主播大秀

Paul, this may be difficult, im not sure- but when posting the graphs for monthly temps, it would be REALLY usefull if all the 'same' months had their data points in a different colour; say green or yellow??

to take the graph above, if all the data points relating to october were highlighted green/yellow (or some other contrasting colour, it would add some really useful context.

just a thought.

LM

. . . and how about a picture of a skier for when the temps go down and something similarly descriptive for rising temps - baywatch springs to mind!

On a separate note, I read the other day that la nina events can only be called after 5 consecutive months of below 0.5 degree anomaly temps, so at the moment, we're not officially in one. Is this correct?

I think somebody gone and broke the hockey stick in half. john_cogger said it was strange I mentioned a cold winter on the last blog, I think I must be psychic or using my common sense. Wait for the -20c's we are expecting in November. I am sure it will mean that I have to change my car battery, it is on it's last legs. At least I have a new steel garage roof, so it won't collapse this year and I have now fully insulted the loft.

blimey! what did you say to it?

LabMunkey,

The graph is taken from Roy Spencer's website, so PH isn't in a position to change the colours.

The raw is available for you to do your own graph, using Excel, but actually I think it would be quite difficult to have a different colour for each month within the same data series.

Just out of interest, this months global UAH figure is equivalent to an an anomaly of 0.367c for the period 1960-89. This would suggest little change in HadCRUT3 from September's 0.371c.
However, last months adjusted UAH was 0.171c above the actual HadCRUT3 figure, and if that differential were maintained, it would point to a HadCUT3 of less than 0.2c, i.e. similar to October 2000, but that seems unlikely, since the actual unadjusted UAH for that month was -0.02c.
A more likely HadCRUT3 figure would seem to be about 0.35c, similar to that in October 2002, which had a UAH of 0.13c, although the 2008 UAH figure of 0.13c produced a HadCRUT3 figure of 0.443c!

Oops, I meant 1961-90, not 1960-89.
All of these different base periods gets me confused.
I see that BEST have introduced yet another one, just to add further confusion!

Also in my post #5, I meant to say "raw data".

@QV, i agree, i was only advocating the changing of the newest month, so all data except october would be green, then in nov- all octobers go back to being green and then nov turns green.

Just for trend analysis- but i'll go grab the data and try it myself-maybe i'll suggest it to Roy Spencer next time i'm over there.

blast- should read all ovtobers go back to being BLUE, then nov turns green. obviously lol

Hi QV

"since the actual unadjusted UAH for that month was -0.02c."

Do you have a link to the unadjusted UAH?

TIA

Can QV confirm that 2011 remains inside the top ten warmest years-to-date in the UAH record; that October 2011 is, by a clear margin, the twelfth warmest October in the UAH record; that the UAH trend since 1979 remains +0.14 C per decade, and that the thirty year UAH trend is +0.17 C per decade?

I think the death of 'global warming' is being slightly over-sold by Dr Spencer.

greensand,

Sorry, by "unadjusted UAH", I meant the actual UAH figure published by Dr. Spencer
on the vortex web site.

By "unadjusted" I mean't the anomalies relative to 1981-2010, rather than 1961-90.

#11. - newdwr54 wrote:
"Can QV confirm that 2011 remains inside the top ten warmest years-to-date in the UAH record; that October 2011 is, by a clear margin, the twelfth warmest October in the UAH record; that the UAH trend since 1979 remains +0.14 C per decade, and that the thirty year UAH trend is +0.17 C per decade?"
I am sure all of the above are correct, but UAH isn't the only measure of global temperature. No doubt the UKMO will use it, if it proves that the temperature for 2011 is higher than HadCRUT3 does.

"I think the death of 'global warming' is being slightly over-sold by Dr Spencer."
I have to agree with you on that, especially since the "low" figure for October is supposedly due to "the onset of another La Nina".
However, I think that Dr Spencer is being ironic in his last paragraph, i.e. he is reversing the normal statement from advocates of warming that a single rise in temperature cannot be blamed on warming, but it is the sort of thing we would expect in a warming world.
I am also surprised that he is predicting another substantial fall in temperatures in November, with so little data available. Actually, the temp. has fallen so much in October that I would have thought that there may not be much scope for further significant falls this year, but I will have to look at previous "cold" years.
In fact, the AQUA CH5 temp. for November 1st was actually up on October 31st.

#9. - LabMunkey wrote:
"blast- should read all ovtobers go back to being BLUE, then nov turns green. obviously lol"
I was pleased to read that, as I was getting REALLY confused!

There seems to be general acceptance that La Nina is causing cooling.

During the late 20th century there was a long run of strong El Ninos.

That would seem to explain the past warming with no need to involve CO2.

The AQUA CH5 temperature fell by 0.833 degrees in October, against an "average" fall of 0.533 degrees.
On the other hand, the "average" fall in temperature in November is only 0.248 degrees and the lowest temperature recorded since 2002 is 251.871k, against the
figure of 252.169k at the end of October.
So a fall of over 0.298k in November would result in a record low since 2002.
Personally I think that the fall in temperature is just earlier than normal, and that temperatures will flatten out in November and December. But who am I to argue with Dr Spencer? I suppose it depends on what he means by "substantial".
I hope that this makes sense in the morning!

Sorry, the actual fall for October should have been 0.860k and the "average" fall should have been 0.566k.

Stephen,

"There seems to be general acceptance that La Nina is causing cooling.

During the late 20th century there was a long run of strong El Ninos.

That would seem to explain the past warming with no need to involve CO2."

Heresy! Any warming is due to man. Any cooling is just natural cycles hiding man's influence. Surely you know this by now...

Church people and doctors used to speak Latin so nobody else could understand them, the people who believe in Global warming are trying to speak a language nobody else can disagree with, so they can hold onto their power. It is all very simple, the sun warms and cools, take that into account over 40 years, before you keep going on about man mad global warming. This winter it will be there for all to see and feel with fuel poverty. It has already started in America.

'Heresy! Any warming is due to man. Any cooling is just natural cycles hiding man's influence. Surely you know this by now...'

Many a true word said in jest..... possibly!


QV, do you know of any data to 3 hour resolution for CET?

Re 15. At 23:53 3rd Nov 2011, Stephen Wilde wrote:
"There seems to be general acceptance that La Nina is causing cooling.

During the late 20th century there was a long run of strong El Ninos.

That would seem to explain the past warming with no need to involve CO2."

IIRC ENSO has actually trended downwards since 1980 so if anything it's had a negligible cooling effect.

mmmm.
The term 'ENSO' seems to cover a multitude of different things these days - it's very confusing. I'm not quite sure which particular ENSO trend Quake is referring to here. On a very basic level, the great climate shift of 1976 saw the start of the warm PDO phase which lasted until the end of the century. This phase is commonly characterised as being a period within which there are comparatively more, and more powerful, (el nino) warm events.

So at first glance, to suggest that the ENSO trend is down since 1980 seems at odds with both the definition and the observations.

If Quake is referring to the MEI trend, then it should be noted that the sine like wave back down to the cold phase of the PDO still represents a positive, albeit reducing, forcing. That's not quite the same as a cooling effect. I'd agree that since around the turn of the century, we have been increasingly experiencing the cold phase of the PDO. I note that a recent paper (Wolter and Timlin 2011) looks into the ENSO record and according to its abstract, finds a less active period early to mid 20thC. Recent ENSO behaviour apparently matches that witnessed 100plus years ago.

If I've got that wrong - I'm sure Quake will put me right!

#20. - ukpahonta wrote:
"QV, do you know of any data to 3 hour resolution for CET?"
As far as I know, the CET figures are calculated from the average of max. and min. temperatures. I am not even sure if the station data for the three sites involved is available for shorter periods.
I am not surprised that using the max./min. average is producing incorrect temperatures measurements.
A few years ago, when I installed an electonic weather station, I noticed that using the max./min. average produced different results to those over shorter periods, e.g. every 10 minutes. My own limited results suggested that using the max./min. average overstated temperatures by up to 0.5c.
When I pointed this out to the Met. Office, the reply was as follows:
"For our work, we do define the 'mean' temperature for any station as
being the average of the maximum and the minimum for any day. We are
aware, however, that strictly speaking this will not give an exact
result. Given that the majority of observing sites do not report
hourly, indeed many are 'climatological' stations giving one report a
day which includes the max and min, this is the best we can do without
limiting the number of stations that can be used.
However, all our temperature data-sets such as CET have always been
calculated in our standard way, so for the purposes of climate
monitoring etc. this gives us consistent results through the years since
the start of our instrumental records. Use of anomalies will always be
a good way of comparing any given month's temperatures with long-term
means which of course have been calculated in the same way."
So basically, they have always done it that way and to be consistent they have to continue that way. However, this clearly does not take into account the fact that circumstances may change which results in a bias in recent figures compared to those in the past.

QV, Thought as much.

It would be extremely interesting to run the same process against UK, hourly or 3 hourly data over say the last 100 years. Perhaps one of the other regulars knows of such data. If not then that could be my weekend spare time sorted trying to find out!

Somewhat differently from the above comments, it seems possible that the accumulated warmth of this year's growing season (March - Nov.) in UK, may be the greatest since 2006.

I base this on the observation that fields of Miscanthus biomass crop (commonly known as "elephant grass") are attempting to flower for the first time since that year (though far less prolifically). This warm temperate grass needs a reasonable amount of accumulated heat (known technically as "day degrees") to produce flowers and has failed to bloom at all for the previous 4 years (here at least).

I speculate this year's partial success comes about due to the early V warm spring and the exceptional warmth of October - in spite of the cool summer.

It illustrates the fact that for many living organisms, particularly plants (and probably most "cold blooded" animals like insects), the "quality" of the growing season is often more important than the overall temperature, even if winter temperatures are very low.

I mention this merely to illustrate that the concept of "climate change" can be even more complex than it might appear - particularly in the way it affects food crops and natural ecology.

#25. - jkiller56 wrote:
"Somewhat differently from the above comments, it seems possible that the accumulated warmth of this year's growing season (March - Nov.) in UK, may be the greatest since 2006."
I can quite believe that, mainly due to the fact that have had a relatively warm spring and autumn, resulting in an extended period of warm weather.
I have heard it said that we have had a "cold" summer, but in my opinion, that is nonsense. Summer may have been slightly below average but based on CET, July and August were still the two warmest months of the year, and June the 4th warmest after September.
As a result the monthly average CET figure for April to October has been about 13.7c, compared to a normal figure of about 12.75c and an average of 13.0c for 2010.
However, I don't think this represents a change in the seasons as much as a random variation in the monthly temperatures.
When March to May or September to November are warmer than June to August, for more than half of any 10 years, I might accept that there has been a change in the seasons.
I suspect that if you were to look back in the entire CET record, you would be able to find similar patterns hundreds of years ago.

To QV above

Thanks, your stats do seem to confirm my suspicions.

I quite agree that to have the whole summer average cooler than either spring or autumn would be quite a phenomenon. I can see what you mean about this summer,- it wasn't particularly bad, though was certainly not good. Could your impression be something to do with the generally westerly circulation and lack of easterlies? This pattern usually creates relatively good conditions east of the Pennines compared to the UK in general.

I wasn't suggesting that my grass observation indicated any unusual change in the seasons at all but is merely an illustration of the somewhat clandestine affects of accumulated temp as opposed to more obvious extremes. Actually the flowering compared to 2006 is quite meagre. That year, fields everywhere were spectacular with waving plumes - following a very hot early to mid summer.

However, from your stats - it does illustrate quite well how LITTLE increase in temperature is required to have a significant effect on plant growth. Even an annual temp increase of 0.5 c would have quite an impact ,let alone anything of >2c (predicted by many models - believe them or not). It may also be very significant if the distribution of heat through the seasons is altered in some way. Cold winters may be of much less significance to many species than hot summers, for example. In other cases the reverse may be true.

I am quite sure you are right about past variations. I suppose it is overall trends that count in the end, or perhaps greater or less variability.

I wondered how long it would take to report this 'inconvenient truth'. And CO2 output is higher than modeled.

#28. - John Marshall wrote:
"I wondered how long it would take to report this 'inconvenient truth'. And CO2 output is higher than modeled."
Sorry, can you clarify?
Which inconvenient truth are you referring to?
Also, do you have a link to the CO2 story?
If CO2 is higher than modelled, does that mean that such temperature forecasts
as those from the IPCC are even less accurate than thought?
But isn't it CO2 concentrations, rather than output which is important?

at last I have found the missing global warming - on a small beach north of Sydney.

cooking!

15. Stephen Wilde wrote:

"There seems to be general acceptance that La Nina is causing cooling. During the late 20th century there was a long run of strong El Ninos. That would seem to explain the past warming with no need to involve CO2."


ENSO is a natural cycle, and natural cycles do not, of themselves, introduce new heat energy to the climate system.

La Nina is caused by strong winds that blow warm surface water westward off the east coast of the tropical Americas, allowing cold, deep water to rise up from beneath. It is this cold water that exerts the cooling influence on climate.

El Nino works by transporting surface heat eastwards towards the tropical Americas. So the heat carried by an El Nino is not drawn from anywhere else; it is just heat accumulated at the surface from direct heating by the sun.

Since the sun's direct heating in terms of total solar irradiance has actually fallen slightly on average since 1960, this does not explain where the *extra* heat observed globally since then has come from.

There is an interesting programme on 主播大秀2 tonight, on the subject of whether it will snow this winter:
/programmes/b0175m9n

So far this programme is complete drivel. A stray from Children's Hour. I never knew it was difficult to feed sheep in snowy weather!
They haven't begun to answer their own question!

Agreed Fudsdad!
A weak "fluffy bunnyrabbit" sort of programme wallowing in "the bleedin' obvious" about salt and traffic jams whilst skimming quickly over all the relevant stuff about the way the weather works.

Even more serious- they could have delivered a bit of really socially useful analysis about these so called "long range forecasts", delivered regularly by various chancers, that get the press and everyone else in a complete spin - often over nothing! The nearest to this was the YAWN YAWN - will we ever here the end of it- "BBQ summer" put out by the MO publicity crew 2 years ago. Even the Morrisons man was not pressed as to where he got his LR info from!

It's all down to TV producers of course - they are frightened of science. They think we are all too thick to watch it unless it's presented in a trivial "fun" way by a giggly girl who won't allow facts to get in the way of "entertainment".

I wondered what Kate Humble had been up to, now that she is no longer on Autumn Watch!
I haven't watched all of the programme yet, but I didn't think the start was quite as bad as you say,
However, I did spot one factual inaccuracy. At one stage, Kate Humble said that "we are just emerging from the warmest October on record".
I don't know what that is based on, but according to both the UK data series and CET mean temps., it was only the 8th warmest, in the case of CET, just behind 1831.
The UKMO didn't help by issuing a news release on October 27th, stating that at the 25th it was the 7th warmest, based on a figure of 11.5c, but the final figure turned out to be only 11.2c.
I am increasingly annoyed at this tendency of the UKMO to publish figures before the end of each month, when they only have to wait for a few days for the final figures.
In this case however, it doesn't seem to have been the cause of the error in this programme, but it may be that at the time the programme was made, October was the warmest on record. If that was the case, I don't think the programme should have been broadcast with that factually inaccurate statement, so I will be writing to the 主播大秀 to complain.
I won't be watching the rest of the programme until tomorrow.

Why was that annoying 'scientist' wearing a scarf in Glasgow if it was so bl**dy warm!

That aside, I agree with the above comments. This show trivialised an important subject. They attempted to answer an unanswerable question.

They said 'It might snow heavily this winter'; then again, 'it might not snow heavily this winter'.

Piers Morgan himself would be proud of such a comprehensive forecast.

35. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

"I am increasingly annoyed at this tendency of the UKMO to publish figures before the end of each month, when they only have to wait for a few days for the final figures."

Must agree with you there QV. Earlier, or on a previous thread, you drew attention to the fact that Roy Spencer has forecast a very cold November; and to your credit you questioned his wisdom in doing so.

He might turn out to be right, but he has no logical basis for claiming this in advance. La Nina weather conditions are not *that* predictable.

Likewise one of the interviewees on the 主播大秀 programme tonight said that a 'long range forecaster' had predicted heavy snow for NE England and Scotland by the last week in November. They were basing their winter operations planning on this assertion.

Heavy snow at the end of November in NE England or Scotland is by no means unusual. It might happen. But if it doesn't then who will comment on it? Who will remember that the prediction was even made?

This is the way, I feel, that long range forecasters succeed. They rely on people counting the hits but forgetting the misses. They are no better than mediums, fairground fortune-tellers or psychics in this respect, in my view.

I would dearly love to see a scientific paper on the accuracy of long-range forecasting. Is there one?

newdwr54

ABSOLUTELY!

Back on Kate Humble, why can't our media treat us as grown ups? Anyone who has seen The Weather Channel in the US will know that they get a load of technical explanation using the upper air etc. in every bulletin. Is there anywhere that we can get anything like it in the UK? Even the Met Office is dumbed down as you know.

newdwr54
"He might turn out to be right, but he has no logical basis for claiming this in advance. La Nina weather conditions are not *that* predictable."

Well, you're certainly right that ENSO are difficult to predict. But surely Spencer does have a logical basis for his 'November will be very cold' claim - the lag between ssts and atmospheric response. I think that even if November saw a dramatic ending of la nina, the lag would ensure another couple of months of cooling (relatively speaking) response.
I didn't think his november prediction was particularly remarkable - just common sense, albeit mixed with a little spin as both sides tend to do.

lateintheday,
It isn't really a question of whether November will be cold, it normally is cold in the NH winter months, but whether it will be much colder than average, which is of course, what produces low anomalies.
So far, the early Nov. temperatures are up on end Oct., which has meant a "warming" of about 0.1 deg. in the anomaly, since temperatures should still be falling, although of course there is a long way to go.

The October HadSST2 figure has now been published and the global figure was 0.231c, down from the figure of 0.277c.
I haven't had time to do the full calculations yet, but this would seem to put this October at a similar level to that of October 2007, which had an SST2 of 0.228c, and a HadCRUT3 of 0.367c, only marginally down on September's figure of 0.371c.

