Wet end to September raises autumn flooding concerns

Glad I'm off to Oz then. Last one to leave switch the lights off. Oh forgot, pretty soon there won't be any lights on.



Smoke me a kipper

Enjoy the ski-ing, they're having a bumper season with lots of snow.

A bit off topic now, but the NASA/GISS temperature anomalies for August are as follows:

Global = 0.56c, compared to 0.47c for July.

N.H. = 0.65c, compared to 0.75c for July.

S.H. = 0.48c, compared to 0.19c for July.

After adjustment to 1961-90, the above are equivalent to 0.45c, 0.59c and 0.34c respectively.

These changes are very similar to those in UAH, although the actual anomalies for UAH are higher after adjustment to 1961-90, although that isn't reliable.

The global figure also shows an increase consistent with the August AQUA CH5 temperature, which I think I said would probably indicate a small increase in the anomalies to levels similar to those in June. That would put the Augst HadCRUT3 figure at around 0.48c.

Still no RSS figure for August (it is very unusual for them to be later than NASA/GISS), and I have sent them an e-mail.

Thanks QV,



I think that puts August 2012 at 6th place overall in warmest Augusts on record globally in the past 133 years, according to NASA?



Congratulations on once again getting it pretty near the mark.

@3 Yes thanks QV



@ 4. newdwr54 wrote



"I think that puts August 2012 at 6th place overall in warmest Augusts on record globally in the past 133 years, according to NASA?"



And also puts NASA/GISS Loti 30 year (WMO Standard) running average at +0.163 per decade, 9.2% lower than the Dec 2003 high.

newdwr54 - you're going to have to change your preferred 'link to' source. SKS appears to have imploded. Not much else I can say - sad really.

6. lateintheday wrote:



"newdwr54 - you're going to have to change your preferred 'link to' source. SKS"



Also going to have to give up "the only metric that matters is WMO Standard 30 years equals climate"



Watch for the moves, they will be multi-various and creative. I have learnt over the last two years to respect DW's creativity. It is truly a shame that his ideology has denied him the opportunity to inform the world what is actually happening. Quite amazing!

Imploded? Where?

Your picture of the river Aire flooding onto its flood plain. That is what flood plain is for. The 2000 floods were not unprecedented. Flooding of the Humber in the 12th cent caused several thousand deaths. The East Coast flooding 1950's killed over 300. Flooding is a natural reaction to heavy rain but now used as a signal for alarmist policies by the Greens.

@8 j_c



https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/15/we-need-a-conspiracy-to-save-humanity/



or



https://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/9/7/michael-mann-and-skepticalscience-well-orchestrated.html



Take your pick.

NASA GISS 30 year running mean

https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:360



There's no sign of any let up

11. quake wrote:



"There's no sign of any let up"



In Dec 2003 the GISS LOTI 30 year running mean rate of warming reached its maximum recorded rate of +0.0181C



"#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.018091 per year"



https://www.woodfortrees.org/data/gistemp/to:2004/last:360/trend



and following the latest monthly data it is now +0.0163C



"#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0162683 per year"



https://www.woodfortrees.org/data/gistemp/last:360/trend



How can a near 10% reduction in the rate of warming be described as "no sign of any let up"?



Also as we have in excess of 11 years of zero GISS LOTI increase I suspect this trend will continue. There will be minor % ups and downs, but 10% is now becoming significant. Just plain and simple data, not interpreted, just the actual facts of what is happening in the real world.

Quake why does the chart you linked to end in 1997? How is that relevant to what is happening now? Am I missing something?



"1997.58 0.380611

#Data ends"



https://www.woodfortrees.org/data/gistemp/mean:360

@10 snowman



Ah you mean no one else ever vents anger in terms they wouldn't normally use in public...



Watts has never emailed monckton, et al to organise themselves? Or goes to conferences at Heartland? My indifference is deafening...



Is wuwt still miffed that he didn't get asked to post that survey?

@14 john_cogger wrote:



"Is wuwt still miffed that he didn't get asked to post that survey?"



Whether WUWT is to your liking or not, it is recognised by all concerned as the sceptic blog with the most traffic.



Now if you wanted to garner the views of sceptics why would you not ask the sceptic blog with the most traffic?



PS I am not discounting the fact that WUWT was asked and "lost" it, unknowingly or intentionally, but I am surprised that the survey team have not yet publically stated that they did contact WUWT. Why leave it out? It is not that they had never heard of it. Maybe they will come forward with a copy of their communication to WUWT?

@15 Greensand



They didn't contact WUWT, they have said who they contacted (and in some cases corresponded with). Though with some of the commentators at WUWT maybe it was seen as shooting fish in a barrel! (New world orders et al). :-)

Though why a survey and paper on psychology is getting so much attention from some blogs is a mystery for me? Has the arctic recovered yet? No other papers for or against to look at?

Yes, a pity if September is going to continue the wet theme. Its not been too bad here so far - at least compared to much of the year since April. It will be interesting to see whether the year as a whole sets any records for prolonged wetness/dullness etc.



No doubt, whatever happens - it will have been "worse" X centuries ago!



Incidentally John Marshall #9 technically much of the Vale of York, the entire Humber basin, Holderness and the whole Vale of Pickering are "flood Plains" - if you want to go far back enough into history. Its just that unfortunately since then they have been drained and lived on. Perhaps we should wait until half of Yorkshire returns to an inland sea before resorting to "alarmist policies".



It will be interesting to see how many people drown this time compared to the 12th cent - won't it?

@16 john_cogger wrote





"They didn't contact WUWT"



Did they say why? I have not seen a site selection process but to be fair I have not looked, not really my scene, I try to stay with actual physical observational data.



Just doesn't make sense to ignore what should be a major source of input. But hey ho...

@19 Greensand



Not read their selection process either and it's not my scene either. Though by the way it's being reacted too you'd think that it had made a major breakthrough that has changed all science as we know it!

@20. john_cogger



Sure seems to have created a stir, but the stir is more about the relationship of SkS with UWA rather than the actual survey. To me it is just "psychobabble" as they all are.



In short order it will be yesterday's news or as my old Dad used to put it tomorrow's bum wipes, only he didn't say bum!

#13. - greensand wrote:

"Quake why does the chart you linked to end in 1997? How is that relevant to what is happening now? Am I missing something?"



I am guessing it might be that the 30 year average is centred on July 1997, and cannot go past that date, because there is no data after July 2012.

That is strictly speaking the "correct" way of calculating moving averages although I don't think you can do it that way in the automatic trend calculation using Excel.

Personally I find it confusing as it always makes the figures look out of date.

#17. - john_cogger wrote:

"Though why a survey and paper on psychology is getting so much attention from some blogs is a mystery for me? Has the arctic recovered yet? No other papers for or against to look at?"

I agree.

I haven't really being following the discussion because I can't see the point.

BTW, did they do a survey of whether non-sceptics believed in conspiracy theories?

In my experience such theories are quite popular amongst a certain element in both camps.

22. QuaesoVeritas wrote:



"I am guessing it might be that the 30 year average is centred on July 1997, and cannot go past that date, because there is no data after July 2012."



Thanks QV, as usual I missed the obvious! Yes, it makes sense and possibly explains why some think "There's no sign of any let up" when in actual fact the present GISS LOTI 30 year warming trend is reducing.



Interesting how data can be interpreted/presented, in an attempt to reduce potential confusion i will stay with the simple latest actual data.



I will now go away and think about what direction that chart will go when the centering point moves past 1998?

#11. - quake wrote:

"There's no sign of any let up"

A thirty year running mean is not going to show up a recent change in temperatures very well.

All it proves is that current temperatures are higher than 30 years ago, and I don't think anyone is denying that.

The figure which drops out of the 30 year mean to make way for Aug. 2012 is Aug 1982, which was -0.02c, so this Aug. would have to be lower than that, to make the average fall.

We will have to wait until the figures from the 1990's drop out of the average before we see any slow down in the 30 year average, but we will have to wait until 2025 or so for that.

A filtered average, giving more weight to recent years might show a quicker response to the recent slow down.

#24. - greensand wrote:

"Thanks QV, as usual I missed the obvious! Yes, it makes sense and possibly explains why some think "There's no sign of any let up" when in actual fact the present GISS LOTI 30 year warming trend is reducing. "



I'm not sure that is the case. The average still includes the latest figures, and is the same value, it's just shown in a different place, but see my post #25.

I'm not sure if WoodforTrees does filtered averages.

I don't know about GISS, but of course, the MO do produce a graph of HadCRUT3 smoothed annual average, and one using a 21 point filter, both of which do show a recent decline:

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

26. QuaesoVeritas wrote:



"I'm not sure if WoodforTrees does filtered averages."



The following might sound a bit strong, for which I apologise in advance, but I am an engineer of the type that is more accurate with a lump hammer than a micrometer, I deal in actual present day facts, data about the here and now. Not probabilities and semantics, sorry I know no other way.



I am interested in whether GISS LOTI 30 year (360 months) rolling average rate of warming based on the last actual observed data shows an increasing or decreasing trend! Once plotted the direction appears to declare itself!



I try very hard to remove the confusion created by the "interpretation" data. The last 30 year (360 months) actual data for GISS LOTI shows a yearly trend of circa +0.0163C, yay or nay?



The 30 year (360 months) data for GISS LOTI up to Dec 2003 shows a trend of circa +0.0181C, yay or nay?



One is circa 10% lower than the other, yay or nay?



So is the present day 30 year (360 month) GISS LOTI warming trend increasing or decreasing? To me a simple straightforward question, or is it?

27. QuaesoVeritas wrote:



"the MO do produce a graph of HadCRUT3 smoothed annual average, and one using a 21 point filter"



I have been chastised on numerous occasions for quoting the MO's:-



"Annual series smoothed with a 21-point binomial filter"



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



Being told that it is just impossible, because the future has not yet happened?



I just don't understand the need to complicate the actual?

"In Dec 2003 the GISS LOTI 30 year running mean rate of warming reached its maximum recorded rate of +0.0181C"



It wobbles:



Dec 1999 +0.01546C (30 year trend of Jan 1970 - Dec 1999)

Dec 2000 +0.0156C

Dec 2001 +0.0156C

Dec 2002 +0.0165C

Dec 2003 +0.0181C

Dec 2004 +0.0175C

Dec 2005 +0.0178C

Dec 2006 +0.0167C

Dec 2007 +0.0174C

Dec 2008 +0.0162C

Dec 2009 +0.0161C

Dec 2010 +0.0169C

Dec 2011 +0.0173C

Present +0.01627C



It looks to me it's just wobbling around a 0.015C-0.018C range.



