More Common Sense From Paul Hudson
By Paul Homewood
In his latest blog, BBC meteorologist Paul Hudson asks the question, “Have weather patterns really been unusual?”.
He goes on:-
There’s been much in the press in recent days following the widely publicised ‘Unusual weather’ conference held at the Met Office. The Independent headline was similar to others in the media, advising readers to ‘Stand by for another decade of wet summers’, continuing that the UK was in the midst of a ‘rare’ weather cycle. This cycle, scientists announced, was the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).
But as it turns out, there’s nothing rare or unusual about it at all. The AMO was first identified by researchers nearly 20 years ago, incidentally when I had just begun my career as a forecaster at the Met Office, and describes a natural, cyclical warming and cooling of the North Atlantic Ocean over time.
This cycle is known to affect temperatures and rainfall, and alter North American and European summer climate. In the UK, it leads to an increased risk of summers that are wetter than average.
It’s also linked with changes in the frequency of Atlantic Hurricanes, and of North American droughts. The 1930’s and 1950’s in North America are dominated by heat records and correlate almost perfectly with a warm AMO.
The AMO has a cycle of approximately 70 years and would mean the current warm AMO is likely to last into the next decade.
But talk of another decade of wet summers is misleading. If as expected the warm AMO continues then there’s a higher risk of wet summers – but it certainly doesn’t mean every summer will be a washout. It’s worth remembering that one of the warmest, sunniest summers on record happened in 1959 – during the previous warm AMO cycle.
The return to much colder winters discussed at the conference has coincided with another natural phenomena – that of low solar activity – which has been shown to be associated with weather patterns that encourage cold winters across the UK and Europe.
It goes to show that at a time when it seems that every weather event or climate pattern is linked in some way to man-made climate change, natural weather cycles like the AMO can offer a more straightforward, natural, explanation.
Who needs the useless Slingo?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Have-weather-patterns-really-been-unusual
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
A minor issue with Paul Hudson’s wording:
“. . . a more straightforward, natural, explanation.”
To me the term “explanation” implies an understanding of something so that other insights can follow. Napoleon sought the help of Pasteur to aid the French wine growers because of the loss of wine from something they did not understand. After some research Pasteur offered an explanation and, as folks say, the rest is history. The word ‘approach’ might be a better choice in place of explanation.
By almost exclusively focusing on the “greenhouse” idea “climate scientists” have neglected the drivers of natural variability. The “greenhouse” hypothesis doesn’t appear to be the correct direction. We need a reboot of the science directed at the natural drivers.
In the meantime, the UK could consult with Mr. Hudson and the historian ‘tonyb’ for a more interesting and likely better seasonal projection.
———–
1, 2, 3 and 4 day forecasts have improved mostly as a result of much info and views from satellites. Many of these have gone past their engineered time or about to reach it. Replacements are not ready. The scientists and governments ought to be ashamed for letting this happen. A lot of money has been wasted in the face of a recognized need.
————
The photo of the man in the blue shirt ought to be captioned.
Sadly, one fears for Paul’s promotional prospects, in an “industry” bedevilled with Lysenkoism.
Mr. Hudson is resiling from the consensus warmist position he has long held. Such a comment from him would not have been made even 2 years ago. Still. if the whole of Heaven can rejoice if one sinner repents, it would be uncharitable, as well as self-defeating, for the Sceptic community to mock and crow. At least Mr. Hudson has the courage and scientific integrity to accept the plethora of empirical evidence that questions the validity of model-led climastrology. There’s not a lot of that in his former colleagues.
These comments and others by Paul Hudson mark a welcome return to more science based forecasting that Professor H.H. Lamb would have recognized and approve of I’m sure. I wish him well in his small but necessary challenge to the current trend in over reliance on statistical modeling, and I hope that he can further the art of weather forecasting in both timeliness and accuracy.
Keep up the good work Mr. Hudson.