming evidence points towards climate change...

    I though you coolers didn't believe in conspiracies?

  • Comment number 27.

    overwhelming evidence, let me guess.......' Russell Howard's Good News'

  • Comment number 28.

    #26. - john_cogger wrote:

    "Hmmm either the BBC is biased propaganda machice or they see that the overwhelming evidence points towards climate change..."

    Yet they are afraid to allow the other side of the argument?

    "I though you coolers didn't believe in conspiracies?"

    It isn't a conspiracy if its true!

  • Comment number 29.

    #26. - john_cogger wrote:
    "I though you coolers didn't believe in conspiracies?"

    Oh, and I'm not a "cooler", I'm a realist!

  • Comment number 30.

    #26. - john_cogger wrote:

    "I though you coolers didn't believe in conspiracies?"

    Of course, what I meant to say was:

    It isn't a conspiracy THEORY if its true!

  • Comment number 31.

    # ukpahonta

    Never heard of this 'controversy' before but it is clearly a made up one trying to create a false conspiracy that you seem to have wholly swallowed since you believe The Register, with its easily checked errors and distortions, is an authoritative source for news journalism.

    It only took me seconds to realise that the seminar wasn't a 'a climate policy direction meeting' but an event focusing on climate change and its impact on development, and explored the challenges facing television in covering this issue. The list of attendees included a wide cross section including representatives from universities, climate related groups, business groups like the CBI and even CBBC and the Head of Comedy! Not exactly the A-List of the Illuminati.

    It isn’t a 6 year legal battle – the FOI wasn’t even made until 2008. The process didn’t go through the court system it ended up being considered by a an Information Rights Tribunal which has already ruled in favour of the BBC. Apparently there is an appeal though the names are now known.

    As for claims that this seminar somehow ended up with the BBC breaking its charter, all I can see is it reporting the overwhelming scientific view more often than not.

    In the unlikely event that this ‘contraversy’ ever becomes worth a reporting in the real news media with actual evidence, it can be safely be ignored by real sceptics until then.

  • Comment number 32.

    Oh I just notice some Cherry picking in The Register article where it quotes form the "From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel" document;

    "The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus"

    It missed the bit before;

    "There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority."

    And the bit after;

    "But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate. They cannot be simply dismissed as ‘flat-earthers’ or ‘deniers’, who ‘should not be given a platform’ by the BBC. Impartiality always requires a breadth of view: for as long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space"

    How is that against the BBC Charter for impartiality? And Harrabin is getting pillored for allegedly influencing this decision?

  • Comment number 33.

    #31 Lazarus

    'Never heard of this 'controversy' before'

    Really, you surprise me?

    'Not exactly the A-List of the Illuminati.'

    You've been watching too many films. The question is whether this is the seminar referred to by John Bridcut in your #32 comment?

    As you state:

    'It only took me seconds to realise that the seminar wasn't a 'a climate policy direction meeting' but an event focusing on climate change and its impact on development, and explored the challenges facing television in covering this issue.'

    Doesn't really tie in with:

    'The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts'.

    Perhaps you could enlighten us as to whether the two are the same as your comment on the list of attendees suggests otherwise?

  • Comment number 34.

    #32 Lazarus

    'And Harrabin is getting pillored for allegedly influencing this decision?'

    It is interesting that whilst working for the BBC he was also a part of CMEP with Joe Smith, the organisation who helped organise the seminars. Obviously with the BBC's backing and instruction.
    https://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/29/harrabin-on-cmep.html

    This comment:

    'Climate sceptics seeking more space on the BBC helped provoke the Trust’s investigation into science impartiality but the Trust said we were already giving them too much space – not too little.'

    compared to the statement in your #32 being rather contentious:

    'But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate. They cannot be simply dismissed as ‘flat-earthers’ or ‘deniers’, who ‘should not be given a platform’ by the BBC. Impartiality always requires a breadth of view: for as long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space'

  • Comment number 35.

    Lazarus et al
    Re 28gate as the internet has come up with.

    The argument here is that the BBC flouted a legal FOI request and when the named ''climate experts'' came to the surface there were no climate experts on the list only a bunch of left wing liberal activists who all have a problem with CO2. If there were a couple of real scientists with contrary views, of which there are many, on the list we would not be so up tight about BBC bias and poor reporting.

  • Comment number 36.

    The Met Office appears to be “warming up” for winter and having a go at some of the headlines:-

    “What’s in store this winter? Responding to the headlines”

    “So what are the facts behind the headlines?

    Some of the stories have taken a cue from parts of our current 30-day forecast. Today’s forecast for 26 November to 10 December reads as follows:

    As is usual, there are uncertainties in the forecast for this period, but there are signs that the changeable conditions will continue through the start of this forecast period. There is also a signal for temperatures to be close to or just below the seasonal average. Into December, although there are no strong indications that any particular weather type is going to dominate, on balance colder, drier conditions than at present are favoured, rather than milder, wetter weather, especially across the southern half of the UK.”

    Then tongue in cheek, well I think it is tongue in cheek they finish with:-

    “Ultimately, we’re heading into winter and we expect winter to be colder than the rest of the year – but it’s too early to say exactly what temperatures we can expect or where and when we might see snow.”

    https://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/11/12/whats-in-store-this-winter-responding-to-the-headlines/

  • Comment number 37.

    The UK Met. office has produced a poor winter forecast with lack of any recision as to it being colder or warmer than ''usual''. (whatever that means, not a very scientific term). I sometimes wonder why we as taxpayers gave them tens of millions of our hard earned money for a supercomputer. Does it not work?

  • Comment number 38.

    36 Greensand: but they 'know' it's going to 3.6 degrees warmer by 2035---or whatever.

  • Comment number 39.

    I wonder, is ENSO following the 2009/2010 pattern into El Nino?

    OLR anomalies heading negative:-

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

    30 day moving SOI heading down

    https://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/soi30.png

    Weekly sea surface temperatures:

    “When compared to two weeks ago, sea-surface temperature (SST) anomalies in the western tropical Pacific have warmed. Warm anomalies are present along the equator west of 150°W (see the SST anomaly map for the week ending 4 November). Isolated areas of warm anomalies are also present in the eastern equatorial Pacific. A significant area of warm SST anomalies has emerged around Australia’s northwest coast in recent weeks. “

    https://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

    Next few weeks should tell

  • Comment number 40.

    As I subscribe to "Open Mind", I was sent an e-mail reminding people to watch Al Gore's 24 hours of "Climate Reality" broadcast:
    https://climaterealityproject.org/
    Not sure how much of this my blood pressure will stand, but I did notice a term being used, which is new to me, i.e. "climate disruption".
    Is that a new term, or did I just miss it up until now.
    What does it mean?
    It sounds like another term for "weird weather", but not quite as permanent as "climate change".

  • Comment number 41.

    QV, Maybe they need one of these?:-

    "Disruption Shield"

    https://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Disruption_Shield

  • Comment number 42.

    #36 - greensand wrote:
    "The Met Office appears to be “warming up” for winter and having a go at some of the headlines:-"

    I notice that the Daily Mail are now quoting Jonathan Powell, "forecaster for Vantage Weather Services", so not a particularly good pedigree.

    I am afraid that sort of stuff just plays into the hands of the MO and actually makes them look competent.

    Having said, that, if the MO could forecast accurately, there wouldn't be any need for the others.

    The MO have not included links to the full 30 day or 3 month outlook. Are these not available to the general public?

  • Comment number 43.

    42. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "The MO have not included links to the full 30 day or 3 month outlook. Are these not available to the general public?"

    3 month outlook is here:-

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

    Scroll to bottom of page, don't know why they did not add link, maybe they are getting shy?

    Not found the detailed full 30 day yet, though must admit not really tried!

  • Comment number 44.

    QV, there is another way to read the Met Office "we expect winter to be colder than the rest of the year"

    As the mean for Feb this year was 3.8c I do hope they do not expect "winter" to be colder!

  • Comment number 45.

    greensand,

    As I think I said before, I don't know why the MO issues 3 month forecasts for UK weather when it's more or less a dice throw. Perhaps they feel they have to do it because the public, or more likely the media, expect it?

    It would be more honest of the MO, not to mention less embarrassing, just to admit that it is more or less impossible to predict weather with high confidence more than 3 days in advance.

    A football analogy: predicting weather 3 days in advance is more or less a penalty kick - usually you score, less often you miss. Predicting weather 3 months in advance is like predicting a result between two evenly matched sides before the game begins. It should work out about 50/50 over time.

    But predicting the general direction that climate will take over a period of several decades is like predicting that over the course of a season the top teams in each league: the Man Utds; the Barcelonas; the Celtics (nearly said Rangers!) will be there or thereabouts at the end. Right about 90% of the time.

  • Comment number 46.

    #43. - greensand wrote:

    "Scroll to bottom of page, don't know why they did not add link, maybe they are getting shy?

