From the Institute of Physics and the “children won’t know what snow is” department:
The likelihood of record-breaking warm years in England is set to substantially increase as a result of the human influence on the climate, new research suggests.
In a study published today, 1 May, in IOP Publishing’s journal Environmental Research Letters, an international team of researchers has shown that the chances of England experiencing a record-breaking warm year, such as the one seen in 2014, is at least 13 times more likely as a result of anthropogenic climate change.
This is according to climate model simulations and detailed analyses of the Central England Temperature (CET) record–the world’s longest instrumental temperature record dating back to 1659.
The results of the study showed that human activities have a large influence on extreme warm years in England, which the researchers claim is remarkable given England is such a small region of the world.
Lead author of the study Dr Andrew King, from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science at the University of Melbourne, said: “When you look at average annual temperatures over larger regions of the world, such as the whole of Europe, there is a lower variability in temperatures from year to year compared with smaller areas.
“As a result of this low variability, it is easier to spot anomalies. This is why larger regions tend to produce stronger attribution statements, so it is remarkable that we get such a clear anthropogenic influence on temperatures in a relatively small area across central England.”
To arrive at their results, the researchers firstly used climate model simulations to calculate the likelihood of very warm years when there is just natural forcings on the climate and no human influence, and then when there is both natural forcings and human influence. The change in the likelihood of warm years due to human influences on the climate was then calculated.
The researchers then observed the CET and picked out the warmest years from the record since 1900. The warmest years were then plotted onto a graph which the researchers used to calculate the likelihood of warm years happening now and warms years happening 100 years ago.
The model-based method suggested at least a 13-fold increase (with 90% confidence) due to human influences on the climate, whilst the observation-based approach suggested at least a 22-fold increase in the probability of very warm years in the climate of today compared with the climate of a century ago (again with 90% confidence).
“Both of our approaches showed that there is a significant and substantial increase in the likelihood of very warm years occurring in central England,” Dr King Continued.
According to the CET, 2014 was the warmest year on record in central England. It has been reported that during the last 60 years there has been rapid warming in the CET in line with the anthropogenic influence on the climate, with the highest average annual temperature of 10.93 °C recorded in 2014.
The Central England Temperature (CET) series, which is the longest instrumental time series of temperature in the world, has monthly recordings of average temperatures dating back to 1659 and recordings of average daily temperatures dating back to 1772.
The CET is designed to represent the climate of the English Midlands, which is approximated by a triangular area enclosed by Lancashire in the north, Bristol in the south-west and London in the south-east. The CET has undergone thorough and extensive quality control, making it an ideal resource for studying long-term temperature trends across the region.
As to whether these results can be seen to be representative of areas outside of central England, Dr King said: “I would expect that other areas near the UK would produce similar results.
“For larger regions, stronger attribution statements can often be made. For example, we performed a similar attribution study for Europe as a whole and found a 35-fold increase in the likelihood of extremely warm years using model simulations.”
###
This research was undertaken with the assistance of resources from the National Computational Infrastructure (NCI), which is supported by the Australian Government.
From Friday 1 May, this paper can be downloaded from http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054002.
Full paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054002/pdf/1748-9326_10_5_054002.pdf
I thought global warming was supposed to shut down the gulf stream and lead to super cold in Britain and northern Europe.
I was a member of the Inst.o Phys. Not now, though. They disgust me. This is not science.
Until 1972 CET ereocrds were devised and kept by Professor Manley. Since then the Hadley Centre has produced them (even adjusting some of Manley’s original records for “greater accuracy”).
The following excerpts from Wikipedia says it all. Guess which records the Inst. of Physics uses!
“For recent years there are two versions of the series: the “official” version maintained by the Hadley Centre, and a version maintained by Philip Eden which he argues is more consistent with the series as originally compiled by Manley.”
