Droughty Spring 2012

Weather log Spring 2012.Temperatures rose as normal this spring, apart from a quick rise in the last week and a cold spell in the second week of October. In the cold spell, one day failed to reach 14°! Rain fell nearly every week, but never more than 15 mm in a day.

After last spring’s record-breaking 432 mm rainfall, this spring was about as droughty as spring 2002. The rainfall total, 81 mm, was a bit higher than in spring 2002 (66 mm) and the percent of cloudy mornings higher (25% vs. 19%), but the dew point (humidity) was much lower (3.7° vs. 5.4°) and the daily temperature range was higher (17.9° vs. 17.1°).
Showers in the last days lifted the total rainfall (81 mm) to the 10th percentile for springs.Climate spring 2012.

Data. Rainfall data is from Manilla Post Office, courtesy of Phil Pinch. Temperatures, including subsoil at 750 mm, and other data are from 3 Monash Street, Manilla.

3-year trends to May 2012

Parametric plots of smoothed climate variables at ManillaTrends to May 2012.

New raw data for May 2012 anomalies show a dry climate, quite unlike the extremely wet and very cold summer. Daily max temp was slightly above normal and rainfall well below normal. The Dew Point was extremely low, daily min temp very low, and temperature range very wide. Subsoil temperature remained high: for five months it has been two degrees warmer than might be expected from the daily maximum air temperature.

Spring (SON) 2011 anomalies (now fully smoothed) changed as follows:
Max temp fell rapidly from one degree below normal;
Rainfall began high and increased very rapidly;
Cloudiness remained rather high;
Dew Point was low, but rose slightly;
Temp range and Min temp were both rather low and decreasing;
Subsoil temp was normal.

A new 13-year record high monthly rainfall anomaly of +43.8 mm came in November. This beats the record set the previous month by 5 mm, but it may be beaten the following month.

Note: Fully smoothed data – Gaussian smoothing with half-width 6 months – are plotted in red, partly smoothed data uncoloured, and raw data for the last data point in orange. January data points are marked by squares. Blue diamonds and the dashed blue rectangle show the extreme values in the fully smoothed data record since September 1999.

Manilla rainfall extremes reflect NINO3.4 temperature

Manilla rainfall matches NINO3.4 sea surface temperature.

(This material justifies a statement in the post “Predict weather from ENSO?”)

The graphs above are like those in an earlier post, but show how Manilla monthly rainfall anomalies, rather than maximum temperature anomalies relate to the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Most people using ENSO  want to predict Australian regional rainfall.

In the second graph I have improved the match at peaks and troughs of smoothed Manilla monthly rainfall anomalies and NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomaly data in two ways.
1. I converted the sea surface temperature anomaly (degrees C) into a model of resultant rainfall anomaly (mm) by multiplying by minus fifteen.
2. I added 3.7 mm of rainfall to the Manilla figures, and I lagged the data by two months.

To the eye, the over-all correspondence between actual and modelled rainfall is good, but not quite as good as in the temperature graphs. One form of mis-match is that two of the greatest rainfall deficits (“El Nino” Nov-06, Dec-09) are broader and shallower than in the model. (Perhaps an arithmetic measure of rainfall anomaly is not the best.)

The third graph shows how much Manilla rainfall, as adjusted, differs from the rainfall “predicted” by the NINO3.4 model. Dashed lines show limits of a good match at +/- 7.5 mm (corresponding to +/-0.5 degrees). The nature of each larger discrepancy is noted.

A good match demands lagging actual rainfall at Manilla by two months. That implies that peaks and troughs in Manilla rainfall anomalies happen two months before the matching anomalies of NINO3.4. I wonder if prediction is even practical if that is the case in other parts of Australia.

Notes
1. High frequency noise is reduced in the case of the Manilla monthly data by a Gaussian smoothing function of half-width six months.
2. On advice, I represent the El Nino – Southern Oscillation phenomenon (ENSO) by the NINO3.4 area anomalies from the OISSTv2 data set.
My enquiries about the best data to use are in this “weatherzone”  thread.
The ensemble of sea surface temperatures does not have much high-frequency noise. There is some, however, and I have used the same smoothing as used in the (formerly authoritative) Oceanic Nino Index (ONI), that is, a running mean of each three monthly values.


This was posted originally in a “weatherzone” forum, with the date 28 October 2011. It is posted here with the nominal date 16 November 2011.

(Note added: Updated to include 2013 here.)

 

Dry air and little rain in July 2011

The daily weather logWeather log July 2011.

Despite a series of cloudy cold days in the middle of the month, most features of the weather in July were normal. Days got as warm as 20° at each end of the month, and never went lower than 11.7°. Nights were neither very warm nor very cold. There were 17 frosts, the coldest being -3.7°.
Humidity and rainfall recall the drought year of 2002.
Extremely low humidity was shown by the early morning Dew Point on the 12th, of 6.2°. This was the lowest July value since 2002, which had four lower values, down to 6.7°.
The highest rainfall reading was only 4 mm, recorded on the 20th. Four rain days totalled 6.4 mm.By the end of the month there had been 39 days with less than 5 mm of rain.

 Comparing July monthsClimate July 2011.

Mean temperature readings were normal. The mean early morning Dew Point (- 0.6°) was the lowest July value since 2002 (- 1.4°).
For frosts, this month was normal. Since 1999, the most frosty July was in 2002, with 27 frosts, down to -5.1°. The least frosty was 2010, with 12 frosts, down to only -1.4°.
The rainfall of 6.4 mm is very low: on the 8th percentile for July. Only ten Julies in 127 years have been drier. (July 2002 and July 1940 were equal driest, at 1 mm.) Rainfall totals for 2, 3, 4 and 5 months are in the 5th, 10th, 9th and 10th percentiles respectively. Percentile values lower than 10 are serious rainfall shortages. Totals for larger groups of months continue to be near normal.


Data. Rainfall data is from Manilla Post Office, courtesy of Phil Pinch. Temperatures, including subsoil at 750 mm, and other data are from 3 Monash Street, Manilla.

 

3-year trends to August 2004

Parametric plots of smoothed climate variables at Manilla

“An extreme 1-year drought”

Trends to August 2004

At Manilla a sudden extreme drought peaked in winter and spring of 2002. Each of seven climate variables went through a large cycle, with a peak at the top right-hand corner of its graph.

(Note added in May 2014: This 2002 event is the most extreme rainfall drought at Manilla so far in the 21st century. Current conditions may perhaps be similar.)

Extreme values of anomalies.

The smoothed anomaly of daily maximum temperature (X-axis on all graphs) exceeded +0.7° in June 2002, and remained above that value until December. It peaked at +1.30° in September-October 2002. (Note added: This stood as a record high value for seven years until October 2009.)
Smoothed monthly rainfall anomaly fell below -14 mm in February 2002, and remained below that value until November. It peaked (negative) at -27.1 mm in July 2002. (Note added: In May 2014 this still stands as a record low value.)
The smoothed anomaly of percent cloudy mornings (more than 4 octas) fell below -7% in July 2002, and remained below that value until December 2002. It peaked (negative) at -11.3% in October 2002. (Note added: In May 2014 this still stands as a record low value. More cloud in recent years has made negative anomalies rare.)
The smoothed anomaly of early morning dew point fell below -0.7° in May 2002, and remained below that value until January 2003. It peaked (negative) at -1.48°  in September-October 2002. (Note added: This stood as a record low value until June 2011. Since then, the air has become much drier, taking anomaly values three times as low.)
The smoothed anomaly of daily temperature range, like that of daily maximum temperature, was positive during the drought. It exceeded +0.7° in April 2002, and remained above that value until November. It peaked at +1.23°  in July-August 2002. (Note added: In May 2014 this still stands as a record high value.)
Smoothed daily minimum temperature anomaly reached a maximum of only +0.38° at the peak of the drought in November 2002. It had risen smoothly from the strongly negative value of -0.91° in November 2001. Through 2002, the rise in daily minimum temperature lagged behind that of daily maximum temperature, resulting in a “continental” type of climate with wide daily temperature range. (Note added: Higher daily minimum temperature anomalies occurred in winter 2007, and much higher ones in spring 2009.)
The smoothed anomaly of subsoil temperature, like that of daily maximum temperature, was positive during the drought. It exceeded +0.7° in August 2002, and remained above that value until February 2003. It peaked at +1.48°  in November 2002. (Note added: This value was exceeded from January to May 2007, and further exceeded in winter 2013.)

Leads and lags.

The climate variables did not all peak at once: some led, and some lagged. In the table below I show three estimates of lead or lag (in months):

  1. I identified dates of peak value on the graphs;
  2. I noted a point mid-way between the date of departure from normal and that of return to normal as the median date;
  3. Where the line on the graph formed a hysteresis loop (shown by a curved arrow), I drew other graphs with a lead or lag imposed to compensate for the actual lead or lag. I estimated the amount of lead or lag that would make the loop into a straight line.

Table of leads and lags of climate anomaly variables

In the table, I take the dates for highest excess of daily maximum temperature as the standard, to show the pattern of leads and lags of the other variables. Rainfall deficit led by 2.3 months and daily temperature range excess led by 1.8 months. Early morning dew point deficit (dry air) did not lead or lag. The deficit in cloud amount lagged by 0.4 months, and the excess of both daily minimum temperature and subsoil temperature lagged by 1.8 months.
(Note added: Leads and lags in more recent climate events at Manilla have a pattern that is similar, but not the same.)

Note:
Fully smoothed data – Gaussian smoothing with half-width 6 months – are plotted in red, partly smoothed data uncoloured, and raw data for the last data point in orange. January data points are marked by squares.
Normal values are based on averages for the decade from March 1999. They appear on these graphs as a turquoise (turquoise) circle at the origin (0,0). A range of anomalies called “normal” is shown by a dashed rectangle in aqua (aqua). For values in degrees, the assigned normal range is +/-0.7°; for cloudiness, +/-7%; for monthly rainfall, +/-14 mm.

(Note added in May 2014: A much later post titled “3-year trends to May 2010” is the first of a consecutive series of parametric plots, updated monthly at the time of observation and originally posted elsewhere.
This earlier data was not edited in this form at the time.
To display all existing fully-smoothed data points at least once, I have prepared these back-dated posts in the same format for:
“3-year trends to August 2002” which includes smoothed data September 1999 to February 2002, covering the calendar years 2000 and 2001.
“3-year trends to August 2004” (this post) which includes smoothed data September 2001 to February 2004, covering the calendar years 2002 and 2003.
“3-year trends to August 2006” which includes smoothed data September 2003 to February 2006, covering the calendar years 2004 and 2005.
“3-year trends to August 2008” which includes smoothed data September 2005 to February 2008, covering the calendar years 2006 and 2007.
In these back-dated posts the anomaly values depend on climate normals that are based on the decade ending February 2009, and were thus not available until after that date. I have written the posts as if they were available at the time.
In places I have written some “Notes added in May 2014” (like this) commenting on how values observed at that time relate to more recent events.)