After Hurricane Katrina and the amazing season of 2005, we were supposed to see year after year of terrible hurricanes. Where are they?
Where is all the death and destruction? We were told global warming was here, and would ignite a fire under the storms, making them bigger and more frequent. Massive hurricanes like Katrina would become much more common. The world’s oceans were warming, and this would stoke the fires of these tropical monsters. But they are not here — the hurricanes are missing in action, and have been ever since 2005. The truth: there has been a dramatic decrease in the number of hurricanes in the last five years. The total energy of all hurricanes around the world has plunged since 1993 — the opposite of what was predicted. How could that be, if global warming is real and is impacting our climate today?
Let’s go back to the middle of last decade, and see what took place.
Four hurricanes made landfall on the United States during the 2004 season — all of them hit Florida. On August 13, Charley hit the southwest coast as a tiny but powerful Category 4 storm. There was massive damage over a narrow path from the Punta Gorda, Port Charlotte area all the way to Orlando. Hurricane Frances came ashore at Stuart, FL, during the night and morning hours of September 4 and 5. Even though the storm was only a Category 2, its slow forward movement inflicted many hours of pounding hurricane-force winds. A large area from Palm Beach County northward to Vero Beach and beyond was severely impacted.
Three weeks later, to the dismay of everyone on Florida’s east coast, Jeanne struck Stuart! It hit during the night of September 25. Jeanne had moved along the north coast of the Dominican Republic on September 17. By the 20th, Jeanne was moving to the northeast, away from the United States. Unbelievably — while people on the east coast of south and central Florida were recovering from Frances — Hurricane Jeanne did a complete 360 degree loop and headed back towards Florida. The Category 3 hurricane made landfall right at Stuart: two significant hurricanes in the same place within three weeks of each other!
Ivan came ashore as a Category 3 hurricane just to the west of the Florida panhandle during the night of September 15. Fortunately for residents of southern Alabama and western Florida, Ivan had diminished in strength — it had been a mighty Category 5 when it passed the western tip of Cuba on the 13th.
The hurricane season of 2004 was a horrible time for Florida. Then came 2005.
The long-term average number of named tropical storms in the Atlantic basin is 11. In 2005 there were 27. The long-term average number of hurricanes is 6. In 2005 there were a record 15.
Actually, the hurricane seasons of 1933 and 1887 were probably very similar in the number of tropical storms and hurricanes — there were no satellites to see all the storms back then, so 2005 stands as the “record” year. There were so many storms in 2005 that the hurricane center used up all the letters of the alphabet for names! Names from the Greek alphabet were recruited to fill the void. This was the first year since the naming of storms began in 1953 that this was necessary.
This was also the year of Hurricane Katrina. This massive hurricane first made landfall near Miami as a Category 1 hurricane on August 25. Katrina then entered the Gulf of Mexico and became a powerful Category 5 storm, with maximum sustained winds of 175 miles per hour, on the 28th. Katrina then moved northward, and made landfall near the mouth of the Mississippi River on the morning of August 29 as a weaker but very dangerous Category 3. Over 1,800 people officially lost their lives — there were probably many more that were never found or counted — and the broad area of destruction made this one of the worst natural disasters in American history.
Read the rest of the story here.
This is a pretty weak post. After asking the question (and rightly so):
“there has been a dramatic decrease in the number of hurricanes in the last five years…How could that be, if global warming is real and is impacting our climate today?”
All we get for a discussion on the topic is a recap of the 2004 and 2005 seasons. Can’t you do better? How about some information on the linkage between the warming oceans and hurricane formation (or lack thereof)?
Ryan Maue: the answer is “natural variability”. When you publish papers at the top of the cycle or oscillation, eventually all sh*t will roll downhill — to put it scientifically. We are at record lows globally right now: this means, eventually we will go back up, maybe next year, maybe in 2 or 3 years. But, it will occur and it will have little to do with the “warming planet”.
I was under the impression that the destructiveness of Katrina was a consequence of poor planning and levee construction.
“What Happened to All the Hurricanes”
They are “in the pipeline”. Just kidding. Actually, I have them right here in a little jar in my kitchen. When the mood strikes me, I just open the jar a little bit until one spins out and then quickly close it up again. Lately things have been going pretty well and I just haven’t been in the mood to let one rip, so to speak. 2005 was a bad year. Sorry about that.
Mark S the story continues if you follow the link provided.
So when do you think ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN will cover this issue?
😉
What happened to all the Global Warming induced hurricanes?
GW ran out of gas, and Al goofed. You can play all the games with satellite data and station adjustments, but you cannot fake a hurricane (you can make a movie or two, like 2012). Actually, the oceans are rather spent when it comes to giving up heat, relegated to shoving what’s left of the warm waters over to the Phillipines/Indonesia and up towards Greenland/Arctic. So, nature has called in the Tow Truck to put the Oceans back on the charger.
It’s a little much to be saying that AGW is wrong because their predictions about hurricanes haven’t panned out. That prediction was predicated on two factors: first, that continued warming of the sea surface would result in more (and higher intensity) hurricanes, and two, that there would be continued warming to drive this first factor.
We are now ten years in and we don’t see much in the way of warming. This may be because AGW is incorrect, or it may be that this is some short-term aberration, etc etc. (We do know from Climategate emails that even Team members like Kevin Trenberth are wringing their hands about this.) But because global warming has flatlined, we cannot hold those hurricane predictions against the people who made them. It may indeed be that global warming would cause increased hurricane activiity; if so, we can’t expect to see this increased activity in a time when the globe is not warming.
Mark S:
Here are the graphical data – a 30 year low:
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/global_running_ace.jpg
Precisely the opposite of the gloomy predictions, and show that economic analyses using those predictions to advocate CO2 emission reduction, are fundamentally flawed.
Furthermore, Pacific Islands are growing, not sinking, so another reason for action disappears….
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627633.700-shapeshifting-islands-defy-sealevel-rise.html
And the scare stories about infectious diseases have been completely refuted:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we21.htm
Things are looking pathetically weak for the climate change activists….
rbateman says:
October 19, 2010 at 10:35 pm
“you cannot fake a hurricane”
Yes you can, Al Gore did it right on the cover of his book…
photoshop style!! (but, that’s just one of his little lies)
The number of hurricanes is at a record low as well, 71 during the past 2-years, with the average being 96 globally (sigma=11).
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
Submitted for Publication, along with the reason why global hurricane activity has decreased to such low levels…
“there has been a dramatic decrease in the number of hurricanes”
huh? whats so dramatic about this fact???
Too much Jibber-Jabber.
Really a poor analysis of this topic. Named storm activity depends on sunspot activity and the accumulated factors of sunspot activity influence over a century.
During the weaker cycles of the first 1900s, averages storms were 7 to 8 a year with a range of 1 to 15.
During the last sunspot cycle, that number of named storms surpassed any cycle known to man.
As for ACE measurement, it has its flaws. During the peak period of cycle ACE is more reflective of storm ability to hit our mainland.
During the starts and stops of a cycle, ACE reflects the ability of land mass to influence hurricanes.
Whatever, there is a significant correlation between sunspot activity and the length of a season, the number of named storms and ACE.
Paul Pierett
Some of my research is found here.
http://www.nationalforestlawblog.com/newsletters.htm
Go to October 2009
http://www.nationalforestlawblog.com/Pierett%20Cover.pdf
http://www.nationalforestlawblog.com/Global%20Warming%20By%20Paul%20Pierett.pdf
History charts start on page 27, of “Low Sunspot…”
A lot of charts throughout both papers.
http://www.nationalforestlawblog.com/Atlantic%20Storm%20Correlation%20To%20Sunspot%20Activity.pdf
Apparently surface winds are slowing perhaps due to “afforestation and climate change”
My last post seemed to vanish suddenly; so just in case; omit if it repeats.
Hansen slashes revenue guidance
Wed 20 Oct 2010
Hansen Transmissions International the wind turbine gearbox designer, has warned that shipments in the second half of its financial year are likely to be lower than previously anticipated.
OI know where they went. The Goreacle stuck them all on the cover of his book.
“chopbox says:
October 19, 2010 at 10:35 pm
It’s a little much to be saying that AGW is wrong because their predictions about hurricanes haven’t panned out. ”
No falsifiability? Not science.
