Roger J Smith

I could also recommend getting hold of recent TV documentaries under the aegis of "NOVA" that discuss Jupiter and Saturn. This would be fascinating viewing for anyone even if totally uninterested in my research. It opened my eyes to some concepts that I had not previously realized about the potential influence of these large planets on events in the inner solar system. But I had already known that they both have strong magnetic fields (much stronger than ours) which tends to increase their potential to interact in some meaningful way with both the solar wind and cosmic rays. You do need to get beyond thinking of their potential in gravitational terms, this has nothing to do with mass over distance squared. The effects demonstrated vary with much larger powers. Consider that even a change of 0.1% in net solar wind would have a significant influence on terrestrial weather. Is it so hard to imagine that interactions of the Sun with these large planets could be smaller than 0.1% of net solar wind flow? I don't find that difficult to imagine at all given that the solar system magnetic field is known to be arranged in rotating sectors of unequal strength. However, a secular warming must have a cause other than those sectors alone, since we continually traverse them on an annual basis. So that's what this research is about, finding out whether or not the sectors are perhaps getting stronger in time. If it blows a bit of a hole in the AGW theory, that's good for science, in my opinion and if it somehow reinforces the AGW theory then also good for science.

Well in this case there is a physical mechanism, energy flows in the solar system magnetic field are being studied under the general heading of "space weather" (not a term I invented) and I think it's fair to say that is a reputable science in its early stages. What I'm talking about here is not meant to be an alternative to the AGW theory, it has the potential to be anything between that and a parallel process unrelated to it that must be given some weight in our understanding of what is likely to happen going forward. If let's say half the modern warming has this unrelated cause, then we've only seen half of what most in the science had assumed was the footprint of AGW. If it's one third, then we've seen two thirds (all assuming that the two processes cannot interact with each other somehow). Anyway, my more pithy comments are only semi in jest and partly in frustration that we all seem locked into a predictable cycle of viewpoints that really have nothing to do with the actual numbers that I have in the research files, so I am going to get this excel file onto this thread as soon as possible, estimating that might be Friday at latest, the problem being that I have a huge amount of linked equations and stripping portions of the file might corrupt the parts I want to retain. Then you can see three essential things to form a better basis for real discussion here. First of all, what was this background J-year signal? (it is already documented in my research thread which appeared several years ago on net-weather, so nothing new about it). Then how robust has that been over time, is it the same signal in different periods which might bolster confidence in it being a real physical entity? Finally, how has it changed recently and what does that potentially mean? Okay, I am going to spend the rest of today (it is before noon here) working on reducing the data file to something that can be posted in the thread. I will concentrate on showing the data for the J-year rather than widening out the scope to the rest of the supporting data, maybe we could have a second round of discussion in a few weeks after that first round, with the other data added in a second posted file. All of this is new research as far as I know, which means that the question "why didn't somebody notice this before" is irrelevant to the discussion, I have no idea why nobody noticed it before, that's not my job as a scientist, but didn't two different people discover Neptune's existence at roughly the same time in the 1840s working independently? Maybe there's some guy in Russia doing exactly what I'm doing on his computer. Never know with science, nobody should ever assume that we know everything there is to know, especially in our science where to be frank we lag far behind most of the other sciences.

Burn me at the stake, right? Or maybe just a long drawn out inquisition. Well that's already happened so don't bother.

I will get the excel file available for readers to inspect and I think you'll see that there is quite obvious evidence that some sort of solar system magnetic field signal exists, and that it has changed recently after being quite stable for most of the period studied. As to the CET or UK temperatures being a small part of a global picture, point understood but I had already established that there were similar responses at other locations across the northern hemisphere, so the signals were being incorporated into data for other mid-latitude climatic regions. This is a very large and complex topic and at my rather advanced age I am concentrating on getting these basic results accepted so that a future generation of workers could tackle problems such as southern hemisphere, polar regions and tropical zones within this framework. I would invite anyone who is skeptical about this research to wait for a chance to inspect the data and then see if the comments hold up, personally I think that the series of graphs of this effect over time show a very obvious development of a different trend around the 1980s and 1990s. Arguments about this not being supported in science fail to realize that some other studies have been published about high energy flows in the solar system magnetic field and in any case I am not postulating that the source of the warming is at Jupiter or other planets, I am saying that their interactions with the Sun are modulating the solar wind which we know is the primary source of heat for our planet, so any such objections are invalid since the theory doesn't say what you're criticizing it for saying. The important point is that opens up a valid field of objection to the concept that all of the warming we have recently seen is anthropogenic and it may require that we divide the warming into two separate sources, leaving the problem of how to do that and what implications it would have for our response. I don't even have a first estimate of how that should be divided, it could be 90-10 either way or anything in between. Anyway, give me a couple of days, I should have had these files ready when I posted this, but I wanted to get any ideas people might have to help me formulate one or two additional graphs to answer questions I might anticipate. Critics will have the burden of explaining why there is any signal at all in 248 years of data when a Jupiter synodic year time scale is employed. You can take some other time scale and find much smaller variations from a smooth zero net anomaly straight line. Then similar looking profiles emerge for Saturn and Mars on their time scales. I am just looking now at output from the Toronto data and seeing that a very similar result can be demonstrated for the J-year in their data. As to 2010 being cold in Britain and not many other places, you have to get lucky sometimes, but 2010 was also anomalously snowy in the east central United States. The two things were related to the blocking over Greenland. Here again, things like that rather singular event are more likely to be set up by external than internal energy flows in the atmosphere-magnetosphere system. We all know that the SSW phenomenon is something important to long-range weather forecasting and what are the chances that SSW propagates downward rather than upward? Given that there is rather limited predictability involved, I wouldn't want to close any doors on subjects like that.

EWP 46 mm to 12th, likely added 2 mm on 13th, and GFS has about 30 mm on average for the grid over next ten days, then the maps for days 11 to 16 would suggest potential for only 5-10 mm in a blocked pattern. That altogether adds up to about 85 mm, similar to the last two estimates I posted. As to CET trends, once the average settles into the high 16s to near 17.0, it looks like very little pressure either way in the faintly warmish blocked pattern towards the end, but that could be first signs of a warm spell looming.

In developing my research on solar system magnetic field influences on terrestrial climate, I recently isolated an interesting finding that may give us some additional insight into what is happening with recent warming. Using the CET daily temperature data from 1772 to present, I had already done some extensive research showing the existence of rather weak temperature profiles associated with earth's passage through (presumably rotating) solar system magnetic field sectors associated with other planets in the solar system. These appeared to be modulating temperatures over the long term by several tenths of degrees Celsius. Recently, I broke down the data sets into four quarters of 62 years each (1772-1833, 1834-1895, 1896-1957 and 1958-2019). Then I divided the fourth quarter data into two equal portions, 1958 to 1988, and 1989 to 2019. What I was looking for was the segment to segment correlation of the signatures to assess whether or not the effects were real. I was expecting to see the fourth quarter warmer than the other three, but with a similar profile. Starting with the most significant set of temperature profiles associated with Jupiter, I quickly noticed that my assumption of a steady increase of a similar profile was not quite the case. Instead, what I found is described below, but before going into that, just an overview -- the synodic J-year is on average 399 days long (it varies from 395 to 404 due to Jupiter's somewhat elliptical orbit). The data sets were divided not by calendar years but by J-years so the fourth quarter includes the 1958 opposition and 337 days before it, plus 60 days after it, and so on, using the precise dates available in astronomical tables for Jupiter oppositions. So the data set (which was first entered to make 2012 equivalent to the synodic year) always has day 338 as the opposition of Jupiter, and therefore has the conjunction (Jupiter on far side of Sun) around day 138 on average. What I discovered to be the case for the J-year was this: The first three quarters looked broadly similar and had peaks and troughs in the temperature profile at similar times in the J-year. But the fourth quarter varied by running about 0.6 C deg above the profile in the first half of the J-year (generally that portion surrounding conjunction), with a similar profile just elevated by that amount, and then averaged 0.9 C deg above in the second half, with little resemblance in that portion to the previous three quarters. It was warm most of the time in that half-J-year (about seven months). When I divided the fourth quarter into most recent and less recent 31-year halves, I found that the anomalous effect was almost entirely confined to the period 1989-2019. The 1958-1988 half actually showed no real increase over the third quarter 1896-1957, with the only exception being that there was a spike of about 0.3 deg additional warming after Jupiter oppositions (near the end of the 399-day profile and into the first ten days). I was then curious to see if similar effects were occurring in the temperature profiles associated with other planets, and in fact for Saturn, Uranus and possibly Neptune the same general trend could be seen -- increasing warmth in the half-synodic-year around oppositions, and in particular the three months that began about a month before opposition and ended about two months after it. The outcome for the longer Mars synodic year (averages 780 days) is different, and basically what I had expected to see with the other data, it's basically just the old signal evenly warmed up over the 2.2 year interval. I have not yet looked at profiles for the inner planets (which both show rather significant peaks of warming in the overall research associated with their inferior conjunctions). I am now looking at my extensive Toronto data set to see if the similar modern warming there is also unevenly distributed with respect to the synodic years of the outer planets. This can mean one of two things, but I should qualify by saying that the general thrust of the original research (unrelated to the modern warming or its causes) is that sector "field" warmings were postulated to be some result of interactions between the planets and the Sun which the earth intercepts on a regular basis by moving through the sectors (or in the case of the inner planets, having them rotating past us in our slower orbit). What that interaction was, had been left in the hypothetical. It could have been actual warmth from the Sun being concentrated in sectors, or it could have been a result of excitation of our magnetic field by interaction with field sectors, or it could have been due to the outer planets blocking cosmic rays thereby having the effect of locally increasing the solar wind. So to find an uneven distribution of the recent warming puzzles me, especially if I believe the conventional theory that most if not all of this recent warming has an anthropogenic cause (greenhouse gas forcing). Why then would it not show up randomly and evenly distributed in the recent profiles of any arbitrary time scales, as it seems to do for the calendar year (although June has lagged behind other months in its recent warming performance)? With the amount of data concerned (31 years or about 28 J-years) the idea that it was just coincidence seemed unlikely. Then there was the absence of the effect for Mars, a similar modulator in the research to Saturn, but not much further out in the solar system than Earth and much smaller than Saturn with a weaker magnetic field (therefore unlikely to be very prolific at blocking cosmic rays). What I have concluded as the take away is that one if forced to choose between two different explanations for this. (a) the recent warming is in fact natural and has its actual source in a recent increase in solar system magnetic field intensity or possibly a more effective blocking of incoming cosmic rays by Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus (Neptune's temperature profile was similar but as it happens in the 1990s Neptune was at opposition at very similar dates to Uranus, so there may not be enough distinct data to make a full separation of effects). ... or (b) the excess heat generated mainly by anthropogenic forcing is being utilized in the atmospheric response field sectors (not the space field sectors, but the atmospheric response components) in such a way that it ends up concentrated over western Europe and possibly other mid-latitude regions at certain times in the synodic cycles, and is concentrated more at other locations in the other portions of the cycles. If the answer is (a) then one might reasonably ask, why has this increase happened since about 1988 and is it permanent? The reason it might have happened is that solar activity all through the 20th century and in particular 1947 to 1989 was unusually strong. This may have slowly energized the magnetic fields of the large outer planets while having much less effect on Mars. Since that strong solar activity began to wane recently, there might be some chance that we would witness a gradual reduction of this warming (if that is the actual source) going forward, and a secondary signal of that might be a return to more normal profiles of how the warm and cool segments of the synodic years line up. If the answer is (b) then we might have a better handle on how to predict the unusually warm intervals that seem to occur with fairly regular frequency in recent decades. In the case of the UK climate and perhaps some other mid-latitude regions, the warmings might be mainly concentrated around the oppositions of the outer planets. I am working on a manageable excel file to show these results. The research at this point in time is embedded in a rather large and cumbersome excel file that has many other research files in it, and besides not wishing to expose all of those unrelated topics to casual readers, there is the practical aspect that the file is currently too large to download to net-weather. However, the basic concept here is fairly simple and open to discussion. Is there any plausible reason why recent warming should be concentrated in approximately one third to one half of time periods that are unrelated to the terrestrial calendar? If this were a finding that warming was stronger in one part of the earth year than another part, we could find little reason to suspect that any source other than AGW existed for the effects, it would be a case of figuring out the details. But with this extraterrestrial source, I am not that certain that what I am seeing has any other explanation than a space-based hypothesis. Of course this would not rule out an AGW signal, in fact, the Mars data probably establish that part of the warming must be terrestrial based. But what percentage of the warming is really human caused? Are we dealing with an effect that could intensify, stay relatively stable, or weaken back to its former intensity? I have been looking for any brief signs of similar flare-ups of opposition-timed warming spikes above and beyond what was already suggested in the "normal" profiles. So far, that has not uncovered anything similar to the recent past. Nor is there much sign of this slowing down or weakening. In the past two years, Jupiter oppositions were in May 2018 and June 2019; significant heat waves followed. You'll recall that in 2017 March and April had some unusual warmth, and before that, the period Dec 2015 to Jan 2016 was anomalously warm. The spread against the hypothesis is somewhat larger than the mean signal, but perhaps this is to be expected. If the main cause of the recent warming is solar system magnetic field excitation, blocking of cosmic rays, or anything unrelated to human activity, then it has implications for both planning and responses we have been making (all of which would have no effect were this the case). On the other hand, the magnitude of the danger presented is not reduced, especially if further investigation turns up some unexpected reasons to believe that the warming could accelerate. I have always thought that we know far less than is ideal about the interactions in the mid to outer solar system, in particular, the interactions of the Sun with Jupiter and Saturn. These are objects that we have long assumed have no real impact on our terrestrial weather, but perhaps we are badly mistaken about that. We had best figure this out quickly if we are in some unanticipated natural event that changes the basic energy flow of the terrestrial atmosphere. Any possible solutions would surely be "out there" in our magnetosphere or further out in the solar system, and not with fossil fuel reductions, methane elimination or any other of the current choices we are making.

EWP was 37 mm after ten days, added about 4 or 5 mm on 11th (only heavy in a few spots in north and Thames valley), but future projections on GFS have backed off somewhat to 20-30 mm in next ten days, and the charts for days 11 to 16 appear to have perhaps 10 mm potential. This gets us somewhere near 80 mm with a few days left in the month. I already showed provisionals for 90.1 and 100.1 mm, here's 80.1 mm -- it seems that Reef would hold on to the annual contest lead with any outcome below 81 mm (he went for 72 mm in August, BFTV went for 90). EWP20182019AUG801.xlsx

Don't shoot the messenger (net-weather), the CET values and anomalies are direct from the official source, the UK Met Office. We are just reporting what they are saying (the 1981-2010 averages are calculated by our thread contributors from their data, the 1961-1990 averages come from the UK met office generated website, link is here) http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html

Did you mean, what is the summer total? Here's the current top twelve (only two were recent) and what we need this August to match them. The August record is 192.9 mm (1912) so that rather dire August was both coldest and wettest. (June 2019 EWP was 115.9 mm and July 2019 was 72.2, total was 188.1 mm). Wettest summers (EWP) 1766 to 2018 Rank __ Year ___ Total rainfall ___ Aug 2019 to match _01 ___ 1912 ____ 409.7 ________ 221.6 _02 ___ 1879 ____ 409.2 ________ 221.1 _03 ___ 1829 ____ 396.3 ________ 208.2 _04 ___ 2012 ____ 375.0 ________ 186.9 _05 ___ 1860 ____ 370.8 ________ 182.7 _06 ___ 1768 ____ 362.2 ________ 174.1 _07 ___ 1828 ____ 355.9 ________ 167.8 _08 ___ 1839 ____ 351.2 ________ 163.1 _09 ___ 1775 ____ 347.3 ________ 159.2 _10 ___ 1817 ____ 345.7 ________ 157.6 _11 ___ 1848 ____ 344.3 ________ 156.2 _12 ___ 2007 ____ 343.5 ________ 155.4 ___________________________________________________ Most of these would seem to be out of reach, but you never know. The next entry that occurred since 1981 was 36th wettest 1985 (293.0) for which 104.9 mm is needed, and at 39th is 2004 (290.4) for which 102.3 mm is required. So with 100 mm this would be the fifth wettest summer in the past 40 since 99.9 mm would tie with 1980 in 42nd place overall. For the Northwest England subgroup, the wettest summer (series begins 1873) was 2012 at 430.6 mm, so far they have seen 221 mm in June and July, 48 to 9th of August and probably another 20 or more yesterday into today, so sitting around 290 mm needing another 141 to break that record.

EWP 33 mm after 9 days, add about 5 mm for 10th (large areas nil but heavy in north), and at least 50 mm shown for next ten days, heavy amounts both north and south coast, less in Midlands. That brings the estimate close to 90 mm by just the 21st with ten days additional. May need to do a provisional for 120 mm at this rate.

The synoptics are more or less like a mild November with a higher sun angle and longer days.

EWP up to 24 mm after eight days, the 9th likely added 8-10 mm (blend of small amounts in three quarters of the grid and quite large amounts in parts of Wales and northern England). The 10-day GFS estimate looks to be close to 50 mm, once again blending amounts like 20 mm near London and 80 mm in northern England. That all combines to totals near 83 mm and that's only out to 20th, the next six days on the GFS not part of the projection appear moderate for further rainfall, so creeping up towards that 100 mm estimate by 26th. Not quite as sold on the cooling trend, charts have a lot of westerly flow that can sometimes prove to be overdone especially well out into the future, so the downturn while inevitable may be a bit less dramatic than some projections, I would estimate 17.2 by end of the 16-day run based on average of 16.5 for the period blended with current 18.5 (estimating today at around 17). (18.4x10 + 16.5x16) / 26 (184 + 264)/26 448/26 = 17.23 then that should be reduced to 16.9 or 17.0 probably. Trends have been towards warmer output near end of GFS run, hmm a warm spell near end of a month, how surprising is that?

EWP tracker was 10 mm after 7th, about that same amount likely to be added for 8th, and 40-60 mm the range most likely to be accumulated from GFS ten day guidance starting from earlier today. That leaves my earlier provisional used in the "what if" approximation of scoring (100.1 mm) valid but I will run the program for 90.1 and post that version so you can see where you might end up for those outcomes. EWP20182019AUG901.xlsx

SB, would say the CET will be around 17.0 ten days from now. EWP will be close to 70 mm.

EWP tracker was only at 4 mm after four days, the 5th added very little, and today is adding just over a small area in the far north, so assuming it's still close to 6 or 7 mm, ten day GFS is quite wet and adds 55-60 mm, placing the estimate around 60-70 mm by just the middle of the month. So yes it could be headed towards 100 mm if the pattern remains similar, and once again it's northern England leading the way. Will attach the updated scoring for some arbitrary large amount in August just to get that rolling, only as a "what if" at this stage. EWP20182019AUG.xlsx

As to what is normally the warmest part of the summer, the 1981-2010 CET averages show that the last seven days of July are warmest, average there being 17.3 C. The first seven days of August by comparison averaged 17.0. Looking at the longer set of data from all years 1772 to 2018, the warmest seven days were 13th to 19th July which averaged 16.3, about 0.1 to 0.2 higher than the averages around end of July.

Hadley EWP posted now as 72.2 mm. Slight changes to scoring as some of the ties based on 72.0 mm are now separated. But it didn't change any annual positions. Best combined forecasts are Diagonal Red Line (1st CET, 7th EWP, total 8..) and EdStone (5th, 6th, total 11). Hadley EWP also updated several other months earlier in 2019 making slight changes to "ultimate scoring" section. Updated scoring file: EWP20182019Julyb.xlsx

In the EWP, have created a spot in the scoring where these too-late forecasts get a score so at least you can track where your forecast ends up scoring potentially against the field. It is not part of the official scoring for the contest but when I post August results in early September, look underneath the alternate "ultimate scoring" section which tracks scores against later-adjusted Hadley table entries. Missing a month in CET is less punitive as your average errors count for large fractions of the score.

For EWP as a whole, the year has been middle of the pack. To date (counting the 72 mm in July) the total is 474.7 mm, that is below 2012, 2014, 2016 and 2017, and marginally above 2018. It is slightly ahead of 2015 and about 20% more than 2013 (through July). I would imagine in northern England it may be closer to the high end of the recent range.

The EWP average for 1981-2010 was 67.3 mm and for 1989-2018 it was 69.8 mm. The 1961-90 average was 62 mm. The provisional total of 72 mm is therefore a little above those values, but quite close to the most recent average. The regional breakdown according to the EWP trackers looks like this: Region ____ July 2019 ____ 1961-90 normal ____ Percentage NW Eng ______ 106 ___________ 72 _____________ 147 NE Eng _______ 86 ____________58 _____________ 148 Central Eng ____ 70 ___________ 52 ______________134 SW Eng Wales _ 44 ____________ 59 ______________ 75 SE Eng _______ 50 ____________ 48 _____________ 105 ... So, there was considerably more relative to normal in the north (those percentages would all be somewhat lower for more recent normals).

Thanks for adding those details. Interesting. Meanwhile, the July CET was in fact 17.5 so no edits required to the tracking. It will take a warmer July than this year to produce a new normal of 16.9, otherwise it's likely to remain 16.8.

The EWP came in provisionally at 72 mm. Based on that, the top scores for July were score _ fcst __ forecaster 10.0 __ 72.0 __ Jeff C 9.8 ___73.0 __ Let It Snow! 9.6 ___71.0 __ Jonboy (9.8 - 0.2 late one day) 9.4 ___ 73.1 __ Midlands Ice Age and the top eight in the annual contest, very close at the top after July ... 59.9 __ Reef 59.8 __ Born From the Void 53.8 __ seaside60 52.9 __ weather-history 49.9 __ Mulzy, J10 (tied) 49.0 __ EdStone 48.8 __ Feb1991Blizzard _____________________________________ I have added the excel file showing all scoring. Final adjustments around 5th-6th. EWP20182019Julyb.xlsx

REPORT ON CONSENSUS and NORMALS SCORING for JULY Dec 2018 _____________________________ Jan 2019 _____________________ Feb 2019 __________ ____FORECAST _ error __ rank __ points ____ FCST __ error__ rank _ points _____ FCST __ error __ rank __ points Consensus_ 5.0 __ -1.9 _ 32 to 32 _ 52.3 _____3.5 ___ -0.5 __16 to 18 _ 75.7 to 78.6 _ 4.0 __ -2.7 _ 33 to 37 _ 48.3 to 54.1 1989-2018*_4.9 __ -2.0 _ 33 to 33 _ 50.8 _____4.7 ___ +0.7 __21 to 23 _ 68.6 to 71.4 _ 4.9 __ -1.8 _ 14 to 14 _ 81.3 1981-2010__4.6 __ -2.3 _ 42 to 44 _ 33.8 to 36.9 _4.4 _ +0.4 __14 to 15 _ 80.0 to 81.4 _ 4.4 __ -2.3 _ 17 to 19 _ 74.2 to 77.0 March 2019 _____________________________ April 2019 _____________________ May 2019 ____FORECAST _ error __ rank __ points _____FCST_error _ rank __ points _______ FCST _ error _ rank __ points consensus _ 6.9 _ --0.9 _ 29 to 33 _ 48.4 to 54.8 _8.4 _ --0.7 _ 24 to 28 _ 55.9 to 62.3 _ 12.3 _ +1.2 _ 28 to 31 _ 50.0-55.0 1989-2018 _ 6.8 __ --1.0 _ 34 to 35 _ 46.2 to 47.8 _8.8 _ --0.3 _ 9 to 13 _ 80.3 to 86.9 __ 12.0 _ +0.9 _ 17 to 20 _ 68.3 to 73.3 1981-2010 _ 6.6 __ --1.2 _ 39 to 39 _ 39.7 ______8.5 _ --0.6 _ 20 to 23 _ 63.9 to 68.6 __ 11.7 _ +0.6 _ 11 to 11 _ 83.3 June 2019 __________________________________ July 2019 ______________________ Average (8 months) ____FORECAST __ error __ rank __ points _______ FCST _ error _ rank _ points ________ abs err __ rank ___ points consensus _ 15.0 _ +0.8 _ 27 to 31 _ 48.1 to 55.0 __ 17.0 _ -0.5 _ 19-24 __ 62.9 to 71.0 ____1.15 __ 26 to 30 __ 55.1 to 60.5 1989-2018 _ 14.6 _ +0.4 _ 11 to 15 _ 75.8 to 82.7 __ 16.9 _ -0.6 _ 25-30 __ 53.2 to 61.3 ____0.96 __ 20 to 23 __ 65.6 to 69.5 1981-2010 _ 14.5 _ +0.3 __ 6 to 10 _ 84.4 to 91.3 __ 16.7 _ -0.8 _ 34-39 __ 38.7 to 46.8 ____1.06 __ 23 to 26 __ 61.2 to 65.1 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Consensus was a little better in July than the two normals but this leaves the contest year average score significantly lower for consensus than either normal, with the most recent period of 1989-2018 still faring better than 1981-2010 and this gap was increased in July. ================================================================ From the table of entries, these are the top scoring forecasts: Fcst ___ err __ Forecaster (order of entry) 17.5 ___ 0.0 __ Diagonal Red Line (11) 17.5 ___ 0.0 __ Leo97t (17) 17.5 ___ 0.0 __ Quicksilver1989 (46) 17.4 ___-0.1 __ B87 17.4 ___-0.1 __ Ed Stone (35) 17.4 ___-0.1 __ seaside60 (L2-1) __ may drop 1-2 ranks due late penalty 17.3 ___-0.2 __ dancerwithwings (20) 17.7 ___+0.2__ Feb1991blizzard (42) 17.3 ___-0.2 __ daniel* (51) DRL had 70 mm and Ed Stone 74 mm, one of these is likely to be best combined ranking (EWP was 70 mm after 30 days, looks to add 3-4 on 31st).

1981-2010 CET averages and extremes 1772 to 2018  Date ____ Avg CET ___ cum CET ____ MAX 1772-2018 __ MIN 1772-2018 ___ Running CET extremes 1772-2018 _01______ 16.8 _______ 16.8 ________ 24.9 1995 _____ 11.9 1888 ________ 24.9 _ 1995 ____ 11.9 _ 1888 _02 ______16.8 _______ 16.8 ________ 24.6 1995 _____ 11.6 1822 ________ 24.8 _ 1995 ____ 12.2 _1822,1865 _03 ______16.9 _______ 16.8 ________ 24.4 1990 _____ 10.5 1912 ________ 24.3 _ 1995 ____ 11.7 _ 1912 _04______ 17.0 _______ 16.9 ________ 23.4 1975 _____ 11.3 1812 ________ 23.4 _ 1995 ____ 12.0 _ 1865 _05 ______17.3 _______ 17.0 ________ 23.1 2003 _____ 11.3 1812 ________ 22.3 _ 1995 ____ 12.8 _ 1865 _06 ______17.2 _______ 17.0 ________ 22.5 2003 _____ 11.2 1823&1860 ___ 21.6 _ 1995 ____ 12.8 _ 1812 _07______ 16.9 _______ 17.0 ________ 22.8 1975 _____ 11.6 1898 ________ 21.5 _ 1975 ____ 12.6 _ 1812 _08 ______16.8 _______ 17.0 ________ 23.7 1975 _____ 11.5 1823 ________ 21.7 _ 1975 ____ 12.6 _ 1812 _09 ______16.9 _______ 16.9 ________ 23.9 2003 _____ 11.0 1931 ________ 21.7 _ 1975 ____ 12.6 _ 1812 _10______ 16.8 _______ 16.9 _______ 22.5 1773&1997__10.8 1892 ________ 21.3 _ 1975 ____ 12.6 _ 1812 _11 ______16.7 _______ 16.9 ________ 22.6 1997 _____ 10.8 1902 ________ 21.1 _ 1975 ____ 12.7 _ 1812 _12 ______16.8 _______ 16.9 ________ 22.2 1911 _____ 10.5 1912 ________ 21.0 _ 1975 ____ 12.7 _ 1812 _13______ 16.3 _______ 16.9 ________ 23.6 1911 _____ 10.5 1881 ________ 21.0 _ 1975 ____ 12.7 _1812, 1912 _14 ______16.7 _______ 16.8 ________ 21.3 1911 _____ 10.8 1912 ________ 20.8 _ 1975 ____ 12.6 _1912 _15 ______16.8 _______ 16.8 ________ 22.1 1893 _____ 10.3 1829 ________ 20.7 _ 1975 ____ 12.6 1912 _16______ 16.5 _______ 16.8 ________ 21.6 1947 ______ 9.5 1888 ________ 20.4 _ 1975 ____ 12.6 1912 _17 ______16.5 _______ 16.8 ________ 22.4 1876 _____ 10.9 1888 ________ 20.1 _ 1975 ____ 12.7 1912 _18 ______16.6 _______ 16.8 ________ 22.6 1893 _____ 10.3 1830 ________ 20.0 _ 1995 ____ 12.8 1912 _19 ______16.9 _______ 16.8 ________ 22.8 1932 _____ 10.4 1839 ________ 20.0 _ 1995 ____ 12.9 1912 _20 ______16.7 _______ 16.8 ________ 21.9 1995 _____ 10.5 1920 ________ 20.2 _ 1995 ____ 12.9 1912 _21 ______16.4 _______ 16.8 ________ 21.6 1984 ______ 9.8 1850 ________ 20.2 _ 1995 ____ 12.8 1912 _22______ 16.5 _______ 16.8 ________ 22.1 1955 _____ 10.4 1817 ________ 20.3 _ 1995 ____ 12.8 1912 _23 ______16.1 _______ 16.7 ________ 22.1 1955 _____ 10.3 1877 ________ 20.2 _ 1995 ____ 12.9 1912 _24 ______16.1 _______ 16.7 ________ 21.5 1990 ______ 9.1 1864 ________ 20.0 _ 1995 ____ 12.9 1912 _25______ 15.8 _______ 16.7 ________ 20.9 1899 ____ 10.5 1787,1843&1864_ 20.0 _1995 ____13.0_1912 _26 ______15.7 _______ 16.6 ________ 20.6 1870 ______ 8.8 1864 ________ 19.9 _ 1995 ____ 12.9 1912 _27 ______15.4 _______ 16.6 ________ 22.8 1930 _____ 11.0 1885&1890 ___ 19.8 _ 1995 ____ 12.9 1912 _28______ 15.1 _______ 16.5 ________ 23.0 1942 _____ 10.5 1919 ________ 19.6 _ 1995 ____ 12.8 1912 _29 ______15.3 _______ 16.5 ________ 20.6 1930 ______ 9.1 1812 ________ 19.4 _ 1995 ____ 12.9 1912 _30 ______15.5 _______ 16.5 _______ 19.8 1804&2008__ 9.5 1890 ________ 19.2 _ 1995 ____ 12.9 1912  _31 ______15.2 _______ 16.4________ 21.3 1906 ______ 9.2 1833 ________ 19.2 _ 1995 ____ 12.9 1912 __________________________________________________________________ The most recent record minimum CET daily mean in August was on the 9th of 1931. The most recent record maximum CET daily mean in August was on the 30th of 2008 (tied) and before that 9th of 2003.

