December CET

[Snowly does it]

I doubt the fall has bottomed out yet, should continue to fall slowly until Weds or Thurs. Fri/Sat/Sun look like risers. 8.7 needed including today to reach 7, unlikely as mins aside from one night do not look like the mins of earlier in the month (CET wide that is).

If 6.5 just holds until Thursday the last 3 days would need to record an improbable 11.7 to top 7

[Roger J Smith]

Mike at 8.5, you're not even in the race I think, late entry and all, but I'm at 8.3 and I need the mother of all Bartletts, a 50 mph SSW wind and an extension of December to 3 January to get back into this race. My only chance now is a miracle warming and a final more than halfway from 7.2 to 8.3 because I don't think anyone is in that range. So let's see, 7.76 for the plucky Canadian kid,

don't like my chances

that three day cold spell derailed my train, but if we were taking median and not mean, then hey, gold medal for sure.

[Snowly does it]

Mike, it would require 15.35 every day including today until the end of December to hit 8.5 for the month, so average June temperatures.

8 would require 13.14 or record nearing October temperatures.

7.5 would require 10.92 or record breaking November temperatures

7 requires what I put above and is fairly unlikely but possible if temps really fly in the SWerlies

You won't be anywhere near, but you'll be closer than my guess. (as a guide, if the 4 days including today average 7, and thats unlikely, then the remaining 3 days would need to average 11 which is just about possible if the minima do not drop as suggested by GFS)

[Guest Mike W]

I'm not a late entry BTW, I put my prediction in by late November, if you have a look, it was certainly early on, not far from the start of this thread. Can't think how it was missed.

[Snowly does it]

minimal drop on Phillips site last night to 6.45 (rounded up to 6.5)

CET of over 9 now required to hit 7 for the month. Unlikely except on the 30th and 31st by which time it will be too late. 6.6 looks good from here.

[West is Best]

minimal drop on Phillips site last night to 6.45 (rounded up to 6.5)

CET of over 9 now required to hit 7 for the month. Unlikely except on the 30th and 31st by which time it will be too late. 6.6 looks good from here.

Greetings Snowmaiden.

I think 6.6C will be too low personally, but as ever we shall see! Should be there or there abouts, but I reckon between 6.4C and 7C is likeliest, with 6.8C still my favourite!

It'll be interesting to see if Hadley is again a little above Philip. During inversion last month Hadley proved a decimal place or two higher.

[Snowly does it]

Greetings Snowmaiden.

I think 6.6C will be too low personally, but as ever we shall see! Should be there or there abouts, but I reckon between 6.4C and 7C is likeliest, with 6.8C still my favourite!

It'll be interesting to see if Hadley is again a little above Philip. During inversion last month Hadley proved a decimal place or two higher.

Greetings Richard

Hadley was 0.1 below Phillip just before the current spell of HP, do't know what the inversion will have done...

Should hold steady today and drop tomorrow (with tonights lower temps in tomorrows figure) then its going to rise for 3 days, but by how much?

[summer blizzard]

To me, something around 6.2C looks likely, hopefully 6.1C or less so that i can claim a successfull forecast based on my 0.5C threshhold.

[The PIT]

Show how used we are to warm stuff. CET is 1.5C above normal and we think it's good that it's getting down to 6.6C. Considering the cool/cold spell it's still damn remarkably high.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Well, my mean temp so far is 4.4º. No complaints from me. In fact, it's been a cold Christmas with the past three days giving a mean temp of -0.8º.

[Snowly does it]

Show how used we are to warm stuff. CET is 1.5C above normal and we think it's good that it's getting down to 6.6C. Considering the cool/cold spell it's still damn remarkably high.

I don't think its 'good', its what it is.

Its also not high at all compared to where we were at mid-month, its a remarkable drop, but an above average month.

We should perhaps remember that December has not seen the sort of rises the other months have under GW previously and as such, the result is less impressive. Had December risen the 0.75 degrees or so that the other months have on average in the recent past an outturn of 6.5 would be a slightly above result, nothing that impressive considering the amazingly mild start.

Time to drop expectations and appraise months on where we are, not where we were.

[West is Best]

I can't agree with that Snowmaiden. 1.5C above average (if that's what it is) as a proportion of a mean of 5.1C is significantly above average. It is close to being the warmest December for nearly 20 years, in the top 10% of warmest Decembers on record, and I can't see any point attempting to pretend anything else than that it will turn out to have been a well above average month. It was always nothing more than a statistical quirk that December hadn't until now shown the sort of rises under GW that other months have. Now that little anomaly has come to an end.

[Snowly does it]

I can't agree with that Snowmaiden. 1.5C above average (if that's what it is) as a proportion of a mean of 5.1C is significantly above average. It is close to being the warmest December for nearly 20 years, in the top 10% of warmest Decembers on record, and I can't see any point attempting to pretend anything else than that it will turn out to have been a well above average month. It was always nothing more than a statistical quirk that December hadn't until now shown the sort of rises under GW that other months have. Now that little anomaly has come to an end.

No, I disagree Richard. It WILL be an above average month, but what average? It seems incongruous on the one hand to state categorically that the world and the UK has warmed and then gasp in surprise when a month comes in a degree and a half above the out of date average. Its maybe 0.5 degrees above what one would expect on average under GW.

You point out that December had not previously seen the rises of other months - I posted a thread on Xmas Eve showing that, it is precisely the same over the last 10 years as the last 30, that was always going to change as things warmed.

Warmer than the 71-00 months are now to be expected, therefore surprising results are anything that falls below the 71-00 and anything that exceeds it by about 2 degrees or more, we should be looking at 1 degree above 71-00 as the expectation.

Not that that will alter my hopecasting in CET threads one iota.

[The PIT]

I can't agree with that Snowmaiden. 1.5C above average (if that's what it is) as a proportion of a mean of 5.1C is significantly above average. It is close to being the warmest December for nearly 20 years, in the top 10% of warmest Decembers on record, and I can't see any point attempting to pretend anything else than that it will turn out to have been a well above average month. It was always nothing more than a statistical quirk that December hadn't until now shown the sort of rises under GW that other months have. Now that little anomaly has come to an end.

Thanks West when someone talks twaddle at least you call it.

Okay we're not in the CET zone but even if we look at the averages for Sheffield it's signifi8cant.

http://www.sheffieldweather.co.uk/MONTHLYAIRAVERAGE.htm

We're at 6.4C at the moment put that on the grapth it's big spike. Okay theres been bigger but considering the year as a whole you can't dismiss this month being unimportant.

Snbowmaiden maybe watching Blades V Man City and having the first couple of drinks of the festive period have dulled my senses but I don't see you're point.

Edited December 26, 2006 by The PIT

[Snowly does it]

Thanks West when someone talks twaddle at least you call it.

Okay we're not in the CET zone but even if we look at the averages for Sheffield it's signifi8cant.

http://www.sheffieldweather.co.uk/MONTHLYAIRAVERAGE.htm

We're at 6.4C at the moment put that on the grapth it's big spike. Okay theres been bigger but considering the year as a whole you can't dismiss this month being unimportant.

Snbowmaiden maybe watching Blades V Man City and having the first couple of drinks of the festive period have dulled my senses but I don't see you're point.

Of course it isn't unimportant, the fact we are frying the planet and doing nothing about it other than watching films by Al Gore and tutting, the voting in the same spineless idiots is important. However, above average months of a degree and a half are hardly mind blowing in the reality of GW are they?

Edited December 26, 2006 by snowmaiden

[West is Best]

I posted a thread on Xmas Eve showing that, it is precisely the same over the last 10 years as the last 30

I saw that thread and chose not to respond. The idea of abitrarily chosing a new 10 year baseline seemed to me at the time, and still does, as bizarre and esoteric. We have a standard 30 year mean in metereology which was recently updated from the 1961-1990 to the 1971-2000 mean (a warmer mean as it happens). That seems quite adequate to use as a base, though one can of course also make additional comments about the relationship of a month/season/year to other periods - including 10 years if you like. I don't think appearing to move the goalposts (which is what is comes across as) does anyone any favours.

Otherwise I think if December does turn out 1.5C above average (it may not) it is pointless trying to make out that it isn't well above average.

[Roger J Smith]

Good point about the 30-yr means, the next thing will be an assumed theoretical mean for 2011-2040 generated by somebody's computer program and no doubt around 9.0 for December.

Looks to me as though the final result will be back into the low 7s as the last three days will probably average close to 10 C.

[Snowly does it]

I saw that thread and chose not to respond. The idea of abitrarily chosing a new 10 year baseline seemed to me at the time, and still does, as bizarre and esoteric. We have a standard 30 year mean in metereology which was recently updated from the 1961-1990 to the 1971-2000 mean (a warmer mean as it happens). That seems quite adequate to use as a base, though one can of course also make additional comments about the relationship of a month/season/year to other periods - including 10 years if you like. I don't think appearing to move the goalposts (which is what is comes across as) does anyone any favours.

Otherwise I think if December does turn out 1.5C above average (it may not) it is pointless trying to make out that it isn't well above average.

It isn't trying to move the goalposts by any means Richard, I am not trying to mask anything being above the averages from 71-00, the fact this is the warmest year on record clearly is a fact, I am trying to look at what we can reasonably expect in a warmer UK. Unless of course you think we should all sit in dreamland and pretend we are not warming which I know you do not.

Oh well, it was called twaddle by Pit so twaddle it is, I'll shut up.

Roger, if the last 3 days average 10, then the CET needs to be about 6.7 by the 28th for 7 to be reached. Not commenting either way there (except to say I don't think it will be). High 6s possible.

P.S. Roger, you won't be getting any theoretical means from me, I deal in facts, just not apparantly facts that other people want to deal in, my loss I guess.

Edited December 27, 2006 by snowmaiden

[Iceberg]

Just to stick up for snowmaiden a bit.

I think the point she's trying to make is that very warm months almost seem to be the norm now.

A month with a +1.5 CET in 96 or 84-88 would have been exceptional.

However Decembers warm anom is not really on a par with July or Novembers of this year, the fact that's it's the warmest for 10 years etc, is a statisical quirk and not really surprising.

I know it's not the yearly CET thread but nearly record warmth is now the norm so an exceptional or surprising CET would have to be outside of this new norm.

Nobody has ever said that it's not an above average CET, but surprising ? or exceptional ? I think not and people's expectations for Jan would seem to back this up.

1997 10.52

1998 10.24

1999 10.63

2000 10.29

2001 9.94

2002 10.64

2003 10.53

2004 10.53

2005 10.48

2006 10.76

Matt

Edited December 27, 2006 by Iceberg

[Snowly does it]

Just to stick up for snowmaiden a bit.

I think the point she's trying to make is that very warm months almost seem to be the norm now.

A month with a +1.5 CET in 96 or 84-88 would have been exceptional.

However Decembers warm anom is not really on a par with July or Novembers of this year, the fact that's it's the warmest for 10 years etc, is a statisical quirk and not really surprising.

I know it's not the yearly CET thread but nearly record warmth is now the norm so an exceptional or surprising CET would have to be outside of this new norm.

Nobody has ever said that it's not an above average CET, but surprising ? or exceptional ? I think not and people's expectations for Jan would seem to back this up.

Yes, thats what I meant, thank you. To clairfy, it is an above average month and above even that which I would expect under these changed times. Perhaps however this is precisely what we should be anticipating. I am going for 6.2 for Jan. I wouldn't bat an eyelid if it is, but thats exceptional warmth.

[Stratos Ferric]

It isn't trying to move the goalposts by any means Richard, I am not trying to mask anything being above the averages from 71-00, the fact this is the warmest year on record clearly is a fact, I am trying to look at what we can reasonably expect in a warmer UK. Unless of course you think we should all sit in dreamland and pretend we are not warming which I know you do not.

Oh well, it was called twaddle by Pit so twaddle it is, I'll shut up.

Roger, if the last 3 days average 10, then the CET needs to be about 6.7 by the 28th for 7 to be reached. Not commenting either way there (except to say I don't think it will be). High 6s possible.

P.S. Roger, you won't be getting any theoretical means from me, I deal in facts, just not apparantly facts that other people want to deal in, my loss I guess.

I do have to stick up for you here SM, though WiB / PIT make valid points - albeit ones I'd caveat just now.

Your suggestion of changing the baseline for reference makes sense, but only depending on WHAT the baseline is for - hence WiB / PIT make the reasonable observation that we already have a standard climatic reference period of 30 years, reviewed every ten. Personally I'd roll it annually, but a moving baseline whilst more current, simply confuses in the wrong hands.

The problem with the 30 year mean, whilst statistically robust, is that in a climate that changes with directional consistency the mean is ALWAYS out of date. In this situation a shorter average is more useful. As an aside chartists in the city use 10 day, 30 day, 90 day, and maybe 365 day running means for share prices: the relative movement and position of each series is taken as an indication of the overall strength of the share price and informs buy/sell decisions.

So, for the purposes of trying to decide what to expect here and now, using the ten year running mean is a better indicator - and even for the purposes of assessing just how warm a month is in it's IMMEDIATE context, it is better than the 30 year mean. That said, the 30 year mean provides THE accepted standard; that it is already well out of date provides one big advantage that the shorter period does not: it shows how markedly things are changing.

[Iceberg]

A good example would be life expectance.

