August CET

[VillagePlank]

I (sort of) position myself between the camps with no real peference for either outcome; although it can be said that I occasionally cold-ramp, I suppose . . .

What SF is saying, ignoring direct references (of course), is that most of the posts here - although I can think of at least 1 person - actually post something which is more of a question than a statement of fact.

I've been around the block more than a few times (if you saw me you'd know) and it's easy to tell whose the rampers and who isn't. Some people cling to absitence of subjectivity which, in my opinion, is entirely a wrong approach. Some people cling to one outcome or another, which, in my opinion, is totally wrong. Some people claim and cling to this 'scientific study' or that one, which, again, in my opinion is wrong - Daniel is certainly one that vomits the same old stuff time and time again; there are warm-rampers that do the same.

It is not enough to claim a study purports an outcome when even the simplest analysis shows that to claim an outcome is likely is, mathematically, logically, philsophically, one of the most idiotic things one can do.

Sorry for the extemeties. I believe that we haven't even, in the meteorlogical community, agreed on the mode of investigation; so how can we claim an argument is right?

The arguments, here and elsewhere, will always fall short of any sort of formal analysis; that is the nature of the philosophy of 'modern meteorology' I'm afraid.

Yes, this is my opinion. No I do not have a study to back me up; I have only reproducible observation. Time and again. Time and time again. Time and time time again. Time and time and time and again. Time and time and time and time and time again . . .

(for the more interested that's analagous to proof by induction)

What would be interesting is to hire a pub for the evening (without internet sources) and see what happens :huh: and I know just the place. . . .

Edited September 6, 2006 by Wilson

[Thundery wintry showers]

I think there is much sense in what Stratos says above (and I say this as someone who generally believes in people being entitled to their views)

One's level of rounded understanding does not generally improve without being open to having one's views challenged and questioned, and being open to new ideas. It's difficult, as we all have our own attachments to ideas, particularly when we have strong views on something, but it gets less difficult when you get used to being open to having views challenged.

At the same time, while there are cases where two or more opinions are equally valid given the evidence, there are others in which there is a right and a wrong. Personal weather type preferences are a good example of the former, while arguments as to whether 2+2 is equal to 4 or 5 are a good example of the latter. I don't think I'd be very popular if I was to constantly post "2+2=5" and answer challenges with "let me have my opinion".

In a discussion, for an opinion to have much merit it generally needs to be backed up by sound independent evidence.

[VillagePlank]

In a discussion, for an opinion to have much merit it generally needs to be backed up by sound independent evidence.

How do you constitute 'evidence' for future modelling?

[Thundery wintry showers]

I don't think it's possible to accurately say exactly what happens in the future- all we can really talk about are probabilities of occurrence.

[VillagePlank]

I don't think it's possible to accurately say exactly what happens in the future- all we can really talk about are probabilities of occurrence.

Ok so, "How do you constitute 'evidence' for future modelling?"

[Thundery wintry showers]

It's not an easy answer- I did some modelling for my MRes project earlier this year!

It's a complex process of collecting results from previous research and taking scientific principles. The problem is how you define sound evidence as we can't be certain that all prior "evidence" is correct- I suspect that it's a case of finding evidence that appears likely to be correct, as there is often no "definitely correct" evidence.

Then you get the problem that the evidence may well suggest different things to different people.

Finding evidence is certainly a tricky thing in topic areas where there is no certainty, though I think some evidence, even if possibly flawed, is better than just stating "A is true because it is true".

[Stratos Ferric]

I (sort of) position myself between the camps with no real peference for either outcome; although it can be said that I occasionally cold-ramp, I suppose . . .

What SF is saying, ignoring direct references (of course), is that most of the posts here - although I can think of at least 1 person - actually post something which is more of a question than a statement of fact.

I've been around the block more than a few times (if you saw me you'd know) and it's easy to tell whose the rampers and who isn't. Some people cling to absitence of subjectivity which, in my opinion, is entirely a wrong approach. Some people cling to one outcome or another, which, in my opinion, is totally wrong. Some people claim and cling to this 'scientific study' or that one, which, again, in my opinion is wrong - Daniel is certainly one that vomits the same old stuff time and time again; there are warm-rampers that do the same.

It is not enough to claim a study purports an outcome when even the simplest analysis shows that to claim an outcome is likely is, mathematically, logically, philsophically, one of the most idiotic things one can do.

Sorry for the extemeties. I believe that we haven't even, in the meteorlogical community, agreed on the mode of investigation; so how can we claim an argument is right?

The arguments, here and elsewhere, will always fall short of any sort of formal analysis; that is the nature of the philosophy of 'modern meteorology' I'm afraid.

Yes, this is my opinion. No I do not have a study to back me up; I have only reproducible observation. Time and again. Time and time again. Time and time time again. Time and time and time and again. Time and time and time and time and time again . . .

(for the more interested that's analagous to proof by induction)

What would be interesting is to hire a pub for the evening (without internet sources) and see what happens and I know just the place. . . .

I'm probably inclined to agree with much of that, although I do think some of the recent retro analysis is becoming more robust. The difficulty is projecting forwards, and here there can be no concrete certainties. The thread over in Environment on "not so warming" is to be welcomed as a deliberate attempt to open up the airwaves to another point of view (even though this assumes a bias on N-W towards warming for warming's sake which, whilst I can understand the "cold" camp's perspective, is not necessarily the fact of it) and whether or not ne agrees with many of the primary and secondary sources cited, they do illuminate the point that the whole system is immensely complex.

Much of our ability to have confidence in forward projections probably rests on the extent to which climate in the next 5-10 years follows that predicted in models cast 5-10 years ago. If, and when, we reach a point at whihc previous predictions are coming good in reality then there will be a case for suggesting that we have started to understand the system. Even so, whose to say, as I think either SS or Brick suggests somewhere today, that there wouldn't be sudden recoil in the system?

