« Previous | Main | Next »

'High risk' of further flooding this winter

Paul Hudson | 17:04 UK time, Monday, 5 November 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow me on twitter @Hudsonweather

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    They told us there'd be Mediterranean summers, and to get used to mild and wet winters.

    I think after this latest advice, we should now expect a dry winter.

    These alarmists just don't learn do they?

  • Comment number 2.

    Are the Environment Agency basing this on UKMO rainfall forecasts?
    If so, let's not forget that they predicted a drier than average summer, which turned out to be the wettest on record.
    I still can't believe that they got away with that, without more publicity.
    Meanwhile the RSS global anomaly for October shows a fall from 0.383c to 0.294c.
    N.H. down from 0.45c to 0.317c and S.H. down from 0.313c to 0.271c.
    Also, the Continental USA is down from +0.276c, to -0.58c, the lowest October since 2009.
    That might point to a fall in HadCRUT3/4 to about 0.44c.

  • Comment number 3.

    If you build on flood plain and cover your front garden with concrete to extend the drive then there will be more flooding.
    Storm drainage is enclosed and easy to block with silt, leaves etc. Open, ''french'' style drains carry more water and blockages, if any, are easy to locate and clear. Any blockage not cleared will be overflowed by storm water which will then return to the drain. Blockages in enclosed drains cause water backup and upstream flooding.

  • Comment number 4.

    UAH also down slightly, at +0.331 global: https://www.drroyspencer.com/

    Makes October 2012 the second warmest on record globally in UAH, behind 2005.

  • Comment number 5.

    2. QuaesoVeritas:

    The RSS global figure for October 2012 makes it the fourth warmest Oct. on their record. There's still a big difference between UAH and RSS in real terms; the RSS figure adjusted to UAH anomaly is +0.20, so -0.13 lower than UAH for October (although the rate of warming overall in 2012 has been slightly higher in RSS than UAH because it started from a lower base, especially Feb).

  • Comment number 6.

    So UK October 2012 was much colder than normal and UK October 2011 was much warmer than normal, but interestingly sunlight and rainfall were pretty much the same.

    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/actualmonthly/

    So if it's not sunlight and rain (both inc clouds), what is the reason? Maybe it's wind direction, ie arctic blasts and the like. Perhaps October 2011 saw warmer winds blowing in and 2012 saw colder winds blowing in, on average.

    If this can affect monthly temperatures so much why is there not an index for it? Ie some kind of single value for a month. Could call it "northerly windiness". Then it could be graphed. The trend might be as important as graphing mean temperature.

  • Comment number 7.

    #5. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "The RSS global figure for October 2012 makes it the fourth warmest Oct. on their record. There's still a big difference between UAH and RSS in real terms; the RSS figure adjusted to UAH anomaly is +0.20, so -0.13 lower than UAH for October (although the rate of warming overall in 2012 has been slightly higher in RSS than UAH because it started from a lower base, especially Feb)."

    I think this might be something to do with the way RSS handle the polar temperatures. I believe that they don't use the figures above 82.5 and below -70 degrees because they consider them unreliable, whereas UAH do.
    This may also account for why UAH shows an increase in the SH anomaly this month, whereas RSS shows a fall, although I won't know for certain until I see the detailed UAH figures.

  • Comment number 8.

    #6. - quake wrote:
    "If this can affect monthly temperatures so much why is there not an index for it? Ie some kind of single value for a month. Could call it "northerly windiness". Then it could be graphed. The trend might be as important as graphing mean temperature."

    I think that you are correct in that wind direction has played a part in the relative temperatures between 2011 and 2012.
    In general however, there is very little data available for both wind direction and wind speed, from the UKMO.
    Some time ago, I tried to obtain some historical wind speed data, in order to check whether speeds were increasing or decreasing and all I could find (as far as I can remember), were some overlapping 30 year and out of date records for some specific sites, which incidentally showed that average wind speeds might have declined, but given the sparcity of data, it is difficult to prove. However, if anyone says it is getting more windy due to "climate change", ask them how they know!
    I suspect that this information might not be available to the general public because it is of some strategic/commercial value to those generating electricity using wind power.
    I agree that given the climatological significance of wind speed and direction, there should be data available equivalent to temperature and rainfall data.

  • Comment number 9.

    #6 quake

    'So if it's not sunlight and rain (both inc clouds)'

    Bit of a difference between UK and England for rainfall and sunshine in 2011

  • Comment number 10.

    The Met are forecasting slightly colder than normal for Nov/Dec. If they are right, we'll likely get the secong coldest year since 1996.

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/11/06/britain-shivers-in-october/

  • Comment number 11.

    Re RSS and UAH numbers - don't forget we are just coming out of a mild El Nino. The 12 month running average is still running well below the average for the last 10 yrs.

    My guess is that Dec will end up around 0.25C for UAH.

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

  • Comment number 12.

    We haven't reached El Nino yet. Officially we are still in ENSO neutral. El Nino requires five consecutive 3-month averages of ONI above +0.5C. So far we haven't had one. The latest 3-month period, August-October had an ONI of +0.4C.

  • Comment number 13.

    10.PaulHomewood wrote:

    "The Met are forecasting slightly colder than normal for Nov/Dec. If they are right, we'll likely get the secong coldest year since 1996."

    According to its charts, the MO's UK forecast for November is centred at 6.1C, while Nov-Jan is centred at 4.5C. Even if December 2012 comes in at the 1996 level of 2.5C (which would require a warmer than average January 2013 if the 4.5C Nov-Jan projection is accurate), then the UK 30-year linear trend would still be above +0.3C/decade - about twice the global trend reported by UAH over the same period. However, a cold December would continue the decline in the 30-year UK December trend, which is anomalous and still requires an explanation.

  • Comment number 14.

    11. PaulHomewood wrote:

    "Re RSS and UAH numbers - don't forget we are just coming out of a mild El Nino. The 12 month running average is still running well below the average for the last 10 yrs."

    The UAH Nov-Oct average for the 10 years from 2002 to 2011 is +0.19C. Nov-Oct 2012 is +0.13C - a difference of 0.06C. I would hesitate to describe 2012 as "running well below the average" on that basis.

    Especially bearing in mind that 6 of the past 12 months are classified as having fallen within a La Nina event, whereas none, as quake mentions above, are classified as having fallen within an El Nino event.

    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml

  • Comment number 15.

    11. PaulHomewood

    From your blog link, you say you're using running 12 month averages because "...we often get fixated with calendar year figures, which obviously change a good deal from year to year."

    Surely the same caveat must apply to rolling 12 month averages? All we're seeing at each data point is a snapshot of the previous 12 months temperature.

    The WMO recommends 30 years as the 'classic period' from which to infer trends from continuous temperature data. A rolling 360 month average is therefore more likely to provide you with instructive data than is a rolling 12 month one. Try constructing a rolling 360 month average chart using UAH (or any other data set). You should see a strong pattern.

    Maybe you can write up a blog post on it?

  • Comment number 16.

    To Quake #6

    Wind direction perhaps. Or was it the jet stream continuing to be south of its normal position? This would bring in colder air even on a westerly flow and sunshine or rainfall levels would not necessarily be a factor.

    One point of interest is that although cold, October did not bring any but a touch of frost. Not until this week has the air temp dropped below freezing (here in E Yorks. at least).

  • Comment number 17.

    Goodness - I've been away on hol - then, just reading the past week's posts!

    I do hope "elasticjesus" or whatever he's called, keeps on writing.

    Looks as though he might give all you smug little gang of naughty sceptic boys the good hiding you jolly well deserve.

    A "troll" indeed. You must be hitting the spot PJ

  • Comment number 18.

    Difficult to reply to TEJ when the post is closed for comments.

  • Comment number 19.

    Floods? cant be right - or these bouts of persistent cold weather, damp chilly summers etc

    Because by now we are supposed to resemble the south of france climate wise and facing water shortages!

    That was the theory at least - what happened - thought it was settled science

  • Comment number 20.

    Jkiller, you may find TEJ is too busy to post since he's still "fighting a whole western civilisation" amongst other things.
    Of course, just because he's delusional, that doesn't make him wrong. Similarly, cutting and pasting other people's words and passing them off as his own doesn't help his credibility, but neither does it logically defeat his argument.
    On another note, I'm not sure what you mean by 'any but a touch of frost' (local saying or typo) but I heard it was snowing a couple of weeks ago in Beverley and of course, it snowed in the West Country fairly recently. I don't attach any significance to either event BTW.

  • Comment number 21.

    newdwr54 - were you aware of this?
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_change.shtml

    You've noted in the past that La Nina's appear to be 'getting warmer' or not reducing global temps as much as had previously been the case. I think this explains why that is.
    It doesn't explain the cause of the underlying SST trend of course (let's not go there again) but the shifting baseline does unintentionally mask some of the detail unless you're already familiar with how ENSO is measured.

  • Comment number 22.

    21. lateintheday:

    Thanks for the link. No, I wasn't aware of it. I can see why they would want to do this though.

    It's an effective way of differentiating between natural Pacific SST fluctuations and those caused by 'global warming' (irrespective of what's causing global warming).

  • Comment number 23.

    agreed.

  • Comment number 24.

    Quake & QV re: wind
    I stumbled across this paper recently which may be useful to you, if not for its contents, then perhaps for its references. Not sure it will work as a link (pdf), but of course you can easily search using the title.
    https://www.gl-garradhassan.com/assets/technical/Long_term_wind_speed_trends_in_northwestern_Europe_EWEC_2009_paper.pdf

  • Comment number 25.

    #24. - lateintheday wrote:
    "I stumbled across this paper recently which may be useful to you, if not for its contents, then perhaps for its references. Not sure it will work as a link (pdf), but of course you can easily search using the title."
    Thanks for the link to the paper, which is interesting and the references might be useful.
    Apart from it's overall conclusions, what this paper does seem to confirm, is the lack of long-term/detailed data for wind speeds.
    The conclusion of the paper seems to support my findings from available MO data that it has become less windy over the period 1971-2000 compared to 1961-90.
    Although because the data is in rolling periods of 10 years, it wasn't possible to be very precise.
    However, due to the absence of long-term data, I don't think it is possible to say what is "normal" and what isn't.
    It strikes me that it might be possible to theoretically calculate wind speeds from digitized pressure charts, if they are available.

  • Comment number 26.

    The October NASA/GISS temperature anomalies are as follows:
    Global = 0.69c, compared with an increased 0.61c for September
    N.H. = 0.77c, compared with an increased 0.77c for September
    S.H. = 0.60c, compared with a reduced 0.45c for September

    After adjustment to the HadCRUT baseline of 1961-1990, the above are equivalent to 0.58c, 0.71c, and 0.46c respectively.

    If my calculations are correct, this makes the running 2012 mean almost identical to the 2011 mean at the same point.

    So there seems to be a possible divergence between the satellite and non-satellite datasets for October, which might suggest an increase in HadCRUT, although HadCRUT does not always change as rapidly as GISS.

  • Comment number 27.

    Thanks QV, once again. I don't know how you do it, honestly. I'm in awe. Do you pay these various organisations to update you by special email or something?

    If NASA is +0.69 for October then, as in UAH, it's the second warmest October on record (although the NASA October record runs from 1880, as against 1979 for UAH). In absolute terms, and unlike last month, NASA and UAH are almost identical globally for October. So I wonder why there was such a difference in September between the two?

    2012 and 2011 year-to-date are currently very close. However, it's likely that 2012 will jump 2011 into 8th warmest year overall in NASA during the next two months, given the current ENSO neutral situation. I think 2012 is unlikely to jump over 2006 though.

  • Comment number 28.

    I would suspect, certainly November and possibly December to be colder than last year.

  • Comment number 29.

    Scrub that, was graphing CET and jumped the gun!

  • Comment number 30.

    Lateintheday# 20

    Well hello

    I missed the Beverley snow (on Hol) but of course it does not have to be below freezing to snow as I am sure you know ( I think +4c is roughly the limit). I meant although we had a bit of ground frost locally in October, air frost (below 0c) did not occur until this week. Although I was away I could tell this by the fact that frost tender plants were undamaged even where I live - which is a bit of a rural frost hollow - and certainly chillier in general than Beverley.

    I expect TEJ may already be bored here - since all sceptic arguments (endlessly repeated) boil down to the same thing.

    That is, in spite of being mostly rank amateurs, you are convinced you are on to something that the established scientific community is either:

    a) Too stupid to have noticed.

    or

    b) Have actually noticed but is too scared/unscrupulous to admit - are colluding in some way maybe with "vested interests" like the wind industry. (Thats a bit like the oil industry only with about 0.2% of the finance and influence - pressure from whom politicians and scientists are of course totally immune).

    As the great QV himself admitted - discussions on this site are getting a bit "stale". Stale happens when you never open any windows to change the air of your opinions.

  • Comment number 31.

    To Lateintheday (again)

    I must say I thought the (possibly tongue in cheek) remark by Newdwr (earlier blog) about "autumnal white males" was also a bit of a gem!

    There's certainly more than a touch of "listen to me - I may be bald and past it - but I'm still pretty clever" in the tone of many sceptic posts. More than a suggestion of impotent rage at being told what's what by Uncle IPCC and Auntie BBC.

    Oops, sorry - that was a bit of an unfortunate choice of word in the last sentence, wasn't it!

  • Comment number 32.

    "Stale happens when you never open any windows to change the air of your opinions."

    Yup, you got it JK!

    I assume that is why you introduced your alter ego TEJ:-)? Quite like the "I have been on holiday, lol!

    "That is, in spite of being mostly rank amateurs,"

    And JK or TEJ (or who you would like to be) is quite right we are "rank amateurs" and proud of being so! Care to do a bit of number crunching yourself? Or are you just going to continue to hide behind your ad homs?

    I disagree with DW on how he interprets his data, but I admire him for producing it and sometimes I learn from his work and appreciate his efforts.

    Now tell me, just what, apart from insults do you bring to the party?

  • Comment number 33.

    @JK - missed in crossed post:-

    “Oops, sorry - that was a bit of an unfortunate choice of word in the last sentence, wasn't it!”

    O, JK, thank you for your best foot in gob comment so far, sorry I know you would prefer “mouth” but some how gob fits better. Bit like a sock in a ducks beak!

    Hint to JK - Little “aren’t I clever” statements don’t wash anymore, they are not “fashionable” even in "approved" circles, haven't you noticed only facts and data are relevant, so either produce something substantial or get off the pot!

  • Comment number 34.

    #27. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "Thanks QV, once again. I don't know how you do it, honestly. I'm in awe. Do you pay these various organisations to update you by special email or something?"
    Nothing so sophisticated I am afraid, I just check regularly (sad person that I am).
    I know the approximate order and timings of when figures are going to be published, i.e. UAH/RSS first, then GISS, NCDC and HadCRUT, so usually there is no point in checking for HadCRUT until late in the following month, but if HadCRUT is ever published early, I will probably miss it!

  • Comment number 35.

    Star wars - in the comments.
    wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/10/is-there-is-a-planetary-influence-on-solar-activity-it-seems-so-according-to-this-new-paper/

    With some serious background reading.
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/j-a-abreu-et-al-is-there-a-planetary-influence-on-solar-activity/

  • Comment number 36.

    35. ukpahonta:

    How's David Archibald's 'global cooling' prediction coming along?

    Based on solar observations, Archibald predicted in 2008 that cooling at a rate of -0.2C per month relative to 1998 would kick in from the month of solar minimum (which was January) in 2009. He also predicted, again based on his solar observations, that over the course of solar cycle 24, which started nearly four years ago, the US and other mid latitude regions would cool by, on average, -2.2C.

    Since solar cycle 24 began in January 2009 the US has actually 'warmed' at a rate of +2.7C per decade; so that particular solar-based prediction by Archibald is currently wrong by 4.9C.

    So if, as Archibald says here, there really is now a 'solar mechanism' that explains recent warming and can make accurate predictions of future climate change, then that's good news for him, because the one he's using at the minute isn't working.

  • Comment number 37.

    #36 newdwr54


    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/10/is-there-is-a-planetary-influence-on-solar-activity-it-seems-so-according-to-this-new-paper/

    David Archibald says:
    November 10, 2012 at 2:15 pm
    'For what its worth, after reading this paper I have decided to not call the current minimum a de Vries cycle event. It has come exactly 208 years after the Dalton Minimum and may be largely a de Vries cycle event but for it to be abrupt it must be coinciding with one or more of the shorter period cycles. That begs the question of where are we at with respect to the cycles, that is what are the years of the peaks of the Gleissberg, de Vries cycles. Like cracking a safe, it should be easy enough to find the alignment of cycles that matches the Be10 record.'

    Why don't you ask him? He seems to be responding to comments, he will probably relish the chance to answer you.

  • Comment number 38.

    I'll give it a try.

  • Comment number 39.

    37. ukpahonta:

    Look out for a post by DWR54 (if it passes moderation!)

  • Comment number 40.

    #39 newdwr54

    Reasonably put, America is starting to wake up, you may have an answer this evening.

  • Comment number 41.

    40. Does Archie not live in Oz?

  • Comment number 42.

    40: ukpahonta:

    Nothing yet.

    Maybe Archibald doesn't like to talk about it? Possibly he sees that by responding to such posts he will only serve to draw attention to his *already wrong* prediction?

    My unanswered post's now well and truly buried in the pack at WUWT. So it's a successful strategy by Archibald, if that's what it is.

    BTW, I notice that Roy Spencer's monthly UAH update was hurried off the top page at WUWT in short order. October 2012 was rather warm. Can't have that.

  • Comment number 43.

    @42 newdwr54 wrote:-

    "BTW, I notice that Roy Spencer's monthly UAH update was hurried off the top page at WUWT in short order. October 2012 was rather warm. Can't have that."

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

  • Comment number 44.

    @42 newdwr54

    "BTW, I notice that Roy Spencer's monthly UAH update was hurried off the top page at WUWT in short order. October 2012 was rather warm. Can't have that."

    Wouldn't read much into that, remember Watt's own first ever peer reviewed paper, which must of been a big moment for him, wasn't stickied and fell off the front page very quickly too... oh...

  • Comment number 45.

    #42 newdwr54

    You may be correct that your comment may well be buried now, but don't take it to heart as he has not posted any comments since before you posted. The thread has been concentrated around the 'discussions' between Leif and Roger.

    There is another interesting post up now from Leif Svalgaard:
    wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/11/solar-activity-past-present-future/

  • Comment number 46.

    #36
    Not yet found your 2008 prediction for David Archibald
    This is what he said in 2006.

    "Projections of weak solar maxima for solar cycles 24 and 25 are correlated with
    the terrestrial climate response to solar cycles over the last three hundred years,
    derived from a review of the literature. Based on solar maxima of approximately
    50 for solar cycles 24 and 25, a global temperature decline of 1.5°C is predicted to
    2020, equating to the experience of the Dalton Minimum."

    He still has 17 more years to see a drop of 1.5 degrees C

  • Comment number 47.

    newdwr54 The David Archibald 2009 published paper arrives at this conclusion

    7. SUMMARY AND PROJECTIONS
    Based on our understanding of the interaction of solar and terrestrial processes, the
    following projections are made for a number of climate-related physical processes:
    1. Month of Solar Cycle 23/24 minimum: July, 2009
    2. Year of Solar Cycle 24 maximum: 2016
    3. Amplitude of Solar Cycle 24: 45
    4. Temperature decline solar cycle 24 2.2 degrees C

    The predicted amplitude of the solar cycle certainly seems, but this solar cycle has at least another 10 years to run so his 2009 paper seems to suggest 2.2 degrees drop by 2023. There is still plenty of time to see a drop in global temperatures. I for one am not jumping to any conclusions one way or another

  • Comment number 48.

    I have now found this prediction made in 2008

    "My prediction is that this rate of cooling will accelerate to 0.2 degrees per annum following the month of solar minimum sometime in 2009."

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

  • Comment number 49.

    I tend not to get involved with the “Solar Jockeys” they all seem to be riding different horses.

    One thing that does intrigue me at present is when could we realistically expect to observe any possible subsequent effects of a “quiet” sun? We know there is a minimum in each cycle so no change a minimum is a minimum; simplistic I know but has some logic? So any effect, if there is an effect, is more likely to be related to the intensity of the solar max and we are not there yet? Or are we? Or is it as some say that there will need to be a series of quiet cycles before any effect could be observed?

    Well if some of the “Jockeys” are right and we are heading for a “minimum” with a series of “quiet” cycles with low max, we will find out, as always only time will tell.

    Though looking at the changes in the predictions of the intensity of the present cycle I am not sure the “experts” know what is happening.

  • Comment number 50.

    If we view the 'different horses' as solar versions of consensus science climate models, perhaps we will find that current temperatures are well within the gamut of solarists projections!

  • Comment number 51.

    #47. - NeilHamp wrote:
    "The predicted amplitude of the solar cycle certainly seems, but this solar cycle has at least another 10 years to run so his 2009 paper seems to suggest 2.2 degrees drop by 2023. There is still plenty of time to see a drop in global temperatures. I for one am not jumping to any conclusions one way or another"

    Did you miss a word out after "certainly seems"? Seems high/low?
    What does amplitude refer to, the max, SSN in the cycle? If so, 45 seems low to me.
    On the other hand, a maximum year of 2016 seems late to me. Given a minimum in July 2009, "on average", the max. could be expected around January 2015.
    Also, the 12 month MA SSN may have peaked at 67.5 in Sept. 2012 and has been declining since then, which does seem early, so numbers may pick up again.

  • Comment number 52.

    Sorry QV should have read "seems low"
    I too presumed amplitude meant sun spot maximum
    I agree the max year of 2016 seemed late but I have seen some predictions as late as this. My comment for your likely assistance was to confirm the drop or rise in global temperatures since 2009.

  • Comment number 53.

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

  • Comment number 54.

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

  • Comment number 55.

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

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

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

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

  • Comment number 56.

    Greensand# 32/33

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

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

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

  • Comment number 57.

    The HadSST2 anomaly figures for October are as follows:

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

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

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

  • Comment number 58.

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

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

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

  • Comment number 59.

    43. greensand wrote:

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

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

  • Comment number 60.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Comment number 61.

    47. NeilHamp wrote:

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

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

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

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

  • Comment number 62.

    48. NeilHamp wrote:

    "I have now found this prediction made in 2008"

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

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

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

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

 

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.