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 period… This 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
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.
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.
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/
James Abbott
Measurements also show no hotspot which is entirely INconsistent with the ‘theory’ of AGW.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
Have you been at the rum? Where is your evidence for this claim?
I did say:
By the way, I see you nicely skipped the falsification research. Nicely done. 😉
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.
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.
James Abbot,
See your sea level rise from your Warmist friends at Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
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.
@ur momisugly Adam Gallon says: January 5, 2013 at 6:19 am
” Interestingly, the Environment Agency page he’d posted, has had its link “disappeared”!
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/news/138916.aspx%22 ”
But the Environment Agency page is & continues to be live at:-
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/news/138916.aspx