主播大秀

But, but, but.........

This cant be true, climate change - global warming - the drought!

Surely they cant have got it all wrong I thought we were supposed to be getting warmer drier snow a thing of the past etc :-)

@openside and the arctic would be ice free...



almost, but not quite touching the 1979-2000 average

wrong type of ice though...probably

ice free in summer, not ice free in April

ok, quake, my post does make it look like that's what I meant

apologies for the error, but how about that line?

If you wondered by it took so long to boil your kettle last Wednesday afternoon they had to turn off 500 turbines because it was...........wait for it......too windy!
And to think we're paying for this rubbish!

With a further inch on Sunday, the record in Sheffield will be crushed.

@7 Tim

Lucky your anti-snow roof is also waterproof!

Met Office 3-month Outlook
Period: April 鈥� June 2012 Issue date: 23.03.12



"The forecast for average UK rainfall slightly favours drierthanaverage
conditions for AprilMayJune
as a whole, and also slightly favours April being the
driest of the 3 months."

One excellent comment on the situation:-

3. At 15:52 27th Apr 2012, quake wrote:
ice free in summer, not ice free in April


Sorry to get all Geoff Shreeves on you quake, but Im afraid I have to tell you it aint going to be ice free in summer either - despite what the alarmists have been saying

The problem they now have is that its getting on for 10-15 years out from when they initially made their doom laden predictions and NONE of them have proven true, people are starting to notice

Well , this rain has certainly ended the superficial symptoms of drought with all looking remarkably lush. I must say I would rather have a wet spring than a wet summer - but please God - not both.

Ground water levels are still low here however, with some of the springs still dry. I guess it will take a while to percolate through.

Meanwhile - yet another freakish spell of weather following hard on the heels of others and so irratic too. What next I wonder?

GOODNESS - you don't think it could be something to do with climate change do you? No of course not - everything is perfectly normal and Hunky dory! After all, its just a ludicrous scare story dreamt up by "The Authorities" to make lots of money!

#9. - greensand wrote:
"One excellent comment on the situation:-"
You can always rely on Matt!

#11. - jkiller56 wrote:
"Well , this rain has certainly ended the superficial symptoms of drought with all looking remarkably lush. I must say I would rather have a wet spring than a wet summer - but please God - not both."
Given the coincidence of the Olympics and the Jubilee, it is almost certain to be a wet summer.
The application of "sods law", which clearly the MO haven't taken into consideration.

"GOODNESS - you don't think it could be something to do with climate change do you? No of course not - everything is perfectly normal and Hunky dory! After all, its just a ludicrous scare story dreamt up by "The Authorities" to make lots of money!"

Yes, I remember the days when rainfall and temperatures were always "average", and the weather was always "normal".
In the 1950's, I remember that any bad weather was blamed on nuclear tests, but now it's "global weirding".

@12. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

"You can always rely on Matt!"

Yup, quite liked that one!

What do you think we will get first, March HadCRUT3 or April UAH?

4. MangoChutney wrote:

"....how about that line?"

That line is a five-day trailing average for Arctic sea ice extent. The average extent value for the full month of April will be well below the 1979-2000 average, though probably high compared to recent Aprils.

Bear in mind that total Arctic sea ice is best expressed by volume, since it's basically a big ice cube: 20?

Arctic surface temperatures have been well above average this year to date, but took a downturn about two weeks ago, which may be helping surface ice to persist:

16. MangoChutney:

A rather confusing source you cite, I have to say.

He starts out by showing average rainfall in the UK to end of 2010. The UK is not south east England. Rainfall across the UK does not aggregate evenly across the region.

This point is clearly illustrated by his next illustration, which shows that in March-September 2011 the rain in the UK fell mainly on Scotland. Scotland is not south east England.

He then supplies a quote from Thames Water that was issued *before* the hosepipe ban was imposed, stating that at the end of March 2012 the main reservoirs in the south east were more or less full.

But he ignores issues such as usage, evaporation and leakage between reservoir and point of use. And all that rain that fell recently across east England - how much of that ended up in reservoir? Most of it is in the sea already.

Your source mentions a journalist who stood beside a lump of wood that would normally be covered by water at this time of year in that particular reservoir. It rained all day. At the end of the day the wood was still there and the water level was still well below it.

That's the reality of the situation S/E England is in.

@17, newdwr54 wrote:

鈥� 鈥� That's the reality of the situation S/E England is in. 鈥� 鈥�

S/E England is not a continent like Africa or Asia. The area of S/E England is little larger than what some would call a field. There is no shortage of water in England. Even if rainfall fell to 50% of average and stayed there forever there would be no shortage of water in England.

What there is is a lack of infrastructure due to water companies walking away with 拢1.5 billion profit while losing a quarter of water through leaks.

We could address this problem but it is so much easier to blame it all on climate change. The really big problem is that some people actually believe this.

#14. - greensand wrote:
"What do you think we will get first, March HadCRUT3 or April UAH?"
It could go either way.
I decided not to "chase" them any more, just to see how long it takes.
I don't know what the MO are doing these days.

18. RobWansbeck:

"There is no shortage of water in England. Even if rainfall fell to 50% of average and stayed there forever there would be no shortage of water in England."

Even if it is the case that there is sufficient water falling, the fact is that over time southern England still *needs* the 'average' rainfall that its infrastructure was designed to cope with, otherwise its normal water demands cannot be met.

According to the 主播大秀 weather site, in southern England during the 27 months between January 2010 and March 2012 only three of them had above average rainfall, while 19 had below average rainfall: /weather/feeds/17875407

The cumulative effect of this has caused a water shortage in that region.

You could argue that most regions in Europe get sufficient water falling as precipitation across their territory to meet the needs of their populations; but none of them have the infrastructure in place to capture more than a fraction of this water. Therefore they all rely on receiving more or less their 'average' rainfall over time - this is what the stresses built into exiting water storage and supply infrastructure are designed to cope with.

If southern England now has a *new* 'average' rainfall that is significantly lower than what it's current water infrastructure was built to handle, then expensive new infrastructure is required, otherwise some water usage compromises are going to have to be made. If the new lower rainfall is the result of climate change, as many scientists believe, then this is just another one of its many hidden costs.

Better infrastructure would help with domestic water supply. It would not stop there being drought conditions, help low river levels or fill the water table (and bore holes).

@21, john_cogger wrote:

鈥� Better infrastructure would help with domestic water supply. It would not stop there being drought conditions, help low river levels or fill the water table (and bore holes). 鈥�

Better infrastructure would reduce the need for extraction from rivers and bore holes.
We are already paying more than enough to provide better infrastructure:



Recent rainfall may have been below average but it is not abnormal. To suggest that a region receiving 70% of the average English rainfall is a drought region is nonsense. This would make most of the world a drought region.

#17. - newdwr54 wrote:
"He starts out by showing average rainfall in the UK to end of 2010. The UK is not south east England. Rainfall across the UK does not aggregate evenly across the region."

Actually, the graph shows rainfall until the end of 2011, but the MO make the point that the 2011 figures are provisional, although why they should change significantly now is beyond me. The annual figure for 2011 is about 1170mm, compared to the 1961-90 mean of 1058mm.

I agree however, that the overall UK figure may be slightly misleading, since the main problem appears to be in the South East. I prefer to use the HadUKP rainfall figures, since they go back to 1766 and put the situation into a better historical context, although the regional monthly figures only go back to 1873.

These show, that the annual rainfall for the SE in 2011 was 611mm, compared to the 1961-90 mean of 722mm, so below average, but not unusually so. The records show several years of below 600mm rainfall in the SE, including 1874 (593mm), 1887 (539mm), and 1921 (396mm). The 10 year ma rainfall figure is 724mm (above average), and the 30 year ma 737mm (above average).

Other arguments used to explain the drought, have been that we have had two unusually dry years, and/or two unusually dry winters. In the case of the annual figures, the 2 year ma is 638mm, again below average, but not unusually so. The two year ma has been lower on many occasions, including 1973 (570mm), 1921 (539mm) and 1874 (621mm).

In the case of winter, the current 2 year ma (including 2011/12), is 172mm, compared to the 1961-90 mean of 190mm. Again, there have been many 2 year winter periods with lower averages, including 2006 (126mm), 1993 (113mm), 1964 (87mm), 1934 (108mm), 1892 (111mm) and 1891 (108mm).
Based on the latest figures, the 10 year (195mm), and 30 year ma (202mm), winter rainfall figures for the SE are both above the 1961-90 average.

In short, based on these figures, there is nothing unusual about the recent rainfall figures in the SE and I think that the 主播大秀 is being misleading in it's coverage of the drought. Of course it is possible that it is simply repeating, parrot fashion, the information it is being given by the water companies and the government, without checking the facts.

Newdwr54 said @15. . .
"Arctic surface temperatures have been well above average this year to date, but took a downturn about two weeks ago, which may be helping surface ice to persist"

I asked a question about his a couple of threads ago but I don't think anyone supplied an answer - any takers now?

Does arctic surface temperature control the ice or does the ice control the temperature? My instinctive guess would be that since the water is warmer than than the air temps, when sea ice extent is lower than average, there is more heat transfer to the air than 'normal' and hence air temps rise. By my reading, Newdwr54 seems to suggest that it's the other way around, with higher air temps melting more sea ice.

It's a bit chicken and egg.

24.At 17:08 28th Apr 2012, lateintheday

Check the video out



"an animation showing how the oldest thickest sea ice has been progressively flushed from the Arctic Ocean over the last two decades."

@ 24. lateintheday

"ALL ABOUT SEA ICE"

"Thermodynamics : Melt"

24. ateintheday wrote:

"Does arctic surface temperature control the ice or does the ice control the temperature?"

It's not an either/or question. In the long term it's partly the former - ice reflects UV energy, so the more of it there is the less UV is absorbed at the sea surface, and vice versa. Also in the long term the ice is affected by 'bottom melt' due to the temperature of the sea surface, which has been rising at +0.53C/decade over the past 30 years (UAH).

In the short term Arctic sea ice is melted by local air temperature - 'surface melt' - and most of the early season melt in 2011 was caused in this way according to the US Navy. As the season progresses, seasonal sea temperature rise melts more ice from the bottom than is melted from the top.

Finally, the ice extent is also affected by sea currents and winds.

23. QuaesoVeritas:

Thanks for the suggestion re the HadUKP data. I agree with much of what you say. However from my calculations based on those data annual rainfall in the SE has declined at a rate of 10mm/decade over the past 10 years. In winter this is -5mm/dec, but in spring it's -27mm/dec, and in autumn it's 28mm/dec.

Perhaps another point worth bearing in mind is that average annual temperatures in the CET record in the decade leading up to 2011 were almost +0.7 C higher than they were in the decade leading up to 1993, and almost +1.0 C higher than the decade leading up to 1964; years that, as you point out, also had relatively low winter rainfall. This would have an appreciable impact on evaporation rates.

Having said that clearly population growth, increased urbanisation and failing infrastructure are having a major impact on water shortages in SE England.

We have been threatened with floods today for a week now. Why then did saturday evening's forecast only go till 5am and there was no forecast at all on the 主播大秀 news from 8.15 (when I turned on) till 10 am. I would have thought that potential flooding was of more immediate concern than William and Kates body language but not to the 主播大秀.

#28. - newdwr54 wrote:
"However from my calculations based on those data annual rainfall in the SE has declined at a rate of 10mm/decade over the past 10 years. In winter this is -5mm/dec, but in spring it's -27mm/dec, and in autumn it's 28mm/dec. "
I find it interesting that while you say that 10 year trends are too short in the case of global temperatures, you are using that period in the case of rainfall.
Were the above figures based on annual HadUKP data? I haven't looked at Spring/Autumn trends, but my own calculations suggest a trend of -7.0 mm per ANNUM, over the last 10 years, and +0.7 mm p.a. over the last 30 years, using annual figures. If you look at the rolling 10 year and 30 year trends, I think you will see that there is no evidence for a long-term change in rainfall levels. In particular the 10 year trend has swung between +25mm p.a. and -29mm p.a., and the current trend is nothing unusual. I will look at the seasonal trends when I get the chance.

"Having said that clearly population growth, increased urbanisation and failing infrastructure are having a major impact on water shortages in SE England."
I tend to agree with that. One thing we know for CERTAIN is that U.K. population has increased by about 50% since 1901, apart from the other factors, so it seems likely that consumption of water has increased at least in proportion to that. I haven't seen any water consumption figures quoted, but it would be interesting to see them.

#29. - William Pritchard wrote:
"We have been threatened with floods today for a week now. Why then did saturday evening's forecast only go till 5am and there was no forecast at all on the 主播大秀 news from 8.15 (when I turned on) till 10 am. I would have thought that potential flooding was of more immediate concern than William and Kates body language but not to the 主播大秀."
Are you referring to the forecast on 主播大秀 t.v.?
It does seem that the 主播大秀 news is obsessed by politics and "celebrity" activities, perhaps because it is easier to understand and more readily open to discussions based on opinions, rather than facts.

Re: Sea Ice. Thanks for the links folks.
My interest was sparked when we had that lovely warm weather about a month ago. I'd had to manually defrost the freezer as a large chunk of ice had grown at the back. Having removed this piece (which was the size of a doorstop sandwich) I threw it into the garden expecting that it would melt very rapidly in the balmy 18 degree weather. I was surprised that despite the air temps and a period of around 4 hours in direct sunlight, the ice had only lost about 30% of its size. There was still some left the following day, but this melted by lunchtime.
I later read a thread where Doug Cotton tangentally argued along the lines that radiation has less effect on ice than one might imagine. He stated that ice doesn't melt in a microwave as a direct response to the radiation, but as a result of transferred heat from other surfaces of substances. Whilst he was rounded upon by all and sundry for his other ideas, no one challenged him on this particular aspect.
(Please note, I'm not trying to support DCs wider/wilder? theories.)

@32, lateintheday wrote:

鈥� 鈥� I later read a thread where Doug Cotton tangentally argued along the lines that radiation has less effect on ice than one might imagine. He stated that ice doesn't melt in a microwave as a direct response to the radiation, but as a result of transferred heat from other surfaces of substances. 鈥� 鈥�

I have never understood what point Doug Cotton's experiment with ice cubes is trying to make. The frequency of a microwave oven is chosen to coincide with a vibrational mode of water molecules which leads to the heating. Unsurprisingly when water freezes this frequency changes and the heating no longer occurs. I fail to see what this has to do with existence or not of photons or 'back radiation'.

Rob - I agree it's often difficult to follow his line of reasoning and on the whole, his arguments seem well countered by competent scientists of both pro and anti AGW camps. This leads me to think that he's most probably wrong on a number of accounts. He also went on wacky religious rant recently which added little to his credibility.
I was interested in the physics of 'ice melt'. Greensand's link helped as did newdwr54's reply.

30. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

"I find it interesting that while you say that 10 year trends are too short in the case of global temperatures, you are using that period in the case of rainfall."

The reason I'm using 10 years in this case is because we are talking about water shortages at least partly due to relatively low rainfall 'recently'. I agree that there is no statistical change in precipitation in SE England over 30 years. However the 30 years ending 2011 were on average +0.5C warmer in the CET record than were the 30 years ending 1982 - the 30-year rolling average. This has a appreciable impact on evaporation rates, though I can't find the appropriate equation at present.

Over the past 10 years, as you say, precipitation in SE England has fallen at an average of -7.0 mm per annum. This of course equates to -70 mm per decade. When you consider that average rainfall in the last full 10 years in that region was just 720 mm per annum, the shortfall represents about a 10% reduction over ten years, which is not insignificant.

Reduced rainfall and increased temperatures are not currently the only, or even the most important, factors driving reduced water catchment in SE England. However it may be prudent to consider these factors when planning the redundancy built into any future water infrastructure projects in that region.

32.lateintheday:

The ice isn't melted by radiation directly. Only those parts of it that are non-reflective (which is very little of it). If you had covered your ice chunk with soot or ash it would have melted much more quickly in direct sunlight. Surface melt in the Arctic results from warming surface air temperatures, not direct UV radiation.

#35. - newdwr54 wrote:
"Over the past 10 years, as you say, precipitation in SE England has fallen at an average of -7.0 mm per annum. This of course equates to -70 mm per decade. When you consider that average rainfall in the last full 10 years in that region was just 720 mm per annum, the shortfall represents about a 10% reduction over ten years, which is not insignificant."
I don't think that it is valid to say that because the TREND over the last 10 years is -7mm p.a., that equates to a shortfall of 70mm.
In fact, the average SE rainfall over the last 10 years has been 723.8mm p.a., against the 1961-90 mean of 721.5, which equates to a SURPLUS of about 2.3mm p.a. or 23mm over 10 years, compared to 1961-90.
The simple fact is that AVERAGE rainfall in the SE is too low to meet current demand. That is nothing to do with "climate change", which has been blamed for the "drought". Ironically, an increase in rainfall to a level which would meet demand, would actually require a change in climate.

The equations for evaporation are the Penman equation for evaporation over open water or bare soil, the Penman Monteith equation for evapotranspiration. These were developed I think at Rothamsted in the 1940s/50s and the Shuttleworth equation in 1993. The temperature part I believe is reflected in the m term which is the gradient of saturated vapour pressure at that temperature.

The March HadCRUT3 anomaly figures are as follows:
Global, +0.305c, compared to +0.194c last month.
N.H. +0.352c, compared to +0.141c last month.
S.H. +0.259c, compared to +0.248c last month.
The global figure is much lower than I expected, based on UAH and AQUA CH5, and more in line with NCDC/NOAA and NASA/GISS.
While it is lower than expected based on the last 10 years HadSST2, it actually ties in well with that for last March, i.e. both HadSST2 and HadCRUT3 are slightly lower than last March.
The rolling mean anomaly for 2012 is now +0.239c, compared to +0.206c last month.
For what it is worth, the latest estimate for the April HadCRUT3, based on AQUA CH5, is about +0.46c, but as the estimate for March was +0.41c, the actual HadCRUT3 could be around +0.36c.

@39. QuaesoVeritas

Many thanks QV, will take a longer look later. I am quite interested to see what is happening with SSTs, the last month, as shown on the following, has had the NH looking quite cool:-



Reynolds weekly numbers showing global very similar to last year.

Can somebody tell me why the water board provide the same quality of water for drinking, cleaning the car, washing clothes etc. Wouldn't it be cheaper for them to provide free bottled water and then lower the quality of the water into the houses.

The UKMO have announced that based on the data series which starts in 1910, this April is already the wettest on record in the UK, with a figure of 121.8mm, compared to the previous record of 120.3mm, set in April 2000.

In theory, the provisional figure could be revised downwards, but with more rain forecast in the South, it seems unlikely.
April 2000 was also the wettest in the series for England & Wales, with a figure of 132.6mm, although the provisional figure of 130.4mm hasn't beaten that yet, although presumably there is still time.
April 2000 is also the record figure for England & Wales in the HadUKP series, which goes back to 1766, but the figure is 142.6mm, i.e. 10mm more than for the shorter series, with April 1782 in second place, with a figure of 139mm. It will be interesting to see whether this April beats those figures, when the HadUKP figures are announced.

#41. - Tim wrote:
"Can somebody tell me why the water board provide the same quality of water for drinking, cleaning the car, washing clothes etc. Wouldn't it be cheaper for them to provide free bottled water and then lower the quality of the water into the houses."
I am not convinced that it would be cheaper to provide bottled water, due to the cost of bottles and transportation, and bottling the water.
It doesn't make sense to me to deliberately reduce the quality of water provided to homes and then go to the trouble of having to transport bottled water to every home. Then there would be the inconvenience of having to store and use bottled water, when it is currently readily available from the tap.

Now what if you collected and stored non-hygenic water locally, from the roof and guttering, with equipment rented out by the water company and still had a hygenic supply for cooking and drinking, at a reduced rate?

Thanks again QV for your continued update of hadcrut3 figures
It must get an awful lot warmer this year if the met office forcast is to be achieved
Here are our forecasts for 2012

鈥淲补谤尘颈蝉迟蝉鈥�
+0.48 Met Office (+0.44)
+0.45 Newdwr54 (N/A)
+0.43 John Cogger (N/A)

鈥淣别耻迟谤补濒颈蝉迟蝉鈥�
+0.42 Mr Bluesky
+0.42 Lazarus
+0.41 quake (+0.36)
+0.40 Paul Briscoe
+0.40 Gagetfriend (+0.30)
+0.40 NeilHamp ( +0.27)

鈥淐辞辞濒颈蝉迟蝉鈥�
+0.37 Lateintheday鈥檚 Holly Bush
+0.34 QuaesoVeritas (+0.31)
+0.29 millinia (+0.24)
+0.29 LabMunkey (+0.25)
+0.28 ukpahonta (+0.35) (2011 winning entry)

Average U.K. rainfall for March/April (1971-2000) = 159.2mm
Actual rainfall March/April 2012 = 158.2 mm
Overall difference = minus 1.1mm

Otherwise, rainfall over the 2 months was virtually normal.

newdwr54 - thanks again for your response at 36.
You said . . ."Surface melt in the Arctic results from warming surface air temperatures, not direct UV radiation."
I must confess, whilst you're probably correct, I have some difficulty getting my head around this from a purely common sense point of view. Bearing in mind how long it took to melt my sandwich sized ice block in balmy 18 degree air temps, it seems illogical for sea ice to begin the melt season at such low temps. Perhaps I'm looking at the wrong measure, but according to the DMI above 80N, temps are around minus 18. They remain below zero for most of the year and only just manage to scrape above it for a couple of months each year. In the UK winter, snow and ice hangs around for a very long time if temps stay around zero.
So, even at the summer temps, it doesn't seem to be warm enough for surface air to really drive the melt. Personally, I find it easier to picture the warmer, summer ocean water melting the fringes of the ice extent. This would increase the surface area available for heat transfer from ocean to air and thereby push local temps up. In effect, the rising air temps being a result of the ice melt rather than the primary cause of it.

Common sense doesn't always cut it. I'll just have to live with that.

From the driest March in 50 years to the wettest April on record. Isn't this climate of ours wonderful for the noise that we call weather. If nature decides to throw a bit of snow at us in May and then produce a glorious June it will truly be a chaotic year, one to test the predictive capacity of the best mankind can offer.

also

April 2011: warmest on record
April 2012: wettest on record

Some recent others for the uk:

December 2010: coldest on record and 3rd driest on record
November 2011: 2nd warmest on record (missed 1st by 0.1C)

37. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

"I don't think that it is valid to say that because the TREND over the last 10 years is -7mm p.a., that equates to a shortfall of 70mm."

You're right, that was a bad way of putting it. I meant to say that in the past 10 years rainfall in SE England has fallen at a rate of 71mm/decade. The ten year trend is slightly downward, but as I've agreed before, there is no discernible change in the rainfall pattern in SE England measured over the all-important 30 year period.

Extending your example of comparing the 1961-90 rainfall average with that over the past 10 years to temperatures in South Central England: the 1961-90 average was 9.7C; the 2002-11 average was 10.7C (set available here: .

Average temperatures over the past 10 years in SC England were a full +1.0C warmer than they were on average during the standard reference period. Surely this is likely to have had some impact on evaporation rates, etc?

47. lateintheday wrote:

"...even at the summer temps, it doesn't seem to be warm enough for surface air to really drive the melt."

Premelting is a strange beast. Even below its melting point, once temperatures increase, a thin veneer of liquid water forms on the surface of the ice. This permeates into the surface, again depending on temperature and on the type of ice (new ice is more permeable).

This sets in motion another dreaded 'feedback', because the veneer of water has a slightly lower albedo than the ice and so starts to absorb solar radiation. So I have to backtrack at this point and admit that UV does indeed cause surface melt - but only as part of a feedback mechanism.

The initial melt (premelt) and the extent to which this 'darkens' the ice is dependent on surface temperatures - the warmer it is, or rather the 'less cold' it is, the more ice will melt from the surface.

newdwr54 . . .
I wouldn't consider that backtracking at all. Simplified explanations inevitably leave out important details. Thanks for filling in some of the blanks. It makes a bit more sense to me now.

Some may be interested to know that ENSO region 3.4 just moved into positive territory for the first time since July 2011: (Select 'NINO3.4 SST' from the 'variable' drop-down list, and select 'data sorted by date' to get the latest text.) It isn't officially in La Nina territory until it is above +0.5 and even then it has to stay there for a number of months before La Nina conditions are declared.

The lag between SSTs in 3.4 and global surface temps is about 3 months. Therefore, even if this does develop into a La Nina event, I fear it may have come too late to rescue my 2012 prediction for HadCRUT3 (+0.45C), which was dealt a body blow by the low Jan-Feb temps.

#53. - newdwr54 wrote:
"The lag between SSTs in 3.4 and global surface temps is about 3 months. Therefore, even if this does develop into a La Nina event, I fear it may have come too late to rescue my 2012 prediction for HadCRUT3 (+0.45C), which was dealt a body blow by the low Jan-Feb temps."
Don't give up hope yet!
I have been looking in a very crude manner at the relationships between ENSO 3.4 and the various global temperature anomalies. This isn't easy because the ENSO 3.4 anomalies are in weeks, which don't coincide with the monthly global anomalies, but I have calculated approximate monthly ENSO 3.4 anomaly figures for the purpose of the exercise.
While I agree that the lag is about 3 months, there seems to be a lot of variation.
For example, while ENSO 3.4 and the global anomalies fell between July 2007 and Jan. 2008, the global anomalies rose in Feb. 2008, when ENSO 3.4 was still falling.
The global anomalies peaked in March 2008, then fell until May 2008, while ENSO 3.4 was still falling.
On the other hand, the peak in ENSO 3.4 in Dec. 2009. was followed by a peak in global anomalies in March 2010.
If it is assumed that the rise in the March 2012 global anomalies corresponds to the start of the rise in ENSO 3.4 in Feb. 2012, then the next two months of global anomalies should see similar rises to those in March.
On the other hand, the level at which ENSO 3.4 was in April, would only correspond to a HadCRUT3 figure of around 0.45c by June.

Sorry, the following sentence should read:
"The global anomalies peaked in March 2008, then fell until May 2008, while ENSO 3.4 was still RISING."

newdwr54

'It isn't officially in La Nina territory until it is above +0.5'

El Nino is the positive phase, La Nina the negative.

Bob Tisdale has just declared the end to the current La Nina episode.

56. ukpahonta wrote:

'El Nino is the positive phase, La Nina the negative.'

Yes, thanks for the correction. I must have lost the run of myself in all the excitement.

54. QuaesoVeritas:

One thing I do notice is that the response in AMSU ch 5 to fluctuations in 3.4 are much more rapid and can be much more extreme. I found 9 weeks to be the best fit for this pairing. But even here there are glaring anomalies.

I don't know what to make of it. But if the 9 weeks for ch5 is right, then we should start to see cooling at that level for a week or so, followed by renewed warming by mid May.

It's a fair, btw, to point out that this El Nino warming is part of a natural cycle of ocean heat transfer. Just as the La Nina phase was not 'global cooling', so the El Nino phase is not 'global warming'.

It's the underlying trends we need to watch, as always, based on 30 years' continuous data.

Roy Spencer seems to be suggesting that the April UAH figure will be later than usual this month:

59. QuaesoVeritas:

I see that Roy has invented a new way of interpreting the US temperature record based on population growth (even though he uses temperature stations based at airports).

He notes that the linear warming trend during 1973-2012 using USHCN is +0.245 C/decade; while using CRUTem3 it's +0.198 C/decade. Using his own insightful process Roy has managed to produce a trend of +0.013 C/decade over the same period - about a 20th of the official USHCN value.

Global warming is cancelled - once again.

Re 60.

Forgot to add that using Spencer's own UAH lower troposphere data, 1978-2012, the trend in the US mainland is +0.22 C/decade. Don't know whether there's been an increase in high rise dwellings across the US that may have influenced this or not?

newdwr54 . . I think you may have mis-read Dr Spencer's numbers.
He states . . .
"Note that the linear warming trend I get (+0.13 deg. C/decade) is about 50% of that I get from analyzing the USHCN data (+0.26 deg. C/decade)."

I'm not terribly convinced by his new method so far. Having said that, he hasn't really fleshed it out properly and I suspect he will find more incremental adjustments necessary before taking it any further. Early stages.

and newdwr54, further to our arctic sea ice discussion earlier you may be interested to know that someone has discovered some old DMI charts (about 1890 onwards) which may help to put the recent anomalies into perspective.

The topic is covered today over at WUWT. I think this will prove to be an important 'discovery' for those who study this area. Some comments already suggesting that there is a periodic (60year) oscillation evident in the record. Others suggest that these charts prove that the recent minimums are not as unusual as we've been led to believe.
Quite how they've come to these conclusions so quickly is beyond me so I shall reserve judgement for now.

For a bit of speculation:


Cross posted at WUWT with comments

QV,

This may interest you:


Keep an eye out for an explanation of the modifications.

#65. - ukpahonta wrote:
"Keep an eye out for an explanation of the modifications."
Very interestng, but very confusing.
Clearly an explanation is required.
However, there seems to be an underlying assumption that, at least in part, Crutem4 has been arrived at by adjustment to Crutem3, rather than using raw temperature data.
I don't know how Thurstan can be certain of this. Is it not possible that the raw data has been used and that the results give the appearance of being arrived at by adjustment to Crutem3?
Clearly however, Thurstan has gone into this in a lot of detail, and should know what he is talking about.
I can't really believe that Hadley/CRU have deliberately set out to adjust data in order to emphasise warming.

For what it's worth, based on the final April figures for AQUA CH5, my estimated global anomaly for UAH is +0.25c (+/- 0.05c), and for HadCRUT3, +0.46c (+/- 0.1c).

@66 QuaesoVeritas wrote:

鈥淚 can't really believe that Hadley/CRU have deliberately set out to adjust data in order to emphasise warming.鈥�

Agreed, however there needs to be an explanation. It is not possible to comprehend the 鈥渂lock adjustments鈥� irrespective of whether they have been applied to the 鈥渞aw鈥� or CRUTEM3 data. Would not the production of 鈥渂lock differences鈥� between two databases at least infer a common base? Time will tell.

Also I am concerned with the following statement from Thurston's post:-

"The CRUTEM4 database appears even more like one which has been assembled by amateurs with little concept of accuracy or integrity."

Far better to present the findings and await responses, which surely must come.

Warmer milder winters snow a thing of the past, longer drier hotter summers.........


Just had a look out of my window - guess what

69. openside50 wrote:

"Just had a look out of my window - guess what"

It was spring?

#69. - openside50 wrote:
"Just had a look out of my window - guess what"
Snowing?
It's cold enough "up north"!

Record drought interspersed with periods of very heavy rain totals - welcome to the new global climate of increased extremes, courtesy of you know what. Yeah we know no single weather...can be blamed...but how long can "skeptics" use that as a reason to dismiss the connection entirely?



There's some discussion on Arctic sea ice. Arctic sea ice extent has been trending downward much faster than models projected.



If sea ice extent did actually have a sustained rebound, modellers might feel a little better, but much of the increased winter and early spring ice is new, likely to not be sustained through the summer. See the ice thickness trends. Summer arctic sea ice will be history at some point over the next few decades. It's no longer a matter of "if".

"Clearly however, Thurstan has gone into this in a lot of detail, and should know what he is talking about."

Don't mistake "detail" for veracity.



Expanding coverage in high northern latitude areas, much like the other surface products at NASA and NOAA, is the primary difference in recent trends from V3.

I'd recommend quoting V4 data going forward but they don't yet have data extending beyond 2010. Must also be a conspiracy.

An amusing insight into the workings of SkepticalScience here:



And people still link to them :)

markb2020
"Summer arctic sea ice will be history at some point over the next few decades. It's no longer a matter of "if"

I'd heard that this was predicted to be around 2015. Also heard 2013 somewhere. Someone else said 2020 and another said 2050. Lots of people say 2100. Is there actually any predicted date that we can settle on and discuss sensibly?

Also, did you happen to see those newly discovered DMI maps which chart sea ice from around 1890 - 1960? I've not heard a jot about them from the AGW side so far.

Rob,

Cheering the hacking of a website and posting of private IP addresses of contributors online is not an example of commendable behavior.



Thanks for that ad hom response, though. One wonders why anyone still reads BishopHill.

LITD,

2035 or so is a reasonable projection.



The conservative estimates don't appear to be realistic at this time.

WoW, a troll being brought in on a 主播大秀 web site, the priesthood must be worried.
Is realclimate still going I thought it was closing down through lack of interest?

#72. - MarkB2020 wrote:
"Record drought interspersed with periods of very heavy rain totals - welcome to the new global climate of increased extremes, courtesy of you know what. Yeah we know no single weather...can be blamed...but how long can "skeptics" use that as a reason to dismiss the connection entirely?"
In what sense have we had a "record drought"?

markb2020
according to the all knowing wikipedia . . .
"Decreases in sea-ice extent and thickness are expected to continue over the next century, with some models predicting the Arctic Ocean will be free of sea ice in late summer by the mid to late part of the century (IPCC 2007)"

Are you saying that it's worse than we thought?

And also from the same article . . .

"There was a period from the late 1920s to the early 1950s during which the Arctic was almost as warm as it is today, though the spatial pattern of today's warming differs from that of the earlier period. Sea ice extent has decreased by 5.25% to 8.25% since 1979, the beginning of the reliable satellite record, with a larger decrease in summer (12.5% to 24.5%) than in winter (IPCC 2007)."

This seems to tie in reasonably well with those DMI maps. A period of warmer temps during the early 20thC with low summer sea ice extent. This was followed by growth in sea ice extent during the mid 20thC until the 1970s with another downturn since then.

So, do you think there could be a cyclical pattern in play here? Presumably not, since your estimated date for the disappearance of summer sea ice (2035) would sit slap bang in the middle of a potential sea ice growth phase.

The DMI maps, if correct, suggest that arctic sea ice in recent years is lower than it's been for over 100 years. All I found in a quick search was an August map for 2010 but it clearly had less ice than any of the DMI August maps in the early 20th century.

Yes Quake, and it's warmer now too. My point is simply that as a layman, I was under the impression that arctic sea ice was in a 'death spiral' caused by ever rising temps due to AGW. But the the DMI (and wiki) information doesn't gel with that. Clearly, extent was lower in the early 20thC than in 1979, but we had already experienced half a degree of warming by then. So, if ice extent was primarily determined by global average temps (as in death spiral), we would expect to see 1970s ice, lower than early 20thC.

Now that JB chap has been slated in the past (still is) for daring to suggest that sea ice extent will rebound over the coming years (and may have already started) and yet it seems he may actually have a point. Could arctic sea ice extent be roughly described as a function of a natural oscillation and a global trend in temps?
Maybe.

LITD,

I'm disappointed. From the source I provided

"Recent Arctic sea ice coverage is the lowest in the satellite record (since 1979) and is occurring at least 30 years earlier than was anticipated in the recent assessment report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

Your data is a bit out-dated.

LITD writes

"Could arctic sea ice extent be roughly described as a function of a natural oscillation and a global trend in temps?"

It's a little more complicated than that. Greenhouse gases result in more warming in the Arctic than the global average. Black carbon aerosols are another contributor to Arctic warming. Natural variation exists, as can be seen throughout the last 2000 years, and certainly summer 2007, but given the other 2 factors, this does not imply an imminent sustained recovery. Ice thickness is declining too, which doesn't bode well for Arctic ice.

Worthy to point out how ridiculous contrarians look when making hay out of short-term spring trends. For instance, Mango writes above.

"almost, but not quite touching the 1979-2000 average"

One week later, and we're halfway to the 2007 value.

@76, MarkB2020 wrote:

鈥� 鈥� Cheering the hacking of a website and posting of private IP addresses of contributors online is not an example of commendable behavior. 鈥� 鈥�

As John Cook, the head boy at SkS, wrote:
鈥淕ot an email from Brian P this morning saying that the whole forum was publicly available to him, even when he wasn't logged in. I checked and this was true. 鈥� 鈥� I have no idea how this happened. Several possibilities come to mind. First, I did it by accident when I was screwing around with the database sometime. Someone with admin access (there are about half a dozen SkSers with this access) made the change. Or we were hacked in some way and the hacker changed the levels. None of the options seem likely to me but the most likely is human error on my part although the fact that the admin forum was still set at admin level belies some kind of blanket wiping of all levels.鈥�

All the evidence points to simple human error rather than hacking. While it would have been better if user information had been redacted it is a known fact that SkS itself had placed this information in the public domain.

This is in stark contrast to the behaviour of SkS where documents obtained by fraud were published complete with peoples employment records and private home addresses:

markb2020 @82
I feel deeply ashamed at causing you disappointment - very remiss of me.
Now, what are you on about? What data?

"However, the hacked file contains threads started up to a month after that problem was discovered and corrected. "

Nice try there, Rob. Even if somehow Skeptical Science wasn't hacker-proof later, the same argument can be used that the Heartland Institute revealing their strategies and anonymous donors was entirely their fault, since they were careless in sending the information and not verifying the recipient. I have to wonder why the double standard?

Have you heard the latest news?