Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Oceans are 'soaking up less CO2'


Bobby

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Coventry,Warwickshire
  • Location: Coventry,Warwickshire

The argument that seas are slow to heat is true, but may not be relevant and in fact arguments have been put forward that the top layer of the oceans warms up quite quickly (a year or so as opposed to the decades). It is only in areas of upwelling and sinking water that the depth of the ocean becomes relevant and these areas have very little feedback on the air above and thus climate. Some climate modellers are arguing that the response of the ocean might be quick and as such lag and sensitivity of the current climate models may not be accurate.

The points about plankton are relevant because of the scale of CO2 taken up. If we continue as we are doing then it is estimated that CO2 in the atmosphere will double during the next century. If CO2 uptake of the oceans is reduced by 20% then CO2 is likely to double every year. Clearly CO2 uptake by the oceans is changing and you can argue that the areas of maximum uptake are moving polewards or plankton is changing as the result of UVB or that uptake is rapidly increasing due to increased warm. The answer is complicated and not all CO2 increases may be due to anthropoligical origins. The difficult task ahead will be for scientists to accurately model the carbon cycle and dovetail those model results to feed informtion into the climate models. Measuring CO2 ocean uptake on a global scale could be difficult and research in other oceans tend to show moving and changing areas of maximum ocean CO2 uptake rather than widescale large decrease in CO2 uptake.

SF is correct in saying one of the best solutions is to increase forestry this again comes down to a matter of scale. The emissions and uptake of CO2 although genrally balanced for both ocean and land are of a order of about 100 hundred fold larger than anthropological CO2 emissions. A 5 percent increase in land uptake of CO2 would more than cover the increased emissions by us.It is not as simple as planting a few trees though as the trees while performing photosynthesis eventually drop leaves and die of to produce rotting matter which produces CO2 and plants emit CO2 over night anyway. In fact measurements over the city of Phoenix in the US have shown that actually grass may contribute more to CO2 levels than trees or scrub, and rotting rubbish may also contribute a significant amount of CO2.

Whilst this may look like a run away tipping point there are other factors which will combine to take things in different directions. More tropospheric disturbance will tend to reduce the increasing difference in temperatures between stratosphere and troposphere ,increased cloud will reflect more heat away (negative greenhouse effect depending on cloud height) and it all comes together to make a very complex pattern which climate modellers are grappling with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Chevening Kent
  • Location: Chevening Kent

An excellent and informative post BF:

So in order for CO2 emissions to be leading GW there has to be a theory that suggests the natural CO2 take up of the oceans is inhibited by additional human emissions? This can only centre on the top surface water temperature warming to a degree which is causing our ocean sinks to fail. Surely this has to be key to the whole idea of AGW as portrayed. If Ocean sinks are failing because of any other reason then reducing CO2 emissions will have little or no effect and we would of had GW even if we had stayed at 1930s levels of emissions?

I remain of the belief that CO2 is the victim and not the cause!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An excellent and informative post BF:

So in order for CO2 emissions to be leading GW there has to be a theory that suggests the natural CO2 take up of the oceans is inhibited by additional human emissions? This can only centre on the top surface water temperature warming to a degree which is causing our ocean sinks to fail. Surely this has to be key to the whole idea of AGW as portrayed. If Ocean sinks are failing because of any other reason then reducing CO2 emissions will have little or no effect and we would of had GW even if we had stayed at 1930s levels of emissions?

I remain of the belief that CO2 is the victim and not the cause!

Thing is, we know for certain that CO2 has a warming atmospheric effect - it's a physical aspect of the carbon dioxide molecule and this property isn't disputed by anyone, We are putting hundreds of billions of tonnes of this warming gas into the atmosphere, and thus this surely suggests that the current CO2 rises are caused by us, and the warming observed must also be us. It fits very nicely together to me. So surely CO2 IS the cause, and our CO2 at that, whatever the Ocean sinks are doing.

The oceans are failing at absorbing CO2 simply because there is so much of it increasing at too fast a rate.

Edited by Magpie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Chevening Kent
  • Location: Chevening Kent
Thing is, we know for certain that CO2 has a warming atmospheric effect - it's a physical aspect of the carbon dioxide molecule and this property isn't disputed by anyone, We are putting hundreds of billions of tonnes of this warming gas into the atmosphere, and thus this surely suggests that the current CO2 rises are caused by us, and the warming observed must also be us. It fits very nicely together to me. So surely CO2 IS the cause, and our CO2 at that, whatever the Ocean sinks are doing.

The oceans are failing at absorbing CO2 simply because there is so much of it increasing at too fast a rate.

I don't dispute that CO2 in the atmosphere has a warming effect, but the Oceans are also falling to take up CO2 and at the percentage at which this study shows CO2 up take to be slowing we would be unable to counter that.

Your saying the rain is causing the flooding, I am saying maybe its because the drains are blocked and they are getting more blocked! Don't we have to be looking at unblocking the drain rather than trying to reduce the rain?

I am not a AGW denier I just cannot get past this issue, you cannot promise me a reduction in GW if CO2 emissions are cut and that is what is being touted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
I am not a AGW denier I just cannot get past this issue, you cannot promise me a reduction in GW if CO2 emissions are cut and that is what is being touted?

Aye, there's the rub!

It's like seeing a Super Tanker crawling along at 1 knot. Nothings changing that fast but you try an' stop the beggar! I don't think we really know what kind of a 'force' we've placed into our climate system, we're still arguing about the scale/impact of just the CO2 fer chrissakes, so what chance of us knowing how for long and how great the continued impacts would be felt of our current past 'forcings'.

We can discuss what is needed until we're blue in the face (and I'm sure the world will do just that!) but nothing can change, capitalism has given itself a silver bullet.

All those aspiring 'developing world' boys and girls want just what we have and the energy to run it all and who is going to say 'No' to them all?

China will grow on,

India will grow on,

and the U.S.? Well they'll just carry on B.A.U.

It's nice to hear folk still care about it all but I fear it's a little too late.

To quote Bob,

"It's not dark yet,

But it's gettin' there"

.............Ho hum.

Edited by Gray-Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't dispute that CO2 in the atmosphere has a warming effect, but the Oceans are also falling to take up CO2 and at the percentage at which this study shows CO2 up take to be slowing we would be unable to counter that.

Your saying the rain is causing the flooding, I am saying maybe its because the drains are blocked and they are getting more blocked! Don't we have to be looking at unblocking the drain rather than trying to reduce the rain?

I am not a AGW denier I just cannot get past this issue, you cannot promise me a reduction in GW if CO2 emissions are cut and that is what is being touted?

Hmm, misunderstood you I think. How would we unclog the sinks? It seems there is a runaway effect now, with the ocean sinks responding to CO2 increases and warming in away that further increases the CO2 increases and warming, and so on. Once something that like that gets going, I don't think there is anything we can do?

Here's a better article on the subject than the BBC one:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...1023.wclimate23

We certainly won't reduce CO2 emissions voluntarily anyway - waste of time bothering with that. They're going to be forced down rapidly whether we like it or not in the coming years, something the climate models don't take into account, thus I highly doubt the warming will be as severe as many think. Unless of course this and other positive feedback mechanisms get going, in which it may well be out of our hands either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Worthing West Sussex
  • Location: Worthing West Sussex

We may be overestimating the role of the ocean water in the overall CO2 sink mechanisms. Much of the available water surface to bind atmospheric CO2 is on land - in damp soil, which has a huge surface area due to it's finely divided particulate structure, on surfaces such as rock outcrops and cliffs, especially if porous, on brick, tarmac and concrete structures, on tree bark, moss on roofs etc. Much of this dissolved CO2 directly enters the biomass, through algae, lichens and bacteria.

Urban heat islands are spreading raised temperature zones over land around the globe and as temperature rises, the ability of the widespread water in these zones to hold CO2 diminishes. The increasing dryness of these heat islands due to enhanced evaporation limits the ability of algae, mosses and lichens to survive. The nature of our city walls, roofs and tree trunks are changing, and the food chains that originate with the microphyta disappear, with the consequent loss of arthropods, insectivores (birds, mammals and amphibians) and their predators from the urban centres, and suburbs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Coventry,Warwickshire
  • Location: Coventry,Warwickshire
So in order for CO2 emissions to be leading GW there has to be a theory that suggests the natural CO2 take up of the oceans is inhibited by additional human emissions?
No according to physics CO2 is a greenhouse gas, what there may be as a result of warming are forcings and feedbacks which have the opposite effects. The IPCC is clear in their view on what those forcings and feedbacks are in terms of climate modelling but when we start to look at the carbon cycle which is a seperate but linked avenue then the forcings and feedbacks are perhaps less well defined.
thus this surely suggests that the current CO2 rises are caused by us, and the warming observed must also be us. It fits very nicely together to me.
Your argument would be, that if two things are increasing then the probability is that they are linked. A good hypothesis and one scientist generally seem to agree with. Are we sure all CO2 increases are due to human intervention or might there be a natural cycle which alters the natural uptakes and emissions of CO2. Whilst we can say increased CO2 will have a greenhouse effect, carbon cycle modelling is not yet mature enough for us to say all the increse in CO2 is due to man. Having said that, the best guesses at the moment suggest that we are largely responisble in one way or another for the increase.
I am not a AGW denier I just cannot get past this issue, you cannot promise me a reduction in GW if CO2 emissions are cut and that is what is being touted?

A argument I would have a lot of sympathy with however I think it highly likely that in one way or another we are more likely responsible for recent warming whether through CO2 emision or not.

It's like seeing a Super Tanker crawling along at 1 knot. Nothings changing that fast but you try an' stop the beggar! I don't think we really know what kind of a 'force' we've placed into our climate system, we're still arguing about the scale/impact of just the CO2 fer chrissakes, so what chance of us knowing how for long and how great the continued impacts would be felt of our current past 'forcings'.

An important point not to be glossed over and I think you are alluding to that no matter what the numbers, once you upset the balance things are only going in one direction unless action(cutting CO2 ,changing land usage etc) or negative feedback occur to reset the balance. If we are increasing CO2 at the same time that ocean CO2 take up is reducing then we have two strong incidents upsetting the balance multiplying the effect.

The paper says the large number of major droughts in mid-latitude regions from 2002-2005 cut plant growth, leading to the reduced carbon dioxide uptake on land. When plants grow, they remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In the oceans, global warming has caused increased wind around the Antarctic Ocean, churning up carbon rich waters that are normally isolated from the atmosphere.

A quote from that article interested me as I was unaware of the winds around antartic but this is all part of the carbon cycle model and where we see these reductions in carbon uptake there may other areas of increased carbon uptake like faster photosynthesis due to warmer temperatures. The IPCC report includes estimations on these effects although some of the latest research may not be included.

increasing dryness of these heat islands due to enhanced evaporation limits the ability of algae, mosses and lichens to survive. The nature of our city walls, roofs and tree trunks are changing, and the food chains that originate with the microphyta disappear

Yes this is an important point soil moisture has a large part to play in plant growth and death and by altering this we alter CO2 take up and emissions. What we also do is create little microclimates which can alter the vegetation for miles around , either by strict water supply control (avoiding flooding and channelling water into human water supplies) or by urban heat changing the environment.

I should have clarified in my last post that although the ocean surface is the most important factor in climate the THC with its areas of upwelling and sinking water play a big part in weather and local climate. Local climate is an area where climate models are currently a little weak (but improving rapidly) and with arguments that local climate (The arctic maybe) can have affects on global climate I am a little concerned that IPCC global temperature forecast ranges may be inaccurate (under or over).

Edited by BrickFielder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Reigate, Surrey
  • Location: Reigate, Surrey
Ahh, the old 'I make the claim but you have to back it up' approach eh :D

This might be coincidence - I'm honestly not sure, but every run up to solar minimum in the last 50 years or so has had la nina conditions - the minimum we're now approaching is no different in that respect. I don't have any data further back than that though.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/anal...ensoyears.shtml (1955, 1964,1976, 1986, 1996, 2007)

If there is a real link then perhaps the implication might be that a significantly reduced solar cycle as some are predicting, could trigger a more negative enso phase.

The other natural cycle that switched into its warm phase in the mid 90s was the AMO - http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/amo_faq.php - on top of that we had the warm PDO cycle switch on in 1978 - so oceans will naturally have been absorbing less CO2 (it's proven that warmer oceans absorb less). That doesn't preclude AGW having some part too, but I would anticipate much of the reduction to date would have been natural.

Edited by beng
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Chevening Kent
  • Location: Chevening Kent
No according to physics CO2 is a greenhouse gas, what there may be as a result of warming are forcings and feedbacks which have the opposite effects. The IPCC is clear in their view on what those forcings and feedbacks are in terms of climate modelling but when we start to look at the carbon cycle which is a seperate but linked avenue then the forcings and feedbacks are perhaps less well defined.

As I have posted on the Ozone thread I think the IPCC's position on ozone depletion having a net negative forcing is total rubbish. I am of the belief they have totally misunderstood the mechanics invloved with Ozone depletion which causes increased winds over the southern oceans, this appears to play a significant role in inhibiting ocean CO2 takeup. For the IPCC to conclude this is a negative forcing is not a tenable position for me!

A argument I would have a lot of sympathy with however I think it highly likely that in one way or another we are more likely responsible for recent warming whether through CO2 emision or not.

Yes I think that Ozone destroying chemicals produced by man have had a severe knock on effect to the earths ability to deal with CO2. Therefore although CO2 reduction is prudent promises of a fix are at best misguided and at worst deliberately deceptive?

Edited by HighPressure
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
This might be coincidence - I'm honestly not sure, but every run up to solar minimum in the last 50 years or so has had la nina conditions - the minimum we're now approaching is no different in that respect. I don't have any data further back than that though.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/anal...ensoyears.shtml (1955, 1964,1976, 1986, 1996, 2007)

If there is a real link then perhaps the implication might be that a significantly reduced solar cycle as some are predicting, could trigger a more negative enso phase.

The other natural cycle that switched into its warm phase in the mid 90s was the AMO - http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/amo_faq.php - on top of that we had the warm PDO cycle switch on in 1978 - so oceans will naturally have been absorbing less CO2 (it's proven that warmer oceans absorb less). That doesn't preclude AGW having some part too, but I would anticipate much of the reduction to date would have been natural.

I can't see a more than a 'fuzzy if you look hard and make allowances for wiggle room' link there tbh, I certainly can't see a link between EN and sunspots. Sorry, I don't think this is more than coincidence.

People have spent ages trying to find weather cycles. It's been a fruitless search.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Reigate, Surrey
  • Location: Reigate, Surrey
I can't see a more than a 'fuzzy if you look hard and make allowances for wiggle room' link there tbh, I certainly can't see a link between EN and sunspots. Sorry, I don't think this is more than coincidence.

People have spent ages trying to find weather cycles. It's been a fruitless search.

You may be right.

Using the 6 minima I've listed (which I had the data for) - and assuming a 2 in 3 chance that la nina occurs in the year of the minima (based on 3 signals - la nina, el nino, neutral - and allowing for the possibility that enso can switch during the year) then the approximate probability of it happening randomly would be 64/729 (~2 in 25).

It's interesting, but obviously the limited dataset I've used means it could simply be random chance.

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

How thick (or unobservant ?) am I? On reading the thread title I though we were talking about the CO2 uptake 'standstill' as measured in the Antarctic sink last year.

To 'revisit' the thread and find the Uni of East Anglia had a ten year study in the Atlantic which measured a halving of the CO2 uptake is much, much more worrying! Sorry to be so slow on the uptake guys!.......I blame children and half term!!!

The 'Doubling' thread and the mechanism behind the 'adjustments' to temp. estimates must be strengthened by this set of results. The finding (in Australia) that China was pumping out it's 2020 levels of CO2 already midst this inability for sinks to cope must surely show us we need serious action now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

Oh Bottoms...!....Edits gone.

Found this from B.A.S. giving a 35% increase in CO2 levels, since 2000, than those predicted.....

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_re...ease.php?id=328

not good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Co Dublin, Ireland
  • Location: Co Dublin, Ireland
Oceans are 'soaking up less CO2'

I have a degree on theoretical physics and all I can say is: :D This is absolute rubbish.

More rubbish from the AGW fan club then to add to the dump. What lengths will they sink to next to prove they are right? The GW fad is over - get over it, move on. Of course fanatics will find it hard to do so but even they will see sense eventually :D

BTW to those in this thread who said basically - omg that means CO2 is on the rise in the atmosphere - it may supprise you but CO2 has very little to do with changing the atmosphere but continue believing the tripe if you want. Every scientist, no matter how biased, will tell you that only simpletons seriously believe CO2 alone can change the climate of the Earth. Its far more complicated then that but some would rather you believed it is not.

Edited by Darkman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Co Dublin, Ireland
  • Location: Co Dublin, Ireland

BTW the makeup of the Earths atmosphere approx: Atmosphere: 78% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, around 0.038% carbon dioxide..............Enough said tbh. BTW dont assume that CO2 is not directly proportional as an influence then any of the other gases. It is not but your all being taken for fools if you believe CO2 is a 'bad' gas. Indeed we could not survive without it. The facts speak for themselves. CO2 was simply plucked out of the air as an excuse for environmentalists, eco nazis and general environment fanatics. Thats the truth and they attempted to munipulate the general public by distorting the facts.

Now that I think of it - its unfortunate for the GW fanatics that Nitrogen was not emmitted mostly by humans. They would have hopped on that even more - but wait, that would mean the Earth would cool rapidly and that would be going against the grain of fact atm considering our warming in recent decades so they could not hop on that. In fact they dare not mention the N word. They choose very carefully what to say and what not to say and never will you find an environmentalist mention the natural climate cycle of the Earth. Our climate has always changed and it will continue to change no matter what these nutters say.

Our planet will be destroyed by the sun eventually - i suppose some excuse will be dreamt up for that too :D

Edited by Darkman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: New York City
  • Location: New York City
BTW the makeup of the Earths atmosphere approx: Atmosphere: 78% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, around 0.038% carbon dioxide..............Enough said tbh. BTW dont assume that CO2 is not directly proportional as an influence then any of the other gases. It is not but your all being taken for fools if you believe CO2 is a 'bad' gas. Indeed we could not survive without it. The facts speak for themselves. CO2 was simply plucked out of the air as an excuse for environmentalists, eco nazis and general environment fanatics. Thats the truth and they attempted to munipulate the general public by distorting the facts.

Now that I think of it - its unfortunate for the GW fanatics that Nitrogen was not emmitted mostly by humans. They would have hopped on that even more - but wait, that would mean the Earth would cool rapidly and that would be going against the grain of fact atm considering our warming in recent decades so they could not hop on that. In fact they dare not mention the N word. They choose very carefully what to say and what not to say and never will you find an environmentalist mention the natural climate cycle of the Earth. Our climate has always changed and it will continue to change no matter what these nutters say.

Our planet will be destroyed by the sun eventually - i suppose some excuse will be dreamt up for that too :D

Devonian is going to choke on his cornflakes and send sparks from the keyboard when he reads your two posts.

Can you explain your nitrogen point in more detail? don't hold back on the technical stuff.

And why is CO2 directly proportional (i presume in warming) with the three gases you've mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Co Dublin, Ireland
  • Location: Co Dublin, Ireland
Can you explain your nitrogen point in more detail? don't hold back on the technical stuff.

Nitrogen is like dry ice. In liquid form it is viciously cold and is most commonly used as a type of refrigerant. It is essential to life on Earth. However it is far more dangerous then CO2. CO2 is not dangerous to the environment or in general to humans (unless somehow your only breathing that gas). CO2 is constantly diluted in the atmosphere which means dangerous levels can never be reached neither for humans nor for the environment. Its a complete myth that has built up around the whole GW debate. C02 = GW is what people were being led to believe. Complete nonsense. CO2 is insignificant compared to the majority gases in the atmosphere. It does not even register. Yet most seem to believe that this gas effects the atmosphere far more then it actually does.

However CO2 is NOT directly proportional to detrimental effects on the atmosphere as to other gases whch means that relative to its tiny proportion of the atmosphere it has a big effect for its size. However this is seriously overstated by the GW lobby. Even if C02 was 100% more determental to the environment it would still account for far less then 1% of the atmosphere (barely enough to even cover the globe sufficiently).......that wont change anything significantly. Its irrelevant pretty mucch in fact.

Edited by Darkman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

A plastic bag and a few crystals of Zyclone B for Mr Darkman please! Small means ineffectual apparently so nothing to fear!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
Devonian is going to choke on his cornflakes and send sparks from the keyboard when he reads your two posts.

Can you explain your nitrogen point in more detail? don't hold back on the technical stuff.

And why is CO2 directly proportional (i presume in warming) with the three gases you've mentioned.

My head hit the keyboard in despair more like...

I have a degree on theoretical physics and all I can say is: :lol: This is absolute rubbish.

Same university as Piers Corbyn by any chance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darkman, those posts of yours truly are a new low for this forum. Have you read the notices at the top of the forum? Pathetic personal attacks and insults like that won't get you anywhere. Mods, I thought posts like that were supposed to be banned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Swallownest, Sheffield 83m ASL
  • Location: Swallownest, Sheffield 83m ASL
Same university as Piers Corbyn by any chance?

:lol:

Have to say Darkman that '.......wont change anything significantly' isn't a confidence building statement.

At what point does the ocean stop sinking CO2 and start releasing it in vast quantities?

Just curious as to if you read the thread topic Darkman?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
Darkman, those posts of yours truly are a new low for this forum. Have you read the notices at the top of the forum? Pathetic personal attacks and insults like that won't get you anywhere. Mods, I thought posts like that were supposed to be banned.

Oh, "It is not but your all being taken for fools...CO2 was simply plucked out of the air as an excuse for environmentalists, eco nazis and general environment fanatics....no matter what these nutters say" is surely perfectly acceptable :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-29 07:13:16 Valid: 29/03/2024 0600 - 30/03/2024 0600 THUNDERSTORM WATCH - FRI 29 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    Difficult travel conditions as the Easter break begins

    Low Nelson is throwing wind and rain at the UK before it impacts mainland Spain at Easter. Wild condtions in the English Channel, and more rain and lightning here on Thursday. Read the full update here

    Netweather forecasts
    Netweather forecasts
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-28 09:16:06 Valid: 28/03/2024 0800 - 29/03/2024 0600 SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH - THURS 28 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather
×
×
  • Create New...