Environment Agency Stokes Flood Fears

Reposted from NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

The Daily Express is well known for its fake warnings of weather apocalypse, supplied by the likes of Exacta Weather, in the last few years – there’s always, supposedly a heatwave, blizzard, superstorm or flood just around the corner.

The only trouble is they never arrive. This has long been a source of mirth amongst Express readers.

However, under its new, woke, left wing, remoaner editor, Gary Jones, the Express has launched its Green Britain Campaign. This week it features fake warnings of apocalypse not from the clowns at Exacta, but the clowns at the Met Office and Environment Agency:

The link leads to this article:

image

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/property/1525547/Flooding-protect-home-evg

Some winters are wetter than average, and others aren’t. But climate change has nothing to do with it.

If we analyse the November to January rainfall records, we can see there is no such trend at all:

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/datasets/Rainfall/date/England.txt

The Met Office has specifically referred to the period November to January, as this is the crucial determinant of winter floods. February is generally a dry month, so the traditional winter period of December to February is less significant. Also the rainfall totals leading up to the start of winter are an important factor in the severity of the floods that follow.

It is quite irresponsible for the Met Office and Environmental Agency to put their names to this rubbish. Particularly when it is obviously intended for political purposes.

As for the idea that 1.5 million homes could flood, this is sheer hysteria, calculated to scare the masses into submission. Even in the worst years, flooding never affects more than a few thousand homes, most of which are built on flood plains.

Flooding is terrible for those involved, but from a nationwide wide viewpoint is no more than an irritant. To deliberately peddle the lie that millions of people could be flooded is contemptible.

5 22 votes
Article Rating
130 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mike Edwards
November 27, 2021 2:09 am

The Express story is based on a specific prediction for flooding in Winter 2021/2022, so we shall have swift proof of the value of this prediction – no need to wait 20 years!

For the Met Office & Environment Agency, things are not off to a “good” start in that, relatively speaking, November 2021 has been a dry month across England.

I suspect that when we get to February 2022, we shall look back and say “where were the floods?”

Bellman
Reply to  Mike Edwards
November 27, 2021 4:29 am

The specific Met Office forecast is for a 30% chance of a wet November to January.

https://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2021/11/23/what-is-the-chance-of-the-uk-experiencing-a-wetter-than-average-winter/

Richard Page
Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2021 5:32 am

I think you may be looking at the wrong thing, old chap. Whilst the Met Office prediction for the winter months is interesting in its assumptions and bias, it’s actually the activism, alarmism and scaremongering coming from the Met Office official blog which is more concerning. In that they have said that flooding events will become far more common, even commonplace as the UK experiences increases in rainfall. This is incorrect – average rainfall in the UK has not increased, despite the occasional rainy month we continue to have unpredictable weather and the trend hasn’t changed.

Bellman
Reply to  Richard Page
November 27, 2021 7:49 am

I was responding to a comment about this specific forecast. I’m quoting the official Met Office blog. I’m sure the MO does warn about flooding becoming more common in the future, especially as, despite your unsubstantiated claim, average rainfall is increasing in the UK.

But this post is very specifically about the Express story and it’s quoting of the MO forecast, and it really seems to be stretching to be outraged about something.

meab
Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2021 8:15 am

Bellend, You are (fecklessly) trying to mislead. The average rainfall has nothing to do with flooding. Even the IPCC concludes that there is a low confidence in increased flooding worldwide.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2021 10:16 am

Well, the post provides data showing there has been no increase in rainfall for more than 100 years. Show yours.

Bellman
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 27, 2021 11:31 am

This post does nothing of the kind, just shows a noisy bar chart and says the author cannot see a trend.

As I’ve shown below, there is a just about significant trend for English rainfall, and a much more significant trend for UK.

meab
Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2021 3:48 pm

Bellend, flooding arises from the peaks in the chart. The fact that the chart is noisy is the EXACT point. Sheesh.

Geoffrey Williams
Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2021 9:11 pm

It takes two things for a flood disaster ;
1. Heavy rain falling in flood prone areas.
2. Unfortunate people living in those flood prone areas.

Blaming the climate is not necessarily the answer.
What is needed is improved drainage and infrastructures.
Britain’s population has grown enormously in the last 50 years.
And economic necessity has mean some have made poor choices of where to build homes. To have one’s home flooded is devastating and my heart goes out to those people.

Bellman
Reply to  Geoffrey Williams
November 28, 2021 5:56 am

Yes, there are a lot of factors that maydetermine an increase in flooding. But the specific comment I was responding to, claimed there was no increase in average rainfall.

I’m certainky not trying to make light of the devistation of flooding. I saw a little of it in Oxfordshire in 2007. That was upsetting enough, even though it was minor compared to a lot of places.

Komerade Cube
Reply to  Bellman
November 28, 2021 11:01 am

>>I’m certainky not trying to make light of the devistation of flooding<< No, you’re not trying to make light of it, you’re trying to overstate it.

Lil-Mike
Reply to  Richard Page
November 29, 2021 8:27 am

we continue to have unpredictable weather and the trend hasn’t changed”

This says much more about those making the predictions, than that which they’re predicting.

Russ Wood
Reply to  Bellman
December 2, 2021 6:53 am

Actually, we’re getting the wet down in South Africa. Normally, the run-up to Christmas is hot and dry, with OCCASIONAL thundershowers. Over the last few weeks, we’ve been getting daily thundershowers, dropping up to two centimetres of rain in an hour. Maybe if they turned their climate models upside-down?

taxed
Reply to  Mike Edwards
November 27, 2021 5:20 am

Looking like the Met Office will be getting their winter weather forecast wrong this year.

I do my own winter forecasts and am expecting a cold to very cold winter for England during 2021/2022.
l base this forecast on how the leaves on the trees turn colour during the autumn and the state of the weather around the 27th of November.Along side how the jet stream is behaving as we move into the winter. This is suggesting to me that England is likely to get a winter rather like 2009/10 or at worst a winter like 1981/82 or 1978/79.

Richard Page
Reply to  taxed
November 27, 2021 12:39 pm

Funny you should say that; here in central Lincolnshire it’s got bitterly cold and we’ve got snow flurries – how’s that for weather on Nov 27th.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Richard Page
November 27, 2021 1:41 pm

Not at all unusual. Zoom out a little in space and time and ask what has the average temperature of the UK been this November? Looks likely to be warmer than average. Zoom out a little further in time and ask what the average temperature of the UK has been this autumn? Looks likely to be inside the top 10 warmest on record. If you just consider one location at one moment in time there’s a good chance you’ll miss the bigger picture.

Richard Page
Reply to  TheFinalNail
November 27, 2021 2:12 pm

And if you average and smooth and manipulate you can make those pesky cold temperatures just go away, can’t you? Why is it when a regional below average temperature is mentioned, you always counter with a warm global average but when it is a warmer than average regional temperature, it always becomes ‘record breaking heat’, ‘unprecedented high temperatures’ or Some such nonsense? Hypocrisy at it’s most blatant.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Richard Page
November 27, 2021 9:36 pm

Averaging data is hardly manipulating it. Selecting one small sample and ignoring the bigger picture is a better fit for that description.

Komerade Cube
Reply to  TheFinalNail
November 28, 2021 11:03 am

The quality of the paid alarmist trolls here on WUWT has improved dramatically this year. Now most of them can produce coherent sentences.

DaveS
Reply to  TheFinalNail
November 28, 2021 11:26 am

Averaging weather data is manipulating it. Whatever period you choose to average it over is arbitrary.

taxed
Reply to  Richard Page
November 27, 2021 10:16 pm

Over many years of weather watching l have noticed that if a spell of cold weather settles in by the Nov 27th. Then this can be a sign of a cold winter to come. lt does not work all the time,but often enough for me to take notice of it. lt signaled the cold winters of 62/63 78/79 09/10 and 10/11 amongst others.
Snow or sleet in November is more common then many people think Richard.
Since 1977 here in North Linc’s where l live. The first snow of the season has happened more often in November then it has in December.With November 2010 been a good recent example..

Panicky
Reply to  Richard Page
November 27, 2021 11:20 pm

Out here in British Columbia the indigenous people are forecasting a colder than average winter, based on the size of this white man’s wood pile.

Lorne WHITE
Reply to  Panicky
November 29, 2021 10:51 am

Somewhat damper and browner as well.

Maybe we should all just admit that weather forecasts are as clear as mud but they cover the ground.

Doug Danhoff
November 27, 2021 2:16 am

Fear peddling is a despicable thing .. playing with peoples emotions is an attack upon them . The standards for truth just arnt there any more. The alarmists are aware that they are losing the debate, and the trust of the people .So what does an honest person do? They present facts not speculation . Obviously these are immoral people speaking intentional lies …I no longer give them the slack of not knowing …They know they are lying and playing with people’s emotions …May they burn in HELL for it

H.R.
Reply to  Doug Danhoff
November 27, 2021 2:49 am

Why wait for hellfire in the afterlife, Doug?

A little hot tar and feathers applied in the here and now would probably discourage their fearmongering.

Rich Davis
Reply to  H.R.
November 27, 2021 11:35 am

LOL
I was just imagining Michael Mann covered in turkey feathers

Lorne WHITE
Reply to  H.R.
November 29, 2021 10:53 am

Wouldn’t that just add to global warming? 😇😈

fretslider
November 27, 2021 2:24 am

When the MO makes a claim nature usually does the opposite.

And if this nonsense about a mild wet winter fails to materialise – which I believe it will – there’s always the Omicron variant

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  fretslider
November 27, 2021 3:15 am

Oh my! Oh me! O mi! O mi cron! Somebody know where my cron is?

fretslider
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
November 27, 2021 3:28 am

Ask the Omega man!

Richard Page
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
November 27, 2021 5:34 am

Ed, it’s where you left it. Now, where was the last place you remember having your cron?

Last edited 2 months ago by Richard Page
Wade
Reply to  fretslider
November 27, 2021 5:13 am

Omicron is the Greek letter after Xi, which the WHO conveniently skipped over. After all, they don’t want to offend the one government these people worship.

Fear and anger wanes. To get their global communism, these people have to keep the fear alive. The weather will always be “worse than we thought”. There will always be a new, “worse than we thought” variant of COVID-19 (until people rise up and say enough is enough). There will always be something to keep the fear and anger alive, else it will go out like a fire without fresh wood. It was never about the environment or the climate, just like it never was about your health.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Wade
November 27, 2021 5:43 am

My Greek is better than your Dutch, I’m sure. ☺. But you are right about keeping the fear alive. The only number of relevance is how many infected with o end up in hospital. The message from Johannesburg appears to be: none, or very few. That would tally with the normal progress of such epidemics. The virus becomes more infectuous but less virulent. Next year we call it: the common cold.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
November 27, 2021 9:58 am

The virus becomes more infectious but less virulent.

And yet the media seemed almost gleeful when they announced the new variant … of course suggesting how infectious it is and not in a good way. None of them are explaining that this is the natural progression of such viruses. All they see is more booster shots, more “new waves”, more lock downs and distancing and masks and mandates. They’re chafing at the bit to set in motion the authoritarian state.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rory Forbes
November 27, 2021 10:16 am

The new antivirals the drug companies are coming out with are supposed to be effective against the Wuhan virus and all its variants.

The antivirals are also as effective at staving off illness and hospitalization as are the vaccines.

The governments of the world ought to be producing these drugs as fast as they can. They come in pill form and if you get a Wuhan virus infection, you take the pill and it makes things much better. And as always, the sooner you take a therapeutic after infection is detected, the better the outcome will be.

Instead, the governments focus on vaccinations and completely ignore the therapeutics.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 27, 2021 10:38 am

Instead, the governments focus on vaccinations and completely ignore the therapeutics.

That’s exactly what is happening here in Canada. They’re even gas lighting anyone who advocates for therapeutics. This whole thing has been a situation made in heaven for the Left. The fear is palpable now. Last week I saw a woman walking in a 20 mph wind wearing a mask.

Lorne WHITE
Reply to  Rory Forbes
November 29, 2021 11:09 am

Rotarians have been fundraising since 1985 to eradicate Polio. We’ve almost succeeded – only 2 countries remain:
Afghanistan & Pakistan (in civil wars).

There are 2 types of vaccine:
– by injection (nurses needed)
– by oral drops
Rotary & the WHO chose drops for developing countries because there aren’t enough trained nurses there.

Perhaps this explains why Africa, etc aren’t yet highly vaccinated – all the major vaccines must be injected.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Lorne WHITE
November 29, 2021 1:43 pm

A worthy endeavor. Polio was a terrible disease to inflict on kids.

Paul C
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 27, 2021 4:51 pm

And the old antivirals – off patent drugs which have a long-standing excellent safety profile and have been re-purposed are supposed to be even more effective than the new experimental drugs. No big payoff for selling Ivermectin, though. Preventing these theraputic drugs from being accessed is worse than ignoring them. It is actively preventing early treatment.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Paul C
November 28, 2021 4:57 am

A doctor on tv yesterday mentioned another anti-inflammatory drug, which I had never heard of, that the doctor said was highly effective against the Wuhan virus. Unfortunately, I didn’t get the name.

There are a lot of already-available drugs, dozens, that have proven effective against the Wuhan virus to one degree or another, but our leaders will not even consider them, for obvious political reasons.

Fortunately, many private doctors are prescribing these medicines anyway, But the patient usually has to know what to ask for.

Ivermectin is probably as effective as any of them. They have found it is effective at treating African River Blindness, and against the West Nile Virus, too.

Our leaders are failing us.

Komerade Cube
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 28, 2021 11:07 am

They are not leaders, they are pirates and oligarchs focused on stealing power.

InterestedBystander
Reply to  Rory Forbes
November 27, 2021 1:25 pm

Well, the middle variant didn’t pan out so they have to try the next new thing. Personally I like the sound of the Xi variant. Has a certain ring to it.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  InterestedBystander
November 27, 2021 1:46 pm

I’m so disappointed with this outcome and been waiting patiently for the Xi variant so I could say, “see – SEE, it was Chinese all along!” Then they shot right by it without so much as a ‘how-de- do’.

Do they think we’re that stupid and gullible? (Mmmm .. yes they do and they’re right).

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rory Forbes
November 28, 2021 5:00 am

Who owns the WHO? We know. It’s not us.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 28, 2021 10:22 am

Who owns the WHO?

Well we know that Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus was “elected” director of the WHO in 2017. More like he was installed by the Chinese. Two years later the Wuhan virus arrived … vigorous and loaded for bear to take down the world’s economies and level the playing field for a global government where China could play the dominant role. Trump was in the way, upholding the founding spirit of the US.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  InterestedBystander
November 28, 2021 5:02 am

Yes, the WHO skipped right over Xi. They wouldn’t want to connect Xi to the Wuhan virus. This might upset Xi.

It is being reported that this new variant may be a little more infectious than others but appears to be a milder infection than the Delta variant.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 28, 2021 10:26 am

this new variant may be a little more infectious than others but appears to be a milder infection than the Delta variant.

Pretty much following the game plan for such viral infections. Each new variant becoming more infectious but less deadly, in its progress towards becoming ubiquitous and one of the gang.

nyolci
Reply to  Rory Forbes
November 29, 2021 6:53 am

The virus becomes more infectious but less virulent.

And yet the media seemed almost gleeful when they announced the new variant

Yep, because the delta was more infectious and more virulent at the same time, and it’s still causing serious problems worldwide.

ATheoK
Reply to  Wade
November 27, 2021 8:46 pm

The Not-Xi virus!

Lorne WHITE
Reply to  Wade
November 29, 2021 10:58 am

China isn’t even vaguely communist – they have Billionaires!

Let’s call China what it is:
a Dictatorship or National Socialist.

Rich Davis
Reply to  fretslider
November 27, 2021 11:36 am

Or the omg variant

ATheoK
Reply to  fretslider
November 27, 2021 8:45 pm

there’s always the Omicron variant”

What? The moronic Not-Xi virus, omicron?

Oldseadog
November 27, 2021 2:24 am

” …. 1.5 Million homes in at-risk areas ….. ”

In other words, homes built on flood plains.

Maybe a clue in the terminology?

Duane
Reply to  Oldseadog
November 27, 2021 5:17 am

In other words, those 1.5 million homes have always been at high risk of flooding from the moment they were built.

Here in Florida we take flooding very seriously. One cannot get a building permit for a new home unless the first floor elevation is at least 1.0 ft above the flood elevation for the 100 year event. Those restrictions have been in place for several decades so of course older homes are often at lower elevations – in which case in order to get a mortgage flood insurance must be purchased.

Oldseadog
Reply to  Duane
November 27, 2021 6:31 am

” … flood insurance must be purchased.”
I live on the bank of a tidal river. The opposite bank is almost two feet lower than on my side so any flooding will go over the other side onto a large floodable area.
When I built the house and investigated Flood Insurance, only one Insurance Company bothered to send someone to look at the area. All the others just flatly refused to quote a premium because I was too close to the river. The result was and is that the whole street has Flood Insurance with that company.
So not always easy to get Flood Insurance.

Drake
Reply to  Oldseadog
November 27, 2021 8:38 am

Now that the US government, i.e., all taxpayers, no longer subsidize flood insurance.

For decades in the US, the federal government DID subsidize flood insurance. Another case of taking care of the wealthy who owned beachfront properties.

Paul C
Reply to  Oldseadog
November 27, 2021 8:57 am

I recall (I think it was the Environment Agency), when first tasked to perform a flood risk assessment of all properties in England used a crude and inaccurate approach. As my parents house is on the coast, it was assessed to be within an area subject to flooding. I think the rule was something like if any area within 400m regularly floods, the property is within a flood zone. The area which regularly floods is colloquially known as the beach, as a spring tide will exceed the mean high tide line. The pre-Norman (i.e. Saxon) church and associated graveyard at the end of the road which is slightly closer to the sea has also never flooded. I think the odd thousand years of never flooding is enough to establish a record of no appreciable risk.

Disputin
Reply to  Duane
November 27, 2021 8:24 am

For readers not in America, that’s the ground floor.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Disputin
November 27, 2021 11:42 am

The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from!

Ron Long
November 27, 2021 2:30 am

“…calculated to scare the masses into submission.” is the punchline written by Paul. Covid-19 works for some of this, false racism is thrown in, but the poster-child for scaring the masses right6 now is CAGW. Traumatizing our children is reprehensible, but the easiest marks for the CAGW crowd.

Lorne WHITE
Reply to  Ron Long
November 29, 2021 11:30 am

Being scared by end-of-the-world predictions is just part of being a child.

We boomers had to jump under our school desks when our teachers yelled “Flash!” That meant an A-bomb had exploded over Buffalo NY 20 miles away, and we could avoid shattered window glass from the bomb’s wind blast by hitting the floor.

After the Berlin Wall fell in 1990, I suddenly awoke one day to realise that it had been Six months since I had wondered at least once a day what would happen if WWIII started. Would I survive? Would my family? Friends? Would we have shelter? enough food? clothes & heat in winter?

ClimateChange apocalypse is tame by comparison.

Last edited 1 month ago by Lorne WHITE
Lorne WHITE
Reply to  Lorne WHITE
November 29, 2021 12:34 pm

“The Origin of the World’s Mythologies”
~Michael Witzel

… across the globe share a certain structure … the world is created in darkness…, goes through various ages…, it ends. [apocalypse]

… the original narrative … emerged … southwestern Asia about 40,000 years ago, then spread … as far away as Iceland and the Inca empire.

November 27, 2021 3:32 am

“But climate change has nothing to do with it.”

Indeed-
The Köppen classification of climate zones shows the UK to have a temperate, maritime, humid, climate … exactly the same as when Stonehenge was built ~6,000yrs ago except we are ~ 3°C cooler.
Britain gets cool, wet winters and warm, wet summers.
(it will remain so until tectonic plates move us somewhere else, or we enter the next ice age)

People build on an old river bed, flood plain, meadow or valley bottom; it rains & they are suprised when it gets flooded; Sheesh !

Bellman
November 27, 2021 4:26 am

If we analyse the November to January rainfall records, we can see there is no such trend at all

What analysis did you do? I see a slight but significant trend.

20211127wuwt2.png
fretslider
Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2021 4:29 am

While you’re at it, what does the MO define as a mild winter (we know what a wet one looks like), got a range for that?

Last edited 2 months ago by fretslider
Bellman
Reply to  fretslider
November 27, 2021 4:36 am

If you are talking about their 3 month ahead outlooks, I think they are defined by the 20% quantiles, based on the last 30 years. So mild would be in the top 20% of recent winters.

fretslider
Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2021 4:48 am

A simple “No” would have sufficed.

Bellman
Reply to  fretslider
November 27, 2021 5:12 am

Here’s their graph. Mild is anything over about 5.5°C, but note this is for November – January, not for the full December – February winter period.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/metofficegovuk/pdf/business/public-sector/civil-contingency/3moutlook-ndj-v2secure.pdf

Screenshot 2021-11-27 131132.png
fretslider
Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2021 5:21 am

Nope. That isn’t right. Try ~9C to 10C and above

Currently it’s a mild 3C in Southern England and it’s… November

Last edited 2 months ago by fretslider
atticman
Reply to  fretslider
November 27, 2021 5:57 am

And with the current wind-chill, it’s below zero!

Bellman
Reply to  fretslider
November 27, 2021 6:06 am

Take it up with the met office. The temperature is the average for the UK, not Southern England. It’s been mild most of November, currently it’s quite cold. Really not sure what point you are trying to make

fretslider
Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2021 6:15 am

I wouldn’t trust the MO and funnily enough neither does the BBC

Funny old world.

Bellman
Reply to  fretslider
November 27, 2021 7:53 am

So what is your point? You ask how the MO define a mild Winter, but don’t want to know what the answer is.

Paul C
Reply to  fretslider
November 27, 2021 9:11 am

Quite similar temperature in North-East England – not mild enough to melt all of the snow, but “mild” enough to stop it laying so far. The gales which are causing damage to trees and buildings are also a risk to wind power generation.

Bellman
Reply to  fretslider
November 28, 2021 6:10 pm

Nope. That isn’t right. Try ~9C to 10C and above

There has not been a Nov – Jan average as high as 9 or 10°C in the 160 years of Met Office data. Not for the UK, not for Southern England.

Warmest for the south was 2015 with an average of 8.5°C, which was more than a degree warmer than any other N-J period.

Bellman
Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2021 4:55 am

Trend for the UK as a whole is stronger.

20211127wuwt1.png
Richard Page
Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2021 5:40 am

Rubbish. That’s a plot of random rainfall with a fairly arbitrary trend line superimposed over the top. Just because you can find a couple of points that line up does not mean that you can turn them into a trend. Frankly, given where the outliers are, I could easily produce a trend going in the opposite direction, or on a curve, or a squiggly line, or as a picture of an elephant. You have gone way beyond farce now.

Bellman
Reply to  Richard Page
November 27, 2021 6:09 am

It’s the same data Honewood used for his “analysis”. The trend line is the tend line, determined by ordinary least squares, if you can produce a trend line going in the opposite direction show it

M Courtney
Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2021 10:04 am

What’s the r2 of that straight line?

More pertinently, as we know that weather is highly variable, please can we exclude the three highest and three lowest figures and recalculate?
That way we would not be skewed by the timing of long-tail outliers.

Thanks in advance.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  M Courtney
November 27, 2021 9:42 pm

Exclude data points? In other words, ‘adjust the data’?

Bellman
Reply to  M Courtney
November 28, 2021 6:38 pm

r^2 is very small (less than 0.1) and not relevant.

I’m not sure of the logic of removing highest and lowest figures, but for England it increases the trend slightly to 2.9 ± 1.8 mm / decade. Significance is about the same, p-value of 0.0018.

For the UK removing the highest and lowest has the opposite effect reducing it pretty much the same as for England: 2.9 ± 2.0 mm, with a p-value of 0.0037.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2021 10:32 am

Assuming the Rain axis is MM, about 3″ increase over the 3 month period. I doubt anyone would notice such a gradual change. Of course, with the error bars, it could only be an inch.

Bellman
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 27, 2021 11:38 am

Trend is 3.8 mm a decade, so about 60mm over the past 160 years, with a 2σ confidence interval of ±35mm.

It’s about a 20% increase, but I’m sure your right. Nobody notices it against the year to year variability, not to mention the differences in location and time. That’s why it’s useful to look at the long term trend rather than try to guess from personal experience.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2021 7:10 pm

Right, so you can make people think there’s a catastrophe going on when there isn’t. Wonder what the rainfall was like through the entire Holocene?

Bellman
Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2021 11:28 am

As above, there’s a mistake with this graph. Here’s the corrected one.

Trend with 2σ confidence interval

3.8 ± 2.2 mm / decade

p-value is 0.0008

20211127wuwt2.png
philincalifornia
Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2021 3:32 pm

Hey little kiddie Bellend, I’ll give you a lollipop. You have successfully shown that whatever your infantile baby-talk “climate change” happened, it was the same before and after carbon dioxide increases. Well done.

Duane
Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2021 5:22 am

You cherry picked just the last 30 years … the data presented by the author go back to 1860 – 150 years with no trend. Of course there are decadal and multidecadal trends in all manner of weather data, but if you have available larger/longer data sets, you must use all of it or you are guilty of cherry picking.

Bellman
Reply to  Duane
November 27, 2021 6:45 am

What makes you think I’m only using the last 30 years? The years are shown on the z-axis. I’m using the same length of data as the author, going back to 1860.

Sunsettommy(@sunsetmpoutlookcom)
Editor
Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2021 10:09 pm

Unlike the Author who has the Gall to post the link to the Met Office, you don’t provide the link to that scatter plot chart you use over and over in the thread without attribution.

Please post the link to it.

Bellman
Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 28, 2021 5:42 am

I think Paul Homewood has a lot of gall as well.

Sorry, if I wasn’t clear, but I was using the same data as him for my plots, downloaded from the Met Office site.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/datasets/Rainfall/date/England.txt

And here’s the link for UK rainfall which Homewood didn’t use.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/datasets/Rainfall/date/UK.txt

Bellman
Reply to  Bellman
November 28, 2021 5:43 am

Here’s a link to all the Met Office UK and Regional data series

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-and-regional-series

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2021 5:47 am

That is a textbook scatter diagram. If you were serious you really ought to read up on ‘significance’.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2021 6:00 am

Bellman,

I am not impressed by what you think you “see”.

Please state the 95% confidence limits on the trend because I suspect your eye is deceiving you.

Richard

Bellman
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 27, 2021 7:38 am

The 95% confidence interval is indicated by the grey area. As I said this indicates the trend is statistically significant, even though it’s only a slight rise. It’s possible that if you take into auto correlation and such it might not be significant, it doesn’t bother me one way or the other. My question was how the author was so certain there was no trend. Another question being why he only shows English rainfall.

Paul C
Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2021 9:17 am

I believe the data for England is a longer, more consistent, continuous record than for other areas – such as Scotland. If you want to look at historical instrumental weather data, England is probably the most relevant place to reference.

Bellman
Reply to  Paul C
November 27, 2021 11:11 am

All the current MO data goes back to 1862. Not sure how consistent they are.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2021 3:35 pm

Another question being why he only shows English rainfall.”

Maybe because the lying juvenile twats at the BBC and the other assorted nitwits and liars claim that the flooding in England is due to CO2 increases?

Write to them and set them straight.

Last edited 2 months ago by philincalifornia
DMacKenzie
Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2021 7:44 am

A best-fit line through the fly specs on your walls should not be used to determine if your house is level. Lines through scattered data are deceptive, which is NOT the purpose of performing a best-fit…..

BCBill
Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2021 10:08 am

Nice job Bellman. We should be discussing around the data. This blog has become a bit of support group for people oppressed by the climate lying. If we don’t stay true to the data then we have truly lost. It is acceptable to note that rainfall may be increasing in a way that is of no physical significance but not acceptable to deny a trend where one exists.

Bellman
Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2021 11:24 am

Sorry. Just realized there’s a mistake in my graph. I’m including the data for January 1862, which is just one month.

This reduces the trend slightly, and makes it slightly less significant.

Trend is now 2.5 ± 2.0 mm / decade (2σ confidence interval).

p-value is 0.018.

20211127wuwt1.png
kwinterkorn
Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2021 12:38 pm

The slight increase in UK rain is what one might expect given the mild warming of the climate since 1860:

warmer seas —> faster evaporation into the air —> more rain in general.

This is no predictor of catastrophe. Only mild change

TheFinalNail
Reply to  kwinterkorn
November 27, 2021 1:53 pm

But there is a rising trend and it is statistically significant. Paul Homewood said there wasn’t any trend at all. No one but Bellman checked. He was the only one who displayed true skepticism here.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  TheFinalNail
November 27, 2021 7:13 pm

I wouldn’t say it’s significant, when the error bars are almost as much as the proposed change.

It also tells us nothing long term, like geologic long term.

Leo Smith
November 27, 2021 4:43 am

The great thing about the Daily Express is that only people who think it is deliberate propaganda, believe that any one else believes it at all.

It is a comic, pure and simple.

Cartoon ‘celebrities’ strut their stuff, the weather is always far far worse than it actually is, and with a 50% chance of being exactly wrong, every single science or technology piece will be written by someone who has no idea of how a pencil sharpener works, how to spell or construct an English sentence.

The rest is hyped up scrapings from the bottom of the barrel of Reuters, usually misquoted and full of typos and the wrong photo pasted in.

I love it. not only is the crossword reasonably good, but there is no chance of taking any of it seriously. And the comments are reasonably free of moderation and a hoot.

If the DE is promoting Green Britain, one can be fairly sure that everything its says will not only be wrong, but instantly believed to be wrong by every single DE reader.

I can’t even find it in the rag.

BBC has lost almost all credibility about everything. The liberals thing its right wing, the right wing thinks its communist.

And the met office is ok for tomorrows forecast, but frankly, if you key in the airbases and airports to find out what temperature they are, it seldom agrees with what te RAF stations etc themselves are reporting.

In short the majority of people dont believe a word of any of it and couldn’t care less.

fretslider
Reply to  Leo Smith
November 27, 2021 5:08 am

Cartoon ‘celebrities’ strut their stuff,”

The Express, The Mirror, Daily Star – all Reach titles now. Today’s Star…

Maya Jama leaves little to the imagination and flaunts busty assets in tiny bikini

Carol Vorderman, 60, parades ageless curves in tight leather skirt and thigh-high boots

etc

Bellman
November 27, 2021 4:47 am

As for the idea that 1.5 million homes could flood, this is sheer hysteria, calculated to scare the masses into submission. Even in the worst years, flooding never affects more than a few thousand homes, most of which are built on flood plains.

I’m the last person to defend any Express weather story, but there’s a big difference between saying 1.5 million homes are in an at risk area, and saying 1.5 million homes could flood in a single winter.

Richard Page
Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2021 5:49 am

According to the Government’s own document “A National Assessment of Flood Risk” there are 5.2 million homes in the at risk areas, meaning that that is exactly what the Express is bleating about. You may defend them or not as you see fit, but it’s fairly obvious from looking at the 2 figures that the Express is saying that of the 5.2 million homes at risk, up to 1.5 million could flood in a given year.

Bellman
Reply to  Richard Page
November 27, 2021 7:57 am

Could you show me where the Express implies that. The linked article only seems to say that if you are on arisk area it would be a good idea to be be prepared.

Richard Page
Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2021 8:38 am

I think it’s fairly clear from the article – “Families have been warned to plan for flooding with as many as 1.5 million homes in at risk areas of England unprepared for a deluge.” Given that the government document identifies 5.2 million homes potentially at risk and the article specifically refers to ‘a deluge’, not a series of events, then I believe the implication in the Express article is fairly blatant.

Bellman
Reply to  Richard Page
November 27, 2021 11:03 am

Yes, seems clear to me. There are 5.2 million homes in risk areas, of which 1.5 million are not prepared for a deluge.

Not being prepared for something, does not mean that thing is certain to happen, and it does not mean it’s going to happen to every unprepared home simultaneously.

Richard Page
Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2021 12:45 pm

Well, as I mentioned in the second part of the post which you chose to completely ignore, the Express is implying that it will happen in a single deluge which is the information you specifically requested.

Bellman
Reply to  Richard Page
November 27, 2021 3:35 pm

I didn’t ignore it, I just don;t think you understand what a deluge means.

“with as many as 1.5 million homes in at risk areas unprepared for a deluge.” does not mean there is going to be a single deluge of biblical proportions what will simultaneously flood all 1.5 million unprepared homes, and an unspecified number of prepared homes. It just means each of those 1.5 million homes are unprepared in the event of a deluge affecting any of them.

If they said 1.5 million homes were unprepared for a fire, do you think that would mean they were expecting a single fire that would burn down 1.5 million homes?

Lorne WHITE
Reply to  Bellman
November 29, 2021 12:07 pm

Tell the people in southern BC that the Atmospheric Rivers washing over them aren’t a deluge. They’re expecting another 120mm in the next few days, in addition to the ~200mm they’ve had in the past 2 weeks.
-/-

Have you read of the incredible flood of California’s Central Valley in 1861-62? That’s where much of North America’s fruit and vegetables are grown.

It’s 300 miles long by 50 miles wide and was flooded 20’ deep after 6 weeks of continuous rain. Geologists drilled down to 400AD and found such floods repeat every 150-200 years.
https://www.earthdate.org/node/157

Atmospheric Rivers likely explain how. Wonder what causes them? (Certainly not Greenhouse Gasses.)

Last edited 1 month ago by Lorne WHITE
Steve Richards
November 27, 2021 5:45 am
Disputin
Reply to  Steve Richards
November 27, 2021 8:56 am

Everyone keeps wailing about flood plains, but there are two answers to that. One is to reply “Serves you right for not doing your homework”, the other, more reasonable, is to build houses that have all services, and the “ground” floor, above the highest expected flood level.

I have seen houses on stilts, with a front door leading straight into a staircase. Round it are garages and storage for unimportant junk.

Granted, unscrupulous builders will not want to build anything that costs more, but that can be dealt with by compelling them to deposit a bond to cover the costs if it does flood.

griff
November 27, 2021 5:45 am

The UK is certainly wetter than in the recent past, with more heavy/extreme rainfall events…

‘The latest State of the UK Climate report indicates the UK has become wetter over the last few decades, although with significant annual variation. 2011-2020 was 9% wetter than 1961-1990.

The change in rainfall depends on location – for example, Scotland has experienced the greatest increase in rainfall, while most southern and eastern areas of England have experienced the least change. From the start of the observational record in 1862, six of the ten wettest years across the UK have occurred since 1998.

The number of days where rainfall totals exceed 95% and 99% of the 1961-1990 average have increased in the last decade, as have rainfall events exceeding 50 mm. Both these trends point to an increase in frequency and intensity of rainfall across the UK ‘

UK and Global extreme events – Heavy rainfall and floods – Met Office

Since 1910, there have been 17 record-breaking periods of rainfall in the UK, with nine of these taking place since the year 2000. Storm Desmond, which occurred throughout the winter months between 2015, broke a new record for national rainfall accumulation in a 24-hour period, dropping as much as 34cm of rain at Honister Pass in Cumbria within that space of time.

There have been floods and flash floods, with many new records set, in nearly every year since 2000.

The Express is certainly right to flag up the increasing likelihood of being flooded in the UK

Oldseadog
Reply to  griff
November 27, 2021 6:43 am

Hey griff, I see someone called griff on a netweather blog who lives in Oxfordshire.
Any connection?
And the increased flooding of houses is almost all due to planners allowing developers to build on flood plains. The flood plains always flooded.

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
November 27, 2021 7:13 am

Griff, even the UN IPCC CliSciFi reports indicate there is no correlation between increased rainfall and flooding. A milder (higher low and steady high temperatures) and slightly wetter world is good for all flora and fauna.

Peter Wells
Reply to  griff
November 27, 2021 7:51 am

When it becomes more and more obvious that global warming is not a problem, find a new potential disaster to promote.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  griff
November 29, 2021 7:56 am

griff, the Honister Pass rainfall gauge is halfway up a mountain 1000 feet above sea level and has only been in place since 1970 so we have no idea about rainfall in that location before then.

Sara
November 27, 2021 6:14 am

There’s a simple solution to the flooding problem: plant trees where it floods. Trees soak up 100s of gallons of water and let it evaporate through their crowns. It’s all good stuff.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Sara
November 27, 2021 7:57 am

Urban and land development in general is often guilty of causing high runoff from new areas to older lower lying areas as cities expand further from where they were founded on rivers and bodies of water. Bureaucrats like to blame the resultant increased flood events on CC instead of planning shortcomings.

Richard Page
Reply to  Sara
November 27, 2021 8:43 am

Greed is a factor, Sara – why plant trees on a flood plain when you can squeeze in a couple of extra houses and make more money. It’s going to need a coordinated effort to dredge river channels, develop adequate flood defences and zone housing and wooded areas.

Tom
November 27, 2021 6:40 am

We live in a world were NGO’s and government agencies have a vested interest in exaggerating whatever problems their agency or organization tasked with solving. It is just the way the world is.

Tony C
November 27, 2021 7:34 am

Living in Manchester, one of the damper places in England, we have a field behind my house that people cut across as a short cut. Twenty years ago the entrance to the field always became muddy from people taking the short cut and to one side of th field there was a type of swamp grass we get in England. For the last ten years the mud has gone, so has the swamp grass. It’s not science but it does tell a tale….and that is, sometimes we get tons of rain, sometimes we don’t…. oh and most of Manchester is in a 1 in 1000 year chance of flooding area……….where is Noah when you need him, probably working for the Daily Express.

Andrew Dykes
November 27, 2021 8:24 am

Strictly, the article says that 1.5 million homes in at-risk areas are unprepared for a deluge. You could read that as saying 1.5 million homeowners know a scam when they see one…

Paul Johnson
November 27, 2021 9:43 am

If “environmental concerns” preclude maintenance and upgrade of flood control infrastructure, future flooding is a certainty regardless of the forecast.

Peta of Newark
November 27, 2021 9:52 am

Certainly while mooching around the Cambridge and Lincs Fens these last few weeks, ‘somebody’ is expecting ‘something’
The big old extra long-reach Hymacs with their rakes, shovels and buckets have been doing an epic task of clearing the ‘drains’ recently.
You see them everywhere although it does help with the Fen being as flat as it is – you can see for miiiiiiiles. It may be flat but it ain’t boring – Fens really are ‘electric’

The wizened old pharts amongst us will realise what’s happening there tho, the various Drainage Boards are buying insurance and as all old pharts know, once you’ve paid your premium, You. Never. Need. To. Claim.

get the sunbeds ready……

InterestedBystander
November 27, 2021 1:17 pm

When the rains come and all that extra weight pushes down on the land England will surely sink into the sea.

Oldseadog
Reply to  InterestedBystander
November 28, 2021 2:46 am

Stop giving the SNP ideas.

%d bloggers like this: