No, global warming did NOT cause the storms, says one of the Met Office’s most senior experts
One of the Met Office’s most senior experts yesterday made a dramatic intervention in the climate change debate by insisting there is no link between the storms that have battered Britain and global warming.
Mat Collins, a Professor in climate systems at Exeter University, said the storms have been driven by the jet stream – the high-speed current of air that girdles the globe – which has been ‘stuck’ further south than usual.
Professor Collins told The Mail on Sunday: ‘There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside our knowledge.’
His statement carries particular significance because he is an internationally acknowledged expert on climate computer models and forecasts, and his university post is jointly funded by the Met Office.
Prof Collins is also a senior adviser – a ‘co-ordinating lead author’ – for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). His statement appears to contradict Met Office chief scientist Dame Julia Slingo.
Last weekend, she said ‘all the evidence suggests that climate change has a role to play’ in the storms.
Prof Collins made clear that he believes it is likely global warming could lead to higher rainfall totals, because a warmer atmosphere can hold more water. But he said this has nothing to do with the storm conveyor belt.
He said that when the IPCC was compiling its Fifth Assessment Report on climate change last year, it discussed whether warming might affect the jet stream. But, he went on, ‘there was very low confidence that climate change has any effect on the jet stream getting stuck’. In the end, the possibility was not even mentioned in the report.
h/t to “Jabba the Cat”
Related:
Somerset Floods – February Update
UK flooding, Met Office, and all that – a map from 878AD tells us more than Slingo
NIce to see some integrity for a change. Someone ought to ask Professor Collins what he thinks of Holdren’s recent fantastical claims.
Do these people EVER talk to each other?
Still a rather half-kiestered concession to reality.
One can’t help but admire Prof. Collins for pointing this out, but I fear he has misunderstood his assignment as a climate scientist, which is to support the political agenda by spinning the science as required.
There is historical evidence that cooling causes more storms.
But Eve, we’d have to be cooling for that to be tr…….Oh. Wait. Shhhhhhhhh
Just as with the California drought, it’s obvious that there is a desperation setting in within the alarmist community that some have decided to use these weather events to offset the otherwise cooling temperatures. Problem is that they are telling obvious lies. Thus, they are outright lying and many scientists, even those who support the global warming hypothesis, know this. I’m guessing that these dissenters feel that by trying to score short term points, these advocates who disregard the truth, will actually cause more irreparable harm to global warming theory. That’s why some of them are speaking out. Too bad most will remain silent though even though they know these are lies being told.
Poor guy obviously didn’t get the memo, I can just see Monday’s headline: “Climate professor fired from Exeter University”.
What’s the bet he’ll be “retiring” soon and his comments “disappeared”? Here in Australia the ABC headline news is the bad weather in the UK, followed by the drought in Australia and California, followed by articles about the carbon price in Australia, followed by Obama talking about carbon pollution in the atmosphere. We also had the head of the IMF stating that Australia was a “pioneer” in the battle against carbon pollution and climate change. The alarmist message is still strong here.
Cynical (and hopeful) part of me thinks that this has nothing to do with integrity – he simply wants to distance himself from imminent collapse of the AGW theory.
Unfortunately, rational part of me doesn’t believe this collapse will happen any time soon, so it must be his scientific integrity. Hard to believe, but this is the only reasonable explanation for this unexpected honesty.
That or his imminent retirement. Any one knows how old he is?
I don’t want to be cynical, the more people from the AGW hierarchy who make statements like this, the better. The man is to be congratulated for talking common sense!
AHHHhhh,
A brake in the ranks as the more intelligent see the writing on the wall and decide to make it out the door first. IMAGE
Yes, well the wheels are really coming off the bandwaggon. aren’t they. And not all the king’s horses or all the king’s men will put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Of course the waggon has inertia but it is slowing fast.
Kindest Regards .
Professor Mat Collins: http://www.rmets.org/weather-and-climate/climate/el-ni%C3%B1o-southern-oscillation/professor-mat-collins
Oh, a flood fight, I read it as food fight, thought it was a competition for applications for future funding of grants.
“Last weekend, she said ‘all the evidence suggests that climate change has a role to play’ in the storms.”
As Eve mentions above, the world is cooling, this results in a higher energy differential between the equator and the poles, this drives stronger winds. If that isn’t ‘climate change’ I don’t know what is.
Should be congratulated for overcoming the natural urge to keep his head down. Lets hear the Prime Ministers response
Can it actually be said that the world is cooling, that the cooling is significant, and that it is a long term trend? If so I missed the memo. Best I’ve read so far is that the rate of increase of heating is zero for some 17 years but that world is still warming at the same rate it has since the end of the LIA. If that is so then it means we have more energy coming in to the Earth system than is leaving or old energy sequestered here is finding its way into the environment.
Udar says: @ February 15, 2014 at 6:35 pm
… That or his imminent retirement. Any one knows how old he is?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
His CV (DB 1969) and his page at the UNIV link I got it from.
He is about to turn 45, a really bad time of life to have to go job hunting and too early to retire.
So it is integrity or more likely part of the gradual backing away we are starting to see since the hoax has pretty much run its course.
To put it bluntly people are sick to death of getting pounded over the head with CAGW. It is just not ranking very high as a concern for voters. So I expect to see a tip toeing away from the subject and it will just slowly fade as a news worthy item and some new hob-goblin will appear to take its place.
Ten years from now no one will remember we almost bankrupted Western civilization because of the CAGW hoax. We will be too busy trying to dig our way out of the economic mess.
This may be the newest ‘Oh My Gosh!’ The International Monetary Fund Lays The Groundwork For Global Wealth Confiscation
… The report itself says: ….”The tax rates needed to bring down public debt to precrisis levels, moreover, are sizable: reducing debt ratios to end-2007 levels would require a tax rate of about 10 percent on households with positive net wealth.” –
That means that all households with positive net wealth—everyone with retirement savings or home equity—would have their assets plundered under the IMF’s formulation…
That financial bomb will make the Foreclosuregate and the Cyprus banking crisis look wimpy.
Here is Mat Collins MET blurb:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/people/mat-collins
and CV:
http://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mc369/Mat_Collins_Academic_CV.pdf
dp – “heating is zero for 17 years” = fact
” but the world is still warming at the same rate it has since then end of the LIA” = speculation
Depending on the starting point there is some cooling trend in the recent record. But it’s mostly flat. Whether the trend is changing or not from minor uptick continuing from the LIA or an actual decrease is not known yet.
I wish I could conduct these interviews:
Thank you professor, since a warming atmosphere can hold more water – where is that water? Isn’t a significant rise in water vapor content needed to amplify or provide a positive feedback for CO to trigger global warming? Isn’t that rise in water vapor something we can measure?
and so forth …
dp;
If that is so then it means we have more energy coming in to the Earth system than is leaving or old energy sequestered here is finding its way into the environment.
>>>>>>>
It means no such thing. Absent a change in albedo, the amount of energy coming in doesn’t change at all. A doubling of CO2, absent feedbacks that affect albedo, changes the amount of energy coming in by exactly zero. It pains me to no end that terminology in this debate has become so sloppy that someone can make such statements not realizing that what they are saying actually contradicts the theory they think they are being supportive of.
I really don’t see how CAGW can continue to survive.
I’ve been waiting for a point of criticality when the overwhelming evidence against CAGW will become so great, scientists with any sense of integrity and self preservation will find it impossible to remain silent.
This point of criticality can only grow closer from here with each passing year of little to no global warming trend. At some point, CAGW advocates, and those scientists that have remained silent on the issue, will realize that continued support/silence on the failure of CAGW will have negative consequences on climatology specifically and science in general.
Once that point of criticality is reached, scientists will be falling all over themselves to renounce CAGW as it will be in their best interest to do so…. It will important to be on record for speaking out against CAGW as this will come in handy once Congressional/Parliamentary hearings are held to “get to the bottom” of how this CAGW scam could have occurred and how so many $trillions could have been squandered on the biggest hoax in human history.
My guess is that it will take another 4~6 years before this point of criticality to be reached. After the next El Nino/La Nina cycle is finished, and there has been 20+ years of no warming trend, CAGW won’t be able to survive the giggle test..
“Truth is the daughter of time”…
dp, you missed the memo. According to NCEP data global temperatures have fallen significantly in the last 5 years: http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_recent.png
Gail Combs says:
February 15, 2014 at 7:52 pm
Ten years from now no one will remember we almost bankrupted Western civilization because of the CAGW hoax. We will be too busy trying to dig our way out of the economic mess.
===================================================
Yes, Gail, I’ve been concerned about the same thing. An imminent global economic collapse, which can partially be attributed to $trillions squandered on: CO2 rules, regulations, subsidies, alt-en government loans, bailouts, alt-en mega projects, CO2 taxes, etc., have created an exponential cost to world economies from unintended consequences of malinvested wealth and industrial sectors INTENTIONALLY made less efficient and competitive with CAGW policies.
More importantly, the collapse of CAGW is simply the manifestation of the broader reality that governments are absolutely awful at: controlling economies, monetary policies, fiscal policies, science policies, social policies and protecting personal liberties. The reality of this complete Big- Government failure will be the imminent collapse of the world economy following a century of runaway government spending, runaway government debt and runaway government control over every aspect of our lives.
Perhaps with the collapse of CAGW, more people will gain a healthy skepticism of Big Government and seek alternatives to this failed theory of Big Government Socialism and realize the true role of government is to protect an individual’s inalienable rights and not to control every aspect of the collective…
A ‘break’ maybe there Gail, as opposed to putting the ‘brakes’ on?
.
Jim, I don’t know about Gail, but I would be happy with either one. 🙂
_Jim says:
February 15, 2014 at 9:44 pm
Gail Combs says February 15, 2014 at 7:21 pm
AHHHhhh,
A brake in the ranks ..
—————————————-
A dyslexic keyboard, perhaps.
If one were to study drought in correlation to low sunspot activity one would find the same occurrence of events as today as in the late 1200s to about 1312. During that time, the Mound Builders north of Houston evacuated their homestead and mound works for parts unknown. They lived on a river.
The Cliff Dwellers of SW Colorado also evacuated their Dwellings due to drought. They also lived by small water river.
Mean time, in England, they were hit by storms knocking out crops due to soaked soil.
I believe this happened again in the last 500 years. Just can’t find the references.
Sincerely,
Paul Pierett
Funny thing, the BBC does not mention this, only the political statements of Miliband, who is certain the “science is clear”. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26213919
@db
there is a downtrend over the last 10,000 years with each millenium colder than the one before…
This is from the Met Office. It is their latest decadal forecast, which has been ‘modeled’ from their latest and best data sets…..””The latest decadal forecast, issued in January 2014, shows that global temperatures are expected to maintain the record warmth that has been observed over the last decade, and furthermore that it is possible that new record global temperatures may be reached in the next five years. Averaged over the five-year period 2014-2018, global average temperature is expected to remain high and is likely to be between 0.17 °C and 0.43 °C above the long-term (1981-2010) average. This compares with an anomaly of +0.26 °C observed in 2010, the warmest year on record.””
————————————————-
Perhaps, WUWT regulars can assemble a competing forecast in response.
” … His statement appears to contradict Met Office chief scientist Dame Julia Slingo. …”
Which all begs the question of just what was the good Dr. Slingo basing her comments upon given science can be ruled-out and she’s a chief-scientist framing her comments in the context of such expertise in science?
Maybe she mis-spoke and meant something else entirely?
could someone send this information to Jeff Masters!
VIDEO: 13 Feb: Democracy Now: Meteorologist Jeff Masters: Climate Change Affecting Weather Patterns Regardless of Season
JEFF MASTERS: Yeah, we have to understand that climate change is affecting all weather patterns, regardless of the season. Yes, winter still occurs. But we do expect climate change to affect jet stream patterns in winter storms. Now, in particular, this kind of very unusual jet stream pattern that’s been so persistent is something that could arise out of climate change. We don’t often see the jet stream lock into place like this and not budge for a period of months. And we make that more likely—is one research avenue being explored now—if we remove a lot of sea ice in the Arctic, warming up the Arctic more than the rest of the planet. That can have impacts on the jet stream, causing it to slow down and to not move quite as quickly, and lock in place for these extended periods like we’ve seen.
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/13/meteorologist_jeff_masters_climate_change_affecting
There are some good , objective people working for the Met Office too. They’re just not vocal enough.
It is good to see some of the more rational minds having the courage and integrity to speak out and contradict some of unfounded rubbish M.O. Chief Propagandist Slingo comes out with.
Kudos to Prof. Collins.
Prof Collins made clear that he believes it is likely global warming could lead to higher rainfall totals, because a warmer atmosphere can hold more water. But he said this has nothing to do with the storm conveyor belt
Prof Collins better think again, every litre (kg) of water cycled through the hydrological cycle consumes at least 29.400 + 2256 = 2286 kJ of energy. Given the radiative imbalance driving climate change is only 0.6W per square meter, how much water does he think can be evaporated using the available energy budget. Given that this much energy is consumed in the hydrological cycle, just how does he expect temperatures are going to rise also?
Prof Collins – Think, Energy In has to equal Energy Out, While Warmer air can hold more water, it doesn’t stay warmer when it does, evaporating water consumes that thermal energy! I’m so sick of so-called scientists ignoring energy.
I hope this bout of common sense doesn’t cost him his job. Hockeyschtikkers can be malicious…
pat says:
February 15, 2014 at 11:06 pm
could someone send this information to Jeff Masters!
” … That can have impacts on the jet stream, causing it to slow down and to not move quite as quickly, and lock in place for these extended periods like we’ve seen. …”
ha! oh, he’s quite the wag, isn’t he?
OK, let’s torture it for a bit and see if it talks.
Given “the” jetstream is a jet of rushing air being squeezed and thus constantly deforming between moving midlevel tropical Lows and higher latitude Highs … er, which now immediately begs the question to which ‘jetstream’ Mr Masters was referring, given there are two fairly distinctive and geographically more-or-less separate jetstream bands, within each hemisphere?
Was it the subtropical. or polar jetstream?
Or was it, like, with regard to all things of a jetstream-ery type persuasion?
And given the presumption is that AGW leads to (subtlety) higher thermal energy that then needs to be redistributed globally. And it is in fact so subtle that it can’t assuredly even be detected at all … but never mind that for now … plus, we seem to be seeing stronger mid-latitude highs with more polar ice formation currently … which implies a steepening thermal gradient between the equatorial tropics and poles, which means a tighter average pressure gradient doesn’t it?
Plus given the jetstream is a product of that gradient’s intensity and resulting standing pressure patterns.
Well, can someone explain why the jetstream thingummyjig would then slow down on average?
Because from the above, and on the contrary, a more intense thermal and pressure gradient would normally suggest a more intense squeezing effect upon the jets of air in the mid-latitudes mid-levels.
So given local jetstream speed is the function of the squeezing of air-masses, due to the intervening thermally induced pressure gradient, should it not in fact speed-up if jetstream speed was averaged globally?
And dear reader, I want to emphasise that this is such a tremendously subtle effect given the global temperature variation is virtually or actually imaginary or else a systemic measurement and data tweaking artefact, but maybe is trending more toward detectable decline more recently … so it’s really, really very subtle indeed, and it should not surprise anyone if it is in fact entirely undetectable and perhaps even incapable of ever being tested.
footnote: I belatedly realized this should have been preceded with a time-waste warning and apologise, on behalf of Mr Masters, to all those affected.
Am I missing something? I read Prof Collins’ CV and apart from his comments on the latest storms he seems to be quite comfortably within the CAGW alarm camp and in no danger of being fired.
SAMURAI,
Anything can be catrastrophic, planatary, galactic, universal?
Bullsht like you is being scraped of scientific ledge.
The background to this here in UK is that the opposition leader, Ed Miliband’s, has said that climate change is “a national security issue”*, while the leader of the Green Party, Natalie Bennett (who doesn’t sound British) has called for the Government to sack any senior advisers – and she means ministers too – who are not signed up to AGW. The interview with her on the Beeb is worth a listen – the interviewer checks and double checks that this totalitarian solution really is what she means.
* the real “national security issue” would be having this fruitcake as PM.
My response to one of the Daily Mail’s commenters;
‘What consensus is that, SARA? If you’re talking about the 97% you do realise that is based on a flawed study where 77 out of 79 ‘scientists’ sort of agreed it might be happening. This from a survey that went out to more than 10,000 scientists covering a range of disciplines.’
There’s still a long way to go in re-educating in sheeple, I’m afraid.
Glad someone had the balls to come out and say it. I wish the media wouldn’t let scientists get such an easy ride on this “These storms are caused by CO2”. Would it hurt for one journalist to say “Ok, can you explain the science behind that claim?”.
Well said Prof. Collins, but even while you tell the truth the BBC is yet again in high gear propaganda mode endlessly quoting one after another big-mouthed scientific illiterate jabbering about how it’s all proof of global warming, etc., etc. ad nauseam. Good luck getting the message out and please, don’t stop trying.
That’s right but why don’t we speculate? Ahhh, here is something from yesterday’s tips and notes which may have triggered the good professor into his intervention.
[My emphasis]
So you take a natural weather event and try to link it to man’s emissions. What happens if the jet stream heads back into position? Will we blame man? What if next winter the UK gets less rain will they still blame man? They are digging themselves into a hole and they keep doing this kinda things.
The storms are due to climate change but natural climate change back towards patterns that prevail during cooling periods:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/
and here is some visual evidence of actual cooling:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/update-2014-visual-proof-of-global-cooling/
[Snip]
Much to my surprise the BBC has this on their news website this morning.
It’s not at all unprecedented after all!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26153241
They should just cut the fluffing and come out with what’s really on their mind:
More CO2 = climate-change = “please sir, can I have more?” = $$$ = longer gravy train = we need to scare up more TV dinners
Therefore, create fantasy to distract from fact that CO2 does not equal climate-change.
i.e. “We’re gonna need a bigger shark.”
Senna the soothsayer strikes out again.
meltemian says:
February 16, 2014 at 1:16 am
————————————–
The BBC must have heard the drumbeats.
meltemian,
The BBC is full of twisted political bullsit. much like you.
a jones says:
February 15, 2014 at 7:22 pm
Yes, well the wheels are really coming off the bandwaggon. aren’t they. And not all the king’s horses or all the king’s men will put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Of course the waggon has inertia but it is slowing fast.
The wheels are firmly attached I’m afraid. Until the MSM come out there will be no change in the narrative. The AGW crowd are winning and as the weather gets more ‘volitile’ they will have even more evidence for the sheoples.
pat says:
February 15, 2014 at 11:06 pm
could someone send this information to Jeff Masters!
——————————————————————-
To which sould be added ‘what is the reason for changes to the jet stream at the south pole?’.
Greg says:
February 15, 2014 at 11:15 pm
There are some good , objective people working for the Met Office too. They’re just not vocal enough.
and the ones that are use MO speak to cover their asses. They send their comrades out to the blogs to sow confusion and in some cases they succeed.
Slingo is a lightweight, parachuted in for being a female establishment representative, probably Common Purpose therefore Fabian politics. Her background is cloud physics and any professional scientist sees this has been cockled up by the Climate Crew because Carl Sagan got the physics wrong.
So, she’s fighting for control of UKMO and her political life as adviser to the corrupt/stupid UK politicians who climbed aboard the IPCC’s fake fizzicks ferry!
So Dame Julia Slingo decided to go rogue and go against the findings of the authority, the IPCC, and suggest a possible link without any evidence. Why is she going against the consensus?
Stephen Richards says:
February 16, 2014 at 1:27 am
“The AGW crowd are winning”
Really? Man made global warming has a winner.! are you so full of that much crap.
Socialist opposition leader Edward Milliband is ‘declaring’ for climate change despite Professor Collins publicly slapping down Dame Julia Slingo’s ill judged and baseless remarks. She is still a committed fan of the failed models whilst graciously conceding they need improving i.e. they don’t work. Her solution? A bigger computer, paid for by the hapless British tax payer no doubt!
Edward is a politician and sees a political opportunity in the flagging climate change meme ahead of the coming european(sic) and National elections. Truthful politician is the oldest oxymoron in the world.
Sparks says:
February 16, 2014 at 1:24 am
meltemian,
The BBC is full of twisted political bullsit. much like you.
I second the the BBC bit, not the latter. The BBC are a disgrace to their countrypersons (can’t say countrymen can we ?) but then so are all the other national and some private TV organisations.
AlecM says:
February 16, 2014 at 1:34 am
“Slingo is a lightweight, parachuted in for being a female”
Go and sling your bullsit somewhere else.. areshole!
Ed Milliband reckons this is a wake up call to go all out to decarbonise the economy. I’m sure he thinks people will be clamouring for just this thing right now.
But he is wrong. People will be clamouring all right – clamouring for better flood defences, better drains, better dredging. The people aren’t daft. They can see the futility of bankrupting the economy to try and shave a few percentage points off co2 emissions. when countries like China are increasing their emissions by the entire UK output each year.
No way. Her statement is about suggestions and roles, not causes. Indeed, the buzzword “climate change” has an indispensable role to play in denying responsibility, not by scientific proof, but by suggestion, that is, by a psychological process by which an idea is induced in or adopted by another without argument, command, or coercion. She is playing in an entirely different ballpark.
Stephen Richards
Really? Man you are so full of that much crap.!
Sparks: don’t ever misquote me again. I wrote ‘Slingo is a lightweight, parachuted in for being a female establishment representative, probably Common Purpose therefore Fabian politics.’
This is factual. She was not the best scientific choice for the job as has been shown by the serial failure of the UKMO to develop its modelling as a predictive tool. The main problem is the incorrect cloud and IR physics. She is a specialist in the former. The last UK Government promoted her for its feminist/equal opportunity and Common Purpose policies, the latter being EU-driven, therefore contributed to scientific failure.
The proof of this is the division in the UKMO with a very senior UKMO scientist, a real expert on merit, directly contradicting her: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2560310/No-global-warming-did-NOT-cause-storms-says-one-Met-Offices-senior-experts.html
‘Mat Collins, Exeter University Professor in climate systems, said storms driven by jet stream that has been ‘stuck’ further south than usual
He told The Mail on Sunday there is ‘no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter’
Appears to contradict Met Office chief scientist Dame Julia Slingo’
This is nothing to do with Slingo being female; it is all to do with the internal politics of
UKMO which has been hijacked by Marxist/Fabian politics to justify totalitarian government. The same is the case in the USA with Obama.
Sparks dear, I really think you ought to calm down.
Did you get out of bed the wrong side this morning or are you just over-tired and over-wrought?
(by the way, watch the spelling, it isn’t helping the credibility)
Prof Collins made clear that he believes it is likely global warming could lead to higher rainfall totals, because a warmer atmosphere can hold more water.
I think everybody accepts that! However, rainfall is not directly dependent on how much water vapour exists in a air mass – it is dependent on temperature difference. In convective weather (cumulus type) the amount of rain depends on the temperature difference between rising warm humid air and the environmental lapse rate. If one could wave a magic wand and increase global temperature – then, surely, both the rising air and the environmental lapse rate would be similarly increased and the difference would be the same (very, very broadly speaking).
Frontal weather systems give rise to precipitation when warm, moist air mixes with colder air – if both warm and the cold air have their temperatures increased by a given amount, then the difference remains similar.
What have I missed?
Sparks:
I have collated all your contributions to this thread so your collected wisdom, erudition and wit are clear for all to see.
February 16, 2014 at 12:34 am
February 16, 2014 at 1:24 am
February 16, 2014 at 1:35 am
February 16, 2014 at 1:40 am
February 16, 2014 at 1:46 am
Sparks, your faecal fixation adds nothing of value to the discussion. Please take it somewhere else and make a post when – and only when – you have a thought to present.
Richard
The evidence shows that average atmospheric total precipitable water/water column has not risen. However, the 680 – 310 mB level has fallen, quite significantly according to radiosonde data.
This shows the atmosphere adapting to past higher SW thermalisation in the oceans, hence higher OHC, and rising pCO2. There is no justification for extreme weather from humidity; the data show a fall off of extreme weather events.
Here she is as reported by the BBC on the 9th February 2014. She doesn’t know but suggest a link. What batshit.
Is it unprecedented before 1766? I dunno.
And in earlier news we have this from the early part of the Little Ice Age.
Imagine if the Grote Mandrenke had occurred in January 2014 instead of January 1362? Julia Slingbat would find a link surely. There would be howls of “WE MUST ACT NOW!” How about “WE MUST ACT THEN!”?
meltemian,
My splelling is erilifant!
“Starting seven weeks after Easter 1315, “the deluge” continued through May, June, July and August, with almost constant rain; to compound matters, both August and September were cold. The harvest failed to ripen, and much of the wheat, rye and hay that the population and its livestock was dependent upon, was lost. Fagan notes that the spring rains of 1316 led to the serious disruption of the “sowing of oats, barley and spelt. The harvest failed again and the rains continued.” (p. 38). The year 1316 witnessed widespread famine across Northern Europe, with the cereal crop being the worst of the Middle Ages. A bitterly cold winter followed in 1317-1318, only to be succeeded by another wet summer with the upshot being more famine and an eruption of “religious fervour.” During that harsh winter there had not been enough fodder to sustain livestock, with the consequence that many animals perished. Not until 1322 did this pattern of terrible summers come to an end across the region, yielding instead:”
http://durotrigan.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/winter-2012-2013-weather-forecast-will.html
“to unpredictable, often wild weather, marked by warm and very dry summers in the late 1320s and 1330s and by a notable increase in storminess and wind strengths in the English Channel and North Sea. The moist, mild westerlies that had nourished Europe throughout the Medieval Warm Period turned rapidly on and off . . . . The Little Ice Age had begun.”
more famine and an eruption of “religious fervour.”
I’m seeing the religious fervour.
The reason for the particularly fierce UK storms was the high speed (~200 mph) of the Jet stream as it raced across the Atlantic – as well as the fact it remained stuck in the same position.
An increased GHE results in a warmer arctic which reduces the temperature gradient between the air masses either side of the Jet stream. This should, according to the ‘experts’, cause the Jet to become more “sluggish and “wavier”. The opposite of what has been experienced this winter.
See
richardscourtney says:
February 16, 2014 at 2:07 am
Richard. Your condescending tone suits an idiot dear fiend,
Yes Sparks, “erilifant” it certainly is!
John Finn says:
February 16, 2014 at 2:22 am
An increased GHE results in a warmer arctic which reduces the temperature gradient between the air masses either side of the Jet stream. This should, according to the ‘experts’, cause the Jet to become more “sluggish and “wavier”. The opposite of what has been experienced this winter.
>>>
Times like these we maybe need justthefacts to post … just the facts.
The poor jetstream(s) seem to be such a convenient catch-all safety-net for bad theory, bad model, bad policy and bad economy which increasingly looks like a bedraggled variation on the theme of “Wag the Dog”.
AlecM says:
February 16, 2014 at 1:54 am
“don’t ever misquote me again.”
Because It would be wrong of me to point out what you actually said “Slingo is a lightweight, parachuted in for being a female”
My remark is level headed.
Well said Prof Collins.
richardscourtney says:
February 16, 2014 at 2:07 am
“I have collated all your contributions to this thread so your collected wisdom, erudition and wit are clear for all to see.”
And what was your final conclusion?
“Sparks, your faecal fixation adds nothing of value to the discussion.”
It’s the ole bullshit detector going off!
Where you caught in the cross fire? aw.. I’ll my condolences, fuken puwssy!
richardscourtney
Just to be clear,
I’ll send my condolences, [snip]
[Snip]
Christopher Booker has an excellent piece on this in today’s printed Sunday telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10639819/UK-weather-its-not-as-weird-as-our-warmists-claim.html
The Telegraph also printed an excellent letter which pointed out that the recent IPCC report made it clear there is no evidence to link extreme weather with climate change.
Perhaps Ed Davey, Miliband, Clegg, Cameron and all the other climate change idiots who are damaging our country should have taken the trouble to actually read the Summary for Policy Makers.
Chris
Kevin Trenberth’s corrupted null works its mischief.
=================
We always seem to forget big organisations and governments are made up of individuals, each with differing thoughts and opinions. It’s always nice to know people are thinking
Just a thought.
I thought that Sparks may realise.
That Bullpuckey smears the slinger as well as the recipient.
Sparks:
My only post in this thread was here.
It began saying
It then quoted in full each of your posts in this thread at that time before concluding
Clearly, that ‘touched a nerve’ because you responded with three posts at
February 16, 2014 at 2:23 am
February 16, 2014 at 2:57 am
February 16, 2014 at 3:17 am
Those responses contained obscenities but no rational content.
So, I repeat that if you want to foul a nest then go somewhere else and preferably foul your own nest, not WUWT.
Richard
RMetS is not the Met Office.
Just saying.
Bill Church says:
February 16, 2014 at 2:01 am
“Prof Collins made clear that he believes it is likely global warming could lead to higher rainfall totals, because a warmer atmosphere can hold more water.
I think everybody accepts that! However, rainfall is not directly dependent on how much water vapour exists in a air mass – it is dependent on temperature difference. In convective weather (cumulus type) the amount of rain depends on the temperature difference between rising warm humid air and the environmental lapse rate. If one could wave a magic wand and increase global temperature – then, surely, both the rising air and the environmental lapse rate would be similarly increased and the difference would be the same (very, very broadly speaking).
Frontal weather systems give rise to precipitation when warm, moist air mixes with colder air – if both warm and the cold air have their temperatures increased by a given amount, then the difference remains similar.
What have I missed?”
You have missed that it takes warmer than normal conditions in the winter to increase the rainfall, and cooler conditions in summer to increase the rainfall. Which is why the UK is trending to cooler drier winters and cooler wetter summers in the UK in recent years as temperatures have generally been falling. This winter is an exception to that trend, outliers are to be expected.
High annual England rainfall totals are more likely in a colder year that a warmer year:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadukp/data/download.html
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat
I think what I am looking at though is an AMO signal, more visible is Scotland than England:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/actualmonthly/17/Rainfall/England.gif
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/actualmonthly/17/Rainfall/Scotland.gif
Clovis Marcus says:
February 16, 2014 at 6:14 am
RMetS is not the Met Office.
I think you’ll find a very close synergy!
I have been giving some thought to Dame Slingo’s ideas that a warming atmosphere (AKA climate change) has been causing the flooding problems we have been experiencing in the UK recently.
If you look at different air masses (warm/cold) and the transitions between them, the warmest air mass does not produce the heaviest rainfall. The area between a warm front and a cold front is the warm air mass and does hold more water, but any precipitation in this area is predominately in the form of drizzle. Preceding the warm front, when warmer air over-rides the cooler air mass produces heavier precipitation. But the heaviest precipitation occurs on/near a cold front when the warm moist air is forced upward.
Therefore, Dame Slingo has got her basic meteorological knickers in a bit of a twist, it is the colder air forcing up the warmer moist air which causes the heavier precipitation. The flooding must therefore be caused by global cooling.
Yes, I sensed the same. I wouldn’t expect anything too heroic or disruptive to the herd from Professor Collins. The world waits for a few good men, to stand up, and put an end to these very dangerous AGW based policies and action. Until new leaders emerge, civilization will march to false drummers and their agenda driven doom. Alas. GK
Anthony and/or Mods: Please take a look at the relentless stream of foul insults posted by Sparks and delete them. A partial list can be found here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/15/flood-fight-at-the-met-office/#comment-1569212
Chris Wright says:
February 16, 2014 at 3:57 am
Christopher Booker has an excellent piece on this in today’s printed Sunday telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10639819/UK-weather-its-not-as-weird-as-our-warmists-claim.html
>>>
Yikes, that link’s content was brutal, and brutally apt. What else can you do but point-out how foolish people have been to listen to the experts, the digitally and statistically blinded, leading the anthropocentric blinded, and now both are in the ditch.
I feel slightly more for people and businesses who valued and used the advice to plan their investments, outdoor activities and projects on the presumption that such people in the official positions of guru adviser actually has some circumspection about the scope of natural-variability ranges.
Hope they make good use of this valuable lesson.
The fact is we’ve never even seen what earth can really do. The sedimentary record is plenty clear on that. Met-offices everywhere have just taught people to expect a certain range of variability, but 110 to 150 years of instrumental record is woefully inadequate to define what earth’s natural range is. The earth-science records are very clear about the current meteorological record being a teensy-weensy bit unrealistic and unrepresentative of natural variability ranges. Yet experts in that still delight to fluff-us with tales of near future times.
I’ll call this hubris what it is, an insidious lingering effect of anthropomorphism.
Everyone seems to have assumed that just went away, and it did receded quite a lot, but it sure did not go away. If it had gone away would we be so surprised to find ourselves whimpering in the foetal position when ever earth occasionally in some small way shows who runs the show, and who’s just got an anthropomorphic-related attitude problem with mundane upheavals, and natural-variability, and reality in general?
“Oh no! Humans must be the cause, because were so powerful and smart!”
Yeah … that’ll be it … sure … but can this be the reason why space aliens are a bit stand-off-ish with us?
No one likes anthrops.
I don’t know if it’s been mentioned, but the peace dividend from ending the war on co2 may be what saves the world from economic collapse.
If the Solar Physicists are correct then the AGW will be seen for what it is…..a scam. Somewhere along the line reality has to set in and Prof Collins is moving to the middle ground.
Unmentionable says:
February 16, 2014 at 7:07 am
“I’ll call this hubris what it is, an insidious lingering effect of anthropomorphism.”
JoNova points out another glaring example of their hubris and Groupthink-
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/02/climate-scientists-say-extreme-summers-must-be-due-to-co2-we-cant-think-of-anything-else/
while some lament what the Moi Generation and their hubris have done to science and the scientific method, echoing the warning of Eisenhower-
http://www.slattsnews.observationdeck.org/?p=7905
(do read Paltridge’s full article in the Quadrant link)
goldminor says:
February 15, 2014 at 10:41 pm
_Jim says:
February 15, 2014 at 9:44 pm
Gail Combs says February 15, 2014 at 7:21 pm
AHHHhhh,
A brake in the ranks ..
—————————————-
A dyslexic keyboard, perhaps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, the result of John Dewey and his (self-snip) reading/writing experiments I was in one of the ‘Progressive Education’ experimental reading classes from first through fourth grade. I can read very fast but I can not read out loud or spell worth crap. I am terrible at learning other languages too.
Please note that by the time I entered fifth grade I was a full year behind when we moved to a normal school system in another town. Robin has a lot more info on the trashing of the education system.
So he’s been nobbled already then? This is a tweet from Collins, just now. “Together with the Met Office I’ll be putting out a statement tomorrow clarifying the statements in the Mail on Sunday article.”
“Last weekend, she said ‘all the evidence suggests that climate change has a role to play’ in the storms.”
You know, there IS a scenario where 0 = All…
ishtarsgate , the ‘sinner’ will be made to repent in public for ‘mistake ‘
As a little reminder about what happens to those that step out of line on ‘the cause ‘
Sparks, are you feeling OK? Mods, please control this person. He or she isn’t contributing anything but hurls fecal insults at fellow commenters. Once in a while might be warranted but over 80%!
Mr. Collins: ‘There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter.’
Ms. Slingo: ‘all the evidence suggests that climate change has a role to play’
“His statement appears to contradict [hers]“
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thats not what he’s saying on Twitter!
He saying he’s not contradicting her??
Fancy he been on the rug already and something beginning to pucker up!
to all the dyslexia commentators juts merember that “lysdexia lures….KO!”
Did anyone bother to apply some skepticism to this story?
Slingo’s comments appear here and here, including the elided quote the Mail cited. Had they published the full sentence and her more nuanced comments it would have ruined their fabricated controversy.
Collins said there is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the current pattern. Slingo said increased precipitation is consistent with global warming. Daily Mail pretends they’ve contradicted each other.
Perhaps someone can quote Slingo mentioning the jet stream in the articles linked above.
I love the breathless reporting of Collins “intervention,” as if he charged into the Daily Mail offices to make statements.
Unquestioning faith in tabloid articles. Skeptical much?
Unmentionable says:
February 16, 2014 at 7:07 am
“I’ll call this hubris what it is, an insidious lingering effect of anthropomorphism.”
JoNova points out another glaring example of their hubris and Groupthink-
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/02/climate-scientists-say-extreme-summers-must-be-due-to-co2-we-cant-think-of-anything-else/
>>>
“Scientists who can’t predict temperature trends, clouds, rain, or humidity, are telling us that greenhouse gases must have caused the extreme summer last year because, they don’t have a clue what else might have done it. …”
Ha, thanks for that observa. JoNova nails it.
The sad thing is humanity and the UN global body don’t even realize that we/they have a general anthropomorphism attitude-problem.
And it’s such an awkward word, try dropping that one at a party. Good room clearer.
We need a better conceptualization and word to capture why humanity is this ‘effed up over it’s place in the scheme of things and as a result keep knee-jerking to every sun shower.
Something similar occurs on TV marker and finance reports, were the dippy cute chick with the legs gives a few numbers and then explains it all away with some absolutely ridiculous shallow causative mechanism for today’s numbers and their trend. oh gad, please make it stop! lol 😀
So the dippy chief scientist at the met-office is just doing the very same thing each time there’s a heavy dew. 😛
Exciting times … we’re so lucky to see it.
barry:
I am writing to reject your spin and your implied slur of WUWT in your post at February 16, 2014 at 5:46 pm.
You write
The Daily Mail pretended nothing because they DID he contradict each other.
Slingo said the recent weather is an expectation of “climate change” (aka AGW).
Collins said the recent weather is not an effect of “climate change” (aka AGW).
The reasons they state for their incompatible conclusions are Collins’ observation concerning the jet stream and Slingo’s assertion concerning precipitation. Consideration of those conclusions may deduce suggest which – if either – of them is right, but their statements DO contradict each other.
They did contradict each other, and any attempt to spin that they did not is promulgation of a falsehood.
And you assert
The implied lack of skepticism by WUWT is untrue because it is based on the falsehood that there is not a clear contradiction of Collins by Slingo. Your implication is without merit, and your post implies that you also lack any merit.
Richard
Richard,
They were talking about two different things.
No he didn’t.
Matt Collins:
Collins was talking about the jet stream. Not other phenomena. Not weather in general.
Slingo didn’t mention the jet stream.
The Daily Mail elided quotes in order to recontextualize two different topics under one banner so a contradiction could be claimed. You have gone further. You have completely fabricated their comments. You distorted and generalized what they said to make them fit a context you prefer. And you did that because you were unable to quote them directly to substatiate your argument.
Can we find evidence of Slingo saying anything about the jet stream and global warming? Yes.
The Met Office report occassioning the press briefing says there is as yet no evidentiary link between global warming and changes to the jet stream pattern. Slingo was chief author on the report, which is why she headed the press briefing. There is no daylight between her position on the jet stream and Collins’. The Mail simply made that up.
AGW proponents have a problem with the jet stream.
It was originally proposed that with AGW all the climate zones including the jets would shift towards the poles.
During the late 20th century warming period they duly did at the rate of about half a mile a year by one account.
Then around 2000 I noted that the poleward drift had stopped and since then the drift appears to have been back towards the equator, though it is increased meridional loops in the jet stream that have been most apparent.
Meanwhile CO2 emissions continued to rise.
So they cannot admit any link between AGW and the average latitudinal position of the jet stream tracks without contradicting AGW theory.
Slingo tries to avoid the problem by saying that the recent ‘extreme’ (but hardly unprecedented) weather is an expectation of climate change but in doing so denies that the immediate cause of our recent storminess is a fast jet stream running across the UK in a more equatorward position than during the past late 20th century warming spell.
In reality, the proper expectation from human induced climate change would have been jets running even further north of Scotland than ever before. In that context she appears to be disingenuous.
Collins tries a different damage limitation strategy. He focuses on a ‘stuck’ jet stream thus ignoring its unusual vigour and southward latitudinal position.
Both of them are in denial but using different avoidance strategies.
The only plausible overarching hypothesis currently on the table is mine, here:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/
and for the purposes of this thread the header graphic is all you need to look at.
barry:
In my post here I explained that Collins and Slingo contradict each other.
At February 17, 2014 at 4:14 am you attempt to obfuscate that saying to me
Yes, and that is why they contradict each other. Please read what I wrote: I have provided a link to help you to find it.
Richard
“They were talking about two different things.”
“Yes, and that is why they contradict each other.”
Illogical. The topics were not the same, therefore neither contradiction nor agreement is determinable.
The one topic they both mentioned to the press was rainfall under global warming, on which they agree.
Jimbo says:
February 16, 2014 at 12:03 pm
Sparks, are you feeling OK? Mods, please control this person. He or she isn’t contributing anything but hurls fecal insults at fellow commenters. Once in a while might be warranted but over 80%!
My intention was not to offend such sensitive souls such as your self, but to bluntly express the likeness between some fellow commentators comments to that of fecal matter, and although I do respect the wide variety of people here, their views and opinions, sometimes…
🙂
Stephen,
I’ve scanned the IPCC reports from 1990 to present, and there is mention of modeled storm tracks over N America shifting northward, and the southerly migration of mid-latitude jets (AR4). There is no mention of migration of other jets. Wherever IPCC discusses meridional wind changes, storm tracks and blocking, it is qualified that models do not provide sufficient resolution to make confident projections.
I do not know who proposed the jet streams would all shift polewards, but it is not repeated in IPCC documents. I wonder if you are referring to outlier papers and claiming some kind of concensus opinion.
Poleward migration of land surface climate zones is a concensus projection. You got that part right.
To be precise, he says that a warming world should hold more water vapour, therefore more rain.
He never denied it. Why make things up? But go ahead and quote him doing exactly that, please.
The Met Office report (Slingo was chief author) details the effect of the jet stream on the recent weather.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/1/2/Recent_Storms_Briefing_Final_SLR_20140211.pdf
They summarize:
“This period of weather has been part of major perturbations to the Pacific and North Atlantic jet streams driven, in part, by persistent rainfall over Indonesia and the tropical West Pacific. The North Atlantic jet stream has also been unusually strong; this can be linked to exceptional wind patterns in the stratosphere with a very intense polar vortex.”
Like the previous IPCC reports, this report does not definitively link global warming to changes in jet stream patterns, and like previous assessment reports, recommends improved modeling to get a better resolution on such issues.
Quite a context you are operating there. How about Collins was asked by a reporter if global warming was responsible for the current jet stream holding pattern and he simply said there is no science to back that up, which is the right answer, and consistent with present understanding?
The need to construct narratives where scientists are “intervening” against each other, contradicting, backtracking and damage-limiting, is something to witness. Novels could be written with such vigorous imagination.
barry says:
“To be precise, he says that a warming world should hold more water vapour, therefore more rain.”
But there is less precipitation globally because there is lower humidity globally — both relative humidityand specific humidity.
Global humidity has been declining for decades. The obvious conclusion: global warming may not even be happening. But if it is happening, how do you explain the global decline in humidity?
dbstealey,
Has humidity over the UK decreased?
Sparks,
How many times did I write “global”?
dbstealey says:
February 17, 2014 at 6:27 pm
Humidity is a feature of warming, condensation is when humidity condenses into the cooler and heavier form that falls from the sky as precipitation.
Whatever, Sparks.
dbstealey says:
February 17, 2014 at 6:50 pm
Sparks,
How many times did I write “global”?
I know.. it was an honest enquire tho.
*enquiry
OK, in that case…
I don’t understand your query. But I did look in my chart folder and found that there isn’t any discernable change in global precipitation, including snowfall.
My enquiry to barry was: if there is global warming — which would cause higher humidity — then why is global humidity falling?
Still waiting to hear back from barry on that one.
dbstealey says:
February 17, 2014 at 7:07 pm
I did notice that, excellent question.
dbstealy,
Then why did you present a graph of specific humidity in the lower stratosphere (300mb is about 14000 meters altitude)?
Stratosphere is cooling so of course specific humidity will reduce.
Here is a chart of trends in specific humidity from the ground all the way up to the lower stratosphere.
For most of the troposphere, including rainfall from the altitude of the recent storms over the UK, specific humidity has increased over time. That is no surprise in a warming world (or physics is wrong).
I don’t know the provenance of your other graph, what data or what portion of the sky it represents, but most people, including skeptics at Lucia’s place, agree that relative humidity has remained fairly constant globally, with different trends over specific regions.
That’s a useful question, Sparks. Regional climate projections of changes in the hydrological cycle see some places getting drier, others wetter. Over most of Europe, particularly in the North, projections are that rainfall will increase. Observations for Northern Europe are that rainfall has ncreased over the last century.
barry said:
“Then why did you present a graph of specific humidity in the lower stratosphere (300mb is about 14000 meters altitude)?”
Because that is the graph I had in my graph folder — as I explained above. And barry apparently didn’t notice that I posted a chart of all altitudes, not just the lower stratosphere.
The fabricated graph barry posted, unlike the one I linked to, has no provenance. So we can just assume the graph barry posted is an invention.
Also, let me point out that the “stratospheric cooling” meme was invented when the tropospheric “fingerprint of global warming” turned out to be flat wrong, just like all the other climate alarmist predictions.
The fact is that global humidity should be rising smartly — if global warming is happening as predicted. But it is not. So once again, the alarmist prediction is full of bogosity. Once the always-wrong alarmist crowd’s predictions are eliminated, what we are left with is simply natural climate variability, and nothing else.
Finally, barry says: “That’s a useful question, Sparks. Regional climate projections of changes in the hydrological cycle see some places getting drier, others wetter.”
Not useful at all, since it is only regional and we are discussing global. This is just one more example of moving the goal posts when the argument moves against the climate alarmist. In fact, local conditions are always changing. They always have, and they always will. A few thousand years ago the Sahara Desert was a savannah of rolling grassland. But see, it changed.
That happens everywhere, all the time. Thus, the ‘local change’ argument is NFG.
db,
the atmospheric humidity chart comes from a discussion at Lucia’s, and the source was NOAA.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/humidity-time-series-where-to-find/
What year was that? Exactly.
The topic is weather patterns over England, and whether Slingo and Collins disagree with each other.
barry:
I apologise that until now I have not replied to your post at February 17, 2014 at 5:33 pm.
Your post is untrue sophistry.
You had said
And I replied to that saying
Your post replies to that saying
NO! THEY DISAGREE!
I will use analogy to demonstrate your error of logic.
Two people discuss why the Sun rises in the morning. One says the Sun orbits the Earth so the Sun traverses the sky, but the other says the Earth is rotating so the Sun appears to traverse the sky. They are NOT agreeing merely because they both say the Sun rises in the morning. And they are NOT agreeing because their explanations talk about different things. Indeed, their explanations contradict each other.
Similarly, Slingo and Collins are fundamentally disagreeing: Collins specifically refutes Slingo’s assertion.
Concerning the storms supplied to the UK by the ‘stuck’ jet stream, Slingo had said
Collins has replied
Collins is specifically rejecting Slingo’s assertion that “all the evidence suggests that climate change has a role to play” and states that the matter is “outside our knowledge”.
So, does the Earth rotate or does the Sun orbit the Earth?
The disagreement between Collins and Slingo is as fundamental as that.
And your sophistry is irrelevant.
Richard
barry:
I can foresee a probable response from you to my post addressed to you at February 19, 2014 at 2:14 am. Hence, I provide this addendum so the issue cannot be obfuscated by an irrelevance.
My post does not address the issue of accelerated hydrological cycle (i.e. warmer air holds more moisture) asserted by Slingo. This is because it is not relevant to the issue at hand which is the dispute between Collins and Slingo.
The increased precipitation results from the number and frequency of storms. The series of storms would have increased the precipitation whether or not the hydrological cycle has increased.
Richard
Richard,
The Earth’s rotation brings sunrise.
barry:
Your post at February 19, 2014 at 5:37 am says in total
Your post states an irrelevance instead of admitting you were wrong. No surprise there.
Richard
barry says:
February 19, 2014 at 5:37 am
Richard,
The Earth’s rotation brings sunrise.
Low pressure systems forming and traveling across the Atlantic to Ireland, the UK and the west coast of Europe from the American continent in context of a severe record breaking US winter, explains why southern england had heavy rain and a stormy mid winter, earths rotation is important due to the inverse square law of energy and distance traveled (work done).
Careful: The Daily Mail is hardly an unbiased source – it is the home of many climate change deniers and has a very poor record of accurate reporting of scientific stories. In fact the Met Office has said that it is too early to tell for certain if climate change is in anyway directly responsible for the storms and by extension the flooding, but that the body of evidence is growing and that the increased levels of precipitation being seen on a more regular basis are consistent with fundamental physics of a warming world.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2014/uk-storms-and-floods