“Eden was chief network weather presenter for BBC Radio 5 Live from 1994 to 2005. He has written for the Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Telegraph newspapers, and currently has a weekly column in the latter. Eden writes weekly features and monthly look-backs for WeatherOnline. He is author of two books on the history of British weather. Philip Eden was Vice President of the Royal Meteorological Society from 2007 to 2009. Eden was awarded the Royal Meteorological Society’s Gordon Manley Weather Prize in 2000. The prize is awarded annually for any outstanding contribution to Weather through a paper or papers, or other outstanding service to Weather, in the preceding five years that has furthered the public understanding of meteorology and oceanography. He has been Director of the Chilterns Observatory Trust since 2007.”
….and the last time I checked Eden’s version was running warmer than the Hadley version.
If I’m not wrong, this is more stuff where they create models according to their beliefs then tell us to abandon modern civilisation because of their model results.
Here comes another clairvoyant pronouncement about future climate. As they say, “…human activities have a large influence on extreme warm years in England,..” Previous attempts at futurism in Great Britain have predicted that Scottish ski resorts would be closed for lack of snow and that children would not even know what snow is. All that because global warming, you see, had descended upon us and was guaranteed to do that. With this track record, why should anyone think that the latest story from the clairvoyants at IPCC will be any different from their previous fantasies? It is probably not even their best effort. They are saving that one for the Big Seance they have planned for Paris later this year.
Of course what they don’t mention is that 2010 was one of the coldest and equivalent to the 1659 temperature. And here we have another Ozzie organization of “Excellence” (LOL) with a “tough-in-cheek” prediction. Sorry can’t take this nonsense seriously.
My initial thoughts are what is the source of the discotinuity at 1990. Lookes like a step change due to something. I wonder if anyone has looked into possible reasons eg new adjacent buildings etc.
It depends on you definition of “set” and that will be determined later.
From the paper’s introduction:
“The CET has undergone thorough and extensive quality control (Parker et al 1992) and can, therefore, be studied in the context of event attribution. The annual CET value for 2014 was 10.93 °C, the highest in the 356 year series. However, it is worth noting that, at approximately 0.06 °C above the previous 2006 record, we cannot be entirely certain that 2014 was the warmest on record. Parker and Horton (2005) state that for annual mean CET values to be deemed significantly different a 0.25 °C difference is required.”
From the paper’s conclusion:
“Central England experienced its warmest year on record in 2014 in a series that extends back to 1659. By using both climate model simulations and the observed CET series, we show that anthropogenic climate change very likely played a major role in this record warm year.”
So, it appears that through enhancing the observational-sourced temperatures with model-sourced temperatures, they were able to conclude that the possible 2014 record is now certainly a record that breaks the 0.25 required difference.
uhhhh…pardon me for asking, but isn’t this like putting your thumb on the scales?
As long as local anthropogenic effects upon urban climate data is misrepresented as an effect upon actual climate, blind statistical projections based upon cherry-picked segments of long records will invariably show a likely “increase in record-setting years.”
The Jet Stream is the source of much of UK’s temperature extremes, along with the Golf Stream. Any records, be they high or low, must first be determined to be UNrelated to these natural forces so that they can be attributed to anthropogenic heating. That is unless the authors are saying that the anthropogenic-only part of atmospheric CO2 can affect these magnificently large and powerful structures.
http://www.netweather.tv/index.cgi?action=jetstream-tutorial
To be unbiased, some have indicated that indeed anthropogenic CO2 is warming the Arctic (either directly via CO2 re-radiated warmer air or via anthropogenically warmer incoming oceanic currents) which is what it driving the Jet Stream into positions unfavorable to the UK. However those connections are speculative at best.
Exactly why do you think that eliminating the Jet Stream and the Gulf Stream will tell you anything about anthropogenic heating? For that matter, where did you get the misinformation that anthropogenic CO2 is is warming the Arctic? Fact is, the present Arctic warmingt did not get started until the beginning of the twentieth century. There was nothing there before but two thousand years of slow cooling. The start was sudden and there was no simultaneous increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This just completely eliminates carbon dioxide as the cause of Arctic warming. The only possible cause is a rearrangement of North Atlantic current system at the turn of the century that started to carry warm Gulf Stream water into the Arctic Ocean. As to your Jet Stream/Gulf Stream combo, they jointly cannot change the fact that there is no warming now and there has been none for the last 18 years. At the same time atmospheric carbon dioxide has been increasing. According to the Arrhenius greenhouse theory in use by IPCC this should warm the atmosphere but it does not. That makes it a clear false prediction for Arrhenius. A false prediction by a scientific theory invalidates it and requires that it be consigned to the waste basket of history. The correct greenhouse theory to use is the Miskolczi greenhouse theory. It came out in 2007 and was promptly blacklisted by the global warming establishment. Why so, you might ask, Very simple: it predicts what we see – addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere does not warm the atmosphere. That is the theory that governs our climate. If you really want to understand it get busy learning the math involved.
“Centre of Excellence” in Climate Studies indeed. The title is as convincing as a country calling itself a “Peoples Democratic Republic”. It might persuade gullible lefties and greenies but it is an affront to any genuine scientist .
It is ironic that this paper came out on May 1st, International Labour Day or international green communism day, when it was the coldest (using maxima) May 1st in the CET for 19 years. (I have a good proxy for CET based on published temperatures at Pershore, Rothamsted, Rostherne, which is how I can assert this.) Shares can go down as well as up.
Still, April was mostly quite pleasant. It was shaping up to be the 4th warmest April since 1878, but faded sadly away to be only 13th warmest.
Rich.
Whenever considering CET, one should always consider the views and assessment made by Tony Brown, I think that he has posted an article here on WUWT, but if not, it can be found set out at Climate etc.. See:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/
“This is according to climate model simulations…”
I am *so* over bl**dy models
You have to love climate statistics, as in the observation-based part of this paper. Leave aside the reluctance to use time series methods for time series.
Their data plot (figure 3(a)) actually seems to tell them not to use the method they are using. Nearly half the data they use to estimate their Pareto density comes from the low CO2 period. But this must be from the period 1910-1940 when the CO2 hypothesis is well known not to fit. It would seem they are estimating their “model” (of sorts) from data to which their model does not apply.
Some mistake?
“False predictions about climate,
False predictions galore;
False predictions about the weather
That we have in store.
Yet we keep on believing
The predictions we’re given,
By some irrational fear
We seem to be driven…..”
Read more: http://wp.me/p3KQlH-DG
Any first year engineering undergraduate would throw that out at even a first glance. Fourier analysis has shown nearly half a century ago fifteen and twenty three year cycles so peak to peak is the product of these durations. Any conclusions based on less than two cycles are by definition tentative and totally inconclusive. Are there no limits to the ignorance of those in the climate studies field?
We were told no snow by 2013 but this winter I took four hours to cross Sheffield and even then by driving down a road that was sheet ice and ungritted through lack of resources because the council had done their planning based on these “scientists”. All other roads were gridlocked for longer than this.
Despite the headline “high temperatures” at midday in the center of London that excite the Met office and the BBC, for most of the UK the first 4 months of this year have been unseasonably cold and remain so. N.B. mid-day temperatures in London are consistently 2 to 5 deg C above those recorded in the surrounding counties.
Ulriclyon’s graphic hints at an important inference that can be arrived at by carefully examining temperature data for Europe, from Madrid to Vardo to Warsaw to Lugano to Nancy and places in between, thus including Central England.This general region experienced a step change in the autumn of 1987. Since then temperatures have been effectively constant. That’s when “The Pause” started in these parts. You don’t believe this? Try fitting a linear model to European temperature data beginning in September 1987. Cherry picking, but for a good reason. A linear model that spans 1987 will always produce a “significant” coefficient simply because a step change occurred at that date. For the 25 or so years prior to Sept 1987 there is seldom a significant slope. This this hinted at in Ulriclyon’s nice graphic, but it is a general phenomenon too.
Nobody is capable of predicting future atmospheric temperature or future climatic conditions, on any time scale, into the future. We know this because today meteorologists cannot even tell us what the temperature will be next week let alone next year, and nobody would dare trust a weather forecast beyond a few days.
How strange then, that these scientists are able to publish a paper that England is going to get warmer because of anthropogenic warming. What crystal ball did they use?