As sceptics this is exacty our point. Let us know when something is falsifiable and maybe we’ll be persuaded.
With his superhuman knowledge of what causes hurricanes, I wonder whether Al. Gore could apply his unique scientific knowledge of hurricanes to tell us whether it was global warming that caused the catastrophic category 4 and 5 hurricanes such as those of 1900, 1928 and 1992. If it wasn’t AGW that caused them in those days I’m sure he must know what scientific phenomenon caused them. His supreme knowledge of these things must be of untold benefit to us all. Surely he would be prepared to share that knowledge for a small honorarium of say $500,000.
I have no doubt that warming a system will increase the energy of that system. Perhaps the lack of any serious storm is indicative of a cooling system as the real data shows.
rbateman says:
October 19, 2010 at 10:35 pm
“you cannot fake a hurricane”
You can – you just change the definition.
Typhoon Megi is causing problems in Asia. Ten killed in the Philippines, winds of 160mph and torrential rain. The authorities in Viet Nam and in Southern China have already evacuated thousands. Have a look at the article posted below, look at the size of Megi and ask “Just how much heat is it pumping up, out and away?”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1321772/Typhoon-Megi-batters-southeast-Asia-10-killed-162mph-winds.html
But, despite the size of Megi, this year has been a very quiet one for typhoons.
Looking back through historical evidence most of the great storms seem to happen in cool periods not warm ones.
tonyb
I’m looking for the missing Tropical Troposheric Hot Spot?
Anyone seen it recently?
Orkneygal says:
October 20, 2010 at 2:33 am
“I’m looking for the missing Tropical Troposheric Hot Spot?
Anyone seen it recently?”
It’s stuck in the models and can’t get out.
Very strange post. Especially since it HAS been a very active season. Here is a summary so far:
http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/hurricane-season-2010-scorecard_2010-08-16
I think there should be a credit at the top of this thread to the author, Art Horn, not just to the website, Pajamas Media.
Orkneygal says: October 20, 2010 at 2:33 am
I’m looking for the missing Tropical Troposheric Hot Spot? Anyone seen it recently?
On the other hand the Labrador Sea (where heat exchange takes place) is about 3.5 degrees C warmer than normal, it appears due to the much warmer East Greenland current coming out of the Arctic .
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
There is a likelihood of this pushing the polar jet stream further south
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream//global/images/jetstream3.jpg
which could bring much colder winter to Northern Europe.
Note: On the average, it takes about 6 years for warm waters of Beaufort Sea to reach the Fram Strait and another few to the South Greenland.
If I am correct the last decade of the warm Arctic could mean a cold N. Europe for the next few years to come.
“John Marshall says:
October 20, 2010 at 1:15 am
I have no doubt that warming a system will increase the energy of that system.”
Except that storminess is related more to temperature differentials than absolute energy content.
So when the stratosphere was cooling during the recent spell of high solar activity the temperature differential from surface to tropopause increased and storms were more lively. More, smaller and intense, faster moving storms.
It now seems that along with the less active sun the stratosphere has stopped cooling and is warming a bit which reduces the temperature differentials and suppresses storm activity. Less, larger or more diffuse, slow moving storms.
Since this has happened naturally since the Earth first acquired oceans the idea that a more active sun warms the stratosphere must be wrong and Joanna Haigh must have stumbled on a fundamental truth.
There are a few comments that this is a ‘weak post’ ….. but the title says it all. Where have all the hurricanes gone ? The post is just making an observation that the actual data is 100% at odds to the predictions. As was mentioned above, this is exactly the case with so many elements of the AGW scare story –
global temperatures …. not rising
sea level – rising at a slower rate …. NOT accelerating
tropical atolls – not sinking
malaria – not spreading
glaciers – not melting
sea ice – growing in Antactica and no greater melt than 2007 in the Arctic
hurricanes – not increasing
This is the real AGW story ….. WHEN WILL THE MEDIA RUN WITH IT ??????
The hurricane season has been very active 2010, so I don’t understand this post:
Surface wind slowing would be a good link to CO2 build-up as it is a heavier gas and hangs around the planets surface layers.
Just an observation.
Two things, one – all of this in spite of a rule change by NHC in 2002, to name subtropical storms. Two – there is no possible way global warming can cause more storms, it takes cold + warm to make storms. So when we do have natural warming cycles, guess what, fewer number of storms. If AGW people were sane they would be pointing to fewer storms as evidence… as opposed to making up stuff about more storms and more intense storms that goes against reality.
I have tried to post a link here a couple of times but I guess it gets stuck in the spam-filter. It’s very on topic. Hop it works this last time:
tinyurl.com/3am9kpx
Truthsword is right–another example of a better world through global warming. Problem with that, however, is that the powers that be (or want to be) can’t control earth’s population more as things actually get better. How insidious are they who would control? Well, pretty bad, actually.
chopbox says:
October 19, 2010 at 10:35 pm
Post hoc rationalization.
Doesn’t good science say if your models predictions don’t agree with the real world then you need to fix your model?
So why pick on poor old Al when….
“With a budget of $4 billion, and 12,800 employees in every U.S. state and locations around the world, NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.” Heh with that kind of budget and expertise how could you possibly miss.
There is an interesting photo glitch on the cover of his book and movie that makes me wonder how seriously he actually takes this: Both the movie, and his book that shows hundreds of feet of ocean level increase, use photos of hurricanes that are spinning in the wrong direction for no apparent reason. Why allow that sort of error? It is like he just needed to get something into the book stores and theaters for reasons that had little to do with accuracy or integrity. The photos are small things, but indicate a broader lack of attention to accuracy that sadly both the movie and his books on the topic bear out in depth.
What I really find amazing about ‘global warming alarmism’ is that never before have so many, been conned so much, by so few. Despite almost $80 billion having been spent pushing the AGW mantra of the IPCC, the observational climate data is indisputable… and exposes the predictions of climate computer models as farcical.
One thing we can say about Mother Nature is she does as she pleases, when she pleases and pays scant attention to computer boffins and their models, she pays scant attention to the IPCC and she can never be tamed by mankind.
The sooner the world acknowledges the last point, and gives CO2 a rest, the sooner we can concentrate on dealing with genuine environmental issues around the world.
I always felt bad for Michael Brown, who was in charge of FEMA from 2003-2005. He managed the Florida 2004 Hurricane season quite well, mainly because Florida knew what to do when Hurricanes hit. But with Katrina, the problems in Louisiana were brought to the forefront and, even though this guy managed to guide Florida through its recovery from 4 direct hits from hurricanes the year before, he was forced to resign after the Katrina debacle as the convenient political stooge.
Well in Australia in the Southern Hemisphere, hurricanes go by the name of Tropical Cyclones and were always named after females for some obvious reason we blokes will keep to ourselves nowadays. Well Santa never made it into Darwin on Xmas Day 1974 but Katrina’s mother Tracy did happen to drop by-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_Tracy
We won’t ever know the actual wind speed because as noted- “The wind gauge at Darwin Airport officially recorded winds of 217 km/h (135 mph) before being blown away itself” However you should all note the proportion of housing damage and consequent proportional evacuation necessary as a result, while the true wind speed was never measured but only guesstimated. That was proportionally more devastating than Darwin’s ‘Pearl Harbour’ you’ll note here-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_bombing
after Douglas McArthur had beat a hasty retreat from the Phillipines and when questioned by reporters at Terowie railway siding in my home State of South Australia made his ‘I shall return!’ statement.
Well Tracy didn’t return to Darwin but a year later her wicked step-sister Trixie visited the NW of Western Australia, but being more sparsely settled than Darwin, caused less human catastrophe as summarised here-
http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/history/trixie.shtml
but more specifically analysed here-
http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/history/pdf/trixie.pdf
Note in particular- “The wind gust of 246 km/h at Onslow is the highest recorded on an anemograph in Australia.” Futhermore you need to appreciate how all that water travelled 1700km across largely arid land and desert to break the Trans Australia Railway line at Zanthus in WA (I’d urge you to use Google Earth to track that flow from the towns and railway siding mentioned to appreciate that). My father was a surveyor with Australian National Railways at the time called out to ascertain the threat to the rail line and would have surveyed that water estimate of 200cusecs for nearly 3 weeks as it tried to reach the Great Australian Bight and washed away the best laid culverts and bridges engineers had designed for a revamped rail line at the time. How quickly we all forget the forces of mother nature in our 24 hour newsbyte world and the poetry of our pioneers and ancestors like Dorothea McKellar and that particularly poignant stanza-
I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of drought and flooding rains,
I love her far horizons,
I love her jewel sea,
Her beauty and her terror –
The wide brown land for me.
chopbox @ October 19, 2010 at 10:35 pm
NASA just told you that CO2 is THE thermostat. What’s wrong with you? CO2 is higher and so is the temperature. Do you argue with them? They are NASA for cryin’ out loud. Believe them!
Ryan,
Thanks for posting – your work on hurricane intensity. I have been curious about recent year’s hurricane intensity as a metric of AGW and was casually searching around on the internet for information and came across this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulated_cyclone_energy
I also came across various MSM puff-pieces (USA Today comes to mind…) that mentioned a connection between hurricane storm intensity and AGW and that an active 2010 was predicted and indeed 2010 has been an active year – but in the Atlantic only. World-wide hurricane storm intensity according to the ACE metric is down so far this year. And the year of course, isn’t over yet.
The BBC weather forecasters have a new term for snow in October.
North East Scotland will have “Wintry showers” on Thursday AKA snow…
“Ryan Maue: the answer is “natural variability”. When you publish papers at the top of the cycle or oscillation, eventually all sh*t will roll downhill — to put it scientifically. ”
We could say the very same thing to the Ice Ages.
You know what is tough, when your lies turn out to be lies and people find out. So don’t blame Al Gore and others who have been caught lying. Blame the lie. You know those three letters are given a large space in the dictionary and with two distinctively different meanings. I don’t know what relevance that has except sometimes its hard to explain a lie, if you get caught that is. And I’m not lying.
Rockyroad (post at 5:20) has nailed it on the head; global warming (whatever its cause) has a lot of benefits such less severe storms, for many countries more benign seasons and longer growing seasons with increased crop yields, more rain (hence less water shortages) but the politians (and powers at be) would not be able to control people (and raise revenues and create other money making scams such as carbon trading/cap & trade) if they admitted the truth, namely things will get better.
It has always been the case that there is more bio diversity in warmer conditions and mankind has always flourished in warm conditions. It is no coincidence that there has never been a great civilization eminating from cold climes (whether far north or far south) and to the extent that one may argue that the Vikings were a great civilization it is no coincidence that they florished in what was undoubtedly a warm period in the Northern Hemishere.
Whilst I consider the ‘science’ behind AGW to be severely lacking in honesty, objectivity and critical thinking, one thing that surprises me most is the accepted predictions of doom when in fact the very opposite is the likely scenario.
I don’t know when the politians will get off the train but typically although the UK has a severe budget deficit problem and there are huge cut backs in services an extra £2bn can still be found for the green industry! Makes you sick when in the end no significant new real jobs in this so called emerging sector will be created since the technology is bought in from overseas companies, the UK is merely helping the foreign job market (not its own) by this additional investment. The oridnary citizen can expect even higher energy bills to subsidize this continued scam. Hey, such is life.
What Happened to All the Hurricanes, Al?
Uhmmmm….my last research shows that it’s boiling down in the center of the earth: Millions of degrees!
Just BTW kids, will you stop kidding me? YA KNOW NOW IT’S CLIMATE DISRUPTION NOW!!!!, so anything can happen, Cap&Trade goes…..unless those pesky skeptic guys….
Olen says:
October 20, 2010 at 8:38 am
You know what is tough, when your lies turn out to be lies and people find out. So don’t blame Al Gore and others who have been caught lying.
Lying?…..He does not lie!, He BLINDLY BELIEVES………in carbon business….with “Georgy” and the other pals, ya know…,BTW, I got to talk to Jackson (a.k.a. “This is IT!”) to enforce carbon foot print checking….
What happened to the hurricanes, you ask? They’ve been converted into droughts!!!! OK. Not actual droughts mind you, but ones that happen in Climate Model World!!!!
climategossip says:
October 20, 2010 at 4:19 am
A good find – that link
http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/hurricane-season-2010-scorecard_2010-08-16
•With “Paula”, we’ve now reached 16 named storms in 2010, which surpasses the average number of named storms for an entire season during what is called the “active phase” of hurricane seasons that has been in place since 1995 (14 named storms).
•We’ve now had our 9th hurricane of the 2010 season. This exceeds the number of hurricanes in the 2008 season (8) and matches the tally from the 2004 season. Only five seasons since 1950 have had 10 or more hurricanes. (2005, 1998, 1995, 1969, 1950)
It seems tight fitting blinkers are in use here. If your post shows errors in the title piece people simply gloss over it.
\harry
If you have a look here and compare a few of the details changing over 1961 to 1990 and 1971 to 2000 averaging period.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/ukmapavge.html
Most show what you would espect for a warming UK
However the thunderstorms are notable going the wrong way to what I would expect.
Increasing temp = decreasing thunderstorms.
We all know that huricanes are caused by butterflies in Africa. Huricanes are down so clearly global climate change is killing African butterflies.
“To date, no Category 3 or stronger hurricane has hit the United States since 2005. Ike in 2008 was close, but not quite. This is the longest stretch of time that we have not had a Category 3 or greater hurricane hit the U.S. since the period of 1911 to 1914!”
The lack of hurricanes (and low associated ACE index) is a sign that our climate system is low on energy. This in turn is caused by less of the energy from the sun hitting the Earth since the peak in 1998 (+/- 5y).
The Earth is cooling quickly now as the oceans lose their energy store. Expect a long and cold winter again in the NH, and hope the factors causing the energy loss reverse.
Kath says:
Only in New Orleans. Katrina managed to flatten Mississippi, Eastern Louisana, and Alabama – inland as well as coastal areas. Overall, Katrina managed to severely damage an area equivalent to the British Isles, but Mississippi and Alabama had competent govenors who responded, both pre- and post-, with –well–competence. No way to blame George Bush so the media concentrated their coverage on New Orleans. I’d also like to note that Katrina herself didn’t damage the city, but rather the flood was caused by a barge that was rammed into the levee (by Katrina, I’ll give you that). Think back to the early post-Katrina coverage and you’ll remember the reporters going on about how NO dodged the bullet with hurricane damage.
Trustword,
Actually hurricanes are global warming event the depends on very warm temperatures to occur and very strong global warming temperatures to me numerous and powerful.
Paul
I would rather have read a discussion about the mechanism behind active seasons versus inactive seasons. And in particular, what weather pattern variations were at play?
OT but interesting – my brother-in-law regularly jogged along the 17’th street canal levee which failed in western New Orleans. When he heard of the failure he immediately and correctly guessed the location of the failure.
How did he know? He said there was a stretch of levee behind one home where the dirt at the top was so narrow that he could not jog. Erosion, and possibly the owner having removed soil to allow construction of a shed, had narrowed the levee holding the wall in place.
If this story is true, and if New Orleans had a competent levee inspection group, this problem would have been caught and corrected long before Katrina.
Someone with an investigative bent and access to older aerial photos might look to see if this story is true. Design played a role in the failure but maybe neglect did, too.
so one of Al Gore’s theories that global warming and increased CO2 leads to more tropical activity at the globe seems to be proven wrong, just like most of his theories. Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist. He doesn’t understand what is happening because he doesn’t know the science behind it. He just assumed that warming lead to more hurricanes, and the warming was caused by CO2. No science, just coincendence but an effective way to scare people. SO why did the scientific community listen to Al Gore ramble when he clearly has no idea what he is talking about?
As a side note the only place above average is the atlantic, the world is near record lows for tropical activity if anyone is wondering.
thefordprefect says
“If you have a look here and compare a few of the details changing over 1961 to 1990 and 1971 to 2000 averaging period.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/ukmapavge.html
Most show what you would espect for a warming UK”
Following the link one finds this statement:
“The analyses are based on 1 km grid-point data sets which are derived from station data ”
I. e. these are mostly modelled data, not measured (unless there are weather stations at 1 km intervals throughout the British isles)