Skip to content

Met Office’s “Record Rainfall” Claim Turns Out To Be Fake

June 29, 2020

By Paul Homewood

h/t AC Osborn/Patsy Lacey



I see the Met Office has been up to its tricks again!



For a start, they have never published daily rainfall records by month, only by year. The record for any month still lies with Martinstown, Dorset, which received 279mm in July 1955, a much higher amount.

Notice how they don’t tell you what the previous record was.



Secondly, according to the British Rainfall publication in 1956, this new “record” of 213mm/8.4 inches is not even a record for June. In June 1917, 9.56 inches fell at Bruton in Somerset.

That figure may have been exceeded since 1956, of course.



Thirdly, this new “record” is half way up a mountain in the Lake District, at Honister Pass.

  Honister Pass


Readers may recall that it was this very same rain gauge which set the 24-hour “record” during Storm Desmond in 2015. The gauge is about 1000 feet above sea level, and it is dishonest and scientifically nonsensical to compare such high level sites, where rainfall is inevitable heavier, with lowland sites, such as Bruton and Martinstown.

Worse still, as I discussed in 2015, there are very real question marks over the accuracy of the Environment Agency gauge at Honister.

And to add to that, rainfall data only exists at Honister since 1970, and at least 15 years since then have incomplete records. We simply do not know whether higher daily rainfalls occurred there prior to then.



Whether the record now stands is irrelevant, of course, now. Because the propaganda has already been sent to the media:



Even if the Met Office retract their fake claim, the genie is well and truly out of the bottle.

Incidents like this prove that the Met Office has now lost all right to be regarded as an objective, scientific organisation.

Where oh where is the new Booker, who would have exposed these shameless lies?

  1. June 29, 2020 7:42 pm

    Sherelle Jacobs at the Telegraph, perhaps?

    • Chris Reynolds permalink
      June 29, 2020 7:47 pm

      Sounds good to me!

    • Tonyb permalink
      June 29, 2020 9:07 pm

      Yes, she is always worth a read on the climate and covid19

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      June 30, 2020 2:28 pm

      Sherelle certainly looks a good candidate but I think Paul would do a better job on climate!

  2. Joe Public permalink
    June 29, 2020 7:43 pm

    In one of your previous postings, I seem to recall you mentioning that historic daily readings were taken at a set time of day.

    With the advent of automated communication equipment, it’s now possible to cherry-pick the ‘start’ hour for a day’s record. So a 2,300% increase in opportunities for a ‘new’ record.

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      June 29, 2020 7:59 pm

      My memory tells me 9 a.m. was the witching hour. So why 10 a.m. now? Ah, of course. TO create a new “record”.

    • Pancho Plail permalink
      June 29, 2020 8:34 pm

      Yes JP, I was puzzled by the choice of 10am as the break point. It looks as if they had trawled though the results to pick any particular 24hr period that yields the biggest number. It really does smack of desperation on their part.

      • LsedsChris permalink
        June 29, 2020 11:18 pm

        That is correct. automatic recording stations mean that one can pick any period, from any hour to any hour and measure the rain. Up until the last couple of decades all gauges were manual and read only at 0900, unless they were a recording gauge. in the hill areas and away from habitation we only had monthly read gauges. So now we can ‘find’ new records that we simply couldn’t measure before.

    • LeedsChris permalink
      June 30, 2020 10:56 am

      Joe Public… An example of that is the deluge of rain that affected Norfolk in August 1912. Rain gauges were always read at 9am… but the rain doesn’t conveniently fit into that. So the rain in that episode fell on 25th and continued into the 26th August and was recorded on two separate 24 hour periods. in reality the total rainfall in that event reached 210mm close to Norwich – largely in 24 hours. Today the Met Office would pick that up as a ’24 hour record’, whereas in the old system of 0900-0900 reporting the rainfall total would be divided between two ’24 hour periods’ aka ‘days’.

  3. GeorgeLet permalink
    June 29, 2020 8:09 pm

    Hot cold wet dry why it’s due to fossil fuel CO2. Sure

  4. Curious George permalink
    June 29, 2020 8:10 pm

    I am not familiar with settled science .. is a rising CO2 expected to cause droughts or floods?

    • Tonyb permalink
      June 29, 2020 8:59 pm

      That’s it’s magic it can cause flooding, droughts, great heat, terrible cold and great winds as well as no wind.

    • Mack permalink
      June 29, 2020 9:01 pm

      Both George. And more snow and less snow. More gales and flat calms etc etc. Co2, the magic man made molecule of pixie dust that can do anything that isn’t falsifiable by scientific experiment or examination of data collected by the once well regarded, and not adjusted, massaged or corrupted, scientific method. As opposed to the benign, inactive Co2 molecules produced by the natural world that, although they completely overwhelm the signature of man made Co2 emissions, are just fluffy and nice and don’t affect the climate at all apparently.

    • Broadlands permalink
      June 29, 2020 9:04 pm

      Yes… Rising CO2 is forecasted by a collection of models to have dire and apocalyptic effects. And therefore expected to do all sorts of seriously bad things…record rainfall, record drought, record temperatures, both hot and cold. Accordingly we are all expected to take rapid, dramatic and bold action to prevent it. A climate emergency! That’s settled science?

    • June 30, 2020 8:33 am

      The answer for the scammers, the chancers and the useful idiots is that CO2 causes whatever you want it to. We have reached a threshold where the Enlightenment has ended and politically and financially motivated comment is promoted as scientific fact. I refer to the excellent article of a couple of days ago on Critical Theory and the Frankfurt School.:
      Climate (non) science is the first area of scientific endeavour to be overtaken by Critical Theory and its dissociation from the scientific method. Sadly other disciplines are already being compromised….medicine is already being actively compromised, just look at the gender nonsense.
      How did Climate (non) science achieve this? Well, and these are very rough numbers, in normal modern scientific endeavour research and conclusions are based generally on around 80% empirical data and 20% modelling.. Climate (non) science is unique because the numbers are reversed., 20% and often suspect or cherry picked empirical data and 80% modelling. Assertion and claims are more important than correctly acquired empirical data and indeed empirical data is only used ( as in this case) when it supports the narrative. Also publishing something which was wrong or badly researched used to be a career ending move. Look what happens when false claims are made on climate…NOTHING. Look what happened to the appalling M Mann…it enhanced his career!
      It is time that the Conservative government drains the swamp of the Quangos and government departments and charities infected by political appointees not elected people during Blairs time and continuing to this day as left wing political mouth pieces. Blair politicised everything in public life and it is time Boris stood up and made the public aware of what is going on. From the National Trust to Christian Aid to the RSPB, the Met Office, the Department of Education as well as the rest of the Civil Service, the serious left wing have got themselves appointed and taken over constantly pushing the “socialism is the answer to everything, “socialism is the answer to third world poverty” “socialism is the answer to climate change” “”socialism is the answer to racism” “”socialism is the answer to variation in bird populations”, “socialism is the answer to the dwindling newt population in a stream near you”.
      I first understood that the Met office was seriously compromised when we had flooding on the Cambridge Levels and I forget the name of the idiot woman then shown as heading the Met Office but she stood on TV and announced that Sea Level was rising all around the UK. Given my profession and education as a geologist I directed several expletives at the TV because this was a totally and outrageously false statement. What was more shocking is that she suffered no rebuke for promoting a narrative not science. To Finish. I just googled the current CEO of the Met Office and this is what it says. “Penelope (Penny) Endersby CEng CPhys FInstP FCMI is a British researcher and academic specialising in armour and explosives”!!!!! I would like to ask WHY and HOW she got the job! This is the problem. We no longer have people qualified or specialized in the subject that they are pronouncing on and taken as the authority on when they speak. What is the chance that her politics are way left of centre? Just because we have a Conservative govt does not mean that the Deep State does not continue to appoint its own. Each time you hear climate non science ( NONSENSE) from some appointee at the head of some body…google their background because I guarantee you that you will find a socialist indoctrinate. It is of course possible you will find one or two cowards!

  5. Tonyb permalink
    June 29, 2020 8:53 pm

    Yes, taking measurements halfway up a mountain is dishonest. It may well be of course that lots of old records would exist at height or in bleak places but we don’t know as no ne was living there in the past.

    The number of people who would voluntarily live in places known to be the wettest coldest or windiest in the country would be very small, hence the weather went unrecorded.

  6. Dave Ward permalink
    June 29, 2020 8:54 pm

    “There are very real question marks over the accuracy of the Environment Agency gauge at Honister”

    Judging by the abysmal standard of the wiring and the cabinet(s) attachment to the mast, I would most certainly question any information it gave! It doesn’t even class as an amateur “Bodge”, let alone the work of a VERY well funded public organisation. If I was installing something like this, half way up a mountain, I’d make damn sure to do a better job of it…

    • June 30, 2020 6:24 am

      You have to wonder how many walkers interfere with the equipment, especially the rain gauge Cup of tea or a pee anyone?

      • June 30, 2020 8:36 am

        Very tempting, when I’m up there next! But it is a little way from the fell paths

  7. Dick Goodwin permalink
    June 29, 2020 9:19 pm

    Could they handle a new Booker? RIP Christopher.

  8. heatherclad permalink
    June 29, 2020 10:09 pm

    Pancho Plail, 10am BST is the same as 9am GMT so perhaps they haven’t cherry picked the start and end points this time.

  9. LeedsChris permalink
    June 29, 2020 11:15 pm

    Reports like this ARE misleading because up until automatic weather stations and rain gauges were developed, all rain was measured in manual gauges. This meant the gauge had to be visited by an observer, the gauge opened up and the rain measured in a glass jar, marked with quantities. The observer would inspect and judge the quantity of rain that had fallen. However, for understandable reasons this could only be done on a daily basis in locations where an observer was present – it meant that all daily-read gauges were close to habitations and largely at low altitudes. I know because I was such an observer.

    There were a lot of gauges also in upland areas, but they were monthly gauges, that were only visited and the rain measured monthly. It is only in the last decade or so that automatic gauges have become available that mean that even remote and upland areas can have the rain totals for daily (or even hourly or minute units) measured. This means that simply by this new means of gathering data we have available rain monitoring from much wetter areas than previously. In the last we would only have known monthly rainfall totals for these locations – now we can have hourly, daily, 24 hour, 36 hour or a full range of data, so that is why records can appear to be made more regularly: we simply didn’t previously have means to measure in these wet places. All we historically have are daily totals from lowlands, that are relatively drier. Even then we only tended to measure 0900 -0900 totals, but now we can measure rainfall totals from any one hour to another and so – hey presto – new records can be ‘made’.

    • Broadlands permalink
      June 30, 2020 1:12 am

      Very well said Mr. Chris. The new records are clearly designed to add more scary “stuff” to the current narrative…supposedly to add to the climate emergency and then to add to the urgency to do something ASAP.. But what??

    • dearieme permalink
      June 30, 2020 1:34 am

      “I know because I was such an observer.”

      And so was I, for part of one summer. I suppose I must have been covering for someone – perhaps a school teacher – who was away on holiday.

      I guess I must have been aged 14 because I’m pretty confident that I spent my summers at age 15 and upwards earning money.

      Anyway, just think – part of official UK rainfall figures was gathered by a young laddie chosen because … what? I was a dab hand with a max/min thermometer? I could be trusted to walk or cycle to the weather station, at the same time each day, come rain or shine?

      In the 90s when I started reading some of the early papers on Global Warming I inferred that my schoolboy task meant I’d more experience of measuring meteorological temperature than many of the writers of some of those papers.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      June 30, 2020 10:30 am

      So this is like the hurricane and tornado records where it is most unlikely that any will not be picked up by satellites compared to the era before space observation where a person had to see them to record them. This makes longterm comparison impossible. And you can add in the Australian temp system that records every fraction of a section to give the most fleeting of records.

      • LeedsChris permalink
        June 30, 2020 10:47 am

        Exactly right, Gerry. Hurricanes and tornadoes were only known where they hit or when someone in a ship crossed their path. Only since the Satellite era have we been able to detect each and every single storm. There have been plenty of hurricanes that have stated off-shore, in the Atlantic, that most likely could not have been counted in the historic records.

  10. Gamecock permalink
    June 30, 2020 12:11 am

    ‘Britain suffers its wettest June day EVER as 10 weeks of rain falls in just 24 hours’

    ‘Suffer’ is not a scientific term; it is a journalist’s term.

    • June 30, 2020 8:38 am

      Well spotted Gamecock. I have commented several times about the invasion of emotional language into supposed scientific texts. As soon as I see it I dismiss the whole piece as should you all because what you are seeing is politically motivate not objective and certainly not cautious or unemotional which is an absolute requirement of scientific recording.

    • June 30, 2020 8:38 am

      Yes, and substitute”Britain” with “a tiny part of the Lake district” What next? Record wettest minute of rainfall in Cleethorpes?

  11. bobn permalink
    June 30, 2020 12:53 am

    Here is the apology by a reformed alarmist, censored by Forbes.

  12. June 30, 2020 6:29 am

    Here is an extract from how the Met Office measures rainfall:

    “Automating rain gauges

    As automated instruments were introduced across the synoptic network in the 1980s and 1990s the 5 inch gauge was still deployed alongside the tipping bucket gauge to continue a long consistent record of measurements for climate purposes.

    In recent years this practice has proved impractical and many automatic sites now only report rainfall amount from a tipping bucket gauge. Storage gauges are still used widely at non automated climate stations and rainfall-only stations. Where an observer is not available to provide daily rainfall, readings may be made at weekly or monthly intervals.”

  13. Phoenix44 permalink
    June 30, 2020 8:31 am

    A “sweltering heatwave”? Ten weeks rain in one day? These are fantasies. The simple fact is that after a few hit days, the UK’s weather looks decidedly non-summery and so decidedly non-extreme heat. Meanwhile the very cold weathering parts of Australia is ignored.

    • June 30, 2020 8:40 am

      So true. Where I live in NE England we had a few pleasantly warm days. That was it.

  14. June 30, 2020 9:09 am

    Where oh where is the new Booker, who would have exposed these shameless lies?

    Look in the mirror, and keep up the good work 😉

  15. John Medlock permalink
    June 30, 2020 10:25 am

    Is it not time for you to take over the Brooker columns with the Mail and the Telegraph?

  16. Ian Cook permalink
    June 30, 2020 11:01 am

    There is another important point here; why is the Met Office telling these lies? Why do they feel the need? What is the purpose?

    • LeedsChris permalink
      June 30, 2020 11:08 am

      All organisations have an ‘ethos’… years of recruiting the same sort of people and years of believing the corporate line. I know from working in large organisations that you don’t ‘think’, you follow the ‘line’ and just repeat stuff ad nauseam. It’s often not actual lying, you actually ‘believe’ the message you are spinning and you know not to ‘rock the boat’ and ask questions – life can become very uncomfortable if you do, as I found…
      On a more cynical level it’s the Met Office defending itself. To justify its next £x billion computer and the bloated staff numbers it needs to stay important. If all this was proved a ‘scam’, why would so much money need to be spent on the Met Office? And then there’s the cudos within your fellow processionals of leading on whatever the latest ‘good’ thing is…

  17. June 30, 2020 2:00 pm

    So many very good, well-thought out and learned comments in reply to Paul’s excellent in-depth reporting of the climate scam is why I come here. Thank you!

  18. MrGrimNasty permalink
    June 30, 2020 4:36 pm

    I see the Desmond record was 18:00 to 18:00, not 9 to 9 GMT, why did they pick a different 24hrs? Because 9to9 you had 2 ordinary days – possibly?

    Have we seen this before – I can never remember, worth a read anyway?

    “Analysis of UK precipitation extremes derived from Met Office gridded data.” by the Royal Meteorological society. (Sci-Hub required)

    Besides expected AGW, plenty of other natural/random/data factors are mentioned.

    There’s a list of extreme rainfall events (various periods) in this, again repost?

    Numerous June rainfall events dumped more than half as much in just an hour or few.

  19. JCalvertN permalink
    June 30, 2020 10:22 pm

    The notorious Lynmouth event of 1952 (34 deaths) was 229mm.

    The famous Hampstead Heath event of 1975 might also have been comparable if the rain gauge had not become blocked with hailstones.

    (The 10th page of the 2nd link contains a useful summary of UK extreme rainfall events)

  20. AaronH permalink
    June 30, 2020 10:29 pm

    I wonder if the Met Office meant to influence the BBC evening weather forecast – in which the presenter mentioned a record but qualified it quickly at the end by saying “quite possibly”.

    Didn’t the Met Office lose the BBC contract to Meteogroup? They might quite like it if the BBC forecast wasn’t quite right!

  21. Charles P permalink
    July 1, 2020 8:12 am

    As the owner and operator of a PWS in rural Herefordshire, and a very regular reader of your and other similar blog sites, I have yet to read of any issues concerning the impact of birds using the lip of the rain guage funnel as an observation perch, with usual release of solids that block the guage drainage hole. On occasion I have been caught out, usually during a wet period without change to reported rainfall. That has resulted in a mad dash across my field to the guage and use of a stiff wire to break the crust, thereby an interesting record of quantity and rate is recorded. I have corrected the record afterwards as best one can assess from rain radar sites, but very occasionally that has not always been possible, and thus forgotten. Really, this is a question of QA of instrument inspection and maintainance. My PWS reports to MetO WOW programme, amongst others. I am proud of the fact that I have gained medal recognition nevertheless.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: