New Study: 21st Century Rainfall Trends Have Become *Less* Intense Globally, Not More

There's a regular drumbeat of 'wisdom' out there from a commentariat who like to politicise our weather:

"Climate Change Likely Fueled Rain That Led to New Zealand Floods' - BLOOMBERG

"Climate change is adding energy to the atmosphere and the oceans. This in turn fuels more intense storms and heavy rainfall." - THE CONVERSATION

"Climate Change supercharged [sic] Cyclone Gabrielle" - STUFF

We're told (by the Imperial College of London no less, whose modelling of Covid deaths was so out-the-door crazy it set off a worldwide scare) that their modellers have found that "the rainfall from ex-tropical cyclone Gabrielle was like 30% heavier" due to something called "climate change." Expect more of the same, they say, and lots of it!

A lot of the idiocy is summed up in this report at the taxpayer-funded Spinoff:

Brutal, unexpected, record-breaking, destructive, tragic. The torrential rainfall that engulfed Auckland on Friday night is all those things, and, as is now widely accepted, linked to climate change.
    “It’s a one-in-100-year weather event, and we seem to be getting a lot of them at the moment,” said PM Chris Hipkins. “I think people can see that there’s a message in that … Climate change is real, it’s with us.” After initially expressing uncertainty, mayor Wayne Brown jumped on board. “As the prime minister has said, this is climate change,” he stated. “And I agree.”
    Similarly, media reports increasingly note the climate change link. Analysis by Dot Loves Data for The Spinoff found a lift in references to climate change in Auckland related coverage of 255% across the month of January, with 42 mainstream articles making mention of climate change in flooding coverage, “showing that the nexus between the two is strong.”

Except, except ... it turns out that none of that is true. Not only is the "nexus" not strong, it arguably points the other way. ('Dot 'should be looking at better data, I'd suggest.)

For years, the climate "modellers" have told us that their models tell us that as global carbon-dioxode emissions increase, so too will global rainfall. We'll be getting wetter as the world gets warmer, they say. 

So how has that worked out when actual scientists take their eyes of their models and look instead at the real world? Here's the answer for the last twenty years: 

Per a new study, global precipitation intensity, measured in mm/hour per century, has exhibited flat (large precipitation systems) to declining (medium and small systems) trends from 2001 to 2020.

This is over a period in which atmospheric CO2 has increased by around 40ppm (rising from 371ppm in 2001 all the way to 414ppm in 2020).

For those sitting up the back, this means that as these emissions have increased over this century, rainfall levels have decreased.

Not at all what you would have heard. So I'll say it again, in colour:

As carbon emissions have gone up over this century, rainfall has gone down.

Further: 

The highest frequency of global-scale extreme rainfall events occurred from 1960-1980 − when there were concerns about cooling.
    Since then, the frequency and intensity of rainfall events have “decreased remarkably” (Koutsoyiannis, 2020).

Asked by reporters what this means for their pronouncements, Hipkins, Wayne Brown et al said ... well, they said nothing at all, of course, because our pitiful taxpayer-funded media here are never going to ask them that question, are they.

Pathetic.

The modellers are wrong again. But the politicians will still be using their misbegotten models to peddle their policies of impoverishment.

May I suggest politicians, reporters, and modellers look at research about the real world, instead of interviewing their own computers and each other.