Slingo Speaks: ‘…no extreme weather or climate event can be attributed solely to climate change”

Weather and climate: in the eye of the storm

By Julio Slingo,  published in the Financial Times, 13 April 2017 (h/t to Larry Kummer)

Julia Slingo is the former chief scientist of the Met Office.

In 1972, fresh from a physics degree at Bristol University, I joined the UK’s national weather service, the Met Office. I liked meteorology because I could look out of the window and see physics in action. Clouds forming in a blue sky, and the wind blowing so often from the west

— it was not immediately obvious why that should be, and I was intrigued. (I learnt later that the UK lies right in the path of the jet stream, a band of westerly winds that circles the mid-latitudes. The jet stream arises from the rotation of the Earth — the Coriolis Force — and because the planet is heated at the equator and cooled at the poles.)

I joined a team building the first climate models, simulating the evolution of the Earth’s atmosphere on the basis of fundamental physical principles. Elsewhere, and based on very similar science, numerical weather forecasting was taking off. I made some of the early calculations of how sensitive the climate might be to increasing levels of carbon dioxide. Little did I know then that this would become one of the defining problems of the 21st century.

In the decades since, simulations produced by these models have become the bedrock of our understanding of how the weather and climate work. With the help of new technologies, such as satellites and supercomputers, these models have revolutionised our thinking: we use them for forecasting from hours to years ahead, and they are central to assessing future climate change and its impacts.

But more than that, for scientists like myself, these models are our laboratories. With them we can find out why our climate varies, and why it now seems to be changing.

It has only been through simulating what the world would have been like without greenhouse gas emissions that we can say with confidence that humans have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

Yet even as our capabilities improve, the challenge for meteorologists is increasing. Our planet’s population is rising, cities are growing rapidly, often along coastlines, and our world is increasingly and intricately interdependent — relying on global telecommunications, transport systems and the resilient provision of food, energy and water. All of these are vulnerable to adverse weather and climate. The additional pressure of climate change poses new questions about how secure we will be in the future.

***

In early 2009, some 37 years after first joining the Met Office, I returned as its chief scientist, attracted by a desire to see my science working for society. It was clear to me that the weather and climate would have considerable direct and indirect impacts on us, perhaps more so than ever before — on our livelihoods, property, well-being and prosperity. It was equally clear that the benefits of access to the best weather and climate science and predictions would be profound.

The Earth’s atmosphere is massively complex and, as a result, the weather we experience varies hugely from place to place and over different times of the year. We cannot understand and forecast our weather in the UK without seeing it in the context of the global atmosphere and, increasingly, the global oceans.

Our forecasts now embrace timescales from a few hours to a decade ahead, and our climate change projections give us scenarios, out to the end of the century and beyond, of how the weather and climate may change in fundamental ways as the Earth responds to rising levels of greenhouse gases.

Increasingly, we look to these simulations to understand the likelihood of hazardous or extreme weather such as storms, heatwaves or prolonged drought — and what these represent in terms of risks to society. In the UK, as in many other parts of the world, we are well aware that nearly all the highest-impact weather events are localised. Flooding regularly costs the country millions of pounds, and can take a huge toll on the lives of those worst affected — yet the areas involved are often only a few kilometres wide.

During my time as chief scientist we were able to implement a new forecasting system based on a model that works at the scale of our local weather. We had been striving for this for many years

— we knew it was feasible scientifically, but the computational power was just not available. With the latest advances in supercomputing and investment by the government, this has become a reality. Now, for the first time, the cloud systems that deliver our rainfall are captured by the model with the level of fidelity needed to predict severe, localised events.

This has proved to be a landmark in weather research and forecasting. It has meant that we could provide the detailed severe weather warnings that were so essential in recent winters for protecting lives and livelihoods against the winds, waves and floods that battered the country. In the St Jude’s Day storm of 2013, for example, and again for Storm Desmond in 2015-16, we were able to alert emergency services, transport providers and local authorities, often more than 24 hours in advance. This meant that temporary flood defences could be deployed, bridges closed, train services rescheduled and plans put in place for rapid post-event recovery.

Beyond the weather, we are also exposed and vulnerable to the Earth’s natural variations in the climate, such as El Niño, the intermittent warming of the tropical East Pacific Ocean that has profound effects around the world, including droughts and wildfires in Indonesia, poor monsoon rains in India and floods in California.

We need to be better prepared for such events, so that we can manage the risks they pose more effectively. The good news is that it’s now possible to predict an El Niño event at least six months in advance. Nearer to home, for the UK and Europe, we have developed the capability to assess the likelihood of a particular kind of winter several months beforehand, so that we can predict, say, a mild, wet winter or a drier, cooler winter — something considered unlikely a few years ago.

Advances in modelling the ‘Earth system’ are bringing about a new age in our science, enabling us to probe in greater detail than ever before the processes and phenomena that shape the world

This has only come about because we have rigorously explored processes in the atmosphere and oceans that determine our seasonal climate, and pushed the resolution of our models to provide much greater realism at the regional scale, again enabled by more powerful supercomputers. As a result there have been major advances in what we call seasonal forecasting, and the potential for further advances is huge.

Within the next few years we should be able to provide early warnings of extended cold spells and heatwaves that will enable health services, energy suppliers and transport providers to be better prepared. We are still learning how best to communicate and utilise the wealth of information in our seasonal forecasts, but recent scientific breakthroughs give us confidence that their potential value is high.

***

And then there is climate change. Temperatures have risen by about 1.0C since pre-industrial times; Arctic sea ice extent has declined by 3 per cent every decade since records began in 1979

— and at a faster rate in summer; sea levels have been rising by about 3mm a year since the early 1990s; each of the past three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850. We are more confident than ever that humans have been the dominant cause of the rise in temperatures since the 1950s.

While no extreme weather or climate event can be attributed solely to climate change, after the terrible damage of the 2013-14 winter storms and again the flooding in 2015-16, people inevitably and rightly ask: is this climate change?

There is as yet no “definitive answer” to this question, partly due to the highly variable nature of the UK’s climate (ie our “British weather”), but the evidence we do have, such as increasingly heavy daily rainfall and rising sea levels, suggests that the risks of serious flooding and coastal inundation are growing with climate change. Our job now is to say in greater detail what this might mean for the UK’s weather patterns, so that we can make wise choices about investing in infrastructure to increase our resilience.

We do know that some level of climate change is inevitable regardless of what happens to carbon emissions in the future, because of the accumulation of carbon within the atmosphere. This

means that some level of adaptation will be necessary. How we adapt is a key question. The scale of potential spending on, say, flood defence systems, the risks associated with failure, and the long lifetimes and lead-times involved mean that such investments are likely to be highly sensitive to how climate change evolves over the next two to three decades. We need to be sure that we climate-proof our cities and our infrastructure.

There is no doubt that new and more robust climate projections will be required on a country-by- country level if we are to adapt to the challenges and even exploit the opportunities presented by climate change.

In 2018, the Met Office will deliver its latest assessments of what the UK’s weather might be like in the coming decades, using the same local-scale model that we have recently deployed in weather forecasting. The outputs of this model should help us understand far more about the volatility of our weather in the future, and how extreme weather at the local scale, such as flash floods and storm surges, may affect us.

Looking beyond the next few decades, we also need to assess the longer-term risks of irreversible or dangerous climate change, such as the loss of the Greenland ice sheet, huge releases of methane — a potent greenhouse gas — from melting permafrost, long-term sea level rise and acidification of the oceans. Remarkable progress has been made in building a new generation of models that represent many more components of the Earth, such as ice sheets, vegetation and marine life — now known as “Earth system” models. We need to understand the future evolution of the whole Earth system and how it has evolved in the past under major climatic changes.

This landmark system meant we could provide the warnings that were so essential recently to protect lives against the winds and floods that battered the country

This knowledge will be critical for deciding the pace and depth of climate change mitigation actions. We are learning, for example, that melting permafrost has the potential to release large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, effectively reducing what we can emit in the coming decades — our allowable carbon budget — if we are to stay within the limit of a global surface temperature increase of 2C, or even 1.5C, as agreed in Paris in December 2015.

Advances in modelling the Earth system are bringing about a new age in our science, enabling us to probe in greater detail than ever before the processes and phenomena that shape the world.

These new capabilities have begun to unlock the benefits of weather and climate intelligence, but much more can be achieved. The science is never “done”; there is always more to learn, and the complexity of our world means that there will always be things we don’t know.

Increasingly, our actions and our responses to environmental change, such as landscape management and flood defences, will influence the environment itself. For this reason, we need to make significant advances in the end-to-end evaluation of environmental risks and benefits. This will require the integration of the physical simulation of weather and climate with areas

such as advanced modelling of the built environment; quantification of the value of natural capital and ecosystem services; understanding of human dynamics; modelling of ecological systems; and new approaches to modelling financial and socioeconomic impact.

***

Last December, I retired after nearly eight years as Met Office chief scientist. It was a pleasure and privilege to lead one of the best environmental research organisations in the world at a time when, more than ever, we depend on skilful, comprehensive predictions of the weather, climate and the broader environment.

It is worth reflecting on the words of vice-admiral Robert FitzRoy, the captain of the Beagle who took Charles Darwin on his momentous voyages but who was also the founder of the Met Office. After the wreck of the Royal Charter in a terrible storm in 1859, he wrote to The Times:

“Man cannot still the raging of the wind, but he can predict it. He cannot appease the storm, but he can escape its violence, and if all the appliances available for the salvation of life [from shipwreck] were but properly employed the effects of these awful visitations might be wonderfully mitigated.”

More than 150 years ago, FitzRoy embarked on the long journey of making predictions as a means of reducing and managing the impacts of severe weather and climate change, and his words speak across the years to us today.

From the global to the local and from hours to decades, our understanding of weather and climate and the predictions we make will enable us to plan for the future and keep us safe.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

157 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bruce Cobb
April 17, 2017 2:29 pm

Julia, like so many of her cohorts confuses and conflates weather with climate. That is how they become ideologists instead of scientists.

tony mcleod
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 18, 2017 5:07 am

You should write a book about that Bruce.

MarkW
Reply to  tony mcleod
April 18, 2017 8:32 am

It’s already been done.

ferdberple
April 17, 2017 2:35 pm

and new approaches to modelling financial and socioeconomic impact.
=================
how about a new approach to modelling climate? No one can tell you what the economy will be doing in 5 years let alone 50. There is zero evidence that climate is easier to predict. Quite simply we do not have the mathematics to model the future, except for very simple physical systems.

Once this is understood, that you cannot directly calculate the future for complex systems, then the modelling of climate from first principles becomes a waste of money. What we should be doing is looking at how we have successfully modeled other chaotic systems such as the earth’s tides, and applying the lessons learned to climate modelling.

taxed
April 17, 2017 2:44 pm

Weather is it the cause or the effect of climate change.?
No one weather event can be linked to climate change, but longer term changes to the weather can certainly have the power to change it.
For instance what if a change in the weather allowed the landmass of North America to become the centre of NH cooling rather then the high Arctic. What effect would that have on the climate.?
lf you don’t think such a change can happen. Well the LGM begs to differ.

kim
April 17, 2017 2:55 pm

Julia, the Slinger, Slingo says: “We are more confident than ever that humans have been the dominant cause of the rise in temperatures since the ’50s”.

What, pray tell, better than senescence, can give her ‘increasing confidence’? I know that sounds harsh, but I believe I’m being charitable.

Maybe ‘terminally stuck in her ways’ is a little better than ‘senescence’.
=============

April 17, 2017 3:28 pm

“During my time as chief scientist we were able to implement a new forecasting system based on a model that works at the scale of our local weather. ”

Arrogant git soaked in hubris.

Will it rain three weeks from now? What? I cannot hear you.

ferdberple
April 17, 2017 3:37 pm

The new supercomputer ensures the Met Office will get the wrong answer that much faster.

alfredmelbourne
April 17, 2017 3:40 pm

Heavens, they cannot forecast with any degree of accuracy the weather a week or two ahead. All that computing power is wasted – because they base their work on a false premise

AGW is not Science
Reply to  alfredmelbourne
April 18, 2017 11:58 am

No worries, they’ll keep at it predicting those really hot summers until you by coincidence actually happen to get one, then they’ll insist their “accurate prediction” (as in, as accurate as a clock that isn’t running, twice a day when it happens to indicate the correct time) is indicative of the newest “improvements to the models” which are now ever so much more accurate, and that you can now expect their predictions of evah hotter weather will now actually occur, just like the model says.

taxed
April 17, 2017 3:54 pm

The North Atlantic is the place of interest over the coming days for insight in to how the weather could effect climate. There is a large split been formed in the jet stream with a huge block in the northern Atlantic and low pressure over northern europe. Bringing a colder air flow down across much of europe.
But this split is also forcing colder air from Canada and areas of low pressure into the mid Atlantic and stopping the Azores high from forming as normal. Now with luck this large change in the jet stream will last into the next two weeks. Long enough maybe to see what effect it has if any on the northern Atlantic itself.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  taxed
April 17, 2017 8:43 pm

And, bringing snow to bavaria a few days this week!

Reply to  taxed
April 18, 2017 8:46 am

Of equal interest are the changes in the North Pacific. The Blob and ridiculously resilient ridge that ostensibly gave California a drought has disappeared. Now there is a pool of cool water and the left coast has had record precipitation. Maybe when we get a handle on major ocean changes we can gain some understanding of longer term weather/climate. The models do not have a handle on the oceans.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  R2Dtoo
April 18, 2017 12:56 pm

Nor do we have a handle on what drives the ocean cycles, but I’m betting it’s not “random” or “internal,” which is the sciencey way of saying “We haven’t got a $%^&ing clue.”

Old Woman of the North
April 17, 2017 3:57 pm

Was Slingo a theoretical physicist?
Her opening paragraphs seem to indicate very little practical knowledge of physics and its application to weather systems. On the other hand her adoration of computers (the bigger the better) and belief that a program was equivalent to reality is amazing.

The Badger
Reply to  Old Woman of the North
April 17, 2017 4:41 pm

Not theoretical, classical physics and practical experience on the properties of potty putty (WTF!), well that’s what her citation said for the honorary PhD. So BSc Physics earned, PhD freeby for University kudos.

My thirst for knowledge is awakened – now I want to know more about potty putty !

toorightmate
Reply to  Old Woman of the North
April 17, 2017 5:47 pm

I have had a few scientists like that work for me over the years.
I sacked them.

Dave Fair
Reply to  toorightmate
April 17, 2017 8:25 pm

It’s amazing, isn’t it, toorightmante? I mean the ease, when taking over the management of an existing technical organizational unit (including a whole company), of identifying the people who add no value to the goals of the entity. Many even work hard producing that meaningless or even harmful stuff. Engineers and scientists are the worst offenders.

M Seward
April 17, 2017 4:01 pm

Imagine a group of hunter gatherers who having left their inland home for some reason made it to the coast and saw the sea for the first time. As it happens it was not long after low tide and as they spread out to explore the shoreline someone notices that the sea level seems to be rising. The shamans spring into action casting spells and explaining that someone must have committed some grave sin against a local spirit or even against the grete spirit(s). Then the rate of rise slows down and eventually stops and the shamans are proven to be the powerful people they always claimed to be. The next day the tide falls and rises and repeats its cycle but no matter, the shamans now have control of the people and claim control of the sea. Gosh fortune can be kind to some and after 37 years of controlling the sea a shaman will be a very, very important and privileged person.

Gil
April 17, 2017 4:14 pm

Her retirement might allow someone a little more skeptical to fill her office. IIRC, the Met Office has badly flubbed some summer and winter seasonal forecasts in recent years.

nc
April 17, 2017 4:41 pm

[But more than that, for scientists like myself, these models are our laboratories. With them we can find out why our climate varies, and why it now seems to be changing.]

So is she saying before models there was no climate change?

M.W.Plia.
April 17, 2017 4:43 pm

Slingo, bingo…who cares. WUWT and friends, as far as I can tell, according to some within the MSM and academia, we’re nothing more than a very small collective voice of right wing deluded folk who deny climate science.

I’m simply amazed that so many don’t understand the very simple fact CO2, a radiatively active dipole molecule, does not trap heat, it actually convects it (think hot air rising), it is largely IR resonant at an amplitude of 15 microns for which the corresponding temperature is really cold, way up high, nowhere near the surface.

So what does a slight ppm CO2 increase (think 1.2 molecules per 10,000) mean in regards to surface temps?….how about uncertainty, like nobody has a clue, Yes? No?. Am I being unreasonable?

So they hypothesize, suppose, guess, imagine, fear, whatever…an outcome. They are actually worried we, if we don’t stop using fossil fuels, will drown the coasts and turn the world into stormy deserts surrounded by oceans of acid.

And they all think Trump is stupid…..this is theatre. As always, we live in interesting times.

April 17, 2017 5:03 pm

Julia,
Enjoy your retirement.
Aside from what a Christian’s “retirement” actually entails in the long term, the short term will not include the Man made “Doom and Gloom” you preached that had nothing to do with Man’s real pending doom or the way to one’s potential rescue/redemption.
Even that was nailed to the cross.

ned
April 17, 2017 5:22 pm

Geology

We turn now to what are called earth sciences, or geology. First, meteorology and the weather. Of course the instruments of meteorology are physical instruments, and the development of experimental physics made these instruments possible, as was explained before. However, the theory of meteorology has never been satisfactorily worked out by the physicist. “Well,” you say, “there is nothing but air, and we know the equations of the motions of air.” Yes we do. “So if we know the condition of air today, why can’t we figure out the condition of the air tomorrow?” First, we do not really know what the condition is today, because the air is swirling and twisting everywhere. It turns out to be very sensitive, and even unstable. If you have ever seen water run smoothly over a dam, and then turn into a large number of blobs and drops as it falls, you will understand what I mean by unstable. You know the condition of the water before it goes over the spillway; it is perfectly smooth; but the moment it begins to fall, where do the drops begin? What determines how big the lumps are going to be and where they will be? That is not known, because the water is unstable. Even a smooth moving mass of air, in going over a mountain turns into complex whirlpools and eddies. In many fields we find this situation of turbulent flow that we cannot analyze today. Quickly we leave the subject of weather, and discuss geology!
The question basic to geology is, what makes the earth the way it is? The most obvious processes are in front of your very eyes, the erosion processes of the rivers, the winds, etc. It is easy enough to understand these, but for every bit of erosion there is an equal amount of something else going on. Mountains are no lower today, on the average, than they were in the past. There must be mountain-forming processes. You will find, if you study geology, that there are mountain-forming processes and volcanism, which nobody understands but which is half of geology. The phenomenon of volcanoes is really not understood. What makes an earthquake is, ultimately, not understood. It is understood that if something is pushing something else, it snaps and will slide—that is all right. But what pushes, and why? The theory is that there are currents inside the earth—circulating currents, due to the difference in temperature inside and outside—which, in their motion, push the surface slightly. Thus if there are two opposite circulations next to each other, the matter will collect in the region where they meet and make belts of mountains which are in unhappy stressed conditions, and so produce volcanoes and earthquakes.
What about the inside of the earth? A great deal is known about the speed of earthquake waves through the earth and the density of distribution of the earth. However, physicists have been unable to get a good theory as to how dense a substance should be at the pressures that would be expected at the center of the earth. In other words, we cannot figure out the properties of matter very well in these circumstances. We do much less well with the earth than we do with the conditions of matter in the stars. The mathematics involved seems a little too difficult, so far, but perhaps it will not be too long before someone realizes that it is an important problem, and really works it out. The other aspect, of course, is that even if we did know the density, we cannot figure out the circulating currents. Nor can we really work out the properties of rocks at high pressure. We cannot tell how fast the rocks should “give”; that must all be worked out by experiment.

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_03.html

big government = big money=big lies =big thieves

toorightmate
April 17, 2017 5:45 pm

“What did you do at work today dear?”

“Oh, I just looked out the window and saw Physics in action.”

Johann Wundersamer
April 17, 2017 6:28 pm

Forrest, the rotations due to coriolis effect are MIRRORED at the equator.

So prevailing in NH as SH are westerlies.

Anyway that Slingo pseudo science should be forgotten from first print.

Johann Wundersamer
April 17, 2017 6:35 pm

It’s westerlies due to earth rotation relative to the sun; coriolis effect is a second phenomenon.

JBom
April 17, 2017 6:53 pm

“Self delusion” indeed!

The failed notion “Gaia” or as later-day “Earth System” on display. Earth System is just another example of delusion and failed by evidence!

“Gaia” and “Earth System” and “Climate Change” and “Anthropogenic Climate Change” and “Carbon Anthropogenic Climate Change” are just examples of delusion, Pathological Science!

Google ‘Pathological Science’ please.

We are in the run-up to the Great 22 April Event of the Year: The March For (the Money From) Pathological Science.

“Look at us we’re walking … Look at us we’re talking … walking talking For Money Ever More … Ta Da Da Ta DA! We’re Happy and we’re Laughing … Laughing to be Banking … Banking More And More And More And More! Ta Da Da Ta DA!”

Jajajajajajajajaja

JohnKnight
April 17, 2017 8:12 pm

“While no extreme weather or climate event can be attributed solely to climate change, after the terrible damage of the 2013-14 winter storms and again the flooding in 2015-16, people inevitably and rightly ask: is this climate change?”

I bet Julia gets a special little thrill when that happens, since it means she’s successfully played her part in keeping the general public ignorant and gullible . .

Old England
Reply to  JohnKnight
April 18, 2017 8:01 am

Much of the 2013/14 damage and exceptional flooding was because the eco-activists in the Environment Agency and Natural England had stopped dredging rivers to enable more flooded wetlands to appear … it did at massive cost to both people and wildlife. Homes flooded, urgent evacuations of livestock from farms and the drowning of many species that wetlands were meant to encourage.

It had nothing to do with so-called climate change and everything to do with idiotic enviro-activism in government agencies. Shame Julia Sligo doesn’t wish to recognise what her fellow activists achieved.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Old England
April 19, 2017 10:56 am

That’s the unfortunate reality – the Eco-Fascist activists generally cause more damage than good.

April 18, 2017 2:16 am

When the observations run along the centre of the model outputs and the error bars are way smaller than now, and for at least 2 of the shorter climate cycles (i.e. at least 60 years), then we might, just might start paying them some attention. Until then…

April 18, 2017 3:05 am

When the observations run along the centre of the model outputs and the error bars are way smaller than now, and have run for at least 2 of the shorter climate cycles (i.e. at least 60 years), then we might, just might start paying them some attention. Until then… the models are pure fantasy, and costing (wasting) society trillions, for zero benefit.

Dave
April 18, 2017 3:28 am

On `see this` by Richards Courtney: Do not blame Mrs Thatcher. It was her `adviser` Crispin Tickell.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Dave
April 18, 2017 1:20 pm

Quite right,Dave. But Richard has a furrow to plough – and it veers to the left. Other than that he is a very readable commenter.

sherlock1
April 18, 2017 5:05 am

Julia Slingo states that the Met Office can now forecast ‘years’ ahead….
Oh, come off it – five days is still a stretch for them….!