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
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.