Drought order in parts of Yorkshire. Will it affect you?

So in other words - there is no reason for imposing the drought order but they are imposing one anyway!



I suppose they have to keep the public convinced about the justification for the £40b a year in environmental taxes they are now taking from us

"For agricultural and industrial users, the situation is different. Some have licenses to abstract water from underground sources, and in these instances, should drought conditions deteriorate further, holders of such licenses could be told by the Environment Agency to limit how much water they pump to the surface for their own use. In fact some have faced restrictions since last winter.



The Environment Agency is taking this step primarily to protect fish and other wildlife, because it expects to see lower river levels, as well as some streams drying up. "



There's the reason.

Fish! what about my car???

All this talk of drought is going to make our summer a total write-off. Won't someone think of the tourist industry?

Drought I can believe - my garden is starting to wilt already.



What about this anticyclone then - dazzling or what?



I don't think I can ever remember weather like this in March before. Day after day of cloudless skies and brilliant hot sun. And as for the night! Crescent moon, Venus and Jupiter in alignment. People used to believe that the "Dog Star" - Cirrius added heat to July - it is not difficult to imagine the above three doing the same - almost portentious! God only knows what the astrologers are making of it.

#5. - jkiller56 wrote:

"People used to believe that the "Dog Star" - Cirrius added heat to July - it is not difficult to imagine the above three doing the same - almost portentious! God only knows what the astrologers are making of it."

I think you might mean "Sirius".

Never mind the astrologers, did any of the independent weather forecasters predict this weather? What was Piers Corbyn's forecast?

Special Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

https://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-All_FINAL.pdf

Out now, bedtime reading - easy to fall asleep with.

@6 QuaesoVeritas



I'm sure he was correct, he always is regardless of what he says and the weather does.



He's current busy saying the Scottish march record is not worth the record 'title' as its at the end of the month not the middle or start..

February HadSST2 published at last:



NH/SH average = 0.229c, up from 0.203c last month.

NH = 0.196c, down from 0.297c last month.

SH = 0.263c, up from 0.108c last month.



Based on the last 10 years, the above figures would have suggested higher February HadCRUT3 anomalies than they were.

For example, the Feb. 2011 HadSST2 global anomaly was 0.247c, which produced a HadCRUT3 of 0.259c, whereas this February's HadSST2 of 0.229c only produced a HadCRUT3 of 0.192c.

This seems to be due to the fact that for the first time since December 2009, land temperature anomaly (CRUTEM3) was lower than the sea temperature anomaly.

Since around 1980, the vast majority of land temperature anomalies have been higher than sea temperature anomalies.

#8. - john_cogger wrote:

"He's current busy saying the Scottish march record is not worth the record 'title' as its at the end of the month not the middle or start.."

Actually, I have some sympathy for that view.

I checked with the MO and the 1957 March record (22.2c) was on the 12th., but the 1965 record was on the 29th.

I suspect the anomaly in 1957 was higher than in the case this year's records.

Personally I think the only valid comparison is on the actual day of the year, taking into account leap years.

Going back to the J.B. quote in the previous blog, I notice that he says the following, referring to the UKMO:



"They also said 3 of the 6 years would be the hottest on record 2010-2015. "

Actually, I don't think they did say that. What I think they said was "about half" of the years would be warmer than 1998, not that they would all be record years in their own right.

I thought man made global warming was going to result in more rain fall. I suspect at some stage it will rain and the heavens will open up for a while and everybody will then moan about it raining.

#12. - Tim wrote:

"I thought man made global warming was going to result in more rain fall. I suspect at some stage it will rain and the heavens will open up for a while and everybody will then moan about it raining."

I think, in the case of the U.K., it was more rain in the winter and less in the summer. I am not sure about overall.

Anyway, if actual rainfall matches the predictions, that is evidence of "climate change", (since it confirms the models), but if it doesn't, that is still evidence of "climate change", or "global weirding" as it is now apparently known, since it doesn't prove the models are wrong, just that the weather is wrong.

It case it isn't obvious, I am being ironic in the above comments.

Quaesoveritas:-)

Further to my comment in post #9 about the CRUTEM3 anomaly being lower than the SST anomaly for the first time since December 2009, I have been looking in more detail at the latest CRUTEM3 figures.

The global CRUTEM3 for February was 0.158c, compared to 0.428c in January.

The last time the global anomaly was lower than that was in November 2000, with a figure of 0.048c.

The NH anomaly for Feb. was 0.083c, compared to 0.539c in January. The last time the NH anomaly was lower, was again in Nov. 2000, with a figure of 0.054c.

The NH Extra Tropics (N of 30 deg.) anomaly was -0.237c (yes, 0.237c lower than 1961-90), compared to +0.567c in January. The last time the anomaly was lower was in Sep. 1996, with a figure of -0.335c.

The Tropics & Mid Latitudes anomaly was -0.016c, compared to +0.448c in January.

The last time the anomaly was lower was in Nov. 2000, with a figure of -0.109c.

So it appears that despite the relatively mild conditions in the U.K. during February, the globe and the N.H. have been experiencing relatively low land temperatures.

Most regions also show much lower anonalies than Feb. 2011. The only region which shows a relatively large increase in the anomaly during February was the tropics, with an anomaly of 0.444c, compared to 0.333c in January and 0.338c in Feb. 2011.

Sorry the last paragraph should read:



The only region which shows any increase in the anomaly during February was the tropics, with an anomaly of 0.444c, compared to 0.333c in January and 0.338c in Feb. 2011.

6. QuaesoVeritas wrote:



"Never mind the astrologers, did any of the independent weather forecasters predict this weather? What was Piers Corbyn's forecast?"



Funny you should mention both Piers and astrology in the same short paragraph. Following on from his hopelessly wrong 2011/12 winter forecast, he is now suggesting that March temperature records should only apply up to the 12th March - otherwise they are dishonest.



Piers doesn't just want to re-define temperature records; he wants to re-define 'March'.

#17. - newdwr54 wrote:

"Funny you should mention both Piers and astrology in the same short paragraph. Following on from his hopelessly wrong 2011/12 winter forecast, he is now suggesting that March temperature records should only apply up to the 12th March - otherwise they are dishonest."

Are you sure it's not just that he wants records to be for a comparable date in the month? That is, you can't compare a temperature record for the 26th with one for the 12th.

In the same way, you can't compare a temperature for March 26th in a leap year, with one for March 26th in a normal year. One is for day 86 and the other for day 85. There are more hours of daylight and the sun gets higher in the sky.

18. QuaesoVeritas:



Surely each of the recent Scottish records were the all-time highest temperatures in Scotland for those particular dates in March? I.e. the temperatures on 25th, 26th and 27th March were the highest recorded on those particular dates, as well as the highest ever recorded in March?



I fail to see how it could be otherwise.

#19. - newdwr54 wrote:

"Surely each of the recent Scottish records were the all-time highest temperatures in Scotland for those particular dates in March? I.e. the temperatures on 25th, 26th and 27th March were the highest recorded on those particular dates, as well as the highest ever recorded in March?

I fail to see how it could be otherwise."

This year (a leap year), those dates are the 85th, 86th and 87th days of the year.

The previous records may (I don't actually know), have been set in "normal" years, when they would have been the 84th, 85th and 86th days of the year. Temperatures for the 85th day can be expected to be slighltly higher than those fo the 84th day. You wouldn't class a temperature on April 1st as being a record for March 31st.

20. QuaesoVeritas:



Then we can safely say that the warmest temperature recorded on 12th March in Scotland occurred in 1957, and the warmest temperatures recorded on 25th, 26th and 27th March in Scotland all occurred in 2012.



I suppose we should really be looking at daily averages and monthly trends and expanding our search beyond Scotland before reading a great deal into it. I think the 'warmists' say that we should expect the ratio between 'all-time' warmest/coldest records globally to increase from now on, but that all-time coldest records will continue to be recorded.



For what it's worth, March 2012 would have to average >6.5 C to beat 1957 in Scotland, and >7.0 C to beat the Scottish record set in 1938.

As a result of the February HadCRUT3 global anomaly of 0.192c, the 30 year linear trend fell from +0.158c/decade to +0.155c/decade, and the 10 year linear trend fell from -0.102c/decade to -0.104c/decade. This is the lowest trend over 10 years since May 1969 and the lowest over 30 years since April 1999.

The longest period over which the linear trend is now negative is 15 years and 1 month, although there have been shorter periods over which the trend has been positive, i.e. 12 years and 4 months to 13 years and 10 months.

Ten years ago, there were no periods between 10 and 100 years over which the linear trend was negative, with the trend over 10 years being +0.38c/decade, the trend over 15 years being +0.190c/decade and the trend over 30 years being +0.165c/decade.

Of course, all of this will probably change, with the introduction of HadCRUT4.

"""Piers doesn't just want to re-define temperature records; he wants to re-define 'March'."""



If you think he is bad what do you think of the metoffice which has had a warming bias in 11 of the last 12 years?



imvho they are now totally discredited and now nothing more than an activist organisation

QV #22



I am amazed that we can take the temperature of a body the size of the earth to 3 decimal places. Mankind's ingenuity never ceases to amaze me. And the good news is that the warming trends are declining (otherwise known as cooling although obviously we cannot use such a term) whilst presumably the evil CO2 is increasing. Who would have thunk it? Think we need to change the story again. How does global weirding sound?

#24. - Spanglerboy wrote:

"Think we need to change the story again. How does global weirding sound?"

I would prefer "global normality"

Spanglerboy. This is what you get, when the lunatics get in control of the asylum. It looks like we are in for a prolonged period of rain and even some snow in the pennines.

QV #25



touchee :)



Tim #26



yes the lunatics are everywhere and have far too much power for our good. Remain vigilant!

Spanglerboy. It looks like they got into no10 in the 1980s' and have never left. 170% tax on petrol.

QV#6



Yes, I do mean Sirius - I should check my spellings.



As for independent forecasters - I'm afraid I see no reason to take them seriously - at least no more seriously than astrologers. Any indie who claims to be able to make a decent monthly prediction ought to have seen this March weather coming, surely.



Anyway, looks like the amazing weather is about to end - almost dead on the calendar month. Goes to show how arbitrary month records can be I suppose. If the heat had been spread over L.Mar/E.April, with normal temps either side, would it have attracted the same attention I wonder?



As you pointed out earlier, the nights have been pretty cold - we had frost here most mornings throughout. It is the sustained daytime warmth and sunshine that has been most remarkable. Eastern Scotland in particular - and in this instance not due to the fohn effect but seemingly down to sheer anticyclonic sun.

May be of interest to some here.



McKitrick & Michaels Were Right: More Evidence of Spurious Warming in the IPCC Surface Temperature Dataset

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/30/spencer-shows-compelling-evidence-of-uhi-in-crutem3-data/



'The results are shown in the following figure, which indicates that the lower the population density surrounding a temperature station, the lower the average linear warming trend for the 1973-2011 period. Note that the CRUTem3 trend is a little higher than simply averaging all of the accepted ISH stations together, but not as high as when only the highest population stations were used.'

30. ukpahonta:



We'll await Dr Spencer's scientific paper on this subject with its "compelling evidence" duly verified by peer review. There is one in the pipeline, isn't there?



The BEST study looked at this very issue and should be through review shortly. Initial indications from BEST were that even a +2 C rise in urban temperature would have a negligible contribution to the global average.

Newdwr54



You should read through the article and the comments before you post.

ukpahonta



Newdwr54 is only capable of being sceptical of sceptical scientists. Stay vigilant

32. ukpahonta:



I see it now:



"I would love to write this work up and submit it for publication, but I am growing weary of the IPCC gatekeepers killing my papers; the more damaging any conclusions are to the IPCC narrative, the less likely they are to be published. That’s the world we live in."



The usual refrain: it's all a big conspiracy!



Ah well, there's always WUWT - 'science blog of the year'.

22. QuaesoVeritas wrote:



"As a result of the February HadCRUT3 global anomaly of 0.192c, the 30 year linear trend fell from +0.158c/decade to +0.155c/decade, and the 10 year linear trend fell from -0.102c/decade to -0.104c/decade."



Just to put some context on this; the 'fall' in each case is at the thousandths of a degree C level. The 30 and 10 year trends remain unaffected at the hundredths and tenths of a degree level (i.e. HadCRUT3 30-year trend remains +0.16/(+0.2) C/decade; the 10-year trend remains -0.10/(-0.1) C/decade). The WMO recommends that 30 years is the 'classic period' from which to infer climate changes from temperature records.



"This is the lowest trend over 10 years since May 1969 and the lowest over 30 years since April 1999."



Again this is true re trends, but it lacks context. The 10-year *average temperature* in HadCRUT3 up to May 1969 was just +0.05C above the 1961-1990 average. The 10-year average temperature in HadCRUT3 up to February 2012 was +0.14 C above the 1961-1990 average.



Taking the thirty year data: first thing to note is that the 30-year trends in both April 1999 and February 2012 (+0.155 C/decade) are historically very high; the median value for 30-year trends in HadCRUT3 is just +0.07 C/decade.



The second thing to note is that the 30-year *average temperature* in HadCRUT3 up to April 1999 was +0.12 C above the 1961-1990 average. The 30-year average temperature in HadCRUT3 up to February 2012 was +0.17 C above the 1961-1990 average.



So while the trends are very similar, the absolute temperatures, referenced against a common benchmark (1961-1990), have become unmistakably warmer as time progresses. This is an example of how focusing too closely on trends can give a misleading picture about actual measured temperatures in the real world.

Newdwr54 #35



is that is your way of saying the world is cooling and you don't like it? Seems a bit verbose.

36. Spanglerboy:



If global average temperatures were 0.05 C above 'average' from June 1959-May 1969, and 0.14 C above the same average from March 2002-February 2012, then in what sense is the world cooling?



Likewise if the 30-year period ending February 2012 was on average 0.05 C warmer than the 30-year period that ended in April 1999, then in what sense is the world getting colder?



Perhaps I wasn't verbose enough?

#35. - newdwr54 wrote:



"So while the trends are very similar, the absolute temperatures, referenced against a common benchmark (1961-1990), have become unmistakably warmer as time progresses. This is an example of how focusing too closely on trends can give a misleading picture about actual measured temperatures in the real world."

The point is that the 30 year trend is has not increased since April 1999, despite the rapid increase in CO2 since then. In fact, the 30 year trend is currently falling.

Also, over the last 10 years, temperatures are falling, again, despite rapid increases in CO2. I know that the decrease is not statistically significant, but equally there has been no increase in temperatures over the last 15 years now, whether statistically significant or not. So at the moment, there is no evidence that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere results in the any accelleration in the rise in temperatures. Surely this is good news, even if you believe in "global warming" or not.

Of course, that is based on HadCRUT3, but we will have to see what the situation is with HadCRUT4.

Incidentally, even GISS now shows no warming over a period of 10 years and 9 months.

newdwr54



"verbose enough?"



No, nay, never!



No, just sure, confident, convinced and positive enough to the point where arrogance is surpassed.



Verbose or not; is not and never will be an issue with DW, because to the closed mind, conviction will always override the evidence, irrespective of the magnitude.

newdwr54 @35 said . . .

"Again this is true re trends, but it lacks context. The 10-year *average temperature* in HadCRUT3 up to May 1969 was just +0.05C above the 1961-1990 average. The 10-year average temperature in HadCRUT3 up to February 2012 was +0.14 C above the 1961-1990 average. "



I don't think I follow you. Are you saying here that the ten year average temperature has risen only 0.09C in 40 years?

lateintheday wrote:



"I don't think I follow you. Are you saying here that the ten year average temperature has risen only 0.09C in 40 years?"



Methinks you are confusing temperature rise with temperature trend.

No doubt the actual UAH anomaly for March within the next few days or so, but for what it is worth, my estimate based on aqua ch5 up to March 29th., and estimates for the remaining two days, is between 0.07c and 0.17c.

Using the same method, my estimate for HadCRUT3 is between 0.31c and 0.51c.

#35. - newdwr54 wrote:



"The 10-year *average temperature* in HadCRUT3 up to May 1969 was just +0.05C above the 1961-1990 average. The 10-year average temperature in HadCRUT3 up to February 2012 was +0.14 C above the 1961-1990 average.



The second thing to note is that the 30-year *average temperature* in HadCRUT3 up to April 1999 was +0.12 C above the 1961-1990 average. The 30-year average temperature in HadCRUT3 up to February 2012 was +0.17 C above the 1961-1990 average. "



I must admit that I can't replicate your figures above. I calculate that the 10 year HadCRUT3 average to May 1969 was -0.12c and that to Feb. 2012 was +0.42c, while the 30 year average to April 1999 was +0.07c and that to Feb. 2012 was +0.27c.



While on the face of it, these show an increase in temperatures of 0.54c between 1969 and 2012 and of 0.2c between 1999 and 2012, and therefore strengthen your case, it should be remembered that it really shows the increase between the entire range of the averages, i.e. between 1959-1969 and 2002-2012 in the case of the 10 year averages, and between 1969-1999 and 1982-2012 in the case of the 30 year averages.



Otherwise, the 10 year and 30 year moving averages give equal weight to older figures as to more recent figures. In reality, most of the increase in temperatures over these periods occurred prior to 1998, as evidenced by the fact that the linear trend over the last 15 years is now zero.



Even the UKMO graph of annual anomalies, using a 21 point binomial filter, which gives more weight to recent figures, shows that temperatures have probably fallen over the last 10 years.



https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

For those interested the World Meteorological Organization, 2012 statement on the status of the global climate in 2011 is good and very readable.



It's a PDF file so you will have to remove the spaces from the end of the link;

https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/documents/1085_en. p d f



"The 2002–2011 ten-year average of 0.46°C

above the 1961–1990 mean matched 2001–2010

as the world’s warmest ten-year period on

record. This was 0.21°C warmer than the warmest

ten-year period of the twentieth century,

1991–2000. In turn, 1991–2000 was clearly

warmer than previous decades, consistent

with a long-term warming trend."

Signs of a warm pool in Nino 1+2, could it be the start of the long awaited El Nino?



https://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif

#44. - Lazarus wrote:

"The 2002–2011 ten-year average of 0.46°C

above the 1961–1990 mean matched 2001–2010

as the world’s warmest ten-year period on

record. This was 0.21°C warmer than the warmest

ten-year period of the twentieth century,

1991–2000. In turn, 1991–2000 was clearly

warmer than previous decades, consistent

with a long-term warming trend."

The fact that the 2002-11 average only matched 2001-10, is confirmation

that the rate of warming did not increase.

The map showing the "Significant climate anomalies and events in 2011", looks like a blatant exercise in "cherry picking".

If Ryan Maue has got it right we are going to be "warm" (+0.5c v 1981-2010 Climatology) for at least the next two weeks.



https://policlimate.com/weather/current/ext_raw_temp_c.html

lazarus - I'm definitely confused! I've re-read newdwr54s post a number of times and still can't quite grasp what he's comparing since he switches between 'trends' and 'actual temps'



It read to me like he had taken a ten year period 1960 - 1969 and calculated one average temp for the whole ten years. Then he took a thirty year period 1961-1990 and calculated one average temp for that and compared the two. Then he took the last 10 year period upto feb 2012 and calculated one average temp for that period and compared it to the two previous results.



Chances are, this is not what he actually means but it's how it read to me. If you can clear it up for us in his absence, that would be very kind.



Regards

Anyone know why NSIDC don't use the 'classic 30' year period for arctic sea ice extent?

Their baseline appears to be 1979 - 2000.

The GWPF has concluded that there has been no significant warming for 15 years, based on HadCRUT4. However, as I understand it, this is based on estimates for 2011, since HadCRUT4 figures for 2011 have not yet been published:

https://thegwpf.org/press-releases/5360-no-global-warming-for-15-years.html

#47. - greensand wrote:

"If Ryan Maue has got it right we are going to be "warm" (+0.5c v 1981-2010 Climatology) for at least the next two weeks."



How is that figure arrived at?

The map shows global anomalies for each 6 hour period initially, then every 12 hour period, but I can't see a daily figure.

The anomalies don't look so high after about April 6th.

@51 QuaesoVeritas wrote:



How is that figure arrived at?



Just by me eyeballing! I have had another look and you are quite right the anomalies reduce after the 6th, can't swear to it but when I looked earlier I am sure they were higher through to about the 15th (in the range +0.3 to +0.5c). It is always difficult to get actuals from such a presentation, so I am just watching to see if his "trend projections" show through to UAH Ch5.

greensand,



The original map I used to use also suffered from a diurnal effect, i.e. climo figures always seemed to be highest at hour 12, and the anomalies always seemed to be higher when the climo temperatures were at their lowest. Maue acknowledged that to me and explained it was due to GFS changing it's "thermal roughness".

I am not sure but that the above still seems to be the case, although there may be a perfectly valid reason for that.

