Skip to content

Met Office Guilty Of Fake “Wettest Month In London” Claims

November 5, 2020

By Paul Homewood

 

h/t Ian Magness

 

 

 There have been persistent attempts by the Met Office to mislead the public into believing that last month’s rainfall was in some way extreme.

This particular attempt appeared last week:

 London

 

 

It is typical Met Office fare – claim a record even before the month has ended, and when it proves fake? Well, just ignore it afterwards.

 

The claim was always absurd and without basis.

October 2020 finished with 142.2mm of rain at Heathrow, putting it in only tenth place since 1948, as far as all months are concerned. By far the wettest month was October 1987, the month of the Great Storm of course.

Last month was not even the wettest October, only ranking fourth behind 1987, 1960 and 2000. There is clearly no trend either in October rain stats:

 

image

image

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/stationdata/heathrowdata.txt

 

 

Kew Gardens of course have a much longer record, though strangely the Met Office no longer publish it. But KNMI confirm that monthly totals of 160mm and over used to be commonplace. The record of 184mm was set in July 1782.

 image

https://climexp.knmi.nl/getprcpall.cgi?id=someone@somewhere&WMO=3672.2&STATION=KEW_GARDENS_(X)&extraargs=

 

Nationally, last month was the fifth wettest October, well below the record set in 1903.

 

 

October 1903 remains far and away the wettest of any month in the UK since 1862. It was an astonishing month, not only because of the astonishingly heavy falls at times, but the persistence of the rain throughout the month.

According to the British Rainfall publication, many areas experienced rainfall every single day of the month. Virtually the whole country experienced at least 25 raindays.

Meanwhile, large swathes of England & Wales received more than double the average rainfall. In terms of percentages, the worst affected are was just west of London.

image

image

https://digital.nmla.metoffice.gov.uk/SO_4d68c8c7-d554-4593-9892-37981eb71b47/

 

Perhaps the Met Office should spend more time educating the public about the past, and less trying to con them about climate change.

19 Comments
  1. Broadlands permalink
    November 5, 2020 2:18 pm

    “Perhaps the Met Office should spend more time educating the public about the past, and less trying to con them about climate change.”

    Perhaps NOAA and NASA (GISS) should do the same. And spend less time readjusting the data as well.

  2. Ian Magness permalink
    November 5, 2020 2:27 pm

    “Perhaps the Met Office should spend more time educating themselves about the past, and less time trying to con the public about climate change that they haven’t bothered to study.”
    There, fixed it.

  3. jack broughton permalink
    November 5, 2020 2:28 pm

    A lot of the so-called expert bodies like the Met office are behaving in a political-science mode where the believers are pushing their agendas with no-one able to question them.
    This is a British problem, the USA has allowed debate, may stop soon tho’.

    The BMJ are also pushing the duty of their members to save the world by “Fighting climate change”. Not enough health problems for them it seems. The Fat Controller is out of control.

    • November 5, 2020 5:33 pm

      Jack,sadly you are mistaken about the USA:. Once august institutions are now spouting political nonsense and ALWAYS left wing nonsense. There is no institution I know of which has been uncontaminated. Nasa and Noaa are the worst offenders paid for by the tax payer but not alone. I do not see any of this as a coincidence…there are just too many once impartial scientific bodies now spouting left wing politics.Ivar Giaever, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in in 1973 famously resigned from the American Physical Society over its official position. I quote from his WikiP entry. >>The APS Fellow noted: “In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?<<

  4. Thomas Carr permalink
    November 5, 2020 2:36 pm

    I believe that the Met Office has its eyes on yet another state of the art supercomputer. May be it is already in use. More to the point who among us or what grouping is pursuing this rainfall incompetence with the Met .Office . Shall we write to our MPs and question the need for another computer?
    We are well briefed by Paul but that seems to be as far as it gets. We need to be more articulate than just a group of outraged observers.

    • Joe Public permalink
      November 5, 2020 3:23 pm

      “I believe that the Met Office has its eyes on yet another state of the art supercomputer.”

      To enable it to make erroneous predictions sooner.

    • November 5, 2020 10:29 pm

      With all the rain a state of the ark computer seems more appropriately

    • November 6, 2020 5:49 pm

      The evidence of the Brexit debate shows that when the political class and SM agree that something is not wanted, those who discuss it are silenced and ridiculed.

  5. ThinkingScientist permalink
    November 5, 2020 3:36 pm

    BBC guilty as well – for years:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3599132.stm

    That’s from 2004, announced 25 August. That August was going to be the wettest evah! I remember it on BBC Breakfast on 25 August being announced. Then after the end of the month – silence.

    Still beaten by 1912 and 1917 in the Met Office rankings.

    But the damage of fake news is done. No correction, no retraction, just leave the fake news out there in everyone’s minds.

    • ThinkingScientist permalink
      November 5, 2020 3:41 pm

      Addendum to my comment – in the BBC 2004 article it also claimed it could be the wettest summer since records began as well:

      “While it is not yet the wettest summer since records began in 1922, that record could also fall by the end of the month.

      More than 240mm of rain has fallen on average throughout England since the start of June, 17mm short of the record amount.

      “So we may well have the wettest summer ever recorded too,” our forecaster said.

      Where does summer of 2004 actually rank? At the time it ended up at 14th behind:

      1912, 1879, (2012), (2007), 1956, 1931, 1927, 1958, 1872, 1917, 1954, 1903, 1888, 1946, 1882, 1875

      Fake news from BBC and the Met Office? Surely Not!

      • John189 permalink
        November 6, 2020 10:49 am

        Interesting that your list contains 3 years close together in the 1950s and then 2004, 2007 and 2012. A potential pattern maybe, but never evidence of trend.

  6. November 5, 2020 4:08 pm

    “May” and “could” as modifiers makes the statement perfectly correct, doesn’t it? You just have to believe in science and experts.

  7. MrGrimNasty permalink
    November 5, 2020 6:14 pm

    I posted about this London wettest claim and the pre-announcement tactic ‘ages’ ago!

    It was an interesting month rain wise, as in weather not climate change, the rainfall was very high, but what was remarkable was the displaced from the norm distribution – central England and Eastern Scotland.

    On another topic, Bob Ward communications director of LSE’s Grantham Institute on Climate Change funded by green billionaire Jeremy Grantham is on a serial losing streak which brightens up the day.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      November 6, 2020 3:33 pm

      The Bob Ward who lost every complaint he made to the press regulator about the late Booker pointing out the truth?

  8. mjr permalink
    November 5, 2020 7:49 pm

    i see BBC are now doing promotional films for Drax power station, (featuring the burning of American forests) . Episode 1 of “Powering Britain” BBC1 Thursday 7.30.. I have a feeling that this is a series which will be a greenwash

    • November 6, 2020 8:51 am

      Yes, they claimed burning biomass was saving lots of CO2 emissions. Hilarious fiction.

  9. Mack permalink
    November 5, 2020 9:18 pm

    Forgive me for a long post, but I’ve been musing about the constant doomster climate predictions of the great and good and portents of more frequent extreme weather events from, what once were, the leading scientific bodies on the planet,whilst personally seeing nothing out of the ordinary going on in the real world. And I work in the environment. The Met Office’s frequent dramatic pronouncements are symptomatic of this lurch towards non-evidenced based alarmism. The lack of critical thinking abilities and historical research skills amongst the ‘scientists’ who trumpet alarmist claims seems astounding and their mantras can’t just be explained away by just thinking that they’ve all been corrupted by Marxist anti-capitalist theories. Is it just ‘group think’ and ‘knowing where your bread is buttered’ that motivates such claims?

    Anyway, this morning I stumbled across a cracking article on the Con Woman blog from George Cooper, an investment banker from Equitle Investments entitled ‘When doomsday prophecies fail, cult members double down – does this sound familiar?’ Obviously, George is pitching at an investment audience but he quotes extensively from the works of Leon Fastinger’s work in the 1950s examining doomsday cults and, in particular, extreme examples of ‘selection and confirmation bias, where inconvenient data is discarded’. Ring a bell anybody?

    George goes on to ask the question: ‘How to spot and when to ignore doomsday prophecies?’ His answer sums up beautifully, though, probably unintendedly, the way we should treat claims from alarmist scientists and is worth quoting in full.

    ‘Are those making the doomsday predictions heavily invested in it? Does the rationalisation of the scary story keep changing? Do the proponents have a substantial financial or reputational sunk cost making it impossible to admit that they may be wrong? Is contradictory, positive data being ignored? Is supportive, negative data being manufactured? Are the protagonists listening only to those who share their own views? Are the protagonists evangelical in their beliefs, needing to proselytise their beliefs?’

    And George concludes, ‘If you see these behaviours…..ignore the story and move on. Most likely it is nothing more than an attempt to grab your attention and control your behaviour with scaremongering. Do not waste time trying to convince them with science, a true believer will have too much of their reputation invested in the story to listen to reason’.

    I think George has captured the disdain with which we should hold the climate doomsayers beautifully, but will we be allowed to ‘ignore the story and move on’? Only time will tell!

    • dave permalink
      November 6, 2020 8:33 am

      “…will we be allowed to…?”

      Certainly not by the people who manipulate the empty husk that is J Biden, probable President!

      What WILL happen in a few months, when his galloping dementia means – literally – that his skull does not contain a person? Harris cannot simply step into his shoes in a quasi-legal Marxist coup, as that would need to be confirmed by two-thirds majorities in both the Senate and the House.

      Will ‘they’ still keep him, captive in his basement, mumbling incoherently towards a video feed, not just with a mask over his face, but a paper bag over his head?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: