Midlands Ice Age
-
Posts
7,136 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by Midlands Ice Age
-
-
12.9c and 73mms please
MIA
-
Thanks for the above.
My note was not intended to be a comment about CC. But someone obviously thought it was and so it was transferred in here.
So from a CC point of view, as far as I can see, and despite your hotspots in the Atlantic and Pacific, since the graphs for the SH and the NH add up to the earth's total surface surely it means that somewhere must be below average? That is why I was surprised.
It seems to not bear out the oft reported facts that large areas of the continents are becoming over heated. You seem to be suggesting that the major part of the warming currently is in the oceans. I was under the impression that GW would not impact the oceans as much as the 'ground' surface, since the oceans have the ability to soak up 9 times more heat capacity, but who knows?
MIA
-
Back from my shopping trip with you know who.
Promised a look at the hemispheric temperature profile (and this shocked me!) -
(Southern hemisphere data) - No change from 2016
(Northern hemisphere data) No change from 2016...
Looking as though it could well drop below 2023 in a couple of months if it goes as per 2016.
and finally the 'Tropics' -
So it looks as if it is the Tropics which is causing the current temperature climb.
Not surprising really, as it looks as if it where it should be with a 9 month El Nino beginning to fade.
- and here was me thinking/believing/misunderstanding(?) it was the Northern Hemisphere that had warmed up uncontrollably.!!!
MIA
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, raz.org.rain said:
Well that's pretty scary
I did some checking into this and all was not quite as suggested -
At the initial view of the earths surface temps it does not look good (above).
However looking at the last El nIno year and last year and this year tells a slightly different tale -
Here we see only a small increase on 2016 and it looks as if we will soon be cutting down below last year.
I will look further into this with a look at the northern, tropics and southern hemispheres in a further post but the better half is calling!! -
MIA.
-
-
3
-
1
-
-
Yep, I agree, makes me want to take a walk around Elmdon park lakes this morning.
-
1
-
-
An interesting article... up until now I have assumed that (eg) the mini ice age served to reduce the temperature quite quickly and that we have been steadily pulling out of that anomalous period.
However the computer models say something different!
We all know which will be correct....
MIA
-
Yep Solly a real cracker..
However was shocked to see the temp had dropped to -1.2C at 06:00, in my backyard.
MIA
-
2
-
1
-
-
Yep Solly and DWW..
I registered 0.4C min also - at 06:30.
Also there was a very white ground frost on my grass and roof this morning!!
Gorgeous morning on the golf course which looked fantastic with the deep green turf and many different colours of flowering trees and shrubs.
PS Just started raining again!
MIA
-
2
-
-
Thanks for the above..
Its the same message that I outlined to WYW ..... for the UK.
I am not quite so certain that the guy is giving the correct story for China however.
I have heard it before 10 times in the last 10 years!!
Sorry to be a grinch...
MIA
-
A great day for weather enthusiasts..
A few heavy showers we just missed this afternoon, but a real beauty with hail and even snow flakes hit me about 30 mins ago....
Back to my memories of the 60s for real some real april showers,
Proper sunshine again now......
MIA
-
2
-
-
Also had a heavy sleet and hail shower here, which lasted about 90 seconds!!!
Temperature dropped 4degrees C in that time to 4.0C.
Its now back up again to 6.4C and the sun is shining.
Wonderful day....
MIA
-
As promised yesterday (was too busy last night) I am supplying the latest data from the National Grid as to the UK demand and also the emissions and also 'generation' over the current period, and also the 12 year history (which is very revealing), and indicates that the UK is in fact in the top few countries on its 'progress' currently.
Firstly the current snapshot (on a very wet, cool and relatively quiet wednesday afternoon), so fairly typical of the last few months -
Demand and emissions (snapshot for today)
and emissions (Below 100g KWH)
and the generation graph is here
As can be seen the green (renewables) has been mainly used except for a small period (1 hr) when fossil fuels (red line) were increased (though still less than renewables), and mainly to cater for overseas transfers on early morning start ups.
This looks quite encouraging, but only the longer term charts give the true information as to the changes the UK has made to its energy production -
Demand
as can be seen total demand has reduced (average) from about 36.5GW to 34KW,after dropping lower to about 30KW during the Covid epidemic and the Russian energy crisis. This represents an actual reduction of about 10 - 15 percent in our energy usage. Well done to everyone.
I cannot show the graph, but this was even higher during the 'zeroes'.
So 'Demand' is a good news story.
Whether this fall continues may well be affected by the use of EV cars (see below).
So usage has fallen... what about the 'generation' meeting this demand ?
well coal has fallen off the cliff. 'Gas' has remained steady though has fallen a bit in the last few years after peaking in the 2010 to 2016 period, and a further drop can be expected as yet more wind power comes online.
Nuclear has also fallen and has dropped by over a half since 2010 as plants have been decommissioned. (see below). However the really noticeable feature is the rise of wind power from 2KW to 11.7KW (on an average)........
So where does this leave our actual 'EMISSIONS'?
Where inspection reveals that we have dropped from 503g per KW hr to 136g per KW hr. This number is a rate change not an actual figure.
A reduction of about 72%
Truly a very good performance.
But that is not all in terms of the hydrocarbon output, since as I detailed above we have also seen a reduction of about 10-15% on our usage, So the total reduction is of the order of 85% on our emissions since 2010 and is even greater if we go further back to look at the 'coal' powered era that we had been through. No comments about China please!
So where to - next?
Well the Grid supplies all our usage energy. The last few months are indicating that we can get down to around 70g KGH (average) emissions without doing too much more (see todays chart below), That should reduce our outputs down by a further 50% (at least) on the current annual figures.
The above 'National Grid' reports represents about two thirds of our annual total energy production. With travel and transport and shipping also having impacts.
There is a current plan to move to EV's. This will improve further the 'total' emissions figure, and a reduction in the fossil fuel line. However, we need to consider that it will increase the demand on the power network considerably, and the initial costs are prohibitive for many people.
I always think of the law that 80% (name?) of any changes can be made without too much hassle.
The remaining 20% is where the problems will occur in the UK, and I do wonder whether we need to adjust our approach at this stage to one of mitigation, whilst new scientific breakthroughs come through to help with our final push to zero emissions..
The worlds future climate will not be determined by the UK!!!
These are my personal views based upon the data coming out of the UK. I accept that some with perhaps personal long term held views may disagree.
I wish that all countries where equally as transparent as the UK!!!
The above is the actual current data.
All data from the link below -
MIA
-
1
-
-
Thanks for the above...
We are in basic agreement on the data. although the data for China since 2015 up to 2020 (end of your chart is missing) seems to have got worse again.
I think that you are understating the problem the world has got with these Chinese emissions and not giving the UK enough credit. (not just the UK, but most of the democratic western world in fact). To fully go non zero by 2030 (or even close ) was never a realistic possibility as there was not the technology available to support such a change.
We have made large strides, and reducing to zero from where we are now will mean little change to the ultimate temperatures. That does not apply if we leave China to go on its planned path of increasing the coal generation output of its power usage. You yourself mention that it is twice as 'potent' as per natural gas emissions, when discussing the UK.. This does not mean we should not keep going with (our) the current plans.
I'll be back later with more details on the UK current actual position.
MIA
-
1 hour ago, WYorksWeather said:
Not sure if you've misread the chart or have some different figures - UK emissions are down by 50% not 75% - the 75% would be if we were on course for a 1.5C compatible emissions drop, and is for 2030. Current projections have our emissions dropping slightly by 2030.
I used the data portal in your link to the data. It represents the drop in coal in the production of electricity and I used the data portal in comparison with the China data see below -
cf
I thought that coal was agreed by all to be the major greenhouse gas enabler. China is the huge utiliser. The UK has exceeded most countries in the reduction of the use of coal.
The graph above also shows how China (despite its switch to wind and solar) is still producing 85% (minimum) of its electricity from coal (as per 2020). I am not decrying China by the way, but they will be producing 80% of the worlds CO2 in 15 years time. If CO2 is the problem then excusing China will not help the CC problem.!!!
My data has nothing to do with required pathways or the like as you suggest , and it is the actual data.
If you are talking about the actual proportions of the various types of current electricity production up to date then refer to the current National Grid usages as displayed in several links that I can provide for the UK. There we are running about 55% renewables at the moment, as we have made extensive use of wind power at the moment.
I am not aware that China provides the same information so no current analysis is possible. However I would be amazed if the figures had altered that much with China building another 400 coal powered power stations in the last 2 years as part of the expansion to get their population linked to power.
Also, I did in fact under-estimate the reduction in coal in the UK as it is nearer to 95% than 80%, as opposed to it being nearer to 15% for China.
MIA
-
Thanks for the above WYW...
Yes it is good to see a more realistic evaluation of the current state of our emissions.
However my position (as I discussed with Solly, and previous) is that if human activities and emissions are the driver of climate change then we cannot ignore the actions of India and China. The 'accounting' figures show that by 2040 they will be producing 80% of the total greenhouse gas emissions.
Yes there is still more work to be done in the countries that we can affect, but will it make any real difference to the climate whether the UK goes totally zero emissions in 2050 or 2070? Yes we still have one operative coal powered power station!!!
The same applies for just about every 'western' country. (except Mexico, Canada and Argentina??).
Looking at emissions the UK has reduced its 'output' by about 75% since the 1990's,
China has increased their's by 400% during that time, and what concerns me is that despite claims it will be brought under control, I see no direct evidence of it actually reducing its increases for about 5 years (they say 2 years), and also none at all, that it will start reducing them for about 20 years.
These are the realistic facts that should concern the activists, not the fact that the UK could go quicker (though at a cost to all of us), and that it will cause a difference of about 0.002C in 75 years time.
Water cleanliness and plastic 'pollution' are however areas for immediate action. (Spoken by someone who has worked on and has some patents for plastic materials in the real world) .
I will leave it at that for now as I want to keep the debate as free from politics as possible.
Those are my reasons for why I choose to react to certain throw away and incorrect remarks in the thread.
Lets keep it 'data' fed and not 'emotion' led.
MIA
-
1
-
-
Still we see a refusal of the Arctic to obey the script.
Still 10 -15% more than average for this point.
and this is despite the SOO going for a large melt out.
The Barents just continues to freeze -
and the Bering/ Greenland seems to want to follow suit -
By now all 3 of these seas are normally in full melt mode.
This is still early season, but was not expected by many people.
MIA
-
6
-
1
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, SollyOlly said:
I'm not looking for an argument, and generally agree about data driven debates. But it doesn't always carry the day...people are emotional creatures and not always rational, unfortunately!
I just get cross at those who seem to want to use China, India etc as an 'excuse' not to do what we can here. We can only control what we control, as it were. I don't dispute the fact that some countries have higher emissions than others. But I don't think that's a reason not to be the best that we can be. I'm not trying to be tetchy about it...
Not quite sure what you are saying here...
Is it that we should be driven by our emotions when tackling this climate crisis?
Surely not?
The UK is still in the top 25% of countries in implementing the measures as required by the various climate change emissions requirements. This is despite the recent Tory proposal to delay the rollout of EV's by allowing non EV's to be delayed by 5 years.
The decision was made based upon the fact that we will not be ready to go fully electric from a network and transport point of view.
Before that the UK was in the top 10 percent of countries.
The technology is just not 'up to it' for this country to be ready as yet.
Other countries with bountiful supplies of hydro based power are above us.
Even if we were leading the race to go green, it would make no difference to out ultimate fate. Fully green we would be able to reduce the temperature increase by just 0.02C.
Is that really what you think we should be doing?
MIA
-
Whilst agreeing that we should do what we can - it clearly makes sense - we must also not put out incorrect data -
Do you actually know what the current CO2 (and the other greenhouse gasses) output of India, China, USA, UK , etc is? , and what it is planned to be by 2030 , 2040 and 2050?...
Clue - check in the IPCC reports... China is doing a lot on 'green' CO2, but is still building 200 new coal fired power stations for each of the next 3 years. The rest of the world virtually nil.
If you really are genuine in your beliefs of the damage being done by 'greenhouse' gasses then your must focus your attention on them.
Unless you show all the data you are referring to, I believe you have got your comments directly from 'extinction', and they, unfortunately, have not got only 'green' ideals any longer.
Can we please have some data and less of these types of argumentative 'tetchy' aside comments?
MIA
-
9.4C and 113mms please
MIA
-
WYW..
Thanks for the above, but I was replying to Pennines note about whether the 'weather' will be the same over the next few years, and not LONG TERM climate change.
