Weather

All eyes on York after worst September storm since 1981

The deepest area of low pressure in September since 1981 has caused many of Yorkshire's rivers to burst their banks - although the rain was not quite intense enough to cause serious flooding of property like in the autumn of 2000.



Cumulatively since the rain started falling on Sunday evening, to when it stopped during the early hours of this morning, Ravensthorpe in Richmondshire has had the highest rainfall in the country with 131mm (over 5 inches).

At Leeming, 100mm (4 inches) of rain has been recorded in the same time period. This is almost double what would normally be expected in the whole of September (Average 52mm).

Furthermore, the station recorded its wettest September day, with 76mm falling in the 24hours to 10am on Tuesday morning. Weather data has been collected at the RAF station since 1945.

All eyes are now on the River Ouse catchment, whose tributaries are the Rivers Derwent, Aire, Don, Wharfe, Rother, Nidd, Swale, Ure and Foss, all of which have been high in the last 24 hours.

The Environment agency currently has 2112 properties on flood warning along the length of the Ouse catchment.

Current forecasts suggest the river will peak at midnight in York at no higher than 4.7 metres above normal. It is currently flowing at 4.5 metres above normal.

This would be higher than the peak in January 2008 of 4.5 metres above normal, but quite a bit lower than the record which was set in November 2000 of 5.4 metres above normal.

It will give comfort to the residents of York that during that record breaking river level, the main flood defences, including the Foss barrier, held.

Follow me on twitter @Hudsonweather

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments.

  • Comment number 77. Posted by QuaesoVeritas

    on 3 Oct 2012 18:42

    More bad news on sea-level rise.
    Apparently, even if we adopt the "most accepted" IPCC emissions scenario, there is nothing we can do to prevent sea level rising by 22 feet by the year 3000!
    http://www.examiner.com/article/new-research-states-no-hope-preventing-sea-level-rise

    • 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 3 Oct 2012 18:22

    QV

    Stumbled upon whilst looking for something else. Interesting to see sunshine hours up and temps down.

    • 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 3 Oct 2012 17:55

    greensand,
    Actually, it makes a change for the MO to be publishing provisional figures AFTER the end of the month in question. Recently there has been a tendency to publish before the end of the month. Also, in the form of a blog, rather than a news release.
    For all of the talk of heavy rainfall, the monthly figures for the UK as a whole, or even individual regions, aren't anything special, obviously due to the dry early part of the month.
    What will be interesting are the daily rainfall figures, to see how they compare with the previous figures on those occasions when there were similar low pressure patterns.

    • 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…
  • Comment number 74. Posted by greensand

    on 3 Oct 2012 16:27

    Met Office

    "Provisional figures for September"

    "The provisional figures for the whole of September are in and, overall, the UK received 112.4mm of rain which is 117% of the long-term average. The wettest period of the month fell between the 23rd and 26th but with a very dry start to the month, the UK ended up 29th wettest in the national record that goes back to 1910.

    The UK was also a little sunnier than usual, with 144.2 hours of sunshine, making it the 10th sunniest September on record. Meanwhile, the average temperature was 11.9°C which is 0.7°C below the 30-year average."

    http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/02/provisional-figures-for-september/

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 74: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 74: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 73. Posted by John Marshall

    on 3 Oct 2012 13:59

    #70
    Keep in touch, view wattsupwiththat and look at the ice records in the drop down box in the heading.
    Even cryospheretoday shows a record ice area. Overall total global sea ice coverage is fairly constant so there has been no increase in the overall heat content of the planet.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 73: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 73: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 72. Posted by lateintheday

    on 3 Oct 2012 08:39

    apologies then newdwr54. I thought you were implying some wider significance to the sea ice trends. (perish the thought)

    I do have one related question however (open to all). If Zwally's recent study (net mass gain) is correct, then presumably the contribution to sea level rise from the antarctic region is a negative number. So for discussion sake, if that contribution was previously estimated at say +0.5mm, the shortfall would be 0.5mm plus the negative figure (again, let's say 0.1mm).

    Whatever the generally accepted numbers are, it's a possible mis-attribution which needs accounting for somewhere else. Any ideas?

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 72: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 72: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 71. Posted by newdwr54

    on 2 Oct 2012 19:48

    69. lateintheday wrote:

    "Why should it balance the losses?"

    I didn't say that it should; I pointed out that some commentators were pretending that it had.

    "If you're looking at global albedo changes and its effect on the radiation budget then you can't sensibly use percentages since clearly, a 50% increase in antarctic ice would be a huge area - many times the size of 50% of the arctic. You'll have to stick to km2."

    I agree; which is why a went to the trouble of calculating and posting the *actual* sea ice areas in km2 @67 above. I copy and paste from there:
    _________________

    "In terms of actual global sea ice area, the Antarctic maximum was +0.8 million km2 above the 1979-2008 average maximum; while the Arctic was -2.4 million km2 below the average minimum.

    Since 1979 Antarctic sea ice area has grown at a rate of about +0.2 million km2 per decade. Over the same period, Arctic sea ice area has diminished at a rate of -0.6 million km2 per decade. Net global sea ice area has therefore diminished by -0.4 million km2 per decade since 1979."
    _________________

    "Then, I suggest that in order to investigate the albedo change, you'd have to use a yearly average based on discrete monthly averages."

    I'm not making any claims about albedo change; I'm just posting the relevant polar extent and area values. Do you dispute these?

    "You're going to need a lot of coffee!"

    I have fine house blend. Even so, I think all the questions you've asked have already been addressed.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 71: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 71: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 70. Posted by newdwr54

    on 2 Oct 2012 19:32

    68. John Marshall wrote:

    "It is now confirmed that Antarctic sea ice has passed previous records for coverage by at least 1m sq Km."

    Can you post a link lease? According to NSIDC daily extent data, Antarctic sea ice passed the previous record extent by a maximum of 95,000 km2. In terms of 'area', this year's Antarctic maximum did *not* in fact break the previous record, which was set on 20th September 2007, according to NSIDC: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.south.anom.1979-2008

    Both the extent and area records of Arctic sea ice fell in August 2012 and have remained below the previous record extent and area minimums ever since.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 70: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 70: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 69. Posted by lateintheday

    on 2 Oct 2012 15:22

    newdwr54 . .
    Why should it balance the losses? What possible benefit/difference would that make?
    If you're looking at global albedo changes and its effect on the radiation budget then you can't sensibly use percentages since clearly, a 50% increase in antarctic ice would be a huge area - many times the size of 50% of the arctic. You'll have to stick to km2.
    Then, I suggest that in order to investigate the albedo change, you'd have to use a yearly average based on discrete monthly averages. That is, the albedo change in some months have zero effect because there is no sunlight to speak of. All in all, quite a complex calculation and that's before you allow for the increased ocean OLR from previously ice covered areas. Then it would be useful to compare your final figure against, or quantify as part of, total global albedo including cloud cover etc.
    You're going to need a lot of coffee!

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 69: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 69: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 68. Posted by John Marshall

    on 2 Oct 2012 13:28

    #61 I think I wrote that #56

    It is now confirmed that Antarctic sea ice has passed previous records for coverage by at least 1m sq Km. Much of this ice is north of the Antarctic circle so in the warming sun but not yet melting.

    Philip Eden probably does have access to meteorological information not available easily to others. He does have a pretty well balanced view of the UK weather and its ever changing aspects.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 68: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 68: 0
    Loading…
More comments

More Posts

Previous

Next