The Met Office should name storms after fossil fuel companies, campaigners have said, after the weather forecasting service opened a storm naming competition.Climate campaigners have recommended the Met Office names its storms after various oil and gas corporations to remind the public of the link between burning fossil fuels and extreme weather.
Oil and gas companies promptly say "There's no such thing as bad publicity!"
Hundreds of people have submitted ideas to the Met Office. While some have named specific oil and gas companies, others have suggested names such as “bigoil” and “fossily mcfuelface”.
Ah, that's the UK populace I've grown to know and admire...!
The release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has made the storms we experience more extreme, research from the forecaster has found. An attribution study cited by the Met Office found that rainfall in the winter season of 2023-24 was 20% more intense due to human-caused climate change, and the amount of rainfall observed during the season was 10 times more likely.
Of course they did...
Scientists predict that while the number of storms may not increase during climate breakdown, their intensity most likely will. This is because rising global temperatures contribute to more frequent weather anomalies such as the “Spanish plume”, which is when hot air from the Iberian peninsula moves northwards into the UK, creating unstable conditions that can lead to intense summer thunderstorms with heavy downpours and lightning.
I wish! I could do with a really good thunderstorm, haven't really had one in ages. Another of the scientist's promises that never come true...
Scientist's predictions don't come true if they are not based in science. Proper science, based on observations and recording of all the available facts should be able to predict future outcomes.
ReplyDeleteClimate "science" still cannot accurately predict future outcomes with any degree of certainty. That means the science is either flawed, or doesn't consider all the variables. And there are an infinite number of variables.
It's the ideal "science" to use as propaganda because it's impossible for climate models to use all the data and outcomes are so unpredictable that they can be blamed on anthropomorphic global warming. And conversely, it's impossible to say otherwise.
Metpost McJul-face? 😌
ReplyDelete