Ö÷²¥´óÐã

Great back to normality!

Now if only our PM could follow the example of that great man doing the same job in Canada and pull out of Kyoto/Durban we could all get back to our national pastime of discussing the weather

Perfectly normal every day non alarmist weather

Good. We could do with the rain in the south. Looks like normal weather this year, with a cold snap in he first part of the month then a comparatively warm, muggy spell over christmas. BTW Paul, a happy and peaceful Christmas to you and yours.

C'mon, folks, no sceptic triumphalism - it's Christmas! No matter that the 3 major CO2 producers are not signed up to Kyoto and Durban was a Greenie disaster. No rubbing it in in the festive season.

Very true gom58, I for one wont be mentioning the fact that we are entering 2012 and the 14th year where average global temperatures are no higher than those measured in 1998 with the only thing rising is the environmental tax take now an eye watering £40b a year - or in the words of the esteemed Mt Hudson 'whatever happened to global warming' -to do so would be churlish at this time of year!

Happy xmas to one and all

Whilst this cyclonic activity seems to be intense for the British Isles this is in no way exceptional for the month of December. Even a low of 970 millibars is not particularly deep, it is the pressure gradient that gives rise to the strong winds.

The question is what will follow this period of relatively intense weather. Will the anti-cyclone over Eastern Europe and Russia establish itself over Western Europe and give rise to the perishing cold weather of December 2010?

I don't know if anybody watched the horror film called "FOG", where the ghosts came back under the door and get the bad guy. I prefer the 1980 version, not the 2005. You have to be careful with weather as it isn't man made and has a mind of its own and can trip you up when you least expect it. I suspect these pulses of cold weather will get colder and colder and we will get some really bad snow after Christmas.

I woke up this morning to find the first snow on the ground and that is 6 miles from Worksop. About an inch or two of snow.

mmm... heard about Tallbloke getting a visit from the police? Computers confiscated and hard drives cloned etc. Anyone else feel uncomfortable about this?

"I for one wont be mentioning the fact that we are entering 2012 and the 14th year where average global temperatures are no higher than those measured in 1998"

Actually UAH had 2010 tied with 1998 and GISTEMP and NOAA records have 1998 exceeded by 2005.

Also even in records like HadCRUT warming has clearly continued since 1998:

"The fact that these computer models could pick up on such a system, before it had even started to develop, shows just how good they can be. "

But, But... Models don't work. The fact that all climate models have been predicting basically the same thing for a generation and the 'skeptics' don't like what they say must mean they are all wrong in exactly the way they need to be for global warming to be a scam.

So clearly this model is wrong as well. There was never such a system developing, just like there wasn't one in 1998 either.

Quake. Totally puts paid to the hockey stick doesn't it. If that was False evidence appearing real, what other facts are totally incorrect. Increased levels of C02 are therefore not having an effect on Global temperatures. Nature produces much more C02 than we can even hope to.

"Increased levels of C02 are therefore not having an effect on Global temperatures."

So explain where is the cooling from the deep solar minimum we just passed and the cooling from the negative PDO switch? And the cooling from the recent batch of La Ninas? The skeptic blogs were all shouting about how these things would cause cooling but that cooling never materialized. Here's a suggestion: the warming from the small amount of CO2 rise in recent years has been more than enough to overwhelm a deep solar minimum, a PDO switch and two La Ninas.

"Nature produces much more C02 than we can even hope to."

But it absorbs even more than it produces. So on net we actually are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than nature is.

Lazarus - aren't you mixing up weather and climate? The fact is that the climate models which according to you have all been predicting 'basically the same thing' (which they don't seem to) have been criticised roundly for their predictive quality as they continue to diverge from observations. That said, it seems a worthwhile pursuit to continue to refine the models in the hope that they will improve. I'm just not convinced we should make policy decisions based on them as they stand.
What surprises me a little is how some people are quite happy to lambaste the long range weather forecasters for a poor prediction, but are fully supportive of the climate models when they clearly don't perform that well.

Quake. The last five winters have been pretty bad, this will carry on for 30/40 years. I haven't seen any global warming by the sun for over five years now, some scientists believe that stopped in 1998. What is going on on Britain is a reflection of what is happening in the rest of the world. Britain can't isolate itself from the economic storms we are going through, any more than it can isolate itself from the weather. Do you live on planet earth or are you on some alternate planet else where in the universe. I understand that there is a good film about this on at the moment in the cinema. Do you see a half empty or half full pint pot? Always looks on the bright side of life.

Re 14: "What is going on on Britain is a reflection of what is happening in the rest of the world."

It isn't - last year when we had very cold winter that was due to a blocking event which meant that elsewhere was excessively warm. The northern hemisphere as a whole was warmer than average.

But even just looking at the UK, we've had more significant warm records than cold records recently. This year had the warmest Spring and the 2nd warmest Autumn on record for example.

"I haven't seen any global warming by the sun for over five years now, some scientists believe that stopped in 1998."

That's because the Sun isn't causing the warming, if anything it's having a cooling effect. The data shows the Earth has warmed since 1998.

#9. - quake wrote:
"Also even in records like HadCRUT warming has clearly continued since 1998:"
Just wondering why you routinely use HadCRUT3v, when it doesn't seem to be the one preferred by the UKMO or CRU.
There doesn't seem to be much difference but I just wonder why complicate matters futher?

#10. - Lazarus wrote:
"So clearly this model is wrong as well. There was never such a system developing, just like there wasn't one in 1998 either."
I know you are being ironic, but as Paul Hudson points out, a few days ago, the models were predicting that this storm would be much further north.
This demonstrates how poor the models are at forecasting more than a few days ahead.

#15.- quake wrote:
"The data shows the Earth has warmed since 1998."
No, if anything, it shows precisely the opposite.
Most data shows that there has been no warming since 1998 and some shows cooling.

Quake. They had some extremely bad snow in the USA last year. There is a term in Hypnotherapy called "deletion", whereby somebody can't see something that is staring them in the face. For example their car keys. I suspect you only like information that backs up your false claim and you ignore the rest of the information.

@19 Sheffield_city

Yet you happily ignore the much warmer winter in Canada, whilst banging on about the USA and your back garden?

"But even just looking at the UK, we've had more significant warm records than cold records recently. This year had the warmest Spring and the 2nd warmest Autumn on record for example."

I won't dispute your numbers Quake, (since I generally trust you & QV to come to some agreement) but this geographical hot spotting, record game is a pet annoyance of mine. With global temps being higher (averaged over the decade) than they've ever been in (instrumental) recorded history you are simply stating the bleedin' obvious.

Think of it like this. (warning, bad analogy on the way!)
If I pop my luke warm dinner into the microwave for a few seconds, the whole plateful of food will be warmer. Some bits will have warmed more than others. In fact the sausages may well be at record temps. The point is, if the record or near record temps were not occurring in some places, then the average temp of the plate wouldn't have gone up. Only some incredibly uniform distribution of the heat could allow the whole plateful to warm up without pushing the record books in some areas.

It's a form of double counting which I think is used disingenuously by some (not you) who seek to exaggerate the warming (or dangers thereof) when in fact, not much has happened to global average temps over the last ten years or so.

Typically, the double counting form goes "Look Everyone!!!! A+B=C. Now A and B have increased, incredibly, so has C. Not only that, but amazingly, now C has increased, so have B and A. What more proof do you want - we're all doomed."

I use HadCRUT3v out of habit, not for any reason. Out of HadCRUT, UAH, RSS, GISTEMP, NOAA, BEST, OHC, only RSS shows a negative trend since 1998.

John_cogger. What about China and most of Europe. The list goes on.

Re 21, I agree with what you say there

Re 23 here's a map for last winter:

#22. - quake wrote:
"Out of HadCRUT, UAH, RSS, GISTEMP, NOAA, BEST, OHC, only RSS shows a negative trend since 1998."
You are correct of course.
I must admit that I had stupidly fallen into the trap of assuming that since 1998 was a warm year, and most datasets show a slight decline since 2001, that the same would apply since 1998.
In fact, the relatively low temperatures in 1999 and 2000 and high temperatures in 2005, do contribute to a very small positive trend in some datasets since 1998.
However, having said that, I don't think I was subtantially incorrect in what I said.
Of those datasets which do show an increase, in some cases, the upward trends are very small, so small that if they were negative, I am sure that it would be said that they were not significant. By the way, I am basing this on estimated values for 2011, using anomalies up to October.

Quake. Gordon Brown went on for years how he had beaten the boom bust cycle in the economy. But anybody with any sense knew that he was kidding himself. I can say the same for all this hocus pocus regarding man causing global warming, I told Paul the weather man that 5 years ago after working for a Carbon Management company. I take statistics with a pinch of salt unless I produced them. Satellite measurement of the temperature of the earth, is like looking at a world that is flat, rather than round. The biggest danger is pollutants and deforestation of rain forests. You and me breather out C02. One Volcano can have more effect on the world, than we can hope to do. The one going off in Iceland could seriously lower the temperature of the world by a few degrees, if it decides to go off, like it did a 100 years ago. The greatest danger as the earth cools, is that food production will drop and many people will starve because we haven't taken this into account.

The November UAH figures have been published at last.
Global = 0.123c, compared to a revised 0.116c for October.
NH = 0.075c, compared to 0.169c for October.
SH = 0.170c, compared to 0.062c for October.
The above NH/SH pattern seems to confirm the pattern suggested by HadSST2.
Dr. Jones says that the November figure is the same as that for October, but that is only after the revision of the October figure.
He also admits that he was wrong to predict a substantial fall in November.
No doubt P.H. will be blogging specifically on this topic in due course.

Yes, we had a bit of surprise snow here in the Yorks wolds this am. But it was very localised. Each of these recent depressions seems to be tracking a bit further south each time.

So, mild weather to return over Xmas perhaps? If truely mild, this will bring an upsurge in temps because I would guess that so far, December has been barely up to CET average.

Not sure I can be bothered to enter this interminable "discussion"/ conviction about climate models and day to day weather - the points have been made so many times before (surely you must have noticed?).

But, I suppose the explanation for the constant re visiting of the topic is that for sceptics, hope springs eternal, and each solitary swallow must be made to make a whole summer.

#28. - jkiller56 wrote:
"So, mild weather to return over Xmas perhaps? If truely mild, this will bring an upsurge in temps because I would guess that so far, December has been barely up to CET average."
Actually CET to the 14th is still 0.5c above "average".

"But, I suppose the explanation for the constant re visiting of the topic is that for sceptics, hope springs eternal, and each solitary swallow must be made to make a whole summer."
Actually, the reason for my own "sceptism", is to attempt in some small way redress the balance. Since advocates of AGW rarely mention any evidence which contradicts their point of view, someone has to do it.

"mmm... heard about Tallbloke getting a visit from the police? Computers confiscated and hard drives cloned etc. Anyone else feel uncomfortable about this?"

Very very uncomfortable - the police have done nothing about UEA who refused to release this legally requested information under FOI

But have decided to get heavy with this poor chap in case he had information which if the UEA had acted properly would be in the public domain anyway!

Hmmm. I heard about Tallbloke and my mind went back to Climategate 1. Now our Paul Hudson was one of the first recipients of that data. He will probably be feeling uncomfortable.

Better clean up your PC Paul and ready yourself for that knock on the door in the small hours.

Scary aye?

Re 31: It's a myth that Paul Hudson was given the data

After working for a Carbon Management company, does that make me a Whistleblower, as my view changed from a "believer" of man made Global warming into a non "believer".

TJ #31

Paul Hudson was not one of the first recipients of the data. This is a misunderstanding that keeps on keeping on.

QV # 27

you refer to Dr Jones but i think you mean Dr Spencer


my work here is done. back to the coal face

Spanglerboy. Margaret Thatcher shut most of the coal faces. Nigel Lawosn then said, she gave money into scientific research, to proof that coal caused Global warming, to add to her argument.

#34. - Spanglerboy wrote:
"you refer to Dr Jones but i think you mean Dr Spencer"
Yes, for some reason I get the two mixed up, which is very strange.

Well, it's been snowing quite heavily on the NE coast.
Not in the MO forecast yesterday but in this morning.
Anywhere else?

"Re 31: It's a myth that Paul Hudson was given the data"

disingenuous - paul hudson received information about thesed e-mails a month before the papers got it, difference being the Ö÷²¥´óÐã suppressed the story whereas the papers published immediately

FACT

As if the fact that the papers discussed the actual content whereas the Ö÷²¥´óÐã treated the hack/leak itself as the main story

FACT

36. QuaesoVeritas:

NOAA/NCDC also published QV: +0.4508, down from +0.5799 in October.

I see that the debate over the last ten years has re-emerged! Just to confirm that the WMO's *recommended* 30-year trend for NCDC remains +0.17C/decade, as does UAH's.

It now looks likely that, despite strong La Nina conditions early in the year (until mid May), 2011 will be in the top nine or ten warmest years recorded by UAH satellites since 1979. All of these warmest years have occurred within the last fourteen. The top ten coldest years since 1979 in UAH have all occurred prior to 1997.

This may or may not be significant.

"Hmmm. I heard about Tallbloke and my mind went back to Climategate 1. Now our Paul Hudson was one of the first recipients of that data. He will probably be feeling uncomfortable."

Paul was in fact the first ever recorded recipient of some or all of these e-mails, he was in fact able to confirm that the e-mails eventually published by the papers were the same as he had himself been sent

should imagine the police have already been on contact with the Ö÷²¥´óÐã

Paul has nothing to hide btw he's one of the good guys

newsdwr54,
Thanks for that.
Is that figure actually in the data file?
When I open it, there is no figure for November, but past figures seem to have changed.

Well newdr54, I would say it is significant only if we experience another step jump over the next ten years. Otherwise, its simply a reflection of where we are with global temps generally. I can't help but remind you that OHC has also been remarkably flat since around 2003 (unless you believe the sub 700m calcs) and I find it difficult to see how the global temps can fall too far away from this particular tree. As we've discussed before, I think ENSO just seems to bounce temps up and down around the OHC.

QV @37
My kids would like to complain about the lack of snow here in North Lincs. Nothing so far - not even sleet.

41. QuaesoVeritas

I got it via the NCDC 's 'State of Climate' update:

You can find links to the updated global monthly data at the bottom of that page.

lateintheday wrote:

"Lazarus - aren't you mixing up weather and climate?"

Since I was attempting to take the view of the 'skeptic' then that would seem a certainty.

"(which they don't seem to) have been criticised roundly for their predictive quality as they continue to diverge from observations"

Really? They have been rather too conservative in a lot of cases but somehow I don't think that is what you mean.
Skeptical Science has been running a series on how good predictions are going, the good and the bad;

newdwr54,
Thanks again.
Those are the links I normally use.
Actually when I download the separate land and sea files, the November figures are there, but not when I open the combined land/sea file.
I think this is a problem with my cache, when the file name hasn't changed, sometimes IE refuses to download the latest file.

42. lateintheday:

"... I think ENSO just seems to bounce temps up and down around the OHC."

I can see why it's seductive to think that way. It's an argument along the theme of 'it all works in cycles'. There are certainly ocean cycles (ENSO, PDO, AMO, etc) operating on all different times scales that all contribute to climate/weather variations.

The important thing about them though is that they don't, so far as is known, create *new* heat as and of themselves. A new peer reviewed study (Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011) was published just last week.

It used complex statistical methods to isolate and remove the short-term influences of ENSO, solar variability and volcanic activity from the temperature records of all the main providers, including satellite, since 1979. What it found was:

"The adjusted data show warming at very similar rates to the unadjusted data, with smaller probable errors, and the warming rate is steady over the whole time interval. In all adjusted series, the two hottest years are 2009 and 2010."

In other words they found that the effect of solar, ocean and volcanic cycles on the long term rising trend have been negligible, at least since 1979. The study concluded:

"Its unabated increase [i.e. temperature rise with the 'noise' removed] is powerful evidence that we can expect further temperature increase in the next few decades, emphasizing the urgency of confronting the human influence on climate."

You might be interested in a look at it. It's described here:

Well, I still can't download the combined land/sea global anomaly figure, but I have managed to download the separate NH and SH figures and the mean of those works out at 0.4547c.
On the other hand, the average of the separate global land and sea figures works out at 0.50c, which leaves me slightly confused, but I don't know whether these normally tie in.
Anyway, using the figure of 0.4508c, this represents quite a big fall in the global figure adjusted to 1961-90, from 0.442c to 0.313c.
The three datasets published so far all show falls in the global and NH anomalies and rises in the SH anomaly, so it may be that HadCRUT3 will show a fall in the global anomaly, despite the fact that comparison with the November 2010 HadSST2 suggests otherwise.

by the way for the previous poster who claimed the Ö÷²¥´óÐã had not been sent the e-mail info a month before the whole think went global in late november

just found Pauls comment that proves otherwise

"I was forwarded the chain of e-mails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the worlds leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article 'whatever happened to global warming'. The e-mails released on the internet as a result of CRU being hacked into are identical to the ones I was forwarded and read at the time and so, as far as l can see, they are authentic.

More later."

I stand by the fact that the emails were not sent to Ö÷²¥´óÐã nor Paul Hudson. Openside you've misinterpreted what Paul Hudson said. Read it closer and try to gauge what he's talking about.

newdwr54 said . . ."The important thing about them though is that they don't, so far as is known, create *new* heat as and of themselves. A new peer reviewed study (Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011) was published just last week."

I'm not suggesting that they do create 'new' heat. What caused the long term increase in OHC alongside an increase in atmospheric temps is another matter and as PB pointed out on the last thread, the two happening at the same time is not easy (though not necessarily impossible) to reconcile for skeptics.

Also, thanks for the link, but I've tried following Tamino's stats many times before and quite honestly, it's beyond my level of competence - simply out of my depth. I'm often left with picking through the comments sections on various (pro and anti) blogs for the dumbed down version, which I realise is 'Delingpolesque'.

@48, openside50,

You have misunderstood Paul Hudson's statement.

The 'chain' of emails referred to was simply that; a chain of emails discussing a post with both PH and CRU scientists being on the recipient list.

When the CRU leak occurred PH was able to look through the released emails and find this chain thus helping to confirm their authenticity.

"I stand by the fact that the emails were not sent to Ö÷²¥´óÐã nor Paul Hudson. Openside you've misinterpreted what Paul Hudson said. Read it closer and try to gauge what he's talking about."

so you think its a just an amazing coincidence that someone sends Hudson incriminating e-mails and a few weeks later someone else sends some of or all of those e-mails to the newspapers, who then unlike the Ö÷²¥´óÐã publish them?

come off it, by the way why havnt the Ö÷²¥´óÐã published those they received and why has Hudson been the subject of a gagging order about the matter ever since?

@46, newdwr54 wrote:

“ You might be interested in a look at it. It's described here: “

Tamino's argument is based on 'A new paper by Foster & Rahmstorf'.

You do know who Grant Foster is?

Re 52: I don't even think it's a coincidence, let alone an amazing coincidence

"by the way why havnt the Ö÷²¥´óÐã published those they received"

they can't publish what they haven't received.

"why has Hudson been the subject of a gagging order about the matter ever since"

you joking?

Im not joking - Paul made comment initially on the 23rd Nov 09 then again the next day, since when he has avoided comment on the e-mails who sent them waht was in them

In fact his last comment stated he was handing matters over to Harrabin about whom given the recent revelations enough said other than the chances of him investigating matters properly were lower than zero

The Ö÷²¥´óÐã's conduct over the entire climategate affair has been nothing short of scandalous

For instance why has Richard Black never commented on his 'part' in it where Mann claims he will 'have a word' to see what was happening after Paul had the temerity to question the religion

Newdwr54 # 46

The paper you refer to apparently inludes these words as quoted by you

"Its unabated increase [i.e. temperature rise with the 'noise' removed] is powerful evidence that we can expect further temperature increase in the next few decades, emphasizing the urgency of confronting the human influence on climate."

I have not read the paper but I do find it a little odd that a purportedly scientific paper strays into the territory of policy. Whether there is any need to confront the human influence on climate change is a policy matter. The fact that these scientists are emphasizing this shows that they are as much activists as scientists.

Another fail for the Team as far as I am concerned

53. RobWansbeck:

"You do know who Grant Foster is?"

You do know the paper has been properly reviewed?

Would you care to comment on the content, rather than the author?

"Tamino's argument is based on 'A new paper by Foster & Rahmstorf'."

Well newdwr54, as Rob points out, it was an odd way of putting the sentence together.

@57, newdwr54 wrote:

“ Would you care to comment on the content, rather than the author? “

With pleasure although I thought you could simply accuse an author of being big-oil funded and their work would be instantly discredited.

I'm guessing that you still don't know the answer to my original question ;)

Firstly, I haven't read the paper in detail. The FR11 paper shows that the recent levelling of temperatures can be explained, potentially, by subtracting the effects of factors such as TSI.

This is certainly plausible but there are concerns. The effects of these factors are shifted in time to minimize the effect of noise rather than being fixed by other estimates leading to the possibility of over-fitting. Also solar influence is defined purely in terms of TSI which may not be the case and the amplitude seems to have varied from other estimates that I have seen.

Does this mean that climate scientists are no longer blaming Chinese aerosols?