Mr Maunder

Thanks GP! Of particular interest to me is whether the increased NH Ozone levels result in higher stratospheric temperatures this winter (they should do) and whether this translates in to a more negative AO/NAO regime. I think you can almost trace the decline in negative AO/NAO winters over the last 30 years to the polar decline in Ozone levels, leading to stratospheric cooling and a stronger vortex. Of course there are many other factors to take in to account. Most relevant, from my point of view, is whether the current El Nino fades away quickly or continues to warm during the next six weeks or so. Despite being very confident quite recently that it would fade away this confidence is diminishing with the lasting strength of the latest Kelvin Wave. We shall see. MM

I thought they were both pretty mediocre. BBC style report first (referring to "hacking"). Followed by Paxman chaired debate with Singer saying "There could have been data manipulation, and we need an independent investigation" (Is he the best they can find?). Then Watson (who, to me, came across as the sacrificial reasonable apologist sent by UEA) saying (and I paraphrase) "Sorry about some of the words used but don't worry all the data is ok - we're all honest blokes, guv". No light was really shed on anything. To be fair to both of them, you cannot really do these things properly in four minutes with the Paxman ego to contend with as well. MM

The tone of the relevant e/mails seem to indicate that Prof Jones thinks he has the Information Commissioner's office "covered" and can safely ignore FOI requests. For that reason alone (apart from being daft enough to suggest this to others) I doubt that the Information Commission is now sitting around waiting for the Taxpayers Alliance to contact them! Not intentionally, of course, but Prof Jones has made them look rather a tame/lame regulator - so he should expect a visit soon............ MM

The difference here being that no-one on this forum (as far as I am aware) is being paid a salary from a government sponsored agency to provide us with scientific input which affect energy, taxation and no doubt many other strategies. No one likes theft, but are we glad or not that someone stole the details of MPs expenses? That was one theft that I was not offended by! If you are playing with the truth expect to be found out - by people whose motives (political or personal) do not match your own. We'll find out in due course whether these e/mails are "doctored" or "taken out of context". However the the sound of denials are hardly deafening. If this does turn out to have some basis then this will, inevitably, do their "cause" no good at all. Finally, I learned long ago that there is no such thing as an *unofficial e-mail". I'm surprised that the senders were not of the same view. Once written and sent an e-mail almost certainly exists somewhere and it is quite likely to hang around for a long time. In that sense there is a similarity to postings on this forum! MM

So are you saying we should ignore all the figures for 2003-2008 because this has only ever happened in 2009!? No, I don't think you are saying that - but it just makes the point (if it needs making!) that every years figures are affected by "weather" during their progress from minimum to maximum. Trying to make any real sense from a week or two's figures is a mugs game (Not that I am saying you are a mug!!). MM

Yes, great stuff and I do appreciate your efforts to help clarify what is really going on with ENSO. MM

Yes, the daily (and weekly) figures give us an indication of the current state, but we have to be patient and wait for the three monthlys to enable a true and fair comparison against previous Ninos to be made. It is quite fun speculating though - and I don't mind being wrong! MM

I used the daily example just to alert avid readers of this thread that the sharp rise was not continuing unabated. I agree that quoting short term figures and trying to forecast the future from this is not going to get you very far - which is why I also quoted the three monthy figures - as it is from these that the depth of a Nino is calculated, not daily figures. MM

Reading some of the latest posts in this thread you would think that a repeat of the 1998 Nino is becoming a nailed on certainty! The latest daily figures for all regions do show a decline from last weeks peak figures and are as follows: Region 4 +1.36 (last week +1.6) Region 3.4 +1.49 (last week +1.7) Region 3 +0.98 (last week +1.3) Region 1+2 +0.15 (last week +0.4) In itself this does not prove that the Nino has peaked, but the rapid rise has, for the moment, stopped. If it has now reached its maximum then the Nino peak (which is based on the averages of three successive months, not on a particular daily peak) is likely to be in the +1.3 to +1.5 range. This is in line with the ENSO model forecasts as detailed in the weekly NOAA ENSO report, with the peak coming in the figure for the three months Nov/Dec/Jan. The latest three month figure (Aug/Sep/Oct) is +0.9. To put this in perspective the recent Ninos have had the following maximum values: 1983 +2.3 1988 +1.6 1992 +1.8 1995 +1.3 1998 +2.5 2003 +1.5 2005 +0.9 2006 +1.1 This means that we could therefore have an event comparable in strength with the 1995 and 2003 Ninos, which would put it firmly in the moderate territory. MM

Ah Ambrose Pritchard....the resident Telegraph voice of doom! I suppose it is just possible he could post here under a pseudonym.....he might even be posting on this thread! MM

I'l go for 7.1c this month. MM

Of course the CT site has not been updated due to "computer problems" for some two weeks, so the latest information is not available. Hwever, looking at the IJIS site ice growth has yet to get fully in to its stride. Your predictions have been noted and will be monitored! MM

They may just achieve that themselves! MM

At this time of year the figures vary quite wildly. For example as at 9 October, 2009 was 321k was below the 2003-8 average. By 11 October, just three days later, this has reduced to 174k. This does not mean that 2009 is out of the woods but just shows how quickly things can change. In three days time things may have gone the other way again! It is worthwhile tracking what is happening but, for me, the minimum and maximum extents are what I'm really interested in. MM

GW Interesting.....but Pazert also says ""Unless present El Niño conditions intensify, I believe this El Niño is too weak to have a major influence on many weather patterns," My own view is that this is a weak/moderate El Nino at best and I doubt it will have any significant effect on Arctic Ice in 2009. We shall see. MM

We are in a period when the planet is warming, but we are really only at the early stages of determining whether this is due to natural cycles, the activity of man, solar or terrestrial forces – so we need to curb the wasteful use of resources by the human race through reason and open debate, not “hockey sticks”, “the science is settled” or political chicanery. MM

GW If I had to chose a single factor I would want to be in place it is a negative AO, which would mean that high pressure is predominant over the arctic. This should enable ice to form in the coldest periods of the winter and also mean that the formed ice is less subject to wind damage in the summer melt period. Looking at the NOAA AO index it seems to me that the period when the greatest ice loss occurs is during periods when the AO is positive - such as in the early 1990s and, broadly, the last decade I cannot really give a prediction for this winter, except to say that the current AO pattern looks to be moving from a positive over the past two months to a more negative bias. However, this can (and has) changed quite quickly in the past. Also, looking at solar minimums (1954, 1964, 1976, 1986, 1996) the AO seems (to me, anyway) to trend towards negativity after the minimum - so that may be an additional factor this year. MM

There is little point in constantly beating ourselves up over the relatively slow growth in ice this autumn. The key numbers are - what we started with (a higher number than 2007 or 2008) - and what we end up with (we will not find this out until next March!). What happens at the beginning of October is interesting but, in my view, not really important as ice growth will, inevitably, get going shortly. The rate of growth in any year is largely dicatated the prevailing weather conditions and sea temperatures, which always makes any ongoing year to year comparison quite difficult. Be patient. MM

Just for the benefit of all lurkers here is some more information on ICEsat taken from good old Wikipedia - so ignore it if you want to. "ICESat was designed to operate for three to five years. Testing indicated that each GLAS laser should last for two years, requiring GLAS to carry three lasers in order to fulfill the nominal mission length. During the initial on orbit test operation, a pump diode module on the first GLAS laser failed prematurely on 29 March 2003. A subsequent investigation indicated that a corrosive degradation of the pump diodes, due to an improper material usage in manufacture, had possibly reduced the reliability of the lasers. Consequentially, the total operational life for the GLAS instrument was expected to be as little as less than a year as a result. After the two months of full operation in the fall of 2003, the operational plan for GLAS was changed. GLAS now operates for one-month periods out of every three to six months in order to extend the time series of measurements, particularly for the ice sheets." MM

I you look at the numbers on the IJIS site there will always be disappointments as the numbers can, at this time of year, fluctuate up and down on a daily basis. However, since the equinox the trend is now starting to move steadily upwards as the real ice growth season starts. At this stage it looks like 2005 ice is the closest fit to 2009 ice, but I'll leave any proper judgement untill March 2010! MM

Climate-uk.com has now been updated and Philip Eden shows the September average as 14.2c. MM

I'll go for a slightly below average 10.2c this month. Perhaps a cool start and then some recovery. MM

I was not trying to make any linkage between an El Nino and a cold winter, but your quick analysis does suggest that this has happened during a number of the 20th century solar cycles. I've noticed before that there is often an El Nino at the start of a new cycle, although whether this is a random event or linked to solar (in)activity is unclear. There are theorists who suggest that this is related to low ice cloud cover over the tropics at the start of a new cycle that allow an upswing in solar activity to force sea temperatures. It is though, only a theory! If this theory has any legs then the fact that we are having what seems to be a relatively weak/moderate El Nino is not a surprise given that this is a weak start to Solar Cycle 24. MM

Well it looks quite possible that it may not be a "biggy" at all - having spent most of its energy on the other side of the sun. This may be the long awaited start of Cycle 24 or may just be another false start. As for Hathaway well he must be really hoping (and praying) for a strong cycle as he has really nailed his colours (and his credibility) to the mast on this one. I'm quite keen on a quiet sun as we have not really had one for getting on for 100 years - so with all the solar observational technology now available it will be interesting see whether the strength or duration of solar cycles really have any effect short term (or long term) on temperature. I think the sun does have an effect, but not to the point of blind belief as I cannot prove to any absolute short term pattern where quite sun = a guarantee of significantly lower temperatures. I believe (not a scientific term!) there are a longer term processes at play. As for the ongoing El Nino well it is going to be a moderate one by the looks of it, peaking probably not much above a 1 to 1.25 degree C anomaly some time in November. Of course an El Nino can be seen as the oceans giving up their stored heat to the atmosphere. I suppose it is interesting to see whether this stored heat is replaced, hence all the interest in SC24! SC23 was quite an active cycle on top of very active SCs 19, 20 and 22. So there may well be a fair amount of stored heat for the oceans to give up. And that is it really....we can all fantasise runaway global warming or a deep freeze. At the moment it certainly is not getting any colder, but I'm afraid we are just going to have to wait and see. MM

Fair point, but (at the risk of repeating myself from other threads) I hold the view that climate change has, I'm afraid, become politicised! This spin off thread is about why the coal mines closed. One of the reasons (in my view) is politicians lack of foresight. As others have said, climate change really had nothing to do with their closure. Only now (with coal-fired stations burning up their EU alloted hours) is climate change legislation coming in to it - and, in time will probably finish off the handfull of UK deep pits remaining. MM