Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Gray-Wolf

Arctic melt Season 2018

Recommended Posts

On 01/09/2018 at 04:02, jvenge said:

Firstly I mentioned ice free in summer, as that seems to be the more near to medium term chance. I don't know where to begin re ice free all year around. Since there is no prospect of that likely in my life time, not worth me speculating now.

Coasts are eroding World wide and have been since the last glacial period. So, trying to point to coastal erosion as an issue is just not alarming enough. No sea rise from it. Also, considering how pot holes behave, there is likely a case for a freeze and thaw doing more damage than a continuous freeze or no freeze. So it would be unclear how that would end up.

Also, extreme ice and cold is generally bad for a local population. So, ultimately, localities being more habitable due to less extreme conditions is only going to be a net positive. Any increase in erosion (no sea rise) is not going to counter the benefits of a more temperate local climate. Not saying its right, as I personally think it is horrible to lose such a habitat, but the aesthetics aside, it would be a net positive.

Could be, but an equally more likely scenario if to go with yours is that the increase in air moisture would lead to increased precipitation as snow fall/rain, which then freezes and adds to the mass. See the past two years. I understand precipitation to be increasing in Antarctica as well. So, it isn't so simple.

Rightly or wrongly, the Arctic isn't a priority. Not just in words, but in actions.

My PhD studies are specifically on the topic of Arctic coastal erosion - so finally something I'm sort of an expert in!

Just to be very clear, erosion rates are accelerating across much of the Arctic (not everywhere) and and the majority of this is very much tied in with sea ice loss, ocean warming, increased extreme rainfall events, etc. When you have soil that held together by ice, or large bodies of ice within the soil, it loses cohesion very quickly when the ice melts and can erode at incredible rates (>40m/year in some areas).
 As for why it matters, you only have to look at the massive carbon stores within the permafrost to understand why melting and liberating that carbon can have a global influence.

I can go into as much detail as you'd like on this so feel free to ask some questions, but climate change is absolutely affecting erosion rates along Arctic coasts.

Attached is an image from field work last year near Tuktoyaktuk. There's a lot of ice in them thar hills!

Fig1B2.thumb.jpg.22db6e7a85333c8d703fd7110c852642.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

My PhD studies are specifically on the topic of Arctic coastal erosion - so finally something I'm sort of an expert in!

Just to be very clear, erosion rates are accelerating across much of the Arctic (not everywhere) and and the majority of this is very much tied in with sea ice loss, ocean warming, increased extreme rainfall events, etc. When you have soil that held together by ice, or large bodies of ice within the soil, it loses cohesion very quickly when the ice melts and can erode at incredible rates (>40m/year in some areas).
 As for why it matters, you only have to look at the massive carbon stores within the permafrost to understand why melting and liberating that carbon can have a global influence.

I can go into as much detail as you'd like on this so feel free to ask some questions, but climate change is absolutely affecting erosion rates along Arctic coasts.

Attached is an image from field work last year near Tuktoyaktuk. There's a lot of ice in them thar hills!

Fig1B2.thumb.jpg.22db6e7a85333c8d703fd7110c852642.jpg

No, I get it. It's just that it isn't alarming enough, in regards to the initial question ?

By the way. Are you aware of any proposals to block any straits in the arctic? Since the big ice loss years seemed to coincide with the natural ice arches not forming and thus certain wind patterns blowing ice out of the arctic where it quickly melts.

You would think such an approach is doable, considering the length of most of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody is really considering blocking off the straits. The main issue is the coast involved in the construction and maintenance in such a hostile environment. But the smaller straits wouldn't have a big enough effect to be worthwhile, while something like the Bering strait, while narrow, is still 80km across, which is huge in terms of building a dam.

Best shot would probably be deflecting the warm surface water currents that go into the Arctic. Various countries have toyed with that idea on different levels and for different reasons, but not so much nowadays with the purpose of helping retain sea ice. The Russians actually wanted to construct dams to divert more warm water into the Arctic to melt the ice back in the 60s I think!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/09/2018 at 05:45, knocker said:

 

why do we use 1979..and why do we say satellite era..when there are satellite images of Arctic sea ice going back to the 60's and accurate records of Arctic sea ice levels going back decades before that...also from what i can fathom 1979 was an exceptional year for sea ice one of the highest recorded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, cheeky_monkey said:

why do we use 1979..and why do we say satellite era..when there are satellite images of Arctic sea ice going back to the 60's and accurate records of Arctic sea ice levels going back decades before that...also from what i can fathom 1979 was an exceptional year for sea ice one of the highest recorded

I'd hazard a guess, but it wouldnt fit the ethos around here.....

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cheeky_monkey said:

why do we use 1979..and why do we say satellite era..when there are satellite images of Arctic sea ice going back to the 60's and accurate records of Arctic sea ice levels going back decades before that...also from what i can fathom 1979 was an exceptional year for sea ice one of the highest recorded

Pretty easy one. That's when daily Arctic-wide measurements began with the type of passive microwave sensors that are still used today. it means we have a consistent record where each year can be compared to the next and so on.

1979 wasn't particularly unusual either. In fact, 3 of the 4 years after 1979 averaged a higher extent.
You can try to compare previous data, such as in the images below, with the consistent modern record but it makes year to year comparisons less valid. It's only useful for stronger trends, especially as you go further back

sea_ice_1953-2016.png

Kinnard_2011_sea_ice_med.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

Pretty easy one. That's when daily Arctic-wide measurements began with the type of passive microwave sensors that are still used today. it means we have a consistent record where each year can be compared to the next and so on.

1979 wasn't particularly unusual either. In fact, 3 of the 4 years after 1979 averaged a higher extent.
You can try to compare previous data, such as in the images below, with the consistent modern record but it makes year to year comparisons less valid. It's only useful for stronger trends, especially as you go further back

sea_ice_1953-2016.png

Kinnard_2011_sea_ice_med.jpg

How was the data collected ("reconstructed") for the second graph?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The image below shows the proxy data type and locations. The paper is here: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10581

nature10581-f1.2.jpg

 

All proxy info, raw and processed, are available with the article (might be paywalled for most) and a full description of the sea ice reconstruction method is given.
I'm no expert in either, so I'm not going to try explain it all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  1. there is a very simple reason why they use 1979 as a start date , it was a record high year for arctic sea ice , and if your at the top of a mountain , any direction is down , the 1990 IPCC report contained satellite data from the early 1970's ( see below )
  2. 098796987589586.thumb.JPG.60b8005fd08b1acdf512de81898f05d5.JPG 
  3. one of the most dishonest acts a scientist can do is to hide critical data , yet here we see it
  4. lets look at the Reykjavik temperature record for the same time period , note how cold it was in 1979 , and note the temperatures in the 1940's when CO2 was at a much lower level
  5. ghfr547987.thumb.JPG.adea5a2f5416af66307a5599eb595ff6.JPG
  6. so if there is no correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature , is there a natural cause for the temperature change ?
  7. ujky768789-9JPG.thumb.JPG.4b5b1980dbb2af4184a26d1e4efab3d6.JPG
  8. possibly ? the AMO
  9. so have any agency used any underhand means to alter the temperature that we can see , and have we any evidence of said tampering , here is the GISS surface temperature analysis , showing raw , and homogenized data , you can see for yourself what was done
  10. 756478779089909.thumb.JPG.1652bee76c7bf88adcb92a5b7ae32921.JPG
  11. if you cool the past it makes the present appear warmer , the graph below was captured last October , from NASA , the altered temperature can be clearly seen
  12. 98089808089.thumb.JPG.3550c67dfaaaefc447fc740a63bed571.JPG
  13. and here we see their current graph
  14. jghfbtr767909809.thumb.JPG.980567a64baa1eaf1f0129daba81b955.JPG
  15. something changed at NASA ,,, what could that have been for them to radically alter their graph ? , Senator Malcolm Roberts questioned Gavin  Schmidt about his data , a furious Schmidt denied tampering with data , but did alter his graphs ????? if this does not give you a sense that there is something going on that is very wrong ,,, well , maybe your just comfortable with being told things that are not true

