iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
David Kroodsma

GET UPDATES FROM David Kroodsma
 

Royal Weddings and Climate Change

Posted: 04/29/11 05:34 PM ET

Cross posted from Climate Central.

At Climate Central, we are excited about the Royal Wedding not because it's an opportunity to fawn over the wealthy and powerful, but because of history. And not just because of history like the fact Queen Victoria was the first to popularize white wedding dresses when she donned one for her marriage to King Albert in 1840.

We are excited because in central England, where Prince William and Kate Middleton wed today, people have directly measured temperature for longer than anywhere else in the world. Ever since 1659 — more than a century before the U.S. Revolutionary war — scientists have continuously taken thermometer readings in this region of England. This data set has been compiled by the Met Office of the Hadley Center, and it represents the average temperature across a triangular area of the U.K. between Bristol, Lancashire, and London.

For most places on earth, weather data stretches back only a few decades. In central England, we have three and a half centuries of directly measured climate data.

Below we’ve plotted the average yearly temperature in Central England, and also marked Royal Weddings over the centuries. Click on a wedding to see what that year’s climate was like in Central England. Please note, we are not implying any relationship between Royal Weddings and climate change! In fact, you'll see that the weddings are quite out of sync with the warming trend.

The first thing you will notice, besides the fact that Queen Victoria’s white wedding gown made its debut on a colder-than-usual year in 1840, or that King George V wedded Queen Mary during a warmer-than-average year in 1893, is that five of the ten warmest years have occurred in the past decade, with the warmest year in England’s history being 2006. The two warmest Royal Wedding years were 1999 (Prince Edward and Sophie Rhys-Jones) and 2005 (Prince Charles and Camila Parker Bowles).

The warming trend over the past few centuries is not that extreme — about half a degree per century, on average, with faster warming in the past fifty years. However, the fact that the past decade has been warmer than any on record has played out not just in Central England, but also on thermometers all over the world.

The projections for England, based on the average of climate models as reported by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is for the average yearly temperatures in England to rise by an additional three to five degrees Fahrenheit this century.

What this means for Royal Weddings and proper Royal Wedding attire, only time will tell.

 

Follow David Kroodsma on Twitter: www.twitter.com/davidkroodsma

Cross posted from Climate Central. At Climate Central, we are excited about the Royal Wedding not because it's an opportunity to fawn over the wealthy and powerful, but because of history. And ...
Cross posted from Climate Central. At Climate Central, we are excited about the Royal Wedding not because it's an opportunity to fawn over the wealthy and powerful, but because of history. And ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 26
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
11:47 AM on 05/09/2011
The CET record shows quite clearly that nothing unusual has been happening to those temperatures in the 20th and 21st centuries. The author may get into trouble from the climatists who would far rather see artificially constructed, computer generated 'global mean temperatures', or even the shoddy sloppy hockey-stick plots. There is only good news in the CET plot. Can't allow that!!
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
06:18 PM on 05/02/2011
You may want to read the right-hand y-axis: `CO2 emissions' is rather different from `CO2 level'.
07:28 PM on 05/02/2011
That is true, however the contributions man has made are the basis for claims of unusual warming. The data clearly shows there is nothing unusual about the amount or rate of recent warming, compared to the rest of the recorded time period.
10:51 PM on 05/02/2011
Same data? Sure? These people are not showing at HPost the single central England record going back 350 years. They compiled a "Central England" "Series" Look carefully, "series." That means they are smearing the single old record with other ones.

This plays on the idea people know about this old record. The graph above as far as it is meant to be inferred as the famous central England old single station is a trick. Like trying to get rid of the MWP.
FreeHat
Really?
10:01 AM on 04/30/2011
With a graph like that you wonder what side of the debate he's on...A linear upward trend since the last mini ice age.
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
06:19 PM on 05/02/2011
A better fit would be flat to 1900, then a break to a rise. Don't get fixated on ropey-quality data from before 1800.
07:37 PM on 04/29/2011
350 years of data yep somebody steps outside and says to himself yep its raining.
07:02 PM on 04/29/2011
So your graph is from the Little Ice Age to present day?

http://climateaudit.org/2008/05/09/where-did-ipcc-1990-figure-7c-come-from-httpwwwclimateauditorgp3072previewtrue/
photo
LMPE
I connect the most dissimilar things
06:35 PM on 04/29/2011
Johann Hari noted that Prince Charles is one of the biggest individual polluters in the UK. Charles frequently takes frivolous trips in his private jet. Not to mention that the royal family has giant homes that always use a lot of energy.
05:26 PM on 04/29/2011
The IPCC are the same folks that predicted 50 million "climate refugees" in 2005.

Seen any of those refugees lately?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:56 PM on 04/29/2011
You would if you bothered to visit Kanhapur and Orissa, among other municipalities which are now underneath the tides.

Or how about an even more exotic place? How about Houston, Texas, where 90,000 climate refugees live today as a result of Hurricane Katrina?

Bagger please.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Andrew Harvey
Don't F with the Jesus
10:15 PM on 04/29/2011
Yeah 90,000 stupid people who decided that living below sea level in a state that gets hit by hurricanes every ten years was an acceptable risk. I would have some sympathy, but New Orleans was below sea level when they got there.

By the way, isn't it interesting that the temperature has been trending up for all that time, yet we've only been burning fossil fuels (in significant quantity) for the last hundred years? Is there anything in that data to suggest a horrible run-away effect of global warming?