The major cause of the wobble is whether El Ninos and La Ninas happen to occur at the start or end of the record.



For example the jump from December 2001 to December 2003 was because the 30 year period jan1972-dec2001 period started with an El Nino and ended with a La Nina. Whereas the jan1974-dec2003 period started with a La Nina and ends with an El Nino. The addition and removal of El Ninos and La Ninas from the start and end of the 30 year period slightly imbalances it causing those wobbles.



The latest 30 year period starts in 1982, which covers the 1982/83 El Nino, one of the biggest on record. That will bias the 30 year trend lower. And of course the latest 30 year period also ends with domination of La Ninas (the recent beginnings of an El Nino notwithstanding) which will also bias it lower.



I expect in 2014 when the El Nino years 1982 and 1983 drop off the last 30 year period the trend will markedly increase back into the 0.017s.

@30. quake wrote:



"I expect in 2014 when the El Nino years 1982 and 1983 drop off the last 30 year period the trend will markedly increase back into the 0.017s."



Ah, interesting isn't it? Maybe the past will shift the rate up, no mention of any future warming contributing? I wonder why? Maybe you are realising what a lot have always known, the here and now is real! Anything in the future is opinion!



Welcome to the real world!

PS +0.17C rate in 2 years time will still be a 10+% decrease in warming capability. Equating to +1.7C per century and decreasing, so ask yourself just where will the +2C by 2050 come from? Fastest rise in CO2 and carrying capability has gone, so where will all the energy come from?

PPS, thanks for your confirmation that the GISS LOTI 30 year rate of warming is at present 10% lower than it was in Dec 2003!

But it's 5% higher than 2000 and 2001? :-)

@|30, quake wrote:



“ It looks to me it's just wobbling around a 0.015C-0.018C range. “



It doesn't simply wobble. Yes, there is noise but if you plot it out you will see that the rate rapidly peaks then gradually falls away.

@23, QuaesoVeritas wrote:



“ I haven't really being following the discussion because I can't see the point. “



The 'Lew Paper' is so full of holes that it is of no use yet it is being used in the media to imply that anyone who doubts the infallibility of 'climate scientists' must be mentally deficient.



The discussion also gives a great insight into the lengths that SkS and similar sites will go to protect their followers from inconvenient truths.



It's not science but it really does make fascinating reading.

BTW, Lucia is running another series of posts on temperature trends and model performance with the first recent one here:



https://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/hadcrut-trends-flat-for-15-years/

#28. - greensand wrote:

"So is the present day 30 year (360 month) GISS LOTI warming trend increasing or decreasing? To me a simple straightforward question, or is it?"

Are you really aiming that question at me, or at quake?

I don't think I have ever questioned your figures.

My spreadsheet GISS figures don't have all of the recent retrospective adjustments but I generally agree with your figures, i.e. there has been a fall in the trend since Dec. 2003.

If you look at how the 30 year trend has changed on a rolling basis since 1909 (something you can't do with WoodForTrees), it appears that it falls into a cyclical pattern, of roughly 60 years, similar to the 50 year trend which I have mentioned in the past. In the case of the 30 year trend, the cycle appears to have reached a high in 1946, and a low in 1967, and another high in 2004, from which it is currently falling. If the cycle is repeated (a big if), we should see a declining trend for the next 20 years approx.

I strongly advise everyone to calculate the a rolling 30 year trend and look at the results.

#29. - greensand wrote:

"Being told that it is just impossible, because the future has not yet happened?"

I think that in order to avoid the appearance that the figures aren't up to date, the MO assume that the "future" years in the 21 point filter are the same as the current year, which possibly gives too much weight to the current year, but that will sometimes make the figures look too high, when the current year is high, or too low when the current year is low, although the MO probably didn't anticipate any of the current years being low.

It does have the advantage of picking up any recent trends, not picked up in a simple 30 year average.

#30. - quake wrote:

"It looks to me it's just wobbling around a 0.015C-0.018C range."

These variations are tiny, when compared to how the trend has changed since 1909.

As I said in my post #38, please look at how the rolling 30 year trend has changed since 1909. This is quite easy to calculate in a spreadsheet, using the "slope" function, but I don't think it's possible usinge "WoodForTrees".

#34. - john_cogger wrote:

"But it's 5% higher than 2000 and 2001? :-)"

Trend in 1925 = -0.011c/decade

Trend in 1946 = +0.141c/decade

Trend in 1967 = -0.037c/decade

Trend in 2003 = +0.179c/decade (gain over 1946 = 0.038c)

Trend in 2012 = +0.166c/decade

Trend in 2032 = ???

The important thing is how much higher the peaks and troughs are at the same part of the cycle.

The cycle appears to be increasing but it is misleading to look at the current trend, since it may be at it's peak.

Has RSS stopped functioning?

Re 31

Future warming will contribute to the trend, but I can't obviously tell for sure what that will be. On the otherhand the 82/83 El Nino is certain to drop off the last 30 year period by 2014 which will increase the 30 year warming trend.



A PDO switch and deep solar minimum have all failed to significantly reduce the warming trend. ENSO has contributed to wobbles. Wobbles in this graph are hardly significant:

https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:360:/from:1970



In the longterm I expect the 30 year trend to continue upwards at about the same rate as shown in that graph, with wobbles. Maybe the rate will appreciatively change, but I see no evidence of that at the moment and it could change in either direction.



