Skip to content

CET Max Temps In June

July 3, 2017

By Paul Homewood

While I was looking at CET temperatures for last month, I had a play around with the daily maximums for June, which begin back in 1878.

I came up with this scatter plot:

image

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/data/download.html

 

Obviously it shows the large daily variations that occur in most years. It also certainly shows that the top temperatures have not been increasing in recent years, even if you ignore 1976.

If anybody can find any sort of a climate change signal in any of this, they are a better man than I am!

 

 

FOOTNOTE

As I prepared this post last week, I have not included this year’s data.

Advertisements
31 Comments
  1. Dung permalink
    July 3, 2017 1:00 pm

    I detect a very clear signal!
    Move along there, nothing to see here.

  2. Athelstan permalink
    July 3, 2017 1:09 pm

    Ah yes but …………………..the egregious numpties of climatastrophe and alarmism aka da wetoffice were telling us that June 2017 was the FIFTH WARMEST since records began…………….wot.evah!

    goin’ way back to 1910 – so there!

    • 1saveenergy permalink
      July 3, 2017 3:56 pm

      According to xmetman’s excellent site, its the 18th warmest June since 1659

      http://www.xmetman.com/wp/2017/07/01/june-2016-top-6-finish-scuppered-by-cold-end/

      • Athelstan permalink
        July 3, 2017 5:20 pm

        Ta and cheers for the heads up, warm Junes are an exception and varying from the norm.
        A British summer is so fleeting, whatever it does suits me fine.
        I like warm Junes, it must be said, however I also glory in, hiking and strolling in the gentle summer rain and sun + rain is, so good for soft fruit too.

  3. July 3, 2017 1:21 pm

    To show AGW we have to find not just warming but also that the warming is related to emissions

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2956179

    • nigel permalink
      July 3, 2017 1:44 pm

      “To show AGW we have to…”

      And to show CAGW we have to show that AGW of a degree or two is very bad.*

      And then to show AVOIDABLE CAGW we have to show that the developing world will fall into line, and beggar themselves, like good little boys, when we wheel out Mears et al as gurus of the first order.

      *Way back in the day, the usual take on it was (believe it or not)
      “CO2 emissions can produce MERELY a couple of degrees C warming – so don’t worry!”

  4. Ian Magness permalink
    July 3, 2017 1:36 pm

    You clearly forgot to lower the older entries progressively downward Paul, to account for, er, errors. That’s why there’s no obvious, catastrophic upward trend like all those learned university types show.

  5. July 3, 2017 1:36 pm

    Hmm, there must be something wrong with the data. Clearly it needs adjusting by an expert climate scientist.

  6. The Old Bloke permalink
    July 3, 2017 1:41 pm

    I surprised there isn’t a signal what with many of the CET sites which were once in fields and rural areas are now in heat sinks and affected by urban influences and of course much more active airfields and runways
    .

  7. July 3, 2017 1:42 pm

    Another point is that the data show that agw is warming the nights not the days
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2974794

    • July 3, 2017 2:44 pm

      Which is hardly surprising. We live in a 24/7 economy everywhere in what might be called the”civilised” part of the planet (though what is civilised about a way of life that never shuts down is open to debate!)

      Lights, central heating, air conditioning, transport by rail, road and air, production, leisure all mean that there is much higher level of heat ouput during the hours of night than there was even 25 years ago. There is no way this cannot translate into higher minimum temperatures.

  8. July 3, 2017 1:43 pm

    Great job, Paul – nice one!

  9. dave permalink
    July 3, 2017 1:54 pm

    Dropping the soap in the shower is not a good idea

    http://www.bing.com/?pc=COSP&ptag=D010616-ABBFDD158E6&form=CONMHP&conlogo=CT3334487

  10. tom0mason permalink
    July 3, 2017 2:28 pm

    However from the records June 28th coldest on record. But a single day cannot mean anything can it? Can it?
    see http://www.xmetman.com/wp/2017/06/29/coldest-june-28th-on-record/

    • dave permalink
      July 3, 2017 6:07 pm

      UAH for June shows a DROP over the month of 0.24 C. That was always likely, in view of the behaviour of the 2-meter anomaly during the month.

      RSS will have to show something similar or lose what tiny shred of credibility they may still have among thoughtful people. It more than wipes out their entire recent fiddle of + 0.15 C.

      However, their propaganda was still entirely effective, since the headline “No Pause!” is a done deal, even though it is all irrelevant to the present state of the planet.

      Thank God for Trump!

      • dave permalink
        July 3, 2017 6:16 pm

        METOP-B is being used now by UAH. This is a satellite whose orbit is actively maintained and so it does not need many pesky corrections over time.

      • dave permalink
        July 4, 2017 1:04 pm

        “RSS will have to show something similar [for v.4 LTT]…”

        RSS showed – 0.15 C for June.

        Incidentally, according to Dr Spencer, Metop-B back data was incorporatad into the UAH algorithm, and recalculations made by UAH team for period since 2013. The resulting changes were miniscule. A good validation of the UAH method, I think.

      • dave permalink
        July 4, 2017 1:08 pm

        -0.15 C … the monthly change, of course, not the level.

        RSS is 0.67 C below their El Nino 2016 high month The El Nino spike is now just history – as far as the actual, realized, time series goes.

    • tom0mason permalink
      July 3, 2017 6:24 pm

      In the UK there is Gavin(no not that one), a manic weather model watcher, and in this video (https://www.youtube.com/embed/Fz-_UfCNF64?ecver=1) has some interesting things to say about very high CET figures.

      Umm, guess what year 1976 very hot figures were bettered by… …you’ll have to look it up, or watch the video.

  11. July 5, 2017 9:00 am

    Paul

    I had a brief battle with the climate experts at MeteoSchweiz, the Swiss Federal Meteorology organization, in which I used your recent CET June plot. The responses may interest you and your readers. The post is here:

    http://www.meteoschweiz.admin.ch/home.subpage.html/de/data/blogs/2017/6/einfluss-des-klimawandels-auf-die-hitze-in-europa-im-juni-2017-b.html

    It’s all in German, but the relevant bits I have translated below.

    The author titled the post ‘Influence of climate change on the heatwave in Europe confirmed’, which immediately annoyed me. In the text of the article he(?) stated, however, ‘Is climate change ‘responsible’ for the June heatwave? A clear yes or no answer is not possible’, which annoyed me even more: the casual passer-by gets the headline but not the qualification. The second half of the posting was based on a piece of nonsense from ‘World Weather Attribution’, that is, our old friends Climate Central:

    https://wwa.climatecentral.org/analyses/europe-heat-june-2017/

    I (Richard Smith) wrote and asked how he could reconcile the two statements. He responded:

    +++++
    The title relates to the general influence of climate change on the heatwave, this is unambiguous. … Man has a clear influence on the increased probability of such an eventuality, but one cannot say whether man is responsible for this particular event.
    +++++

    Clear?

    I then sent them your nice plot of CET June temperatures. This provoked the following response.

    +++++
    One cannot draw conclusions about the total temperature behaviour from a single parameter (daily maximum temperatures for June). The annual value of the CET displays a positive trend since the 19th century. From the normal period 1961-1990 to the normal period 1981-2010 the annual temperature has risen by 0.5 degrees. Or as a counter example to June, March shows from the normal period 1961-1990 to the normal period 1981-2010 an increase in temperature of almost 1 degree. By the way: the monthly maximum for June for the Central England Temperature also shows a positive trend.

    Because of the damping effect of the nearby ocean there is less warming in England than in Switzerland.

    http://www.meteoschweiz.admin.ch/home/aktuell/meteoschweiz-blog/meteoschweiz-blog-suche.subpage.html/de/data/blogs/2016/4/ausnahmefall-schweiz-auch-bei-der-klimaerwaermung.html

    +++++

    Given that any the comments I make in most other Swiss media about CAGW never see the light of day I am deeply grateful to MeteoSchweiz for publishing my comments and even responding to them – even if the response is not really what I wanted to hear.

    Unlike yours, Paul, my sword of truth bends limply quite soon, so I shall save my breath to cool my porridge. You may get a few Swiss CAGW people hanging around your site – sorry!

    • dave permalink
      July 5, 2017 9:33 am

      What German word have you translated as ‘parameter,’ please ?

      • July 5, 2017 9:52 am

        Parameter
        Man kann nicht von einem Monat und von einem Parameter (tägliche Maximumtemperatur Juni) auf das gesamte Temperaturverhalten schliessen.

    • July 5, 2017 10:07 am

      Thanks!!

      Yes, there is certainly an upward trend since, say, the 19thC, but whether temps have still been rising in the last three decades is debatable.

      But what my graph plainly shows is that, as far as max temps go, the top temps are not hoing up or becoming more frequent overvtime. What is apparent is that the cold days have become less common.

      This is highly significant when we are talking about “heatwaves”

      There is also the issue of minimum temps which may be having an effect on mean trends

    • dave permalink
      July 5, 2017 10:10 am

      “…the climate experts…”

      No, you are being given standard gobbledly-gook by a very junior person in the system.

      ANY statistician knows that you MUST give the measures of variability TOGETHER with any averages. Paul’s pictures always show the variability, even if not as calculated numbers.
      The Swiss comments, as you have given them, use no measures of variability, and do not relate anything to a proper context – a system of multiple hypotheses.

      In fact, “Statistics” was completely dead as a respectable subject in the middle of the 19th Century (n.b. Benjamin Disraeii’s quip, “There are Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics!”)
      The reason was that people merely piled up heaps of measurements and proclaimed ‘the average.’ The subject was restarted with measures of variability and the REQUIREMENT that all statistical investigations start with specified “statistical models” and that particular analyses be used such as ANOVA and Maximum Likelihood.

      As for pure “Times Series Analysis,” many practicing statisticians agree with Moroney’s judgement in “Facts From Figures” – VOODOO.

      • dave permalink
        July 5, 2017 10:34 am

        “Disraeii’s” should be “Disraeli’s”of course.

        fos

        I see; they just used the English word ‘Parameter.’

        Wrongly, of course, since the use does not accord with any of the dictionary definitions:

        noun

        1. one of a number of auxiliary variables in terms of which all the variables in an implicit functional relationship can be explicitly expressed;

        2. a variable whose behaviour is not being considered and which may for present purposes be regarded as a constant;

        3. (statistics) a characteristic of the distribution of a population, such as the mean, as distinct from that of a sample;

        4. (informal) any constant or limiting factor.

        These people are never going to admit they are wrong, fos.
        They will be like John Cleese’s Black Knight,

        To King Arthur, after Arthur has lopped off his arms and legs and is leaving:

        “Come back and fight! Coward! We’ll call it a draw, then?”

  12. July 5, 2017 12:31 pm

    Quite, Dave.
    I would be happy if someone admitted at least: ”tis but a scratch’…

    re Parameter. I think I understand what he/she means. He she is talking about conclusions concerning ‘Temperature behaviour’, in which case Paul’s June array might be considered to be one input or variable. The use of terminology is a bit sloppy, though, but since this person certainly earns more than I do, he’s obviously cleverer than I am.

  13. July 6, 2017 2:31 pm

    Paul

    June is the one month in the CET calendar that does buck the warming trend that you see in other months – albeit modest as they are.

    Have a look at the linear trend for the month of June from 1659-2016 in this link…

    https://www.xmetman.com/wp/cet/monthly-cet/

    and you will notice that it’s flat lined, and unlike any other month, and that’s what you’ve noticed in your scatter graph.

    I mentioned it in this article…

    http://www.xmetman.com/wp/2017/06/29/coldest-june-28th-on-record/

    I try to remain an agnostic in the AGW debate but a mention in your site does wonders for my viewing figures! Maybe thats because it would be beneath most climatologists and meteorologists to read anything on my site, whilst your readers are more prepared to read it for what it’s worth.

    Bruce.

    • July 6, 2017 5:03 pm

      Thanks Bruce.

      I plan to do similar analysis for the whole of summer, at the end of Aug

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: