April 2021 C.E.T. and EWP forecast contests

[Derecho]

2 hours ago, Timmytour said:

There is nothing in terms of our climate or weather that is increasing with more intensity than the reporting of it, and the need to associate it with impending disaster.

 

Lets just ignore all the climate data and the scientists who have been showing otherwise then.

[Godber 1]

7 hours ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

Lets just ignore all the climate data and the scientists who have been showing otherwise then.

The news media including MSM tend to concentrate on 'worst case' scenarios, hence  impending disasters.

[Roger J Smith]

EWP estimate has now doubled from the 5 mm that lasted to Monday 26th with yesterday's amounts now available, quite variable with zero in the southeast but 5 to 20 mm elsewhere. The grid average looks like about 4-5 mm. So we are no longer in the driest April according to that, having passed 7.1 mm (1938).

Here's the updated scoring file, I won't list any new data because the post a few days ago is still more or less valid although I did re-run the numbers for an outcome of 12.5 mm. All that's affected by that is a few rankings for average error (because if you played April you now have a larger error than before and if you stayed on the sidelines your old average is still in force). 

Anyone with 3/5 contests entered so far will need to enter May or lose their average error ranking, so in some cases the rank you see this month will improve next month just with those half dozen or so possibly dropping out of the contest. 

So here's a link to the updated scoring estimates, to be adjusted again on the second of May when the tracker comes to its final value. 

The top twenty in April and annual contests were posted back on page nine of this April contest thread. 

 

EWP2020_21_Apr.xlsx

[The PIT]

Sunny Sheffield at 6.5C -2.1C below normal. Rainfall now 5.7mm 10.2% of the monthly average.

Still 2nd driest on record but this may not last long unless we miss any showers.

[Derecho]

2 hours ago, Godber 1 said:

The news media including MSM tend to concentrate on 'worst case' scenarios, hence  impending disasters.

Yeah it's not as if CO2 emissions are already above worst case scenarios, or that we are consistently challenging 2016s global temperature record despite no extreme El Nino. The sea levels aren't rising due to thermal expansion or melting sea ice. I'm just a climate scientist who is wrong so we can all just relax and act like nothing is happening... 

[Roger J Smith]

Since we came up with a list of years where April was colder than March, and May colder than April, I checked to see when April may have been colder than any winter month preceding it, or at the same CET value. That takes us back into the previous year for Decembers of course. 

The full list is as follows (in reverse chronological order) ...

APR colder than or equal to DEC _______________ APR colder than or equal to JAN _________ APR colder than or equal to FEB

APR 2016 (7.5) colder than DEC 2015 (9.7).  _ APR 1782 (5.2) same as JAN 1782 (5.2)**_ APR 1903 (6.4) colder than FEB 1903 (7.1)

APR 1989 (6.6) colder than DEC 1988 (7.5). __ APR 1696 (5.5) same as JAN 1696 (5.5) __ APR 1837 (4.7) same as FEB 1837 (4.7)

APR 1986 (5.8) colder than DEC 1985 (6.5). _________________________________________ APR 1809 (5.2) colder than FEB 1809 (5.7)

APR 1922 (5.5) colder than DEC 1921 (6.5). _________________________________________ APR 1790 (6.1) colder than FEB 1790 (6.6)*

APR 1853 (7.6) colder than DEC 1852 (7.7). _________________________________________ APR 1743 (5.4) same as FEB 1743 (5.4)

APR 1829 (6.7) colder than DEC 1828 (7.4). _________________________________________ APR 1739 (6.7) colder than FEB 1739 (6.8)

APR 1790 (6.1) same as DEC 1789 (6.1)* ____________________________________________ APR 1713 (5.5) same as FEB 1713 (5.5)

APR 1782 (5.2) colder than DEC 1781 (5.4)** _______________________________________  APR 1702 (5.8) colder than FEB 1702 (5.8)

APR 1688 (5.5) colder than DEC 1687 (6.0)

_______________________________

* note two examples from same winter, 1789-1790. The January was 4.3. 

** note two examples from same winter, 1781-1782. The February was 1.9.

close calls (April only 0.1 or 0.2 warmer) for Jan or Feb (not Dec since there were more actual cases of those)

 ... APR 1983 (6.8) was 0.1 warmer than JAN 1983 (6.7). 

... APR 1918 (6.7) was 0.2 warmer than FEB 1918 (6.5). 

(just to note, the two DEC 1934 and 1974 that tied at 8.1 had Aprils of 8.2 and 8.3 following)

________________________________________

SUMMARY: There were nine cases with APR colder than previous DEC, and eight for APR colder than previous FEB (colder including same for one DEC and three FEB). There were only two marginal cases for JAN same as APR (none yet where JAN was colder than the following APR). 

There were however two cases when JAN was milder than the APR of the previous year: Jan 1923 was 0.1 warmer than Apr 1922, and Jan 1702 was 0.3 warmer than APR 1702. 

The frequency of Aprils colder than the previous November is around 10% of all cases. 

Two winters had two different months that were as mild as, or slightly milder than, the following April. They were winters of 1781-82 and 1789-90. 

 

 

[Earthshine]

The mean maximum CET so far for this month is 12.1C, which incredibly is colder than the mean maximum CET for December 2015 (12.3C).

[Timmytour]

2 hours ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

Yeah it's not as if CO2 emissions are already above worst case scenarios, or that we are consistently challenging 2016s global temperature record despite no extreme El Nino. The sea levels aren't rising due to thermal expansion or melting sea ice. I'm just a climate scientist who is wrong so we can all just relax and act like nothing is happening... 

No one's talking about ignoring science.

I've not seen much scientific evidence to suggest that any actions we undertake would stop or reverse the changes that are taking place.  I personally believe a couple of volcanic explosions of 6 on the VEI scale will do  100 times more to reverse global warming more than the globally pooled resources of man could achieve in 40 years.  I am reminded of the media frenzy about how Man discovered the hole in the ozone layer, how Man detemined Man was responsible for it, how Man identified what Man had to do to repair it and how Man lauded Man for shrinking it. Forty years later on from Man discovering it we learn that actually Nature plays a huge part in it, and that last year was the biggest the hole has ever been measured to be!!  So why has all that hype about how dangerous it would be for man died down????

A comment was made in here that our current weather conditions may be a result of the lack of aviation activity in particular. As Roger says, while here is not the place best to address such an issue, it would be foolish to assume such a thing.  Just, as I am sure, any climate scientist would vehemently deny that just because all five of the warmest Junes we have had happened more than 44 years ago and four of them happened more than 175 years ago, it means that things are not getting warmer now....... 
    

[Methuselah]

23 minutes ago, Timmytour said:

No one's talking about ignoring science.

I've not seen much scientific evidence to suggest that any actions we undertake would stop or reverse the changes that are taking place.  I personally believe a couple of volcanic explosions of 6 on the VEI scale will do  100 times more to reverse global warming more than the globally pooled resources of man could achieve in 40 years.  I am reminded of the media frenzy about how Man discovered the hole in the ozone layer, how Man detemined Man was responsible for it, how Man identified what Man had to do to repair it and how Man lauded Man for shrinking it. Forty years later on from Man discovering it we learn that actually Nature plays a huge part in it, and that last year was the biggest the hole has ever been measured to be!!  So why has all that hype about how dangerous it would be for man died down????

A comment was made in here that our current weather conditions may be a result of the lack of aviation activity in particular. As Roger says, while here is not the place best to address such an issue, it would be foolish to assume such a thing.  Just, as I am sure, any climate scientist would vehemently deny that just because all five of the warmest Junes we have had happened more than 44 years ago and four of them happened more than 175 years ago, it means that things are not getting warmer now....... 
    

And there's very little (i. e. none at all?) scientific evidence that 'a couple of volcano eruptions' will do anything to alleviate long-term Climate Change . . . were there to be a sudden, substantial and sustained increase in volcanicity then, aye, I'd agree. But, I also hope we'll nae see another Deccan Traps type eruption, any time soon?

All that being said, I also think it's wonderful to see an azure blue sky devoid of a multitude of contrails? Then again, despite what has seemed like eternal sunshine, my CET-guess of 9.2C is starting to look somewhat 'imperilled'!

Edited April 28, 2021 by General Cluster

[Scorcher]

1 hour ago, Earthshine said:

The mean maximum CET so far for this month is 12.1C, which incredibly is colder than the mean maximum CET for December 2015 (12.3C).

That mean max isn't that far below average across the CET zone though. Certainly not as notable as the mean minimum. December 2015 was on another level in terms of being freakish. I still maintain it's by far the most remarkable month of my lifetime and probably since records began.

[Earthshine]

1 minute ago, Scorcher said:

That mean max isn't that far below average across the CET zone though. Certainly not as notable as the mean minimum. December 2015 was on another level in terms of being freakish. I still maintain it's by far the most remarkable month of my lifetime and probably since records began.

Incredible month.  Really bizarre being out in a shirt when the sun was setting at 4pm.  It didn't even get cold at night, minimum temperatures wouldn't have been out of place in July let alone December.  If we saw those kinds of temperature anomalies in July or August we would have had a 21C CET month.

[Timmytour]

7 minutes ago, Scorcher said:

That mean max isn't that far below average across the CET zone though. Certainly not as notable as the mean minimum. December 2015 was on another level in terms of being freakish. I still maintain it's by far the most remarkable month of my lifetime and probably since records began.

May 1833 is not one any of us would have experienced, but must have been quite a bizarre month because, to this day, it still remains comfortably over 1C above the next nearest mean CET for the month.  In fact the month of May, similar to June has its top 5 CET months all dating more than 170 years ago, but 1833 stands out almost to the same degree as December 2015 does, and perhaps is more remarkable for not being of the present warming era ..

[summer blizzard]

We do know how 1833 felt like though because the first half of May 08 and recent second halves have been similar in warmth. We've just not put them together.

[Relativistic]

12 minutes ago, summer blizzard said:

We do know how 1833 felt like though because the first half of May 08 and recent second halves have been similar in warmth. We've just not put them together.

Same can be said for December 2015: similar halves have happened before it, but never one after another. I think the first halves of the Decembers of 1898 and 2000 were above 9.0C.

 

32 minutes ago, Scorcher said:

That mean max isn't that far below average across the CET zone though. Certainly not as notable as the mean minimum. December 2015 was on another level in terms of being freakish. I still maintain it's by far the most remarkable month of my lifetime and probably since records began.

In terms of standard deviations from the mean it's not actually the most extreme month on the CET record (it is however notable because the distribution of Decembers is skewed towards cold). II looked into this a while back but can't remember which month was the winner by that measure; will try to dig up the post if anyone's interested.

 

Edit: This post and the one below it are the ones I was referring to.

June 1846 was furthest from the mean in terms of standard deviations.

Edited April 28, 2021 by Relativistic

[Summer Sun]

6.9c to the 27th

0.9c below the 61 to 90 average
1.4c below the 81 to 10 average

___________________________

Current high this month 8.8c on the 1st
Current low this month 5.6c on the 12th, 13th, 15th & 16th

[Timmytour]

25 minutes ago, General Cluster said:

And there's very little (i. e. none at all?) scientific evidence that 'a couple of volcano eruptions' will do anything to alleviate Climate Change . . . were there to be a sudden, substantial and sustained increase in volcanicity then, aye, I'd agree. But, I also hope we'll nae see another Deccan Traps type eruption, any time soon?

 

The science of climate change has never changed. The extent to which is has been discovered has.  I'm sure that is much more to discover in regard to volcanos, but of course there is relatively little recent experience to collate data on and test theories out since the ways of measuring impacts became feasible.  Exploring the relationship between the levels of  Sulpher Dioxide expelled by volcanos  - which is not related to their VEI - is in its relative infancy with a paper published in 2014 suggesting a link to climatic conditions.  The Manaro Voui volcano on the island of Ambae in the nation of Vanuatu in the South Pacific Ocean injected three times the amount of sulphur dioxide into the upper troposphere and stratosphere  than all combined worldwide eruptions in 2017.  Yet it won't be known how much was expelled into the air in say the 1930s and 1940s when the earth apparently cooled for 20-25 years.

I think the CET records of the UK are great and there is no question they show a considerable warming from the late 1980s onwards.  I will listen and take note of what scientists discover, but will always exercise a little caution into buying into their conclusions, especially when they are based on new ways we have to measure stuff that was never measured before. The next scientific discovery is always just around the corner and can sometimes contrast with conclusions drawn from a previous discovery.  

[Derecho]

1 hour ago, Timmytour said:

No one's talking about ignoring science.

I've not seen much scientific evidence to suggest that any actions we undertake would stop or reverse the changes that are taking place.  I personally believe a couple of volcanic explosions of 6 on the VEI scale will do  100 times more to reverse global warming more than the globally pooled resources of man could achieve in 40 years.  I am reminded of the media frenzy about how Man discovered the hole in the ozone layer, how Man detemined Man was responsible for it, how Man identified what Man had to do to repair it and how Man lauded Man for shrinking it. Forty years later on from Man discovering it we learn that actually Nature plays a huge part in it, and that last year was the biggest the hole has ever been measured to be!!  So why has all that hype about how dangerous it would be for man died down????

A comment was made in here that our current weather conditions may be a result of the lack of aviation activity in particular. As Roger says, while here is not the place best to address such an issue, it would be foolish to assume such a thing.  Just, as I am sure, any climate scientist would vehemently deny that just because all five of the warmest Junes we have had happened more than 44 years ago and four of them happened more than 175 years ago, it means that things are not getting warmer now....... 
    

Well clearly if that is your stance on the matter then you are ignoring the science!

On the point of the Ozone hole, it was not the biggest on record last year, yes it was larger then a number of years prior but this was because of an unusually strong polar vortex which allowed it to open up earlier in the season. The ozone hole set a record for its duration during the winter but the long term trend is downwards thanks to the Montreal protocol in 1987. Remove the noise from atmospheric circulation and that trend is even more stark. 2019 for example was the smallest on record. 2020 was the 12th largest.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/large-deep-antarctic-ozone-hole-persisting-into-november

You believe that volcanic eruptions far outweigh increases in CO2 emissions but this is misguided. Care to explain why global temperatures did not drop to record lows in the years succeeding it? Or the fact that we have an unprecedented warming trend in a time when our planet should be cooling.

 Yet still some can't get their head around the potency of C02 as a greenhouse gas and it's role in building the heat being distributed round our planet... despite the fact 97% of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is the key influence on global temperatures.

[Derecho]

6 minutes ago, Timmytour said:

The science of climate change has never changed. The extent to which is has been discovered has.  I'm sure that is much more to discover in regard to volcanos, but of course there is relatively little recent experience to collate data on and test theories out since the ways of measuring impacts became feasible.  Exploring the relationship between the levels of  Sulpher Dioxide expelled by volcanos  - which is not related to their VEI - is in its relative infancy with a paper published in 2014 suggesting a link to climatic conditions.  The Manaro Voui volcano on the island of Ambae in the nation of Vanuatu in the South Pacific Ocean injected three times the amount of sulphur dioxide into the upper troposphere and stratosphere  than all combined worldwide eruptions in 2017.  Yet it won't be known how much was expelled into the air in say the 1930s and 1940s when the earth apparently cooled for 20-25 years.

I think the CET records of the UK are great and there is no question they show a considerable warming from the late 1980s onwards.  I will listen and take note of what scientists discover, but will always exercise a little caution into buying into their conclusions, especially when they are based on new ways we have to measure stuff that was never measured before. The next scientific discovery is always just around the corner and can sometimes contrast with conclusions drawn from a previous discovery.  

VEI isn't directly related to sulphur emissions but there is clearly a link, for the Iceland eruption in 2010 for example, the sulphur emissions were 10,000 times smaller then Pinatubo, the VEI is an exponential scale remember. 

The warming trend we see is a result of CO2 emissions outstripping sulphur emissions and that will require a large volcanic eruption to outstrip that. Manaro Voui for example only emitted 600,000 tonnes of sulphur over the course of a year. Pinatubo emitted 20 million tonnes in 118 hours.

The CET is only a tiny portion of the earth's surface. Countless studies have been done which have suggested that the global temperature record is valid and my PhD itself looked into this issue directly over the oceans. One study by Berkeley in 2013 aimed to address issues of homogeneity directly. Anthony Watts even said:

I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. ... [T]he method isn't the madness that we've seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU, and, there aren't any monetary strings attached to the result that I can tell. ... That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we've seen yet.

Yet the studies found almost identical results and Watts turned quiet.

[Timmytour]

6 minutes ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

 

You believe that volcanic eruptions far outweigh increases in CO2 emissions but this is misguided.

Well that put me in my place!
 

7 minutes ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

 Care to explain why global temperatures did not drop to record lows in the years succeeding it? Or the fact that we have an unprecedented warming trend in a time when our planet should be cooling.

What exactly is "it" supposed to be in this context?  I know the explosions of Mount Tambora  in 1815 and Krakatau’ in 1883 were supposed to have had an impact on the climate worldwide.  Perhaps as a climate scientist you could clarify whether or not it did?  And if they did reduce temperatures, does that mean the world would be warmer by the amount they did, if the explosions had not taken place?  Or, alternatively,if such explosions had taken place in the similar stages of the 20th century, would the earth still be as warm as it is now? 
 

[BornFromTheVoid]

Might be best to take the conversation to the climate area. The climate questions thread could be appropriate. 

 

[Methuselah]

13 minutes ago, Timmytour said:

Well that put me in my place!
 

What exactly is "it" supposed to be in this context?  I know the explosions of Mount Tambora  in 1815 and Krakatau’ in 1883 were supposed to have had an impact on the climate worldwide.  Perhaps as a climate scientist you could clarify whether or not it did?  And if they did reduce temperatures, does that mean the world would be warmer by the amount they did, if the explosions had not taken place?  Or, alternatively,if such explosions had taken place in the similar stages of the 20th century, would the earth still be as warm as it is now? 
 

Quite possibly not. But, that's nae the point, is it? Global temperatures are rising, irrespective of volcanoes. Was the cold summer of 1993 a direct result of Mt. Pinatubo? I don't know. But I'd bet the funny-coloured sun was??

Edited April 28, 2021 by General Cluster

[Methuselah]

Please BFTV, can you move some of our recent posts into the right place?

[Scorcher]

1 hour ago, Relativistic said:

Same can be said for December 2015: similar halves have happened before it, but never one after another. I think the first halves of the Decembers of 1898 and 2000 were above 9.0C.

 

In terms of standard deviations from the mean it's not actually the most extreme month on the CET record (it is however notable because the distribution of Decembers is skewed towards cold). II looked into this a while back but can't remember which month was the winner by that measure; will try to dig up the post if anyone's interested.

 

Edit: This post and the one below it are the ones I was referring to.

June 1846 was furthest from the mean in terms of standard deviations.

Thanks for this. The reason I still favour December 2015 is because there is a ceiling on how high temps can go- it's very hard to achieve temps over 16C in the CET zone. In June temps can easily rocket well above the mean by day- temps in the mid 30s are very possible with the right setup.

When you consider the difference between December 2015 and the next warmest month in the records, it really is incredible that a winter month can be so much warmer than any other month in history.

[Relativistic]

2 hours ago, Scorcher said:

When you consider the difference between December 2015 and the next warmest month in the records, it really is incredible that a winter month can be so much warmer than any other month in history.

Yes, it really was very extreme in this respect. Only one November has been warmer (1994).

[Scorcher]

45 minutes ago, Relativistic said:

Yes, it really was very extreme in this respect. Only one November has been warmer (1994).

And warmer than all Marches. 1.6C higher than any other December. It's one thing this happening in a summer month, but winter when even 0.5C higher would be hugely significant it's all the more remarkable.

Apologies for going so off topic here, I'm done now I promise!