"so ask yourself just where will the +2C by 2050 come from?"



None of the IPCC projections show that. I expect about 2C by 2100 which is in line with the current rate of increase.

actually delete this part: "A PDO switch and deep solar minimum have all failed to significantly reduce the warming trend."



I forget we are dealing with the 30 year mean here (not a 30 year record) and any changes would not affect that much.

For those frantic about Arctic ice the Antarctic has now exceeded past sea ice cover records. It now has 1M sq.Km more ice than normal (If there is such a thing). It has been found that planetary sea ice seesaws between north and south cyclically and low Arctic ice does not foretell doom just a natural cycle as is rainfall.

The problem in this country is that the Environment Agency cannot afford to dredge rivers, a vital maintenance measure. Rivers transport sediment which gets deposited downstream raising the river bed levels. This causes even a normal rain storm to cause flooding of flood plain. A good reason not to build on flood plain.

#45. - John Marshall wrote:

"It has been found that planetary sea ice seesaws between north and south cyclically and low Arctic ice does not foretell doom just a natural cycle as is rainfall."

Do you have a source for that ? I know that is how it appears at the moment but I wondered if it had been the subject of a scientific paper.



"This causes even a normal rain storm to cause flooding of flood plain. A good reason not to build on flood plain."

I think there is a problem with drainage in general. There was a flood near me caused by the blockage of a culvert, which caused water to build up on a railway line, which overflowed into an adjacent street.

Local councils are not cleaning drains until after there has been a flood, and not being proactive.

A National Trust site near where I live, has cut down trees and is busy covering fields with tarmac next to a river, to build a car park, (to encourage more visitors), which will of course cause water to run into the river faster and possibly make flooding worse downstream. This sort of thing is happening on a wide scale but the idiots don't seem to realise the effect it is having on drainage.

Sorry to disagree with an ex colleague so to speak but for me High pressure looks quite dominant now https://www.mountaindays.net/synoptic/chart.php?period=120.

Nadine is interesting though looks set to meander around the 40 north mark. I wonder if its associated heat will assist in the high pressure to the north to build?

Some of you may find this interesting. The increase in the Antarctic is not necessarily what one first might think. https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/Shu_etal_2012.pdf

@48, Adrian Buckland



It is extremely disappointing to see a paper published in 2012 reference the deeply flawed Steig 09 paper. If the authors are unaware or unable to understand the problems with Steig 09 then we can have no confidence that they can understand anything else.



Even some members of the SkS private members club understand the issues although they wont say so in public.

38. QuaesoVeritas wrote:



"Are you really aiming that question at me, or at quake?"



Sorry QV! I was trying to juggle too many discussions last night, the best I can say is I got the right blog! One comment left on another blog was not so lucky!



Many thanks for "If you look at how the 30 year trend has changed on a rolling basis since 1909...."



I will go away and have a look. Up to now I have restricted myself to the satellite period. Partly due to the numerous discussions/arguments re the retrospective changes to the terrestrial based databases. Your comments about 50/60 year cycles sure are interesting.



Also I certainly agree about calculating the rolling 30 year trend, once plotted, trends and most importantly changes in trends are very easy to observe

#50. - greensand wrote:

"Sorry QV! I was trying to juggle too many discussions last night, the best I can say is I got the right blog! One comment left on another blog was not so lucky!"

No problem, it is easy to get confused.

BTW, you can see the apparent cycle in the 50 year HadCRUT3 trend on the "Climate4You" website, put there by Ole Humlum at my suggestion.

https://www.climate4you.com/

Click on "Global Temperature", then "Cyclic Air Temperature Changes".

Of course, it is entirely possible that we don't have sufficient data to confirm that the cycle is real, but if it is, the trend should start to fall.

I have heard references to 60 year cycles elsewhere on the internet, but I don't know their origins.

Having said the above, if the cycle is real, it still suggests that temperatures are rising overall, but not as fast as currently is the case.

There seems to be a lot of discussion about rolling 30-year temperature trends (which gives the rolling rate of temperature rise) and 30-year average temperatures (which give real world measured temperatures).



You can have a decreasing 'rate of rise' alongside rising 'real world temperatures'.



In fact that's where are at present.



A decreasing rate of temperature rise is *not* a decrease in rising temperatures.

#53. - newdwr54 wrote:

"A decreasing rate of temperature rise is *not* a decrease in rising temperatures."

I think what you meant was that "it is not a decrease in temperatures". Putting the word "rising" in front of the word "temperatures" is slightly misleading.

But it is, as you say, a decrease in the rate of rise of temperatures, which MAY eventually be reflected in a decline in temperatures.

johncogger - indifference?



Ask yourself what lies behind the Lewandowsky study.



A. Do you think the survey is a genuine attempt to reveal a psychological flaw, common to climate sceptics?



B. Do you think the survey is a tactical ploy, designed to discredit or undermine the sceptic community.



C. I can't think of one.



My view is that anyone who answers (A) needs to step back for a moment and take a good look in the mirror. How have they allowed themselves to become a person of such intolerance that they consider a contradictory opinion a sign of mental illness or frailty.



Anyone who answers (B) accepts that there is a game being played out which has little to do with science, and everything to do with policy. This answer undermines AGW science in that it implies that anything and everything which we hear from the consensus might also be part of the game. Genuine scientific studies and tactical 'policy driven' studies would be indistinguishable to the layman. Result - credibility down the plughole.

Woops! Looks like the Met Office have got it wrong. Their outlook at the end of August forecast "September will be slightly warmer than average" and "For UK averaged rainfall the predicted probabilities weakly favour below normal values during September."



https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/k/s/A3-plots-temp-SON.pdf



https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/i/e/A3-plots-precip-SON.pdf

56.PaulHomewood:



CET to 17th is currently +0.7C above normal, i.e. slightly above average: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html



Too early to say if MO is wrong again.

#46 QV The relationship between Arctic/Antarctic sea ice cover is covered on the wattsupwiththat web site.



Culverts are a problem both from blocking and being installed at a smaller size than is really required, presumably to save money. In Spain, where rains in spring can be torrential thunderstorms, the use of culverts is avoided by the use of the French style open drains. Blockages are easily seen and cleared and excess rain overflows without backing up, as happens here. They also move water quicker than a covered system which is the best way to avoid flooding.

#58. -, John Marshall wrote:

"The relationship between Arctic/Antarctic sea ice cover is covered on the wattsupwiththat web site."

Thanks, I don't regularly visit there, but I will have a look.



"Culverts are a problem both from blocking and being installed at a smaller size than is really required, presumably to save money. In Spain, where rains in spring can be torrential thunderstorms, the use of culverts is avoided by the use of the French style open drains. "



Of course, the argument will be that in the past we have never needed such large Culverts and/or open drains, so the need for them will be seen as evidence of "climate change".

However that doesn't take into account the other widespread changes to land use, which I think is having a major impact on drainage patterns.

"Climate change" is a useful scapegoat.

I see my request for discussion on the paper by Ole Humlum et al 1012, regarding the phase relation of C02 and temperature was followed by a closure of further comments, so at the risk of closing this thread down, I repeat the request.

According to JAXA data from the Japanese Space Agency, Arctic sea ice extent dipped to under 3.5m km2 on Sunday.



If 3.49m km2 proves to be the daily average minimum extent in JAXA for 2012 (which looks likely), then it's over 765,000 km2 (i.e. 3.2 x the surface area of the entire UK) lower than the daily minimum extent reached in 2007, the year that held the previous record for daily extent minimum.



According to JAXA, every single day since Aug 24th has been below the daily minimum extent reached in 2007, and this sorry state of affairs looks set to continue, perhaps throughout September, and possibly even beyond that.

60. Boanta wrote:



It's discussed here: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/09/el-ninos-effect-onco2-causes-confusion/



It's described as weak on four counts: analysis, physics, review of previous literature, and logic.

@60 Boanta



The threads are closed after a week automatically, not because you or Piers have posted in it.

@55 Lateintheday



I think it's a bit of A and a bit of B. I don't think it sets out to find psychological flaws but does look at how certain minds/people are more open to certain theories. At the same time I don't think the Professor was suprised by the results, which obviously backed up his world viewpoint.



Again not sure why a psychology paper (the lowest of the sciences :-)) is getting so much attention, especially when it's clear not many people understand the techniques used in this area and what the results actually show.



Though the bombarding of the Uni with freedom of info requests does highlight a certain conspiracy theory that every paper is a scam or a fraud unless it backs up a certain viewpoint.

@64, john_cogger wrote:



“ Again not sure why a psychology paper (the lowest of the sciences :-)) is getting so much attention, especially when it's clear not many people understand the techniques used in this area and what the results actually show. “



Many sceptics, including people who do 'understand the techniques used in this area and what the results actually show', were of the same opinion until the paper's unfounded results were quoted unquestioningly in media outlets and used in attempts to stifle debate.



Some people who do 'understand the techniques used in this area and what the results actually show' have put the 'Lew Paper' forward as an example of getting everything wrong that could go wrong. I believe this is far too harsh; I'm fairly sure he spelt his name correctly and I haven't noticed any other spelling mistakes.



You, yourself, fall victim of believing in conspiracy theories when you write “the bombarding of the Uni with freedom of info requests”.



Are you also a believer in the 'climate disinformation campaign' conspiracy theory?



Lew's blog is run by SkS moderators. Below is a link where SkS Tree-Hutter Dana blames the climate disinformation campaign for the lack of public belief in CAGW yet is totally unable to provide a shred of evidence that such a campaign exists so resorts to censorship (look at the comments):



https://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/nuccWhatsDone.html



It is the CAGW alarmists obsession with conspiracy theories that makes them believe that others must be the same.

63---I see you are still not doing irony or humour.

#61. - newdwr54 wrote:



"According to JAXA, every single day since Aug 24th has been below the daily minimum extent reached in 2007, and this sorry state of affairs looks set to continue, perhaps throughout September, and possibly even beyond that."

The Sunday figure may turn out to be the minimum this year, but it might be too soon to say for certain.

Having reached that low point, it wouldn't be surprising if the extent remained below 2007 for the rest of September.

However, I find it difficult to understand how the continuation of a natural process of ice decline for the last 10,000 years or so, can be described as "sorry state of affairs". Actually an increase in ice extent, so that it eventually covered Britain, would, IMHO, be a much more sorry state of affairs.

Why is this a "sorry state of affairs"?

#55. - lateintheday wrote:

"B. Do you think the survey is a tactical ploy, designed to discredit or undermine the sceptic community."

Of course, that in itself, would probably constitute a "conspiracy theory" ;)

#65. - RobWansbeck wrote:



"Lew's blog is run by SkS moderators. Below is a link where SkS Tree-Hutter Dana blames the climate disinformation campaign for the lack of public belief in CAGW yet is totally unable to provide a shred of evidence that such a campaign exists so resorts to censorship (look at the comments):"



Tree-Hutter?



Is that building huts out of trees?

@65 Lateintheday



"You, yourself, fall victim of believing in conspiracy theories when you write “the bombarding of the Uni with freedom of info requests”. "



When -



A) One side (bloggers/commentators) say they are going to request data and complain to ethics committees.



B) The other say they have done it.



Not really a conspiracy theory when both sides seem to agree on whats happened.



A better conspiracy is -



A) A Prof writes a paper saying he emailed 5 blogs.



B) People say he didn't email anyone and its all a scam.



What happened with that one?

#59 QV--- I am sure that French Drains were unpopular here is the fact that they are open. Some H&S issue I suppose but they cause no problems abroad, unless you drive badly and end up in one.

The case for open drainage has been around for decades and climates change, always will.

@69 QV:



https://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/3/26/opengate-josh-158.html

@70, john_cogger,



So a request for data and a complaint about an error strewn paper is 'bombarding of the Uni with freedom of info requests'.



As for your second point, Lewandowsky did not email any of the 5 blogs so the people saying that he didn't email them are indeed correct.

The NCDC/NOAA anomaly figures for August have been published, but the sitiuation is complicated by further retrospective adjustments to the previous anomaly figures.

The explanation seems to be the following, from their website:

"PLEASE NOTE: Effective September 2012, the GHCN-M version 3.2.0 dataset of monthly mean temperature replaced the GHCN-M version 3.1.0 monthly mean temperature dataset. Beginning with the August 2012 Global monthly State of the Climate Report, GHCN-M version 3.2.0 is used for NCDC climate monitoring activities, including calculation of global land surface temperature anomalies and trends."

Needless to say, this has resulted in global anomalies up to approximately 1947 being reduced by up to 0.04c and those afterwards being increased, by up to 0.03c.

In the following, the first figure is the most recent figure for August, the second is last months revised July figure and the third is the original July figure.

Global = 0.6205c, 0.6431c, 0.6199c

N.H. = 0.6902c, 0.8246c, 0.7875c

S.H. = 0.5521c, 0.4508c, 0.4431c.

After adjustment to 1961-90, the August figures are equivalent to 0.483c, 0.600c and 0.376c respectively. However, as a result of the revised temperatures, the adjustment figures may no longer be valid and I will have to check that.

So while the August global figure is down relative to the revised July figure, it is up relative to last month's July figure, because last month's July figure was revised upwards by 0.0232c.

Like GISS & UAH, the N.H. anomaly shows a decline and the S.H. shows a rise, but as the S.H. rise is relatively lower, the global figure also shows a fall, unlike GISS & UAH.

RSS figures also published tonight!

Global = 0.256c compared to 0.291c for July

N.H. = 0.340c, compared to 0.454c for July

S.H. = 0.168c, compared to 0.121c for July

After adjustment to 1961-90, the above are equivalent to 0.403c, 0.501c and 0.305c respectively.

Once again, a fall in the N.H. and a rise in the S.H., and like NCDC/NOAA, the S.H. rise is more than offset by the N.H. fall, resulting in an overall fall in the global anomaly.

So that means 2 increases in global anomaly (UAH & GISS) and 2 decreases (RSS & NOAA), strangely not divided by satellite/non-satellite sources.

Since this year so far, HadCRUT3 has tended to track NCDC/NOAA, a small fall in HadCRUT3 now seems possible.

I have just noticed that the HadSST2 (which is a component of HadCRUT3), does show an increase from 0.385c to 0.432c, so that might indicate a small rise in HadCRUT3 after all, although that is by no means certain.

Hi QV, many thanks for the info, very busy at present, so much appreciated.

Also thanks for pointing me to Climate4You, lots of good data and your post 74 above reminded me of this chart:-



https://www.climate4you.com/images/NCDC%20Jan1915%20and%20Jan2000.gif



One day all might become clear

Very interesting, just checked the link I posted in 77 and all is now blank, not just the link but also at C4y. Can only assume it is being updated with the changes QV posted about.



Time will tell.

Interesting article the other day on ENSO. On the face of it, Tisdale explains why the after effect of ENSO is not necessarily neutral over time. This jars with the more commonly reported view put forth by pro AGW commentators, which is that since it is an oscillation, it cannot contribute to a long term trend in global temps. Whether you agree with it or not is a different matter, but it is informative nevertheless. It's at WUWT titled: The Warming of the Global Oceans – Are Manmade Greenhouse Gases Important or Impotent? Posted on September 16.



Johncogger@70 - You've mixed me up with another denier. Perhaps we all sound the same to you? That wouldn't surprise me since as you now know, we deniers are all certifiable, fake sceptics, conspiracy theorists or oil shills. Stereotyping, negative associations and labels don't really matter do they - not when you have scientificky proof.

#78. - greensand wrote:

"Very interesting, just checked the link I posted in 77 and all is now blank, not just the link but also at C4y. "

The link worked yesterday but when I tried it first thing this morning it didn't, but it does now, including the site in general, so maybe the site was being updated, because that normally happens about this time of the month. Ole Humlum doesn't usually wait for HadCRUT3.

An interesting graph, which demonstrates how much of the warming is due to data adjustment, at least in the case of NCDC/NOAA. I was a bit surprised that the graph included this August's figures.

On the basis of that graph, about 0.12c of the rise in January temp. between 1915 and 2000 is entirely due to differential adjustements. However, the fact that the scales are not continuous does exaggerate it a bit, and I wonder if that month was "cherry picked"?

He also says that GISS was affected by adjustments this month, but I didn't notice that.

BOM have posted their latest "Model Outlooks of ENSO Conditions" 19th Sept 2012



"Most dynamical models surveyed by the Bureau of Meteorology suggest that sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific will maintain values around El Niño thresholds before returning to clearly neutral values towards the end of 2012 or early 2013."



https://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/ENSO-summary.shtml



Still awaiting the UK Met Office GloSea Sept update.



Whilst most models say back to neutral, the trade winds are definitely slowing in the Western Pacific, usually a El Nino indicator. Time will tell.

@80 QV



I need to spend some more time at Ole Humlum's place, well done for getting the HadCRUT 50 year annual trend included.



Apart from the accumulation of data and form of presentation there is other interesting info, e.g. the comments on "Data Smoothing".



I have yet to comprehend the logic of ongoing differential adjustments.

#82. - greensand wrote:

"I have yet to comprehend the logic of ongoing differential adjustments."

The fact that they always seem to result in decreases in the past and increases in more recent figures, might lead some to believe that it is a "conspiracy"!

But I think that would be too obvious.

I don't normally pay much attention to "Real Science", becauase I personally find Stephen Goddard too aggressive, but I found the link to the PBS interview here interesting:



https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/09/19/pbs-greenland-ice-sheet-melted-in-four-days/



Personally I thought the interview fairly unbiased, but I really hated the use of the term "deeptime". Do NASA scientists *really* use that term?

Note how after Thomas Wagner uses it, Margaret Warner starts to use it, as if it was a perfectly normal expression!

@79 Lateintheday



Sorry, mixed you up.



No all deniers do not sound the same. As there is a wide range of 'alternative' theories, from it's getting warmer but we will be ok, all the way to the ice age has started.



Some likes Watts, Monckton, Spencer are happy with C02 and the GHG theory, Piers thinks it's all the sun, Big Joe thinks it's cooling any second now and it's natural, others think it's all about pressure. And I'm sure there are quite a few other theories in between. So no, you don't all sound the same.



Also you can chuck in a few conspiracy theories in there too, with New world orders, European commissionars, socialist plot to tax all…



I'll leave David Icke's theories for another day... :-)

johncogger - well that's a relief. I had visions of Monthy Python's 'yes, we are all individuals' scene running through my head.

QuaesoVeritas wrote:



"I don't normally pay much attention to "Real Science", becauase I personally find Stephen Goddard too aggressive, but I found the link to the PBS interview here interesting"



Not sure why you didn't just include the PBS link then. Sad to see that the wingnuts on Goddard's site are saying things about the interview like;



"drivel", "government propaganda" etc when the scientist clearly stated that the Greenland melt discussed was due to unusual weather, wasn't unprecedented and couldn't be connected to global warming.

Whilst waiting for the MO GloSea (ENSO) Sept model update I have been having a look at how the model has fared so far this year.



The March prediction has turned quite well, observations well within the Ensemble Forecast:-



https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/images/elnino/20120301/nino34_anom_20120301.png



However since then, each subsequent month's prediction has proved to be higher than the actual observations, e.g. see June and July below:-



https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/images/elnino/20120601/nino34_anom_20120601.png



https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/images/elnino/20120701/nino34_anom_20120701.png



All the Ensemble Forecasts and subsequent observations can be viewed here:-



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



Just choose the month required from the drop down list.



I wonder if ENSO not complying with the Ensemble Forecast is one of the reasons why the UKMO Global temps forecast seem to struggle complying with observations. Seem to recall that commentator " ukpahonta" has expressed such concerns previously, just that I had not had a look at the actual charts.

84. 20th Sep 2012, QuaesoVeritas wrote:



"I don't normally pay much attention to "Real Science", because I personally find Stephen Goddard too aggressive.."



Does anyone know whether Goddard paid up the $50 to the WWF due to the bet he lost re Arctic sea ice minimum extent 2012? He offered a challenge in April 2012 when Arctic sea ice extent was very high.



This was taken up by a punter in the comments section. Goddard had to pay $50 to WWF and publish an acknowledgement if he lost. He agreed, and at the time he dismissed the punter as a 'climate clown'... Ouch.

88. greensand:



Perhaps it's too early to say, but it looks as though this El Nino may be short lived, and that its peak may already have passed.



I don't know how Met Office models forecast the effects of El Nino, but my understanding is that its full global temperature impact normally lags its peak by 4-6 months, and strong El Nino years don't always correspond to warm years in the UK.



For instance, most temperature providers say the strong El Nino year 2010 was either the warmest or second warmest year on record globally; however it was the 12th coldest in the MO UK record (since 1910).



Perhaps if anything the MO should project cooling for the UK in El Nino years?

@90 newdwr54 wrote:



"I don't know how Met Office models forecast the effects of El Nino,"



Neither do I but they claim to take them into account within their forecast periods.



