The Ongoing Warmth in the UK

[SP1986]

Interestingly, the flowering plants are more in abundance than I have seen at this stage of the year before at least. The bluebells here have surprisingly been out a good while longer than both (SF and JH) your bluebells, such reason for this maybe the proximity to the western coast (either a) for year round mild temperatures, or b ) The recent temperature trends which on a local scale have been breaking records.

The ongoing warmth in the UK is certainly unprecedented, at least on a long term, local scale. What amazes me though as probably has been discussed many times before, is the consistency of such temperatures, especially when not that long ago, you may have expected some coler intervals, even in the unseasonably warm periods.

Really, where has all the cool gone? !

[PersianPaladin]

Interestingly, the flowering plants are more in abundance than I have seen at this stage of the year before at least. The bluebells here have surprisingly been out a good while longer than both (SF and JH) your bluebells, such reason for this maybe the proximity to the western coast (either a) for year round mild temperatures, or b ) The recent temperature trends which on a local scale have been breaking records.

The ongoing warmth in the UK is certainly unprecedented, at least on a long term, local scale. What amazes me though as probably has been discussed many times before, is the consistency of such temperatures, especially when not that long ago, you may have expected some coler intervals, even in the unseasonably warm periods.

Really, where has all the cool gone? !

The north-east of England...

[Michael Winston]

The bluebells have been out in abundance in Warwickshire for the past fortnight.

They're lovely to see but them being out so early worries me.

Regards,

Mike.

[noggin]

Just to balance the early bluebells, last year the daffodils were late.

[Great Plum]

yep, bluebells around this are ahave been flowering for about 2 weeks, quite a bit earlier than usual.

Down here in Reigate, the bluebells are starting to turn unfortunately...

[Stratos Ferric]

Just to balance the early bluebells, last year the daffodils were late.

Hardly surprising after a cold March last year. Not only were they out a lot earlier this year, but in the warmth they hardly lasted at all.

[johnholmes]

I read some interesting points on the NOAA site regarding temperature levels over the world.

Surface temps have risen generally by 0,06C per decade.

However, since 1976, they have risen at 0.18C per decade.

These figures are based on NOAA data available from about 1880.

Last winter, December-February, in the USA was described as average in terms of temperature.

The N Hemisphere had, in general, a relatively mild winter.

[WhiteFox]

Interesting debate and thanks to all involved.

If I may just extend to the East Coast of the US here (I was going to follow on from JH et als comments on hurricanes), the records for New York only go back to 1909, but even in that time period much variability exists. From 1909 to about the mid 1950s the temperatures were in a range of about 47 to 52oF (8 to 11oC); then there was a clear cooler period from 1955 to 1989 (a year after the end of our own cooler period) where temperatures ranged between 47 and 50oF (10oC).

I have heard suggestions in the past that the greater volume of pollutants in this period, specifically Sulphur Dioxide and other particulates may have contributed to less sunlight and therefore cooler temperatures. Regardless of this theory, the temperatures since 1989 have risen sharply with the top six warmest years occurring during this period. 2005 surpassed the previous record set in 2002 by 0.5oF (about 0.3oC) which was itself smashed by a further 1.5oF last year (about another 0.8oC).

A 50oF year is becoming the new benchmark for New York; this was last set in 2000 and contrasts sharply from the 1955 to 1989 period during which 50oF was never breached:

So it seems that it is not just the UK which is experiencing sharp warming in recent years. Within these figures, it is interesting that Autumn has warmed the most of the seasons since 1989 reflecting a later start and truncation of the season and a delayed start to winter. Summer is the next fastest warmer with Spring and Winter warming the least. Having said that, Over the whole period (1909 to present) Winter has warmed by an average of 0.21oF per decade, Spring 0.2oF, Summer 0.05oF and Autumn has actually cooled by 0.06oF. The Summer and Autumn seasons are pulled down by the fact that they accounted for the much cooler period from 1955 to 1989 by much more than did Winter and Spring and this is reflected in the more recent data.

So, New York, and certainly other parts of the US are also showing a quite remarkable rise, albeit with less historical data to call upon.

As for hurricanes, New York was last hit in 1938 when a hurricane hit 55 miles East of Manhattan on Long Island and tracking up through Rhode Island, Connecticut and Vermont. This was caused by a displaced Bermuda High and abnormally warm waters preventing the hurricane following the usual path of turning to the East or North East. With increasing warmth the chances of this happening again would seem to be increased. Tropical Depressions are not unusual in New York and Tropical Storms have hit Long Island a couple of times; the likelihood of a hurricane strike in New York would seem to be increasing...

All data courtesy of NCDC.

[Roger J Smith]

A far worse hurricane struck New York City directly in 1821, it was about a borderline cat 2-3 and brought a storm surge into lower Manhattan as well as doing considerable wind damage throughout the Hudson valley.

I have studied tropical storm activity extensively and can see no real correlation between recent global warming and hurricane activity, there have always been "unusual" hurricane years. Katrina was a monster storm, but so were the 1900 Galveston hurricane, the 1935 Florida Keys storm, Camille in 1969 and Hugo in 1989, just to mention a few.

One of the worst hurricane years on record was 1780.

The same general comments apply to tornado activity. The worst single tornado event in the past century occurred in March, 1925. The second worst in terms of deaths, and perhaps the worst in terms of numbers of strong tornadoes, was in April 1974. Other very large tornado outbreaks occurred in such years as 1840, 1920, 1932 and 1936. In the spring after your famous cold winter in 1947, there was an F4 tornado in western Oklahoma that killed about a hundred people.

So as you can see, global warming and intense severe storms is not much of a proven fact, but with worldwide coverage of severe weather and almost instant reporting nowadays, the impression can (falsely) be conveyed that severe storm activity is increasing.

I don't really see strong evidence for this, and in fact it would not be implausible for severe storm activity to decrease in a period of global warming. The dynamics that create severe storms in general require interaction of vastly contrasting air masses. These have always been available, especially in North America, in the climate that prevailed before the recent postulated AGW period.

Perhaps somebody with more UK data at hand than myself, could work on an annual index of severe storm activity. I would propose using a numerical index based on peak wind gusts in autumn, winter and spring windstorms, another numerical input for reported tornadoes of given intensity, and a third one for heavy rainfall or precip in general.

I have been working on a similar index for Toronto where the records began in 1840. The highest index values occur in the 1840s, the 1880s, and the period from 1967 to 1972. Recent values are generally below the average for the entire period.

My overall assessment of this recent period, with considerable uncertainty, is that we are witnessing a largely natural cycle of warming that is more dry than wet in many cases, and less stormy than the baseline climate. There are exceptions of course, such as last winter's frequent windstorms, but even those were not record-breaking. And it should be kept in mind by all that the recent warming, when examined carefully, applies more to overnight lows than daytime highs. Where I live, the daily record highs are often from years in the 1940s, which was a relatively warm period here. When we have a warm month around here in recent years, it is often the 2nd or 3rd warmest on record, with the warmest being well back in the period of record.

There are suggestions in my view that a large area of warming has been migrating slowly eastward around the northern hemisphere, from the Pacific and central North America around 1930-1940, then across the Great Lakes and northeast, the Atlantic, and now it is over Europe. Perhaps this feature will continue its slow eastward migration and things will return to a more normal condition in a few years. If so, the human contribution to the recent warming may be overestimated.

[WhiteFox]

A far worse hurricane struck New York City directly in 1821, it was about a borderline cat 2-3 and brought a storm surge into lower Manhattan as well as doing considerable wind damage throughout the Hudson valley.

I have studied tropical storm activity extensively and can see no real correlation between recent global warming and hurricane activity, there have always been "unusual" hurricane years. Katrina was a monster storm, but so were the 1900 Galveston hurricane, the 1935 Florida Keys storm, Camille in 1969 and Hugo in 1989, just to mention a few.

It wasn't my intention to imply that warmer temperatures equate directly to more hurricanes. I would say that the implication of warmer temperatures over a longer period may lead to warmer sea temperatures along the East Coast which would then be more favourable for any storms which do take a path up the coast to stay stronger for a longer period. As for the formation of storms themselves, that's a different matter.

Should the recent warming be reversed then so be it.

Time will tell...

[Roger J Smith]

Well, I think you would be right to equate warmer temperatures (in eastern N America) with more hurricanes, the statistics bear that out in general terms. When temperatures are below normal in summer or autumn across the Great Lakes and northeast, hurricane activity is usually below average.

The tracks favoured by hurricanes are probably due mainly to factors in the upper atmosphere rather than the water temperatures north of about 35 N, and water temperatures will respond to storm tracks more than vice versa, so the cause and effect may be the other way round. That only applies to the higher latitudes, though, I believe that water temperatures in the subtropics are more of a cause than an effect.

Although the winter before an active hurricane season is often milder than average, the winter 18 months before can often be much colder than normal. Parts of Florida had their coldest temperatures on record in February 1899 before the 1900 hurricane in the Gulf, and the winter of 1994 was very cold before the high activity season in 1995. All that illustrates is that "climate regimes" however construed have little to do with hurricane development in a given season. There is little atmospheric or SST memory lasting beyond 6-9 months. This is one reason why I distrust some of the "global circulation models" that haunt the AGW debate. These fail to account for the large year-to-year variability in climate and weather and suggest some sort of steady-state warm climate that may seem to have set in for the UK in the past year. Other regions of the northern hemisphere continue to see large variations from month to month.

[noggin]

Just to balance the early bluebells, last year the daffodils were late.

This tickled me......I'm listening to Terry Wogan and one of his correspondents just said "how come a late Spring last year was just a late Spring, but an early Spring this year is all down to global warming?"

There are many, many people out there who are just not convinced by the "information" that they are fed by the media. Nor convinced by GW, be it man-made or not.

....and the media is, after all, the source of the vast majority of information.

I feel a backlash is coming amongst the natives. They will be revolting. (as I have been for quite some time!)

[jethro]

This tickled me......I'm listening to Terry Wogan and one of his correspondents just said "how come a late Spring last year was just a late Spring, but an early Spring this year is all down to global warming?"

There are many, many people out there who are just not convinced by the "information" that they are fed by the media. Nor convinced by GW, be it man-made or not.

....and the media is, after all, the source of the vast majority of information.

I feel a backlash is coming amongst the natives. They will be revolting. (as I have been for quite some time!)

Made me smile too.

[Bobby]

This tickled me......I'm listening to Terry Wogan and one of his correspondents just said "how come a late Spring last year was just a late Spring, but an early Spring this year is all down to global warming?"

There are many, many people out there who are just not convinced by the "information" that they are fed by the media. Nor convinced by GW, be it man-made or not.

....and the media is, after all, the source of the vast majority of information.

I feel a backlash is coming amongst the natives. They will be revolting. (as I have been for quite some time!)

If you don't like being "fed" information by the media, why don't you go look at the scientific evidence directly then, and make up your mind from that?

[noggin]

If you don't like being "fed" information by the media, why don't you go look at the scientific evidence directly then, and make up your mind from that?

I have made my mind up. I read and listen to the media. I have heard both sides of the "argument" from the "scientific" fraternity and putting it all together with my observations and general life experience I conclude that things go in cycles and that we have just about come to the end of a natural warming phase. A cooling phase is just around the corner. These phases being attributable to the "behaviour" of the sun and our position relative to it.

Well, that's how it is for me. I know that other people have different views!

[John Cox]

Agreed noggin,

The media have really over hyped Global Warming and I am fed up listning to their outpourings.

It just helps sell newspapers and advertising.

Anyway pleas God when the cool spell commences next week we can get some relief from the media.

[Mammatus]

I have made my mind up. I read and listen to the media. I have heard both sides of the "argument" from the "scientific" fraternity and putting it all together with my observations and general life experience I conclude that things go in cycles and that we have just about come to the end of a natural warming phase. A cooling phase is just around the corner. These phases being attributable to the "behaviour" of the sun and our position relative to it.

Well, that's how it is for me. I know that other people have different views! B)

Hi noggin and John,

I completely agree with this! I wont add anymore, this GW theory is absolute rubbish. Earth has been here millions of years, our records only go back 365 odd years, so how can we describe todays temperatures 'compared to the long term average'? when they only go back a few hundred years? Beyond me. A cooling phase is just around the corner as noggin stated above.

"The media have really over hyped Global Warming and I am fed up listning to their outpourings.

It just helps sell newspapers and advertising.

Anyway pleas God when the cool spell commences next week we can get some relief from the media".

Agreed John.

Mammatus

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

Noggin, John Cox, Mammatus (et al). I bet old King Canute was similarly skeptical about the tide turning as the water began to lap around his ankles

[Stratos Ferric]

I have made my mind up. I read and listen to the media. I have heard both sides of the "argument" from the "scientific" fraternity and putting it all together with my observations and general life experience I conclude that things go in cycles and that we have just about come to the end of a natural warming phase. A cooling phase is just around the corner. These phases being attributable to the "behaviour" of the sun and our position relative to it.

Well, that's how it is for me. I know that other people have different views! B)

As I've said to one or two other people on here Noggin, it would be interesting to know where you would put your line in the sand so that if things have not returned to normal (or started in that direction persistently) we will know that your hypothesis is invalid.

I could go stand by the side of a road where I know a bus used to run, and after every passing day say to myself "maybe tomorrow; these things come in cycles", but at what point do we have to admit to ourselves that our hypothesis might be wrong. If you don't draw a line in the sand then you're in the same camp as the addicted, simply hoping that what you want is going to happen, but not having any cogent rationale for why it might - other than the siren call of hope that keeps playing away in the recesses of the mind.

You don't have to know much about statistics to be able to see that we're right at the margin of the possible in terms of this run of 20 years of warmking being a blip. There's no run like it in terms of length or extremity in the measured record, nor in the reliably reconstructable record.

Hi noggin and John,

I completely agree with this! I wont add anymore, this GW theory is absolute rubbish. Earth has been here millions of years, our records only go back 365 odd years, so how can we describe todays temperatures 'compared to the long term average'? when they only go back a few hundred years? Beyond me. A cooling phase is just around the corner as noggin stated above.

"The media have really over hyped Global Warming and I am fed up listning to their outpourings.

It just helps sell newspapers and advertising.

Anyway pleas God when the cool spell commences next week we can get some relief from the media".

Agreed John.

Mammatus

We can describe it because records can be constructred in other ways. If you're going to play the "concrete proof" argument then prove to me that Romans didn't have jumbo jets. Prove that ancient Greeks couldn't run faster than today's athletes. Prove to me that AIDS is a modern disease. The climate does go in cycles, so do a lot of things, but I wish one or two of you "we've been here before" types would actually look at some of the data and construct an argument as to how and why we are where we are. "We've been here before" is no more an argument for the causes of our current climate than would be the Chancellor of the Exchequer dismissing ongoing increases in interest rates with "we've been here before". Weather is not a matter of whimsy, it is a scientific product of hard and fast relationships: to be at levels of unprecedented warmth right around the globe there must be a reason, and I'm still waiting for one of you to explain what it is if it's not GHG. I suspect I'll be waiting for a while.

The difference between belief and science is that the former requires no proof whatsoever, and is therefore open to all sorts of ignorant bias: the latter does require proof.

...A cooling phase is just around the corner. These phases being attributable to the "behaviour" of the sun and our position relative to it.

Well, that's how it is for me. I know that other people have different views! B)

Say a little more about our position relative to the sun, and the sun's behaviour.

This tickled me......I'm listening to Terry Wogan and one of his correspondents just said "how come a late Spring last year was just a late Spring, but an early Spring this year is all down to global warming?"

There are many, many people out there who are just not convinced by the "information" that they are fed by the media. Nor convinced by GW, be it man-made or not.

....and the media is, after all, the source of the vast majority of information.

I feel a backlash is coming amongst the natives. They will be revolting. (as I have been for quite some time!)

How come Manchester United win the Premiership even though they don't win every week? A single event proves nothing either way, nor is Terry Wogan and his audience a reliable test of anything scientific.

The media is only the biggest source of information for those who choose to rely on the media. Interestingly enough, if you go read any scientific, technical or professional journal, amongst the list of references accompanying any article you will seldom as never see references to "The Sun" or "The Daily Mirror". Journalists are not technical professionals and I would no more rely on a journalist for information regarding climate than I would rely on them for a medical opinion.

That said, the media tends to lag actuality, and as such is well position to be an adopter not an innovator. You may not like their excesses, but generally speaking they back the winning pony. Brand reputation is hardly built by representing untruths or half truths, unless, like the National Enquirer, that is the land they choose to inhabit.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Clearly the earth is warming, but i believe most of it is natural such as the suns output and natural cycles. But I'd say CO2 is having a slight warming effect simply because the amount we've pumped into the atmosphere and are continuing to pump into it cant keep going without some sort of reprecussions!

We are still coming out of an ice age so its naturaly going to get warmer and warmer, but the GHGs are jus helping this along slightly. If the earth decides to cool, it will though! CO2 didnt stop the temperature from falling between the 1940s and 70s!

I still believe we need to reduce GHG emissions, but mainly because of the acidification of the oceans. Although I am somewhat confused as from what I hear the worlds oceans are going to take in more CO2 as they get warmer, causing them to turn acidic, and at the same time start releasing CO2 into the atmosphere for exactly the same reason???

[Calrissian]

This tickled me......I'm listening to Terry Wogan and one of his correspondents just said "how come a late Spring last year was just a late Spring, but an early Spring this year is all down to global warming?"

There are many, many people out there who are just not convinced by the "information" that they are fed by the media. Nor convinced by GW, be it man-made or not.

....and the media is, after all, the source of the vast majority of information.

I feel a backlash is coming amongst the natives. They will be revolting. (as I have been for quite some time!)

Yes, well most people are ignorant idiots, so don't expect the 'masses' to ever have any real appreciation of what is happening around them until their coastal homes are under water, and they have no regular drinking water.

---

The graphs noted here by a few posters (thanks for posting them) illustrate the clear trend, and indeed the current Jump in progress. I'm almost beyond caring what the exact the reason for the trend is, the real question in my view remains how much more it can accelerate and over what time frame.

Of course, in the meantime the hysterical media (and indeed general populace) remain utterly unprepared for what is to come.

Calrissian: Alpha Dog

[johnholmes]

Agreed noggin,

The media have really over hyped Global Warming and I am fed up listning to their outpourings.

It just helps sell newspapers and advertising.

Anyway pleas God when the cool spell commences next week we can get some relief from the media.

and your height above sea level in the lovely city of Dublin John?

[WhiteFox]

I always find it a bit patronising to be told that I'm just believing media hype as if I'm somehow unable to make a decision myself without being spoon-fed. I look at what's going on, look at figures, read reports (not those in the Daily Mail), look at some of the debates on here and come to a conclusion. What's that got to do with media hype?

[tinybill]

i just looked at the new gizmo on here monday and tuesday its saying we got thunder stormscoming looks like thing are on the change next week at long last!!

[johnholmes]

hardly the right place on this thread mate, more like the model discussion page?