If you take the 30 year average life expectance for someone living in India it might 55, however it certainly wouldn't be expectional for someone to live to 70 as this is now only slightly above the norm of 65.

The same could be said for Russia but in reverse where the 30 year average is 60 but the norm now is around 50. So somebody dying at 48 is again far from exceptional.

The yearly CET's show that we will have the warmest year on record, which sounds hugely significant but looking at the last 10 years it's only following the normal trend.

I agree SF with pretty much everthing you've said.

Words like exceptional, important etc are all very subjective.

[Snowly does it]

I do have to stick up for you here SM, though WiB / PIT make valid points - albeit ones I'd caveat just now.

Your suggestion of changing the baseline for reference makes sense, but only depending on WHAT the baseline is for - hence WiB / PIT make the reasonable observation that we already have a standard climatic reference period of 30 years, reviewed every ten. Personally I'd roll it annually, but a moving baseline whilst more current, simply confuses in the wrong hands.

The problem with the 30 year mean, whilst statistically robust, is that in a climate that changes with directional consistency the mean is ALWAYS out of date. In this situation a shorter average is more useful. As an aside chartists in the city use 10 day, 30 day, 90 day, and maybe 365 day running means for share prices: the relative movement and position of each series is taken as an indication of the overall strength of the share price and informs buy/sell decisions.

So, for the purposes of trying to decide what to expect here and now, using the ten year running mean is a better indicator - and even for the purposes of assessing just how warm a month is in it's IMMEDIATE context, it is better than the 30 year mean. That said, the 30 year mean provides THE accepted standard; that it is already well out of date provides one big advantage that the shorter period does not: it shows how markedly things are changing.

Yes, agreed. Santa left me presents but removed my ability to present a cogent argument.

It was your 'climate lurch' thread that got me thinking, I wondered if (as an aside only to the accepted mean) a recent history would provide a better view of any 'lurch'. Hence this December, whilst being very much an above average month, might not be exactly within the range one might reasonably expect in 2006. I think in hindsight it will be above even that figure making it another exceptional month (especially given its previous steadfast refusal to join the upward throng).

[Stratos Ferric]

Yes, agreed. Santa left me presents but removed my ability to present a cogent argument.

It was your 'climate lurch' thread that got me thinking, I wondered if (as an aside only to the accepted mean) a recent history would provide a better view of any 'lurch'. Hence this December, whilst being very much an above average month, might not be exactly within the range one might reasonably expect in 2006. I think in hindsight it will be above even that figure making it another exceptional month (especially given its previous steadfast refusal to join the upward throng).

I have actually run some analysis recently (can't remember whether I mentioned it in any of my "armageddon" threads) which allows me to compare any month against the current running mean for a given interval. As iceberg suggests, it gives a rather different slant oin the use of "excpetional", though, in truth, the use of superlatives ought always to be caveated. Anyway, on that basis, and comparing each month's anomaly with the rolling average for the ten years prior, July this year for example only comes in third in the list of hottest Julys: 1983 tops the list: September drops from 1st absolute to 16th relative (1795 heads the "relative" list, ranking 5th in absolute terms).

[West is Best]

That said, the 30 year mean provides THE accepted standard; that it is already well out of date provides one big advantage that the shorter period does not: it shows how markedly things are changing.

Which is in my opinion the reason beyond everything why it should not be changed. The suspicion, and it's a large one, is that the only people whom it suits to change to a shorter baseline are those who would use it to justify a slow down in AGW in what will never be a linear progression. A month 'out of kilter' here or there, and you would see the sceptics swoop. We've already had to endure this sort of thing from people who, for example, claimed that GW peaked in 1999 because that was the warmest year. It was difficult to refute this, until this year. The non-linearity, and behind it, the built-in longevity of what we are dealing with, renders a short baseline meaningless. We're talking about temperature changes ranging back 350 years, not the daily fluctuations of stocks and shares! It's typical of the faddishness of this age to want to shorten these things (old man grumble over there!). And for that very simple, but absolutely crucial, reason it cannot be altered. In fact, I'd rather reference to the whole CET or the 100 year average. Then we have a true base line by which to judge the problem we're in. By all means then add little additional footnotes referencing to recent years: but beware! It is not linear. And this is why a long baseline is in my opinion absolutely vital.

At the moment I think Philip's CET will finish between 6.6 and 6.8, with 6.7 my favourite. I'm basing this on the likelihood of it being at 6.3C by tonight, after which it will be a sharp rise for the remaining 4 days. Hopefully Hadley will be a decimal place higher than this thanks to the inversion!

Edited December 27, 2006 by West is Best