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.
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.