BornFromTheVoid

As others may have noticed, there's been quite a change in the CFS charts for November in recent days. An explanation for the chart is here The 5 day mean has now dipped below 0 (indicating more low pressure to the north). The trend has gone much more strongly downward. A temporary blip or the beginning of a trend towards a more zonal November (which would certainly help with my November forecast!)?

It's a reasonable enough piece by JC. There are uncertainties with everything of course, understanding those uncertainties and knowing the limits they impose are important. The records, especially that of the thousands of argos floats, cannot be dismissed as simple assumptions though. We know that the oceans are absorbing plenty of heat, especially between 700 and 2000m over the last decade or so. it's believed that the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation plays a large role in this and is linked to ENSO and the PDO. Basically changes in wind patterns drive the warmth deeper into the ocean. As for the energy in versus energy out confusion, satellites are capable of monitoring the level of energy reaching the Earth, ground stations can measure the energy reaching the surface, and satellites once again can measure how much is leaving the planet. No complex climate projections needed. As it is, there has been little change in the energy reaching Earth, but an increase in the longwave energy hitting the surface (due to CO2 reradiating energy back to the surface), and a decrease in long wave energy leaving the atmosphere, as measured by satellites. Combine that data, with calculations of the total energy being accumulated within the biosphere, and radiative transfer models, and you get several different sources that can show the Earth currently is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance

More energy coming in than going out is not an assumption, it's actually happening. The proof comes from ground measurements, satellite measurements and models using very basic physics. The heat capacity of water is much greater than that of air. So to even warm the oceans by a fraction of a degree requires a massive input of energy. It's not so much that the heat release from the ocean will cause rapid warming, but that the ocean will stop absorbing so much heat, allowing the atmosphere to heat up quicker. Presuming that you won't dismiss RealClimate, here's a interesting link on the topic. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

Keith, broken record I know, but if you're going to copy and paste from somewhere, please post a link to the source, it really doesn't require much effort! http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/arctic-ice-extent-overtaking-2005-2006/

Yep, can see where some of the difference is with the ECM and GFS on the 8-10 day comparison charts. The GFS has a strong ridge to our east, with the trough out west, likely carrying very mild southerlies over the British Isles. The ECM on the other hand has a weaker ridge in Europe, with the trough sitting nearby and a much more zonal flow.

Daily sea ice extent changes up to the 14th. The daily mean increase for the 2002 to 2012 period is now very high, with the next 10 days averaging an increase of 126k per day, with 2007-2012 period averaging 139k per day. We've already dropped back below 2006, so the daily increase for this year will have to remain very high in order to keep up with recent years.

Agreed Pomeroysnow, nice frost this morning and a beautiful sunny day. Saving the cold for winter proper perhaps!

Seems quite possible that we could end up with an October in the top 10 warmest for the CET record. Top 10 2001: 13.3C2005: 13.1C1969: 13.0C2006: 13.0C1995: 12.9C1921: 12.8C1831: 12.7C1959: 12.6C2011: 12.6C1968: 12.5C If we are on 13.2C to the 20th (as both the 06z GFS and Met Office forecasts suggest), for the remaining 11 days, we'd need to average around 13.3C/day for joint warmest on record 11.3C/day for the top 10 warmest 9.9C/day to reach 12.0C 7.1C/day to reach 11.0C 6.3C/day to reach 10.7C (81-10 average) 6.0C/day to reach 10.6C (61-90 average) 4.3C/day to reach 10.0C 2.9C/day to reach 9.5C With the GFS averaging in the high 14s for the 21st and 22nd, and nothing particularly cool/cold showing up on the ensembles, I think we can rule out anything below 10C completely, and say anything below the 81-10 average is looking very unlikely at this stage.

Eh, the paper was more about the future interaction of ENSO with the weather, rather than changes to what drives ENSO itself. Modern climate models have modes of variability in the tropical Pacific just like ENSO, so it is possible to examine how different phases of ENSO interacts with the atmosphere, and how that may change under different climate projections. It's like how we can predict the effect of a drop in TSI on our climate, without being able to fully understand how the sun works.

Looking at xcweather, it seems your estimate for today's max will be closer than mine. 13.4C on tomorrows update the right call.

13.6C (13.65) to the 13th http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cet_mean_est_2013 Yesterday was 10.8C. Minimum today is 7.9C, while maxima look like reaching the the high 10s, so a drop back to 13.3 or 13.4C is likely on tomorrows update. After that, the 06z GFS has the CET at 13.1C to the 15th (9.3) 12.9C to the 16th (9.5) 12.8C to the 17th (12.2) 12.8C to the 18th (12.9) 13.0C to the 19th (15.5) 13.1C to the 20th (14.7) 13.1C to the 21st (14.7) Must keep an eye on how things develop, as some daily records could be at risk. The record highs for the 19th, 20th and 21st are 16.3C, 14.9C and 15.2C respectively.

It wasn't intended to be a measure of the snowiness or coldness of the forecast, just to give an idea of the CFS pressure/blocking trends to our north. Incorporating the different elements that can influence our chances of cold would be much more time consuming!

Cheers. I'll keep updating it on a daily basis and post the graphs and data up here every now and then.

Couldn't say. Depends on what the other teleconnections are up to at the time and how ENSO interacts with them. Having ENSO transition from -ve to +ve during winter would be yet another headache for long range forecasters though.

The average rankings for the pressure anomalies in the green box (first image), briefly discussed below the first image. They go from +5 for exceptional high pressure anomaly, to 0 for neutral and -5 exceptional low pressure anomaly. So the average November ranking (from +5 to -5) between September 22nd and October 12th, based on the 12z CFS, is +1.8, with December averaging +2.3, both in the moderate high pressure anomaly/moderate blocking category. Hope that helps.

Seems possible. If it did come off, depending on how quickly it engaged with the atmosphere, we could well feel the effects during the latter half of Winter. Best keep an eye on things, see if rapid warming begins http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sfc_daily.php?plot=ssn&inv=0&t=cur

Latest CFS forecast for the Nino 3.4 region... quite interesting!

I thought I'd try take a different approach to the CFS data, to look at the trends for blocking in the North Atlantic this Winter. I chose to focus on the area within the green box below, stretching from eastern Scandinavia to Western Greenland, and bound by Svalbard and Iceland for the north and south edges. So I started a spread sheet and for the 12z CFS each day, I looked at the monthly sea level pressure anomaly within the general area of the box and ranked it based on 11 categories, going from exceptional blocking (ranked as a 5), to neutral (ranked as a 0) down to exceptionally low pressure (ranked as a -5). The method a bit subjective, but should be ok for trends. Below is an example of a +5 (most blocked), a 0 (neutral) and a -3 (strong low anomaly, the lowest I've come across, none have warranted a -5 so far!) +5 0 -3 In situations where there is both a strong +ve and -ve anomaly within the box, they cancel eachother out, giving a 0 overall. With the data gathered, I then was able to get some averages and trends. Below are the predictions for November since September 22nd, the daily data in blue, the 5 day mean in red and the trend in black. November has averaged +1.8 over the last 3 weeks, so pretty much in the moderate blocking category, but does show a very slight downward trend. Overall, I think it looks quite promising, with 80% of runs since the 22nd showing +ve SLP anomalies to our north, with 10% -ve and 10% neutral. December December is looking quite good, with an average over the last 3 weeks of +2.3, with 5% showing -ve pressure anomalies, 10% showing neutral and 85% of runs showing +ve pressure anomalies to our north. A good upward trend in the blocking too. I'll try post an update of these every now and then. If anyone wants the stats for January, February or March I can post them up, though I'm not sure how reliable the CFS is at that kind of range.

Yesterday was 11.8C. The minimum today is 9.8C while maxima look like reaching just over 11C, so a decrease to 13.6C or 13.7C is likely on tomorrows update. After that, the 06z GFS op run has the CET at 13.3C to the 14th (9.4) 13.1C to the 15th (10.3) 13.0C to the 16th (10.8] 12.9C to the 17th (12.3) 13.0C to the 18th (14.2) 13.1C to the 19th (15.5) 13.2C to the 20th (14.8] Getting close to ruling out anything below 10C methinks. Just 1 below average day so far this month. We should get another few before things warm up in the 2nd half of the week.

I never specifically said which side my comment was directed at, because it works both way. I think you're over personalising things a little LG

Well, looking at the numbers, that would require a jump of 432k, a record by far for October. If we maintain the average daily increase of the last 5 days (~+130k/day), we'll reach the 2000s average in 2 weeks. It's been a strong increase so far though, I agree with that. The 3rd largest increase, from October 1st to 11th, since 2002

I'd say it's a mistake, the daily data hasn't updated yet. To remain on 14.4C, the maximum yesterday would have to have been around 21C, which I don't think was the case!

One more day to what?

Hi John, I've read through your links, perhaps you can explain the relevance of some. I'm struggling to see links to climate and they seem more against your view than in favour of it. Link 1: Climate change causes changes in volcanism by quickly changing stress level as weight is transferred from continental to oceanic plates as ice sheets and glaciers melt. Link 2: New chain of volcanoes discovered between Jan Mayan and Lokis castle. No connection to climate change. Link 3: Very large undersea volcano discovered. No connection to climate change. Link 4: A volcano at an ocean ridge produces rhyolitic lava, more typical of continentally sourced magama, such as at convergent plate boundaries. No connection to climate change. Link 5: Video showing the formation of pillow lavas. No connection to climate change. Link 6: Nothing to do with your description. Just a very vague piece on some underwater volcanoes that have been explored and their mineral value. No connection to climate change. Link 7: A study agreeing with that in link 1, climate change causes changes in volcanism, by redistributing weight from the continents to the oceans and changing the stress levels. Link 8: Lots of links to generic geology papers. Link 9: A poor review, misrepresenting a BAS discovery of a volcano and massive eruption around 240BC in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. The actual BAS paper is here and their own press release on it here Link 10: Wiki link to oceanic ridges in the Arctic. No connection to climate change Link 11: BBC piece on the effects of volcanoes, including weather impacts. No connection to climate change Link 12: Research abstract on regional tectonics in California. No connection to climate change Link 13: Article on underwater island volcanism. No connection to climate change Link 14: Article examining the link between sub polar north Atlantic sea ice and tropical volcanism. They find that more volcanism = more sea ice Link 15: Arctic on volcanic vents in the mid Atlantic. No connection to climate change. Link 16: Introductory piece on underwater volcanism. No connection to climate change. Link 17: A particularly interesting research paper on climate simulations of the Tambora and Pinatubo eruptions, mainly on their effect on sea ice and the AMOC. Eruptions increase mixing, but reduce overall oceanic heat content. Effects may last over a century according to the simulations. The full paper (PDF) is here Link 18: Paper on the relevance of major subduction zone earthquakes and their hydrocarbon releases to the Earths carbon budget. Link 19: Small wiki piece on submarine volcanoes. No connection to climate change Link 20: A piece on different types of volcanic eruptions. No connection to climate change Most of the links have no relevance to climate change, with just a mix of different geology, tectonics and volcanology, introductions, research and reviews. Can you point me to the evidence that says oceanic volcanism is causing a significant portion of current climate change? Volcanoes cannot heat the planet, in the sense that the are the result of the planets heat, but they can certainly influence the surface temperature. Their impacts on the ocean and atmosphere are well studied, it's certainly not something that's ignored. But it seems that they're more likely to cause cooling than warming, based on the links you've posted. If you think it's mainly undersea volcanoes that caused much of the ocean and atmospheric warming, then why aren't the ocean depths heating faster than the surface? Is there any evidence of increased undersea volcanism? I agree with keeping an open mind on the oceans depths. We never know what may be found. But it does seem highly, and increasingly, unlikely that we'll find something to revolutionise our thinking on current climate change. I'm open to you changing my mind though!

Unless something like the Messinian Salinity Crisis was to occur again. The Messinian Salinity Crisis (MSC), also referred to as the Messinian Event, and in its latest stage as the Lago Mare event, was a geological event during which the Mediterranean Sea went into a cycle of partly or nearly complete desiccation throughout the latter part of the Messinian age of the Miocene epoch, from 5.96 to 5.33 Ma (million years ago). It ended with the so-called Zanclean flood, when the Atlantic reclaimed the basin... ... As winds blew across the "Mediterranean Sink", they would heat or cool adiabatically with altitude. In the empty Mediterranean Basin the summertime temperatures would probably have been extremely high even during the coldest phase of any glacial era. Using the dry adiabatic lapse rate of around 10°C (18°F) per kilometer, a theoretical temperature of an area 4 kilometres (2.5 mi) below sea level would be about 40°C (72°F) warmer than the temperature at sea level. Thus one could predict[original research?] theoretical temperature maxima of around 80°C (176 °F) at the lowest depths of the dry abyssal plain permitting little known life to survive there. One can also calculate that 2 to 3 miles (3.2 - 4.8 km) below sea level would have resulted in 1.45 to 1.71 atm (1,102 to 1,300 mmHg) of air pressure at the bottom. Although it was probably quite dry in the Basin, there is no direct way to measure how much drier it would have been compared to its surroundings. Areas with less severe depths would probably have been very dry. Death Valley's 57C, pah!