The Ongoing Warmth in the UK

[johnholmes]

Some thoughts of mine with help from many sources

Abbreviations used

GW=Global Warming

AGW=Anthropogenic Warming (means caused by human activities)

IPCC=International Panel on Climate Control

MWP=Medieval Warm Period

LIA=Little Ice Age

CET=Central England Temperature

NADI=North Atlantic Drift Ice

I though I would try and make a constructive input into yet another, is the world warming, or at least our area, is it not, what is it, GW, AGW etc? There is masses of, quite often, fairly conflicting data; even some of the data available can be open to differing interpretations.

In my view, GW IS occurring, just how much is due to AGW is what I feel is open to doubt. The IPCC reports, there is more than one, and I doubt if anyone, me included, on this forum has read all the full reports, most will only have seen the condensed summaries of the reports.

However in my view the earth is warming, it has done before, perhaps not at quite the rate it is doing now. There will be spells when it appears to have stopped, it has in the past, then restarted again. I think that the most telling comment about this is this extract from an IPCC report,

‘Climate change is caused by mechanisms that force change to occur over millions of years (tectonic time scales), over tens to hundreds of thousands of years (orbital scales), and over shorter time scales (decades to centuries). It is this shorter time scale that humans must be most concerned with because these are the time scales in which we live.’

Some notes I have made over a period reading some of the data available

MWP was approximately AD 900-11500, and is when both Iceland and Greenland were settled by the Vikings. This was followed by a cooler spell from about 1150-146, then a short warmer period, 1460-1560, then the LIA as we know it set in fairly rapidly, from 1560-1850. Subsequent to this, which is what all the fuss is about, from the late 1800’s the earth has, overall, warmed.

How do know about this far back in time when most weather observations only go back 100-150 years, with the exception of a few records, such as the CET for England, back to the 1650’s?

Oxygen isotopes and tree dating are accepted as two fairly reliable methods of fixing dates with probable temperatures ranges.

NADI is another method that shows quite good correlation with the above and can be taken as far back as the above, around AD900, further in some instances for all three.

Lamb, amongst several well respected climatologists and other ‘ologists, showed in 1974 and 1977 that the NADI was quite a good indicator along with a suggested map of ice on the coast of Iceland, see below.

Number of week’s polar ice appeared at Iceland coast vs. time by Lamb, 1977.

The NADI showed that if 20 months in one decade showed drift ice and the next decade 22, then the second decade had a mean temperature about 0.1C below the first decade. This seems to hold to the present day, albeit in reverse, as temperatures and drift ice have increased and decreased respectively.

Changes in the glaciers over Europe, waxing and waning.

This also shows good correlation with data methods already described.

Continental glaciers have not covered N America and Europe for over 10,000 years, but the mountains of Scandinavia and the Alps have got data that tends to confirm the temperature changes over the past 1,000 years at least. Because they are so massive they respond to long term temperature and precipitation changes on a time scale of decades and centuries.

The following summary shows their growth and decline.

1560-1610 major advances on all glaciers

1640-1650 Swiss glacier maximum

1670-1705 maximum extent in Austria

1720-1750 maximum over Norway

1816-1825 minor advances with all glaciers

1850-1890 glacier maximum in Canada and Iceland

Other sources to support comments made above

Anecdotal evidence

By which I mean writings by respected diarists and authors about weather and changes in their lifetimes.

Lamb in 1995 reports the writings of a writer in Iceland around 1125 citing the settlement of Iceland around that time and comments about temperature etc. A comment about Ethel the Red swimming across a fjord of over 2 miles. A medical expert suggests that no human could swim that distance unless the water temperature was at least 10C. This suggests a much warmer climate then than now.

Amongst these are writings speaking of white or black mountains, suggesting that at some time the mountains were not snow covered, the dates again fit in with the above findings. Another writing found spoke of white tops around the early 1300’s, another suggestion that some cooling had occurred since the 100’s.

Only anecdotal but supportive of the temperature ranges that more scientific methods show to have been the case through the centuries mentioned.

The climate of Europe since late 1800’s has shown a fairly dramatic warming, more of the sort expected/experienced previously in centuries, and often many centuries.

However, there have been pretty dramatic climate changes over relatively short periods. There is much evidence to suggest that the LIA may have ended in little more than one decade.

The last major glaciation period(about 15,000 years ago) ended in just a few decades. This was followed by a fairly prolonged warm spell.

Thus it seems highly probable that climate trends can be reversed, naturally, on a fairly short time scale.

This is, in part, why the IPCC(intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was set up by the WMO(world meteorological organisation) NOT international governments!

What then happened is that the IPCC made conditional comments with regard to what they felt was happening, and mentioned the obvious GW(it is happening – there is no sensible argument against it not being a fact), and brought in the phrase AGW i.e., that it was largely caused, in their view, by human activities, especially fossil burning.

World governments then became involved as it was such a huge issue, IF the IPCC recommendations were found to be true, and subsequent reports appear to confirm IPCC’s first view and report, that world involvement was going to be required. Sadly, in my view, major governments, principally the USA, but also major likely contributors to fossil burning, India and China, refused to accept the main findings of the IPCC, so in a sense, ‘Rome burns’ whilst the world politicians argue.

This is a personal view but I have tried to be as objective and realistic as possible. It is the condensation of much reading, IPCC reports, other data, a few briefly mentioned above, and my understandings of over 50 years of direct involvement with the weather and to a lesser extent the climate.

So in summary

GW absolutely definitely. To say it is not is a bit like saying the earth is flat, in my view.

Why is the major question? Just how much is down to AGW and how much is ‘natural’ GW. For myself I think there is a lot of evidence to show that human activities are having a major impact.

However, some of the evidence above shows that long before human activities affected the overall global temperatures, then fairly dramatic and drastic changes have been shown to have occurred in the past.

On my hobby horse again. Assuming the earth is warming and the most conservative figures are accepted for its continued increase, during the foreseeable future, then we must all try and do our own tiny bit to persuade local and national members of government that the major world governments MUST act very quickly to alleviate the very probable consequences of GW. Flooding by the sea in some areas and drought in others.

John

[jethro]

Very informative, thank you!

[Osbourne One-Nil]

I've the suspicion that many people on here shop at Asda....or even.... Sommerfield

Ok, but anyone found shopping at Morrisons will be banned.

[gmoran]

IF this carries on for another 3-6 months, you might want to go look at the plots of CET (I may refresh my own this evening): believe me, there is absolutely NO such dramatic warming ANYWHERE in the record. As I posted earlier in the thread, at this stage this year we are something like 1.5C above where we were last year (and that off an already historically high level) on a 12 month rolling basis. It's one thing to rebound upwards from a cold start, but to explode upwards from the ceiling is quite another altogether.

Let's be clear, it cannot be sustained for much longer, but in saying that what if it is...I wonder what "common sense" will say then?

Yes, I looked up the CET graphs just after posting this, and it is unprecedented. Of course the CET starts past the height of the LIA, and it would have been most useful if we had detailed measurements extending back to the start of the MWP. Regardless, we have AGW on top of normal climate variability; I don't think it's a question of if, but how much; but we do also have to remember that natural variability is in there as well; and I think sometimes in the push to persuade about the realities of AGW some areas of the scientific community put that to one side.

Thank you for your eloquent and thoughtful response.

along with an entertaining hurricane season in gulf, ending with a nice hybrid storm (or two) hitting Europe.

My understanding is that the Atlantic hurricane patterns are not significantly affected by AGW, despite shameless IPCC publicity after Katrina. Not using this to diminish arguments for AGW, but sometimes AGW proponents over-egg in order to persuade and I understand that is the case in this regard.

[Stratos Ferric]

....My understanding is that the Atlantic hurricane patterns are not significantly affected by AGW, despite shameless IPCC publicity after Katrina. Not using this to diminish arguments for AGW, but sometimes AGW proponents over-egg in order to persuade and I understand that is the case in this regard.

At the very least it's certainly fair to say that it's case unproven. There was a bit of a bruhahah a year or two back when we had a very big season, but last year was actually fairly insignificant wasn't it? The simple view is that a warmer atmosphere has more energy, but as we are seeing in the UK, it's also possible that synoptics might change enough to nudge storms further north, over cooler waters, and so diminish their potency.

Re the current run: the mean max in the month to date is actually MORE of an anomaly that was the mean max for July last year. In other words, if this were July, we would, most implausibly, be on the cusp of surpassing even last year's giddy heights by day. Overall the minima are a tad lower, but even so, April is the warmest month relatively in this long run since July 06.

[Gavin P]

I still have a suspicion that for Europe and Western Europe in particular, Interdecadel Warming of the Atlantic may he exagerating the undoubted Global Warming trend thats going on. From the 50-80's, whilst it was in its cool phase, I think it actually lessened the warming trend that was beginning to develop across the world, now I think it may be exagerating the effect. I mean, 3 record warm CET months out of 9 is pretty amazing, even if you accept AGW is going on (which I do)

So, the question is, when will this "Interdecadel Warming Period" end? Thats what we can't answer. In the first half of the 20th century, I believe it went on for a good 30yrs, from the 1920's to the 1940's (its interesting that even with IW of the Atlantic, we still managed to have a series of severe winters in the 40's) So, we may have a while of this Atlantic warming to go. However, just because that warm phase lasted for 3 decades, doesn't mean the current warm phase will last for that period. It could last longer or shorter than 3 decades.

If it was to end fairly promptly, and the cool phase start up quite quickly, then I think we *may* see temps reverting back to a more sensible level of warming, for a couple of decades. I personally don't believe we could ever go back to a 1960's climate pattern, but I do believe an 88-96 type climate may still be possible, if the Atlantic goes into it's cool phase in the next 5-10 years. A lot of if's and but's there, though.

Edited April 28, 2007 by Gavin P

[Stratos Ferric]

I still have a suspicion that for Europe and Western Europe in particular, Interdecadel Warming of the Atlantic may he exagerating the undoubted Global Warming trend thats going on. ...

I personally don't believe we could ever go back to a 1960's climate pattern, but I do believe an 88-96 type climate may still be possible, if the Atlantic goes into it's cool phase in the next 5-10 years. A lot of if's and but's there, though.

There's no doubt that the Atlantic has been anomalously warm, even given the general level of sea surface warmth over the past year. IF we get some cooling then I agree, things will slip back to something more sensibly within the current warming corridor. There's almost no doubt that we will get something less excessively warm eventually, and that lower SSTs will have to drive that. I suspect, also, that your assessment of the baseline for cold may not be far off the mark, though something down at that level would be as much of an outlier as 1962-3 was in its time.

[mushymanrob]

splendid post johnholmes , nice to see all the factors being considered .

[PersianPaladin]

Well, I would hardly describe the last few days up here as warm....thats for certain. Not cold though, just cool and more seasonal.

[kold weather]

The problem with those saying its going to get cooler, I have to ask how. The only sourc eis the sun but are we not in a solar min right now anyway and yet stil lthe globe is well above normal.

Until the arctic area cools then there can't be any real cool-down IMO.

By the way for those of you who don't know, last year was the second warmest EVER in the Atlantic...despite El nino which normally causes shear and more cloud cover and usually cool anomalies in the Atlantic!

[Deelightuk]

Great post John! It certainly helped me understand a little more and it was very informative. You learn something new every day

[Stratos Ferric]

Well, I would hardly describe the last few days up here as warm....thats for certain. Not cold though, just cool and more seasonal.

PP, hardly, though it might have been cooler close to the N Sea coast. The mean MIN for the CEt has still be running at a level that would be more typical for the daily average at this time of year. It's been less opressive over the past week, but the CEt has STILL been rising, and it was already about 2.5C above norm.

