By Paul Homewood
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/summaries/anomacts
The Met Office have now issued the precipitation stats for last month, so what do they tell us about the winter as a whole in England, where the floods have caused such havoc? (I am concentrating on England for this reason, although there is a section on the UK as whole, which shows a similar picture)
(I will also be devoting a separate post to the situation in Somerset.)
After all of the hype and repeatedly proclaimed “possible links to climate change”, we find that December to February rainfall, although the highest since 1910, was just a measly 3mm more than recorded in 1914/15. If this winter’s record rainfall really has been the result of global warming, as has been claimed, is that really the only difference it has made, 3mm?
And has this 3-month spell been unprecedented? Nope, not even remotely so, I am afraid. As I have been pointing out for the last few weeks, there was a much wetter period during the winter of 1929/30. But, not only that, it also turns out that there were wetter periods in 2001/01 and 1960/61.
Let’s run through the numbers.
| Precipitation
mm |
|
| Nov 1929 to Jan 1930 | 455.1 |
| Oct 1960 to Dec 1960 | 396.3 |
| Oct 2000 to Dec 2000 | 442.1 |
| Dec 2013 to Feb 2014 | 395.6 |
Of course, February is a short month, so this could account for about 6mm of the difference on a pro rata basis, but even then this winter’s precipitation is still much less than in 1929/30 and 2000.
Moreover, in 1929/30 particularly, but also in other earlier winters, the unusually wet weather extended for four months, and not just three. The November to February period was also much wetter in 1914/15.
| Precipitation
mm |
|
| Nov 1914 to Feb 1915 | 495.6 |
| Oct 1929 to Jan 1930 | 567.2 |
| Oct 1960 to Jan 1961 | 500.8 |
| Sep 2000 to Dec 2000 | 557.0 |
| Nov 2013 to Feb 2014 | 463.0 |
The table below compares 1929/30 and 2013/14 on a month by month basis. As can be seen, both November and December 1929 were considerable wetter than any month this winter. It was only the exceptionally dry month of February 1930 that kept the “winter” total relatively low for that year. This dry month, of course, did not make the preceding four months any less wet.
| 1929/30
mm |
2013/14
mm |
|
| October | 112.1 | 139.1 |
| November | 174.5 | 67.4 |
| December | 165.5 | 116.7 |
| January | 115.1 | 158.2 |
| February | 24.7 | 120.7 |
Other Comparisons
The British Rainfall publication for 1930 makes the comment:
Although these figures refer to the entire British Isles, this would appear to indicate that October 1876 to January 1877 was also much wetter than the last four months.
Southern England
As it has been the southern half of the country which has been particularly badly affected by flooding, we need to take a separate look at rainfall totals there.
As it turns out, the data shows a similar picture to England as a whole, with 1929/30 again being much wetter, both for 3-month totals:
| mm | |
| Oct 1929 to Dec 1929 | 457.7 |
| Oct 2000 to Dec 2000 | 431.6 |
| Dec 2013 to Feb 2014 | 404.8 |
And for 4-month totals:
| mm | |
| Nov 1914 to Feb 1915 | 481.8 |
| Oct 1929 to Jan 1930 | 562.9 |
| Oct 1960 to Jan 1961 | 493.3 |
| Oct 2000 to Jan 2001 | 509.5 |
| Nov 2013 to Feb 2014 | 471.8 |
United Kingdom
As is the case in England, 1929/30 was much wetter over the UK as a whole, for 3-month and 4-month totals.
| mm | |
| Nov 1929 to Jan 1930 | 554.0 |
| Dec 2013 to Feb 2014 | 531.7 |
| mm | |
| Oct 1929 to Jan 1930 | 706.0 |
| Nov 2013 to Feb 2014 | 624.2 |
Summary
While this winter has been exceptionally wet, there have been other years, in the records since 1910, which have seen much wetter spells than we have endured this winter. Undoubtedly, the winter of 1929/30 stands out as the one truly exceptional run of wet weather.
Finally, it’s worth looking at this comment in the British Rainfall publication for 1929.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/archive/british-rainfall
It appears that the record rainfall, from October onwards, had been preceded by a record dry spell. In those days, they had the sense to realise that this was natural variation. If it were to happen again nowadays, there would no doubt be a conference to try to blame it all on global warming!
All of this leaves one question. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no mention at all of 1929/30, or the other years, when this winter’s weather has been discussed by the Met Office. It may be that such a mention would not do their agenda any good, but surely the public, who fund the Met Office via their taxes, are entitled to all of the facts, presented in an impartial and transparent fashion.
References
All data is from the Met Office
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/summaries/datasets
“For utterly moronic commentary see Thomas L. Friedman”
I’m an Australian and I picked this up from the Steyn and Hewitt and I have tried to post this to as many places as possible because it is the greatest ‘recommendation’ for a carbon tax and justification for an ‘EPA’ to destroy an entire economy that I have ever seen…. Putin will be sorry!
David, UK says:
March 7, 2014 at 8:32 am
40 Denier? Tesco don’t know thighs from tights. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100415082556AAp27Tb
Dudley Horscroft
OK, if this was the highest since 1910, what was the rainfall in Dec to Feb 1910? Obviously, since data is quoted going back to 1869, there must be records of the relevant rainfall in 1910.
The Met Office data which I have used only dates back to 1910. There is a separate England & Wales Series back to 1766, but this had not been updated at the time of writing. (But it has now!)
I will be posting on this and the Somerset situation shortly.
So the NYT apartchik response to Putin invading/squeezing Ukrain and the west is to preach about global warming, and to of course raise taxes.
Someone made a satirical joke that perhaps the US response to Russia would be to lecture about ‘climate’. and now we see that the climate obsessed are thinking this is a serious policy option.
Truth is straneger than fiction, lol.
Imagine the scence in the Kremilin:
(Putin looking shocked and weary): We must leave the Ukraine! Now!
(white-faced shaken advier): Yes, we cannot believe they would commit to even *more* windmills!
(Putin, resigned and bitter): Yes, on top of their carbon tax and shutting down of fracking, we haven’t a chance to hold the Crimea. Tell our long suffering people we cannot stand against those fiendish Americans and their global warming strategy. It’s over, over!
Thanks Paul. Very well timed this coming up today with Patchuri coming out of the woodwork again after a merciful period of silence.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/07/floods-gales-un-climate-change-extreme-weather
NoFixedAddress says: @ur momisugly March 7, 2014 at 7:35 am
OT… but had to copy this…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
China and Russia would fall over busting a gut laughing if the USA were to do as the NYT wants.
New York Times has Vested Interest in Climate Alarmism
Ian your comments are totally correct but add to that Europe could virtually become energy secure.
Shale gas is relatively expensive but the cost is imbedded in the community where it is consumed and additionally the market has a short supply chain.
I am skeptical of the LNG story for Shale Gas.
Kenny says: @ur momisugly March 7, 2014 at 9:14 am
Upon us all…a little rain must fall. Well, maybe more than a little.
Why is there a constant strem of mis-information coming out and why doesn’t the mainstream cover it? ….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Read my comment http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/07/in-the-uk-it-was-much-wetter-in-1929/#comment-1584983 and go to the first comment to that article. (It is in moderation so you may have to wait) It explains why we are fed propaganda.
MORE INFO:
WHAT IS IN IT FOR THE BANKS?
This is money stripped from the poor and middle class with NOTHING but misery given in return.
Oh but the concept of a ‘Free Press’ also required it to tell the truth……
Then all this nonsense would have been ended through criminal trials of the UK and US media years ago.
But PM Cameron tells us he can see more extreme weather. It must be correct as no politician would lie to the public, would they?
Yes, but it was an almost unprecedented rainfall. How often does one see that happen?
Paul,
You seemed determined to downplay this year’s rainfall, so here are some more facts which have passed their quality control checks at the Met Office.
The England & Wales rainfall figures go back to 1766. Before this year, the 3 wettest winters were
1914-15 423 mm
1989-90 421 mm
1876-77 418 mm
This year’s figure was 453 mm, and that was after the first 10 days of December were almost dry.
The individual months were ranked as follows (out of 248 or 249)
December 32nd with 134 mm (the wettest December since 2012)
January 1st with 186 mm (only 3 other Januaries within 25mm)
February 7th with 135 mm
January + February wettest with 320 mm (next wettest 277 mm in 1995)
So – the winter was wettest by 30mm, and Jan + Feb wettest by 43 mm.
I call that “unprecedented” and worthy of whatever headlines it generated ( except the Climate Change ones, of course). Another factor in all the hype was that the largest percentage anomalies occurred in the south, where the rivers are slower to drain, and more of the population, including newspaper reporters and TV crews live.
Sure – you can find some wetter 3-month periods by dragging in some months from Autumn, but these are potentially much wetter. The wettest October on record in 1903 had 60mm more than the wettest February, and there are 27 Octobers and Novembers which were wetter than the wettest ever February.
And sticking to meteorological seasons, the wettest of all was Autumn 2000 with 503 mm, followed by Autumn 1852 with 456 mm, followed by this year’s winter
The ‘British Rainfall’ publication data matches what happens in California. I have seen the parallel from different angles and now this. The year 1907 is the 3rd highest California rainfall in a 114 year chart. The heavy rains then continue for 10 more years after that till 1917, with only 2 of the 10 years being to the low side. In total those 10 years represent the wettest grouping for California in the 114 year chart. Nothing comes close to that time period, afterwards. Then after that similarity, ever high rainfall in England, listed in the above article, corresponds to a mild to strong drought cycle in California right up to the present drought.
Bob Ryan says:
March 7, 2014 at 7:34 am
If hell were to freeze over it would still be due to global warming!
————————————————————————————–
Hell will surely freeze over when Hansen arrives!!!
Richard Barraclough says:
March 7, 2014 at 12:09 pm
—————————————
You can add 1989/90 and 1976/77 to the above list of California drought years coinciding with the UK wet years.
In the Midlands where I am it was wetter in 1975-76.
It was wet this winter. Very wet. Today I cycled over the hill to the pub for the first time all year! It’s just been too rainy to get the exercise.
Yet, the thought occurs: Would no parameter reaching an extreme be a sign of no climate change?
There are lots of parameters; rainfall, wind speed, heat (remember that), etc. For all to be constrained near the historical “meh” – that actually would be climate change.
But a wet winter like we just had in the SW of England? That just happens.
English weather is highly variable, and unpredictable, due to its location. It is sometimes influenced by the continent of Europe, which like Northern USA can have high temperatures in Summer, and sub-zero temperatures in Winter. It is also influenced by the gulf stream, which makes average temperatures much higher than Newfoundland, despite being no further north, In the dry of summer, I have had sand from the Sahara on my car, whilst in the winter we sometimes feel the blasts of the Arctic. All this makes the weather extremely variable and complex. Like the national game of cricket, every year new records are set, despite nothing much unusual happening. For instance, for England the wettest year since 1910 was 2012. For Britain as a whole it was not, as in Scotland it was about average. In the South of England the last 3 months had very high rainfall.
But in the North West of England rainfall was not much above average. I live on a river flood plane, with considerable flood defences. At no point this winter has the river got half way up its banks. Within 3 miles there are 3 golf courses, along with many acres of parkland and football fields than can be used to contain flood waters. There was no risk at any point of that happening.
In the Thames Valley flood levels were the highest since 1947. It was tragic for many thousands of homes that got flooded. But the number of homes flooded was less than in 2007 or in 2000. Just in different areas.
A large part of the reason the press has been so timid and mainstream is that if they step out of line they get hit with indignant feedback from their propagandized readers. Rebutting readers’ rebuttals takes expertise the press doesn’t have, plus lots of space. They’re riding a tiger and dare not dismount.
This is what they’ll plead in mitigation in the aftermath.
Richard Barraclough
You seemed determined to downplay this year’s rainfall,
The simple fact is that Oct 1929 to Jan 1930 were much, much wetter than the same months this year.
1929/30 567.2mm
2013/14 481.4mm
In 1930, they had a very dry February, whereas we had wetter than average one. Consequently the “winter” figures appear to be higher this year.
Even so, the Oct to Feb rainfall was still higher in 1929/30.
I am not “downplaying” this year, simply making the point that it was far worse in 1929/30.
Judging from your map, Ireland seems to have a very dry year?
Thank you for all the great research data! Most people look at everything just in terms of their own, geologically short life span, sometimes not even as long as a generation, and start making assumptions.
Paul, excellent article as always. The Met Office cherry pick the data, wanting the public to hear their propaganda. As always the BBC follow suit, they have both kept very quiet during the last four very cold winters. Predictably this year we have had the usual crap trotted out, “unprecedented” “wettest ever” etc etc! The BBC this morning, had a report stating that due to climate change, cases of malaria would increase significantly in higher altitudes in Africa! To put this in perspective, 20 years ago they also said the same about cases of Chardonnay, here in NE England, sadly this has not happened. They only seem to make these predictions when the temperature is above average for an extended period, and do not seem to comprehend the meaning of the term “average”.
When compiling the results of the rainfall data was the wetness of the rain taken into account? Wetter water may contain more dihydrogenmonoxide. The polar southern ocean is wetter than it used to be. Has the northern ocean now become saturated with dihydrogenmonoxide and now showing up in the atmosphere?
“….. says Jaime Palter, a professor in McGill’s Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences and co-author of the study. “True to form, the polar Southern Ocean – as a wet place – has indeed become wetter. …..” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/02/claim-large-antarctic-polynyas-to-disappear-yet-some-are-still-found-in-satellite-imagery/
Sorry, just couldn’t let that one pass.
Paull,
On a serious note, good work.