Is the summer of 2007 a turning point?

[Anti-Mild]

I can't believe that this thread has been on the go for so long without me sticking my oar in but here goes:

To answer the question posed by the title of the thread:- Maybe although I don't think you can take this summer in isolation. It could be that the unusual and extreme events over the last 12 months are indicative of a broader change.

Everyone knows of the apparent change in our climate from 'traditional' to 'modern' in 1988, and it doesn't take much looking to find a run of extreme events leading up to this change, much as we are experiencing now, that may have precipitated this.

T. Harley's brilliant site (http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~taharley/britweather_years.htm) gives these examples:

January 1987 - "There was an exceptional cold spell resulting from an easterly airstream starting on the 9th, with cold air starting to feed in from the 7th"; and every self-respecting winter lover knows what happened next! ! Fair to say this was an extreme event!

March 1987 - "Very cold (CET 4.1C) - the coldest since 1970, and there hasn't been a colder one since."

April 1987 - "The second warmest of the century (10.3), and locally the warmest."

June 1987 - "The dullest June on record, with an average of only 4.09 hours sun per day."

October 1987 - "This month will be remembered however for the "Great Storm", the so-called hurricane of the night of the 15-16th and the morning of the 16th"; definitely another extreme event, particularly for Michael Fish !

March 1988 - "Record-breakingly wet in places in Northern Ireland, and very wet across most of the country."

July 1988 - "An unremittingly disturbed month. It was dull and cold (overall CET 14.7, the coldest since 1965)"

So, the litany of extreme events and months over the last 12 months is not without precedent and perhaps this kind of extraordinary run could act as a turning point, leading us back into a more "British" style of climate.

As an aside, I believe that we will end up reliving the climate of the 60's, 70's, and 80's, but not for another decade or so as I believe that sun activity is the major driving force on our climate.

AM

[Bobby]

The UK seems to have warmed a good 0.4C more than the global average temperature and I can't help but feel some of that is due to synoptics rather than background warming.

That's expected, places further North will warm considerably more than those nearer the equator. So the models do project us to warm more than the global average.

Funny how one month can swhow how definatley things have a changed climate wise. However it doesn't and it's just another normal blip associatted with our climate and on it's own doesn't proof anything.

I agree with that. The last 12 months may have been excpetional even taking into account the warming trend, but just as the exceptional warmth was a blip, so is this summer so far. Our weather will eventually average out towards what is to be expected with the warming trend - increasingly wet winters and Autumns with warmer and drier summers, with more intense rainfall generally, particularly in summer. Nothing has changed, everything we have seen is fully in line with the projections of our climate in the future, along with some blips.

Edited July 31, 2007 by Magpie

[eddie]

That's expected, places further North will warm considerably more than those nearer the equator. So the models do project us to warm more than the global average.

I agree with that. The last 12 months may have been excpetional even taking into account the warming trend, but just as the exceptional warmth was a blip, so is this summer so far. Our weather will eventually average out towards what is to be expected with the warming trend - increasingly wet winters and Autumns with warmer and drier summers, with more intense rainfall generally, particularly in summer. Nothing has changed, everything we have seen is fully in line with the projections of our climate in the future, along with some blips.

Why is that?

/edit: Oops you edited why I was replying. I meant why will places further north warm more?

Edited July 31, 2007 by eddie

[Bobby]

Why is that?

/edit: Oops you edited why I was replying. I meant why will places further north warm more?

I'm not entirely sure of the science behind it, but all the climate models predict this. Current observations also support it - the Arctic is warming far faster than the rest of the world.

[eddie]

I'm not entirely sure of the science behind it, but all the climate models predict this. Current observations also support it - the Arctic is warming far faster than the rest of the world.

This slide from the Hadley centre seems to suggest that the UK will not warm more than the global average although you are right about the arctic..

Climate change projections

[Bobby]

This slide from the Hadley centre seems to suggest that the UK will not warm more than the global average although you are right about the arctic..

Climate change projections

I suppose the Atlantic is having a moderating effect?

[ribster]

That's expected, places further North will warm considerably more than those nearer the equator. So the models do project us to warm more than the global average.

I agree with that. The last 12 months may have been excpetional even taking into account the warming trend, but just as the exceptional warmth was a blip, so is this summer so far. Our weather will eventually average out towards what is to be expected with the warming trend - increasingly wet winters and Autumns with warmer and drier summers, with more intense rainfall generally, particularly in summer. Nothing has changed, everything we have seen is fully in line with the projections of our climate in the future, along with some blips.

You talk as though the planet will continue to warm, and that this is set in stone. I don't agree that the recent conditions can just be dismissed. If it can't be taken in isolation (i.e. a further range of years would be needed for analysis, before a judgement could even begin to be made), then it can't just be dismissed as a blip. I know what the scientists say, I also know what some others say. Obviously there is a huge debate that can be had around this, but I don't think that anything can simply be dismissed out of hand - time will tell....

[eddie]

I suppose the Atlantic is having a moderating effect?

Sounds like a reasonable explanation. I had a read around and it seems that coastal regions, apart from the arctic, will warm less that those areas in the middle of continents.

Another explanation could be that the model is predicting the north atlantic drift to slow down.

[frostypaw]

That's expected, places further North will warm considerably more than those nearer the equator. So the models do project us to warm more than the global average.

I agree with that. The last 12 months may have been excpetional even taking into account the warming trend, but just as the exceptional warmth was a blip, so is this summer so far. Our weather will eventually average out towards what is to be expected with the warming trend - increasingly wet winters and Autumns with warmer and drier summers, with more intense rainfall generally, particularly in summer. Nothing has changed, everything we have seen is fully in line with the projections of our climate in the future, along with some blips.

Sorry but lots of me cries nonsense - i believe this concept of things "returning to how it used to be but wetter winters, warmer summers" is a simple fallacy and I'm convinced the models have it wrong - as they have mostly had it wrong this summer

The result of global warming, man made or otherwise, is not just more temperature in the atmosphere but more energy in the system as a whole - so yes the result will be more extreme weather but not in some neat and orderly pattern how it used to be. "how it used to be" is a golden age that never existed mostly based on older people's memories of When It Was Properly Cold In Winter and the good summers we all remember.

The models this summer, and almost constantly any time, insist on a return to a dramatic version of normality in fantasy island with roughly seasonable but OTT weather. The long range global warming models say the same - I believe them just as much as each other

I expect more dramatic swings in how our weather behaves and dramatic events but certainly no return to how things used to be, wetter or not. all i'm sure of is more unexpected weather and surprises, but i'm hoping for this positive upturn to last a few weeks then the pattern to continue into winter to give us some good snowfall

I'd be very very very surprised if next summer is anything at all like this summer. Someone refer me back to this post in a year's time and i'll happily eat some form of headwear

Edited August 2, 2007 by frostypaw

[Stratos Ferric]

...Also,I believe the activities of man have about as much chance of influencing the climate as they have of changing the orbit of Pluto through telekinesis,ie none.

...

Rather than 'the runaway greenhouse effect' which frankly I am sick of hearing about (the root of it all being our need to preserve the dwindling supplies of fossil fuels),the most likely imminent scenario is a rapid plunge into something more akin to an ice age. And that is a million times more scary than the worst imaginings the Government sponsored global warming doom mongers can ever dream up.

There is a significant minority on here who continue to rail against any potential for AGW based on a totally unsubstantiated view that man cannot influence climate. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, and it is not a little ironic that some of those who hold this line will, elsewhere on N-W, attribute some of the measued change in global surface temperature to urbanisation across the measurement period. Come on chaps, make your minds up; it certainly does the apparent logic of any argumetn you put forward little good if you choose which side of the line you're standing based solely on whether or not it gives you the answer you want to see.

