0 out of 10 based on 0 rating
via JoNova
November 26, 2024 at 09:02AM
By Paul Homewood
The media really has lost its collective mind over so-called “Storm Bert”.
Even the normally level-headed Eamonn Holmes on GB News:
He made a comment about COP29, noting that people still don’t seem to have made the link between climate change and extreme weather.
Then the naive reporter in Pontypridd described the floods as “unprecedented”, (where on Earth do they get these useless reporters from?). He then went on to mention that the waters were 5mm deep when the river broke its banks – yes, you heard that right, 5mm, a whole 2 inches! And, by the time he got there, he said, the emergency shelters set up had already been closed because they were not needed.
We then had a soppy weathergirl on, explaining how these storms are getting wetter because of global warming.
Probably the silliest comment of all was that storms like Bert and the 1987 storm were becoming more frequent! Are they seriously conflating Bert, which had winds of about 40 mph at most away from exposed coasts, with the Great Storm of 1987?
Meanwhile, the BBC before and after photos showed how a riverside park in Cardiff was “engulfed in water”. A closer look at those goal posts, however, confirmed that the aforesaid floods were no more than an ankle deep puddle.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/ckg7w7xzrj3t?page=3
Unsurprisingly the facts tell a completely different story – that Bert was no more than the sort of weather we get every year, something most of the commenters seem to have realised, even if the presenters did not.
According to the BBC, the worst affected area was S Wales and SW England, with rainfall totals of around 160 to 170mm of rain over the two days of the storm. This led to the usual “month’s worth of rain” nonsense.
However these amounts were all in upland areas in S Wales and Dartmoor, where rainfall is typically much heavier. White Barrow, for instance, is at an altitude of 486m.
But taking the region of SW England & S Wales as a whole, rainfall on Saturday totalled 29.66mm, with another 17.42mm the next day.
The KNMI chart below only goes to March 2022, but it is crystal clear that a daily total of 29mm is not in any way exceptional. In all, there have been 40 days with 29mm or more since 1931. The wettest day was in 1969, when 57.9mm fell, and the graph clearly gives the lie to the Met Office’s assertion that storms are carrying more rainfall now.
Most storms, of course, don’t drop all their rain neatly in a single calendar day. The 2-day total from Bert was 47mm, an amount often exceeded in the past.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadukp/data/daily/HadSWEP_daily_totals.txt
Far from the rainfall being extraordinary, the flooding was undoubtedly exacerbated by the melting of the heavy snow which fell a few days earlier. Given that snow is supposedly a thing of the past, these sort of floods should be less of a problem in future. I wonder why the Met Office forgot to mention that?
There is an interesting comparison with November 1931, when 50.5mm fell on the 3rd in the region. This is the monthly report:
.
Totals of 244mm in the Brecons, nearly all within 36 hours, were considerable higher than the 174mm that fell last weekend.
The flooding was serious, with Derwentwater and Bassenthwaite joining together.
As well as the South West, the North West was also severely hit, suggesting a much bigger storm footprint.
Silly Names
More than once, I came across comments in the media about Storm Dennis, which hit the same area of Wales in 2020. The message was clear – these storms must be getting more frequent.
I think this sums up exactly why the Met Office started naming storms. They wanted storms to remain in the public memory, in order to perpetuate the myth.
And what better way than to give every one a name.
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
November 26, 2024 at 08:29AM
The Carbon Brief (TCB) recently put an interactive web page online titled: Mapped: How climate change affects extreme weather around the world. However, the web page gives a false impression that TCB is using actual data showing how climate change is affecting severe weather. It is not. Instead, TCB relies heavily on so-called “attribution studies” which use climate model simulations and estimates. Output from climate models is not the same as actual data, which debunks TCB’s webpage.
TCB’s interactive feature page on attribution studies presents a comprehensive overview of “attribution” research linking climate change to extreme weather events. While the compilation is extensive, it is essential to approach such narratives with a critical eye, especially when considering the broader context of severe weather trends and the methodologies employed in these studies.
Attribution studies aim to determine the extent to which claimed human-induced climate change influences specific weather events. These studies often utilize climate models to compare real-world scenarios with hypothetical situations devoid of the models (modelers) assumed estimates of human impact. The reliability of these models is unverifiable and to the extent their outputs have been tested against real world data and historical events and trends, they have failed. As highlighted by Climate At A Glance, climate models have historically exhibited significant discrepancies when compared to observed temperature data, raising questions about their predictive accuracy.
Contrary to the prevalent narrative, empirical data does not support the claim that severe weather events are becoming more frequent or intense. For instance, Climate Realism points out that despite increased media coverage, data indicates no significant upward trend in the frequency or severity of hurricanes, tornadoes, or floods over the past several decades. As discussed in several Climate at a Glance papers, data shows floods, hurricanes, instances of extreme heat or cold, tornadoes, and wildfires have not increased over the past century, much less over the past 30 years. This strongly suggests that the perception of worsening weather may be more attributable to heightened awareness, reporting, and the mainstream media’s uncritical promotion of attribution studies themselves, rather than actual changes in weather patterns.
The perception of escalating severe weather is often amplified by media coverage and technological advancements. In a 2011 article on Watts Up With That, it was noted that the proliferation of instant communication tools and 24/7 news cycles has led to more immediate and widespread reporting of weather events. A follow up article in 2017, Reporting bias and the “increase” in weather events in the US, noted the same issues.
This increased visibility can create a false impression of rising frequency and severity, even when statistical data demonstrates no such trends.
Attribution studies rely on climate models to simulate scenarios with and without estimates of human influence. However, these models are inherently limited by the assumptions and parameters set by researchers. The main problem is that attribution models, and the studies generated using them, assume what they are attempting to prove. Attribution studies start with the assumption that for any extreme weather event being “modeled,” climate change has affected, impacted, or caused it, the only question being how much influence climate change has had. As discussed on Climate At A Glance, the fallibility of climate models is evident in their inability to accurately replicate observed climate patterns, casting doubt on their utility in attribution studies.
While TCB’s interactive page on attribution studies offers some insights into ongoing climate research, it’s important to discern that what they are presenting is not rooted in actual data, but in computer model output.
Actual empirical data does not support the narrative of increasing numbers of severe weather events or increasing severity of such events, and the methodologies employed in attribution studies have notable failures and bias. Moreover, the amplified media perception of worsening weather is often a byproduct of enhanced reporting capabilities rather than actual climatic changes. As such, TCB does a grave disservice to readers by not addressing these issues and limitations, and by falsely presenting model outcomes as fact.
via Watts Up With That?
November 26, 2024 at 08:05AM
57.66093 -2.52066 Met Office CIMO Assessed Class 4 (IT IS NOT) Installed 1/1/1998
In reviewing the surprisingly poor Western Isles Harris:Quidnish weather station, I contrasted its temperature profile with that of the Scottish east coast site of Banff. I thus decided a review of Banff would be appropriate….what a shock that proved to be! That red kite mark above indicates the Stevenson screen alongside the ten parked cars. Quality control? You ain’t seen nothing yet!
It is fairly obvious that if there is no security at all around a weather station then it will not be secure. No perimeter fencing means there is literally nothing to stop anything, or anyone, to compromise the site’s readings. Instalation guidance notes specify “The site should be adequately protected to exclude entry by unauthorised persons”
Are Met Office inspectors unable to assimilate the blatantly obvious? The headline photograph clearly shows cars parking alongside the screen. Historic Google Earth images indicate this is a regular occurrence. And what does the Met Office falsely claim about its sites? {My bold}
“To ensure consistency of measurements in the records, weather stations must meet strict criteria, in alignment with meteorological organisations across the world. This includes specific standards on the levels of grass-cover within the observations area, as well as having enough clear space for the weather station to be free from the influence of non-meteorological factors on the readings.” (Talkshop comment – what “observations area”?)
The above claim is clearly a falsehood. Multiple tens of sites have nothing whatsoever to ensure they are ” free from the influence of non-meteorological factors on the readings.” Banff is demonstrably a classic example among many others already reviewed and many more to come.
A closer look at this site further indicates just how badly sited it really is. Was there a problem moving it 10 metres forward or would that spoil the overflow car parking?
Recalling Harris:Quidnish the above image orientates north/south and again the screen sits just to the front of a south facing wall. The greensward to the front and side being the regular golf club patron’s overflow parking area. Another angle view demonstrates the proximity of this south facing heat sink wall PLUS the car exhausts potentially warming it up from the other side. The distance from hot car engines (extraneous heat sources) to the screen is most readily measured in centimetres NOT metres.
Clearly this site is so absurdly compromised by extraneous heat sources that it would be reasonable to assume it could never have been worse. That would be a WRONG assumption
Below is what this site used to look like until recently.
With “Leaning Tower of Pisa” levels of uprightness, slats long missing on its south elevation and way beyond anything a “lick of paint” could remedy, this is actually A TYPICAL EXAMPLE of the condition many official Met Office weather stations are usually in. In front of a regulation south facing wall with cars parked to the rear, and often alongside and in front, this is the standard the Met Office regularly offers up……..but it is, allegedly, regularly inspected and maintained to the highest possible standards(?). The Met Office is quite demonstrably being somewhat economical with the truth. This weather station is unacceptable.
Yet despite this sort of abysmal standard the Met Office is operating to, the general public are expected to accept their “data” is accurate – it so often is not. The public deserve better than this wholly unacceptable dross.
If this review seems unusually harsh I point out the following – I have so far published about 75 site reviews but researched hundreds more. There are very many much worse sites out there than Banff or Harris:Quidnish. I have over a further 250 reviews to complete – many get much worse than this.
The Met Office remains silent – I will not be.
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
November 26, 2024 at 04:26AM
