Mr Maunder

On pure budgetary economic grounds I have to agree. However, the alternative view could be that you could continue pulling the stuff out of the ground uneconomically (or at least a proportion of it) if the alternative is be over reliant on both foriegn sources (at the vaguaries of market forces) for your energy supply. At that point the "subsidy" for economic mining becomes an "investment" when world energy costs soar and we have no indigenous energy sources available. At this point you can be sure that market forces will not be coming to your rescue! I'm not trying to sound as if I am unreconstructed "old labour" but there was a reason why these strategic industries were nationalised! I suspect we could well become aware of the lack of strategic, national interest, type thinking that governments of all colours have displayed. The view has been, quite simply, that we would be so rich as a country from financial and service industries (Howe, Lawson, Brown etc) that we would be able to afford to pay market prices for our energy. So, closing the mines has never really been addressed politically in any sort of national strategic energy policy context. Oh dear........ MM

Thanks for the explanantion. I suppose the data out (future) is therefore is somewhat dependent upon a replication of some of the data in (derived from the past). For example you mentioned solar activity. Therefore, dependent upon the type and weighting of the solar activity used as inputs, if the future is unlike the past (say, higher or lower activity) then the outputs will be skewed (higher or lower). The "ensemble" outputs will reflect this as far as the data inputs allow them to. Just like any model really! MM

I'm not trying to be clever here, but how did it manage to project (backwards) the volcanic eruptions of Mt Pinatubo (1991) and Mt Chicon (1982) - which are clearly visible, without some "data manipulation? Any ideas? MM

At what point in the chart does it start "projecting the future" as opposed to replicating the past? This information would help me towards evaluating the information presented. MM

I appreciate your reply. I agree with some of it.....and disagree with some of it. I'm not here to defend the tactics, say, of vested interests that have infiltrated the "sceptical" blogosphere. Also I'm not suggesting that the whole of the MO is pandering to government pressure to produce pro-AGW reports. But there is (in my view) a very considerable difference between manipulating opinion and manipulating official data. The lobbyists do not control the official data, (largely) government agencies world wide do. For example, in the US, GISStemp temperature records (not satellite but actual readings) have been amended by the application of new algorithms to "correct" historical "inaccuracies". In some cases this has been done so many times it is doubtful whether the original thermometer recorded temperatures can ever be reconstructed (If anyone ever wanted to do that). I've yet to see a change that could be interpreted as lowering temperatures, the changes always seem to be in the direction! Perhaps this delays the “egg on face” you refer to. In the UK Hadley (is this part of the MO?) have removed some climate data files from public access and refuses to release data and methodology for their HadCRUT global temperature dataset. Why - what is to be gained by this? Surely more public/peer scrutiny is a good thing. If there are flaws in how they are using this data (and I have no idea whether there are) then surely it would be better to know. In my view examples such as those quoted above make people like me much more sceptical that we are being manipulated for some other (political) ends. In addition, the BBC (also government funded!) really does not help with poor and unbalanced journalism such as its banal coverage of the Caitlin Arctic Expedition. So, as a result, the arguments about preserving and saving the worlds resources get lost in a welter of claims and counter claims. Clean data, with assumptions and algorithms in the public domain - that is all I’m really asking for. Then, armed with these, we can better make up our minds. In my view the long term manipulation (or obfuscation) of data probably just weakens, rather than strengthens, the case for the pro-AGW camp. MM

I admire your confidence! Just ask yourself the question as to who is actually funding their research and you start to understand where the reference to "self preservation" comes from. It is just human nature (favourable reports = more funding = saved job). Remember that our over powerful and self important politicians have hi-jacked the AGW agenda because they just cannot resist meddling in anything that enables them to both dictate behaviour and raise taxes at the same time, This is an open goal to them - a double whammy! Meanwhile any serious actions (Transport Policy, Air Travel, New Nuclear Power Stations you name it etc) are for some time in the future. Perhaps they don't really believe it themselves............or they just want to pretend they care. MM

I think it will get downgraded to rain as I foresee a warm sector showing up in the 18 hrs GFS on 24/12/09. Might be an outlier though - we'll need the ensembles to be sure. MM

I'm lead to believe it was nothing other than routine "weekend" system maintenance which resulted in many items being unavailable or not updated. At this time of year it is quite normal for numbers to up one day and down the next. IJIS check their numbers rigorously every day. A "provisional" number is released first and then a "confirmed" number is released later - I think about 16.00 UK time. There can be noticeable differences between the two. MM

On the IJIS site the first seasonal increase in ice extent took place on 4 September, followed by two further days of decline. It is possible for another two to three weeks of melt to occur, but current forecasts suggest that the trend for the next week at least is "colder" so I agree that a bottom above 5.2 m sq k is looking likely. In 2005 about a further 0.3m sq k was lost from this point before a final bottom was reached on 22 September. However the Arctic Ocean heat content appears to have been at its peak then and has now dropped back to 2002/3 levels - so combined with more favourable weather conditions this amount of melt looks improbable. However, nothing is guaranteed! MM

Looking back on his thread I see thater was much debate as to whether the start of a new solar cycle co-incided in an El Nino event. Well. looking through the ENSO records we have events in 1965/6, 1977/8, 1986/7 & 1997/8 all of which co-incide with the start of a solar cycle. However in all of these events solar activity was actually increasing - whereas at the moment we have more of a flat line with little immediate prospect of any rise in activity. This solar cycle start looks different to anything we have had in the recent past. The current El Nino seems to be a modest affair and is expected to peak around December time. It does not look, to me anyway, to be in any way comparable to the 1997/8 event. I would not get too excited! Anyway, remember that an El Nino event results in the sea giving up heat to the atmosphere. If it is not replaced the sea gets colder! If this solar cycle is a dud then this what may happen. We'll soon find out. MM

12th September showed the "first rise in ice" in 2003. MM

It's all looking pretty average to me - so I'll go for 13.6c for September. MM

TWS, Thanks for all the effort put in to produce this analysis. This is a good reference document that can be updated as each winter passes! It is particularly interesting to note that although 2008/9 (35 on your index) was snowier than we have gotten used to, it was not significantly above the "average" (circa 33) over the whole period examined. It makes make me wonder what would happen if we ever had a year in the 50+ range on your index! MM

I would summarise the article as follows: "There is an El Nino coming. In 1998 there was a big El Nino. This one could be a big one as well...or it may not be. That's all we know." No doubt "Indy" readers lapped it up. Looking at the latest NOAA forecast this does not suggest that this will be anything other than a moderate El Nino, with most model forecasts showing an SST anomaly peaking below 1.5c.round about December time. Unless there is dramatic change there is little to get really excited about. Still, never let the facts get in the way of a good story! MM

I'll go for 16.3c for August. MM

16.8c please. MM

11.8c please! MM

I'll go for a rather average 8.3c. MM

I'll go for 5.7c please. MM

Snow here until about 11.00, probably about 2-3 cm, then heavy rain which has washed most of it away. Still, a nice surprise! MM

But there was a Canadian Warming in November 1968 and December 1968 was "Stratospherically Cold" (if that helps). I have data that covers 1951 - 2000. I think there is additional new research that covers all or part of the 1940's. Here is a link to the source data I use: http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/SPAR...5_Labitzke.html MM

It is snowing properly here now. It is on the wet side, but the lawn is now looking a bit white as are some of the pavements. The road is untouched at present. Thermometer showing 1.6c, down from 3.7c an hour ago - and is dropping fast since the snow arrived. MM

Yes, I heard the weather forecast on Radio 4 at 8.00 and they were talking up the possibility of snow for the South East. I was surprised although pleased to hear this. Of course the media have now moved their radar from "snow chaos" to the "banksters" again - so I doubt we will hear too much about this on the news until anything actually falls! The good thing for the SE/E Anglia is that the timing is likely to mean that any falls will be near to or after dark, so the possibility of it actually settling will be considerably enhanced. MM

Paul, That is fascinating stuff and helps to explain some of the extreme variations we have seen in terms of snowfall in the region. Thanks also for your efforts in putting this together. It does shows just how precise things need to be for all the ducks to be in a row - and even something considered unlikely can come along and ruin the piece. It also shows just how difficult snow forecasting actually is. When it rains no-one really notices the variations (it rained) - but with snow the effect can be dramatic. In this part of the world, although we got a total of about 4" in total (which I am not going to complain about) the direction of the wind was too near an easterly for us to get any effect of the Thames snowstreamer on the Sunday night. We really needed an ENEasterly to get the full effect (as in 1987 and 1991). MM

Looking at the outputs from the GDAS and CPC Zonal Mean Time Series charts then, if we believe our eyes, it does suggest a potential second wave of easterlies in the tropopause. The "beige blob" referred to in posts above is exactly that - a blob of westerlies which, at this moment at least, has now finished and, as a result, the easterly regime has now recommenced. How long this return to an easterly regime lasts is the question, but another 8 - 10 days looks possible to me. I regard what we are seeing as "real time" science - as we have just not had a warming in the internet age with all the range of information that is available to us. How and when the various models take this easterly regime on board (if indeed they do) is one of the interesting areas of observation emanating from this whole event. It may inform us to which of the models are most sensitive to the downward effects of a stratospheric warming. Let me say this - I expect to see this "second phase" reflected in the model outputs in the next three to four days and those outputs may mean quite significant change. I'm not trying to get hopes up, just saying it as I see it. However, if I am wrong I shall not be too concerned and just admit I was mistaken and use it as part of the learning process. MM