[johnholmes]

thank you Mush and Deelight.

It can be a very emotional subject, quite understandably, but I did try, perhaps, with some success, from your two kind comments, to try and be as factual as I can.

We all have a bias to one side or the other, it would be unfair for me not to admit mine is a touch towards both GW and AGW but with a number of reservations.

Just what will happen in the next 50 -250 years is still open to debate although I think the data is stacking up in favour of higher overall temperature and the consequence of that, drought and sea level rises.

There are other possible effects from the overall warming which are perhaps even more open to question or debate. will we have more severe storms in our area(the Maritime climate zones of the world), will the areas susceptible to hurricanes/typhoons etc have more serious storms with higher sea level rises associated with them? For example with new Orleans 2005 be repeated in other parts of the USA? Will this type of weather affect other areas not previously affected|? The northern states of Brazil for instance. There has already been one hurricane south of the equator in S America, unheard of until that.

So many unknowns but so much the world could do to start planning for these effects instead of arguing/discussing what can be done to stop it.

Canute tried that with a singular lack of success and I suspect it will be the same trying to stop tte overall rise in temperature, that is unless Mother nature takes a hand herself.

John

Edited April 28, 2007 by johnholmes

[PersianPaladin]

PP, hardly, though it might have been cooler close to the N Sea coast. The mean MIN for the CEt has still be running at a level that would be more typical for the daily average at this time of year. It's been less opressive over the past week, but the CEt has STILL been rising, and it was already about 2.5C above norm.

I was talking about north-east England. I couldn't give a monkeys about the CET.

[Thundery wintry showers]

In Cleadon, max 13.1, min 7.0; still above the long-term average (mainly due to the high minimum; the 1971-2000 May average here is about 6.8C)

This is still comfortably going to beat any other April in the North East, even if the next two days don't get above 11C.

[Stratos Ferric]

I was talking about north-east England. I couldn't give a monkeys about the CET.

It's probably cooling down nicely in Antarctica.

[Mammatus]

Very good post John. Enjoyable and informative read.

Mammatus

[WindWatcher]

Wow, I really do love your posts Mr Holmes, it even brought me out of my hibernation from starting my own business.

I think I agree with your balanced appraisal, but the thing that still nags in the back of my mind is just when did we humans start to influence the climate.

Depending on the historian, the industrial revolution started between 1760 and 1830 and spread from Britain throughout the now developed world. I am assuming that this was the period that mankind started releasing on mass locked carbons in a manner that was out of proportion to previous conversion (fires for cooking, heating and local manufacture etc)

I haven't seen any readily available information on the rate of our use of locked carbons against the warming trend (I haven't looked thoroughly if even past NW). My worry is that current media hysteria is always putting the blame at the current generations, I think this is what makes people so sceptical, if you drive a 4x4 you are to blame for GW or AGW more correctly.

so what I would really like to know is, are we currently seeing the increased warming above natural levels from the start of the industrial revolution or are the changes so immediate that leaving a lightbulb on over night is having an effect in yrs or even just a couple of decades from now.

If the effects we are seeing on the climate now are just from the start of the industrial revolution, surely we are doomed? I know this opens up the whole debate of whether Co2 lags temperature or not, but it really isn't intended as that. I am interested in which period of carbon emitions are we currently paying the price for?

Confused..

Steve.

[johnholmes]

tks WW and MM.

I suspect that is the 50,000$ question WW. Just which part of the Industrial Revolution is it that we are currently seeing the result of, or is it more simply, the combined effect of the whole period from the late 18th, early 19th century that is to blame.

Again there is then the question of is the carbon dioxide release the cause or the effect and this does seem to generate more heat than any other part of the topic.

I am not utterly convinced by those that argue there is as direct a link as some very eminent meteorologists and climatologists state, but their knowledge is much greater than mine.

I do think that the whole world needs to tackle the issues on two fronts.

