February's huge temperature contrast

34C temp rise in two weeks eh? Extrapolating that trend and by the Diamond Jubilee we'll have turned into Venus :D

Blimey!

You wait for a week for a blog topic and then three come along at once!



I wonder if it is just a coincidence that there has also been a wide range of global temperatures during February, based on AQUA CH5?



CET is only -0.7c now. If February in the UK ends up being about average temperature it will demonstrate how misleading averages can sometimes be!



Is anyone else getting frequent "Sorry, Comment posting is not available at the moment." messages?

Temp reached 16c here in E.Yorks today (by my thermo.)



Sunshine rather slow to get going though and it was mid pm before we got any really good spells.



One small tortoiseshell butterfly seen, disturbed from hibernation. Spring resumes its early course, following the hiatus of recent weeks (down to -10c here).

Sorry, just to clarify, when I said that CET was -0.7c I mean't 0.7c below the 1961-90 mean. Actual CET = +2.4c

Max temp in my part of e Kent, 15.7 C. mind you, I'm in the country so the UHI effect is minimal, and my thermometer is correctly sited shielded from the Sun.

QV, much to my surprise AQUA Ch7 & 8 having slowed their decline over the last few days may well have started down again? The next few days will be interesting.

#6. - greensand wrote:

"QV, much to my surprise AQUA Ch7 & 8 having slowed their decline over the last few days may well have started down again? The next few days will be interesting."

Yes, but such daily fluctuations don't seem unusual. When the temps. started to increase in January, the daily changes zig-zagged quite a bit, but the overall pattern was up. On the other hand, the latest ch5 does show a slightly lower decline. The ch5 anomaly w.r.t. the 2003-2011 mean is now almost identical to that in January at the same point, while ch6 & ch7 are lower, and ch8 is higher.

I would be surprised if ch5 goes much lower now.

The weird weather continues.



February might have been -16 at times in parts of eastern England, but in N Ireland and west Scotland it's been fairly mild.



I live just north of Belfast and the temperatures here only went sub zero for a few days near the start of the month; -5.5 C was the lowest one-off temp I recorded. Apart from that, daily temperatures appear to have been above average for most of the month. This past few days they have been far above average - positively warm!



Yet AMSU Ch 5 suggests La Nina conditions are exerting their expected cooling effect locally.



A very confused picture indeed.

8. newdwr54 wrote:



"Yet AMSU Ch 5 suggests La Nina conditions are exerting their expected cooling effect locally."



Hi DW, can you expand on the above please? I always thought that ENSO, either El Nino or La Nina, feed through to global sea surface temps? What is the "local effect"?

GS and QV,



If global temps at 14,000 ft (Ch 5) lag La Nina SSTs by about 8 weeks, as I roughly calculate they may do, then the week 19th-26th Feb should show cooling on average on Ch. 5. The following week to ten days should show moderate warming; then relative cooling prevails for another two weeks or so. After that there should be strong and rapid warming - beginning roughly by the first week in April.



SSTs in NINO 3.4 have just popped out of the La Nina threshold briefly. It's too early to say whether they are just taking a peek above the parapet, or whether they are on an upward trend. My assumptions above are purely based on an offset of 8 weeks between Nino 3.4 SSTs and Ch 5 temps.

9. greensand wrote:



"Hi DW, can you expand on the above please?or La Nina, feed through to global sea surface temps? What is the "local effect"?"

_______________



You're right; I made a rick. I was thinking 'global effect'; and I proof read it as 'global effect'; but I'm horrified to read that what I actually posted wrote was 'local effect'.



Please substitute 'global' for 'local'. Sorry, it's been a trying day.

What's the derivation of a rick? Is this an Irish thing?

Does anyone know if there has been many other uncharacteristic instances of such wild temperatures over a very short time span?

@Lazarus #13



Do you mean like day and night? >;-)~

This seems the most appropriate place to post our forecasts for 2012

Figures in brackets are last year’s forecast

I have removed Joe Bastardi from the list because we are not certain of his forecast

Any revisions or additions are welcome up to the end of February



“Warmists”

+0.48 Met Office (+0.44)

+0.45 Newdwr54 (N/A)

+0.43 John Cogger (N/A)



“Neutralists”

+0.42 Mr Bluesky

+0.42 Lazarus

+0.41 NeilHamp (+0.27)

+0.41 quake (+0.36)

+0.40 Paul Briscoe

+0.40 Gagetfriend (+0.30)



“Coolists”

+0.37 Lateintheday’s 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)



If ukpahonta is right again for 2012 it will certainly put the polar bear amongst the penguins



No 2012 forecasts yet found



SmokingDeepThroat (+0.39)

Ken Sharples( +0.18)

nibor25( +0.15)

jkiller56

I remember a mild winter in the early 1980's then snow in April during a late Easter. British weather has never done as the scientists think, we are an Island between two continents.

#10. - newdwr54 wrote:

"If global temps at 14,000 ft (Ch 5) lag La Nina SSTs by about 8 weeks, as I roughly calculate they may do, then the week 19th-26th Feb should show cooling on average on Ch. 5. The following week to ten days should show moderate warming; then relative cooling prevails for another two weeks or so. After that there should be strong and rapid warming - beginning roughly by the first week in April."

Your start point for cooling seems a bit late, since it actually started around the 8th, and the end might be a bit late to, as I think the warming is likely to start from the 23rd, but it sounds generally correct.

So far this year, the warming & cooling phases seem to have been about 14 days, which is longer than usual, and it will be interesting to see if that continues.

QV



Dr Richard Betts of the MO has given direction to this self assessment:



'The UK NWP Index is a measure of the forecasting skill of limited area NWP (Numerical Weather Prediction) models over the UK.



It is based on UK-specific model forecasts of selected parameters currently out to 48 hours ahead for a selected set of positions verified by comparison with station observations and is based on 36 months of data. A score is calculated for each parameter included in the Index. The individual scores are then combined in a weighted average to form a single value.'

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/weather/numerical-modelling/verification/uk-nwp-index-doc



Seems complex but gives an indication of trend back to the end of 2008.

The higher the UK NWP Index, the more accurate the computer forecasts are becoming, and the graph is found here:

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/weather/numerical-modelling/verification/uk-nwp-index



It would be interesting to see other forecasters trended against the same criteria and a breakdown of the scores for individual parameters temperature, wind speed, precipitation etc.

I posted too soon, a little more reading reveals more:

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/weather/numerical-modelling/verification/uk-temperature

ukpahonta,

Thanks for the links, I can't remember whether I have seen these before.

While the indexes may be of some use in assessing overall performance, as far as I am concerned they don't show enough detail.

Even if an index shows an improvement that doesn't actually tell us how accurate the models are.

The fact that all of the locations and day 1 and day 2 are combined but using different criteria, only adds to the confusion.

In the case of the temperature index, it says "we expect day 1 forecasts to be more accurate than for day 2, so the rules are stricter for day 1", but from these figures we can't tell if day 1 forecasts are more accurate than day 2.

I would prefer to see separate figures for day 1 and 2 and 3-5. They provide forecasts for days 3-5 so why don't they do an accuracy evaluation?

Also, the graph scales don't start at zero, which is a basic statistical flaw. This is usually done in order to exaggerate any change and that is what it has done in this case. While the graphs appear to show a rapid improvement, in practice the nwp index has only increased by about 116 to 119 and the temp. one from 0.664 to 0.680.

In short, these graphs seem to be the sort of thing you show to very senior management, who don't want the detail, but they are of no practical value in evaluating the performance of forecasting models.

Actually, from what I have seen, the M.O. performance measurement techniques are very basic and almost amateurish. I find it difficult to believe that they don't carry out more detailed evaluation of forecasting models. If the forecasts are generated automatically, their performance should be monitored automatically too.

Jupiter Venus Moon alignment right now 6.30pm. Absolutely stunning.

#21. - lateintheday wrote:

"Jupiter Venus Moon alignment right now 6.30pm. Absolutely stunning."

Mercury up there somewhere too, much nearer the horizon than the Moon.

And at 18:47 approx., the ISS crossed the sky, just beneath all three and across Orion's Belt!

Sorry, actually just above Orion's Belt.

Similar tomorrow.

Moon near Venus, ISS just below Venus.

17:50 approx.

Thanks QV, I'll look out for it.

Changes for AQUA ch5-8 for Feb 22:

CH5 -0.017

CH6 -0.003

CH7 +0.012

CH8 -0.001

It seems likely that ch5 will show a small increase from the 23rd, but while the actual temp. and daily anomalies are rising, the cumulative anomaly will probably continue to fall.

I remain amazed at how predictable the temperature pattern has been in February but I wouldn't be surprised if something unexpected happened!

@22 QuaesoVeritas



Love watching the ISS cross the skies. It just amazes me to think I can see a space station!

26. - john_cogger wrote:



"Love watching the ISS cross the skies. It just amazes me to think I can see a space station"



Same here, especially to think that there are scientists up there.

Missed it tonight somehow.

23rd Feb - Ch5 change +0.029



Well done QV!



AMSU-A Ch5 to 8 are printing some very smooth curves, this is starting to promote a nagging doubt in this old cynical mind?

#28. - greensand wrote:

"AMSU-A Ch5 to 8 are printing some very smooth curves, this is starting to promote a nagging doubt in this old cynical mind?"

Yes, same here!

I can sort of understand why local temperatures might develop a regular pattern, e.g. caused by moving pressure patterns, but not the global temperature. Is the heat being transferred from the ocean in a cyclical pattern somehow? Clearly I need to learn more about how these figures are arrived at.



While ch6-7 are starting to rise, slowly, ch8 hasn't quite managed it yet. Does this suggest that ch5 will not rise very quickly. A similar pattern to January would produce an end Feb. ch5 of 252.17k and a UAH of about -0.18c to -0.12c. The extra day in February may actually make quite a big difference.

29. QuaesoVeritas wrote:



"Is the heat being transferred from the ocean in a cyclical pattern somehow?"



Don't know QV but there is a certain amount of logic in thinking that way.



I have been trying to get more of an understanding by doing some work with Reynolds SST data. Whilst I am "reinventing the wheel" because I think the work Bob Tisdale does is as good as it gets, sometimes I just have to crunch the numbers myself before awareness sinks in.



Feb Ch5 at present just about level with the decade low average Feb of 2008, now we wait and see how quickly (and smoothly?) it will rise.

QV and GS,



If Ch5 really is coupled to Nina 3.4 region temps with a lag of 8 weeks or so then the present Ch5 temperature rise may be fairly short and weak - about a week to 10 days. This may be followed by another decline lasting until late March/early April. After that Ch5 temps should rise rapidly for (so far) two weeks. This week's Nino 3.4 data should be out tomorrow.



Re leap years: these may slightly weight average February temps 'warm' in northern mid latitudes, because the last day in Feb on leap years is normally the first day of March (and meteorological spring in the NH) every other year. But I suspect that the difference would not be worth filtering for.

#31. - newdwr54 wrote:

"If Ch5 really is coupled to Nina 3.4 region temps with a lag of 8 weeks or so then the present Ch5 temperature rise may be fairly short and weak - about a week to 10 days. This may be followed by another decline lasting until late March/early April. After that Ch5 temps should rise rapidly for (so far) two weeks. This week's Nino 3.4 data should be out tomorrow."

Thanks, I will watch this with interest. A rise of 6-10 days would be a bit shorter than the recent pattern, and if it is weak, and is followed by another decline until late March, that implies 3 months of relatively low temperatures, but of course if the subsequent rise is as rapid as you say, that will soon be wiped out.

Is it possible to put figures on the rise you expect in early April?

32. QuaesoVeritas wrote:



"Is it possible to put figures on the rise you expect in early April?"



I wouldn't go so far as to say I 'expect' it QV. Just that it's a possibility if Nino 3.4 and Ch5 continue the strong statistical relationship they have had over the last 12 months (with the 8-week lag). And it is only for Ch5 temps, not surface.



Surface responses should be faster than at 14,000ft. If the slight warming in Nino 3.4 continued this week, then we should expect to see surface warming by mid March, bringing March surface temps back up towards neutral or weak positive values in UAH.



Steady surface warming may resume in April, if that is the case. But a lot will depend on patterns in the Pacific Ocean sea surface temperatures. Watch for the formation of high pressure regions in the western Pacific. These will be the 'clincher' in determining whether my 2012 guess (0.45C) is accurate or not.



15. NeilHamp:



The tension is already unbearable! Grown men (and possibly women) will be weeping openly by December. Possibly me?!

Here's a monthly prediction for 2012. This is the kind of thing I did to work out my annual prediction.



Jan: 0.2C

Feb: 0.35C

Mar: 0.4C

Apr: 0.45C

May: 0.45C



After that it depends. If La Nina conditions reform then:



June: 0.45

July: 0.45

August 0.35

September: 0.35

October: 0.35

November: 0.25

December: 0.25

Annual avg: 0.354



Or if El Nino conditions form:



June: 0.5

July: 0.5

August: 0.55

September: 0.55

October: 0.55

November: 0.6

December: 0.6

Annual avg: 0.471



My annual estimate of 0.41 is somewhere between the two as I cannot guess what ENSO will do and Id rather reduce my possible error than gamble.



The Met Office prediction suggests to me that they think it likely El Nino conditions will form, I can't see how else 0.48C would be possible.

Hmm, still no HadCRUT3 figure for January, and here it is February 27th!

I wonder if this month the UAH for February will be issued before the HadCRUT3 figure for January?

Meanwhile, I have heard from the MO that the 2011 HadCRUT3 figure of 0.346c is techically still "provisional" and will not be confirmed "for some time".

They also took the opportunity to remind me that uncertainties around individual annual estimates are "estimated" to be around +/- 0.1c. Otherwise the actual figure could be between 0.246c and 0.446c. If one applies that to previous annual figures, this essentially means that we really have no idea whether global temperatures have risen over the last 30 years or not.

35. QuaesoVeritas wrote:



"They also took the opportunity to remind me that uncertainties around individual annual estimates are "estimated" to be around +/- 0.1c. Otherwise the actual figure could be between 0.246c and 0.446c.



If one applies that to previous annual figures, this essentially means that we really have no idea whether global temperatures have risen over the last 30 years or not."



Many thanks QV, throughout my life I have always stood by the saying "live and learn every day" but some inputs come up "tilt" and at the moment +/- 0.1c has rung up "tilt - game over".



On the other hand UAH Ch 5 Feb average closing in on a decade low next few days will decide.



Just in case you haven't seen it Dr Roy Spencer has a new post:-



"Ten Years After the Warming"



https://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/ten-years-after-the-warming/

31. newdwr54 wrote:



"If Ch5 really is coupled to Nina 3.4 region temps with a lag of 8 weeks or so..."



Hi DW, watching with interest, don't know if you have seen it but the MO released their latest ENSO forecast on the 14th.



https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/gpc-outlooks/el-nino-la-nina

36. greensand:



Thanks for the link to Roy Spencer's post. Just a few points:



Spencer's first chart is annotated "Assumed energy accumulation in the climate system should lead to warming". I don't know whether the "assumptions" here are Spencer's own, or whether he has taken them from an IPCC graph. I can't find it if he has. The IPCC's various RCP numbers are based on how much heating a given emissions scenario would produce by the end of the century. So RCP6 emissions scenario should produce +6 W/m2 forcing *at the end of the century*, i.e. not by 2012: https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n1/box/nclimate1058_BX1.html



The thrust of Spencer's premise is that we shouldn't be seeing extended periods of no temperature rise when CO2 emissions increased steadily over the same period. AGW theory may be "fundamentally wrong". But is Spencer's premise right? In fact you don't have to go back very far to see that it isn't. The rise in CO2 has been fairly linear since the late 1950s, yet there are frequent periods of extended temperature hiatus or even cooling: https://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/SkepticsvRealists.gif



Spencer provides a list of "5 possibilities for the recent cessation of warming". There is no reason why some of these possibilities shouldn't be working in tandem. 1) Increased aerosols; 2) cooling phases of ocean oscillations and reduced solar output; 3) heat storage in the deep oceans; 4) climate sensitivity for CO2 may be closer to the lower end of the IPCC range, i.e. ~ 2C per doubling. And yes, 5) AGW *might* be wrong. But we've seen heating pick up again after long periods of stasis in the fairly recent past, so it may be a little premature to pencil that one in.



One last point that Spencer avoids mentioning: the cooling ocean patterns and reduced solar forcing have not between them managed to cool global temperatures over the last ten years by even a fraction of a degree. If these natural cycles caused the initial warming, why haven't they caused a subsequent cooling? That's what 'cyclical' means, after all.

#36. - greensand wrote:

"Just in case you haven't seen it Dr Roy Spencer has a new post:-"



Thanks I hadn't see that yet.

Nobody seems to have told Dr. Spencer that lack of warming over 10 years isn't significant!

The weekly ENSO update here is a good read for each monday afternoon:

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/



The subsurface trends are useful because changes in them pre-empt what happens at the surface by a few weeks, which as mentioned above pre-empts the global surface temperature changes and in turn the global lower troposphere changes.

These wide temp swings are not unusual, just look back at the CET record. Some years ago in Colorado at Easter, the temp at midday at a friend's house was a balmy 70 degrees F and by the time we got home about 35 minutes later it was snowing and the temperature dropped to around 30 F.

Seen this on WUWT?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/



Who Are You Going To Believe – The Government Climate Scientists or The Data?



Pretty conclusive I would have thought. I really like this bit



"The climate establishment suggest that cooling due to undetected aerosols might be responsible for the failure of the models to date"



Undetected or non-existent? I wonder what the next excuse will be? Flying pigs blotting out the sunshine?

newdwr54



re the sceptical science graph.. I think this is a suttle deception as usual from that site!, the temperature anomalies shown in the graph are obviously a land record only (maybe BEST data)

The argument that temperatures have not been static in recent history (ie since AGW began) is better demonstrated in the usual metrics such as Gistemp, Hadcrut, and UAH



https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1950/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1950/plot/gistemp/from:1950



These do show that a 14 year period without an unambiguous new record is quite ubusual compared to the period 1970-1998

43. Pkthinks:



Couple of things. Firstly the SkS graphic is BEST land surface data. It still illustrates that temperature rise can slow down or even cool for substantial periods. It can be replicated in the global (land and ocean) surface data too, as I'll show in a minute.



But I was curious about this statement:



"These [Gistemp, Hadcrut, and UAH] do show that a 14 year period without an unambiguous new record is quite ubusual compared to the period 1970-1998"



I don't know where you're getting the period 1970-1998 from? None of the data sets you cited use that as their anomaly reference base, and the SkS graph runs from 1973 to Mar 2010, where BEST's reliable analysis stopped.



And in fact according to GISS there *have* been unambiguous new records within the past 14 years: 2005 and 2010 were the two warmest years on their global land/ocean temperature record (ditto the NCDC record). Furthermore, from January 1998 to the present both NASA and GISS show a warming trend (+0.1 C and + 0.05 C per decade respectively).



Lastly, taking your WfT example of GISS land/ocean surface temps from 1950 as an example, and adding trend lines, you can see that there have been several decade-lon periods when temperatures were level or even cooled, despite the strong overall warming trend: https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1950/plot/gistemp/from:1967.17/to:1977.08/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1950/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1986.92/to:1996.83/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1956.92/to:1967/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1959/normalise



I've added CO2 concentrations to confirm that they remained steady throughout.

#42. - oldgifford wrote:



"Who Are You Going To Believe – The Government Climate Scientists or The Data?"



Interesting, although I am a bit puzzled why the comparisons are with Hansen's 1988 forecasts and those from IPCC AR1, they are a bit old and even I could forgive them for being wrong. I'm not sure if Hansen has revised his predictions, but I would have thought that a comparison with IPCC AR4 would have been more relevant, although I have no idea how AR4 compares with AR1.

Of course, Richard Betts has argued in an earlier blog that it is wrong to compare at least the MO model global predictions with HadCRUT3 since the model predictions cover the Arctic when HadCRUT3 doesn't. I don't know if that equally applies to satellite data, as I am not sure how far north or south that covers. What this really means is that HadCRUT3 isn't really a global temperature anomaly. It sounds a bit like another excuse to me.

newdr54



Land surface data was chosen because the last unambiguous record is not 1998 in this record (still provisional? this data)



Remember the difference between 2005 and 2010 is not statistically significant and taking the main metrics together 1998 is still the last 'record' this seems a fair method as these metrics correlate very well



https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1995

https://www.woodfortrees.org/notes





I chose 1970 because it is really when you can arguably make the case for AGW first becoming visible in the temp record. I must refer you back to Skeptical science



https://www.skepticalscience.com/The-CO2-Temperature-correlation-over-the-20th-Century.html



I accept it is trivially corrrect to say the trend from 1986 to 1996 is negative but the new warm maximum during this period is closer to an 'unambiguous record'



What do you mean about CO2 concentrations staying steady?

#44. - newdwr54 wrote:

"I've added CO2 concentrations to confirm that they remained steady throughout."

Presumably you mean that the increase has remained steady, but if anything, the increase in CO2 looks exponential to me, which would surely produce an exponential increase in temperatures?

Yes the trend is fairly steady , I am sure thats what new dwr54 meant



https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1950

Further to Roy Spencer's blogpost yesterday originally linked to by greensand (https://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/ten-years-after-the-warming/%29. The post is entitled 'Ten Years After the Warming' and laments the fact that there has been no further surface air warming over the last 10 years despite steadily increasing CO2 concentrations. Spencer suggests that this may indicate that "there is something fundamentally wrong with the GHG warming theory".



Dr Spencer maintains the well known UAH satellite surface temperature data set. I've finally had a chance to look at the UAH data, and guess what? There are two previous periods in it where the ten year temperature trend not only levelled off, but actually cooled.



Starting January 1989 the ten year trend in UAH was negative for 16 straight months; and from Jan 1996 it was negative for 23 straight months. I've placed one example from each of these periods onto this WfT graph, along with the long term trend for the entire set. I've also added CO2 concentrations, which, as you can clearly see, rose steadily throughout these periods of cooling.



https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1979.75/to:1989.67/trend/plot/uah/plot/uah/from:1987.42/to:1997.33/trend/plot/uah/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1978.92/normalise



Bearing in mind that the current UAH ten year trend is actually level, not cooling, it makes you wonder why Spencer is suddenly so concerned about the value of AGW theory? His own relatively short (33 years) data set shows that you can get frequent 10 year periods of levelling-off or even cooling temperature trends despite a steadily rising long term trend. Strangely, he doesn't mention this in his blog.

47. QuaesoVeritas & 48. Pkthinks:



Here is the CO2 data Pkthinks just posted but with a linear trend line attached to it.



https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1950/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1950



That looks like a fairly good fit to me. There may be a slight increase towards the latter end, but it certainly isn't exponential.

newdwr54



Well I thought so too until you pointed it out,



It is quite interesting...., eyeballing it it looks like a perfect fit, but.. the last few years look significantly greater as the lower minimum readings never cross the longer term trend, how do you marry this data with the temperature record ?

47. QuaesoVeritas & 48. Pkthinks:



Just checked the Mauna Loa CO2 raw data and the rate of CO2 rise from Oct 1979 to September 1989 (one of the 10-year periods of cooling recorded in UAH) was 1.6 ppm per year. From Feb 2002 to Jan 2012 (the period of levelling temps) it was 1.9 ppm per year. Both figures round to 2 ppm per year - both very fast rates of rise with very little difference between them.

re 49 newdr54



Your point is fairly made re previous 10 year trends as discussed by Spencer



But I think the concept of a new unambiguous record is more useful, because we expect to see an exponential rise in the temperature record while observing natural variability,



but natural variability should not frustrate CO2 forcing forever

51. Pkthinks wrote:



"...how do you marry this data with the temperature record ?"



The difference between the rate of CO2 rise in the two 10 year periods Oct '79/Sept '89 and Feb '02/Jan '12 is negligible, as I pointed out @ 52. But that's not the point.



The point is that, as we have seen from Dr Spencer's own data, there can be and have been periods spanning 10 years within a 33 year data set that show cooling trends, even though the whole data set shows overall strong warming.



Why is he making a fuss about a ten year levelling off when his own data set clearly shows two previous 10 year periods of cooling?



One thing you'll notice about Roy Spencer is that he *never* adds a linear trend line to the UAH graphs that he places on his blog. I stand to be corrected on that, but I don't recall him ever showing one.

49. newdwr54 wrote:



"His own relatively short (33 years) data set shows that you can get frequent 10 year periods of levelling-off or even cooling temperature trends despite a steadily rising long term trend. Strangely, he doesn't mention this in his blog."



Actual words from his blog:-



“As can be seen, in the last 10 years the estimated forcing has been the strongest. Yet, most if not all temperature datasets show little or no global-average warming recently, either in the atmosphere, at the surface, or in the upper 700 meters of the ocean. For example, here are the tropospheric temperatures up though a few days ago:”



https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSU5-Aqua-anoms-thru-2-23-12.png



“So what is happening? You cannot simply say a lack of warming in 10 years is not that unusual, and that there have been previous 10-year periods without warming, too. No, we are supposedly in uncharted territory with a maximum in radiative forcing of the climate system. One cannot compare on an equal basis the last 10 years with any previous decades without warming.”



That quite clearly references "previous decades without warming" and states his reason why he sees this decade as being different:



"we are supposedly in uncharted territory with a maximum in radiative forcing of the climate system"

Last comment tonight is the fact that skiing seems as secure for now despite predictions



https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1661704.stm



snow good and temperatures as low as ever (very low but not quite as low temps as forecast thank goodness)



https://www.chamonet.com/reports/news/record-amount-of-snow-falling-across-the-alps.html



interesting optical effects with low temps and hexagonal ice crystals in mist



https://www.flickr.com/photos/17008570@N00/6936361739/in/photostream

35. QuaesoVeritas wrote:



"Hmm, still no HadCRUT3 figure for January.."



Yup, seem to be dragging it out. Had a similar situation with Reynolds SSTs the weekly numbers disappeared for two weeks have just reappeared with a large jump in the Feb anomaly (1971-2000) to the 22nd Feb presently +0.20c versus +0.11c this time last year. This will result in an increase in the monthly number, first sign of a possible increase in this years SSTs over last year.

#55. - greensand wrote:

Dr. Spencer's quote:

“So what is happening? You cannot simply say a lack of warming in 10 years is not that unusual, and that there have been previous 10-year periods without warming, too. No, we are supposedly in uncharted territory with a maximum in radiative forcing of the climate system. One cannot compare on an equal basis the last 10 years with any previous decades without warming.”

Personally I found that paragraph difficult to understand when I first read it, particularly the first sentence. Too many negatives. I will have to read it again after a good night's sleep to decide exactly what it means.

#50. - newdwr54 wrote:



"That looks like a fairly good fit to me. There may be a slight increase towards the latter end, but it certainly isn't exponential."

Sorry, it doesn't look at all a good fit to me. It still looks exponential to me.

Is it possible to plot an exponential curve to the data on WFT?

I think it would be a much better fit.

#57. - greensand wrote:

"Yup, seem to be dragging it out."

I couldn't restrain myself any longer - have sent an e-mail to the MO asking when the figures will be published. No reply yet.

A few months ago when the figures were late I think they had a computer problem.

Latest AQUA figures not increasing as quickly as I had anticipated. In fact the Ch8 figure is down slightly.

Richard Black and the theory that less sea ice in the Arctic has caused and is likely to cause, colder winters in the U.K. actually made it onto the 07:00 Radio 4 news this morning.

It will be interesting to see if this is covered more extensively on the Today programme and/or BBC t.v. news.

61. QuaesoVeritas wrote:



"It will be interesting to see if this is covered more extensively on the Today programme and/or BBC t.v. news."



Yup heard it this morning and it was also on the 10 pm BBC 1 TV last night.



Arctic ice interesting this year, Barents & Kara sea ice has a great deal of difficulty getting established, still not there and we are late in the freeze up season.



Whereas the rest of the Arctic is well established and in some areas noticeably earlier than last year, especially Bering and Chukchi:-



https://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.2.html



Also Barrow Ice thickness at present is:1.36 m, 4 ft 5.5". This is about 30 days ahead of last year.



https://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_sealevel



I assume the difference is SSTs, North Pacific has been cooler than normal, North Atlantic warmer. Should be interesting watching the melt season later in the year.



However I should know by now not to assume anything, so maybe it is better to say that SSTs could be a contributing factor?

58. QuaesoVeritas wrote:



Re "Dr. Spencer's quote:"



Yup, Dr. Spencer's writings not always the "Queens English" but the gist of his message is clear. Whether he is right with his "gist" or is another matter.

Oldgifford @ #42



I’ve taken a look at David Evans’ article at WUWT. I have found Evans’ claims to be extremely misleading.



First, regarding feedbacks, Evans makes no mention of one key feedback – albedo from ice. He also completely ignores the fact that clouds have positive feedback effects too; indeed most scientists believe that the net feedback of clouds is neutral to slightly positive. The main reason most scientists are convinced that net effect of all feedbacks is positive is observations from past climate. The amount of warming/cooling between glacial and interglacial periods cannot be explained without a large net positive feedback. Similarly, the much higher temperatures at times in the Earth’s more distant past cannot be explained if clouds have a significant negative feedback effect.



Evans also makes an unsupported claim about runaway warming, suggesting that the lack of it from past climate suggests that feedbacks are negative. The best explanation I have yet seen for why this is wrong came very recently in an excellent article by Chris Colose at SKS:



https://skepticalscience.com/radiation.html



Evans states that models have been basically the same for 30 years now. This is nonsense. We also know that the climate sensitivity of Hansen’s earlier model was significantly higher than today. In figure 3, Evans compares Hansen’s model projections, which were for SURFACE temperature, to UAH SATELLITE data, which shows a smaller trend. I note that Nick Stokes tried to make this point in the discussion but was shouted down.



Evans’ figure 4 is also misleading as it only shows a small fraction of the hindcast, incorrectly shows the 95% confidence limits diverging from a point at 1990 and fails to point out that the decade or so of data since the 2000 AD projections is not sufficient to draw firm conclusions about the long-term trend.…….oh and yet again, Evans has chosen satellite data to compare the projections to, even though they are actually projecting SURFACE temperature (which shows more warming). All it would take to completely change the picture would be a couple of strong El Ninos. Of course, the model projections also did not allow for the recent fall in solar activity and rise in aerosols. I’ll leave the final word on the subject to Gavin Schmidt, who IS an acknowledged expert on the subject and has recently updated the model/data comparisons:



https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/



continued below.......

60. QuaesoVeritas wrote:



"have sent an e-mail to the MO asking when the figures will be published. No reply yet."



Maybe when they do reply they will take the opportunity to remind you of the uncertainties around individual monthly estimates.

oldgifford continued:



Evans then turns to the subject of ocean temperature. Again, his analysis is misleading. He appears to be using an older analysis of Argo data. A recent analysis from von Schukman and Le Taron (2011) concludes that it wasn’t until 2007 that the completed Argo network was sufficiently robust to be reliably used to study short-term trends. The von Schukman analysis DOES find ocean warming in the period shown in Evans’ graph. It is also important to note that Evans has only shown the surface layers down to 700m, whereas later studies have found warming deeper down.



Evans also uses an old argument regarding the “tropospheric hotspot”. What he fails to point out is that this is NOT specific to AGW. Rather it is derived from empirical physics and is a predicted response to surface warming by any cause. There are difficulties in detecting it because of problems with the radiosonde data. SKS has dealt with the same argument from Evans before:



https://www.skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html



Regarding the last point about satellite data, the “major study” Evans cites (why did he not tell us so we could go and check it for ourselves?) appears to have been the wholly flawed paper by Lindzen and Choi. As you may know, Trenberth et al found multiple problems with the approach used by Lindzen and Choi:



https://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL042314.shtml



Paul

January HadCRUT3 anomaly figures are as follows:

NH = 0.319c, compared to 0.385c in December.

SH = 0.117c, compared to 0.102c in December.

Mean of NH & SH = 0.218c, compared to 0.244c in December.

Not as large a fall in the global figure as I would have expected from AQUA and the other temperature anomalies, but lower than estimated based on HadSST2.

The monthly fall in HadCRUT3 is actually the lowest of all of the temperature series, leaving January 2012 slightly higher than that of January 2011.

The global anomalies for December 2011 has been revised downwards from 0.256c, making the fall look smaller than it actually was. November 2011 has been revised slightly upwards and October downwards, with the net effect of reducing the simple 2011 average slightly.

#50. - newdwr54 wrote:

"Here is the CO2 data Pkthinks just posted but with a linear trend line attached to it. That looks like a fairly good fit to me. There may be a slight increase towards the latter end, but it certainly isn't exponential."

I have downloaded the latest Mauna Loa CO2 data and tried to fit an exponential curve to it using Excel, and while it is a better fit than a linear trend, it isn't much better.

The R^2 of a linear trend is 0.9782, while that for an exponential trend is 0.9834.

However, by far the best fit, is a second order polynomial curve, with the formula:

y=8e-05x^2 + 0.0678x +314.16, which has an R^2 of 0.991.

Since this is an almost perfect fit, it should be possible to use it to predict future annual CO2 concentrations quite accurately, assuming of course that there are no significant reductions in emissions.

One thing I am sure of is that the trend certainly isn't linear.

55. greensand wrote:



"[Roy Spencer] quite clearly references "previous decades without warming" and states his reason why he sees this decade as being different:



"we are supposedly in uncharted territory with a maximum in radiative forcing of the climate system"

_____________________________________



Who is Spencer quoting when he says that the last decade in particular is "uncharted territory"? We have been in 'uncharted territory with a maximum in radiative forcing of the climate system', as far as CO2 concentrations are concerned, for several decades now. What makes the last 10 years a special case compared to previous recent 10 year periods where we saw cooling as CO2 concentrations rose to ever higher levels?



Yes, there was more CO2 in the atmosphere during the past decade than there was between 1987 and 1997, when UAH showed up to -0.08 C per decade cooling despite continued rise in CO2. No aspect of AGW theory that I'm aware of states that CO2 will always trump natural variability over short time scales. That is what Spencer seems to be suggesting.

59. QuaesoVeritas wrote:



"Sorry, it doesn't look at all a good fit to me. It still looks exponential to me."

_________________________________________



Per my @ 52: The annual trend in the raw CO2 data for the ten year period from Oct 1979 to September 1989 (which showed cooling temps in UAH) was +1.6 ppm per year.



From the last 10 years, Feb 2002 to Jan 2012 (which showed levelling temps in UAH), CO2 increase was 1.9 ppm per year.



Both figures round to an average of 2 ppm per year. If this represents an exponential rise, then it must be in its very early stages. In real terms it's unlikely to have any 'tipping point' like impact, as Spencer's post seems (to me) to be suggesting that it should have done.



On the general point, during two previous 10-year periods that saw a rise of ~ 2ppm CO2 per year, and in which each new year brought a new record high atmospheric CO2 concentration (for the instrument period), global temperatures, according to UAH, *cooled* by up to -0.08 C per decade.



As I asked GS a moment ago, what does Roy Spencer use as the basis for his suggestion that this last decade in particular should have been any different from previous recent decades with regard to surface warming?

69. newdwr54 wrote:



"Who is Spencer quoting when he says that the last decade in particular is "uncharted territory"? We have been in 'uncharted territory with a maximum in radiative forcing of the climate system',"



DW to me it is obvious that he is quoting from the RCP6 chart where "the radiative forcing of the climate system" is at its maximum level so far?



Also it is my understanding RCP6 shows total anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing.



Spencer is merely stating what the chart shows. Whether it is meaningful or not is another issue, but what he says relating to the maximum shown on the chart is correct.



Also any "uncharted territory" that we have been in before can by definition no longer be "uncharted".



As I understand it the whole theme, understanding, theory etc, accepted by the good and great of both sides of the divide is that the greater the total radiative forcing the greater the warming potential. What I don't think is agreed is what the planet system as a whole then does with the warming potential.

71. greensand wrote:



"DW to me it is obvious that he is quoting from the RCP6 chart where "the radiative forcing of the climate system" is at its maximum level so far?"

_________________________



Yes, but Spencer could have made a similar case in 1997, when the energy imbalance was also at a (then) record high - yet no warming. Natural variation was at play then, as it was during the past 10 years. 10 years is just too short a time period to draw any conclusions from.



Spencer says "in the last 10 years the estimated forcing has been the strongest". But if you look at the last 10 years on the chart, there was a pronounced dip in the last 10 years. This makes the last 10 years look decidedly flat overall. You might even say that the energy imbalance reached a plateaux and stayed there.



I think your last paragraph it about right, at least in the short term. But if the heat is 'in the system', i.e. especially the deep oceans, then sooner or later the natural cycles should release it to the atmosphere.

@72, newdwr54 wrote:



“ 10 years is just too short a time period to draw any conclusions from. “



That isn't strictly true. Over any 10 year period there will be a limit to the likely natural variation. If the warming forecast by a model exceeds the maximum likely natural cooling over that period then the planet will warm unless the natural cooling is exceptional or other factors come into play.

This point has been passed for some of the warmer IPCC ensemble models and we can reject them with greater than 95% confidence. This does not mean that these models are wrong. The 95% limit is itself arbitrary and other factors could be in play as mentioned above but it does not give us confidence.



Let's hope that recent events lead to an outbreak of open science amongst the contrived climate consensus community.

"The progressive shrinking of Arctic sea ice is bringing colder, snowier winters to the UK and other areas of Europe, North America and China, a study shows.



As global temperatures have risen, the area of Arctic Ocean covered by ice in summer and autumn has been falling.



Writing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a US/China-based team show this affects the jet stream and brings cold, snowy weather.



Whether conditions will get colder still as ice melts further is unclear."



This has been pasted and copied from the BBC science pages a few minutes ago.

It makes interesting reading......



Is global warming actually causing cooling in the Northern Hemisphere?

Nothing from the Met Office yet about this story.

#70. - newdwr54 wrote:

"Per my @ 52: The annual trend in the raw CO2 data for the ten year period from Oct 1979 to September 1989 (which showed cooling temps in UAH) was +1.6 ppm per year.

From the last 10 years, Feb 2002 to Jan 2012 (which showed levelling temps in UAH), CO2 increase was 1.9 ppm per year.

Both figures round to an average of 2 ppm per year. If this represents an exponential rise, then it must be in its very early stages."

Of course, if you round both numbers the same number, then the change does not look exponential. You said in #52 that there was very little difference between the numbers. Actually the difference was an increase of 0.3 ppm, i.e. an increase in the rate of growth of about 0.3 ppm per year, in about 23 years. That is NOT linear. Frankly, I am perplexed over how you could say that the linear trend line was "a fairly good fit".

However, I have already posted that the growth is probably not in fact exponential, but somewhere in between linear and exponential, i.e. polynomial or cubic growth.

(see my post #68).

No overall it is not causing cooling. The point is that with diminishing ice cover in the shorter term more blocking could occur which would allow easterlies to prevail. The Atlantic air could instead be pushed towards Iceland and Greenland instead.



In the 2009/10 winter here we had our coldest winter since 79. But for Greenland and Arctic Canada they had temperature anomalies of +5 degrees. Incidentally that chart of January ice cover does not make for happy viewing

75. QuaesoVeritas wrote:



"Of course, if you round both numbers the same number, then the change does not look exponential."

__________________________________



But surely the fact that both of these 10-year values mathematically round up to 2 ppm CO2 per year, even though they cover a period spanning 25 years, suggests that the rise is not likely to be exponential? As I indicated @ 50 and elsewhere, I agree there was a very slight increase during the latter period.



In any case, my point was that UAH has previously seen two separate and quite extended periods where the ten year trend in its monthly data showed negative values. During both of these periods CO2 emissions relentlessly increased, as did total atmospheric CO2 concentrations - to new record levels at the time (instrument period).



Natural variability easily overcame the effects of this GHG increase in the short term. However as soon as these short term effects passed (in that case aerosols from volcanic activity) the warming signal picked up again.



All I'm saying is that the current levelling in the ten year trend in UAH monthly data despite continued rises in CO2 is nothing exceptional or even unusual. Admittedly there are uncertainties about what exactly it is that is delaying the resumed warming. But I don't see any reason to presume that just because warming has levelled off recently we can dismiss AGW theory as flawed. The evidence from the fairly recent past does not support that position.

While this latest theory about the diminishing Arctic Ice causing colder, snowier winters in the UK, Europe and other locations appears to explan the conditions of the last few winters, I suspect that it might be a futile attempt to make the "climate change" models fit the short-term facts in an attempt to rescue some credibility for "global warming".

Were we not being told, not all that long ago, that "global warming" would result in more warmer winters and less snow? I don't recall that before we experienced the recent cold winters there were any forecasts of colder winters, specifically caused by less ice in the Arctic. If anyone knows of such forecasts, I would be grateful if they could post them here.

77. "But I don't see any reason to presume that just because warming has levelled off recently we can dismiss AGW theory as flawed."



When people say that AGW is in doubt because temperature has gone flat since X, don't worry about it - those kind of claims will ultimately end up reinforcing the theory if warming continues. The greater the predictions that warming has stopped, the greater the theory will be taken seriously if warming continues.

QV @ #78



"Were we not being told, not all that long ago, that "global warming" would result in more warmer winters and less snow?"



Certainly, David Viner said that to the Independent, but, as Potholer explains in this video, there doesn't appear to be anything in the scientific literature to support such an assertion:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nJuAslQPaY&feature=channel_video_title



Paul

78. QuaesoVeritas wrote:



"If anyone knows of such forecasts, I would be grateful if they could post them here."



The first I heard about it was from PIK Potsdam Nov 2010:-



"Global Warming could cool down temperatures in winter"



https://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/archive/2010/global-warming-could-cool-down-temperatures-in-winter



NTZ had a post about it in Jan 2011



"Debunking PIK’s Low Barents/Kara Sea Ice – Cold Winters Claim"



https://notrickszone.com/2011/01/03/debunking-piks-low-barentskara-sea-ice-cold-winters-claim/



I didn't pay much attention then and doubt that I will now. I am constantly told that 10 years is far too short a timescale for all things climate, so as the latest on this only has data covering 2009 to 2011. I will give it a miss.

#79. - quake wrote:

"The greater the predictions that warming has stopped, the greater the theory will be taken seriously if warming continues."

And vice versa!

Place your bets.

greensand,

Thanks for the links.

I may not have made myself clear, but what I really meant was, were there any forecasts from global warmist scientists (or any come to that), of colder winters in Europe *before* we actually had the colder winters?

It is easy to be wise after the event.

To QV #106 previous blog but one



I accept your "cannot prove a negative" point. Sorry I wasn't thinking straight.



I agree, broadly that nature has had to adapt to many changes in the past, so in that sense climate change is entirely part of the natural cycle. There is however, plenty of evidence that past natural CC has caused stress and extinctions. So it obviously has the capacity to do this - particularly as it relates to speed of change. So the question is whether or not any change today is man made and more crucially perhaps whether this might lead to extraordinary speeds and levels of change.



Here we have the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE, where I have argued that IF one values the environment highly it is more reasonable to err on the side of AGW than of scepticism.



I would contend that PP is fundamentally a VALUES argument, not a scientific one. Yes, science defines the existence and nature of the threat, if any, but it is values which dictate levels of action or anxiety. And it is the WEIGHT of value that tips the balance.



For example, a scientific fact could pose a potential risk to your baby daughter and your best armchair. But you would tolerate almost no risk level to your daughter, but quite a high level of the same risk to your armchair. Because you value one much more than the other. And this would be rational.



Similarly, if you value the environment very highly, it is reasonable to tolerate only a small level of potential threat before taking action, rather than waiting for the threat to be proved more serious. Even if the science is fairly weak - how much is it worth the risk?



Granted if you were certain that the science of AGW was completely unfounded and more significantly perhaps, your interpretation of the evidence was never likely to be proven wrong, then I concur, that no matter how much the environment mattered, you would be rational to ignore the PP.



So are you that certain? What would be your tipping point - a bit more doubt, a lot more doubt, near certainty? This is what I mean by the sceptic paradox- of someone like you who appears to value nature deeply. Unlike science, values are hard to objectify.

#80. - Paul Briscoe wrote:

"Certainly, David Viner said that to the Independent, but, as Potholer explains in this video, there doesn't appear to be anything in the scientific literature to support such an assertion:"

I thought someone posted evidence to support the assertion in a previous blog - I will look back and see if I can find it.

Maybe not "scientific literature", but in it's "Impacts on Horticulture", page, the MO does refer to milder winters:

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/impacts/horticulture

No mention of colder ones!

83. QuaesoVeritas wrote:



"It is easy to be wise after the event."



Point taken QV, no, I have not seen any forecasts. As I said before first I heard about it was after the onset of "cold" winters. Not that we have not had "cold" winters before, long before AGW and if some historic reports are to be believed we have also had low Arctic sea ice before. So nothing new under the sun?

To QV continued



I assume you accept my argument that environmental protection must be done in the name of "the common good of mankind" ("good" meaning aesthetic, spiritual and utilitarian)? This is also a values argument, where differing values must be accommodated by embracing potential conflict within a "bennefits for all" philosophy. All must feel they have something to gain. The alternative, I would suggest, is a "might is right" policy which as well as being unfair, would be a far more capricious and unstable basis for protection in the first place.



Animal rights are an interesting extra consideration, but would in any case, I would contend, be most secure within a "common good of mankind" structure.

Paul Briscoe,

From the DEFRA "Climate Change Plan", 2010:

"Broadly speaking, we can characterise the projected

changes as warmer and wetter winters, hotter and

drier summers, sea level rise, and more extreme

weather events."

The "plan" seems to be entirely based on the assumption of "warmer and wetter winters", so maybe they will need to change the plan to cope with more cold winters?

#86. - greensand wrote:

"Point taken QV, no, I have not seen any forecasts. As I said before first I heard about it was after the onset of "cold" winters. Not that we have not had "cold" winters before, long before AGW and if some historic reports are to be believed we have also had low Arctic sea ice before. So nothing new under the sun?"

My own view, although I can't prove it scientifically is that such things are cyclcical and that eventually, feedback mechanisms will set in which will reverse the situation. If we have an "ice age" in Europe and the NH in general, I can't see how Arctic ice can continue to decline.

85.QuaesoVeritas:



Let's say, for talk's sake, that what many climate scientists are saying now is true: that the world is already experiencing the impacts of 'global warming' due to GHG emissions. Does this mean that from now on we can only expect to see warming and record warm temperatures; but no cooling, or record cold temperatures? The answer to that is an emphatic *no*.



All it means is that, 'globally', record warm temperatures should outstrip record low temperatures by an incrementally increasing ratio. There is a computer model developed for a peer reviewed paper that illustrated this, but I can't find the link just at the moment.



This effect doesn't take account of local or even regional anomalies; it only concerns global averages. For instance, I remember debating 'sceptics' in the UK during the winters of 2009/10 and 2010/11 who were dismissive of my references to the global data that showed these winters to be among the warmest winters on record - globally.



People's views on climate change are directly affected by local weather conditions. I learned that much. Ironically, now would be a good time in the UK and USA for an AGW proponent with a manipulative turn of mind to float the 'AGW is for real' boat. People would look outside their windows and think: 'Yeah, it has been kind of mild lately'. If they looked at global figures they would get a whole different perspective. But they are not interested, generally, in anything that doesn't happen outside their windows. The GWPF and the HI and co discovered that a long time ago.



In short, AGW predicts that, globally, record hot temperatures will progressively outpace record cold temperatures, but that record cold temperatures will persist at an diminishing rate at a local and regional level for decades and centuries to come.

newdwr54 said . . "But they are not interested, generally, in anything that doesn't happen outside their windows. The GWPF and the HI and co discovered that a long time ago."



By 'and co' are you referring to Hansen? I seem to remember a story about him turning off the air conditioning at an important policy meeting a few years ago. Maybe I've got him mixed up with one of those dastardly denier types - you can't trust any of them y'know - just ask Mr Gleick.

Has anybody considered the amount of tax on fuel. Per litre of fuel tax is 80.8, the cost of fuel is 49.3 = 163% tax. I find that quite disgusting, but would be less concerned if that money had gone into scientific research for a clean alternate to petrol. The outcome of this could be new investment in green technology through manufacturing. If the government were really interested in making this a greener world, we would not now be having these discussions about climate change. It is quite clear that the money raised is being used on anything but for what it should be intended. This is the real issue we should be dealing with.

I agree wholeheartedly with the last contributor. Revenue from tax on fuel

including the aviation industry which I am afraid needs to be royally thumped

(sorry to be a killjoy) should be put with utmost urgency into finding alternative

fuels. The sooner our civilisation moves from being fossil fuel based to one being based on solar either directly (solar power stations) and indirectly (use of algae, fuel cells , etc) the better.

#90 - newdwr54 wrote:

"In short, AGW predicts that, globally, record hot temperatures will progressively outpace record cold temperatures, but that record cold temperatures will persist at an diminishing rate at a local and regional level for decades and centuries to come."

But that is not what these latest theories are saying. That is, not that there will be the odd colder winter in the UK and Europe, due to random variability, but that there are likely to be colder winters as a direct result of "global warming". Presumably if these are due to diminishing sea ice, then as ice continues to diminish,the colder winters will get worse.

It is this prediction that I don't recall seeing before recent cold winters, i.e. that "global warming" would cause colder winters in the UK and Europe, as a direct result of the Arctic Ice melting.

There is nothing about this in the DEFRA "climate change plan - 2010", which seems to be entirely based on the assumption of warmer winters.

Qv the DEFRA 2010 climate plan was probably put together based on older work.

The research linking low sunspot activity and this recently announced work regarding Arctic ice cover was probably initially an attempt to explain the cold spells in 2009-2011 particularly with regard to the strange snaking pattern of the jet stream.

Whatever, the significant decline both in autumn and winter Arctic ice extents I would think is almost certain to trigger some 'interesting' changes in summer and winter weather patterns.

There's a lot of dice being thrown and no-one knows what will happen. I think data about past climates is vastly more useful as a guide than modelled and theoretical predictions. The exact situation we are moving into is unique, but individual pieces correspond to the past. Eg the last time the arctic was ice free...can they determine what the climates were like in europe during that time?

#95. - Adrian Buckland wrote:

"Qv the DEFRA 2010 climate plan was probably put together based on older work.

The research linking low sunspot activity and this recently announced work regarding Arctic ice cover was probably initially an attempt to explain the cold spells in 2009-2011 particularly with regard to the strange snaking pattern of the jet stream."

Whatever, the significant decline both in autumn and winter Arctic ice extents I would think is almost certain to trigger some 'interesting' changes in summer and winter weather patterns."

Which precisely proves my point that this *was not* predicted in advance by the pro-warming climate models. At worst, *if* this new "research" is correct, then it surely invalidates, or at least places in doubt, all of the previous predictions from the pro-warming climate models?

Yes I'm afraid we do have an idea. It's called the paleaocene-eocene thermal maximum

that occurred 55 million years ago. It is estimated that a trillion tonnes of carbon were put into the atmosphere through some form of geological accident over a space of ten thousand years I think (not sure about this). In that time the Arctic changed from a cool ocean (dont think it was ice bound as today) to a sub tropical ocean.



Also it was a period of significant species extinction as species had to retreat polewards to move to habitable areas. I believe we have emitted nearly 800 billion tonnes in about 300 years.

#96. - quake wrote:

"There's a lot of dice being thrown and no-one knows what will happen. I think data about past climates is vastly more useful as a guide than modelled and theoretical predictions. The exact situation we are moving into is unique, but individual pieces correspond to the past. Eg the last time the arctic was ice free...can they determine what the climates were like in europe during that time?"

That sounds to me like an argument against the theory that the climate is changing as a result of "global warming", since that is almost entirely based on models and theoretical predictions.

No I wouldn't say invalidate but maybe the correct way forward is complicate. I suppose any prediction tool must be revised as understanding (hopefully) improves. For example none of the early 1990s models predicted retreat of the Greenland glaciers as soon as 1998 which is when it began. So monitoring and exploration must be undertaken in very inhospitable conditions to try and understand what is taking place and so the models move forward (hopefully).



What you are absolutely right in thinking in maybe there has been a stance ah well that's the model forecast data that's it we can sit back and relax. No there will always be surprises which is why it is so important to monitor what is actually happening in these relatively data sparse areas compared to temperate areas of the world.