From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
The Met Office are back with their “extreme weather” fraud:
Climate change is causing a dramatic increase in the frequency of temperature extremes and number of temperature records the UK experiences.
New analysis of observations shows that extremes of temperature in the UK are most affected by human induced climate change. This means the UK is seeing, on average, more frequent periods of hot weather, bringing challenges for infrastructure, health and wellbeing. The observations also suggest an increase in rainfall extremes.
The new analysis features in this year’s annual publication of the ‘State of the UK Climate’ report. Published in the Royal Meteorological Society’s ‘International Journal of Climatology’, the report is a comprehensive review of the UK climate and significant weather events through 2023. This report is based on observations from the UK’s network of weather stations, using data extending back to the 19th Century to provide long term context.
Using an example of 28°C, the frequency of days reaching this threshold has increased nearly everywhere across the UK. Where in the 1961-1990 averaging period only London and Hampshire recorded six or more days over 28°C, by the latest decade (2014-2023) this has spread across much of England and Wales, with frequencies in the south east increasing to over 12 days each year in many counties.
Although rainfall has a much higher natural variability than temperature, it is still possible to identify an increasing frequency of the wettest days over time too. By taking the top 5% of wettest days during the 1961-1990 averaging period it is possible to see how frequent these very wet days have been in the most recent decade (2014-2023).
The most recent decade has had around 20% more days of exceptional rainfall compared to the 1961-1990 averaging period. While there is no significant signal for this change being more pronounced in a specific area of the UK, overall, this analysis clearly shows an increase in the number of very wet days in the UK’s climate in recent years compared to what was observed just a few decades ago.
Lead author and Met Office climate scientist, Mike Kendon, said: “Our new analysis of these observations really shines a light on the fastest changing aspects of our weather as a consequence of climate change. Long term averages can be difficult for people to relate to, but what we are showing here is the notable change in frequencies of extreme weather that can have a real impact on people’s lives.
“2023 was another year of interesting and at times significant weather. . But underlying this natural variability is a continuing and increasing influence of climate change which is influencing the weather we experience.”
Professor Liz Bentley, Chief Executive of the Royal Meteorological Society, said: “This report is the authoritative annual summary of the UK climate published as a special supplement in our International Journal of Climatology. It not only helps to highlight the latest knowledge on our changing climate but also enables us to understand the trends, risks and impacts to help inform how we will need to adapt, now and in the future.
“The new analysis of days that are classified as ‘hot’ or having ‘exceptional rainfall’ highlights the increased frequency in high impact extremes we are already experiencing in the UK, and the attribution studies help to understand how human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, are making these extreme events much more likely to happen as our climate continues to change.”
.
It’s the same tired old theme every year – more extreme weather, the climate is changing, and it’s all due (of course) to fossil fuels!
Apparently pleasantly warm weather is now more common than in the 1960s, but equally extremely cold days are less frequent. So how can they say we are having a dramatic increase in the frequency of temperature extremes? As I have repeatedly argued, London is warmer than Manchester, but does that mean that London’s weather is more extreme?
And if you asked most people if they would like a slightly warmer climate, they would jump at the chance! Hence the Met Office’s need to bang the “extreme weather” drum, so as to scare the public into believing that every bit of bad weather is due to global warming.
The report itself is 121 pages long, and full of largely irrelevant waffle. Clearly the intention is to obfuscate and stop the public from finding out the real story.
But today I want to focus on rainfall, including this Met Office claim:
Although rainfall has a much higher natural variability than temperature, it is still possible to identify an increasing frequency of the wettest days over time too. By taking the top 5% of wettest days during the 1961-1990 averaging period it is possible to see how frequent these very wet days have been in the most recent decade (2014-2023).
The most recent decade has had around 20% more days of exceptional rainfall compared to the 1961-1990 averaging period. While there is no significant signal for this change being more pronounced in a specific area of the UK, overall, this analysis clearly shows an increase in the number of very wet days in the UK’s climate in recent years compared to what was observed just a few decades ago.
Comparing one ten-year period with a 30-year one is a strict no-no, as any statistician would tell you. And the Met Office is stacked with statisticians, so why did they choose to do so? And why choose the 1961-90 for that matter, rather than the 1991-2020 period which is the only one relevant now?
The answer to the second question is that 1961-90 was a much drier interlude, particularly the 1970s. Since then average annual rainfall has risen, but only back to levels seen in periods such as the 1870s and 1920s. It has nothing to do with “changing climate”; indeed the UK still has just the same climate as it has always done. But this does not mean that weather cannot vary tremendously from year to year, so inevitably some years will be wetter then normal, and others drier. Nowhere has the Met Office provided evidence that rainfall trends in the last two centuries are anything other than natural variation.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadukp/data/download.html
Leading flood experts are fully aware of these historical variations. Professor Stuart Lane of Durham University, for instance, describes the 1960s to 80s as being a “flood-poor” period.
And the Met Office’s own graphs give their game away. For both 95th and 99th Percentiles, they show an increase up to the 1990s, but since then the trend is flat.
So much for the “climate is changing” meme!
But why do these graphs only begin in 1960? What are they trying to hide?
The Met Office says that this increasing rainfall intensity is nationwide, and their maps clearly show this is the case for Oxfordshire. So what does the data for Radcliffe Observatory tell us?
The ECA&D charts below only go to 2020, but both confirm that the 1961-90 period was drier than much of the preceding period.
Up to date data confirms that the 2014-2023 average, as used by the Met Office, is at a similar levels to much of the pre-1960 years, where 95th Percentile is concerned.
As for 99th Percentile, it is at record lows. In neither dataset is there any evident long term trend.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/start.cgi
In short, the Met Office has been caught out attempting to con the public into thinking that rainfall is becoming more extreme, when it is not.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think it’s reasonable to say we are living in Broken Britain.
There was a term used in the 60’s/70’s to describe us then – the poor man of Europe.
We’re back to that ignominious status, except Europe is now at least as bad as us.
Politicians weren’t much better back then, but at least they didn’t feel compelled to act like performing seals at every Facebook/X/TikTok opportunity. Now we even have the grand stage of a televised parliament for them to perform on.
Politicians have contracted the disease of celebrity and will do anything to maintain it.
Labour have been gifted the next 5 years. We are well out of sync with Europe. They see they will have to row back, our Mr Miliband is of a completely different mind on the matter.
Miliband is an economically illiterate nutcase where Net Zero is concerned. As the UK budget is not balanced, he will have to raise finance to invest in uneconomic energy sources and my guess is that risk premiums will rise due to markets’ perception that the projects are far, far more risky than presented to the general public.
Miliband is an economically illiterate nutcase where everything is concerned.
At least Briton is not yet Venezuela. Enjoy what time is left.
On X, Kamala says, “The United States stands with the people of Venezuela who expressed their voice in today’s historic presidential election. The will of the Venezuelan people must be respected. Despite the many challenges, we will continue to work toward a more democratic, prosperous, and secure future for the people of Venezuela.”
This is going to convince people to vote marxo-democrat?
So who is Kamala supporting here?
Maduro apparently stole the election, so Is Kamala supporting this election theft? That would make sense since she was all for the theft of the presidency from Donald Trump in 2020.
Birds of a Marxist Feather, flock together.
The joys of working for Kackles:
https://redstate.com/jenvanlaar/2024/07/29/according-to-former-intern-kamala-harris-instructed-employees-at-ca-doj-to-address-her-as-general-n2177520
Yeah, Kamala has a nasty dictator hiding behind that mask of hers.
If she were elected president, she would abuse the American people the way she abuses her staff.
Kackles as Senator Kackles:
https://revolver.news/2024/07/internet-warrior-digs-into-kamala-senate-days-scarier-than-you-ever-imagined/
If you think the USA does not control UK elections, you really are very, very naive indeed.
I think Obama tried to control UK elections, maybe he is still trying, since he appears to be the defacto leader of the United States right now, but I don’t see any evidence that Obama’s interference has had any effect.
Weren’t we the “sick man of Europe”. Being governed by “Good Chaps” upper class, who’d served in the war and gone into public service with the public good in mind.
Mrs Thatcher broke that mould and gave us a loadsa money culture which in politics led to Boris Johnson in it for the benefit of himself and a cabinet of grifters giving their mates PPE contracts.
That was in an industrial phase. Oil shock in 1973, huge inflation, final attempt to control wages from the centre, winter of discontent, then in came Maggie. Another round of rampant inflation up to 1981, then she had the luck to inherit North Sea Oil coming on tap. But huge swathes of mining, mineral extraction, primary heavy industry saw massive job losses and restructuring.
Now we are in an anti-industrial phase, with Labour ensuring that ALL heavy industry in the UK will have to shut down due to their hatred of oil and gas.
Yep, politics is really living up its description as –
showbiz for ugly people
HotScot, I disagree, Briton is a great country but your government has left the rails not unlike the US. Government should act more like referees not bosses. They are less than adequate referees but really crappy bosses. It is time to put government in its place.
“”Climate change is causing…”” Diddly squat.
The obsession with putting the cart before the horse is now akin to the National Socialist salute. Whatever the topic or discussion ‘caused by climate change‘ is always slotted in somewhere, somehow and thus one proves one is indeed virtuous.
The state of the UK climate is not really any different to what it was 40 years ago. What we’ve had is what these islands have always been famous for: highly variable weather. No two years are the same.
“”“Our new analysis of these observations really shines a light on the fastest changing aspects of our weather as a consequence of climate change.””
Shurely that should be…
“Our new analysis of these observations really shines a light on the fastest changing aspects of our weather. Trends over a sufficient length of time could lead to some change in the UK climate.”
Observation: Crap cool wet spring and summer. (Bog standard)
Met Office: Hottest day evah, hottest spring evah etc
“”The UK had its warmest May and spring on record, despite the wet, dull conditions””
https://www.itv.com/news/2024-06-03/warmest-may-and-spring-on-record-in-uk-met-office-figures-show
Blatant – and obvious – bolleaux.
It was a common joke that the English summer consisted of three fine days and a thunderstorm.
The Met Office is now forecasting Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday as being hot and sunny and thunderstorms on Thursday.
A good joke is largely based on fact and the three hot days and a thunderstorm joke is depressingly true.
The Met Office must be deeply jealous of their peers in other climes where they do get exciting weather. All hail Michael Fish.
The 1980s was quite exciting. December 1981 was ferociously cold and snowy in the Thames Valley. A couple of strikingly hot summers in the mid 1980s, along with a famously cold winter in 1985/6. Snow in Scotland 1984-87 was deeply exciting with trains snowed in for days on the West Highland Line.
1988-1990 were ridiculously mild winters, which can be blamed on the astrological triple conjunction of Saturn, Uranus and Neptune🤣🤣🤣
Then of course there was that famous hurricane in October 1987, which was just a normal blower up in Glasgow where I lived at the time.
Indeed. The most extreme feature of the UK climate is the general lack of extremes.
I also recall the solid weatherman John Kettley being asked the main question live on the BBC back in the late 1980’s. He shifted uneasily and replied “I think we might know in about fifty years.” His caution and lack of extreme opinion is still looking pretty good today.
Kettley and Michael Fish were, of course, immortalised in the song “John Kettley Is a Weatherman” in 1988 by the band A Tribe of Toffs.
Who would have thought it, raining in England?
They seem oblivious to a soft spring rain
Like an English rain
So light, yet endless
From a leaden sky – The Camera Eye – Rush.
Even they noticed it.
UEA have been floating the idea that by 2050, British children won’t know what rain looks like, because the Sahara desert will have extended up to Hadrian’s Wall…..
UAH shows only May had anything even slightly above normal.
With the surface stations in such CRAP condition, nothing measured fat really bad urban, airport sites has any meaning whatsoever…
… especially after it has been through Met Office homogenisation torture session.
You need to click on the image to see it properly!
And May’s higher average was driven more by higher Tmin. It certainly was not warmer in the way that people experience ‘warmth’ (i.e. higher Tmax).
Wot, no gattocks?
Sadiq Khan has banned any mention of cake and cakes etc. Imagine you have a play running in the West End and it’s about a wedding and you want to advertise it…
“”West End play poster banned by TfL over ‘unhealthy’ cake””
Why?
“”because it was seen to promote “foods high in fat, salt and sugar”.””
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66119218
People will see this poster and undoubtedly rush uncontrollably to get a wedding cake to scoff down on the spot…
Perhaps we should all talk about Asian unhealthy food, just to piss Khan off????
Anything that p’s off that vile individual can only be good.
Diddly squat
Nice little farm near Chipping Norton.
Named after the owner…!
Owned by Jeremy Clarkson from Top Gear. Funny series on Amazon.
We are in the age of anti-education at school allied to brainwashing online and on TV.
Small wonder that the propaganda bears zero relevance to the truth…..
”The UK had its warmest May and spring on record, despite the wet, dull conditions”
That is complete nonsense – but sadly it’s what we’ve come to expect from the Met Office.
In my experience, located near the south coast, the spring and first half of the summer has been unusually cool.
I’ve been routinely wearing a sweater until just a few days ago. Similarly, I’ve had the heating on in the evenings until recently.
A major temperature driver is the amount of sunshine. “Wet, dull conditions” will lead to cooler conditions, which is exactly what happened.
The Met Office should concentrate on doing their job, which is providing the best possible weather forecasts. They should leave the mad climate catastrophism to the likes of Greta Thunberg and Just Stop Oil.
Chris
The con is far worse than this. The Met is perpetuating a lie that increasing atmospheric CO2 is the cause of the climate changing.
The climate has always changed and always will. What has caused the steady rise out of the LIA before CO2 became the control knob.
Those of us living in other parts of the world can only hope UK achieves economic ruin quickly so other countries can avoid the extreme madness of man-made Global Warming™.
Germany is well ahead of the UK, but Milliband is Trying Hard to catch up.
Germany is still making a current account surplus while UK has been running negative for a long time. Germany has established strong links into Chinese manufacturing that is proving profitable while they are ahead on the technology front.
China needs to get into F1 so they can be at the bleeding edge of automotive technology. They already make many of the materials and components used in F1 cars so it would be a small step. And they could always ensure the other teams has last year’s technology.
Those days where a temperature of 28 degrees C was recorded – for how much of the day was it recorded?
And where was the thermometer compared to surrounding tar and brick/steel structures.
Of 58 new weather sites set in the UK since 2000.. only 9 meet WMO class 1 or 2 specification.
That can only be outright incompetence…. or deliberate.
Easy to get new records if you set you thermometers in the right place. !
And what kind of thermometer recorded it? Liquid in glass thermometers of old are sluggish. They don’t respond quickly to sudden waves of warm or cool air. Modern resistance thermometers are very fast. They will record warm or cool waves in a fraction of a second producing a record with greater ups and downs.
Here’s what the MO’s partners in clime made of it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c147v82gxp2o
The BBC?
This year has been a wash out Nice gaslighting.
We get it, you’re obsessed by the record warm May/spring, it insults your belief system. Reality check, it happened.
Will your head explode if July turns out slightly warmer than average, because it probably will, after the more or less average June, exactly average in the mean CET.
It insults one’s intelligence. I don’t do belief… but I get it.
You “believe”.
There are no butterflies. Because of the cold wet spring
“There has been a noticeable lack of butterflies seen so far this year – this has been widely reported on social media and is also shown through our monitoring schemes,” said a spokesman for Butterfly Conservation. “This is likely to be because of the wet spring and now the colder than normal temperatures.
Climate is always changing and if meteorologists seek patterns then they may find what looks like one but may just be a very local variation on a much more complex and hidden theme. Resolution is important but so is consistency in the standards of equipment, recording and reporting since carelessness will lead to failures in meteorological credibility in the longer term. Thus far the agenda lies survive is spite of the truth but there will be the ironic “net zero” turning point as the truth can no longer be hidden in the deceits.
The Jim Dales may not always be in the public eye but their stupidity will certainly be found recorded for our posterity and their personal embarrassment forever. The guy in the street notices how many charlatans and liars there are in public office and public media and slowly but surely figures out ways of dealing with all that deceit and the remedies are not always pleasant to watch especially when an errant meme is given voice just that once too many times. COVID-19 lies and deceits still await answers from those who have been exposed but will there be more unnecessary scares as we enter the ‘flu season? The evidence is that the public has short tempers and have not shown mass support for the usual parties in spite of the Labour majority Labour didn’t even muster one vote out of every two cast in Britain’s embarrassingly quaint electoral system but somehow have a massive majority – that is how sick the UK remains without it would seem a remedy in sight. .
“Since then average annual rainfall has risen, but only back to levels seen in periods such as the 1870s and 1920s.”
Not if you look at the UK figures. (Red line is 10 year average)
And looking at 30 year averages, shows England and Wales rainfall at highest since the 1850s.
And here’s the full EW data set going back to 1766, with 10 and 30 year averages.
Gees, looks like everything is WELL WITHIN NATURAL VARIABILITY !
Looks like an almost steady increase since 1850, all well within natural variability.
Human causation ?? Still waiting !
Different from the monthly data at this link (Only goes to 2011)
UK monthly rainfall met office – Google Sheets
Which gives the following graph
For someone who fervently believes that all increases are natural, you spend a great deal of effort trying to suggest there has been no rise.
Using monthly data, in the hope that any rise will be lost in the large variability. Dropping of half the data. And drawing a trend line that has no relation to reality.
Here’s the full data, up to the end of 2023. The trend is 0.73 ± 0.28 mm / decade. Which amounts to an increase of about 13.6mm over the last 188 years. That’s for the monthly rainfall. An increase of 16%.
WOW.!!!! 13.6mm
Quick go get yourself a new rubber ducky !
Now.. HUMAN CAUSATION ???
Or will you take the run away headless chook routine again.
An increase of 16% a month is a lot more than the 0% you are claiming.
If you really believed that all these changes natural you wouldn’t need to constantly claim that nothing is changing. Your obsessive need to deny any possibility of “human causation” is such a tell.
Do you understand what 95th and 99th percentiles are?
You might want to explain the difference between your 10-year average and the author’s 10-year graphs.
For example, the author has a large upswing in 1880’s while you have a large decrease. In 2020, the author has about 1000 mm while you have 1190 mm.
It appears you used different data than the author which means the difference in the graphs in meaningless.
I wasn’t talking about the daily percentiles. I’m specifically talking about this articles use of annual England & Wales rainfall,to claim that rainfall in total is only at the levels seen in the 1870s and 1920s.
“You might want to explain the difference between your 10-year average and the author’s 10-year graphs.”
The difference there is I’m using the figures for the UK and he’s only using the England & Wales data set.
I’m not sure why you think that’s meaningless, when this article is about the state of the UK climate, not the English climate.
If you are interested in number of days in the top 99th percentile, here’s my quick attempt using the England and Wales daily data. This only goes back to 1930, so you can;t compare it to the 1870s & 1920s spikes. But it doesn’t make much sense to only look at Oxford as a proxy for the whole of the UK. There will always be a lot of regional variation in UK rainfall.
They’re not comparing 10 years against 30; they’re using the average of the thirty year period for reference purposes. This is common practice.
1961-90 is the period the WMO advises Met Agencies to use “for the purposes of historical comparison and climate change monitoring“, which this report is doing.
However, in the body of the report they also use the 1991-2020 period for comparison (see Fig. 33, for instance).
Did Homewood even read it?
The author.
You are incorrect and the author is correct. When comparing percents you must use a comparable baseline for each. For example, what if the years 2024 – 2043 were lower in rainfall amount. The percent of high days suddenly becomes much lower. Why did the MET Office not use the years of 1994 – 2023?
Another example, over 30 years, 5% would be 30 * 365 * 0.05 = ~548 days.
20% more days is 0.05 * 1.2 = 0.06 = 6%
Over 10 years, 6% would be 10 * 365 * 0.06 = ~219 days.
Let’s expand the 10 year total by three to get 219 * 3 = 657 days.
Without knowing what the other 7300 days in a 30 year period contain, there is simply no good way to compare percents.
I’ll be honest, I would rather see a annual distribution of rain with a mean ad standard deviation plotted to see just how the distributions vary. I rather suspect the standard deviations over a year will be pretty similar.
Because the WMO recommends that the 30-year standard reference period should be updated every decade. The next update will be in January 2031 when new ‘climatology’ will be 2001-2030.
The exception to this is where the purpose of a report is specifically for historical comparison and climate change monitoring, which is exactly what this MO report is about. In cases such as this, the WMO recommends that the climatology used should be 1961-1990.
Homewood knows this, because he’s complained about it in previous posts. He seems to have forgotten about this….
“ in the 1961-1990 averaging period only London and Hampshire recorded six or more days over 28°C”
Er – what about 1976 then?????
That was before 1989….
I think they mean 6 days a year on average.
In 76, it was about 6 weeks!
I figured the ruler monkeys would show up for this one.
I was right.
And only a few more days a few more days before the monthly UAH trendology clown show restarts.
By “ruler monkey” you mean using exactly the same method as Homewood uses to make his claims. 10 year rolling averages.
Or do you object to anyone double checking the claims for themselves?
Shuttup, ruler monkey.
Struck a nerve there.
The typical “totalitarian mindset”. Thinks it’s wrong for people to test claims for themselves, and when called out on it, just tells them to shut up.
You just wish you “struck a nerve there”.
As you’ve been informed many many times, attempting rational discourse with your ilk is a fool’s errand, and I refuse to do so. If this constitutes “striking a nerve” in the bizarre alternative reality of bellcurveman-world, so be it.
Much easier to simply say “Shuttup, ruler monkey”.
“…attempting rational discourse with your ilk is a fool’s errand, and I refuse to do so.”
Nobody expects you to engage in rational discourse. Just maybe try whining less.
So you want a prize?
Who is “nobody”?
Seeing you get so irritated is reward enough.
Projection time, again, or you are too stupid to understand when someone is having a laugh on your dime.
You pick.
“And only a few more days a few more days before the monthly UAH trendology clown show restarts.”
With another record July for UAH I doubt we’ll be hearing much from the Ruler Monckton this month.
They have been working hard to make all these lies up.
Dedicated Climate Alarmist Liars.
Their Climate Alarmist memes are harmful to the UK.
And why would we believe anything that comes out of the Met office?
“Over eight in 10 of the 113 temperature measuring stations opened in the last 30 years by the U.K. Met Office have been deliberately or carelessly sited in junk Class 4 and 5 locations where unnatural heating errors of 2°C and 5°C respectively are possible. This shock revelation, obtained by a recent Freedom of Information request, must cast serious doubt on the ability of the Met Office to provide a true measurement of the U.K. air temperature, a statistic that is the bedrock of support for Net Zero. Over time, increasing urban encroachment has corrupted almost the entire network of 384 stations with 77.9% of the stations rated Class 4 and 5, but it beggars’ belief that new stations are being sited in such locations.”
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2024/07/18/science-shock-met-office-continues-to-site-temperature-stations-in-junk-locations-daily-sceptic/
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/how-forecasts-are-made/observations/observation-site-classification
“WMO Siting Classifications were designed with reference to a wide range of global environments and the higher classes can be difficult to achieve in the more-densely populated and higher latitude UK. For example, the criteria for a Class 1 rating for temperature suits wide open flat areas with little or no human influenced land use and high amounts of continuous sunshine reaching the screen all year around, however, these conditions are relatively rare in the UK. Mid and higher latitude sites will, additionally, receive more shading from low sun angles than some other stations globally, so shading will most commonly result in a higher CIMO classification – most Stevenson Screens in the UK are class 3 or 4 for temperature as a result but continue to produce valid high-quality data. WMO guidance does, in fact, not preclude use of Class 5 temperature sites – the WMO classification simply informs the data user of the geographical scale of a site’s representativity of the surrounding environment – the smaller the siting class, the higher the representativeness of the measurement for a wide area. Indeed, it should be noted that WMO Class 5 is not the same as a Met Office ‘Unsatisfactory’ inspection assessment, which ultimately determines the ongoing use of a site. We use the Met Office grading system to determine record verification because; it has historical relevance, covering a wide range of long-standing criteria at UK observation sites, the equipment, and the exposure in a holistic manner and has clear meaning to what is acceptable or not. It tells us how much confidence we have in the data and permits comparisons.”
Large proportion of Met sites have massive errors.. almost certainly on the + side for temperatures.
Would not surprise me if newer stations were positioned where they knew it was rainier, as well.
Met Office are fully into the climate scam.
Quite frankly, as France can feed itself easily and so can Italy, both of whom have significantly warmer climates than ours, there’s zero chance of the UK suffering ‘dangerous global warming’ as all we will need to do is modify our agricultural/horticultural practices slightly and we will still produces enormous amounts of food easily.
Scotland and Northern Ireland will likely produce more food, England will change the mix of its growing slightly, favouring more warmth-loving crops than cool-loving ones.
Maybe we need to learn to retain rainfall where it falls better, so that water tables are more healthy even in a warmer regimen, but I don’t see anything but benefit for the UK if average temperatures rose 2C.
Mr Homewood:
“Why is the period 1961 to 1990 used for the long-term averages?”
Answer:
” https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/data/haduk-grid/faq#faq16
The 30-year period 1961 to 1990 has been designated as the international standard reference period for climate change assessment by the World Meteorological Organization. Averages for other standard periods (e.g. 1981 to 2010 and 1991 to 2020) have also been produced for the UK.”
“The answer to the second question is that 1961-90 was a much drier interlude, particularly the 1970s. Since then average annual rainfall has risen, but only back to levels seen in periods such as the 1870s and 1920s. ”
Nope:
First he displays a graph of England/Wales rainfall when the UKMO is concerned with the UK climate – so there is a need to consider rainfall for Scotland and NI as well
We then see that the 1870’s and 1920’s are below the 1100 mm/yr mark and the 2020’s around the 1170 mark.
“The Met Office says that this increasing rainfall intensity is nationwide,”
Where would that be in their report?
“….. and their maps clearly show this is the case for Oxfordshire.( ??? )
So what does the data for Radcliffe Observatory tell us?”
There has been an increase of extreme rainfall events.
These over western/northern higher ground, where orographic influences are at play – that is most events come from frontal rainfall events (not convective event) – what here meteorologists call warm conveyors (and the the US atmospheric rivers).
Hence cherry-picking a look at Oxford rainfall will elucidate nothing.
“And the Met Office’s own graphs give their game away. For both 95th and 99th Percentiles, they show an increase up to the 1990s, but since then the trend is flat.”
Not when considering Station-days….
And at the 10mm rainfall event mark (which is a much more realistic amount to consider as it lies in the upper end of events but not the extreme)
“The report itself is 121 pages long, and full of largely irrelevant waffle. Clearly the intention is to obfuscate and stop the public from finding out the real story.”
It is written for people who are interested in the details – it’s not “irrelevant waffle” to them.
They wont find the “real story” from you
Those that don’t want “waffle” need to go here …..
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/metofficegovuk/pdf/weather/learn-about/uk-past-events/summaries/uk_climate_summary_calendar_year_2023.pdf
“In short, the Met Office has been caught out attempting to con the public into thinking that rainfall is becoming more extreme, when it is not.”
No you have been caught out with your usual reflexive and incorrect critical hatred of the UKMO, conning the so easily “conned” choir here, who would never think of fact checking you.
Oh look, another ruler monkey.
Oh look, another ad hom from someone who thinks that gives him/her the win.
Another ruler monkey who can’t sort out when they are being laughed at.
So for people interested in the details, please provide a scientific definition of a “dramatic increase”.
Accurate data from 1830.
“The report itself is 121 pages long, and full of largely irrelevant waffle. Clearly the intention is to obfuscate and stop the public from finding out the real story.”
Its impossible for me to judge intent but I’d guess they felt pressures to justify their existence and support the team. The article points to “the real story” being about climate. My guessing has more to do with “the real story” being about paying rent or mortgage and having enough left to buy a sandwich.
Very nice. This is important. The government must stop lying and misleading. If they won’t do it voluntarily we need to get rid of all of the managers until people see the light and understand the importance of presenting the facts in the most honest and meaningful way. If we have to fire everybody down to the guy who empties the garbage it would be okay with me.
The UK is being (has been) run by Frauds and shills for too long.
The sooner Milibrain f***s up the sooner (more) people will see the huge problems and lies that government, “experts” and the MSM have been pushing….. well you have to hope!
They are just doing what they are paid for.
The data clearly shows that we need more money for bigger, shinier computers, salaries and pensions.
The UK should be wetter during a centennial solar minimum, because the AMO is warmer.
The highest daily maximum temperatures in Central England happen during brief Saharan plume events, which are more common during centennial lows in solar activity. Because of increased negative North Atlantic Oscillation conditions, giving the wavier jet stream which the Saharan plumes depend on.