Why The Weather Doomsayers Need To Take A Raincheck

Recent UK climate trends offer absolutely no support for outlandish forecasts, which are of course the product of those computer models we hear so much about.

by Paul Homewood

How often do we hear claims that British weather is getting more extreme? Whether it’s heatwaves, droughts, rain or storms, it’s always ‘worse than it used to be’. We even had David Cameron saying that the winter floods of 2014 were linked to climate change. And it is not just laymen who make claims like these, but climate scientists. It does not help, of course, that we tend to have selective memories about the past.

However a new study by the Global Warming Policy Foundation has closely examined official Met Office data and found that such claims are baseless. In reality, apart from the fact that it is slightly warmer than a century ago, the UK climate has changed remarkably little during that time.

In particular, the report – Defra Versus Met Office: Fact-checking the State of the UK Climate  – finds that:

  • Heatwaves have been much less intense in the last decade than before, with no summer comparable to the heat of 1976 since then. (See Fig 1)
  • There has been a marked reduction in the number of extremely cold days in the last three decades.
  • Apart from Scotland, where rainfall has been increasing in recent years, there has been little long-term trend in precipitation. (See Fig 2)
  • In particular, winters are no wetter than they used to be in England and Wales, and summers no drier, contrary to popular myth.
  • Rainfall has also not become more extreme. The wettest year since records started in 1766 was 1872, followed by 1768. The wettest decade was the 1870s, and the wettest month was October 1903.
  • Droughts are also not becoming more common or severe.

 

Figure 1: Distribution of extreme temperatures in Central England Temperature Record

(a) days over 30C; (b) days under -10C

Fig 2 : Long Term Precipitation Record for England & Wales

In recent years the Met Office has taken great delight in naming all storms, although most of these have not technically reached storm force. In reality, as their own figures show, storms have not got any worse in the last four decades.

And despite misinformation to the contrary, sea levels around our coasts are rising only very slowly, and at a similar rate to the early 20th century.

What about temperatures? The data shows that there was a steady rise during the 1990s and early 2000s, but that this rise has since petered out and average temperatures levelled off. There was a very similar increase in temperatures in the early 18th century.

Even this summer was not a record-breaker. According to the long-running Central England Temperature series, it was only the fifth-warmest, and not even as hot as the summer of 1826.

The British climate has always been notable for its volatility, with big swings in weather from week to week, month to month, and year to year. This variability swamps whatever underlying trends there may be. But what we do know is that whatever weather we get now, we have had in the past.

Full story here

0 0 votes
Article Rating
67 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
richard
October 26, 2018 2:22 am

Thames barrier openings have been declining since 2000, so much for sea level rise-

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-thames-barrier#forthcoming-scheduled-closures

richard
Reply to  richard
October 26, 2018 2:25 am

Sorry, should say Thames barrier closings

steveta
Reply to  richard
October 26, 2018 2:35 am

Isn’t there a one-to-one relationship between openings and closings?

richard
Reply to  steveta
October 26, 2018 2:47 am

on the site they talk about closures , probably best to follow suit.

richard
Reply to  richard
October 26, 2018 2:35 am

and London is sinking.

steveta
Reply to  richard
October 26, 2018 2:38 am

… but also raising – Roman remains are about 20 foot below current ground level. We add ground at a rate faster than it sinks.

fretslider
Reply to  steveta
October 26, 2018 7:11 am

The geology of London North of the Thames is very different to the South

One reason why the Underground network is mostly North of the river.

vukcevic
Reply to  fretslider
October 26, 2018 10:54 am

And people who live north seldom go south and have no intention of ever moving to the south side. For number of decades I lived south of the river and have never considered relocating to the north. It’s all strangely tribal.

Reply to  richard
October 26, 2018 6:09 am

…you left out a ‘t’, there.

jono1066
Reply to  richard
October 26, 2018 6:31 am

the whole plate in that section is `tipping` rather than sinking as determined many years ago and with a well determined rate, as determined many years ago.
the numbers escape me as its a few years since I last read that particular book

MrGrimNasty
Reply to  richard
October 26, 2018 3:01 am

The BBC was plugging a report from the Climate Change Committee this morning about rising UK sea levels threatening coastal communities blah blah blah – they are predicting 1m rise by 2100! The reality is probably about 16cm on the high side. Their predictions are nuts and detached from reality.

Peter Plail
Reply to  MrGrimNasty
October 26, 2018 5:24 am

And not one mention of the fact that the east of England is sinking or that coastal erosion has been going on for centuries. It is all blamed on AGW.

Alba
Reply to  Peter Plail
October 26, 2018 11:10 am

Yep and Southport is getting further and further from the sea. Where there was once sand there is now grass and where there was water there is more sand. As for Grange-over-Sands the sand is now a long way away.

Russ Wood
Reply to  Alba
October 29, 2018 7:14 am

The pier at Southport was once a REAL pier – for excursion ships from Liverpool. Now it stands across the sand, with maybe the end seeing a little water splashing at spring tides!

Wallaby Geoff
Reply to  MrGrimNasty
October 26, 2018 10:57 pm

They are doing the same in Australia. I know a professor who advises the state government on coastal inundation who has accepted an SLR of 1metre by 2100 from what authority I’m not sure. This means that infrastructure (increased taxes) has to cater for this bogus level.

richard
Reply to  richard
October 26, 2018 3:58 am

“Here is the tidal data from the UK.

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_country.html?gid=1222

Many locations have had no rise since 2000, and some have had declines after decades of rising sea levels. Check out North Shields, Holyhead, Portsmouth, London.

According to ’reports’ the sea level rise should have accelerated to 3mm/yr, but these locations aren’t showing acceleration, in fact they are showing the opposite”

GUYW

jay
Reply to  richard
October 26, 2018 6:29 pm

Also, in any account of rising sea levels in the UK or anywhere else, assess whether it is just a reflection of continuing historic land subsidence.

Gerald the Mole
October 26, 2018 2:22 am

What does David Cameron know about anything?

M Courtney
October 26, 2018 2:27 am

UK politicians have issued a report saying that the sea level around Britain will rise by 1 metre in the next 80 years. A huge and sudden acceleration.

Surprisingly coastal homes with a sea view are not selling at knockdown prices.

The BBC fell for it though.

Dave Ward
Reply to  M Courtney
October 26, 2018 2:46 am

So did the Daily Mail:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6318373/Rising-sea-levels-submerge-1-5million-homes-Britains-coast-2080-experts-warn.html
And I expect this story will be in most of the other papers as well…

HotScot
Reply to  Dave Ward
October 26, 2018 3:14 am

Dave Ward

This article is utterly hysterical. Thanks for posting it.

25 M erosion predicted in some coastal regions by 2025, that’s less than 7 years away, ROTFLMAO!

One only needs to look at the dozens of comments following the article, barely one agreeing with the article, including this classic:

“M M, Swindon, United Kingdom, 1 hour ago

Heard it all before yadda yadda yadda”

Reply to  HotScot
October 26, 2018 6:12 am

25 M erosion predicted in some coastal regions by 2025, that’s less than 7 years away, ROTFLMAO!

I’ve seen more than that in 10 years in one place. Soft sand cliffs are no match for winter storms. Lost a fair bit of road too.

Nothing to do with climate change though…

Alan the Brit
Reply to  HotScot
October 26, 2018 8:59 am

You;re wrong, I have seen rapid sea-level rise down at Exmouth on the Exe Estuary, twice a day I heard locals say it happens!!!!! Frightening, tee hee!

richard
October 26, 2018 2:28 am

Thames barrier – should say closings.

Charlie
October 26, 2018 2:32 am

So, the only significant change is “There has been a marked reduction in the number of extremely cold days in the last three decades.” How are we going to cope?

dodgy geezer
Reply to  Charlie
October 26, 2018 3:25 am

Buy more refrigerators?

steveta
October 26, 2018 2:37 am

… but also raising – Roman remains are about 20 foot below current ground level. We add ground at a rate faster than it sinks.

steveta
Reply to  steveta
October 26, 2018 2:39 am

(sorry – wrong place for reply, any mods looking, please delete)

M Courtney
Reply to  steveta
October 26, 2018 2:41 am

Since we introduced rubbish removal, stopped having ash in fireplaces and piped the sewerage away the rate of urban land growth has declined dramatically.

michael hart
October 26, 2018 2:44 am

It is almost universally recognised in the UK that we’ve just had a good summer.
How do the doomsters respond? With articles claiming that as a result, the price of carrots may have to rise.
I am not joking.

HotScot
October 26, 2018 2:52 am

Being that the UK is prominently placed in the Gulf Stream at a latitude which, without it, would see us enduring Siberian weather, it would seem to suggest a major climate shift along the US east coast might be amplified by the time it reaches our shores.

Instead, the whole country is relatively benign with no dramatic weather or climate swings. Paul seems to suggest underlying trends might be masked by our fortunate placement in which case, what is the basis for our politicians hysterical scaremongering?

Disputin
Reply to  HotScot
October 26, 2018 3:24 am

What else do politicians do?

rapscallion
Reply to  Disputin
October 26, 2018 4:40 am

Lie, Frequently.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  rapscallion
October 26, 2018 9:23 pm

Both kinds: prevaricate & fornicate.

JJB MKI
Reply to  HotScot
October 26, 2018 3:31 am

“what is the basis for our politicians hysterical scaremongering?”

Desperate, naïve solutions to national debt crisis; a seat on the green gravy train heading to lands awash with plundered wealth and power (Brussels / boards of renewables / green consultancy / ‘advisory’ organisations and companies); the smell of vast amounts of money from banks and carbon trading organisations with wealth and influence; feelings of moral superiority and a need to belong to a social set where perceived moral superiority confers status; hubris in the chance to ‘make a mark’ for want of any original ideas; pandering to a fashionably misanthropic youth vote; pandering to a misanthropic and manipulative mass media projecting the fear of its own demise; pandering to a section of the left who see fear, chaos, poverty and division as a means to power; a feeling of belonging to a powerful clique with the means to reorganise society; a fear of intimidation from small numbers of activists and lazy complicit journalists; fear of being branded ‘deniers’ with all the associated connotations; free luxury holidays in exclusive resorts reserved for the green blob; tendency in uncertainty to follow the herd; hubristic association with ‘science’ and ‘scientists’ without the actual need for thought, research or learning; gullibility that comes from ideology trumping real world experience; lots and lots of free money (thought that needed saying twice), and probably many more factors..

Mike Borgelt
October 26, 2018 3:22 am

Back in the 1950s in the UK the “extreme weather” was blamed on the nuclear bomb tests.

commieBob
October 26, 2018 3:24 am

But what we do know is that whatever weather we get now, we have had in the past.

How about …

But what we do know is that whatever weather we get now, we have had worse in the past.

leitmotif
October 26, 2018 3:47 am

I’m sure you will all be devastated but “Note: this will be our final entry on Climate Consensus – the 97%. The Guardian has decided to discontinue its Science and Environment blogging networks. We would like to thank this great paper for hosting us over the past five years, and to our readers for making it a worthwhile and rewarding endeavor.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/oct/26/canada-passed-a-carbon-tax-that-will-give-most-canadians-more-money

michael hart
Reply to  leitmotif
October 26, 2018 5:13 am

That’s pretty funny, even by Guardian standards:

By rebating the revenue to households, disposable income rises, which can be a boon for the Canadian economy
Dana Nuccitelli

Yes, he is claiming that you can make people better off by taxing them and then giving some of it back to them (no mention of the costs of the bureaucracy taking their cut).

Graemethecat
Reply to  leitmotif
October 26, 2018 5:17 am

Hearing the news that the Graun is closing its Climate blog had me sobbing – with laughter.

M Courtney
Reply to  leitmotif
October 26, 2018 6:58 am

That is big news. Even the Guardian has realised they backed the wrong horse.

It was only this month that the IPCC released their latest doom-laden junk science pamphlet and the whole world ignored it.
And the Guardian has already started backing away.

We Sceptics have won the debate.

M Courtney
Reply to  M Courtney
October 26, 2018 7:16 am

For many years I posted on the Guardian. The 97% blog started deleting my comments (usually when I quoted the IPCC or just put a logical argument) in order to make me look foolish.

I quit posting there when they started deleting parts of my comments so as the comment looked unjustified and irrational. It made me into a liar. Although what I had said was not what they were broadcasting me as saying. The 97% bloggers are very dishonest.

Still, just for old times sake I have posted again on their farewell post. Mainly to gloat, ungraciously.
I’ll be deleted, of course, but they will know once again that I was right.

[This is why we always indicate “snip” if we’re removing something offensive or out of bounds per site policy. And, as a best practice, I usually try to indicate what the offense was so it can be avoided in the future, and so other commenters know I’m not trying change what the commenter said/meant. -mod]

leitmotif
Reply to  M Courtney
October 26, 2018 7:44 am

M Courtney

I read your comment over at the Guardian. The person you replied to is a Guardian and Skeptical Science writer and a Sci-Fi author (usually novels about an apocalyptic world destroyed by AGW). He freely uses the term “denier” yet expects to be taken seriously by AGW sceptics and the casual reader.

Unfortunately, (or maybe fortunately) I no longer post at the Guardian, having no appetite to do so after being banned for the fifth time.

M Courtney
Reply to  leitmotif
October 26, 2018 7:52 am

I had to appeal repeatedly to get my posting rights restored before I gave up on the Environment part of the website.
It’s not the whole website that is corrupt.

michael hart
Reply to  leitmotif
October 26, 2018 9:56 am

I too am delighted, if it turns out to be true.

But my suspicion is that you will still find a plethora of articles blaming global warming for all the world’s ills at every turn.

I used to regularly buy The Guardian, years ago. I knew there were plenty of crazy sections such as Guardian Femail that were not aimed at me, but their bigotry generally didn’t leak out into the other sections. That no longer seems to be the case in much of the legacy media.

leitmotif
Reply to  M Courtney
October 26, 2018 12:52 pm

Your comment at the Guardian has finally been deleted and replaced with one from some non-partisan guy called Dana Nuccitelli. It’s one of those SkS moments. %^D

M Courtney
Reply to  leitmotif
October 26, 2018 3:51 pm

To my shame, I taunted them once more:

I wonder what community standard I didn’t abide by? Please explain, Mod.

Perhaps it was pointing out that you have been proven to be undemocratic.
For the (temporary) record, I said that your refusal to debate was why you lost the debate.

And this censorship shows that you are too slow-witted to be able to adapt.

It will disappear, of course. Without breaking any pre-stated rule, again.

But the fact that Dana Nuccitelli needs “special” help to avoid humiliation will mean that his hopes for further self-publicity are blighted.
Good!

leitmotif
Reply to  leitmotif
October 26, 2018 7:01 pm

Dana will now be limited to a plethora of AGW opinion pieces such as Jeff Sparrow’s “Is socialism the answer to climate catastrophe?”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/24/is-socialism-the-answer-to-the-climate-catastrophe

His pal John Abraham can go back to doing Harry Hill impressions.

https://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/faculty/john-p-abraham.html

old construction worker
October 26, 2018 3:47 am

When did manufacturer start selling “London Fog” coats?

rapscallion
October 26, 2018 4:41 am

Lie, Frequently.

rapscallion
October 26, 2018 4:42 am

“What else do politicians do?”

Lie, Frequently.

Ulric Lyons
October 26, 2018 4:56 am

Most of the heatwaves and cold extremes would not even exist without short term changes in the solar wind.

rhoda klapp
October 26, 2018 5:32 am

One thing that has really happened to UK climate is that we don’t have london fog any more.

One thing they are not telling us about coastal erosion is that the policy is to NOT defend the eastern coastline from the erosion which is continuous and nothing to do with sea level rise.

October 26, 2018 6:16 am

One thing that has really happened to UK climate is that we don’t have london fog any more.

Yup sulphur dioxide is a REAL pollutant that affects the weather.

One thing they are not telling us about coastal erosion is that the policy is to NOT defend the eastern coastline from the erosion which is continuous and nothing to do with sea level rise.

Indeed, and if you know that coast well, its a waste of time.

Suffolk and Norfolk are all sand there. It just washes away largely.

See - owe to Rich
Reply to  Leo Smith
October 27, 2018 2:01 am

Holland would be many times smaller if everyone took that attitude.

Tom
October 26, 2018 8:27 am

“The British climate has always been notable for its volatility, with big swings in weather from week to week, month to month, and year to year. ”

As a resident of the U.S. midwest, ( Regional motto: Dress in layers) I find that statement amusing.

michael hart
Reply to  Tom
October 26, 2018 10:10 am

I know what you mean Tom. The British view of weather is incredibly parochial by many standards.

The only time I found something similar was when I lived in Seattle, which actually has fairly similar weather to much of the UK, but usually feels somewhat milder.

I would only really claim that the UK weather affords the observer a greater variety of dynamic cloudscapes than many other places in the world. Of course, some people don’t always think that is good. (How I laughed at the other students from back East when they were talking about slitting their wrists due to the lowering skies in December Seattle, which was feeling quite spring-like to me.)

Bruce Cobb
October 26, 2018 10:22 am

They need to take a chill pill.

chris
October 26, 2018 2:43 pm

Global Warming Policy Foundation is a known climate denial organization. Your arguments would be more credible if you cite a neutral source. This article is like citing the Flat Earth Society to rebut claims that just because the moon, sun, and other planets are observably round that Earth is flat (BTW, where can I buy edge real estate? The views must be spectacular!)

clipe
Reply to  chris
October 26, 2018 5:56 pm

Define “neutral source”.

David Guy-Johnson
Reply to  chris
October 27, 2018 12:12 am

Chris. You really must be stupid. The data came from The UK Met Office. So according to you because the GWPF repeat it, that data somehow becomes invalid does it?

chris
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
October 27, 2018 12:33 pm

“you must be stupid” – what a nice, constructive way to start a debate!

no offense taken. I have a PhD in Risk Analysis (Carnegie Mellon University), and have done predictive modeling for 30+ years, but its mainly in battlefield simulation and such, and I admit to being a non expert.

compared to you, obviously. where did you get your degrees? where did you get your data? (your own satellite perhaps?)

kidding! (no really, as we’re speaking to credible opinions)

the US government, in a recent ruling freezing CAFE standards (fuel efficiency) predicts that by 2100 global average temperature will increase by at least 3.9C. Unless I’m missing something in the UK report, that’s way more than what they claim will cause havoc. so we’re (ok, our grandchildren) are fucked anyway.

🙂

leitmotif
October 26, 2018 3:03 pm

“Global Warming Policy Foundation is a known climate denial organization. ” By whom? Skeptical Science? Real Climate? Desmogblog? The Guardian? Reddit? HotWhopper? Grist? The Pope?

“Your arguments would be more credible if you cite a neutral source.” What? Like the Met Office, for instance?

chris
Reply to  leitmotif
October 27, 2018 12:26 pm

I don’t know where you got your degree in climate modeling (my PhD is in Risk Analysis from Carnegie Mellon University, but focused on the more violent aspects of national security :-}), or where you got your database from which your model comes to a different conclusion than the UK modelers. But I do know that the US government, in their recent decision to freeze increases in automobile fuel economy standards, estimated that by 2100 global temperatures will have increased by 7 degrees F (3.9 C – well above the “outlandish’ predictions). So we are all fucked in any case (well, in my case, my grandchildren), so the quibbling is moot, eh?

wws
Reply to  chris
October 28, 2018 8:40 am

But I do know that the US government, in their recent decision to freeze increases in automobile fuel economy standards, estimated that by 2100 global temperatures will have increased by 7 degrees F”

The “7 degrees” forecast was an idiotic thing to have put in a report which would have been more valid if it would have been based on the reading of tarot cards or chicken entrails. All it really tells us is how many rabid political opponents remain embedded in the bureacraucy, willing to take every chance they get to do stupid things that they think and hope will have a poltical impact. It’s also a lesson that even 2 years in, the people at the top of the Trump administration still haven’t gained complete control over their own agencies, and there are plenty of rogues inside them ready, willing, and able to commit political sabotage.

Now as to what this forecast tells us about the actual “science” – it tells us nothing at all. It’s just an in-kind contribution to the political left.

tom0mason
October 27, 2018 12:27 pm

Maybe Mr. Gore should consider relocating to the UK.
With such variable weather (er, in Gorespeak that’s extreme climate), some days you can have 2-4 season’s worth of weather (er …climate?) in a single day. Plus there is the pit of green vipers at UEA’s Climatic Research Hysteria Unit, The Met Office Hadley Unbelievable Forecasting and Data Negligence Centre, the Grantham Research Institute Climate Propadanda Unit, the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and Fake News, and so many, many, more green leaching groups for him to enjoy. The BBC would probably give him his own TV show ‘Strictly Come Bake-up some Celebrity Anthropogenic Warming’ or some-such.

%d bloggers like this: