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.
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!