Skip to content

UK Weather Trends

September 23, 2015

Guest Post by Neil Catto.


Neil has been a senior meteorologist at Weather Research Ltd for the last 17 years, and is a fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society.




UK Weather, Misconceptions & Consequences 

For years we have been told, by such eminent organisations such as the UKMO that the Earth is warming due to man-made emission of CO2. We are also told the frequency and strength of storms is increasing because of man-made climate change. We will experience more flooding and more droughts, but I guess these will not occur at the same time!

The UK government has been duly informed by scientists from the UKMO that we are experiencing AGW on a dangerous scale due to emissions of man made CO2 produced by industrialisation. In 2008 the UK government introduced a bill in parliament called the Climate Change Act which limited emission of CO2 in-line with EU recommendations to prevent dangerous climate change. The EU says the UK has to cut it’s CO2 emissions by 80%. [Note – the original target was a 60% cut, in line with EU recommendations; it was Ed Miliband who went further to 80% with the urging of Bryony Worthington]

The UK government has taken measures to limit CO2 emissions by allowing installation of thousands of wind turbines and acres of solar panels to generate electricity. They have closed many coal fired power stations and have more cuts planned.

As a nation we have been teaching indoctrinating our children, for the last 20 years, about anthropogenic global warming (renamed climate change) and the drastic consequences this will incur for the world.

There have been many (hundreds, if not thousands as long as they mention AGW), studies by academics in the UK over the last 20 years as to the effect of climate change on many subjects. These include migration of birds, migration patterns of butterflies, how tree species are affected, and huge declines in populations of nearly every species you can think of.

My research involves study of how the weather affects living organisms from simple small molecules to complex humans. Since 1998 I have been collecting weather data from various sources on a daily basis for 27 locations geographically spread across the UK as part of my research. I use 10 of these locations as a reasonable representation of the UK climate (long term weather).

After Figure 1, which shows the 10 locations used for statistical analysis, there are 8 plots of UK daily weather patterns for pressure, temperature, wind speed, sunshine, rainfall volume and duration and relative humidity covering the last almost 17 years (6,153 days). The final plot Fig 9 is a natural index (N–Index) I have developed which includes gases, heat, photons, pressure and relative humidity. It shows strong correlations with photosynthetic growth, has strong correlation with human behaviour in terms of well-being and also strongly correlates with the natural influence of consumer behaviour.

Figure 10 shows a time series of the UKMO Central England Temperature CET.







Figure 2


Figure 3


Figure 4


Figure 5


Figure 6


Figure 7


Figure 8


Figure 9


Observations show us the weather over the last 17 years in the UK has been very stable. The predictions, or projections as they like to call them, made by the UKMO for the last 17 years, have been wrong on every aspect. There has been no rise in temperatures, no increase of storms (wind, pressure & rainfall), no increase of rainfall (volume or duration) connected to flooding, no increase in drought conditions, and we have seen snowfall every year, although the UKMO told us we wouldn’t.

Considering there has been a steady rise in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels over this period of time (1998-2015) and temperatures have been flat, one can consider the theory of >CO2 driving up temperatures is very weak. (CO2 is a gas, not as frequently described in MSM, NGOs and government circles as carbon which of course is a solid). As all climate change models use the >CO2 >temperature theory it is little wonder that all these models do not reflect the realty of observation.

Even the UKMO own data shows a flat temperature trend which extends to 26 years.



Fig 10 UKMO CET time series for the last 26 years



When making policy decisions about climate change in the UK would you use global data? Or would you use data which better represents the UK?

>CO2 increasing temperature theory is VERY WEAK, based on both UK and a global scale observations (global >18 years with no temperature trend increase). Yes, temperatures go up, we have been recovering from the little ice age since about 1650, but they also go down. If they go down and CO2 is still increasing where does that put their theory? I suggest in the bin.

In response to the predictions made by the UKMO, the UK government has drastically changed its energy generation policy. There has been a huge increase of UNRELIABLE wind and solar, and closure of reliable and inexpensive coal fire power stations. Because of the vast amount of subsidies given to wind and solar the cost of UK energy has risen greatly over the last decade. These decisions along with ridiculous strike price for the building of the new nuclear plant at Hinkley.

On the NHS web site is says CO2 levels only become dangerous to humans >3,000 ppm. With current levels at 398 ppm, we have a long way to go before CO2 becomes a dangerous gas to humans. CO2 has huge beneficial effects for the growth of plants. That is why, fruit and vegetable farmers pump CO2 into their greenhouses up to levels >1000 ppm to improve growth and yield.

Will the UK government abolish the Climate Change Act? It is a ruinous act for UK Plc.

Is the government going to remove subsidies for unreliable wind and solar energy, start fracking and negotiate reasonable strike rates for new nuclear power stations? Perhaps we can get back to reasonable process for our energy.

Every person born in the UK since 1989 (now aged 26) has never experienced a statistically significant increase of temperature. Which means all our children who have gone through the education system to graduate level and beyond has not experienced what they have been told indoctrinated is happening. Is the Government going to demand our education providers to teach proper science to our children about long term weather and climate change using observations and the scientific method and not just from invalid model outputs from a very weak, if not invalid theory? And is the government going to stop our education providers spouting continuous dire consequences which have never materialised based on computer projections and not proper science? People are not as stupid as our educators’ think they are.

Are academic institutions conducting research going to return to using real observations rather than invalid model predictions to understand how their studies are really affected? If they think climate change is the cause of a problem, then they are missing the real cause of the supposed problem.

Both our UK government and our educational establishments have been duped by a media which just wants sensationalism, particularly the BBC and NGOs whose motive appears to be far from their original aims. Our weather (short term) and climate (long term) is very stable. Not worth writing about really!

  1. September 23, 2015 10:23 am

    None of this will be news to readers of this blog, but can it be published in the “believers’ world?

    The “N” index looks very interesting, would certainly like to know more about that, is more available anywhere?

    • NeilC permalink
      September 23, 2015 2:22 pm

      I just wanted to get some real data out and hope some may pass this onto their MPs.

      If you get my email address from Paul, I provide you with more info about the N-Index.

  2. September 23, 2015 10:55 am

    Neil. Excellent (a couple of typos). Send a copy to all MPs and specifically to Amber Rudd. It won’t make any difference, but it will make you feel better and you can say you attempted to give them the truth to replace the propaganda they have been subjected to for many years.

    • NeilC permalink
      September 23, 2015 2:24 pm

      Thanks Phillip, Amber Rudd and my MP will be copied with the data,

  3. Bloke down the pub permalink
    September 23, 2015 11:29 am

    The selection of mostly coastal stations for the data may have had some effect on the stability of the readings.

    • September 23, 2015 11:40 am

      I was dubious of the large number of coastal locations, but given the nicely “simple” methodology, would it not be fairly easy to use 10 inland locations and see if any difference occurs? Or why not use them all? Were there reasons to exclude some?

    • NeilC permalink
      September 23, 2015 2:25 pm

      Most of them are quite a few miles from the coast. But taking Birmingham alone shows wxactly the same trends

  4. September 23, 2015 12:38 pm

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News.

  5. Eliza permalink
    September 23, 2015 1:03 pm

    This is a VIP posting due to authors qualifications. Should be sent to ALL mainstream UK, US Australia, Europe ect. media with authors consent I presume.

  6. A C Osborn permalink
    September 23, 2015 1:34 pm

    This is a great post, addition of more inland sites would make it even better.

  7. Jackington permalink
    September 23, 2015 1:35 pm

    How refreshing to read some home truths. However, I can just hear the reaction of the “Concensus” :-

    1. This guy is only a weather forecaster what does he know about it?
    2. He is only talking about weather not climate.
    3. What happens to the weather in the UK does not reflect the global situation.
    4. His message is not valid anyway because it runs contrary to 97% of “Real climate scientists”
    5.What about ocean acidification, rising sea levels melting polar ice? – all these can be proven by computers to be caused by humankind’s use of fossil fuels.

    • NeilC permalink
      September 23, 2015 2:28 pm

      I’ve been studying weather for over 40 years, which I think might categorise me as a climatologist without models, just real long term weather 😉

  8. Joe Public permalink
    September 23, 2015 4:17 pm

    Very informative. Thanks for sharing your research, Neil.

    • Joe Public permalink
      September 23, 2015 4:22 pm

      One aspect I’ve seen bandied about by undoubters (presumably because of their inability to weaponise UK Daily Maximum Temps), is their claim that daily nightime temps / minimum temps are rising. Is there any substance to that claim?

      • NeilC permalink
        September 23, 2015 6:16 pm

        I have just plotted the minimum temperatures and guess what? A flat trend line!

  9. Retired Dave permalink
    September 23, 2015 5:40 pm

    Thank you Neil – an excellent summary of what we who sup at Paul’s Blog believe to be the truth, supported by the data you have collected.

    My MP will certainly get a copy (don’t worry if he gets a second one from you Neil).

    The devil’s advocate idea that Neil Catto is a meteorologist and a such doesn’t understand climate is a laughable one. Forecasters are empirical beings and when they produce a forecast it can be verified the following day – and it is no use saying “no I was right really – honest” to a customer who has lost money/animals/human life.

    This is why you will find a large number of sceptics amongst Met Men ( a recent blind survey of the American Met Society was about 50-50) – they want to see your evidence and are not impressed with obfuscation. “I know I said CO2 would warm the winters, but I meant cool the winters. I said there would be less snow but I meant that there would be more snow.” etc. etc. etc. You couldn’t make it up, but they do. I think many believe it and are blighted by confirmation bias.

    The vast majority of Climate Scientists were taught the AGW theory at University and are steeped in the religion – well it is nearer to a religion than a science.

    I have said on here before that it isn’t out of the bounds of possibility that some in Climate Science will eventually go to prison. If the world cools (and I have no idea) politicians will make the scientists the scapegoats for the billions (no Trillions) lost and the deaths in the third world who could have been saved by those trillions. If I had constantly been “adjusting” the data – always in the same direction, I would be a little bit worried.

    Richard Feynman told us that a scientist who puts out a theory should give you all the data on which that theory is based AND give you all the data that (s)he has that does not support the theory. Climate science fails on all accounts as we know from the ClimateGate emails and the fighting of FOI requests.

    • NeilC permalink
      September 23, 2015 6:12 pm

      If only climate science used the principles of a great scientist like Feynman

  10. catweazle666 permalink
    September 23, 2015 7:38 pm

    “When making policy decisions about climate change in the UK would you use global data? Or would you use data which better represents the UK?”

    If you’re a REAL climate “scientist” – neither.

    “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”

    ~ Prof. Chris Folland ~ (Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research)

    • Bradley L. Curtis permalink
      September 23, 2015 9:58 pm

      If you are a real climate scientist then you should know that if climate models are used based on what you want as a result rather than data you will produce spurious information that repeats misinformation over and over in hopes that it will be accepted as fact….Sadly, it is totally worthless believed as fact by those who think that the title “Professor” will validate it.

  11. NeilC permalink
    September 23, 2015 7:49 pm

    Perhaps you can explain professor why your climate models do not adhere to their forecast capability? The plots of data I have provided are evidence of that and are available for independent verification.

    I have been collecting this data every day for 17 years, are you questioning my methods?

  12. robinedwards36 permalink
    September 23, 2015 10:25 pm

    Neil, I would very much like to get into email contact with you. How can this be arranged?
    I have for the last 20 years been looking closely at climate data of many types. I have made many analyses of UK data that you would find very interesting, some recently based on Met Office published data, and would be delighted to share them with you – and others.
    Robin (Bromsgrove)

  13. September 29, 2015 4:39 am

    Thank you for your great common sense article. But also have a look at the longer term and the history of the Holocene interglacial.

    Our current beneficial, warm Holocene interglacial has been the enabler of mankind’s civilisation for the last 10,000+ years. The congenial climate of the Holocene spans from mankind’s earliest farming to the scientific and technological advances of the last 100 years.

    Accepting that the Oxygen isotope method of paleo temperature estimation is a good representation and that the method gives a reasonable history of past climate especially for the Northern hemisphere when using Greenland ice cores.

    Looking at a broader picture in Millennial steps, according to the GISP2 Ice Core data the real decline towards the next glacial age started some 3000 years ago, round about 1000BC.

    The GISP2 temperature record shows a distinct ‘Tipping Point’ at 1000BC and temperatures then start their decline at a significantly increased rate.

    Having been roughly flat for the first 7000 years including the Holocene Climate Optimum, the Holocene rate of temperature decline escalates from roughly 0.05°C / millennium 8000BC – 1000BC, to about 0.5 °C/ millennium, 1000BC – 2000AD.

    The GISP2 ice core records from Greenland show.

    1 the last millennium of our benign Holocene 1000AD – 2000AD was the coldest of the whole current Holocene interglacial.

    2 each of the notable high points in Holocene temperatures, (Holocene: Climate Optimum – Minoan – Roman – Medieval – Modern), has been progressively colder than the previous high point.

    3 for its first 7-8000 years the early Holocene, encompassing its high point “climate optimum” had a pretty flat temperatures on average a drop of only ~0.05 °C per millennium.

    4 but the recent Holocene for the last 3000 years since 1000BC has seen a temperature diminution at at least 10 times that earlier rate.

    5 our happy Holocene interglacial is about 10-11000 years old and judging by earlier Interglacials the epoch is probably drawing to its close, in this century the next century or this millennium.

    6 so any minor warming after at the end of the 20th century to the Modern high point eventually will be seen as noise in the system in the longer term progress of continuing cooling over the past 3000+ years.

    7 other published Greenland Ice Core records (NGRIP1, GRIP) corroborate this finding. They also exhibit the same pattern of a prolonged relatively stable early Holocene period followed by a subsequent much more rapid decline in the more recent past.

    Global warming protagonists should accept that the Holocene is in long term decline and that any action taken by man-kind is unlikely to make any difference whatsoever.

    And were the actions by Man-kind able to avert warming would be simply reinforcing the catastrophic and eventually disastrous cooling that is bound to return in due course.


  14. October 3, 2015 4:19 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections and commented:
    Executive Summary: Considering there has been a steady rise in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels over this period of time (1998-2015) and temperatures have been flat, one can consider the theory of >CO2 driving up temperatures is very weak. (CO2 is a gas, not as frequently described in MSM, NGOs and government circles as carbon which of course is a solid). As all climate change models use the >CO2 >temperature theory it is little wonder that all these models do not reflect the realty of observation.

    Even the UKMO own data shows a flat temperature trend which extends to 26 years.

  15. xmetman permalink
    October 18, 2015 9:06 am


    I am not doubting the results that you found in the slightest, but looking for a trend in just 17 years of climate data can be misleading, and that’s why any long-term climatological average is usually for a period of 30 years.

    Getting climate data for longer periods is difficult and the Met Office don’t help (either the public or themselves) in this regard by closely guarding the climate records of the UK and charging vast amounts of money to access what is after all – our data.

    If you look at a recent article I wrote about Central England Temperatures [CET] you will find four graphs of mean CET temperatures and their trend:

    1878 – 2015 +0.089°C/decade
    1985 – 2015 +0.213°C/decade
    2005 – 2015 -0.474°C/decade
    2010 – 2015 +2.05°C/decade

    You can see exactly what graph I would be using if I was trying to support an argument that Central England was cooling.

    Of course the mean temperature in Central England is warming at a slower rate than these global data series which I have recently looked at:

    CRUTEM4 : +0.163°C/decade
    GISTEMP : +0.16°C/decade
    UAH : +0.139°C/decade



  1. UK Weather Trends since 1998 | Energy Matters

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: