richie3846

With rainfall coming up from the south later in the week, we could see some large downpours.

I may be guilty of some localism here. The last 4 Octobers have been wetter than average, with 2 of those very wet indeed. This followed 4 dry Octobers in a row. So locally we've literally flipped from dry to wet, with rainfall roughly 3.5 times the amount during 2019-22, compared with the dry Octobers 2015-18.

I err on the side of caution when trying to attribute short term trends to a particular reason. However, it does appear that Octobers of recent years, seem to be the dumping ground of the warmer conditions in the summer, in the Northern hemisphere, in the form of rain. I think it was October 2021 that saw the extreme rainfall event that has been quickly forgotten - because of lack of impacts. We dodged a bullet, simply because of a dry September, and the steady nature of the rain.

If weather forecasters start going down the route of the climate change agenda, this may have no impact on people's thinking. For starters, many people now use apps to decide what action to take in their lives, regarding the weather we have now. How many people actually watch a weather forecast these days? My instinct tells me, probably not that many, and mainly the older TV watching generation. Also, when something is repeatedly forced upon us, especially if we aren't overly on board with something, we do just shut down for self preservation. Our nervous systems go into a survival state, which then unfortunately means, in many cases, we then shut down whenever faced with similar experiences. These shut down people are then more vulnerable to propaganda, because they will feel like there is a safer alternative available, and this will be felt deep in the brain, not on a conscious level. There are plenty of sources of information regarding climate change, and even the Met Office itself, publishes the Deep Dive, often covering climate change as part of a wider weather context. I believe the excessive focus on climate change, is already a problem for everyday folk. People need to be able to get on with their day to day lives, in the tangible here and now. In my view we need LESS information, not more. Climate topics tend to be activating in our nervous systems, and us Westerners have unhealthy levels of activation in general, with our reward and goal based culture. We are unable to cope with being activated more than 20% of the time, and being made to feel responsible for climate change on so many news feeds, our local councils, the government, it's potentially driving more illness in our bodies and mind. We need people to be well in order to be able to live a kinder life for the planet. I don't see how changing language on a weather forecast is going to help the situation at all. I'd like to see more focus on a shift in culture away from Western ideology, which would in turn, dampen consumerism and reward culture. It's like we are now trying to treat the symptom (excessive consumption) instead of addressing the cause (Western mentality). Before anyone mentions how much pollution is being pumped out in the East, it does appear that many Eastern countries have adopted more of a Western thinking pattern over time, creating reward cultures in those countries also.

Excellent point, but we aren't going to be living in an EV world for many decades yet, so we can expect diesel and petrol cars to exist for a long time, alongside EVs in multistorey carparks, and ferries.

I hope this is fully investigated. We need to know the impact EVs had on this fire, and if they caused the injuries to the emergency services which have been reported.

This is exactly what I was expecting. Do you have any links to this information please?

The Tornado and Storm Research Organisation (TORRO) WWW.TORRO.ORG.UK TORRO is a privately-supported research body specialising in severe convective weather in Britain and Ireland 25.9c on the 18th October 1997, Nantmor, Gwynedd.

Sorry, I'll clarify. With concentrations probably a lot lower than the time of the study, are we likely to see a rise in concentrations anywhere like 1000ppm? Are there any studies into the effects of increases in CO2, from different starting points? The study itself was of course limited to the conditions at the time of the warming event 66 million years ago, so do we really know if the effects will be that dramatic, when concentrations now are much lower.

Anthropogenic carbon release rate unprecedented during the past 66 million years ESCHOLARSHIP.ORG Author(s): Zeebe, Richard E; Ridgwell, Andy; Zachos, James C | Abstract: Carbon release rates from anthropogenic sources reached a record high of ∼10 Pg... The scientific article is available here also. I've taken the time to read the scientific piece, and the BBC piece also. One thing that the BBC picks up on confused me, as it was not the main focus of the study: 'CO2 concentration in the atmosphere very probably went above 1,000 parts per million by volume, compared with the 400ppm it stands at today.' Any thoughts about this, in relation to the study on carbon release rates?

