Twenty four years after the Independent announced the end of snow due to global warming, they now say the cold snowy weather this winter is a “once in 250-year’ weather event.”
Met Office weather warning over ‘once in 250-year’ event taking place over UK | The Independent
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past – Environment – The Independent
Science requires ONLY ONE counter example to disprove a theory. The AGW hypothesis is rubbish, and can only be perpetuated through religious faith, censorship and suppression of debate. This example is called ‘scraping the bottom of the barrel’. Just how stupid do they think the British public is.? Can’t predict the weather five days in advance, yet knows, with absolute certainty, what happens over timescales of 250 years.
+1
My disillusionment about AGW began 15 years ago – and it was only then when I began to realize that a whole lot of people I had looked up to were not nearly as smart as I had assumed. That, in itself, was another disillusionment.
I believe it was Einstein who sad about a book titled “100 Authors Against Einstein” Why 100? If I am wrong, one would do.
It’s Climatism on steroids. Unusually they don’t link to climate change in the article but it’s all part of the constant deluge of reports on ‘extreme’ weather events that is one component of Climatism.
The ideology of Climatism is well covered in ‘Climate Change isn’t Everything’ by Cambridge Professor Mike Hulme -well worth reading.
“Nearly one in three (29.2%) U.K. Met Office temperature measuring stations have an internationally-defined margin of error of up to 5°C. Another 48.7% of the total 380 stations could produce errors up to 2°C, meaning nearly eight out of ten stations (77.9%) are producing ‘junk’ or ‘near junk’ readings of surface air temperatures. Arguably, on no scientific basis should these figures be used for the Met Office’s constant promotion of the collectivist Net Zero project. Nevertheless, the state-funded operation frequently uses them to report and often catastrophise rises in temperature of as little as 0.01°C.”
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/03/01/exclusive-a-third-of-u-k-met-office-temperature-stations-may-be-wrong-by-up-to-5c-foi-reveals/
(“FOI” refers to a Freedom Of Information order – i don’t know if you have this in the US.
I think it’s called the same in the USA – FOIA.
If the stations are really as crappy as climate scientists then climate science must lose the status of science,
when margin of error can turn any region into a different climate zone.
They are saying that the probability is x/y, some small number. But as we know, two small probability events can occur back to back, even when the probability has been well calculated. Where weather is concerned, we might expect to have two low probability evens to occur back to back, because the conditions are “ripe” for it.
To start with, how do they calculate this is a 1 storm:250 years event? On what data are they basing this? Because less than 200 years ago we were in the Little Ice Age, meaning that the data they have has about 80 years of the Little Ice Age in it, and in any case, they would have to go by reports done at the time (qualitative not quantitative) to determine how many of these events occurred back then, i.e. a guesstimate. Tree rings, etc. don’t have the granularity to show a 2-3 week storm, but would only give the average of the cycle of a year. So their data is full of subjective information.
If they took a longer period of, say 500 years, then this type of storm would be more common, being that they have extended deep into the LIA, making the probability over all less than 1 storm per 250 years. It might even become as low as 1 per 10 years.
Lastly, they probably are basing their numbers on the last 40 years and their global warming belief system, and extrapolating it, again, with much subjectivity, to get a 250-year probability.
They either have too short of a period to make a realistic estimate of the probability, or they are using a longer period and have to translate qualitative material into quantitative material, which again, is subjective, and I don’t trust them to be objective in their subjective analysis.
Snipes rates the MET analysis as FALSE!