Guest post by Paul Homewood
The UK Met Office report that the UK has just had its coldest autumn for nineteen years, leaving 2012 on course to be second coldest year since 1996.
Mean temperature in November was 0.4C below the 1981-2010 average, the third month in a row when temperatures have been well down on normal.
The average temperature for the autumn in the UK was 8.6C, compared to the long term average of 9.5C and the coldest since 1993. It is also the sixth coldest autumn in the last 50 years.
The year as a whole is currently running as the second coldest since 1996, beaten only by the exceptionally cold year of 2010. Temperatures so far in December are 2 degrees below normal, and the Met Office are forecasting that this will continue for the foreseeable future.
One of the features this autumn is just how persistent the cold weather has been. There have not been any exceptionally cold interludes, as, for instance, we saw with the heavy snow in November 2010. Instead, the weather has just been consistently cold.
Figure 1
Rainfall
Rainfall totals for the UK during the autumn amounted to 374mm, about 8% above normal, but nothing exceptional. For instance, this total has been beaten six times in the last 30 years.
Figure 2
Several areas were affected by floods towards the end of November, particularly in SW England and Wales, and the map below shows rainfall totals were well above normal there during the month.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/anomacts/
However, as Figures 3 & 4 show, the rainfall totals just experienced in that part of the country, during both November and the autumn as a whole, are actually very commonplace. Indeed, it can be seen just how variable the UK’s weather can be!
Figure 3
Figure 4
Met Office Autumn Forecast
At the end of August, the Met Office 3-month outlook forecast:-
The balance of probabilities suggests that September will be slightly warmer than average whilst for the period September-October-November UK-averaged temperatures will be near the 1981-2010 climate mean.
For UK averaged rainfall the predicted probabilities weakly favour below normal values during September. For the period September/October/November as a whole the forecast favours a slightly higher than usual risk of above average rainfall, whilst the risk of dry conditions remains around climatological levels.
Woefully wrong on temperatures, but a bit better on rainfall. I’ll give them a C+ overall!
All Met Office data is available here.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/datasets/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
mwhite says:
December 8, 2012 at 4:40 am
“Met Office 2012 annual global temperature forecast”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/2012-global-temperature-forecast
4 January 2012 – 2012 is expected to be around 0.48 °C warmer than the long-term (1961-1990) global average of 14.0 °C, with a predicted likely range of between 0.34 °C and 0.62 °C, according to the Met Office annual global temperature forecast.”
I suppose that’snot a bad guess. You know put out a range of 95% wide, plumb for the middle and declare that as your forecast.
OK, next year I predict that the nefarious global average temp anomoly in Hadcru4 will 0.29 to 0.6°C and expect it to be 0.445°C +/- 0.155.
There, spot on and all with a 4 function calculator.
re anything from the UK MetOffice – it is a sad state of affairs that the warmista have taken over that particular asylum. They are still beating the AGW drum, and continue to push tha GW meme whenever and wherever possible. It is nothing more than a political voice now in respect of AGW – and should be completely ignored! I wouldn’t trust anything they produce any more than I would trust something signed by Mann or Jones!
Isn’t it about time for the Climate Scientists to explain why Solar UV affects the Earth’s Climate??
Between a Solar Max. and Min. there is hardly a change in TSI, but a large change in UV. Yet, the Earth’s temperature as recorded for centuries varies +-0.1C. Why?
A theory would be that the UV affects the Upper Atmosphere Ozone layer. More UV, thicker Ozone layer, better insulation, which leads to warmer temperatures. The opposite is also proposed.
As we enter into the Eddy Minimum, how about having a verified theory for changing temperatures and virtually constant TSI !!!
If the ENSO sign remains neutral during the upcoming winter , the odds are that UK will also have colder than average winter . During the past 50 years , when Enso sign has been neutral , the winters have been below normal [3.7C] about 65% of the time . The Northern Hemisphere winter temperature anomalies have been dropping slightly since 1998. European winter temperatures have been flat for 20 years since 1990 but show declines in the post 2006 period.
If the BBC can’t eliminate snow one way, they will eliminate it another.
It seems the word “snow” can no longer be tolerated in left leaning establishments and is now to be described as “wintryness” in both forecasts and discussion.
