April CET

[Calrissian]

Truly awesome summary SF.

I especially like...

'3 - The rolling twelve month CET would be 11.68C: yet another all time high and a WHOPPING 1.6C above the point it was at 12 months ago.'

---

It makes my initial 'crazy' yearly CET prediction look almost plausible.

-

As for April, it is astounding to see almost a straight line 9 > 12c CET look likely for April. As I said early on in the month, 11 is a given, now, the majority are moving to say 11.5 is likely, the 'brave' are now gunning for the big 12.0c.

Calrissian: One of the brave.

[Snowly does it]

SF

Your upper projection requires 15.8 or so per day from here (using Manley ans the 10.3 rounded down to the 21st at which it stands)

Your lower projection requires 14.2 per day

That we are even contemplating this for the last 3rd of April is frightening.

[Matty M]

A long time since i posted last because i've been trying to devote my time to study etc.

Just looking at some of the charts over the last few days, they have not surprised me at all.

But i do feel that come the close of 2007, we as European and as members of the world are going to have to have a long hard look at ourselves and start ensuring solutions are made. This is a climate crisis and this is the year that it's really going to hit home.

I just wonder what is going to happen come the hurricane season.. could be some vicious storms around these parts come August.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Ironically, while global temperatures are continuing at near-record levels, the January-March global mean, for both the NH and globally, is not record-breaking. Nor is the warmth for the past 12 months.

So, while this current run of warmth in Britain is truly exceptional- and also similar to what some other parts of the NH are experiencing- globally there does not appear to have been a similar step-change. Something has to give; either the run of exceptional warmth around Britain/NW Europe stops, the globe starts setting record highs on a regular basis (as opposed to the one-off that was January 2007) or NW Europe moves to a climate regime that is much warmer, relative to long-term reference periods, than the global and indeed NH average.

The third suggestion is not beyond the realms of possibility; NW Europe certainly warmed faster than the global and NH average since around 1989, before stalling a little in the early 2000s.

Whatever, the run of warmth in Britain is shocking and, even given that global temps are not record-breaking at present, cannot be put down to anomalous synoptics alone.

[Roger J Smith]

Well, I think this is a very interesting discussion, and I wouldn't call this recent run of warmth a blip by any means.

Where I do perhaps disagree with some, is that this warm run of months is crushing proof of human interference in weather and climate.

The main reason I could cite for that skepticism, besides many knocks to the head in earlier life, would be 1921. Now what the hell does 1921 have to do with all this?

If you were running Netweather in some part of the Great Lakes region in that time frame, the same astonishment would be rampant as the period 1916 to 1921 brought unprecedented warm weather records, culminating in a year (1921) which resembles the past 12 months quite closely, except in this case it fell neatly into a calendar year. Almost every month from about September 1920 to October 1921 went well into the top ten (granted there were only 80 years of record at the Toronto site but I am aware of earlier data from nearby locations and it seems that you could probably say 150 years) -- July and September broke existing records and the year was quite a bit warmer as a whole than any previous year.

Nobody has ever advanced a human-related theory for this period of warmth -- July 1916 and August 1918 were also very hot months, and the whole summer of 1919 was well above normal too.

But perhaps the most important part of this analogy, which seems fairly strong in numerical terms, was how cold it turned shortly after this long run of warmth. The year 1922 was probably near normal most of the time and still had some warmer readings at times, but then 1923-26 was noted as a very cool period in general. The end of March 1923 set some very low daily records that were many degrees below earlier values set in the generally cold 19th century. October 1925 was the coldest on record also. And the whole of 1924 and 1926 were generally chilly throughout.

What that tells me, perhaps as a skeptic not wishing to see the "proof" of AGW, is that natural variability can produce such anomalies as you are now seeing, and can also reverse them rather quickly. Most examples that I can think of seem to require about a year of near normal transition, so I don't think this warm spell will end very quickly. Also it seems counter-intuitive for it to end in early summer. A winter season usually does the business better. I hope for some of you that it might be the winter of 2008-09 because as I say 07-08 might be a bigger ask than nature can handle. But I am going up against the conventional wisdom of 100,000 of the world's leading scientists here, so caveat emptor, cold rampers.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Unlike temperature of the land, sea temperature does has little diurnal variation - it's the same temp in daytime and at night. Sea temperature changes relatively slowly over weeks and months. Right now the North Sea is at a relatively high temperature. SSTs around Britain have been above average all winter. They are 1.5-2.5C above average now.

It cannot be a surprise therefore that the waters around this Island are moderating air sources on the warm side of the historical average. That, in addition to air mass being from southerly/westerly directions, makes high temperatures not much of a surprise in this region. But if you've already given up trying to explain the world in a rational way Occam's butterknife will surely make even the most simple cause-effect processes appear a Big Mystery.

Edited April 22, 2007 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[North-Easterly Blast]

Stratos Ferric;

August 2006 was not exceptional? It was only close to average in terms of the CET at 16.1*C.

You forgot to say that November and December 2006 were not exceptionally warm overall either at 1.2 and 1.4 above average respectively.

Yes, now the record April CET will almost certainly be 11*C+ by the end of the month. 15.8 for the final eight days is pushing it I think. I would make a guess and say somewhere around the 11.2 mark is the likely final April CET. Which now makes it that five of the last twelve months have been exceptionally above average (2*C or more above the 71-00 average), and June and February well above also, at over 1.5 above the long term mean. Since March 2006 only August has seen a CET close to average, and although global temperatures have been half a degree warmer since 1998, including last year which was still only around 0.5 above the cooler 1961-90 average, the UK has been almost 2*C above the warmer 1971-2000 average over the last twelve months. So it is all down to synoptics. I will explain each month's synoptics below.

May 2006: First half dominated by a southerly or south-easterly airflow with low pressure over the UK at times, and very warm. Second half around average dominated by low pressure and very wet conditions with mainly west to south-west winds, and a northerly in the closing days.

June 2006: Very anticyclonic, with high pressure often situated over the UK or over Central Europe. Very warm first half, but second half nearer average as high pressure moved further west allowing a north-westerly flow to develop at times.

July 2006: Extremely hot, with slow moving anticyclones often centered over Scandinavia or Central Europe and exceptionally hot through the second half with slow moving lows to the west of Ireland also, although a close to average spell did occur from about the 7th to 14th as a westerly flow developed.

August 2006: Dominated by a northerly flow, although not from a long way north and often from Scandinavia and the month still managed a CET close to average and also the winds did become more westerly after the 20th.

September 2006: Dominated by high pressure over Europe for the first half and then by low pressure to the west of the UK in the second half with a cyclonic southerly flow. Very warm throughout.

October 2006: A similar pattern coninued, frequent slow moving low pressures to the west of the UK resulting in a prolonged southerly flow all month. A Greenland High built in the second half but it did not succeed in influencing the UK with cold northerlies.

November 2006: An anticyclone from Greenland developed across the UK for the first ten days bringing colder frostier weather and then from the 10th onwards persistent south-westerlies associated with mild zonality brought mild weather.

December 2006: The zonal Bartlett type dominated the first half but the second half saw a displaced Azores High sat over the UK and the jet well to the north of the UK with no high latitude blocking.

January 2007: The mild zonal Bartlett type lasted until the 20th with SW-NE tracking depressions, but a northerly developed from the 21st to 25th followed by high pressure over the UK which sank further south allowing milder weather again.

February 2007: High pressure over the UK moved west allowing a brief northerly from the 4th then an easterly as low pressure was to the south of the UK. Mild SW'lies returned from the 11th and lasted the rest of the month.

March 2007: Mild south-westerlies until the 17th, then a northerly from the 18th to 21st followed by an anticyclonic south-easterly spell.

April 2007: High pressure sat over the UK almost all month and at times to the east in Central Europe resulting in a mainly anticyclonic southerly type.

You will note from the above that northerlies have been unusually rare during the past year and so have easterlies and winds from a southerly quarter have been the predominant pattern either due to a zonal Bartlett type, or persistent low pressure to the west of Ireland, or slow moving anticylcones over Central Europe.

[Bobby]

As much as I am convinced in global warming, and that it will warm significantly in the future, I'm not convinced we have entered some kind of "new phase". While the run of warmth we have had is astonishing, and global warming is no doubt playing a part, I think it's an exceptional spike in the general steady warming trend. Eventually I see temperatures returning to sane averages. Still above average and still increasing all the time, but not the immediate continuation of the warmth we're seeing right now.

Might be wrong of course, if we have another 2 or 3 years of record breaking months, I'll change my mind. You just can't make a judgement about our climate based on 12 months though, me thinks.

[damianslaw]

Stratos Ferric;

August 2006 was not exceptional? It was only close to average in terms of the CET at 16.1*C.

You forgot to say that November and December 2006 were not exceptionally warm overall either at 1.2 and 1.4 above average respectively.

Yes, now the record April CET will almost certainly be 11*C+ by the end of the month. 15.8 for the final eight days is pushing it I think. I would make a guess and say somewhere around the 11.2 mark is the likely final April CET. Which now makes it that five of the last twelve months have been exceptionally above average (2*C or more above the 71-00 average), and June and February well above also, at over 1.5 above the long term mean. Since March 2006 only August has seen a CET close to average, and although global temperatures have been half a degree warmer since 1998, including last year which was still only around 0.5 above the cooler 1961-90 average, the UK has been almost 2*C above the warmer 1971-2000 average over the last twelve months. So it is all down to synoptics. I will explain each month's synoptics below.

May 2006: First half dominated by a southerly or south-easterly airflow with low pressure over the UK at times, and very warm. Second half around average dominated by low pressure and very wet conditions with mainly west to south-west winds, and a northerly in the closing days.

June 2006: Very anticyclonic, with high pressure often situated over the UK or over Central Europe. Very warm first half, but second half nearer average as high pressure moved further west allowing a north-westerly flow to develop at times.

July 2006: Extremely hot, with slow moving anticyclones often centered over Scandinavia or Central Europe and exceptionally hot through the second half with slow moving lows to the west of Ireland also, although a close to average spell did occur from about the 7th to 14th as a westerly flow developed.

August 2006: Dominated by a northerly flow, although not from a long way north and often from Scandinavia and the month still managed a CET close to average and also the winds did become more westerly after the 20th.

September 2006: Dominated by high pressure over Europe for the first half and then by low pressure to the west of the UK in the second half with a cyclonic southerly flow. Very warm throughout.

October 2006: A similar pattern coninued, frequent slow moving low pressures to the west of the UK resulting in a prolonged southerly flow all month. A Greenland High built in the second half but it did not succeed in influencing the UK with cold northerlies.

November 2006: An anticyclone from Greenland developed across the UK for the first ten days bringing colder frostier weather and then from the 10th onwards persistent south-westerlies associated with mild zonality brought mild weather.

December 2006: The zonal Bartlett type dominated the first half but the second half saw a displaced Azores High sat over the UK and the jet well to the north of the UK with no high latitude blocking.

January 2007: The mild zonal Bartlett type lasted until the 20th with SW-NE tracking depressions, but a northerly developed from the 21st to 25th followed by high pressure over the UK which sank further south allowing milder weather again.

February 2007: High pressure over the UK moved west allowing a brief northerly from the 4th then an easterly as low pressure was to the south of the UK. Mild SW'lies returned from the 11th and lasted the rest of the month.

March 2007: Mild south-westerlies until the 17th, then a northerly from the 18th to 21st followed by an anticyclonic south-easterly spell.

April 2007: High pressure sat over the UK almost all month and at times to the east in Central Europe resulting in a mainly anticyclonic southerly type.

You will note from the above that northerlies have been unusually rare during the past year and so have easterlies and winds from a southerly quarter have been the predominant pattern either due to a zonal Bartlett type, or persistent low pressure to the west of Ireland, or slow moving anticylcones over Central Europe.

Yes the synoptics of the last 12 months have been remarkable in their bias to southerly airstream, anything from a NW to E quarter has not sustained itself.

It would be unusual if the same pattern was to be reflected for the next 12 months, i am hoping that come September the atlantic will be a much stronger force this year but low pressure to move on more southerly jet, as i think a cool wet september is a good foretaste to a wintry winter. In the meantime i would be happy for high pressure to dominate but not where it lingered and lurked last year or how it has this month i.e. i would like it to be over the mod atlantic or to the north of us, not the big Euro-Azores high again....

[VillagePlank]

I think that the big question is not that it's warmer, but are the synoptic patterns warmer? If we have a predominantly southerly airflow, then we should expect it to be warmer, shouldn't we?

[VillagePlank]

If I had to guess, I'd have to guess, ahem, at a flat 12C, now.

[Stu_London]

I think that the big question is not that it's warmer, but are the synoptic patterns warmer? If we have a predominantly southerly airflow, then we should expect it to be warmer, shouldn't we?

A lot of people in their AGW ramping/ranting forget this point.

In the exceptional months that have occured in the last year, a cursory glance at the sunshine totals is advised.

July 2006 is a good example, the mean maxima anomoly was far ahead of the mean minima anomoly despite the short nights and retentive warmth from high humidity levels.

I suspect April 2007 will be even more an extreme case - indeed minima were below average for the first third of the month

[Terminal Moraine]

The length of the current warm period is certainly unusual, as is its intensity, and yes you would expect it to be warmer during a sustained period of airflow from the tropics.

