Met Office Accused Of Misleading Public Over Rainfall Trends

From Dr. Benny Peiser at The GWPF

Questions Over Met Office Rain & Drought Predictions

The forecast for average UK rainfall slightly favours drier-than-average conditions for April-May-June as a whole, and also slightly favours April being the driest of the 3 months. With this forecast, the water resources situation in southern, eastern and central England is likely to deteriorate further during the April-May-June periodThis forecast is based on information from observations, several numerical models and expert judgement. Met Office 3-month Outlook, 23 March 2012

Seventeen counties in South West England and the Midlands have moved into official drought status, after two dry winters have left rivers and ground waters depleted. The news comes as the Environment Agency warned that the drought could last beyond Christmas. While rain over the spring and summer will help to water crops and gardens, it is unlikely to improve the underlying drought situation. –Environmental Agency, 16 April 2012

There’s evidence to say we are getting slightly more rain in total, but more importantly it may be falling in more intense bursts” — Julia Slingo, Met Office, 3 January 2013

The frequency of extreme rainfall in the UK may be increasing, according to analysis by the Met Office. Statistics show that days of particularly heavy rainfall have become more common since 1960. The analysis is still preliminary, but the apparent trend mirrors increases in extreme rain seen in other parts of the world. –Roger Harrabin, BBC News, 3 January 2013

In the wake of the “more rain and more intense rain” story, Doug Keenan sends this graph of England & Wales rainfall records for 1766-2012. Let’s just say the trend towards more rainfall is not obvious. As indeed is any trend towards less rainfall, which is said to be more likely by the UK Climate Impacts Programme. –Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, 5 January 2013

Suddenly, after a wet year, which naturally the Met Office failed to forecast, they have reversed their customary fiery slogans to “Après nous le deluge”. Their antediluvian joy has given way to postdiluvian melancholy. They appear to have difficulty with the concept of random sequences of events, such as the precise positioning of the jet stream, and the fact that they produce apparent patterns and records. It was primitive man’s inability to envisage an effect without human cause that gave rise to much of religion. Of course it would have been most impressive if they had predicted all this a year ago, but they did not. Their predictions are as changeable as the weather and the only constant is the putative cause. –John Brignell, Number Watch, 3 January 2013

The Met Office continues to suffer from its recently acquired pretensions about climate. Careless remarks about BBQ summers and snowless winters and droughts in the UK have all been followed by Mother Nature failing to comply with their wishful thinking – the wishful bit being their hope that their faith in the power of CO2 in the system, or at least in computer models giving it a powerful effect, can be relied upon. –John Shade, Bishop Hill, 5 January 2013

My take on all this is that the alarmists are just getting desperate, spinning any weather and data to suit the CO2 thesis. Remember that the record annual rainfall for England is still less than the average annual rainfall for Scotland, hence if the average track of the jet stream is a little further south than usual then England gets a fair bit more rain. It has nothing to do with the alleged warmer atmosphere having more potential to store H20; if it was why did north-west Scotland have a drought in the spring and early summer? More bollocks from the Met Office. The UK weather and climate is determined by the track of the jet stream (and moderated by the Gulf Stream), and CO2 has feck all to do with it. –Lapogus, Bishop Hill, 5 January 2013

About these ads

162 thoughts on “Met Office Accused Of Misleading Public Over Rainfall Trends

  1. At least we can be comforted by the fact that senior management in the UK’s Met Office continues to draw its bonuses.

    The Met Office’s long term weather forecasts are so inaccurate and laughable that no one really takes any notice of them anymore, which is exactly why we can trust their peers’ long term climate forecasts.

    The models cannot lie!

    /Sarc off.

  2. In Antifragile, Taleb warns us off experts/forecasters without skin in the game, without doxastic commitment, without cost for being wrong. He also denigrates academics “teaching birds to fly.”

  3. In between expeditions snorkelling through my garden to check how the recommended drought-resistant plants are doing, I found this:

    http://www.clickgreen.org.uk/research/trends/123682-how-global-warming-will-change-the-face-of-uk-suburbs.html

    “Britain’s suburbs will need a radical overhaul to cope with the effects of global warming, which will include decades of drought, soaring temperatures and violent storms.”

    Good timing chaps. Oh, the joys of ivory tower ‘research’ projects! Have you considered jobs talking complete boll*cks at the Met Office?

  4. Is this not just another example of what seems ot becoming more and more obvious; that the sort of certainty that the IPCC cliamed was true with respect to CAGW, in it’s previous four reports, is now being proven to be wrong on the basis of empirical evidence? The leaked copy of the AR 5 shows that the SPM still contains the usual IPPC claims that “the science is settled”. Is not this failure by the Met. Office merely another example that, with respect to CAGW, the science is far from settled?

  5. Maybe if they had another more expensive computer and bigger bonuses ( not related to performance) they could make better worse predictions with co2 as the forcing agent. Please send more money for us to get the right message across.

  6. These people, led by Slingo and Harrabin are dangerous demagogues. The latter claimed a 4% increase in atmospheric humidity yet TPW has been falling as temperature has fallen.

  7. I watched the Harrabin piece when it was shown on the Beeb. I now have to find out if the resulting boot through the screen is claimable on the insurance policy.

  8. Sadly, despite having one of the world’s largest computer centres the Met Office ‘forecasts’ (predictions?) are often more accurate if inverted.

  9. What? The Met Office got it wrong AGAIN? They obviously need a new, more power consuming, computer! I am just wondering when the broken record will be changed, it’s been spinning since the early 80’s!

  10. The Met Office is a joke. A few weeks ago I was sat at lunchtime watching as 3″ of snow fell leaving the city in chaos; why? because the Met Office hadn’t predicted snow, there was an “Amber Weather Warning” for cold weather in the NE of England, no mention of snow. The snow fell from Northern Scotland to Kent along the East of the country so it was not a local quirk. Gritters and snow ploughs were not deployed so the NE was gridlocked as stranded cars blocked roads. It took my daughter 5 hours to get home from 17 miles away, 99% of this journey is on the A1.
    BBQ summers, our children not seeing snow, droughts etc etc etc. This is the c**p that our taxes pay for, because they have not had the sense to change the programming of their £66,000,000 computer to tell it that there has been no GW, anthropogenic or otherwise for 16 years!

  11. Come on chaps, the Met Office is not all bad. They did a spectacular job on June 5th when they predicted stormy conditions in the English Channel would abate for the next 24 hrs as a depression reversed its track and moved S.E. On this basis, Eisenhower launched the D Day landings in Normandy on the following day and the weather proved kind. The German Met Office had predicted continuing poor weather so Rommel (Normandy Commander) had taken time off and was well away from his post when the invasion started. In the rush to get back, a British fighter plane shot up his car and I believe he was slightly wounded which kept him from command at a crucial moment.
    OK, this happened in 1944 and the Met Office didn’t have any computers, thank God. The only computer in the world sat at Bletchley Park having been invented by Turing and his associates and was used to decipher German codes.

  12. cui bono

    Thanks for that link.

    We are in desperate need for ‘community cool rooms’ and shading and shelter for cycle paths it recommends….

    It would be interesting to know how much the long suffering tax payer paid for this piece of nonsense.

    tonyv

  13. IS anyone actually formally complaining about this? A letter to an MP copied to the Met Office would at least put the marker in…

  14. England+Wales precipitation since 1766:

    No trend whatsoever, all kinds of records broken long time ago.

    [.. records "set" long time ago? Mod]

  15. I heard the state broadcaster (BBC Radio Scotland) spouting the “rainfall is becoming more intense” propaganda message on my way home from work on Thursday. I did swear at the radio I must admit. Then I thought to myself I’ll be reading about this on WUWT in a couple of days, no doubt.

    It is amazing (and has been said here hundreds of times) how all the makers of failed predictions keep their jobs and never suffer any adverse consequences – Viner, Hansen, Met Office, on and on. That tells us what kind of system we are living under (hint: it’s not free and open government, by the people for the people).

  16. The UK Met. Office make false predictions with impunity. The only requirement seems to be that each prediction must be more alarming than its predecessor. Because, rather than being held to account when their predictions are proven totally wrong, they use this fact to justify even more spending on larger computers and computer models. That, unfortunately, is how publically funded bodies operate.
    As 2012 comes to and end showing no significant warming, yet another piece of Met.Office alarmism bites the dust. In 2009 they confidently predicted “that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998)”.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8299079.stm

    With three of those years gone and with none of them hotter than 1998, according to Met.Office measures, we can call an early fail on this prediction as well.
    Will they apologise for it? Well…….

  17. It’s high time for Julia to sling(o) her hook. She is obviously incapable of performing the task she’s supposed to be paid for – forecasting the weather rather than forecasting climate doom. She [can] take a few of her fellow doomsayers along with her and good riddance.

  18. According to the UK Met Office “Historic Station Data”, the Met/BBC “greatest rainfall on record” scary story is based on 35 UK weather stations*. The earliest station data goes back to only 1853, and comes from only 2 stations, based at Oxford and Armagh. By 1914, only 7 stations had been added. The total of 35 stations have only been in operation since 1941 (probably prompted by the military requirements of WW2). *Note: 2 stations have been recently closed; Southampton, ceased operations in 2000 and Ringway (near Manchester), which only operated from 1946 to 2004.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/stationdata/

  19. Paul Homewood says:

    January 5, 2013 at 7:50 am

    I’d forgotten that the Met forecast,in their 3 month outlook on 20th Nov, that rainfall would be below av for December.
    Instead, Dec turned out the wettest month of the year.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/j/i/A3_plots-precip-DJF.pdf

    ============
    Indeed, the wettest month of a record-breakingly wet year in England.

    Cue the picture of the London bus bearing the legend ‘We are in drought’ – in the pouring rain.

  20. Let’s play “Spin the Climate Forcast Wheel”. It’s simply the permutation of the following words: Hotter, colder with drier, wetter with summer, winter. Let me see, next year will be….spin spin spin…”we have a winner!”

    Hotter, wetter summer followed by a colder, drier winter.

  21. If anyone wants the secret to my excellent predictions, it’s a combination of historical but heavily adjusted data, expert opinion, expensive computer models, and a shiny coin with heads and tails.

  22. Unfortunately it is also picked up by the meeja – Tom Clarke the Science Editor of Channel 4 News in the UK has been in a frenzy about the Met Office summary of only ‘the second wettest year ever in the UK’ (ok, since records began, er relatively recently). Outrageous uncorrected porkies, like continuing ‘trend for warmth’ (no statistical warming for 16 years), or ‘predicted by the computer models’ (no graphs showing the IPCC failed predictions vs reality), and attribution, without any evidence whatsoever, of whatever warming there has been to human causes.

  23. Mann oh Mann….wish I had taken that double-speak course way back when instead of engineering.

  24. The assessments of the Met Office performance seems to be derived from any cases that embarrass the PM

  25. It would be fun to compare the success of America’s full-year in advance weather forecasting publication called “The Farmer’s Almanac” [publishes its forecast for the year in January] and see how accurate they are compared to the Met in the UK. I would put money on OFA vs MET. I believe that all the Farmer’s Almanac forecasts are online.

  26. Grumpy Old Man says: January 5, 2013 at 8:02 am “OK, this happened in 1944 and the Met Office didn’t have any computers, thank God. The only computer in the world sat at Bletchley Park having been invented by Turing and his associates and was used to decipher German codes.”

    The Bletchley Park collection of vacuum tubes and diodes did its job far better than all of the Super ___ computers (fill in the blanks) combined are doing with the GCMs, etc. Or, perhaps, the Bletchley Park boffins were far better at defining the problem, the variables, etc. and writing code than the practitioners of climate voodoo.

  27. Grumpy Old Man says:
    January 5, 2013 at 8:02 am
    >>
    Come on chaps, the Met Office is not all bad. They did a spectacular job on June 5th when they predicted stormy conditions in the English Channel would abate for the next 24 hrs as a depression reversed its track and moved S.E. On this basis, Eisenhower launched the D Day landings in Normandy on the following day and the weather proved kind. The German Met Office had predicted continuing poor weather so Rommel (Normandy Commander) had taken time off and was well away from his post when the invasion started. In the rush to get back, a British fighter plane shot up his car and I believe he was slightly wounded which kept him from command at a crucial moment.
    OK, this happened in 1944 and the Met Office didn’t have any computers, thank God. The only computer in the world sat at Bletchley Park having been invented by Turing and his associates and was used to decipher German codes.
    >>

    So, what you seem to be suggesting is that meteorologists can predict weather better than computers. The problem is they have all been decommissioned to pay for new computers that took their place.

    Does the Meteorological Office still have anyone that knows how to predict weather rather than just rearranging computer output into human readable format? Sadly, this is not a phenomenon limited to the Met. Office. It is endemic in our society now. Incompetence is the rule , not the exception and it’s always the “fault” of the computer.

    All complex societies seem to collapse for various reasons. Ours will probably implode once the last few old gits who know/knew how to do their job retire and die out.

    I give it 50y max.

  28. The Met Office’s long term weather forecasts are in fact very skillful in a funny sort of way. For example if they forecast dryer conditions then expect wetter and if they forecast wetter then expect dryer. The people of the UK have been using this method years with a good rate of success. I suggest that subscribers to their seasonal forecasts do the same. It rarely fails. ;-)

  29. Forgive me if I ask yet again the blindingly obvious question: if they can’t accurately predict the weather three months out, why should we take predictions for fifty or one hundred years hence seriously?

    If this kind of incompetence had occurred in private industry, these people would have been gone a long time ago. It’s time they stop pretending they know what they are doing. Their crystal ball is not working.

  30. What do you expect from an outfit that had Robert Napier (ex WWF-UK Chief Executive) at its head for six years up to September 2012?
    And indeed, John Houghton steering the ship 1983-1991?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1240082/It-gigantic-supercomputer-1-500-staff-170m-year-budget-So-does-Met-Office-wrong.html4

    Note that link is three years old!
    Nice to see that our old chum ‘Sir’ Brian Hoskins is a non-executive Director:-
    (Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, CBE, FRS is the Director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College, London)

    Nothing changes.

  31. Coming soon:

    “UK Met Office announces their most hopeless year of forecasting since records began – but spokesperson says only slightly worse than 2009 and 2010″.

  32. Why is it that the Met Office’s failures increase with every expensive supercomputer replacement? Might it have something to do with built in bias against a certain trace gas?

  33. OK I am getting confused. I was under the impression that the “Met Office” was the U.K.’s subsidized version of the US for profit “The Onion” over here.

    The “Met Office” released written PR predictions were to be inverted by design. British High Comedy at its best. Monty Python or Blackadder like.

    If, however, the “Met Office” isn’t subsidized comedy, I don’t know what to say.

  34. Paul Homewood says:
    January 5, 2013 at 7:50 am
    Cue the picture of the London bus bearing the legend ‘We are in drought’ – in the pouring rain.
    ———————————-
    David L says:
    January 5, 2013 at 8:52 am
    Let’s play “Spin the Climate Forcast Wheel”.
    ———————————-
    Two great images that say it all and I would not have seen them but for WUWT. I had the London bus “we are in drought” picture printed out and sat on my desk for a couple of weeks. Problem is, nobody gives a rat’s ass, apart from us, obviously.

    I had a colleague say to me once: “oh, they’ll get their taxes anyway, whatever”. Apparently some people like being robbed, think it’s normal

  35. I remember a met office spokesman being interviewed on tv – the presenter said to him –
    ” Historically you are more often wrong than right” to which the metman replied “Not true. We are right 49% of the time”
    Nothing more to say is there?
    Plain common sense says that since weather systems take 4 days or so to track across the Atlantic to the UK, trying to predict more than 4 days in advance is a pointless exercise.

  36. As indeed is any trend towards less rainfall, which is said to be more likely by the UK Climate Impacts Programme

    Lead by Richards Betts, he of blog fame. Director of climate impacts.

  37. David L says:
    January 5, 2013 at 8:52 am
    Let’s play “Spin the Climate Forcast Wheel”.

    I seem to remember that MIT USA invented one of those a year or two ago. Was on WUWT.

  38. Ack says:

    January 5, 2013 at 9:56 am

    Eventually they will get one right, then it will be….we told you so

    Wishful thinking on your part or theirs ?? :))

  39. I wonder if they can turn their predictive powers to Premier League football or any other sport where I can bet against them. Daddy needs a new car.

  40. tired of getting angry about it says:
    January 5, 2013 at 9:07 am

    Unfortunately it is also picked up by the meeja – Tom Clarke the Science Editor of Channel 4 News in the UK has been in a frenzy about the Met Office summary of only ‘the second wettest year ever in the UK’ (ok, since records began, er relatively recently). Outrageous uncorrected porkies, like continuing ‘trend for warmth’ (no statistical warming for 16 years), or ‘predicted by the computer models’ (no graphs showing the IPCC failed predictions vs reality), and attribution, without any evidence whatsoever, of whatever warming there has been to human causes.
    ———————————-
    It is brainwashing on an “unprecedented” scale, and I am getting tired of getting angry about it too – now I just think: don’t worry about the sheep, most of them will never wake up, this is something we just have to live with . Hope for the best (government is kind, our best interests at heart, etc.), prepare for the worst – got coal/oil/wood, water and storable food? Bow and arrows?

    This is the future they are planning for us. AGENDA 21. We must pay. for our eco-sins Gia must be free. All hail the UN and the UN FCCC, Rio Summit, Copenhagen…

    Aye, right..

    /rant

  41. As part of the BBC’s coverage of the news that 2012 wasn’t actually the wettest on record, BBC reporters (inc. Harrabin) asked a series of leading questions, first to the CEO of the Eden Project and then to the owner of a fruit farm in Essex in a desperate, failed attempt to get someone to say “Global warming is ruining my business”. Hopefully the new DG will pay some attention to to Nigel Lawson’s open letter, weed the buggers out, and restore some credibility to the Beeb. I’m not holding my breath though…

  42. Does anyone know when the Met. Office started getting a better result than ‘just like yesterday’?
    It is amazing how their efficiency has falen since they became a political plaything.
    I beleive that a key to their success on D-Day ['The Longest Day'] was having weather observations from the Western Approaches [marine, submarine, and aviation sources] – in an area that had been systematically purged of any Nazi observers.
    Still took meteorologists to interpret it, though!
    I remember – probably fifty years ago, with fellow schoolboys, Dixon, Upstill, Nancekievill – doing weather forecasting in class. We were eight – nine, tops. Took the synopsis form the morning paper, and made predictions from that [after about a fifteen minute discussion, during morning 'playtime', so about 1030 LT]. Over four weeks – twenty school days – IIRC, we had about eight right. So did the Met. Office – although not completely the same eight. Looking back, I wish we had also noted how many right we would have got it right if we had said ‘just like yesterday’ everyday!

  43. “Grumpy Old Man says:
    January 5, 2013 at 8:02 am
    Come on chaps, the Met Office is not all bad. They did a spectacular job on June 5th when they predicted stormy conditions in the English Channel would abate for the next 24 hrs as a depression reversed its track and moved S.E. On this basis, Eisenhower launched the D Day landings in Normandy on the following day and the weather proved kind. ”

    Don’t give the met office any credit for this please. It was the RAF’s Group Captain Stagg who decided this. He was in charge of a team of armed forces meteorologists with met office as a small part. If it had been left to the met office alone we would all be speaking German now no doubt!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Stagg

  44. The Met and the media are their own worst enemy. The more they collude to promote their alarmist junk science based climate predictions, which never fail to be completely wrong, the more they loose credibility with the public. Eventually the majority view of the public will turn firmly against them and they will loose all ability to influence public opinion.

  45. Kitefreak said

    had a colleague say to me once: “oh, they’ll get their taxes anyway, whatever”. Apparently some people like being robbed, think it’s normal

    As a UK citizen:
    1) They WILL get my (not “their”) taxes anyway
    2) No. I don’t like being robbed
    3) Yes. It IS normal
    4) I cannot see anyway that is legal, honest and decent to change this sorry state (or State)
    5) I can’t afford to get too worked up about it – high blood pressure.

  46. Who advised Crighton on State of Fear, that was some forecasting? I did a lot of driving over the holidays and listen to it on cd, he had this whole scam laid out fairly accurately, less the dramatic octopus killings. I guess he could have looked at the acid rain or nuclear winter scares for guidance, but he nailed so many themes.

  47. Using the daily rainfall data for England and Wales from the Met Office site

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadukp/data/daily/HadEWP_daily_qc.txt

    which runs from 1931, it is possible to calculate the mean intensity of rainfall per rain day in each month.

    Looking at the trends from the intensity data the Pearson Product Moment Correlation results are:

    Rainfall Intensity
    R2 R Slope Intercept
    All Monthly 0.0016 0.0399 0.0019 -0.6327
    Annual 0.0158 0.1257 0.0016 -0.1166
    Jan 0.0002 -0.0123 -0.0006 4.5018
    Feb 0.0005 0.0229 0.0011 0.5147
    Mar 0.0028 0.0529 0.0022 -1.6761
    Apr 0.0073 0.0857 0.0034 -3.9774
    May 0.0061 -0.0783 -0.0028 8.3110
    Jun 0.0234 0.1528 0.0062 -9.4413
    Jul 0.0026 -0.0510 -0.0019 6.7183
    Aug 0.0017 -0.0413 -0.0017 6.5224
    Sep 0.0005 0.0219 0.0010 1.2868
    Oct 0.0067 0.0821 0.0044 -5.0043
    Nov 0.0003 -0.0170 -0.0009 5.5105
    Dec 0.0427 0.2066 0.0108 -17.8617

    None of these are significant at the 1% level.

    The number of Rain days shows the following:
    R2 R Slope Intercept
    All Monthly 0.0013 0.0356 0.0071 9.9350
    Annual 0.0122 0.1104 0.0065 11.1480
    Jan 0.0003 0.0162 0.0025 21.9127
    Feb 0.0086 0.0925 0.0156 -7.4305
    Mar 0.0244 0.1561 0.0312 -38.3161
    Apr 0.0013 -0.0359 -0.0079 37.3549
    May 0.0004 0.0191 0.0037 15.4490
    Jun 0.0034 0.0580 0.0114 -0.5451
    Jul 0.0068 -0.0826 -0.0153 53.4462
    Aug 0.0056 0.0746 0.0162 -7.8853
    Sep 0.0148 -0.1218 -0.0237 69.8067
    Oct 0.0179 0.1338 0.0270 -28.3507
    Nov 0.0238 0.1543 0.0222 -17.3032
    Dec 0.0000 -0.0069 -0.0011 28.9716

    Again none of these are significant at the 1% level.

    Thus while it is true that there is an apparent trend in the amount of rain per rain day over the period, there has been significant variability over the 82 years of record and the conclusion that rainfall is becoming more intense does not seem to be supported.

    Clearly data with a finer temporal resolution than a day might show a different picture, but from their own published data the conclusion of greater intensity does not seem to “carry water”.

  48. “Met Office Accused Of Misleading Public Over Rainfall Trends”

    I thought ‘New’ was the whole point of ‘News.’ This is a “Dog Bites Man” story. Now if they ever got caught accurately describing the weather trends you’d have a real headline.

  49. Here is a game that can be played from the land of David Suzuki and Andrew Weaver not to far off topic I hope, ” Delta flooding could be a climate change video game”. This game takes place in British Columbia Canada south of Vancouver in a densely populated area called Delta. Now Delta is built on a very low delta of the Fraser River and being at sea level is used as a bell ringer for warmest gnashing of teeth. Anyhow development in this area is not such a great idea, we have heard that story before, sea level rise or not. Pumps and dykes used. CBC is Canada’s version of BBC and ABC. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/01/04/bc-climate-change-game.html?cmp=rss

  50. I`m on the Big Island right now. There is a “drought“ on the slopes of Mauna Loa where they produce coffee: 110 inches of rain instead of their `normal` 170 inches. This is the 8th year or so. There has been very little precipitation for years on the tops of the volcanoes, where the top of the clouds are typically about 9000`: they need major storms to produce clouds, let alone rain or snow, above 9000`.

    Regional changes in wind patterns, moist air masses and storm tracks are clearly the `problem` for the Big Island. Not changes in the global temperatures.

    Like England, the Hawaiian Islands suggest that regional changes are very, very significant to a `changing`climate. Changes that are not being sufficiently considered in the CAGW narrative.

  51. With apologies to all those who are familiar with this old joke, it bears repeating.

    It was the late fall and the Indians on a remote reservation in South Dakota asked their new chief if the coming winter was going to be cold or mild. Since he was a chief in a modern society, he had never been taught the old secrets. When he looked at the sky, he couldn’t tell what the winter was going to be like.
    Nevertheless, to be on the safe side, he told his tribe that the winter was indeed going to be cold and that the members of the village should collect firewood to be prepared. But, being a practical leader, after several days, he got an idea. He went to the phone booth, called the National Weather Service and asked, ‘Is the coming winter going to be cold?’
    ‘It looks like this winter is going to be quite cold,’ the meteorologist at the weather service responded. So the chief went back to his people and told them to collect even more firewood in order to be prepared.
    A week later, he called the National Weather Service again. ‘Does it still look like it is going to be a very cold winter?’ ‘Yes,’ the man at National Weather Service again replied, ‘it’s going to be a very cold winter.’ The chief again went back to his people and ordered them to collect every scrap of firewood they could find.
    Two weeks later, the chief called the National Weather Service again. ‘Are you absolutely sure that the winter is going to be very cold?’ ‘Absolutely,’ the man replied. ‘It’s looking more and more like it is going to be one of the coldest winters we’ve ever seen.’
    ‘How can you be so sure?’ the chief asked. The weatherman replied, ‘The Indians are collecting a lot of firewood.’

  52. Oy, give us Brits some credit for wit! Let’s have the graph of historical rainfall shown on the BH pages as well, it’s a corker!

  53. Twittered Harrabin about the flip flop from drought expected to continue into 2013 and now more rain and heavier!!! and apparently it changed in the 1960s??? still awaiting a reply!LOL

  54. The volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 led to an unprecedented drop in land precipitation and runoff, and to widespread drought, as precipitation shifted from land to oceans and evaporation faltered

    http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v47/n1-2/p123-138/

    It is likely that measured rainfall has become intense, caused by decreased urban aerosols and the urban bias of the surface stations.

    Aerosols cause more persistent non-precipitating clouds near their source decreasing rainfall.

    BTW, the quote above is from a Trenbeth paper, where he states increased atmospheric temperatures (from GHGs) cause more intense precipitation, then cites the Pinatubo eruption as evidence. When volcanic eruptions cause cooling and the decreased precipitation is an aerosol effect.

    A classic example of poor logic and science, even by the low standards of climate science.

  55. I went to the GPWF website and clicked a link to the Met Office

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadukp/data/download.html

    I found this gem of science and statistical logic in explaining their historical precipitation data.

    “Please note, the last 6 months’ values are subject to change as a result of quality control. Also please note that we have re-calculated all daily and monthly UKP values from January 2006 to date using a more representative selection of stations, to counter the effect of various station closures over the past several years and to take advantage of some new stations which are now available. We have taken steps to ensure that this will not have affected the homogeneity of the series. This re-calculation was performed in May 2011.
    Full details of this re-calculation, including lists of stations used, are included within Climate Memorandum no. 29, available on request if you contact us.”

    Aren’t the phrases “quality control” “representative selection of stations” and “homogeneity” the ones we heard in regard to Met, IPCC, and CRU “quality controlling” historical temperature data?

    Simply, if the new data doesn’t conform to our models we will “homogenize” it and force it into the pattern we know is correct. We will permit no lumps in our beautiful creamy theories.

  56. Without wishing to appear sexist. Has anyone even noticed how disproportionate the number of female alarmists is?

    DaveE.

  57. AndrewMharding @ 7:48 am

    I feel your pain my friend. BUT I do like to be fair to the Met Office (as difficult as that is these days). You see their warnings on the TV etc. but large parts (perhaps as high as 75%) of the snow/ice warning to gritters and snow ploughs is done by private companies – they are cheaper.

  58. David A. Evans says:
    January 5, 2013 at 12:05 pm “Without wishing to appear sexist. Has anyone even noticed how disproportionate the number of female alarmists is?
    DaveE.”

    Women in piracy and as destroyers of prosperity seems recent but it is quite ancient. Ching Shih – commanded 1800 ships and more than 80,000 pirates — men, women, and even children. Ann Bonny and Mary Read were two of the most famous of women pirates. Hilary Clinton and Lisa Jackson also recently commanding ships of state, and after this season of heavy plunder, planning to step down and vanish from accountability for four years.

    Then of note is the fact that many mythical creatures and goddesses of destruction were female; to be dreaded especially are Sirens and witches, skilled in overthrowing men’s intellects using cultural, intellectual, and sensual enticements, and Eris, goddess of waste.

    lol :)

  59. David A. Evans says (January 5, 2013 at 12:05 pm)
    Without wishing to appear sexist. Has anyone even noticed how disproportionate the number of female alarmists is?
    ——–
    Without wishing to appear politically correct, but maybe we should set Judith Curry, Jo Nova, Lucia Liljegren, Donna Laframboise, Tamsin Edwards et al against this ‘monstrous regiment of women’. :-)

  60. The CO2 blaming cousin of the Met Office the BOM has released its Annual Australian Climate Statement 2012:

    http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20130103.shtml

    What you will read in the MSM and hear on the ABC is that the last decade has been one of Australia’s warmest on record with an anomaly of 0.44 deg C. And you will be informed of all the other records that were broken such as Birdsville’s earliest Spring 40 degree day and the highest October temperature being recorded for any NSW Coastal site at Evans Head.

    But what you will not hear about (unless you delve carefully into the report and find what seems to be written under duress) is that 2011 and 2012 were both cooler than other recent years with the La Niña inspired 2011 being BELOW the average and 2012 finishing just 0.11 deg C above. (Wasn’t CO2 supposed to be driving climate, not the Niño/Niña effect?)

    And you will be bombarded from Green and Labor Politicians that the present heat wave in the south of the country and the current Tasmanian bushfires are “extreme events” as a result of CO2 caused global warming. But you will not hear a word that the number of 8 cyclones in the region for 2012 was 3 below the long term average.

    Yep, which way the Southern Oscillation Index swings in the coming months is going to have a huge bearing on the political spin leading up to our 2013 Federal election next spring. There is a lot at stake – the future of the carbon tax, the climate bureaucracy, the renewable energy industry, in fact the country’s entire economy. At present the SOI is hovering and keeping us all in suspense which way it is going to turn. The weather is presently favouring the alarmist cause but I do not think they could withstand another year without the temperature anomaly climbing markedly up into the red.

  61. I can’t believe that NO one can see this taking place to drive carbon tax My pop used to say one day they will tax the air we breath and here we are .
    http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/31/64/49/PDF/angeo-16-1212-1998.pdf They carried this out back in the 90’s And they even showed us and Obama while he was picking up his prize in Europe The Norway Spiral http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsiSirIq4SA It was NO rocket and do you think there was a need to sign this back in the 70’s http://www.scribd.com/doc/3436120/UN-1976-Weather-Weapon-Treaty
    http://rense.com/general28/deathray.htm If we don’t ask the right questions the right answers will always be hidded from us POWER and CONTROL is the big picture for governing The one thing the average joe knows is what it’s like outside and because of weather modification people see the ever changing climate It’s always to hot or to cold and never just right this drives more money into the verry pockets of the biggest polluters the electrical industry Heating and cooling our homes are driven by OIL ,Coal and Gas .

  62. in the dark days when we had no computers or computer models, the long range weather bureau used the moon, sun, and past records . Indgo Jones forcasted all Australian drought and floods during his life to the month. look up him on the web .SHAME ON OUR WEATHER BUREAU SACK THE LOT

  63. I knew global warming had to figure in this somehow.

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_CHINA_COLDEST_WINTER?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-01-05-07-52-05

    Brrr! China’s coldest winter in decades at new low

    BEIJING (AP) — China is experiencing unusual chills this winter with its national average temperature hitting the lowest in 28 years, and snow and ice have closed highways, canceled flights, stranded tourists and knocked out power in several provinces.
    China Meteorological Administration on Friday said the national average was -3.8 degrees Celsius (25 degrees Fahrenheit) since late November, the coldest in nearly three decades.
    The average temperature in northeast China dipped to -15.3 degrees C (4.5 degrees F), the coldest in 43 years, and dropped to a 42-year low of -7.4 degrees C (18.7 degrees F) in northern China.

    [snip]

    The national meteorological administration said China is seeing dropping temperatures partly because of south-moving polar cold fronts, caused by melting polar ice from global warming. It said the air is moist and likely to dump heavy snow in China, Europe and North America.

  64. Someone could really help the Met Office by breaking in one night and carting away their their £66,000,000 computer. Then they would have to fall back on the methods that made successful forecasts for the Normandy Landing on 6 June 1944. Either that or they could buy a copy of the Old Farmers Almanac and work it out from that, or alternatively just employ Piers Corbyn to advise them with his laptop.

  65. [The national meteorological administration said China is seeing dropping temperatures partly because of south-moving polar cold fronts, caused by melting polar ice from global warming.]

    If the pole is boiling and melting polar ice, wouldn’t south-moving polar air cause a heat wave?

  66. David A. Evans says (January 5, 2013 at 12:05 pm)
    Without wishing to appear sexist. Has anyone even noticed how disproportionate the number of female alarmists is?

    ===================

    None of my female friends or I are taken in by this nonsense, I am pleased to say. Mind you, I have persuaded some who were once sitting on the fence. Luckily, I have been researching this subject for the last 6 or 7 years and have cogent answers for those who get their evidence from the print newspapers or the BBC, thanks to WUWT and other sceptical sites.

  67. S. 517 (109th): Weather Modification Research and Development Policy Authorization Act of 2005
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s517/text It’s this process that is driving climate change And what do you think is happening to the tropopause while this eves dropping process takes place 24/7 day and night http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/5/2/3 is this the driver for El & La nino I see this as a major blocker for the north, south magnetic field line (the tropopause)

  68. Readers might be interested in a transcript I made of BBC’s Horizon programme about “Global Weirding”, shown on 27th March 2012:

    https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20120327_hz

    The following segment features Met Office meteorologists Helen Chivers and Adam Scaife.

    Helen Chivers: The point of the weather forecast, when you get down to the nitty-gritty, is getting the extreme weather events – the heavy rainfall, the high temperatures, the forecasts for those – absolutely spot-on, so people can get correct warnings in the right time scales, so that they can take precautions to save themselves if they need to.

    Narrator: And the one thing weather forecasters have managed to improve, over the years, is the accuracy of the forecast. The five-day forecast is now as accurate as the one-day forecast was, 30 years ago. That could be vital, in a future predicted to be dominated by extreme weather events. The technological development that’s driven the improved accuracy in the forecast floats thousands of miles above us – satellites.

    Helen Chivers: We’ve got so much more information because of all the satellites that are up there. And we know that you need to know what’s going on globally, to get a good forecast of what’s going to happen in the UK and around the world for the next five days. You can’t do it without global coverage, and satellites have given us that global coverage.

    Narrator: Satellites provide huge amounts of information about the world’s most extreme weather events. But making sense of them requires one of these. [Scenes of computer banks with flashing lights.] This is the Met Office’s computer behemoth. It only came online three years ago, and it can do a hundred trillion calculations a second. That’s the equivalent of a hundred thousand PCs, and it makes it one of the biggest number-crunchers in the world.

    Helen Chivers: We need that power. Partly because we’ve got millions of observations coming into the super computer every day. But it’s also trying to calculate what the weather’s going to be like on that grid, all the way around the globe, up to five days ahead and beyond, because we use the same model that we do our day-to-day forecasts on, for our climate forecasts, that go hundreds of years into the future.

    Narrator: And that computing power could be a vital weapon in the coming struggle with global weather extremes, allowing the Met Office to develop new kinds of weather forecasts.

    Adam Scaife: The big new idea in climate science is not just to look at the distant future, 100 years ahead. Of course, that’s very important – it tells us what road we’re on. But in the near term, on planning time scales, years or months ahead, when people are making real decisions, then the big thing is to increase the skill of the forecast on those time scales. Maybe give some warning, weeks or months ahead, of impending extremes, perhaps even unprecedented extremes. That’s what we’re really trying to do with this.

  69. I’ve always wondered about orgs that choose the name bureau they should just name it bureaucracy and stop misleading people.

  70. In Maroochydore Qld Australia there was a day in March 2012 where four inches of rain fell in one hour – the rest of the day was pretty wet as well.

    I remember 1974 when it rained an inch an hour for almost a day and flooded Brisbane.

    I saw records for Mirani Qld where it rained at 2 inches an hour for 48 hours before the data recorder ran out of paper – that also in the 70s.

    Match that UK Met. Office.

  71. More frequent heavy rain events wouldn’t surprise me but as a result of the clean air acts. It goes like this, clean air act means there are fewer nuclei (eg SO2) for raindrops to form on so water vapour increases locally until it eventually starts to rain and that causes heavier rain events, of course after taking account of jetstream variations. What is wrong with this hypothesis?

  72. son of mulder says:
    January 5, 2013 at 2:48 pm
    More frequent heavy rain events wouldn’t surprise me but as a result of the clean air acts. It goes like this, clean air act means there are fewer nuclei (eg SO2) for raindrops to form on so water vapour increases locally until it eventually starts to rain and that causes heavier rain events, of course after taking account of jetstream variations. What is wrong with this hypothesis?

    Fewer cloud condensing nuclei means bigger raindrops that precipitate (fall to the ground) faster, ie heavier rain.

  73. Grumpy Old Man says: (January 5, 8:02 am)
    … “The only computer in the world sat at Bletchley Park having been invented by Turing and his associates and was used to decipher German codes.”

    And, lest we forget, after WWII, the UK Gov’t happily flogged off all the Enigma machines to anyone who was interested without revealing that the encryption had been cracked, and hoovered up other people’s secret information for years. Misleading people, one way or another, is what they do.

    Do I, as a UK citizen, trust “my” Government?

    Yes.

    Just not enough for anyone to notice.

  74. Met Office Accused Of Misleading Public Over Rainfall Trends
    From Dr. Benny Peiser at The GWPF
    Questions Over Met Office Rain & Drought Predictions

    This is just an attempt to distract from the real story, which is that 2012 saw the second highest recorded rainfall total in the UK and the highest ever recorded in England, since records began in 1910. But more revealing is the fact that 4 out of the 5 wettest years recorded have been since the year 2000.

    Forecasts and predictions are just that, but far more important for monitoring climate change are actual measurements. Its not worth paying much attention to weather forecasts in the UK much beyond a few days, occasionally longer (ie a week or so) if a pattern is well established, because we live in one of the most dynamic weather zones in the world.

    Also, since when has the GWPF been a reliable source of scientific information ? They cannot even manage to reproduce articles from well respected publications accurately as they feel it necessary to change the titles of some articles to suit their obviously biased agenda.

  75. Now wait a minute, I think I’ve got it, by jove, I think I’ve got it!

    The rain in spain falls mainly from the plane. No, not quite right.
    The rain in spain falls mainly on the plain. Sort of a catchy little rhyme.

    Spain is a suburb of London is it not ? I guess us sixth generation ex-colonists
    are a bit geographically and historically challenged

  76. “The national meteorological administration said China is seeing dropping temperatures partly because of south-moving polar cold fronts, caused by melting polar ice from global warming.”

    This is the new pet theory that makes no sense because the jet stream is the boundary between polar air and tropical air. When the jet stream is further south it means the planets atmosphere is colder than it was previously. This change can happen quickly, but for the ocean energy changes are much slower. This is the sign of a cooling planet and the spin caused by melting polar ice doesn’t wash with me. Yes, less ice means more energy loss from the ocean, but it doesn’t explain the many milder winters in the NH while the ice had been declining for decades. Why all of a sudden change recently when this pattern has been ongoing for many years? The only thing that has changed was the solar activity declined suddenly around this recent period, so the obvious get’s avoided when there is a political agenda to continue.

    The facts are the NH ice is still melting while there has been no global warming for years, so this proves that a trend doesn’t need to continue for contributing to warming or cooling after. This is for especially those that can’t see any warming or cooling without the trend being continuous. I disagree totally here because there are numerous mechanisms where change in energy can be maintained, but the temperature still rise or fall after. The Arctic ice is one of them showing a decline continues after global temperatures had stopped warming. The energy stored from the ocean during the warming period therefore still continues to warm the Arctic from below.

  77. HIstory is chock full of extreme weather events which, were they to happen in these times, would be put down to man-made climate change.

    Just over a century ago, much of Norwich (future site of the UEA and CRU) was under water. On Monday 26th August 1912, some areas were said to have had 7 inches of rainfall over 30 hours, and many places ended up with five times the monthly average. Powerful winds caused havoc, rivers burst their banks across East Anglia, 40 bridges were destroyed, railways were blocked and the harvest was lost. After the storm, the river Wensum burst its banks and flood water began to surge into low-lying districts of the city, forcing residents to be evacuated by boat.

    Other parts of the UK were affected too. According to one newspaper report: “Owing to the floods, Norwich resembles an island city. The railways and telegraphs are interrupted. The flood is the greatest for a quarter of a century. Harvest fields are submerged. Many houses in Huntingdon are flooded, and the inhabitants of parts of Leicester are living in the upper stories, the lower stories being invaded by water. There have been heavy losses of stock in the Midlands.”

    A newspaper report from 26th August 1912: “The entire county of Norfolk is a swamp, and Lincolnshire, Suffolk and the other eastern counties are in alarming conditions. Everywhere crops are being destroyed by the swollen rivers, and there is no sign of cessation of the rains.”

    A report from 28th August 1912: “Telegrams dated Norwich, Monday, arrived in London (ninety-eight miles distant) last night. They conveyed the information that it had rained incessantly for seventeen hours, and there were several feet of water in many of the streets, on which boats were plying. Hundreds of people had quitted their houses and taken refuge in the schools on the higher levels, where food was being conveyed to them. Business was at a standstill in the city. The rainfall for twelve hours was 6.32 inches, and it was still raining. The rising waters yesterday stopped the majority of the dynamos on which the electric lighting system is dependent, and the city was plunged into darkness. The flood-waters have washed away a portion of the high mound on which the old Norman castle stands, near the centre of the city. King’s Lynn and the East Coast resorts, Cromer, Sheringham, and Mundesley, are still isolated. A goods train fell through a viaduct which had collapsed near Fakenham, twenty-four miles north-west of Norwich. Several county railway bridges have been destroyed. Further floods are reported in Warwickshire. In the poorer quarters of Norwich yesterday the flood waters reached a depth of thirteen feet. The city is threatened with a shortage of water for domestic purposes, the waterworks pumping station being flooded and the machinery useless. The high-level reservoir contains only sufficient water for two days’ supply.”

    Plus ca change!

  78. A bit OT, but
    “It was primitive man’s inability to envisage an effect without human cause that gave rise to much of religion.’

    I’ve seen this sort of claim repeated over and over again for more than fifty years. I’ve never seen a single solid argument to support it. It seems to be a dogma.

  79. “The facts are the NH ice is still melting while………..”

    I mean NH sea ice is still melting while……

  80. “The Met Office continues to suffer from its recently acquired pretensions about climate. Careless remarks about BBQ summers and snowless winters and droughts in the UK have all been followed by Mother Nature failing to comply with their wishful thinking – the wishful bit being their hope that their faith in the power of CO2 in the system, or at least in computer models giving it a powerful effect, can be relied upon.” –John Shade, Bishop Hill, 5 January 2013

    One could substitute the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) in Australia for the UK Met Office in the above statement and it would be equally as true. BOM constantly overhypes and over-estimates in line with the CAGW theory.

    However, so many people in Australia are now onto the pattern of skewing that BOM (& CSIRO climate “research” areas) are on the backfoot – whenever they have to take the foot out of their mouths, that is.

  81. @ Grumpy Old Man

    The only programmable computer in the world sat at Bletchley Park, having been invented by Tommy Flowers, with the support of Turing.

  82. I covered all this back in June 2008 when the jet stream shift had already been obvious to me since 2000.
    The trend has been consolidating ever since in line with declining solar activity

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1458

    “Weather is the key after all”

    “If jet streams, on average, are further south then the high pressure systems to the north of them predominate and the globe is cooling. If, on average, they are further north then high pressure to the south of them predominates and the globe is warming.”

    Since then I have formed the view that the degree of zonality or meridionality might well have as much influence as net latitudinal positioning.

  83. Question to Anthony IS the met office notified when and were weather modification tech’s are being carried out? And what sort of affects would you expect to see from weather radars when weather modification is being carried out? Would you expect to see things like this http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=australian+radar+anomalies&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dGY&bpcl=40096503&biw=1175&bih=585&wrapid=tlif135742993461710&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=vrzoUP2oC4mrkQWX4oHQBg These can’t all be GAIN problems can they ? Your response would be app as would anybody elses that would like to respond.
    cheers.

  84. James Abbott says:

    “Also, since when has the GWPF Met Office been a reliable source of scientific information?”

    There. Fixed it for you.

  85. At what point do these “predictors” start to feel stupid? Seriously. Again and again wrong, they must know by now not to trust models. Yet, that’s not what it’s about, is it? Such continuation points more firmly at conniving and further away from misguided. Perhaps they should be made aware that the mask is slipping. It really can’t be a mistake any longer, it is deliberate – their true colours are clearly showing. Time they stopped trying to hide behind innocence – it’s not working – even the dumbest would be expected to twig by now that the models are wrong. So, they are looking way beyond what would normally be categorized as stupid, or criminal, neither of which will help them in the future.

  86. Hell, my Ouija board is better than the Met’s tens of millions of pounds super computers at predicting the climate. :p

  87. Thanks D Böehm

    Now answer the question – why is the GWPF taken seriously ?

    They routinely alter the titles of published articles to suit their own biased position and recently completely invented one over an article they pinched from Nature. The author was not best pleased.

    Forecasts tell us very little about climate – including forecasts from the Met Office. But measurements taken using scientific methods can tell us a lot. The GWPF article was clearly an attempt to distract attention from the measurements – which show that 4 out of the 5 wettest years in the UK since the records began in 1910 have occured since 2000.

    There also looks to be a modest trend towards higher rainfall in the 30 year running means

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2013/2012-weather-statistics

  88. RoHa says:
    January 5, 2013 at 3:39 pm

    A bit OT, but
    “It was primitive man’s inability to envisage an effect without human cause that gave rise to much of religion.’

    I’ve seen this sort of claim repeated over and over again for more than fifty years. I’ve never seen a single solid argument to support it. It seems to be a dogma.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Actually my SWAG is it was more likely an older very observant sort decided to make sure he was well taken care of in his declining years by ‘predicting’ stuff and spinning a bit of a story to go with it. If you are a messenger of the gods your are less likely to end up being killed by the younger folk when the pickings get lean.

    Those tribes that preserved a few old folk as ‘shaman’ aka keepers of knowledge would have a bit of an advantage over those who wiped out all their old folk in the lean times.

    It is the embellishment that lead to religion as the knowledge was handed down within a family. It is also the source of “killing witches’ when you wipe out a tribe and make off with the women the last thing you want is the older female ‘ keeper of knowledge ‘ from the other tribe taking revenge. So best off to kill the ‘witch’ aka wise woman.

  89. Goldie on January 5, 2013 at 3:48 pm
    I suppose the real question is how long this sort of thing can go on for, before the game is up!”

    Ancient texts are full of references to court soothesayers. This can go on as long as there are human beings.

  90. Matt G says:
    January 5, 2013 at 3:42 pm

    I mean NH sea ice is still melting while……
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    The Arctic Ice may have been melting due to a warm North Atlantic Oscillation (which is headed for the cool half of the cycle now) however the Arctic Melt Season has been getting shorter for the last five years.

    Hudson bay Ice is growing faster than normal this fall/winter

    Phys.Org: Bering Strait influenced ice age climate patterns worldwide

    You would think the MET would pay attention to papers like this: Persistent influence of the North Atlantic hydrography on central European winter temperature during the last 9000 years

  91. The Met Office are missing a trick. Judging by their record, if they would forecast “unusually average” weather, they would be guaranteed more extreme weather.

    That way, they could be proved right by being proved wrong.

  92. I’ve gotten old enough to ache when a storm is coming. Some nerves are involved, and therefore I suppose my brain is involved to some degree, however it does not seem to involve my higher brain or any thought.

    On certain occations, when a storm is blowing up rapidly off the coast of New England, and both the surface and upper air maps are rapidly being altered by the new weather feature, my left elbow will give you a forecast faster than a billion dollar computer.

    When things are changing that swiftly, there is simply no way to get all the changed information into the computer, have the computer digest it and regurgitate it as a forecast, as fast as my left elbow does the job.

    Therefore my left elbow (and a total lack of digitized thought) is worth more than a billion dollar computer.

  93. Stephen Wilde says:
    January 5, 2013 at 3:53 pm
    “If jet streams, on average, are further south then the high pressure systems to the north of them predominate and the globe is cooling. If, on average, they are further north then high pressure to the south of them predominates and the globe is warming.”

    Actually, Stephen, the reverse is true.

    The Earth’s climate accumulates heat nearer to the equator, and loses heat toward the poles. The extent to which the climate warms or cools is significantly affected by how far poleward tropical and sub-tropical air reaches.

    If the jets are keeping tropical air closer to the equator then the climate warms, even though the average air temperature is cooler.

  94. King of Cool

    And you will be bombarded from Green and Labor Politicians that the present heat wave in the south of the country and the current Tasmanian bushfires are “extreme events” as a result of CO2 caused global warming.

    Why you chose to cherrypick Tasmania right now is a bit of a mystery. Why not Darwin, for example? As soon as the monsoon trough hovering just to the north of Darwin moves south, it will all be non-extreme up that way.

    BTW, why are you pretending that what is happening in Tasmania is not an extreme event? Hobart has just set a maximum temperature record.

    As a result of the same weather that brought Hobart its new maximum, around 100 houses and businesses in several towns have just been destroyed by fire, their embers have hardly cooled, there are fires burning out of control, firies are doing a desperate job to try and save lives and property, and right now thousands of people are holed up in evacuation centres or wherever they retreated to when the fires swept in. Your sense of decorum is not all that good. You could at least wait until it is actually over before trying to politicize it.

    If Britain could only send some spare rain down this way, it would be very, very welcome.

  95. Doctor Foster
    Went to Gloucester
    In the pouring rain
    He fell in a puddle
    Right up to his middle
    And never went there again.

    This nursery rhyme is at least 250 years old. But the Met Office/BBC think that the recent flooding in Gloucestershire was “unprecedented”.

    By the way, a group of Polish mathematicians led by Marian Rejewski broke the Enigma machine code in 1932. The machines themselves were commercially available. Not a lot of people know that. For some strange reason…

  96. James Abbott says:
    January 5, 2013 at 3:16 pm

    “This is just an attempt to distract from the real story, which is that 2012 saw the second highest recorded rainfall total in the UK and the highest ever recorded in England, since records began in 1910. But more revealing is the fact that 4 out of the 5 wettest years recorded have been since the year 2000.”

    Only trouble with this is that the warmists predicted a warmer drier climate for GB in the face of CAGW!!!!.

    So what the hell are you talking about?

    Does GB have a drier future or a wetter future? Please be specific and state the reasons behind it.

    Alan

  97. Since 2007 there has been a trend of the Polar jet moving southwards over the UK during the summer which has lead to duller wetter summers in the UK. This was somthing that the Met Office was not expecting and so they have had to change tack with their claims about climate change, from warming to wetter. Because this southward movement of the jet will stop any warming in the UK in its tracks.

  98. Jimbo says:
    January 5, 2013 at 9:57 am

    The Met Office’s long term weather forecasts are in fact very skillful in a funny sort of way. For example if they forecast dryer conditions then expect wetter and if they forecast wetter then expect dryer.

    Apparently that’s what happens when you work really hard to deny reality: you don’t just get it wrong, you get very good at coming up with the exact opposite of reality.

  99. Have just written a piece about the Gloucester floods of 2007 for my MSc in Business Continuity, Security and Emergency Management and twice as many properties were flooded by “Surface Water Flooding” (Urban floods) than Fluvial (River Floods) and guess what the Environment Agency had to say about it in their report:
    Two thirds of the properties flooded were from surface water flooding (overload of drains, culverts, sewers or ditches) (EA 2007) Even the EA have this to say in their report into the 2007 floods
    “…it is not our role to monitor flows of water in urban drainage systems…”
    In addition they highlighted:
    • Lack of maintenance (for example, gully cleaning) on drains.
    • Lack of maintenance (for example dredging) on rivers
    • Too much development of the floodplain
    • Confusion over responsibilities

  100. Instead of their you-beaut sooperdooper computer have they tried the old “drunken monkey and a dart board” method?

  101. Hmmm… just went outside… the wind is rising, it is 37 degrees, and there is smoke… must check…

  102. Philip Bradley says:

    January 5, 2013 at 5:17 pm

    Questions:
    Cold air is heavier than warm ?
    Cold air blocks warm air and forces it to change direction ?
    Warm air can ride over cold but not move it?
    When the jet stream moves south in the NH it creates cyclonic movement ?
    When the JS moves north it creates anticyclones?

    What moves the jet stream ? Joe Bastardi or PIers Corbyn are you there ?

  103. What we need is another billion pound computer to give you wrong information a half hour sooner.Oh! and please top up our pension fund.

  104. Im going to complain to the BBC about the use of the Phrase” Since records began”
    I am pretending to be a Warmist to get onto the Biased BBC Newswatch show.
    Start with

    Dear sir
    With the recent reporting of increasing rainfall in the UK.due to Climate Change
    I detected the overuse of the Phrase “Since Records Began” in broadcast news
    This does prompt 2 Questions exactly when did the records begin and where exactly.
    I can remember back in the 1983 1987 elections complaints about political bias from both Labour and Conservatives.So now with most TV news and current affairs shows under every Opinion Poll and Survey they showed the source of their Data Mori You Gov etc.

    Surely the same should apply when broadcasting Climate Weather Data.
    Just using the “Phrase Since Records Began” is rather “glib”needs to state the Data Source and the historic Start point .

    If the BBC needs to properly inform the public of the Danger from Climate Change and the Higher frequency of flooding and extreme weather events.The BBC should be less lessee fare in the accurate reporting of important Data and stop the use of the rather Vague Phrase “Since Records Began”.

    Yours sincerely

    i will Copy and paste this onto the BBC Complaints page

    Anyone can tidy it up and make it less waffle and more catchy many thanks

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4030000/newsid_4032600/4032695.stm

  105. The UK Met office are desperate to pin something(anything) on rising CO2 levels. Certainly UK temperatures have not changed at all during the last 72 years – see http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4448. The only trend observed in the world’s oldest continuous temperature record (HADCET) is a gradual 0.03C/decade recovery from the little Ice Age. Their climate models have failed to predict either UK or global temperature rises, so all that’s left are extreme weather predictions. Therefore expect to see many more scare stories this year.

    Drought, Floods, Storms, Coast erosion, Plagues of locusts, Invasion of ladybirds etc.

  106. “All Change: Met Office Now Predicts Global Warming Standstill Until 2017″

    http://www.thegwpf.org/change-met-office-predicts-global-warming-standstill-2017/

    “Global average temperature is expected to remain between 0.28 °C and 0.59 °C (90% confidence range) above the long-term (1971-2000) average during the period 2013-2017, with values most likely to be about 0.43 °C higher than average (see blue curves in the Figure 1 below).”

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc

  107. “There’s evidence to say we are getting slightly more rain in total, but more importantly it may be falling in more intense bursts” — Julia Slingo

    That reminds me of Eric Morecambe’s reply to Andre Previn when questioned about his piano playing. “They are the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order”

  108. James Abbott says:
    January 5, 2013 at 3:16 pm

    “This is just an attempt to distract from the real story, which is that 2012 saw the second highest recorded rainfall total in the UK and the highest ever recorded in England, since records began in 1910. But more revealing is the fact that 4 out of the 5 wettest years recorded have been since the year 2000.”

    And this is precisely what happened at the end of the Medieval Warm Period. Google ‘the Great Famine’. There was continual rain and storms for UK and NW Europe for seven years leading to crop failures and large scale starvation. UK is now getting warnings from supermarket companies to expect extreme food price inflation – for precisely the same reason. Looks like William Herschel’s conjectures still hold about the Sun and the price of food despite modern agriculture.

    From another blog:

    From: “The Long Summer: How Climate Changed Civilization”
    By Brian M. fagan

    “Seven weeks after Easter in A.D. 1315, sheets of rain spread across a sodden Europe, turning freshly plowed fields into lakes and quagmires. The deluge continued through June and July, and then August and September. Hay lay flat in the fields; wheat and barley rotted unharvested. The anonymous author of the Chronicle of Malmesbury wondered if divine vengeance had come upon the land: “Therefore is the anger of the Lord kindled against his people. and he hath stretched our his hand against them, and hath smitten them.” Most close-knit firming communities endured the shortages of 1315 and hoped for a better harvest the following year. But heavy spring rains in 1316 prevented proper sowing. Intense gales bartered the English Channel and North Sea; flocks and herds withered, crops failed, prices rose, and people again contemplated the wrath of God. By the time the barrage of rains subsided in 1321, over a million- and-a-half people. villagers and city folk alike. had perished from hunger and famine-related epidemics. Gilles de Muisit, abbot of Saint-Martin de Tournai in modern-day Belgium, wrote, “Men and women from among the powerful, the middling, and the lowly, old and young, rich and poor, perished daily in such numbers that the air was fetid with the stench.” People everywhere despaired. Guilds and religious orders moved through the streets, the people naked, carrying the bodies of saints and other sacred relics. After generations of good, they believed that divine retribution had come to punish a Europe divided by war and petty strife.

    The great rains of 1315 marked the beginning of what climatologists call the Little Ice Age, a period of six centuries of constant climatic shifts that may or may nor be still in progress.”

    The weather experienced by the UK last year from a historical perspective is nothing new. As soon as the Sun becomes inactive and the Hadley cells become less vigorous the jetstreams move equatorward and weather that would have been North of Scotland instead crosses southern Britain. Start learning history and realize that there is nothing new, exceptional or unprecedented about the weather that is currently happening.

  109. James Abbott says:
    January 5, 2013 at 3:16 pm

    Met Office Accused Of Misleading Public Over Rainfall Trends
    From Dr. Benny Peiser at The GWPF
    Questions Over Met Office Rain & Drought Predictions

    This is just an attempt to distract from the real story, which is that 2012 saw the second highest recorded rainfall total in the UK and the highest ever recorded in England, since records began in 1910. But more revealing is the fact that 4 out of the 5 wettest years recorded have been since the year 2000.

    And your statement is just an attempt to distract from the fact that the Met Office’s forecast at the start of last year was wrong, as usual. I recall the Met Office promised us a dryer UK with more warmth.

    Now let’s compare what the Met Office said with your statement that the UK is getting wetter.

    26 May 2010
    Number of droughts likely to increase under climate change
    A Met Office study on how climate change could affect the frequency of extreme droughts in the UK has found a range of possibilities — the majority of them showing such droughts will become more common.

    The study looked at how frequently extreme droughts could happen in the UK by 2100.

    Can you see that your defence of the Met Office is a joke? YOU can’t latch onto the rain issue and ignore the drying issue.

    Now for a bit of climate science regarding the UK’s droughtrain.

    “All drought indices show an overall increase in drought in the future.”

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169410002349

    “The multi-model ensembles project increases across the UK in winter, spring and autumn extreme precipitation;”

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1827/abstract

    Finally, what evidence can your provide that greenhouse gases have anything to do with the ‘record’ rain?

  110. James Abbott says:……
    ———————

    On the subject of record rain, can you imagine the gnashing of teeth if the following was to occur today? Both in New York in the same year. [my bold]

    The Philadelphia Record – June 30, 1903
    Rain Floods
    New York
    Record-Breaking Deluge

    http://tinyurl.com/a86gx74

    New York Times – October 10, 1903
    DELUGE TIES UP RAILROAD TRAFFIC; Lines About New York Crippled–Streets Flooded. BOATS PLY ON MANHATTAN Passengers on Steam Roads Held Prisoners by Wash-Outs–Horses Drowned in Brooklyn and Human Beings in Peril. DELUGE TIES UP RAILROAD TRAFFIC

    A rainstorm which came from the lake region on Thursday morning at 9:20 met another one which has been traveling up from the southern coast. The result of this aerial collision was a downpour which lasted until 3:50 o’clock yesterday afternoon, and the Weather Bureau contains no record of a heavier rainfall. The total fall of rain was 10.04 inches.

    http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40C13FB3F5D11738DDDA90994D8415B838CF1D3

    Records are made to be broken.

  111. I think if a scientist visited the Met Office he would advise the politicians that dabble there that their billion dollar computer has falsified the CO2 forcing and its central role in climate a hundred times over. Please tell me, someone, that you know of modellers who have been adjusting the CO2 forcing downwards in recent years. Viner and the rest have staked and ruined their reputations as serious climate scientists with abandon and no sign of revision of their models.

  112. Ian W said:

    “As soon as the Sun becomes inactive and the Hadley cells become less vigorous the jetstreams move equatorward and weather that would have been North of Scotland instead crosses southern Britain. Start learning history and realize that there is nothing new, exceptional or unprecedented about the weather that is currently happening.”

    Quite so.

    I’ve been telling you all since 2008.

  113. Climate Ace says:
    January 5, 2013 at 5:26 pm

    “King of Cool, BTW, why are you pretending that what is happening in Tasmania is not an extreme event? Hobart has just set a maximum temperature record… “

    Absolutely not Climate Ace. But what I am suggesting is that is has BA to do with CO2 and I do note that Hobart experienced 40.1 deg C in 1899 and 40.8 in 1976.

    And if I am allowed to continue to ignore decorum and discuss natural though disastrous events whilst they are still happening, I would venture to say that bush fires in Tasmania, which is covered in forest, have been happening for thousands of years before the first convicts occupied the penal colony in 1803 and modern arsonists ply their evil trade.

    And having had Elvis, the water bombing helicopter dropping buckets loads of water to put out a fire on the boundary fence to my property some years ago, I fully sympathise with all the fire fighters and those that have lost property down there and wish them well. I am reassured that they will be given all the help they need from their fellow citizens. I am also optimistic that, unlike devastating fires of 1967, that they were much better prepared to prevent loss of life.

    And whilst these unfortunate events will happen in Australia (and all over the world) from time to time, we are NOT as Christine Milne stated on ABC radio last month being swamped by “extreme events” because of carbon dioxide and if we are “on track” for a 5 – 6 deg C rise in temperature, she is going to be dead and buried before she experiences anywhere near one tenth of that amount with no discernable increase for a decade and a half.

    But my major point Climate Ace is that 2013 is going to a critical year weather wise for both sides of Australian politics. I wouldn’t dare to be as brave as the Met Office and make any predictions like some notable alarmists who have had their fingers well and truly burnt. But I do know that you WILL get rain in Tasmania. It may not be tomorrow but it WILL come and the forest will be green again and the houses will be rebuilt and Tasmania will soon return to its glorious natural state.

    And I can only hope that for Christine Milne’s sake we do not get record snow falls in winter.

  114. Thanks Jimbo

    Try reading a posting before sounding off against it.

    I stated quite clearly that forecasts are unreliable – including from the Met Office – and that much more relevant to climate science is actual measurements. And so it is interesting to note that 4 out of 5 of the wettest years in the UK (since 1910) have occured since 2000.

    You then ask

    “Finally, what evidence can your provide that greenhouse gases have anything to do with the ‘record’ rain?”

    Its basic physics. As the atmosphere and oceans warm, the atmosphere can carry more moisture, increasing the likelyhood of increased annual rain and more intense rain events. As the increase in temperature seen in recent decades is probably the result of the emission of greenhouse gases, then it follows the 2 are likely linked.

    It would certainly appear sensible that with UK weather strongly influenced by Atlantic weather systems then it would be expected that in a warmer world, rainfall will rise and that is what the 30 year means show – albeit a modest increase. But there could be other influences in the longer term, most obviously pressure patterns and in 2012 the jet stream position led to almost 3/4 of the year with the UK under low after low coming off the Atlantic.

    So whilst all this does not definately prove the case, the actual observations of increasing rain are consistent with global warming.

    But to repeat, predictions are just that – predictions. Its no surprise that the climate sceptic community leaps on poor predictions when the real measurements clash with their world view.

  115. P. Solar says:
    January 5, 2013 at 9:45 am
    <<>>
    Speaking as one of the afore-mentioned “old gits”, I entirely agree!

  116. James Abbott says:
    January 6, 2013 at 11:44 am (replying to)

    Thanks Jimbo

    Try reading a posting before sounding off against it.

    I stated quite clearly that forecasts are unreliable – including from the Met Office – and that much more relevant to climate science is actual measurements. And so it is interesting to note that 4 out of 5 of the wettest years in the UK (since 1910) have occured since 2000.

    You then ask

    “Finally, what evidence can your provide that greenhouse gases have anything to do with the ‘record’ rain?”

    Its basic physics. As the atmosphere and oceans warm, the atmosphere can carry more moisture, increasing the likelyhood of increased annual rain and more intense rain events. As the increase in temperature seen in recent decades is probably the result of the emission of greenhouse gases, then it follows the 2 are likely linked.

    It would certainly appear sensible that with UK weather strongly influenced by Atlantic weather systems then it would be expected that in a warmer world, rainfall will rise and that is what the 30 year means show – albeit a modest increase.

    Hmmmn.

    Let me help you out a litttle bit here with some simple math.

    If your CACA global warming is to blame for the UK rains this past month, then clearly the “rise” in temperature you so fear is to blame. Actual global measurements of the actual global temperatures for the past month show a clear and distinct and frightening “rise” of 1/5 of one degree increase over the the baseline period in mid 1970.. Are you blaming an actual 1/5 of one degree change for record setting rain and floods?

    Whoopsie. No significant temperature rise found, no “Sahara-like” deserts nor drought nor frozen tundra either. Therefore you are wrong.

    Obviously, since the FUTURE temperatures you so fear could not have caused today’s rain, snows, and flooding, perhaps the past temperatures did. Let’s look at a period when temperatures were a little bit higher – say, 1998 when measured global temperatures were a whopping 1/2 of one degree higher than the baseline. Nope. No flooding, no abnormal snow, no abnormal weather that year.

    Perhaps it was the decrease in temperatures from 1998 to 2012 that caused it? But that’s not your feared CACA global warming, so obviously you can’t blame any global warming, nor global cooling, for today’s rain.

    So why did you? Other than propaganda that is.

  117. James Abbott says:
    January 6, 2013 at 11:44 am
    ………………..
    I stated quite clearly that forecasts are unreliable – including from the Met Office – and that much more relevant to climate science is actual measurements. And so it is interesting to note that 4 out of 5 of the wettest years in the UK (since 1910) have occured since 2000……

    Don’t you mean on the record? Also note that stations have been moved and that the Met Office has an inbuilt bias towards forced climate change.

    So whilst all this does not definately prove the case, the actual observations of increasing rain are consistent with global warming.

    Everything is consistent with global warming old chum.

    An extreme value analysis of UK drought and projections of change in the future……
    All drought indices show an overall increase in drought in the future.”

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169410002349

    Of course it’s entirely consistent with the theory of AGW. . The problem is that many models are used and so Warmists have inoculated themselves against falsification. If you don’t believe me then look at my list of peer reviewed bollocks predicting everything under the Sun.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/03/the-big-self-parodying-climate-change-blame-list/

  118. Jimbo,

    James Abbott doesn’t understand that local climates change constantly. A few millennia ago the Sahara was verdant. Now it is a desert. England is no different; it’s climate is always changing. It has changed slightly over the past century and human CO2 emissions had nothing to do with it..

    Abbott believes this is due to global warming. But he is wrong. The planet has warmed a tiny 0.8ºC since the start of the industrial revolution. If that produced global effects, then every local climate would be changing.

    Mr Abbott sees only what he wants to see, and he wants to scare himself. From his prior posts, he has succeeded. He ignores the fact that the Met predicted less precipitation, then it blamed it’s failed prediction on global warming and “carbon”. Unfortunately, Abbott cannot see how ridiculous the whole climate alarmist narrative is.

  119. Thanks RACookPE1978

    Oh dear – you are seriously muddled there.

    Firstly there has been no cooling since 1998. Thats a much used but false line. On both the 5 year running mean and annual plot, its been warmer since 1998, not by much, but warmer.

    Secondly, the modern warming phase, most likely linked to greenhouse gas emissions, started around the late 1970s. Since then the world has warmed by about 0.5C.

    Thirdly, the ocean-atmosphere system cannot instantly respond to forcing. In particular the oceans respond more slowly so we need to look at long term trends, not individual years.

    Overall, on basic physics the modern warming phase plus the smallewr rise from pre-industrial times (total about 0.7C) should result in about a 4% increase in moisture content in the atmosphere. That will not lead to biblical flooding, but it should result in measureable change – and indeed the UK has seen a gradual increase in annual rainfall over recent decades.

    Your use of extreme impact scenarios is your own – I have never used them.

    Jimbo

    You are still hung up on predictions and models.

    For the third time, I agree – they are not that reliable. Its the measurements that are much more important.

  120. Thanks D Böehm

    You claim

    “Mr Abbott sees only what he wants to see, and he wants to scare himself. From his prior posts, he has succeeded”

    What a load of cobblers. Stick to the issues – mock Psychiatry won’t work.

  121. OK Mr Abbott, I will make the issue clear: your picking a start time of 1998 is convenient.

    Since you can pick a date, so can I. This chart shows flat to global cooling over the past decade.

    Also, by changing the date one year, we see that global temperatures have begun declining.

    As I often point out, the best charts are long term trend charts, like this. We can see that the trend has remained the same, whether CO2 is low, or high. CO2 makes no measurable difference, therefore the AGW conjecture is, if not falsified, at least shown to be so minor that it can be completely disregarded. AGW is based on CO2 emissions, and CO2 causes no measurable global warming.

  122. James Abbott says:
    ………….For the third time, I agree – they are not that reliable. Its the measurements that are much more important………….

    This is you hoisting yourself on your own petard. The measurements show there has bee no statistically significant global warming for 16 years despite the continued rise of co2. Measurements show that there has been no increase in the rate of sea level rise. No trend in water vapour in the atmosphere has been detected. Need I go on?

    http://www.agu.org/journals/pip/gl/2012GL052094-pip.pdf

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/new-paper-on-global-water-vapor-puts-climate-modelers-in-a-bind/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/another-ipcc-ar5-reviewer-speaks-out-no-trend-in-global-water-vapor/

  123. James Abbott
    Measurements also show no hotspot which is entirely INconsistent with the ‘theory’ of AGW.

  124. James Abbott
    Please read the following about your pet theory. It is about to be falsified and I know you don’t like models but that is what the theory relies upon to make projections about future global mean temperatures.

    “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

    Santer et. al. 17 years minimum
    “A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature. ”

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016263.shtml

    “The LLNL-led research shows that climate models can and do simulate short, 10- to 12-year “hiatus periods” with minimal warming, even when the models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol particles. They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.”

    https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html

    “The multimodel average tropospheric temperature trends are outside the 5–95 percentile range of RSS results at most latitudes. The likely causes of these biases include forcing errors in the historical simulations (40–42), model response errors (43), remaining errors in satellite temperature estimates (26, 44), and an unusual manifestation of internal variability in the observations (35, 45). These explanations are not mutually exclusive. Our results suggest that forcing errors are a serious concern.”

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/28/1210514109.full.pdf

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/28/1210514109

    http://landshape.org/enm/santer-climate-models-are-exaggerating-warming-we-dont-know-why/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/03/times-up-lack-of-global-warming-has.html

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/17/ben-santers-17-year-itch/

    We have had 16 years of statistically INSIGNIFICANT warming. Now make of it what you will but the end is nigh for your pet theory.

  125. Thanks D Böehm

    I did not pick 1998 for anything. Its the sceptic community that loves 1998 as it was an extreme El Nino year.

    Your comment

    “AGW is based on CO2 emissions, and CO2 causes no measurable global warming.”

    rewinds science by nearly 2 centuries.

    Its very difficult having a sensible debate with people who deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

    My question to that would be – if CO2 has no warming effect, what would happen if all the CO2 were taken out of the atmosphere. Would the temperature stay the same ?

    And thanks again Jimbo

    You are plain wrong.

    The temperature has flatlined for about 11 years, not 16.

    Rising CO2 does not mean year on year temperature increases.

    This is because there are lots of cycles going on that move temperature up and down including solar activity, the Pacific oscillation, etc.

    I note you talk about the rate of increase of sea level (ie acceleration). But the fact remains that sea level is rising – and thats likely due to thermal expansion of the warming oceans and melting land based ice.

  126. Jimbo

    You say

    “We have had 16 years of statistically INSIGNIFICANT warming. Now make of it what you will but the end is nigh for your pet theory.”

    I say about 11 years. Lets agree to disagree on that.

    But the next bit is pathetic. How is climate change my personal pet theory and how does a decade or so of flatlining temperatures mean the end for climate change theory ??

    There have been other standstills before in the C20th.

    We will have a better idea of the trend in decades to come – by looking at the measurements, not the models or predictions. I prefer to wait and see rather than claim “the end is nigh”.

  127. James Abbott says:
    January 6, 2013 at 3:56 pm
    ……….
    And thanks again Jimbo

    You are plain wrong.

    The temperature has flatlined for about 11 years, not 16…………

    Have you been at the rum? Where is your evidence for this claim?

    I did say:

    We have had 16 years of statistically INSIGNIFICANT warming.

    By the way, I see you nicely skipped the falsification research. Nicely done. ;-)

  128. James Abbott says:
    January 6, 2013 at 3:56 pm

    James: Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is called that for a reason: If it is not “Catastrophic,” Not Anthropogenic, Not Global nor Warming it is NOT a problem, right?

    What if the current Natural Global Warming is only beneficial? Do you still demand Catastrophic Carbon Control that IS guaranteed to destroy people’s lives and families?

    Where is your compassion and YOUR reason that wants to help people instead of starving them in the cold darkness because of YOUR fear? What if those who YOU are killing don’t believe in YOUR fear, but would prefer clean water , more steel, more heat, more electricity so THEY can live? Do YOU still demand that your “science” – your prejudices and your beliefs actually – still kill them?

    YOU (the Catastrophic Alarmists of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmist) are the ones who demand we harm billions now economically and culturally while killing many millions NOW through early deaths from the cold, disease, poor food, malnutrition, poor shelter, bad water, no sewage treatment, no transportation, bad jobs, excessive energy costs …. All the name of “precaution” about a potential threat that you cannot even measure, much less offer a real probability of of danger. That is, YOU are ones who deliberately harm millions immediately while claiming “science” about a phenomenon that cannot be measured to prevent a potential harm in hundreds of years to people you cannot even identify nor offer any probability of help and nurture.

    Increasing temp’s 1 degree offers only benefits, and no harm.
    Increasing temp’s 2 degrees offers only benefits, and no harm.
    Increasing temp’s by 3 degrees offers many benefits, but no harm that can be quantified!
    Increasing temp’s 4 degrees is claimed to be catastrophic – but nobody can show us what the probability is of that event occurring.
    Nor can you show that the problems – IF they actually do exist – are worse than the benefits of greater growing seasons and more fuel, food, fodder, and fortunes over the next 100 years, 200 years, or 300 years!

    You “claim science” but cannot offer proof of even a single 25 year period across a 350 year long period when the world has not warmed naturally – Thus, there is NO “anthropogenic” in CACA theory of CAGW. You claim “science” but the actual data proves your opinions are dead wrong. And are heading in the wrong direction – At least Copernicus’s critics could use their system of epicycles to predict the planet orbits. Their theory was wrong – but at least it worked! Your theory might be right in the computer and in the simplified abstracts of the chalkboard and the simulations. But it has not worked in real life. It may never work in the real life of the real world. We have many decades to test.

    NOBODY denies global warming – What IS proved is that we cannot separate what might be present as “man-made” global warming from what is absolutely confirmed as present from natural global warming.

    Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Absolutely! (Are you happy noew?)

    How much influence does CO2 have as a greenhouse gas? We cannot measure the change in modern temperature records caused by CO2.

    Why? Because for 25 years CO2 and temperature increased, and for 15 years now CO2 increased but temperature did not, and for 25 years between 1950 and 1975, CO2 increased and temperatures fell. (Until Hansen changed his own records that is. )

    Would the world be colder or warmer if CO2 were not present? It doesn’t matter – YOU cannot remove all of the CO2 from the atmosphere to “test” your opinion of the ultimate temperature of earth with or without CO2 and water vapor against measurements, so IT DOESN’T MATTER.

    Would the world be warmer of cooler if more CO2 is added over the next 100 years while new energy systems – THAT WORK and ARE profitable – are developed? IT DOESN’T MATTER – YOU cannot stop the natural change that are occurring!

    YOU can only kill people as you try to stop nature from changing.

  129. James Abbott says:
    January 6, 2013 at 3:56 pm ………..

    I note you talk about the rate of increase of sea level (ie acceleration). But the fact remains that sea level is rising

    James, you have been at the rum. Sea levels have been rising a very long time indeed. Are you sure you know what you are talking about? See LIA and sea level rise for well over 100 years.

  130. James Abbot,
    See your sea level rise from your Warmist friends at Wiki.

    And don’t insinuate that I deny that sea levels are rising. I know that and it has been doing this since the end of the last ice age AND since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 19th century. So what’s your point? My point is that even though you talk of THERMAL EXPANSION there has been NO ACCELERATION. Now join your dots.

Comments are closed.