Hocus Pocus

Yes I'm not looking forward to more flooding and one can only hope it passes us by with relative ease and we end up with a day like today. Wishful thinking I know.

There is no empirical evidence to back up such an argument.

The problem with WSI is there complete inconsistency as there LRF chop and change constantly.

I think that's looking a distinct possibility with the MetO having low confidence of any prolonged cold up until the 20th January. Still things can and do change at short notice so all is not lost seen as we are still in the first month of winter.

One only has to look at the relentless charts churned out by either model then couple that with the MetO latest musings ( which takes us to the 20th Jan ) then we can discount the first two thirds of January also. I think if we are to see any prolonged cold it will be by mid February if at all this winter, this PV just looks far too strong and heights over Europe are persistent with no end in sight.

I remember January 84 had a similar set up if my memory serves me right, NW parts would certainly do well out of such a set up although those further South and East would wonder what all the fuss was about.

For me when viewing the output any potential easterly looks to be short lived with the jet rolling over the to with strong euro heights underneath there is only one solution. I suppose it's the building blocks down the line that are important when viewing the NH profile but if this potential isn't realised soon then we'll be back to square one and waiting for the next opportunity.

Thanks for the reply MIA. It seems strange that the PDO and AMO are t included in the data as these have a big bearing on climatic cycles as governed by the 30 year climatic cycles needed to assess data.

Reliable data goes back to 1949 Blast.

I get the short term noise thing knocker but when you have long term oceanic cycles at play ( not just ENSO ) then surely these will be factored into the models, or I'm I missing the point?

I've heard the same Blast, which begs the question why not as surely oceanic cycles play an important role in climatic temperatures over a long timescale, or I'm I missing something?

You're not the only one to notice that, it's been a recurring theme for the last few years with patterns becoming entrenched for long periods. A lot to do with the meandering jet stream me thinks, I'll leave causation etc, etc for others to argue over.

Yes, it's certainly character building stuff and this month will go down with December 2010 but for different reasons obviously.

1978/79 was ideal for me with plenty of cold snowy spells interspersed with milder wetter ones. A real meteorological delight with plenty for everyone and of course back then we had to rely of the farming weekly weather updates which made it even more exciting. A 62/63 winter would become very tiresome really, around these parts from what I can gather there was snow on boxing day and that was about it bar the odd flurries here and there. It was the persistent biting cold which made it notable, or infamous depending on your point of view.

Would that be a continuation of the present theme albeit less anomalous warmth and more in the way of PM incursions for the first two thirds of January at least GP?

It depends on what you class as short term timescales. In the grander scheme of things it's but a mere blip on mother natures thermometer. As for the models well at long last we are seeing changes afoot to the long wave pattern by the end of the month, whether that's a change to anything colder who knows but at least something drier looks on the cards, for how long who knows.

Indeed, I would only go against them if there was uncertainty but for me it looks relatively clear cut up until Xmas, thereafter we start to see divergence as what's been discussed in the proceeding posts.

But the peer process isn't all that it once was BFTV, there was a recent article on this though it wasn't regrading climate science but highlighted the follies of the peer review process. Also I tend to stick to the science on WUWT, which there is plenty although admittedly there is quite a number of pseudo posts amongst them.

Again selective confirmation bias as there is some good science in-between the nonsense on Watts Up. I really like to read both spectrums of the argument and for me the whole debate centres around the magnitude of warming expected.

This forum suggest otherwise

So you're implying it's more political by Judith Curry and all those who agree are noble. That statement just sums up nicely what a shambolic affair the whole climate debate is and how it's become politicalised and has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics from the environmental lobby and the so called big oil. Meanwhile the observational data remains at odds with modelled data and instead of collaborating together we have the above. Anyway that's me out of this debate as I like to keep an open mind from both sides of the camp and regularly read both Skeptical Science and Watts Up as well as many other scientific contributions in various publications. These sort of places for me represent all that is bad about climate science forums with no middle ground and just reinforced stereotypes from all sides.

This then brings us back to the likes of Judith Curry who is a reputable and established climate scientist who is viewed with great disdain amongst many bloggers in the climate debate which I find amusing as she's forgotten more than any of these will go on to learn. The unknowns I refer to is simply the magnitude of warming nothing more nothing less.

There's certainly no conspiracy but what we do have is a complete lack of dialogue between climate scientists, with accusations flying left, right and centre in a pointless point scoring exercise. The truth of the matter is that the science isn't settled when we have prominent climate scientists arguing the very same, lets embrace the uncertainty going forward and admit this instead of attacking anyone who doesn't agree with the prognosis, or as science changed in the last 10 years.

I was thinking of how we could do with a moaing thread about the moaning thread as it's just not good enough that we aren't moaning enough about the current set up.

Looks like a deal has been struck to try and limit the warming to under 1.5c, whether or not any of this is relevant is besides the point but the single most thing I would've liked to see is viable alternatives put forward instead of posturing about limiting CO2 emissions.