From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
Further to the latest Met Office scare story:
.
Forecasters are predicting a summer of persistent rain and wet weather for Brits, as global warming continues to result in more erratic conditions.
The Met Office has briefed the Government and transport chiefs 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.
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.
It is worth consulting the latest Met Office long range forecast:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/forecast/gcx4zrw25#?date=2024-05-30
In short, it will probably be a bit drier than normal down south, and a bit wetter up north.
.
It must now be abundantly clear that the climate change wing of the Met Office is totally out of control, feeling able to put out whatever climate propaganda they can get away with.
Meanwhile their weather forecasting colleagues must be ashamed of their politicised antics.
The British public deserve better.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There is no climate crisis, the CAGW side is losing. They have no new science and very little of the old stuff is proper science. We need to call them out big time. They are a disgrace.
Just clicking on their crap to read it encourages them to write more of it based on click-count. Just don’t click on any climate click-baits and eventually they will quit publishing their junk news. It will be difficult to give up your addiction….
So, all we have to do is ignore a problem and it will go away. I don’t think so.
The CAGW side controls the language, thus the ideas, and are blindly supported by the media, thus controlling the masses. The CAGW side controls the funding, thus the courts and politicians.
It not going to be an easy fight.
You are right but they have nothing to prop up their hypothesis, no proper science. All they have is climate models and anecdotal evidence. If those cowards ever dared to take on climate skeptics I am convince they would be annihilated.
We just have to keep publicly pointing out the errors in their analysis, embarrass them as often as possible, challenge their science in whatever forums are possible particularly political events, ridicule obvious poor forecasts. Just don’t give them any quarter, and link their science to the Governments stupid Net Zero policies, so everyone knows where the ideological garbage is coming from, and who is being hurt by all this climate nonscience. It’s past time that the public learns that there is no climate emergency, so all the related politics is pure bullshit!
It seems quite similar to my forecast: It might be wetter, but drier in some places. Temperatures are a mixed bag, often quite hot but possibly colder, especially in the North where it might be cloudy. Night time will also be colder than when the sun is out.
Anyway, I’m a bit out of touch. Who is currently the best weather girl on UK TV?
“Who is currently the best weather girl on UK TV?”
Won’t they have to define, “girl”, first ??
Shannon Travers
First off, it is offensive to call an adult female a “girl.” It took me 50 years to learn to change my language.
Second, we are no longer allowed to define people by sex. It is mandatory that gender is used.
So, who is currently the best weather gender identifying woman?
We must toe the line or the activists will silence us and we will spend the rest of our lives in court being tried for criminal misgendering.
Carol Kirkwood or Elizabeth Razzini…
You completely missed the forecast that nights will be dark, though not as bad as the October through February nights.
Paola Fisch.
Ah, another BBQ summer…
Rain! In England? No way…..
Further to the latest Met Office scare story:
Except it wasn’t
Just the usual media hype and invention – championed here by Homewood as a part of his reflexive rubbishing of the UKMO.
The MetO 3 month Outlook:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/metofficegovuk/pdf/business/public-sector/civil-contingency/3moutlook_jja_v1.pdf
The chance of a hot summer is higher than normal but is similar to recent years.
This brings an increased likelihood of heatwaves and heat-related impacts.
The chances of a wet or dry summer are fairly balanced.
“The British public deserve better.”
No, the skeptical community deserve better, as they are not skeptical enough to go to the source of the allegation and uncover the lies.
Which bit of the UK are you in?
Exeter?
Exeter Uni.. at one stage bragged they had more on the IPCC than any other Uni
What an utter failure that brag is. !
Exeter and Bristol
Cess pits of wokeness….
You are quoting an entirely different forecast. The standard UK long range forecast from the Met Office is the one you find here (scroll down the page to the link).
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/
The Met Office calls this ‘UK Long Range Weather Forecast’. He has quoted from it word for word. I don’t understand your objection.
This is on the Met Office pages that everyone uses to get their local and national weather forecasts. Does anyone regularly consult your link for their weather forecasts? Maybe half of one percent do.
Have to say that when you read what they call their Long Range Weather Forecast its impossible to tell what the writer(s) think the UK weather is going to be like during the period covered. But that’s quite usual, when there is no blocking high or long sequence of lows moving over, the UK weather is just about impossible to forecast.
I guess they feel unable to admit they just don’t know, and neither does anyone else.
“You are quoting an entirely different forecast. “
No I am quoting the forecast (lies) that Homewood is using here to rubbish the MetO.
The whole point of the piece.
“It is worth consulting the latest Met Office long range forecast:”
On what basis:
Is it some imagined contradiction or equally imagined political bias?
Or both?
All he says of the long-range is ….
“In short, it will probably be a bit drier than normal down south, and a bit wetter up north.”
???
Then at the end he says ….
“It must now be abundantly clear that the climate change wing of the Met Office is totally out of control, feeling able to put out whatever climate propaganda they can get away with.”
So saying “feeling able to put out whatever climate propaganda“
Is referring to the long-range?
Obviously not – it is referring to the lies quoted at the start – concerning the 3 monthly.
So it’s some sort of political bias he some how reads into the 3 monthly
Which in actuality said only with regard to rainfall:
“The chances of a wet or dry summer are fairly balanced.
Would someone like to tell me on what basis he (in regard to what the MetO actually said in these 2 forecasts) to warrant the following ….
NB: the bold.
He finishes with:
“Meanwhile their weather forecasting colleagues must be ashamed of their politicised antics.
The British public deserve better.”
It can only be him venting again his hatred of the UKMO, with lies that could easily have been found out had he gone to the source.
Homewood does this repeatedly and peeps here are so “skeptical” (sarc) that they take him on truth.
I downloaded the three month forecast and looked through it, and you are right about what it says. Its forecasting a significantly hotter than average summer, but negligible differences from average in rain or wind.
So where did the UK media get this idea of the forecast having been for an exceptionally wet summer? Because it was quite widespread. The BBC, for instance, 12 May, cites a forecast showing a much higher chance of it being wet – their graphic came from a Met Office forecast.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/65560104
Here we have LBC:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk-set-for-50-days-of-rain-in-one-of-the-wettest-summers-in-over-a-hundred-years/
Its repeated by TimeOut:
https://www.timeout.com/uk/news/the-uk-could-be-in-for-the-wettest-summer-in-100-years-052924
Here it is in the Standard:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/weather-forecast-summer-met-office-rain-b1160477.html
Here it is in the Express:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/1904241/uk-weather-50-days-rain
There is more, but this is enough to show how widely it was reported.
Where on earth did they get the 50 days, and the wettest summer since 1912 from?
Funnily enough, it never rains in Southern California either (except when it does).
“The BBC, for instance, 12 May, cites a forecast showing a much higher chance of it being wet – their graphic came from a Met Office forecast.”
They are quoting the outlook for May to July, not metrological summer. They release a 3 month outlook at the end of every month, and they change each month, in part because they are covering different periods.
It it doesn’t really show a huge degree of certainty. There’s a 30% chance of that three month period being on the wet category, compared with the 20% you would expect pirelyby chance.
All your other reports, just illustrated point. News is very lazy when it comes to weather. They are just copying each other – and as I said yesterday, this all seems to originate with a Sun article which never even claimed the MO were predicting 50 days of summer rain. They simply say there are fears a out that number.
By the way, he is not lying. The worst he has done is not check his sources adequately and to rely on secondary sources. But when the story is so widely reported by fairly mainstream publications, that is understandable.
Indeed, whenever I have fact checked Homewood it is easy to see he doesn’t check his sources (back to their origin).
His ignorance of meteorology is also notable.
He is simply reflexively critical of the MetO.
The thing is – as can be seen by various polarisation debates going on, that lies work.
If you are entrenched on the extreme side of any “debate” then congitive dissonance and bias confirmation preclude contradiction by fact checking.
And so it goes.
No it’s Homewood who is quoting “an entirely different forecast” which has nothing to do with the Met Office. The Met Office three month forecast says a 65% chance of ‘near average’, 20% chance of ‘wet’ and 15% chance of ‘dry’. The “50 days of rain” was nothing to do with the Met Office!
“higher than normal”
Only an idiot weather person or weather report would use the term “normal”. And only a fool would quote such a report without realizing how stupid it is.
It is a perfectly valid thing to say as it conveys no distinguished trends either way. And further more it is/has been routinely used like forever in weather forecasts.
I would suggest that only a fool would find objection to it.
No. It implies it’s abnormal – which further encourages people to think we’re having a climate emergency. It would make more sense to say something like today it’ll be above average temperature. The fact that a stupid way of describing the weather has been used for years is no excuse.
So how would you describe expected weather in a month’s time if no deviation is forecast in the average conditions for the time of year (ie NORMAL).
Without being long winded.
Nit-picking for the sake of it Zorzin, just to score a point, because you cannot counter the main argument here … which is apparent to even the most entrenched deniers, unless completely deluded.
IE You it seems
you are not normal 🙂
Only an idiot
weather person or weather reportwould use the term “normal” to describe weather.Imagine describing the surface of the sea as “normal”.
It is fair to call some truly exorbitant weather event a freak though. There are freak waves at sea too (though they’ve been accepted as real for only about 30 years).
Reading though the original article, then Anthony Banton’s comments and the counter-comments, I would say that Anthony Banton’s case appears to be very strong and none of his detractors have been able to disprove anything he says. Indeed, some don’t even try (“Which part of the UK are you in?”)
Reading the Met Office long-range forecast I can’t see anything which justifies the assertion that the Met Office is forecasting 50 days of rain.
What’s even stranger is people coming to the defence of an arm of the MSM.
Thank you.
Leaping to the MO’s defence does not come naturally. But, as has been determined in the previous thread on this (non-)story, the MO were not the originators of the “50 days of rain” forecast. It was (with high confidence, to use an IPCC meme) a shoddy mathematical interpretation of the MO’s 3 month probabilistic forecast by a reporter of The Sun being regurgitated by lazy reporting by LBC.
So why has the MO kept mum… and it has.
No, it hasn’t, its put out a rebuttal.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/met-office-50-days-rain-summer-152425256.html?guccounter=1
Don’t expect this to matter to anyone or to change anyone’s mind. The lie has been set in motion and will persist forever on this forum now.
Its not a lie! Its just people repeating a story, which they have seen reported in a great many secondary sources, without checking the source data. But when its as widely reported as this was, one cannot really blame them.
They are not lying!
People will continue spreading this story after being shown quite plainly that it is inaccurate. That makes it a lie. WUWT would need to publish a correction or clarification at the top of this post to maintain credibility.
Like they do at the BBC?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/02/09/bbc-refuse-to-correct-blatantly-false-hurricane-claims/
They have no need to, as research into the science they quote would show.
God forbid Homewood would do any of that, or indeed the vast majority of peeps here.
“Atlantic hurricanes developed faster, from a weak Category 1 hurricane to a major Category 3 or stronger, in a 24-period than they did between 1970 and 1990 and they are now more likely to strengthen faster along the east coast of the U.S. than they were during that period, Garner found.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/10/231019111220.htm#
“Balaguru et al. (2022) report an increasing trend in hurricane intensification rates near the U.S. East Coast since 1979 and that external forcing in climate models produces similar, though much weaker, changes to hurricane environment metrics than those observed, which suggests a possible anthropogenic contribution. “
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
I find this very odd. Homewood’s piece is here:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/10/02/fact-checking-bbcs-hurricane-reality-check/
It cites a lot of papers which seem to report nothing much happening in either frequency or strength of hurricanes.
You have cited a paper which claims that there has been a change in a different parameter, that of intensification. It covers a fairly short time period, 2001-2020, and makes a comparison to another earlier equally short time period.
The science daily piece concludes:
“One of the messages from this work is that there is an urgency,” Garner said. “If we don’t make some pretty big changes and rapidly move away from fossil fuels, this is something we can expect to see worsen in the future.”
But there isn’t anything in that piece at least (I have not read the original article) to link the intensification parameter to global warming.
And even if it were done, I can’t see that any policy conclusions are justified by this paper. If we had an overall trend of increasing strength or frequency accompanied by increased speed of intensification there would at least be something to investigate. But the cited phenomenon, color me skeptical. The null hypothesis here has to be natural variation. And if all that’s happening anyway is that the same number of hurricanes have the same strength, but just get to peak power faster…. Well, take some precautions about rapid response. But don’t frantically run around de-industrializing your society. Its ridiculous.
I cannot see that the paper makes any argument to justify the world in moving to net zero. Still less for the US and the West to move to net zero or “make some pretty big changes” when the rest of the world has no intention of doing so.
I don’t think so, people here are perfectly open to correction on the facts, and will be in this case.
And, if I may say so, there is a problem with your approach to this site in general, which goes beyond this remark on this instance.
You are dismissive to the point of being contemptuous of any dissent from the basic climate activist position: that there is catastrophic CO2 caused warming, and that alternative energy (wind and solar) is the solution or part of the solution.
The problem is not that you take that view, many do. Its that you appear to believe informed good faith dissent from it is impossible. And therefore your attitude is that everyone who differs is either stupid, ignorant or dissembling, and so we get these dismissive, superior, throw away lines
Actually the conventional story is full of holes, and Homewood’s site, though not perfect, is valuable because he has consistently drawn attention to some of the bigger ones. Homewood is one person, the surprising thing is not that he occasionally makes mistakes, its that his standard is generally so high. This site too is not perfect, it publishes a variety of essays, some of which have errors. But it is valuable because many are spot on, and its also valuable because it allows dissent from its generally skeptical viewpoint. Which you will find on none of the climate activist sites. On every single one you find dissenting voices not answered, but cancelled and banned so they end up as echo chambers.
You may think everyone who differs from you on climate and energy just doesn’t get it. But there is something you should bear in mind. We are all citizens of democracies. The drive to Net Zero in the English speaking world is probably the largest single program and financial commitment that any of us will see in our lifetimes. Its of the same order as a national enterprise such as a war, industrialization, a great social change such as the abolition of slavery or the implementation of the welfare state. It competes with education and health spending for scarce resources. People are concerned and increasingly critical about whether its a sensible priority.
All the people you despise are doing their best to think about it, because in the end they are going to be presented with a choice about it at the ballot box. Just as they were for most or all of the other great issues. You should not dismiss them. Its their duty. Its how we run our societies. Most of their own ill natured and dismissive comments have their origin in their correct feeling that a self defined elite is dismissing their concerns. That the story they are being told does not add up.
Well, it doesn’t. And gradually as the years go by the price of that, and of the dismissive attitude on the part of the progessive elite, is falling due at the ballot box. It is getting dismissed as denialism and populism, but it will fall due. The Net Zero project is becoming clearly both impractical and unaffordable. The hysteria about global heating is becoming more and more obviously hysterical and unfounded. The extent to which the agenda is a useful distraction from political issues about social welfare is also becoming clear.
My advice is, try to take a more positive attitude to the site where you are spending quite a bit of time, and to the people you are spending it with. Stop taking this superior and dismissive tone. And if you cannot do that, go somewhere else. Because as you are presently going on you are doing no good, either for yourself or them.
“You’d be prettier if you smiled.” Thank you for the patronizing advice. I do hold disdain for the constant, flagrant falsehoods repeated on this forum, and contempt for libelous attacks on the integrity of scientists, so it is affirming to hear that it comes across in the tenor of my comments to people engaging in these things. Anyone who wants to engage in good faith will receive the same from me.
Yes, but what are you trying to achieve by behaving like this?
You assume they are “constant flagrant falsehoods”, and that scientists of great integrity are being libelled.
But as I say, rational informed people of good faith can and do doubt
My question for you would be: do you accept that rational informed good faith doubts of this sort are possible?
My aim is to say things that are true in response to things that are untrue. Good faith discourse is certainly possible, and I’ve seen it here occasionally (and acknowledged it in the moment), but it is not the norm here. The norm is to repeat tired falsehoods peppered with juvenile insults to score points from peers who want to see the opposition getting owned more than they care about truth or the science.
Do you accept that rational informed good faith skepticism is possible about
What is truth on these matters? That is what is at issue. You may think you are saying things that are true, others think they are not.
The question I am asking is whether you accept that dissent is legitimate. Is it possible for a reasonable well informed person to go over the evidence on both matters and come to the conclusion that there is no crisis, and that wind and solar are not useful or viable?
My impression is you think not. Just say one way or the other.
Of course, but these are social/political questions more than scientific ones. We know with high confidence what the likely major outcomes of global warming will be. Whether you think these outcomes are a threat depends on your values. And what actions you think are acceptable to prevent or mitigate these likely outcomes depend on your values as well.
There are also scientific questions about which informed dissent is possible, but that should not be taken to mean that all scientific questions are equally open to doubt and skepticism. There can be no informed dissent about whether the earth orbits the sun, for instance. So when I see skepticism about such things, it is not necessary or correct for me to pretend as though I think the dissent is informed or reasonable.
What I love in the Yahoo piece is this:
It added its current rainfall signals for the summer are actually “limited”, though there is likely to be some wet weather.
There is likely to be some wet weather! In an English summer!
You could ask: is the Pope Catholic?
A normal Pope is.
I remember 2012, being an absolute soggy summer. Footpaths were turned into quagmires. So nothing new then.
Last summer in Wales was wet.
The local pop music festival was a mud bath.
I listened to the rain drumming on the roof of the caravan every night for 2 weeks in August, and my friend from Pembs complained vociferously he couldn’t make hay at all….hey (ha!) but he moved from READING.
I said this was absolutely normal for summer in central and west Wales, but some people make out the UK should be like the south of France now cos of globule warmers…
Reckon, it’s time we traded in wellies, for flippers 🙂
Yet another skeptic who believes everything they read in the internet. As was established yesterday, this is not a MO forecast, and they have already said that the 50 days of rain did not come from them.
And to really ram home the lack of commen sense by this author, he points to the month ahead forecast which says little about summer as a whole.
Last year the world was very warm, this year’s annual average will be much cooler. This year’s average precipitation will and must be much higher than average for the world to cool. The events such as Dubai are not without a reason, and the fact that large parts of the southern US has seen more hail than we typically see in a decade, the world is cooling.
Brazil reported that throughout their summer when it would start to get hot, it would start raining for days, with substantial flooding and unusually stormy weather with much destruction and death.
Over the last couple of months in Texas if it gets warm for more than a couple of days, you better make sure you have fuel for the generator for a day or two.
“In short, it will probably be a bit drier than normal down south, and a bit wetter up north.”
But… but… it’s not normal! It’s an emergency, a catastrophe, a disaster! Hurry, hurry- but an EV and heat pump, become a vegetarian- and help save the planet! We must panic! The oceans are boiling!
With a warmer than normal North Atlantic and a forecasted strong Atlantic hurricane season, you would expect some of these storms to landfall in the UK over the summer and fall providing quite a bit of wind/rain. You will have the models with all the pretty colors say one thing, but realistically I would listen to some of the experienced forecasters on what to generally expect and leave it at that. Good luck.
In the meantime, here in beautiful, green North Carolina we’ve enjoyed a cooler than average late spring with temps today below average with a high of 25C after a low this morning of a much below 14C, low humidity and nary a cloud to be seen.
Since there have to be records to satisfy the catastrophic nightmare scenario agenda, rain seems the most likely medal winner with temperature and sunshine just making up the numbers. Hence:.
“There will be weather, typically British weather, which may include sun, cloud, drizzle, rain, snow, sleet, hail, lightning and thunder, gusts of wind even up to storm force, gales, days of absolute calm, high temperatures, median temperatures, low temperatures, and record temperatures which will appear in a completely random order and continue to defy agreement with our new, improved, super-duper computer stuff. We can also anticipate some Saharan sand in occasional thundery downpours largely in the East and South East.”
Most years the above will satisfy someone somewhere in the British Isles as whole year accurate. Its just timing that will be at odds with all of us since the Met Office now starts our summer on 1st June and not with the summer solstice on the 21st. Nature doesn’t take kindly to such human academic trivia and interference and sticks rigidly to doing stuff as and when she feels like it which must be where the weather presenters get their habits, good, bad, and awful from too.
It doesn’t look or feel very promising weather wise but that could all change on a whim – in other words anything can happen and probably will especially with the Olympics being in Paris.
Since there have to be records to satisfy the catastrophic nightmare scenario agenda, rain seems the most likely medal winner with temperature and sunshine just making up the numbers. Hence:.
“There will be weather, typically British weather, which may include sun, cloud, drizzle, rain, snow, sleet, hail, lightning and thunder, gusts of wind even up to storm force, gales, days of absolute calm, high temperatures, median temperatures, low temperatures, and record temperatures which will appear in a completely random order and continue to defy agreement with our new, improved, super-duper computer stuff. We can also anticipate some Saharan sand in occasional thundery downpours largely in the East and South East.”
Most years the above will satisfy someone somewhere in the British Isles as whole year accurate. Its just timing that will be at odds with all of us since the Met Office now starts our summer on 1st June and not with the summer solstice on the 21st. Nature doesn’t take kindly to such human academic trivia and interference and sticks rigidly to doing stuff as and when she feels like it which must be where the weather presenters get their habits, good, bad, and awful from too.
It doesn’t look or feel very promising weather wise but that could all change on a whim – in other words anything can happen and probably will especially with the Olympics being in Paris.
There have been a few comments in “defence” of the MO, and this “forecast”, which appears to have originated elsewhere. But’s let’s be honest, who has been the biggest distributor, of climate crisis misinformation? Who, is responsible for perpetuating the climate crisis narrative? Who has been responsible for tampering with current and historical data, cooling the past and warming the present? Who, has concealed the fact, that most (c85%) of their temperature stations are class 3 or higher, and effectively “junk” status. Who, is quick to claim record temperatures, whenever a typhoon, hits Coningsby? Or some other airfield?
In light of all these transgressions, is it any wonder people, find it plausible, that they could make such a statement.
The MO, deserves all the ridicule it gets.
The year of the Beast from the East was not forecast but the MO said its long range forecast did because they had included a statement ‘33% chance of a warmer winter, 33% chance of normal winter and a 34% chance of a colder winter’. So 34% vs 33%/33% was put forward as a cold winter forecast. So by some lucky off chance of rounding 33.33% to no decimal places was enough for them to claim they did forecast a cold winter. British civil unservants at their best.
I predict there will be weather and that the weather from one day to the next will vary.
Interesting thing that shows we are all in the grip of weather hysteria, especially the UK. The UK normally has on average 40 days of rain in summer.
So there is nothing very unusual about either 30 or 50. And yet headlines are made when someone suggests this year could be a 50.
They seem to have this perpetual illusion that their weather is constant and unvarying, and any variation from an imaginary normal has to have some bizarre explanation. Whereas its just, live on an island off the coast of Europe, with the Atlantic to the west, and this is what you get.
I only follow British weather by watching British (UK) cop shows. If the outdoor filming is done in real time on real streets,which I believe it is, then I would conclude it rains nearly every day, at least for a little while.
This hypothesis is confirmed by the penchant for Brits to carry an umbrella wherever they go.
Well, a non-partisan market gardener, who has been recording weather data in Somerset or France for 52 years, has just reported on his growing blog (whose email newsletter I received this morning) that May 2024 had ‘the least sunlight hours since 1973’ i.e. since he first started measuring data. Being fair minded, he also reported that May was also ‘the warmest’ in that time, but this was entirely due to warmer nights due to greater cloud cover. He also provided a link to the Met Office descriptions of how to use ‘geoengineering’ to ‘affect cloudiness’ above UK skies.
We in the UK absolutely don’t need more cloud cover, outside of the occasional droughts we experience in the natural scheme of things. Our springs are ideal for vegetable growth and urban fantasists that think that those who provide our food benefit from their madness in playing weather gods need to be the first to be denied food if their idiocy leads to food shortages due to entirely unavoidable shenanigans which show an unhealthy deference to the ignorance of William Gates III.