How Those Rainfall Projections Turned Out
By Paul Homewood
A final look at how those UKCP09 climate projections worked out, with a look at rainfall:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/adapting-to-climate-change-uk-climate-projections-2009
According to the “experts” at the Met Office, summer rainfall was forecast to decline sharply, down by 17 to 23% by the 2080s. Even by now, for instance, rainfall in the SW should already be 7% down.
It turns out that the clowns could not even get the sign right! Average summer rainfall is actually 10% higher then the 1961-90 baseline, and it is also at a similar level to the mid 20thC, showing little signs of a long tern decline.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadukp/data/seasonal/HadEWP_seasonal_totals.txt
They also forecast large increases in winter rainfall of over 20% in much of England and Wales.
At least they managed to get the sign right this time, as winter rainfall has increased very slightly, up by 6%. But there is little indication of this increase being sustained, and current long term averages are barely higher than they were in the early 20thC:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadukp/data/seasonal/HadEWP_seasonal_totals.txt
Is this the best the Met Office can do?
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
t the end of the LIA it appears that summers were wetter and winters drier than now.
On the best prediction of tomorrow’s weather I know and without the aid of computers or satellites, it’ll be very similar to today. Then the next decade’s weather will be similar to this decade’s. So summers will be drier and winters wetter than the early 19th century
With expensive supercomputers you can churn garbage out faster.
But how many people realize that the Met Office has been “captured” and now is a propaganda outlet for the climatageddonistas?
How can any public institution exists which is not accountable for it’s behaviour and output?
Where is the accountability for when they get it wrong? That alone would rein in the activist “scientists”.
Currently there are no questions asked or penalties when their activist predictions of doom are not realized. WHY NOT?
I guess many might still think it is part of the MoD but it was last seen in BEIS and is now no doubt in the Nut Job Zero department.
When I started as a climate observer in the 1960s the MO was part of the MOD, they were brilliant and very appreciative of the voluntary work. The MO no longer want any soil temperatures because they do not know what they are used for… No further comment necessary.
I am just reading Steve Koonin’s book “Unsettled” again. I read this last night
“Practitioners argue that event attribution studies are the best climate science can do in terms of connecting weather to changes in climate. But as a physical scientist, I’m appalled that such studies are given credence, much less media coverage. A hallmark of science is that conclusions get tested against observations. But that’s virtually impossible for weather attribution studies. It’s like a spiritual adviser who claims her influence helped you win the lottery—after you’ve already won it. The only way to test that extraordinary claim would be to play the lottery many times with her help (no doubt at considerable cost!) and see if you win more than expected. Data is the touchstone of science; the only solid way to test weather event attribution is to see whether the statistical properties of extreme events have changed—which would eliminate the need for attribution studies in the first place.”
Koonin, Steven E.. Unsettled (p. 99). BenBella Books. Kindle Edition. place.
But then Dr. Koonin is a real scientist, although far from sceptical and an advisor to Pres. Obama he seeks truth and balance not confirmation bias.
Attribution studies are embarrassing. An event occurs so is 100% certain to occur yet they babble about it going “twice as likely”. Twice what, 100%? They misuse Bayesian methodologies which are anyway nor suitable for what they are trying to do.
Has the Met Office never heard of GIGO?
Yes – that’s what they are ‘experts’ in.
Why do we still overpay the clowns at the Met. Office rather closing down the whole charade ? Would anyone notice ?
Any MetO ‘projection’ of more than a few days, i.e. all of them, can be filed under propaganda.
Climate projections are for entertainment purposes only.
They could at least provide free horoscopes with their predictions, to give you something of value.
Am I reading their forecasts right?
For the 2020s, projections (weasel word) are -26% to +14%?
So essentially no change. Or maybe down. Or maybe up. Same for the 2040s hut a might higher range – -35% to +11%. Using the mean of forecasts with a range this huge that civer both higher and lower is appallingly bad. Complete nonsense.
As the late great Hans Rosling used to point out, when asking a group of PhDs to estimate, for example, the number of babies that women in Bangladesh have on average, “a group of chimpanzees randomly selecting the answer would have been more accurate”. At least, in this example, the Met Office got one right (sort of) out of two, so, to give them credit, they did no worse than a group of chimps would have done.
We know their 2009 forecast failed but don’t know how the future will turn out. If the past is any indication, in the future UK rainfall will continue to vary up and down on decadal timescales.
In 2009, your Met Office took a end-of-20th Century England and Wales drying and projected it going forward (much like the CliSciFi models do for parametrization). It now appears they are using the early 21st Century wetting and projecting that forward. Have they ever discussed historical variations?
The evidence published in this and other posts about the duplicity of the MO has put them at a loss as to how to react. The absence of any sign of negative responses from them here leads me to one of two conclusions:
1. They can’t be bothered because they think we’re not worth the effort, or,
2. They don’t want to put up a defence because it, rather like their projections, ‘could’ be proven wrong.
People like this hate publicity they have no control over.
If you say the weather tomorrow will be the same as today, you will be right about 75% of the time. The MetOffice spent billions on a supercomputer to be right 81% of the time. That’s gotta be value for money!!
All forms of religion begin with a set of axiomatic beliefs, and the Met Office appears to be no exception.
The Marxists, Communists, Left wingers , Radical Socialists – call them what you like – colonised the schools first , then the universities, then the media, then the civil service and politics and the medical profession, then the scientific community – now even the Catholic Church and the Vatican! They control all the levers and can do and say exactly what they like.
There’s a bit of an AMO signal in England summer rainfall, wetter during a warmer AMO. And given that the AMO is normally warmer during centennial solar minima, the Sun and not CO2 must be in control.