Scientists link Britain’s extreme weather to climate change

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Scientists link Britain’s extreme weather to climate change

LONDON—Britain’s weather service says it sees the tentacles of climate change in a spate of storms and floods battering the country, but has stopped short of saying warming directly caused the extreme storms.

The latest round of bad weather hit Britain’s west coast Wednesday with winds gusting at more than 160 km/h.

The Met Office said in a paper published this week that “there is no definitive answer” on the role played by climate change in the recent weather and floods.
But it said there is “an increasing body of evidence that extreme daily rainfall rates are becoming more intense,” probably due to a warming world.

Met Office chief scientist Julia Slingo told the BBC that “all the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change.”

The Met office study discusses evidence of increasingly extreme weather events and changes in the jet stream, but it does not say global warming caused the flooding. To do that, scientists take months, sometimes years, to conduct detailed computer simulations — and the report said such research was needed in this case.

England had its wettest January since records were first kept almost 250 years ago, and the country has been lashed by wind and rain since December.

Resulting floods have drenched the southwestern coast of England, the low-lying Somerset Levels and the Thames Valley, west of London, where hundreds of properties have been swamped as the river burst its banks this week.

The Met Office issued a highest-level red warning of “exceptionally strong winds” Wednesday for west Wales and northwest England.

It said a gust of 170 km/h was recorded at Aberdaron in northwestern Wales.

The Met Office said gusts could cause widespread structural damage and loss of power. Railway operator Network Rail said the main west coast train line would close for about two hours Wednesday evening because of the wind.

Scientists link Britain’s extreme weather to climate change
 

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
45
48
65
Yeah...for a second there I thought you said Britain's 'extreme' weather was a result of 'global warming'. My mistake.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Here's the original:




Your pre-edited post made more sense.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,427
1,668
113
Met Office woman yesterday on Sky News: "There is no evidence to link this bad weather to climate change. Climate change would be a global phenomenon over a long period of time. There is not enough evidence to say that this short term localised event has anything to do with climate change.

The Met Office said in a paper published this week that “there is no definitive answer” on the role played by climate change in the recent weather and floods.

And even if the Met Office DOES believe that it's "climate change" it still means that climate change doesn't exist. The Met Office, like the government and the left wing press, is in thrall to the Great Global Warming Scam.

I think that settles the matter.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Of course there is no definitive answer.

They are saying there is an increasing body of evidence.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,427
1,668
113
Of course there is no definitive answer.

They are saying there is an increasing body of evidence.

Evidence based on what? Dodgy graphs from the University of East Anglia?

I should point on that the Met Office's weather predictions in recent years have been extremely inaccurate due to its being in thrall to the Great Climate Change Scam. It bases its predictions nowadays on the fact that it believes in "climate change", and so predicts weather that it believes "climate change" will cause, yet nearly all these predictions have been wrong.

It predicted a drought throughout the UK for 2012 as "a result of climate change". 2012 turned out to be one of the wettest years in the UK on record. There was one point we thought the Olympics would be a wash out.

And, you may not believe it, but it also predicted a dry winter for 2013/14, no doubt "due to climate change". Now there has been more rainfall at this time of year than there has been for years and the Met Office tries to blame it, yep, you've guessed it, on "climate change".

And what the Met Office hasn't yet pointed out (for obvious reasons) is that this weather in the UK is NOT unprecented and NOT very unusual.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,427
1,668
113



From the UK's Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a think tank whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropgenic global warming:

Why Did The Met Office Predict A Dry Winter?


Date: 10/02/14
Paul Homewood, Not A Lot Of People Know That


“All the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change”, says Julia Slingo. There is a slight problem though – the Met Office report she quotes , “The Recent Storms and Floods in the UK”, says no such thing at all.



What it does say is that recent weather events are linked to major perturbations to the Pacific and North Atlantic jet streams driven, in part, by persistent rainfall over Indonesia and the tropical West Pacific.”

The report speculates that this may all be connected to warmer waters in the Tropical West Pacific, without explaining what has, in turn, caused this.

I will leave this matter in the capable hands of others, but the report itself concludesIn terms of the storms and floods of winter 2013/2014, it is not possible, yet, to give a definitive answer on whether climate change has been a contributor or not.”

I would, though, leave the question – as these waters have been warmer for the last decade, a fact the report acknowledges, why have we not seen this particular jet stream phenomenon before?

(In passing, it is worth noting that there is no attempt to blame “melting Arctic ice”. Does this mean that theory is now in the garbage can?)

But what I am more interested in, as far as this post is concerned, is the question of how unusual this winter’s weather has been. The report points to how wet it has been in the last two months, but as even Slingo herself admits, it has not been unprecedented.

According to Met Office data, there have been eight other 2-month periods in England which have been wetter since 1910, than the last two months' total of 274mm. (The different England & Wales dataset, which dates to 1766, also shows that there were five years, prior to 1910, that also had higher 2-month totals : 1771, 1811, 1822, 1852 and 1877).

.....................................Precipitation mm
Oct – Nov
1929...................................286
1960...................................294
2000...................................322

Nov – Dec
1914..................................281
1929..................................340
2000..................................277

Dec – Jan
1914/15............................276
1929/30............................280


http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/datasets/Rainfall/date/England.txt

Note also that in 1914/15, 1929/30 and 2000/01, the high levels of rainfall extended over three months, not just two.

We sometimes get hung up about measuring rainfall in “seasonal blocks”, such as December to February. The reality, in the UK at least, is that the wettest months of the year are October through January. It seems logical, therefore, to use these four months when looking at trends, etc.


Over this full four month period, by far the wettest year was 1929/30. This latest period ranks only fourth, certainly exceptionally wet, but hardly “biblical”, as David Cameron has described it.

Equally relevant is the fact that the 10-year trend is, if anything, lower than much of the first half of the 20thC, and shows no sign of increasing. (Although, it is higher than the relatively dry interlude of the 1960’s and 70’s). If global warming really was leading to wetter winters, why have we not seen any sign of this yet?


Figure 1​



Figure 2​
Storminess

The report also addresses the issue of storms, but accepts that this winter has been no stormier than 1993. (It certainly would not compare, either, with 1991, the year of the Burns Day Storm, the first of 12 severe gales to hit the country in the space of 6 weeks).

It is also worth noting that the UK Climate Projections Report , issued in 2012, finds that:

Severe windstorms around the UK have become more frequent in the past few decades, although not above that seen in the 1920s.

Whereas it is not our purpose here to discuss detailed links between the NAO and storminess, it will be immediately apparent that the two stormiest periods in Figure 1.14, in the 1920s and 1990s, coincide with decades of sustained positive NAO index, whereas the least stormy decade, the 1960s, is a time when the smoothed NAO index was most negative.

There continues to be little evidence that the recent increase in storminess over the UK is related to man-made climate change.

3-Month Outlook



It is all very well for the Met Office to claim that they know the reason for the recent wet and stormy weather, but it is clear they knew no such thing last November, when they forecast the likely probability of a DRY winter. Certainly, the factors in the Pacific, that they now blame, were in play at the time. (If they were not, then they are just “weather”, and cannot be claimed to be linked to “climate change”).

None of this gives us much confidence in the Met Office’s ability to forecast more than a few days out. But it must surely also cast doubt on the worth of the latest report, which seems to be a rushed attempt to explain recent bad weather.


Why Did The Met Office Predict A Dry Winter? | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)
 
Last edited:

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,427
1,668
113
You're just as bad as the greenies with you charts and stuff.......


Who reads those anyway?

People need to read them. Otherwise this "climate change" nonsense will just carry on.

Whoever doesn't read it only won't only do because of the many inconvenient truths it contains. The Warmists aren't brave enough to read such articles.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
How does a dry season last year compromise the suggestion in the article?
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,427
1,668
113
How does a dry season last year compromise the suggestion in the article?

Typical Warmist. Confronted with STONE WALL EVIDENCE (the evidence is above if you want to look at it again) that this weather we are experiencing in Britain is NOT that unusual for Britain and there is, in fact, NO evidence that this non-unusual weather has anything to do with "climate change" and yet he still preaches climate change to the masses. I suppose Warmism is a difficult religion to shake off. That's what brainwashing does to you, I suppose.

 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
I asked a simple question (that you couldn't answer) and you followed up with a heated rant that looks like a post-war Russian propaganda piece.

And I'm the alarmist? rofl
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,427
1,668
113
I asked a simple question (that you couldn't answer) and you followed up with a heated rant that looks like a post-war Russian propaganda piece.

And I'm the alarmist? rofl


I bet you and your fellow Warmists daren't read that GWPF article, eh? Is that a post-war Russian propaganda piece, too?

When it comes to Russian propaganda and false data, the Warmists are the World Champions.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
I bet you and your fellow Warmists daren't read that GWPF article, eh? Is that a post-war Russian propaganda piece, too?

When it comes to Russian propaganda and false data, the Warmists are the World Champions.

Considering more people are becoming deniers, I disagree with your premise that those who promote any notion of AGW are champions of propaganda.