August CET

[SMU]

Snowsure,

Your specialism may well be astrophysics, but you aren't filling me with much confidence regarding how absolutely talented you might be in that field if your response here is anything to go by.

Your observation regarding the change from July-August is a total and utter irrelevance to the point I was making, and is any case fatuous, bounding being so fatuous, in fact, that but for the fact that I'm like a dog with a bone sometimes I wouldn't bother responding, for all your generous comments regarding erudition otherwise.

To elaborate on the above. First - my thread picked up on Philip Eden's analysis of August's temperaure given its synoptics. August stands alone in this regard; what happened in July is no more relevant to the point you're trying to make about my post than was the price of a tin on beans in Sainsbury's this morning. His analysis has the month as the MOST NORTHERLY August in his 130 odd years of analysis. I'll say that again, the MOST NORTHERLY - that being the coldest soutrce at this time of year. Yet it was far from being the coldest August on record - so cold was it in fact that it came out about average I believe. In simple terms, we were, on average, under the sustained influence, in that data set, for this month, of the coldest available source, yet still couldn't muster a cold month. You may have a better explanation than the one I've offered, in which case I'm all ears. You can mutter about the warm spell at the start of the month, but even if you removed that it would still have been about average, not dramatically cold. There is a chance that in the way Philip calculates the average flow a slight skew has been introduced, but I have seen cross comparative analyses of the technique he uses and it seems reasonably robust.

One or two people have suggested that July's warmth warmed the pole and therefore in August we were receiving the residual effects of summer's heat. I've already repsonded to that argument, and in any case, if you check the 90 day anomaly for the pole then for this argument to stack up you'd be expecting to see a +ve anomaly up there in order to account for an unusually warm source: there is no such anomaly.

Secondly, reference the drop in temperatures from July-August as if this were proof of anything at all, irrespective of its irrelevance to my comment (there is none). You might as well tell a guy who won nothing on the lottery this week after having won the jackpot last week that he's unlucky. I cannot quite see what point you're trying to make. July was an exceptionally hot month, it would have been far more remarkable had there not been a significant drop TO NORMAL - which is, after all, EXACTLY what has happened. All the month-month change highlights is how unusual July was; it says nothing at all about August.

If there are any posts on here (away from the environment discussions perhaps and occasions when people cut and paste huge swathes) longer than research papers you're reading then you're probably not reading very good research papers.

I have to say that I think that that is one of the most fantastic pieces I've seen posted on N-w ever Hats of to PE for the analysis. My reading at a scan is essentially that in other times August's synoptics would have produced a far lower CET. Let's assume Philip's analysis stands up to scrutiny (my only muse would be, and this goes back to the point I was making earlier to Noggin, that this month to me has been more westerly than northerly, but in this regard I know and trust Philip's method for "measuring" this, and it is robust) then what we have here is another example of a point TWS and I have repeatedly pondered on, i.e. air masses are getting warmer.

This seems to be misquoted-

Dawlish:

"We know, through Philip's work with multiple regression of the two variables, that this August's CET, produced by that combination of Northerlies and cyclonicity is the most exceptional ever (It ranks 1 of 134). We also know that a hindcast of the two would produce a mean CET of 14.4C, based on all the Augusts he has included in his study (134 years). From this, we can see that there is only a 1 in 200 chance (approx) of this happening by chance in any one winter (16.5C being about 2.6S from the mean). Thus, with a 99.5% certainty, we can say that this CET would not normally happen with these synoptics, today, or in the past. I chose "30+ years ago" as this was before the establishment of a warming trend in the UK, so yes; I believe, with a 99.5% accuracy, we can say that this would not have happened, 30+ years ago, given the synoptics we have had this August.

This thread cracks me up-

All these references to August in terms of what synoptics did or didnt deliver, and yet it seems that nobody checked what actually happened-

IF all this talk regarding August being the most Northerly in however many years is in ANY way correlated to the difference in observed CET as opposed to 'expected' CET for this type of flow then im afraid the linear correlation of Philip Edens flow patterns to final CET is at or below 1- ie not important- ( im NOT saying its NEVER correlated & im not saying Philips work isnt important either) )

There seems to be an awful lot of hot air eminating from here- probably enough to raise the CET even more-

For a start, across the whole month there hasnt been any air mass delivered to us from a source along or north of 70N- quite how then people assume that we have had anything of 'true' polar origin is quite beyond me-

Secondly any flow we have had from a Northely direction has ALWAYS been modified with warmer upper air, coming from a more saturated Maritime location OR a continental interior- either way these do nothing to generate view from my perspective that given these patterns from now or yesteryear the end result temperature wise would have been pretty much the same- So Stratos we werent actually under the coldest infuence, & never ever saw any 850 Mb temps drop below 0c-

I havent read the UKWW thread & there are things here that I agree with - however you seem to be confusing 2 arguements-

Firstly there seems to be an assumption in the latter part of this thread that if we took the EXACT synoptics for August 2006 & transposed them to say 50 years ago the CET would be lower by a considerable amount & the reason for this is that the polar air-mass had been modified-

We didnt have any polar feeds so the/your agruement is mute-

Also can someone exlplain how we hindcast 134 years of Cylonicity & Northerlies to a mean CET of 14.4-???

Did this hincast include up to 7/8 days of residual boundary/Surface level warmth from July??? with the CET being 15.6 post this date-

Did the hincast include the convienient location of the +4C SSTA's in the northern atlantic which modify upwards any Westerly Maritime feed??

My guess is that IF we had had the same month 50 years ago the difference in CET would have been less than half a degree cooler because if you look at the 'fetch' of the airmasses sourced during August nearly ALL the time they had a more Maritime content- and the assumption here would be that the thermal capacity change of these air masses is lower than that of continental or polar air masses-

IF this month had been a truly polar month then we could have actually seen what the influence of GW has had in terms of still being able to achieve a proper below ave month-

& this is where I do agree that the baseline has moved but in terms of quantifying how much sadly elludes us- this is because the frequency especially in Winter of these polar feeds has been reduced which skews peoples assumptions into thinking its ALL down to modification of Air mass-

I wonder what the Difference in CET would be IF we had identical synoptics as 1962/63 Winter- My guess would be still only 0.5 to 1 degree of Warming- maybe not as much as people would expect-

At the end of the day the arguement that 'if we had the same synoptics like the.... would deliver the same CET as before in whatever season ' still holds true ( other than a minor upwards adjustment) its just that we dont get those synoptics any more- especially polar ones & ESPECIALLY in Winter.......

I would say on this occasion the large SSTA in the atlantic & the lack of Actual polar air is more of a factor in deciding the less than impressive CET V observed flow rather than some sort of direct relashonship with GW ( whether the SSTA & lack of polar Feed has anything to do with GW is anothyer topic for debate entirely)

S

Edited September 3, 2006 by Steve Murr

[Thundery wintry showers]

I think we can say, with reasonable certainty, that the baseline for the NH has moved upwards by 0.5-1.0C, so on average we would expect that degree of modification. Thus, on average, if this August's CET had happened 50 years ago we would expect an outturn of about 15.6C.

So where does the other 1.2C come from to get 14.4? There's anomalous SSTs, anomalous soil temperatures, the origin of the airmasses and the temperature anomalies at airmass source. In the first half of the month, most of our winds were pulling air in from Scandinavia, which was 3-5C above the long-term average with frequent SE winds. In the second half, we had mostly westerly winds, and the mean SLP chart shows strong bias towards northerlies, but not of a very cold source.

It seemed to me that the whole 65-75N band was above average, but looking at the NOAA monthly anomaly charts this was only true for Scandinavia and around the south-western flank of Greenland, with the area in between being near average. Thus the anomalous airmass source temperature argument doesn't necessarily tell the whole story.

I don't think there's anything flawed in Philip Eden's mean SLP charts or flow indices- it's a case that while the mean airflow over the UK is strongly correlated with temperature, the origin of the airmass is also important. For example, it played a significant part in why the November 1999 northerly:

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/archive/1999/...00219991119.png

produced less widespread snow than the November 2001 northerly:

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/archive/2001/...00220011108.png

All of those factors probably added together to give that 1.2C correction.

[Stratos Ferric]

This seems to be misquoted-

This thread cracks me up-

All these references to August in terms of what synoptics did or didnt deliver, and yet it seems that nobody checked what actually happened-

IF all this talk regarding August being the most Northerly in however many years is in ANY way correlated to the difference in observed CET as opposed to 'expected' CET for this type of flow then im afraid the linear correlation of Philip Edens flow patterns to final CET is at or below 1- ie not important- ( im NOT saying its NEVER correlated & im not saying Philips work isnt important either) )

There seems to be an awful lot of hot air eminating from here- probably enough to raise the CET even more-

For a start, across the whole month there hasnt been any air mass delivered to us from a source along or north of 70N- quite how then people assume that we have had anything of 'true' polar origin is quite beyond me-

Secondly any flow we have had from a Northely direction has ALWAYS been modified with warmer upper air, coming from a more saturated Maritime location OR a continental interior- either way these do nothing to generate view from my perspective that given these patterns from now or yesteryear the end result temperature wise would have been pretty much the same- So Stratos we werent actually under the coldest infuence, & never ever saw any 850 Mb temps drop below 0c-

I havent read the UKWW thread & there are things here that I agree with - however you seem to be confusing 2 arguements-

Firstly there seems to be an assumption in the latter part of this thread that if we took the EXACT synoptics for August 2006 & transposed them to say 50 years ago the CET would be lower by a considerable amount & the reason for this is that the polar air-mass had been modified-

We didnt have any polar feeds so the/your agruement is mute-

Also can someone exlplain how we hindcast 134 years of Cylonicity & Northerlies to a mean CET of 14.4-???

Did this hincast include up to 7/8 days of residual boundary/Surface level warmth from July??? with the CET being 15.6 post this date-

Did the hincast include the convienient location of the +4C SSTA's in the northern atlantic which modify upwards any Westerly Maritime feed??

My guess is that IF we had had the same month 50 years ago the difference in CET would have been less than half a degree cooler because if you look at the 'fetch' of the airmasses sourced during August nearly ALL the time they had a more Maritime content- and the assumption here would be that the thermal capacity change of these air masses is lower than that of continental or polar air masses-

IF this month had been a truly polar month then we could have actually seen what the influence of GW has had in terms of still being able to achieve a proper below ave month-

& this is where I do agree that the baseline has moved but in terms of quantifying how much sadly elludes us- this is because the frequency especially in Winter of these polar feeds has been reduced which skews peoples assumptions into thinking its ALL down to modification of Air mass-

I wonder what the Difference in CET would be IF we had identical synoptics as 1962/63 Winter- My guess would be still only 0.5 to 1 degree of Warming- maybe not as much as people would expect-

At the end of the day the arguement that 'if we had the same synoptics like the.... would deliver the same CET as before in whatever season ' still holds true ( other than a minor upwards adjustment) its just that we dont get those synoptics any more- especially polar ones & ESPECIALLY in Winter.......

I would say on this occasion the large SSTA in the atlantic & the lack of Actual polar air is more of a factor in deciding the less than impressive CET V observed flow rather than some sort of direct relashonship with GW ( whether the SSTA & lack of polar Feed has anything to do with GW is anothyer topic for debate entirely)

S

Steve,

Calm down and go read ALL of my comments.

There's a lot of assumptions in your reply, and too little careful reading of what I had said myself elsewhere in this thread regarding the need to double check Philip's method for calculating the indeces and then converting this back to larger scale synoptic flows. Even so, in inferring as you do (and I had pretty much said EXACTLY the same), that somehow the northerliness in this month was not polar source (and see my post no.252 in the thread PLEASE!), you're presupposing that the other Augusts in Philip's series DID have polar source air. They may or may not have had, but to argue as if they must have had when this one didn't is flawed logic. For all we know they too were more westerly than northerly sourced. You'd also have to check for anomalies and residual warmth in those months as well before you start pleading mitigation for the month just gone.

Re how the hindcast was generated, I don't know (you clearly don't), but I would assume that by running a regression through the whole data set of CET v Northerliness, and then plotting this year's northerliness on the line a derived, an "as would have been" CET is arrived at.

And to state, as you do "Did the hincast include the convienient location of the +4C SSTA's in the northern atlantic which modify upwards any Westerly Maritime feed??" is an irony the richness of which is a joy. As I see it, reading your rather blustery response, you're basically saying what various of have said - there are changes in the surface that are modifying airmasses, you even go on at the end of the thread to concede something like 0.5-1.0C of warming. I'm not saying these are proof of GW, but it's bizarre how often nowadays we're having to "apologise" year round for relatively warm SSTs mucking up expected outcomes. I can't remember when last we were complaining about cold SSTs nearby.

It strikes me that we're in agreement, if only you could be bothered to read fully all the previous responses. As a general observation your comment that you haven't been to check the source material Philip posted is careless, if you don't mind my saying so. P3 has been commenting about this on one of the other threads and it rather betrays a too simplistic approach to debate here on N-W whereby people reel off their own pet views, and then moan when challeged robustly. If people would occasionally take the time to go source and share some original material then they, and we all as a consequence, night just learn something. What was outstanding about Philip's analysis was that it was a clever attempt to compare synoptics and outcomes; for sure, as you and I have pointed out, there might be flaws, but that's not to say that there isn't merit in exploring the method a little before you dismiss is out of hand. I suspect that in any measure an ounce of Philip's numerical analysis would be worth a ton of many people's on here!

Don't worry, none of this need stop you, Tamara, me or anyone else getting excited when cold weather is in the offing, and I don't doubt for one moment that you'll be here forecasting as diligently as ever every time it looks like getting cold. Like many others on here, I look forward to all your projections at those times, even after a little bit of surface modification.

A very good post Steve. It is a shame that it will inevitably be construed by some 'obvious' members as cold ramping.

As I have said elsewhere some of this fanatical GW stuff is as 'crackpot' and overdubbed as IAN is portrayed.

Tamara

Tamara, quite so, quite so. And it's good to see you and others filling out the threads on the environment pages with excellent data to prove just how silly some of the projections are.

[SMU]

Steve,

Calm down and go read ALL of my comments.

There's a lot of assumptions in your reply, and too little careful reading of what I had said myself elsewhere in this thread regarding the need to double check Philip's method for calculating the indeces and then converting this back to larger scale synoptic flows. Even so, in inferring as you do (and I had pretty much said EXACTLY the same), that somehow the northerliness in this month was not polar source (and see my post no.252 in the thread PLEASE!), you're presupposing that the other Augusts in Philip's series DID have polar source air. They may or may not have had, but to argue as if they must have had when this one didn't is flawed logic. For all we know they too were more westerly than northerly sourced. You'd also have to check for anomalies and residual warmth in those months as well before you start pleading mitigation for the month just gone.

Re how the hindcast was generated, I don't know (you clearly don't), but I would assume that by running a regression through the whole data set of CET v Northerliness, and then plotting this year's northerliness on the line a derived, an "as would have been" CET is arrived at.

And to state, as you do "Did the hincast include the convienient location of the +4C SSTA's in the northern atlantic which modify upwards any Westerly Maritime feed??" is an irony the richness of which is a joy. As I see it, reading your rather blustery response, you're basically saying what various of have said - there are changes in the surface that are modifying airmasses, you even go on at the end of the thread to concede something like 0.5-1.0C of warming. I'm not saying these are proof of GW, but it's bizarre how often nowadays we're having to "apologise" year round for relatively warm SSTs mucking up expected outcomes. I can't remember when last we were complaining about cold SSTs nearby.

It strikes me that we're in agreement, if only you could be bothered to read fully all the previous responses. As a general observation your comment that you haven't been to check the source material Philip posted is careless, if you don't mind my saying so. P3 has been commenting about this on one of the other threads and it rather betrays a too simplistic approach to debate here on N-W whereby people reel off their own pet views, and then moan when challeged robustly. If people would occasionally take the time to go source and share some original material then they, and we all as a consequence, night just learn something. What was outstanding about Philip's analysis was that it was a clever attempt to compare synoptics and outcomes; for sure, as you and I have pointed out, there might be flaws, but that's not to say that there isn't merit in exploring the method a little before you dismiss is out of hand. I suspect that in any measure an ounce of Philip's numerical analysis would be worth a ton of many people's on here!

Don't worry, none of this need stop you, Tamara, me or anyone else getting excited when cold weather is in the offing, and I don't doubt for one moment that you'll be here forecasting as diligently as ever every time it looks like getting cold. Like many others on here, I look forward to all your projections at those times, even after a little bit of surface modification.

Tamara, quite so, quite so. And it's good to see you and others filling out the threads on the environment pages with excellent data to prove just how silly some of the projections are.

I was a bit worse for wear at that time & wasnt sure whether I was agreeing or not-??- however the tit bits id highlighted gave me a sense that without checking the facts ( Your comment around our feed for August being from the coldest available source) youd hung drawn & quartered the debate before we had started-

Re how the hindcast was generated, I don't know (you clearly don't), but I would assume that by running a regression through the whole data set of CET v Northerliness, and then plotting this year's northerliness on the line a derived, an "as would have been" CET is arrived at.

I did say though I didnt despute Philips work- I do need to see however the hindcast method in its entirity-have you a link to the detail of the regression??- I read the article on UKWW & its my belief that, (If I have havent over simplified the method of comparing the Northerly & cyclonic composites of historic months to much) cannot be a valid way of arguing that source airmass has been modified- this is particularly important IF the wind direction is taken without consideration of length of fetch-

I await someones response to give a little more clarity over how this 14.4 mean is reached- All I have read is Dawlish post which was a paste of part of Philips article with some response to that written below-

I just cant see how using Northerliness generates a regression graph when Northerliness is a big variable in terms of what it can deliver.....

FWIW we have both arrived at this juncture on many occasion here during the last 18 months- probably the next 5 years will go a VERY long way to lifting the lid on what the future holds for our little neck of the woods.....

regards

S

Edited September 3, 2006 by Steve Murr

[Stratos Ferric]

I was a bit worse for wear at that time & wasnt sure whether I was agreeing or not-??- however the tit bits id highlighted gave me a sense that without checking the facts ( Your comment around our feed for August being from the coldest available source) youd hung drawn & quartered the debate before we had started-

I did say though I didnt despute Philips work- I do need to see however the hindcast method in its entirity-have you a link to the detail of the regression??- I read the article on UKWW & its my belief that, (If I have havent over simplified the method of comparing the Northerly & cyclonic composites of historic months to much) cannot be a valid way of arguing that source airmass has been modified- this is particularly important IF the wind direction is taken without consideration of length of fetch-

I await someones response to give a little more clarity over how this 14.4 mean is reached- All I have read is Dawlish post which was a paste of part of Philips article with some response to that written below-

I just cant see how using Northerliness generates a regression graph when Northerliness is a big variable in terms of what it can deliver.....

FWIW we have both arrived at this juncture on many occasion here during the last 18 months- probably the next 5 years will go a VERY long way to lifting the lid on what the future holds for our little neck of the woods.....

regards

S

lol!

Philip's article is signposted clearly from the UKww front page, but select the forum option. On re-reading his post myself two observations. He has calculated the SD for the data set as 0.9. That puts this August at around 2SDs from the sample mean - assuming the sample is normal that means that this result is out beyond the 1:20 occurrence mark, or 1:40 taking a two tailed view of the data. It's not wildly significant if put to a hypothesis test, but it's certainly in the "something unusual" camp.

Philip has shown a strong correlation in his data set between southerliness and CET. The northerliness for August is, in fact, a -ve southerliness if you like, and I think I alluded to this already. He also factors in westerliness though, but finds a less good correlation with CET. Taking these two together there is a reasonable fit between CET and the the pressure index, i.e. if you know the pressure index as he measures it for any given month, you could make a reaonable projection at the likely CET. It is precisely this approach that I think he will have taken to do the "hindcast", however, the fact remains, that the fit of the correlation is not perfect, and that some months there will be variations above or below the line.

Without seeing all of the data myself (Philip has not actually listed all the data, but you can get at a least some of it from his own site) I can only speculate, by my hunch would be that the projcted "anomaly" this last month is a combination of slackness inherent within the methodology - which on this occasion is tending to overestimate the actual northerliness of air mass source, some factors unusual to this month given the month preceding, and a measure of SST anomaly. It's the SST anomaly that's the interesting bit, because this for me is the signal of climatic warming hereabouts. There's no knowing for sure, but it's becoming such a quasi-persistent feature to our W / NW / N that for my part I can't see much explanation other than general warming of the fluid boundary as plausible explanation.

Reference your ponder on checking and effectively recalibrating the data used by Philip, I think we'd have to go back month by month and do a much more thorough log of, at the very least, 2 dimensions of the surface, tracking not just mean pressure differentials, but actual prevalent air mass source. This would still be open to other forcing factors in the third dimension, like the ones you mentioned previously, but it would give a more robust picture of the nature of the mean airmass over each month. This is not to pick holes in the approach adopted by Philip, which broadly maps to Lamb I think - his approach is akin to that used to calculate the NAO, and, as we all well know there, there is no hard and fast relationship between NAO index and temperatures in the UK, though there are broad trends.

I wonder, applying the same assessment to July (which I seem to recall was exceptionally S'ly), whether it turned out as hot, or hotter, than expected.

[SMU]

lol!

Philip's article is signposted clearly from the UKww front page, but select the forum option. On re-reading his post myself two observations. He has calculated the SD for the data set as 0.9. That puts this August at around 2SDs from the sample mean - assuming the sample is normal that means that this result is out beyond the 1:20 occurrence mark, or 1:40 taking a two tailed view of the data. It's not wildly significant if put to a hypothesis test, but it's certainly in the "something unusual" camp.

Philip has shown a strong correlation in his data set between southerliness and CET. The northerliness for August is, in fact, a -ve southerliness if you like, and I think I alluded to this already. He also factors in westerliness though, but finds a less good correlation with CET. Taking these two together there is a reasonable fit between CET and the the pressure index, i.e. if you know the pressure index as he measures it for any given month, you could make a reaonable projection at the likely CET. It is precisely this approach that I think he will have taken to do the "hindcast", however, the fact remains, that the fit of the correlation is not perfect, and that some months there will be variations above or below the line.

Without seeing all of the data myself (Philip has not actually listed all the data, but you can get at a least some of it from his own site) I can only speculate, by my hunch would be that the projcted "anomaly" this last month is a combination of slackness inherent within the methodology - which on this occasion is tending to overestimate the actual northerliness of air mass source, some factors unusual to this month given the month preceding, and a measure of SST anomaly. It's the SST anomaly that's the interesting bit, because this for me is the signal of climatic warming hereabouts. There's no knowing for sure, but it's becoming such a quasi-persistent feature to our W / NW / N that for my part I can't see much explanation other than general warming of the fluid boundary as plausible explanation.

Reference your ponder on checking and effectively recalibrating the data used by Philip, I think we'd have to go back month by month and do a much more thorough log of, at the very least, 2 dimensions of the surface, tracking not just mean pressure differentials, but actual prevalent air mass source. This would still be open to other forcing factors in the third dimension, like the ones you mentioned previously, but it would give a more robust picture of the nature of the mean airmass over each month. This is not to pick holes in the approach adopted by Philip, which broadly maps to Lamb I think - his approach is akin to that used to calculate the NAO, and, as we all well know there, there is no hard and fast relationship between NAO index and temperatures in the UK, though there are broad trends.

I wonder, applying the same assessment to July (which I seem to recall was exceptionally S'ly), whether it turned out as hot, or hotter, than expected.