QV . . I'm not sure you followed what I was trying to say.
The ENSO cold (or warm) events show up first in atmospheric pressure patterns, then shortly afterwards by a drop (or rise) in sea surface temps across the equatorial pacific. Typically, the SSTs will then have a lagged effect on global average temps. The lag time is usually a couple of months at the least, and can be more. Now since we've already had some cooler SSTs (hence the calling of a la nina a month or so ago), we should expect to see, for example, September's SSTs, reflected in the November or December global average temps.

Spencer had a record of the SSTs (until his satellite went down) and will have seen that it was tracking (had just dipped below) last years 2010/2011 winter la nina.

I'm not trying to push a 'cooling' meme here. Just pointing out that it would be a surprise if this current la nina didn't suppress temps again just like last year - that's what cold ENSO events do. The colder waters on the ocean surface inhibit energy/heat transfer to the atmosphere.

I don't know . . . maybe it's just me . . . but I don't find Spencer's prediction at all extraordinary.

to Fudsdad #39

Yes, and our TV weather gets steadily more babyish every time they "improve" the presentation. You are lucky to get a quick flash of a pressure chart these days. I think they call it making things "accessible" - to a lobotomised baboon presumably.

Have you by any chance ever watched the Spanish TV weather? They ramble on for what seems like 15 minutes - even though for half the year, the weather is "scorchio" from coast to coast almost every day! Heaven only knows how long it would take them to explain our weather.

38.jkiller56:

In response to 37: 'I would dearly love to see a scientific paper on the accuracy of long-range forecasting. Is there one?'

jkiller56 wrote:

"ABSOLUTELY!"

Good. Where can I find it?

Further to my post #42, I have now calculated the likely HadCRUT3 figures for October, based on the relationship between HadSST2 and HadCRUT3 over the period 2000-2010 and the results are as follows:

Global = 0.297c (+/- 0.05c)
N.H. = 0.404c (+/- 1.0c)
S.H. = 0.203c (+/- 0.05c)

These compare to September anomaly figures of 0.371c, 0.512c and 0.229c respectively.
Since there has been a recent tendency for this method to under-estimate the HadCRUT3 figure, particularly in the N.H., I would expect the actual figures to be at the higher end of the likely range.
While the above fall in global HadCRUT3 would be consistent with that for UAH, I am not yet entirely convinced.

#43. - lateintheday wrote:

"Spencer had a record of the SSTs (until his satellite went down) and will have seen that it was tracking (had just dipped below) last years 2010/2011 winter la nina."

You are probably correct. After all, Roy Spencer is the expert on this subject.
My own views were based on the fact that temperatures had already fallen rapidly during October and were already almost 0.6 degrees lower than in 2010.
Of course, that rate of fall could continue into November but it seemed unlikely to me. No doubt I will be proved wrong, but we shall have to wait and see.

#36. - newdwr54 wrote:
"Why was that annoying 'scientist' wearing a scarf in Glasgow if it was so bl**dy warm!"
Yes, that scarf did get annoying as the programme went on.
I noticed that he did take it off once, when talking to a scientist who was only wearing an open-necked shirt.
You must remember that the scarf has recently become a fashion accessory, worn by posers, rather than as a method of keeping out the cold.

QV - proved right or wrong doesn't really matter so much . . objectivity does, and you appear to have an ample supply of that, certainly more than myself and many others on this board.

UAH Oct 11 regional numbers just posted. Shows that the trend of oceans cooling more than land is continuing.

Temps down across all areas, land, ocean, NH and SH. Only area recording any increase is South Pole land which is very slight. Largest cooling posted at the polar oceans, both north and south.

greensand,

I notice that the official global figure, to 2 decimal places, is 0.12c.
I have never understood why there is a difference between the figure posted by Roy Spencer and the official figure in the files.
Does this mean that the figure of 0.114c was wrong?

QuaesoVeritas

I think comes under the all encompasing description of "preliminary". I seem to recall somebody asking about this at Dr Roy's blog and not getting a clear answer.

Whilst it is an admirable principle to release data as soon as possible, I would rather wait a few more days and pass on the prelim.

51. QuaesoVeritas:

That is at least the third time this year Spencer has done this. February, May and now October.

In every case Spencer's preliminary prediction has been cooler than UAH's published data.

50. greensand wrote:

"Largest cooling posted at the polar oceans, both north and south."

I find this talk by QV and yourself of 'cooling' in the UAH October data slightly selective. UAH's anomaly value is based on the 1981-2010 average, so it encompasses more of the recent observed warming than any of the other main data sets.

Despite this, of the 25 regions and sub-regions measured in October 2011 only three of them are below average. All of these are measured in the hundredths of degrees C. Two of them are in the tropics; always the first to feel the effects of La Nina cooling, and the other is Arctic Ocean, which is -0.01 C below the already warm 1981-2010 average.

Despite the La Nina conditions, and the 'cooling', all of the other regions are showing above average temperatures. Sixteen of them are above average to the tune of over 1/10th of a degree; or at least ten times higher than the cooling reported in the Arctic ocean.

You also mention that there has been 'cooling' in the Antarctic ocean, but you do not mention that it remains a quarter of a degree warmer than it was on average between 1981 and 2010; nor that Antarctic land temperatures are three quarters of a degree warmer than they were on average throughout that (already very warm) period.

An alternative, but perfectly accurate, in my view, way to describe this UAH October data is:

"Global temperatures fell slightly relative to previous recent months in a way that is consistent with the onset of a La Nina system. Despite this, temperatures remain significantly higher than the already very high 1981-2010 UAH average, both globally and in most of the regions assessed."

yes . . and don't forget to add "we're all gonna die!"

The RSS October temperature anomaly figures have now been published and are as follows, (with the change since last month in brackets):

Global = 0.089c (-0.199c)
N.H. = 0.204c (-0.177c)
S.H. = -0.031c (-0.221c)

In the case of RSS, the N.H. is 0 degrees to +82.5 degrees and the S.H. is 0 degrees to -70.0 degrees and the anomalies are relative to 1979-1998.

After adjustment to the 1961-90 baseline used by HadCRUT3, the above anomalies are equivalent to 0.236c, 0.365c and 0.106c respectively, compared to figures
of 0.373c, 0.485c and 0.264c for UAH anomalies (using UAH figures from the official data files).

So it appears that after adjustment to 1961-90, the RSS anomalies, which were already lower than UAH, also showed a greater rate of fall than UAH during October.
Some of this may be due to the fact that RSS showed very little fall between August and September.

The rolling 2011 global anomalies at the end of October, after adjustment to 1961-90 were 0.428c for UAH and 0.310c for RSS.

The above figures would seem to support HadCRUT3 anomalies in the lower range of estimates, rather than higher.

Just an update on the effects of the September (& October where known) temperature anomalies on their respective 10 year linear trends.

HadCRUT3
The 10 year trend fell from -0.0707c/decade to -0.0750c/decade. Although it hasn't quite reached the rate of -0.0777c/decade of June 2011, I do expect that to be exceeded next month.
I think it is worth noting that the rate of -0.0777c/decade was the fastest rate of fall in HadCRUT3 temperatures over a 10 year period since March 1977.
The way things are going at the moment, the rate of fall of -0.0888c/decade achieved in Feb. 77 could be beaten by the end of this year, in which case, it would be the fastest rate of fall, over a 10 year period, since July 1969.

UAH
The 10 year trend increased from +0.1006c/decade to +0.1076c/decade in September, but fell back to +0.1047c/decade in October.

RSS
The 10 year trend fell from -0.0551c/decade to -0.0567c/decade in September, and fell again to -0.0622c/decade in October.

NASA/GISS
The 10 year trend fell from +0.0184c/decade to +0.0108c/decade in September.
It looks quite likely that a negative trend over 10 years may resume during the next few months, for the first time since May 1997.

NCDC/NOAA
The 10 year trend fell from -0.0266c/decade to -0.0339c/decade in September.
This is the fastest rate of fall in this series, over a 10 year period, since September 1977.

So at the moment, we have HadCRUT3, RSS and NCDC/NOAA showing negative trends over the last 10 years, NASA/GISS showing a small positive trend, with UAH being the only one showing a clearly positive trend.

#29 The inconvenient truth of rising CO2 levels and falling temperatures not the rise modeled. Even the BEST report states this bt read the report not Richard North's rants. CO2 levels are higher than expected, modeled, which was reported with much glee by the 主播大秀.

Cone on QV keep up.

#58. - John Marshall wrote:
"CO2 levels are higher than expected, modeled, which was reported with much glee by the 主播大秀. "
Do you have a link?

#54. newdwr54 wrote:-

"I find this talk by QV and yourself of 'cooling' in the UAH October data slightly selective."

How can a plain and simple statement of fact i.e. the reporting of actual data Oct 11 posted by UAH be "slightly selective"?

I put no inference on the numbers/trends. I did not report on "selected" facts just plain and simply stated the facts that Oct 11 UAH reported.

To newdwr54 # 45

Sorry newdwr54 - I meant that I "absolutely" agreed with what you said re: the long range forecasters and the need to put them under some really hard scrutiny.

The irony is that the one body that comes in for any real hammering is the Met Office! Every nuance of their output is examined in detail and every error is reported and magnified while the "unofficials" get away with all sorts of outrageous alarmism or bland generalisations - seemingly brushed over and forgiven time and time again. Talk about "fool me once.......".

In the Humble programme above - the Met bloke said " anyone who thinks they can predict the weather more than a week (or whatever) ahead is a fool". Surely he means - anyone who believes them is the fool! The forecasters themselves are no fools - they know exactly how to play it.

As we have seen, the Met were no good at LR forecasts either - but at least they now admit the uncertainty. Is it really likely that some lone maveric has stumbled upon a method unknown to the rest of the scientific establishment which is more reliable? CONCEIVABLE - yes - but very unlikely. Logically therefore, it is they, not the MO, who should be put constantly under the magnifier.

To paraphrase Richard Dawkins - "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you hear the sound of hooves behind you - it might be a zebra, it could even be a unicorn but it is far more likely to be a horse".

In my view there are far too many people eager to believe in unicorns - when in reality these are probably old nags dressed up with plastic horns!

60. greensand:

Your statement re UAH @ 50 is absolutely true:

"Temps down across all areas, land, ocean, NH and SH. Only area recording any increase is South Pole land which is very slight. Largest cooling posted at the polar oceans, both north and south."

But my statement @ 54 re UAH is also absolutely true:

"... [UAH] temperatures remain significantly higher than the already very high 1981-2010 UAH average, both globally and in most of the regions assessed."

Those two statements, while both true, might be used individually to create an unbalanced message about what the October UAH data is really telling us.

61. jkiller56:

I agree. There appears to be a reluctance to closely analyse the success rates of certain long range forecasters' predictions. The hits are heralded; the misses ignored.

Joe Bastardi's hopelessly wrong 2011 minimum Arctic sea ice extent forecast is one case in point. Yet if Bastardi successfully 'predicts' a cold spell for Northern Europe in mid December his failed sea ice forecast will be quickly forgotten (if it were ever remembered) and he will be championed again as a meteorological genius.

The fact that the chances of a cold spell for any NH region in mid December are about 50/50 right now is neither here nor there. If it doesn't materialise Joe will carry on as usual and his fans won't even notice. In my view there are several parallels between 'long range forecasting' and 'physic readings'. Both rely on postdiction.

Also, it strikes me that the more 'sceptical' of AGW climate change a long range forecaster claims to be the more likely he is to be forgiven, in some quarters, for his 'misses'.

jkiller56 wrote:

"In the Humble programme above - the Met bloke said " anyone who thinks they can predict the weather more than a week (or whatever) ahead is a fool". Surely he means - anyone who believes them is the fool! "

I have complained to the 主播大秀 about the comments, as they seem to libel Piers Corbyn's reputation. I wonder what the reply will be?

#64. - oldgifford wrote:
"I have complained to the 主播大秀 about the comments, as they seem to libel Piers Corbyn's reputation. I wonder what the reply will be?"
If my experience is anything to go by, either no reply at all, or a standard response, acknowledging your "annoyance" but dismissing your complaint, while saying that they take all comments seriously.

Also, since nobody was mentioned by name, it is unlikely that anyone, including Corbyn, would complain, since that would be admitting the comment referred to him.

newdwr54 said "Also, it strikes me that the more 'sceptical' of AGW climate change a long range forecaster claims to be the more likely he is to be forgiven, in some quarters, for his 'misses'."

And all the more highly scrutinised, criticised, ridiculed and unforgiven by other groups. As I've said before, there are certain 'quarters' that seem to think that publicly bashing Joe Bastardi at every opportunity is somehow going to put an end to AGW skepticism - it won't. I've noticed that for some reason he has the 'marmite' factor and those that dislike him, do so with a vengeance.

Is he actually any better (or worse) than other long range forecasters? I neither know nor care. I would however, much prefer to see him delivering the SKY TV weather forecasts than the characterless mannequins they have at the moment.

Bring back Francis Wilson! . . . mad as a balloon in terms of presentation, but could still make a dull and dreary day sound interesting.

#62.newdwr54 wrote:

"Your statement re UAH @ 50 is absolutely true:"

Thank you!

Re your statement the only comment I can make is how do we know that 1981-2010 UAH average is "already very high"? All we actually know is that it is the average of those dates. It can only be an opinion that it is "very high". Opinions raise the type of questions and statements that send the debate off into areas where there can be no resolution. That is why I try very hard, (admittedly not always successfully) to only stating facts.

My interest, I cannot speak for QV is the resolution of HadCRUT3 from its derivations and similar with UAH. The actual trends that they show are relevant pointers.

One point that has become evident is that for quite some while (not quoting numbers here, no time, maybe later) the land has been 鈥渨arming鈥� more than the ocean. This really intrigues me. I have no answer, maybe never will have but I will continue to check the trends.

Regards

Just to confuse matters even further, the October NASA/GISS global and N.H. anomaly figures show an increase over September:

Global = 0.54c (+0.06c)
N.H. = 0.85c (+0.22c)
S.H. = 0.23c (-0.10c)

The above are equivalent to 0.430c, 0.789c and 0.093c after adjustment to the HadCRUT3 baseline of 1961-90.

The large increase in the NASA/GISS N.H. anomaly is completely at odds with the falls in the UAH and RSS N.H. anomalies and the fall in HadSST2, whereas the fall in the S.H. anomaly is in line with the others.

The September global anomaly showed a larger fall than the others, but that was due to a large fall in the SH anomaly, which has continued this month. The current NASA/GISS N.H. anomaly is now higher than that for October 2010 and looks very odd in relation to the other anomalies.

#69. QuaesoVeritas

Thanks QV, but no thanks with GISS. Have enough with UAH and HadCRUT. Take your point about the HadCRUT3 equivalents, with the HadSST2 numbers it would require significant increase over Sept in land.

greensand,
NASA/GISS don't appear to publish sea surface figures, but only land+sea surface and land only, but maybe I am not looking in the correct place.
It is interesting that while the NH land+sea anomaly increased by 0.22c, the land only one increased by 0.19c, implying, I think, that the sea surface increased by more than that. Logically, the sst increase should be 0.25c, but it's probably not that simple.

to newdwr54 #63

Yes, I think you have hit the nail on the head regarding -the more AGW skeptical independent forecasters are, the more lauded they tend to be (in certain quarters at least) - a point well worth considering if you happen to be an independent forecaster.

Equally - loudly supporting outsiders may also help (if only, at times, subliminally) to undermine wider public confidence in the MO and "establishment" who of course concur with AGW theory. A very neat, if not necessarily contrived effect!

Comments by lateintheday#67 are also revealing : "I would much rather see (them) delivering the SKY weather forecasts than the characterless mannequins they have at the moment".

Showmanship and drama are all part of the deal. I suppose if you want entertainment rather than science - that is fair enough.

Personally, I am sceptical about all long range forecasts, whether they come from AGW sceptics or otherwise.
The problem with the UKMO is that they have nailed there colours to the AGW mast and clearly show bias to that view in their announcements about weather events.

68. greensand wrote:

"...how do we know that 1981-2010 UAH average is "already very high"? All we actually know is that it is the average of those dates. It can only be an opinion that it is "very high"."

I've checked all the surface station 'land and ocean' data sets and they all show the period 1981-2010 as the warmest average continuous 30 year period on record.

As you know we can start counting continuous 30 year periods of temperatures from as far back as 1879 in the case of HadCRUT; and from 1909 in the case of GISS and NOAA. Therefore I think it is fair to regard the UAH anomaly reference period as already being 'anomalously' warm.

In order to dispute this you'd have to dispute the validity of the data supplied by GISS, HadCRUT and NOAA. Not only has this data been forcefully endorsed by the recent BEST study, it also has good agreement, over the long term, with the satellite data since 1979.

Therefore I must disagree with the suggestion that it is only 'opinion' to call the period 1981-2010 exceptionally warm.

#74. newdwr54

The UAH record started in 1979. The only factual comment that can be made about the UAH record must be after that date.

Nobody knows what UAH could have recorded prior to 1979. People can surmise from other databases what UAH might have recorded, that requires somebody to make a judgement, make "a call", express an opinion. As stated before this leads discussions into areas that can have no resolution. Somebody will express an opinion on what UAH would have recorded during the LIA and MWP. Nobody knows, but they will express their opinion and that can never be claimed to be anything other than an opinion.

So any claim that the 1981-2010 UAH average is "already very high"? Can only be an opinion, it may be thought to be an opinion based upon "informed judgement" but it is not a fact, it is a judgement, an opinion.

辞路辫颈苍路颈辞苍/蓹藞辫颈苍测蓹苍/

Noun:

1. A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

2. The beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people about a particular thing.

My concern is what is happening now, what today's trends are and not what somebody's opinion is about whether or not the present day's temperatures are "anomalously warm" because we just do not know and never can know. All it does is cloud our present day issues.