1) It would seem sensible to try and reduce the world wide CO2 emissions by as much as is practicable for each nation. This MIGHT just make it possible to bring on board those nations currently refusing to be involved. Although the anticipated change of US President will almost certainly bring the USA nearer the European way of thinking.

2) Regardless of any action from 1) every government must make real pledges of help, material or cash and some space in their country to absorb the many millions that will be displaced, whatever we do in the next 20 years, over the coming century, due to sea level rises and drought.

pious hopes I expect but, as I keep saying, if we all, the billions of us on this planet, start pushing our elected governments towards that it might just happen. Yes I know that still leaves those countries without the benefit of free speech which we have but if the rest can 'get the ball rolling' then mankind has some hope. It 'ain't got much a century down the road if nothing is done!

Edited April 29, 2007 by johnholmes

[grab my graupel]

Thanks so much John for a magnificent post.

I hope you don't mind, but I have saved this as reference, to help with my childrens school work.

Brian.

[johnholmes]

erm, okay and thank you, but my view is far from the definitive version mate.

[Snowday]

Bizzare...would be interested to hear when bluebells flower this year. I recall that I saw bluebells in flower in the hills above Mallaig in the last week of June 1994.

Regards

ACB

With regards to Bluebells flowering, they've been in bloom here for around the past 10 days. Infact, I went for a walk yesterday and noted that some are even dying off and shrivelling. Seems wrong somehow...

[johnholmes]

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

[Stratos Ferric]

...

Depending on the historian, the industrial revolution started between 1760 and 1830 and spread from Britain throughout the now developed world. I am assuming that this was the period that mankind started releasing on mass locked carbons in a manner that was out of proportion to previous conversion (fires for cooking, heating and local manufacture etc)

I haven't seen any readily available information on the rate of our use of locked carbons against the warming trend (I haven't looked thoroughly if even past NW). My worry is that current media hysteria is always putting the blame at the current generations, I think this is what makes people so sceptical, if you drive a 4x4 you are to blame for GW or AGW more correctly.

so what I would really like to know is, are we currently seeing the increased warming above natural levels from the start of the industrial revolution or are the changes so immediate that leaving a lightbulb on over night is having an effect in yrs or even just a couple of decades from now.

If the effects we are seeing on the climate now are just from the start of the industrial revolution, surely we are doomed? I know this opens up the whole debate of whether Co2 lags temperature or not, but it really isn't intended as that. I am interested in which period of carbon emitions are we currently paying the price for?

Confused..

Steve.

Holding aside whether or not the warming is anthropogenic, but for the purposes of the response here assuming a link, then the impact would NOT be linear.

Yes, the industrial revolution started in the late C18th, but the volume impacts such as motorised transport and air travel are, even on this fairly short scale, very recent phenomena. Oil production is a C20th development, as is natural gas. Add in to this the fact that the world is still modernising - there was no sudden switch on off global industry in the 1700s - and any plot of CO2 production would be some sort of log curve, with a significant skew upwards in the last 30-40 years.

In addition to this mass deforestation (often using slash-and-burn; something of a double whammy) in the low latitudes has only been occurring for the past thirty years or so.

What IS known is that the warming lags the CO2 in this instance (there may well be other feedback loops where warming releases CO2 which might have been at play in previous warming episodes), so that even if we stopped producing CO2 now, the climate would still warm for 10-20 years. Why is this? For the reason already stated; warming itself causes feedbacks once it gets beyond a certain point by increasing the release of locked carbon e.g. in limestone, frozen tundra etc.

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

Mine have finally come out in the past week, and they are in a shaded, upland, north facing spot. Wouldn't usually see them before mid May.

[johnholmes]

so that even if we stopped producing CO2 now, the climate would still warm for 10-20 years.

spot on SF.

This is partly why I keep harping on about making plans for what is going to happen rather than arguing amongst the nations of the world about what it is and how can it be stopped.

back to my comment about Canute!