Skip to content

Met Office Sink To New Lows

February 20, 2014

By Paul Homewood





It has been so entirely predictable. The wettest winter ever! The Met Office have been drooling over this with almost daily updates for the last few weeks.


Yet nowhere have we heard that in the winter of 1929/30, rainfall between November and January was substantially higher with 68mm more than the current claim for December through February. Now, I wonder why they have not bothered to mention this fact?

I do realise that, technically, “winter” runs from Dec-Feb. But this has no relevance at all when looking at rainfall over the wettest part of the year, Oct – Feb.

Of course, it might be possible that in the next few days that the 1929/30 total might be beaten. But surely a supposedly independent and objective outfit like the Met Office would at least wait a couple of weeks to ascertain the true facts.

Indeed, all the more so when the station rainfall data since October is still “provisional”.





I’ll do so more analysis tomorrow, but it looks as if they’re are plenty more wetter 3-month periods in the 19thC for the England & Wales series. But, for now, it appears as if this is no more than politicised propaganda from our (supposedly) objective Met Office.

They may not be ashamed of themselves, but I certainly am.

  1. Mark Rubin permalink
    February 21, 2014 2:18 am

    Do they answer the telephone? Perhaps the tactic needed is more than having the truth of science on our side and a sense of obligation to see it is to upheld. Perhaps a more in your face, extreme public discourse is needed. Is that not how the radicals went about usurping not only the AGW debate but scientific integrity itself? Publish the phone number and I will call myself. Arm me with facts, for unlike the opponents I do not want my outrageous public displays and improper conduct to have the added burden and embarrassment of being fictitious. But I can act, I have emotions, I can let my right brain have its say while at the same time maintain executive function and store/retrieve accurate left brain scientific fact that together will combine to blow these purposeful liars into the trash can of history.

  2. Neil Hampshire permalink
    February 21, 2014 3:43 am

    The Met Office are referring to the whole of the UK when they talk of records being broken.

    • Agnostic permalink
      February 21, 2014 11:42 am

      Maybe the odd record has been broken in specific places, but it’s not been the wettest where I live in East Anglia. Another example of “averaging” not really telling the whole story.

  3. February 21, 2014 9:53 am

    The BBC are naturally running an item about the “record” rainfall, but much of the footage relates to coastal storms, which is not directly related to rainfall.

    I suspect that much of the excess rain is the result of the distribution of rainfall, including rain falling on land instead of falling on the sea, which is largely a matter of chance.

    Since as far as i am aware, we have no long-term records of rainfall at sea, we have no idea whether overall rainfall is changing.

  4. Laurence permalink
    February 21, 2014 11:57 am

    This from the Met Office website [my italics]:

    Climate change [academia definition: the pursuit of funding]

    Climate change has become [so to speak] an increasingly important issue and our research continues to create an ever clearer [tomorrow morning’s weather predictions notwithstanding] picture of how it will affect the planet and our lives [the planet is not happy]. This plays a vital role in [i.e. we are in the business of] providing evidence to support [unsubstantiated] climate predictions which show the planet is now locked into at least 2 °C of warming [seriously] and rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions [by a small, largely service sector economy in north western Europe] are required to ensure this does not rise further for future generations [please, I emplore you to think of my children].

    With this in mind [got all that pleb?], we have been providing tailored advice and services for a range of clients to help them begin adapting to the consequences of climate change. [Here, mate, psst…wanna’ score some of this here merchandise; ‘course it’s kosher pal, would I lie to you?.] This has included projects focusing on defence, transport, energy, water supply, defence, flooding, health, and a host of other issues [look, I’ll be honest, we’ll do anything, anything]. We will continue to use our expertise to further understanding of climate change [this is our big thing and we’re not letting go of our house in the Cotswolds and we like our stays in the South of France and Jilly’s boarding school doesn’t pay for itself you know and and….], as well as offering advice on how to mitigate the risks and adapt to its consequences.

  5. dave ward permalink
    February 21, 2014 12:27 pm

    Even if you do accept their “records broken” figure, it’s a paltry 1.7mm over the 1995 high, or an increase of about one third of a per cent. Hardly something to get worried about…

  6. mkelly permalink
    February 21, 2014 4:02 pm

    So they were wrong about the forecast and now they are wrong about the record they did not see coming. How many times can you be wrong in one outing.

  7. Brian H permalink
    February 25, 2014 4:34 am

    Edit: “I’ll do so more analysis tomorrow, but it looks as if they’re are plenty more ”
    some more
    there are

    Don’t compete with them.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: