Met Office Still Refuse To Retract False Claim About Storms
February 22, 2024
By Paul Homewood
Well at least I have had a reply from the Met Office, who don’t seem in the slightest concerned that one of their senior meteorologists said the exact opposite!
43 Comments
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
MET = materially elusive truth.
The 1953 storm surge in Faversham was higher than the 2013 one based on local high tide marks including in the bar of Shipwright’s at Hollowshore. Doubt Met Office has any real evidence of increased wave heights or rainfall intensity.
I daresay the ghost at the Shipwright’s (the skipper of a wrecked barge who made it to the pub but died without being able to summon help) could testify to some pretty ferocious storms of yore.
First ever pub I took my wife to was the Shipwrights. Bent the front wing panel of my Sierra on the worst of the potholes on the way back – expensive!
Best visited on foot probably.
The ten highest surge tides at Sheerness to December 2012 show a decreasing trend. From 6.92m 10/12/1965 to 6.68m 20/02/1996. The gauge network was set up after the 1953 floods. 06/12/2013 was 7.0m and half way up my garden (NTSLF have not updated this part of the site although there are predicted tides is up to 2026. ‘Custom dates’ tab produces a plot for a selected date.). 6.4m at Sheerness floods North Lane outside Shepherd Neame’s bottling plant (a couple of times a year roughly).
https://ntslf.org/data/hilev?port=Sheerness
Flooding in North Lane starts when the drains back up, the bronze flap valves have been stolen (some years ago!) apparently. The Creek starts to overflow when it gets higher. The flood defences at The Albion were improved after December 2013.
More obfuscation from the Met Office. Why do these organisations find it impossible to admit that one of their senior employess told a lie?
And ADMIT that Venn diagrams for looters and liars have considerable overlap? Surely you jest!
Why do these organisations find it impossible to admit that one of their senior employess told a lie?
Perhaps institutional corruption ? Which is not the same as taking a bribe !
Careful! Verging on the heinous crime of doubting the word of a Climate Scientist and ‘Nobel Prize Winner’ punishable in Washington DC with a $1,000,001 fine.
At the corner of the Quayside road and the High Street, Blakeney , Norfolk UK you can see on Google Streetview 4 plaques. Each records storm surge levels achieved on the years indicated. The highest was in 1953 when , by counting 4 brick courses to the vertical foot, the surge rose to approx. 8ft 3ins above road level. Very occasionally the road at this point is covered by 3ins of water at high tide springs.
Two subsequent surges achieved less. This suggests that the heights are decreasing with time . Perhaps this data does not indicate the trend. Ends.
About two feet difference between 1953 and 2013, about a foot here (thank goodness, would have been lapping at my back door).
Back in January I asked the Met Office why many of their official sites did not appear on their “WOW” site whilst some did. After two delays their response was today as follows
“Good afternoon,
Thank you for your recent enquiry in connection to sites appearing and not appearing via the Weather Observations Website (WOW).
A site will only appear on the map if there’s an observation for the hour that’s selected, and the parameter layer selected is available. So, for a climate site like Achfary, it’ll only appear on the map if you look at 09:00 – 09:59.
If you open any site, there is a ‘search a site box’ above the map. If you open this, you can search sites. See attachment for Achfary:
I trust that this will resolve this for you.
Kind regards,
Jessica
Weather Desk”
Understand it? Me neither. It appears that you can only access data at particular times when they feel it is appropriate.
To make the point, right now (21:18 22/2/2410 I can look up both sites in Achfary but I cannot look up the official station in Faversham ( that allegedly- ho,ho,ho as all locals know- broke the UK record in 2003) seemingly because I am looking at the “wrong” time. Is it just me?
Try for yourself for any of their official sites https://wow.metoffice.gov.uk/
Seems a bit like the ‘wrong kind of snow’ excuse!
Isn’t that reply gross lying?
There are people who do not expect the truth from looters as a matter of repeated observations.
They are known liars, being written to about lying, and their response is a lie.
Was someone expecting a different result?
They really believe that modelling projections are statements of fact. Modelling results are used as factual evidence for attribution.
Correct. They refer to model output as “data.”
Is the Met Office so unaware of the world outside that it can make such a “go away” response? The staggering arrogance of their replies clearly shows they have no scientific credibility whatsoever.
Whatever anyone else does I personally do not feel they can get away with this sort of fob off so I am separately going to push this and I recommend others do.
Freedom of Information Act of governmental issues might be worth a try?
You may suggest they read chapter 12 of IPPCC AR6
Worth noting further that the IPCC climate modelling actually predicts European wind speeds (and possibly UK wind speeds) to decline 8 – 10% by 2050 due to climate change.
Why? Because we are subject to extra-tropical depressions which are primarily driven by temperature and pressure gradient between equator and poles.
In a warming world this gradient is expected to decrease as the poles warm and the equatorial temps do not change substantially.
So the expected impact of global warming on extra tropical weather is a decline in wind speed. Which is exactly what the Met Office “state of the climate” papers report. So their reported decline is actually what physics would predict. (and Lindzen has been pointing out for years as a back of the envelope calculation)
Good news surely? But why do the Met Office insist on predicting the opposite?
Weren’t winds supposed to have less work to do, i.e. weaken, as the pole-equator temperature ranges narrowed due to global warming?
Isn’t that what I said?
‘Energy Post’ 15th November 2021
“Research by Bristol and Reading Universities showed periods of stagnant high atmosphere pressure over central Europe which lead to to prolonged low wind conditions could become the most difficult challenge for power systems in the future”
https://energy post.eu/climate-change-wind-droughts-and-the-implications-for-wind-energy/
https://energypost.eu/climate-change-wind-droughts-and-the-implications-for-wind-energy/
@ ThinkingScientist – yes, I see it now 👀
So entrenched bureaucrats find more job security onanizing the programmable than in reporting objective data and making falsifiable extrapolations. How surprising that coercive funding could culminate in such an outcome!
The flashing lights on the super computer in Exeter are mesmerising.
You have been Slingoed.
They really are completely confused between “happening” and “forecast”. As for the “with climate change” I am yet to be convinced that increasing averages influences one-off events.
I guess “follow the science” is just an urban legend?
Storm Damage ?
https://cleverjourneys.com/2024/01/23/wind-turbine-failures-reveal-even-more-green-energy-woes/
First it was called Global Warming, then it was Climate Change, and now it’s about “sustainability.” The Climate Hoax and the Covid lock-downs have one thing in common: These people will never–can never–admit they were wrong. To pull back the curtain for a peek at OZ would bring the entire control charade to an ignominious end, and force them to cede their illegitimate powers back to the citizens of the World. In short–Never gonna happen.
And, conveniently, they never defined ‘climate change.’ So they can use it in any way they want, and you are supposed to know what they mean.
It is the most powerful force known to Man.
Thank you for your reply. All the best, Wm.
Study shows! But ‘specifically in the tropics’…using a new state-of-the-art climate model …
FEBRUARY 23, 2024
Study shows cloud clustering causes more extreme rain
https://phys.org/news/2024-02-cloud-clustering-extreme.html
Every new, improved climate model falsifies all previous new, improved models.
∴ all climate models are false.
‘I hope this helps!’.
As if you would need ‘help’…. What a rude reply.
They are the real deniers