(local examples of man's impact, UHI apart, include: over-grazing in the Sahel leading to break down in pasture, increased dust in the atmosphere, increased warming of the lower layers of the atmosphere, and so the development of a low level inversion (not dissimilar to the dust bowl in the US in the late 20s): deforestation in the Amazon basin leading to dramatic reductions in rainfall (combination of albedo and dramatic changes to local evapotranspiration rates); and, perhaps most compellingly, the sharp spike in global temperatures that followed the cessation of all air travel following 9/11).

You might like to validate imminent ice age being the "most likely scenario". If that is what you wish for then it might seem the case, but by any objective assessment of the facts that's a pretty outlandish claim to make without some corroborating argument.

[Stratos Ferric]

Why is that?

/edit: Oops you edited why I was replying. I meant why will places further north warm more?

The main factor is albedo. The very fact that ice and snow are white tend to increase their persistence; when removed by other factors the consequent darkening of the earth's surface will increase dramatically the retained heat at the surface, and so reradiated energy.

...

As to our inability to influence our planet's climate, it seems certain that human deforestation and over-grazing severely exacerbated the desertification of North Africa - a process that continues today. And calculations suggest that the detonation of a large portion of even today's reduced thermonuclear arsenal would be more than adequate to trigger "nuclear winter" over much of the planet. Or maybe that doesn't count.

...

Ossie

...furthermore, the interruptions to climate caused by the likes of Krakatoa and Mt St Helen's are matters of undisputed fact. Yet, the amount of aerosol and GG emitted by either of these explosive events is trivial alongside the amount of similar matter emitted into the lower levels of the atmosphere each year by mankind. It would be bizarre indeed to suppose that chemistry and physics in the atmosphere somehow differentiate in some apparently divine way between matter of purely natural source, and matter emitted my man.

This goes down as the best first post in net weather history. Welcome to net weather lazerguy.

..and you've read them all?

...I agree with that. The last 12 months may have been excpetional even taking into account the warming trend, but just as the exceptional warmth was a blip, so is this summer so far. Our weather will eventually average out towards what is to be expected with the warming trend - increasingly wet winters and Autumns with warmer and drier summers, with more intense rainfall generally, particularly in summer. Nothing has changed, everything we have seen is fully in line with the projections of our climate in the future, along with some blips.

Quite agree with you and PIT. The relevance of any event can only properly be judged much later on when its relevance in a longer sequence is known. It is still quite clearly the case that in the last 11 months we have had 10 warm ones and one cool one. It might well be argued that the cool one is the most recent month. However, you have to go back to the turn of 1996/97 to find the last sequence of three cold months, and the three instances of back-to-back cold since then have hardly stemmed the time of warming. On its own this last month proves nothing.

[xerxes]

On its own this last month proves nothing.

Absolutely and the price of our poor synoptics was paid in Southern and Eastern Europe where it was bakingly hot at times

[Bobby]

...Also,I believe the activities of man have about as much chance of influencing the climate as they have of changing the orbit of Pluto through telekinesis,ie none.

...

Rather than 'the runaway greenhouse effect' which frankly I am sick of hearing about (the root of it all being our need to preserve the dwindling supplies of fossil fuels),the most likely imminent scenario is a rapid plunge into something more akin to an ice age. And that is a million times more scary than the worst imaginings the Government sponsored global warming doom mongers can ever dream up.

How can releasing trillions of tons of carbon dioxide that have been extracted from the atmosphere and stored in the earth over a period of hundreds of millions of years NOT affect our atmosphere? We emit 150 times more CO2 than all of the world's volancoes combined.

[ribster]

Not sure rainfall is exceptional yet, though it's certainly memorable.

Does it count as exceptional now? Met office seem to think so, in fact I think I read that it was the most 'exceptional' since 1766?

How can releasing trillions of tons of carbon dioxide that have been extracted from the atmosphere and stored in the earth over a period of hundreds of millions of years NOT affect our atmosphere? We emit 150 times more CO2 than all of the world's volancoes combined.

I assume that there are no scientists that believe co2 does not cause warming then?

Edited August 2, 2007 by ribster

[trevw]

I assume that there are no scientists that believe co2 does not cause warming then?

I think there probably are no scientists with even a passing understanding of physics that don't agree that co2 in the atmosphere causes warming - the dissagreements tend to be more along the lines of how much 'more' warming when adding 'more' co2 and whether the effect of increased co2 is significant enough to explain or significantly contribute to current warming trends?

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Thank you everyone!

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showforum=8

[Stratos Ferric]

Does it count as exceptional now? Met office seem to think so, in fact I think I read that it was the most 'exceptional' since 1766?

I assume that there are no scientists that believe co2 does not cause warming then?

Given that this is now the wettest May-July on record then yes, it is NOW exceptional. It is also the case that the actual rainfall stat significantly understates local rainfall totals.

I'm sure there are scientists who refuse to believe. Just as there are scientists on both sides of the argument for all of: experimentation on embryos / genetically modified food / nuclear energy / fluoridation of water / a free state for Palestine / the UK joining the Euro.

I also always find it interesting when watching "who wants to be a millionaire?" that the ask the audience question rarely yields an absolute majority vote.

[SMU]

Heres something Id like to throw into the mix- bearing in mind this subject has been pretty well beaten to death now-

lets 'Suppose' there is a LARGE pattern shift in the weather-

my question would be-

Could the overall global warming trend be negated or even overwhelmed by a Synoptic pattern change where the polar cell expanded further south away from its current location-S

Edited August 2, 2007 by Steve Murr

[ribster]

Heres something Id like to throw into the mix- bearing in mind this subject has been pretty well beaten to death now-

lets 'Suppose' there is a LARGE pattern shift in the weather-

my question would be-

Could the overall global warming trend be negated or even overwhelmed by a Synoptic pattern change where the polar cell expanded further south away from its current location-S

Blimey! Sounds entirely logical/possible to me, but I'll let some of the more learned members respond I think.

[Bobby]

Heres something Id like to throw into the mix- bearing in mind this subject has been pretty well beaten to death now-

lets 'Suppose' there is a LARGE pattern shift in the weather-

my question would be-

Could the overall global warming trend be negated or even overwhelmed by a Synoptic pattern change where the polar cell expanded further south away from its current location-S

I'd say that's entirely possible. It is GLOBAL warming after all, meaning the Earth globally on average will warm. Some local areas however may see little or no warming, or even substantial cooling. The climate is very complex, and perhaps warming in other areas will cause cooling in others. Doesn't seem to be happening now though, we are clearly experiencing significant warming lately.

[Stratos Ferric]

Heres something Id like to throw into the mix- bearing in mind this subject has been pretty well beaten to death now-

lets 'Suppose' there is a LARGE pattern shift in the weather-

my question would be-

Could the overall global warming trend be negated or even overwhelmed by a Synoptic pattern change where the polar cell expanded further south away from its current location-S

It's theoretically possible on a local scale, but I'd struggle to see how the global trend could be "overwhelmed". There would have to be a change to net cooling of the planet, and without some other forcing to counteract the current generally acknowledged culprots (various GHGs), I can't see where this would come from.

Edited August 2, 2007 by Stratos Ferric

[SMU]

It's theoretically possible on a local scale, but I'd struggle to see how the global trend could be "overwhelmed". There would have to be a change to net cooling of the planet, and without some other forcing to counteract the current generally acknowledged culprots (various GHGs), I can't see where this would come from.

Thanks for the response-

Thinking about it for a few seconds at work- I guess the 'less warmed' zone or posssibly cooler would be North of the polar front in the mid lattitudes zones around 45-50 N, with an increase in Snowfall ( & Summer time rainfall), however on the Southern side of the polar front where there would effectivly been 'No change' in conditions there would just be a sharper thermal gradient back to the Norm-

Even if a change does happen the PF cannot move South by a vast amount- were are only talking say 10 degreees -

This then influences only a minority of the globe rather than the 'Majority'

Also the move South wouldnt been uniform unless there was a consitent -VE AO Signal- it would be less sinuous-

So perhaps for a few- as SF says on a local scale conditions could change- but not for anyone say south of 40N- which leaves a HUGE area to maintain warmth & warming- IE betwen 40N & the eqautor ( The ferrell & Hadly cell)

S

[West is Best]

I'm getting very weary of the stupid things written and said about Global Warming - not on this board I hasten to add, but 'out there'.

