.
.
We should be getting used to this by now…The UK Met Office embarrasses itself yet again.
Sound analysis from Paul Homewood.
By Paul Homewood
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26084625
Back in February, Julia Slingo, the Met Office’s Chief Scientist, was reported by the BBC, when discussing the recent wet winter, as saying:
“The UK had seen the most exceptional period of rainfall in 248 years….
We have records going back to 1766 and we have nothing like this. We have seen some exceptional weather. We can’t say it is unprecedented but it is exceptional.
There was no definitive answer to what caused the storms, but all the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change”
I pointed out at the time that these statements simply were not supported by the data, and asked the Met Office to justify them. (Remember that this report was on 9th February, so she only had Dec/Jan data to go on). After three attempts on their part to sidetrack the issue, they have totally failed to back…
View original post 802 more words
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
The Met Office seem to be basing their ‘wettest ever’ claims on the rather arbitrary definition of the NH winter being from Dec 1 to end of Feb, hence, by this measure, winter 2013/14 was the wettest winter period in the 248 yr precipitation record.
But of course, as Paul points out, Nov 1929/Jan 1930 was an even wetter 3 month period which, for all intents and purposes, can still be regarded as late autumn/winter, being just one month shy of the ‘official’ definition.
And yes, the culprit in both cases (1929/30 and 2013/14) can be almost certainly pinpointed as the jet stream which, as Paul also points out, seemed to be behaving very similarly during both 3 month periods. But Slingo saw a propaganda opportunity and jumped straight on it. Mat Collins, also at the Met Office, also identified the culprit as the jet stream soon after Slingo’s outburst, but was at pains thereafter to stress that he was not contradicting his boss.
Selective interpretation of the meteorological record seems to be a preoccupation with the Met Office nowadays, allowing the DECC headed by the cretinous Davey to justify continuing with their Bedlam pedigree energy policy based entirely on the ‘irrefutable evidence’ of man-made global warming.
[reply] ‘irrefutable’ because they say so, even when their own graphs don’t show any 😉
I thought England had a lot of rain. Where i live in South East Qld. there have been many occasions with over 200mm in one day. There has been over 1m of rain over three days (1893) and over 4m of rain in a year (1898). The average rainfall per annum is 1.86m. We are not in the tropics, there are wetter places in Australia. I would not call 200mm rain in one month extreme. We can get that in any month and regularly get over 500mm in one month during the summer period. The average (over 120 years) for February is 260mm. Australia has periodic droughts, floods, bush fires and very cold weather with snow. There is no evidence of climate change over the last 220 years of recorded history.
What is Slingo smoking?
Fortunately historians are more rational than climate scientists. They simply record what happened. Great drownings in Holland. The river Seine drying up so you could walk across it. Fourteen “Frost Fairs” in London when the Thames froze from bank to bank. High quality wines produced in England.
When it comes to extreme weather you don’t have to “Make Stuff Up”. Mother Nature will exceed your wildest speculations.
…. and just to simplify everything for everybody . . . .
In-depth studies, carried out over the last 45 seconds, confirm there is a direct link between the climate and politics.
Both climate and politics change over time !! A fact confirmed in the afore mentioned in-depth study.
“Man” is the main cause of all political change, therefore “Man” is the main cause of climate change.
The climate is seen as a problem if a particular political party is in power, whereas there is no problem at all to be see with the climate if the opposite party is at the helm.
So, the simplest way to solve any climate problems is to keep that party “who see no problems”, in power.
Not only will this save the Earth from certain destruction, it will save a lot of money in the national budget as there’ll be no need for climate science committees, reports, analysis, action etc.
Prior to the 45 second in-depth study, a cartoon was created, which may, or may not, conflict with the theme of the above summary.
That climate change cartoon is here . . . . . . . .
Cheers
Mick
I dunno. I must read the wrong type of books. If the world is warming it becomes noticeable at the poles, the Equatorial/Polar temperature gradient reduces. Winds reduce and you get less storms.
In a cooling world Equatorial/Polar temperatures INCREASE. WINDS INCREASE. You get MORE STORMS. What is difficult to understand about that?
[reply] ‘In a cooling world Equatorial/Polar temperatures INCREASE’ – do they?
Has Slingo committed “Misconduct in a Public Office” by deliberately making a (series of) misleading statement(s)?
…“Man” is the main cause of all political change, therefore
“Man”Mann is the main cause of climate change….There, I corrected the sentence for you.