UNIVERSITY OF READING
Climate models may be underestimating the impact climate change will have on the UK, North America and other extratropical regions due to a crucial missing element, new research has shown.
Scientists at the University of Reading have warned that current projections of how a warming world will affect regional temperatures and rainfall do not take into account the fact that extratropical winds – which have a strong influence on climate in the mid-latitudes – vary greatly from decade to decade.
The research team used observations of these winds over the 20th century to better represent their variability in climate model predictions of the future. They found that this made the predictions of future climate less certain in the extratropics – particularly in the North Atlantic region and particularly in winter – and that unusually hot, cold, wet or dry decades are projected to be much more likely by the middle of the century in this region than existing climate simulations suggest.
Dr Christopher O’Reilly, a Royal Society University Research Fellow in the University of Reading’s Department of Meteorology, said: “Variations between decades in the strength of winds in the more temperate regions of the world are a crucial missing ingredient in projections of the future climate of those regions.
“By adding this extra variability into climate models, we showed that these winds may be an additional source of uncertainty on top of climate change. This could mean that within these regions, temperatures are pushed to relatively extreme highs or lows more often. While in some decades they could counteract increases to temperatures and heavy rainfall caused by climate change, in other periods they could make these extremes even more extreme.
“This is yet another reminder that preparation will be crucial as we face up to more variable regional climates as an impact of climate change in the future.”
The team used wind observation data from the Met Office, Copernicus Climate Data Store and NOAA, among others, to carry out their analysis and bolster the climate model predictions.
The range of temperature and rainfall most likely to occur in future decades increased by 50% across Northern Europe, Northern America and the Mediterranean – with uncertainty nearly doubling in some cases.
This strengthens previous research that suggests rainfall and temperatures that are very unlikely today will fall within the likely range in future due to climate change.
The updated projections showed that the Mediterranean would see a higher frequency of drier-than-average winters. As studies show that dry winters in this region make heatwaves in Europe more common the following summer, this has health and infrastructure implications for several countries.
JOURNAL
Communications Earth & Environment
DOI
METHOD OF RESEARCH
Computational simulation/modeling
ARTICLE TITLE
Projections of northern hemisphere extratropical climate underestimate internal variability and associated uncertainty
ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE
20-Sep-2021
So they talk about the natural variability not taken into account.
Natural variability does not exist. Humans control the climate!
Natural variability only exists when it can be used to make global warming seem worse.
It’s reminiscent of the Mandela Effect, only for many people no matter how many times you show someone that it’s not true, they will still keep repeating it.
Another tweak and still the models are hopelessly wrong
Seems that what they found is that the margin of error in the model(s) is bigger than they thought.
Seems that what they are saying is that their new research shows that climate change impacts could include even bigger swings than previously thought.
They are scumbags.
Um, if they left out wind variability, what else have they left out?
And what have they added?
I wrote a paper on this 10 years ago based on Lambs observational work. Basically not only does the wind speed vary greatly but the direction is by no means fixed.
In the UK for example, if we get predominantly easterlies in the winter it will be very cold (as in the LIA) if they are mostly westerly it will be mild and wet (the MWP)
I came to the conclusion that winds were likely the largest factor in our climate
I didn’t get a grant. Perhaps I can apply retrospectively?
tonyb
It was the wind blowing the ice pack back to the pole that caused the low in Arctic ice all those years ago.
Except the MWP shows up in climate proxies and even some written records worldwide.
Night
Clouds
I think it’s pretty funny that they put variability into their model and the results are more variable. Who could have seen that coming?
Reality,,,
As we are already finding out it is not the impact of ‘climate change’ but the impact of the idiotic attempts to stop ‘climate change’ that have been underestimated by the morons in charge.
METHOD OF RESEARCH
Computational simulation/modeling
That is all you need to know………….
Garbage in, garbage out.
See hacked emails made public around the time of the IPCC Copenhagen Conference between the modelling creators discussing how to produce a warming trend without being caught out.
Climate gate 1 and 2.
The article talks about the results of climate change on wind, rain/snow, hot, cold patterns, but not about the origin of climate change.
Why was the weather so dry during the “DUSTBOWL” of the 1930s, when atmospheric CO2 was not an issue?
Was it natural cyclical climate change?
The world’s climate has forever had natural cyclical climate changes
The Little Ice Age (actually a mini-glaciation period lasting about 400 years) is an example of natural cyclical climate change, as were the Medieval, Roman, and Grecian Warm Periods, and the Present Warm Period.
Each of such warm periods were marked with population growth and thriving economies, which led to the rise of Empires
The increased melting of land-locked ice, such as glaciers, etc., likely was accelerated by increased soot from coal burning, primarily in China, India, etc., during the 1900s and onwards.
Coal-burning countries have plans (and are permitted by the IPCC) to build at least five hundred 500 MW coal plants during the next few decades, which would more than offset any and all CO2 reduced by Europe, the US, etc.
Instead of turning the European, US, etc., economies inside out to reduce CO2 (which will prove to be far more difficult/costly than meets the eye), to fight climate change, would it not be much easier, more effective, and much less expensive, to provide the coal-burning countries with natural gas and nuclear plants?
Russia sells vast quantities of gas to China and to Europe, and helps build nuclear plants in China and Europe, which means China and Europe burn less coal than they would have. See URL
WORLD AND US PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND CAPITAL COST
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-total-energy-consumption
Coal-burning countries have plans (and are permitted by the IPCC) to build at least five hundred 500 MW coal plants during the next few decades, which would more than offset any and all CO2 reduced by Europe, the US, etc.
I don’t think that’s true any longer. There are for example no power plants in the planning pipeline in the whole of the EU/UK now and Japan, s Korea, Vietnam and others ahve all cut future plans. India is slowing its rate of commissioning and many plants are likely to be cancelled.
Outside China, less than 12 GW was commissioned in 2020 and, taking into account closures, the global coal fleet outside China declined by 17.2 GW in 2020. Outside China, there was a marked slowdown in 2020 commissioning. India, notably, grew its coal fleet by only net 0.7 GW in 2020, after adding an average 15.0 GW a year from 2010 to 2019.
Hmmm, “outside China” eh? Oh, and pointing to anything that happened during the pandemic (India, 2020) as indicative of a trend? Not what I would call compelling…
It takes many years for a coal-burning plant to go from proposal to generation. For the last 10 years or so the cost of coal has been much higher than the cost of gas, so new coal plants weren’t as economical. Now that the cost of gas is higher and in great demand, it will be interesting to see if there aren’t more coal plants built outside of China.
griffter, Once again, you’re lying about Japan – they have just completed several coal plants, they are constructing several others still on schedule to begin operation, and there are several proposed coal plants being evaluated..
“to better represent their variability in climate model predictions of the future.”
Well, if their model can give me 6 numbers on Saturday night’s Lottery then I might believe them!!! Was it not Einstein who said predictions are very difficult, especially about the future? Besides, this the University of Reading after all!!!
It was Yogi Berra
OT, but maybe important.
https://theintercept.com/2021/09/06/new-details-emerge-about-coronavirus-research-at-chinese-lab/
900 pages documents proving US funding Corona research in Wuhan.
Fauci should be in The Hague facing charges of violating international bio-weapons treaties and the Nuremburg Code.
Fauci should be in somebody’s basement, chained to a post, with a canvas bag over his head, until he admits everything he has done.
After that, The Hague.
The models are even worse than we thought!
Not only do they not model clouds effectively, they don’t model winds either?
It begs the obvious question, what do they consider are relevant to climate forecasting?
CO2
Honestly, that’s it. Apparently, they can’t think of anything else that could possibly affect the climate. Really, that’s the theory, go look it up…
The “Science is Settled” claim seems to be suffering some Reality Checks, and the Science of Climate Change Cycles turns out to be more complex than computer models can deal with? Well, something has not changed, the Political Science of Climate Change, aka Wealth Redistribution, has not changed.
They are putting out excuses now for something that will take a decade to be proved wrong by reality
By that time the authors will have retired on big fat taxpayer funded pensions!!! As such, they will be wholly unaccountable for their claims/predictions!!!
First there was Trenberth’s Missing Heat and now we have the Missing Wind.
“By adding this extra variability into climate models”
Bingo another parameter
“Two main types of uncertainty can arise, one from insufficient knowledge of the parameter values fed into the scheme (parameter uncertainty), and the other from the coarseness/approximations of the equations in the scheme (structural uncertainty).
…
In today’s climate models, the primary source of uncertainty are approximations of processes that cannot be explicitly resolved, such as turbulence in atmosphere and oceans and the convection sustaining clouds. These approximations, known as parameterization schemes, are a set of physical equations that, given some environmental conditions (such as wind and temperature) supplied by the climate model, predict the approximate effect of each unresolved process. In addition to the environmental conditions, the schemes also require parameters, which are often fixed to values based on a limited number of empirical studies. Two main types of uncertainty can arise, one from insufficient knowledge of the parameter values fed into the scheme (parameter uncertainty), and the other from the coarseness/approximations of the equations in the scheme (structural uncertainty).
The chaotic nature of the atmospheric equations can lead to a sensitive and complex dependence of climate on the parameters, so that in some cases (most notably within convection parameterizations), a small misestimation of a parameter can lead to a dramatically different representation of the approximated process. Fixing parameters to a single value everywhere when making predictions leads to uncertainties, which remain hidden and unquantified. “
https://clima.caltech.edu/2021/05/13/quantifying-parameter-and-structural-uncertainty-in-climate-modeling/
Officially, however…
BBC GCSE revision
“Scientists created two climate models using data on carbon dioxide level increases:
– due to natural sources only
– due to both human activity and natural sources
The second model better matched the observed temperature changes.
This adds to the evidence that the observed warming of the Earth is because of human activities changing the composition of the atmosphere.
Scientists can also use computer models to predict the impacts of climate change.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zsxy8mn/revision/3
Not a hint of uncertainty at all.
In fairness to the BBC, this is accurately reflecting the national curriculum.
The lunacy is state-sponsored. And it won’t help the victims (pupils) to educate them to a point where they understand it’s lunacy. That way they wouldn’t get the qualifications they need.
“Officially, however…”
The BBC is just a ready example of what children are being taught, or rather indoctrinated with. Note the GCSE bit….
In fairness to the BBC? They’ve had their £159 so they are a fair target as far as I’m concerned
“The BBC has made the decision to “retire” a controversial schools resource that claimed there were “over 100” gender identities. “
Under pressure, BBC withdraws video that tells children there are ‘over 100’ gender identities | gatewaynews.co.za
Parliament is beyond woke.
What is all this??? Are you suggesting this manmade globul warming business is little more than “hot air”??? 😉
The Montgolfier brothers had a principle.
These people have a narrative.
Or cold? Convection rules conduction rules radiation!
This is hopeless back-pedalling because the thermaggedonists have realised they need excuses for why their ridiculous windmills have been so useless (the current energy crisis in Europe being a case in point)
No, no, no. It’s all because natural gas, something, something, something. It’s all true, griff said so!
Windmills! Windmills!
Unicorns!
Rainbows!
Black outs! Erm…..
Almost a haiku 🙂
😂😂
“””particularly in the North Atlantic region and particularly in winter – and that unusually hot, cold, wet or dry decades are projected to be much more likely by the middle of the century in this region than existing climate simulations suggest.””
So it’s going to be hotter, colder, wetter or dryer than predicted. Is there any horse in the race they haven’t backed. They are bonkers and patronising to anyone with a braincell.
Everything is now more likely because of Climate Change ™. Everything that ever happens is therefore proof of Climate Change ™, doncha know?
So much seems to be being newly discovered in all of this ‘settled science’!
It’s the ghost of Rumsfeld…
There are also unknown unknowns – things we don’t know that we don’t know…
“current projections of how a warming world” When you get caught lying just double down and lie louder.
Like, for example, the Bureau of Meteorology Australia ignoring weather record data prior to 1910 that recorded a period of well above average heat periods?
And weather stations discovered in heat sink locations by scientists including Dr Jennifer Marohasy who have been investigating and when they notified the Minister responsible in 2014/15 and he asked the BoM to explain received their reply that “errors and omissions” were responsible, and would in future be eliminated.
“ would in future be eliminated.”
More cunningly concealed.
“errors and omissions” covers all manner of malfeasance and chicanery.
So they’re getting their excuses in early for why the wind isn’t blowing in the UK leading to massive rises in energy prices. Obvious when you think about it. Too much wind = climate change, too little wind = climate change.
Hmmmm… so the wind isn’t blowing in the UK because it’s not in ‘The Models’?
Now that wind variability has been added to ‘The Models’, I’m sure the breezes will blow just as they should.
After all, if reality is different from what ‘The Models’ predict, then reality must be wrong.
(Dang! Can’t find that bleepin’ sarc font.)
Poe’s law {PL}
Consult Goldilocks for just the right amount of wind…
The price is rising only because of the price of natural gas
Oh dear God please no-
Australia’s New Supercomputer Has Been Unveiled and Its Name Is Adorable (msn.com)
It’s adorable and covered in indigenous art.
Looks like a row of vending machines.
Or the rear view of a row of one-armed bandits in a casino.
Or was it a bunch of one armed bandits who programmed them???
You know what they’ll be selling out of them.
Still waiting for a computer scientist with a sense of humour to call it……..Deep Thought!!!
So much for “settled science”.
BTW, I just love how they just state as if it were a proven fact: We fed this new factor into our models, and things got worse.
Models are never wrong. (Of course the models were, by definition wrong before this new factor was added, but let’s not point out the obvious.)
“I need more power, Scotty!”
I don’t think that was it (although I just skimmed things)
Seems that what they found is, when adding the variability, that the margin of error in the model(s) is bigger than they thought.
Although is seems that what they are reporting is that their new research shows that climate change impacts could include even bigger swings than previously thought.
Germany was the first country to go “green”, shuttering most of its natural gas and nuclear power plants that generated continuous uninterruptible electricity, in favor of electricity generation from breezes and sunshine. · Germany is now facing an embarrassing reality – that green has not worked.
· In the first half of 2021 Germany’s coal topped wind as their primary electricity generation source.
It was Professor Hermann Scheer, who came from Germany to Ontario and met with David Suzuki-
http://volkerthomsen.com/2008/07/
-and Dalton McGuinty and through the regulatory capture of Green Energy Act, the residents of rural Ontario suddenly lost their democratic rights to resist the incursion of industrial wind turbines.
Now the long term contracts, unless cancelled, will keep the largest project going for another 15 years!
Will the post covid economic reality make it possible for the government to invoke ‘force majeure’ to cancel the contracts?
Yes, wind and solar only delivered 40% of German electricity in the first quarter, down from 52% last year.
They have a really bad winter and STILL get 40% renewable.
“This is yet another reminder that
preparation will be crucial as we face up to more variable regional climates as an impact of climate change in the future.”the science is not settled.fixed it
All roads lead to Rome because the Romans built the roads.
Is this s joke?
“unusually hot, cold, wet or dry decades are projected to be more likely”
“the range of temperature & rainfall most likely to occur future decades increases by 50%…with uncertainty nearly doubling”
Hot, cold, wet, & dry more likely?
Uncertainty nearly doubling?
If this isn’t a joke then these people are fools.🤡
“If this isn’t a joke then these people are fools.”
This is alarmist climate science.
The “logic” follows the main theme of “climate science”: whatever they fail to understand (and they pretty much understand nothing) is a subject of concern and will likely cause “catastrophic global warming” in the future.
It is nothing but a collective panic attack, or mass hysteria in its nature. Though certainly an organized one.
Solid Gold 24 Carat Garbage
The wind IS the climate, climate makes the wind – the wind does not make the climate
(Like clouds also as it happens – clouds are a manifestation of climate – NOT vice-versa)
How is it possible to be any more wrong about anything?
and then they program up a computer to agree with them.
And then, other climate scientists, raving about Polar Amplification and if they know any thermodynamics would have to disagree with them
lord help us
First of all, wind and clouds are weather, why make the griff ?
Almost anyone who grows up in the Midwest U.S. can tell you that really hot days (weeks, or even months) often have little wind associated with them. If a high pressure dome settles in on top of you, there just isn’t any wind to speak of…but that’s OK because we all just turn on our Air Conditioners that are now being forced to depend on wind power…oh, wait. That won’t work.
from bad to worse…
Boris predicts winter (will not be harsh)
BBC Headline:”Boris Johnson dismisses fears over tough winter”
I really am struggling with his logic in that article:
We are informed that:
Aren’t those things mutually contradictory?
There again and knowing Boris, he’ll be drunk & hungover
And, if I understand it, what they did was add the additional uncertainty into the models and that made the models upper range much more extreme. Adding uncertainty makes the models more uncertain so they can claim even worse worst case scenarios.
So yet another reason why things might be ‘worse than we thought’. They never give up, these clowns, do they.
Climate science today is like a fantasy role playing game. The climate cult gets all excited about some new calculation and what it might mean to their narrative, until an adult walks into the room and reminds them that it is all fiction.
So is there a consensus that “additional variability on top of variability” adds uncertainty to the “settled science” consensus, or is this denier false consciousness?
There is consensus that they want more money for an unfinished and inferior product, their research.
“The range of temperature and rainfall most likely to occur in future decades increased by 50% across Northern Europe…”
Given that England and Wales monthly mean rainfall has no trend since 1766, their model integration must be badly wrong.
er… no.
As well as increased temperatures, the UK has been on average 6% wetter over the last 30 years (1991-2020) than the preceding 30 years (1961-1990). Six of the ten wettest years for the UK in a series from 1862 have occurred since 1998.
Climate change continues to be evident across UK – Met Office
So the only thing that is worse than we thought, once again is the (so called) science and the scandalous manipulation of data!
Wind providing 34% of UK electricity as I write, 11 am UK time on 23rd.
Renewables total 49%