Image: AccuWeather.com
Some of the warmest early November weather on record has plants and animals behaving oddly in the UK.
Flowers, insects and birds have been among the lifeforms observed showing unusual patterns of behavior, in light of average temperatures for central England about 3 degrees C above normal, the UK's Daily Mail said on Monday.
The UK Met Office pegged average central England temperature for the first half of November at 10.7 degrees C, or 51 F.
Weather data collected by AccuWeather.com show that, in London (Heathrow Airport), the average November temperature as of Nov. 13 was 12.1 degrees C (53.8 F), or 3.7 degrees C (6.7 F) above normal. This would be comparable to normal weather during the first half of May or early October.
Highest November temperature so far was 18 degrees C, or 64 F.
According to the Daily Mail, some flowers have bloomed a second time, apparently spurred to do so by the warmth. Crickets, grasshoppers and frogs have been heard calling. Bees have been sighted collecting nectar.
Continuing warmth rivaling that of the month thus far could put November 2011 into the books as one of the warmest ever. Already, 2010 has had the sixth warmest September on record followed by the eighth warmest October, the Daily Mail said.
Stubborn southerly and southeasterly wind flow has helped to underpin the unseasonal warmth, AccuWeather.com forecasters believe.
Forecast information available to AccuWeather.com shows that above-normal temperatures over the UK as a whole will linger on through this week and beyond.
This article is reprinted with permission from Accuweather.com. It was first published November 14, 2011.
See what we're tweeting about
31 Comments
Add CommentInteresting and disturbing a bit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere on the Canadian Prairies the plants are well and truly in bed for the winter now.
LOL, I live in Western NY and we have crazy weather for November right now...sitting here with Tornado warnings and Severe Thunderstorms rolling through...then I stumble across this article....strange, interesting, and disturbing...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOMG, so when all the climate change deniers get in a tizzy about how there's no climate change when it SNOWS IN WINTER, does the reality-based community get to huff and puff when weird stories like this get posted? Well, that's about as stupid as believing that a blizzard in January disproves global warming, really.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are very few who do not believe in global warming but there are many millions who do not believe the primary factor for it is human activity. When the IPCC print lies like their claims that Indian glaciers were retreating when they knew that this was false, as well as all the other radical predictions about the climate that simply have not come to pass, the wolf fable comes to mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way, unlike the fable, there very rarely is an actual wolf. Much more common, is the simple explanation like natural variation in what over the short term, looks unusual.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you look at a coastline from sea level it may have many unusual looking bays, inlets & headlands. The further back or up from the shoreline, the clearer the larger, smoother sweep becomes. So it is with many things, including climate history.
Interesting! In India, the Gulmohars (Delonix regia) started flowering again in October-November, after the normal May-June-July flowering period is way behind. Though we have data coming in from far south in (Kanyakumari and Thiruvananthapuram), from the mid-west of the country (Goa &Mumbai) and also from Delhi in the north, we are waiting for reports from the east: Kolkata and from the far east.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is an exciting time for the Get Involved in Biology Series (GIBS) group.
Can't believe, it is all because of global warming!
Carlyle- Leaked copy of new IPCC report shows wavering. This is the preliminary report and will likely be altered by some governments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15698183
Thank you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWRONG:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/
Wasn't Watts supposed to be the one who found out all the little "gremlins" lurking around in the climate data? Isn't Svensmark supposed to be one of the few "serious" scientists that disagrees with mainstream climate science?
So, please tell me, how do those millions of people who think that humans AREN'T warming the climate explain the observed warming over the 20th Century? Specifically, what natural climate forcing(s) can raise the temperature 0.7C in 100 years while overcoming the cooling effect of aerosols present during said century? What natural forcing(s) can also silence the 1.7W/m2 increase in heat flux caused the 40% increase in CO2 concentration we have produced in the atmosphere so that mankind IS NOT responsible for rising temperatures? Also, which natural forcing can warm nights faster than days, the poles faster than the tropics AND the troposphere faster than the stratosphere? Note that if you CANNOT identify a NATURAL forcing that does all these things, then the MOUNTAIN of scientific evidence fingering human CO2 emissions stands uncontested and you have to withdrawal from the debate. If all you do is spread doubt, you are NOT PRESENTING A SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT and you need to stop polluting SCIENTIFIC American with your political beliefs.
WRONG:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe scientific discussion to put together the next IPCC report, which was NOT LEAKED like you choose to believe, is firmly in support of the FACT that our carbon emissions raise global temperatures, melt ice, raise sea levels and do all sorts of bad things. The article chooses to focus on the debate about whether the warming signal humans are causing will produce increased natural disasters in the 1st half of the 21st Century. After about 2050, the picture becomes quite clear and the draft report says:
If the century progresses without restraints on greenhouse gas emissions, their impacts will come to dominate, it forecasts:
"It is very likely that the length, frequency and/or intensity of warm spells, including heat waves, will continue to increase over most land areas...
"It is likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation or the proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls will increase in the 21st Century over many areas of the globe...
"Mean tropical cyclone maximum wind speed is likely to increase...
"There is medium confidence that droughts will intensify in the 21st Century in some seasons and areas...
"Low-probability high-impact changes associated with the crossing of poorly understood thresholds cannot be excluded, given the transient and complex nature of the climate system."
So, contrary to what you would like to BELIEVE, the FACTS presented in the very article you presented to support said BELIEFS totally contradict what you were trying to say. I know, dealing with facts is so hard when you're used to believing in everything you know is true. There, there... it gets easier the more you actually look at the facts and try to reason with your own mind instead of being spoon-fed your "facts" from the fossil fuel industry...
Ask them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy previous post referred to post 9.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf ifs were candy & buts were nuts, what a happy Xmas it would be.
Just read your post 10. Do you really call conjecture science?
See what the Chinese think of the IPCC
http://thegwpf.org/science-news/4343-new-paper-chinese-scientists-vs-ipcc-consensus.html
First I like to say that the Daily Mail is one of the worst sources for scientifically related information, having almost single handedly drove the anti-MMR inoculation stories following the Wakefield scandal, but in this instance they are reporting what many of us are finding very strange. I live in the English Midlands and we have not yet had a single frosty morning. I have a tree in my garden that has now flowered, a few blossoms at least, for the second time. Normally it is freezing some of the time by mid October.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut it amazes me when some on here are now accepting climate change caused by global warming but rejecting that mankind has anything to do with it. The only reason why scientists started looking for it, even amid media stories of cooling in the 70s, was that the science established in Victorian times, and the subsequent increasing of GHGs in the atmosphere said it should happen. There is no other theory to explain it while also explaining why the established physics isn't causing it.
As for Chinese scientists allegedly doubting the IPCC statement, are these the same Chinese scientists whose national science academy signed off on the Joint science academies' statement urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases? Guess not.
Ask an old bee keeper in your area if he can remember previous seasons like this in your area. If he is in his sixties or seventies he will soon put you straight.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat has that got to do with anything? No one is suggesting that nothing like this has never happened before. They are suggesting that it is an outlier in the data set, a data set with a continuing warming and increasing extreme weather trend. This is just another data point that adds to that overall trend.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah but they deleated the middle ages warming period. We would not want that little episode to upset the graphs would we?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClimate alarmists pass their data through a diode before releasing their findings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt last, climate scientists are admitting there has been little if any global warming above the long term trend in the past 10 or twelve year period. They now argue that the period is too short. Where have all the claims that we were warming alarmingly come from? My diode effect?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttps://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html
Read up on the science mate;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe winters of 2009–2010 and 2010–2011 brought frigid temperatures to parts of Europe, Russia, and the U.S. We analyzed regional and Northern Hemispheric (NH) daily temperature extremes for these two consecutive winters in the historical context of the past 63 years. While some parts clearly experienced very cold temperatures, the NH was not anomalously cold. Extreme warm events were much more prevalent in both magnitude and spatial extent. Importantly, the persistent negative state of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) explained the bulk of the observed cold anomalies, however the warm extremes were anomalous even accounting for the NAO and also considering the states of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). These winters' widespread and intense warm extremes together with a continuing hemispheric decline in cold snap activity was a pattern fully consistent with a continuation of the warming trend observed in recent decades.
http://europa.agu.org/?uri=/journals/gl/gl1117/2011GL048762/2011GL048762.xml&view=article
Check your diode. Location of monitoring stations for example. Smoothing also. The weight of evidence against your position will soon be overwhelming. How can you so lightly dismiss the conclusions of other 'peer reviewed' scientists?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou could not make this stuff up. Here we have someone who accepts exactly what tells them they want to hear like conservative pressure groups such as the GWPF but rejects established and peer reviewed science, but goes on about others having a 'diode. The irony is that they couldn't be a better parody of themselves. Surely this must be a wind up?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo these people that I refered to who admit there has been little evidence of warming over the past ten or twelve years have no credibility? See post 18 for link.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisit is you & your diode friends who have no credibility. if you do not like the data it does not get past the gate.
The research team is made up of Santer and Livermore colleagues Charles Doutriaux, Peter Caldwell, Peter Gleckler, Detelina Ivanova, and Karl Taylor, and includes collaborators from Remote Sensing Systems, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the University of Colorado, the Canadian Centre for Climate Modeling and Analysis, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.K. Meteorology Office Hadley Centre, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
You honestly can't see yourself as others do can you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy your 'diode' analogy I assume that I let some information through but block others. If true then I let the conclusions based on good science through as determined by the worlds scientific academies regardless of what it concludes. If they were to state that climate change is a crock or just overstated then than is what I accept regardless of whether I want it to be the case or not. I block anything that isn't supported by the overall conclusions of the research by deserved scepticism.
But you can't see your own parody. Your own 'diode' blocks any science that you don't want to be true, finding excuses and uncertainties to to dismiss it to justify your scientifically unsupported beliefs and it only lets through things that confirm the way you want the world to be, regardless of what the worlds scientific institutions state. Your 'diode' is pointing the wrong way! Even if your mind refuses to let you see that, the irony is that everyone else can.
For example, I assume that for whatever justification your mind has made up, you don't accept the 'Hockey Stick'? But every temperature reconstruction shows a 'hockey stick' regardless of who did it and what data sets they used. In all rational probability the temperature in the last century has risen in line with the Victorian physics that predicted it would.
Another example is that you put great store into the idea that global temperatures show 'little evidence of warming over the past ten or twelve years', but it has warmed. The simple fact that most of the last 10 or 12 years have been within the hottest recorded in decades of measurements mean it is an impossibility that warming hasn't occurred.
But even with the fact that every decade has been warmer than the last for some time there is no reason to expect it to be so. The temperature record shows many periods of cooling and flat lining if you carefully choose start and end points. It happened in the 40s and 70s for example, but they are still part of an overall warming trend. That is way climatologists normally use a 30 year mean - there are cycles, such as the solar one, that are longer than a decade.
But your mind will allow you to carry on believing that just because it isn't warming as much as you believe the scientists say it should (and they have no problems with it as it stands) that there is a critical flaw in the theory when there isn't.
A diode only allows a flow to travel in one direction, blocking any back flow. That is what people like you do. I am open to all sides of a scientific argument & critically examine all claims. For instance, the claim by the head of the IPCC that humans cause earthquakes & tsunamis. From your mindset you must believe even this insanity as you swallow all pro AWG material hook, line & sinker. In other words you are an ideologue. By the way, that hockey stick is in fact a hook & you have swallowed it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"In other words you are an ideologue."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, I simply accept the conclusions of science regardless of how uncomfortable they are. Unless you believe that the academies of science are all ideologues, then that is a simple fact.
So are you really saying that you are 'open to all sides of a scientific argument & critically examine all claims', but have some better data that shows every temperature reconstruction ever done doesn't indicate that the last century shows warming as predicted by basic physics established in Victorian times?
How critical are you actually of conservative think tanks like TGWPF that you have linked to?
I'm also a bit confused by your other link in light of some of your beliefs. Have you actually read it or understood it?
https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html
"In order to separate human-caused global warming from the "noise" of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists."
"scientists analyzed satellite measurements of the temperature of the lower troposphere (the region of the atmosphere from the surface to roughly five miles above) and saw a clear signal of human-induced warming of the planet.
Satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature are made with microwave radiometers, and are completely independent of surface thermometer measurements. The satellite data indicate that the lower troposphere has warmed by roughly 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit since the beginning of satellite temperature records in 1979. This increase is entirely consistent with the warming of Earth's surface estimated from thermometer records.
Recently, a number of global warming critics have focused attention on the behavior of Earth's temperature since 1998. They have argued that there has been little or no warming over the last 10 to 12 years, and that computer models of the climate system are not capable of simulating such short "hiatus periods" when models are run with human-caused changes in greenhouse gases.
"Looking at a single, noisy 10-year period is cherry picking, and does not provide reliable information about the presence or absence of human effects on climate," "
"For instance, the claim by the head of the IPCC that humans cause earthquakes & tsunamis."
You have come out with this nonsense before on SA and when I asked you to link to this you failed to provide any credible source.
Like to try again?
I provide the link again. Are you going to disappear like Trent did when last I provided it? Are you going to agree that humans are causing earthquakes & tsunamis if I show that the head of the IPCC said that was the case? So far you have shown syncopantic acceptance of all things AGW from the IPCC.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA copy of the post No.17 I made on the 'Climate change evaporates etc. You & trent both took part in that string. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-change-evaporates-china-hydropower-production-drop-25-percent#comments
Check for yourselves folk. One thing you will find is that the good head of the IPCC is a Hindu. Nothing wrong with that. One little point though. Hindus believe that humans interact with nature on a spiratual as well as a physical level. They do believe we influence things in nature like earthquakes & tsunamis. Now that is fine so long as it is confined to religion & is not put up as science.
See: COIMBATORE: Given that human actions are increasingly interfering with the delicate balance of nature, natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes and tsunamis will occur more frequently, said Dr Rajendra K Pachauri, director general of TERI, and the chief of the inter-governmental panel on Climate Change.
Trent tries to explain away facts. See http://www.teriin.org/index.php?option=com_teriinnews&limit=10&limitstart=50
This is the university Pachauri runs. It directs its readers to news items concerning the university & repeats the claim made above by the Dr & printed in The Times of India. Now you would not expect them to do that unless it was acurate. Also the story was repeated in newspapers across the world at the time yet there has been no retraction by the good Dr. The University do have a taped record of the particular speech. No doubt for a fee anyone interested could get a copy.
I don't believe that I did take part in that string but another one where you came out with the same 'evidence'. But Trent made exactly the same logical conclusions I did. The head of the IPCC, who isn't a scientist but an administrator and who has absolutely no influence on how the scientists summarise the science incidentally, never said humans or climate change cause earthquakes etc. The best you could do last time was what a reporter said in an Indian newspaper. If I recall correctly, they made some claim followed by what seems to be a direct quote that never mentioned any such nonsense. This was taken up by the usual denier rumour mill that masks it self as serious 'skeptical ' blogs and news media. I can only imagine that 'Trent' disappeared because he was fed up trying to counter such irrational nonsense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut if that is the very best evidence you can come up with to dismiss decades of peer reviewed scientific research, supported by statements from the worlds scientific academies then I cannot really accept you have any credibility when you state you are open to scientific argument. You haven't offered one.
So do you have an alternative analysis of climate data sets that doesn't show a hockey stick effect in this century or no?
Unbelievable. I gave you the link. You made numerous posts. So, the head of IPCC can make ludicrous statements which are not retracted like the one I have pointed out, but that is O.K. What about all the other statements that have come from the IPCC that are patently false like the glacier scandal None of this sends any warning signals about their credibility?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe logic diode at work again. At least everyone who follows these posts can now see what you are. A logic free zone.
There are numerous 'peer reviewed' scientific refutations of the Hockey Stick. There is absolutely no point in me directing you to them. In your world only the approved AGW point of view gets through the diode. I am not going to waste my time. If you are really interested, look for the evidence yourself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI beg your pardon. You did not post on that string. It was salt & trent. All singing from the same songsheet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarlyle says,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"So, the head of IPCC can make ludicrous statements which are not retracted like the one I have pointed out, but that is O.K."
You haven't provided any credible evidence that Pachauri has said anything ludicrous but what is ludicrous is that you use an alleged statement to dismiss a summary of the best research we have. The IPCC is stated a political organisation with aims are to provide governments summaries to base policies on. I cant care less if it's head is ludicrous. He could be a shaman who howls at the moon for all I care. The important thing is what you continually avoid - the science. The only significant thing about the IPCC is that the scientists and scientific academies of the world have declared that they have made a good job of summarising their research. So forget the IPCC if for what ever contrived reason you don't like them and stick with the science - it will tell you little different.
Carlyle says,
"There are numerous 'peer reviewed' scientific refutations of the Hockey Stick. "
A demonstrably false statement like this shows that you are not in touch with the realities of the situation and your, "There is absolutely no point in me directing you to them", proves at some level of consciousness you know this to be true.
Why you have stuck peer review in quotes? Unless what you are referring to isn't really peer review in the scientific sense at all. EVERY temperature reconstruction shows a 'hockey stick' graph;
P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998), M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999), Crowley and Lowery (2000), K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001), J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002), S. Huang (2004), A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005), J.H. Oerlemans (2005) - to name just eight. Even the latest; Berkeley Temperature study (2011) shows a 'hockey stick'.
This is NO credible peer reviewed scientific refutations of any of it. In the real world, in all probability (science doesn't do certainty), the temperatures of the last century indicates that there has been unprecedented warming which if graphed forms a 'hockey stick.
But by all means prove all these scientific studies wrong by stating your alleged 'numerous 'peer reviewed' scientific refutations'. However the fact is that you can't because they don't exist, yet I suspect your faulty diode will continue to allow you to believe that this reality is not the case.