Coldest Winter In Uk For 13 Years

[Mondy]

The UK had its coldest winter for 13 years, bucking a recent trend of mild temperatures, the Met Office has said.

The Met Office added that global warming had prevented this winter from being even colder

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7921230.stm

So the good old Beeb still ramp up Global Warming like it's happening, when I see no reference to it on the Meto press release: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pres...pr20090225.html

[johnholmes]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7921230.stm

So the good old Beeb still ramp up Global Warming like it's happening, when I see no reference to it on the Meto press release: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pres...pr20090225.html

I'm not sure why you make the comment you do, the extract below shows exactly the same quote as in the BBC News item, and I've copied it below from the Met O website output, I think 25 February

Natural variability of climate means that the UK will continue to see spells of colder weather at times. Although, if it had not been for the general warming already observed in global temperatures, this winter may well have been even colder.

Peter Stott, Climate Scientist at the Met Office, said: "Despite the cold winter this year, the trend to milder and wetter winters is expected to continue, with snow and frost becoming less of a feature in the future.

"The famously cold winter of 1962/63 is now expected to occur about once every 1,000 years or more, compared with approximately every 100 to 200 years before 1850."

Edited March 3, 2009 by johnholmes

[The PIT]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7921230.stm

So the good old Beeb still ramp up Global Warming like it's happening, when I see no reference to it on the Meto press release: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pres...pr20090225.html

Does help if you read the article.

Although, if it had not been for the general warming already observed in global temperatures, this winter may well have been even colder.

From the Met office site. Oops.

However if the sun keeps quiet it'll be interesting to see what the winters do.

Edited March 3, 2009 by The PIT

[Nick L]

But it's the way the BBC have tweaked it slightly. The Met Office said it MAY WELL have been colder, giving the possibility that it may not have. But the BBC have said "The Met Office added that global warming HAD prevented this winter from being even colder", implying that it definitely has done so.

Might just be me being picky but the BBC have selected their wording very carefully.

Edited March 3, 2009 by nick2702

[phil nw.]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7921230.stm

So the good old Beeb still ramp up Global Warming like it's happening, when I see no reference to it on the Meto press release: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pres...pr20090225.html

Hi DeltaX-Ray,

Actually if you read the bottom para.of the Meto release you will see that they do indeed link the recent global warm up to the Winter just gone.

Quote.

The cold weather has been in contrast to the run of very mild winter temperatures that have been recorded over recent years.

Natural variability of climate means that the UK will continue to see spells of colder weather at times. Although, if it had not been for the general warming already observed in global temperatures, this winter may well have been even colder.

Peter Stott, Climate Scientist at the Met Office, said: "Despite the cold winter this year, the trend to milder and wetter winters is expected to continue, with snow and frost becoming less of a feature in the future.

"The famously cold winter of 1962/63 is now expected to occur about once every 1,000 years or more, compared with approximately every 100 to 200 years before 1850."

Notes to editors:

Meteorologically, winter is regarded as the months of December, January and February.

End of Quote.

The Beeb have simply repeated it.

Edited March 3, 2009 by phil n.warks.

[Tucco]

Only the coldest in the North of the UK since 2000/01.

Still that rubbish about heaviest snow for 18 years aswell in the article

Mark

Teesdale,Co Durham

[johnholmes]

why are so many of you quick to nit pick?

Unless you are a babe in arms the media do that all the time - bend/adjust/distort, whatever you like to call it, it sells news easier it seems, for which we all bear a responsibility for some of the news worthy items the media choose to give us.

Write to the BBC and complain or to the daily tripe, until we all do the same I'm afraid we will get sensationalism slants on any news item.

Hi DeltaX-Ray,

Actually if you read the bottom para.of the Meto release you will see that they do indeed link the recent global warm up to the Winter just gone.

The Beeb have simply repeated it.

I did post that earlier!

Edited March 3, 2009 by johnholmes

[weather eater]

The main point about AGW theory in relation to cold winters is that they will become less likely but not impossible, so really this is just repeating what we already know. curiously enough the same phenomena might also be true if we are in a natural warming cycle, also worth baring in mind that natural climate cycles can last many decades or more, so regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, it could well be that cold winters will be rare for a long while to come. No doubt somebody on NW knows exactly which cycle we are in and it has or is just about to end.

[Solar Cycles]

I'm not sure why you make the comment you do, the extract below shows exactly the same quote as in the BBC News item, and I've copied it below from the Met O website output, I think 25 February

Natural variability of climate means that the UK will continue to see spells of colder weather at times. Although, if it had not been for the general warming already observed in global temperatures, this winter may well have been even colder.

Peter Stott, Climate Scientist at the Met Office, said: "Despite the cold winter this year, the trend to milder and wetter winters is expected to continue, with snow and frost becoming less of a feature in the future.

"The famously cold winter of 1962/63 is now expected to occur about once every 1,000 years or more, compared with approximately every 100 to 200 years before 1850."

Peter Scott must have a crystal ball ( 1,000 years )Does this not go against there own report, of distancing themselves from scaremongering stories?

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Peter Scott must have a crystal ball ( 1,000 years )Does this not go against there own report, of distancing themselves from scaremongering stories?

I agree - that was a ridiculous statement to make. It makes some of the prophecies that have been made over time on the CET threads on here look positively tame!

[Mondy]

why are so many of you quick to nit pick?

Unless you are a babe in arms the media do that all the time - bend/adjust/distort, whatever you like to call it, it sells news easier it seems, for which we all bear a responsibility for some of the news worthy items the media choose to give us.

Write to the BBC and complain or to the daily tripe, until we all do the same I'm afraid we will get sensationalism slants on any news item.

Pot, kettle, black..you were quick enough to pounce on the thread with your own observations, which I missed on Feb 25 and thereafter.

The BBC have this climate change guru named David Shuckman. Said same reporter used to be a military anaylst years ago and before that I think a defence correspondent. He has no scientific background. This guy loves to highlight the effects of "Global Warming and Climate Change" (those two didn't take long to inter-mix, did they?) - indeed he went to the Arctic a year or so ago and together with some other do-gooders, found themselves stuck in sea ice - was rather comical - all in the name of highlighting Global Warming, which has surely had its day now - can't people see through the claims? It's claims they are, nothing else - I have not read a piece anywhere which convinces me of Global Warming, least not AGW.

And, it's the institution that is the BBC which does not report impartially on Global Warming. They do a disservice and aren't a patch on how they used to be, bit like the meto in many respects.

Edited March 3, 2009 by Delta X-Ray

[weather eater]

Pot, kettle, black..you were quick enough to pounce on the thread with your own observations, which I missed on Feb 25 and thereafter.

The BBC have this climate change guru named David Shuckman. Said same reporter used to be a military anaylst years ago and before that I think a defence correspondent. He has no scientific background. This guy loves to highlight the effects of "Global Warming and Climate Change" (those two didn't take long to inter-mix, did they?) - indeed he went to the Arctic a year or so ago and together with some other do-gooders, found themselves stuck in sea ice - was rather comical - all in the name of highlighting Global Warming, which has surely had its day now - can't people see through the claims? It's claims they are, nothing else - I have not read a piece anywhere which convinces me of Global Warming, least not AGW.

And, it's the institution that is the BBC which does not report impartially on Global Warming. They do a disservice and aren't a patch on how they used to be, bit like the meto in many respects.

Trouble is Delta the Natural cycle claims are also just claims and nothing else, only with less support from the scientific community than AGW. Frankly GW natural or man made, carry the same potential problems for our planet. Which ever side of the fence you sit, we either can't do anything about it or lack the collective will power to do anything about it regardless of media agendas.

[phil nw.]

I think the Meto maybe were unwise to say the Winter may have been colder without recent Global warming.

We will never know for sure that with better Height rises over the Arctic whether we could have had a much colder Winter than we did.

What i am suggesting is that the sypnotics were not the best for cold and it was in spite of rather than because of this that we had a number of cold spells.

I accept that there has been some warming over the last 20years or so and we havent had the severity,frequency and length of cold spells in recent Winters so i don`t believe that the Meto`s contention of recent warming is unfounded just perhaps the link they made in this statement is on shakey ground.

Edited March 3, 2009 by phil n.warks.

[Solar Cycles]

Trouble is Delta the Natural cycle claims are also just claims and nothing else, only with less support from the scientific community than AGW. Frankly GW natural or man made, carry the same potential problems for our planet. Which ever side of the fence you sit, we either can't do anything about it or lack the collective will power to do anything about it regardless of media agendas.

AGW is just a claim in that case! Natural cycles have, will, and continue to drive our climate. This can be shown when we have low solar activity, and numerous other natural variabilties. Where as AGW is a theory!

[johnholmes]

Pot, kettle, black..you were quick enough to pounce on the thread with your own observations, which I missed on Feb 25 and thereafter.

The BBC have this climate change guru named David Shuckman. Said same reporter used to be a military anaylst years ago and before that I think a defence correspondent. He has no scientific background. This guy loves to highlight the effects of "Global Warming and Climate Change" (those two didn't take long to inter-mix, did they?) - indeed he went to the Arctic a year or so ago and together with some other do-gooders, found themselves stuck in sea ice - was rather comical - all in the name of highlighting Global Warming, which has surely had its day now - can't people see through the claims? It's claims they are, nothing else - I have not read a piece anywhere which convinces me of Global Warming, least not AGW.

And, it's the institution that is the BBC which does not report impartially on Global Warming. They do a disservice and aren't a patch on how they used to be, bit like the meto in many respects.

I have to smile at this post.

pot calling kettle black!

Indeed, when all I have done is point out that the quote was exactly the same on the Met O site as on the BBC site.

As to whether the BBC or any other broadcasting company or indeed any web site that does a similar service, is biased I am no expert so I'll leave that to those like yourself that know about these things.

And as to GW or AGW I have pretty constantly commented that, even in the heady days of the agreement for UK Met to have the Hadley Centre, (I was a senior forecaster with them at the time) I remain on the side lines as to how much is due to natural cycles and how much is anthropogenic. Again I have posted that, in the position I had, I was lucky to be able to attend seminars/lectures, by eminent people on both sides. One would listen to one side and be convinced at that moment they were correct only to listen to the opposite side and be equally convinced.

I call myself a realistic sat on the fence type-yet to be completely convinced by either side.

It is certainly warmer now, the whole globe, than it was 150 years ago, but why?

Edited March 3, 2009 by johnholmes

[Mondy]

Peter Scott must have a crystal ball ( 1,000 years )Does this not go against there own report, of distancing themselves from scaremongering stories?

Ah, Dr Peter Scott - that great champion of warming:

http://search.metoffice.gov.uk/kbroker/met...sf=&ha=1030

Peter Stott, of the Met Office, said despite this year's chill, the trend to milder, wetter winters would continue.

He said snow and frost would become less of a feature in the future. "The famously cold winter of 1962/63 is now expected to occur about once every 1,000 years or more, compared with approximately every 100 or 200 years before 1850," he said.

Show me how he came to this conclusion. How can he justify saying this? Is this gospel truth? Please, enlighten and show me how this was arrived at?

I believe none of it.

It's interesting to say the least that solar cycle activity is becoming more recognised in the "hunt" to find slightly warmer world temps.

This was posted a few days ago in the space weather area. You may like to read Solar Cycles, if you haven't already:

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N8/EDIT.php

Edited March 3, 2009 by Delta X-Ray

[johnholmes]

actually his surname is Stott not Scott

[johnholmes]

it seems D-X that you are the expert and he is not.

quite how someone with so little professional knowledge can make such a sweeping statement about a professional is really rather staggering in my view, correct me if I am wrong please.

What is it you find so wrong?

Simply that you do not believe AGW, if so give your views on why that is wrong.

No one, as I've posted before can be 'gospel truth' about anything, be it the weather tomorrow or what is or has caused the earth to warm by so much over the past 150 years.

We can all postulate, but after that no one, be it you, I or Peter can be 100% certain.

It would help if your posts were a touch more constructive rather than destructive in their tone.

Edited March 3, 2009 by johnholmes

[Solar Cycles]

actually his surname is Stott not Scott

That would be my fault John! I do feel though, that Mr Stott should have refrained from using such OTT comments. Like you stated, no one can say what the future holds!

[johnholmes]

I suspect, but I'm not sure obviously, that the 1 in 1,000 compared to 1 in 200 is the result of someone doing a statistical test on that happening?

Its something the Met O do routinely for risk assessment, as do other Met centres, for their various customers;

ie:

how often is a gust to xx mph likely in such and such a locality.

On that the builder then builds in to his specification the structure to withstand that event.

Edited March 3, 2009 by johnholmes

[Solar Cycles]

I suspect, but I'm not sure obviously, that the 1 in 1,000 compared to 1 in 200 is the result of someone doing a statistical test on that happening?

Its something the Met O do routinely for risk assessment, as do other Met centres, for their various customers;

ie:

how often is a gust to xx mph likely in such and such a locality.

On that the builder then builds in to his specification the structure to withstand that event.

Thanks John, makes sense really, just wish they had worded like you!

[Mondy]

it seems D-X that you are the expert and he is not.

quite how someone with so little professional knowledge can make such a sweeping statement about a professional is really rather staggering in my view, correct me if I am wrong please.

What is it you find so wrong?

Simply that you do not believe AGW, if so give your views on why that is wrong.

No one, as I've posted before can be 'gospel truth' about anything, be it the weather tomorrow or what is or has caused the earth to warm by so much over the past 150 years.

We can all postulate, but after that no one, be it you, I or Peter can be 100% certain.

It would help if your posts were a touch more constructive rather than destructive in their tone.

What I find so wrong is that one person, nay a bureau, declare a future warming trend (which between you and I is miniscule to other warming trends) as gospel. You read the report by Stott and he is telling us what's going to happen. That's like being dictated too, and I for one, loathe any such sentiments.

Aren't people allowed to think for themselves nowadays instead of being spoon-fed this warming (AGW) nonsense? They read the Beeb site and they believe. It's so wrong, yet I guess this is how today's society operates.

I have read the entire IPCC AR4 Summary for Policy Makers (it's just that - a summary scripted for policy makers to adhere to and work with - it doesn't matter it's BS)

I have read numerous pro-claims, some very good, some exceedingly poor, but this is my main gripe: As soon as you start to question a pro-warmer, they become all defensive, accusing you (the skeptic) of belittling the findings which they fell in love with. Hell, they even try to brainwash people into their thinking.

I find it absurd that this goes on and the fact the Meto, BBC and others are "playing" along with this without one iota of proof of a future warming world seriously gets my goat up.

You will think I'm outspoken, infact I probably am, but there is no way I will believe anything I read without evidence. It does not matter to me these scientists are apparently forefront in their thinking of future predictions. As you say, it's difficult to predict next weeks weather half the time, without predicting climate (change).

You are right, I have no scientific background. Similar, as an ex-Meto forecaster, you will have no knowledge in climate modelling - the two don't go together, correct?

What I do have is a mind which is not going to be brainwashed by media outlets acting as mouthpieces to warming nuts.

You mention emailing the Beeb to complain? Bit pointless surely?

*As a footnote John, why do you think I asked the mods to disable my viewing of the climate change forum as a viewing member?

Edited March 3, 2009 by Delta X-Ray

[Nick H]

I think the Meto maybe were unwise to say the Winter may have been colder without recent Global warming.

I tend to agree. I get the feeling they would have said that regardless of how cold the winter might have been.

[Grimsby Snow Lover]

Having read the bbc winter write up I feel a bit lost for words. I know they get a lot of their information from the metoffice, which is perfectly understandable, but I still feel that we will still get decent snow events. I though John Kettley's comments on the channel 4 doc on Saturday was interesting. He firmly believes that we will still see significant snow every few years due to our position on the planet. He also went to say that Nice is a lot further south that us and they get snow. He disagreed with the mets comments about less likelyhood of getting snow. Only time will tell i guess

[weather eater]

Aren't people allowed to think for themselves nowadays instead of being spoon-fed this warming (AGW) nonsense? They read the Beeb site and they believe. It's so wrong, yet I guess this is how today's society operates.

But people are thinking for themselves. You think its a natural cycle, others think its man made, some of us like myself think it maybe a bit of both and in truth a fair amount of the population don’t give a stuff they have other things to worry about. We all find things in the media irritating, I hate the way that politicians are constantly let of the hook when trying to avoid giving a straight answer.

AGW is just a claim in that case! Natural cycles have, will, and continue to drive our climate. This can be shown when we have low solar activity, and numerous other natural variabilties. Where as AGW is a theory!

Yes its a theory, but one that may have some credence given recent climate warming, Its like any scientific theory, you put forward your theory and make your projections based on that, and as of this time the theory seems plausible, that may change, I hope it does, I like my winters cold and I see huge implications of a rather unpleasant kind if AGW theory is correct.

Like I say that may change, my biggest concern in regard to AGW theory is that the period of measurement is too small when viewed on the scale of the earths climate history and our records are sketchy beyond a couple of hundred years or so.

Natural cycles do seem to drive our climate but the evidence for them comes from the same scientific community that believes that the earths climate is being influenced by man, consequently natural cycles are also a theory that’s difficult to quantify. Its really about interpreting the evidence that is available. It may be that we are in a natural warming cycle but do we have any more conclusive evidence that, that’s the case as compared to AGW theory, I don’t think we do, it more a case of believing what you want to believe. And lets face it the argument has been going on the climate thread for years, has anyone changed their point of view in all that time, I doubt it.

The media of course will just put out what ever is sexier. AGW vs Natural cycles. The former appeals to the Dunkirk sprit, together we can beat this, we can get those men of the beach. As for the later, forget it the weathers going to just do its thing, the army cornered they will just have to put up with being prisoners. Sexy non sexy that’s the media for you.