Storm Henk Did Not Bring Unusually Excessive Rainfall
By Paul Homewood
As I reported at the time of the storm, rainfall from Storm Henk was typically around 30mm for the two days of the storm in southern and central England. This has since been confirmed by the BBC:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-67893694
.
Amounts like these are certainly not unusual in England. At Oxford, for instance, daily rainfalls of 30mm and above have been commonplace throughout the record since 1827. Note as well the exceptional totals in the 1950s and 60s, and the obvious absence of any sort of a trend:
https://climexp.knmi.nl/gdcnprcp.cgi
.
Most of the higher daily totals occur in summer, but the chart below plots all days above 30mm between September and April. This shows more clearly that daily amounts of 30mm and more occur regularly, about once every two years on average. Again there is no trend.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/pgdcnUK000056225.dat
Plainly therefore the rainfall during Storm Henk was in no way exceptional in southern England.
But to what extent was the cumulative rainfall in previous weeks and months a factor?
December was certainly wetter than normal, but not unprecedently so. Indeed, it is clear that much more extreme months have occurred in the distant past:
.
Looking at cumulative rainfall since October however sheds a bit more light, with 403mm being the third highest on record, behind 2000 and 1929. That certainly had the effect of leaving the ground saturated. But again there is no evidence this is part of any long term trend, much less caused by climate change.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/datasets/Rainfall/date/England.txt
Despite claims to the contrary, there is no evidence that climate change had any impact on last week’s flooding, either in terms of Storm Henk itself, or the weather in recent weeks.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
El Nino presumambly leaving its mucky finger prints on this winter’s totals?
Presumably !
I think Hunga Tonga might also be having some effect, what goes up must come down!
Meanwhile in North America…
The clue is in two words – ‘travel disruption’. I’m old enough to remember when most folk travelled by public transport and it was still a matter of pride to get people to where they wanted to go regardless of the weather. Trains hauled by steam rarely failed since they had a much bigger tractive effort and the drivers knew how to cope with various conditions. Train sets now are lightly loaded, skid at the first hint of wet, leaves or ice and are vulnerable due to wind and rain bringing down the overhead lines. Likewise on buses, I can remember them taking me to school in the most arduous of conditions, snow and ice included, bearing in mind that we lived up on the Surrey hills. I recall quite clearly at least one instance where we were asked to vacate the bus and push!
I went to school by taxi, known as the School Car, and by bus as well for secondary school.
Apart from 1963 we got to school most days, sometimes late. Our part of the deal was to clear somewhere for the School Car to turn. Looking back the drivers did a remarkable job, not appreciated at the time! H/T Johnie Reid an exceptional driver.
The bus was probably the oldest in Walter Alexander’s Midlands fleet. A 1930s Leyland Tiger I think. It really struggled in cold weather and snow, but always made it to Crieff. Again some skillful drivers
This morning on BBC TV was a segment listing a gaggle of recent ‘named storms’, presumably intended to stoke the climate change hype.
It seems nowadays that no sooner one ‘named storm’ clears from the weather map than another is brewing to take its place.
Does anyone know who does the naming, why, and what are the criteria?
The Met Office explain it here.
Basically it is all very subjective:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/warnings-and-advice/uk-storm-centre/index
Thank you Paul. I am suitably educated!
But it all sounds rather pseudotechnical to me!?
Seems to me that all of what comes from the Met Office is highly subjective…..nothing new here.
I’m naming the puddles in my driveway. I think the BBC should report on them as well, since they are just as significant as the crap the Met astrologers now name.
Meanwhile, over at the Guardian, a«climate justice reporter» writes about the real issues: «Emissions from Israel’s war in Gaza have ‘immense’ effect on climate catastrophe.
Exclusive: First months of conflict produced more planet-warming gases than 20 climate-vulnerable nations do in a year, study shows.
The climate costs of war and militaries can no longer be ignored.»
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/09/emissions-gaza-israel-hamas-war-climate-change
These people have managed to parody themselves. Impressive.
20 tiny countries with populations less than a small town. But why Israel? Why not Ukraine and Russia?
The Guardian – like it’s tv station the BBC – hates Jews.
Indeed – perhaps the Guardian eco zeolots should go to Russia and set up a protest about the climate effects of Putin’s war on Ukraine. Be interesting to see how far that gets them!
Government sponsored study on Electricity Long Term Storage just announced. Link https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/659be546c23a1000128d0c51/long-duration-electricity-storage-scenario-deployment-analysis.pdf
Just scanned the Conclusion part of this report. I could summarise it by two words : – “Not viable.”
More waste of taxpayers money.
Oh, my!
138 pages of useless word salad. LDES is vaporware.
It’s a trick to get people to believe that renewables are viable.
This includes a range of long-duration storage technologies from 6 to 32 hours in duration and capacity levels from 1.5GW to 12GW in 2035 rising to 2.5GW to 20GW in 2050.
So max 640GWh cf 123TWh that the Royal Society think we might need. NOt even a 1% solution.
Getting icy in the Arctic for the time of year…
Most since before 2004.
Off topic – but – THIS!
https://joannenova.com.au/2024/01/if-fossil-fuels-come-from-fossils-why-have-scientists-found-them-on-one-of-saturns-moons/
‘Soon explains that Titan proves that abiotic oil and gas formation is true.’
OMFG!
He needs an organic chemistry class. Stereo chemistry shows oil is NOT abiotic. As I was taught over 50 years ago.
The methane on Titan shows clearly that methane on earth could be abiotic. My pet theory is that biological processes turned methane into oil. Not dinosaurs, but microbes.
Wonder where he’s got lined up next?