Record Breaking / Abnormal Weather Events Globally

[Kirkcaldy Weather]

 

[Kirkcaldy Weather]

 

[Kirkcaldy Weather]

 

[LetItSnow!]

When I read this thread I get surprised at how many cold anomalies still happen. It may sound silly but it makes me feel at peace knowing that it still happens, albeit rarely over here for some reason! Australia hit with the rain yet again! 

[Kirkcaldy Weather]

Only the 2nd tornado to reach EF4 strength in Canadian history, clear ground scouring was present which only occurs in the most intense tors ie Highest End EF3,EF4s >5

 

[Kirkcaldy Weather]

 

[Kirkcaldy Weather]

 

[matty40s]

 

[Kirkcaldy Weather]

 

[Kirkcaldy Weather]

 

[matty40s]

 

[Kirkcaldy Weather]

 

[matty40s]

 

[Kirkcaldy Weather]

 

[Methuselah]

I've just recorded the lowest-ever temperature in my fridge since records began: -18.7C! Global warming? Pah! 

[Kirkcaldy Weather]

It's not really a laughing matter @Methuselah 

 

[matty40s]

 

[matty40s]

 

[Kirkcaldy Weather]

 

[Kirkcaldy Weather]

 

[Kirkcaldy Weather]

Unexpected snowfall in Skardu break 18-year records

WWW.AAJENGLISH.TV

---

Snow in July is a sentence you don't hear everyday

 

[Kirkcaldy Weather]

 

[Midlands Ice Age]

On 25/05/2023 at 15:28, Midlands Ice Age said:

Thanks for this thread KW..

I too have been thinking about things in a similar way and this thread is probably the best place to develop (introduce) my thoughts.

A lot of the records you quote compare with historical data to try and  give an idea as to the exceptional nature of the event.

Over the last year we have had a couple of major events in Europe  (IMO)  (eg) the rainfall on the Belgium Dutch and German border which was compared with a similar event almost exactly 100 years previous  (1923 from memory), and the more recent event in Northern Italy.  (again called a one in a hundred year event), 

There have obviously been other local events associated with perhaps local  storms, but these are difficult to quantify, as there are so many of them  (thinking in terms of the  Lynton/Lymouth and the St Asaph one above Camborne (more recently), but these have always happened, This can be seen when one studies the character of the surrounding features  of the land. 

I will also add last years maximum UK temp to the list of useful events (one in a hundred years) , and also the East coast flood of 1953, together with the exceptional snowfalls of 1947 as events which could be described as a truly exceptional countrywide event.

 I recognise that the one a in a .....    syndrome was developed by hydrologists as a means of measuring rainfall events for the Insurance industry, when setting insurance premiums.

But the point I am raising is that we could  use the national overall country wide ones in a hundred year events to monitor our changing climate,   --- with this being  accumulated worldwide?. 

The UK is a very good case to take as an example, The reason it being chosen as a good example is because of our changing climate and also its size.  The UK is about 90K square miles. England being about 50,000 sq  miles would put in about in the middle of the 50 odd United States states eg..

It would almost occupy the same position in the European countries.

As such England is about 1 in 1200 the size of the land area on earth (57.5 million square miles). Total earth area is 197 million square miles so about 137 million miles on earth is ocean.

So using countries (states - where applicable) would end up  giving us a sample size of something like a 600 - 1000 as a sample of data.. 

This I would suggest should be adequate to establish whether we  enter a new climate regime (or not).

These days it need not stop at land measurements. If oceans are warming then we should to see satellite measurements begin to pick this up. These measurements would pick upon the severity of storms at sea, as well as sea temperatures  -though clearly we do not have the same length of data with which to assess/judge.

So my views are that these sorts of measurements over time could/will give a better and more accurate assessments of any change of our climate , then by simply reporting that this thunderstorm or this wind strength has beaten such and such a record, which seems to be todays scatter-gun approach to the problem. 

Clearly a lot of work would need to performed in order to establish the base lines. Once set up it should be reasonably easy to monitor.

I would suggest that it  should suite a university Phd student, or one with a lot of free time.

I am holiday for a fortnight shortly, but i would be interested in other peoples opinions on this approach.. 

 MIA

Following on from the above  (and having received little feedback), I have been observing the number of events as reported above, and decided that 'unusual events'  seem to be occuring at great regularity.  This is being highlitghted by thee BBC reporting of these events on its premier News programs at increasing frequency.

A lot of data has been reported, but are they actually getting more frequent then one would expect at normal distributions?

KIrkcaldy Weather reports not just on new highs, but on all events of all types, many of which would be missed, if not shown on here..

I used the above post I produced a couple of months ago to try and find out what normal distribution rates should actually be. 

As discussed above the UK  (England for ease of numbers) is a reasonable case to use as a rule of thumb, due to its size and the completeness of its recordings.

For ease of numbers I will assume its 50,000 sq miles.   Actually as above its about 1 in 1200 of thee earths land surface area,

If we assume that records cover about 50 sq miles (4 by 12miles)  (seems a reasonable number in order to eliminate total local events) then  -

A 1yr in 10 years event will occur as 1 event in the area but will occur 1000 times over England's total area over 10 years, and will occur 1.2 million times over the earth's ground surface area. This means that each year we will see 100 occurrences in England overall, OR about 1 every 4 days (on average - somewhere in the UK). It strikes me that this is a little bit too frequent - but not far out when these happenings occur in batches. 

Similarly one expects that a 1 in a 100years event as above will happen 100 times over England (about 1 every 3 days on average, and will occur 120.000 times over thee earths ground surface area  in 100 years.. This means about 1.200 will occur each year somewhere on the surface... Averaging about 4 every day.

Add to this that we are now seeing multiple event types being measured (high, low temperature,  snowfall and rainfall, as well as wind) and it is easy to see that even at normal distributions one can expect many events of this type to be reported each year, to give even normal patterns for the earth's measurements. 

The numbers above appear a little bit 'frequent; but that is what the distribution reports dictate.

Interesting ....    does the number of being recorded by news media mean anything abnormal?

Perhaps one needs to give comparative numbers for the individual elements of the earths climate to decide upon whatis really happening.

MIA

Edited July 22, 2023 by Midlands Ice Age

[alexisj9]

14 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Following on from the above  (and having received little feedback), I have been observing the number of events as reported above, and decided that 'unusual events'  seem to be occuring at great regularity.  This is being highlitghted by thee BBC reporting of these events on its premier News programs at increasing frequency.

A lot of data has been reported, but are they actually getting more frequent then one would expect at normal distributions?

KIrkcaldy Weather reports not just on new highs, but on all events of all types, many of which would be missed, if not shown on here..

I used the above post I produced a couple of months ago to try and find out what normal distribution rates should actually be. 

As discussed above the UK  (England for ease of numbers) is a reasonable case to use as a rule of thumb, due to its size and the completeness of its recordings.

For ease of numbers I will assume its 50,000 sq miles.   Actually as above its about 1 in 1200 of thee earths land surface area,

If we assume that records cover about 50 sq miles (4 by 12miles)  (seems a reasonable number in order to eliminate total local events) then  -

A 1yr in 10 years event will occur as 1 event in the area but will occur 1000 times over England's total area over 10 years, and will occur 1.2 million times over the earth's ground surface area. This means that each year we will see 100 occurrences in England overall, OR about 1 every 4 days (on average - somewhere in the UK). It strikes me that this is a little bit too frequent - but not far out when these happenings occur in batches. 

Similarly one expects that a 1 in a 100years event as above will happen 100 times over England (about 1 every 3 days on average, and will occur 120.000 times over thee earths ground surface area  in 100 years.. This means about 1.200 will occur each year somewhere on the surface... Averaging about 4 every day.

Add to this that we are now seeing multiple event types being measured (high, low temperature,  snowfall and rainfall, as well as wind) and it is easy to see that even at normal distributions one can expect many events of this type to be reported each year, to give even normal patterns for the earth's measurements. 

The numbers above appear a little bit 'frequent; but that is what the distribution reports dictate.

Interesting ....    does the number of being recorded by news media mean anything abnormal?

Perhaps one needs to give comparative numbers for the individual elements of the earths climate to decide upon whatis really happening.

MIA

Are you saying it's happening more frequently, because it's happening in different places every year, so we shouldn't be worried about it?

[Methuselah]

On 16/07/2023 at 17:33, Kirkcaldy Weather said:

It's not really a laughing matter @Methuselah 

 

Well, Calum, I've tried to reply to you before, and you are quite right: the global consequences of AGW are no laughing matter ... My post was aimed at deniers!