The mean monthly sea-level pressure chart for December 2003
is quite unusual. The Icelandic low is barely discernible and very
weak at 1005 mbar, but the main low centre lies in the eastern
Barents Sea, near Novaya Zemlya, at 990 mbar. The Azores
high is displaced east to Morocco at 1022 mbar, and there is
another prominent high at 1023 mbar centred over Romania.
Thus the usual SW to W-ly flow over the Atlantic and the
British Isles is very weak, whereas there is an enhanced
W-ly flow over Scandinavia, the Baltic and European Russia.
The usual ridge over northeast Greenland is somehwat more
intense than usual.

The main anomaly centres a
-12mbar in the Russian Arctic
+8mbar mid-Atlantic, near 55N 30W
+5mbar central Greenland
+4mbar Romania
-1 mbar Bay of Biscay (small, but it does distort the pattern
over the UK.

The anomalous flow over the British Isles is complex:
NNW'ly over northern Scotland, NE-ly over Ireland,
southern Scotland, northern England and Wales, but
SE-ly over southeast England and East Anglia (around
that Biscay neganom).

Provisional CET: 4.8ºC (0.3 degC below the 71-00 mean)
Prov E&W rain: 103mm (102% of 71-00 mean)
Prov E&W sun: 56 hr (116% of 71-00 mean)

Oddly, most of the regional temperature means were
fractionally positive, ranging from +0.3 in East Anglia to
0.3 in northwest England. Mean maxes were generally
positive, while mean mins were neutral to negative.

Rainfall totals varied between 37mm at Clacton (Essex) and
305mm at Dalmally (Argyll). Other low figures were 39mm
at Dishforth (N.Yorks) and 42mm at Southend (Essex).
Rainfall percentages ranged from 49% at Teignmouth (Devon)
and 49% also at Cork (Irish Rep.) to 186% at Shanklin (IoW)..

Sunshine totals varied between 79h at St Helier (Jersey) and 78h
at Jersey Airport (I've discounted Torquay's 91h as the recorder
appears to be mis-calibrated), and 17h at Kirkwall (Orkney).
Sunshine percentages ranged from 173% at Church Fenton (nr
York) to 77% at Kirkwall.

(c) Philip Eden

I'm a little shocked by that CET value. It was one of the warmest Decembers
I've ever recorded.

Shaun Pudwell
Warden Bay, Nr. Leysdown-on-Sea, Isle of Sheeppey, Kent.
2M ASL.

"Philip Eden" philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote in message
.. .
The mean monthly sea-level pressure chart for December 2003
is quite unusual. The Icelandic low is barely discernible and very
weak at 1005 mbar, but the main low centre lies in the eastern
Barents Sea, near Novaya Zemlya, at 990 mbar. The Azores
high is displaced east to Morocco at 1022 mbar, and there is
another prominent high at 1023 mbar centred over Romania.
Thus the usual SW to W-ly flow over the Atlantic and the
British Isles is very weak, whereas there is an enhanced
W-ly flow over Scandinavia, the Baltic and European Russia.
The usual ridge over northeast Greenland is somehwat more
intense than usual.

The main anomaly centres a
-12mbar in the Russian Arctic
+8mbar mid-Atlantic, near 55N 30W
+5mbar central Greenland
+4mbar Romania
-1 mbar Bay of Biscay (small, but it does distort the pattern
over the UK.

The anomalous flow over the British Isles is complex:
NNW'ly over northern Scotland, NE-ly over Ireland,
southern Scotland, northern England and Wales, but
SE-ly over southeast England and East Anglia (around
that Biscay neganom).

Provisional CET: 4.8ºC (0.3 degC below the 71-00 mean)
Prov E&W rain: 103mm (102% of 71-00 mean)
Prov E&W sun: 56 hr (116% of 71-00 mean)

Oddly, most of the regional temperature means were
fractionally positive, ranging from +0.3 in East Anglia to
0.3 in northwest England. Mean maxes were generally
positive, while mean mins were neutral to negative.

Rainfall totals varied between 37mm at Clacton (Essex) and
305mm at Dalmally (Argyll). Other low figures were 39mm
at Dishforth (N.Yorks) and 42mm at Southend (Essex).
Rainfall percentages ranged from 49% at Teignmouth (Devon)
and 49% also at Cork (Irish Rep.) to 186% at Shanklin (IoW)..

Sunshine totals varied between 79h at St Helier (Jersey) and 78h
at Jersey Airport (I've discounted Torquay's 91h as the recorder
appears to be mis-calibrated), and 17h at Kirkwall (Orkney).
Sunshine percentages ranged from 173% at Church Fenton (nr
York) to 77% at Kirkwall.

(c) Philip Eden

In message
"Shaun Pudwell" wrote:

I'm a little shocked by that CET value. It was one of the warmest Decembers
I've ever recorded.

Shaun Pudwell
Warden Bay, Nr. Leysdown-on-Sea, Isle of Sheeppey, Kent.
2M ASL.

I on the other hand am surprised that so many stations are above CET. My own
readings are -0.6C (mean 4.6), and I am not usually that far out!

I have recoded only three below CET monthly averages in the past two years,
but that includes two of the last three months.

No, I'm not going to claim that it is further evidence of Global Cooling :-)

Martin.



--
Created on the Iyonix PC - the new RISC OS computer.

"Martin Dixon" wrote in message
...
In message
"Shaun Pudwell" wrote:

I'm a little shocked by that CET value. It was one of the warmest
Decembers
I've ever recorded.

Shaun Pudwell
Warden Bay, Nr. Leysdown-on-Sea, Isle of Sheeppey, Kent.
2M ASL.

I on the other hand am surprised that so many stations are above CET. My
own
readings are -0.6C (mean 4.6), and I am not usually that far out!

I have recoded only three below CET monthly averages in the past two years,
but that includes two of the last three months.

No, I'm not going to claim that it is further evidence of Global Cooling :-)

But will you accept that the reason that your readings are exceptions is due
to the chaotic nature of weather and climate, and not just random chance :-?

Cheers, Alastair.

"Alastair McDonald" k wrote in
message ...

But will you accept that the reason that your readings are exceptions is due
to the chaotic nature of weather and climate, and not just random chance :-?


But that's the same thing isn't it, or is that your point?



Col
--
Bolton, Lancashire.
160m asl.
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co.uk

"Col" wrote in message
...

"Alastair McDonald" k wrote
in message ...

But will you accept that the reason that your readings are exceptions is
due to the chaotic nature of weather and climate, and not just random
chance :-?


But that's the same thing isn't it, or is that your point?



My point is that chance and chaos are not the same, but I must admit I
have not explained it well, if at all :-( Briefly what I am suggesting is
that chaotic is more random than random!

This is an idea I have been developing over the last year, but not having
fully explained it to anyone it is not surprising you do not get it. In fact
many may not acept it even after I have explained it!

One analogue for chaos is turbulent flow as opposed to laminar flow. I
like to think that mountain streams (Scottisn burns) are a good example
of chaos whereas the slow moving English River Stour is a good example
of laminar flow.

When I was in Scotland at Christmas I examined a burn formed by the
heavy rain. As I had expected, while the general flow was down hill, but
when it hit a rock the water rose up in a stationery wave. Eddies resulted
in some water travelling in the opposite direction to the general flow. Just
as it is with water in a burn, so it is with temperature during the the global
warming of the planet. Most areas slowly warm, but some nearby cool.
Others leap about, being warmer than average one year and cooler the
next.

It is this leaping about which distinguishes chaos from random. If the
climate was to warm randomly, one might expect a 0.1C increase in
one year and 0.2C the following year, and 0.15 in the next year. What
we are getting is the 0.2C in the first year and 0.15C in the following
year, but -0.2 C in the year that followed that one. (1997 - 1999). It is
the chaotic nature of weather and climate, which seems random, that
makes it so much more difficult to spot the trends.

Does this make any sense?

Cheers , Alastair

In message
"Alastair McDonald" k wrote:


My point is that chance and chaos are not the same, but I must admit I
have not explained it well, if at all :-( Briefly what I am suggesting is
that chaotic is more random than random!

This is an idea I have been developing over the last year, but not having
fully explained it to anyone it is not surprising you do not get it. In fact
many may not acept it even after I have explained it!

One analogue for chaos is turbulent flow as opposed to laminar flow. I
like to think that mountain streams (Scottisn burns) are a good example
of chaos whereas the slow moving English River Stour is a good example
of laminar flow.

When I was in Scotland at Christmas I examined a burn formed by the
heavy rain. As I had expected, while the general flow was down hill, but
when it hit a rock the water rose up in a stationery wave. Eddies resulted
in some water travelling in the opposite direction to the general flow. Just
as it is with water in a burn, so it is with temperature during the the global
warming of the planet. Most areas slowly warm, but some nearby cool.
Others leap about, being warmer than average one year and cooler the
next.

It is this leaping about which distinguishes chaos from random. If the
climate was to warm randomly, one might expect a 0.1C increase in
one year and 0.2C the following year, and 0.15 in the next year. What
we are getting is the 0.2C in the first year and 0.15C in the following
year, but -0.2 C in the year that followed that one. (1997 - 1999). It is
the chaotic nature of weather and climate, which seems random, that
makes it so much more difficult to spot the trends.

Does this make any sense?


I'm no statistician, but I believe that mean temperatures will conform to a
"normal" distribution.

You are simply saying (I think, and without quantifying it)) that the
standard deviation of a set of "chaotic" samples is greater than that of
"random" samples. But "standard deviation" should be meaningless if the
distribution is random.

The fact is that the distribution of mean temperature values for a given
month is NOT random, since the greatest number of samples are close to the
mean, so that a frequency curve has a maximum at that value. If the
distribution was random, the frequency curve would be close to a straight
line, and any value would be just as likely as any other. That this is not
the case is clear from looking at any set of monthly mean temperatures.

Martin


--
Created on the Iyonix PC - the new RISC OS computer.

I'm no statistician, but I believe that mean temperatures will conform to a
"normal" distribution.

You are simply saying (I think, and without quantifying it)) that the
standard deviation of a set of "chaotic" samples is greater than that of
"random" samples. But "standard deviation" should be meaningless if the
distribution is random.
....
That this is not
the case is clear from looking at any set of monthly mean temperatures.

Martin
Not sure what anybody is trying to get at here but current thinking is that temperature records shld
exhibit power law scaling typical of non linear systems.For an apparent contradiction to this in the
CET-


Scaling of Central England Temperature Fluctuations?
Joanna Syrokaf1 and Ralf Toumif2
Abstract
Central England temperature fluctuations are found to be monoscaling with long-range dependence.
Monoscaling can be explained in terms of the dominance of Gaussian temperature advection.
Simulations of the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre general circulation model do not capture
many of these features.
Atmospheric Science Letters
Volume 2, Issues 1-4 , June 2001, Pages 143-154
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/1530261X

also see-
http://www.copernicus.org/EGS/egsga/...ts/aai0997.pdf

--
regards,
david
(add 17 to waghorne to reply)

"Waghorn" wrote in message
...

Martin

Not sure what anybody is trying to get at here but current thinking is that
temperature records should exhibit power law scaling typical of non linear
systems. For an apparent contradiction to this in the CET -

Scaling of Central England Temperature Fluctuations?
Joanna Syrokaf and Ralf Toumif
Abstract
Central England temperature fluctuations are found to be monoscaling
with long-range dependence. Monoscaling can be explained in terms of
the dominance of Gaussian temperature advection. Simulations of the
UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre general circulation model do not
capture many of these features.
Atmospheric Science Letters
Volume 2, Issues 1-4 , June 2001, Pages 143-154
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/1530261X

also see-
http://www.copernicus.org/EGS/egsga/...ts/aai0997.pdf


David,

Thanks for those links. I have copied the abstract from the second link
below because it tends to back up what I am thinking;

-------------------------------------

TESTING FOR SCALING AND PERSISTENCE IN COUPLED OCEANATMOSPHERE
CIRCULATION MODELS
J.Syroka and R.Toumi
Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Imperial College
A simple and effective method to test the Hadley Centre climate model
simulations for persistence and non-stationarity on a range of time scales
is introduced. Surface daily temperature fluctuations for three regions are
examined: Central England, Eastern Tropical Pacific and global. It is found
that different versions of the climate model systematically underestimate
the persistence of global mean temperatures. The anti-persistence in the
El-Nino region is also underestimated by the model. Scaling behaviour seen
in the Central England temperature record is only reproduced by one version
of the model. These inadequacies may be due to insufficient ocean
atmosphere coupling within the modelled climate system. Systematic
underestimates of model variability imply reduced confidence with which an
anthropogenic signal may be detected.

--------------------------------------

I wrote;
"Alastair McDonald" k wrote
in message ...

"Martin Dixon" wrote in message
...
I on the other hand am surprised that so many stations are above CET. My
own readings are -0.6C (mean 4.6), and I am not usually that far out!

I have recoded only three below CET monthly averages in the past two
years, but that includes two of the last three months.

No, I'm not going to claim that it is further evidence of Global Cooling
:-)

But will you accept that the reason that your readings are exceptions is due
to the chaotic nature of weather and climate, and not just random chance :-?

Cheers, Alastair.

It is the power law scaling, (due to chaos not chance) which lets Martin's
figures go in the opposite direction to the CET.

The Hadley Centre model is wrong because it cannot reproduce this
power law effect. (They use a linear approach to the feedback from water
vapour instead of a large positive feedback which would produce the
chaotic effect seen.)

The chaotic nature of weather and climate has resulted in the "reduced
confidence with which an anthropogenic signal may be detected" amongst
many in this newsgroup and the general public. Once you see that the
weather is chaotic and not random, then it is obvious that climate change
is happening.

Cheers, Alastair.

PS I did a little editting to improve readablity, but have not changed the
sense of what went before, I hope!