In its latest assessment report, the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that the frequency and intensity of global heavy rainfall events “have likely increased” over the majority of land regions. The claim forms the backdrop for countless stories of increased deadly flash-flooding brought on by human-caused climate change. Alas, for catastrophists, the evidence suggests it would be more accurate for the IPCC to note that recent rainfall intensity has ‘likely not increased’ across the globe.
A new study by a group of international scientists investigating recently-available specialist satellite data found that precipitation trends in the 21st century have become less intense on a global scale. The paper is behind a paywall, but the science site No Tricks Zone (NTZ) highlights the main conclusions. Over large precipitation systems, measured in millimetres per hour per century, global rainfall intensity is flat from 2000-2020, while medium and small systems have declined. NTZ observes that hydrological processes were expected to intensify, “but the opposite has happened”.
Mainstream media almost invariably use intense rain and flooding to promote their climate breakdown narrative. “The heavy rainfall behind deadly flooding in Europe in July was made more likely by climate change, scientists say,” reported Matt McGrath of the BBC in the wake of 2021 inundation in Germany. “Researchers say global heating made rainfall events like this up to nine times more likely in Western Europe,” he added. Earlier this year, the Guardian, a newspaper that seems to grow more hysterical about the climate by the month, reported research showing that “extreme rainfall” in the U.K. was made far more likely due to the climate crisis. Much of this guff comes from pseudoscientific ‘attribution’ computer modelling. The Guardian went on to report that the heavy rain that caused devastating floods in Nigeria, Niger and Chad last year was made about “80 times more likely by the climate crisis”.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, NTZ notes the recent work of the water resources expert Demetris Koutsoviannis, who found that the highest frequency of global-scale extreme rainfall events has occurred from 1960-1980 – when, it is noted, there were concerns about temperature cooling. Since then, the frequency and intensity of rainfall events have “decreased remarkably”. His conclusion is clear: “None of the figures in none of the continents and none of the sources of data provides support on the intensification allegation. In particular the observational data could support the opposite hypothesis, that of extreme rainfall deintensification.”
On an evidential basis, it is difficult to see how the increasing rain intensity trope has got such a hold in the ‘settled’ climate science narrative. Outside of imagination-driven computer models, there is little to back it up. Last year, the Daily Sceptic publicised the work of four Italian scientists who undertook a wide review of the extreme events science literature and found that declaring a ‘climate emergency’ was not supported by the data. They found that both daily and extreme precipitation were stationary in many parts of the world. They demonstrated this conclusion by publishing the graph below.
The graph covers the period 1950 to 2018 and it can be seen that there is generally little change in conditions. But of course the climate changes all the time, and natural variations will likely mean that precipitation will tend to vary over time in intensity and across geographical areas.
On Tuesday, the Daily Sceptic reported on Paul Homewood’s masterclass showing that recent changes in U.K. weather conditions are convincingly explained by natural variations. We noted that the key misunderstanding in climate discourse is between weather, often described as ‘extreme’, and climate trends. Headlines and clickbait science papers routinely dumb down on weather stories and give editorial space to improbable computer predictions. Former BBC Science Editor Dr. David Whitehouse observed that if financial organisations or treasury officials played around with predictions like this, “they would almost certainly come in for a dose of criticism and further probing from proper journalists”. It can be argued that one of the tragedies of declaring that human-caused climate change is settled is that Net Zero political considerations means large areas of science and competing opinions are closed for debate.
Even worse, the debate is being deliberately traduced and attempts are made to restrict it. When the extreme events paper from the Italian scientists went viral on social media, state-owned Agence France-Presse (AFP) published a ‘fact check’ in which it is claimed the authors “cherry-picked” the data. The four scientist included three physics professors, but AFP’s Marlowe Hood asked how did a study, written by non-climatic scientists, wind up in a peer-reviewed journal in the Springer Nature portfolio. As Daily Sceptic readers will recall, Hood is a past recipient of €100,000 (£86,000) from the foundation of the green technology-investing Spanish bank BBVA. Another appalled fact-checker was Dr. Friederike Otto, who works at the Imperial College-based Grantham Institute for Climate Change, a body part-funded by the green billionaire investor Jeremy Grantham. She said “of course” the authors were not writing the article in good faith. “If the journal cares about science they should withdraw it loudly and publicly, saying that it should never have been published,” she demanded.
Regular readers will also recall that Dr. Otto is the co-founder of World Weather Attribution, which says it uses computer models to quantify how climate change influences the intensity and likelihood of an extreme weather event. Results are often available within days, it is noted, “to inform discussion about climate change and extreme weather”.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“Science, ah yes one gets such wholesale returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact” ——Mark Twain.—- I wonder how Mr. Twain would have characterised “Climate Science”. ——–It surely would have been side splitting. Let me have a go on his behalf. ——-“Climate science, ah yes a smidgeon of the truth elevated into a planetary emergency of unprecedented proportions yet with no observations of any kind to back up the alleged crisis, save for the pronouncements from podiums by severely left leaning bureaucrats who have pounced upon CO2 with the zeal of a well fed house cat who didn’t really need to kill that sparrow”
Mark Twain you ain’t.
Well, I did my best mate, and Mark Twain would have done it much better than me but at least both of us would come to the same conclusion. It’s a total Eco Socialist Scam. The biggest pseudo scientific fraud ever perpetrated.
A fair bit of the MSM stories are about the occurrence of extreme conditions and either reports of the outcome, or speculation about future events. However, what is not reported so much is the fact that a lot of investment work is done after the fact, rather than trying to invest in things that could reduce the risk of extreme weather events.
Near where I live, there was some severe heavy rainfall around now in 2007, after which a lot of work was done to improve the drainage, and also to build structures that can reduce the risk of brooks and rivers overflowing. There are many more, all over the UK – but in general they only do it later on, after the problems emerge. Ultimately, money talks on matters like that, and often says: no, it’s not worth it, can’t afford it etc.
What does data like this matter, when our Lived Experience is that there is more extreme rain than ever, the weather is always hotter, the insects have all but disappeared, and the smell of Carbon Dioxie pervades the air?
I do hope you’ve got the ‘sarc’ button turned on Jon..
I do try to sound as blatantly ridiculous as possible, honest – but the real world is beyond satire. But for everyone’s benefit: <sarc>Lived experience doesn’t care about your facts.</sarc>
I wish someone would tell the insects that have been feasting on my scalp that they were supposed to have disappeared.
It’s clear evidence of Global Warming – I never used to get bitten like this! Oh, hold on… I had hair then.
As you were.
Rather difficult to know whether to Up or Down this one! It’s dreadfully accurate in its portrayal, I chose a Down but it is really an Up. Or is it?
I am really keen on knowing what an “unlived experience” amounts to.
It has always baffled me that one.
And then we have “switching up” but never ” switching down.” Or “switching out” but never “switching in.”
There is no ‘natural weather’ any more. All our weather is now manipulated.. GEOENGINEERING and yes that includes the ability to cause drought and flooding. Weather warfare.. its real.. and being applied every day above your head and manipulated by ‘ionospheric heaters’ and ‘nexrad radar’
Of course.. only ‘conspiracy theorists’ say such things, despite the fact there is documented evidence of its use by the very people carrying out the weather modification..
I just wanted to add this.. I’ve spent a great deal of my 70+ years on the planet outside. I’m well weathered and tan well.. but occasionally I’ve noticed over the past few years a burning sensation on my face that has made me seek shade to get out of the sunlight.. and that sunlight wasn’t coming out of a clear blue sky, it was diffused light behind our newly invented Cirrus clouds..
How can any “Science” be believed when every thinking person knows the data is routinely altered? The Met for example has, at least twice, altered historic data so that it better reflects their modelling. Why do they not use the data to perfect the modelling? Not enough money in the truth and it doesn’t fit the narrative.
Sad to say I no longer believe anything that comes from MSM, Government, Westminster, NHS even my own GP. How can I trust them when I know for 100% fact those organisations all set out to deliberately lie to me and ultimately killed and are killing people?
My position exactly. Well said.
Anything spouted from officialdom should be treated as a lie until incontrovertible proof is provided otherwise.
I’d like to know what is coming down with the rain to be honest. We have the cleanest air in the world in many places and it is certainly far cleaner than the days of the Pea Soupers. However, what I have noticed is pavements and bins turning black. We have a strip of pink concrete outside my workshop and I have to jet wash it every year because it goes black. The outside of our wheelie bins get covered in black muck and so do pavements. What on earth is it? There is no coal burning, no bonfires, most cars are clean, it makes no sense.
Coal fly ash.. ???