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.
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.