lkjtn6576547865JPG.JPG

khmktr754675376.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tablet said:
  1. there is a very simple reason why they use 1979 as a start date , it was a record high year for arctic sea ice , and if your at the top of a mountain , any direction is down , the 1990 IPCC report contained satellite data from the early 1970's ( see below )
  2. 098796987589586.thumb.JPG.60b8005fd08b1acdf512de81898f05d5.JPG 
  3. one of the most dishonest acts a scientist can do is to hide critical data , yet here we see it
  4. lets look at the Reykjavik temperature record for the same time period , note how cold it was in 1979 , and note the temperatures in the 1940's when CO2 was at a much lower level
  5. ghfr547987.thumb.JPG.adea5a2f5416af66307a5599eb595ff6.JPG
  6. so if there is no correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature , is there a natural cause for the temperature change ?
  7. ujky768789-9JPG.thumb.JPG.4b5b1980dbb2af4184a26d1e4efab3d6.JPG
  8. possibly ? the AMO
  9. so have any agency used any underhand means to alter the temperature that we can see , and have we any evidence of said tampering , here is the GISS surface temperature analysis , showing raw , and homogenized data , you can see for yourself what was done
  10. 756478779089909.thumb.JPG.1652bee76c7bf88adcb92a5b7ae32921.JPG
  11. if you cool the past it makes the present appear warmer , the graph below was captured last October , from NASA , the altered temperature can be clearly seen
  12. 98089808089.thumb.JPG.3550c67dfaaaefc447fc740a63bed571.JPG
  13. and here we see their current graph
  14. jghfbtr767909809.thumb.JPG.980567a64baa1eaf1f0129daba81b955.JPG
  15. something changed at NASA ,,, what could that have been for them to radically alter their graph ? , Senator Malcolm Roberts questioned Gavin  Schmidt about his data , a furious Schmidt denied tampering with data , but did alter his graphs ????? if this does not give you a sense that there is something going on that is very wrong ,,, well , maybe your just comfortable with being told things that are not true

lkjtn6576547865JPG.JPG

khmktr754675376.JPG

1: Satellite data, yes, but there's lots of different satellites with lots of different sensors and different temporal resolutions. It was only at the end of 1978 that daily readings with consistent type of passive microwave sensor started. There really is no need for conspiracy theories! Your image even highlights "missing satellite data" and mentions a grid of 1 by 2.5 degrees, that is incredibly low resolution and inappropriate for comparing with the modern record.
Nobody is hiding the pre-1978/79 data, and your graph show 1978 with most of the big anomaly, not 1979!

2. You talk about dishonest and then pick one location in order to make comments about the whole planet. Do you not see how silly that kind of analysis is? It's not a surprise that a single local station has it's temperature cycles governed by a strong regional climate cycle.
If NASA/GISS were trying to con people, why would they so clearly show the before and after adjusted data? Why would they have websites why you can view the data and why would they publish papers explaining why data gets adjusted and detailing exactly how it's done? Can you think of any reason why data might need to get adjusted?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets take a look at what happens when a proper scientist, who was once openly skeptical about these kinds of adjustments in the global temperature record, decides to set up a group to go through the data and come up with their own global record. I'm referring to Richard Muller and the BEST project, of whom people like Anthony Watts, of WUWT, said:

"I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise. So let’s not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results."

Well, the BEST project succeeded, produced a new global temperature record and it fitted in almost exactly with the other records. Muller conceded that the other records were good and humans are almost entirely to blame for the warming. Anthony Watts then stopped being a climate change denier and that was the end of that - only kidding! The Muller part was true, but Watts main concern is pushing an agenda, so obviously he back peddled on his previous comments with numerous articles on WUWT attacking Muller and the project, such as calling them "Media Whores" and saying things like:

I consider the paper fatally flawed as it now stands, and thus I recommend it be removed from publication consideration by JGR until such time that it can be reworked....it appears they have circumvented the scientific process in favor of PR
 

The section in bold - I wonder if Watts saw the irony in that!

Look, climate science can be complicated. To take advantage of that, paid climate deniers like to put out easy to believe conspiracy theories with gravy train scientists (as if academia is an easy route to money compared to shilling for the oil industry?), big green and socialists governments working together across the entire planet over decades to con the population. It's preposterous, but a simple and seemingly powerful idea.
However, there are many resources and people out there trying to explain the science to people and help solve this problem. If people can step away from the mindset of "everything pro-AGW is a conspiracy" and just give an honest effort at understanding the science and trusting some reputable source (reputable due to have decades of experience and hundreds and genuine actively working experts), it is possible to learn about this stuff without requiring conspiracy theories to fill in the gaps.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of Interest did Mullers work ever get peer reviewed.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

1: Satellite data, yes, but there's lots of different satellites with lots of different sensors and different temporal resolutions. It was only at the end of 1978 that daily readings with consistent type of passive microwave sensor started. There really is no need for conspiracy theories! Your image even highlights "missing satellite data" and mentions a grid of 1 by 2.5 degrees, that is incredibly low resolution and inappropriate for comparing with the modern record.
Nobody is hiding the pre-1978/79 data, and your graph show 1978 with most of the big anomaly, not 1979!

2. You talk about dishonest and then pick one location in order to make comments about the whole planet. Do you not see how silly that kind of analysis is? It's not a surprise that a single local station has it's temperature cycles governed by a strong regional climate cycle.
If NASA/GISS were trying to con people, why would they so clearly show the before and after adjusted data? Why would they have websites why you can view the data and why would they publish papers explaining why data gets adjusted and detailing exactly how it's done? Can you think of any reason why data might need to get adjusted?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets take a look at what happens when a proper scientist, who was once openly skeptical about these kinds of adjustments in the global temperature record, decides to set up a group to go through the data and come up with their own global record. I'm referring to Richard Muller and the BEST project, of whom people like Anthony Watts, of WUWT, said:

"I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise. So let’s not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results."

Well, the BEST project succeeded, produced a new global temperature record and it fitted in almost exactly with the other records. Muller conceded that the other records were good and humans are almost entirely to blame for the warming. Anthony Watts then stopped being a climate change denier and that was the end of that - only kidding! The Muller part was true, but Watts main concern is pushing an agenda, so obviously he back peddled on his previous comments with numerous articles on WUWT attacking Muller and the project, such as calling them "Media Whores" and saying things like:

I consider the paper fatally flawed as it now stands, and thus I recommend it be removed from publication consideration by JGR until such time that it can be reworked....it appears they have circumvented the scientific process in favor of PR
 

The section in bold - I wonder if Watts saw the irony in that!

Look, climate science can be complicated. To take advantage of that, paid climate deniers like to put out easy to believe conspiracy theories with gravy train scientists (as if academia is an easy route to money compared to shilling for the oil industry?), big green and socialists governments working together across the entire planet over decades to con the population. It's preposterous, but a simple and seemingly powerful idea.
However, there are many resources and people out there trying to explain the science to people and help solve this problem. If people can step away from the mindset of "everything pro-AGW is a conspiracy" and just give an honest effort at understanding the science and trusting some reputable source (reputable due to have decades of experience and hundreds and genuine actively working experts), it is possible to learn about this stuff without requiring conspiracy theories to fill in the gaps.

The graphs show 1979 with the biggest anomaly surely?

Also, why is it anyone pro global warming is a scientist, but anyone against is a denier?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Rambo said:

The graphs show 1979 with the biggest anomaly surely?

Also, why is it anyone pro global warming is a scientist, but anyone against is a denier?

Then again, one could ask a more sensible question: how is it that 98% of of those with the necessary knowledge-base (climate scientists) 'believe' in AGW theory? And, not only that, why are they so vehemently opposed by all sorts of purveyors of pseudoscience - Corbyn, Dellingpole, Monckton, Lawson, IceAgeNow, WUWT?

IMO, the answers to some questions are really quite evident - when asked the right way!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

Then again, one could ask a more sensible question: how is it that 98% of of those with the necessary knowledge-base (climate scientists) 'believe' in AGW theory? And, not only that, why are they so vehemently opposed by all sorts of purveyors of pseudoscience - Corbyn, Dellingpole, Monckton, Lawson, IceAgeNow, WUWT?

IMO, the answers to some questions are really quite evident - when asked the right way!

ED..

 Then again - why ask a strawman question?

1) 98% - is a fictitious number

2) All the above believe in AGW..

Its the extent to which it is and is going to affect the atmosphere which is the unknown.

 

MIA. 

Edited by Midlands Ice Age

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

Then again, one could ask a more sensible question: how is it that 98% of of those with the necessary knowledge-base (climate scientists) 'believe' in AGW theory? And, not only that, why are they so vehemently opposed by all sorts of purveyors of pseudoscience - Corbyn, Dellingpole, Monckton, Lawson, IceAgeNow, WUWT?

IMO, the answers to some questions are really quite evident - when asked the right way!

So you cant answer my question then....thanks for trying anyway!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

ED..

 Then again - why ask a strawman question?

1) 98% - is a fictitious number

2) All the above believe in AGW..

Its the extent to which it is and is going to affect the atmosphere which is the unknown.

 

MIA. 

I'm glad you've changed your tune, MIA...You'll no' be posting any more of that WUWT twaddle (for which you were once so famous) I presume?

And, Rambo, your 'question' is as nonsensical as it's off-topic!

And...back to discussing the Arctic sea-ice, 'mehopes'..?:D

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Rambo said:

The graphs show 1979 with the biggest anomaly surely?

Here's the graph, with 1979 highlighted in red. You can see most of it is negative.

lkjtn6576547865JPG.JPG.b5dd33ab7bab671e156461e8d5e40d3d.thumb.JPG.769115177f8659935a239236ee9731d3.JPG

For websites that promote AGW denial it's run of the mill tactics. Post a link or pic, claim it shows something scandalous and rely on the readers not to check. It happens all the time. We see it when a new forum member show up and tries to link spam from the climate change denier blog they've recently discovered.

If a pro-climate science group did something similar it would be used by deniers for years - resulting in newspaper op-eds, documentaries and hundreds of blog posts about how fraudulent climate science is.

Quote

Also, why is it anyone pro global warming is a scientist, but anyone against is a denier?

I don't think anyone has said that. There are plenty of people here that believe the science of anthropogenic global warming and are not scientists. There are plenty of scientists that also don't believe in the science behind AGW (but they are a tiny percentage of the planets working scientists), that are still scientists.
However, if someone denies that human activity is the dominant driver of climate change in modern times then they are a science denier, plain and simple.

Here's a list of over 200 international scientific institutions that agree that climate change is mainly human driven. These are institutions with large groups of working scientists, not fake groups set up by the fossil fuel industry to confuse people. Essentially every scientific group on the planet endorses the position that climate change is driven by our GhG emissions.
http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html

Given the overwhelming evidence, what should someone that denies this stuff be referred to? Certainly not a sceptic, which is what all scientists naturally are.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ed Stone said:

I'm glad you've changed your tune, MIA...You'll no' be posting any more of that WUWT twaddle (for which you were once so famous) I presume?

And, Rambo, your 'question' is as nonsensical as it's off-topic!

And...back to discussing the Arctic sea-ice, 'mehopes'..?:D

I have not changed my 'tune', one little bit.

I have always accepted some form of warming from Anthro GW.

I have always stated that was the case.

Going back 4 or 5 years, you will see I have always stated/believed the effect would  see about 1.5C warming by 2200..

 

Despite yours and BFTV's fictitious posts concerning 'Sceptics'. I am a scientist and a sceptic. 

 

I am highly sceptical that we will see anything approaching 2.5C warming by 2200.  Never mind the 3.0C to over 5.0C that people who post on here believe that the science is taking them. Computer models are totally inaccurate still. 

I am not and never have been a denier, (as you label anyone who does not accept that we are doomed, with uncontrolled warming).

There are a huge number of scientists who are in the same position. Claiming that there are 98% of climate scientists who believe in CAGW is doing a disservice to climate science.

MIA.

..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/09/2018 at 19:39, Rambo said:

The graphs show 1979 with the biggest anomaly surely?

Also, why is it anyone pro global warming is a scientist, but anyone against is a denier?

Because in simple terms most scientists agree that the globe is warming and that mankind holds (some) responsibility, whereas the number of those who see the temperature record of the last 60 years as representing nothing more than a reflection of natural processes within "normal" bounds are in the minority. Majority rule and hardly surprising. Does it bother you? 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking about warming, with the real notable exception of Canada, alot of the northern hemisphere looks above average, the cold uppers have been mostly centred around the pole and I honestly think we could see a late minimum and a slow refreeze because there is no signs of any PV forming on the Pacific side of the Arctic. 

Siberia is looking very warm for the time of year also so once again there are signs that the PV is looking weak and this leads to risks of WAA heading into the Arctic during Autumn. Who can forget October 2016 where upper air Temps over the Arctic was nothing short of extraordinary, looks like September 2018 could be following a similar trends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking about warming, with the real notable exception of Canada, alot of the northern hemisphere looks above average, the cold uppers have been mostly centred around the pole and I honestly think we could see a late minimum and a slow refreeze because there is no signs of any PV forming on the Pacific side of the Arctic. 

Siberia is looking very warm for the time of year also so once again there are signs that the PV is looking weak and this leads to risks of WAA heading into the Arctic during Autumn. Who can forget October 2016 where upper air Temps over the Arctic was nothing short of extraordinary, looks like September 2018 could be following a similar trends 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No changes in the output it seems, we still havant reached the minimum yet and the forecast does not look good at all for much in the way of refreeze with potential for WAA events coming in from Siberia and potentially Alaska also. In other words a very disrupted and weak PV with the main of it remaining over Canada. 

Some of the GFS anomolies for the end of September are nothing short of extraordinary with Siberia looking well above average. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎21‎/‎09‎/‎2018 at 13:02, Geordiesnow said:

No changes in the output it seems, we still havant reached the minimum yet and the forecast does not look good at all for much in the way of refreeze with potential for WAA events coming in from Siberia and potentially Alaska also. In other words a very disrupted and weak PV with the main of it remaining over Canada. 

Some of the GFS anomolies for the end of September are nothing short of extraordinary with Siberia looking well above average. 

It's still looking poor for any real refreezing at the moment, with the models showing a large injection of warm air from the Pacific side next week:

GFSOPNH12_144_2.png

The Arctic Ocean as a whole has little sub -5C 850hPa air and by then it's 1st October!

Compare that to 2012:

NOAA_2_2012100100_2.png

Obviously you get variation between years, but the patterns aren't great right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • The Jet Stream is coming next week, bringing Autumn with it

    It had to happen at some point, and from Tuesday next weeka0Autumn proper is going to arrive. The jet stream will be diving south, bringing low pressure systems right across the UK which means a change to much less settled and also cooler weather. Read the full update here

    Netweather forecasts
    Netweather forecasts
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    Michael Fish: Autumn proper on the way

    Michael Fish returns with his latest weekly forecast, and there's a big change on the way. The weekend and start of next week will keep the sunny, warm and mostly dry weather coming before low pressure makes its move and brings a change to much more Autumnal weather.a0 Watch the video here

    Netweather forecasts
    Netweather forecasts
    Latest weather updates from Netweather
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...