Snowmoon

Politicians won't do enough to address climate change unless they feel that it's a vote loser not to. As that isn't currently the case, people need to be better informed about the subject so that they understand enough to regard it as a voting issue. Ignoring it and hoping it goes away isn't an option. It's an interesting take to regard educating and informing about climate change as "instilling fear". Presumably you'd advocate the withdrawal of health websites and leaflets in case they worry people as well?

I hoped to imply with my preface that I didn't want to get into a debate about whether climate change is real or not, or whether the consequences of it might not be as bad as is being predicted (and is already taking place). I prefer to go with the conclusions of a vast number of scientists and trust them to know what they're talking about. I don't believe it's something where language should be toned down to protect the sensibilities of deniers, because too much is at stake. That's my final word on that particular topic as the thread wasn't intended to be about that. In the instances where temps of 16C have been described as "chilly", are there physiological effects to be concerned about then? It doesn't seem too hard to me to choose the words to use based on what the actual temperature is and not introduce subjectivity into it. "Chilly" to my mind should equate to mid to low single figures. Also, hot weather is uncomfortable and potentially dangerous.

In your first example, you refer to temps about 4 or 5 degrees below average as "struggling", like that's a bad thing, and equating them to being autumnal. What would be said for temps 4 or 5 degrees above average? Typically these days, presenters won't comment on it at all or will say something like it's "pleasantly warm". In your second example, why did you use "quite chilly" rather than "cooler"? Presenters these days often skip "cool", "cold" and "very cold" and go straight to "chilly", which is my point.

It's not a guise, it's providing information which people aren't currently being given and they do need to be given it, because far too many people still don't give a stuff about it or think it's for someone else to deal with whilst they just carry on blithely ignoring it. There isn't time to mess about over it anymore, prevarication and looking the other way have brought us to a precipice. Implementing the measures required to deal with climate change should be apolitical - it's simply not something that can be used as a political football because governments across the world won't take the required steps if they don't think voters feel sufficiently strongly about it. Decades of inaction has brought us to a point where further inaction and greenwashing is unacceptable. As this can be levelled at all main political parties, then I don't think there needs to be concern about activism, just more focus on presenting relevant facts and changing the language. History is littered with all and sundry only waking up and smelling the coffee about things when it was too late.

I'm not sure how something which manifests itself in extreme weather patterns is outside the lane of weather presenters? If it's not in their lane, whose lane is it in? The climate crisis has reached a stage now where it can't keep being swept under the carpet, its seriousness needs to start being reflected on prime-time television. Obviously weather presenters shouldn't have to refer to it all the time, but there's no reason why average temps can't be shown routinely and unusual trends pointed out. Something that should happen, for example, is that temps like 30 degrees in the shade not to be referred to as "glorious", whilst temps a couple of degrees below average are mentioned apologetically with sad faces. That kind of thing just potentially encourages people to be more blasé about climate change because higher temps are always portrayed as a good thing to be yearned for.

(Preface: the following is based on the acceptance of the opinions of an overwhelming number of scientists that man-made climate change is real and is an extremely serious problem which has arisen due to decades of governmental inaction across the world) I've been meaning to post this for a while, but the news in the past few days about this September being the joint-warmest on record in the UK and the warmest across the world as a whole has finally encouraged me to get on with it. The existential threat that’s presented by the climate crisis, which will require drastic remedial action by governments, businesses and the general public alike to try to avoid a global catastrophe, is very real with unusual and often cataclysmic weather events occurring increasingly frequently. However, there are still many people here in the UK who don’t fully understand, or don’t sufficiently care about, the dire situation we’re in, and who don’t appreciate the urgency with which action needs to be taken internationally. Polling suggests that as many as 50% of people in the UK hare unwilling to change their behaviour or lifestyle at all to help address the climate emergency. Clearly there’s an ongoing and crucial need to educate people about climate change so that they more quickly come to appreciate the truly desperate position that the planet finds itself in solely because of the actions of humans. Weather forecasts are seen by everyone frequently and I strongly believe that weather (and news) presenters have a very important role to play in getting vital messages across regarding the climate. However, I feel this is largely proving to be a lost opportunity at present for reasons that I’ll explain below. Just as an aside, someone may correct me but I didn't see any weather presenter give any indication at any point during the month that the UK was heading for its equal warmest September on record. The same has been true for other record-breaking months. Whilst it’s human nature to a certain extent for people to celebrate warmer temperatures and disparage cooler ones, I feel very much that weather and news presenters should no longer generally go down that road, given the now dire state of the climate crisis; language and tone are extremely important. Unfortunately, things seem to have gone the wrong way in this regard. More than ever, above average temperatures are presented with relish whilst below average temperatures are portrayed apologetically. Warmer temperatures are understated, whilst colder temperatures are exaggerated. How often are below average temperatures called "disappointing", average temperatures described using terms such as "no great shakes" and above average temperatures referred to as something like "not too bad" by presenters? The terminology has even subtly changed in recent years to emphasize this point. For example, I would say that the word “chilly” is being much more frequently used by weather presenters than before to describe temperatures that are only a little below average. It's reached the stage now where it almost feels like they're itching to be able to use the word in forecasts! Indeed, I’ve seen 16C nonsensically described as “chilly” by weather presenters (I won't name names!) on a number of occasions, but really adjectives used to describe weather should be based on absolute temperatures rather than relative ones, or at least properly matched with an appropriate term for the opposite warm temperature equivalent. Consider the following descriptive match-ups: Bitter <-> Scorching Freezing <-> Sweltering Chilly <-> Hot Very cold <-> Very warm Cold <-> Warm Cool/below average <-> Mild/above average I’m sure there’s very little in the above which can be regarded as being contentious. Just to continue my point regarding the misuse of “chilly” - a spring/autumn temperature that’s 4 or more degrees above the average would never ever be described as “hot” so, equally, temperatures that are 4 or more degrees below the average should never be described as “chilly”, at least not until they reach mid to low single figures. Professional weather forecasting is completely founded on science, so it ought to be the case that the adjectives used to by presenters to describe temperatures (and indeed weather in general) should also be driven by science and not by subjectivity or colloquialisms. Moreover, whereas temperatures that are below average are almost always commented upon as such, either directly or obliquely, the opposite isn’t true for above average temperatures, which often pass without comment. Even when a comment is made, the word “mild” is overused. In fact the English language has too few adjectives to describe degrees of mildness/warmth, but that’s a challenge which weather presenters must embrace rather than avoid. If more people are to better appreciate the desperate climate situation, more balance has to be provided in the way temperatures and weather are described and, if anything, greater emphasis placed on the abnormality of consistently warmer than average temperatures and the unusual lack of colder temperatures. It’s not just about the words and phrases used by presenters though, average temperatures could be shown on weather graphics much more often than they are at present, for clear and obvious comparison. I know that this is done on Good Morning Britain now, which is welcome. More attention should also be drawn to extreme patterns, such as record or near record temperatures for a given month, the lack of rain or increased rainfall as appropriate, comparisons showing an accelerating reduction in seasonal frosts, the impact of abnormal weather on flora and fauna etc etc. Rather than this being part of the normal weather narrative, it still tends to be the case that you have to search for a lot of this rather than it being more in your face as the climate crisis warrants. To conclude, I firmly believe that weather and news presenters need to consign the colder weather = bad, warmer weather = good mantra to history, and start using language, backed up by the extended use of climatic trend data, supported by easy to understand graphics, which will provide information that more accurately reflects the awful situation that we find ourselves in. Hopefully, weather and news presenters will then play an important role in educating and convincing more people in this country regarding the climate emergency. Many thanks for taking the trouble to read this if you've got this far!

Good luck to all those in the far south who are or will get something this evening. It seems odd to me that the forecasts are still suggesting there could be storms in the Midlands overnight when there's been absolutely no sign of anything happening north of the M4 in the past 5 hours?

I was surprised to find a coating here of snow on getting up this morning, as the last forecast I'd seen (yesterday morning) had all the precip south of here on the front that was coming in from west to east. There's less than an inch I think (not been outside to check yet), but it's covered everything. Looking at the radar, it was all from 1 shower at approx 05.30.

What was in Devon earlier is now quickly tracking northwards but has split into two with the heaviest segement to the west. Sadly for Malvern, it looks like we could be in the gap in the middle unless it fills in or develops an easterly or westerly drift. As Dancerwithwings (thanks for the graphic) has shown above, the big mass over western France should head up this way later and that could be very interesting still for this area!

Yeah, the clump of showers currently near Paigton could turn into something more I suppose, but that's tracking north-eastwards as well, whereas the BBC forecast this morning showed the main rain band tracking north-north-westwards if anything. It was supposed to have clouded over here a some time ago, but it's still sunny, if a little hazy.

Something will need to break off to get over here, as it's all heading north-eastwards at present like the one earlier this morning did and won't come within miles of the West Mids, unless that relatively puny-looking thing over Spain/Portugal erm, Western France (!), is supposed to be it?! (Hello Barbmac!)

This is a rare summer appearance for me, but I get excited by the prospect of thunderstorms as well as snow! Thunderstorms are pretty rare in this neck of the woods, although we had a nice one in the early hours the other day. The weather forecasts are pretty much unchanged this morning with regard to how the heaviest rain is supposed to track northwards today, but I'm puzzled why nothing at all is visible on the radar over France and the English Channel yet? I understand that what's currently skirting across the extreme south-east isn't supposed to be today's main event, but there's no sign of anything else at all on the radar at present? Is it going to bubble up out of nowhere once the temperature starts to go up? Also, compared to the track of the current storm down in the south-east, there would need to be a change for anything to move northwards.

It's interesting that the main event was originally billed as being all day today, but it looks like it was actually yesterday evening and overnight, although there's some heavier snow heading towards Avon and Gloucs from Berkshire and Surrey at present. Maybe it will all get a recharge from somewhere? I haven't been out, but there's got to be at least 6" lying here, so we seem to have done better than many, although I'm sure the elevation is the biggest factor in that.

Are you talking about the snow or giving birth?!

Not sure if you want Stourbridge or Kidderminster, so: Stourbridge: http://stourbridgeweather.org.uk/ Blakedown: http://www.mecol.co.uk/weather/ I couldn't find a weather station for Kidderminster