There isn't a lot of science in the forward projections, though there's a huge weight of scientific endeavor and method. It's probably akin to the victorians dabbling with potions and electricity to intervene in the management of health, whilst at the same time understanding little of what we know as modern medicine. There is a neatness and reassurance about being able to reason, and prove reason categorically going forwards. Predictive climatology is, I suspect, a way off that degree of certainty yet.

[Dawlish]

There isn't a lot of science in the forward projections, though there's a huge weight of scientific endeavor and method. It's probably akin to the victorians dabbling with potions and electricity to intervene in the management of health, whilst at the same time understanding little of what we know as modern medicine. There is a neatness and reassurance about being able to reason, and prove reason categorically going forwards. Predictive climatology is, I suspect, a way off that degree of certainty yet.

What a super analogy. That's about where I think we are with LRF. it is in its infancy and there are, as yet, nothing that approaches certainty. However, the descendents of the Victorian experimenters may just allow me to live 20/30 years longer than I would have, had I lived while they were dabbling, so I would hope that there is a lot of hope for long range forecasting in the future!

Paul

PS That also explains why I encourage all to never stop pi**ing into the wind. One day it may not come back!

Edited September 6, 2006 by Dawlish

[Mr Sleet]

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

I have to say I am totally with you on this one Steve. If you look at the charts for August there aren't that many true northerly days at all and as you say, importantly, the sources are not very far north at all. IT IS NOT JUST A QUESTION OF THE DIRECTION OF THE WIND BUT THE PATH IT HAS TAKEN AND THE LENGTH OF THE TRACK.

This type of ridiculous bandwagon jumping by those desperate to prove their GW point is one of the reasons I rarely bother to visit this forum nowadays.

Edited September 18, 2006 by Mr Sleet

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

I have to say I am totally with you on this one Steve. If you look at the charts for August there aren't that many true northerly days at all and as you say, importantly, the sources are not very far north at all. IT IS NOT JUST A QUESTION OF THE DIRECTION OF THE WIND BUT THE PATH IT HAS TAKEN AND THE LENGTH OF THE TRACK.

This type of ridiculous bandwagon jumping by those desperate to prove their GW point is one of the reasons I rarely bother to visit this forum nowadays.

I'll go along with Steve's quote too. It absolutely amazes me. Although we haven't had true northerly month put that to one side for the moment. If we had this month in 1938 to mid 40s for example how about it would have been warmer...yes warmer. the arctic was warmer folks, WARMER then than it is now. So any view or proposition re modification of temps compared to 50 years or so ago does not stand up whatsoever if it is an assumption that GW has caused this.

BFTP

[Dawlish]

Nope, sorry boys and girls; I still maintain the August goalposts (and those of all other months) have shifted. The chances of getting a monthly CET well below average in GWUK is much lower than it was 25 years ago and the chances of similar synoptics producing similar CET outcomes are slimmer than they were.

With those August synoptics, that CET was the most exceptional ever. In 134 years, those kind of synoptics have not produced that kind of CET. It is statistically significant and it demands a better explanation than simply saying that the air did not come from a cold enough region.

It just isn't possible to trawl through other Augusts, with similar Northerly and cyclonic signatures and discover the temperatures of the source of those Northerlies. Instead, we must look at outcomes. The above average CET of this last August was hugely significant. It's chances of occurring by chance are 1 in 100, or less.

The test of the hypothesis, that months, with similar synoptics to the past, will produce warmer outcomes in our warmed climate, is being proved to be more and more reasonable with every year that passes. I'll bet that you could find some years with similar synoptics, to say, last November, whose outcomes were warmer, but I'll bet also that you would find many more that were colder.

One individual month means very little, unless that month was as exceptional as August, which is why I commented on it. I usually draw no inferences whatsoever from one month's CET. A much larger dataset is required, but this August was different and Philip's clever analysis led my to my conclusions (I stress, they may well not be his). However, many, many, months does mean something. There's a good postgraduate study waiting for someone with an interest in changing climates and statistics, to get their teeth into this and prove a statistically significant link - that UK months with similar synoptics pre 1985, produced colder weather and lower CETs than comparative months post 1985.

It is too big for me to do and I haven't got access to the data, though I would love to(!) but I'd bet the results would show a strong correlation at the 95% confidence level, at least.

Paul

Edited September 18, 2006 by Dawlish

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

An example I can pluck is Jan 37 and Jan 92...CET at 3.7C each. Look at synoptic charts and I would normally take 37 any day. But temps are the same

BFTP

[Weather-history]

With those August synoptics, that CET was the most exceptional ever. In 134 years, those kind of synoptics have not produced that kind of CET. It is statistically significant and it demands a better explanation than simply saying that the air did not come from a cold enough region.

It just isn't possible to trawl through other Augusts, with similar Northerly and cyclonic signatures and discover the temperatures of the source of those Northerlies. Instead, we must look at outcomes. The above average CET of this last August was hugely significant. It's chances of occurring by chance are 1 in 100, or less.

Paul

I have to ask the question why is it that none of the warmest Septembers are in the top 3 most southerly Septembers, the logic tells you it should be.

The most southerly September according to Philip is 1934 with a CET of 14.6, the next two have CETs of 13.1 and 13.9.

So what are the odds that a very southerly September such as 1903 have a CET of just 13.1C?

Look at the most southerly August in Philip's list, it is August 1950 and it had a CET of 15.6

So why did the most southerly August only have a CET of 15.6?

Its never clear cut these things.

Edited September 20, 2006 by Mr_Data

[summer blizzard]

I suspect that most southerly Augusts were cyclonic leading to repetative breakdowns and that most anticyclonic Augusts had more of an easterly element.