October CET

[ukmoose]

As for Bonfire Night, ther is no way we can tell what it will be like as yet, a slight shifting of that Euro Block (which WILL happen at some point) alongside an incursion from the north would make it colder, thats not a NIL chance, nothing is a NIL chance within the realms of possible weathers at this range.

My prediction, SM is based on past seasons and previous stats. I am willing to stick my neck out and say that recent autumns (last year from mid November onwards bucked the trend admitedly) suggest that it will still be considrably warmer than the long term average up to and beyond 5th November. I agree, we can't see that far ahead - I'm looking backwards to make my predictions. It wiil be warm.

:lol: Moose

[Snowly does it]

My prediction, SM is based on past seasons and previous stats. I am willing to stick my neck out and say that recent autumns (last year from mid November onwards bucked the trend admitedly) suggest that it will still be considrably warmer than the long term average up to and beyond 5th November. I agree, we can't see that far ahead - I'm looking backwards to make my predictions. It wiil be warm.

:lol: Moose

OK Moose, fair enough. At this stage I will sit firmly on the fence. We'll compare notes as the firworks start to fizzle out

[West is Best]

Just to say that although Philip hasn't updated his front page, his CET is now 13.5C. You can see this on the graphs page http://www.climate-uk.com/graphs/0610.htm

We really do look to be heading for another thumping warm month at the moment. And as has been said by everyone, it's the nightime minima in particular that are really high. The maxima are too, but the minima are another 1C comparably above that.

[Weather-history]

Just to say that although Philip hasn't updated his front page, his CET is now 13.5C.

13.35C , Richard

(16.6+10.1)/2 =13.35 :lol:

[Gray-Wolf]

My prediction, SM is based on past seasons and previous stats. I am willing to stick my neck out and say that recent autumns (last year from mid November onwards bucked the trend admitedly) suggest that it will still be considrably warmer than the long term average up to and beyond 5th November. I agree, we can't see that far ahead - I'm looking backwards to make my predictions. It wiil be warm.

:lol: Moose

And what if last winter turns out to be the noughties vesion of '63 ?

Again the folk whose posts I read and digest are looking forward to a pattern shift to a colder setup but what if we just plod on with more of the same and a strengthening El-Nino 'locks' the jet south of us for the duration?

I was having a larf with my prediction for the months CET but now I'm starting to wonder how far out I will be, maybe only points of a degree which I find worrying. I hope that someone out there can explain why I shouldn't be concerned.

[VillagePlank]

And this graph is fairly remarkable ...

Ooh I don't think so. It's all over the place:

(i) The periods are not consistent

(ii) The colours have been chosen to support an unstated claim (more recent = more warm, less recent = less warm)

Also note that a peripheral glance makes it appear as if it was significantly cooler in the past for exended periods of time; in fact only one twenty year period in the ranking has a frequency count of more than 3 (1940-1960)

If you count the frequency of an appearance in this ranking table, and divide by the period length (to get the mean) then a more substantiated chart (where all divisions have been divided by 20) looks like this:

However, if you divide by the amount of years in the period, so, in this case divide the 2000+ period by 6, rather than 20 you'll get a graph that looks like this:

The first one, in my opinion, strongly supports a warming; with, at the very least, some sort of step change in base climate. The second one is clear for all to see; the effective (but unadjusted) frequency of 'record breaking' warmer summers is obvious.

With respect to (ii) it's just a cheap trick. Show someone who hasn't seen the graph in black and white, and then show someone else the colour chart. I've done a quick canvas around the office and the results, and although not statistical significant, I think the response you'll find is at the very least illuminating.

What we don't need is substandard rubbish from respected authorities; I'm mildly surprised others on here haven't yet picked up what an appalling piece of work the MetO graph is.

Edited October 18, 2006 by Wilson

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

With respect to (i) note that over the last century most periods are for 20 years, except for the most recent which has been extended to include 26 years which enables another 'red' band. Naughty, naughty.

Actually, its 16 years. 26 years would be 2016 :lol:

[VillagePlank]

Actually, its 16 years. 26 years would be 2016

Whoops, well spotted. I must learn to count one day . . . . :lol:

The graphs I produced are of 20 year periods with the exception of the most recent. I've edited that criticism out.

Edited October 18, 2006 by Wilson

[snow_1_important]

Hi Everbody

From a novice point of view, didn't all those high values in that graph has expectional Cold Winters?

[Nick H]

Hi Everbody

From a novice point of view, didn't all those high values in that graph has expectional Cold Winters?

As usual, no. Of the 10 warmest extended summers on record, 4 (1868, 1911, 1947 and 2003) preceded mild winters, 4 (1933, 1959, 1976 and 1995) preceded average or near-average winters, and just 2 (1826 and 1846) preceded cold winters.

Edited October 18, 2006 by Nick H

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Hi Everbody

From a novice point of view, didn't all those high values in that graph has expectional Cold Winters?

Interesting thought S1I.

For this, i've used the Net-Wx 71-00 CET, where D-F average is 4.50oC.

I've decided to put the values for the figures into choronoligical order, rather than the order on the graph:

Figures are Year (eg 1977, is Decemeber77, Jan78 and Feb78), Actual CET for winter period, Deviation from 71-00 CET:

2003 - 5.13 (+0.63)

1995 - 3.03 (-1.47)

1989 - 6.23 (+1.73)

1976 - 3.33 (-1.17)

1959 - 4.63 (+0.13)

1949 - 5.10 (+0.60)

1947 - 5.07 (+0.57)

1933 - 3.17 (-1.33)

1911 - 5.07 (+0.57)

1868 - 6.77 (+2.27)

1846 - 1.70 (-2.80)

1826 - 2.73 (-1.77)

1808 - 3.30 (-1.20)

1781 - 4.17 (-0.33)

1780 - 3.37 (-1.13)

1779 - 1.43 (-3.07)

1762 - 2.57 (-1.93)

1747 - 3.20 (-1.30)

1727 - 3.20 (-1.40)

So, initially looking, theres really no firm correlation.

It can be seen that the first positive anomoly was in 1868, and afterwards, these positives became more frequent.

If you take the top 10 years (as on the graph), 5 years had negative anomolies, 5 years had positive.

In total, out of the 19 years above, 12 had negative anomolies.

So, in reality, theres not enough agreement as to what this means for 2006 winter.

You could say that there is a greater chance of it being a winter of a negative anomoly (based on the total 19 years values).

You could also say that there is an even chance of it being a negative anomoly (based upon the top 10 years from the graph).

You could also say that, following the years from the oldest, to the latest, there is an increasing chance of this winter being a positive anomoly.

All in all, something for everyone :lol: But no firm patterns i'm afraid.

[snow_1_important]

Cheers Chris for your thoughts

Only me

[West is Best]

13.35C , Richard

(16.6+10.1)/2 =13.35

Ooooops!

What we don't need is substandard rubbish from respected authorities; I'm mildly surprised others on here haven't yet picked up what an appalling piece of work the MetO graph is.

Count to ten.

The research that went into this from Professor David Karoly of the University of Oklahoma and Dr Peter Stott of the Met Office Hadley Centre was second to none, and you demean no-one but yourself with your rubbishing of the Met Office. Obviously the graph does not stand alone without the research. I had previously put the link to the news release. The Hadley Centre are pioneering some of the finest academic research in the world on this topic, and they have some extremely high calibre people working on it, far far above and beyond the likes of you or I Wilson.

[VillagePlank]

Ooooops!

Count to ten.

The research that went into this from Professor David Karoly of the University of Oklahoma and Dr Peter Stott of the Met Office Hadley Centre was second to none, and you demean no-one but yourself with your rubbishing of the Met Office. Obviously the graph does not stand alone without the research. I had previously put the link to the news release. The Hadley Centre are pioneering some of the finest academic research in the world on this topic, and they have some extremely high calibre people working on it, far far above and beyond the likes of you or I Wilson.

Oh deary me . . . .

Once again WiB, you 'appear' to be jumping feet first after only a cursory glance of my post. You've done this before, when you blurt out nonsense about me being a fringe sceptic; of which I do not belong to a fringe, and all scientific reasoning is sceptical so I don't quite understand why you use the term as a deprecation.

Just to summarise - so you don't have to read the post properly - I haven't stated the research was bad. I haven't criticised the method. I have criticised the presentation of the graph. I'll say it one more time: I have criticised the presentation of the data. In fact, if I thought the data was so bad, and the method was of such poor quality, then why do you think I've used their data to produce my own graphs that further support their conclusions? In fact my graphs do so more emphatically.

Furthermore I have already stated that the MetOf are a respected authority Doesn't sound to me like I was rubbishing the MetO, huh? Perhaps just their visual output in this instance?

I don't understand quite why you replied in this manner. Perhaps you misread my tone, didn't read my post at all, or the most likely conclusion, you were bored just before you went to bed last night?

Edited October 19, 2006 by Wilson

[The PIT]

Well with the mild/warm weather continuing my CET guess of 12.5C is looking definatley on the low side. I wonder if November will go the same way???

[West is Best]

Wilson, your language 'cheap trick', 'susbtandard work', 'appalling piece of work' was intemperate and ill-advised. If you were so concerned to distance the graph from the research behind it you should have made that a lot clearer than the diatribe, which came across as a direct attack on the Hadley Centre research unit. The graph they published was linked to the research, yet you isolated it and then parodied it. That's not very bright, but more importantly it's terribly disingenuous to some of the world's leading climate scientists, though fortunately I doubt they'd pay as much attention to posts from someone like you as I have.

p.s. "It's only 9 o'clock in the morning"

p.p.s. Philip's CET reading continues to hold firm at 13.35C rounded down to 13.3C http://www.climate-uk.com/graphs/0610.htm.

Edited October 19, 2006 by West is Best

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

p.p.s. Philip's CET reading continues to hold firm at 13.35C rounded down to 13.3C http://www.climate-uk.com/graphs/0610.htm.

Thanks for that Graph link Richard. Certainly some warmish days, but the nights... You can see why the CET is so high October.

Its strange though. Why would night mins be so high, yet day maxes arent too excessive. Cloud of course is an issue, but surely not by this much (and of course, we've had cold cloudy autumns...surely?).

[West is Best]

Thanks for that Graph link Richard. Certainly some warmish days, but the nights... You can see why the CET is so high October.

Its strange though. Why would night mins be so high, yet day maxes arent too excessive. Cloud of course is an issue, but surely not by this much (and of course, we've had cold cloudy autumns...surely?).

Good morning Chris, I think you've asked one of the questions of the moment. It's been a repeated pattern for some time, but I just don't know why. It seems to be vexing others who are much more knowledgeable than me too. Maybe a thread in its own right?! I'll give it a go!

Richard

[VillagePlank]

Wilson, your language 'cheap trick', 'susbtandard work', 'appalling piece of work' was intemperate and ill-advised.

Why? Do you therefore agree with their presentation of the data to hand?

Do you agree with their use of colours? Do you agree with their rather unusual use of inconsistent periods?

Let's ignore the insulting repostes, and less concentrate on the graph, eh?

I fully accept, btw, your assertion that the research underlying the graph is good. I've never said anything different. If you believe that my analysis of the presentation is flawed in some manner, then please let me know; being incorrect always leads to a better understanding of the problem at hand.

Edited October 19, 2006 by Wilson

[West is Best]

Why? Do you therefore agree with their presentation of the data to hand?

I think all graphic representations of detailed research are open to lampooning. It's the same in all spheres. If you isolate a chart from almost any research presentation it's not hard to parody it. Statistics are easy enough to manipulate as it is, put them in graphic form and you can play any game you like. If I over-reacted in their defence then I apologise. What irked me was the strong inference I detected to take this into an assault on the research behind it, which I happen to know was extremely rigorous. They really do have some top scientists working with, and for, them. Time we moved on?!

Edited October 19, 2006 by West is Best

[VillagePlank]

. . .really do have some top scientists working with, and for, them. Time we moved on?!

I agree.

For my part I was only criticising the presentation of the data which, in my opinion (which I probably should have kept to myself), is not up to the normal par for the output I would expect from such world-class instituions.

Edited October 19, 2006 by Wilson

[su rui ke]

I'm going for a seemingly absurd 13.4C. The October record to fall!

And at the moment it looks like we might continue floating around 13.3/13.4 until at least the 25th!

[Weather-history]

That August is looking even more peculiar sandwiched between two well above average months either side.

We are talking about how exceptional the present warm spell is but that August is turning even more exceptional under these current circumstances.

[Weather-history]

That August is looking even more peculiar sandwiched between two well above average months either side.

We are talking about how exceptional the present warm spell is but that August is turning even more exceptional under these current circumstances.

Whats even more remarkable is that we just had the warmest May-September period on record but unbelievably August never recorded a 30C anywhere, the first time since 1993. Even Augusts of 1998 and 1999 recorded at least one 30C. Its remarkable that the warmest May-Sept period on record should include an August with no 30C.

[Stratos Ferric]

There is the quite staggering possibility that my own projection for the month may yet turn out to be too LOW! The odds on a yearly outcome higher than last year are now shortening considerably, and anything significantly lower can be ruled out almost absolutely.