They seem to be attempting the elimination of “snow” from the Oxford English Dictionary by disuse, thereby religating it to a footnote reference as an archaic rarely used word from the C20th.
This may go some way to explain the lack of preparedness in the SE UK when the SNOW fell earlier this week in that area.
The BBC is no longer a great institution, but it almost certainly should be put in one.
Mosh said
“yes, when you have big ice losses in the NP, two of the expected results are colder and more snowy winters in the NH.”
Credible non modelled reference please? I’ve been back 1000 years with physical observations as far as I’m able and no such correlation exists on a consistent basis. I can’t see any correlation between the Alpine glacial records either. Prove your assertion
tonyb
I might add that past Enso neutral winters have been even worse for Europe as a whole . About 75% of Enso neutral winters have been colder than normal . This was especially evident during their last cooler period 1962-1987. when10 out 10 Enso neutral winters were colder than normal. For those who expect European winters to warm as IPCC and EEA do , there will be a lot explaining to do over the next 20-30 years as the cooler cycle begins
Ruth Dixon
Here are the real world Central England temperatures since 1772.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
The coldest autumn in years reported In Pauls excellent article is just part of a general decline in our temperatures over the last ten years. My garden in the South West has lost many of the succulents that used to flourish here and the last two years I havent even been able to grow tomatoes. If you ever listen to Farming Today it is studded with farmers abandoning exotic crops.
My concern is that we are so focused on Plan A for excessive warming that we havent got a plan B to cover other more likely contingencies
tonyb
Thank you Jimbo for that British railroading flashback! Scratch me and I bleed Union Pacific
yellow. One thing Britain did was not rush headlong into diesels . UP had a few Challengers and
Northern in the west when I was young. Nothing like a long whistle on cold morning.
When SP’s 4449 showed up in Eugene OR. back in th elate 80’s wife and i took a young friend to see it. Here was that big brute sitting there and quietly chuffing on a cold winter’s day. She looked at it and said:” Is it alive!?” I said “yes…”
Remember winters like that in NE Oregon …..
Some quite recent..
The Met overestimating warming.
Harumph.
They were so consistent and predictable about it, I’ve stopped following.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/06/uks-met-office-blows-another-summer-forecast/#comment-37086
roger says: December 8, 2012 at 7:39 am
If the BBC can’t eliminate snow one way, they will eliminate it another. It seems the word “snow” can no longer be tolerated in left leaning establishments and is now to be described as “wintryness” in both forecasts and discussion. They seem to be attempting the elimination of “snow” from the Oxford English Dictionary by disuse, thereby religating it to a footnote reference as an archaic rarely used word from the C20th.
________________________________________
The BBC is doing this because of the great leftist Global Warming claim that : “snow will be a thing of the past”.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
How can Global Warming predict no snow, and then we get more snow that ever since 1963? Tricky one, eh? The BBC answer is to delete ‘snow’ from the English lexicon. This is another version of Orwell’s Doublespeak – but this is Deletespeak.
.
Steven Mosher says:
December 7, 2012 at 8:35 pm
yes, when you have big ice losses in the NP, two of the expected results are colder and more snowy winters in the NH.
So during the Little Ice Age there was less Arctic ice than there is now? Where are the papers expounding this remarkable result of CAGW theory?
I never knew it was so simple!
vukcevic says: December 8, 2012 at 2:00 am
Here you can compare England’s seasonal temperatures since 1660. Autumn’s temp’s are shown in brown, the right hand side scale.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-D.htm
______________________________________
My dear Vuk, oh he of the wiggly graphs and no explanations – you seem to have autumn temperatures colder than winter temperatures. Can you check your graph again.
.
Silver Ralph
“…autumn temperatures colder than winter…”
Different axes. It is indeed confusing though.
TONYB
Mosh said
“yes, when you have big ice losses in the NP, two of the expected results are colder and more snowy winters in the NH.”
I agree with your comments re Mosh quote . We had cold winters and lots of snow in the Northern Hemisphere prior to the last 30 years when there was plenty of Arctic ice. So cold winters and lots of snow in NH have many other causes as well. This comment of Mosh may stem from a study by JudahL Cohen et al covering only 1990-2010 . A study looking back 100 years may not support the claim of Mosh and Cohen
Anybody who lives in the UK, and is as fed up with this CAGW nonsense as I am, can sign the new e-petition to repeal the Climate Change Act:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/42784
1963… Watch and enjoy ….. look forward to what is to come …. !!!