In their annual forecasts:-



https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/2012-global-temperature-forecast



In their decadal forecasts:-



https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/modelling-systems/unified-model/climate-models/depresys



"Perhaps if anything the MO should project cooling for the UK in El Nino years?"



Don't know what relevance that has to UKMO Global temp forecasts.

greensand and newdwr54 - if you haven't already seen this (my post 79) then I suggest you take a look.



https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/16/tisdale-the-warming-of-the-global-oceans-are-manmade-greenhouse-gases-important-or-impotent/



Newdwr54 - I doubt that you will take his 'theory' for warming to heart; actually, I wouldn't blame you. It's interesting rather than compelling. The clear explanation of why la nina and el nino cannot be described as opposites is the takeaway for me.



Greensand - I seem to remember you looking for information earlier this year, on the mechanisms involved in heat re-distribution through ENSO. This link goes some way in answering that. However, the 'teleconnections' part is rather vague and assumes that the reader is familiar with these processes. (Which I'm not)

As people are remaining interested in ENSO and it's effects on regional weather, UK in particular, there is an interesting paper that looks at the relationship between different types of El Nino events and their teleconnection to NH winters.



'This study contributes to the discussion on possible effects of El Niño on North Atlantic/European regional climates. We use NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data to show how the two different types of El Niños (the central Pacific, or CP, and the east Pacific, or EP) result in remarkably different European winter temperature anomalies, specifically weak warming during EP and significant cooling during CP El Niños, the latter being associated with a negative phase of the winter North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO).'



https://192.102.233.13/journals/jd/jd1201/2011JD016493/2011JD016493.pdf

92.lateintheday wrote:



"I seem to remember you looking for information earlier this year, on the mechanisms involved in heat re-distribution through ENSO. This link goes some way in answering that. However, the 'teleconnections' part is rather vague and assumes that the reader is familiar with these processes. (Which I'm not)"



Thanks LITD, you are quite right I have spent some time looking for explanations of the approximate timescales re the heat distribution of ENSO events. I gave up a long time ago attempting to understand the complexity of how it is modelled.



I will never be able to comprehend the complexity a climate model, but I can, if given the information see whether we (mankind) are improving our ability or not. Hence my constant nagging at the MO for not updating decadal forecasts.



Thanks for the link, have been reading and comprehending, up to a point, Bob Tisdale for a number of years. I am awaiting the reactions to his latest and the subsequent food fight and then will reassess my understanding.

Re CET if you have an interest have a look at the following site:-



https://www.centralenglandtemperature.co.uk/daily.html?nosplash



New to me, lots of info, can't tell who it is or why or how good the data is, have a look!

92. lateintheday:



Thanks for the link, but nowhere did I see any convincing explanation for Bob Tisdale's claim that ENSO is the 'cause of the warming of global sea surface temperatures'.



Since ENSO is an oscillation, then it must have a net neutral influence on temperatures, whether ocean or surface. I mean that ENSO fluctuations result from heat energy recycled by ocean currents, which most scientists agree with. That explains the rises and falls in ocean surface temperature; but it does not explain where the heat energy came from in the first place, nor what sustains it.



To add heat energy to any system, including the ENSO system, you need a forcing influence. If there had been a big influx of solar forcing over the past 30-40 years then that might provide the explanation. But we know that there hasn't been one.



There has, however, been a big increase in re-radiated IR from the atmosphere to the surface due to increased GHG concentrations; so like it or not, that's currently a better explanation than solar as a heat energy source for ENSO, in my opinion.



But as Tisdale's hypothesis stands, as far as I understand it (and I may not fully understand it), what he is claiming is that seas just create heat all by themselves, without any need for any external forcing influence; a sort of 'free energy' claim that Tisdale offers no real explanation for the mechanics of.



To be fair, I like Tisdale, and think he has some good ideas. He is not afraid to confront other climate 'sceptics' such as Joe Bastardi, which is always a good sign.

#96 Newdwr54



You are correct, you don't understand Tisdale's hypothesis, but his book would correct that for you, I'm sure that you may find a reference to it somewhere on his site!

https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/

97. ukpahonta wrote:



"You are correct, you don't understand Tisdale's hypothesis, but his book would correct that for you, I'm sure that you may find a reference to it somewhere on his site!"

_________________________________________________________



I have to rely on a book, or else a blog comment, to decide whether a 'game-changing' hypothesis is right or not.



As for peer review...?



Can we not just forget about peer review, now that we have the likes of (Eng. Lit. grad) James Delingpole and (Former TV weatherman) Anthony Watts to keep us right?



I mean, what would 'scientists' know that this pair wouldn't?

#98 Newdwr54



It would be better if you relied upon your own intellect, not saying that you should agree with him or not, but if you want to understand what he says, then you should at least take the time to read what he says.

I have only read a part of the Tisdale blog (IMHO there is a lot of irrelevant stuff in the "OVERVIEW" section), but I am puzzled by the followong statements:

"On the other hand, an El Niño takes naturally created warm water from below the surface of the western tropical Pacific and relocates it the surface."

and

"The next question you may have: The El Niño released lots of warm water from below the surface of the western tropical Pacific, but how was that warm water created?

It was created during a La Niña that came before the El Niño. This happens because La Niña events reduce cloud cover and allow more sunlight than normal to penetrate and warm the tropical Pacific."

So does that mean that the sunlight heats the ocean from below the surface, before it heats the surface?

No doubt this will be explained later in the blog.