HIs note suggested that the current situation was here for.... (ever?, he mentioned 10 years) due to the current 'stuck' situation. I was pointing out that natural climate change will be effective a long time before your 30 year averages for CC become effective.
I was simply pointing out that , despite CC, that there will still be a large variation in 'regional' temperatures in exactly the same way as there always have been, with areas below the average values as well as those above, caused by the normal rhythms of changeable 'weather' and not climate.
I was deliberately talking about the many different regions within earth's atmosphere., not talking about the global climate.
'Weather' changes will not cease with Climate Change.
MIA
-
50 minutes ago, Pennine Ten Foot Drifts said:
1. The reduction in the temperature difference between mid-latitudes and the Arctic weakening the northern polar jet and causing it (combined with other factors you've mentioned) to persist on a more southerly track.
2. Generally warmer air, therefore holding more moisture, leading to heavier rainfall associated with the procession of depressions.
If this is generally correct does that not mean that this type of pattern is going to persist for potentially many years (at least in human terms i.e potentially 5-10 years) until the next 'level' of climate change kicks in and we move to the next phase? (however that manifests itself).
PTFD..
I agree with your general statements above...
But do not forget the other 'unknowns' which are inherent in our climate.
That is the variability of 'natural' forcings.
There two things need to be considered
1) The sigma variation from the usual climate normal. Best understood as 1 in a xxx year events by most people.
2) It automatically means that variations in climate have always occured and they have always been around. The natural elements of climate change have not become extinct. I accept that these events may well be becoming a bit more frequent in recent years ..
For example - If you simply look at the CET data, the 1730 decade saw over a 1.2C degree increase in temperature compared to decades both before and after until about 50 years ago. That was long before the major forcing increases believed to be being caused by CO2. It, I believe, would have been caused by some sort of natural climate change. Perhaps with lows 'stalling' in similar positions to those we currently are enjoying so much right now.!!!
Fierce wind storms swept the UK during the period of the early 1720's. I believe that the earth's natural climate variability has not yet been completely taken over by other new forcings, just yet.
We will have to wait and see what happens and then analyse the data.
MIA
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
Although I formerly closed my output to this thread 8 days ago, I thought it worthwhile coming back for a further update as the sea ice continues to 'misbehave' itself and will not fall in extent the way it should!!!
I will start off by showing the Masie extent graph -
As you can see, it is refusing to go down this year. In fact the last 3 days (after an increase of +108K Km2) have hovered just below my arbitrary 15M Km2 line (latest at 14,986K Km2).
The last 3 days have in fact been rounded up to 15M |KM2, but I do not count those!!
The recent events have now put a gap of 800.000 KM2 between it and its challenger (2022-23) for much of the season, and is way above average for the time of year.
As a result of a recently released paper and post (video on the paper) on the changing and reducing AMOC effect and its predictions for its effects on Arctic ice and Northern Hemisphere weather in general (link below, and see the forum on Global Surface Air & Sea Temperatures if the link does not work') -
QuoteI thought I would show a few graphs of the regions it highlights as being prone to increases in view of a reduced inflow from the Atlantic (the AMOC effect) into the Arctic region -
1) Barents
2) Greenland
Baltic
3) Bering -
4) SOO -
As can be seen all have spent sometime above the 10 year highs within the last 4 weeks as the melt season started, and all are currently running very high.
In fact the Barents is quite remarkable that it has grown by around 200K KM2 in the last 2weeks and it is this that has kept the record high extents ongoing. Even the Bering is still increasing, albeit from a lower base.
I have included this chart from the ASIF to make a final point. One of the few years that has shown a similar effect was 2012 where the increases carried on for a further week, before starting to fall.
Now the downside of all this is that 2012 went on to become the lowest year so far recorded, That however was caused by the very unusual weather and atmospheric situation which followed in July and August (the GAC - Great Arctic Cyclone) which destroyed a lot of the outlaying ice.
So what will happen? Is this new paper relevant to the Arctic sea ice?
I have assumed that, so far, most of the unscripted changes were due to the ENSO/PDO and perhaps the Hunga Tunga volcano, but perhaps we must also add in the changing AMOC.
Do we in fact have a new driver in the race to record the first Blue Ocean Event (BOE) -a method of describing an ice free Arctic. Or perhaps this positive 'twist' might delay the event even further out in time.
The other interesting thing about this is that potentially the weather we are seeing 'at home' is also being affected by the changes in the Arctic.
Next episode?....
MIA
-
11
-
1
-
2
-
2 hours ago, sundog said:
Could a slower AMOC be helping to reduce the rate of sea ice loss in the Arctic. Perhaps a reason why the minimum extent record set in 2012 hasn't been beaten yet.
Sundog..
I found this very interesting.. Thanks for the info.
I will probably also transfer this paper to the N H snow and ice thread, where I will display all the latest extent and area charts for the relevant Arctic regions. It is incredible how they fit the output scenario that the paper predicted.
As you will know If you have been reading the above thread, I have been reporting that the sea ice in the Arctic has not been following the trend of the climate models over the last few years (3 - 5 possibly) not very well at all), and I have reported on great detail on this and have at times had discussions with @WestYorksWeather on why this may be occuring.
I had picked up the increased trend for the ice increases in exactly the areas specified (Barents, Kara in the western Arctic) and I have also picked up the recent increases in the Eastern Arctic waters (Pacific - Bering and the SOO) which this paper also proposes will show an increased tendency to grow ice under their modelled output.
I have 3 real points to make -
1) the slow down effect of the AMOC is real. It has been measured in 3 or 4 different places now, across the Atlantic. It is the main driver for heat transfer across the equator from south to north. It has not been investigated (or even included) by the climate models until perhaps very recently (The Rel 6 IPCC paper does not show that it has any major impacts from it, eg). Certainly 5 years ago it was not counted as a real driver of climate change - as it was assumed that it had no net world wide climate temperature change. It is now being suggested that it may well do by virtue of the 'albedo' and the other impacts discussed above on the atmospheric temperature profile/change resulting from the changes in the ocean currents.
It is also interesting to note that they modelled the opposite effect in the southern hemisphere.... SO the CC overall 'net' assumption impact on temperature may be valid, but it would involve much detail weather characteristic event differences being forecast for both hemispheres.
2) This is just one model - there are around a dozen out there. They say that they will extend their work into others. I will be interested to see if they show the same trends.
3) I have been thinking (In common with many others) about the changes of weather being experienced most notably in the western Atlantic. This 'different' weather is not exclusive to Europe though. Odd weather is also being reported in North America (resulting in a 10 year low in the Great Lakes ice), and also in the Pacific where sea ice levels are at a 10 year high for this time in the season.. @Mattyh and @KirkaldyWeather have also been 'hard at it'
Also in Barents and the Greenland Oceans (+even Baltic) where very unusual sea ice late increases in trend are even now still occuring,- despite the melt season being over 2 weeks old now.
My feeling on all this is that the Arctic Polar Vortex has been very weak this year at the tropospheric level, and where it has been mainly dominated by weak 'flat' areas of high pressure. (when compared to a raging PV.)
This HP has in turn prevented deep low pressure areas from entering the polar regions from the Atlantic, and also the lack of real high pressure has prevented a strong enough reversion of the normal westerly flow across the sub Arctic regions (widespread easterlies).
This combined event has for us (for our atlantic areas - not looked at other regions) led to the southerly tracking jet stream for most of the winter (since last July actually), being forced by the weak polar vortex over Canada pumping low pressure zones across the Atlantic , and has also allowed the 'Iberian heights' to gain control for some spells, whenever the jet stream weakened at all.
I had intended giving my own interpretation of our current climate, and this paper seems to give my thoughts at least some background for being correct.
I guess the major question is - what is it that can break us out of the current relentless westerly low pressures, which always seem to stall over or just to the west of us?
My guess is that it will take a change of some sort in the Arctic to either push these depression through, and then we can get a 'reset'; or perhaps weaken sufficiently to enable the southern heights to take over. Perhaps the 'final warming' event or we just drift into a summer pattern, with high pressure nosing in from the south.
Over to the NH snow and ice forum for me. !!!
MIA
-
2
-
Midlands regional discussion - Spring 2024
in Midlands Weather Discussion
Posted
Yep it was a lovely day. The max I recorded was 19.6 C.
Rainfall for April was 95.4mms.
MIA