Table of entries for August 2019 CET and EWP contests CET __ EWP ___ FORECASTER (order of entry) _________ CET __ EWP __ FORECASTER (order of entry) 21.5 __200.0___ Lettucing Gutted (6) __________________17.0 __ 75.0 ___ B87 (2) ______________________ 19.0 __ 20.2 ___ Polar Gael (1) ______________________ 17.0 __ ----- ___ Jonathan F. (16) ________________ 18.5 __ 80.0 ___ virtualsphere (18) ____________________17.0 __ 85.0 ___ DR(S)NO (21)_________________ 18.4 __ 29.2 ___ Chrisbell-nottheweatherman (5) ________ 17.0 __ 75.0 ___ EdStone (30, 13.5) _____________ 18.1 __ 77.6 ___ CheesepuffScott (7) __________________17.0 __ ----- ___ sundog (41) ___________________ 18.1 __ 78.0 ___ bobd29 (9) _________________________16.9 __ 75.0 ___ summer blizzard (24) ____________ 18.0 __ 70.4 ___ brmbrmcar (23) _____________________ 16.9 __ 75.0 ___ Mulzy (45) _____________________ 17.9 __ 20.0 ___ Big daddy 49 (17) ____________________16.9 __ ----- ___ Man with Beard (47) _____________ 17.7 __ 92.2 ___ Roger J Smith (44) ___________________16.9 __ 77.0 ___ Timmytour (52) _________________ ________________________________________________ 16.9 __130.0___ davehsug (L1-3) _______________ 17.7 __ 90.0 ___ Born From The Void (46) ______________ 16.8 __ 60.0 ___ Leo97t (14) ____________________ 17.6 __ 69.4 ___ Kirkcaldy Weather (19) ________________16.7 __102.0___ coldest winter (11) _______________ 17.5 __ 75.0 ___ Jeff C (13) __________________________16.7 __ 96.0 ___ I Remember Atlantic252 (12) ______ 17.5 __ 67.0 ___ DAVID SNOW (55) ___________________16.7 __115.0___ Norrance (32) ____________ 17.5 __ 96.0 ___ Godber.1 (59) _______________________16.7 __ 79.0 ___ stargazer (25) ____________ 17.4 __ ----- ___ Walsall Wood Snow (35) _______________16.6 __ 70.0 ___ daniel* (42) ______________ 17.4 __ 80.0 ___ Stationary Front (50) _________________ 16.6 __ ----- ___ Earthshine (49) ____________ 17.3 __ 82.0 ___ emmett garland (10) __________________16.6 __ ----- ___ Quicksilver1989 (58) _________ 17.3 __102.0___ stewfox (4) _________________________ 16.5 __ ----- ___ snowray (40) ____________________ 17.3 __ ----- ___ Summer Sun (21) ____________________ 16.5 __ 72.0 ___ Reef (48) _______________________ 17.3 __ ----- ___ Relativistic (34) ______________________ 16.5 __ 85.0 ___ J10 (57) ________________________ _________________________________________________16.5 __ 83.0 ___ Blast From the Past (L1-5) ___ 17.3 __ ----- ___ dancerwithwings (37) __________________16.5 __78.8 __ 1989-2018 average 17.3 __ 66.0 ___ seaside 60 (51) ______________________16.4 __75.6 __ 1981-2010 average 17.3 __ 90.0 ___ Don (56) ___________________________ 16.2 __124.0___ SteveB (29) _____________________ 17.2 __ 97.0 ___ Weather26 (8) _______________________16.0 __ 84.0 ___ weather-history (36) ______________ 17.2 __ ----- ___ Prolonged SnowLover (22) ______________15.9 __ 89.0 ___ nn2013 (3) _____________________ 17.2 __ ----- ___ matty007 (31) ________________________15.8 __ ----- ___ Optimus Prime (53) _______________ 17.2 __ 80.0 ___ the PIT (38) _________________________15.8 __ ----- ___ Duncan McAlister (L1-1) ____________ 17.2 __ 68.0 ___ Feb1991blizzard (43) __________________15.5 __ 74.0 ___ DiagonalRedLine (26) ____________ 17.2 __ ----- ___ damianslaw (54) ______________________ 15.5 __ 94.0 ___ syed2878 (28) __________________ 17.1 __ ----- ___ Mark Bayley (33) ______________________15.4 __ ----- ___ Kentish Man (27) & Andrew R (L1-2) __ __________________________________________________15.1 __ ----- ___ vizzy2004 (L1-4) 17.1 __ 75.7 ___ Midlands Ice Age (39) _________________ 14.5 __250.0___ Thundershine (15) _______________ __ 59 on-time forecasts, five so far that are one day late, total of 64 __ __ consensus 17.0 C. (with 80.0 mm for EWP) ====================== <> ===================== EWP forecasts in order of amounts ... 250 Thun .. 200 LG .. 130 dave ..124 Steve .. 115 Norr .. 102 stew, cold .. 97 wx26 .. 96 IRAtl, Godb .. 94 syed .. 92.2 RJS .. 90 BFTV, Don .. 89 nn .. 85 DRSNO, J10 .. 84 w-h .. 83 BFTP .. 82 emm .. 80 virt, Pit, SF ..(79.5 con) 79 star... 78.8 (89-18) 78 bobd .. 77.6 CPS .. 77 tim .. 75.7 MIA .. 75.6 (81-10) .. 75 B87, Jeff, EdS, SB, Mul .. 74 DRL .. 72 reef 70.4 brm .. 70 dan .. 69.4 KW .. 68 Feb91 .. 67 DSNOW .. 66 sea .. 60 Leo .. 29.2 chris .. 20.2 PG .. 20 big d 43 on-time forecasts, plus two late, median (consensus) 80.0 mm. _______________________________________________________________ NOW CLOSED TO FURTHER ENTRIES 165 83 151