Can someone explain, global warming...so why is the summer wetter not sunny?

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

This summers weather has absolutely nothing to do with global warming. You can%26#039;t blame weather you don%26#039;t like on global warming. Weather just is, it is natural. Read your history books - It has been warmer in the past, wetter in the past, colder in the past, and dryer in the past. 16% 5 Votes

Other Answers (15)

• Weather = a phenomenon localised in both time (usually one season or less) and place
  Climate change = a medium-term (%26gt;ten years) phenomenon over the entire planet.
  
  Weather is not the same as global warming.
  
  Global warming models predict that weather patterns are likely to become less predictable (they change) with increasing incidents of extremes (wetter, colder, hotter or drier than usual).
  As the planet warms, weather patterns will change - although in general the planet will get warmer (note: not drier; warmer - and probably wetter overall), some areas will get colder.
  
  Having one wet summer in one place fits into global warming predictions. It also, however, fits into general random weather events.
  No conclusions one way or another can be drawn. 13% 4 Votes
• I remember hearing last year that this is because the Jet Stream has moved, and is now sitting over the UK dumping summer rain that previously fell on Norway.
  
  Global warming is likely to have all sorts of strange effects on the world%26#039;s currents and weather patterns, and not enough yet is really known.
  
  The big scare is the melting of the permafrost over Northern Russia. This will change the colour of the landscape from white to brown, which will absorb the sun%26#039;s energy rather than reflecting it. Furthermore a lot of methane is locked up in peat bogs in Siberia, which have been under permafrost for many millennia. If these melt and the methane is released, the greenhouse effect will be greatly increased.
  
  The other thing affects us in the UK. The melting of the rivers in Siberia mean that the great rivers there are now flowing into the Arctic Ocean fed by melting glaciers all over Siberia. This is desalinating the ocean. Now the Gulf Stream conveyor depends on salt water (liquid) sinking under the surface ice near Greenland and then being squeezed southwards on the sea bed. If the Arctic Ocean loses too much of its salinity, then insufficient water will sink and therefore there may not be enough push to feed the water south. If that happens, then the warm surface will not flow north either from the Caribbean to Northern Europe. The UK is on the same latitude as Alaska and Moscow. Yes people still live in these latitudes, but we can expect colder winters and shorter more sudden summers; spring and autumn would disappear. 3% 1 Vote
• The is no recorded phenomena where more co2 in the atmosphere will cause severe weather. More co2 is supposed to increase temperatures which should cause more severe weather (theoretically). The problem is that during the past year temperatures have fallen not risen.
  
  It is hard to take people seriously when they blame all weather events on %26quot;global warming%26quot;. To much rain global waring, not enough rain global warming, too hot global warming, too cold global warming. They have covered all of your bases haven%26#039;t they? 3% 1 Vote
• For a more concise definition you could look up Wikipedia or any latest encyclopedia. I do not agree with those claiming that its natural and there is nothing humans can do about it. Such irresponsible responses are the very reason there is global warming. Though expert advice differs, there is more consensus now that before that human actions contribute a lot to climatic change. Those in developed countries are not mindful of the fact that the only reason we have huge super markets and highways is because the majority of the world do not consume as much as we do. The consumption levels of developed countries are simply unsustainable. 6% 2 Votes
• Well there once was some global warming but it ended almost 70 years ago during WWII. So yes it is a lie and yes there exists a trail of money leading to the responsible parties for it. What the lie is comes from deliberate alteration of temperature records from two periods. The period from 1921 to 1945 was adjusted lower to fit the early part of the hockey stick graph because they were higher than the 1990 through 2005 period. Next they raised the 1990 to 2005 temperatures above what they really were to help give the significant blade part of the graph. Then all the historical data back to the year 1000 was adjusted to stay well below the 1998 portion of the altered graph so they could claim 1998 was the hottest year in the history of the earth while in actuality there are several hundred years that were significantly hotter.
  
  So reality shows that 1998 was the second hottest year in the last 100 years and that 5 out of 10 of the hottest years in the last 100 were in the 1920s and 1930s. If you were to create a new hockey stick graph based on real world temperature averages you would find that the blade would end in its rise at about 1939 and look like a very rough horizontal saw blade from that point to today with no peak in the saw teeth higher than the 1934 peak. And with parts of the wiggly handle significantly higher than the 1934 peak temperature average.
  
  Now let us get to the money trail and the key persons responsible for this con game. After the flop of the 1973 oil embargo con the oil companies were stuck with large amounts of oil and refined product in storage that they were having a hard time selling so they reduced prices to move product. This cut their profits in half and made them very unhappy. Another thing that made them unhappy was the building of nuclear power plants and the plans being made to build massive solar power plants in orbit. The oil companies elected Jimmy Carter as president in 1976 to curb or eliminate these programs that would competes with oil and coal at lower cost.
  
  The first presidential order stopped the recycling of all nuclear materials and forced the costly storage of them instead. This in itself made nuclear power plant operations a hundred time more costly than before. Then another order opened the construction of new plants and refurbishment of old plants to litigation without merit. Thus any group could tie up the construction or repair of a plant for 20 to 30 years in court without needing to prove up front their suit was valid. And when that suit was tossed out of court another would be made strictly to prevent the construction of nuclear plants. Who benefited from this, only the trial lawyers and the oil companies.