From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
Talking of clowns, maybe Nick Ferrari will treat anything the Met Office with a large pinch of salt in future!
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.
To count as a rainy day, there must be a minimum of 2.5mm of rain in a 24 hour period.
The UK’s wettest ever summer in 1912 saw rainfall on more than 55 days.
In the event the summer was drier than average:
As I noted at the time, the Met Office’s warning did not even tally with their own 3-Month Outlook, and was clearly designed as pure spin intended to scare the public.
“As I noted at the time, the Met Office’s warning did not even tally with their own 3-Month Outlook, and was clearly designed as pure spin intended to scare the public.”
So how do we know that the Met Office ever gave such a warning? According to this report back in May, the Met Office said they did not.
Here is the Met Office on May 28 explicitly denying the report
https://x.com/metoffice/status/1795463592625471792
Read to the end and read it all!
The Met Office has briefed the Government and transport chiefs to prepare for at least 50 days of rain in the next three months,
And
As I noted at the time, the Met Office’s warning did not even tally with their own 3-Month Outlook, and was clearly designed as pure spin intended to scare the public.
“The Met Office has briefed the Government and transport chiefs to prepare for at least 50 days of rain in the next three months,”
You should read what I wrote, and the links. The Met Office explicitly denied that report. No-one has produced such a briefing. As Anthony Banton says below, it was an invention of the Sun.
The Met Office is known to LIE. Believe nothing they say.
The MSM is known to LIE. Believe nothing they say.
bnice2000 is known to LIE. Believe nothing he says.
Pure projection by phil.
The world is flat! there are no stars!! Science lies!!!!!
If the Met Office and you, Mr Stokes, have never lied then why bother coming on here to repeat something many other people clearly do not believe?
It is an old old propaganda trick to leak a report that is critical of something or somebody, then deny the report (in very fine print, in the back of the publication, with no promotion or news coverage), but the information in the report is still implanted in the brains of those they intend to influence.
The denial in small print is just an insurance policy, giving them plausible deniability. Just like pharmaceutical companies produce ads that extol the virtues of their (very expensive) medicine, but at the end include in very small print a rapid essentially unreadable list of the side effects that could in some instances cause death. But they believe that we can’t complain, because they warned us .. we just (as intended) didn’t pay any attention to the fine print warning.
There is absolutely no reason why the Met Office should publish a forecast, then leak a variant forecast.
As I said, you can read the Sun making it up in real time.
No reason?
Right.
See my reply to you above
Both can be true. Both the briefing and the denial of the forecast.
People often prepare to cope with things they do not expect will actually take place.
It is better to be safe than sorry.
Met Office Headline
NewsMet Office delivers £56 billion of economic value to the UK
Article content
A new independent economic study has concluded that the Met Office will deliver benefits worth £56 billion to the UK economy over the next ten years.
Thisan organisation that you think is honest and truthful? Check it for yourself
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news-and-media/media-centre/corporate-news/2024/met-office-delivers-gbp56-billion-of-economic-value-to-the-uk
So? The London Economics study did say that. How does that make the MO untruthful?
By implying in the headline that the MO had already delivered £56 billion in benefits whereas what the actuality is is that a study suggests they might in the next 10 years.
Two subtle uses of the English language with the words “delivers” and “will” neither of which are true.
Most of the public, including you it seems, will miss the fact that this is just a guess a decade into the future made to appear as a fact that has already happened. It’s the sort of thing the BBC does and claims is OK.
Yes, the heading on its own is inaccurate. The sub-heading says it all:
“A new independent economic study has concluded that the Met Office will deliver benefits worth £56 billion to the UK economy over the next ten years.”
Will = might possibly
What is the evidence that “the Met Office briefed the government and transport chiefs to prepare for at least 50 days of rain in the next three months”?
So far, the only evidence seems to be second-hand.
Other than this type of thing I wasn’t at the briefing.
Met Office Headline
Met Office delivers £56 billion of economic value to the UK
Article content
A new independent economic study has concluded that the Met Office will deliver benefits worth £56 billion to the UK economy over the next ten years.
This an organisation that you think is honest and truthful? Check it for yourself
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news-and-media/media-centre/corporate-news/2024/met-office-delivers-gbp56-billion-of-economic-value-to-the-uk
So, all we have is the Met Office saying they didn’t say it.
Yawn !!
Well, we have the Sun, in real time, stretching the actual Met forecast plus last years rain until “This sparked fears Britain could be hit with closer to 50 days of rain this holiday season”. Then the usual suspects did the rest.
We only have the Met Office saying they didn’t say this.
What don’t you understand. !
The MSM are the usual suspects. !!
That is where people get their “news” from..
The MO forecast that there was a 15% chance that summer would be drier than usual, 20% wetter than usual, and 65% about average. It turned out to be average. Well done, MO.
So the Sun says, well, it’s more likely to be wetter than drier. There were 40 wet days last year. “This sparked fears Britain could be hit with closer to 50 days of rain this holiday season”
And they’re off to the races.
Thanks for confirming everything I said, dopey….
The MSM, where many people get their climate news.. DELIBERATELY LIES and EMBELLISHES.
And we still don’t know what the Met actually said to the Government…
… only what they say they said.
Again.. you are saying the MSM will often embellish/LIE about climate.
Thanks for finally catching up with reality.
Yet that is where most people get their fake climate news.
I wrote specifically about Murdoch’s Sun.
Only Murdoch’s Sun lie?
You’re right. We should include Murdoch’s Times, Murdoch’s Daily Torygraph, Murdoch’s New York Post, Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal, etc.
All you have is the complete lack of any evidence that the MO ever made the forecast, followed by them saying they never made it, and also the fact that the newspaper, if you can call the Sun that, never claimed the MO had said it.
Still, good to see you demonstrating what sort of a sceptic you are.
Ah, the MOs cheerleader down under speaks.
UK experienced coolest summer in nearly a decade. Northerly winds brought colder Arctic air – but overall trend still one of warmer temperatures, says Met Office.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/03/uk-coolest-summer-in-nearly-a-decade/
Oh dear
They didn’t. The Sun ram a report on their May-July forecast showing a 30% probability of it being in the wetter category, compared with a normal probability of 20%. The Sun then speculated thrre might be 50 days of rain with no suggestion this came from the MO.
The next day it was picked up by other newspapers, all mistakingly saying that the MO had forecast 50 days of rain. The MO immediately denied they had made any such forecast.
We’ve been through this before.
The Sun said the MET Office had predicted a wet summer – before the summer.
The MET Office said they hadn’t – before the summer.
Paul Homewood got confused as to why the MET Office would predict the opposite of their own 3-Month Outlook.
Nick Stokes then points out that the MET Office 3-Month Outlook disagrees with what the Sun says the MET office says… because the MET Office didn’t say it. The Sun lied.
And then a load of gullible wallies on this website down vote Nick Stokes because they believe that the Sun is honest.
Ladies and gentlemen, have a long hard look at yourselves.
This is the second time we have had a thread on this subject. And it’s the second time that WUWT have been made to look ridiculous on this subject.
“The Sun lied.”
To be fair, the Sun just beat up a story out of nothing (can you believe?). They showed their work. It was others who said the 50 days stuff came from the MO.
This was first posted on here on May 30th 2024.
And is as bizarre now as it was then.
“Talking of clowns, maybe Nick Ferrari will treat anything the Met Office with a large pinch of salt in future!”
”As I noted at the time, the Met Office’s warning did not even tally with their own 3-Month Outlook”
No it wouldn’t, as the *warning* wasn’t issued by the MetO.
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 *warning* appears to originate from that fine upstanding source of information that is – The Sun.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/28159720/britain-wettest-summer-on-record/
That Homewood is still pushing this falsehood, says something about his MO – and that is to never let facts get in the way of trashing the MetO, and never check back to the original sources.
There is another interpretation.
But doesn’t that show that they said there was a 95% chance of it being normal or hot, and only 5% chance it would be cooler than normal?
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/metofficegovuk/pdf/business/public-sector/civil-contingency/3moutlook_jja_v1.pdf
ROFLMAO.
So you are now saying that basically EVERYTHING the far-left media puts out about “climate”… IS FAKE.
Well done.. you finally figured it out !!
We expect to never see you, or Nick, or any of the AGW-cultist ever produce a leftist newspaper report .. because you KNOW that it will be crap.
How do we know the MSM isn’t lying about the report being FAKE. ?
How do we know the MetOffice isn’t LYING through its teeth about what it actually said to the Government.
It certainly has form in that area.
“So you are now saying that basically EVERYTHING the far-left media puts out about “climate”… IS FAKE.”
“The Sun” is a right wing rag .. err newspaper Oxy!
Is it that hard for you to grok that sensationalism sells?
Whatever side of the aisle you’re on
And then you get idiots like Homewood, with an agenda, that pile in to get a slice of the pie.
Well, on the basis that tomato crops tend to prefer a warmer, drier summer rather than a cooler, damper one, the superb tomato crops I got from soil-grown plants (no greenhouse, no polytunnel), does suggest the SE of England wasn’t particularly wet. I can confirm this based on hardly ever having to put an anorak on since the Summer Solstice.
Whether it was true or not I have noticed that forecasts from the Met Office going more than 5 days ahead are invariably wrong.
Also, that those incorrect forecasts are generally predicated on an underlying assumption that there is a climate crisis in progress.
They predicted 50% chance normal summer temperatures; 45% chance hotter than normal summer; but only 5% chance cool. It was cool; in fact the coolest for ten years or so.
I think it pretty dreadful they were 95% wrong only a few days before the event.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/metofficegovuk/pdf/business/public-sector/civil-contingency/3moutlook_jja_v1.pdf
“Summer 2024’s average mean temperature of 14.37°C for the UK is considered ‘cooler’ when compared to the 1991-2020 current meteorological average of 14.59°C. But interestingly, 14.37°C would be considered ‘warmer’ than average if compared to the 1961-1990 meteorological averaging period, where the average mean temperature was 13.78°C.”
Met Office says coolest summer since 2015:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news-and-media/media-centre/weather-and-climate-news/2024/uk-experiences-coolest-summer-since-2015
Coolest for X years does not mean cool by any rational assessment, especially when the majority of summers since 2000 have been so warm.
2024 was warmer than average in the CET (1961-90), and UK wide by the same period. UK wide it was a fraction on the cool side compared to the last 30 years because the warming is so dramatic.
The annual mean CET for 2024 is still nip and tuck for yet another record.
The planet is often warming by 10 to 15 degrees in only a few decades and it is not caused by manmade carbon dioxide emissions.
https://www.britannica.com/science/Dansgaard-Oeschger-event
“Among the surprises that have emerged from analyses of oxygen isotopes in ice cores (long cylinders of ice collected by drilling through glaciers and ice sheets) has been the recognition of very sudden, short-lived climate changes. Ice core records in samples extracted from Greenland, Antarctica, Canada’s Arctic Archipelago, and high mountain glaciers in South America show that these climate changes have been large, very rapid, and globally synchronous. Over a period of a few years to a few decades, average temperatures have shifted by up to half of the temperature differences seen between the Pleistocene ice ages and their interglacial periods—that is, as much as 5–15 °C (9–27 °F).”
============
And what caused the medieval warm period and the roman warm period? In 134 BC it was so hot the Roman legions could only march at night.
=====
And what about other climate changes during the Roman period? :
Precipitation levels were unusually high during the so-called Iberian–Roman Humid Period. Roman Spain experienced its three phases: the most humid interval in 550–190 BC, an arid interval in 190 BC–150 AD and another humid period in 150–350. In 134 BC the army of Scipio Aemilianus in Spain had to march at night due to extreme heat, when some of its horses and mules died of thirst (even though earlier, in 181 BC, heavy spring rains prevented the Celtiberians from relieving the Roman siege of Contrebia).Through the 2nd century AD warm temperatures dominated particularly in the mountains along the north coast, punctuated by further cool spells from c. 155 to 180. After about 200 the temperatures fluctuated, trending toward cool.
Perhaps the warming was caused by internal combustion siege engines?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispania
===
Even more on climate changes before the internal combusion engine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_ancient_Rome
The climate of ancient Rome varied throughout the existence of that civilization. In the first half of the 1st millennium BC, the climate of Italy was more humid and cool than now and the presently arid south saw more precipitation. The northern regions were situated in the temperate climate zone, while the rest of Italy was in the subtropics, having a warm and mild climate. During the annual melt of the mountain snow, even small rivers would overflow, swamping the terrain (Tuscany and the Pontine Marshes were deemed impassable in antiquity). The existence of Roman civilization (including the Eastern Roman Empire) spanned three climatological periods: Early Subatlantic (900 BC–175 AD), Mid-Subatlantic (175–750) and Late Subatlantic (since 750).
And of course, the Met office would never stack the deck..
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2024/07/18/science-shock-met-office-continues-to-site-temperature-stations-in-junk-locations-daily-sceptic/
The same reply as the last time you posted this ignorant nonsense …
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.”
In short the UK and especially England is a small crowded country with a good deal of hedges/trees/forests with the rest village/town/farmed land etc and a rather low sun angle in winter.
None of those things can be gotten around and so the WMO classifications 4/5 are most often unavoidable.
When reporting, do they inform that the temperatures quoted at these locations are subject to UHI and may be as much as 5ºC higher than they otherwise would be?
WMO’s definition of a class 5 site is
“a site where nearby obstacles create an inappropriate environment for a meteorological measurement that is intended to be representative of a wide area.”
Almost 78% of the Met Offices sites are rated class 4 or 5 the lowest classes possible.
You still have zero clue about real measurement uncertainty.
Cool in the contingency planners forecast means on the bottom 20% of summer’s, based on the 1991-2020 period. I’ll have to check, but I doubt this summer was quite that cold. Quickly looking through the record I can see around 10 summers cooler than this year, during that period.
They forecast heavy rain today.., and the sun has got his hat on.
Play the animation on this…..
https://www.netweather.tv/live-weather/radar
And then try to conceive that the weather forecast for the UK stretches a tad further than your vicinity.
Oh, and I’ll let you archive it so that you’re no longer similarly deluded.
As far as I can see the MET forecast is always right ….. for somewhere else.
Well if a single snowflake falls anywhere in the UK on Christmas Day the MET Office says we have had a ‘White Christmas”
Of course it is …
Just like ol’ stradi above.
The fault lies in the recipient of the forecast being a dunce – and not the forecaster.
To count as a rainy day, there must be a minimum of 2.5mm of rain in a 24 hour period.
Does that rain have to fall over an area of a specific size? If 99% of the UK is dry, could that still count as a rainy day? If there is a drought over the whole of England but Ullapool, say, has 50 days of rain, does that qualify as the wettest summer ever?
I think it’s based on the area. If 1% of the country has rain, that would count as 0.01 rain days.
Also, it’s a minimum of 1mm, not 2.5mm.
But nobody bases how wet the season is by the number of rain days. It’s the total rainfall that determines how wet it is.
The warmunists do not actually care that their predictions are false. The point is the old old propaganda trick of “flooding the zone” with misinformation and lies. They are presuming that readers will not go back to check on their predictions years or even just months ago, as in this case. But in the meantime readers are flooded with information telling them that the world is going to hell in a handbasket because of the evil oil companies.
“The warmunists do not actually care that their predictions are false. The point is the old old propaganda trick of “flooding the zone” with misinformation and lies.”
Are you really that self-aware that you dont see the irony there? …..
In a post that is all about the lying of Homewood spread by (implied) lie via The Sun and other media.
Again the conflation of the “Media” as the experts/science.
Try applying common-sense and realise that the agenda of the media is to make money FULL STOP.
And guess what?
Sensationalism does just that in spades.
Then the terminally deluded invent a conspiracy theory.
Isn’t it about time for the Met Office to declare a national emergency over too much speech? In 3…2….1…. And where are their SWAT teams?
Met is short for Meteoastrology.
Fraudulent science being published again.
Where did you get those plots – Here is the met office annual data from UK temperature, rainfall and sunshine time series – Met Office
AAH! I see you cherry picked summer!
Honewood must know by now that he’s just lying. The MO never forecast 50 days if rain, or the wettest summer, or whatever. Their contingency planners probabilistic forecast showed an average chance of a wet or dry summer.
Even if he does, he knows that lies dished out amongst his followers will not be checked and the odd straggler may be converted.
Just look at the comments on his website.
Mind, I have pointed out his lies there, and guess what. The comment disappeared.
Bless.
And certain Joseph Goebbels said something about lies.
Funny how Homewood will believe the MO over some newspapers but not others.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/08/30/35c-iberian-heatwave-on-its-way/
I can’t believe the level of partisan, lacking in evidence, and highly prejudiced opinion sprouts forth on this site. If someone presents a point that is backed up by evidence and in some cases, also by professional career knowledge of an area of study, then at least have the dignity to analyse, before blurting out the first instinctive or prejudiced response that comes to mind.
That observation works both ways. I happen to have ‘professional career knowledge’ in abundance, but when I comment on other sites ridicule and sneering is the common reaction.
I’m sure it does work both ways Ed. Sadly, it’s the state of the world we live in. It’s almost as if some commenters go back to their childhood years by putting the fingers in their ears, repeating over and over, “not listening, not listening…..my team’s better than yours…..” etc! If those who hold contrary views on climate to the mainstream, then prove your point with well-reasoned discourse, (of which there is plenty to be found), rather than simply disagreeing on principle.
The fact of the matter is that this is another very unhelpful article, that clearly misrepresents the MetO. I’m not particularly keen on the MetO (and have similar sentiments towards the BBC) personally. But in this instance, of the article has clearly misrepresented the MetO. The fact that the MetO and BBC push the climate change agenda so hard is of course not ideal but let’s just be honest and admit that this article is just another shameless piece of propaganda.
Fire all the top executives at the MET and forbid them from ever holding a government job or a government related job. I guarantee you the next batch of executives will do a better job.
Now do the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season, widely and uniformly predicted, no, foretold as a preordained FACT, to be by far the worst season for tropical cyclones, hurricanes and major hurricanes, EVER!
Yes.
50 days of rain!
Up here in the North West of England we’d have settled for that, we have had 50 weeks of rain.
I disagree. It seems conditions are much more predictable. Predictably, fake scientist activists will predict more rain, more drought, more hurricanes, more of everything bad. Predictably, they will usually be wrong. Predictably, they never revisit their failed predictions, nor offer a mea culpa.