Climatic lurch anybody?

[The Enforcer]

well, it's a delight to find an unreformed Marxist alive and well in the UK

The capitalists are of course doing such a good job.

Edited December 15, 2006 by The Enforcer

[Snowly does it]

It all rather makes you wonder how ever mankind flourished prior to the mid C18th doesn't it. I guess they used to wear an extra jumper or light a bigger fire?

The energy we all use to keep warm is a small sliver in the pie chart of consumption. Your share of every flight you make abroad uses more energy than you consume in a year keeping your house warmer than it needs to be. We none of us really need cars.

We consume because we can, not because we need to; if we spoil the earth we are all to blame, just like if I get fat I'm the one to blame, or if I crash my car whilst using the mobile phone it's my fault - not the car manufacturer or the mobile phone manufacturer.

Had to laugh at Osmposm's comment about unrefined marxist: line of the week for me.

Sadly I can't disagree with you SF. Humanity is to blame, not those that milk humanity's greed and hunger for convenience and escalation of the self.

Osmposm is spot on too! Within a week of redistribution we would have rich and poor all over again.

[The Enforcer]

if the electorate disagrees with policy it has the right and ability to vote for an alternative. It thus makes little sense to blame governments for policy errors where the electorate has failed to vote them out at the next election.

You are right, but it does make one wonder how the electorate hasn't managed to show B.Liar the door, when I struggle to recall anyone who thinks the red tie capitalists are doing a good job. I guess its got something to do with the alternative being another bunch of capitalists wearing blue ties or the orange tie brigade who are just waiting to sell-out like B.Liar c.1997. Others like the Greens get scant publicity. The cash for honours issue highlights the continuing self-preservationism, where those with influence (appear to) control the media and ensure that anything that might threaten the status quo is quashed.

To keep on topic, if the containment of climate change was really a priority for the government or its population, it would soon rise to the top of the agenda. Let's face it, apart from me, who is bothered about a lack of snow in Central Southern England?

Edited December 15, 2006 by The Enforcer

[acbrixton]

You are right, but it does make one wonder how the electorate hasn't managed to show B.Liar the door, when I struggle to recall anyone who thinks the red tie capitalists are doing a good job. I guess its got something to do with the alternative being another bunch of capitalists wearing blue ties or the orange tie brigade who are just waiting to sell-out like B.Liar c.1997. Others like the Greens get scant publicity. The cash for honours issue highlights the continuing self-preservationism, where those with influence (appear to) control the media and ensure that anything that might threaten the status quo is quashed.

To keep on topic, if the containment of climate change was really a priority for the government or its population, it would soon rise to the top of the agenda. Let's face it, apart from me, who is bothered about a lack of snow in Central Southern England?

Well first it seems to me that climate change/"green" taxes etc. are moving to the front of the agenda; secondly there are a plethora of alternatives to capitalism: the Socialist Workers' Party, Workers' Revolutionary Party, Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist Lenninist) not to mention the quasi socilaist/protectionist policies of the BNP...you are spolit for choice.

Regards

ACB

[coldfingers]

Let's face it, apart from me, who is bothered about a lack of snow in Central Southern England?

I am bothered by the lack of snow down here, but then I have lived here for forty years and have passed many winters without snow. Saying that however doesn't mean I dispute that we are in a warm period for our climate. Most of the snowless winters I remember were like last year, no snow but at least a lot of frosts.

Edited December 15, 2006 by coldfingers

[The Enforcer]

there are a plethora of alternatives to capitalism: the Socialist Workers' Party, Workers' Revolutionary Party, Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist Lenninist) not to mention the quasi socilaist/protectionist policies of the BNP...you are spolit for choice.