Top post-

I did read the correlation bit & noted that the Cyclonic/Northerly WASNT the best fit to easily transpose across, but having something to give a hindcast value is better than nothing all be it in a 2D way- I doubt any of us have the time to go into the third dimension- but at least I think we know where we stand-

I think July V Southerlyness Question would be that it was hotter- from the simple fact of

a) drought conditions prevailing- enabling the MAX diurnal heating

b ) the flow patterns more often than not had a South easterly element- Maintaining that Low humidity factor- giving decent lapse rates-

Lets hope we are having the same debate in Jan after the record breaking Easterly pattern- Especially after the ECPC december forecast of the whole northern hemisphere being below ave- perhaps they know something we dont- like a volcanic eruption or some kind of day after tomorrow scenario- either way there will still be no snow in Abingdon....

S

Edited September 3, 2006 by Steve Murr

[Dawlish]

In the midst of all this, has anyone noticed that the August CET was actually 0.1C above the Manley CET?

Paul

[Nick F]

In the midst of all this, has anyone noticed that the August CET was actually 0.1C above the Manley CET?

Paul

Sorry are talking about the UKMO Hadley CET for August? Because at 16.1C that is 0.2C below Philip Eden's final August CET.

http://www.metoffice.com/research/hadleyce.../HadCET_act.txt

http://www.climate-uk.com/

[Weather-history]

The Met Office has August 2006 as 15.8 for the England and Wales temperature series, 13.3 for Scotland and 14.6 for Northern Ireland

For the first time since 1999, summer 2006 was sunnier than the spring for Northern Ireland.

August was duller than April for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland

[Dawlish]

I know I provide scant scientific data on any thread of the forum and don't step into the environment thread simply because it is a bit of a bearpit and gets rather intense and rather prone to go round in circles - but that doesn't mean that I don't read the interesting factual scientific material that you and others provide irrespective of whether I interpret it differently or agree with it or not. It also doesn't mean that I am a doopsydugger and don't understand the gist, and more, of what the various debates are about either.

It is no surprise that the recent spell of northerly winds in August delivered higher than you would expect temps. However I would read no further into that than it being a direct consequence of persistent hot flow from the continent over a several week period which was carried some way north. What does one then expect?

The SSTA's in those areas consequently are very warm but many of the sea areas are relatively shallow and usually fluctuate considerably from season to season and therefore are not a doomladen omen for winter/Abingdon or anything.

I long for the day to see you (of anyone on here) get excited by a bitter high latitude block, dessicating ice-days with reverse zonal flow and very southerly tracking snowstorms

Tamara

This was a 1 in 134 year+ event Snowp. I think you are being dreadfully dismissive to analyse it in that way and your understanding of those stats and Philip's analysis would not stand muster.

Read it for yourself:

http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/foru...353&posts=1

I'm sure you will change your mind about the likelihood of your analysis. There are some views of my own below the article.

Any weather watcher would be excited by those kind of conditions you refer to in your last paragraph, however, you and every other weather watcher must realise that the odds on those kind of conditions occurring are far longer today than at any time in the last 347 years, at least!

Edited September 4, 2006 by Dawlish

[WBSH]

It is quite common that CET values can stir up quite a debate, mainly due to the fact that these sort of statistics can be viewed at any angle in any different light. The discussion here is whats more remarkable, the fact that a month with such synopotics (i read that word so many times yet am never sure of the spelling!) associated with below average temps can produce a month with more or less average figures, or the 3.6c drop in CET from July to August. To me that was the biggest shock of the summer, but such a drastic change in temperature between months is all apart of the changing weather and temperature. The fact that we got a average month with "cold" synopotics (sp?) is not a suprise either when this rather feels like a common occurance in the rare event that a month is "average" temperature wise.

WBSH

[The Penguin]

Synoptics - (in meteorology) relating to data obtained simultaneously over a large area of the atmosphere.

[Summer of 95]

Surely we need look back only to February 2005 (2nd most northerly February on record) for an extreme "northerly" month not producing a cold CET.

August 1940 seems to have been a very northerly month (2nd most northerly on Philip's site, presumably now 3rd) yet with CET 15.6 and rain only 15.8mm it wasn't that bad a month- it seems to have been much better than that year's July with low minima the reason for the CET not being higher (clearer skies, dry weather?)

[Stratos Ferric]

I long for the day to see you (of anyone on here) get excited by a bitter high latitude block, dessicating ice-days with reverse zonal flow and very southerly tracking snowstorms

Tamara

Worry not, speaking for myself (don't know who the "others" are meant to be) I am as capable as anyone of getting excited when it looks like happening. What I do appear to have as well, though, is a more guarded approach to reading the long term runes and an ability to be less distracted by some in seeing what I wish to see, rather than what is. Not to put a damper on speculation, just recognition that by and large in the LRFs, for all the presentation of apparently well thought through argument, speculation is all it is. It's rather like attaching an elastic cord to a reachable branch of a very tall and stable tree on a windy day, and somehow making a case for correlating your action in pulling the rope at the bottom to the sway of branch with a bird on it right at the top.

I am not dismissing what Philip Eden has said at all in his analysis, nor am I dismissing what has been a very remarkable summer, as a whole. If you had read any of my comments on the summer threads then you would know this.

However, I don't have to agree with your interpretation of it do I?

Your comments in your post(s) (that is, including your reponses within the link) are a matter of opinion and are not necessarily automatically of the 'right' one which the rest of us 'must' adopt. You may be right of course, you may not be - but we are all free think to think and form opinions independently....and differently.. if we so wish to.

Tamara

Nobody HAS to agree with anything, and in the spirit of scientific advancement the progression of thinking rather depends on the fact that people in fact accept nothing without a logical proof. However, the process of hypothesis and challenge upon the ebb and flow of which thinking advances is no less robust in requiring that "nay sayers" put forward a counter argument that either presents the data in an alternative (but defendable) logic, or else presents alternative data.

You don't have to agree, but in implying that you don't, whilst not put forward any rationale as to why, you might create an impression of emotional entrenchment rather than rational defiance.

[Dawlish]

Synoptics - (in meteorology) relating to data obtained simultaneously over a large area of the atmosphere.

The spelling becomes easier if you think of the greek root and prefix. "Optic", meaning "of the eye" and "syn", meaning "together". Hence "synoptic" which really means a whloe bunch of weather observations, brought together, usually in the form of a synoptic chart. All-together now...syn--optic.....syn--optic....syn--optic. That sounds good. I think I'll lay a reggae riff over it and release it as a download on MySpace. D'ya think it'll sell?

Synoptics are what the charts show and the word refers to, effectively, the general state of the atmosphere over a period of time and in a particular area, say the North Atlantic and Western Europe - usually the synoptic area that is most often referred to on here.

Paul

[Guest Mike W]

I don't know if this has been mentioned already but the Hadley CET for August is 16.1 putting I believe 0.1 below the 71-00 average, and they also have the average summer CET at 17.2 which I believe is the same figure they have for 2003, which would I think put it at joint 4th hottest summer on record with 2003 either that or 5th just behind 2003.

[Dawlish]

Emotional entrenchment (again if it exists) is not based on the fact that one cannot accept, or come to terms with the fact that another ice-age is not around the corner and that it might not ever snow again. Indeed, I have never denied the existence of GW - I just don't subscribe to the 'I know I am right about what will happen in the future, winter as a season is now dead', opinion. At least not yet - and by still some stretch. Such 'accusations' of emotionality rather than rationality (as I have described the nature thereof) do consequently come across as rather patronising and reinforce the impression of arrogance still further.

Tamara

Who has ever expressed the poinion that is contained in your quotation marks snowp? No-one on here that I've seen for sure. B)

Paul

[The PIT]

Well said Snowprincess prepare to be jumped on. B)

[Dawlish]

For snowp and anyone else.

Odds on a winter equal in temp to 1962/63 occurring this coming year: 200/1. Surely worth a punt, if you believe your own rhetoric, snowp. Odds on a cooler than average winter, by the Manley series, 2/1. Again, pretty brilliant odds if anyone sees a pattern change, or is forecasting a cooler winter with teleconnections, or something else. If there was no global warming forcing the process, surely the odds on a colder vs warmer winter would be evens ie 50:50? What a soft bookie!

Taking bets now. Market closes at the end of November.

Paul

Edited September 6, 2006 by Dawlish

[Dawlish]

Hi, I know!

thanks

+ courageous looking smilie!

B)

Tamara

Mr Dawlish

If you read my post you will see that I say I don't expect a 62/63 style winter!

I know snowp. That's why I never said that you did!

Paul

Edited September 6, 2006 by Dawlish

[Paul]

For snowp and anyone else.

Odds on a winter equal in temp to 1962/63 occurring this coming year: 200/1.

Paul

Tightarse!! I'd probably be happy to offer about 2000/1 if I was a bookie!

[TEITS]

However, overall, I think everyones opinion is speculation frankly, and I would rather wait and see what happens for a while and be more open-minded about outcomes - rather than adopt a cut and dried 'I know exactly what will happen' attitude to all this warming debate.

Or perhaps rather more accurately, I would suggest some being far less certain about what will not happen! For me the period of 'proof' is still embryonic. Let me put it this way - as humans, if we are careless enough to kick-start GW then who are we to start being cock-sure about its effects weatherwise,temperature-wise et al?

And August turned out a fair bit cooler than I predicted! B)

Tamara

I couldn't agree anymore with the above SP.

My view is simple anyone who has the "I know exactly what will happen" attitude is either extremely arrogant or extremely stupid IMO.