There has been little short of brazen cheek by some scientists who predicted after last year's heatwave that Mediterranean dry summers would become the norm because of AGW, but who now attribute the recent monsoons to AGW as well. The tendency to attribute any, and every, climatic variation to AGW (when presumably prior to the recent fad there was never anything other than entirely stable weather on this planet) is enough to bring the entire thing into disrepute.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not having second thoughts. In fact it's because I take global warming seriously that I want to see hard scientific analysis not headline-grabbing opportunism whenever any 'freak' event occurs. All we do by the latter is to play into the hands of sceptics who could, quite reasonably, rip some of this guff apart.

For goodness sake: there have been ups and downs in the climate over centuries and millenia. A tornado here, a snowflake there, a dust-storm or a downpour does not 'prove' AGW. The causal link between so-called extreme events and AGW needs to be explored and examined rigorously and it needs to be demonstrated precisely how there is such a link, if there is. At the moment, so stupid are some of these comments in the media, that I'm becoming a sceptic not on AGW but on these 'extreme weather events'. Afterall, presumably before the advent of Sky they went on all the time without many people noticing outisde of the local communities affected by them?

As for 2007 ... until proven otherwise I don't think it's the proof of anything other than it's 2007 (at least according to the Julian calendar). It's been hot here, cool there, wet here and dry there. Same old story for the past hundreds of thousands of years. Yes I think the planet is warming (the NH has been pretty hot outside of this corner), but does the flooding of some parts of Gloucestershire prove anything? I don't think so.

[eddie]

No doubt even if we got an unsually cold or snowy winter somebody in the media would try and attribute it to AGW.

[Hiya]

I'm getting very weary of the stupid things written and said about Global Warming - not on this board I hasten to add, but 'out there'.

There has been little short of brazen cheek by some scientists who predicted after last year's heatwave that Mediterranean dry summers would become the norm because of AGW, but who now attribute the recent monsoons to AGW as well. The tendency to attribute any, and every, climatic variation to AGW (when presumably prior to the recent fad there was never anything other than entirely stable weather on this planet) is enough to bring the entire thing into disrepute.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not having second thoughts. In fact it's because I take global warming seriously that I want to see hard scientific analysis not headline-grabbing opportunism whenever any 'freak' event occurs. All we do by the latter is to play into the hands of sceptics who could, quite reasonably, rip some of this guff apart.

For goodness sake: there have been ups and downs in the climate over centuries and millenia. A tornado here, a snowflake there, a dust-storm or a downpour does not 'prove' AGW. The causal link between so-called extreme events and AGW needs to be explored and examined rigorously and it needs to be demonstrated precisely how there is such a link, if there is. At the moment, so stupid are some of these comments in the media, that I'm becoming a sceptic not on AGW but on these 'extreme weather events'. Afterall, presumably before the advent of Sky they went on all the time without many people noticing outisde of the local communities affected by them?

As for 2007 ... until proven otherwise I don't think it's the proof of anything other than it's 2007 (at least according to the Julian calendar). It's been hot here, cool there, wet here and dry there. Same old story for the past hundreds of thousands of years. Yes I think the planet is warming (the NH has been pretty hot outside of this corner), but does the flooding of some parts of Gloucestershire prove anything? I don't think so.

Exactly. I've made numerous cheeky comments about the statements people in general make regarding recent "extreme" weather, where both are attributed to GW but yet drought and flood are equally interchangable. Possible I'll grant, suspicious yes.

I think people are looking a bit too far forward to winter regarding any shift. As we move into autumn and we start to see the central low pressures lowering, its going to be a rough ride, but I've got a feeling its all going to go bang..sometime...into what I don't know.