UK Weather To Become More Extreme- Met Office
By Paul Homewood.
.
.
This really is quite blatant propaganda from the Met Office:
“The UK’s set of climate projections are the best window we have on how climate change is likely to affect us out to the end of the century,” said Professor Jason Lowe OBE*, the lead for UKCP – the UK’s climate projections.
The latest iteration of climate projections for the UK were released in 2018, updating the set from 2009. In the early days of climate projections, users were able to examine features such as the expected rise in average temperature for a given location at a particular time of year. “But users also need an understanding of what extremes of weather will be like: What will be the maximum temperature in summer? Or how much rain will fall in the heaviest rainfall events,” added Professor Lowe. Being able to interrogate the data in this way is exceedingly important for a whole range of user groups, from the rail industry to water companies and from town planners to the energy sector.
In 2019 there was a programme of additions , including a rollout of a new set of projections which examine climate extremes on a grid of 2.2km. This provides new capability to resolve the fine detail of weather extremes and predict events such as flash flooding, based on new capability to resolve the dynamics of thunderstorms.
In addition to more local detail, information is needed on uncertainties associated with future extremes, in order to support assessments of risks at the city-scale, for example. Later this week the Met Office will be releasing a further update which will add new probabilistic projections on the hottest and wettest weather extremes. Dr Simon Brown, who led this extension, explains: “This work provides a range of plausible outcomes for rare events expected on average once every 20, 50 and 100 years, for a range of emissions scenarios. This will allow planners to weigh the risk of different outcomes against the costs of adaptation.”
Ahead of the release of the data for the whole of the UK, the Met Office has released information for Exeter which shows the impact that climate change could be expected to have on the city.
Currently, in Exeter there is around a one-in-twenty chance of the city recording daily maximum temperatures exceeding 33.0 C, in a given summer. However the figures show that even with a mid-range scenario of greenhouse gas emissions (RCP4.5), this value would be more likely than not to exceed 35.0 C by 2090, while maximum temperatures of over 40.0 C cannot be completely ruled out.
The figures for rainfall extremes are also higher in the future than now. Currently, there is a likelihood that in one winter out of twenty the city will see a single day with over 45mm of rainfall, but by 2090 the same figure is nearly 50mm; around a 10 per cent increase of rainfall on the heaviest day for rain in winter. The projections show that values of around 60mm cannot be ruled out completely.
.
Most of the claims of “more extreme weather” concern high temperatures in summer, and are based on the RCP4.5 emissions scenario, which projects 3C of warming by 2100. Hardly surprising then that, if this occurs, summer high temperatures will also rise.
But equally, cold days in winter will correspondingly become less extreme. So, in overall terms, the weather will not become “more extreme”.
If you moved from Glasgow to London, would you say that the weather in London was more extreme, just because it was warmer on average? Clearly not, and this Met Office report is a disgraceful abuse of the English language.
What extreme weather means to most people is blizzards, gales, heavy rainfall and so on. And there is no evidence that any of these will get worse.
Apart from summer temperatures, the only other evidence the Met Office offers is:
The figures for rainfall extremes are also higher in the future than now. Currently, there is a likelihood that in one winter out of twenty the city will see a single day with over 45mm of rainfall, but by 2090 the same figure is nearly 50mm; around a 10 per cent increase of rainfall on the heaviest day for rain in winter.
But is there any evidence that winter rainfall has become more extreme in recent decades? Not according to the England & Wales Rainfall series:
https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/pHadEWP_daily_qc.dat
The wettest winter day was in December 1960. It is true that the second and fourth wettest days occurred in December 2013 and February 2020, but no statistician would draw conclusions from such outliers.
When you look at the top 50 rainfalls, you find that they were much more common in the 1970s to 90s.
Unfortunately the series only dates back to 1931, but if we look at a long running station such as Oxford, the whole Met Office projection completely falls to pieces:
https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/pgdcnUK000056225.dat
There have been fourteen winter days with rainfall of 30mm and more since 1827, and extremely rare event which happens on average every fourteen years. The last occurrence was in 1995, and the wettest day was in 1888.
A long time ago, the Met Office realised the public would not be spooked by threats of warm weather, so jumped on the extreme weather bandwagon. Consequently every bit of bad weather is now blown up and “blamed” on global warming, while dodgy projections are served up to scare the public.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
“Even more extreme”????? I wasn’t aware they were extreme now
The Met Office has saved you from your unawareness 😆
The MetO could be partly right, but for the wrong reasons. If the low solar cycles we are now experiencing continue to give us more unstable or ‘wavy’ jetstreams, there might well be an increase in weather extremes or at least patterns we’re not accustomed to.
However they would have nothing to do with any trace gases emitted from the surface of the Earth, as claimed by climate miserablists.
Totally obvious that this is a fear campaign based on well proven to be wrong climate mathematical models.
They cannot even predict small perturbations that occur all the time and make even 3-day local predictions inaccurate, yet they claim to predict 50 years ahead accurately. Which
of the presently unpredictable cloud formations do these people live on ?
Shall we name them all … Apocalyptic, Brutal, Catastrophic, Disaster, Endemic, Ferocious, Gloom Hahahahahah………………
So the four horsemen of the apocalypse have reinforcements, hope they’re carbon neutral
Ah, the Ministry of Truth! George Orwell would be so proud…
“What extreme weather means to most people is blizzards, gales, heavy rainfall and so on. And there is no evidence that any of these will get worse.”
Of course there is no evidence. It’s all bound up in climate models….designed? to make the future of weather look extreme and scary.
I am reading the excellent book “denial’ by Ross Clark. Think of an Animal farm’ and 1984′ by Orwell rolled into one and it gives yu some idea when applied to the climate, which rapidly ascends from mere crisis to an apocalypse.
An ordinary storm not predicted by the weather people kills 34 people and this is the start of mass hysteria at the ‘extreme ‘ weather.
When food shortages ensue it is blamed on the climate apocalypse and not the fact that the electric tractors farmers have to use were not up to the job so too few crops were planted or harvested.
That this food disaster occurred during a period of very ordinary weather is taken as a sign that climate change has caused ‘extreme averageness’ in the weather instead of the normal ups and downs which they believe produce good harvests.
A quite chilling book which lays bare the increasing climate hysteria but Very highly recommended
Please allow me to translate from Met Office speak…
Specious climate projections show extreme Met Office lies will become even more extreme.
With Sun Cycle 25 now here, maybe we will see skating and frost fairs on the Thames like in in 1608.
With all their Super Computers the Met Office cannot even forecast 3 days ahead never mind 50 years.
No doubt the Professor is looking for his 15 minutes of fame, but, of course he will not be around to see his folly. John Q Public is getting tired of “predictive Voodoo modelers” calling out doom – we are all going to die. Modelling is fancied up guesswork and for the same scenarios they can easily be an order of magnitude difference in outcomes. Hindcasting served us pretty well, but, now that historic has been corrupted to meet political goals this avenue is compromised.
Wasn’t the 1703 storm “extreme”?
Ian
See my comment above. In the book I mention, the 1703 storm has been officially removed from tye record and you are not allowed to talk about or you become a climate denier and are liable to be put on trial by the new climate court run by children. So watch your tongue!
Is it okay to mention the North Sea flood of 1953?
That again is in the book and apparently also did not happen. Be warned the climate court acts outside the normal rules of law and any reference to such events make you a climate denier and liable to a heavy sentence.
They actually believe they can predict with any meaningful accuracy a temperature in Exeter in 2090? They actually write this stuff and don’t say “hang on, really?”
Its beyond laughable.
As for the modeling, claiming they can make probabilistic estimates that are meaningful is just lies. They have no way of doing that, literally. They are just running inaccurate models and seeing how many times something happens. That is not probability. It is just the model. These people are so far from reality it’s a bit scary. They are utterly deluded about what they are doing and what it means.
“new probabilistic projections” I think that means more new guesswork. These guys are in the same area as fortune tellers and astrologers. They get paid for all this.
I predict that when the Met Office gets its new £1.2 billion super computer in 2022 their predictions will become even more extreme.
And more expensive!
Um, from the exceptionally not extreme recent past? I would use slightly less benign in future, as a phrase.
I would still not believe them.
This extra rainfall we’re promised, does the Met Office Prognostications Dept not read the Grauniad?
The UK Met Office is in the World Meteorolgical Organsation, IPCC, UNEP, BBC rich people’s club. No evidence of ‘global warming’ so the message became ‘climate change’ and ‘extreme weather.’ Follow the money because that is where the power is to propagate the message at national and international levels and preserve and increase poverty for the powerless.
Is the UK Met Office the same group of people who told the New York Times back in early 1996 that the global mean temperature had risen to 58.72°F by the end of 1995? That’s not even as warm as it was in 2016.
The Met Office algorithm is probably worse than the ones used to predict exam results, China Virus deaths and hosing needs. I think the public is becoming aware of how bad algorithms are, and yet 6 months ago Joe Public had never heard of an algorithm.
What the Met Office don’t tell you is that only the 25km grid “probabilistic projections” in UKCP18 incorporate the full range of RCPs from 2.6 to 8.5. They are risk assessments only, covering the full range of uncertainty and can hardly be described as ‘science’, more like statistical jiggery-pokery. The global (60km) and regional (12km and 2,2km) projections which narrow the uncertainty are run only for the high end RCP8.5 scenario. So any projection of weather (or is it climate?) extremes derived from them is going to be highly unrealistic.
Click to access UKCP18-Overview-report.pdf
They are still using RCP8.5! ??
Best use for that paper is in the bottom of a parakeet enclosure.
And October 4th was the UK’s wettest day on record. The Met Office blog is all over this. And Aberdeenshire got the worst of it. I actually struggled to remember unusual weather that day, I had to check my calendar to jog my memory and yes indeed I do now recall choosing not to cycle to work that day, and indeed there were some quite large puddles in evidence. And looking back at the news that day some gardens were flooded… Kinda puts “extreme” weather into perspective.
I noted that on 3rd, 4th and 5th October it rained and drizzled for most of the time. I had less than 50mm of rain in total over the 3 days and my river never rose by more than a foot. When we have really heavy rain, it can quickly rise by over 6ft. Nothing extreme occurred here.
What motivates the Met Office to behave like this? Is it to justify taxpayer funding? Or endemic leftyism? What will happen when the globe cools? The ‘climate change’ segments of their website are a disgrace,
It’s like they’re trying to convince their sad selves that all the climate nonsense is really true.
How else can it try to justify demands for ever-more-powerful computers, if it can’t create anxiety?
I see the previously mentioned wettest UK day evah(!) claim for 3rd October 2020 was by a whopping 1.9mm!
Oxford was at the epicenter of the deluge in England, Radcliffe recorded 60mm that day, with a quick visual scroll of the Oxford data I found 87.9mm on 10th July 1968 (there may have been wetter) so it wasn’t even the wettest day in Oxford by a long way.
Now I realise local thunderstorms and countrywide rain are not the same thing (although it appears that that July was pretty wet widely), but there is no way they are using entirely the same set of weather stations in the exact same locations and the exact same instruments and methods in 1986 and 2020 to generate a countrywide average rainfall figure, so it can’t be a very reliable claim – to less than 2mm averaged over the whole UK?
And there’s dozens of criteria and ways to juggle the figures and declare the wettest day.
They are just creating stories to feed the narrative.
Just remember the wettest day EVAH, was when not a single measuring station reported a record days rainfall.
You could not make it up.
I tried to find out how the Met Office’s Dr Mark McCarthy actually worked it all out. Well they use The United Kingdom Meteorological Office rainfall and evaporation calculation system: MORECS version 2.0 (I think)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26434764_The_United_Kingdom_Meteorological_Office_rainfall_and_evaporation_calculation_system_MORECS_version_20_-_An_overview
This gives the number and locations of rainfall stations, and then apparently they use “objective interpolation” to obtain a grid square average (there are 190, 40km X40km grids) , then they arrive at a number.
I am sure there are large uncertainty bands for such an approach, but who cares about that!
Dr Mark McCarthy is a leading light in “climate change attribution” so I would be surprised if he said anything different. However on the Met Office blog he never once mentions climate change, but in the media and particularly the BBC his words seem rather to have been altered.
“Just remember the wettest day EVAH, was when not a single measuring station reported a record days rainfall.”
Obviously not in this case, as I said, but it could be, or any other combination of criteria/definitions/combinations/calculations the imagination can conjure up for a headline.
Anyway you seem to confirm their UK wide average is just some sort of a guess/model/calculation and as such it should have an error margin quoted, more than 2mm?
I don’t think the lack of mention of climate change is significant, there’s a very palpable tacit implication and all the other ‘unnecessary’ mentions of extremes, and then like a game of tag, it’s handed over to the likes of the Guardian and BBC to sex it up to 11.
As we saw:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54561601
McGrath asks McCarthy if it’s climate change and we get the usual, ‘we can’t say but it definitely is’ nudge nudge wink wink, response.
Greatly appreciate your data oriented analysis. Here is some additional information on the extreme weather event issue you may like.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/10/18/climate-change-causes-extreme-weather-events/
Drier, wetter,
Hotter, cooler,
whatever you will get
Iit’ll be windier yet!
this is the word and the creed of the office of wet.
with no regret,
Long ago,
dey’ve given up doing met.
Who cares if it scans,
they’re more likely bovvered by trrans,
they only make emissions
according to multculti ideological supersitions.
Have we, as a nation, not seen through these modelers yet? Surely Ferguson and his cohort have shown what a bunch of charlatans populate the whole modeling community. Yet the Met Office is still being funded to churn this rubbish out. Models are useful tools for proper scientists to use to investigate concepts – not as a means to an end; and, although great Maths, definitely not Science. How do we debunk these idiots once and for all?
On another post I asked if anyone can tell me how much rain fell in autumn 1976? After the long hot summer, whose days included many over 30C, stand pipes, water bowsers, the Doom of winter water rationing vanished very quickly and reservoirs brimmed. Denis Howells was transformed from the minister for drought to minister for floods. It must have been a fair amount to saturate the ground again and top up the supplies. There was no shortage in the north east with our reservoirs and tunnel systems that year.
Anyone wondering about the consequences of Marxists dominating third level education has their answer now.
The Met is only one of a staggering number of institutions taken over by drones repeating the party line.
Marx would roll in his grave to hear these people described as ‘Marxists.’ They may consider themselves as such, but securing tax payers’ money by telling lies and using algorithms to do it isn’t very Marx-like. Where’s the material evidence-based structural analysis?
It would make an interesting research topic to find out why the Met Office lies about climate and weather.
It must be endemic in the company the same way that socialism is endemic at the BBC. It is unlikely that anyone would want to work there who did not believe in the climate religion so there is groupthink going on. I have read that the MetO were one of the main organisations tasked with providing data to prove the IPCC claims but I don’t think we have seen the outright fraud the likes of BOM, NOAA and NASA commit from the MetO bar their fake record claims. Getting more funding must be right up there so they can maybe employ more disciples and certainly get yet another taxpayer funded super computer.
They no doubt bask in the celebrity status and the awards such a Slingo being made a dame that come with it. Their egos must gleam from so much polishing. There must be some who are like some of the best liars – Blair for example, Mann is another – who are so committed that they believe their own lies so they think they are telling the truth. then there will be those who believe they are doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, or believe it is the right thing to do regardless.
Politics pure and simple. Met Office governed by BEIS. Minister for BEIS, Alok Sharma, is responsible for Glasgow COP https://www.ukcop26.org/
“The climate talks will be the biggest international summit the UK has ever hosted; bringing together over 30,000 delegates including heads of state, climate experts and campaigners to agree coordinated action to tackle climate change.
The challenge is not insignificant, but we must step up to it to save the environment we all live in. The UN Climate Change process is central to that collective action.”
The Met Office used to be part of the MOD with considerable Defra involvement. This DEFRA staff document was self-congratulatory relating to the Nobel Prize award for IPCC and Al Gore: http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/news/2007/December/Defra-IPCC.aspx
It had these comments:
“Defra provides financial support to the co-chairs and their supporting secretariats. As such the UK has provided underpinning funding for almost one-third of the major scientific reports produced by the IPCC, which the Nobel committee believes have “created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming.”
The nature of UK climate research is described here: randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=GA01012_6499_FRP.doc
“The Climate Prediction Programme was not an academic research programme; its work plan and deliverables was driven by Defra’s requirements for science to inform UK government policy on climate change mitigation and adaptation. As the policy requirements changed, so did the research programme objectives.
The Met Office will focus on research that contributes to UK government policy objectives and will communicate the results to government and the public.”
The civil service link of course no longer exists, but I included it to show where the quote came from.
The climate position adopted by the Met Office has been the totally unopposed understanding of all of our political parties. So, we can only assume that wherever this trail of deceit has been orchestrated it is a common understanding between all the people who govern this country. Unless, that is, it is another case of PHE England and its deleterious handling of the Covid outbreak. As a government, you believe that the NGOs have their focus entirely founded in reality and are working assiduously for the common good. That may hold true as long as no problems arise. The trusted body, wreathed in technical data that the State finds impenetrable is therefore, hitherto, impervious to challenge and is depended upon. Even despite NHS failings and those of PHE, the dependency on both has become so overwhelming that there is no alternative. The best we can is to shield both so their failings do not become overwhelming. Would a private healthcare system turn away patients, its profit? We are governed on all sides by unqualified individuals for whom a ‘Greats’ degree may make them splendid, articulate and nerveless creatures; it hardly qualifies them to have the skills of leaders in business who seek bangs per bucks and not fire buckets for damp squibs.
An excellent account of the historical evolution of anti-CO2 can be found in Bernie Lewin’s ‘Searching for the Catastrophe Signal’ pub by GWPF. Clearly defines how the ”environmentalists’ pushed the agenda to influence governments’ policies well before the scientists had any evidence. Also, remember The Limits to Growth’ by the wealthy members of the Club of Rome who influenced Maurice Strong, and all helped by the media forever seeking apocalypses.
My message to the Met Office – How dare you!!!