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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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: @ur momisugly 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…