    Not found the detailed full 30 day yet, though must admit not really tried!"

    Thanks, don't do it on my account, I shouldn't be so lazy, but the MO are very good at hiding things.

  • Comment number 47.

    #44. - greensand wrote:
    "As the mean for Feb this year was 3.8c I do hope they do not expect "winter" to be colder!"

    Not sure that I follow you.

  • Comment number 48.

    After prompting, the MO have now published monthly hemispherical data for HadSST3:

    N.H. = 0.512c compared with 0.585c for September
    S.H. = 0.359c compared with 0.276c for September

    As a reminder, the figures for HadSST2 were:

    N.H. = 0.517c, compared with 0.598c for September
    S.H. = 0.338c, compared with 0.300c for September

    So there is a much larger increase in S.H. in HadSST3 than in HadSST2.

    This may result in larger global and S.H. increases in HadCRUT4 than HadCRUT3.

    They have also included HadSST3 files for the tropics, which is more than they do for HadSST2.

  • Comment number 49.

    45.newdwr54 wrote:

    "I don't know why the MO issues 3 month forecasts for UK weather when it's more or less a dice throw."

    Don't think they have any choice DW, long term weather/seasonal forecasting ia part of their remit:-

    "The work of contingency planners is viewed as crucial across government, the wider public sector, business and industry."

    They are the UK Meteorological Office, it is what they are required to do.

    As for football analogies, over a season (38 days) predictions are expected to be reasonably accurate, as are those of the MO. But for decades? For 2 decades during the 70s & 80s Liverpool were there or thereabouts at the end of each season, not anymore, not for the last 2 decades. Who predicted that in 1980?

    Even in football there are cycles Maybe there is a correlation between the fortunes of LFC and the temperature of this planet?:-)

  • Comment number 50.

    49. greensand wrote:

    "They are the UK Meteorological Office, it is what they are required to do.

    Then they are required to make fools of themselves on a quarterly basis.

    "....Maybe there is a correlation between the fortunes of LFC and the temperature of this planet?:-)

    Then scrub that.

    Let's hope global cooling is real and here to stay.

  • Comment number 51.

    @newdwr54

    You really, really don't want to wish for global cooling especially if you live in the northern hemisphere. Massive, ice sheets tend to put a bit of a downer on your day.

    Warmer is better, temperate is good, but extreme cold would be a real killer.

  • Comment number 52.

    Maybe newdwr54 etc want the Arctic ice sheet to extend again, as far as Britain, and cover us with miles of ice?

    By their logic, that would be a good thing!

  • Comment number 53.

    seem to remember that newdwr54 has a 'toffee' fetish, which explains his moral dilemma above.

  • Comment number 54.

    So the 'scientific experts' that finally persuaded the BBC to abandon impartial coverage of climate issues numbered amongst them, a vicar, a whole host of left wing campaigning activists and a bloke from the American Embassy

    God the BEEB really is shot to pieces isnt it

  • Comment number 55.

    QV,

    I see that the UAH global figure for October is published as +0.34 in the official chart. That's odd, because the figure Roy Spencer posted on his site and at WUWT was +0.331, which rounds to +0.33. This has not been corrected.

    +0.34 means that UAH and NASA posted identical warming in October when calculated using the 1981-2010 base period. October 2012 remains the second warmest October on both records, both just behind 2005.

    It also puts 2012 to date into a clear 9th warmest overall in UAH. What a difference 1/100th of a percent makes.

  • Comment number 56.

    Or even 1/100th of a degree, which is what I meant to say.

  • Comment number 57.

    #55. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "I see that the UAH global figure for October is published as +0.34 in the official chart. That's odd, because the figure Roy Spencer posted on his site and at WUWT was +0.331, which rounds to +0.33. This has not been corrected."

    Yes, I noticed that.

    I have never understood the minor differences between the website figures and those eventually published in the data files, or the difference in the no. of decimals come to that.

  • Comment number 58.

    NOAA are going with +0.63C above the 20th century global average for October. This makes it the 5th warmest October in the NOAA record (started 1880).

    This is cooler than both NASA and UAH, but is slightly higher than RSS when calculated to a common base period.

  • Comment number 59.

    #58. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "NOAA are going with +0.63C above the 20th century global average for October. This makes it the 5th warmest October in the NOAA record (started 1880)."

    Drat! I have been checking for the October Global "State of the Climate Report" all day, and had given up!

    The fall in the global NOAA figure is also more than UAH but less than RSS. This month's GISS figure, with quite a steep rise, is looking the "odd man out".

    I still think that this points to very little change in HadCRUT anomalies.

    I notice that the Aqua Ch5 temp. is shooting up again, and is currently above all other years since 2002.

    Of course, it is debatable whether or not this figure is reliable now, but based on previous years, it is equivalent to a UAH anomaly of about 0.37c and a HadCRUT3 of about 0.49c.

    As there was a gap in the ch5 figures for October, I can't use it to estimate last month's UAH/HadCRUT.

  • Comment number 60.

    59. QuaesoVeritas:

    It's impossible to fill in the blanks for Ch 5. in October, but the overall outline suggests that the very warm UAH October value wasn't too much of a surprise. November looks like it's heading the same way.

    ENSO 3.4 region is cooling though, so the exceptionally high temperatures we have been seeing of late should start to cool slightly in the next few months.

  • Comment number 61.

    Regarding comments above about fairness on the BBC

    The BBC are committed to "balance" in broadcasting; meaning weight is given to quality and authority of viewpoints rather than just volume of noise.

    If sceptics want air time - rather than blaming imaginary "libs under the beds" - get a quality argument together and air time will be granted.

  • Comment number 62.

    61.jkiller56 wrote:

    "If sceptics want air time - rather than blaming imaginary "libs under the beds" - get a quality argument together and air time will be granted."


    I have never wanted "air time" for anything other than the data, the actual agreed confirmed observational facts, facts devoid of any interpretation or spin.

    Deliver that and I will accept "balance", by your own admission you need a "case" to be made. AGW is about data not "cases"

    Either this planet is warming alarmingly as predicted or it is not?

    Simple to resolve it just needs an objective view of the data.

    This planet has warmed 0.80 deg C between 1900 and 2012.

    Do you agree?

    This planet has warmed 0.02 deg C between 2000 and 2012.

    Do you agree?

  • Comment number 63.

    62. greensand wrote:

    "This planet has warmed 0.80 deg C between 1900 and 2012.

    Do you agree?

    This planet has warmed 0.02 deg C between 2000 and 2012.

    Do you agree?"

    If you're referring to surface temperatures, and ignoring the heat accumulation in the oceans, then that's roughly true. However, how useful are these facts in answering the question that you posed: is the planet warming alarmingly, as predicted?

    Why make your start points 1900 and 2002? Climate scientists do not expect to see a statistically significant correlation between increasing surface temperatures and increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations over periods shorter than 30 years. There's just far too much natural variability.

    A man-made signal isn't even expected to start to show up at all in less than about 17 years. So making your start point 2002 (less than 11 years) doesn't make any valid contribution to the debate.

    Using the WMO recommended period of thirty years, the current linear trends in the global data sets are as follows (deg C per decade):

    UAH: +0.16
    RSS: +0.15
    HadCRUT4: +0.17
    HdCRUT3: +0.15
    NOAA: +0.16
    NASA: +0.17

    The average is +0.16C/decade and every single data set is in agreement to within 0.01C of it. The per decade rate between 1900-2012 can be compared using four of the above sets.

    HadCRUT4: +0.07
    HdCRUT3: +0.07
    NOAA: +0.08
    NASA: +0.07

    So the rate of warming per decade observed over the past 30 years is more than twice that observed per decade between 1900 and 2012.

    So clearly the planet *is* warming as predicted. Whether it's 'alarming' or not is the only valid question to debate.

  • Comment number 64.

    #63. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "If you're referring to surface temperatures, and ignoring the heat accumulation in the oceans, then that's roughly true. However, how useful are these facts in answering the question that you posed: is the planet warming alarmingly, as predicted? "

    Was the "heat accumulation in the oceans", included in the various IPCC AR4 scenario projections of global surface temperatures? I don't think so.

    "Why make your start points 1900 and 2002?"

    greensand said 2000, not 2002.

    1900 was the start date of IPCC scenario "hindcasts", and 2000 was the start of the forecasts. Therefore, perfectly reasonable dates to use.

  • Comment number 65.

    #63. - newdwr54 wrote:

    "So clearly the planet *is* warming as predicted. Whether it's 'alarming' or not is the only valid question to debate."

    Since the IPCC forecasts start in 2000, we will have to wait until 2030 (those of us who are still alive), to know for sure if the plane has warmed more or less than preducted, but so far, as we have discussed many times, current temperatures are lower than most of the forecasts.
    Unfortunately someone is telling Pres. Obama the opposite:

    "PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, as you know, Mark (sp), we can’t attribute any particular weather event to climate change. What we do know is the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago."

  • Comment number 66.

    #61. - jkiller56 wrote:
    "The BBC are committed to "balance" in broadcasting; meaning weight is given to quality and authority of viewpoints rather than just volume of noise."

    The problem is that at the moment there is nobody there to contradict the volume of noise, in the form of untrue statements made on the BBC by the "climate change" proponents, including BBC journalistic staff.

  • Comment number 67.

    63.newdwr54 wrote:

    "then that's roughly true."

    Thank you!

    Also thank you for "A man-made signal isn't even expected to start to show up at all in less than about 17 years."

    17 years is interesting as it is now more than half the 30 year trend.

    It must be the 17 years of "A man-made signal" of 0.009 deg C per decade that has reduced the 30 year rate of warming by some 20% from its peak in Dec 2003.

    Isn't it good that the rate of warming is slowing? Should we not all be happy, relieved and looking to explain why it is reducing?

  • Comment number 68.

    64. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "Was the "heat accumulation in the oceans", included in the various IPCC AR4 scenario projections of global surface temperatures? I don't think so."

    But temperatures are within the IPCC projected range. Based on 30 years continuous data temperatures are rising at a rate of about +0.2C per decade. The past decade has been slower than average, but that's not unexpected in a system with such high natural variability. That's exactly why 30 years data are required.

    "greensand said 2000, not 2002.

    1900 was the start date of IPCC scenario "hindcasts", and 2000 was the start of the forecasts. Therefore, perfectly reasonable dates to use."

    Fair enough if so, and apologies to GS if I missed that. But using 2000 as the start date instead of 2002 doesn't alter the fact that it's still insufficient time over which to reach any firm conclusions about long term surface temperature trends.

  • Comment number 69.

    "Simple to resolve it just needs an objective view of the data.

    This planet has warmed 0.80 deg C between 1900 and 2012.

    Do you agree?

    This planet has warmed 0.02 deg C between 2000 and 2012.

    Do you agree?"

    From this (https://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php%29 using hadcrut4 I get

    0.074 +- 0.009 degrees C per decade between 1900 and 2012

    0.056 +- 0.179 degrees C per decade between 2000 and 2012

    So between 0.73C and 0.93C between 1900 and 2012 and between -0.14C and 0.28C between 2000 and 2012.

  • Comment number 70.

    #68. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "But temperatures are within the IPCC projected range."

    We have had this discussion many times before, and as you know, they are only marginally within the range.
    If you had invested in 16 companies 12 years ago, and 15 of them had performed worse than the share index, you would have to admit that you would be getting worried by now.
    In any case, it's only a matter of time before temperatures are lower than all of the models, so you won't be able to say that any more.
    If it is the case that some of the heat found it's way into the deep oceans, then the models didn't predict that. When is that heat going to find it's way back to the ocean surface and the surface atmosphere?

  • Comment number 71.

    #69. - quake wrote:
    "So between 0.73C and 0.93C between 1900 and 2012 and between -0.14C and 0.28C between 2000 and 2012."

    So it is equally likely that temperatures have fallen at a rate of -0.14c/decade since 2000 as that they have risen by +0.28c/decade?

  • Comment number 72.

    67. greensand wrote:

    "It must be the 17 years of "A man-made signal" of 0.009 deg C per decade that has reduced the 30 year rate of warming by some 20% from its peak in Dec 2003."

    Santer and co didn't say that significant warming would be seen over 17 years, just that a man-made signal should become apparent. Don't forget that over the last 17 years (since October 1995) TSI has reduced at a rate of -0.46W/m2 per decade; the monthly average ENSO index was negative (-0.12); and there has been an estimated increase in atmospheric aerosol concentration due to increased industrialisation in developing countries.

    It should be getting colder. Despite this, both NASA and UAH report warming of +0.13C per decade in that time. *That*, as Santer would argue, is due to the concurrent increase in greenhouse gas concentrations - the 'man-made' warming signal.

  • Comment number 73.

    The much talked about 30 year period is just to give meteorologists an idea of the average weather in an area and has nothing to do with long term climate change.

    In fact using a 30 year period to indicate long term climate change when there are known natural variations with periods of around 60 years would be ludicrous.

    No sensible person would do that, would they?

  • Comment number 74.

    69. quake wrote:

    "and between -0.14C and 0.28C between 2000 and 2012."

    Actual HadCRUT 4 from Jan 2000 to Sept 2012:-

    "#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.00411117 per year" = 0.041 deg C/decade

    https://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/trend

    And Jan 1900 to Sept 2012 is:

    "#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.00737581 per year" = 0.073 deg C/decade

    https://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/trend

    Plain simple actual data giving information that the rate by which this planet is warming is reducing. Which your data also confirms.

  • Comment number 75.

    #61 jkiller56
    There are good arguments put by sceptics it is just that people at the BBC tend not to listen and they hide behind nom de plumes as well.
    If you want a list email me and ask.

  • Comment number 76.

    72. newdwr54 wrote:

    "Don't forget that over the last 17 years (since October 1995) TSI has reduced at a rate of -0.46W/m2 per decade; the monthly average ENSO index was negative (-0.12); and there has been an estimated increase in atmospheric aerosol concentration due to increased industrialisation in developing countries."

    Interesting DW, care to put a number on the effect the reduction in TSI and ENSO Index has had?

    Just for balance:-

    WoodForTrees Temperature Index since 1995:-

    #Least squares trend line; slope = 0.00874795 per year

    And as I am not sure if WTI now includes HadCRUT4

    HadCRUT4 since 1995:-

    #Least squares trend line; slope = 0.00977498 per year

    HadCRUT3 since 1995:-

    #Least squares trend line; slope = 0.00735626 per year

    So the average is about 0.009 per year, by how much do you calculate this has been suppressed by reduced TSI and ENSO?

  • Comment number 77.

    BOM have updated their review of ENSO models:-

    https://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/ENSO-summary.shtml

    All appear to predict SSTs just on the "warm" side but firmly ENSO neutral. A couple show a dip below the line early in 2013.

    The Met Office GloSea is the only one without a November update.

  • Comment number 78.

    greensand - as you probably know, this ENSO business is complicated by the moving baseline of SSTs in the equatorial pacific.
    We should bear in mind that the 5 year averages (used as baseline temps, above or below which, ENSO SST variations are measured) have been going up over time reflecting a general warming pattern. If they didn't use this moving average, ENSO would be near impossible to measure.
    That said, the moving average does disguise the fact that current SSTs which indicate neutral conditions, are warm enough to have been ENSO positive SSTs in the past. Whilst Bob Tisdale reminds us ENSO is a process, not simply an oscillation, would it be sensible to assume that today's ENSO neutral conditions, should theoretically give us similar global average temps as 1980/90s El Nino years?

    I'm wondering just how 'key' this geographical area is to global temps.

  • Comment number 79.

    78. lateintheday wrote:

    "greensand - as you probably know, this ENSO business is complicated by the moving baseline of SSTs in the equatorial pacific.....

    ......would it be sensible to assume that today's ENSO neutral conditions, should theoretically give us similar global average temps as 1980/90s El Nino years?"

    Yes LITD I have been pondering this since your previous post on the issue, many thanks for posting the details.

    Not sure how to quantify or if it is possible. It might well be giving cause for concern amongst the modellers. I recall Richard Betts stating that the last 15 years could not be ignored as whilst it had not yet disproved the models there were genuine scientific questions one being had the positive forcing been overestimated?

    Also your comment points me back to DePreSys and Smith et al 2007, will have to read again to see how they have handled it.

  • Comment number 80.

    Interesting post at the Blackboard:

    https://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/trends-relative-to-models

    Even when the temperature slope is taken from 1980 when 20 years of data was already known 3 of the models fail with 95% confidence.

  • Comment number 81.

    80. RobWansbeck

    Thanks Rob, interesting reading

  • Comment number 82.

    73. RobWansbeck wrote:

    "In fact using a 30 year period to indicate long term climate change when there are known natural variations with periods of around 60 years would be ludicrous"

    Use any global data set you like. On average, the most recent 360 months (30 years) are the warmest on record in every case. In every data set we have, the previous warmest consecutive 360 month high temperature record has been beaten *every single month* for the past 17 consecutive months.

    So while there are certainly cycles that affect the 'rate' of rise, these are not affecting the 'actual' observed rise. For people who keep talking about this mystical 60 year cycle I have two simple questions:

    1. When did the warming phase start?

    2. When will the cooling phase start?

  • Comment number 83.

    @82, newdwr54 wrote:

    “ For people who keep talking about this mystical 60 year cycle I have two simple questions … “

    Try asking Michael Mann; he claims to have invented it.

  • Comment number 84.

    83. RobWansbeck:

    But you brought it up. So:

    1. When did the warming phase start?

    2. When will the cooling phase start?

  • Comment number 85.

    upahonta and John Marsall, still trying to see what the 'controversy' is here. Delingpole is the perfect example of a shrill denier making up a 'Gate'
    https://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100189491/28-gates-later-the-bbcs-nightmare-gets-worse-and-worse/
    Apparently the BEEB held a meeting where they planned to stifle all opposing views from the actual scientists. This was so secret that the list of attendees was origonally published on he internet and has been found with a bit of a search and the evidence of the nefarious activities is available to download as a PDF. Delingpole makes these claims and publishes the list of attendees for every loon on the internet to abuse, a drama the BBC head of Drama could do without. The smoking gun document clearly states that contrary opinions must not be stifiled and this according to Delingpoles blog is worse than a DJ being allowed to abuse minors! It is Delingpole who claims this is a 'Scandal' and a 'delibrate conspiracy', and he calls the scientists alarmist!
    As for the list of experts, can you just state exactly how many on that list is from a University, scientific or research body? I count at least 8. How many do you think they needed to decide how to cover the issue of climate on the telly?

  • Comment number 86.

    76. greensand wrote:

    "Interesting DW, care to put a number on the effect the reduction in TSI and ENSO Index has had?.... So the average is about 0.009 per year, by how much do you calculate this has been suppressed by reduced TSI and ENSO?"
    _______________________________

    That's been done in the peer reviewed literature by Foster and Rahmstorf (2011). FR11 adjusted all the best known global temperature data sets since 1979 to remove ENSO and TSI and found that overall these had contributed a small but identifiable cooling affect. Their paper along with all the numbers is free to download online in pdf format.

    Referring to CRU, they estimated that the per decade influence of ENSO from 1979-2010 was -0.015C and for TSI -0.019. However the ENSO index between 1995 and 2012 is much lower than it was over the total period 1979-2012, and as we know TSI has also been much weaker between 1995 and 2012 compared to 1979-2012.

    But even accepting the FR11 figures and applying these to HadCRUT4, you'd have to add +0.034, rounding it up to +0.13C from its current +0.10C per decade trend. This is necessarily an underestimate for the reasons given above. It also ignores the impact of aerosols from increased development, especially in China since 1995.

    FR11 identified the underlying warming trend between 1979 and 2010 as +0.17C; remarkably close to the average trend currently seen of all the main data sets over 30 years.

  • Comment number 87.

    86.newdwr54

    Many thanks for the details DW, but it is not clear what you are saying about the actual period you referred to

    Are you saying that:-

    "Don't forget that over the last 17 years (since October 1995) TSI has reduced at a rate of -0.46W/m2 per decade; the monthly average ENSO index was negative (-0.12);"

    Equates to +0.034C?

  • Comment number 88.

    #85 Lazarus

    'This was so secret that the list of attendees was origonally published on he internet and has been found with a bit of a search'

    Originally published, then removed. The document you refer to was published in full on the internet then amended so that the list of attendees was removed. The full document was only found using Wayback.

    Explain then why you think that the document was easily found with a bit of a search and the reason for refusal of FOIA request at extensive financial cost for something so unimportant?

    'Delingpole makes these claims and publishes the list of attendees for every loon on the internet to abuse, a drama the BBC head of Drama could do without.'

    Your diatribe against Dellingpole is revealingly personal as he was quite late in the game in publishing the list.

    'The smoking gun document clearly states that contrary opinions must not be stifiled and this according to Delingpoles blog is worse than a DJ being allowed to abuse minors!'

    refer to #34 above:
    https://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/29/harrabin-on-cmep.html

    This comment:

    'Climate sceptics seeking more space on the BBC helped provoke the Trust’s investigation into science impartiality but the Trust said we were already giving them too much space – not too little.'

    So you are implying that the advice from the meeting was ignored as the opposite stance was taken. A breach of the BBC charter by the Trust, the governing body.

  • Comment number 89.

    #85 Lazarus
    The list was supposed to be one of climate experts for a frank discussion. They were not climate experts by any fair crack of the whip neither were they there for a frank discussion. Why was a reasonable and legal FOI request blocked? Why does the BBC, a public body funded by the public by a direct tax, called a licence but a tax in all but name, act like MI6 and wish to keep everything secret?
    You are either naive or a BBC insider who my licence fee helps to pay.

  • Comment number 90.

    @84, newdwr54 asks:

    1. When did the warming phase start?

    2. When will the cooling phase start?

    The trough of the last cooling phase was around 1975 so it has warmed since then.
    We are now trundling along the top and cooling should start around 2020.

  • Comment number 91.

    87. greensand wrote:

    "Are you saying that:-

    "Don't forget that over the last 17 years (since October 1995) TSI has reduced at a rate of -0.46W/m2 per decade; the monthly average ENSO index was negative (-0.12);"

    Equates to +0.034C?"
    _________________________________

    No; -0.46W/m^2 per decade is the rate at which TSI has reduced since October 1995 (17 years from the present), and -0.12 is the average monthly ENSO index from October 1995.

    FR11 calculated the impact of TSI and ENSO based on the period 1979-2010. TSI reduced at a rate of -0.23W/m^2 during that period. ENSO during that period was slightly positive (+0.05).

    So the last 17 years have seen both a greater reduction in TSI and a much bigger dip in ENSO values than the period 1979-2010. Therefore the effect of ENSO and TSI calculated by FR11 (-0.015C and -0.019 respectively) are likely to underestimate the impact these two factors had in the past 17 years.

    So surface temperatures would have warmed by an additional +0.034C per decade between 1979 and 2010 had it not been for the cooling influence of TSI and ENSO during that period.

    I don't know what the figure is for 1995-2012, all I know is that it must be even greater than +0.034C per decade, because, as mentioned above, the cooling effects of TSI and ENSO were greater during that period than they were between 1979 and 2010.

    I hope that's clear?

  • Comment number 92.

    90. RobWansbeck wrote:

    "The trough of the last cooling phase was around 1975 so it has warmed since then.
    We are now trundling along the top and cooling should start around 2020."

    But if it's a 60 year cycle, and the last trough was in 1975, then the peak should have come in 2005. 2020 will be 45 years into the 60 year period. So whatever it is, it's not a cycle.

  • Comment number 93.

    ukpahonta wrote:
    "Originally published, then removed."

    So this is the great 'controversy'? This is all you need for evidence of a' deliberate conspiracy'?

    You never answered my question, how many experts do you need to advise the head of CBBC on how they should cover climate issues?

    "So you are implying that the advice from the meeting was ignored."

    I'm not implying anything. There's no evidence the Charter wasn't and isn't being followed.

  • Comment number 94.

    John Marshall wrote:

    "The list was supposed to be one of climate experts for a frank discussion"

    You believe the denialist hype. The list is people attending a seminar about how to cover climate issues on the telly. There were plenty of experts from different backgrounds including business and even BP. Perhaps you can give a list of experts you think should have attended instead of your scary conspiracy nonsense about me working for the secretive BBC. Perhaps you think I'm an agent for he Telly Tubbies?

  • Comment number 95.

    @92, newdwr54 wrote:

    “ So whatever it is, it's not a cycle. “

    This may help:

    https://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/KnightetalGRL05.pdf

  • Comment number 96.

    #93 Lazarus

    The evidence has been presented to you twice, if you choose to ignore it then I don't have the time to waste playing your childish games.

    #89 John Marshall

    Lazarus is certainly not naive but will never accept any view point that differs from his own beliefs. There are better things to do in life than try to open a closed mind.

  • Comment number 97.

    95. RobWansbeck:

    Thanks for the link Rob.

    The previous trough in AMO was in April 1974. If it's a 65 year cycle that drives temperature change, then you would expect to see temperatures (not temperature trends) start to dip around October 2006.

    Allowing a 10% margin of error gives us to January 2010 for the onset of temperature cooling. Yet 2010 was the warmest or second warmest year on record according to every data set we have.

    I'm still puzzled as to why you're predicting that cooling may not even have started right up to 2020 when, if AMO is a true 65 year oscillation that forces surface temperature changes, temperatures should have already started to cool more than 5 years ago?

    One would think that cooling should already be well under way long before 2020?

  • Comment number 98.

    A couple of brand new super size gritters out tonight complete with flashing ambers, loaded to the gunnel's with grit, must be some practice run to see if they will fit down the high street.

  • Comment number 99.

    @97, newdwr54 wrote:

    “ One would think that cooling should already be well under way long before 2020? “

    The warm and cold phases seem to persist with a fairly rapid transition between the two.

    If you look at figure 1 in the Knight paper you will see that the last rapid fall was around 1960 after a relatively flat period so the next would be expected around 2020 or so.

  • Comment number 100.

    91.newdwr54

    "I hope that's clear?"

    No DW afraid not!

    What do you mean by:-

    "Referring to CRU, they estimated that the per decade influence of ENSO from 1979-2010 was -0.015C and for TSI -0.019."

    Do you mean the influence was zero in 1979 and increased to the above numbers by 2010? Or are you saying it is the “average” influence over the period. If the latter what is the base period it is relative to?

 

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.