Skip to content

So what about 1929, Julia?

February 9, 2014

By Paul Homewood




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 others, but the report itself concludes “In 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).


Oct – Nov  
1929 286
1960 294
2000 322
Nov – Dec  
1914 281
1929 340
2000 277
Dec – Jan  
1914/15 276
1929/30 280


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



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.





It is somewhat encouraging that Slingo and her colleagues at the Met Office are starting to realise that weather patterns are far too complex to simplistically attribute to “melting Arctic ice”, or “global warming”.

A better understanding of what drives changes in the jet stream, the QBO, and a host of other factors, can only help us in anticipating future weather patterns. To do this, though, needs an acceptance that similar events have happened in the past, and that such events may give us a clue as to what is happening now, and will inevitably happen again in the future.

Where, for instance, is the recognition that 1929/30 had a much longer and wetter spell? And where is the analysis of of what drove the weather then? What, if any, are the similarities between the two years?

It is disappointing then to read the Met Office press release saying:

More research is urgently needed to deliver robust detection of changes in storminess and daily/hourly rain rates and this is an area of active research in the Met Office. The attribution of these changes to anthropogenic global warming requires climate models of sufficient resolution to capture storms and their associated rainfall.

Surely to do science properly, they should be looking to understand what drives weather patterns, regardless of the causes. To start out by attempting to “attribute changes to AGW” is likely to skew results towards their preconceptions, and will undoubtedly lead to a poorer understanding of the Earth’s climate as so many other natural mechanisms will be ignored.

Meanwhile, Julia Slingo goes for the cheap headline.




It is clear that this report has been an extremely rushed affair. Certainly, even at the end of December, there was no indication of anything unusual at all with rainfall totals. This would imply that the report was probably not started until two or three weeks ago.

If they had wanted to do a full, proper study, it should, of course, have taken months to get all the data in, and analyse it effectively. So, why was it rushed out so quickly?

Was it commissioned for political reasons, and if so by whom, the Government or the Met Office?

And what agenda lay behind it? Was it merely another attempt by Slingo and co to blame it all on global warming? Or did the Government want to cover its back, over its failure to deal effectively with the floods?

I would also question just when it was decided to link everything back to the warm pool in the Western Pacific. I have good reason to ask this question, because, on 7th Jan, the Met Office issued a press release about the polar vortex over America. This made absolutely no mention at all of any link to the Western Pacific. It all rather gives the impression of being made up on the spur of the moment.



N.B. Why is there no mention at all of the sun?

  1. mitigatedsceptic permalink
    February 9, 2014 9:37 pm

    “Surely to do science properly, they should be looking to understand what drives weather patterns, regardless of the causes?” But their brief is NOT to do science properly – it is to attribute adverse climate events to human activities. She’s just doing her job!

  2. February 10, 2014 9:57 am

    “This Outlook provides an indication of possible temperature and rainfall conditions over the next 3 months. It is part of a suite of forecasts designed for contingency planners”

    It seems to me that at least part of the problem the winter has been the complete FAILURE of the Met. Office to forecast the heavy rain,

    Clearly the M.O. are incapable of forecasting “unexpected” events which means the the forecast is not fit for purpose. If they cannot forecast such events then it would be better if the didn’t attempt to do so as it may give the contingency planners a false sense of security.

    Julia Slingo should be called upon to explain this latest failure and I would have thought that it would be almost a resignation issue.

    Unfortunately the 3 month outlook is so well hidden that much of the media may not know of it’s existence.

  3. Bill permalink
    February 10, 2014 11:32 am

    This is the kind of shady double-speak I would expect from a car showroom salesman, not a ‘chief scientist’ at a powerful institution such as the UK Met Office. We have our future king riding shotgun, sniping at anyone who dares to question the AGW doctrine. Dozens of so called climatologists telling us that their particular brand of science is now settled. Maybe they should all be made redundant considering all the climate science is now settled, because we now have no further use for them. When Gore talks about 2,000 climatologists backing AGW, maybe he’s referring to the 2,000 scientists that the Met Office brag about using to procure their useless weather forecasts? I think Slingo should be made to sit opposite social media expert Pamela Meyer, and see if she can fool her into thinking that she’s honest and truthful….may as well get Gore to sit in on this one too, see how he fares!

  4. February 10, 2014 1:44 pm

    No one has the backbone to stand up and call Slingo to account. Just as Chris Smith and Barbara Young (neither deserver their titles) think they have no need to apologise or quit. Until we have a robust system of accountability in politics we get what we deserve in a way.

    There are many scientists studying all manner of physical phenomena and data, from past weather patterns to galactic influences on our planet. The only thing the all have in common is the knowledge that man activities and in particular CO2 emissions have very little to do with Climate. And Climate is not weather, no matter how extreme, as Pauls blog continuously reminds us.

    Unfortunately for the world science became a prisoner of government during the second world war and has remained there ever since. Today scientists make things up now when observations contradict their theories. The most obvious and glaring of these inventions being dark matter and dark energy, invented to explain why Newton’s laws of gravity don’t work in the cosmos. Similarly we see Slingo just making it up on the hoof. She is shamelessly using the misery in the Somerset levels and now elsewise in the UK to push a theory that the government is desperate to see succeed so that they can further control energy and by implication control the people. I can see no other reason for someone who has the audacity to call themselves a chief scientist to peddle such unscientific claptrap.

  5. February 10, 2014 2:52 pm

    So, how does today’s flooding compare with what happened in 1929, i wonder?

  6. February 10, 2014 6:24 pm

    Reblogged this on CraigM350 and commented:
    So it’s the wettest for 250 years or so for parts. Looking at that rough period (from Booty)
    1755, 1756 & 1758 All wet summers in the London area. More generally, April of 1756 was notably wet by the EWP series: amongst the top 3 such-named months. (See also 1782 and 1818).
    1763-1772(Summers) These years experienced wet summers, with an average for the period of 117% 1 1763 (Summer) A very wet summer across England & Wales. The anomaly is given by Lamb (in CHMW) as 181% of LTA (1916-1950), and he ranks it as the second wettest in the rain-gauge record. However, note that across Scotland, there are reports of a ‘Great drought’ during the summer of 1763 & differences north-to-south like this are quite common occurrences.
    Sounds like a southerly jetstream then too. It can only be co2.

  7. February 12, 2014 12:54 pm

    I don’t know much about “Click Green”, but the is a report there which suggest the 3-Month Outlook is getting more attention.


  1. Why Did The Met Office Predict A Dry Winter? | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)
  2. Government winter weather forecasts botched again | wryheat
  3. Why Did The Met Office Forecast A Dry Winter? | Deft News
  4. UK floods in context | Climate Etc.
  5. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: