Maybe all they need is a bigger computer
Guest post by by Paul Homewood
Following the wet summer in the UK last year, the Met Office provided the Environment Agency with a briefing document, giving an overview of the weather. This was discussed at the September Board Meeting of the Environment Agency, which Met Office officials attended.
As far as I know, this document, which I obtained through FOI, has never entered the public domain. It is brutally honest in admitting how little the Met’s scientists understand about what affects our climate, and, in particular, what caused the unusual weather last year. This is in stark contrast to many of the hyped up claims, made in public statements in the recent past by, among others, the Met Office themselves.
The full document is reproduced below, but there are four particular areas I wish to focus on.
1) Drought
The document has this to say about droughts in the UK (my bold):-
Prior to April 2012 the UK was experiencing hydrological drought associated with a prolonged period of below average rainfall. The hydrology of the UK is such that replenishment of water reserves occurs predominantly during the autumn, winter and spring (October – April) referred to as the recharge ‘winter’ season; conversely, the summer period (May – September) is a time when the balance between precipitation and evaporation means that replenishment of water reserves is small. Summer is also the time when temperature can play a significant role in determining evaporation and soil moisture availability.
Although there is not a unique definition for major hydrological droughts it is generally agreed that 1975/76, 1963/65 and 1933/34 come into that category. They extend over 12 months in duration and can take in at least two failed replenishment cycles.
The drought of 2010/12 is similar in severity to these historical events and, as with past events, built up over 2-3 years. The 2010/12 rainfall deficit was not as intense as 1975/76, which ranks as the most severe for the past 100 years in many respects. Much of England and Wales received less than 65% of average rainfall, with sizeable areas receiving only 55 to 60%. Rainfall deficits in the recharge ‘winter’ of 1975/76 were particularly severe and widespread, with the effect that the UK entered the summer of 1976 with severely depleted soil moisture in many regions. In addition to the lack of rain, summer 1976 was also the equal warmest in the series from 1910 across England and Wales, and the sunniest in the series from 1929. The hot, sunny conditions would have significantly increased evaporative demand, and the dry ground would have also influenced the extreme high temperatures experienced during the summer.
Neither the development nor the severity of the 2010/12 drought was exceptional compared with historical events, and its climatological drivers have several similarities with past droughts.
It reinforces this message in the conclusion:-
Neither the development nor the severity of the 2010/12 drought was exceptional compared with historical events, and its climatological drivers have several similarities with past droughts.There is therefore, as yet, no evidence that it was due to climate change and not part of the natural variability of the climate.
We are constantly told how “climate change” will lead to more severe droughts. DEFRA’s own Climate Change Risk Assessment talks about “a reduction in summer rainfall of up to 60% by 2080”, while Environment Minister, Lord Henley, told us in 2011 “the recent exceptionally dry weather is a snapshot of what we might expect from climate change.”
It might, therefore, come as a surprise to many to find that recent droughts are in fact perfectly normal, and indeed much less than severe than some earlier ones.
2) Jet Stream Changes
It is now well known that that last year’s wet weather, (and the drought that preceded it), was the result of changes in the position of the jet stream. The Briefing Document has this to say:-
What is causing this summer’s wet weather?
The jet stream has been displaced southwards compared to its climatological summertime position. The jetstream is the fast-moving ‘river’ of air at altitudes of around 30,000ft which forms in the mid-latitudes at the boundary between the cold air surrounding the poles and the much warmer air in the tropics. It usually runs from west to east, and acts to develop and steer the low pressure systems which are responsible for much of the UK’s rain. On average, these systems pass to the northwest of the UK, and hence northwestern parts of the UK – particularly higher ground such as in Western Scotland and Cumbria – receive the most rain.
However, when the jetstream dips to the south of the UK, the distribution of rainfall is skewed away from the climatological average, and southern areas can see periods of significantly above average rainfall and associated higher risk of river and surface water flooding. Not only do the low pressure systems steer across southern areas, but the following factors act to increase the risk of heavy rain and flooding:
· different prevailing wind direction means that different windward slopes will be subject to enhanced rainfall
· the frequent southerly to easterly component to the airflow means that warm, thundery air from the near Continent may be drawn towards the UK, increasing the potential for heavy rainfall
· fronts are more likely to become slow-moving, giving persistent rain in some areas
· between the low pressure systems themselves, the dominant low-pressure (‘cyclonic’) environment is conducive to formation of heavy showers during summer. Again, these may be slow-moving, with an increased risk of intense downpours and surface water flooding.
Low pressure systems of this nature are unusual in summer and because the atmosphere is warmer it can hold more water than in other seasons resulting in significant amounts of rainfall.
The $64000 question, of course, is why has it moved. The Met Office are admirably frank. They admit they do not have a clue. This is what they say:-
The jet stream, like our weather, is subject to natural variability – that is the random nature of our weather which means it is different from one week, month or year to the next. We expect it to move around and it has moved to the south of the UK in summertime many times before in the past. It has, however, been particularly persistent in holding that position this year – hence the prolonged unsettled weather.
This could be due to natural variability – a bad run of coincidence, if you will – but scientific research is ongoing research to investigate whether other factors at play.
Factors which might contribute include:
· North Atlantic Sea Surface temperatures are warmer than normal. These can drive low pressure during summer over NW Europe, and have been a consistent feature of the last five summers (June, July August), all of which have been wetter than the climatological average for 1971-2000;
· It has been suggested that the decline of Arctic Sea Ice may drive low pressure over the UK, although this remains very uncertain at present. Record loss of summer Arctic sea ice cover has also been a consistent feature of the last five summers;
· Recent summers have been under the influence of La Nina-type forcing from the tropical Pacific. Although the tropical East Pacific has warmed in recent months and there are indications of a transition to El Nino conditions, the recent weather patterns in the tropical Pacific are still representative of La Nina conditions, with very disturbed weather over Indonesia and the West Pacific. La Nina drives an increased risk of low pressure over the UK and predisposes the jetstream to shift southwards.
· There is evidence that the circulation changes over the UK are part of a pattern of changes which circumnavigates the whole of the northern hemisphere mid-latitudes.
So, while they are researching various factors, they actually have no evidence on any of them, and certainly none which can link jet stream changes to “climate change”.
But none of this appears to have stopped Julia Slingo telling the Telegraph “The trend towards more extreme rainfall events is one we are seeing around the world, in countries such as India and China, and now potentially here in the UK. “
Or head of the Environment Agency, Lord Smith, informing us “We are experiencing a new kind of rain. Instead of rain sweeping in a curtain across the country, we are getting convective rain, which sits in one place and just dumps itself in a deluge over a long period of time.”
Or DEFRA warning us that “The climate is changing. This means we are likely to experience more flooding”.
3) Madden-Julian Oscillation
The Met posed the question – What caused the shift from very dry weather to very wet weather in 2012? This was what they had to say:-
The reason for this sudden change is still being investigated. There is a suggestion that it could be linked to disturbed weather patterns over the Indian Ocean and tropical Pacific caused by a strong Madden-Julian oscillation (MJO) – a large scale tropical phenomenon – in March. Understanding the initiation of an MJO event is, however, largely unpredictable, and remains one of the great unsolved challenges of tropical meteorology. It is therefore very unlikely that the MJO and its impact upon our own weather could have been anticipated in forecasts produced in early and mid-March. However, by the end of March, once the MJO had been observed, short range forecasts were able to predict the wetter and more unsettled weather the UK experienced during April.
To some extent, it may be that they are using this as an excuse to cover up their failure to predict the change. Nevertheless, as they make clear, climate science really does not understand this phenomenon.
It is a pity that their public statements do not admit this.
4) Decline of Arctic Ice
There have been many attempts recently to blame just about every bit of bad weather on declining Arctic sea ice. Julia Slingo, herself, told a Parliamentary Committee last year:-
“There is increasing evidence in the last few months that depletion of ice, in particular in the Bering and Kara seas, can plausibly impact on our winter weather and lead to colder winters over northern Europe”.
(This, of course, came a few months after previous predictions of warmer, wetter winters, and a few months before Slingo decided Arctic ice was responsible for heavier rainfall).
The private briefing document totally demolishes her argument and that of others:-
It has been suggested that the decline of Arctic Sea Ice may drive low pressure over the UK, although this remains very uncertain at present.
And
In the long term, most climate models project drier UK summers – but it is possible there could be other influences of a changing climate which could override that signal on shorter timescales.
If low levels of Arctic sea ice were found to be affecting the track of the jet stream, for example, this could be seen as linked to the warming of our climate – but this is currently an unknown.
The Met Office Hadley Centre, working with climate research centres around the world, is making strides in determining how the odds of extreme weather happening have been influenced by climate change. However, it is very difficult to do this type of analysis with such highly variable rainfall events, so it may take many years before we could confirm how the odds of this summer’s wet weather happening have been altered by greenhouse gases.
So why did Slingo give the testimony she did to Parliament?
In Summary
The Met openly admit that neither they, nor climate science in general, have any real understanding about the basic processes that affect our climate.
It is surely time that they, DEFRA and others admitted this in public, instead of continually repeating the same old speculations that every bit of bad weather is linked to global warming.
clueless about what affects our climate, and, in particular, what caused the unusual weather last year
Weather is not climate…
Thanks, Paul.
So the Met specializes in building two story houses. One story for insiders and another story for the unwashed common folk who pay the bills. BTW, speaking of Freedom of Information, any progress on the CG III emails? .
Then again, climate is NOT weather right?
I’m comforted that there are some scientists in the Met office.
I’m disconcerted that the public pronouncements from their masters ignore them in favour of the politcally correct party line.
Certainty in public, uncertainty in private.
Great post, excellent work Paul.
The jet stream, like our weather, is subject to natural variability
I should think so:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NH-NV.htm
“””””…………………………””””” Well the heading gose in there.
There was nothing unusual about last years weather. The thing about weather, is that it usually is not the same as it was; but it usually changes to something else.
Excellent, Paul. I hope this gets spread far and wide. We need to get the masses to WAKE UP to this scam. When enough people demand the plug be pulled on stupid green funding, that plug will be pulled. Likewise the plug will be pulled on the IPCC and the UN.
C’mon, MSM, do your stuff!
it’s all coming out of the woodwork now. We thank mr Watts and Co for keeping us to date. Oh and thank Al gore for inventing the internet .
Having kept up with the Met’s dismal forecasting record for the past several years, it was already obvious to me the Met doesn’t have a clue. To my acquaintances who live in England and Scotland, the Met’s forecasts are objects of great mirth. They usually prepare for the opposite of what is forecast.
It is very sad and totally ridiculous you need an FOI action to get the truth out of the UK Met Office.
Because the document contains no alarmist climate orthodoxy, there is absolutely no chance of this being reported in either the BBC or the Guardian
I did this simple chart https://sites.google.com/site/ralulacet/rainfall/annual-rainfall
from the Met Office England and Wales dataset http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadukp/
If anyone can see anything unusual going on then please let me know.
True, weather is not climate….except when it serves the “news” purpose of hysterical AGW propagandists lobbying for government control of the populace at the direction of their elitist members
I think the science is finally settled and the consensus agrees those hacks really do not know what they go on about. It is no wonder the government there is mishandling the problem of the elderly dying from the cold. The decision makers are being given a load of crap from these wonks. The IPCC and their rogue enablers have turned killer and they’re getting away with it. And Michael Mann is bleating about death threats from a writer for a public press. Cheeky sot is inebriated on the elixir of government grant money.
There’s one in the eye for ZedsDeadBeds!
No carbon dioxide?
lsvalgaard says:
April 9, 2013 at 1:58 pm
Weather is not climate…
Thank you, Leif. And in other news: This year Christmas will fall on 25 December 2013.
The science within the department, and the honest expressions of uncertainty are reassuring to see.
Especially considering the presumably politically influenced public announcements.
Did they get Steven Goddard or a fan of his site to write this common sense? 🙂
Behind the scenes they are running around like headless chickens admitting they are clueless.
@lsvalgaard says:
April 9, 2013 at 1:58 pm
clueless about what affects our climate, and, in particular, what caused the unusual weather last year
Weather is not climate…
==
“This basic knowledge (with which all real climatologists ought to be thoroughly familiar) about the real mechanisms of meteorological phenomena, and about the processes whereby climatic modifications are transmitted, is necessary for the analysis and understanding of climatic evolution, across all scales of intensity, space and time.” Marcel Leroux.
What we are seeing now was carried out back in 94 as an experament The ionospheric heater used looks to be from the same place they showed us this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxA0Asq2YDg And here are the Action Reactions and results of that test http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/31/64/49/PDF/angeo-16-1212-1998.pdf It states that the jet stream reacted when the heater was turned off and on, they even created a reversal . So why are people so quick to turn a blind eye to this being the cause for extrem weather paterns ?
“However, by the end of March, once the MJO had been observed, short range forecasts were able to predict the wetter and more unsettled weather the UK experienced during April.”
A very cool and wet April 2012 was in my solar based long range forecast, with full confidence, as was with this March being very cold.
I read:
This surely would have absolutely nothing to do with the climate change fanatic and former head of the WWF UK and Met Office, Sir Robert Napier , stepping down in SEPTEMBER of 2012? Heaven forbid.
Nothing to see here, move along folks.
According to conspiracy buffs , [weather modification] is responsible for the strange and bad weather.
Vukcevic’s graphs make more sense to me, and I have been watching the jet stream patterns and they have definitely stayed farther south than usual for this time of the year.
“A bigger computer”?? Possibly a high colonic would be more beneficial.
PAUL
All the dates that you mention seem to be at or around solar minimums
Meanwhile a Winter Storm Watch in April
Watches
City of Toronto
4:27 PM EDT Tuesday 09 April 2013
Winter storm watch for
City of Toronto issued
Ice pellets and freezing rain likely Thursday.
A series of low pressure systems will give periods of rain to the regions into Wednesday night. On Thursday, a stronger low will arrive from the southwest and combine with a colder airmass from the north. As a result rain is expected to change to ice pellets and freezing rain Thursday morning. The ice pellets and freezing rain are expected to persist through Thursday night and be heavy at times.
Poor travel conditions are expected Thursday. In some places, power outages may occur. Conditions are expected to improve Friday.
There is still some uncertainty as to the track of the storm and the extent of the cold air Thursday. Environment Canada will monitor this situation closely and will issue warnings as needed as the track of the storm becomes more certain.
Special Weather Statement
WOCN11 CWTO 092139
Special weather statement updated by Environment Canada at 5:39 PM
EDT Tuesday 9 April 2013.
———————————————————————
Special weather statement for:
=new= Belleville – Quinte – Northumberland
=new= Kingston – Prince Edward
=new= Peterborough – Kawartha Lakes
=new= Stirling – Tweed – South Frontenac
=new= Bancroft – Bon Echo Park
=new= Brockville – Leeds and Grenville
=new= City of Ottawa
=new= Gatineau
=new= Prescott and Russell
=new= Cornwall – Morrisburg
=new= Smiths Falls – Lanark – Sharbot Lake
=new= Parry Sound – Muskoka
=new= Haliburton
=new= Renfrew – Pembroke – Barry’s Bay
=new= Algonquin
=new= Burk’s Falls – Bayfield Inlet
City of Toronto
Windsor – Essex – Chatham-Kent
Sarnia – Lambton
Elgin
London – Middlesex
Simcoe – Delhi – Norfolk
Dunnville – Caledonia – Haldimand
Oxford – Brant
Niagara
City of Hamilton
Halton – Peel
York – Durham
Huron – Perth
Waterloo – Wellington
Dufferin – Innisfil
Grey – Bruce
Barrie – Orillia – Midland.
Rainy over most of Southern Ontario through Wednesday.
Freezing rain and ice pellets over South Central Ontario
Thursday. Significant snowfall over northern and eastern
Sections Friday.
———————————————————————
==discussion==
A series of frontal waves is giving a wet week to portions of
Southern Ontario. Rainfall warnings are currently in effect for much
of Southwestern Ontario with rain at times heavy expected to continue
through Wednesday.
On Thursday, significant ice pellets and freezing rain are forecast
to affect an area from Southern Lake Huron to Western Lake Ontario,
including the Toronto area.
On Friday, the system will spread northeastward to affect northern
and eastern sections, including the Ottawa area, likely giving a
significant snowfall. Ice pellets will be possible near the St
Lawrence River.
Environment Canada is watching the development of this situation
closely and will issue further statements and warnings if required.
Please monitor the latest forecasts and warnings from Environment
Canada at http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca.
End
Now the Met Office is talking about the climate and not the weather. Keep it up chaps.
The WMO and IPCC sees climate as 30 years or more of weather data. This whole scam is based on the weather is now climate con job. You are not fooling me.
Amen to that. The unusual weather was, as you know, blamed on ‘climate change.’ I wish Warmists would pay heed to your very wise words. 😉
Robert Napier has ruined the formally bad name of the Met Office. This is not meant as a joke. The Met Office had a bad name before Napier stepped in, he made it worse. No joke.
Weather is not climate…
It is when it’s hot.
“Maybe all they need is a bigger computer”
They have one. We’re on it.
Here are some results from computer model predictions / projections. I call it GIGO. Horseshit.
UK may get more droughts
UK may get more rain
The Met Office has admitted that prediction about weather AND climate are beyond the ability of charlatans with super computers, and have therefore switched to the seance with poltergeist form of forecast. Future predictions will be made by the ghost of Marcel Marceau….”the mime who brought poetry to silence”….offering the public the same level of accuracy and entertainment.
Exactly! See Climategate 1.
The format might be crap, but the data is real:-
UK Mean Central England Temperature, 2013
Month CET Anomaly
January 3.5 -0.3
February 3.2 -0.6
March 2.7 -3.0
April 3.5 -3.0 provisional, to the 8th
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html
Somebody, somewhere, please turn on the CO2 generator, or if that is no longer politically correct, can I please have my Sun back?
The words ‘it’s the sun, stupid’ come to mind. Nowhere in their hunt for the missing clue as to what drives our climate do they suggest that the sun might have something to do with it and so the clueless stumble on.
As to Slingo’s statement to Parliament, she was practicing a political technique known as ‘lying’ where you say something that you know isn’t true but hope that nobody notices. Cameron is a past master of the art, as was Blair, Brown, Major, Heath…….but notably not Baroness Thatcher. As the current political pygmies queued up to praise her you can’t help but notice what a useless bunch they all are.
lsvalgaard says:
April 9, 2013 at 1:58 pm
clueless about what affects our climate, and, in particular, what caused the unusual weather last year
Weather is not climate…
Weather absolutely climate! Climate is the weather averaged over the long-term.
Winter storm watch in effect.
Tonight
Rain changing to drizzle before morning. Risk of a thunderstorm this evening and after midnight. Amount 10 to 20 mm. Low 6.
Wednesday
Drizzle changing to rain in the morning. Amount 10 to 15 mm. Wind becoming northeast 30 km/h in the afternoon. High 9.
Wednesday night
Periods of rain changing to wet flurries and ice pellets before morning. Risk of freezing rain before morning. Rainfall amount 5 mm. Wind northeast 30 km/h. Low zero.
Thursday
Rain or snow. High plus 2.
Friday
Rain or snow. Windy. Low plus 1. High plus 4.
Saturday
Cloudy with 70 percent chance of flurries or rain showers. Low zero. High 6.
Sunday
Sunny. Low minus 3. High 8.
Monday
Cloudy with 60 percent chance of showers. Low zero. High 10.
As always, April showers bring May flowers.
There is nothing wrong with admitting ignorance in science, in fact it is the only way to proceed, should the state of affairs be such.
However, doing it in secret is utterly unscientific behavior and leads to nowhere. At first glance it is a grave violation of scientific ethics in itself, but for scientists whose job is done on taxpayer’s money it is bordering on criminal behavior, they have to be prohibited to withhold vital information from the public like that.
“So why did Slingo give the testimony she did to Parliament?”
Hmmm….£……££££££££££££
‘Power does not corrupt. Fear corrupts… perhaps the fear of a loss of power.’
John Steinbeck
“lsvalgaard says:
April 9, 2013 at 1:58 pm
clueless about what affects our climate, and, in particular, what caused the unusual weather last year
Weather is not climate…”
That’s because modern climate is what is ejected from computer models, not what really happens to the world.
Thursday
Rain or snow. High plus 2.
Friday
Rain or snow. Windy. Low plus 1. High plus 4.
Saturday
Cloudy with 70 percent chance of flurries or rain showers. Low zero. High 6.
Saturday a 70% chance of rain or snow?
So we let a bunch of weathermen…elevate their trade to climate scientist
…only to find out, they are just weathermen after all
Take a look at this Viner moment and keep in mind the recent UK winters and summers. 🙂
So what has the “winter we have just seen” been like and is it “consistent with the type of weather we expect to see more and more in the future.”? You decide.
Sorry I forgot the link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6401063.stm
Here are 2 statements from the Met Office. Please compare and contrast.
and
Climatastrology at work. Warmcold drywet snowno winterheatfreeze. All proof of something or other.
I’m going to bed now. Let’s try our best to end this public funding fraud. Members of the UK tax paying public also have to write to their MPs as it is they who have suffered this winter and will continue to suffer until they take action.
lsvalgaard says:
April 9, 2013 at 1:58 pm
clueless about what affects our climate, and, in particular, what caused the unusual weather last year
Weather is not climate…
—
until funding is needed.
lsvalgaard,
“Weather is not climate…”
True, but climate is the aggregate of weather over time and / or space, so changes in climate would be affected by the same factors that affect weather.
Climate temperature and precipitation range and average is indeed a product of weather. However, climate is more than that. Climate is also based on address (long, lat, alt, proximity to large bodies of water or moutain ranges, etc). So I disagree with both sides (climate is not weather vs climate is weather). Climate is weather and location.
I see some signs in this report that some within the system are attempting to shake free of the absurd bias and wish-casting that has perverted English meteorology. It is hard enough to forecast the weather without politics demanding certain results. Once politics entered, the forecasts became jokes, and the Met Office a laughing stock.
A lot of the “explanations” now bleated are but lame attempts to hide the reasons for the laughter. They are so absurd they only make the laughter louder. A band aid might suffice, if you were covering a scratch, but it is absurd to use a band aid when your pants have fallen down.
Attempting to blame the hard winters on the lack of sea ice was just such a band aid. It might have worked as an excuse, in the autumn, when there was less sea ice, but as the Arctic Ocean refroze people could just check the internet, and see that the unfrozen areas had refrozen, and expect the winter to grow more mild towards the end. When the exact opposite happened, the excuse looked pathetic. The emperor was seen to have no clothes, and only a band aid.
In actual fact there are some interesting cycles, which are effecting the sea ice. As the the PDO goes into a cold cycle there is more ice on the Pacific side of the Arctic Ocean, while, as the AMO remains warm, there continues to be less ice on the Atlantic side.
I am sure there are genuine scientists at the Met Office who would like to study the lop-sided nature of the PDO and AMO, and the resultant lop-sided nature of the sea ice, and to study whether this might cause the jet stream to be less zonal and create more “blocking patterns.” Such study was why many went into meteorology in the first place. They must be sick to death of all the political hogwash they’ve had to endure, and be tired of being a laughing stock, and perhaps we are seeing the first rumblings of a revolt, when we see reports of honesty (regarding what they don’t know,) such as is seen in the above report.
It sure is a heck of a lot different from a 90% certainty that our children won’t know what snow looks like.
When honesty becomes news, that means that 9 of 10+ journalistic items are not just errors but conscious, knowing frauds, “slinging Juliet” as the saying is.
In today’s world, “climate science” (sic) is by no means the sole offender. But penetrating the Met Office’s bizarre fixation on utterly counter-factual prognoses requires a certain critical habit-of-mind which seems increasingly in short supply.
lsvalgaard says:
April 9, 2013 at 1:58 pm
Weather is not climate…
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
The low information voter across the globe doesn’t recognize that fact.
Hence why we are in the position of policy driven by preconception science.
Right or wrong, it is what it is.
We can change that by making the voice of known science more accurately understood.
Speak up, and step up further folks!
When I was a lad, I remember my Geography teacher telling us that, unlike many parts of the world that had a definable climate type, “Britain does not have a climate: it experiences weather.”
That was always my experience of it, and it explains why discussing the weather ad nauseam is a peculiarly British obsession. As people used to say, “If you don’t like the weather at the moment, just wait an hour, because it will change.”
Applying the definitions of climate to this chaos is therefore not especially illuminating. Statistical averages conceal more than they reveal. There is no “average” weather in England, only “typical” weather for a given time of year. Significant excursions from the supposed “norm” are as common as the norm.
In this uncertain environment, one can understand the problems that the Met faces in devising accurate forecasts. But what pisses me off, and no doubt millions of others, is that they pretend to know so much more than they do. This revelation exposes the charlatan behind the curtain – the great Oz knows bugger-all.
Seizing upon our second-favourite greenhouse gas as the root of all evil is an extremely cynical move for these so-called scientists. Perhaps it hasn’t occurred to them to get their story straight on the causes and effects of jet-stream and cloud cover before predicting doom and disaster with such hubristic confidence. As for the upcoming Mediterranean climate for the UK. Ha!
“…can plausibly impact…”
These are people who can never have learned how to choose between “effect” and “affect” and therefore must resort to saying “impact” as a one-size fits all cop-out. In other words, these are truly ignorant, half-educated dunces with muddy, unclear thought processes and no English language comprehension skills to speak of. Don’t take my word for it…just look at their choice of baby-words.
Mike Smith says:
April 9, 2013 at 4:23 pm
lsvalgaard says:
April 9, 2013 at 1:58 pm
clueless about what affects our climate, and, in particular, what caused the unusual
weather last year
Weather is not climate…
Weather absolutely climate! Climate is the weather averaged over the long-term.
My Respect to both you fine Gruntlemen, but I believe that Robert Heinlein said it best:
“Climate is what you expect; Weather is what you get.”
Good.
Scientists who have already made up their mind may be susceptible to confirmation bias.
Scientists who don’t know the reason are the best ones to find out.
The subtext suggestion that because there is an aspect of climate science that is still under investigation, therefore the things that we do know about climate science, are also incorrect, (by association) is a fallacy one is familiar with from arguments by creationists.
Suffice it to say, in this post, that it is a non-sequitur.
“Weather is not climate…” Leif Svalgaard
—
Let’s ask Kevin Trenberth… (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/weather/july-dec12/climate_07-02.html)
KEVIN TRENBERTH: Well, I think it’s — you know, you look out the window and you see climate change in action. This is the way it gets manifested. There’s normal weather events. There’s the normal seasons.
If we have June temperatures in March, well, you know, we have experienced them before because we get them in June. If we have a very mild winter, actually, people like that, because the winter isn’t as cold. But we were breaking records then.
Now we’re breaking records, but we’re in the peak of the heat season. And now we’re going outside of the realm of conditions previously experienced. And so that’s when the damage really becomes extreme, and we get all of these wildfires. Houses have been burned, tremendous damage to the environment and, you know, maybe some other consequences to come with regard to things like bugs that have survived the relatively warm winter.
So these are all manifestations of climate change that we expect to see more of as time goes on.
—
By the way, relatively quiet tornado season in the U.S. so far this year…just sayin’…
Seth says: April 9, 2013 at 7:48 pm
Good. Scientists who have already made up their mind may be susceptible to confirmation bias.
Scientists who don’t know the reason are the best ones to find out.
The subtext suggestion that because there is an aspect of climate science that is still under investigation, therefore the things that we do know about climate science, are also incorrect, (by association) is a fallacy one is familiar with from arguments by creationists.
Your first paragraph is spot on. But you have missed the point of the debate with the second. Lemme get that for ya, Seth.
………because there are many aspects of climate science that are still under investigation, therefore it is obvious many of the things that we are told are true about climate science, are actually currently unknown.
That is where the problem lies and the discussion centres, and the FOIA documents clearly show it.
Whether the weather be hot,
Whether the weather be cold.
Whatever the weather,
We’ll weather the weather,
Whether we like it or not.
RE: In Summary, The Met openly admit that neither they, nor climate science in general, have any real understanding about the basic processes that affect our climate.
BUT their computer models are bang on accurate, right? /// Sarcasm ///
The Jet Stream is linked with the Arctic Oscillation. When the AO is negative the Jet Stream moves south causing the change in weather.
Changes to the AO seem cyclical and my be linked to the lunal nodal cycle.
“4) Decline of Arctic Ice
There have been many attempts recently to blame just about every bit of bad weather on declining Arctic sea ice. Julia Slingo, herself, told a Parliamentary Committee last year:-
“There is increasing evidence in the last few months that depletion of ice, in particular in the Bering and Kara seas, can plausibly impact on our winter weather and lead to colder winters over northern Europe”.
In New Zealand where we operate the Westminster Parliamentary system Slingo could be charged with contempt if she has lied to a parliamentary committee. I understand Strangers such as Slingo could be imprisoned for the life of the Parliament if the contempt is proven.
Tempting for a public minded MP to bring the action – just use her utterances as recorded in Hansard and compare that to the Met Office record we have seen here. As they say, Game, Set and Match.
Not a comforting read. It seems we have some competent chaps working in the background but the front office bozos have an agenda that has nothing to do with valid climate reports.
Today being the 10th of April is the 100th day of the year 2013 and the temperature on the thermometer stuck on the outside of my double glazed kitchen window reads 7C. Warmest temperature for this time of day this year! Jet stream is indeed shifting. 10/10ths cloud with a light breeze from the south. Hazy view indicates humidity is high. Might rain this afternoon. Plants need it bad.
Well, what do you know? Away from the media circus, the MO are actually doing their job. I wonder why these scientists don`t speak out against the likes of Slingo.
I wonder what the Guardian CiF pages are going to fret over now?
Thanks for this, Paul.
“It is brutally honest in admitting how little the Met’s scientists understand about what affects our climate”
When I met Met Office “scientists” (modellers is probably what they call themselves), I was surprised how closely their own views on the climate matched those of the informed sceptics. We might have differed on the degree of weighting to be given to certain evidence, but we didn’t fundamentally disagree about the actual evidence or climate.
So, when we talk about the “Met Office” talking out their backsides … it isn’t the rank and file modellers who are responsible. This non-science which has been so damaging to the reputation of the Met Office comes from those in charge
Two things. “Weather is not Climate”. That suggests that they are 2 independent variables and they are not. So, weather is climate.
The met off has grown in both size and cost way beyond necessity. I have already stated that I would like to see the climate impact and climate modeling units closed. They have no useful role to play. After that, the MO should be downsized at management level and designed to concentrate on their more important role of weather forecasting.
There are too many ‘green agencies’ in the UK (and europe) and they need to be reduced significantly. And finally, the money saved given over to helping the people adapt to climate change. Yes, it does change but not due to some insignificant trace gas a gas that is so small in concentration that were it in gold the gold would be 24 carat.
Oh and thanks Paul. A significant contribution.
So one question.
Why didn’t any of the obviously knowledgeable folks at the Met Office blow the whistle.
Why are all of the Met Office employees spineless bureaucrats clinging to their seats for dear life, knowing that their green leaders will spout nonsense to keep the wind turbine gravy train rolling.
Obviously because they know they won’t find that kind of lavishly paid job anywhere else with their skill set.
So we have an international warmist machine whose own worker drones don’t believe the CO2AGW narrative themselves. It is all based on greed on lies.
Seth says:
April 9, 2013 at 7:48 pm
“Good.
Scientists who have already made up their mind may be susceptible to confirmation bias.
Scientists who don’t know the reason are the best ones to find out.
The subtext suggestion that because there is an aspect of climate science that is still under investigation, therefore the things that we do know about climate science, are also incorrect, (by association) is a fallacy one is familiar with from arguments by creationists.
Suffice it to say, in this post, that it is a non-sequitur.”
I draw a different conclusion.
The Met Office’s scientists are lying cowards. They know what they know but they won’t tell you, they’ll only give you lies in public.
So they are worse than useless.
And should be fires without compensation.
jack morrow says: April 9, 2013 at 3:47 pm
I have been watching the jet stream patterns and they have definitely stayed farther south than usual for this time of the year.
Hi Jack
Jet stream is the climate factor as far as the mid and high latitudes are concerned. Most of my interest and ‘research’ if you can call it that, is concentrated on the far North Atlantic, to the either side of the polar circle. To move jet stream in the winter (when the sun is below horizon) certain amount of power/energy is required. This is provided by the intense ocean – atmosphere interaction. Cold winds remove the surface heat at rates of several hundred watts per square meter, resulting in deep water convection.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/slides/large/04.18.jpg
This is known as the thermohaline forcing and considered to be the source of the ‘Icelandic Low’ atmospheric pressure, the semipermanent climatic feature. The strength of the Icelandic Low is the critical factor in determining path of the polar jet stream over the North Atlantic. In the summer months, as the Arctic ice retreats with the insolation increase, the Icelandic Low moves from the south of Greenland to the NE of Iceland.
Here we can see how the Icelandic pressure affects the CET
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-IAP.htm
Why the Icelandic Low (or the thermohaline forcing) would change so radically? I think it is all to do with cold/warm currents balance in the area, the critical here is a little known North Icelandic Jet current which flows along the continental slope of Iceland. It advects overflow water into the Denmark Strait. its strength impedes the warm currents flow in the opposite direction http://www.whoi.edu/cms/images/new_current_218915.jpeg
interfering with heat loss to atmosphere just north of Iceland, the Icelandic low and jet stream path.
The North Icelandic Jet flows at a depth of about 600 meters (along the ocean floor), and as such is little influenced by direct sunlight or surface temperatures, therefore one has to conclude that it strength is determined by what is happening at the ocean floor. This is tectonically very active area, it is an impenetrable, but appears to be existing correlation of tectonics in the area to the solar activity, see again:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NH-NV.htm
I am an old man, and cannot remember any other branch of science where officially supported institutions, like the Met Office, gave opinions that were tailored to suit the audience. Clearly, Slingo has mixed agendas, depending to whom she is reporting. Obviously a very political animal.
Perhap Harribin should be informed,we can then see the news story on the 10’o clock news tonight. “sarc”…….no did’nt think so, no doom message Eh Rog.
Strangely enough the Met Offices weather predictions have been a lot more accurate. It would be very interesting to get a FOI request to ask them if the AGW modelling in their computer has been turned off. They did successfully predict cold snowy weather in February, March and April, prior to January their predictions looked like they had been obtained from a crystal ball.
Excellent article Paul, thank you very much!
The met office has grown in both size and cost way beyond necessity.
http://s446.photobucket.com/user/bobclive/media/Spike2.mp4.html
“Recent summers have been under the influence of La Nina-type forcing from the tropical Pacific.”
Really? http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png
Thanks for this briefing which reinforced my thinking that the Met. Office cannot concentrate on the real inputs but remains welded to the CO2/GHG thinking. We know very little about jet stream positioning despite indicators that it might be solar driven, ie. from above not below. there is no mention of the polar ice balance only concentration on Arctic ice coverage. They are coupled in some way.
they have a lot to learn, and forget.
Hi Mod
Has my comment ended in the waste bin?
Should I re-post it, or is there a reason for it to be not acceptable?
Thanks.
What the Met Office doesn’t know about climate could fill their supercomputer.
Speaking of FOIA, where is CG3?
The UK Met Office is angling for a new supercomputer – obviously so that they can do better weather/climate forecasting. Obviously.
The one they’ve got cost £60m – and is called Deep Black.
My view is that it should be called Deep… oh, I see you’re way ahead of me…
Latitude says:
April 9, 2013 at 4:41 pm
“So we let a bunch of weathermen…elevate their trade to climate scientist
…only to find out, they are just weathermen after all”
Meteorology is an impressive science. Hurricane forecasting from the National Hurricane Center is quite accurate. That left turn that TS Sandy made was forecast perfectly.
Climate scientists are Astronomers, Biologists, seminary dropouts, Computer programmers,
Geologists, etc.
I haven’t heard of many meteorologists involved. Too bad.
The weather was “unusual last year”? According to what baseline?
When you remove the Sun as a climate driver [force], and base every thing on uniform CO2, this is the result: lost.
-sarc on
Last I remember, when the Sun moves south of the Equator, it gets colder in the north. And, when the Sun moves north of the Equator, it gets warmer in the north. I would propose that the Sun does have an affect on weather!! Since climate is defined as average weather over 30-50 years, and we have had winters and summers for the last 30-50 years, the Sun affects climate!
-sarc off
The problem is the faith in super-computers in the first place. As some have remarked, the issue is in garbage in, garbage out. Computers are just as fallible as humans are since we also miss crucial aspects of chaotic systems and even one variable out of place will change the prediction, and of course we still have such problems with weather in of itself…….
The other issue with GCM’s is that when they attempt to predict local climate is that they are off by such orders of magnitude from each other that its not even worth reporting in the IPCC. You will notice that they tend to not focus on model results and actual predictions of local areas but more on a sum of the results. Perhaps as well somewhere the thought that local climate is impossible to predict with GCM’s has sunk in and this reality shows how easy it is to be wrong when you predict only 2 years into the future or less. You would tend to think that any GCM’s that show the same overall results but such vastly different local results would be seen as “problematic” but I guess we can only solve one issue at a time.
Until the scientists admit to themselves and the public that GCM’s are inherently worthless for now until we understand weather and climate better, we will of course continue to see tom-foolery and wasted time and resources on this problem. You can not skip the steps of understanding weather and climate completely and expect good results. That is just being unreasonable and arrogant saying that you do understand something that you really do not. Climate science has been at this point for the last 30 years really. With no understanding of the system, they attempt to predict the future where the thought that CO2 has a major impact is still stuck on the brains. I would argue that this is because the scientists see CO2 as the one changing variable that they can measure quanitively and therefore they simply assume it must have a huge impact. Perhaps it is also a fear that humans will ruin the planet and this belief clouds their judgement. I don’t think the reason is as important as the facts personally…
The origin of this is fairly obvious: Various experiments in physics labs says that CO2 has X effect. This effect which is “forcing” is understood to mean that no matter what CO2 will have that impact on the planet. But the physics labs do not take into consideration things such as natural cycles (AMO, PDO) and other things which in nature tend to influence the feedback negatively. In fact, nature always acts as a negative feed-back because frankly in an universe of entropy you will never find something that amplifies the amount of power and effect. Nature is constantly in a state of chaos and thusly you can determine the forcing of CO2, but negative feed-backs will always downgrade that effect. Another metaphor for this is the famous “perpetual motion machine.” You can not have power created that did not exist in the first place and thusly any affect CO2 has on the climate is down-graded to almost nothing due to the same negative feedbacks. This is why you can not find a measureable change due to CO2 directly. Any increase in the system is going to be so watered down literally. The water on our planet is going to over-ride the impact of CO2 and in the end you have a minor variable (CO2) that is given a seat at the table with water, nitrogen and oxygen… and other serious players in our planets chemistry and obviously this ties into the GCM’s and model results.
If you program a computer to insist that CO2 has a serious impact, that computer is going to simply output that flawed assertion. And therefore when you predict that a massive amount of warming is going to occur, you dirty up the model and it turns into even worse crap then before since now instead of having a vague chance at being correct, the model is not guarenteed to produce bad or erroneuos results. Going back to the forcing (of X) these GCM’s made by anyone (including the MET) also add insult to injury so to speak. Instead of assuming X is constant, or that X is actually less on our planet, they outright ASSUME that the system will amplify this warming. So you get positive feed-backs that compound on top of each other.
This is the first mistake that will continue to be made by the MET et al until they realize that programming a computer with ANY logical fallacy built into it will produce vastly wrong results everytime. I can not say I am surprised in the least that the models came out wrong. All I am surprised at is that it took these guys so long to realize it. They are just now figuring this truth out and this is after 30 years of this nonsense. But I have a feeling that they will continue to double down on their flawed thinking until they admit that we do not understand the climate and that there are things here which need to be studied in detail better (like the major players in our planets climate) instead of the minor ones. Heck, they have updated more solar influences by 100% over the last 2 years in GCM’s alone. The effect of minor volcanoes was updated by 100 times due to better science in figuring out that there are that many more smaller volcanoes. These are the factors that will get better in predictive ability over time, but only if the entire model is not broken at the start with the fallacy that CO2 does have a major impact and that we know this impact already. Until that nonsense is stopped, there is no hope in understanding both weather and climate on this planet.
Last year Dr. Tim Ball wrote an article about the change in the Circumpolar Vortex. Rossby waves changed from a zonal flow to a meridional flow. This slowed the vortex down and also allowed cold air to move closer to the equator in some areas while in others warm air from the tropics was able to move much closer to the pole.
I wonder how much this might have affected precipitation and the jet stream?
http://drtimball.com/2012/current-global-weather-patterns-normal-despite-government-and-media-distortions/
Rossby Waves migrate from west to east on a 4 to 6 week basis. However, when the Meridional Wave amplitude gets deep, with cold air pushing toward the Equator and warm air toward the Poles the system blocks.
What chance do governments have when the UK Chief Scientific Advisor spouts his rubbish.
http://www.energylivenews.com/2013/03/25/chief-scientist-warns-climate-change-will-bring-extremes-in-weather/
‘ He also noted the climate and weather we’re experiencing now comes from greenhouse gases that were in the atmosphere 25 years ago.’
I am merely ‘Joe Public’ but someone somewhere with a bit of nous needs to challenge statements like this.
Here in London it is, at last, the first day of Spring – really, and it’s only 10th April!! The blossom on the tree in my front garden has finally burst forth today, the sun has been shining and there is warmth in the air for the first time this year. I knew before I got up this morning that this was going to happen because at about 05.30 I heard, for the first time for months, a jet plane going over on its way to Heathrow. The planes always land into the wind and our wind has been from the east for so long now that I had almost forgotten about aeroplanes. When I heard that one this morning I knew the wind must have changed and that would bring warmer weather, and Spring – at last!
This reminds me of a great skit I once saw, maybe Monty python?
The scene opens with a man sitting at a desk, talking on the phone, saying “Sorry, but I don’t know the answer to that question. [pause] No, we don’t have any information on that. [pause] We wouldn’t know anything about that. [Pause] That is a very good question. [pause] No, we have information on that either.”
Then the man hang up phone and works at his desk for a few seconds, when suddenly the phone rings and he answers it in a very cheerful tone: “British Intelligence, may I help you?”
The Climate Modellers’ Prayer:
Almighty CO2 molecule,
Which dwelleth in well-mixed atomspheres,
Hallowed be they name.
Thy mighty downwelling radiation cometh,
Thy AGW shall be done,
On Earth, as it is in our models.
Give us this day,
Our daily funding,
And forgive us our exaggerated predictions,
As we forgive the exaggerations of our pals in peer review.
And lead us not into temptation to speak the truth,
But deliver us from the accursed skeptics.
For thine is the warming,
And the Power imbalance,
And the glorious funding,
Forever.
Amen.
Don’t know if anyone else has reported this, but the BBC news here in England have just reported that the change in the Jet Stream may well be due to a warming Arctic. Apparently this pushes the Jet Stream further south and disrupts ‘normal’ weather – producing loops of the Stream that can hold out weather fronts from their ‘usual’ effects. It was a highly amusing BBC television piece that even had its clueless journalist reporting live from the Arctic – so it must be true then. Oh, they also said this week that climate change will result in bumpier air travel due to more air pockets – this was even reported on local BBC radio, though for the life of me I cannot figure out why. Oh, whatever happened to the BBC? It went left, then left again, then left again.
If the jetstream operates at the interface between cold arctic influenced air and warm tropic influenced air, does not a southerly shift indicate an increase in the cold influence, i.e. an overall cooling of the atmosphere?
“This surely would have absolutely nothing to do with the climate change fanatic and former head of the WWF UK and Met Office, Sir Robert Napier , stepping down in SEPTEMBER of 2012? Heaven forbid.
Met Office – 18 July 2012
In September 2012, Met Office Chairman Robert Napier CBE steps down after six years in the role.”
Very interesting. I did not realise they had someone like that at the head of the Met Office.
Perhaps his departure had something to do with the move to a more realistic model that they quiestly sneaked out on Christmas Eve last year.
I’m sure there are a number of serious scientists working within the Met Office doing their best in the face of the political climate imposed from above.
An old fashioned Spring returns after a decade and a half hiatus.
Warnings
City of Toronto
3:32 PM EDT Wednesday 10 April 2013
Freezing rain warning for
City of Toronto upgraded from Winter storm watch
Significant freezing rain on the way.
Periodic rain and the odd thunderstorm is affecting the area this evening, but a more wintery change is on the way. Colder air will arrive later tonight and coincide with an approaching low currently over Missouri. A messy mix of ice pellets and freezing rain is expected to develop late tonight or Thursday morning in the warned regions and continue throughout Thursday and much of Thursday night. It may very well fall heavy at times and be accompanied by a few rumbles of thunder.
Poor travel conditions are expected over the duration of this event. In particular, the Thursday morning commute may be challenging with icy conditions on untreated roads, especially for areas near and west of the Greater Toronto area to Lake Huron. And it may be even more problematic for the evening rush hour. Of greater concern is the risk of widespread power outages from downed tree limbs and power lines due to significant ice accumulation combined with northeast winds gusting to 60 km/h. There is a risk that this could be a major ice storm for an appreciable swath of Southern Ontario. Freezing rain amounts up to 10 mm are quite possible in many areas with some regions possibly exceeding 20 mm.
It should taper off by Friday morning with temperatures rising above freezing.
There is still some uncertainty as to the extent of the cold air. This will have an impact on how much falls as ice pellets versus freezing rain. Freezing rain will have a higher impact with power outages and slippery roads and sidewalks. Although a few centimetres of ice pellets is possible, it is more of a nuisance for travel rather than a serious hazard.
http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/warnings/report_e.html?on61#on61-752cwto-043100
This bit has me worried…
Of greater concern is the risk of widespread power outages from downed tree limbs and power lines due to significant ice accumulation combined with northeast winds gusting to 60 km/h. There is a risk that this could be a major ice storm for an appreciable swath of Southern Ontario. Freezing rain amounts up to 10 mm are quite possible in many areas with some regions possibly exceeding 20 mm.
lsvalgaard says:
But “Climate Science” climate is the “30 year average of weather” (and that isn’t real climate either…)
So since they start off with a broken definition that confounds long term weather with climate, it is fair game… IMHO.
Real climate is the Koppen categories and depends on latitude, distance to water, land form, and elevation. Over thousands of year periods, it also depends on orbital mechanics (i.e. changes of tilt and precession and roundness of the orbit). The Mediterranian is, and has been for thousands of years, a “Mediterranian Climate Zone”, just as the Sahara is, and has been for thousands of years, a Desert.. Go back a few thousand years more you can get a wet Sahara, but it requires changes in the tilt of the earth and precession of the poles… In short, real climate is a geologic process not an average of weather over a paltry few years.
So as long as they are using a 30 year average of weather, then THEIR climate is just weather…
Again, kudos to the Met Office scientists who were able to produce this revealingly honest document, is spite of the political atmosphere in which they undoubtedly have had to work.
This post should perhaps be retitled:
Honest Climate Assessment Document by Met Office revealed by FOIA Request.
To anyone who can read the newspapers with a suitable degree of detachment and skepticism, the news that Dame Julia Slingo is a two-faced self-serving duplicitious schemer is hardly what would be described as news.
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
April 10, 2013 at 12:00 pm
ITV and Channel 4 also reported this last night, but with the usual weasel words “could” “might” “possible” “if this is true…that may happen”…etc.
Sligo was also putting in her comments, and the assertion was made that arctic ice has reduced by 50% in the last 30 years. Can anyone confirm this?
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
lsvalgaard says:
April 9, 2013 at 1:58 pm
clueless about what affects our climate, and, in particular, what caused the unusual weather last year
“Weather is not climate…”
But “lots of weather equals climate” presumably.
Jimbo says:
April 9, 2013 at 4:05 pm
“Robert Napier has ruined the formally bad name of the Met Office. This is not meant as a joke. The Met Office had a bad name before Napier stepped in, he made it worse. No joke.”
I wasn’t aware that the formal name of the Met Office included the word bad!
What about UV?