December CET

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

They need to check with Gordon how much of their £83 million jar of sweeties rides on whether they round up or down at the third decimal place.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cetdl1772on.dat

The daily data seems to have updated with the 31st coming in at a chilly -2.5C, but data from the 18th-23rd is missing. This was a mild spell so perhaps it could be upped a touch :lol:

They are saying 'god it can't have been that cold, i mean we are in a rapidly warming glacier melting world....this can't be happening'.

No they probably want to get it spot on.....but they didn't expect this cold.

BFTP

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Looking at the data I can't get it much above 3.36C and I'm probably guessing on the high side. :o

0.7

0.6

1.8

3.2

3.9

3.4

1.4

1.8

2.5

1.7

1.4

3.1

3.4

2.7

2.5

4.1

5.4

6

7

9

8

7

7

6.2

5.7

3.4

1.3

1.9

1

-0.3

-2.5

103.3

3.36

An incredible month.

Edited January 4, 2009 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Iceberg]

They are saying 'god it can't have been that cold, i mean we are in a rapidly warming glacier melting world....this can't be happening'.

No they probably want to get it spot on.....but they didn't expect this cold.

BFTP

Of course they did which is why they forecast a below average December......

this rather childish behaviour towards the METO is rather distasteful.

[snowsure]

Of course they did which is why they forecast a below average December......

this rather childish behaviour towards the METO is rather distasteful.

This link shows "no favoured category" regarding 2m temp variation for the UK. I can't see any reference to the below average forecast for December. The winter 08/09 forecast has been updated on 22/12/08 so there is only a Jan/Feb forecast.

Any idea why they compare to 1971-2000 whilst the CET is, I believe, judged against the 1961-1990 averages?

[James M]

This link shows "no favoured category" regarding 2m temp variation for the UK. I can't see any reference to the below average forecast for December. The winter 08/09 forecast has been updated on 22/12/08 so there is only a Jan/Feb forecast.

Any idea why they compare to 1971-2000 whilst the CET is, I believe, judged against the 1961-1990 averages?

In the November update they did mention a below average December.

[Typhoon John]

Of course they did which is why they forecast a below average December......

this rather childish behaviour towards the METO is rather distasteful.

They did forecast a below average December although their forecast didn't give me the impression it would be as cold as it was. However our National Meteorological Office falling for AGW hook, line and sinker is what I find distasteful... imo it's doing me a disservice.

[Baylor]

Of course they did which is why they forecast a below average December......

this rather childish behaviour towards the METO is rather distasteful.

The mt office did not predict a below average december, they said cooler and closer to average than recent years, but they certainly did not predict a cooler than average december.

[Nick L]

The mt office did not predict a below average december, they said cooler and closer to average than recent years, but they certainly did not predict a cooler than average december.

They certainly did too. In their November update they said December is likely to be below average.

If you don't believe me then see this post which quoted the Met Office update:

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...t&p=1372381

Edited January 4, 2009 by nick2702

[Snowyowl9]

They certainly did too. In their November update they said December is likely to be below average.

If you don't believe me then see this post which quoted the Met Office update:

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...t&p=1372381

Credit goes to GP though for forecasting a cooler than normal december firstly.

As for the final figure it`s getting rather confusing after reading some of these posts 3.6c I`ll say maybe 3.5c if we`re lucky.

[Nick L]

Well are the Met Office ever going to update the stupid thing?!

[snowsure]

They certainly did too. In their November update they said December is likely to be below average.

If you don't believe me then see this post which quoted the Met Office update:

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...t&p=1372381

They also said "For the winter as a whole, UK mean temperatures are more likely to be near or above average. However, we are likely to have a cold start to the winter with temperatures below average in December."

Now they are forecasting "UK mean temperatures are likely to be below average in January and nearer average in February."

Call me old fashioned but that looks like they have changed their minds. It can't be below average in December, below average in January then near average in February but, as a whole, be near or above average.

If winter is below average temperature then the got it right on 22/12; if above or near average, they got it right in November. Any room on the fence?

[Nick L]

They also said "For the winter as a whole, UK mean temperatures are more likely to be near or above average. However, we are likely to have a cold start to the winter with temperatures below average in December."

Now they are forecasting "UK mean temperatures are likely to be below average in January and nearer average in February."

Call me old fashioned but that looks like they have changed their minds. It can't be below average in December, below average in January then near average in February but, as a whole, be near or above average.

If winter is below average temperature then the got it right on 22/12; if above or near average, they got it right in November. Any room on the fence?

That was before the December update which called a below average January.

[snowsure]

That was before the December update which called a below average January.

Before December update:

"For the winter as a whole, UK mean temperatures are more likely to be near or above average. However, we are likely to have a cold start to the winter with temperatures below average in December."

After December update:

"UK mean temperatures are likely to be below average in January and nearer average in February."

So, yes, the MO forecast a below average December. However, they also forecast a near or above average winter.

Now they have forecast a winter that will be below average. They have changed their forecast from above average to below average.

When they declare their succes rate, is it based on their first forecast (before the Dec update)? As I said many years ago, it is easy to forecast the winner of an event if you make your prediction just before it finishes!

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

What about making multiple forecasts at separate times for different temperatures? Then whatever happens you can't be wrong!

All the millions ploughed into these climate models and they still don't produce significantly more reliable predictions than the individual forecaster.

My guess was 4.2C for December so I am eager to know how far I am out.

[osmposm]

AFT, are you ever going to change that misleading footnote on your avatar from "1934 joint-warmest year on record" to "1934 joint-warmest year on record in the 48 contiguous US States"?

Ossie

Edited January 5, 2009 by osmposm

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

AFT, are you ever going to change that misleading footnote on your avatar from "1934 joint-warmest year on record" to "1934 joint-warmest year on record in the 48 contiguous US States"?

Ossie

My words were accurate when I wrote them. It's not like they change the data retrospectively.

Edited to add: according to the data file linked my words are still right.

Edited January 5, 2009 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[osmposm]

My words were accurate when I wrote them. It's not like they change the data retrospectively.

Edited to add: according to the data file linked my words are still right.

Um....no, actually: according to your linked data file they are not. This is the heading for the data: "Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly". Not the world. Not the world's land area. Not the North American continent. Not even the United States. Just the continental US, excluding Alaska & Hawaii. It represents less than one-third of North America, and just 5.3% - little more than a twentieth - of the planet's land area. The country of Brazil is rather larger - and might be a better measure of something since unlike the "lower 48" states of the US, it at least it straddles two hemispheres.

Your statement is not, and (as far as I am aware) has never been held to be true of global temps by any reputable source (though it was, and continues to be wrongly taken as such by many anti-AGW blogsites). It was, and remains true of one part of one continent. That is all.

[The PIT]

Anyway back on subject what was the final December figure as they've now removed all reference to it from the website and just quote Jans present figure. I guess last year must have ended up too cool and had to wiped from the records. :winky:

Edited January 5, 2009 by The PIT

[Nick L]

Anyway back on subject what was the final December figure as they've now removed all reference to it from the website and just quote Jans present figure. I guess last year must have ended up too cool and had to wiped from the records. :winky:

Nobody knows, they still haven't updated it:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat

[The PIT]

Nobody knows, they still haven't updated it:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat

I'll take -99.9C as the final figure then. :winky:

[osmposm]

Anyway back on subject what was the final December figure as they've now removed all reference from the website and just quote jans present figure.

Yes, my apologies, Pit - and everyone else - I was way off-topic with my grumble. I actually thought I was in the Climate Change forum, believe it or not.

AFT - if you want to post a reply to my last one, let's carry on over there: or Mods, might it be possible to move the/my offending posts into the General Climate Change Discusion thread? They really shouldn't be here at all.

Ossie

[J10]

I'll take -99.9C as the final figure then.

That's all accuracy bonuses out of the way then.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

OP, I was tired when I last post. Hence spelling mistake and did not properly read your comment.

1. I do not anywhere in my sig refer to 1934 as the world's joint warmest year. I link the source which leaves no confusion.

2. Your comment about Brazil. There are 6 stations in Brazil with temperature records to the 1930s used by GHCN. That's not enough data for a reliable record. The majority (4 / 6) seem to have unadjusted UHI impacts.

Now, where is this December and the yearly update? Perhaps the Met are waiting for a mild spell this winter to release the news, lest people take the news of the cooler CET plus cold weather as 'double confirmation' there is no global warming.

The longer the Met Office strings this out the more it looks like politics than science is what is causing the delay.

Edited January 5, 2009 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[shuggee]

How about Christmas and New year holidays? Now there's a conspiracy