2012 wettest year on record for Lincolnshire
Annual rainfall figures have revealed 2012 was the wettest year on record in Lincolnshire.
Some 841mm of rain fell across the county, beating the former record set one hundred years ago in 1912.
Met Office data shows 2012 was only the second year since records began in 1910, that annual rainfall surpassed 800mm in Lincolnshire.
In 1912, 827mm fell in the county and the next closest total was 800mm in 1960.
Hurry Up!!! Special £5 Voucher for Nepalese and Indian Takeaway
View details
We are providing £5 voucher for all online registered customer. Register online at www.everestxpress.co.uk
or visit our Takeaway with a copy of this voucher. Call us on 01522541930 for more details.
Terms: Visit our website for full T & C.
Contact: 01522541930
Valid until: Friday, May 31 2013
December 2012 was the fifth wettest on record at 103.4mm and the most rainy Christmas month was in 1978 with 147mm of rain.
Wet weather has caused problems across the county with flood alerts and warnings put in place affecting homes, businesses and transport.
The A57 at Dunham Bridge was recently closed for several days as the section of road became impassable due to flooding.
Earlier in the year, the first hosepipe ban in Lincolnshire for 20 years was issued but a wet summer changed the course of 2012.






Comments
by Fragpig2
Wednesday, January 09 2013, 9:42AM
“@eatmygoal
Of course the last 16 yrs lack of warming is significant it flies in the face of every model prediction, and yes there was an El Nino effect but this was played down, because of course it was man-made warming which gave us the hot years at the end of the 20th century not El Nino, only now do they acknowledge it.
The fact is 0.8C rise over 150 yrs is not out of the realms of natural variablility, the temp has risen and fallen more in the past (that is not to say CO2 hasn't added some warmth).”
by eatmygoal
Tuesday, January 08 2013, 4:50PM
“No, the reason for the 16 year relatively low increase is because two points have been chosen in order to show a minimal rise for a biased view point presented in the Mail by someone. If he had chosen any other years then there would have been a rise. Why chose 1997? Was there something signigicant? El Nino, which caused a higher than normal temperature. Constantly referencing the 16 year relatively low increase isn't helping.
That there isn't a concensus is interesting. There is a majority who feel this way, same as there is a majority who feel that climate change is man made. But whether they are listened to depends on your starting point rather than anything they say.
Also the "we were told", part. We were told by whom?”
by Fragpig2
Tuesday, January 08 2013, 4:21PM
“re: my previous comment, via bbc website met office has down graded it warming predictions, it looks kie the 16 yr hiatus is now going to be 20yrs”
by Fragpig2
Tuesday, January 08 2013, 3:42PM
“@eatmygoal
The tipping point to which you refer is very controversial, it is not part of the consensus on global warming, it has no precedent, but it is very news worthy, the majority of climate scientists do not believe there is a tipping point where upon positive feedbacks cause runaway warming, in fact it is far more likely there are feedbacks that keep the warming in check, which may be why the temperature increasing has had a 16yr hiatus.
The West has held back the rise in emissions, but we haven't managed to cut them.
It was in April this year that droughts were forecast as a thing to come, or was that the EU directive telling our government that we use 137 ltrs of water a day and member states were to reduce this to 120 ltrs. In 2000 we were told snow in Winter was a thing of the past, then we have 3 in a row coldest on record. We were told weather is not the same a climate, then we have rain ie weather and told it is the climate.”
by Pete67
Tuesday, January 08 2013, 3:17PM
“Fragpig2 - If it turns out to be cooling and not warming we'll get a 'cooling tax', but still keep the 'warming tax', just in case they decide they're wrong.”
by eatmygoal
Tuesday, January 08 2013, 3:17PM
“"the 0.8 rise in temp has had little effect on sea level" so far. There is a tipping point at which there will be an increase in the height of the sea levels. How far is unknown but to say it has not gone up after .8 ignores the expenetial effect of temperature increases.
We have already covered the point about the temperature rises. First the temperature has gone up, secondly the points from which you are using is flawed. There has been a signigicant increase over the past 100 years and where the western world has cut down on previous large amounts of CO2 emmisions, China has taken over.
I think it is a bit sweeping to say every model has been proven wrong. A number of models said that the UK would become wetter. Which it has been. It remains to be seen if that is a trend or random.”
by Fragpig2
Tuesday, January 08 2013, 2:41PM
“There is no empirical evidence that a substantial part of the warming is man-made, it is only theoretical and thus far every prediction made by the models has been proved wrong by the actual physical world.
Yes, sea levels were higher in prehistoric times, but we are not talking about 7-8C rise, latest estimates are a doubling of CO2 will produce about 1.3-1.4C rise, the 0.8 rise in temp has had little effect on sea level. With substantial rises of CO2 emissions from China, India, etc over the last 2 decades there has been no rise in temp over the last 16 yrs from satellite data. Climate scientists said that temps had to not rise for firstly 7yrs, then 10 yrs, then 16yrs for it not to be significant, what will they say next year?”
by Fragpig2
Tuesday, January 08 2013, 2:41PM
“There is no empirical evidence that a substantial part of the warming is man-made, it is only theoretical and thus far every prediction made by the models has been proved wrong by the actual physical world.
Yes, sea levels were higher in prehistoric times, but we are not talking about 7-8C rise, latest estimates are a doubling of CO2 will produce about 1.3-1.4C rise, the 0.8 rise in temp has had little effect on sea level. With substantial rises of CO2 emissions from China, India, etc over the last 2 decades there has been no rise in temp over the last 16 yrs from satellite data. Climate scientists said that temps had to not rise for firstly 7yrs, then 10 yrs, then 16yrs for it not to be significant, what will they say next year?”
by eatmygoal
Tuesday, January 08 2013, 1:58PM
“Going back in history as you have done, when the world was warmer the average height of the sea was up to 10 meters higher. Some might be happy to see somewhere like London vanish and probably New York but I am keen on keeping them.
It is hard to say what is causing the rise in temperature but just because it has been natural before does not mean it is the case this time.
http://tinyurl.com/cllnubb”
by Fragpig2
Tuesday, January 08 2013, 12:28PM
“The Earth has warmed much more and quicker in the past with no human interference. The Earth has warmed 0.8C in 150 yrs granted and Co2 is a greenhouse gas and will have contibuted to the warming, this is the consensus that everyone quotes.There is no consensus however that the warming isn't predominately natural and that it is going to be catastrophic, in fact i think the consensus is that it is not going to be catastrophic. 500 million yrs ago the world ave temp was 22C it is now 14-15C, Co2 levels were alot higher meaning plants grew big enough to support the sizes dinosaurs grew to, thats why there's oil under poles, a warmer earth will support more life, the poles are practically devoid of life. The latest leak of the IPCC report shows that climate sensitivity to CO2 is half what was proposed before, sea levels haven't risen, the maldives are still above water (but still want richer countries to pay them compensation), every prediction re temp/sea level etc has been completely wrong. Hurricane activity is at an all time low, temps have plateaued, the only thing on the increase is green tax!”