Guest post by Paul Homewood
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.
Figure 1
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
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.
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.
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 |
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.
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.
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/
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.
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/
With the latest RSS figures, one wonders what global warming Julia is talking about!
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/rss-uah-update/
didn’t they also have a state of drought while the floods were happening?
What’s the betting Julia Slingo gets to spend more time with her family soon.
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.
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.
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.
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?”
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!
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
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.
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
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.
Slingo had better wrap up warm. That thing children aren’t supposed to know is back.
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.
I saw her last 7 predictions. 0 for 7. She needs a new model.
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.
In ‘her ‘ paper, Slingo quotes the Brit assurance group as a technical reference. That says it all.
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?
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.
I forgot the link
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2010/droughts-to-increase
Einar Rønbeck Evensen says:
January 9, 2013 at 12:22 pm
Yep. And it produced the funniest image I’ve seen for years.
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).
First it was drought. Now ‘extreme’ rain fall. Next we will hear that absolutely average weather is caused by CAGW.
Excellent post. I have just one criticism about Figs 1 and 2in that they appear to have running averages which are trailing averages, ie the average curve point is the average for the preceding period. I think it would be more sensible to show the running average as a centred mean as this then picks out the actual pattern in the time series better, putting highs and lows in the running average in alignment with the actual data values. Still a fantastic post though!
[I plead guilty!! Paul]
Two major UK university centres measure local rainfall and as ever they do compete
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Oxbridge.htm
Oxford wins on rainfall (Atlantic) good for industry (Midlands), Cambridge wins on sunshine (North Sea) good for agriculture (Anglia).
When was the shift in the media and public office between reporting facts and applying them, to advocacy to herald something in regardless of the truth. Better known in the old days as propaganda.
Then again I have to admit, I am probably getting slower with age. Slow down!!!
We are thankful for the efforts of all those attempting to uphold the truth regardless of the degrading tactics of the GWS mob. Keep at it!!!!
Paul,
“I mentioned the jet stream moving south, but it would be more accurate to describe it as a meridional pattern.”
Very good article, just one issue regarding this.
The jet stream further south can be part of the meridional pattern, but this it not the only reason. The jet stream has literally moved further south across the entire NH at times. A meridional pattern never becomes this large and below highlights this observation.
The Jet stream is further south than normal along the entire NH shown on this graph.
http://virga.sfsu.edu/pub/jetstream/jetstream_atl/big/1212/12121712_jetstream_atl_anal.gif
This is a typical meridional pattern shown below with large section moved from south to north and two sections north to south.
http://virga.sfsu.edu/pub/jetstream/jetstream_atl/big/1212/12120812_jetstream_atl_anal.gif
Overall the movement of the jet stream over recent years has been to a much more southern position, but this has be even with the absence of a meridional pattern.
Myron Mesecke says:
January 9, 2013 at 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?
In UK English – blinkers; in American English – blinders. Both are correct
[Reply: a colloquial Americanism: to be “blinkered” means to have blinders on. Blinders = leather cups that only allow a horse to see in one direction. — mod.]
ThinkingScientist says:
January 9, 2013 at 2:45 pm
I noticed that too, but the advantage this way could be explained by having the mean over recent years that we are particular interested in. The other method would lose the recent 15 year period with no mean.
vukcevic says:
January 9, 2013 at 2:47 pm
Two major UK university centres measure local rainfall and as ever they do compete
Fascinating, thanks, but you really do need to change the chart lines to Light and Dark Blue:-)
Julia Slingo is doing her job , feeding the government what she thinks it needs to keep them feeding the MET . Is not ‘science’ in the first place .
Only someone that has not studied the weather, could ever imagine they might control it.
Yet, here we are.
Babes (or would that be wolves) making the first venture into the wood.
Well, at least the infrared astronomy fields on the earth and in space are tracking the ever rising atmospheric infrared in the earthshine frequencies, right along with the rise in manmade gases.
That way we can at least, eventually have accurate attribution and forecasting.
—————
Oh – that’s right – there’s LESS atmospheric infrared after the past 15(ish) years, at the same time the overall volume of gases being pumped out is larger and larger.
Doh. Just checking – what does it mean when they told me “greenhouse gases” were going to “make for more water vapor as atmospheric infrared climbed” and
“greenhouse gases rising by a third in fifteen years results in a DROP in atmospheric infrared, and a DROP in atmospheric water vapor,
and a total FAIL on every projection made about primary signals of greenhouse gas heat handling.
What does that mean?
It means “the connection between greenhouse gases and rising temperatures is unquestionable.”
It means when I do an experiment, adding CO2 to one jar of atmospheric air while leaving another as is, and then the one with added CO2 COOLS, that CO2 heats the jar that cools.
And if I catch Al Gore doing that experiment online, and with easily found video artifacts determine he switched the thermometers when HE did that experiment, and the jar with the added CO2 COOLS,
that’s called “the jar with the CO2 with that COOLED, got WARMERCOOLER.
Then if someone else does that same experiment, and the jar THEY added CO2 COOLED, it means the jar that cooled, got warmer.
That’s what the people of this planet are being told to swallow. That when world famous people associated with this go online and do experiments which show CO2-added jars of atmospheric air COOL,
that it had better be very plain to everyone that if you add more CO2 to a jar and it cools,
and if you add 4,000 ppm to the air in submarines and there’s no discernible change, that’s called WARMING and that I had better get used to it.
I venture to say before it’s over, there’s going to be so much proof this tree-ring circus is a hoax, people will be ADMITTING they believed in it, rather than BRAGGING they believed in it.
The entire scientific power of all mankind, can’t make one, experiment show up a warmer CO2-laden environment: in a jar, in a submarine, in a greenhouse, in the earth’s entire atmosphere.
The giant heater in the sky folks.
It’s too sophisticated a concept for me to measure and be right.
Because government employees said so.
That’s more than a bald faced lie.
That’s crime.
“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”. J. Slingo.
This looks like an elementary, non-scientific mistake. Find some regional changes and apply them to the global, i.e. mistake details for the general, or some yamals for the forest.
It is interesting that localized “positive” extremes carry the message, while localized “negatives” are part of the background variability. I understand the 3X standard deviation rule for differentiating noise from data. But that presumes we understand the true range of “noise” and background patterns in noise.
It is said that random events don’t happen randomly, that there is a clustering. Even the concentration of galaxies shows clustering, let alone our personal experience that gave rise during WWI to the expression “clusterf**k”. We also experience the odd event at a significant level: Gallup polls state “This survey is considered accurate to +/- 3%, 19 out of 20 times”, that is, one in twenty times some other result different from their observation would have come out.
We have just one temperature record, and only one, 140-year instrumental period, and we are in an argument about only the last 37 years, since 1975 (though the eco-green consistently think the story starts about 1850). Our ability to recognize what trees define the forest, or even what we mean by a forest, is limited.
If Slingo et al were not committed to having The Answer, cause and effect nicely and neatly packaged up with a pretty green bow on top, warmist and skeptic would be at each others’ throats. But then, the bureaucrats and Goreists wouldn’t be fighting at the trough of frightened consumers and taxpayers, either.
I see snow is falling in Jerusalem today – further incontrovertible proof of global warming.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=snow+israel&hl=en&tbo=u&source=univ&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=qALuUIHyMYTs0gWi44DIBg&sqi=2&ved=0CDAQqAI&biw=1366&bih=569
Early last month the MET Office admitted there had been no warming for 15 years….but Sligo maintains continued AGW. The warmist agenda seems to start at he end of the “Littel Ice Age”, when the sun became warmer and then along came the beginings of modern life and a bit more CO2. However they miss the point. We are in a Holocene, one that has been cooling for 10,000 years. Apart from their lack of understanding of the science they have no appreciation of context and scale.
All of our money and intellectual effort –
put into hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars’ research, when including the relevant, peripheral, atmospheric research done for Mars, and our probes, etc –
when the total CO2 in the atmosphere rose by a full third in about the last fifty years –
when the total man made CO2 in the atmosphere rose by a full third, about the past fifteen –
And all mankind has looked for the giant heater with everything we have,
people are so intimidated by government employees
that the entire western world is being told ‘Shhhh you don’t want to spoil our credibility.’
“we don’t want to be called silly by saying we don’t believe in, the giant heater in the sky.”
That’s what life in the Western world has come to.
You don’t have PERMISSION to claim you “don’t believe in the giant heater in the sky.”
The giant heater in the sky is there, you just what – ?
You just refuse to ”believe it.
Actually I believe the entire spread of instruments from Galileo’s optical astronomy field: they haven’t said added heat in the atmosphere is occluding their ability to view the sky, and they have computer controlled mirror flexing machines to take away the effects of atmospheric infrared from the earth at night: wavering of the atmosphere. Scintillation aka the twinkling of the stars.
Heat on gas is motion. Why isn’t there increased motion with increased heat?
I believe in the thousands upon thousands of radiosondes whose measurements were made fun of by the same people who thought Mannian Statistics might have been math.
I believe in the atmospheric research equipment launched into space that samples the spectrum of light coming from the earth: it hasn’t ever issued one peep there’s additional earth shine frequency infrared, in the atmosphere. Even though the equipment’s designed for just such tasks.
I believe in the fact that men in submarines for fifty years have lived in submarines which go from atmospheric air to 4,000 ppm CO2 because it doesn’t have to be combed out: I believe all the electrical and electronic and nuclear and hydraulic and thermodynamical engineers on those boats underwater for months on end, would have noticed when the atmospheric heat started climbing like crazy.
I believe in the fact there’s not one word from those men with nothing to do but fixate on their equipment and instrumentation’s functions, about how ‘Air with more CO2 handles heat differently than air with lower levels.’
I believe in the fact the greenhouse industry researchers in universities for a hundred years never discovered a single unusual thing about the way their thermostats and thermometers handled when they raised CO2 levels to 1500 and whatever (think of the number of times fans were accidentally left off and CO2 allowed to accumulate).
I believe in that.
I “believe” in what the instrumentation record all across mankind’s history says, and said.
I believe that in all the thousands of years mankind has been fermenting alcohol, with CO2 a pure, byproduct thereof, never – not once – remarking that when the CO2 was in certain conditions, heat was handled differently by the air impinged upon by such raised levels.
So I believe till somebody shows me a test proving to me CO2 has anything to do with air handling heat differently, they had better do more than “believe” there’s no way I can check on their story.
No?
Paul Homewood
Many thanks for an excellent analysis of a very strange PR campaign.
Julia Slingo has form:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=85
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=90
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=197
and she doesn’t seemed to have changed her ways since she moved to the Met Office.
Maybe Julia Slingo would like to come over here and explain her ‘scientific’ rationale, on her own. Maybe she needs to be invited to tell her side: after all, there’s a lot of obviously baseless ‘unbelief’ going on in here.
And this is the world’s largest climate reference blog/scientific discussion site.
She could clear this whole thing up once and for all, and between us all: statisticians, mathematicians, applied science majors, applied science professionals – we would probably be able to put that all together, since apparently it’s so complicated that once you work for government, it’s simultaneously obvious it’s too complicated for human language to encompass, but so simple it’s “silly” not to believe in it.
Maybe Anthony Watts would, or we could, invite her to tell her side?
The UK met office have all the data which shows the position of the jet stream. I asked them the other day if they could publish this – they said thay had a few requests for this and that they are considering doing this and certainly will if there were enough requests for it.
I think it would be interesting to plot this against both precipitation and temperatures as I suspect some correlations might appear. If you think the data would be interesting then maybe you could email the Met Office (or call them if you are in the UK) and ask for the data.
[Reply: Got a contact link for the Met Office? — mod.]
Hot off the press:
Satellite-Era Model-Data Precipitation Comparison for the UK and US
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/satellite-era-model-data-precipitation-comparison-for-the-uk-and-us/
It would be nice if the models at least got the signs of the trends correct. So far the models have had no success in that:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/12/27/model-data-precipitation-comparison-cmip5-ipcc-ar5-model-simulations-versus-satellite-era-observations/
I think I’ll look at Australia and Canada next, and then, the continents.
Paul,
Very well done, analyses and presentation!
Send the Bunko Squad for Ms. Slingo…..
MtK
“There is generally good agreement between ensemble members…”
Hopefully, they won’t take up chamber music, though individual busking might be on the cards.
Moderator:
At January 9, 2013 at 4:25 pm in response to a suggestion that Dr Slingo be invited to contribute to WUWT you ask
“[Reply: Got a contact link for the Met Office? — mod.]”
Tony b is visiting the Met Office tomorrow. Perhaps you could provide him with the invitation so it can be personally delivered?
Richard
I don’t understand the problem here. Its a wet-drought. see completely in keeping with the models. It goes with the warm-cold the dry-rain and the less frequent-increase in storms.
I respect the qualities of the female gender but it seems that there are a lot of women around the world that have been promoted above their level of competence (a la Peter Principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle) This is more likely to happen when there are calls for equality and quotas. A consequence of the Peter Principle is that the incompetent administrators surround themselves with even more incompetent people so that their incompetence is not so obvious and they have someone to blame. The answer is to get rid of a lot of people at the top and change the culture. The Met seems to be a candidate. Sometimes the rot is so deep that it maybe better to scrap the lot and start again. Unfortunately, when that happens with the major political parties (especially when government and major opposition are infested with incompetents ) it is hard to turn around and the public suffers for a long time.
RobW says at 5:05 pm…
In other words, it’s the same difference.
Yogi Berra would be proud.
Well done, Paul.
Perhaps this will find its way to Julia Slingo’s desk**. One could attach a Post-it® note saying “Just the facts, ma’am.” [Dragnet]
————–
**
Tonyb,
“. . . I understand they are strangers ”
Oops. You’d better carry along a box of nice chocolates tomorrow.
RobW says:
January 9, 2013 at 5:05 pm
“I don’t understand the problem . . .”
But you do seem to have a good understanding of the process:
http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/b/barefootboywithbootsonthe.shtml
Slingo’s been taking a pounding on WUWT lately. I would love to know what people at the Met think.
Looking at their map of rainfall changes, it’s hard to see what anyone would complain about.
The wettest parts of the U.K. -Scotland and especially the West of Scotland- which gets more rain than it needs (way more) has recently received less.
And the driest parts -the South (in general) and the East coast- which frequently declare ‘droughts’ and impose hosepipe bans, now gets more.
Incidentally, people sometimes wonder how a small country like the Britain managed to build and maintain such a large empire. It’s simple. You could pluck a regiment of rain-soaked Scotsmen and plonk them in any god-forsaken climate in the world. They might grumble about pay but rarely about the weather : )
That’s the rainiest drought in Britain which I have ever come across in my whole lifetime…
A fantastic piece – so clearly written and understandable for all. A real shame such clear, concise reporting of the actual historical facts will never find their way onto a single BBC news report – a pity, as the BBC seem to be currently engaged in all-out ‘extreme weather’ scare mongering and misinformation at every available opportunity; a truly unedifying sight and ample evidence (as if it were still somehow needed) of something very wrong within the editorial ranks of The Corporation. Thanks for this much-needed piece of rational, evidence-based reporting.
Generally liked it, but
“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.”
Can you pick an individual year out of a smoothed trendline?
I have read a few interesting things, which may bring to bear some insights of complexity to the table:
1. In the extreme winter for the UK of 1947, the greatest snow event of the 20th century in this country, Holland, Northern France and parts of Germany was not matched in Southern Europe. There, if anything, things were much wetter and rather milder, as the atlantic fronts had tracked far further south, leaving a blocking pattern centred over Britain and the northern continent.
2. In that winter, the extreme northern tips of Norway and a small part of the north Russian coastline were far warmer than average.
3. A 1000+ page volume, piecing together reports of drought, heat, floods, crop failures, hard winters, frozen rivers etc etc contains such frequent reference to floods in England, Wales and Scotland over the period 0 AD – 1900 AD as to make the expression ‘unprecedented’ completely comical. The key question to ask is actually about the state of the rivers, how deep they were, how well dredged etc etc. In addition, regular reports of all the major European rivers freezing exist, pointing to last year’s great freeze up as nothing new or novel, merely contemporaneously rare.
4. In terms of Sudden Stratospheric Warming events, there is no evidence that any step changes have occurred since 1958. What can be said, however, is that one very large event in December 1998 (they are rare in December, but when they happen, expect things to happen) preceded world record snowfall on Mt Baker WA in 1998/99 season, as well as a record 30 day snowfall across much of Switzerland from 25th January to 25th February 1999 (data retrieved from http://www.slf.ch which compared that period to the slightly less snowy period of December/January 2011/12 12 months ago. Keen skiers will know of the avalanches triggered in 1999, the deaths which occurred and the TV coverage of frustrated war reporters which ensued). There doesn’t, a priori, appear to be any evidence linking GHGs to SSWs therefore, either in terms of frequency or in terms of intensity.
5. If you have lived in both Scotland and the South East (I have!), you will know that precipitation patterns in Scotland are radically affected by the direction in which the frontal system approaches the often mountainous terrain. If the approach is from the south with blocking cells to the north, the Southern Uplands and Argyll may get very heavy precipitation (snow in winter), whereas north of the Great Glen, no precipitation at all will occur. If fronts approach from the west or North West, the North West Highlands get the most precipitation. As the latter is more common in most years, the highest rainfall totals are to be found in the NW Highlands and on the mountainous Islands off the coast. This year is testament to what can happen if the prevailing patterns shift.
6. The tourist destination of Fort William miraculously seems to carry on with average rainfall of around 3 times that of the South East of England. To suggest to them that life would end with rainfall of 1200mm would have them sending you to the local psych ward……..
All in all, this whole nonsense from the MO is a ghastly piece of PC shenanigans which has wasted millions of taxpayers’ money. The outcome is only going to be in one direction and the brave ones dedicated to scientific truth must emerge financially stronger, politically more powerful and publicly more decorated than the snake oil salesfolk whose market is withering before their eyes…….
Climate is always evolving or changing. There have been rainfall records which were broken hundreds of years ago, a new record seems to crop up every 50 years or so, but when most of the new records as far as rainfall in the UK are concerned, are set in the last 12 years, does that change our view of what is happening with our climate? Yes. I agree, these things have happened before, but it is the rate of change with regard to rainfall in the UK that is of particular interest. A record rainfall once every decade or so is bearable, when it starts happening every year that’s a different matter.
” 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?”
Sort of, In the spring, they had drought and hosepipe bans and the Met office predicting more droughts to come, then the rains came and never stopped for the rest of the year.
If the met office medium and long term predictions were correct, beyond a range of chance, then there computer systems would have been worth the millions we British tax payers paid for them.
If the met office medium and long term predictions were correct, but only to degree equal with chance, then it could be argued that they needn’t have spent all that money and they could have tossed a coin instead.
But the clear fact is that the met office’s medium and long term predictions were wrong more often than chance, which proves that their models are wrong. We also know that their models are coded to include an assumption of man made global warming. That assumption is wrong. The model is wrong, we taxpayers should demand our money back!
Earlier I wrote :
” The UK met office have all the data which shows the position of the jet stream. I asked them the other day if they could publish this – they said thay had a few requests for this and that they are considering doing this and certainly will if there were enough requests for it.
I think it would be interesting to plot this against both precipitation and temperatures as I suspect some correlations might appear. If you think the data would be interesting then maybe you could email the Met Office (or call them if you are in the UK) and ask for the data.
[Reply: Got a contact link for the Met Office? — mod.]
In response to the request from a moderator, and hoping as many as possible will request the jet stream data from the met office :
Met Office website is : http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/
email for enquries : enquiries@metoffice.gov.uk
Online Feedback form : http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/feedback
Telephone number (international) +44 1392 885680
Telephone number (UK) 01392 885680
Fax number +44 1392 885681
For the avoidance of doubt the Met Office is an arm of the UK government as an ‘executive agency’ – hence it’s .gov.uk web address. It describes itself thus:- “The Met Office is an Executive Agency of the United Kingdom’s Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.”
It’s Home Page descriptor is ” Weather and Climate Change – Met Office”.
The UK Department of Energy was renamed The Department for Energy and Climate Change as is staffed with politicians and civil servants who give every impression of being signed-up members of the climate change religion.
They are forecasting snow now!
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-weather-snow-ice-and-subzero-1527009
Gareth Phillips:
Your entire post at January 10, 2013 at 12:46 am says
The only exceptional weather-related rate of change is the frequency of Met Office reversals of its assertions.
A few years of below average rain and the Met Office predicted droughts most years.
A few months of above average rain and the Met Office predicted floods most years.
Richard
Green Sand says:
January 9, 2013 at 3:34 pm
Fascinating, thanks, but you really do need to change the chart lines to Light and Dark Blue
……..
I am regular on the Putney bridge , but now compulsory ‘dark blue’ since my youngest use to be a member of one of the colleges female crews.
It is that ‘shifting south’ which is the key to all of this. I learned as a child that in winter the low pressure settled over Britain and the in summer the low settled over Iceland. Not so this last twelve months. The inclination of the Jet Stream has been such as to not re-site the low pressure with the resultant conditions. Earlier last year a weather scientist agonised that they knew little about the antics of the Jet Stream from which pronouncement one could conclude that the phenomena had scant input to any climate model. The Met. Office has perhaps the biggest computer system in Great Britain but it is the same old story of junk in and junk out. There is a quite a consensus of opinion in the British press today that the Met. Office is fast becoming a national joke and the origin of such an opinion must lie in the coercion of facts to suit the story, a thing totally contrary to the British scientific model.
The Met Office is a laughing stock – more serious than before, when we just took their weather forecasting with a pinch of salt! Nowadays, their incompetence extends to the AGW/global warming meme and in conjunction with CRU – they are losing credibility across the UK and the world. MetOffice and CRU = Disgrace
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2259942/The-crazy-climate-change-obsession-thats-Met-Office-menace.html
logicophilosophicus
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.”
Can you pick an individual year out of a smoothed trendline?
Thanks. I was quoting the 10 yr trends during those years (and 30). So for instance,between 1880 and 1886, the 10 yr average ranged from 998mm to 1007mm. (i.e.the years 1871-80 through to 1877-86). Current 10 yr av is 940mm.
Another way of looking at it is that the av for 1872-86 was 1003mm.
If you need a history of extreme weather events in the British Isles, have a look at John Kington’s book ‘Climate and Weather’ (2010) published in the Collins New Naturalist Series Number 115. This book is exceptionally detailed and goes through the decades from 1 B.C to 2000 A.D. From 1310 A.D. the author computes corresponding pressure maps over the Atlantic and Western Europe.
This book is a good antidote to the cry that we are living in extreme weather times caused CAGW.
Where did you get daily data for Oxford? I can only find historical station data that is monthly summaries.
One of my main gripes with the way weather is reported on tv, especially on the BBC, is the way they will make a claim like ‘a month’s worth of rain fell in 24hours’. This creates the impression that something significant has happened, when in fact it might be perfectly normal for the rainfall of a particular month to come from just one storm system. When it comes to weather, it’s not just a depression that spins.
Rich
Where did you get daily data for Oxford? I can only find historical station data that is monthly summaries.
The Met emailed them to me. I also have similar files for Heathrow, Aberporth, Shawbury and Bradford for rain and temps (but not up to 2012).
I am more than happy to email them to anyone who wants to work on them. Just send me a message on
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/about/
Um, perhaps even less advanced. I know, the end of the world passed uneventfully, but the Maya Dresden Codex actually didn’t show the end of the world, it showed water pouring from the sky. As we’ve had a bunch more rain than we had during the hotter drier ’90s, I’d have to credit the “witch doctors” with rather more skill than the Met Doctors…
See the image:
http://www.crystalinks.com/dresdencodexlastpage.jpg
that I talk about (with some humor) here:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/5-weeks-to-the-end-of-the-world/
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/dresden/dresdencodex.htm
It’s got to be a real “burn” when some ancient priests / witch doctors get the weather right and do it a few thousand years in advance using sticks and round stone wheels… They even have a more accurate calendar too, dang it all! 😉
“It would appear that the Met have very little idea as to what will actually happen.”
So, no change there….
Many thanks to Paul for an excellent summary. With all the recent reports of flooding even I was beginning to wonder if there has been an increasing trend in UK rainfall or rainfall variability. My own experience (not a million miles from Worthing) is that there has been plenty of rain this year, but nothing dramatic or unusual when compared to the fifty years I’ve lived here. And, as Paul points out, the rainfall records over the last few centuries shows a dramatic lack of long term trends. Over the long term, rainfall in the UK is remarkably stable. But, of course, for the Met Office that’s nowhere scary enough.
I think that the good folks at the Met Office, and many others, long ago abandoned science. As a result the Met Office seems to be an organisation totally dedicated to being wrong – at least for any forecasts more than 48 hours into the future.
I am fairly confident that science will eventually regain its integrity. But with the present crop of climate non-scientists at the MO, I’m not holding my breath….
Chris
Talking of the metoffice. They do a five day forecast on a Sunday evening for the coming week. I often try and take note of this due to playing football on Thursday evenings (soccer). This week, i decided to test out their forecast, as of last Sunday the Met Office models were showing westerlies across the uk with a band of rain due to be crossing the country today. Which i noted with depression at the time. No one likes playing sport outside in the wet right ?
Anyway as i look outside my office window now its about 0 clear blue and sunny.
Looking outside the window in the morning is more useful that the UK MetOffice. That or tomorrow will have the same weather as yesterday….
I find it very telling that Paul Homewood has sourced all this information from the Met Office’s own records.
Strange that, because it does not assume that ‘climate’ started about 1989, the trends (such as they are) are not nearly as scary as the likes of Julia Sligo would have us believe…
Love the drawings of the floods at Windsor in 1875 – are there any photos of the same area in December 2012..?
[“does it not” assume … ? Mod]
richardscourtney says:
January 10, 2013 at 2:01 am
Gareth Phillips:
Your entire post at January 10, 2013 at 12:46 am says
Climate is always evolving or changing. There have been rainfall records which were broken hundreds of years ago, a new record seems to crop up every 50 years or so, but when most of the new records as far as rainfall in the UK are concerned, are set in the last 12 years, does that change our view of what is happening with our climate? Yes. I agree, these things have happened before, but it is the rate of change with regard to rainfall in the UK that is of particular interest. A record rainfall once every decade or so is bearable, when it starts happening every year that’s a different matter.
The only exceptional weather-related rate of change is the frequency of Met Office reversals of its assertions.
A few years of below average rain and the Met Office predicted droughts most years.
A few months of above average rain and the Met Office predicted floods most years.
Richard
Thank you Richard, you may well be right on what you say regarding the met office, but my point is based on observation, or grounded knowledge. We know that more rainfall records have been broken in the last 12 years than at almost any other period in the record. If we ignore what the met office predicts, the actual records are still of concern and suggest we may need to adapt our infrastructure to meet changing needs. The only basis for prediction in a chaotic system such as climate and weather is observation of trends. While most rainfall records being broken in the last 12 years does not always mean a wetter period ahead, it’s an indicator of an increased chance of such a situation. It’s a method reflected in almost all risk management . When models are inaccurate we quite rightly point out that they fail in their predictions and are unreliable. However risk analysis based on observation of consistent information can be very useful in assessing what may happen in the future in a given circumstance.
I remember being woken up by the cat during the Hurricane of 1987 .Then there was another Hurricane a year later .That one was actually worse because it happened during the day when everyone was out and about .Actor Gordon Kaye Rennee from Allo Allo got hit in the head with an Estate Agents wooden sign.
Thing is the Warmist are claiming more storms and crazy weather due to hotter atmosphere.
Therefore has any one pulled the Data for Storms and Tornado’s and Hurricanes in the UK.
There was a small Tornado in Birmingham 3 years ago.Has anyone pulled the Data for Storms and Tornado’s and Hurricanes in the UK.Last bad ones was back in 1987 88.Has there been any more?
The claims by the various pro cagw bodies including the rentseeking “scientists” and friends have given up on specific forecasts and now give caveats (may, could, possibly) to their statements to cover their arses. When the scam is over the will say it was all done in good faith to avoid culpability. There are no sanctions to discourage these people.
The 1920’s were also comparatively wet.
henry says
2012-88= 1924
it fits !! just as I had expected….
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Jimsouthlondon
I was in the met office library today and my hand hovered over a book called something like ‘tornadoes in Britain.’ a quick scan revealed many tornadoes through the centuries.I believe Britain has more tornadoes for its size than anywhere else but they tend to be small
However I I didn’t get the book but just to let you know that such a book exists.
Tonyb
Jimsouthlondon
Here is the first tornado recorded in Britain which was also the most vicious
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2011/oct/19/weatherwatch-tornado-london-britain
It struck in 1091, yes nearly a thousand years ago.
Tonyb
Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
This is a fine article by Paul Homewood which deserves wide coverage and perhaps longer discussion on the Talkshop.
Jimsouthlondon
Some wacky scientis reckons UK gets more tornadoes as US (per sq mile).
There again, that’s probably because we have a quango specially set up to count them.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/britain-turns-into-a-tornado-hotspot-with-100-twisters-a-year-6167818.html
Tonyb says:
I was in the met office library today and my hand hovered over a book called something like ‘tornadoes in Britain.’ a quick scan revealed many tornadoes through the centuries.I believe Britain has more tornadoes for its size than anywhere else but they tend to be small
I heard that most are out to sea.
Slingo in the news again, a minor mention:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/11/met-office-james-delingpole
You may (or may not – it’s OK) remember a song from the mid-60s called “Ringo.”
“Ringo” became a hit single performed by the Canadian actor, Lorne Greene, in 1964. The song tells the tale of a lawman and his relationship with a gunfighter he had nursed back to health.
“Ringo” was written by Don Robertson and Hal Blair.
As a result of all this… YOU… get a poem. I thank Lorne Greene and Julia Slingo for their inspiration.
First, to refresh your memory: “Ringo” lyrics as performed by Lorne Greene.
Followed by my original composition, “Slingo,” performed by no one.
——————
Ringo (by Don Robertson and Hal Blair)
He lay face down in the desert sand
Clutching his six-gun in his hand
Shot from behind, I thought he was dead
But under his heart was an ounce of lead
But a spark still burned so I used my knife
And late that night I saved the life of Ringo
I nursed him till the danger passed
The days went by, he mended fast
Then from dawn till setting sun
He practiced with that deadly gun
And hour on hour I watched in awe
No human being could match the draw of Ringo
One day we rode the mountain crest
And I went east and he went west
I took to law and wore a star
While he spread terror near and far
With lead and blood he gained such fame
All through the West they feared the name of Ringo
I knew someday I’d face the test
Which one of us would be the best
And sure enough the word came down
That he was holed up in the town
I left the posse out in the street
And I went in alone to meet Ringo
They said my speed was next to none
But my lightning draw had just begun
When I heard a blast that stung my wrist
The gun went flying from my fist
And I was looking down the bore
Of the deadly .44 of Ringo
They say that was the only time
That anyone had seen him smile
He slowly lowered his gun and then
He said to me “We’re even, friend”
And so at last I understood
That there was still a spark of good in Ringo
I blocked the path of his retreat
He turned and stepped into the street
A dozen guns spit fire and lead
A moment later, he lay dead
The town began to shout and cheer
Nowhere was there shed a tear for Ringo
The story spread throughout the land
That I had beaten Ringo’s hand
And it was just the years, they say
That made me put my guns away
But on his grave they can’t explain
The tarnished star above the name of Ringo
—————-
Slingo (by Rick K)
She said straight-up the sceptered land
Would soon turn into desert sand
She heard others say global warming was dead
But under her skull was a brain of lead
My brain burned as I grabbed my knife
And was sorely tempted to free my life from Slingo
I listened to her till the urge had passed
But listen hard because she talks fast
Then from dawn till setting sun
She spoke of relentless deadly sun
And hour on hour I watched in awe
No human alive could build a house of straw like Slingo
One day we met on a mountain crest
We both did what we thought best
I took to science and used my brain
While she spread terror for selfish gain
With models and forecasts she gained such fame
All through the West they fear the name of Slingo
I knew someday I’d face the test
Would brains or models be the best
And sure enough the temps came down
And water flowed all through the town
I watched my car float down the street
And I went in alone to meet Slingo
They said my brain was next to none
And my cogent thought had just begun
When I felt a blast that stung my wrists
As she beat her chest with both her fists
Clutching her forecast in her hand
“Britain will be an isle of sand!” said Slingo
They say that was the only time
That anyone had seen her smile
She slowly lowered her arms and then
She said to me “This drought won’t end”
And so at last I understood
Talking sense would do no good with Slingo
“Julia!” I said, “Your forecast’s a bust!
It’s the only thing that’s turned to dust”
A dozen taxis flowed down the road
She hopped on one as would a toad
The Met began to shout and cheer
They alone offered to buy a beer for Slingo
Julia’s drought spread throughout the land
As rain-soaked Britons could barely stand
And it was just her hubris, they say
That made me want to run away
I screamed, “Julia! On you is the onus!”
But she ignored me and went off to collect the bonus of Slingo
On Peter Thorne of the MET office, Climategate e-mails, and his advice to Kate Willett about answering an e-mail from David Bellamy. It highlight the US vs Them mentality.
If Dr Kate Willett is competent enough to write a paper you would think she is capable of defending it without someone holding her hand.
The Met office are good at one thing – and one thing only. Three-four day, up to a week forecast.
The rest they know nothing about whatsoever, so they invent it, as Jo Bastardi eloquently explains
Analysing the England & Wales rainfall data
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadukp/data/daily/HadEWP_daily_qc.txt
by month shows no significant change in intensity of intensity rain by rainday nor in the number of raindays as already posted analysed by individual months, all months and annually
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/05/met-office-accused-of-misleading-public-over-rainfall-trends/.
Looking at the significant rain days (Rainfall >12.5mm) there is also no significant relationship in the individual monthly number of such events.
However the data analysed by all months and by year they show a correlation significant at the 5% level.
When analysed by decade the 8 decades starting in 1931 show no significant correlation, but starting at 1932 and 1933 there is a significant relationship over time with number of significant rain days.
Excellent article. The recent Met Office reporting on 2012 is definitely the most shameful piece of reporting on our weather and represents a ‘new low’. To refer, as they do, to the ‘history’ of rainfall data as only going back to 1910, when the England and Wales rainfall data back to 1766 are available on their own web-site is a disgrace. Looking at the data I seem to see that 2012 only ranked as the FIFTH wettest year in the England and Wales rainfall series back to 1766. The Met Office have given a provisional England and Wales rainfall total for 2012 of 1205mm (47.44 inches for our US readers) – this compares with 1284.9mm (50.58″) in 1872; 1247.3mm (49.11″) in 1768; 1232.5mm (48.52″) in 2000 and 1213mm (47.76″) in 1852
This is a good, clear account making some good, clear points. Useful!
Except this one:
“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.”
Obviously several factors affect climate, as perhaps the Warmists begin to appreciate. In this case, I venture Scotland’s latitude and mountains may play a role…
That would make a nice, pointed little paper: “The Benign Age is Now”.