richie3846
-
Posts
915 -
Joined
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by richie3846
-
-
10 minutes ago, alexisj9 said:
Don't know, but so far I've never seen a named Thunderstorm weather here or the us lol.
Sometimes after the event like if it's effected an area bad. You get in the US storm watches and tornado watches, followed by warnings when it's know exactly where they will happen. Here thunderstorm warnings that yet again if they don't hit someone head on, they think the warning is wrong.
Just trying to remember the name of the atmospheric river that hit California this spring was now, it may have been named, but I'm not sure.
It does appear that the Met Office have moved their own goalposts this year. I'm convinced that in the early days of naming, it was cut and dried, an amber wind warning was the trigger for naming.
-
18 minutes ago, alexisj9 said:
I'm not sure anyone is saying that shouldn't have been warned.
There are people wondering why it wasn't a named storm. The specific reason for that is, it wasn't a storm.
I'm pretty sure in the US, they label all types of bad weather as a storm. Maybe that's the way to go, who knows. The OP has a valid point here, just because there wasn't a cyclone, anyone under 7 inches of rain would probably consider it a substantial rain storm. If storms are only cyclones then why the holy hell do we use the word storm for more than cyclones? It's really confusing. Thunderstorms, what are they then lol? I think my brain is going to explode
-
1
-
-
What I noticed in the last named storm, is people don't actually bother to look if it's in their area or not. So then when we didn't have storm locally, people kept saying to me 'I thought we were having a storm, and nothing happened'.
The idea isn't really working, because people simply hear there is a named storm and don't understand enough to be able to grasp the nettle that the whole of the UK isn't uniformly affected.
This may mean, when there is an actual storm somewhere, people don't bother taking it seriously because they haven't understood the whole system, and may feel like there have been too many wolf cries, when in fact it's simply down to ignorance on their part.
Actual storms over inland areas are really quite rare, so this whole storm naming thing is daft really, as mostly it's coastal areas affected, generally speaking. A few 55mph, maybe one 60mph gust isn't really a storm inland, and that's what we typically max out at, in places such as where I live.
-
3
-
-
21 minutes ago, snowray said:
Was hoping for somewhere in the 100-110mm range but most likely will be higher now looking at recent model runs, it was looking rather dry for much of the rest of the month just a couple of days ago with the Scandi high moving further west, it just goes to show how quickly things can change,
With rainfall coming up from the south later in the week, we could see some large downpours.
-
28 minutes ago, WYorksWeather said:
Yep, in fact the long term average is just above 100mm.
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.
-
2
-
-
8 minutes ago, Metwatch said:
EWP up to 51mm now following the deluge on Thurs/Fri night. Seems like models have trended much wetter from Wednesday, as the Scandi high looks to ebb away by next weekend. I think another 100mm+ October EWP seems likely now. Would be the 5th time running since 2019.
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
5 minutes ago, Methuselah said:
But, had there been no diesel cars in the car park, the fire would never have started in the first place?
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.
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, jonboy said:
Its on the BBC feed into the incident.
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.
-
3 minutes ago, jonboy said:
Fire service now reporting that a 'lot' of EV involved from early on in the fire which would account for the intensity and speed of the fire.
This is exactly what I was expecting. Do you have any links to this information please?
-
3 hours ago, Greville Arnold-Jenkins said:
As I sit here in my sunny South London garden basking in 25c temperatures, does anyone have knowledge of the latest dates in October that 25c has been recorded in the UK?
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 Ireland25.9c on the 18th October 1997, Nantmor, Gwynedd.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, WYorksWeather said:
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. Do you mean whether it's likely we'll see concentrations get that high, or why they got that high so long ago and what the result of that was, or whether a similar process could happen today? If you can give me a clearer idea of what you want to know, I'll do my best to answer.
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.
-
On 05/10/2023 at 00:11, WYorksWeather said:
Should have been clearer on the 10,000 year timescale - that's just one example. You could write several books on various paleoclimate investigations - obviously the evidence gets patchier the further back you go. At the moment the IPCC consensus is that on temperature, we are now globally most likely at the hottest temperatures within the last 10,000 years. In terms of CO2 levels, we have high confidence that CO2 levels have not been higher in the last 800,000 years.
For me though, the most impressive research I've seen is on rate of CO2 increase. Evidence shows that the rate of increase is likely unprecedented in the last 66 million years. I've attached a link to the study below - it's not open access unfortunately but the abstract is visible. I've also attached a press link which is more accessible if you're not used to reading scientific articles.
I do agree that sustainability has to be considered in the round. I also think the question around solutions is very much a live question. Once you start getting into what should be done with the information, you're leaving the realm of scientific discourse, and starting to look philosophy, economics, politics and so on.
Rate of carbon emissions put in context
WWW.BBC.CO.UK
Humans are now putting carbon into the atmosphere at a rate unprecedented since at least the age of the dinosaurs, scientists say.
Anthropogenic carbon release rate unprecedented during the past 66 million years
WWW.NATURE.COM
Carbon release rates during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum are difficult to constrain. Comparing relative rates of carbon cycle and climate change at the event’s onset suggests emissions were much slower than...
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? -
- Popular Post
9 hours ago, Metwatch said:Just wish @Coast and @Glacier Point were still around, would add that extra level of critical analysis, and be of great help to those who would like to learn more / newer to this forum!
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
-
17
-
7 hours ago, Penguin16 said:
Ah yes the geologist who calls it the climate scam will certainly offer a nice counter balance. F me
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
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, alexisj9 said:
I don't drive, walk to town, usually get a bus back though, use public transport for long journeys, and obviously recycle, though who knows what really happens to recycling once picked up.
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!
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, alexisj9 said:
Oh I'm certainly doing my best there. Have a wild garden alsorts of bees butterflies and still have them thanks to the weather this year. Still see the odd bumble in my fusia, although most have gone now, the late mining bees though are still flying around doing their thing.
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.
-
2
-
-
23 minutes ago, WYorksWeather said:
I see this argument a lot. Maybe I'm not going to change your mind on the natural / anthropogenic point, but I'll try to explain why the scientific mainstream is convinced that warming is due to human emissions of greenhouse gases. I'm going to present three main arguments.
The first is paleoclimatology (the study of past climates). Essentially, by creating reconstructions of past climates, we can have a good idea of what the normal rates of change are. Natural climate change usually has a very, very slow trend on a global scale (important to recognise that this emphatically does not apply to regional changes!). Throughout the last 10,000 years up to the 19th century, we see some variation, and an overall linear trend of around -0.01C/century. In context, the current warming trend if extrapolated linearly is 2C/century. There is no known natural process that can explain a trend this steep. Of course excluding major cataclysms we couldn't possibly miss, like massive volcanic eruptions all over the world, or a civilisation-threatening asteroid! If such natural processes were going on, we'd know.
Of course that's almost an argument by exclusion, so here's a more positive argument. Carbon isotopes. Carbon-14 (C14) decays to Carbon-12 (C12) with a half-life of just over 5,000 years. In the atmosphere, C14 is extremely rare, in the range of one atom of C14 for every trillion C12 atoms. However, fossil fuel carbon is very old - hundreds of millions of years, and therefore has no C14 left. This means that you'd expect the concentration of C14 in the atmosphere to decrease, if the rise in CO2 levels was due to humans. This is exactly what we observe.
The final argument is about atmospheric impacts. Different sources of warming impact the atmosphere in different ways. Changes in solar energy reaching the Earth would be expected to heat all layers of the atmosphere, but that isn't what we see. CO2 is transparent to incoming shortwave radiation, but opaque to outgoing longwave radiation. Hence the troposphere warms, and the stratosphere cools, or so theory predicts. And yet again, theory matches observations - we observe simultaneous tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling.
I don't know whether this will be convincing or not, but there's my attempt!
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.
-
13 minutes ago, alexisj9 said:
As in anomalous cold, and anomalous wet. We have been looking at more than just anomalous heat. Something has been weird this year the question is what.
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.
-
2
-
-
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.
-
3
-
-
9 minutes ago, Scorcher said:
Saturday looking hugely disappointing here if those charts are correct. I hope they're way off the mark as 20C seems very low in such a setup, even in October.
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.
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, Man With Beard said:
Not sure really, I thought it was winds coming from Biscay but upon closer inspection they are coming off the continent
I've studied other historical charts and a 10C-12C increase upon uppers should be achievable at this point in the year in optimal conditions, which are usually light winds, continental draw, sunny skies, build up of warmth, etc - all of which would appear to be in place?
This was the hottest chart I could find in the ECM ensembles - 26C on Sunday near Cambridge as a raw maximum, so given usual adjustments could result in something like 28C. But nothing higher than that, and in general a couple of degrees less. 30C appears off the table.
Mind you, the date record for Sunday is 26.1C, so we could achieve that.
(EDIT: just seen other posts above which may provide better answers than I've given)
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.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, The PIT said:
Sunny Sheffield still at 16.7C +2.6C above average. Rainfall unchanged.
Looks like we will finish on 16.6C beating the previous record of 16.3C recorded in 2001.
How far back do your records go?
-
1 hour ago, Mark wheeler said:
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.
-
2
-
Storm Babet
in Storms & Severe Weather
Posted
So any amber without a cyclone, or with a cyclone?