I don't disagree that these options exist, but how much chance do they get to air their views to the public at large? Would Joe Bloggs even know of their existence? An example that springs to mind is the by-election news story where the 'big three' get to have their say and the remaining candidates merely appear on a list that is flashed up and off so quickly there isn't even time to read it, let alone interpret what they might stand for.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

It all rather makes you wonder how ever mankind flourished prior to the mid C18th doesn't it. I guess they used to wear an extra jumper or light a bigger fire?

And then there's smoke; if you lit a fire down a Lascaux rock hole you would become one of the evolutionary T-ends for which my genome is very grateful. Humans succeeded through smart people changing (or adapting to) their enviroment in a smart way.

I know a lot of environmentalists are counting the days until bird flu wipes out China and the Sub-Continent. This, like a lot of things I've read, troubles me. People are our best technology. Always has been, always will be.

The energy we all use to keep warm is a small sliver in the pie chart of consumption. Your share of every flight you make abroad uses more energy than you consume in a year keeping your house warmer than it needs to be. We none of us really need cars.

We don't need cars? Why not outlaw street lights, fridges, television, computers too? Ready to take the luddite hammer to baby incubators? I can scarcely imagine what your plans are to return the human race to the age without cars. Enlighten us.

Maybe I'm the one with unrealist expectations but I think learning to cope with a little climate change is both possible and better for humanity than bringing back the smilodon skin shorts. There are easier ways to get those 12 inches of white stuff a couple of days a year than reversing technological development.

We consume because we can, not because we need to; if we spoil the earth we are all to blame, just like if I get fat I'm the one to blame, or if I crash my car whilst using the mobile phone it's my fault - not the car manufacturer or the mobile phone manufacturer

Accountability is something I'd encourage. As a political statement to save the planet how about turning off your internet? I suspect it's much easier to blame someone living far away for life's problems than yourself or a process outside any single individual's control.

1.4 billion Chinese should stay on their bicycles. It's just so much easier to keep a billion in poverty than it is for Europeans to take off a layer of clothing in winter.

there are a plethora of alternatives to capitalism: the Socialist Workers' Party, Workers' Revolutionary Party, Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist Lenninist) not to mention the quasi socilaist/protectionist policies of the BNP...you are spolit for choice.

There is no workable alternative to capitalism. And by capitalism I mean economic relations based on concepts of private ownership, free exchange and heirarchy of value on which capitalism is based. As the failed and bloody socialist experiments of the 20C demonstrate it is impossible for an economic system to operate successfully if one or more of these don't formally exist.

Edited December 15, 2006 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[The Enforcer]

communism

noun

the belief in a society without different classes in which the methods of production are owned and controlled by all its members and everyone works as much as they can and receives what they need

Impossible? Unworkable?

[Thundery wintry showers]

Re. governments, it's a bit idealistic to say that "if you disagree with government policy you have a right to vote for an alternative". Our democracy isn't the perfect democratic system by any means; most people don't want to vote a party that has no chance of getting into power, which leaves you with the main three. Labour and Tories are right-wing on both economic and authoritarian scales, and Lib Dems are heading in the same direction. Where's the comparitively socialist alternative?

Governments can't raise more money without higher taxation, but what they can try to do is spend money more efficiently, rather than everyone turning their backs on inefficient expenditure and saying "that's life".

I will stand up and admit that my political ideals are to the left of the current political parties' consensus, but I think the "socialism = communism, and there is no alternative to capitalism" is very black and white thinking. The political spectrum has communism at one extreme, and unregulated free markets on the other, and there is a sliding scale in between the two; it doesn't have to be one extreme or the other. That said, I agree that communism tends to result in a smaller net pot of money for the country, and lowest common denominator policies. What I would personally advocate is capitalism in moderation, where we have a healthy balance between socialist and capitalist ideas- considering all angles, rather than thinking "I'm a capitalist so social issues shouldn't come into it", or "I'm a socialist so I don't care about the economy".

There's a real concern that if we rely solely upon capitalism to provide us with the solutions, there may be little alternative to waiting for businesses to reach a point where clean technologies create more profits than pollutive ones, while imposing Draconian limits on "unnecessary" (i.e. non-work related) use of energy for Joe Public. As far as I'm concerned, we have enough of a work-oriented, money-obsessed, social issues-dismissive society as it is, without making it more so.

The blame game of "it's all the public's fault" vs "it's all the Government's fault" also seems very black-and-white- in reality, it's most likely some of both. That's why the "carrot and stick" philosophy is quite often mentioned- the Government needs to implement positive policies to help the public make changes, but we also need some sticks to enforce them, environmental taxes being a stick that can be effective.

[Stratos Ferric]

All off topic, however...

Three problems: one - this is a global issue that would require global collaboration. This would not necessarily happen, and even if it did happen would likely only be consequent either once catastrophes on a massive scale were looming, or (more likely) once one or two have been and gone.

two - there is a lag effect, but politics is short term: taxing and constraining is not a vote winner, and politicans are more power crazed than they are altruistic.

three - addressing this will require changes in behaviour away from consumerism that provides comfort, even allowing for technical developments (e.g. alternative sources of energy).

In the UK the likeliest solution adopted by our right of centre politics will be a combination of carot and stick. Taxes on consumption and tax breaks for carbon-friendly practices. Get ready for a world in which you have an annual charge for refuse collection, but get a rebate every time you recycle; a world of pay as you go motoring, with tax breaks for clean cars (like electric) which have limited range and don't accelerate as quickly as your sporty number. A world of heat exchange mechanisms, solar panels and personal wind turbines. Get ready for far higher energy prices, whether to deter use, reflect diminishing supplies (the UK is running out of gas) or offset enery companies' investment in alternatives. Tax breaks on carbon neutral housing...and, free sledges for all.

In twenty years' time children will look at a sledge and wonder what it's for.

[Snowly does it]

*snip* *lots of things I agree with here......*

In twenty years' time children will look at a sledge and wonder what it's for.

You sure you are not Luke to Daniel's Vader (or vice-versa)?

Yes, a world in which Clarkson shuts his mouth and people stop believing that the piece of trash they drive has any relevance whatsoever to their gravitas, can't wait actually!

Nice sledges BTW make an attractive coffee table. For all the coffee we will be growing in the UK.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

All off topic, however...

Three problems: one - this is a global issue that would require global collaboration. This would not necessarily happen, and even if it did happen would likely only be consequent either once catastrophes on a massive scale were looming, or (more likely) once one or two have been and gone.

Catastrophes? We already know you think it's The End Of The World As We Know It but this view is in a minority, globally speaking.

two - there is a lag effect, but politics is short term: taxing and constraining is not a vote winner, and politicans are more power crazed than they are altruistic.

It's one thing to make massive generalisations about politicians and another to forget their job in a democracy is actually to reflect popular opinion. So, this can mean some short-term considerations outweighing long term. Is this a bad thing? It's what the public wants. Maybe you really mean to say is you would gladly bypass democratic government if you thought that would alter the Earth's temperature by a couple of degrees celcius. Would not surprise me.

three - addressing this will require changes in behaviour away from consumerism that provides comfort, even allowing for technical developments (e.g. alternative sources of energy).

Go ahead. Stop being a consumer. Let's see what happens. Remember my internet suggestion?

In the UK the likeliest solution adopted by our right of centre politics will be a combination of carot and stick. Taxes on consumption and tax breaks for carbon-friendly practices. Get ready for a world in which you have an annual charge for refuse collection, but get a rebate every time you recycle; a world of pay as you go motoring, with tax breaks for clean cars (like electric) which have limited range and don't accelerate as quickly as your sporty number. A world of heat exchange mechanisms, solar panels and personal wind turbines. Get ready for far higher energy prices, whether to deter use, reflect diminishing supplies (the UK is running out of gas) or offset enery companies' investment in alternatives. Tax breaks on carbon neutral housing...and, free sledges for all.

In twenty years' time children will look at a sledge and wonder what it's for.

We are more likely to go nuclear power with imported electricity from France and new nuclear power stations. Insitu generation sounds cool, and will provide a portion of our energy, but technology is not at the stage where it can provide for all our energy needs.

Best remember Britain needs to adjust its energy supplies for reasons other than "global warming." Biggest challenge is to replace North Sea energy without being screwed every winter by the Russian gas monster.

[Stratos Ferric]

...well, the hypothesis is little changed by the last four weeks since I last visited this thread! Interesting to see BF's Nino charts on page 2 in the context of what's happened this winter.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Agreed; this prolonged mild period is quite extraordinary. It's too soon to jump to conclusions, but if we are starting another step-change upwards like the one in 1988, then the recent weather has been very consistent.

I'd still be surprised if Britain warmed by this much more than the rest of the globe, which makes me dubious about a climatic lurch. The CET has shown a 1C rise since the 1961-90 reference period, as opposed to 0.5C as the global average.

I do recall the point being made that if the contributory factors to Britain's excess warming fade away, the global average temperature may well have warmed by at least 0.5C by the time this happens, meaning that we don't see a downward trend in UK temperature- the way things are going, chances are that will be right.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Brickfielder's charts show the pattern of British weather flip-flops quite frequently. "Climatic Lurch" is a misleading phrase intended to scare and is unscientific in that it over-plays the significance of the contemporary climate in the history of weather. To describe a climate that is frequently changing, and has changed significantly many times in UK's corner of the global neighbourhood even within the last 100 years , as undergoing a "lurch" is nonsensical.

For example, this chart shows rather than random year-on-year fluctuation between stormy (mild) and calm (cold) weather, there are regimes of stormy years (winter westerlies) and calm years (blocked, easterlies), some lasting over a decade.

Some years do suddenly break away from the pattern (e.g. around 1960). I would call these years that suddenly break-away from the pattern a lurch from normal. On the other hand the "climatic regimes" seem to evolve gradually from storminess to calm. Between the early 20C stormy years and the blocked 1960s there is an intermediate less stormy 1930s-50s.

No lurch. Gradual evolution.

I think part of the problem is simply human perception: their is a huge population of "babyboomers" who grew up in the 1960s during an anomalously cold period of British weather, which has skewed their judgement of normal winter. Over-all BF's chart shows runs of stormy (mild, westerlies) years are more frequent, and longer in duration, than runs of calm years. Early 20C is particularly notable for being stormy, 60s blocked.

After the little ice age, North Atlantic sea temperatures probably were much colder than today. So to today: add to a slightly above normal westerly, stormy regime an anomously warm north atlantic and north sea you have the recipe for an extended period of warm autumnal winters. The opposite to what many older British people are used to but subjective feelings of "normal" are not very scientific. And we have understood all this without mentioning "global warming".

Edited January 13, 2007 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Stratos Ferric]

Brickfielder's charts show the pattern of British weather flip-flops quite frequently. "Climatic Lurch" is a misleading phrase intended to scare and is unscientific in that it over-plays the significance of the contemporary climate in the history of weather. To describe a climate that is frequently changing, and has changed significantly many times in UK's corner of the global neighbourhood even within the last 100 years , as undergoing a "lurch" is nonsensical.

...

I think we all know where you stand on this issue AFF, though to describe the current run as a flip flop that is in any way, shape, or form within normal previous limits would quite clearly be ludicrous, and I know you wouldn't be so short-sighted as to suggest that.

The eagle eyed, and more gramatically aware, will note the careful choice of punctuation I opted for at the end of the title. It could have been a random choice, but being something of a pedant in these matters rest assured it wasn't; on that basis I don't think my choice of words was intended to do anything other than pose a deliberately provocative question. In any case, I explain the basis for using "lurch" in my opening post; you may not agree that it's going to happen, but if it does, then I stand by "lurch" - to go from a regime in which wintry weather, and often severe wintry weather, could be relied on in most winters, to one where it virtually never happens, all within a twenty year period, is by my book a lurch.

Perhaps you can point out to us all the occasions (OK, I'll make it easier, ONE occasion will do) in the last 100 years when the climate in the UK has changed as markedly as is the case at present, given that, as you put it, our climate has "changed significantly many times in UK's corner of the global neighbourhood even within the last 100 years". It would indeed be nonsensical IF there were NO data behind my argument; there is. What I can't see, but I just know you're going to enlighten me / us with, is the data to the contrary case that you seem to be making.

There are one or two on here who come out with all sorts of boldly stated assertions, usually against any warming hypothesis, but the emerging pattern seems to me to be that there's often a dearth of data in these posts, and that on the rare occasions when "data" is presented, much of it comes from, er, dubious sources like "Ice Age Now".

...

For example, this chart shows rather than random year-on-year fluctuation between stormy (mild) and calm (cold) weather, there are regimes of stormy years (winter westerlies) and calm years (blocked, easterlies), some lasting over a decade.

I'm sorry, that chart does NOT show anything to do with temperature, nor is there a hard and fast relationship between westerlies and temperature. It shows the strength of westerlies - I see no mention of prevalence; there would be a loose relationship between that and temperature, but only very loose.

Even if I accepted a relationship, what is this supposed to prove? Whoever said that in a warming climate we cannot still get calm weather? I seem to recall autumn having some persistent HP near by; it wasn't stormy, but it certainly wasn't cold.

Edited January 14, 2007 by Stratos Ferric

[Stratos Ferric]

...

I think part of the problem is simply human perception: their is a huge population of "babyboomers" who grew up in the 1960s during an anomalously cold period of British weather, which has skewed their judgement of normal winter. Over-all BF's chart shows runs of stormy (mild, westerlies) years are more frequent, and longer in duration, than runs of calm years. Early 20C is particularly notable for being stormy, 60s blocked.

After the little ice age, North Atlantic sea temperatures probably were much colder than today. So to today: add to a slightly above normal westerly, stormy regime an anomously warm north atlantic and north sea you have the recipe for an extended period of warm autumnal winters. The opposite to what many older British people are used to but subjective feelings of "normal" are not very scientific. And we have understood all this without mentioning "global warming".

My mother grew up in the 30s, and in the 70s when I was growing up was already (and not alone in this) commenting that winters were nothing like they used to be. Snowdrifts as high as sign posts were not confined merely to 1979 / 63 / 47. Let;s not get carried away supposing that cold winters in the UK existed for a short period in the 60s.

In any case, even IF (and I do not) I accepted the flawed use of BF's chart to explain away winter warmth as some current synoptic rut, how do you account for the year round warming. As I have shown with plots in other threads (perhaps even in this one now I think about it), previous cycles of mild winter tended not to be reflected by big changes in annual CET, so that the proportion of total accumulated temperature acounted for by winter rose with a warm winter. Now, whilst we have exceptionally warm winters, the proportion of the annual whole has dropped back. It is not a simple matter of winter synoptics. The synoptics are changing year round, and as I have argued repeatedly this year that change (the poleward drfit of HP belts) is EXACTLY what would be expoected in a warmer world. We are not warm because of the synoptics; rather, becuase we have got warmer, a change in synoptics has been forced, and - and this is the scary bit - that change reinforces the warming, at least in NW Europe and N Eurasia.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

What is the role of a warm (+2C) North Atlantic in the warming experienced in the UK, and the loss of ice along the Arctic periphery in the last twenty years?

The warm water radiater, in addition to whether the winter is blocked or zonal, seems to be a key question in determining Britain's "CET". Water around Britain is a highly effective heating system - a difference of +1-2C over a decade must have a huge impact on CET.

The North Pacific , annoying as it is, is currently rather cold. How did the North Pacific become so cold in a period of rampant global warming? The obvious answer is "current synoptics made it so" - perhaps the same can be said for the North Atlantic?

I'm sure you are capable of explaining the warm winter Britain is currently experiencing without such dramatic terminology as "lurch".

[The Eagle]

Does this topic not belong in another section tbh.

[Stratos Ferric]

What is the role of a warm (+2C) North Atlantic in the warming experienced in the UK, and the loss of ice along the Arctic periphery in the last twenty years?

The warm water radiater, in addition to whether the winter is blocked or zonal, seems to be a key question in determining Britain's "CET". Water around Britain is a highly effective heating system - a difference of +1-2C over a decade must have a huge impact on CET.

The North Pacific , annoying as it is, is currently rather cold. How did the North Pacific become so cold in a period of rampant global warming? The obvious answer is "current synoptics made it so" - perhaps the same can be said for the North Atlantic?

I'm sure you are capable of explaining the warm winter Britain is currently experiencing without such dramatic terminology as "lurch".

The SSTs are, to my mind, THE most important factor, being, as you put it, a radiater [sic]. That's why some of the LRFs on here havetended to be wide opf the mark; you can drone on about this conection and that from the far side of the globe, but if every outcome has to pass through a final entry gate that adds 2-3C then it doesn't matter - the final outcome will be milder than it 'should' be.

The atmosphere, however, does NOT significantly drive the oceans; wind drives the surface 5-10m or so, but the bulk of the oceanic flow is dictated by spin of the earth, alignment of land mass, and the physical laws which seek to balance energy; hence a tendency to flow from warm to cold at the surface, and a tendency for deep water cold current return flows - the THC as often referred to.

Let's get away from repeatedly pulling point examples of cold as proof of anything. WE ALL KNOW THAT IN GW, WHILST THE OVERALL GLOBAL MOVEMENT IS UP, THERE WILL BE LOCALISED (be they spatial, temporal, or both) EXCEPTIONS. I am quite sure that the Pacific will warm in future, and I am sure the Atlantic may cool a little, so that the macros scale feedbacks on our short term weather may allow for some seasons to be less mild, but I am starting to suspect that we may never again see a severe winter. This is not a reduction in frequency from 1 in 15 to 1 in 30 (pretty much where we are now), though it could be argued as such, it is a reduction from having occasional severe winters, to not having severe winters ever.

Let's face facts, irrespective of what you or I might hope for: we have not had a severe winter since 1986 (and even that wasn't very severe), we have hardly had a winter worth the title since 1996, and this year is dramatially warmer than anything we have seen previously; it is going to take a big correction just to get back to the recent level of "disappointing but something". I cannot see where a correction of the magnitude required to get back to periodic severe winters is coming from.

To reiterate though: synoptics DO NOT drive large scale SSTs, or their distribution. It would be like claiming that you could move a tractor forward by stroking it with a feather. Prevailing winds can encourage local upwellings, but being a much denser medium than air, water has greater inertia and thermal capacity, and both must be driven primarily from somewhere other than just the wind and air above.

This argument that perpetuates from a few quarters on here that somehow our run of mild is just "unlucky synoptics" is fundamentally flawed. Yes, it is unlucky in the context of delivering disappointing winters, but it is not pure bad luck that it is happening - it is happening because some important fundamentals that do drive the overall engine have changed. The same basic synoptics still exist; instead of focussing your eyes on the UK for the next few weeks go watch Iceland instead! the snoptics have NOT disappeared, they have simply migrated. Yes, it might be temporary, but it is starting to look increasingly like it is not.

[Stu_London]

The eagle eyed, and more gramatically aware, will note the careful choice of punctuation I opted for at the end of the title. It could have been a random choice, but being something of a pedant in these matters rest assured it wasn't; on that basis I don't think my choice of words was intended to do anything other than pose a deliberately provocative question.

[

Off topic (but in context to a previous post), if you type "Climatic Lurch Anybody?" into MS word it suggests that the phrase is fragmented and that you should consider revision - perhaps you should take this up with Mr Gates directly SF

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

To reiterate though: synoptics DO NOT drive large scale SSTs, or their distribution. It would be like claiming that you could move a tractor forward by stroking it with a feather.

Agree - I would laugh at any newspaper headline that tried to say this Northwest Atlantic warm anomaly was evidence for global warming as I'm sure you would too.

Whatever the reason for the North Pacific being cold and North Atlantic warm*, the Northern Hemisphere waters warm and those of the Southern cold, the pattern has a huge influence on air temperatures.

Clearly the current set-up which evolves over time-scale of many years is responsible for loss of a lot of Arctic ice and raised temperatures in Western Europe.

*Cold North Pacific vs Warm North Atlantic

1998

1999 - no chart?

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

[disco-barry]

Ok SF to a normal individual who doesn't understand as much as some of you seem to on this subject....how do you know your right when saying it's our fault the world is getting warmer? why can't it just be a warm period we're going into for example?

I really don't understand and i thought the whole in the ozone layer was reparing itself also?

Edited January 14, 2007 by disco-barry

[Thundery wintry showers]

My mother grew up in the 30s, and in the 70s when I was growing up was already (and not alone in this) commenting that winters were nothing like they used to be. Snowdrifts as high as sign posts were not confined merely to 1979 / 63 / 47. Let;s not get carried away supposing that cold winters in the UK existed for a short period in the 60s.

There are possible arguments that this could be skewed by people's selective memories, and the run of largely snowless winters from 1971-1976.

Nonetheless, my analysis of the snowiness of each decade suggests that there's more than a grain of truth in the assertions people made back then. The analysis suggested that the 1910s-1930s were quite snowy, followed by a blip upwards in the 1940s, and a return to the earlier frequency during the 1950s. Then the 1960s-1980s were actually slightly less snowy than any of the previous five decades, and about level with the 1900s; and we all know about the step-reduction around 1988 which also showed up in the analysis.

I can't vouch for the accuracy of my analysis, but it's worth noting that particularly for the earlier decades, it was hard to track down all of the snow events that occurred; therefore, if I erred in my estimates of the snowiness of the earlier decades, it's most likely to have involved underestimates rather than overestimates.

Although I have nowhere near enough data to do a similar analysis for the 1800s, most of the evidence I've seen suggests that the 1800s winters were also generally snowier than those of the early 1900s.

[summer blizzard]

In reference to the possible climatic lurch, i've listed below the CET and difference from average, along with my reactions at the time...

April: 8.6C (+0.5)

May: 12.3C (+1)

June: 15.9C (+1.

At this stage, i was happily thinking that we were going to get a very hot summer but that i hope it did'nt ruin our chances for winter, my thoughts at the time were for a July in the region of 19C, and also a August in the region of 19.5C..

July: 19.7C (+3.2)

At this stage i was thinking wow, that was the best summer month ever but also thinking i hope this trend does not continue, expecting an August CET around 18C

August: 16.1C (-0.1)

At this stage i was thinking, wow, i hope this is'nt a blip, this is great news for the coming winter

September: 16.8C (+3.1)

At this stage i was thinking, two severe warm months in three months is not a good thing, this is worrying for winter, i hope the trend reverses quickly

October: 13C (+2.6)

November: 8.1C (+1.2)

At this stage i was thinking feww, we may even get a average to below average December, bring on winter.

December: 6.5 (+1.4)

At this stage i was a little worried, thining that this could ruin our chances for winter with progressively warmer anomolies value, though only in the range of 5.5C to 6C

January: 6.7C to 7.2C (+2.5C to 3C)

At this stage i was quite worried considering the possibility that there had been a climatic lurch, though expecting a slightly cooler February