January’s Unremarkable Weather
By Paul Homewood
For all of the hype about our weather here last month, including goodness knows how many storms with silly names, supposed record temperatures, floods and the rest, it turns out that January’s weather was actually remarkably unremarkable!
Temperatures were bang on average, and indeed have been flatlining for two decades:
.
Rainfall was also close to average, and again shows no long term increase since the 1920s:
But, I hear you say, what about all those storms? Surely they dumped lots of rain?
Not really – the wettest day was New Years Day, when 17.56 mm fell across England & Wales during Storm Henk.
But there have been 234 days just since 1931 when at least 17mm has fallen, In other words, it’s the sort of event that takes place two or three times a year on average.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadukp/data/download.html
And that “record temperature”?
Across Central England, daily temperatures only reached 13.3C in January, far from unusual for the month.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/data/download.html
The climate crisis seems to have bypassed us!
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Hottest January ever, except when it was very cold.
It is suggested that the temperatures are only flatling because the powers that be are seeding the sky with chemicals to increase cloud cover.
Below average temperature here in mid Devon, and 80% average rainfall.
The fairest January EVAH!
Try telling this to the BBC. All they care about is 1.5oC.
Phillip, did you hear Rowlatt on the BBC this morning? I think he’s in need of nursie.
I’m afraid I heard him twice. His knowledge of science is outstanding (ly awful).
On the plus side the BBC are going to spend the next 12 months explaining why there’s no sign of approaching Nemesis and or why the temperature has fallen back again.
I’m interested in how they spin it. The 1.5’C is now not hyped as a tipping point and point of no return but a couple of years around that mark might actually get people asking difficult questions. I can but hope
Unfortunately I did. It was just after a news item about Labour ditching their plan to spend £28 billion on Green projects.
Kneeler was going to spend £28bn a year not just once on green crap. GB News skewered some Labour MP over this as he droned on about the Tories doing Labour’s trick of spending all the money and how borrowing costs were higher than 2021 when this plan was announced. He faffed when it was pointed out Rachel Plagiarist Reeves trumpeted the plan last year when borrowing was more expensive than it is now.
Rowlett also had the audacity to say that the loss of 4000 jobs at the closed down Welsh steel plant will be compensated by the creation of 2500 green jobs on the site. But he did not say what those Green jobs would be, or where the money came from to pay their wages. He is either an utter fool, or in someone’s pay, and just doesn’t care so long as the money rolls in.
I would suggest both
Every tome I have ever read has said that the temperature of the planet is 15c due to the greenhouse effect or -15c if we did not have greenhouse gases. Plus ca change
I know that I have been warned not to listen to the BBC but the climate jeremiad was in full flow today. What is the riposte? To demand that the BBC refer to the stats. or not interview people who will not provide the stats?
Perhaps to approach the professor direct and ask for the stats. recorded over a sensible time period and copy to the request to the press of which the D. Teleg. seem to be the most concerned about the facts.
If the truth can be confirmed we can all go home for a brief respite.
The whole thing is a nonsense because there’s simply no evidence the periods used for comparison are anymore “normal” than the current period. I see no reason to suppose that climate isn’t constantly changing with no “normal”, long-term state other than the obvious very wide limiting parameters.
From the chart of mean temperature, it’s clear there has been a rise driven partly by a much reduced incidence of low temperatures. That rise stopped some 20 years ago but eyeballing the graph, I’d say the average over the last 20 years or so is a degree or more higher than the average of 1890-1990 but pretty similar to the average of the period 1915-1935. All of which creates the question - what are we comparing to what?
On rainfall, the graphs are for different periods but there’s a suggestion that we get more rain when it’s colder and vice-versa.
Nope. Did this for 100 years of Scottish weather and rainfall correlates very nicely with mean annual temp. Higher temp , higher rainfall pretty well.
Yet that’s not what the graph above suggests. Peak trend rainfall is 1940, which is the lowest point on the trend temperature. There’s another peak around 1875 which is another low point on the temperature graph. Temperatures rise from there as rainfall decreases. Rainfall decreases from 1940 to 1960 with a very slight rise in temperature.
Average unless it is the CET. I have compared CET trends with the Scottish average and CET seems to be getting higher compared to Scottish figures. UHI? Not only more buildings but more air conditioning pushes more heat into the streets especially at night.
Perhaps but I don’t see why different areas should have different trends over what are in any measure that’s really meaningful very short time periods simply from natural variation. These things are interesting for human activities like growing stuff but I’m unconvinced looking at 30 year averages has any meaning for the planet!
“January’s Unremarkable Weather”
That’s what makes it an unprecedented emergency !!!
We tried, but couldn’t make it remarkable ‘& it’s a travesty that we couldn’t’ we need more false data to drive normal into a crisis, there are reputations & careers at stake not to mention grant funding.