The salient point has to be;, what is causing the lack of air flows from the colder regions?.

Is it just a natural variation ( albeit a very long one ) which will eventually correct itself or is the bias towards air masses from a warmer direction the result of factors induced by the overall warming, such as the northward migration of the Polar Front and the consequent northward migration the sub tropical high pressure belt.?

I'm beginning to think it's the latter and that the current conditions ( ie of the last 15 years or so ) are the start of an inexorable rise in temperature which will be punctuated by only brief cooler spells.

T.M

[Stratos Ferric]

Ironically, while global temperatures are continuing at near-record levels, the January-March global mean, for both the NH and globally, is not record-breaking. Nor is the warmth for the past 12 months.

So, while this current run of warmth in Britain is truly exceptional- and also similar to what some other parts of the NH are experiencing- globally there does not appear to have been a similar step-change. Something has to give; either the run of exceptional warmth around Britain/NW Europe stops, the globe starts setting record highs on a regular basis (as opposed to the one-off that was January 2007) or NW Europe moves to a climate regime that is much warmer, relative to long-term reference periods, than the global and indeed NH average.

The third suggestion is not beyond the realms of possibility; NW Europe certainly warmed faster than the global and NH average since around 1989, before stalling a little in the early 2000s.

Whatever, the run of warmth in Britain is shocking and, even given that global temps are not record-breaking at present, cannot be put down to anomalous synoptics alone.

Some good points in there. I make the same arguments in winter when the frenzied go cold hunting. It cannot simulataneously be cold everywhere, just like it cannot everywhere be unusually warm, UNLESS there is sudden overall warming. I'm not aware in any of the warming theory that there is tipping point beyond which we get runaway acceleration, therefore as you, and JH before you, propose, the expectation would have to be that we get a correction down to more normal values at some point.

The "however" in this instance is that change is not linear across time and space: there have to be parts of the world that lead, and others that lag, and global change. It may well be that the big impact of the slow synoptic change is focussed here on NW Europe, and will stay there, before the rest of the world slowly catches up. That's why the rest of this year is interesting watching, not just here, but further afield. By the way, we aren't the only part of the world experiencing record warmth, much of Eurasia is in the same boat.

[johnholmes]

some very constructive posts in here.

To me the most pertinent to the situation is this by TM

'The salient point has to be;, what is causing the lack of air flows from the colder regions?.'

He then goes on to postulate that it MAY be

'or is the bias towards air masses from a warmer direction the result of factors induced by the overall warming, such as the northward migration of the Polar Front and the consequent northward migration the sub tropical high pressure belt.?'

The longer these monthly anomalies carry on then I think the more likely it is that this has/is occurring.

We then get to an even more interesting thought, once more with few if any real answers,

What is causing this, if it is occurring, northward shift in the major weather patterns?

Another question to ask is, is it just this relatively local area of the Atlantic and western Europe/Scandinavia, or is it on a wider scale?

And yet another question, if it is on a wider scale, why, and what is causing this?

GW sceptics please disregard!

Edited April 23, 2007 by johnholmes

[Stratos Ferric]

....

The main reason I could cite for that skepticism, besides many knocks to the head in earlier life, would be 1921. Now what the hell does 1921 have to do with all this?

If you were running Netweather in some part of the Great Lakes region in that time frame, the same astonishment would be rampant as the period 1916 to 1921 brought unprecedented warm weather records, culminating in a year (1921) which resembles the past 12 months quite closely, except in this case it fell neatly into a calendar year. Almost every month from about September 1920 to October 1921 went well into the top ten (granted there were only 80 years of record at the Toronto site but I am aware of earlier data from nearby locations and it seems that you could probably say 150 years) -- July and September broke existing records and the year was quite a bit warmer as a whole than any previous year.

Nobody has ever advanced a human-related theory for this period of warmth -- July 1916 and August 1918 were also very hot months, and the whole summer of 1919 was well above normal too.

But perhaps the most important part of this analogy, which seems fairly strong in numerical terms, was how cold it turned shortly after this long run of warmth. The year 1922 was probably near normal most of the time and still had some warmer readings at times, but then 1923-26 was noted as a very cool period in general. The end of March 1923 set some very low daily records that were many degrees below earlier values set in the generally cold 19th century. October 1925 was the coldest on record also. And the whole of 1924 and 1926 were generally chilly throughout.

What that tells me, perhaps as a skeptic not wishing to see the "proof" of AGW, is that natural variability can produce such anomalies as you are now seeing, and can also reverse them rather quickly. Most examples that I can think of seem to require about a year of near normal transition, so I don't think this warm spell will end very quickly. Also it seems counter-intuitive for it to end in early summer. A winter season usually does the business better. I hope for some of you that it might be the winter of 2008-09 because as I say 07-08 might be a bigger ask than nature can handle. But I am going up against the conventional wisdom of 100,000 of the world's leading scientists here, so caveat emptor, cold rampers.

Roger:

two issues with that: if it was localised then it was a localised feature. What happened in the UK around then? What we have now IS well night global, if to varying degrees in different places. Also, what we have now is coming of an unprecedentedly warm base and is breaking through the ceiling of what had gone before: I'd be surprised if that was the case in 1920.

We know you're a sceptic re AGW, but by the same measure, I'm not aware that AGW has been mentioned in this thread by the main contributors. Either way, not all warm bursts have to be AGW. Let's not fall into a trap of assuming that because we are currently arguing that B is presaged by A, B always has to be presaged by A. For example, if I want to increase the temperature of a volume of gas I can heat it, or I can pressurise it to produce the same effect. So, if I measure temperature change in an enclosed volume of gas, the fact that at present the change is caused by, say, heating, doesn't mean that the same was true last time.

At least you've put your marker down: 2008-09 it is then, but as a footnote I'm sure that in similar discussions with people 4 or 5 years ago they would have been crying "wait until 2005-6".

My instinct is that you're going to be waiting in vain Roger, so far have things now moved. Over there in North America you're protected to some extent from the more extreme impacts of any warming by a cold continental interior in winter. Land has a much lower thermal capacity so that even in a warmer world the interiors will cool in winter; those of us with oceanic influences are playing by a different set of rules which are far less moderated. The oceans act like huge capacitors storing warmth for year-round release, but, obviously, releasing far more during the winter half.

I think that the big question is not that it's warmer, but are the synoptic patterns warmer? If we have a predominantly southerly airflow, then we should expect it to be warmer, shouldn't we?

Synoptic patterns themselves are not warm or cold, it is the airmasses that they intoroduce that drive epxerienced temperature. What is abundently clear, just now, is that we rarely get cold and frequently get warm set ups. TWS, myself, and one or two others have been arguoing for a while now that this indicates subtle changes in the macro circulation, particularly the mean position of the PFJ drifting poleward, which, all other things being equal, would change the mix of polar / tropical on the ground in precisely this way. There are a few on here who argue that this is just "bad luck", but to go with Tamara's analogy about it being easy to back the repeated winner, the corollary is that it's pretty darn stupid to keep backing a horse that never comes in when there's no evidence that the pattern is about to change: it's a triumph for hope and selective bias over perception of reality. There's a fine line between wanting cold and objectively assessing whether it's going to get cold, and I have to say that reading Tamara's argument it does rather give the impression that she's always looking for a cold outcome. If you want to make an objective forecast then that's not the place to start.

A lot of people in their AGW ramping/ranting forget this point.

In the exceptional months that have occured in the last year, a cursory glance at the sunshine totals is advised.

July 2006 is a good example, the mean maxima anomoly was far ahead of the mean minima anomoly despite the short nights and retentive warmth from high humidity levels.

I suspect April 2007 will be even more an extreme case - indeed minima were below average for the first third of the month

Yes, but for April as a whole minima will not end up cold. And at any time of year the effects of a clear sky for cooling far outweigh humidity impacts. All that last July and this April demonstrate is HP dominated weather, and warm HP at that (as opposed to HP positioned so as to drive synoptic cold). You could equally look at some other onths in the run and see near normal maxima but heightened minima due to overnight cooling.

Let's not go looking for spurious arguments to play down the current run of warmth, and as JH points out, exceptional warmth. The fact is things are not as they should be.

[Calrissian]

Might be wrong of course, if we have another 2 or 3 years of record breaking months, I'll change my mind. You just can't make a judgement about our climate based on 12 months though, me thinks.

The thing is, did you (I know plenty of people that did), said the same thing 'if we have another...' in 2003.

Its 2007, our spring has been off the scale.

I just keep seeing this 'if we have another' comments a lot lately. We've had a strong 15+ year increase in temps for the UK, how many more do you need to convince you? 5, 10 , 50 ? Anyway, thats for a seperate topic I guess, over in environmental.

Calrissian: every time he has another...an angel gets their wings.

[Stratos Ferric]

....

It should therefore be no surprise to see such great frequency of airflows originating from a sub-tropical source and hence a marked accentuation in the rise of temps month on month and season to season. Such a corresponding lurch upwards is not reflected in many other parts of the globe - so there is too much reading into this warm period going on IMO as a sudden step change of gear in underlying warming trends affecting the UK.

The question therefore is how long does this very above average synoptic pattern last - which in turn influences where people put their monthly CET estimates.

Tamara

I beg to differ. Go see the global temperature anomalies and you'll see that pretty much the whole planet is up. Cold pockets are just that; pockets. What's more, some parts are warmer at an order of magnitude that simply would have been laughed out of sight had they been mooted even five years ago: go see the waters N of Siberia and Finland. Japan had a record warm winter, China - I believe - was very warm. Pretty much all of Europe is warm. Let's get one thing clear: this is not a UK only phenomenon, and saying that it is doesn't make it any truer.

some very constructive posts in here.

To me the most pertinent to the situation is this by TM

'The salient point has to be;, what is causing the lack of air flows from the colder regions?.'

He then goes on to postulate that it MAY be

'or is the bias towards air masses from a warmer direction the result of factors induced by the overall warming, such as the northward migration of the Polar Front and the consequent northward migration the sub tropical high pressure belt.?'

The longer these monthly anomalies carry on then I think the more likely it is that this has/is occurring.

We then get to an even more interesting thought, once more with few if any real answers,

What is causing this, if it is occurring, northward shift in the major weather patterns?Another question to ask is, is it just this relatively local area of the Atlantic and western Europe/Scandinavia, or is it on a wider scale?

And yet another question, if it is on a wider scale, why, and what is causing this?

GW sceptics please disregard!

General warming (howsoever caused) would be expected to shift the steepest part of the thermal gradient poleward; warming of the pole would exacerbate this, but also perhaps slacken the gradient. meaning a less vigorous and / or less stable jet. That would equate in my mind to more tropical air being prevalent and more HP at the surface. Pretty much in line with what we seem to be getting.

Having said previously that I hadn't seen anything in the science for a tipping point re mass warming, it's perfectly plausible synoptically that suddenly the systems move just far enough north, or the jet weakes just sufficiently, so that the odds against cold are dramatically stacked against.

Everything I'm seeing in this warm run is serving to continue to reinforce this view; it's not that we can't get cold, it's just that it's a lot harder so that we get it less frequently, for shorter durations, and with less intensity. What's alarming is that precisely the pattern that had the masses up in arms when I mentioned it a few years back as a distinct possibility in the 10-20 year window is starting to appear much closer than that.

[shuggee]

Thank you for your refreshing frankness.

Yes, a forecast is indeed just a forecast, and so on. I'm not sure I was disputing that anyway. Furthermore I did repeat that that there was nothing wrong with making repeated above average estimates, and, indeed, if they are correct then all well and good.

However if a horse ( to pick up on your generously kind theme) continually wins a race, then surely predicting it to win again is 'easier' (ie a more sure-fire bet) than one with poor form and a history of poor finishes. I think the analagy should be clear - and is not as ridiculous as you are suggesting, however trite or poor the comparison may appear. Too bad I guess. Perhaps I am just not explaining what I say very well, which I would like to think is fairly unusual.

I will try this way:-

There have been consecutive months bringing in above average CET figures, sometimes well-above, based on a locked-in pattern, which has shown little sign of breaking. There has been the occasional 'false-dawn' (an example being in the last third of March as I posted yesterday) which suggested that a colder month for April may be in the offing. I disagree with SF who suggests that a normal return would, at that time, appeared to have been the most likely, as a potentially cold northern blocked pattern was very evident in all the models at one stage (which was when I placed my estimate). The trick, at this stage was to either believe the models or assume that that they would, again, back away from the scenario.

Glacier Point in the model thread has explained on a few occasions reasons why the models have been continually coming away from apparent cold(er) synoptical patterns - much to do with the negative polar anomalies - cool stratosphere and positive AO which is prohibiting the developments of colder synoptics ie Greenland High pressure etc. To bring this back to the point about being hard to pinpoint the colder month aginst the 'safe' bet of a warmer one - this translates to trying to see when the 'false dawns' stop and a real pattern change occurs which would be when the polar temp profiles change, there is a decided move in the AO (such as August 2006 which stands out in the pack as the cooler month) and we lose the locked -in pattern evident since last summer.

That surely is harder to predict than assuming the status quo - and was the basis of what has been percieved as horse compost talk.

Tamara

I was in a refreshing mood yesteday Ms G - glad you approve

I like the analogy with the horses. Laying money on the form horse or the bookies' favourite is of course the 'safe' option, but I am not sure if it is 'easier'. Easyness comes a] with experience, b] the amount of useful information available, and c] one's own personal 'hunches'. It could be easy to spot an up and coming filly in a race at Doncaster on a wet Thursday afternoon and put money on her at good odds if you are a fanatical follower of racing and a knowledgable pundit - and you may well beat the bookies. In such a case the a] b] and c] above made it 'easy', and informed the decision not to go down the route of the safe option offered by the published odds of the race.

The question has to be asked however, if horse racing is your forecasting and the final result is that your horse always limps in third from last time after time (despite you thinking it a dead cert against the 'safe' published odds) - your bank manager and credit card company might want to have a word with you about your betting habits.

[Stratos Ferric]

The thing is, did you (I know plenty of people that did), said the same thing 'if we have another...' in 2003.

Its 2007, our spring has been off the scale.

I just keep seeing this 'if we have another' comments a lot lately. We've had a strong 15+ year increase in temps for the UK, how many more do you need to convince you? 5, 10 , 50 ? Anyway, thats for a seperate topic I guess, over in environmental.

Calrissian: every time he has another...an angel gets their wings.

That technique is what Sales Trainers call "broken record": saying the same thing over and over until you bore the customer into submission. I remain of the opinion that most of those pursuing this do so because they want and hope for cold, not because they can present an objective case as to why we might get any time soon.

I left my laptop at Heathrow a few weeks back. When I opened my bag at home I couldn't believe it. So I closed my bag and opened it again. Still not there. On about the sixth repeat I said to myself: "SF, no matter how many times you open and shut that bag, your laptop is not going to be there". There's one or two people on here zipping and unzipping the metaphorical bag who might benefit from stepping back and thinking about it a bit more. There is no hard wire from hope to reality, never has been, never will be.

I was in a refreshing mood yesteday Ms G - glad you approve

....

The question has to be asked however, if horse racing is your forecasting and the final result is that your horse always limps in third from last time after time (despite you thinking it a dead cert against the 'safe' published odds) - your bank manager and credit card company might want to have a word with you about your betting habits.

Absolutely: if I back warm in any given month I give a breakdown of why, and it's not as if I for one back the same degree of warmth each month. When I see cold I'll punt for it, failure to do so doesn't mean I don't want it or hope for it. You might as well back a pony because the jockey's wearing purple as blindly punt for a cold month at present when there is no reliable evidence whatsoever to suggest that it's going to happen. At present there is NOTHING in the fundamentals to suggest cold: SSTs 1-2C above norm pass the equivalent of a trainer's nod and a wink plus a nudge in the back to go with it.

Fair play to Tamara, in mid March the GFS runs indicated a cold start to April, but in cantering to the start line that horse was well and truly lame by the 30th.

[Thundery wintry showers]

... or NW Europe moves to a climate regime that is much warmer, relative to long-term reference periods, than the global and indeed NH average.

The third suggestion is not beyond the realms of possibility; NW Europe certainly warmed faster than the global and NH average since around 1989, before stalling a little in the early 2000s. ...

I beg to differ. Go see the global temperature anomalies and you'll see that pretty much the whole planet is up. Cold pockets are just that; pockets. What's more, some parts are warmer at an order of magnitude that simply would have been laughed out of sight had they been mooted even five years ago: go see the waters N of Siberia and Finland. Japan had a record warm winter, China - I believe - was very warm. Pretty much all of Europe is warm. Let's get one thing clear: this is not a UK only phenomenon, and saying that it is doesn't make it any truer.

General warming (howsoever caused) would be expected to shift the steepest part of the thermal gradient poleward; warming of the pole would exacerbate this, but also perhaps slacken the gradient. meaning a less vigorous and / or less stable jet. That would equate in my mind to more tropical air being prevalent and more HP at the surface. Pretty much in line with what we seem to be getting.

Having said previously that I hadn't seen anything in the science for a tipping point re mass warming, it's perfectly plausible synoptically that suddenly the systems move just far enough north, or the jet weakes just sufficiently, so that the odds against cold are dramatically stacked against.

Everything I'm seeing in this warm run is serving to continue to reinforce this view; it's not that we can't get cold, it's just that it's a lot harder so that we get it less frequently, for shorter durations, and with less intensity. What's alarming is that precisely the pattern that had the masses up in arms when I mentioned it a few years back as a distinct possibility in the 10-20 year window is starting to appear much closer than that.

I think SF, here, has summed up pretty well the main reasons why I made the assertion I did; it's a scary thought, but unless the current run of warmth shows signs of reversing or stalling, then there's a good chance that Eurasia has marched further ahead in the 'localised excess warming' stakes.

[VillagePlank]

Synoptic patterns themselves are not warm or cold, it is the airmasses that they intoroduce that drive epxerienced temperature. What is abundently clear, just now, is that we rarely get cold and frequently get warm set ups.

I suspect, therefore, that you are agreeing with me?

Your comment re 'things are quite right now' reminds me of a conversation I had with a forex broker some time ago when he was commenting that the 'currency markets aren't quite right' which, of course, implies that they are somehow wrong. I managed to get him to see the error of his ways, fortunately.

When anyone looks at any numerical series, or chart, they are looking at a representation of what is happening. Whether it be the stock market, the weather, or quantum improbabilities. They're all the same. There is no room for assigning to them the human characteristic of wrong or right. They know none of this. It is better to say that the cause is human in origin, therefore what we're doing is not right - but how can a weather system be not right?

I know it's a pedants point, but then so was pointing out that synoptics, themselves, are not warm or cold, huh?

[Weather-history]

Looks like the April 1865 record is going to fall. The CET for that month actually fell over the last two days. It was high as 10.9 by the 28th of April 1865.

[Stratos Ferric]

I suspect, therefore, that you are agreeing with me?

Your comment re 'things are quite right now' reminds me of a conversation I had with a forex broker some time ago when he was commenting that the 'currency markets aren't quite right' which, of course, implies that they are somehow wrong. I managed to get him to see the error of his ways, fortunately.

When anyone looks at any numerical series, or chart, they are looking at a representation of what is happening. Whether it be the stock market, the weather, or quantum improbabilities. They're all the same. There is no room for assigning to them the human characteristic of wrong or right. They know none of this. It is better to say that the cause is human in origin, therefore what we're doing is not right - but how can a weather system be not right?

I know it's a pedants point, but then so was pointing out that synoptics, themselves, are not warm or cold, huh?

I don't recall saying "things aren't right" (though it might be that I just can't see it). I did say "not as they should be". The latter is a matter of climatic fact, otherwise Tamara, Roger and co. would not have any grounds for making a case (however weak) for cold: the fact is, climatically, we should occasionally get cold months. We should, in our climatic zone, expect cool weather in summer and mild weather in winter punctuated by occasional winter cold and summer heat. Markets are psychological and behave irrationally / illogically at times, for all the economics text books would have us believe otherwise, so I agree, in the case of markets attributing human behaviour is wrong. Weather, on the other hand, is bound by immutable laws of physics. It is perfectly valid in this latter instance to say how things ought to be; without that how ever could there be a notion of climatic change?

By all means be pedantic, but be appropriately pedantic, quotes and all.

[VillagePlank]

I don't recall saying "things aren't right" (though it might be that I just can't see it). I did say "not as they should be". The latter is a matter of climatic fact, otherwise Tamara, Roger and co. would not have any grounds for making a case (however weak) for cold: the fact is, climatically, we should occasionally get cold months. We should, in our climatic zone, expect cool weather in summer and mild weather in winter punctuated by occasional winter cold and summer heat. Markets are psychological and behave irrationally / illogically at times, for all the economics text books would have us believe otherwise, so I agree, in the case of markets attributing human behaviour is wrong. Weather, on the other hand, is bound by immutable laws of physics. It is perfectly valid in this latter instance to say how things ought to be; without that how ever could there be a notion of climatic change?

By all means be pedantic, but be appropriately pedantic, quotes and all.

Yes, you're quite right; I misquoted you. Sorry. I'm sure I read it and I'm sure it was you, but you know what, I can't find it anywhere now. Serves me right, I guess.

I do not quite suscribe to the lack of similarity between the weather and the markets; I think, although what you say is true, it misguides the reader to believing they are not the same in many respects. In fact their fundamental nature is non-linear; they can both be analysed using the same techniques; predictability falls dramatically as time rolls on by.

BTW What immutable laws of physics bind the weather? I thought that at it lowest level (quantum mechanics) the description of physics was statistical in nature. Many years ago, those who were into statistics, were called statists, as this particular branch of mathematics was derived from the notion that, following Newton's incredible success in deterministically describing the universe, a lot of people thought that they called do the same with society, and the state This branch of mathematics eventually prescribed and influenced Adam Smith in his seminal work 'The Wealth of Nations' which describes society under the mechanics of a market economy - it was all derived from the (misguided) wish to irreducibly break the rules of society into the some deterministic scientific fashion.

Sorry for the History 101.

Edited April 23, 2007 by VillagePlank