Thursday
Dec092010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Temperature records tumble
Dec 9, 2010 Climate: Surface 
From Accuweather:
The central England Temperature (CET) from the 1st-7th of December is -1.9, making this the coldest opening week of December since 1879; 1879 is the coldest opening week on CET record, so this week has been the second coldest opening week to December since CET records began in 1659.
The two-week period, last week of November and first week of December is the coldest since CET records began in 1659.
H/T Sara Chan.
Reader Comments (90)
See the warnings from Jo Bastardi and Piers Corbyn at http://climaterealists.com/index.php
Uum, I guess the Thames will be freezing over next.
What about the Scottish record?
Bet the little ice age was caused by a little global warming and the great ice age was caused by a great global warming. Hope this global warming ends soon 'cause we're all gonna freeze to death....what wasthe figure? 10 people dying of the cold every hour? or every day?
It is the same situation here in Scandinavia. In Norway we had more than 60 monthly cold records, and so far in December we have had around 10 degrees below normal - and the situation is set to continue for at least another 10 days.
The papers are fof course full of the latest report blaming melting of arctic ice due to global warming for the cold. We used to hear that a cold winter is just climate, but now that it somehow can be attributed to global warming, a cold winter is suddenly climate.
We live in strange and wonderful times.
Meanwhile Doug Keenan is still on Jones' case (and Wang in the US)
http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5610/b101201.htm
Hottest year ever
Weather not climate
Like the MWP, only a local phenomenon
Indicative of global climate disruption
etc.
See this proves that previous models have been too conservative and underestimated the effects of global warming! Won't somebody think of the polar bears?
And if you believe any of that, you win a free holiday in Cancun.
Ten years ago the Met Office told us that because of global warming the climate had changed such that we had moved from an extreme winter every 20 years to one every thousand years. Funny how we've had two once-in-a -thousand-years events within the space of twelve months, and the coldest start to winter for over 350 years, with more cold to come.
This is the same Met Office whose models purport to tell us what our climate will be like 50 years out within 25km grid, and, according to Vicky Pope, routinely do runs out to 1000 years ahead. By running their models routinely out to 1000 years then they can confidently claim that the models predict an extreme winter event only once in a thousand years. Methinks the facts on the ground demonstrate that their models are woefully bad.
See also Paul Hudson's blog for several examples of broken records, such as
Weather isn't climate.
To get the climate you need to record the temperatures and fill in the gaps with much higher temperatures.
Phillip
I see someone has leaped to the defence of the Met Office on the CR site, saying that they "correctly predicted the location, time and amount of snow 24 hours in advance" and disparaging Piers Corbyn for lack of precision several months ago!
Is this the same MO who said in October that "Britain can stop worrying about a big freeze this year because we could be in for a milder winter than in past years"..?
Mother Nature sometimes acts like any woman who's been ignored and treated badly so it's finally at the point that a lot of reverse psychology in the psyence and art of Climatology is the only option left to us all. Unless the AGW Mob starts talking about how C O L D things are and how we're entering another Glacial period, things are only going to get colder.
"Ten years ago the Met Office told us that because of global warming the climate had changed such that we had moved from an extreme winter every 20 years to one every thousand years. Funny how we've had two once-in-a -thousand-years events within the space of twelve months, and the coldest start to winter for over 350 years, with more cold to come."
Dec 9, 2010 at 12:24 PM | ScientistForTruth
I'm going to call 'rubbish' on the vast majority of this post unless you are able to cite the sources for the following:
1) A spokesman from the Met Office saying (approximately) a decade ago, that because of global warming the climate had changed such that we had moved from an extreme winter every 20 years to one every thousand years.
2) The coldest start to winter for over 350 years
Feel free to prove me wrong and provide the sources. Failure to do so, would suggest you're neither particularly scientific, nor truthful.
Make an effort Zedsdeadhead
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/words-of-wisdom-from-vicky-pope-as-england-has-the-coldest-start-to-winter-on-record/
Sunday Times 05 December:
[Section 1, p37, Weather. Isobel Lang]
BBD and Frosty.
I'm sure ScientistforTruth appreciates you trying to dig him/herself out of the hole they're in, but neither of you has provided a source that makes the claims for statements 1 or 2.
@ Martyn
Uum, I guess the Thames will be freezing over next.
Yep, within the next 30 years my guess would be.
@ ZedsDeadBed
The following appeared in the Independent, 20th March 2000:
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
The famously cold winter of 1962/63 is now expected to occur about once every 1,000 years or more, compared with approximately every 100 to 200 years before 1850.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20090225.html
same Met Office link link gives thios quote:
Peter Stott, Climate Scientist at the Met Office, said: "Despite the cold winter this year, the trend to milder and wetter winters is expected to continue, with snow and frost becoming less of a feature in the future.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20090225.html
Zed, regarding clues... "the coldest start to winter for over 350 years"
When do you think winter starts, and when do you think records start?
Coldest start to winter on record as two diet
"Britain had its coldest start to winter on record today, as the Arctic onslaught claimed at least two lives."
"Although the country has been in the grip of the coldest November for 17 years, winter officially started yesterday with an all-time record low for December 1."
as I said, make an effort to keep up eh.
Zed
I wasn't trying to 'dig SFT out of a hole'. First, only you are asserting that (s)he's in one. Second, (s)he's a big boy/girl and can fight his/her own corner.
I'm not too sold on the argument that cold winters 'refute' anything. The note from the (paywalled) ST weather section was for general interest on the thread - please see headpost.
I think you will find that if we use bristle cone pine trees to estimate historical temperatures, this will be shown to be the coldest winter for over a thousand years ...
And Zed, I've just checked the Met Office link provided by Matthu above, and the 1000 year extreme winter claim is correct.
An apology to SFT for your earlier remarks is in order.
Dec 9, 2010 at 1:37 PM | blingmun
Your quote is in no way a source for either claim Were you under the mistaken impression that it did? If not, why did you include it? It's irrelevant.
The famously cold winter of 1962/63 is now expected to occur about once every 1,000 years or more, compared with approximately every 100 to 200 years before 1850.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20090225.html
Dec 9, 2010 at 1:47 PM | matthu
Matthu - your quote talks about change from once every century or two, ScientistforTruth is trying to claim that the MO was talking about a change from once every 20 years.
Frosty - I asked if there was a source for either of these far-fetched claims, all you've done is ask more questions.
I conclude from this that they were just fabrications. This is the last nail in the coffin for men in tights, these oil-shills have been caught out making it up one too many times. There's no way the men in tights can come back from this.
matthu
Yes, a six sigma excursion from the mean. Wrap up warm.
"And Zed, I've just checked the Met Office link provided by Matthu above, and the 1000 year extreme winter claim is correct.
An apology to SFT for your earlier remarks is in order."
Dec 9, 2010 at 2:08 PM | BBD
No it's not - as explained above, SFT is talking about a change from 20 years, that's not what the MO said.
"as I said, make an effort to keep up eh."
Dec 9, 2010 at 2:02 PM | Frosty
Wow - partronising and wrong - you must be so pleased with yourself. Where in any of your links is there a claim about 350 years? Oh look - there isn't one.
Are you sure you're up to this kind of thing?
Zed
According to the Met Office press release, Prof. Stott said that the frequency of extreme winters (eg. 1962/3) was between 100 and 200 years pre-1850.
Now it will be every millenium.
Yet last winter and by the looks of things this one are record-breakers and come 48 and 49 years after the reference winter of 1962/63.
SFT may have been a little careless with the wording, but he does have a point.
Your response above at 2:08 seems a little over-wrought:
BBD
Being a man in tights, you're clearly wrong in almost everything you say and do, that said, you do seem fairly honest and civil so I try to give you the time of day.
SFT was wrong, plain and simple, in both claims. As I always point out, you lot hold climate scientists to an impossible standard, and claim every slip or ambiguity is the final nail in the coffin. Yet when people come out with total rubbish on this site, it's never questioned, except by me.
You all seem completely oblivious to this hypocrisy.
As for my last paragraph you have quoted above, that's just changing the antagonists from the kind of thing posted here 20 times a day about climate scientists. It's not 'that' subtle a paradoy either.
Hey, this graph says it's been getting colder for the past twelve years.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2010/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2010/trend
Phew! I was beginning to think all this white stuff was a pigment of my imagination.
Hi Brent - how's that cherry-picking working out for you?
What does the graph say if you start it a year or two before or after 1998? If it doesn't also show a downward slope, then you're just picking the details to try and make a point.
Zed
"Frosty - I asked if there was a source for either of these far-fetched claims, all you've done is ask more questions."
Pot, meet kettle.
BTW, "since records began", "in the last 350 years" and "since 1659" are all equivalent, as any fule kno.
Zed
I'm not wearing tights. Honestly. As for being 'wrong in almost everything [I] say and do' well that's perhaps a little bit of a silly thing to say, isn't it?
SFT was not essentially wrong about the 1000 year claim. The quote from Prof. Stott clearly states that post-1850 the 100 - 200 year frequency of extreme winters has given way to a new regime in which they will be millennial events.
Either Prof. Stott should also be more careful with his phrasing, or he was wrong.
You are, if I may be frank, making far too much of this and it's not helping you. Nor is the tone. You will note that I refrain from personal abuse in comments here. Even you yourself admit that I seem fairly civil. Let's save the big guns for a better fight, eh?
Zed,
It's a fair cop. It was cherrypicking. And even my triumph in making the line go down is worthless: it isn't a SIGNIFICANT downward trend.
So I won't be proclaiming an impending ice age. I just wish that those proclaiming its opposite would agree that the minor upticks and downticks of the past century are well within the range of natural variation; there's nothing to see here, move along.
Re ZDB
Not sure why a man in tights would make them wrong. Wearing tights (especially silk) in these kind of extreme global warming conditions can be quite sensible. Just ask a marine who's done arctic warfare training. They may prefer to call them long johns or thermals though.
Again not sure what you mean. Stott confidently predicted fewer colder winters. Stott is Manager of Understanding and Attributing Climate Change at the UK Met Office. His understanding and attribution seems incomplete. This is not unusual for PR from the Met Office given their previous predictions of bbq summers and mild winters that have turned out to be hopelessly wrong. The impossible standard I'd expect from climate scientists is admissions of mistakes, not more spin. Other impossible standards are commonplace in other scientific disciplines, such as releasing data and code so experiments can be verified or reproduced. Given the social importance and price tag attached to CAGW, it seems perfectly reasonable to hold climate scientists to high standards, certainly higher than they're currently demonstrating.
"BTW, "since records began", "in the last 350 years" and "since 1659" are all equivalent, as any fule kno."
Dec 9, 2010 at 2:34 PM | James P
Maybe I'm missing something here - but where do you get 1659 from? 'Since records began' is almost invariably taken as about 150 years, which is a double-century shy of 350.
Zed
They are talking about the CET.
Zed
It may be - and I haven't checked - that based on the CET then this is indeed the coldest 'start to winter' since 1659.
You might want to have a look and see if you are indeed on uncertain ground here. Just a thought.
"SFT was not essentially wrong about the 1000 year claim."
Dec 9, 2010 at 2:35 PM | BBD
I'm not always serious when I say men in tights are Satan, just making fun of our positions and the polarisation of the subject.
You can claim what you want about SFT, but when you find yourself having to explain what people meant to say, then you are extending a courtesy which is never extended to climate scientists, who are always treated in black and white here.
Look at that ropey old quote trotted out by blingmum above. That leaves it ambiguous, as it does not mention a timescale. It also doesn't particularly reflect his work. Yet I've seen it trotted out here nearly 50 times. I've not once seen anyone leaping to the defence of what Dr. Viner was essentially saying. I have multiply seen it used as the proverbial last nail in the coffin of AGW science. Again, without challenge.
BBD, I say that there's a fallacy behind claims of "thousand year events", namely that the climate does not operate by gaussian variation but chaotically. In his marvellous book, "The (mis)Behaviour of Markets", Benoit Mandelbrot explained this. The same applies to stockmarkets.
In both cases the assumption that variation is gaussian, with a clearly-defined standard deviation is wrong. It was this fallacy which led financial institutions to calculate a few years ago the probability of a crash. It was right at the edge of the bell curve, highly improbable.
Professor Wotsisface's confident pronouncements about the coming years are misplaced. As Patrick Moore would say (imagine the voice, the monocle): "We just-don't-know!"
I recall a humorous Sci Fi novel - by Robert Sheckley IIRC - where the hero meets a person standing next to a dirt trail. "What are you doing." "I'm waiting for X to arrive. He hasn't turned up on any of the past thousand days and therefore the probability of his arrival increases every day. And today it is mathematically certain." "Er.... personally I'd stick with the trend." At that moment, X appeared in the distance.
ZDB
I know troll-feeding is a fairly pointless occupation but I must ask whether you are the only person on here that hasn't heard of the Central England Temperature record?
Are you suggesting that 'Accuweather' is lying perhaps? If so there doesn't seem much point in arguing with you; if not why not go over there and sort it out with them instead of dribbling your adolescent rubbish where the grown-ups are trying to talk about things you evidently don't understand yet?
@ ZedsDeadBed
You asked for a quote of a Met Office spokesman from approximately a decade ago claiming that extreme (i.e. very cold) winters would henceforth occur once every thousand years. The relevance of my link to the article in the Independent is that it proves that a number of climate “scientists” were making similar predictions at the same time.
Just over ten years ago, CRU, the Hadley Centre, the University of Leiden and the Independent newspaper were all prepared to go on record agreeing with the proposition, “snow is starting to disappear from our lives”. Even Hamleys toyshop was thrown in as anecdotal evidence since they were not selling sledges “for the first time ever”.
Is your argument merely: ‘Yes, loads of warmists got it wrong, including two of the world’s most important AGW research centres…but the Met Office didn’t’?
The point, surely, is that a prediction arising from the theory of AGW has been shown to be spectacularly wrong. Not only have winters failed to become milder, but:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/
Zed
"where do you get 1659 from?"
The original post. I assumed you'd read it, but then again...
Sam the Skeptic
By the abusive tone of your post I see I've clearly touched a nerve with you. Don't like the hypocrisy of this site being exposed eh?
Central England is not the whole country, and Winter does not start on the last week in November. Are you all so fragile that you will keep desperately trying to find sources for SfT's clearly incorrect claims?
blingmum
Does your quote provide evidence for either of SfTs claims as highlighted by me? No it doesn't.
It's therefore irrelevant.
Re ZDB
Since records began is an overused and abused phrase, especially if you're assuming it means 150 years, or back to 1850. Both are abused to imply industrialisation as causation despite records showing warming started before then and has continued at pretty much the same rate ever since. Which is just as well or we'd still be in the Little Ice Age. Or further back, a proper Ice Age. Instead we're in an interglacial where historical records show climate variability just as we're seeing now. Otherwise, watch the pea. Records may refer to satellite measurements which often don't provide even 30yrs of data, so 'since records began' is not much of a claim when trying to determine if our current climate is at all anomalous.
For our current global warming, we're lucky having the CET which goes back a long way and shows the current weather is anomalous and not in the way Stott or Viner predicted.
Why are you feeding the troll, you will never get a straight answer just more questions and obsiquation and make the troll feel important.
"Why are you feeding the troll, you will never get a straight answer just more questions and obsiquation and make the troll feel important."
Dec 9, 2010 at 3:15 PM | JohnH
Remeber John, it's personally your dishonesty with trying to warp public perception of AGW, that is to thank for my being here in the first place.