We have enough trouble prediciting what will occur in a week's time let alone our future climate and nobody has enough knowledge to know how GW will affect our weather patterns. I remember back in the 90's when a series of Atlantic storms caused havoc in the UK, I remember the media going over the top saying how these will become more frequent and severe over forthcoming Autumns/Winters and yet who would of expected such a quiet Atlantic these past 18months!. It is this uncertainity in our climate why come November I get excited at the prospect of winter because yes our winter's are warmer than back in the good old days but it would only be a fool who would totally write off the chances of a cold winter.

[The PIT]

Tightarse!! I'd probably be happy to offer about 2000/1 if I was a bookie!

I ceased betting after my Xmas failure.

[Dawlish]

..beg to d

but the thread should proceed back on topic and also away from the bookies...

unless you run net-weather of course (blush)

Odds and probabilities are an essential part of weather prediction, snowp. They also allow the offerer of the odds to show that they never indulge in certainties. 200/1 against a winter like 1962/63 again, has an awful lot of statistical reasoning behind it.

62/3 was the coldest winter in well over 100 years, but not the coldest winter in the Manley sequence. I'd give that winter a return period of about 100 to 150years - or at least I would have straight after 1962/3.

Since then, the climate of the UK has warmed, so the return period has been extended ie the likelihood (odds) on that severity of winter ever happening again has lengthened. I've offered 200/1, which i think is about right in GW UK, but there's no bookies cut in there.

You can try getting 2000/1 on betfair, Paul, but I doubt if anyone would offer you it because those odds are too high, given actual history. If you wish to offer 2000/1, I'll have an Internet pint on it with you and I'll invite you to the Smugglers to sponsor the next beer festival!

You see, snowp, I doubt that a 62/3 winter will happen in my lifetime, but if I have an edge ie the odds were too high (in my opinion) I'd bet on it happening. That's the thing about odds, they never, ever express certainty - and neither do I. That's why I say that this winter has a 20% (1 in 5) chance of being colder than average. The odds of 2/1 I'm offering (really, have a punt) have a bookies cut!

Odds and probablities can be a part of any weather and climate thread...and, indeed, when talking possibilities for the forecasting, or post-party discussion of a monthly CET, I'd argue they are pretty essential, snowp!

Paul

Edited September 6, 2006 by Dawlish

[Stratos Ferric]

My point/issue is that just because you are not a scientist, a GW fanatical follower and/or do not possess a satellite to back up your reasoning (lol)it does not automatically mean that your layperson opinion is any less valid because it does not spout forth scientific babble or speak in percentages etc etc. Even scientists are still speculators.

Tamara

Tamara,

Reading the rest of post I assume you're asserting that I (and one or two others) are arrogant for supposing to know what will happen. I have to say I resent that inference, first up because I have never seen anyone on here write so categorically (certainly not as a consistent style), second up because if you read my posts the general sense is directional, and this based on the data. I make a cogent argument, and evidence with data, trying to be objective, about likely outcomes. Like Dawlish, I have NEVER said we can never get cold weather again, just that with each passing year, if things carry on as they have been, it becomes less likely.

Re your comments on validity of opinion - yes and no. Scientists do speculate, and invention in theory is no different to invention in substance. However, for a theory to be accepted it ALWAYS has to backed up by logical argument as to why it should be so, and over time, empirical proof that it is so, or might be so.

You may see me as a rabid warmer; I am not - I am probably happier to flex than you ever are or will be. If I argue passionately for an outcome you find disagreeable it is not oin order to be disagreeable, it is because that is the way I see the evidence pointing, and I am always careful to explain that much and to show WHY I think so. People can then pick holes in the argument to their heart's content.

I will give a pat on the back to any poster making a good well reasoned point, and not just (sometimes not even) the ones that seem to align with my own thinking! Yes, you go on to make a case for cooling amidst the warming (none of us has ever suggested that this isn't either possible or likely), but to start spouting things like...

I think that in the coming decadal period, again IMO, with less atlantic activity and +NAO teleconnectic patterns, and more infrequent GIN corridor low pressure sequences there will be some colder winters for the UK with a corresponding pattern of hot summers (and continuing the process of getting ever hotter in line with the consensus opinion).

is hardly proof positive of anything. I'm sorry, but it's only one step removed from some of Daniel's quality postings. You might as well say "if we get lots of easterlies, and we might, then in winter it will be cold over the coming decade". On what basis might we have a less active Atlantic? Where's the case for +ve NAO? Are you retrofitting some sort of cobbled synoptic case to find an outcome you desire, or are you making a reasoned argument for a synoptic pattern and then seeing what outcome that would lead to?

For sure, it's right and proper that all opinions can be posted, that's what equality of opportunity and equality of humanity is about, but as in life writ large, not all opinions have equal merit in a rigorous argument. Merit is earned, not granted automatically.