GlynnMhor says:
December 7, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Anthony, I know that you and Leif spearheaded a drive to officially name the next solar grand minimum after Eddy instead of naming it after Ted Landscheidt, and that you submitted a petition to the Solar Physics Division of the American Astronomical Society to that effect … but I can’t find anywhere that anyone has reported that the AAS actually acted on your petition. Do you have a cite? Google gives me nothing.
A bit of history. I call the predicted grand minimum peaking in 2030 the “Landscheidt Minimum” out of established habit, because that’s what it has been called by various people discussing it during the time since Ted Landscheidt predicted it in 1989 (although not by Landscheidt himself).
Landscheidt predicted a weakening of the solar cycles starting after 1990, and hitting a minimum around 2030. He’s definitely been right so far about weakening cycles, but there’s a ways to go yet.
One of the things that I greatly admired about Ted was that he was willing to publicly make falsifiable predictions, the most scientific of habits. I was sorry when Ted died because he would never find out if his prediction was right about the minimum. In any event, the history is that I and others have been calling that predicted grand minimum the Landscheidt Minimum for quite a while.
I’m honestly sorry to say that your and Leif’s petition, successful or not, will not change what I call the predicted minimum. I thought that it was incorrect of you and Leif to try to predetermine the name, rather than letting it emerge spontaneously as such names have in the past. The predicted grand minimum of 2030 has been called the Landscheidt Minimum for quite a while now by a variety of people, particularly since Ted’s death … what inspired you to try to change an existing name?
If his prediction comes to pass, Landsheidt absolutely deserves the honor of the name. What Eddy did was identify a minimum in the distant past, a most excellent feat of scientific imagination to be sure. We don’t know yet, but it seems possible that Landschiedt was able to predict a grand minimum forty years in the future … surely predicting a grand minimum four decades in the future would be more deserving of recognition than identifying a grand minimum in the past?
As a result, your attempt to pre-emptively rally public support to name such a possible minimum after Eddy, while I am sure it was occasioned by the best of motives, seemed very premature to me. I’m not saying Eddy doesn’t deserve respect, he absolutely does. I’m saying wrong way, wrong place, wrong time.
If the minimum doesn’t happen when Ted predicted, it will be called by whatever the people of 2050 (or whenever it does happen) want to call it, and they may not want to name it after Eddy. There may be a new scientific star, someone whose revolutionary solar theory predicted the 2050 grand minimum in 2030. By your petition, you are trying to impose your will on the people of say 2050 regarding what they should call their grand minimum … seems a bit over-reaching to me, but what do I know?
… but for me (and yes, I realize that this is a personal opinion) if the next solar grand minimum does happen when Ted predicted it would happen, it should be named for him and no one else. And if it does occur, it will always be the Landscheidt Minimum for me, with no disrespect meant to Eddy, Leif, or yourself.
In friendship,
w.
PS—What if a minimum doesn’t occur when Landscheidt predicted? Well, in that case I suspect I’ll call it the “Landscheidt Famous Failed Minimum” …
PPS—Interesting comment by Eddy himself:
He was a good guy indeed, Anthony, and I understand the desire of Leif and yourself to recognize his achievements.
PPS—A decade or so ago I tried quite hard to understand what Ted Landscheidt was doing, including corresponding with him to try to clear up obscure points in his explanations (of which there were many). I even wrote an entire Excel spreadsheet to do the barycentric calculations, so I could investigate the barycentric oscillations of the sun. Despite great effort, I never succeeded in understanding his system.
However, Ted was a true scientist who was willing to make predictions that either would or would not come true. So whether or not I understood his methods, I have to respect that about him.
Anthony, I completely understand your great reluctance to have Ted Landscheidt’s ideas discussed on WUWT. When his name comes up, the threads tend to slope off pretty quickly into cyclomania of the worst kind, the kind that finds tons of correlations but makes no predictions of any kind. So I actively support your desire to keep discussion of Ted’s methods off of WUWT … particularly since no one seems to understand his ideas much better than I do, which is very poorly, and the signal to noise ratio tends to asymptotically approach zero pretty quickly.
But I object to your attempt to change the natural order of naming things by trying to prevent Ted’s name from remaining on the Landscheidt Minimum. It could easily be mistaken for an attempt to impose your blog standards and your dislike of Landscheidt on the rest of the planet. Let me suggest in friendship that you let it go, let it be, let the name come to fruition in the fullness of time, whatever that name may be.
For me, it’s bozo simple.
If Landscheidt was wrong, there won’t be a grand minimum to name in 2030, and this will all be moot.
And if he was right, he most certainly deserves to have the 2030 grand minimum named after him.
Steven Mosher says:
December 7, 2012 at 8:35 pm
Cite for colder winters being the “expected result” of less arctic ice? I’ve run the numbers and I find no such effect, although I find a mild increase in snow in such conditions. I’m not saying there is no such evidence … I’m just saying you are a fool to make the claim without providing a scrap of backup.
Seriously, Steven, your drive-by posting style is bringing you lower and lower in my estimation. You are a brilliant man—act like it. You know that such claims as yours will bring only derision unless they are accompanied by actual facts, you know, cites and data and statistics.
Now, perhaps you like to have folks pointing and laughing at you … in which case, contrary to my assumptions and experience, you are a troll doing this for the lulz. But I don’t think that’s the case.
SO … if you don’t want to have folks snicker and go “Oh, yeah, that idiot” when your name is mentioned, join the party and provide some meat to go with the unhinged aerogel of your posts.
w.
Oh my god, man is causing global cooling with all his windmills…The sky is falling. We had better put a tax on green activism. Good thing, that as Greenpeace says, we know where they live and work…it will make rounding them up and shipping them off to climate cult prisons all the easier. (sarc off)
The Wayback Machine still appear not to have managed to fix their server for this file:
http://www.ibt.org.uk/all_documents/dialogue/Real%20World%20Brainstorm%20Sep%202007%20background.pdf
Remember, that’s the one that reveals the BBC’s little secret. How long does it take to fix a server? Does the BBC employ hack(er)s?
Willis Eschenbach says:
December 8, 2012 at 9:49 am
“Cite for colder winters being the “expected result” of less arctic ice? I’ve run the numbers and I find no such effect, although I find a mild increase in snow in such conditions. ”
Some Russian working at the PIK has a paper “predicting” this. (One of the many protective hypothesis that shield the body of the HMS Warmism)
Sorry, didn’t write down the name. His “post-prediction” cam after the second of two snow rich winters in germany in 2011 IIRC.
John M says:
December 8, 2012 at 8:21 am
I just compared that posts data to the current posted on the metoffice website
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/global-temperatures-2012
scroll down to see previous years.
year forecast actual Hadcrut4 !!!
1999 …….0.38 …………0.33 …………..No Hadcrut4 0.30+-0.09
2000……..0.41………0.32-0.33………..No 0.29+-0.09
2001……..0.47………0.42-0.44………No(2nd) 0.43+-0.09
2002……..0.47………….0.49………….No(2nd) 0.49+-0.09
2003……..0.55………….0.45……………Yes 0.50+-0.09
2004……..0.50………….0.44………….No(2nd) 0.44+-0.09
2005……..0.51………….0.48………….No(2nd) 0.53+-0.09
2006…0.45(0.37?)…….0.42…………….No 0.49+-0.09
2007……..0.54………….0.40……………Yes 0.48+-0.09
2008……..0.37………….0.28…………….No 0.49+-0.09
I am curious as to the differences!! But it sure looks as if Hadcrut4 is upping the later values!
“Isn’t it about time for the Climate Scientists to explain why Solar UV affects the Earth’s Climate??”
Your wish is my command:
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/How%20The%20Sun%20Could%20Control%20Earths%20Temperature.pdf
If we are entering a new solar minimum predicted by Ted Landscheidt we should obviously be calling it Landscheidt solar minimum, I wouldn’t have any objections if it were called The Landscheidt Eddy solar minimum, TBH I have been under the impression that the coming solar minimum if it occurs will be named Landscheidt solar minimum after the person who predicted it.