acbrixton

Quite. regards ACB

Indeed so too with the lack of preparation for severe weather. More striking, to me, was the assertion that central heating was unnecessary for normal winters. regards ACB

John many thanks for the read. The contrast between resilience in severe winters past and fear of travelling in much more benign recent winters is striking. It would be interesting to know when attitudes started to change. The other side of the coin is that BR and its predecessors seem to me to have taken obvious and foolhardy risks in running services that were all too likely to have been abandoned in drifting snow: whilst early forecasting was doubtless much less reliable than now, even 12-24 hours ahead, I find it difficult to believe that forecasts at that timeframe after say WW2 were insufficiently reliable for the railways to amend their timetables in advance. regards ACB

True Richard and presumably, all other things being equal, during the summer half of the year the NW tracker might be expected to give an upward bias (longer days more sunshine higher insolation) and a downward bias in the winter half of the year? When I have a moment I will see if this is in fact the case! regards Andrew

Up to a point yes. However: 1. Taken as a whole it is the coldest winter since 1986/7 although the severe cold/blizzards of February 1991 surpasses anything in 1995/1996; 2. Although maxima for December were notably below normal it is true that the maxima for January and February were rather closer to normal; 3. Nonetheless what I can recall (and this is backed up by Kevin's data) is that it was a particularly frosty winter and that although in the south amounts of snow were often small, snow fell on a relatively frequent basis (in inner London I never recorded more than 1/2" of snow on any one day but recall that it snowed on 19 days); 4. In the context of the 'even larger teapot' it does stand out. If it was to be repeated NW would collapse into mass hysteria... regards ACB

Snowfall of 2" in lowland Surrey about 22/4/79 and a snow flurry over the North Downs outside Guildford on 1/5/79. Regards ACB

As you say Richard 2001 was 9.9 and 1996 was 9.2. The 1961-1990 average was 9.48 and 1971-2000 was 9.75. Using Manley the 10 year rolling average is 10.47. FWIW I would say that it is possible but unlikely that we may go below 10 but I think it highly unlikely that we will again go below 9.75 and that it there is only a remote possibility of sub 9.48: that would entail quite some turn around from the running 10 year mean. kind regards Andrew

A useful commentary on Gore's film: mostly exaggeration and oversimplification with a measure of error/dishonesty. It would have been interesting to see what the High Court would have made of 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'. Regards ACBAG_NS.doc

Thanks Kevin fascinating as always. The incidental pleasures of nostalgia/observing a sometimes foreign past are here too: 'Southern Region' trains in what looked as if it was a blue/grey livery, Pan Am...noting the precise point in the 'Telegraph's' long, slow and grudging acceptence of metric units of measurement: quite gone is the use of inches for barometric measurement but fahrenheit alone is still proudly used for the BI forecast map [in another decade or so 'First Stage of the Great Transition' brought in both fahrenheit and celsius (often called 'centrigrade' as if that made it less threateningly strange and foreign) but with the former given due precedence; in the last few years (the 'Second Stage') the order of precedence was reversed...]. regards ACB

uk_cet_monthly_comparisons_081007.doc Whilst looking at the table/graph showing projected UK average temperatures I wondered whether one could establish a relationship between the UK monthly averages and the monthly CET. The table attached attempts to do this: UK figures are from the UKMO Areal Series for 1971-2000 and the CET is UKMO Hadley 1971-2000. The monthly variance ranges from 0.7 in late winter to 1.6 in mid summer. Obviously there would be a danger in trying to convert UK forecast averages for individual days to a precise CET equivalent as synoptic details might render such an exercise pointless but as a general rough and ready guide it perhaps is of use... Regards ACB

cet_0c_table_071007.doc In addition to remarks above... 1. Exceptionally prolonged severe cold (i.e. 40+days p.a.) has always been very rare (only 6 winters). 2. Very mild winters (i.e. 5 or less days) were quite common in the 20th c (approx 3.9 per decade), relatively unusual in the late 19th c (approx 2.4 per decade) and rare in the early 19th c/18th c (approx 1.4 per decade). 3. Prolonged severe cold (i.e. 20+ days p.a.) was rare in the 20th c (1.0 per decade) but rather more common in the late 19th c (approx 2.8 per decade) and especially the early 19th c/18th c (approx 3.9). 4. Playing about with the data and taking 1978-1987 the anomolous cold is even more striking: the average days per winter of 15.4 is the highest since 1887-1896 and is not exceeded again until 1837-1846, whilst the number of very mild winters (5 or less days) at 1 was only matched in 1887-1896 and exceeded in only 3 decades ( 1837-1846, 1807-1816 and 1797-1806). regards ACB

Kevin/Julian many thanks for the data/graphs. I have broken the data down decadally showing average no. days per year with less than 0c, less than/equal to 5 days, greater than or equal to 10/20/40 days and will post the table when I have the strength! What is striking though is how hugely anomolous are 2006-1997 and 1986-1977: the former is so far beyond recent warming trends as to raise the possibility that it may be a blip in an otherwise gently warming trend (cf. Arctic sea ice in 2007?); we will of course not know until we have data up to at least 2026. As to the latter decade the cold seems highly unusual by 20c standards but also is cold by those of the second half of the 19c: the decadal mean of 14.3 days was only exceeded once in the 20c, twicw in the second half of the 19c, three times in the first half of the 19c. taking the decadal average of such days equal to or greater than 10 in each year (7) only 4/25 decades, all in the first half of the 19c/18c, exceeded this and no decade in the 20c equalled it. regards ACB

Fair points Essan although it is worth distinguishing between the use of sensationalist headlines to objective nuanced news reports (tedious but not, in my view, exactly a hanging offence) and the Independent's relatively recent habit of continuing such sensationalism in the early parts of the report only to contradict/weaken/modify that stance later in the same report. The use of often misleading and sensationalist headlines on the front page and, worse still, puerile simplistic representations of complex matters through pictograms and a selective use of 'eye catching' statistics has become habitual. As regards lack of context the specific point you make is fair although it should be pointed out that after the mandatory sensationalism of the first few paragraphs Dr Meir of USNSIDC states that average anomalies across the whole Arctic region for the entire summer season were 3-4c with parts of the sea off northern Siberia showing an anomaly of 4-5c. Several points arise from this: 1. No averages are cited in respect of Melville Island in summer 2007 but simply cherry-picked eye catching data. Presumably if daily readings are available for the whole of June and July so too are the averages. Mind you the strange vagueness of the number of days recording 15c (10 to 12 days? If reliable recordings have been made the precise number should be clear. If the data is provisional and subject to adjustment that is something that we should know of). 2. The screaming headline of 22c is especially offensive: 2.1the implication of paragraph 1 is that this recording was a one off event but in the next paragraph it is stated that 22c was recorded on 'some days': 2 days? more? 2.2 In addition to Essan's point about the unknown length of records the comparison made between 'normal average temperatures' of 'about 5c' and 'daytime temperatures of between 10 and 15c' and what is clearly a maximum reading of 22c is downright misleading: my guess is that about 5c refers to mean temperatures calculated by averaging daily maxima and minima. If so it is an unsuitable basis to make a comparison with 'daytime' temperatures. Leaving aside the dubious value of the concept of daytime at about 80N in June and July what is meant by 'daytime temperatures of between 10c and 15c'? Are these daily maxima or the range of temperatures on a number of days during the hours that Prof Lamoreux arbitrarily designates as 'daytime'? 2.3 Focusing on what appears to have been a freakish one off event in July is the equivalent of giving excessive prominence to the Gravesend maxima of 38.1c in an account of August 2003: yes it is doubtless noteable but is wholly unrepresentative of the month as a whole. 3. The discussion of the significance of readings of 15c is both opaque and limp: 'Even temperatures of 15c are higher than we would expect and yet we recorded them for between 10 and 15 days'. 3.1 As it is unclear what the average maxima is and the timescale of records we cannot assess the significance of a reading of 15c (assuming it refers to maxima); 3.2 In addition all climatic averages are drawn from a range of individual readings that will necessarily include those that are higher than expected. In the case of Arctic climatic averages it is by no means unusual for considerable variations to be recorded between average maxima and absolute maxima: e.g. Barrow on the north coast of Alaska has an average January maxima of -23c and an absolute maxima of +1c, an average maxima in July of 8c against an absolute maxima of 26c, Arctic Bay on the north coast of Baffin Island has an average February maxima of -28c against an absolute maxima of +2c. 3.3 To assess the significance of the 10-12 day recording we need to know not only the matters in 3.1 and 3.2 but also data to show how unusual such a number of days recording 15c are against a robust timeframe. 4. The sheer stupidity of the Independent's coverage is exemplified by its decision to give prominence to Lamoreux rather than Meir: the latter covers 4 months as against 2 months data and the whole of Arctic nor one small island. The shocking data is that over a 3 month period daily mean temperatures were widely 3-4c above normal and 4-5c above normal in the Siberian Sea (it would have been useful if we could be reassured that those averages were taken over a uniform and robust timescale). To put this into context the exceptional summer of 2003 in a large swathe of western/central continental Europe recorded a positive anomaly averaged over all 3 months of 3.3c based on ECMWF data set against the average for 1958-2000, with Schar reporting an average anomaly for 4 Swiss stations of 5.1c set against an average for 1864-2000 (cited in an article by Black, Blackham, Harrison, Hoskins and Methven of the University of Reading circa 2004/5 who go onto assert that the summer of 2003 was certainly the warmest since 'at the latest' 1500). Of course to make a valid comparison one would need to know the Arctic averages timescale and an indication of how unusual such anomalies were over historical time. Incidentally look at the caption to the 3 graphics collectively entitled 'shrinking ice cap': 'Average temperatures recorded for June, July and August were 4c above normal'. No they were 3-4c above normal: this pitiable attempt at spin simply adds insult to injury. Moving on to the 2 of the remaining items cited in the report: reduction in ice cover and rain at the North Pole: 1. Ms Shauer (chief scientist at the Alfred Wenger Institute) took part in a research ship voyage (the 'Polar Stern') in summer 2007 and reports that ice thickness over 'large areas of the arctic' was an average of 1m against an anticipated average of 2m with an increase in the average speed of Polar Stern of 6k/hr as against the anticipated 1-2k/hr. She goes on to say: 'We are in the midst of a phase of dramatic change in the Arctic'. From the context of her experiences of summer 2007 I assume that she regards that season's data as forming at least part of the basis for her assertion. However a quick glance at the data for 2007 set against the preexisting downward but erratic trend from 1997 (faster and less erratic from 2001) shows how hugely anomolous 2007 is and thus how questionable it is to regard it as part of a phase. Ms Schauer may turn out to be right but she cannot assert this without qualification until at least several more years data are to hand: it may be that the altogether gentler (albeit significant) trend from 2001-2006 will be resumed and 2007 will be seen as an extraordinary outlier. 2. Finally David Carlson, director of the International Polar Year reports that an unnamed scientist had reported rainfall at the North Pole. On its own this doubtless fascinating snippet of information is almost entirely worthless as I have no way of knowing if this is unprecedented, extraordinary or merely highly unusual. Nor, apparently, does Mr Carlson: 'It makes you wonder whether anyone has ever reported rain at the North Pole before'. I despair. Who to blame? Clearly matters in 1 and 4 are wholly or almost wholly the fault of the paper. It is less clear who and to what extent is to blame for the rest of this mess: are 3 out of the 4 scientists cited above to blame for sloppy summaries of their work, were they mis-reported? Even if all 3 scientists were to blame initially for such sloppiness (a remote possibility?) the paper should have tried to clarify the data and if that was impossible should at least have critically examined it in a separate commentary or better still spiked the report. Without reading the base documents we cannot know. Incidentally for another example of the cavalier use of statistics and indolence see the report on Jamie Oliver on page 3. I have read the 3 principal base documents and will open a thread on this elsewhere. Regards ACB Has the paper's notorious financial instability manifested itself in damaging cuts to the quality of its news coverage? Edit: have just read Roger's post above: the 5c refers to maxima not daily mean.

LadyPakal there is no 'official' MO CST series but Philip Eden has constructed an 'unofficial' CST (see his website: climate-uk). Regards ACB

My guess is 11.0. thanks Regards ACB

Sound points made by Paul and SF. Now lets wait for: 1. the first media misrepresentation (Express/Mail) along the lines of "Weathermen predict cold winter"; 2. the consequent calls (from the same sources) for the "weathermen" to be publically garotted when it transpires that the winter was not colder than normal... Regards ACB

Or indeed the rather acrimonious Grand Debate in 2006 as to whether it was permissible to describe the weather in the first half of may that year as 'noteworthy', 'glorious' or whatever (not, in my view, unreasonable) adjectives WIB used... Regards ACB

Indeed. It is worth pointing out that the President went on to cite the southerly tracking jetstream and EL Nino as the causes of the exceptionally wet summer and not AGW. regards ACB

Well even in the 'even larger teapot' Lincs, East Anglia, Essex, Kent and se Sussex (and to a lesser extent the Chilterns/Salisbury Plain) can still deliver locally significant snowfalls esp. in an unstable e/ne wind giving heavy snow showers... Regards ACB

Bas Street in Cornwall (a frost hollow in a valley near Bodmin), Bournemouth Airport at Hurn, Tummell Bridge in the Highlands, Anvil Green in Kent, Benson in Oxfordshire, Leeming/Pickering in the Vale of York. [for RoI: Kilkenny, Castle Birr, Markree Castle in County Sligo] Rickmansworth lost its MO station in the 1940s although recent research by Galvin shows that it still records locally anomolously cold minima albeit moderated by urbanisation. Galvin's view is that the railway embankment played only a small part in recoding low minima. Rickmansworth is noteable for recording what was, for a long time, the highest diurnal range of temperature: 1.1 to 29.4 in 9 hours on 29th August 1936. Regards ACB

SF I agree that we need to define 'ramping' but disagree with the definition you proceed to give. I think that it would be useful to try to distinguish 'hopecasting' from 'ramping'. The definition you give above is better suited to the former phenomenon. 'Ramping' is a more pernicious and subtle matter as it is based, at least nominally, on actual of predicted data, however shaky, limited, selective or misinterpreted. regards ACB

15 as my guess please regards ACB

Richard, all the best/anticipatory congratulations to you and Mrs WIB ahead of the delivery. Kind regards Andrew

John many thanks for taking the time to compile the data... Regards ACB

My guess is 16.8: slightly below the rolling 10 year average but rather higher than the 1971-2000 average. Regards ACB