By P Gosselin
Climate science keeps contradicting itself
Climate change causing both wetter and drier summers? UK’s Met Office warned government that the 2024 summer could see 50 days of rain!In the summers of 2018 and 2022, for example, Europe was hit by drought, and government-paid experts and media blamed man-made climate change. Many claimed that drought would be the future for British and European summers.
For example, the UK’s Met Office warned:
As global temperatures rise, there is a risk drought will become more frequent in the UK. Data available here.
Winters across the UK are projected to get wetter, while summers are expected to become drier. However, it is the distribution of this rainfall that will determine future UK drought risk.
Today: prepare for “at least” 50 days of summer rain!
Ironically, it has just been reported by news site LBC here that the Met Office now has warned the government “to prepare for at least 50 days of rain in the next three months, leading to fears over further flooding in the UK and dashing any hopes of a warm British summer.”
All the talk of climate-change induced droughts has shifted to drenched summers!
“Last summer saw 40 days of rain, but the Met Office expects this summer to be even worse, jeopardising popular summer events such as Wimbledon, Trooping of the Colour, Royal Ascot and many festivals including Glastonbury,” LBC adds.
More rain and more drought in the summer
The reason for all the expected rain, according to the LBC site: global warming.
“Climate change is largely to blame for the UK’s wetter weather. As the atmosphere warms, it holds more moisture – around 7% for each degree.”
Ironically, the wettest ever summer ever in the UK occurred in 1912, which saw rainfall on more than 55 days. At the time, the UK was about a degree Celsius cooler and so the atmosphere was capable of holding 7% less water. Why would it rain more back then?
Met Office concedes forecasts are not possible
It’s becoming glaringly clear that climate science is indeed full of contradictions and theoretical errors. Climatic statements can’t be taken seriously anymore.
Hours later, the Met Office tried to backpedal, telling tyla.com here that it “has had to come forward to shut down reports that the UK is reportedly set for 50 days of rain this summer” and: “It is not possible to forecast a specific number of days of rain for the whole of summer.”
“When looking at forecasts beyond five days into the future, the chaotic nature of the atmosphere starts to come into play – small events currently over the Atlantic can have potentially significant impacts on our weather in the UK in several days’ or weeks’ time,” the Met Office told Tyla.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So their model cannot even predict the direction of the change?
That observation sums it up well.
Sounds like the old stock scam
Pick a stock
Send out 1600 Emailings to potential investors with predictions of increase or decrease.
800 receive increase and 800 receive decrease predictions.
Depending on which way the stock goes the next day repeat the process…
400 increase and 400 decrease.
Repeat the process again with 200 increase and 200 decrease
Then ask the remaining 200 to pay $10 for the next prediction (if they want one…but to them you’ve never been wrong.
Provided they all accept, you’ve just made $2,000
Repeat 100 up and 100 down
Send emails to the 100 remaining asking $100 for the next prediction
You’ve just made $10,000
50 up and 50 down
Ask $1,000 for the next prediction
You just made $50,000 and to those 50 people you were never wrong
25 up and 25 down
$2,000 for your next prediction and make another $50,000
12 up and 13 down
All tolled you’ve made $112,000 and likely have 12 or 13 people frothing at the mouth for your next prediction
Their models cannot even predict what they say their models tell them.
Can’t we just ask the original Victoria’s Secrets models for their weather predictions?
I am pretty sure they would be more accurate than the computer models, and I would at least enjoy observing the output of THOSE models!
You’re dreaming
Now most of the models are transgender,
d y k e s and/or the size of a blimp, with hips as big as battleships.
They don’t look like this anymore:
https://imgix.ranker.com/user_node_img/21/403630/original/adriana-lima-people-in-tv-photo-u54?auto=format&q=60&fit=crop&fm=pjpg&dpr=2&w=375
Hard to downvote you for that and yet someone did.
Nice looking dude.
Those hormone “adjustments” have really done a good job !
Doesn’t matter any change of direction is obviously bad. 🙂
As is staying the same. In fact, that might be even worse.
They predict conditions will either become more of something or less. And they’re 95% certain. The science says so.
Those pesky floodroughts, amirite.
These modellers really do need to get their ducks, or assumptions/guesstimates etc, in a row. But then, so does the media.
“Meteorologist Jim Dale has warned that the UK could be in for a scorching spring, with temperatures to rival those of last year’s heatwave as early as April.”
Met Office’s verdict on mega April heatwave as 2024 forecast to be hottest year ever
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/weather/topstories/met-office-s-verdict-on-mega-april-heatwave-as-2024-forecast-to-be-hottest-year-ever/ar-BB1l0TQS
Good old Jim. He got that one wrong…
“Why is it raining so much? UK’s bad April weather explained”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/why-rain-so-much-uk-april-weather-met-office-b1149638.html
Brexit alert…
“The UK is bracing for three heatwaves this summer with the mercury skyrocketing to a sizzling 30C in June. London could be as hot as Portugal during the sixth month of the year, as the capital city roasts in sweltering conditions of 30C akin to the European Union at the height of the summer.”
UK set for three sizzling 30C heatwaves with England ‘hotter than Portugal
‘https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newsbirmingham/uk-set-for-three-sizzling-30c-heatwaves-with-england-hotter-than-portugal/ar-BB1neCGQ?cvid=96ffe1fdae5d40579be9d300034f50fb&ei=21
We shall see….
30C! Oh the humanity! How will they survive this mild summer weather.
86F- what most New Englanders are still praying for!
Jim Dale is an uneducated neanderthal. He has no post secondary education and his only training in weather was as an enlisted weather observer in the Royal Navy long, long ago.
He is not smart enough to recognize what he doesn’t know.
That’s not fair to neanderthals they where way smarter than Jim Dale
My apologies to neanderthals.
Many ships run aground under his ‘observation’?
My wife an I enjoyed our visit to her homeland last spring, during one of the “heatwaves”. It was terrible. Back here in the US we would call those lovely spring days.
And is more rain better for ducks in a row, or worse?
I don’t know why exactly the contrarians have settled on “scoring points at any cost” as their modus operandi, but it does seem to result in you all lying an awful, awful lot.
“the contrarians”
As I understand the term, a contrarian is someone who “likes” to disagree with other people and express opinions that are “unpopular“.
Are you suggesting scientists Like Richard Lindzen and John Clauser etc etc etc etc take some form of enjoyment from disagreeing and expressing unpopular opinions, rather than acting as objective scientists?
You should drop the religious tone. It’s well past its sell by date.
I don’t prescribe any motivation to the contrarians, I use the term to refer to the group who rejects the mainstream scientific consensus on climate change (often this same group rejects mainstream scientific consensus on anything, making the term even more apt).
But it certainly seems that people like Gosselin and those who support him have decided that it doesn’t matter if what they’re saying is true as long as it can persuade people, and I don’t think that’s a good thing.
Then your terminology is incorrect.
Maybe starting with more precise language might be an idea?
> Then your terminology is incorrect.
Tell that to Warren Buffet, a famous contrarian investor.
He admitted he only invested for the subsidies.. .
Just like every other climate/renewables scammer.
Are you suggesting that contrarians are opportunistic asshats, Mr. Nice?
The mainstream scientific consensus on climate change . . .
__________________________________________________
Is “The Big Lie”
The Big Lie is a lie so colossal that nobody
would believe that someone could have the
impudence to distort the truth so infamously
The truth is that a warmer world is a better world.
The term “contrarian” is extremely prejudicial – it’s name calling. It’s certainly not scientific. Science has always been about scientists challenging each other, and is never about “settled” this or that. The only thing in science that is settled is that science by definition can never be settled.
Only the ideologues and religionists think that knowledge is fixed for all time and is unchallengeable. You expose yourself as an ideologue, not a scientist.
I don’t mean it as a compliment. The people in this group fit no other description, however. They are not skeptics, though they would label themselves as such, because they uncritically accept anything that conforms to their preconceptions, never once challenging anyone who tells them things they want to hear, and immediately reject offhand anything said to them by a member of the reviled “other,” no matter how innocuous or scientifically sound.
I’m certain that if a climate scientist told this lot that grass is green they would go to their graves insisting that grass is a bright vibrant red. Perhaps Pierre Gosselin would compile a list of 20 or so scientific studies about grass containing the word “red,” and that post would be heralded on WUWT as proof of the green grass conspiracy unraveling.
“never once challenging anyone who tells them things they want to hear”
You seem to be describing yourself.
I’m sure if nearly every prediction ever made by “climate scientists” NEVER came true.
You are so brain-washed you would still “believe” them.
Lots of mindless waffle.. a regular AlanJ trait,
But when you look at it… ZERO CONTENT.
I don’t think you are being fair or objective. Most posts here are based on evidence. And they do not have the dismal record of incorrect predictions that litters the religion called by its adherents “climate science”. New York is not under water, the 1980s ice age did not eventuate, Arrhenius’ prediction of a 5 to 6 degree C rise in global temperature if CO2 levels double did not happen ….and so on and on. Here’s a challenge: give me one major prediction that has come true.
And do you really swallow the nonsense that the pre-industrial temperatures were the ideal? If so, read your history. The 1840s-50s were times of misery, social upheaval and distress, all due to cold temperatures. Poor harvests, mass migrations etc. Be thankful that we have had a mild increase in temperature.
Not many people believed in what Darwin said about evolution for generations. Mainstream physicists didn’t care much for relativity theory for many years. Galileo?
Not many people believed what Arrhenius said for many years, either. The contrarians don’t seem to be aware of where we are on the continuum of scientific thought.
Arrhenius made an erroneous conjecture based on a very simplistic model.
Heck, he couldn’t even get his equations balanced dimensionally.
Unfortunately, climate science has never progressed past that point.
He was right on some things though, CO2 improves the planet…
This was something he actually had evidence for, unlike his CO2 warming conjecture.
Darwin couldn’t explain hereditary variation, and Wegener had no way to make his continents move. The point is not that Arrhenius had everything right at the outset, the point is that, like every great scientific discovery, global warming is the result of many decades of hard won evidence stemming from initial discoveries of early pioneers whose work was not fully appreciated in their time. Contrarians decrying consensus fail to grasp that the theory has been around and accumulating a mountain of evidence for more than a century. Scientists are in general agreement about AGW because they’ve run out of big things to argue about, not because they are reluctant to ask challenging questions.
Poor AJ.. another mindless content free blether. !
Saying absolutely nothing of any scientific merit whatsoever.
Are you using an A-non-I bot ??
You still can’t even produce empirical evidence for the most basic fakery of the AGW scam… CO2 warming.
Even Arrhenius changed his mind when he had to. I’d raise you a Tyndall and a “vibrating ether” but I don’t think you would get it.
Not many people understood or believed that a meteor strike caused one of the largest mass extinctions in Earth’s geohistory, which led to the extinction of dinosaurs and most other land and sea animals as well as plants … until researchers eventually discovered that a thin layer of the same element – irridium – in similar aged layers all over the world, Irridium is extremely rare on earth, but is typical of meteors. It was not so identified until 1980.
Similarly, the notion of plate tectonics was considered crazy if not revolutionary. The theory first was postulated in 1915, but it wasn’t until the late 1960s that most geologists accepted plate tectonics as an explanation for what was seen all over the world.
Einstein predicted the theory of gravitational waves back in 1916 … but it wasn’t until 2015 that any experimental proof of gravitational waves was produced. It was considered a pretty sketch theory until then.
the mainstream scientific consensus on climate change (often this same group rejects mainstream scientific consensus
If you talk about science, forget “consensus”, else it’s not science.
I don’t reject the almost 100% consensus on AGW climate change: There is a greenhouse effect and manmade CO2 emissions increases it by some amount
That’s the AGW consensus, based on evidence, that has withstood a 127 year test of time.
So what?
Predictions of global warming doom in hundreds of years is not science nor are the predictions based on data. A consensus on CAGW is meaningless, data free astrology.
There are some Nutters here that refuse to accept AGW, but they are not as bad as leftist Nutters who buy into CAGW and want to use climate change predictions of doom to help them rule the world.
At least now you’re saying “by some amount”- which you didn’t do in the past, as I recall.
“AGW consensus, based on evidence”
Yet , whenever asked to produce that evidence.. you fall flat as a pancake. !!
Re-defining the language is not recommended for clarity in communication.
That’s why scientists use Latin to describe and label their findings. It’s a dead language that doesn’t change.
Funny that scientists do this but you don’t.
AlanJ –
It appears that the MetOffice is disagreeing with itself. And they have been oh so right with their predictions in the past.
You appeal to the “scientific consensus”. Consensus and science don’t go together. But, of course, for folks like you, it makes sense.
“often this same group rejects mainstream scientific consensus on anything”
Got any evidence for that absurd statement? Do they argue against the Big Bang? Evolution? Computer science?
Science doesn’t run on “consensus” but PROOF and there is no PROOF that climate warming won’t be beneficial to humans.
About 4.6 million people die from cold-related causes compared to about 500,000 that die each year from heat-related causes.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
Real scientists proved the Earth goes around the Sun when it was “obvious” that the Sun revolved around the Earth. You could see it rise in the east and set in the west every day. It was obvious. But it was wrong!
They even changed the definition of the word “climate” to only be 30 years to fit their models and haven’t even bothered to tell the people that so-called “climate” is really only 30 years of weather, which “changes” all of the time!
Who or what speaks for climate science? The IPCC is routinely ignored when severe weather events are attributed to climate change by somebody. Nobody from the IPCC steps up to challenge the misuse of “climate science” in those cases. There are multiple climate models and multiple estimates of ECS, and neither seems to have improved with time but the stridency of the fear campaign has escalated. Clearly when we talk about climate science, we are not talking about science or even a branch of science that has a widely understood and accepted foundation of basic principles. Climate science is a social movement that uses fear of weather to bring about social change and so it very much includes the MET Office, mainstream media, hysterical activists, globalists and others. It may be possible for droughts to increase and for there to be wetter summers, but neither of these possibilities requires anthropogenic climate change. As always, they are essentially random events that are not better understood after billions invested in climate modelling. Climate science, sensu lato, uses all severe weather to foster fear, and therefore, support for its mad war on CO2. Of course Climate Science needs to be ridiculed for its preposterous and seemingly contradictory claims. If only more people had ridiculed Aztec priests for their obsession with human sacrifice (to control weather?) , perhaps the Aztec empire could have really defended itself, rather than pretend defended itself. Insane belief in preposterous notions like the evil of human generated CO2, or the ability of human sacrifice to change the future, have dire consequences for societies. Many real things have suffered as a result of the fantasy war on CO2.
The IPCC is an authoritative source on the current state of climate change research for anyone not familiar with the primary literature. I’m not sure why you think the IPCC is obligated to expend resources and effort to correct every single misstatement that might ever be spoken or put into print anywhere in the world, or how you think such an endeavor could even be possible.
The Met Office corrected the LBC reporting on their forecast, and Gosselin characterized this as them “conceding” or backpedaling, so there can be no winning with the contrarian set. Everything must be spun as a failure of science, and you all gobble it up with credulous fervor.
Only someone completely ignorant of the vast body of research literature in climate science could make such a goofy statement.
“Only someone completely ignorant of the vast body of research literature in climate science could make such a goofy statement.”
Vast body? There is nothing in the scientific literature that is more full of falsehoods than climate science with maybe the exception of the last 4 years of anything to do with Covid or Covid mRNA vaccines. I would contend your last statement is goofy.
AlanJ seems to think he’s smarter than the average bear.
I’m not the one who thinks they’re smarter than the world’s scientists.
So for some reason- your brain cannot grasp that there are scientists who don’t agree with the consensus?
So you’re saying you think you’re smarter than all the world’s scientists except like ten guys. Got it. The conceit is palpable.
There’s a few hundred here:
https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/WCD-240507.pdf
And just the first one on the list has more credibility than all your unnamed “scientists”.
Ahh, yes, Don Anderson, world famous climate scientist- er… I mean, world famous… retired teacher/programmer?
And who could forget renowned climate expert Rick Armstrong, whose impressive resume consists of… metallurgist and… strategic planner?
The first signatory, John Clauser, has no relevant expertise in the field of climate whatsoever, he is a theoretical physicist whose work focused on quantum mechanics.
Perhaps you’d be good enough to provide a version of the list with only the names of the actual climate scientists who signed it. You can probably fit it on an index card.
What you name climate scientists are scientists writing papers about climate, whatever they are coming from, natural science, physics, meteorolgy, chemical science, mathematics statistic, geography…
So… the people I call climate scientists are…. climate scientists?
You forgot Michael Mann, the guy who analysed tree ring data to produce a hockey stick. Even though he is not a data analyst.
Yes, your conceit and arrogance is on the same level as your ignorance.
Just believe.. don’t actually bother with the science.
Who pays you to produce your mindless prattle ?
Poor evidence free AJ.. just “believe” [spooky music]
Most self-styled “climate scientists” are activists…
…. that precludes them being scientists.
In the main, from what has been demonstrated over many years, “the world’s scientists” are bought and paid for. Reasonable then, to view them as unscientific.
The IPCC is a political organization. The summary report is unanimously agreed to by over 120 political representatives.
There is a rule that if a science report contradicts claims in the summary report, the science report gets edited. In other words, the science follows the politics.
Can you cite this rule, precisely? Where is it laid out in the IPCC process?
There’s:
Few people, especially in the MSM read anything other than the simplistic summaries for politicians.
Perhaps, given Sparta Nova’s notable failure to do so, you’ll be good enough to point out exactly where the IPCC is directed to re-write the main reports to conform to the wording of the SPM’s? Or perhaps you’d be good enough to point out specific instances where the scientific statements in the SPM contradict those of the main reports?
Your ignorance of the IPCC methodology is absolutely hilarious.!!
But then, you always post hilariously ignorant comments.
$$$$$$$$$ There!
Here is Richard Lindzen explaining how they work:
I see Lindzen briefly, vaguely repeating a similar sentiment to that above, but without any substantiation. You need to be specific, and provide a concrete directive from the IPCC stating that the body of the working group reports is to be edited to match the language and scientific statements of the SPMs; that is what is being claimed.
Deep in DENIAL.. the only way you can continue your rancid “belief” in the AGW-cult and the anti-science IPCC politics that drives it.
“scientific statements of the SPM”
ROFLMAO.
Now we all know you are being deliberately stupid.
They are a POLTICAL statement.. with very little actual science.
They are mostly pure AGW propaganda.
Several EX-IPCC authors have stated that that is what happens.
Even then, the actual body of the report often is totally contradictory to the POLITICAL summary.
Seriously.. don’t tell me you are so dumb that you actually “believe” the political summaries.
You’ll be able to cite those several IPCC authors, then, along with the concrete evidence they’ve presented.
You haven’t been paying any attention, have you, ..
… deliberately blind and deaf.
Several top-stream real scientists have said the same thing..
Had what their science basically turned A-over-T in the POLITICAL summary.
… and now refuse to have anything to do with it.
But you can’t name these top-stream real scientists, can’t point to any documentary evidence they’ve brought forward.
How can there possibly be such a thing as “climate science”? Science is science, and certainly any half educated non-ignoramus understands that there are dozens if not hundreds of specialties of science involved in understanding something as complex as our Earthian environment.
Calling anyone a “climate scientist” is akin to calling them a “universe scientist”. It’s utterly meaningless as a descriptive term.
Climate science is a sham – it only pretends to be scientific while clearly outed as ideology. Like Nazis who used to claim science justified their Jew hatred
The term is simply a convenient way to describe a complex and multi-faceted interdisciplinary field. Scientists with deep knowledge of meteorology, oceanography, chemistry, physics, geology, etc. are combining their knowledge to drive a greater understanding of the processes that drive earth’s climate system. A scientist, of any specialty, who employs their expertise primarily to aid this effort can describe themself as a climate scientist.
Again, these kinds of statements are a surefire way to expose your ignorance of the field. You’ll get raucous applause from the equally ignorant for saying them, of course.
More mindless gibberish… zero content.
You really are nothing more than a mindless AGW-bot.
You are deliberately ignorant of the malpractices and propaganda in the self-styled filed of “climate non-science”
So kinda like the 6 blind people trying to describe an Elephant by describing the body part they’re touching
I’m not sure why you think the IPCC is obligated to expend resources and effort to correct every single misstatement
Nobody does, thus the general public is fed a diet of BS. Why is that not seen as a problem?
(edit: I’ll make that “nobody significant” since I’m sure you’ll jump on the absolute statement. There is no major public voice even attempting to correct all the misleading press.)
The IPCC is an authoritative source on the current state of climate change research for anyone not familiar with the selected primary literature.
An important therm you missed to add.
Only someone completely ignorant of the vast body of research literature in climate science could make such a goofy statement.
If you talk about yourself, you are correct, you have no clue about the existing literature in climate science, or you are only interested in onesided literature.
You’re right in that LBC totally distorted what the Met Office said. Even an outfit as signed up to CAGW as the Met Office would never have made such a ludicrous claim
The IPCC only reviews the “primary literature” with which they agree. Not really scientific.
Especially given how voluminous and egregious are those misstatements!
“so it very much includes the MET Office, mainstream media, hysterical activists, globalists and others.” I suspect that others includes horrible little men like you.
NO! the IPCC is a POLITICAL organisation…
… aimed specifically at pushing the scam of human CO2 warming.
What a massively goofy statement for AlanJ.. as usual.
“Climate science is a socialIST movement that uses fear of weather to bring about social change “
WOW.. someone NAILED IT .. just left out 3 letters.
“Clearly when we talk about climate science, we are not talking about science“
Another 100% correct statement. Someone has it nailed, don’t they.
I know AlanJ is deliberately ignorant, but shirley, even he must know that..
… the IPCC was SPECIFICALLY created to further the AGW human-CO2 caused warming scam.
Yet he is still ignorant enough to think it is a “scientific” institution.
WOW. !!
I have been carefully reading “the vast body” of climate research for over a decade no, ever since I became aware of the large number of unsupported assumptions underlying AGW. Clmate science is an embarrassment to the scientific method as it includes some of the most petty, self aggrandizing, scientifically illiterate buffoons to have self identified as scientists. I spend a distressingly large amount of time reading their nonsense because so many have been taken in by this preposterous campaign. Clearly you are not reading the literature or are not capable of understanding it.
nailed it!
Yes, you are lying an awful, awful lot.
What is it about your fetish for lying ….. whether by you or others?
Careful simpleton, someone might you to explain your fetish for continually making stupidly ignorant comments.
Ahhh, ain’t that precious?!?! Lie spewing simpleminded toddled in to spew lies, as usual. Where are all the pics of your electric Ford truck you promised to post for us to laugh at? Still lying about that, too?
Contrarians? Really? That’s not a scientific term – it’s a political term, designed to make people who don’t buy their ideology cast out of your version of decent society.
The Met Office is not “climate science.”
Not ? 😀 Why are yòu always wrong ? 😀
The Met Office is responsible for monitoring and modelling the UK’s climate. We collect weather and climate records, assess how the UK’s climate may evolve in the future, and provide advice to manage climate-related risks.
We collect weather and climate records for the UK. This information helps us monitor the UK’s climate and how it is changing over time. Here, you’ll find all of our climate data, including:
UK climate
so during a wet summer, we should all go to bed worrying about a drought- makes sense
Careful … Worrying about rain at bedtime might make you WET the bed while Worrying about drought at bedtime might make you DRY the bed
“have settled on “scoring points at any cost” as their modus operandi”
Yet it is all you ever do !!
Just because you are totally pathetic at it, and are sitting on -100…. not our fault.
—
“but it does seem to result in you all lying an awful, awful lot”
WOW.. your house must be devoid of mirrors.
Yes, yes.. we know that in “climate science”, more rain means more drought…
Always self-contrarian.
“The Met Office is not “climate science.”
The Met Office is generally not “science” of any sort… nowadays just pure activism
AlanJ, I recall the Met Office promising us a “Mediterranean climate”. Were they “lying an awful lot” or just wrong?
They quietly shelved that one. Probably when they realised that many people might equate that with more “barbecue summers” and weren’t alarmed at all by the prospect.
What we need is another BIG climate protest like in NYC where they protest all the things they use every day and then leave behind tons of trash and plastic and then drive home in their SUVs and also drive home the point that they are HYPOCRITES and if they ever got their demands they would curl up and die.
Story Tip:=====> The EPA gave $50million dollars to “Climate Justice Alliance”
https://climatejusticealliance.org/
It popped up on Utube ====>https://www.youtube.com/shorts/SyLjDfLvj7g
This is the definition of outrage……Big Guy Joey Biden gives tax money to climate justice alliance which then gives to left wing groups like pallystinian supporters……Joey Biden belongs in prison – not the White House.
“Joey Biden belongs in prison” after reading the “Laptop from Hell” it’s
obvious the apple didn’t fall far from the tree. I’d go a bit further and have
“The Big Guy” “walk the plank”— literally .
Defund them.
Add a zero and it will be getting half way to big money ! Handouts need to be more than a billion these days to be a “meaningful contribution” to the virtue signal of choice. And a billion is only $3 per American…won’t even pay for a box of cereal.
I forget, so help me out.
Does this include the 10s of thousands of climate youth volunteers who, complete with uniforms, etc., get out and push climate change policies for the Big Guy?
Do they wear Brown Shirts or Black Shirts?
Read an article about sugar cane industry in Texas going under because of drought, next article below it was about all the flooding in Texas.
There use to be a common saying. If you don’t like the weather, hang around for a few minutes – it will change.
Reminds one of the famous Groucho Marx quote!
Absolutely true here in western PA! Furnace kicked on night before last, had temps in 80s for a couple weeks before.
The usual quality of weather reporting in the UK. Make some wild claim based on hearsay. Then when the Met Office denies having made any such forecast, claim they are back peddling.
For the record here’s the actual outlook for Contingency planner’s. They give a 20% chance of summer being in the wetter than average category – exactly what you expect by chance, compared with a 15% of it being in the dryer than average category.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/metofficegovuk/pdf/business/public-sector/civil-contingency/3moutlook_jja_v1.pdf
Quality of weather reporting in the UK.
“Heavy rain last winter made 10 times more likely by climate crisis” Grauniad 22 May 2024
“The forecast for 2034 is constant rain with severe local storms” Grauniad 29 May 2024
Here is where the 50 days of rain started as far as I can tell. The ever reliable Sun
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/28159720/britain-wettest-summer-on-record/
This is correct, the May-July 3-month outlook issued at the end of April gives a 30% chance that the period will be in the top 20% category for rainfall. That is 50% higher than chance. This isn;t very unusual though. And note – this is for last month. The one starting in June, has the Jun – August probability of being in the wetter than average category as 20%.
Not the use of the passive voice. No suggestion as to where the fear of 50 days come from. no suggestion the MO are predicting it.
The next day, everyone is just copying this article, but assuming the 50 days of rain is part of the MO forecast.
A possible explanation of The Sun reporter’s logic:
I can’t see any other obvious way of arriving at “50 days of rain” from the MO’s numbers. Others might wish to comment on The Sun reporter’s mathematical skills.
And before anyone points out that 1.2 x 40 = 48, the actual wording used in the Sun was “closer to 50 days” 😀
“Why would it rain more back then?”
Almost as if there is more than one variable that determines a British summer.
It’s the usual “heads I win, tails you lose” scam of the warmunists.
Whatever happens is blamed on “climate change”, so that global warming causes global cooling, global drought cause global flooding. Etc etc
Wet periods and dry periods, warm periods and cool periods, are all artifacts of longer term weather patterns that are themselves part of “climate”. Even the usual standard of treating 30 years of weather data as representing the climate is foolish, since geohistory and human history is repleted with evidence of such periodic variances having durations of hundreds of years or even millennia.
For example, many if not most people in the US are at least somewhat familiar with the story of the “Anasazi” peoples (that name is no longer considered appropriate, since it is a name that is considered an epithet used by one Indian people against another, their rivals), as evidenced by the cliff and stone dwellings in the American southwest, such as Mesa Verde and Chaco Canyon. Archaeologists have known for decades that the Mesa Verde and Chacoan cities were abandoned in the 13th century and that it is believed that a multi-decadal drought hit (they have tree ring data to support that from the timbers used in the construction). It is believed today that those peoples didn’t die out or disappear, but rather moved eastward to the Rio Grande valley where today’s Pueblo peoples of New Mexico live today.
Whether the drought in the southwest was caused by the arrival of the Little Ice Age, which seems probable, is not necessarily proven at this time. But the Little Ice Age lasted from the mid 13th to the mid 19th century, about 500 years, when the present slight warming trend began as a bounce back from the Little Ice Age. Was that “climate change”, or was it just “regular old climate” doing its normal thing, in which change is constant? And obviously not caused by industrial activities or mechanical transportation and electric power generation..
Climate change is to blame for kids being gender confused.
(/sarc)
It is clear climate change is to blame for everything, so as soon as we totally eliminate CO2, all will be right with the (dead) world.
The ridiculosity of climate mongering knows no limits. Saw a headline for a story in a local news outlet about how climate change is ruining mothers. Really? Please describe the physical mechanism that causes mothers to fail and suffer.
so as soon as we totally eliminate CO2
Well, you do have to admit that if we totally eliminate CO2, there won’t be any more problems for humanity to face.
So, normal natural variation in the weather. Who woulda thunk it?
The fundamental error of CAGW Alarmists is to impose patterns on the weather, a completely random, stochastic phenomenon, and then attribute it to Man.
Met Office Warns: Extremely Wet Summer…After Warning Droughts Would Become More Frequent
and:
NBC News
NOAA issues highest-ever early forecast for the coming hurricane season
Do primary school teachers read the story of “Chicken Little” anymore?
“Hours later, the Met Office tried to backpedal …”
No – the MetO did not “backpedal”, as they did not peddle in the forward direction in the first place to require it.
Just the usual media spin to make sensationalist headlines.
Followed here by the usual WUWT/NTZ spin into rubbishing the MetO.
This is the UKMOs 3 month forecast ….
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/metofficegovuk/pdf/business/public-sector/civil-contingency/3moutlook_jja_v1.pdf
Re-read the article. Read the links.
Just shows you how dumb the Met Office is, St. Swithin’s Day is July 15th, and if it rains on that day, it’s for 40 days not 50 😉
Just yesterday evening, on the local weather forecast (BBC regional), the presenter asked the two anchors, how they felt the weather for May had been. Of course, they didn’t try to over do it. But the ‘official’ response was, it’s been one of the warmest on record!
The mean CET for May is currently the second warmest in the entire 360+ year series. There hasn’t been a single day not above the 1961-1990 average.
2022 and 2023 were the warmest 2 years in the entire series, 2024 is on course to beat them by a massive margin.
As a climate skeptic from the dawn of the internet, I do wish fellows would stop making us look silly with reckless posts when they can’t be bothered to check the facts.
Perhaps, you’d like to check the Met Office’s weather station classifications, the fact that 80% are essentially junk, class 4 or 5, is a justification to doubt the claim. In addition, for the whole of this month, it has been colder. As for 2024, going to beat them by a massive margin, well I think you should tell us all, who is going to win Wimbledon.
Talk about reckless posts!!!!!!
If 2024 is on course to be the warmest since CET began, why has it been so bloody cold here?
That’s what LBC said. The Met Office said there was a 50 percent change of a wet summer and a 50 percent chance of a dry summer. LBC is a nutjob left wing broadcaster of the worst kind
A forecast like that will never be wrong.
The British summer will be unusually wet or unusually dry. Two predictions doubles the chances of being right. If the summer is just average no one will talk about it and the predictions will be forgotten. You can’t blame a normal summer on climate change
The Brits have borrowed my prediction methodology from 1997: “The global temperature in 100 year will be warmer, unless it is colder.”
Sounds dumb but I think it’s the right answer
I’m glad the Met Office have predicted a wet Summer because now there is a possibility of a bit of sun, and maybe a heatwave, like we usually get at least once a year. At the moment in the South we appear to be getting Scotland’s weather.
Indeed. I am sat indoors, in Sarf Lunnon, with a waistcoat and a woolly cardigan on. I’m fine, and the heating is off. But it doesn’t FEEL like ‘almost June’.
Auto
Just another reminder that the so-called experts on the climate change issue really don’t know which direction weather and climate are going to take over the short- or long-term. What they should say is the same as J.P. Morgan said about the stock market during a financial crisis in the early years of the last century: “It’ll fluctuate”. Then they would have more credibility.
The reason nonsense like this can happen is language. So long as the CAGW crowd is allowed to use meaningless terms like climate change they can say pretty much anything. Climate change is useless, it can mean anything therefore it means nothing. The CAGW clowns predicted change and the climate changed they were right, if you can call that right. To me they are getting paid for jacking their jaws. If what they fear is global warming due to man emitting CO2 into the atmosphere then that is exactly what they must claim. In other words Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming and nothing else. If it isn’t anthropogenic what is the point, if it is not catastrophic what is the point? We are letting them off way too easy.
The Met Office have given a 20% chance of the UK 2024 summer being wetter than average.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/metofficegovuk/pdf/business/public-sector/civil-contingency/3moutlook_jja_v1.pdf
“When looking at forecasts beyond five days into the future,” wait for another five days, to attempt to ‘verify’ THOSE forecasts.