View Article & Comments

It is global, not regional. There is plenty of data supporting the global nature of cyclical climate variations.

To achieve circulation changes one must change the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere.

The sign of the necessary change in stratospheric temperatures as a result of solar variability is the opposite of conventional climatology hence recent evidence that there is a reverse sign solar effect in the upper atmosphere as publicised by Joanna Haigh and others.

This is the most likely scenario:

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6645

“How The Sun Could Control Earth’s Temperature”

SOLAR CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL AND NOW!

This finding in historic data of increased SPRINGTIME European windiness during periods of low solar activity is very important and further support of what we and others have already suggested the descent towards a new LIA (Little Ice Age) means.

This windiness is driven by more cyclonic activity from a 'South passing' jet stream (denoted JSS = Jet Stream South in our word forecasts and on our Euromap Pressure forecast maps) in Spring.

Already in April and this month we have early CONFIRMATION of the LIA type circulation and associated weather events we warned of in general and particular:-

1. Lingering south-centred cyclonic / JSS activity over Britain (and into Europe as Lows come in, some from Biscay eg).

2. Heavy rain and strong winds associated with this cyclonic activity.
The winds being both
- large scale, around the Low centre, and
- thunderstorm /tornado scale in localized supercell thunderstorm / tornadic events.
The recent unusual deadly tornado in E Japan 6May:
http://bbc.in/JMSv81
was one example but a VERY IMPORTANT European example is the recent 7th May supercell thunderstorm and tornado event in Oxford area:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hQlm2peP58KY2fSfRW_WhVptkB_w?docId=N0146321336424437704A

3. Associated large / intense hail events
- observed with the Oxford supercell tornado 7 May
- near Paris 5 May: Report sent to WeatherAction site from Philippe (Alsace): "Hi Piers and everybody, Was near Paris this week end. Numerous internet references about flash floods in the region ile de France and more interesting a hail storm in the city of Dreux (west of paris) on sat evening...bye bye
http://communaute.lachainemeteo.com/communaute-meteo/meteo-dreux/neiges---giboulees---grele-/photo-orage-de-grele-84978.php#ancre_photo http://www.lechorepublicain.fr/eure-et-loir/actualite/pays/pays-drouais/dreux/2012/05/06/un-violent-orage-de-grele-cree-un-veritable-chaos-a-dreux-diaporama-actualise-1161082.html
These are astounding pics.

Both the tornado and hail events are confirmation of the VERY HIGH (compared with normal) predicted both generally and specifically tornado risk world-wide during the 5-7May R4 period.
Hail and thunder events in 5-7 May were specifically warned of for N France including Paris and for Britain (East rather than West) and very high (increased) risk of tornadic events were stated in the B+I easy look graph forecast for 5-7May.

To get these detailed forecasts for Britain+Ire, Europe (including possible pressure scenarios through month), and for USA and earthquake (trials) please go to:
http://www.weatheraction.com/wactmember5.asp

There are ongoing READERS NEWS/ OBSERVATIONS coming in all the time on WeatherAction main site eg on (latest) comment posting see READERS COMMENTS
http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=453&c=5

AND HOW DOES IT WORK?
The details of HOW LIA ice age circulation patterns came about is very important but uncertain.
I don't buy the UV 'explanation' because although it might (or might not) be there it is ALWAYS associated with a change in solar particle flux. UV and solar (scalar) activity (and the Cosmic rays it modulates) have an 11 yr cycle which is NOT shown in world temperatures and only a small signal in any weather data set compared with the 22yr magnetic cycle of the sun.
Since UV changes always come with something else we cannot say what is really going on from these correlations and I think the UV, like GCR 'mechanisms' are part of the 'anything but solar-magnetic drivers' camp, and are decisively denied as serious mechanisms by the LACK of 11 year signals in weather data.
Actual monitoring of UV and supposedly causatively driven detailed changes in upper air circulation are far too short a part of the solar magnetic cycle to claim any particular driver or proxy for something as cause.

To get to the roots of this matter see:
COMMENT 29 on
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3307&page=2
The longer piece it introduces:
COMMENT 2 on
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9491
and our subsequent VIDEO
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9528

Thanks Piers

Comment edited by Piers Corbyn (Twitter) on Tuesday May 08, 2012 at 9:19 PM EDT

I'd be surprised if the observed effects are from ozone alone.

More likely it is a result of multiple solar induced processes all working to alter the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere.

Furthermore it is likely that those processes are linked to the solar wind and / or the magnetic fields of sun and Earth.

I'm doubtful that the cosmic ray effects are significant though. Much more likely is changes in the mix of wavelengths and particles from the sun altering atmospheric chemistry.

More clouds would be generated by the more meridional jetstreams which leads to longer lines of air mass mixing around the globe and thus more clouds.

The cosmic ray hypothesis involving condensation nuclei may not be necessary at all.

As regards the absence of a significant signal on the 11 year cycle (in normal times) I think that is because it takes multiple solar cycles for the solar effect to rise abouve the shorter term chaotic variability and internal system variability (especially from the oceans).

And a new twitpic: We are advancing!
Despite Standard Met view, Little Ice Age weather types emerge => WeatherAction Long Range forecasts beat all:
http://twitpic.com/9izyoh/full

MAY Central England 1st week 1.6C below norm = coldest for 300 years so far:
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/898525-weeks-of-wet-weather-to-come-during-britains-coldest-may-in-300-years?ITO=socialnet-twitter-button

LATEST http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=453&c=5

Comment edited by Piers Corbyn (Twitter) on Saturday May 12, 2012 at 1:03 AM EDT

Maybe you missed my comment in the other thread about how embarrassingly wrong it is to say 'coldest for 300 years so far'

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9594&linkbox=true&position=3

As you know you must compare like with like, which is what Philip Eden does with his figures. They show that

For the first 10 days of May the CET is running at 9.7C that's just 0.8C below the average for this period.

http://www.climate-uk.com/

A -0.8C anomaly by the end of the month would rank it as the coldest May since ...er... 1996, that's 16 years ago!

Elim, That was Metro not us and I think about first week not 10 days and they seem to have mixed up 'relatives to normal' and 'if this temp carried on', although that needs checking.

Its journalize about the fact of the cold. Also we (WeatherAction) are not saying so cold we said coldest or near coldest East/Central Britain for 100 years. We have to put it like that because 1996 was coldest (CET although we would prefer east measures) in last 100 years so to be in say coldest 5 in 100 years we use that phrase.

Your comment about 16years is an attempt to deceive. You need to compare like with like.

IN FACT 'Coldest or near coldest for 100 years' is the same as 'coldest or near coldest for 16 years', because 1996 was the coldest for 100 years.
Better to say Probably in 5 coldest in last 100 years which is the 90% level in our forecast.

If December 2012 is very cold (this is NOT a forecast) it could turn out as 2nd coldest for 100 years or coldest for two years which of course doesn't 'sound so cold' but it would qualify as 'near coldest for 100 years'. Do not misconstrue our forecast and STICK TO OUR PHRASE.
We did NOT say 'coldest for 100years',
We said 'coldest or near coldest for 100 years and 90% sure it would be in the 5 coldest for 100 years'.

For what we said in summary on 17th April see:
http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=450&c=5

Do you subscribe to any of our forecasts?

Comment edited by Piers Corbyn (Twitter) on Sunday May 13, 2012 at 3:12 PM EDT

No, my comment about 16 years was because it is very different to 300 years!

Anyway, yes I understood your forecast:

80% confidence "Coldest in 100 years" i.e 9.1C or below.

90% confidence "In 5 coldest in 100 years" i.e 9.8C or below

You're still in with a chance of being right, time will tell!