By Anthony Watts and H. Sterling Burnett
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) article, titled “Scientists sure warming world made Spain’s storm more intense,” ties recent flash flooding in Spain to climate change. This is false. Data refutes claims that flooding has gotten worse in Europe amid modestly warming temperatures. In addition, the story ignores Spain’s long history of sometimes catastrophic floods due to many of its cities being situated in narrow mountain valleys.
“No doubt about it, these explosive downpours were intensified by climate change,” Friederike Otto, Ph.D., who is co-leader of World Weather Attribution (WWA), told the BBC. “With every fraction of a degree of fossil fuel warming, the atmosphere can hold more moisture, leading to heavier bursts of rainfall.”
The problem is, neither Otto nor the BBC cited any data to back up the claim that this storm’s moisture content was enhanced by warming, because none exists. Rather the attribution is based on the projections of flawed computer models and is typical of the type of “research” quickly published by WWA. As with all of WWA studies Climate Realism has discussed previously, they suffer from the logical fallacy of assuming what they are attempting to prove. WWA’s research assumes climate change causes or contributes to a particular weather event and then uses computer models to project how big the effect was. That is not how one conducts science. Climate Realism has refuted similar attribution claims on multiple occasions, here, here, and here for instance.
The recent terrible flooding across the Spanish province of Valencia has claimed more than 150 lives, but there is no evidence the flooding was historically unusual. Reviewing the historical context of the flooding area shows it has experienced recurring severe floods. The BBC article claims of “increased atmospheric moisture” and rising temperatures to explain the event, but other meteorologists, as mentioned by the BBC, said the event was driven by the common “gota fría” weather pattern, also known as a “cold drop” and recently named DANA in meteorology texts. It is a weather event that commonly brings cold air from northern latitudes over the warm Mediterranean, leading to sudden and intense rainfall.
The recent storm that hit Spain is consistent with its long history of severe autumnal storms. Gota Fria’s have not become more common or severe during the recent period of modest warming.
Valencia, which sits along and at the mouth of the Turia River on the Mediterranean Sea, suffered similar flooding, for example, in 1897, 1957, and 1996, 127, 67, and 28 years of warming ago, respectively, when temperatures were cooler than at present. Dozens of people died in each of those floods. The historical account of Valencia’s 1957 flooding, as documented by Caroline Angus, presents a well-known pattern of extreme rainfall events in the region, long before the age of alleged climate change. On October 14, 1957, an unprecedented flood struck Valencia, releasing nearly 6,000 cubic meters of water per second into the city. Towns around Valencia, including Pedralba and Vilamarxant, saw record rainfall, causing massive flooding that impacted thousands of lives and required years of recovery efforts.

This 1957 flood event was not an anomaly but part of a natural cycle that Spaniards have come to recognize as a seasonal threat from the Mediterranean’s temperature dynamics and terrain. That storm dumped about a foot of rain in 2 days, when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels (said to drive climate change) were just 314 parts per million (ppm), compared to the 422 ppm measured today.
As Caroline Angus’s account of the 1957 Valencia flood reveals, these conditions are neither new nor unprecedented. The BBC’s focus on “climate change” and a warmer atmosphere as the primary cause of the recent flooding ignores the atmospheric mechanics behind these storms and downplays the recurrent pattern of similar natural events. It also too easily dismisses the well-known gota fria phenomenon, despite the BBC itself writing, “[w]eather researchers say the likely main cause of the intense rainfall was a natural weather event [gota fria] that hits Spain in Autumn and Winter.” Any links to climate change are based solely on rapid, non-peer reviewed attribution claims, not data.
From a science perspective, BBC made a glaring omission by not referencing the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which finds little evidence of increased precipitation. The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) provides an assessment of confidence levels in precipitation trends.
According to Chapter 12, Table 12.12, (seen below) the IPCC expresses “low confidence” in a clear trend for increases in heavy precipitation in southern Europe, including the Mediterranean basin, even under flawed high-emission climate model scenarios like RCP8.5.

Unable to completely ignore the fact that natural weather systems dominate rainfall patterns, in Spain and elsewhere, the BBC suggested, the flooding was worsened because each degree of warming causes a 7% increase in rainfall. This does not align with the IPCC’s low confidence in any increase in rainfall, river flooding, or heavy precipitation, at present despite more than a degree of warming over the past century. The BBC are engaging in pure speculation, not backed by evidence or the IPCC’s own findings.
One thing that almost certainly contributed to the high death toll and massive damage of the recent flood is the huge increase of population in harm’s way of flooding – the expanding bullseye effect discussed at Climate Realism repeatedly, here and here, for example. Valencia’s population over the past century has grown from 213,550 inhabitants in 1900 to 1,582,387 residents within the urban area and 2,522,383 people in the metropolitan region.
When more people move to flood zones, more damage results when flooding does, and more people are harmed. This is especially true if government authorities don’t revise flood planning as the population grows. Instead of asking how Spain might have planned better in the past for floods that aren’t unusual, or how the government and planners might prepare for an anticipated seasonal flood cycle going forward, the BBC shifts the dialogue to an assumed inadequacy of current infrastructure to withstand “new” extremes. Yet the 1957 floods show us that extreme floods have long tested Spain’s infrastructure. In response to the catastrophic 1957 event, Valencia took direct action with the Plan Sur, diverting the Turia River to protect the city center from future flooding.
Unfortunately, new development along that diversion channel allowed for new flood damage in areas different from that of the 1957 flood.
Let’s be clear: reducing meteorological complexity to a tired “climate change did it” line cheapens the discussion. Spain’s unique geography and centuries-old storm patterns deserve more than sensationalist fluff. But as is typical, the BBC offers an alarmist tale wrapped in a pretty climate-change bow, leaving out history, science, common sense, and accountability. That’s shoddy journalism, misinforming the public, thus making it harder for them to make rational decisions about elections and responses to weather.
Originally posted at ClimateREALISM
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It is a weather event that commonly brings cold air
So cold air also holds more water vapor?
Curious minds want to know if BBC and WWA see it that way.
With every fraction of a degree of fossil fuel warming
So, only fossil fuel causes warming? Seems one does not even have to combust it.
It’s the warm air that carries the moisture. In a DANA weather event, the warm air rises and cools rapidly, leading to heavy rain.
And it are those same cold weather depressions in summer bringing the hot Sahara temperatures to Spain and the rest of Europe.
The Plan Sur channel was designed to protect central Valencia against flooding. And it worked. But, the channel was deliberately built with the southern retaining wall lower than the northern side so that any overspill would go southwards. And that is exactly what happened.
So anyone giving permission to develop to the south of it should have known they were putting people in harm’s way.
You’d think that might be a story worth the BBC pursuing.Perhaps they will…
The BBC gave up on telling the truth a long time ago.
”The recent terrible flooding ACROSS the Spanish province of Valencia has claimed more than 150 lives,”
Not true it was a very limited zone that saw the flooding. This flood could grow this big because the depression was stationary so a lot of rain fell in the same small mountainous area 40km inland with elevations up to 1000m . So from sea level to 1000m in 40km and all that water could go just one way. In the city of Valencia at the coast there fell only 8 L/m2.
Another Wonderful World story—Don’t Know Much About History, Don’t Know Much About Geography,. . .
Gotta upvote that one–but you are dating yourself, ignoring the possible modern interpretation of stating that.
Well, I am an old fart, so, . .
Ben E King?
And Herman’s Hermits
All of us who recognized those verses revealed our age!
And I remember the song because I thought it was so dumbass—I am an ignorant idiot, but I love you?
Ha–always felt the same. ‘I’m as dumb as a fence post’ just never seemed like the best come-on line, and made me wonder about the girls who’d be impressed with it. Perhaps Shania Twain revealed the type?
Just because 1 degree C warmer air can hold 7% more water vapor doesn’t mean there will be 7% more rain. Overall, rain must fall at the rate at which it evaporates from the surface. That highly depends on the surface area of lakes, oceans, plants, and wet ground, and the rate at which that surface self-cools as evaporation and wind occurs. Read about evaporation pans, Penman equation and such….Wackypedia even says the trend of evaporation pan readings is generally down, with some stations increasing.
Sorry forgot to provide a reference
Simple:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/downloadpdf/view/journals/apme/6/3/1520-0450_1967_006_0482_pepaae_2_0_co_2.pdf
More complicated:
https://www.fao.org/4/x0490e/x0490e06.htm
Fredi – as she likes to be called – is as rabid as climate alarmists come.
The queen of the digital tea leaves.
Hey strat I thought she only let her friends call her Fredi – do you know her? 🙂
I know someone at Imperial.
I’m hoping she’s offended…
“The queen of the digital tea leaves.”
*******************
One of the numerous high priestesses of the cult. A claim is made with no data or other evidence to support it is a article is religious faith. We are to accept it on faith. No science.
“Friederike Otto, Ph.D., who is co-leader of World Weather Attribution (WWA), told the BBC. With every fraction of a degree of fossil fuel warming, the atmosphere can hold more moisture, leading to heavier bursts of rainfall.”
But the data shows that the atmosphere is not holding more “moisture”, or water vapor as it is commonly denominated, according to the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory data – this since 1948. Models may show an increase, but the data do not. Why is unclear since atmospheric temperatures do seem to be slightly up during this period but it is further evidence that climate is indeed chaotic as Lorenz concluded in the late 1950’s (meaning we don’t and can’t understand it very well.)
Even Dr. Otto could have looked this up, not to mention the BBC, before making such an erroneous story. Otto could be excused for this ignorance since her job is to attribute weather changes to climate and she certainly doesn’t want to lose her job. But the BBC? Isn’t it their job to tell the truth?
“But the BBC? Isn’t it their job to tell the truth?”
Such thinking is so yesterday…..
Even GBNews kept saying it was the most lethal Spanish flood in modern history.
I think 1962 is modern history?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1962_Vall%C3%A9s_floods
The media still surprises you
Friederike Otto, Ph.D., who is co-leader of World Weather Attribution (WWA), told the BBC.
As Mandy Rice-Davis famously said (to us of a certain age) “Well he would wouldn’t he“
As Mandy Rice-Davis famously said (to us of a certain age) “Well [she] would wouldn’t [she]“
https://profiles.imperial.ac.uk/f.otto
You never know who might get their undies in a bunch over mis-gendering. Best assume she’s a progressive and would…
Before pronouns were a thing, Mandy made the statement in 1963 about William W. Astor II, 3rd Viscount Astor, an English businessman and Conservative Party politician.
As noted there are far more people living in Valencia these days than back in 1957. Those people are largely more well off and own considerably more than the 1957 residents. Hence the huge number of piled up vehicles which the news channels dwell on.
An excellent article that reinforces the BBC comment:
Shoddy journalism, misinforming the public, thus making it harder for them to make rational decisions about elections and responses to weather.
I lack the technical background to ask this question properly but here goes in simple terms:
If warmer air can hold more moisture would that also mean the fraction that does not condense is also greater?
If yes does that not imply that increased moisture in the air does not equate 1:1 with increased rain?
It truly is not that simple.
Just as it is not that simple that CO2 is the thermostat for the atmosphere.
One point to add, if the concentration of water vapor increases, the the ppm of CO2 per mol necessarily decreases. A mole contains a fixed, constant number of molecules.
yes and that number of molecules = Aavagadro’s No…6.02214 X10^23
Foreign emissary from down south shows up in Oz to lambast those trying to cool the planet-
Emperor penguin arrives on WA beach thousands of kilometres from home
In my opinion, any PhD that offers opinion without supporting data ought to have been weeded out during his dissertation. I can provide data to support that opinion (see the BBC article discussed above).
Her PhD is in philosophy. Not a lot of supporting data required.
Actual it’s the best qualification to talk about climate, isn’t it ?
Let there be no misunderstanding of the BBCs impartial line…
Human activities are causing world temperatures to rise, with more intense heatwaves and rising sea-levels among the consequences.
Things are likely to worsen in the coming decades, but scientists argue urgent action can limit the worst effects of climate change.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24021772?at_custom3=%40BBCWorld&at_custom4=A7538AAA-430D-11EC-95CD-48EA15F31EAE&at_medium=custom7&at_custom1=%5Bpost+type%5D&at_custom2=twitter&at_campaign=64
/sarc
Weather history is so much overestimated…
I found this interesting item that puts the flooding into historical perspective:
“EU Caused Spain Flood Disaster” Mahyar Tousi TV on Youtube
Here are two sources that inadvertently expose the EU meddling
“Dam Removal Report 2024, European Rivers Network”
“The removal of dams in Europe is reviving rivers and boosting biodiversity” WEF 2023
If the EU officials in Brussels cannot be held accountable it is time to dump the EU.
There is more chance of CAGW being a genuine threat to humanity then there is of an EU official being held accountable.
So “zero” and “less than zero”
Here is a link to the belly of the beast.
They are very proud of having removed 8,146 dams so far and 487 in 2023 alone.
https://damremoval.eu/
I hate to think of what other otherwise preventable catastrophes are in the future.
Personal note: I live in North Carolina about 60 miles west of Asheville.
Hurricane Helene gave this area about 12 inches of precip over a three-day period.
My area (Cherokee County) has lots of Tennessee Valley Authority dams.
Dams used for irrigation, hydro power, recreation and flood control.
We had minimal flooding.
In the 1960’s, the TVA was proposing to erect several dams on the French Broad River which flows through Asheville.
The environmentalists shut them down.
Now, more than 30 days after the storm, there are still people without electricity and the Asheville public water system is still not potable.
Facts. Are you listening?
A rebuke to those who said clean power by 2030 was unachievable: they were wrong, we were right
– Ed Miliband
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/05/clean-power-2030-labour-neso-report-ed-miliband
To Ed Minibrain….. CCGT is cleaner to the environment that either wind or solar…
…. so you well on your way.
Current supply in UK.. Nuclear 12%, GAS 61%, Wood from the US 7%, Wind 3%.. solar 0%
The rest from numerous interconnects.
What a [explicative deleted] moron.
Germany built nearly double the capacity of wind and solar compared with its PEAK electricity demand (150GW wind and solar vs. 80GW peak demand).
They got LESS THAN 30% of their electricity from wind and solar.
Clean power (not!) that doesn’t work most of the time is never going to replace what actually works.
Well, your deleted explicative may have been explicative, but was it an expletive explicative? Asking for a friend…
A southbound front, the cold ‘la gota fria’ hit a warm northbound front coming in from Africa, they collided over the coastal range south of Valencia and precipated over both sides causing floods in two separate river systems.Both fronts continued their trajectories after the collision. I’m in my 70’s and I’ve seen a lot of changes in the world but climate is not one of them, it was a weather event.
Not even an unusual one.
Just like all of them.
There ARE NO ‘CLIMATE EVENTS,’ everything they refer to as such is just weather.
It’s a pain, but the rain in Spain falls mainly in the plain…due to Catastrophic Climate Change……..they want it to happen……so it will happen
The rain in Spain the BeeB is unable to explain.
Very nice Anthony and Sterling, lying is not okay, the mainstream media must be held accountable for blatant misreporting. This was not a mistake or an oversight it pure lying. They must not be allowed to get away with it.
The dependence on pushing the propaganda of climate change makes people ignorant and dumb.
“In response to the catastrophic 1957 event, Valencia took direct action with the Plan Sur, diverting the Turia River to protect the city center from future flooding.
Unfortunately, new development along that diversion channel allowed for new flood damage in areas different from that of the 1957 flood.“. Yes, I had heard this explanation, and it rings true. It is easy to blame the authorities for inadequate flood preparation, but in this case it seems that the left hand of government did try to improve flood planning while their right hand barreled ahead with thoughtless development. There’s more money in thoughtless development than there is in careful planning.
The car pile-ups in those impossibly narrow streets a sad echo of the harrowing traffic jams in La Haina. City planners where I live think “traffic slowing” and “traffic calming” by means of speed bumps, road narrowing and expanded mediums are where it’s at – some of that good European urban charm for our already teeming urban and ex-urban areas. But more cars demand wider roads. That may mean reshaping existing city scapes, especially near coastal areas, to make room for more impatient drivers. Many of the 200 + Spanish fatalities died in their cars.
Of course better flood control – but that may mean reshaping streets that effectively work like canals.
The demolition of dams that had previously attenuated the impact of flooding should not be overlooked when apportioning blame for the damage done by the waters.
Spain destroyed more than 256 dams between 2021 and 2022, “to restore the natural course of rivers”, in order to comply with UN Agenda 2030.
But no, the flooding is a result of “climate change”
https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/1853733552875082130