I could never find out how the anomalies were being calculated, i.e. was it comparing the actual temp. with the climo temp for the same time and precise location, or for example, was it comparing the actual temp. for a specific time and location with a climo temp for the day, and/or a larger region.

newdr - "If global average temperatures were 0.05 C above 'average' from June 1959-May 1969, and 0.14 C above the same average from March 2002-February 2012, then in what sense is the world cooling?



Likewise if the 30-year period ending February 2012 was on average 0.05 C warmer than the 30-year period that ended in April 1999, then in what sense is the world getting colder?



Perhaps I wasn't verbose enough?"





0.05c?



given the fact the margiun of error is larger than that then it could just as well have cooled



0.05 isnt a trend one way or another - in fact they had to jump through hoops just to get that 0.05

39. greensand wrote:



"No, just sure, confident, convinced and positive enough to the point where arrogance is surpassed."



If I'm arrogant about AGW, then so is every national scientific academy on earth, as well as every geophysical institution of national or international significance.



If you want to argue against it, convince them, not me.

lateintheday wrote:

"If you can clear it up for us in his absence, that would be very kind."



Don't ask me, I'm as confused as you but just assuming they have mixed up trends with actual warming.



##############



QuaesoVeritas wrote:



"The fact that the 2002-11 average only matched 2001-10, is confirmation

that the rate of warming did not increase."



I'm a bit confused. Who has suggested a difference of one year shows an increased rate of warming significant enough to mention?



"The map showing the "Significant climate anomalies and events in 2011", looks like a blatant exercise in "cherry picking"."



Why? There is nothing to suggest that there were not significant climate events in previous years, look at previous reports from other years. Nor is it suggesting that theses significant events were all down to global warming. Cold events are listed as well.



But the events listed are part of an on going trend of extremes and record breaking events, in which we are now starting to see what has been predicted to happen with global warming - an increase in higher temperature records and related anomalies being broken over lower temperature ones.



For example;

https://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/images/temps_2.jpg



And it continues this decade;

https://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/25/10853227-march-has-meant-6000-weather-records-broken

Things could get very interesting tonight. I am looking forward to the snow, but it won't be with us very long. I can remember in the early 80's going down to Cornwall for a few days with my family in a late Easter, it was that warm we were sunbathing on the beach. My Granparent's came down from Sheffield and told us it was snowing back home. A few days later we hit snow on the way back through Bodmin and then thick snow on the M1 at Derby.

' Allegations of a "surge" in "extreme" weather events has been quashed by a surprising source - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).



"There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change," writes the IPCC in its new Special Report on Extremes (SREX) published today.



"The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados," the authors conclude, adding for good measure that "absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses".'

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/29/ipcc_srex_thermageddon/



SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

https://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-SPMbrocure_FINAL.pdf

@58 ukpahonta



Do you accept the report fully? Or just some of it?

#59 john_cogger



Like all reports it has it's good points and not so good points

I fail to see why what I think would concern you, you should read the report yourself and make up your own mind.



If you want the opinion of a scientist how about:



https://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/handy-bullshit-button-on-disasters-and.html

or

https://judithcurry.com/2011/11/18/ipcc-special-report-on-extreme-events/



I'm sure that if you wanted to raise points about the report they would be glad to help you in comments.

@60 ukpahonta



Interested in what you think. Some IPCC reports are accepted but others propaganda?

#56. - Lazarus wrote:

"I'm a bit confused. Who has suggested a difference of one year shows an increased rate of warming significant enough to mention?"

The WMO. The fact that they have said that 2002-11 matched 2001-10 as the joint warmest decade, implies that warming is still increasing.



"Why? There is nothing to suggest that there were not significant climate events in previous years, look at previous reports from other years. Nor is it suggesting that theses significant events were all down to global warming. Cold events are listed as well."

The "significant climate events" have been "cherry picked" in order to support the view that such events are increasing. The whole premise of the map is to suggest that such events are due to "global warming", even the "cold events".

I am afraid that you have become so indoctrinated that you are unable to see this.

QuaesoVeritas wrote:

"The fact that they have said that 2002-11 matched 2001-10 as the joint warmest decade, implies that warming is still increasing."



I do not accept that implication. The report says;



"The 2002–2011 ten-year average of 0.46°C

above the 1961–1990 mean matched 2001–2010

as the world’s warmest ten-year period on

record. This was 0.21°C warmer than the warmest

ten-year period of the twentieth century,

1991–2000. In turn, 1991–2000 was clearly

warmer than previous decades, consistent

with a long-term warming trend."



It admits;



"Temperatures averaged over the globe in 2011

were not as warm as the record-setting values

seen in 2010 but were nevertheless well above

the long-term average."



QuaesoVeritas wrote:

"The "significant climate events" have been "cherry picked" in order to support the view that such events are increasing. The whole premise of the map is to suggest that such events are due to "global warming", even the "cold events"."



How would you suggest reporting 'the status of the global climate in 2011' without reporting significant climate events? Maybe you think they should have chosen some average or below average events to balance your alleged 'cherries'? But they did just that, so while I wouldn't be so crass to accuse you of indoctrination, it is clear that you are determined to read this international report from meteorologists with your own 'implications'.

ukpahonta wrote:



' Allegations of a "surge" in "extreme" weather events has been quashed by a surprising source - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).



No exactly 'quashed'.

The IPCC is a very conservative organisation and the signal from climate extremes isn't clear within the confidence limits that they impose upon themselves. In this case there is still some research to be done.This report also only reviews published science up to a date somewhat prior to it's publication.



I admit I haven't had a thorough look at this IPCC report yet but I doubt it had a chance to review this research from Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research which argues that the probabilities of extreme weather events have been biased due to increasing temperatures - which is what is expected to happen with increasing temperatures. Your use of 'quashed' simply means that a clear signal with high confidence hasn't been detected yet.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-03/pifc-wrd032312.php



And please, for your own credibility, don't reference 'The Register' as a valid source.

It's an online technology site for business and trade news with an infamous habit of going off topic to misrepresent climate science.

https://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/oct/11/2

Dellers has his usual forthright views on 'global weirding'



https://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100148381/global-weirding-the-new-big-lie/



Warning not suitable for True Believers!

#63. - Lazarus wrote:

"Maybe you think they should have chosen some average or below average events to balance your alleged 'cherries'? But they did just that, "

Strange, I can't see any reference to normal events, which are probably in the vast majority, on the map. I can't see any mention of normal rainfall or temperatures. I assume some locations experienced them. If only the most extreme events are searched for and mentioned, that tells us nothing.

Add your commentSpanglerboy wrote:



"Warning not suitable for True Believers!"



By true believers I assume you mean those that accept the interpretations of the science from the actual researching scientists.



Don't you think Delingpole should be interpreting the scientists instrumentations by now?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0wmuhKzYp4s

QuaesoVeritas wrote:

"Strange, I can't see any reference to normal events, which are probably in the vast majority, on the map."



Why would you expect reference to normal events on a map of 'Significant climate anomalies and events'?



There is plenty of reference to non extremes in this report;



"Elsewhere in Asia, temperatures were closer

to normal. The Eastern and Central Asia subregions

both had their coolest year since 1996"



But you can't hide the fact that 2011 was hotter than the long term average and many of the extremes relied energies in the climate system.

#68. - Lazarus wrote:

"Why would you expect reference to normal events on a map of 'Significant climate anomalies and events'?"

The point I am trying to make is that the map itself is a huge example of "cherry picking". The fact that such events are described as "significant", when they are not significant.

You only have to look back through old reference books, such as "Whitaker's Almanack", to see that there have always been such extreme weather events.

Just one example from 1896:

"On March 2nd., it was reported that torrential rains falling for some days in Mesopotamia caused the Tigris to overflow it's banks. A vast tract of country in the Arma district was under water and more than 3000 cattle perished, the damage to property being beyond estimation. A nomad tribe of 600 Arabs was drowned."

If such an event were to occur today, it would no doubt be blamed by some on "climate change".

"But you can't hide the fact that 2011 was hotter than the long term average and many of the extremes relied energies in the climate system."

I am not attempting to hide that. It is linking the temperature to extreme weather events which I object to.

Lazarus wrote:



'The IPCC is a very conservative organisation and the signal from climate extremes isn't clear within the confidence limits that they impose upon themselves. In this case there is still some research to be done.This report also only reviews published science up to a date somewhat prior to it's publication.'



Hehehehe, sometimes you don't 'alf make me laugh old boy!

Apologies to those who made comments about my previous posts earlier in the thread. I've not been able to respond, as work reared its ugly head at an inopportune moment. I'll try to cover some of the comments (criticisms!) over the next day or so.

38. QuaesoVeritas wrote:



"The point is that the 30 year trend is has not increased since April 1999, despite the rapid increase in CO2 since then. In fact, the 30 year trend is currently falling."



Irrespective of trends, *temperatures* have still risen on average between April 1999 and February 2012. The 30-year average temperature to April 1999 was 0.12 C per decade above the HadCRUT3 anomaly value; the 30-year average temperature to February 2012 was 0.17 C per decade above the HadCRUT3 anomaly value. That's a rise in real world temperatures measured using the WMO's suggested period to smooth out short-term 'noise'.



Nowhere has anyone suggested that the rise in temperatures should be linear with the rise in CO2 over periods as short as 13 years.



"Also, over the last 10 years, temperatures are falling, again, despite rapid increases in CO2."



Average temperatures are higher now than they were 10 years ago. OK, you can look back to March 2002 and point to the fact that the anomaly value that month was 0.60 above the anomaly reference (compared to 0.19 above it in Feb 2012). You can also show that the trend line from March 2002-Feb 2012 has been very slightly downward. But you have said nothing about global average temperatures.



The 30-year average temperature to March 2002 was 0.14 C per decade above the HadCRUT3 anomaly value; the 30-year average temperature to February 2012 was 0.17 C per decade above the HadCRUT3 anomaly value. In real terms, and using appropriate time periods, over the last 10-years average temperatures have risen.

Re 72. :



As QuaesoVeritas pointed out @ 43 my figures are off, although the arguments remain the same, and in fact are slightly enhanced. I've corrected a mistake I made and should revise post 72 as follows (changes indicated by [square brackets]:



________________________



QV wrote:



"The point is that the 30 year trend is has not increased since April 1999, despite the rapid increase in CO2 since then. In fact, the 30 year trend is currently falling."



Irrespective of trends, *temperatures* have still risen on average between April 1999 and February 2012. The 30-year average temperature to April 1999 was [0.07 C per decade] above the HadCRUT3 anomaly value; the 30-year average temperature to February 2012 was [0.27 C per decade] above the HadCRUT3 anomaly value. That's a rise in real world temperatures measured using the WMO's suggested period to smooth out short-term 'noise'.



Nowhere has anyone suggested that the rise in temperatures should be linear with the rise in CO2 over periods as short as 13 years.



"Also, over the last 10 years, temperatures are falling, again, despite rapid increases in CO2."



Average temperatures are higher now than they were 10 years ago. OK, you can look back to March 2002 and point to the fact that the anomaly value that month was [0.61 C] above the anomaly reference (compared to 0.19 above it in Feb 2012). You can also show that the trend line from March 2002-Feb 2012 has been very slightly downward. But you have said nothing about global average temperatures.



The 30-year average temperature to March 2002 was [0.12 C per decade] above the HadCRUT3 anomaly value; the 30-year average temperature to February 2012 was [0.27 C per decade] above the HadCRUT3 anomaly value. In real terms, and using appropriate time periods, over the last 10-years average temperatures have risen.

____________________________



Apologies for the confusion.

#72. - newdwr54 wrote:

"Irrespective of trends, *temperatures* have still risen on average between April 1999 and February 2012. The 30-year average temperature to April 1999 was 0.12 C per decade above the HadCRUT3 anomaly value; the 30-year average temperature to February 2012 was 0.17 C per decade above the HadCRUT3 anomaly value. That's a rise in real world temperatures measured using the WMO's suggested period to smooth out short-term 'noise'."

and

"The 30-year average temperature to March 2002 was 0.14 C per decade above the HadCRUT3 anomaly value; the 30-year average temperature to February 2012 was 0.17 C per decade above the HadCRUT3 anomaly value. "



I notice that you have now added "per decade" the figures previously quoted. Can you please explain how you arrived at those figures, as I can't replicate them. I am not saying that they are incorrect, just that I don't understand how you they were arrived at.

I have already tried to explain that the increase in the 30 year average between March 2002 and Feb 2012 does not mean that temperatures have increased between those two dates. It means they have increased over the entire 30 years of the average.

"In real terms, and using appropriate time periods, over the last 10-years average temperatures have risen."

What about the fact that according to the UKMO, the annual series, smoothed with a 21 point binomial filter, has fallen over roughly the last 10 years?

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

#73. - newdwr54 wrote:

"The 30-year average temperature to March 2002 was [0.12 C per decade] above the HadCRUT3 anomaly value; the 30-year average temperature to February 2012 was [0.27 C per decade] above the HadCRUT3 anomaly value. In real terms, and using appropriate time periods, over the last 10-years average temperatures have risen."

O.K., I hadn't read your revised figures when I posted #74, but while I now agree with the above as 30 year averages, I still don't understand the "per decade" bit.

I am not sure how you would convert a 30 year average into a trend per decade.

@73

...my figures are off, although the arguments remain the same, and in fact are slightly enhanced...



There, in a nutshell, do we have the summation of the whole CAGW delusion.



Back on the 'observable' weather front, we have 50cm drifts and blizzard conditions up here at 300m in the south Pennines...

75 QuaesoVeritas:



"....while I now agree with the above as 30 year averages, I still don't understand the "per decade" bit. I am not sure how you would convert a 30 year average into a trend per decade."



Sorry, you're right again - I was cutting and pasting to save time and didn't notice. Yes, the 30-year average temperature anomaly in HadCRUT3 up to February 2012 is +0.27 C, not +0.27 C per decade. Likewise the 30-year average temperature to March 2002 was +0.12 C, not +0.12 C per decade. My mistake.



However the argument is still intact: average temperatures, when measured over the period recommended by the WMO, are still rising steadily. Over 30 years, since March 1982, global surface temperatures have risen at a rate of +0.16 C/decade, and global average temperatures are +0.37 C higher now than they were then. And that's according to HadCRUT3, which, by its own admission, is probably erring on the cool side.



In fact you should be in a position to confirm that since December 1979, at the 1/100th of a degree scale (0.01), there has been a 'continuous' rise in 30-year average temperatures in HadCRUT3? At that scale, the 30-year average global temperature has risen from -0.14 C in Dec 1977 to +0.27 C in Feb 2012.



Over the past 10-years (120 months) there has been a continuous rise in the 30-year average global temperature even at the 1/1000th of a degree scale (0.001), unless I'm mistaken again? In March 2002 the 30-year global average temperature was +0.117 C; in February 2012 this has risen to +0.268 C.



Thanks, by the way, for pointing out my earlier mistakes.

76. thesnowmanwhonevermelts wrote:



"There, in a nutshell, do we have the summation of the whole CAGW delusion."



Always happy to accept criticisms and make corrections where appropriate snowman.



My making a few computational and annotation errors, none of which affected the basis of the arguments I was making, hardly condemns AGW theory as 'delusional'.



(What is 'CAGW' by the way, and who came up with that acronym? I've heard of 'AGW'.)

QuaesoVeritas wrote:

“ The fact that such events are described as "significant", when they are not significant.”



Of course they are significant. They are all at a high percentile of climate events. You seem to be missing the whole point of the map and the point of this report. It is mute to claim there have always been extreme weather events on a report looking at global climate in 2011.



“ It is linking the temperature to extreme weather events which I object to.”



But that is exactly what increased temperatures are predicted to do, with a growing significance in the scientific literature that it is occurring including the latest IPCC report, already mentioned here.



https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2012/Feb/NR-12-02-09.html

https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2011/11/climate-change-report-weather-extremes-increasing/

https://climatecrocks.com/2012/04/03/three-graphs-tell-the-tale-of-march-2012/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/warm-weather-records-smashed-more-than-80-cities-with-warmest-march-on-record/2012/04/02/gIQAOqEBrS_blog.html



Why are you so blinkered into not connecting the evidence of temperature and weather?

@78 newdwr54



I think the C means Catastrophic. It allows everyone who can't undermine 100yrs of science to say yes it's getting hot but it not actually a problem.



AGW is real but CAGW is scaremongering by communist lickspittles... :-)

ukpahonta wrote:



"Hehehehe, sometimes you don't 'alf make me laugh old boy!"



Well there is nothing like a reasoned reply - an that was noting like a reasoned reply.



Back to reading The Register for your climate news.

@78 newdwr54





C is for catastrophic and I think the acronym is from Lomborg (but don't quote me on that!) It's the idea that AGW is real and will be catastrohic if unchecked. Others may take a more considered view that we simply don't know the whole story and that as the severity may be less than predicted (by some), other issues should be considered before hitting the panic button and potentially flushing the economy down the pan with half baked 'solutions'. That's called NCAGW... ;)

John Cogger - which hundred years would that be?

The UAH anomaly figures for March from Roy Spencer's web site.

Global = +0.108c

N.H. = +0.128c

S.H. = +0.089c

Tropical = -0.108c

Quite close to the estimated values based on AQUA ch5.

After adjustment to the 1961-90 base period, the global figure is equivalent to approximately +0.36c.

@83 lateintheday



Sorry you are quite correct...there is more than 100 years of science underpinning AGW.

#79. - Lazarus wrote:

"Of course they are significant. They are all at a high percentile of climate events. You seem to be missing the whole point of the map and the point of this report. It is mute to claim there have always been extreme weather events on a report looking at global climate in 2011."

Do you mean "moot", i.e. irrelevant?

If so, I disagree.

I have already pointed out that there have always been extreme weather events, and, I might add, there always will be, even if global temperatures fall. It is a myth and an untruth to imply that if we could reduce global temperatures, that "climate chaos" would end and we could return to a situation where the weather was never extreme.

I could produce a map similar to the one in the WMO report, for 1896, and many other years, and it would prove absolutely nothing.

#77. - newdwr54 wrote:

"Thanks, by the way, for pointing out my earlier mistakes."

It wasn't my intention to point out your mistakes, only to understand better where the figures came from. I thought I was being particularly thick.

John Cogger

Underpinning - isn't that something you do when your house is falling down due to subsidence? Oh wait . . now I see what you mean . . .

I go on over 1000 years of data, that says that Britain was much warmer when the Romans were in the country, very cold through the dark ages, when there was no sun spot activity. After the 2nd world war when industry was going full belt, the temperature of the earth actually dropped. 1947 was an extremely cold winter, with snow on the ground continually for months.

82. thesnowmanwhonevermelts wrote:



"C is for catastrophic and I think the acronym is from Lomborg (but don't quote me on that!) It's the idea that AGW is real and will be catastrohic if unchecked."



The IPCC AR4 report has this to say on 'catastrophic AGW':



"The possibility of abrupt climate change and/or abrupt changes in the earth system triggered by climate change, with potentially catastrophic consequences, cannot be ruled out (Meehl et al., 2007). Disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (See Meehl et al., 2007), if it occurred, could raise sea level by 4-6 metres over several centuries." https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch2s2-2-4.html



I think the terms "abrupt" and "over several centuries" are key phrases here. Several centuries is abrupt in geological terms of course, but I don't think the IPCC expects an imminent global apocalypse! However, I'm sure that some groups, on all sides, are happy to let their various supporters think that it does.

Met Office data for March shows 7.7 C for UK which is the third warmest on record (start 1910). I realise this was greatly assisted by the prevailing weather.



Even so, winter 2011/12 (Dec-Feb) was the 10th warmest on record, and year-to-date (Jan-Mar) is the 4th warmest on record in the UK.



In Northern Ireland, where I live, year-to-date (Jan-Mar) is currently the warmest on record (again started 1910). Feb 2012 was the 4th warmest on record, and March 2012 was equal 4th warmest. Winter 2011/2012 in NI was our 8th warmest on record, following on from the previous two, which were both in the top ten coldest.



I'll paraphrase Roy Spencer's caveat at this point and say 'the above temperature observations are for entertainment purposes only, and should not be construed as having any predictive value whatsoever.'

@89 Tim



'I go on over 1000 years of data, that says that Britain was much warmer when the Romans were in the country'



What data is this? Any links?

#91. - newdwr54 wrote:

"Met Office data for March shows 7.7 C for UK which is the third warmest on record (start 1910). I realise this was greatly assisted by the prevailing weather.

And the 4th warmest based on CET (8.3c), after 1957, 1938, and 1997.

Not much warmer than March 1750 (8.2c), and 1734 (8.1c).

As you say, the prevailing weather, mainly pressure & wind direction seems to be the main factor in determining short-term UK temperatures.

Well there is 'noting' like a reasoned reply Lazarus, and when you prepare one we will all be overjoyed, until then I for one won't be holding my breath.