The Met Office have just released the third edition of their State of the UK Climate for 2016. I always find that this a strange time to publish such a document, why not by the end of January? But once you have taken a look at the 59 page document, you’ll see that it must take a lot of work to put it all together, and I am just being my old curmudgeonly self.
There’s an interesting correction at the foot of the article about CET, which as most of you know is something I like to talk about at length. I find it amazing how people scour the climate datasets to pick out a new extreme, be it high or low, this one’s no exception – decades that span 10 years but don’t start on a year that ends in a zero aren’t what I would call a decade. It’s time to see what the Collins dictionary definition of a decade is:
A decade is a period of ten years, especially one that begins with a year ending in 0, for example 1980 to 1989.
So they are strictly correct, but personally I still like to think of a decade as a period that starts with a year that is divisible by 10 without a remainder, as the Collins dictionary definition suggests it is. Anyway back to the correction, what they were initially said was that the period 2007-2016 was the warmest ‘decade’ in the whole series back to 1659. Obviously they noticed that something was wrong, and said it was incorrect. I wonder why they didn’t just delete the reference in the HTML? I was certainly late on this one and never saw the original.
Just out of interest, here is a centred 10 year moving average of monthly CET values since 1900 (fig 2), and as far as I can see, the warmest decade was the one from 1997 to the end of 2006, when the mean 10 year anomaly for the first time just exceeded +1.0°C, since then, Central England has cooled, until about 2012, when annual anomalies increased sharply again. I think the reason they corrected the original article could have been for a typo, because 2007-2016 and 1997-2006 are just ten years apart. They can always ask me to provide them with graphs, I have a graph of CET values to suit just about any occasion, and the bonus is that I work cheap.
Here for completeness is the full 10 year series of moving averages since 1659 (fig 3).