Skip to content

UK could hit 40C ‘regularly’ by end of this century–Says Flawed Met Office Study

July 1, 2020

By Paul Homewood


The absurd Matt McGrath hypes the latest Met Office modelling exercise!


Sweltering temperatures of up to 40C could be a regular occurrence in the UK by 2100 if carbon emissions stay very high says the Met Office.

The current record stands at 38.7C, set in Cambridge last July.

This new study says there is an "increasing likelihood" of going beyond this figure, because of the human influence on the climate.

Under the worst emissions scenario, the 40C mark could occur every three and a half years by the end of this century.

The past two summers have seen periods of significant and uncomfortable heat across much of the UK and Europe.

Met Office researchers are clear that these hot summers occurred partly as a result of warming gases originating from human activities.

In fact, the use of energy, transport and all the other carbon that we’ve been producing made the heatwave of 2018 around 30 times more likely.

The Met Office’s new modelling study says that this human influence on UK temperatures is going to continue.

"We find that the likelihood of extremely warm days in the UK has been increasing and will continue to do so during the course of the century with the most extreme temperatures expected to be observed in the South-East of England," the report finds.

The scale of the impact, though, is still very much in our hands.

Right now the chances of any part of the UK hitting 40C are extremely low – it could occur once every 100 to 350 years.

This changes significantly by the end of the century, depending on how much more carbon is emitted.

The researchers say the chances of hitting that high mark are "rapidly accelerating" with a 40C day occurring every 3.5 years, under a very high emissions scenario.

Under a more modest carbon projection, the 40C mark happens about once every 15 years.

"If we think about the climate that we would have had, had we not emitted any greenhouse gases, and something like 40C looks looks well nigh impossible, because it is so extreme," said Prof Peter Stott from the Met Office, one of the paper’s authors.

"But now we’ve already entered this scenario where we can see over 38C as we saw last summer, and increasingly the chances of seeing 40C become ever higher if we continue emitting greenhouse gases," he told BBC News.


For a start, Stott gives unwarranted prominence to one temperature measurement at Cambridge last summer, which as we know had very serious siting issues. Whereas Cambridge reached 38.7C, the nearest anywhere else in the country got was 37.9C, and that was next to the tarmac at Heathrow and did not even beat the previous 2003 record at Faversham. To spook the public with threats of 40C temperatures based on one dodgy location is not science.

That is not to say that that day last July was not an extremely hot one. Many places in the country had record temperatures, although many others did not break their records set in 1990, another extreme day. But it was only one day, and it was caused by an unusual meteorological set up. The days before and after were four degrees or more cooler, at least as far as CET was concerned.

One hot day does not have any climatic significance at all. While 25th July 2019 was the warmest day on CET, we can see that the heatwave of 1976 was far longer and more intense than any other summer since.



Stott’s paper itself gives the game away, as his chart below shows:



The red and blue bands are simply modelling and can be ignored. It is the black line which measures the actual warmest day each year, as represented by the UK average. While 2019 is an outlier, there seems to be little in the way of an upward trend since the 1970s.

Yet Stott conjures up three or four degrees of warming in the next few decades. But, of course, this is based on modelling and not actual data.


We can see the actual trends more clearly on my chart of CET daily highs:



Again, last year stands out, but other than that it has not peaked above 1976 and 1990 since. While other recent years have been relatively warm, they have not been dissimilar to many other other earlier periods, such as the 1940s.

Quite simply, the actual data does not support Stott’s projections.

  1. cajwbroomhill permalink
    July 1, 2020 11:45 am

    There’s nothing we need, could or should try to do about it.
    The climate has swung always and would resit any attempts to make it change from that cyclical pattern.
    Contrary opinions are quite unproven, but sopporters of these are dupes or just following the money, ours!

  2. David Seels permalink
    July 1, 2020 11:51 am

    Sounds like an article in Viz magazine

    • July 1, 2020 12:16 pm

      Oh…. has Viz gone down hill since my day? Wonder how Viz are getting on with intersectionality and all the other divisive stuff invented by the marxists pretending to be socialists to destroy Western Civilization?.

  3. Phillip Bratby permalink
    July 1, 2020 11:58 am

    Peter Stott plus modelling = alarmist failure. Ha she ever got anything right?

  4. jack broughton permalink
    July 1, 2020 12:01 pm

    The global measurements, so far as one dares trust them, seem to show the earth recovering from the LIA at 0.8 – 1.0 deg K / century. On this basis a small increase in recorded maxima would be normal and of no consequence (apart from to those who crave another ice-age).

    If only we could get the facts about the lies being peddled to the populace published in the main media outlets, the people of the UK would be horrified at what our so-called intelligentsia and leaders are doing and have done, to the UK in the name of their “Climate religion”. They “Won’t get fooled again….” I hope.

  5. Patsy Lacey permalink
    July 1, 2020 12:06 pm

    Presumably the Met Office modelling will be far superior to that of Professor Fergusson’s modelling on the outcome of Corona virus

    • July 1, 2020 12:14 pm

      Of course it will………….

      • Gerry, England permalink
        July 1, 2020 3:55 pm

        LOL – of course not. The new CIMP6 models to be used for the next IPCC work of fiction have all been tweaked to give even more warmth.

        Interestingly a Dutch scientist has spoken out against the alarmism and the hyping of doomsday scenarios that the media children are only too happy to print.

  6. July 1, 2020 12:13 pm

    There is STILL NO statistically significant empirical data to say this is man made. Mr McGrath making claims about man made warming not supported by empirical data is NOT SCIENCE. However singing from the marxist hymn sheet he knows if you say it often enough the weaker minds will take it on board. There has been no work which identified empirically when natural warming stopped and only human took over. Where is it McGrath? There is NO empirical data that can exactly point to when as an alternative, man started slowly taking over from natural causes, when man became the majority and what the % is today. NONE WHATSOEVER! . (How does that happen exactly. I would love to see the physics). There is no empirical data to support any of their guff yet they keep saying it and saying it and saying it until claims and assertion become fact for the masses like the one the BBC and their partners in crime at the Guaurniad did with pushing back man made global whatisname to the start of the industrial revolution, Just words supports that claim, nothing else yet you can hear it rolling off the tongue of every ignoramus now jumping on the Climate Religion pantomime horse, There is no empirical data to show that the WELCOME warming we continue to enjoy is not completely natural so “shock horror” pieces about the temperature are meaningless and simply quite pathetic McGrathas as you push your dangerous political agenda. Also another thing I object to is the focussing always on “worst case scenarios”. This yet another product of modelling (Smelly brown stuff in….smelly brown stuff out) produces a statistical product with uncertainty. It is wilfully disingenuous for anyone NOT to talk about the most likely (P50) outcome and the possible range either side of that AND include the UNCERTAINTY RANGE. A school child performing a simple statistically exercise will get an F grade for only talking about one extreme of the output as their work will show a profound lack of understanding of the statistical method. Why is it then that the P10 or more likely P1 case is the ONLY one the doom mongers of the Climate Farce discuss and HOW does such flawed statistical “analysis” get by the peer reviewers? Anything to do with the next instalment of funding to fund more low grade and worthless “research”?

    Here is an idea. Maybe McGrath needs to go and camp out in the Sahara desert and freeze at night and ask why that CO2 is not keeping him warm as he looks up into a star filled CLOUD FREE night sky!

    • cajwbroomhill permalink
      July 1, 2020 1:26 pm

      That rings true, yet greybeard FRS and seemingly dispassionate scientists have fallen for the worst case scenarios, most flagrantly Sir David King but others less comical too, deceiving even apparently incorrupt politicos. After all, the corrupt Blair was taken in though not by Rory Bremner but by the absurd, albeit well qualified idiot, King.

      How did that happen, or is it that we’re being led in our opinions by idiots, despite FRS status?
      That has happened before.

      We have the very much maligned Donald Trump on our side, whatever his reasoning.
      For that relief, much thanks!

  7. July 1, 2020 12:16 pm

    Lucky old UK, if that should become the case. I’ll be long dead by then, but a touch warmer is preferable to a touch cooler, everytime.

  8. Gamecock permalink
    July 1, 2020 12:19 pm

    ‘Increasing likelihood’ is a bold statement.

    Maybe an incentive for maybe doing something. Someday.

  9. Stonyground permalink
    July 1, 2020 12:27 pm


  10. Jackington permalink
    July 1, 2020 12:36 pm

    I don’t know what the problem is; eveybody I meet in one of these summer heatwaves says “what lovely weather we’re having it’ll never last – oh don’t say that” Even on TV the hosts and weather forecasters talk about “how long is this lovely weather going to last? Let’s ask Carol – Are you going to gives bad news Carol – no this will last another few days if we’re lucky. etc etc.

  11. July 1, 2020 12:52 pm

    “Sweltering temperatures of up to 40C could be a regular occurrence in the UK by 2100 if carbon emissions stay very high says the Met Office”


  12. bobn permalink
    July 1, 2020 1:15 pm

    How can you not believe computer game modellers? Remember half a million Brits died of covid 19 by 01 june 2020! It must have happened because the universities computer gamers said so!

  13. Mike Jackson permalink
    July 1, 2020 1:32 pm

    On this subject, Donna’s post today is well worth a read.

    And Michael Shellenberger’s book really is a MUST! The Establishment will really start ramping up to kill that or the cause is, as the Scots so colourfully put it, “on a shoogly nail”.
    (As if it wasn’t already; they just haven’t noticed yet!)

  14. Captain Slog permalink
    July 1, 2020 1:37 pm

    Always remember… when you read “could” in a headline, mentally add “or could not”… and then everything’s fine!

    • dave permalink
      July 1, 2020 2:05 pm

      Modern journalists do not know that they sound absurd. Come back, Jack Moron!

  15. Broadlands permalink
    July 1, 2020 1:46 pm

    “Sweltering temperatures of up to 40C could be a regular occurrence in the UK by 2100 if carbon emissions stay very high says the Met Office.”

    Reducing carbon emissions, even to zero, will not lower the CO2 already emitted…now at ~415 ppm. Why they don’t get it is remarkable.

    • bobn permalink
      July 1, 2020 5:26 pm

      While CO2 has virtually zero impact on global temps, it does disappear from the atmosphere (carbon cycle) – @6yrs for all CO2 to be absorbed by oceans, plants, earth etc. Of course the ‘old’ Co2 it is being replaced by ‘new’ co2 from oceans, animals, rocks etc in a continuous virtuous cycle.

  16. Broadlands permalink
    July 1, 2020 2:00 pm

    “Met Office researchers are clear that these hot summers occurred partly as a result of warming gases originating from human activities.”

    Partly? Are there human activities unique to the UK that affect the global climate?

    • Graeme No.3 permalink
      July 1, 2020 2:58 pm

      I have this idea that the recent warming is due to the increase in numbers of polar bears. They have increased by about 400% since 1965. And of course they all f*rt so releasing methane – a highly potent greenhouse gas.
      All I need is a budget of, say, £10 million a year for the next 32 years, a super computer and a few very stupid greenies to sneak up behind the polar bears with gas analysers.

      Why 32 years? Well it has been that long since the AGW scare started without any proof being found. There were predictions like the Earth would be 3-7℃ warmer by now, and that the rising oceans would flood The Maldives and parts of New York including Wall Street.
      Also that children in the UK wouldn’t know what snow was, and the Arctic would be ice free, so I would file these latest predictions in the same round receptacle.

      • Gerry, England permalink
        July 1, 2020 3:52 pm

        The public paid £90m for the MetO’s latest supercomputer so you need to increase your budget.

    • NeilC permalink
      July 1, 2020 5:56 pm

      Yes, human gases from A380s B747s and many other varieties of engine gases at Heathrow.

  17. John189 permalink
    July 1, 2020 3:14 pm

    Right from the start the authors of the study cited by McGrath confuse individual temperature records with seasonal trends. Apples and oranges. Or rather weather and climate – just unscientific speculative outpourings. The fact that the BBC choose to highlight this and other climate scare stories presumably stems from editorial decisions within the organisation: this is the truth, the science is settled, this is the line we should push.

    Bad science, bad journalism.

    Sad to report that I now question the slant behind every BBC report I read or hear in the same way that I used to analyse media reports in the USSR in the 1970s.

  18. MrGrimNasty permalink
    July 1, 2020 5:27 pm

    June 2020 was joint 59th warmest of 362 in the CET, completely unexceptional.

    The 18th warmest June (2018) is the highest ranked post 2000 June.

    July forecast is showing no real heat in the next 2 weeks.

    The provisional yearly CET is still a record by a large margin, but at least it has come back onto the graph. Remaining months need to average anomalies under +1C to avoid a yearly record. Could go either way.

  19. CheshireRed permalink
    July 1, 2020 9:00 pm

    Stott is selling fear and thus a fake ‘solution’ to his fake ‘problem’, in order to secure status, career benefits and of course the money that flows from those positions.

    They’ve been pulling this blag for the past 30 years of ‘climate change’ hysteria, and for thousands of years before that on any subject the scammers of every age could invent.

  20. July 2, 2020 1:18 am

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
    You get the feeling natural forcing will bite these computer projections in the posterior, especially when the AMO turns.

  21. July 2, 2020 3:50 pm

    I missed something in this slime piece from the usual suspect, the BLM BC. The McGrath person uses the word “Regularly” NOT the word Frequently. Regular says nothing about the frequency….and of course is used deliberately to fool the poorly educated mass product of our world class state education system who see both words meaning the same thing. Regularly can mean repeating every 100 or 1000 or 1 million years. As I said deliberately chosen to infer something without actually saying anything of value. Also the weasel words “By the End of the Century” is meaningless to most people on the planet today who will be dead by then. IF they really know what is going on ( which they absolutely do not) they can narrow it down but given this is a product of garbage in and garbage out modelling which in Climate Fraud speak = hard data then the thinking people out there will know how to react to this one more blatant piece of propaganda from the usual suspect. Time the BBC news room was renamed Pravda. They already have the shear effrontery to put the weasel words “Why you can trust the BBC” on their website. Only people and businesses who have a trust or quality problem talk about it!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: