Is summer 2011 set to be a scorcher?

The gentleman doing the netweather forecast has had an exceptional record over the Winter period so I'm watching his forecast for summer closely. I know one thing if it goes wrong he'll will go and look at what where he's got it wrong.

Old Joe I'm afraid forecasts a cold winter every year and finally got it right last winter. Of course if you keep forecasting the same eventually you'll hit lucky.

My own views on summer warm and dry but no 76.

What I really want to know is what the Met Office forecast. Because judging by their last 8 and counting seasonal forecasts, we can expect just the opposite.



Oh but their wonderful climate model is accurate though, move along, nothing to see here!

I think everyone forecast a cold winter last year apart from the Met Office? Can't help thinking some of these outfits, netweather included, are just publicity seekers.

"Can't help thinking some of these outfits, netweather included, are just publicity seekers."



Well, if their forecasts are no good, they lose their customers.



If the Met Office's forecasts are no good, they start bleating for more investment in their computers.



Take a guess from these incentives who provides the best forecasts. Hint: it's not the troughers at the Met Office.

Joe Bastardi was more than just lucky last winter. Not only did he call the bad December, but crucially he called the end of the bad weather after Christmas as said it would not return. Unfortunately Piers called for a cruel January so Bastardi won the battle of the sceptics there. The MO were atrocious, and the least said about their performance the better, predicting probabilities of 30%, 30%, and 40% for warm, average, and cold conditions could have been done by a 5 year old - pathetic considering they outgun Piers and Joe by thousands to one in terms of funding.

I suspect a typically British summer this year, with some dry and hot spells interspersed with mobile westerlies. More rain than this spring, but probably around average. This does not preclude flooding as any heavy storm can randomly occur and produce floods from nowhere even in a dry spell, look at Sheffield recently.

Bastardi's quite a sensationlist ideologue when it comes to climate science. He's been at the "global cooling" meme for awhile, predicing a horrific mini ice age leading up to 2030, believes that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is not caused by humans, and when I read his rantings, he reminds me of a holy roller preacher.



https://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/12/11/accuweather-forecaster-climate-change-it-s-ice-not-fire-you-re-going-be-w



2009 was followed by a year tied for the warmest on record. But now with the strong la Nina peak, I suspect he's at it again.



So although it's hard to take anything he says seriously, long-range weather forecasting is apples and oranges compared to climate science. Does anyone know of a thorough objective analysis of the success of different long-range forecasters? I'm not talking about "it was cold last December here so Bastardi was right" (his supporters tend to remember when he was right), but something much more comprehensive.

Well done Paul for providing some insight to the 'hype' that was in the main stream press over the weekend. So if I summarise the findings, it's still all to play for...



Netweather : hot and sunny

Met Office: no comment

Piers Corbyn: unsettled

Joe Bastardi: a 'decent English summer'

Paul Hudson: a summer along the lines of 1976, [txt removed] would be a big surprise.



I just hope Easter wasn't our summer, but that Joe is right for a decent winter :)

Excellent summary - Thank you Paul.

Here we go again! Out of that scatter of contrasting forecasts one is bound to be more or less right. And if they are we' ll certainly hear about it, regardless of whether they really know what they are talking about. The "wrongs" will just lie doggo until the chance comes again , hoping we'll all forget their errors -as usual.



The MET are wise to keep quiet though, of course, for some whatever they do will be wrong!

As someone who often follows Long range forecasts I shall post my views. During recent years the LRF from Net Weather have been incredibly accurate especially last winter. As for Piers Corbyn and I feel its best if I don't make a comment! Lastly I have found Joe B to get some forecasts right but generally his forecasts are more wrong than right. Having said this I don't doubt Joe B knowledge on meteorology but I feel his forecasts are more accurate for the US than Europe. The problem I have with some LRF is they have a hidden agenda i.e sensational to grab headlines. However after following the Net weather forecasts for many years this does not apply to them. I can think of many offenders who I will not name!

My summer forecast for the UK ... slightly warmer than average, dry in the southeast trending to near normal rainfall in the northwest ... monthly temperatures likely to be 0.5 to 1.0 C above average each month ... hottest spell late July and early August, potential for some temperatures near 36 C in southeast England ... the greatest risk of severe storms in west Midlands, northwest England and southwest Scotland. With the current dry conditions, and projected 70% normal rains in southeast England, could see drought intensifying somewhat. As I've posted on Net-weather, I consider this fairly similar to their outlook, but perhaps somewhere a bit closer to normal than the suggested 1976 analogue.



One thing that could mess up any LRF at this point is the Icelandic volcanic dust. If a lot of that enters western European circulation, it could increase cloudiness and precip.



The reason why I am less bullish than some on a hot summer (except for the one spell I mentioned) is that I suspect the circulation over North America will favour low pressure near Newfoundland and high pressure mid-Atlantic. This may keep the jet stream approaching the UK and Ireland from the WNW with periodic rises and falls, a pattern which is usually rather bland and warmer than average but not conducive to long spells of heat. Southeast England might get into one spell of heat that builds up over France in mid-July. That would lift this jet to the north of Scotland for a while, but when tropical activity ramps up in August, I then expect the flow to become a bit more moist southwesterly, returning conditions to closer to average.

#6. - MarkB2020 wrote:

"2009 was followed by a year tied for the warmest on record. But now with the strong la Nina peak, I suspect he's at it again."

You mean globally and that depended on which dataset you used. I believe that according to CRU figures it tied for third warmest.

Aren't the M.O. not still producing forecasts but not making them public?

Unless, of course they turn out to be correct.

Earlier this year I was convinced that we were going to have a hot summer, but now I am not so sure. It is quite common to have "good" springs and very "poor" summers. The terms "good" and "poor" depend on what your attitude is to weather.

Certainly it has been an unusual year as far as the seasonal patterns are concerned and given that everything seems to be happening earlier than usual, does this mean an early and lengthy cold winter? I also wouldn't be surprised to see a very wet Autumn.

MarkB2020 @6

are you by any chance a professional mudslinger? On the last thread you threw whatever you could at Anthony Watts and here, you give Joe Bastardi the same treatment.

Having read many of their posts over the last 18 months, I consider your comments wholly misrepresentative, insulting and prejudiced.

The long range forecasts and climate change views of Joe Bastardi were first brought to my attention by reading this blog, the winter before last I think. What impressed me in particular about Bastardi's forecasts was his willingness to put it all on the line and explain in laymans terms, how he had reached his forecast.

On climate change, he has written to the effect that whilst greenhouse gases do indeed warm the planet, his view is that CO2 is not the primary driver and that its forcing is most probably marginal. He believes that natural cooling is on the way, principally through the combined effects of the cold phase of the PDO, the coming cool phase of the AMO and the very real possibility of a back to back decrease in solar activity. He's stated more than once, that if these three factors do not significantly cool the planet as expected (back to early 1970s level), then he will be forced to re-think his position on climate forcings. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. What's more, he's also said that what happens to temps after the natural cooling phase ends will will be crucial in term of assessing the true signal for AGW.

Mr Corbyn is fairly accurate, certainly better than the one we actually pay for.

#14. - lateintheday wrote:

"MarkB2020 @6

are you by any chance a professional mudslinger? On the last thread you threw whatever you could at Anthony Watts and here, you give Joe Bastardi the same treatment."

Actually, I agree with much of what MarkB2020 says about J.B.

QV - I suppose we each receive our very own, personal take home message from whatever we read. JBs presentation style is admittedly, quite unusual. Often seems a little off the cuff/unrehearsed. His position on the 'coming cold' is, in my opinion, often misrepresented by his detractors. A return to 1970s temps hardly implies 'mini ice age' which could only occur though a much longer period of back to back low solar cycles. Some suspect that this may actually occur, though most accept that it cannot be predicted with any level of confidence.

Anyway, I trust your view is based on 'horses mouth' rather than hearsay, in which case we'll have to disagree on this.

realy interesting article paul- thanks.

Here is Joe Bastardi's winter forecast for 2010/2011 as reported by his former employer AccuWeather: https://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/40340/accuweathercom-winter-forecast-1.asp



"Across the southern tier of the nation from the interior Southwest to the Gulf Coast and Carolinas, Bastardi is calling for a "non-winter" this year with above-normal temperatures and below-normal precipitation."



In fact that region suffered one of its worst winter of cold and precipitation on record, right through until March. Many all time low temperature and snowfall records were broken.



Piers Corbyn said in September 2008 that global warming was over, global cooling had begun and would continue for decades. There followed the warmest consecutive 18 month period in the global temperature record.



People talk about the winters of 2009/10 and 2010/11 as if some sort of frigid period of Armageddon had begun. In fact in NASA's 130 year record Dec-Feb of 2009/10 was the 10th warmest on record globally, and 2010/2011 was the second warmest globally! https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt



Does that sound like an impending period of cold to you?

This long range forecasting is a great game! I think I'll have a go.



My prediction: a mostly cool unsettled summer especially over England and Wales. The far south east getting some decent spells. Best conditions in the north west, where in western Scotland it may be regarded as quite a good year.



Conditions of acceptance : This forecast is a pure hunch and if proved correct I deny any secret formula or exceptional understanding of weather forecasting. So, no callers please!

lateintheday writes:



"His position on the 'coming cold' is, in my opinion, often misrepresented by his detractors. A return to 1970s temps hardly implies 'mini ice age' which could only occur though a much longer period of back to back low solar cycles."



This indicates that you haven't really paid much attention to what Bastardi has said, and certainly didn't read the article I linked. From the article:



"I have something behind me here called the ‘Triple Crown of Cooling,'" Bastardi said. "I'm just as worried that in the next 30 years that we are going back into a period back in the early 1800s which was a mini-Ice Age.



Of course, none of his views are remotely worth publishing in academic literature. Here is what the effect of a Maunder Minimum would be on global mean temperature over the course of the century.



https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=65



I understand what Bastardi "believes" on climate change. His beliefs aren't based on robust scientific analysis, or any understanding of basic physics, and this should be obvious when reading his arguments. He's an entertainer, and a pretty good one. He gets his relative fame from effective preaching to individuals with no scientific background and a strong contrarian bent.



Now I also mentioned long-range weather forecasting is a different field, and although the above tends to make one doubt Bastardi's credibility on anything, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here, asking others here if there is a comprehensive objective review of the success of various long-range forecasters, something that goes well beyond basic cheerleading of a successful forecast or two. So far it's only anecdotal.

MarkB2020 from your link . . .

"Let's say for the sake of argument that the sun does enter another Maunder Minimum over the 21st century. What effect would this have on Earth's climate? Simulations of the climate response if the sun did fall to Maunder Minimum levels find that the decrease in temperature from the sun is minimal compared to the warming from man-made greenhouse gases (Feulner 2010). Cooling from the lowered solar output is estimated at around 0.1°C (with a maximum possible value of 0.3°C) while the greenhouse gas warming will be around 3.7°C to 4.5°C, depending on how much CO2 we emit throughout the 21st century (more on this study...)."



This is nonsense of the first order. Based purely on model simulations which assume forcings that fit the AGW theory and incidentally, quite at odds with many of the pro AGW comments on this site. Consider the number of responses over the last few threads which have sought to excuse the lack of significant warming on the so called 'deep solar minimum'.

Honestly, you'll have to do much better than that!

22. lateintheday:



It may be the case that many of the modelled scenarios from AR4 underestimated the impact of reduced solar forcing from 2000-2010/11.



However, it must be acknowledged that global temperatures 'still' rose slightly on average during this period of reduced solar input. That observation obviously needs a little explaining.



Increased greenhouse gas concentrations provide a ready, coherent and economical explanation for this phenomenon.



Solar fluctuation does not.

lateintheday writes: "Based purely on model simulations which assume forcings that fit the AGW theory and incidentally, quite at odds with many of the pro AGW comments on this site. Consider the number of responses over the last few threads which have sought to excuse the lack of significant warming on the so called 'deep solar minimum'. "



Why do you feel the study is at odds with such comments? The study indicates that reduced solar activity would offset some warming expected from greenhouse gases, although it appears small compared to the expected net warming. This is similar to the recent decade, where an extended solar minimum has resulted in substantially reduced solar activity, a significant portion of what would be needed to reach a Maunder-like minimum, likely offsetting some warming. It's odd that skeptics suddenly downplay it, instead choosing to proclaim that a somewhat smaller trend is evidence that manmade greenhouse gases don't cause much warming, which presumes natural forcings have little effect.



We can also look at the 2nd part of Bastardi's alleged "triple crown of cooling", which is long-term ocean cycles. Note that PDO, perhaps the most prominent of these, has trended downward along with solar activity over a similar timeframe.



Bastardi doesn't understand and doesn't want to understand why manmade greenhouse gases cause warming. There's well-established physics behind it, and strong evidence of an overall positive feedback to climate forcings, but he routinely dismisses it all. He instead wants to believe that nearly all changes are "natural". Accordingly, global mean temperature should have taken a substantial plunge as 2 of his 3 "triple crowns" have already trended sharply downward over the last decade. Yet the trend remains positive by most measures.



https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2000/plot/jisao-pdo/from:2000/scale:0.2/offset:0.6/plot/gistemp/from:2000/trend/plot/jisao-pdo/from:2000/scale:0.2/offset:0.6/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:2000/scale:0.003/offset:0.4/plot/sidc-ssn/from:2000/scale:0.003/offset:0.4/trend



newdwr54 writes:



"It may be the case that many of the modelled scenarios from AR4 underestimated the impact of reduced solar forcing from 2000-2010/11. "



I'm not sure they do, but I think typical models use constant solar output (for lack of robust solar projections), so if solar activity trended one way or the other, observations would deviate from models accordingly, at least in the short-term.

No global warming since 1995, some the last few commenters should remember that.



You can cherry pick La Nina years for your start point all you want in order to torture some kind of trend from the data, but it won't wash.

25. PingoSan wrote:



"No global warming since 1995..."



This graph shows that there 'has' been global warming since 1995: https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1995/plot/wti/from:1995/trend



Even UAH data taken in isolation since 1995 shows global warming: https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1995/plot/uah/from:1995/trend



What do you mean?

MarkB2020

Bastardi doesn't understand and doesn't want to understand why manmade greenhouse gases cause warming. There's well-established physics behind it, and strong evidence of an overall positive feedback to climate forcings, but he routinely dismisses it all. He instead wants to believe that nearly all changes are "natural"



Well that's your view and you're perfectly entitled to it. I'm certainly not going to try to defend JB (he wouldn't want me for an advocate) other than to say that you probably take him more literally than me. I rather like his style and therefore, I suppose some of his off the cuff remarks, attempts at humour/exaggeration don't particularly bother me. You point about the PDO and solar decline not showing up as a dramatic drop in temps is simply ludicrous. I'm not a scientist, but neither am I a half-wit.



Both yourself and newdwr54 assume that these forcings should be both immediate and perfectly linear in response, in order to qualify as having a significant influence on climate. This is clearly not the majority view of those skeptics who believe that solar plays a bigger part than CO2. The interaction/feedback that is supposedly due to an increase in a trace gas could surely be attributed to other forcings. Stratospheric water vapour, cloud cover change, ice melt, sea surface temperatures etc are all factors which can alter temps. Water changing states in response to forcings and subsequently, modifying the effect of future forcings by its very change.

That there is at least, some correlation with historical temps and solar activity points an accusing finger. If you could for one moment, consider that its influence may be chaotically modified through water - oceans, clouds, vapour and ice then actually, there wouldn't be so much disagreement between us.

In light of newdwr54 comments at 23, I shall venture even further out on a limb . . .



There was an interesting article at WUWT which gave the great unwashed like myself, a simple introduction to DTR. Asking the basic question, why does max daily temperature occur around 3 hours after noon (maximum solar forcing).

The answer revealed, my first thought was . . could this be an example of scale symmetry, one of nature's fractals?





Thoughts on a postcard please.

27. lateintheday:



"Both yourself and newdwr54 assume that these forcings should be both immediate and perfectly linear in response..."



I've never suggested that any forcing should have an immediate and linear response in global temperatures, or in any other aspect of the climate system. Clearly there are too many forcings for this to be the case.



But in the case of solar input, there is a clear relationship between sunspot activity and temperatures during the first part of the 20th century: https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1900/to:1960/normalise/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/to:1960/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1900/to:1960/normalise/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/to:1960/trend



At most there is a lag of about 3-4 years between increased/decreased solar input and the global temperature response. As the century goes on the same response time is evident, but the relationship between sunspot activity and rising temperatures becomes much less cosy: https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1961/normalise/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1961/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1961/normalise/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1961/trend



Note, you can still see temperatures respond to sunspot activity, with approximately the same lag. It's just that the response has been drowned out by something else. That is why the IPCC accepts that solar played a major part in the early 20th century warming, but that it cannot account for the warming trend seen since around 1960.



So there 'is' a response to solar input, as there is to long term ocean cycles, but it is not immediate and it is not linear, because it can be too easily offset by a stronger signal coming from another forcing in the system.

28. lateintheday:



The reason for the lag in the long-term solar/temperature system is thermal inertia of the oceans.

newdwr54

Apologies if I've mis-interpreted your position on linearity.



I would add however that while thermal inertia of the oceans its clearly one reason for a lag in solar/temps, it is not necessarily the only one. Whilst still speculative, you will be aware that the GCR experiments are now being touted as further evidence of a greater than expected solar influence on climate. We must wait to see how that pans out.



Your links show graphs with which I am familiar, but they were appreciated nonetheless. If you were to look at them again with one eye on the DTR/fractal comment (28) above, you might see something interesting. Imagine replacing solar cycle with daily forcings.



Roughly, clear sky day and night, energy in = energy out. Clear sky day, cloudy night, energy in > energy out. Result - step change for following day.



There is no reason to assume a perfect energy balance throughout a full solar cycle. Higher than average input (historically so for much of the latter 20thC) continued until around 2004/5 despite this being the slide down to minimum. I would expect any recovery to 'normal' temps to take quite some time.

Anyone interested in weather (which is everybody here, I suppose) might like to take a look at this time-lapse video of the recent US tornadoes as seen from space: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gsfc/5759065571/



The storms appear to form 'spontaneously'. I take it this is the area in which the two distinct weather systems collide?

lateintheday writes:



"I rather like his style and therefore, I suppose some of his off the cuff remarks, attempts at humour/exaggeration don't particularly bother me."



Many people like Bastardi's style. Like I said, he's an entertainer. "Exaggerate" is being a little too generous, but I'm glad you don't take him too seriously as others appear to.



"You point about the PDO and solar decline not showing up as a dramatic drop in temps is simply ludicrous. I'm not a scientist, but neither am I a half-wit."



You might not be familiar with the solar/PDO arguments. Studies have shown about a 2-year lag between sunspot activity and effects on temperature. The PDO correlation argument also requires a quick response between changes in the index and temperature.



https://www.skepticalscience.com/Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation-intermediate.htm



https://www.skepticalscience.com/blaming-the-pdo.html

just reading your second link for the third time.

Tempted to take back my 'neither am I a half-wit' comment.

All good stuff.

Interesting why you aren't including PWS in this free for all. If you believe many of the tabloids they are the bees knees !



No sign of a heatwave in the foreseeable future either, although high pressure does look like re-establishing itself over or near the UK in early June.



Lastly one or two regular contributors seem to have it in for the Met Office. All I can say is get your facts right before commenting.



For instance " Mr Corbyn is fairly accurate, certainly better than the one we actually pay for "



Sorry but you don't pay anything, as the Met don't provide long range forecasts for public consumption. They leave it to independents who think they know what they are talking about !

More than once Joe Bastardi has ridiculed the IPCC for projecting likely average temperature changes decades into the future. He points out how ludicrous he finds this by admitting that even meteorologists can't predict local weather more than a day or two in advance.



Yet his company now charges handsomely for long-term 'weather predictions'...



Inconsistency?

Inconsistency?

I don't think so. To borrow Paul Nurse's medical analogy of who to listen to, a cancer patient's prognosis might range from six months at worst to full recovery at best. It's an educated guess. Better than throwing darts at a board with a blindfold, but in many cases, not much.



Those who pay for long term forecasts will expect a ball park result rather than deadly accuracy. They will only continue to buy if on the whole, the advice was worth it.



The IPCC projections on the other hand assume, 'all things being equal' and 'if our CO2 forcing theory is right' and 'if our climate sensitivity calculation is accurate' etc etc.

It's part of the IPCC's role to project likely conditions decades into the future. Inevitably, their projections are mired with uncertainty as not only is the science not settled (not meant as criticism) but 'all things being equal' is not a real world phenomena.



Those here who criticise the IPCC, generally do so for the way it is run or for the people involved. I suspect that even if the organisation were completely spotless and comprised entirely of Newtons and Einsteins, the projections would be equally dismissed due to the inherent uncertainties.

MarkB2020 @33 regarding PDO

That was a very interesting read thank you. Still not sure that I've understood it correctly since some of the knowledgeable comments below, attempted to correct the article to some extent.



My understanding is that there can be no trend implied over the longer term since the ENSO events are in effect, more a measure of the differential of SSTs at different locations rather than the actual measured SSTs at those locations. Close enough?



JB's laymans description seems to hold however. Basically, more el nino events during the warm phase and vice versa. Net effect being a general warming over, say 30 years, followed by a general cooling of similar strength and duration. Both warm and cool phases best viewed from a distance as it were, since both warm and cool ENSO events continue to affect year to year temps irrespective of the phase.



So if my understanding is correct, the contemporaneous warm phases of the PDO and AMO could indeed have added to to the temp record through the 80's and 90's but this should gradually cancel itself out over the next 20-30 yrs.



The marginal temp increase over the latter part of the 20thC specifically attributable to PDO/AMO being ????.

https://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/the-worst-cookbook-interview-ever/



Authors John Cook and Haydn Washington analyse the approaches of those who deny climate science. Despite multiple lines of evidence pointing to the same conclusion, deniers continue to deny. Cherry picking is one tactic. Another is the use of fake experts or scientists who are not climate scientists. The authors explore why, as the science firms, the public view, at least in Australia, is going the other way.



FYI as skepticalscience.com is a major source of refference for the opinions expressed here.

lateintheday writes:



"JB's laymans description seems to hold however. Basically, more el nino events during the warm phase and vice versa."



This part is generally correct, but this conclusion does not follow:



"Net effect being a general warming over, say 30 years, followed by a general cooling of similar strength and duration."



It would be somewhat like attributing a 30-year trend in hemispheric temperature on the Earth's axis tilt (which causes the seasons), which is responsible for annual variation only.



ENSO variation causes global mean temperature variation around the long-term trend, but does little to affect the trend, unless one is being very selective with start-end points (starting/ending at ENSO extremes). Another way of looking at it is that global mean temperature during both el Ninos and la Ninas has been trending upward.

mmm...

not sure I follow your analogy. The temp records clearly show the PDO phases. By definition the warm phase releases more energy to the atmosphere through increased el nino frequency and persistence relative to la nina. The reverse being true during the cool phase.



I understood that the the phases themselves were effectively detrended because each individual ENSO event (positive or negative) is measured by the temperature differential rather than the actual measured SSTs, which may rise or fall incidentally to the differential.



We know SSTs rose steadily during the 20thC alongside atmospheric temps but I believe they too have since flattened out somewhat, alongside stratospheric water vapour.



I'm not suggesting that the PDO will explain away all of the warming or even the step changes which seem apparent in the temp record. But I do see a role for the PDO in adding to the warming of the late 20thC and I would expect that its effect should cancel out over the next phase. Whether temps return to 1970's levels by then will not depend on the PDO alone. But alongside 2 or 3 low consecutive solar cycles there should be a chance.

Not had time to read every comment, but I'll add my 2 pence worth..



Like some I have followed Netweather for a few years now and as far as long range forecasts go they have been the most accurate I have come across for the general patterns and trend. if it was any other site forecasting this (especially some that always do just to get mis-leading headlines in the papers) I wouldn't take much notice but this made me sit up and notice.



Joe Bastardi has made some good calls over the past few winters/seasons, though I haven't followed him quite so closely. I shouldn't really say my (and many on the forum I follow) thoughts on Piers Corbyn.



I thought the Met Office withdrew its seasonal forecasts before last winter and thought it was the winter before they went for a milder one at first, anyway I can remember there success rate was reasonable with seasons such as winter 05/06 before the unfortunate incidents of recent years. I do feel they get more than their fair share of criticism sometimes, though in a way they asked for the 'barbeque summer' one with that headline actually coming from their press office.

The public are always quick to jump on them though even after a paper issued a headline from people that were nothing to do with them! I find the forecasts they issue at the moment pretty good overall though.

here's another prediction . . .

unless this summer is as hot as 1976, most people my age will be disappointed.

Ukpahonta @ 39



The best link from this article has to be this one:



https://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html



I am so sick of hearing that there are no "counter consensus" scientists or peer reviewed studies being enacted that dissent AGW, and yet here are over 900 of them. An important reference site for any sceptic to monitor the progress of the increasing anti-AGW representation in mainstream science.

@44 millenia



That's a good list. You do know that the list includes papers that say AGW is happening? Includes papers that the authors themselves say do not counter the AGW theory? Includes papers known to be wrong? Includes papers not actually peer reviewed?



You don't believe in AGW, that's fine, but I why do you rely a list that includes papers that says AGW is happening? Surely there is enough evidence to say AGW isn't happening for you to get a big enough list? Or is the evidence simply not there?

Once again. the UKMO has continued it's practice of publishing UK rainfall figures before the end of the period in question.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/spring-rainfall-contrast

They have already fallen foul of this practice in 2010 by announcing the "driest start to a year since 1929", which turned out to be only the driest since 1953, and the "driest March since 1953", which turned out to be only the driest since 1996.

Yes these news releases clearly state that the figures are incomplete, but I am still baffled by why they don't just wait until all of the figures are available, instead of wasting their time producing figures which subsequently have to be revised and which they never seem to correct, but leave it up to individuals to check the final figures in their data files.

I can only assume that this is part of their "climate change" agenda, although in the case of this Spring's figures, it isn't as clear cut as that, since the overall message is very mixed.

According to this Daily Telegraph article, it is getting less windy in the U.K., due to a change in position of the jetstream, caused by low solar activity.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8545306/Wind-farms-Britain-is-running-out-of-wind.html

Obviously the "running out of wind" headline is an exaggeration, but it may have some implications for wind generation. However, I suspect that this is just the latest theory to explain short-term random variations in the weather.

47. QuaesoVeritas:



Tim Ross is Social and Religious Affairs Editor at The Daily Telegraph. Why has the DT let him loose on a scientific matter?



Who says the change in the jet stream is caused by 'solar activity'? And if it should be getting colder since 1985 then why has it been getting warmer?

Re my last,



Here is a graph showing the WFT temperature index with linear trend vrs the sunspot number linear trend since 1985, the date at which Prof Lockwood said we "reached a high point of solar activity": https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1985/plot/wti/from:1985/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1985/normalise/trend



If solar activity is closely linked to the present temperature rise, then how does one explain the evidence on that graph?



I note that to date (29th) UAH preliminary Ch.4 (near surface layer) data shows 2011 to be the second warmest in the thirteen year record, continuing the warming trend for May (1st-29th anyway) which currently stands at + 0.32 C per decade since 1999: https://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps



Where is all the cold?

You may have better luck accessing AMSU temps from here: https://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/



Regards.

who says . . .

Think this will be David Archibald and possibly Paul Vaughn. Paul Vaughn recently guest posted at WUWT under a title of Interannual Terrestrial Ocillations which may have a similar theme embedded within the most complex, cumbersome post I've ever come across. Almost unintelligible and roundly criticised by the WUWT readership for being so. I'd be seriously impressed if you could read it through to the end and come away with any idea of what any of it meant.



"Who says the change in the jet stream is caused by 'solar activity'? And if it should be getting colder since 1985 then why has it been getting warmer?"



That's not what the article said - that was your conclusion. We've been here before quite recently and I think you are deliberately stoking the fire. For what it's worth, I think the telegraph article was worthless save to say, its not been as windy over the last couple of years and in subtext, windfarms are a bad idea. Can't see how anyone can seriously predict any significant change in wind strength going forward.

#48. - newdwr54 wrote:

"Tim Ross is Social and Religious Affairs Editor at The Daily Telegraph. Why has the DT let him loose on a scientific matter? "

I didn't know that. It's anybody's guess.



"Who says the change in the jet stream is caused by 'solar activity'? And if it should be getting colder since 1985 then why has it been getting warmer?"

Presumably Professor Mike Lockwood and Dr David Bradshaw, but I don't like it when newspapers quote scientific work without referencing the actual source. Presumably there is more to this than just a casual chat!

#49. - newdwr54 wrote:

"I note that to date (29th) UAH preliminary Ch.4 (near surface layer) data shows 2011 to be the second warmest in the thirteen year record, continuing the warming trend for May (1st-29th anyway) which currently stands at + 0.32 C per decade since 1999: "

Yes, I make this May cooler than 2009 and 2010 based on the NSL.

"If solar activity is closely linked to the present temperature rise, then how does one explain the evidence on that graph?"



Scafetta 2009 amongst others.

newdwr54 @49

thanks for them there cherries - here, have some of mine.



www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.2/from:1985/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1985



Trust that you see the problem. Oh wait, I forgot, there's nothing in the global warming handbook that says poor correlation of temps and CO2 is proof that the theory is wrong. That only applies to skeptic arguments. Silly me.

Also on the CO2 front, here is a prime example (not) of how the gov's recent support for Chris Huhnes emissions cuts targets continues to lead world opinion.



wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/29/its-all-over-kyoto-protocol-loses-four-big-nations/#more-40723



Time after time we are left looking like lemmings. Meanwhile, windfarms continue to blight the landscape for no particular reason other than to line the pockets of the developers, fleecing the taxpayer along the way. The current BBC Windfarm Wars series may be an eye-opener to those who have yet to face this threat. Having fought against one of these abominations (so far, successfully) I can personally attest to the lack of 'robust' scientific analysis within the supporting Environment Statement.

I think this is the comparison

https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1985/plot/wti/from:1985/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1985/normalise/trend

I prefer this one . . .



www.fifa.com/associations/association=eng/ranking/gender=m/index.html



Note the spike in 1998 followed by a flattening trend. Unfortunately this data series doesn't stretch back any further than shown. However, from memory I should think that the correlation may well continue further back, showing a gradual rise through the 1980s after a distinctly low 1970s period. You may of course point out the obvious deviation around 1966. In which case I would point to the rather suspect adjustment made by a certain russian official.

This is what Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann said here:



https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Shindell_etal_1.pdf



"These results provide evidence that relatively small solar forcing may play a significant role in century-scale NH winter climate change. This suggests that colder winter temperatures over the NH continents during portions of the 15th through the 17th centuries (sometimes called the Little Ice Age) and warmer temperatures during the 12th through 14th centuries (the putative Medieval Warm Period) may have been influenced by long term solar variations."







The trouble is that instead of pursuing that approach they seem to have junked it after assuming that the same mechanisms were no longer in control during the late 20th century.



Furthermore they omitted certain additional components that with the passage of time are becoming more clearly self evident.



They made the following errors:



i) They did not realise that altough the regional changes were most apparent those changes did in fact reflect a small change in the global energy budget from net warming to net cooling or vice versa.



ii) They were probably thrown by the observation of a cooling stratosphere whilst the sun was more active when the established ideas would have expected a warming stratosphere from a more active sun. However they do seem to have realised that a warmer lower stratosphere near the poles was required for a more equatorward jetstream regime yet that happened when the sun was less active not more active. They should have looked into that in more detail. I think it is now becoming apparent that an active sun cools the stratosphere whereas a less active sun warms it. The data referred to recently by Joanna Haigh suggests that the sign for the solar effect on certain layers of the atmosphere needs to be reversed. That would resolve the apparent discrepancy in their 2001 paper.



iii) Athough they explicitly acknowledge the modulating bottom up effect of oceanic oscillations they do not follow through. They should have realised that top down high solar activity combined with bottom up positive oceanic influences would in combination be enough to produce the late 20th century warming without having to invoke a significant effect from more CO2.



iv) They even note the effect of cloud quantity changes but again do not follow through. Applying a little logic it must be the case that jetstreams waving around latitudinally will produce more clouds than jetstreams travelling in relatively straight lines around the globe.



v) They even acknowledge that energ

I note with interest that the Germans are closing down all their Nuclear power stations, that produce 25% of their power. Does this mean that they will be finding an alternative to Nuclear power?

My comment at 16.41 went through incomplete so for full version please see here:



https://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7758



I’m hoping that referring to Schmidt and Mann's their own paper will cause someone to call them to account as to why they didn’t take their own findings more seriously.

51. lateintheday wrote:



["Who says the change in the jet stream is caused by 'solar activity'? And if it should be getting colder since 1985 then why has it been getting warmer?"



That's not what the article said - that was your conclusion.]



The article specifically says: "Meteorologists have found that the position of the jet stream has been influenced by the lower levels of activity on the Sun... If [the Atlantic jet stream] is “blocked” as a result of changes in solar activity, cold air flows across Britain from the east."



So the author is claiming, without any reference or citation by the way, that solar activity directly affects the climate in the UK. He is claiming that reduced solar activity should lead to cooling in Britain, in other words.



The author also tells us that solar activity has been declining since 1985, so it follows that we should be seeing a reduction in UK temperatures from around that time.



He is making a specific claim relating climate to sunspot activity, so it is legitimate to check these and see if he's right.



CET data shows that between 1985-2010 the temperature trend was + 0.35 C/decade. The data is inconsistent with the author's claims. Maybe the DT shouldn't allow their religion corresponded dabble in matters that can be checked quantitatively?

#62 - newdwr54 wrote:

"The author also tells us that solar activity has been declining since 1985, so it follows that we should be seeing a reduction in UK temperatures from around that time."

Looking at detailed sunspot numbers since 1850, the claim in the article that "we reached a high point in solar activity in 1985", didn't make any sense to me, until I calculated the 11 year rolling average, centred on the mid-point, which peaked around Feb 1985 and has been declining since, so that may be what Prof. Lockwood means. But the Feb 85 figure covers the period Sept. 1979 to Aug. 1990, so in reality, the subsequent fall is due to low ssn figures from 1991 onwards.

Comparing the 11 year ma with an equivalent CET ma, it appears that CET rose

almost continuously from the average centred on 1982, to Nov. 2002, during which time the ssn ma was rising, but has then fallen, even though the ssn ma has continued to fall.

Having said that, during the period 1850 to 1985 there does seem to be an approximate relationship between ssn and CET, with similar rises and falls

at roughly the same times.

For some reason, this does not seem to have continued after 1985.

Yes, the initial reaction is to say that is the effect of CO2, but that doesn't explain the decline in CET since about 2007.

#60. - timawells wrote:

"I note with interest that the Germans are closing down all their Nuclear power stations, that produce 25% of their power. Does this mean that they will be finding an alternative to Nuclear power?"

According to the BBC News tonight, they are going to double generation from renewables, which I think is mainly wind power, and REDUCE consumption by 10%, by efficiencies, which sounds like pie in the sky to me.

It seems to me that they have given in to the demonstrators, who may make a lot of noise, but who may not be in the majority, which is not really very democratic.

Of course, it isn't going to be immediate, so it could all be reversed by another Government before it happens.

Anyone find any reporting by the BBC about Russia, Japan and Canada pulling out of Kyoto?



https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/kyoto-deal-loses-four-big-nations-20110528-1f9dk.html

There was an interview on the BBC R4 "Today" programme this morning with Lord Stern, on the subject of the failure of Governments to hit CO2 emission reduction targets, in which he was allowed to state that it was becoming more urgent that we cut CO2 emissions. He also repeated the message that if we act now, it is still not too late to restrict the rise in temperatures to 2c (although over what period was not specified). Maybe he was basing that on the fact that there has been no significant rise in temperatures, or even a slight decline according to HadCRUT3, NOAA and RSS, over the last 10 years, despite the fact that CO2 emissions are still rising, although there was no mention of that during the interview.

@ 66 QV.



At least with the rapidly rising CO2 emissions they will not be able to claim that their economically suicidal actions were the 'stabilising' factor should temperatures continue to stall or even fall.



If temps rise again then we're still at an impass.



@ Paul briscoe



Our discussion got cut short- needless to say you make a number of unsupported claims while completely ignoring my main points.



I'll try find an alternative place for us to post where the conversation won't be cut short (though in thic case it was understandable- we were SLIGHTLY off topic :-) ).

There is a lot in the media today about a "report" by Oxfam, which predicts that food prices will double by 2030, of which 50% will be due to "climate change".

I have no doubt that food prices will double by 2030, but mainly due to increasing demand due to population growth and fuel inflation, but I wonder what evidence they have to support the claim regarding "climate change"?

Presumably they are basing that on the dire predictions of bodies such as the IPCC, which is all based on speculation, rather than actual evidence of price increases due to "climate change", since there is no actual evidence that any individual weather event has ever been caused by "climate change", rather than natural variation in the climate.

Unfortately charities such as Oxfam now feel it necessary to include "climate change" in their pronouncements, as they presumably think it increases donations. Not from me it doesn't.

By my calculations, the AMSU-A Near Surface Layer (ch04) anomaly at May 30th, was about 0.17c, relative to 1999-2010 figures, which is equivalent to a UAH anomaly of about 0.21c, but a NSL anomaly of 0.31c for May 2009 produced a UAH anomaly of only 0.06c and one of 0.04c in May 2005 produced a UAH of 0.21c, so the past doesn't seem to be much of a guide.

On the other hand, the AQUA CH5/14000' anomaly at May 28th, was -0.003c, which on the basis of 2003-10 figures, should be equivalent to a UAH of about 0.06c, but last months estimate was low, so this month's could be too.

It all points to a UAH of between 0.06c and 0.21c, which is a big range. My own guess is that it will be similar to last month's 0.12c.

This morning Lord Stern made his pronouncement about the current rise in atmospheric CO2 levels. What he did not say, or did not bother to find out, is that the rise in CO2 emissions is down to China and India not the west struggling to get out of recession. He failed to mentioned that the projected rise of temperature of 2C is model based not from observed data which shows a drop in temperature since 1998. So the rise in CO2 levels has produced a drop in temperature of about 0.5C. In fact the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the feared 2C rise that alarmists state sounds the beginning of the end. The MWP was actually a great time for human advancement out of the cold period called the Dark Ages. Stern and his ilk seem to wish the Dark Ages upon us once again.



What he is also ignorant about is that 96% of CO2 emissions are from natural sources. Whatever we do will not alter atmospheric CO2 levels one iota.



In fact his BBC interview this morning showed him to be completely ignorant of the actual science though his memory for model output is excellent. He should go back to the day job as an economist.



Some facts for Lord Stern:-

We breath out CO2 at 40,000ppmv.

Submarines keep the controlled on board atmosphere at 8000ppmv with no ill effects to crew or equipment.

Theatre CO2 levels can be as high as 3000ppmv during a performance.

Global atmospheric levels are not constant nor at the same level everywhere. Levels will always change, and vary in one place every day.



I believe in Climate Change, it always has done and always will. Global warming, and cooling but not at the same time.



Will we get a scorcher this summer? Going on the Met Office record of failure, No.

From the blog: "[Joe Bastardi's] main reasoning is that temperatures higher up in the atmosphere have cooled dramatically, and are much cooler than during the last hot European summer in 2003.



In fact upper level temperatures at 25,000 ft are cooler than at just about any time in the 13 year data set he showed me."





Unfortunately the data (at 25,000') to which Mr Bastardi refer are known to be unreliable (including by the likes of Dr Roy Spencer) -- the NOAA-15 satellite has been faulty since December and there are large amounts of data missing. The AMSU data he quotes are not consistent with the same data form the Aqua and NOAA-18 satellites, and are not to be trusted. On the Discover website only channels 4 and 5 should be relied upon.



There is a degree of cooling in the lower stratosphere recently but nothing like as much as represented by the faulty data. Mr Bastardi should know this.

@70



1. It not the Met Office that is forecasting a "scorching summer".



2. The rest of your warmed-over argument - you are kidding, right?

"Last year you may remember, the headlines were exactly the same, off the back of interviews given by Positive Weather Solutions - who later claimed they had been mis-quoted. "



PWS are rarely mis-quoted, and certainly were not in this instance. Their own website was proclaiming that 2010 really would be a barbecue summer (using that phrase) along with some jibe about how barbecues should be cheap given the previous year's disappointment.



The PWS website forecast that the national high temperature record would be broken in August 2010; in fact, they said exactly the same in 2009 so it's somewhat hypocritical that they pointed the finger.



Moreover, they have been quoted again this year as saying that the temperature record will fall in either June or July, which is a ludicrous assertion. It's pretty much impossible to achieve that sort of heat in June.



Actually, I don't know why I keep saying "they". PWS is more or less one person with a couple of contributors. Perhaps somebody would like to properly scrutinize his credentials.

#70. John Marshall,

What really annoyed me about the interview was the complete failure of Sarah Montague to question any of the assumptions made about "climate change".

I doubt if she was even aware of the fact that temperatures haven't risen significantly over the last 10 years, despite the increase in CO2.

I think John Humphrys might have done better, since he appears to be less gullible on "climate change".

I have sent "Today" an e-mail, but I don't expect a sensible reply.

Sorry for the limited response guys, Cornwall is good for the views but wifi is limited as yet. Last year this week was shorts and t shirts fantastic weather, this year it is definitely jumpers and jeans. Actual weather against averaged, possibly but to the man on the ground there is no way that this year is measuring up against last year for temperature as yet!

#75. - ukpahonta wrote:

"Actual weather against averaged, possibly but to the man on the ground there is no way that this year is measuring up against last year for temperature as yet!"

Not exactly sure what you mean by that. Surely it's much warmer this year than last year, so far?

Just realised you probably mean globally!

Initially assumed you were talking about the UK, or Cornwall!

Readers of this blog might find this interesting:



https://forum.netweather.tv/topic/69682-comparing-maunder-and-modern-with-long-term-cet/



This is a discussion of temperature trends in the CET including the warming episode from 1988 to 2007 and the recent downturn. It will give you some numbers to assess how much the UK climate has changed in both the recent and the very recent "modern" period.



I should point out to avoid confusion that while I'm a long-term member of Netweather I am not part of the forecasting group that published the "hot like 1976" forecast and my own LRF can be found earlier in this blog discussion.