The Ongoing Warmth in the UK

[Snowly does it]

Well, I've been enjoying this latest burst of the denialist vs enlightened theorectical camps.

April was the first of the major jump months, May is progressing quite fine, and is exactly as I had suggested. So far its been cloudy, and rather dull, but yet the CET is STILL above average. If we have that ridge back we'll be right back into the high 70s, and then the denialists will be again clawing for thoes northerly 'cool blasts'.

I find it all frakking hilarious really. 8 months of this year to go, which makes for a lot of entertainment yet to read.

Indeed, what a great year its turning out to be. With each further month of unprecedented record breaking months the battlelines between posters will only intensify.

--

Stage'4 (where temps are 5C on average higher for 2-3 months at a time) is still a while off (2009-10 I believe).

As for S'5, well, thats a whole other thread

Calrissian: Proud to be santimonious (but not particularly satisfied lately)

Where does 2009/10 come from? Out of Interest you understand.

And whats the prognosis for the Jump?

Edited May 7, 2007 by snowmaiden

[Mammatus]

oy you 3

Tamara, EITS and Mammatus!

Please stick to the title of this thread. There is one for current weather or whatever your off topic posts should go in, certainly not in here.

many thanks

John

cheers SF, tut indeed for some people.

No problems John, but could you please do the same, it gives a bad example.

My point was to do with the ongoing warmth John (if you were refering to myself that is), I was merely disputing SF's (Nostradamus of Net Weather) faulty and exaggerated comments.

I'm sorry John

Mammatus

[Calrissian]

Err...I do keep meaning to publish my own summary outline on matters, but I seem overly busy with other things...like Battlefield 2142 and Heroes.

--

Lots to say, but then many others have summarised things pretty well already. In any case, everything is proceeding as it should be. More soon.

Calrissian: YATTA !

[Stratos Ferric]

Where does 2009/10 come from? Out of Interest you understand.

And whats the prognosis for the Jump?

Whilst I find Calrissan's playful prods amusing, I do sympathise with what I sense is your point SM, that that extrapolation for 2009/10 might just be a tad excessive. There is a chance that we continue to climb, and in one way I rather hope we do if only for the clarion call that that will make globally (and this does assume that the warming is global, not just localised), however at present I'd suggest the likeliest move in the next couple of years is probably slightly back down from where we are now. The problem with that is that one or two wil ltake this as proof positive that GW is a figment of over dramatic imagination. Either way, this is where Noggin's arguments from a day or two back start to resonate: stats do help us more looking backwards than they do looking forwards (though this is not to say that they are of NO use looking forwards, that depends on whether you can find cause for a trend looking backwards, and then that you can make a case for the continuation of that cause, or not, forwards).

No problems John, but could you please do the same, it gives a bad example.

My point was to do with the ongoing warmth John (if you were refering to myself that is), I was merely disputing SF's (Nostradamus of Net Weather) faulty and exaggerated comments.

I'm sorry John

Mammatus

I don't think I made any faulty comments, or exaggerated ones. Go check the UKMO reports for today, within the confines of my original post, and then report back.

[Snowly does it]

That was partly my point SF, but on the other hand I am somewhat amenable to arguments for a lurch these days and so am interested in these theories and tracking the prognoses of them to see if they have any weight.

A cooldown for a couple years does seem reasonable and I agree, it will have an unfortunate effect.

Lets just say it would need to be a freakish cooldown for me to take much notice now.

[Calrissian]

however at present I'd suggest the likeliest move in the next couple of years is probably slightly back down from where we are now.

- SF

Aye, that'd seem the more 'natural' course for the short term, and yet it is a rare thing for any trend to be straight line all the way.

I've always been reminded that when its comes to the climate, its more a matter of very fine equilibriums, which occasionally change to a different state of average.

The last decade or so has been undoubtedly a warming trend (only an idiot would deny that much), and I've always felt that this initial warming trend of 0.5-2.0c is just the precursor to the overall climate shift. Anyone with even a remedial understanding of most natural systems surely recognise that you can alter a naturaly system a little for a period, but eventually it will flip, break, Jump (use whatever word ya fancy), the point is, when it is pushed a certain amount to the 'x' point, the rate of change will then accelerate immensely to then settle at a new average.

I would say the 'stage 3' is the precursor stage to the real change that lies ahead. I recognise my view is one of a 'we're doomed' perspective, but so be it.

As some may agree, right now, the 'masses' are not too worried, but given another 5-10 years, the system will jump ahead. Of course, by then...it'll be too late to do anything (as it already is anyway).

---

**The same equilibrium theory applies for sea-level. A little melting at first, and then the whole damn lot melts within a very short time (decades, rather than millenia) - I cite the almost agreed inevitable dissapearence of the Arctic ice cap as a prime example, which some are now touting as early as 2020.

Calrissian: If he be could Hiro....just for one day.

[TEITS]

cheers SF, tut indeed for some people.

Hang on a minute!.

Our so called off topic posts today were in reference to SF comments about the max temps today under a straight W,ly. It isn't as though we were posting our max temps to be deliberately off topic and were just trying to illustrate how it wasn't as warm or remarkable under a W,ly as SF was suggesting.

The warmth we have experienced in recent yrs is largely due to a greater frequency of SWlys/W,lys with N,ly outbreaks becoming more infrequent. However I don't believe the SW/W,ly flow has become any warmer because although sea temps have risen they have not risen enough to directly affect our air temps. This is why we posted our max temps today to illustrate that a max temp of 15C during May under a W,ly airflow is nothing remarkable or proof that they are becoming warmer!.

For the record the max temp of 15C in Peterborough was recorded by RAF Wittering (Stamford) which is the official Met O weather station for Peterborough.

[Stratos Ferric]

Hang on a minute!.

Our so called off topic posts today were in reference to SF comments about the max temps today under a straight W,ly. It isn't as though we were posting our max temps to be deliberately off topic and were just trying to illustrate how it wasn't as warm or remarkable under a W,ly as SF was suggesting.

The warmth we have experienced in recent yrs is largely due to a greater frequency of SWlys/W,lys with N,ly outbreaks becoming more infrequent. However I don't believe the SW/W,ly flow has become any warmer because although sea temps have risen they have not risen enough to directly affect our air temps. This is why we posted our max temps today to illustrate that a max temp of 15C during May under a W,ly airflow is nothing remarkable or proof that they are becoming warmer!.

For the record the max temp of 15C in Peterborough was recorded by RAF Wittering (Stamford) which is the official Met O weather station for Peterborough.

Eye, by all means challenge back but PLEASE let's not resort to misreporting of the facts. You weren't reporting your "max temps", and even if you had been they hardly represent the point I was making: you might as well have said that the Faeroes struggled to 6C for all the relevance of your point. In any case Wittering maxed out at at least 16.1C today: go see the UKMO plots for the site (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/uk/ee/wittering_latest_weather_graphs.html). Finally, Philip's plot for CET for the day clearly shows a max of about 17C for the CET. Not 14, not 15: 17, seventeen of your degrees celcius. Like I said originally, 18C was recorded widely across the south of the UK today (yesterday), other areas were closer to normal - which was precisely what I said in my post. Quite why you and others, outside this zone, took issue, when all you were doing was confirming my point, I really don't know.

FOOTNOTE

As I write, not unexpectedly, the minima are fairly well up: 9s and 10s across the south. Now that we have a more turbulent flow it may well be that the ongoing warmth is, for a while, buoyed more by high night time minima than, as was the case for most of last month, excessive daytime maxima.

Edited May 8, 2007 by Stratos Ferric

[noggin]

If the recent warming is natural e.g increased sunspots than the biggest increase in temperatures would be in the tropics rather than the poles on a global basis. On a seasonal basis temperatures would have risen faster in summer instead of winter. On a diurnal basis daytime would have warmed faster than nighttime. This is not the case...

1) To my mind, that argument only holds water if you discount the Milankovitch Cycles.

2) I'd like to take this opportunity to confirm my POV. I do not deny that we are warm at the moment. We have been warm in the past and we have been cool/cold in the past. I have lived through a few of these cycles during the last half century+. My POV is that it is natural, it is caused by the sun and it will cool down again. Also, as requested, I have gone so far as to throw my sunhat into the ring and say that if we don't register a cooling off within the next 5 years I will eat said sunhat.

3) GW has become part of the psyche for some, it seems, including the BBC. On News 24 yesterday, the presenter said that Germany has become the new top holiday destination for the Germans and it's all because of Global Warming. Just like that. It's hard work you know, trying to put forward an alternative POV whilst up against the likes of the BBC. Ah well, onwards and upwards.

Edited May 8, 2007 by noggin

[Stu_London]

Nice post Tamara - I agree with some of it but would say all of it is well presented

One small piece of pendantry - if we are going to talk about posts going off topic then should we not look at where this thread was placed in the first place.

I for one feel too many threads such as the monthly and annual CET are hijacked and good thread that this largely is, I think the forum on environment change would be more appropriate.

[johnholmes]

tks Tamara,

well presented post and ta for the initial comment.

I obviously have a somewhat different viewpoint but that is what I hope can occur on in depth discussions, we each put our view forward to be challenged, and then agree to disagree if we are unable to find major agreement. I cannot understand why some are unable to do this.

again tks for a constructive post with your view.

As to Stu, best pm a mod although as its been running so long it seems unlikely or indeed much sense in moving it now.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

There's always going to be some off-topic debate, otherwise the threads wouldn't flow and develop, but if there is ever anything widlyl off topic that someone wants to post, how about using the general spring discussion and linking to wherever needs linking to?

[Stratos Ferric]

...

It has also meant that the sub tropical high pressure belt has shifted north in summer too - hence why we have seen blazing summers like 2003 and 2006. Why the sudden step-up in increased +NAO synoptics and mild south westerlies, mT airstreams etc since then? Our prevailing wind direction has always been from the south west so the changes in our weather have really come down to an accentuation of our natural pattern through the demarkation zone of mild/cold air being diplaced further north, not a wholesale change of climate. As relatively sudden and impactual as this change (accentuation) was/has certainly been - can we really be sure that GW is totally responsible?

The PFJ does indeed appear to have migrated northwards (unfortunately) over this time (this cannot now be disputed IMO) but the suddeness of it smacks of a cyclical change to me and cannot be put down to GW/AGW alone. ...

One element may have been present but the other has been missing ie - the cold pool has been there but the synoptics have not been placed correctly, or the other way round (like Feb 05 for eg) the classic synoptics have been there but the cold pool hasn't. I would also hold a much more strident view if these elements were both missing - it would be conclusive proof of GW/AGW indeed that intensity of cold pools has diminshed in tandem with the northward movement of the jet. But as far as I can see that is not the case - hence there are other reasons, IMO, besides Global warming that are contributing to this remarkable warm pattern which goes on and on. Why has the jet moved north since 1988?

...

Tamara

-

A well constructed repsonse Tamara, though I'd have to take issue with one or two points.

Firstly, our climate is a consequence of accumulated weather, so I think that to separate the northward movement of the PFJ from fundamental climate change is rather like decoupling an engine from the carriages it pulls and then arguing that the carriages are slowing down because of friction; they might be, but the friction was always present, it is the removal (or change) in external forcing that is the fundamental point. Our climate is a consequence of the macro circulation, pure and simple (I exclude from this local micro-climatic sub-types). If climatic warming changes these circulations then our weather changes. It is not just unlucky synoptics; just as the weaher does't have feelings or a mind of its own, so it is driven by basic laws of physics.

I also disagree with your arguments about things being sudden. They have not been sudden at all (holding aside the last nine months); there has been a steady decline in the frequency, longevity and intensity of cold over the past 20 years, and a concurrent increase in warmth across all three dimensions.

The "near miss" arguent is alluring, but that is all that it is; it is a fickle temptress. Stand on a beach and watch the waves recede with the tide. It is NOT the case that one moment the waves are crashing at the top of the beach and the next they are down at the mean low water mark. There will be a moment, at any point between MHWM and MWLM when the last wave has passed that point. Some way either side all waves will reach the point, and then no waves will do so, and in between some will, and some won't. The point is that we never know for sure when the last wave has breached that point or line, and that even when it has, others will still come close. Proximity, however, is no proof of the fact that future waves will return. On this pass of the tide they will not, for all that they flirt. Cold close to the UK makes no more a robust argument for cold weather in the UK than does my ability to pick six numbers in the lotto mean that I'm going to win it.

Nature is seldom sudden, even if some manifestations are (thunderstrikes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes). Anyone arguing that GW, and its associated consequences, must be (or, indeed, are) sudden or directionally consistent is missing the point, and missing it by a discouragingly wide margin.

Edited May 8, 2007 by Stratos Ferric

[jethro]

I also disagree with your arguments about things being sudden. They have not been sudden at all (holding aside the last nine months); there has been a steady decline in the frequency, longevity and intensity of cold over the past 20 years, and a concurrent increase in warmth across all three dimensions.

I can see where you're coming from but...I'm not altogether sure that the bench mark of the last 20 years or so holds true. I've spent quite a bit of time trying to find out more about the decline in the Earth's magnetic field and in amongst all the reading I've done about Carbon 14 (which increases in concentration in the atmosphere as the magnectic field declines) ; I've discovered that larger amounts of Carbon 14 cause global cooling. Our detonation of Nuclear weapons also throws huge amounts of Carbon 14 into the atmosphere; the first known nuclear test bomb was set off in 1945, followed by quite a few years of 100's of nuclear test bombs. Having discovered this I'm more inclined to think our cooler climate prior to the last 20 years was caused artificially by the addition of Carbon 14. If this is the case, then our test bench mark of rapid warming over the last 20 years no longer holds true and what we are actually seeing is a continuation of an upward curve that has been gradually climbing for a much greater period but been suppressed by the additional Carbon 14. This would in some measure explain why the rapid increase in recent years, which cannot be explained by Co2 alone. I would also add, the testing of nuclear weapons has decreased dramatically in the same corresponding time period. Is this a coincidence? I'm inclined to think not.

Edited May 8, 2007 by jethro

[jethro]

Any thoughts anyone on my last post? Genuine question, there must be someone out there who knows more about this than me.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Unfortunately I have to come clean and admit that I don't know enough about the Carbon 14 aspect to be able to form a judgement- anyone else know more?

[Stu_London]

It is certainly true that man made and natural aersols (spelling?) can induce some cooling. Examples of these are volcanic ash and pollution which one would assume could include that from a nuclear explosion.

It was interesting that our April warm weather spell co-incided with some of the cleanest pollution levels at Northern latitudes ever measured.

Perhaps the Iranians can help us all out in the near future.

[John Cox]

Hi Tamara and other fellow nw members.

What a fine post that was Tamara. I have just read it now.

As you say there is so much we dont know. If fact I would say that there is very little we know about the current climate changes and the reasons for these changes.

I do remember 2005/2006 winter and looked daily at those very low temperature on the near continent and how long they lasted. We were so close and yet so far.

There is no doubt that GW is having an effect on giving us much milder weather in recent years but equally, perhaps execpt for last winter there have been places in Europe that had much colder weather than normal. I really do believe that it is still very possible for our winters to "flip" in the colder direction for us and yes, because of GW.

Those who say that the winters of old are over could well be in for a big shock.

[Guest Viking141]

Certainly not much warming aparrent up here! Todays temp for example is just above 6C. Highest this month so far has only been 10.9C. Pretty cool given that we are only just over a month away from what we call up here Simmer Dim (Mid Summers Day). There has also been touches of ground frost in sheltered parts of Shetland over the past week or two. This pattern is forecast to continue into next week with temps below average and it is beginning to look like May will be a below average month.

Contrast that with some of the temps seen down in the far south of over 20C. Are we seeing a possible N/S split developing with much of the UK becoming warmer but the Northern extremities experiencing some kind of localised cooling effect and is this possibly linked to the interruptions we have seen in the NAD?

[noggin]

Contrast that with some of the temps seen down in the far south of over 20C. Are we seeing a possible N/S split developing with much of the UK becoming warmer but the Northern extremities experiencing some kind of localised cooling effect and is this possibly linked to the interruptions we have seen in the NAD?

It makes sense to me that a slowdown in the NAD would result in a cooldown for the northern parts of our fair isles. I would like it to slow down some more so that it gets colder down here, too, as I don't like it hot. I'd much rather snuggle up in front of a cosy fire in a woolly jumper whilst it's chilly outside than swelter in the heat.

Before anyone complains about my desire, may I add that I too have to get to work and am not as able, physically, as I once was! Nor does it have any bearing on what I think will happen in the future.

It would be interesting though to observe what happens in the forthcoming months/years with regard to temperatures in our islands and to see if there is any corresponding slowdown in the NAD.

Edited May 10, 2007 by noggin

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Contrast that with some of the temps seen down in the far south of over 20C. Are we seeing a possible N/S split developing with much of the UK becoming warmer but the Northern extremities experiencing some kind of localised cooling effect and is this possibly linked to the interruptions we have seen in the NAD?

No.

Whatever has in fact happened to the North Atlantic Drift, Sea Surface temperatures in the North Atlantic and specifically around the northern coasts of Britain remain well above average.

Flicker or no flicker in the NAD, not reflected in sea temperature.

If there is anything to the observation that the North is colder than the south to a greater extent than we've known that may be due to high sea temperatures in the south of the North Sea. While the North and South of Britain may have warmed, the south, closer to the continent, bordering a shallow sea, would have warmed faster.

[Guest Viking141]

No.

Whatever has in fact happened to the North Atlantic Drift, Sea Surface temperatures in the North Atlantic and specifically around the northern coasts of Britain remain well above average.

Flicker or no flicker in the NAD, not reflected in sea temperature.

If there is anything to the observation that the North is colder than the south to a greater extent than we've known that may be due to high sea temperatures in the south of the North Sea. While the North and South of Britain may have warmed, the south, closer to the continent, bordering a shallow sea, would have warmed faster.

Hi AF

Interesting. The chart you posted shows Shetland lying in the 0.5-1.0C zone with 0-0.5C waters just to the North. Hardly what I'd call warm. Be interested to know if you have access to figures which show that SST's for the waters around Shetland are indeed well above average for this time of year.

Edited May 10, 2007 by Viking141

[Mr Sleet]

Thank you for your reply with some fresh analagies to make well established points.

As indicated I won't be speaking any further on this well saturated topic but I am certain you will keep posting to others with your thoughts and opinions on this topic.

Tamara

I agree with your post Tamara. If you go to the IPCC 2007 "summary for policymakers" you will see that they say that changes in northern hemisphere circulation in the 20th Century cannot be explained by natural or man made forcings.

I agree with you that there has been a sudden change in our part of the world, leading to much greater southwesterliness with accompanying ice loss in the arctic.

I am intrigued by one thing though, where is the peer reviewed evidence that the Polar Front has migrated northward? I hope you can come out of your self imposed silence to answer this .

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Hi AF

Interesting. The chart you posted shows Shetland lying in the 0.5-1.0C zone with 0-0.5C waters just to the North. Hardly what I'd call warm. Be interested to know if you have access to figures which show that SST's for the waters around Shetland are indeed well above average for this time of year.

Look again. Shetland is not part of mainland Scotland. All of mainland Scotland is surrounded by +1.5C waters, with an extensive pool of warmer water toward the north west.

You make an argument for Shetland being cooler than normal and much cooler than the south of England, but not for the whole of mainland Scotland.

(Or are you arguing the "South" begins at John O'Groats?)

Edited May 10, 2007 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Guest Viking141]

Look again. Shetland is not part of mainland Scotland. All of mainland Scotland is surrounded by +1.5C waters, with an extensive pool of warmer water toward the north west.

You make an argument for Shetland being cooler than normal and much cooler than the south of England, but not for the whole of mainland Scotland.

(Or are you arguing the "South" begins at John O'Groats?)

If you look back at my original post you will see I asked "Are we seeing a possible N/S split developing with much of the UK becoming warmer but the Northern extremities experiencing some kind of localised cooling effect"

You replied "No"

You also stated that "Sea Surface Temperatures in the North Atlantic and specifically around the northern coasts of Britain remain well above average".

1. Im sure the term "northern extremity" certainly applies to the Shetland Islands

2. The title of this thread is "ongoing warmth in the UK"

3. The Shetland Islands have been a part of the UK since the Acts of Union in 1707 and remain so to this day.

4. The Shetland Islands lie on the border between the North Sea and the North Atlantic )there is actually a place in Northern Shetland at Eshaness where you can actually jump from one to the other!)

5. Shetlands 1600 miles of coastline are part of the "northern coasts of Britain" at no point did you say your statement referred exclusively to the mainland of the UK.

Edited May 10, 2007 by Viking141