UK Rainfall 2012-The Report The Met Office Should Have Produced

Guest post by Paul Homewood

Annual 2012 Rainfall 1981 - 2010 anomaly

According to the Met Office,  UK has just had the second wettest year on record, just behind 2000. These claims, however, are based on records dating back to 1910. The Met Office also keep a rainfall series for England & Wales, which date back to 1766, and these cast a slightly different light on the matter.

(As Scotland and N Ireland have been drier than normal, the England & Wales portion becomes particularly relevant).

Figures 1 and 2 show the annual rainfall for this series, with 10 and 30 year running averages.

image

Figure 1

image

Figure 2

The following points stand out:-

1) The wettest year was 1872, when there was 1284mm, compared to 1244mm in 2012. It was also wetter in 1768. Clearly the impression given by the Met Office, that the rainfall last year, and in 2000, is somehow “unprecedented” is not true. One is entitled to wonder why they made it.

2) The 30 year trend would suggest that rainfall was lower for most of the 19thC, but that it has been relatively stable since.

3) Both on 10 and 30 year trends, there have been many years previously at the same level as now. The wettest spell was during the 1870’s and 80’s. The 1920’s were also comparatively wet.

4) Inter-annual variability, of the sort seen in the last two years, is not uncommon, for instance 1871-72.

Seasonal Variations

image

image

Figure 3

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

The winter graph, of course, is for Dec 2011 – Feb 2012, but shows the trend in recent years to drier winters, (not withstanding December 2012, which was much wetter). In contrast, summer rainfall has been on an increasing trend. (Figures for Spring and Autumn seem not to offer much of a trend).

The change in Winter and Summer patterns is significant because they run counter to projections made in the UK government’s Climate Change Risk Assessment, presumably put together with the help of the best brains that the Met and CRU can offer, and which forecast much reduced summer, and much higher winter precipitation.

Either their models are hopelessly wrong, or the global warming, they are predicated on, has stopped.

North v South

As the map at the top indicates, Scotland has been relatively dry, suggesting that rain belts have shifted southwards, bringing some of the rain Scotland normally gets down to England. And, of course, it is no secret to Brits that the jet stream has been shifted south of its normal position for much of the year.

Rainfall in Scotland is much higher normally than in England. Scotland usually receives about 1600mm of rain each year, compared to 855mm for England. Last year, England’s total was 1123mm, so it can be seen that Scotland has still been, by far, the wetter of the two.

Julia Slingo has been quick to blame higher rainfall on warmer temperatures. But does Scotland receive more rain than England because it is warmer? Is it surrounded by warmer seas? Her argument simply does not hold water.

I mentioned the jet stream moving south, but it would be more accurate to describe it as a meridional pattern.

image

http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/159/

Low pressure systems, that tend to move faster with a zonal flow, often become blocked with a meridional flow. for much of the year, the UK has been stuck in the “bulge” coming down from the north, at the same time, of course, as parts of the US has seen a block of high pressure.

It is pretty much par for the course, that many climatologists have been linking this phenomenon with the melting of Arctic ice. It is, however, worth bearing in mind that Hubert Lamb found exactly the same meridional jet flow in the 1960’s and early 70’s. In his volume, “Climate: Present, Past & Future”, he describes the effects of the changing climate at that time, when Arctic ice was expanding:-

…….much smaller changes over middle latitudes, where the most significant feature has been the very awkward type of variability from year to year, associated with the behaviour of blocking systems and meridional circulation patterns.

 Examples of the consequences of these features include a number of serious items besides the extremes of cold and warmth, drought and flood associated with the occurrences of blocking in middle latitudes.

I cannot leave this North v South topic without highlighting what the Met Office themselves have projected. In 2011, they published a report called “Climate: Observations,projections and impacts”, which was written by a team led by a certain J Slingo. This report is absolutely clear:-

Europe shows a strong contrast in projected precipitation changes, with large decreases in the south and large increases in the north. The UK falls towards the northern region with generally increasing precipitation, with projected increases of up to 10%, though some southern parts of the UK may experience decreases of up to 5%. There is generally good agreement between ensemble members over the north of UK, but moderate agreement further south, indicating uncertainty in the position of the transition zone between increasing and decreasing precipitation over Europe.

While the exact demarcation line is not certain, they are sure that the North will be wetter, and the South drier. This is the opposite of what has happened in 2012.

It would appear that the Met have very little idea as to what will actually happen.

Extreme Rainfall

According to Slingo, “The trend towards more extreme rainfall events is one we are seeing around the world, in countries such as India and China, and now potentially here in the UK”. But is rainfall really becoming more extreme in the UK?

While UK rainfall was 15% higher than the 1981-2010 baseline, rain days were 10% higher, so two thirds of the extra rain can be attributed to more rain days, rather than “heavier” rainfall.

Nevertheless, average rainfall has increased from 7.4mm to 7.8mm per day, but this does not necessarily mean that individual days have become  more extreme. For instance, swap a day, when you get a short shower, for a day when you get an inch of rain, and the average goes up. Yet an inch of rain is neither extreme nor unprecedented.

So to test these “extreme rainfall” claims, I have analysed daily rainfall records dating back to 1931 and provided by the Met,  for Oxford, which lies in the very wet belt seen on the above map , in the south of England and to the west of London. Across this part of the country, rainfall last year was 31% above normal.

image

Figure 4

Figure 4 plots the days when rainfall exceeded 26.0mm, of which there have been 99 since 1931. The following points stand out:-

1) There appear to be more days in the lower band, up to 40mm, during the past decade.

2) During 2011 and 2012, only two days appear, at 37.0mm and 32.8mm. With 99 such days over 82 years, an average of one a year is exactly what you would expect!

3) Most significantly though, the really “extreme” days happened decades ago. The six wettest days were :-

Date mm
10th July 1968 87.9
6th Sep 1951 84.8
22nd June 1960 81.3
27th June 1973 67.3
12th Aug 1957 56.1
6th Aug 1962 53.3

image

Figure 5

Figure 5 shows the average number of days above 26.0mm for each decade, and also for the last two years. It bears out the suggestion that there has been an increase in such days between 2001 and 2010, but that the last two years are back to normal.

Conclusions

This is the detailed sort of analysis that you won’t see from the Met Office. Instead, Slingo obsesses about global air temperatures and extreme rainfall events.

Slingo herself admits that more work needs to be done to predict long term trends. I would question, however, whether she is the right person to lead this work, if she cannot take off her blinkers.

After Note

I found a couple of pictures, drawn in 1872, of the floods at Windsor at that time. One was in January of that year and was published in the “The Graphic Magazine”. The second relates to the floods in December 1872/January 1873 and was published in the Illustrated London News on 4th January 1873.

Floods January 1872

Thursday and Friday 25th and 26th January 1872.

A view from the GWR railway viaduct towards Windsor, with the floodwater reaching the lower areas of the town.

1873 from round tower

The Floods of early January 1873 from The Round Tower

http://www.thamesweb.co.uk/windsor/windsorhistory/floods1875.html

Plus ca change!

References

1) All data on rainfall and raindays is from the Met Office.

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

2) Climate Averages

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/19812010/

3) The England & Wales precipitation series is also from the Met.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadukp/

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

92 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
tallbloke
January 9, 2013 12:10 pm

When rainfall was low, they said global warming would bring worse drought.
Now rainfall is high they tell us global warming will cause more floods.
Credibility of AGW scientists now < zero.

richard
January 9, 2013 12:19 pm

Julia Slingo has been quick to blame higher rainfall on warmer temperatures.
in the UK!!!!
it’s getting cooler,
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

January 9, 2013 12:22 pm

didn’t they also have a state of drought while the floods were happening?

Billy Liar
January 9, 2013 12:24 pm

What’s the betting Julia Slingo gets to spend more time with her family soon.

Jeremy
January 9, 2013 12:30 pm

How regrettable that UK taxpayers are funding such incompetence as is the Met Office.
We are no more advanced than when the tribal leader called upon the witch doctor to caste bones.
CAGW alarmists are just a modern day reincarnation of the primative witch doctor/priests…they have answers for everything of course as they need to maintain their illusions of a higher knowledge.

michel
January 9, 2013 12:36 pm

Yes, nice post. Nothing much is going on. When the history of this mania is written it will be classified under the history of hysteria, not climate.

M Seward
January 9, 2013 12:42 pm

I think all we are really seeing is that the Met Office, having established a media relations unit/officer/whatever, now is captive to the interests of that unit/officer/whatever in appearing ‘relevent’ and ‘on the job’ and with an appetite for issuing press releases. Any old crap will do so long as it gets a media run. Nothing to see really folks, its just a self serving beat up. Ditto for material coming out of most public organisations these days.

Tony B (another one)
January 9, 2013 12:47 pm

Excellent post. It demonstrates the continuing cherry picking of data with which such AGW-obsessed organisations and groups as the Met Office are irretrievably linked.
The massive fraud continues – time for a letter to one of the (few) sane MPs who might actually raise this in Parliament, with the question “The Met Office – can this country afford it?”

ConfusedPhoton
January 9, 2013 12:52 pm

Julia Slingo was given an honorary PhD from Bristol University and well deserved. It is quite clear she did not need to do a real one as her brilliance with figures is undeniable!

Editor
January 9, 2013 1:01 pm

Julia Slingo hails from the met office in exeter. I Visit it frequently in order to use their excellent archives for my research.in fact I will be there tomorrow.
Whilst there I have read through hundreds of books and references to the climate in the UK and exeter itself with records and observations back 1000 years. I have also looked through the archives of the excellent library at the medieval cathedral in exeter
What is perfectly obvious is that we live in a very benign age. The rain and flood episodes in previous centuries makes it seem that 2012 was a drought in comparison.
Julia and her fellow scientists should walk the few yards to their own archives-where I understand they are strangers–and read some of their own documents expensively brought from their previous hq in Bracknell.
As Paul homewood demonstrates the record does not support the met office assertions
Tonyb

Tim Walker
January 9, 2013 1:08 pm

AGW is mostly just about politics and propaganda, but then most of us on here already know that. Still articles like this are important, because we have to keep the toes of these propogandists in the fire.

January 9, 2013 1:12 pm

In England, we have weather. Weather varies; always has done, and always will.
Stack statistics together, and you can call it climate – but you need the right statistics to separate out places with three or four milimetres of rain, virtually ever day, from those with a couple of heavy storms – two or three inches each – each month for eight months if the year. They will have ‘similar’ average annual rainfall.
Paul Homewood has done a very good job getting all this data together.
Many thanks, Paul!
We see that we have had weather, for the last quarter-millennium or more. And before then, too, remember.
It is not absolutely clear – although maybe I could make a guess – why the Met. Office ignored the England rainfall series when they trumpeted ‘unprecedented’ rainfall for 2012.
[My patch of England was in drought until mid-July!]
But when they have the data themselves, available on their website [per references], it doesn’t take an ocean-going conspiracist to smell – well – a rat!
Others can make their own comments, and draw their own conclusions.
I know what I think one problem is.
Dick in Shakespear’s Henry VI – ‘Let’s kill all the lawyers!’ – goes too far, but can we not seek to penalise all who promoted the CAGW religion?
Loss of tenure; even docking their pension by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent if private sector, perhaps up to 33% if public sector?
Can we claim back the sovereignty casually handed to various quasi-global bodies – in politicians’ desire to be seen to be dooing [sic. A typo that looks good to me, actually!] ‘something’, even if that something [oh, fuel from crops, say] kills poor people from starvation – whilst not mitigating the perceived problem, let lone the real one!?
Again, heartfelt thanks to Paul Homewood.
Auto

Jim
January 9, 2013 1:15 pm

Post Fact Science. Cherry picking data and rewriting science, after the fact, is now standard practice for climate scientists & the modeling techniques they use.
The crystal ball and palm reading crowd must be sitting back thinking they’ve had it extraordinary unfair all along when they see what climate scientists get away with.

Jimbo
January 9, 2013 1:16 pm

Slingo had better wrap up warm. That thing children aren’t supposed to know is back.

Forecasters have predicted temperatures could plunge to -5C in some parts of the country next week with snow storms arriving as early as Saturday.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2259376/All-Britain-prepare-snow-weekend-warns-Met-Office-rare-weather-phenomenon-set-cause-freeze.html?ICO=most_read_module

FrankK
January 9, 2013 1:24 pm

On the temperature front the UK Met Office has just announced that there will be no further warming of the globe for the next five years of 0.43 C above the 1971-2000 average (of course). And of course they maintain that the warming trend has “not gone away”.
And here in Oz the heat wave and bushfires we have just had over the last few days “is entirely consistent with extreme events” according to the BOM spokesperson and “unprecedented” and caused by “climate change” according to the Prime Minister.
The drivel keeps on flowing at every opportunity.

Tim Clark
January 9, 2013 1:24 pm

I saw her last 7 predictions. 0 for 7. She needs a new model.

January 9, 2013 1:31 pm

This is a nice job. The Met office like many others of its kind around the world should and aught to be presenting sound, well documented, accurate information. That is job one. Job two is providing the public with clear, meaningful and useful analysis. Job three is making your political masters look good. The Met Office like so many others has the job priority order out of sequence. When that order is dictated by the politicians, instead of, in this case, the sound principals of Popper’s science, dishonesty generally results.

Stephen Richards
January 9, 2013 1:33 pm

In ‘her ‘ paper, Slingo quotes the Brit assurance group as a technical reference. That says it all.

Myron Mesecke
January 9, 2013 1:33 pm

Slingo herself admits that more work needs to be done to predict long term trends. I would question, however, whether she is the right person to lead this work, if she cannot take off her blinkers.
Should the last word be blinders?

Jimbo
January 9, 2013 1:34 pm

The Met Office had constantly warned us about increased frequency of droughts in the UK caused by global warming. Now they warn us of more floods and a temperature standstill caused by global warming and natural climate variation. What is going on with these jokers?
Slingo should be fired.

26 May 2010 – Met Office
“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.”

Jimbo
January 9, 2013 1:35 pm
January 9, 2013 1:47 pm

Einar Rønbeck Evensen says:
January 9, 2013 at 12:22 pm

didn’t they also have a state of drought while the floods were happening?

Yep. And it produced the funniest image I’ve seen for years.

January 9, 2013 2:07 pm

Very nice simple paper. Excellent presentation of actual data sans models!
All of these variations from the normal/average… they’re called weather! A concept that the Met Office appears to have missed because their heads are up in the clouds (or possibly a much darker place).

pat
January 9, 2013 2:22 pm

First it was drought. Now ‘extreme’ rain fall. Next we will hear that absolutely average weather is caused by CAGW.

1 2 3 4