It's amazing how reading this thread, drip feeds knowledge into the mind. I've been reading the model thread for over a year now, and am now able to spot the bias, which makes it easier for me to make sense of the posts written by the more knowledgeable people here. I've still got a lot to learn, but I've already learned so much from the regulars here, and am now able to make reasonable sense of the model outputs. Maybe one day I'll be able to contribute meaningfully also, but for now, thanks for all your contributions

This really does highlight the minefield we are treading, when it comes to sourcing information. I saw the piece in isolation, and didn't get any sort of vibe that the guy was this way inclined. The piece he wrote, which I linked, did not appear to be a conspiracy piece, though I may have missed clues of course. I give up trying to understand it. It's time for me to switch off from climate matters, it's too big for me to understand, because I don't care enough, as it's not down to me to save the planet. My nervous system wasn't built for this crap. I'm out. Good luck guys

I heard the term 'wishcycling' once. I think that sums it up. We hope our carefully sorted and washed recycling goes to a good home, but deep down we know a lot of it probably doesn't!

Same here. I've wilded up my garden, and also walk to work unless it's absolutely hacking it down. When we bought our house, we made sure it was within walking distance of the place where we both work. I've been vegan for over 20 years, and have never been on a plane in my life.

There is some very good information there, thanks. The one point that I'd like to highlight, is the 10000 year timescale, where scientists believe the change has been rather slow until the 19th century. In terms of the age of the earth, that 10000 years is still a very small timescale, and not really representative of in/out ice ages, over millions of years. In terms of the entire climate history of the earth, I believe a 10000 year dataset could have a distorting effect. This is a ridiculous analogy I know, but imagine we were a butterfly, only living for 2 weeks. We wouldn't know that 12 weeks before we were flying about, it was winter, and everyone was freezing their cocks off in the Northern hemisphere (except for the southern UK, land without snow ). We wouldn't know that our fragile insect body couldn't survive 12 weeks earlier. We wouldn't even know winter exists, because we lived in the summer, and never had the opportunity to see the winter. Generally speaking, we do need to clean up our ways and stop abusing the earth. We don't even need to know about the climate to understand this would be a great thing to achieve. I fear that rushed and panicked decisions, with hyper focus solely on climate, rather than sustainability, may have so many unintended consequences, that our kids end up wondering why our generation threw mankind under a bus in the first place. I do think that our emissions are having an impact on the climate, and I wouldn't deny the validity of solid evidence like you have provided. I do also believe we should accept we don't know everything, and admit uncertainty will prevent climate science from ever being 'settled', therefore any policies arising from the evidence, should be carefully considered and administered in the round, with a dose of realism. We've already witnessed what happens when ideas get pushed too fast, with the inevitable roll back of the end of diesel cars. Concerns about batteries, ethics, electricity, infrastructure etc etc. Almost all new ideas to combat climate change will run into these types of problems. Digging ridiculous amounts of minerals out of the ground, and installing millions of electric points, which of course is using the earth's resources and also pumping more stuff into the atmosphere in the production and fitting process, is a problem in itself.

Yes I think it's all part of the changing climate also. What we can't know, is how much the weather this year, would be different from previous years and decades, without human influences. It's unfortunately impossible to separate out the human influence, from natural changes that may take place anyway. It was only around 9000 years ago that Doggerland was wiped off the map, because of climate change and local events. That was nothing to do with emissions. This is what worries me with hyper focus on extremes. We could be turning ourselves into climate martyrs, based on strong evidence within the context of what we know, but potentially rather weak evidence, as we simply don't have the full facts from a longer time period. The further we look back, the weaker the evidence becomes, so we end up basing all our decisions on a very narrow timeframe of evidence. I'm uncomfortable with this, uncomfortable because we could potentially throw ourselves into the gutter and ruin our prosperity and peace, just for the sake of climate change, which we don't fully understand. I'm all for cleaning up our act and looking after the planet as a general principle, including reducing pollutants in the air and on the surface. I just want to make that clear. I'm not prepared to become a climate change martyr though, I don't think it's fair for a single generation of people to take this burden onto their shoulders and make themselves mentally ill and poorer. I became concerned when I read some of the recent posts where people are seriously worried about the events reported in this thread. I think it's too much for an individual to take onto their shoulders. Our priorities should be firstly, our families and immediate environment. That's where we really matter, and beyond that maybe too much for us to worry about as individuals.

Interpreting extreme weather statistics. IRRATIONALFEAR.SUBSTACK.COM Why scientists must use caution when interpreting statistical outlier events in the weather and attributing them to anthropogenic climate change. I've been following this thread for some time, and enjoying learning about the extreme events occurring worldwide. I found this article an interesting counterbalance to the focus on the events. Sometimes when we focus on things, it can skew our perception, as we are not focused on the rest of the weather around the world, which, for the most part, is bland and normal when compared with our datasets.

These temperatures look too uniformly spread to my eyes. I don't believe them for a minute. Our land isn't flat, and we have local hot and cold spots. None of this is reflected in the temperatures on this graphic. It looks more like a theoretical output, like a basic calculation based on the 850s.

I wonder if the forecast temperatures may also be affected by the rarity of the warm spell, for the time of year? There isn't much past experience, several date records for this stage in October, date back over a 100 years.

How far back do your records go?

Worth noting that the fall away at the end is still pretty far out, and the climb up is increasing in likelihood. I zoomed in on the 19 runs earlier on MOGREPS, and there were roughly two thirds favouring temperatures above the red line, while the remaining third were more scattered and looked more like outliers. I'm no expert, but I think this is more likely to turn into a settled spell - more likely than the settled spell that was modelled ahead of Agnes.

Wind was a big factor in the 'feel' of the main July and August summer period. It was unusually blowy, depressing the 'feels like' temperature. Sunshine was also quite poor, and people do tend to notice sunshine levels more during the summer. It was practically impossible to have a BBQ during July. Some of August was actually quite decent, but the lack of a defined settled hot spell meant that people didn't have anything to remember the second half of the summer by. Again, it was a rather cloudy affair, which does reflect many Augusts of recent times. I suspect that because we've had so many iffy Augusts in the last 20 years or so, people are a little more sensitive about the school holiday weather, and when it's not amazing, but ok, people then tend to notice the bad bits, and didn't really notice that most of August was actually usable, especially for kids who don't generally like it hot anyway. If I remember correctly, many of the weekends were trashed with low pressure, with most of fine weather in the week.

Do they knock off 0.4c to account for urban warming?

We ended up with some stronger gusts late into the evening, up to around 40mph. We never had a warning, and rightly so, but what's noteworthy, is that further West, in the warning area, away from the coasts, the gusts were similar or just a little more than our experience here. I guess it was a tricky one for the Met Office. A storm that wasn't quite a storm really, unless you were on the West Coast somewhere. I think it's reasonable that they have some sort of margin of error, otherwise they'd be caught out when things go the other way, and are slightly more severe than the models suggest. These storm warnings are always going to be broad brush approaches, because they can develop and travel so erratically. The West Coast definitely needed that yellow warning. There were gusts over 60mph in a number of spots. Not exactly beach weather, I've seen some lovely footage from my family staying in a caravan on the sea front on Cardigan Bay. It was wild, with large waves and sea foam pushing into the caravan park.

What I find particularly interesting about this fact, is that the setup was nothing special really. Yes we had a settled June, but that's not unusual and has happened before. We've had mediocre July and August, and indeed temperatures this time round were not below average by very much. Early September was the only spell that could truly be classified as exceptional or unusual. So for July to come in 4th seems to boil down to the particular sequence of weather patterns, and timings. A fluke, I guess.