More BBC Lies About Extreme Weather
By Paul Homewood
The BBC continues to push the “extreme weather” myth:
Heatwaves, deadly floods and wildfires all mean people are experiencing the link between extreme weather and climate change.
Emissions from the burning of fossil fuels have been trapping heat in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial era. As a consequence, average temperatures have risen by 1.1C.
This additional energy is unevenly distributed and bursts out in extremes like those we’ve been seeing. Without reductions in global emissions, this cycle will keep going.
Here are four ways climate change is contributing to extreme weather.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58073295
These are the four:
For some reason they fail to mention the reduced incidence of extreme cold! As the curve shows however, the new weather is not more extreme, when both hot and cold are taken into account.
The chart might just as well have been the temperature curves for Newcastle and London. Is London’s climate more extreme than Newcastle’s? Obviously not.
They then go on to discuss heat domes, but there is no evidence that these are on the increase, or connected to global warming.
This ignores basic meteorology!
Dry weather is not caused by “heat”, it results from anti-cyclonic weather, which also happens to bring hot, sunny weather in summer. But just because average temperatures are higher does not mean that a location is getting more of this type of weather.
As for droughts, even the IPCC could find no evidence that they were getting worse worldwide. According to AR6, while some regions such as the Mediterranean may be getting drier, others show the reverse, such as India. We certainly know that vast swathes of Africa, the Middle East and Asia suffered catastrophic droughts during the 1970s, as a direct consequence of global cooling.
In any event, it is widely accepted that a warmer world is also a wetter one.
Except there is no evidence that wildfires are getting worse:
https://climatechangedispatch.com/satellite-observations-show-decreasing-trend-in-global-wildfires/
Again, the IPCC looked at extreme rainfall in AR6 and little evidence to support this claim. The only region where there was “high confidence” of increasing and intensity of extreme rainfall is the central US, where it simply served to put an end to the crippling droughts of the 1930s and 50s. Similarly increasing monsoon rainfall has benefitted India and other parts of Asia.
There is a assumption that extreme rainfall is “bad”. In reality it often makes the difference between drought and plenty.
More relevant is the question of whether floods are getting worse. The IPCC looked at this too, and could find no global trends, only the inevitable regional variations:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/08/10/the-ipcc-summary-for-policymakers/
The BBC know that the public are not scared by a slightly warmer climate – on the contrary, most people would welcome it.
Hence the increasingly desperate and fraudulent attempts to spread lies about extreme weather.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Average temperature has risen by 1 degree since the Little Ice Age? Good.
Call me when we have hippos in the Thames, like the Neanderthals.
“Hence the increasingly desperate and fraudulent attempts to spread lies about extreme weather.”
But, no efforts to explain what humans could possibly do to change extreme weather. This is the biggest problem with climate alarmists. Constant scare-mongering with no viable or realistic solutions in sight. Desperate indeed!
The lies are getting more desperate .
Perhaps ” Putins Useful Idiots ” are finding it harder to support the Socialist scheme when their leader has recently flipped his lid .
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/03/the_strategic_threat_from_netzero_emissions_.html
A good explanation for how the whole Global Warming scam came about . As a way to take over the world and most of its money , the whole thing was invented to make most countries dependant on Russian energy supplies .
But perhaps now Putins Useful Idiots might just see through how all of the protest groups & left wing media were just doing what was ordered by the socialists , and realise how insane the whole thing is .
But I won,t hold my breath.
It’s all UN Agenda 21 at heart. Make the World “more sustainable”, which means maintaining their power and control of your wealth by the unelected elites, by reducing your individual wealth and ability to self determine, so you cannot determine your own future, they will manage that for you. That is the UN meaning of sustainable for people in the Western developed World, as conceived by Maurice Strong et al for the Rockefellers , Gettys, Kennedys et al in Agenda 21. A Malthusian hence delusional zero sum game we lose so poor people win, but the rich get richer from. Not necessary because we can all win, better, without their “help”. In fact. As China already showed how.. Available now for download. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
An update on agenda 21. https://thenewamerican.com/un-agenda-2030-a-recipe-for-global-socialism/
As a some of the UN heads have admitted , it is not about the climate , it is all about bringing in a ONE WORLD SOCIALIST STATE
Hasn’t it now morphed into Agenda30 now?
Today we can read R T and Sputniknews in New Zealand. I think that is no longer possible in much of world media… I have noticed that it is now obligatory to curse Putin on all blogs ,even a religious blog An Apostate they agreed, this morning . I put this down to the recent appointments in Washington. Maybe I,m wrong and the US influence on correct thought surveillance is not so far reaching as far as Britain. OR Maybe those who dare to think otherwise will be tracked… Take care not to think differently
Another dishonest headline.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-61314226.amp
What the study actually shows is the enormous year on year variability of British weather and the ease with which birds usually adjust and rebound.
The first year of study was 1947, one of the coldest winters in the CET, whereas 2022 was one of the mildest.
1943 was very similar to 2022, and no doubt the first lay would have been nearer 2022 than 1947 if it were in the study period.
They also fail to account for the provision of hundreds of nest boxes and feeding stations which logic would dictate would alter behaviour.
I’m sure the average first lay date has shifted, but no doubt it is by a matter of days and not almost a month because of climate change as suggested by some reports/headlines.
Obviously any possible climate change is hardly significant when the magnitude of the climate variation over the bird’s natural range is considered.
‘This additional energy is unevenly distributed and bursts out in extremes like those we’ve been seeing.’
See, human made Additional Energy™ doesn’t behave like natural energy. It unevenly distributes itself. And bursts out.
They seem very confused. The energy is already unevenly distributed, for all sorts if reasons, starting with day/night & seasons and continuing through the shape of the Earth, its albedo and its wobbles. The additional energy from more CO2 ought to be pretty evenly distributed as the additional CO2 is pretty evenly distributed.
Why would you need evidence when you are spouting PROPAGANDA?
Interesting to note that they now claim weather causes climate. What they fail to note – because they want yo scate the kids – is that when you’ve had thirty years of naff weather then you can call it climate.
I also note that they still talk about emissions ‘trapping heat’. Argh!
I note the graph ” hotter longer heatwaves” is headed “probability”: so its just a wild ass guess, no data
More droughts and more rainfall? The weather’s getting more-ish says the BBC, so change your lifestyles quick!
More persistent droughts [a lie ] plus more extreme rainfall events …..Double plus bad !
I see Spring is early again.
Bunch of activist hacks.
I didn’t watch the BBC news article where that was claimed, (I can’t afford to keep replacing tv sets that have had something thrown at them) but I heard that the claim of spring being three weeks early was by comparing it to 1947.
Agree! – did anyone mention ,not How, but THAT, snow is still sitting on so many Scottish HILLS – not even the mountains, so l ate on in MAY, NOW!. Went out on an evening shopping trip and to see how the countryside was doing after a LATE spring.. According to family records, yes, ’47 saw the end of a very late hard winter so that spring crops were only sown in May , not Feb/March. but that in 1970/71, the end of April into the first fortnight May was Hot & Sunny ( cold nights) but the crops enjoyed it. Promised a hot Summer, but alas June was cold n’ wet. … and we’ve been getting cylces like that ever since. We’re needing rain – so are the SWALLOWS which are aroound 3 weeks late in arriving ( were late last year too ) for nest building mud from the puddles.. Cannot cut the lawns because the daffodils etc are not completedly finished blooming either. Blooming dizzy -brained dollies promoting a climatechange agenda – shame on them.
Time to forget about windmills and get the price of energy down by drilling and fracking more
Indeed, and how often do I have to say , from what’ve read, too, that you don’t see Herons standing at a fishpond looking for non-existent fish, and not getting their pals to come join them in the hope that some fish will come along. Yet we insist ( THEY do: – the GOV. + Green blob ) that we should have MORE windNills. Commercial fishermen do not stand at the harbour wall to catch fish- they ( burn oil) to go / MOVE to where the Fish is. Wind is erratic and we have too much stronger winds at home – but are not allowed to have one here …. make sense ? so why go the expense of building such an infrastructure. For that remote But n’ Ben where townie wanderers may desire to have all mod-cons, then OK have all you desire up there, but leave the rest of us to our reliable sources.
Not just ignorance of basic meteorology but also history …. Simultaneous with the collapse of Late Bronze Age societies there was a pan regional drought lasting centuries extending from the Mediterranean to Tibet Nothing like the multi centennial droughts that desiccated the American Southwest during the Middle Ages have occurred this century or the last . Or the Tudor Droughts of 1538 – 41
” Hotter , longer heatwaves “? The intense heat and droughts of 1876 – 1878 extended from Brazil to China India North Africa and Australia killing an estimated 40 million worldwide The heatwaves of 1895 – 1896 that afflicted eastern North America and Australia were exceptionally severe ……24 consecutive stifling days of 38 C or above across New South Wales in January 1896 ….Millions perished in the 1921 hot weather and drought in Russia China and the Korean peninsula . There was no rain for months over much of England in that year ..One heatwave in France in 1821 was said to have caused the deaths of 200 000 people which may be an exaggeration .Imagine if the toll was only half that figure. See Tony Heller’s compilation ” 1500 Years of Heatwaves ”
Aggregating fuel loads fomenting wildfires are caused by rainfall stimulus and periods of aridity combined with poor forest management and neglected hazard reduction burns – not climate change
Physics tells us that a warming world will tend to have less extreme weather because we know in a warming world its the polar regions that warm, the tropics being effectively temperature constrained by the properties of clouds and water. Lindzen has been pointing this out for years.
And if CO2 is the cause of the warming and CO2 is a well mixed GHG how come this additional “energy” is unevenly distributed? This is just made up nonsense.
Paul Homewood point about the two temperature curves is excellent and I shall use that in future. London is warmer than Newcastle, interestingly when I checked holiday-weather.com the annual average temperature in London is actually 4 degC warmer than in Newcastle! The level of extreme weather and heatwaves must be extraordinarily different between the two cities.
Plus many. I just wish the media would explain that to the public.
It’s just not plausible that only bad things happen with warming.
Would the BBC be telling us only bad things can happen if it were cooling?
Goldilocks springs to mind. Is our climate really worse than several hundred years ago in the depths of the LIA?
I’ve noticed the London temperature on BBC Weather. It is rare to see anywhere warmer than London.
There’s a definite UHI effect in London. I live in central London – when I go down to my mother’s home that is on the very edge of South London (practically in Kent) it is noticeably cooler.
Paul , not only is there no evidence fires are getting worse , this 2019 BBC ‘ Reality Check’ report admitted fires are not unprecedented and have in fact been ‘worse in the past ” https://bbc.com/news/world-49515462
The once affectionately named ‘Aunty’ has become a modern day Orusula.
A demon that takes the form of a humongous pig as it troughs it’s swill from the pockets of the people, and in turn spews it into corrupt journalism.
‘It rained all night the day I left,
The weather it was dry,
The sun so hot I froze to death;
Susanna, don’t you cry.’ — Stephen Foster, 1848
Odd that the BBC rarely put a comments section on their extremist posts nowadays.
Re wild fires.The point has been made before but bears repeating: given tinder and a spark I can light a fire at the North Pole (in theory!). Absent either of those things and I can’t light a fire anywhere on the planet.
Certainly dryness is an aggravating factor but temperature per se plays a much smaller role than human carelessness combined with poor land management.
40,000,000 acres of boreal forest in Alaska, Canada, and Siberia burn every year.
De nada.
Isn’t the official definition of a heatwave something like a period of more than X days of temperatures Xdeg above the mean? Surely as temperatures gradually rise, so will the mean temp, so the likelihood of a heatwave will stay the same?
Climate change only exists in Climate modelling predictions.
Unfortunately these predictions change as often as the weather.
The claim that more heat draws more moisture out of plants is offset by the fact that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means plants can have fewer stomata (microscopic holes in their leaves through which gases, including water vapour, are exchanged with the surrounding air) and therefore loose less moisture. This is one of the reasons, alongside carbon dioxide being plant food, that global greening has been observed in semi arid regions such as the Sahel. Since plants shade the ground they reduce direct evaporation from the soil, therefore it’s possible that more carbon dioxide could actually reduce fire risk, although human management is likely to have a much greater effect than anything else.
Just askin’, but can you refer me to a paper that ceary states the Shara is reducing beause of CO2, as in “desertification is bullshit in science fact”? I suppose its has to be the case in the Namib, Attacama, Gobi, to really make the point, etc? Must be a grant in studying it from the 1st Church of Climate SCience?LOads if satellite data to look at.
I don’t know if this helps but..
which suggests that the greening was about 70% due to CO2.
On the other hand this claims the Holocene Optimum (with green Sahara) was due to the Milankovitch precession cycle.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/green-sahara-african-humid-periods-paced-by-82884405/
There is no doubt that it is greening as the first “we are doomed” paper has surfaced ..”An alarmed climate effect of the re-greening the southernmost part of Sahara has been warned by the researchers at Stockholm University. In their recent study, the scientists have found that the greening of Sahara desert, particularly the area which is known as Sahel reduced the dust emission that leads the increase of tropical cyclone worldwide.
Researchers from the Department of Meteorology at the Stockholm University have discovered this alarming effect after studying the model of simulations in the greening of Sahara desert. From the simulation, they found that during the Geological epoch of Holocene when Sahara desert was full of grass has led to the much stronger summer insolation in the Northern Hemisphere that led to stronger monsoons.” That would seem to me to be a recycling of Reid Bryson’s theory that atmospheric dust levels affect the climate.
Peter Gleick is the climate expert quoted who says that extreme drought in one place causes extreme rainfall somewhere else.
Not quite sure how that works, but Peter Gleick believes this, so it must be a fact and okay for the BBC to broadcast because the BBC can be trusted?
Zero-sum game theory. Very popular with the Left.
That’s just nonsense isn’t it? The two are not directly connected in a linear relationship. Climate isn’t linear like that. And even if it was, areal extent would vary hugely – a localised drought could spread the rain over a very large area .
If the BBC is peddling bad science as ‘truth’, surely someone in the UK could take them to court? We have known this for ages, but their brand of science gets the headlines while ours is smothered, being right is of little use unless people like Boris know about it?
Re. no. 4 extreme rainfall, there are some problems with historical rainfall data used in comparisons.
‘The main challenge of this paper is to demonstrate that one of the most frequently conducted analyses in the climate change field could be affected by significant errors, due to the use of rainfall data characterized by coarse time-resolution.’
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/13/22/3264/htm
I still don’t get the rainfall claim. Yes, a warmer atmosphere holds more water. But it also holds more water! It’s the differential between temperature at evaporation and temperature at rainfall that determines amount of rain, so it’s only rainier if the differential changes. But it’s not. If previously it was 10-6C now it’s 12-7C.
As we know a BBC favourite is sinking deltas caused by climate change sea level rise. Finally they come close to almost admitting that that is the least significant factor. They get an expert who cites the real reasons in respect of the Mekong Delta, dams disrupting sediment replenishment, river bed sand extraction, ground water extraction, and the fact deltas naturally sink. The reasons for the dams of course is supposedly green hydro power, to prevent climate change, ironically! First 7 minutes.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3ct368x
I wonder if the BBC will be going back and correcting their vast archive of climate change/delta junk stories?
It’s down to all that heavy industry in Chad and the complicity of high pressure to bring their temperatures here. I never did like Chad. Meanwhile, the winds are taking Saharan sands and depositing them in Brazil, it improves the farming land immeasurably. Perhaps our impoverished soils too could do with a regular dosing.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-satellite-reveals-how-much-saharan-dust-feeds-amazon-s-plants/
The announcement of the urgent requirement of net zero by 2050 has done little except convince the susceptible that this is a true piece of insight of scientific origin. The government, in promoting this absurdity, now has to stand by it for fear of unleashing the full fury of the gormless on the state, our own version of Governmental Munchausen by Proxy.
You really do have to be careful what you pray for. A government, urgently wanting to show how caring it is, spends unaffordable billions on a scheme which Sweden contained with common sense, that was Covid. Concurrently puts the BBC in charge of its message to mankind. Too many errors to think that they are mistakes, this is hopelessness and selectivity. The whole system is caught-up with nurturing the Wokes, the reaching out to ordinary people business, our support for common sense. No, to support draconian flummery that impoverishes, does the job that real global warming would do, if it existed. Think of Jonestown.
The Biased Brainwashing Cult either never attempted it, or gave up on honesty decades ago.
These old lies have finally hit the MSM
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10799153/BBC-climate-editor-false-claims-global-warming-Panorama-broadcast-inquiry-finds.html
Credit to Paul for pursuing the case in the first place.