Weather

UPDATE at 5PM

According to the Met Office, averaged across the UK, June 2012 has been the wettest since records began in 1910, the coolest since 1991, and the second dullest since records began (record for lowest sunshine in June is still 1987).

ENDS

It will come as no surprise that June in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire has turned out to be one of the wettest on record - in fact second only to the incredibly wet June of 2007 which saw some of the worst widespread summer flooding that the region has ever seen, with Sheffield and Hull hit particularly hard.

Bingley, in the Pennine hills of West Yorkshire has recorded 212.8mm this month, compared with the average which is 70mm. But this is quite a bit short of the 283mm which was recorded in June 2007.

Sheffield is also well short of what was recorded in 2007, when 286mm (463% of average) fell; not only was June 2007 the wettest June on record in the city, but their wettest month ever in 125 years of records.

It's also been the second wettest June in Lincolnshire. Coningsby recorded 141mm in the month, compared with their average of 50mm.

The reason for the on-going poor weather has been the unusual positioning of the jet stream, which continues to be too far south than normal.

This point is graphically illustrated by the fact that June has been in the top 3 most cyclonic (low pressure) Junes in 140 years of records.

And there's still a chance that when official Met Office statistics are published later today or tomorrow, that averaged across the UK as a whole, June 2012 has been the wettest on record.

It's also been cold - with June the coolest since 1991 - and one of the dullest on record too.

Of course June has just seen a continuation of the cool and wet weather which began at the end of March.

At Linton-on-Ouse in North Yorkshire, for example, April, May & June combined have been the wettest on record (data back to 1939), with the wet spell only punctuated by one spell of fine warm weather towards the end of May.

And for those of us desperate for a change to more settled weather, there is little to suggest an improvement anytime soon.

Current indications are that low pressure will dominate our weather until at least the middle of July, if not beyond.

This means that one or two fine days are possible, in an overall unsettled and at times wet picture.

Follow me on twitter @Hudsonweather

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments.

  • Comment number 84. Posted by H2SO4

    on 6 Jul 2012 16:12

    Reading through an old book I came across the following :
    "Clouds obstruct the passage of radiation of all wavelengths, both to and from the earth. the sun's radiation is almost entirely reflected back to space from the top of the cloud, while the whole spectrum of the earth's long-wave radiation is absorbed and re-radiated, much of it downwards towards the earth again. The cloud layer acts as a thermostat;for if the temperature of the earth's surface rises, increased evaporation gives increased cloud, which cuts off more of the sun's radiation;and similarly if the temperature falls, less of the sun's radiation is reflected owing to diminished cloud"

    This of course is pretty obvious but it strike me that we are doing much navel gazing into the trivial levels of CO2 without concentrating on the big picture. Is it because we haven't got a record of cloud cover to correlate with global temperatures (whichever version is used for guessing the "true" temperature) and cannot therefore predict the effects?

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 84: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 84: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 83. Posted by jkiller56

    on 5 Jul 2012 19:22

    To various above-

    Why don't people who believe in AGW give up their high carbon lifestyles? An interesting question. Perhaps it's a bit like not cutting out fatty food or alcohol even though you know it's bad for you? Let's face it, none of us are anything like as rational as we think we are.

    Some do of course make changes for environmental reasons whether "believers" or not. But do any really do enough to be classed as a serious effort? At risk to life and limb on a busy main road for example, I sometimes cycle the 6 miles to work - luckily I do not have to look "presentable" when I get there! I grow some ( but nowhere near all) my food, drive a little car, minimise water use etc. I would not kid myself that this is anywhere near adequate however. But, as Gandhi said - "become the change you want to see".

    Many people who advocate lifestyle change are often young urbanites or the comfortably retired. They don't have to rush to distant demanding jobs each day while getting the kids ready for school and then rushing home again before checking on their aged mother who lives 30 miles away(among other things). Such is life for many.

    Personally, I think individual effort in an society of profligate global economics will have little effect. So its down to the politicians then - who of course are faced with the same problems. Who will be the rich nation who will pay to make the world better for everyone? Judging by the various "Earth summits" - no one in a hurry. And thanks to "Daily Mail" style populist manipulation- in the Uk it's risky for politicians to threaten vested interests beyond perhaps a bit of wind farm bribery- (neatly paid for by DM readers!) This is why the DM and many others are anti AGW of course - it makes us so cross and morally outraged that we should involuntarily have to sacrifice anything for the common good-thus selling excellent copy. And TECHNOLOGY will save you if environmental alarms turn out not to be a complete fiction anyway!

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 83: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 83: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 82. Posted by jkiller56

    on 5 Jul 2012 17:35

    Oldgifford #22

    Proof of Corbyn's authenticity - where?

    On Corbyn's website you say. Gosh, pardon me- it MUST be true then!

    With people like you no wonder he stays in business. But give me Russell Grant any day!

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 82: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 82: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 81. Posted by quake

    on 5 Jul 2012 11:41

    78: "1. Normal surface measuring stations, in Stephenson Screens, are accurate to 0.5C because they are read by humans and these are the most numerous stations."

    A single screen might have a precision of 0.5C, but the average of two screens has a precision of 0.25C. The reason global temperature can be measured to fine precision is that it's the average of a lot of measurements.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 81: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 81: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 80. Posted by quake

    on 5 Jul 2012 11:38

    It's settled science that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it absorbs infrared. It's settled science that the Earth must emit infrared radiation into space to "cool down". It's settled science that the CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs a lot of this outgoing radiation and therefore the Earth must be warmer to push sufficient radiation out. It's settled science that an increase in CO2 will absorb more outgoing radiation, and settled science that this result will cause the Earth to warm up in response.

    When it comes to numbers it's settled science that the temperature increase is substantial. The mainstream thought on the impact of rising CO2 from human activity is that it will end up warming the Earth several degrees C. Even minority opinions think it will warm the Earth at least one degree C. In either case this is more warming than was seen over the entire 20th century, and so CO2 alone emitted by man stands to dominate global temperature change of the next 200 years.

    This is settled because there's no evidence currently to contest this. Maybe there will be in the future, but it would require an "everything we know is wrong" kind of discovery. Possible but unlikely. We might also discover one day that the Earth is older than 5 billion years. Seems unlikely now and the science is settled that it's about 4.5 billion years old. Who knows but wishful thinking about very unlikely possibilities of future discoveries doesn't suffice as an argument against overwhelming current evidence on matters.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 80: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 80: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 79. Posted by Tim

    on 5 Jul 2012 11:16

    "#64 Quake seems to think that the science is settled. " That's their opinion, but anybody who uses common sense will see that it isn't true.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 79: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 79: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 78. Posted by John Marshall

    on 5 Jul 2012 11:02

    #65 newdwr54 claims that temperatures are measured to 100th's of a degree. Perhaps they are but:-

    1. Normal surface measuring stations, in Stephenson Screens, are accurate to 0.5C because they are read by humans and these are the most numerous stations.

    2. Perhaps electronic thermometers can achieve that accuracy but such a thermometer will get a reading change by a small change of position, a few meters, which is not of use to a climate scientist.

    3. Heat is the more important metric not temperature. Air saturated with water holds far more heat that the same volume of dry air at the same temperature.

    #64 Quake seems to think that the science is settled. No it is not. The science is far from even being known let alone settled.
    The APU has stated that the GHG theory is incontrovertible but the mass of the proton is not incontrovertible is also another of their claims. The mass of the proton has yet to be determined accurately but global warming is settled. What stupidity.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 78: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 78: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 77. Posted by Tim

    on 5 Jul 2012 09:54

    in S25 at 11pm last night, it sounded as though an avalanche of water was coming down. I would be really interested to know how much water fell in that short period of time.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 77: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 77: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 76. Posted by greensand

    on 4 Jul 2012 22:49

    @74 newdwr54

    Seems to be warm everywhere at present:-

    http://wxmaps.org/pix/clim.html

    But as QV says whilst Maue has the globe cooling over the next few weeks, and I am equally quizical of the methodology, but trend wise for the last 6 months or so he seems to be getting there. But I have no conviction about the actual numbers, only the trend, getting warmer, getting cooler etc.

    It will be interesting to watch as the expected ENSO change gets established. Keep a watch at:-

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC007&year=2012&month=07

    Whilst a classic Nina to Nino transposition is evident it is noticable that the Nino anomalies are not intensifying. Time will tell.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 76: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 76: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 75. Posted by QuaesoVeritas

    on 4 Jul 2012 20:11

    #74. newdwr54 wrote:
    "From your link, there seems to be some sort of almighty heat wave going on in north Asia.
    I haven't heard anything about this. Is it so?"
    On the other hand, it is very cold in NE Asia and elsewhere.
    Not sure, I think the map may be approximately correct but may exaggerate anomalies at certain times of the day. I suspect it might be comparing a location's mid-day temp. with average daily temp. for example, but I can't be sure.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 75: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 75: 0
    Loading…
More comments

More Posts

Previous

Next