No Positive Trends In Extreme Weather Found
By Paul Homewood
According to the absurd Matt McGrath. extreme weather is now the norm:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59105963
The silly man apparently does not realise that extreme weather has always been the norm!
A month before he wrote that article, the following paper was published:
In terms of rainfall/droughts, there has been a general increase in rainfall globally, but this has not translated into more flooding. Indeed, extra rainfall often tends to alleviate droughts instead:
And the authors conclude that drought is not increasing:
And as I have repeatedly reported, there are no long term trends in hurricane activity:
It is worth noting that the IPCC reviews continue to make the same point about extreme weather, ie that it is difficult to find any evidence that it is on the increase, regardless of cyclical regional changes.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Much appreciated effort from Paul. I have been watching 3 farming channels from the US. They live on their dour resignation of the weather: hail, drought, pests and deer eating the crops.
It’s all normal for them and they can even get some of their risk of damage covered in the insurance market. So the stats. are available and the probabilities can be calculated. In a sense the BBC are promoting a fraud.
Sorry Thomas – I don’t think it is in a sense – it is fraud and someone is arranging to have it promoted.
I am being careful I don’t want my PeePal account suspending do I ?
I am loathe to raise this subject as typing certain words and names can now make you a target. Frightening times ahead.
MS 0utlook blocked me today from moving to a well known substack account to read it on this serious issue. See the Daly Scep today.
Yes, don’t use a carrot symbol on FaceTwat as thanks to the BBC, your account will be closed.
TW, er, I think you forget how good farmers are for grumbling about something: low prices, high prices, cold weather, hot weather, too much rain, not enough rain and so on.
Yes Mr. Homewood, but you are looking at data and reality – but we “feel” that it is getting worse and worse and…………
You say Matt McGrath is a silly man, but he is paid a lot of money and is getting very rich from telling all these lies and producing fake stories and propaganda.
“A lot of money” that he couldn’t earn in the commercial world; where fantasies cannot exist. The man is a gibbering idiot, typical of the BBC and its lapsed standards.
Isn’t that par for the course with the BBC? ‘We have to pay the market rate or the [alleged] talent will leave.’ But they then well overpay the dross they employ such as Gary Lineker.
Seeing that we are told ‘untruths’ from the likes of BBC and it’s employees, I guess the only thing left is the courts. I also guess that any case to get BBC (say) to give reasoned reports backed by unbiased science would be very expensive…
But, is it a way forward?
You can always respond in kind when BBC iPlayer asks if you have a TV licence in the rare instance of them having something worth watching.
Hmmm….lost a comment there, Paul…
If these weather events are the new norm then by definition they can’t be extreme because they are normal.
Very good point.
No its not a ‘good point ” …He s bluffing ….At the height of the Australian Millennium Drought the Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s David Jones suggested the extreme dry conditions could be characterized as perhaps our ‘new normal ” ….. 3 -4 years later the La Nina rain downpours caused terrible floods that were then described as ‘extreme weather …..They shift the definitional goalposts
“None of these response indicators show a clear positive trend of extreme events. In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet.”
What has Observational Data got to do with anything when we have models that tell us what we need to know, with total accuracy. Or none so blind as those who will not see.
Never let data get in the way of a good model.
On the 19th Sept I got my latest energy bill online from Octopus exactly one year from being transferred to them when AVRO went bust. I noticed they gave “projected” annual costs based on consumption figures (kWh) that were 15% higher than I had actually used for the calendar year. I emailed and asked them to explain how on one year’s only data they could predict a figure 15% higher than the only hard data they actually had. They responded that their computer projections were accurate! You really could not make it up.
He’s paid to lie, so that’s what he does
How can this be? The BBC constantly tells us they they ‘are a reliable source of news you can trust’. Do you mean to say they’re, er, fibbing?
The weather is getting more weathery! You must *believe* it’s your fault, since the BBC and the rest of the climate miserablists want you to.
Sadly it’s Matt McGrath that’s the new norm. Bereft of logical thought but deemed a qualified Shepard. A modern day Pied Piper.
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
“In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing
today, is not evident yet” (Alimonti et al., 2022).
Alimonti, G., Mariani, L., Prodi, F., & Ricci, R. A. (2022). A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming. The European Physical Journal Plus 137(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02243-9
97% of what McGrath writes is rubbish.
He may know this – or not.
Only 97%?? Undoubtedly he doesn’t know this; he lives and works in an echo chamber and his gibbering rubbish is all he hears and sees.
The thing is, if McGrath was any kind of science-journalist he would be able to find the data that Paul finds and present it in the same way. Unfortunately, even if he could do that he would still come up with the same line – that ‘we’re all DOOMED!’
Because the BBC has espoused the alarmist story and thus our energy policy for so long, each employee is personally responsible for a sliver of this year’s Excess Winter Deaths. I hope this keeps them awake o’nights.
It’s the ubiquitous 97% again! The zealots would like it to be 100 % (I have even seen “110 %”, which is fatuous), but it is a sad fact that at least 5% of any given population (I have not personally verified it) seems to be incapable of giving an answer in a survey…
So, why did they publish in a journal that no climate person would read? The lead author is a high energy physicist though co-authors have some climate bona fides. The International Journal of Climatology publishes data-centred articles of just this sort, occasionally providing grist to the mill of sceptics, though authors have to be circumspect about drawing negative sounding implications to “the” science. Of course this is entirely asymmetric as even the most tenuous connection can be turned into campaigning advocacy without demur from reviewers or editor. But at least there is some outlet.