From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
h/t Ian Cunningham
It’s Jackanory time at the Met Office:
A groundbreaking study reveals that the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) could reach unprecedented magnitudes by the end of the century, leading to severe impacts such as increased flooding and storm damage in northern Europe.
The NAO is a large-scale atmospheric pressure see-saw in the North Atlantic and is a key driver of winter weather patterns in the UK, western Europe and eastern USA. It is measured by the gradient between high pressure over the Azores and low pressure over Iceland and controls the strength of the prevailing winds.
The study, led by a team of Met Office climate scientists, identifies climatological water vapour as a significant factor governing differences in long-term fluctuations in the NAO across climate model simulations. The research shows that limitations in the way that current climate models represent water vapour in the atmosphere lead to uncertainty in predictions of the NAO’s future behaviour. Taking account of these limitations reveals a substantial response of the NAO to volcanic eruptions and greenhouse gases.
The findings indicate that under a scenario with very high concentrations of greenhouse gases by the end of the century, the NAO will increase to levels never before seen, posing severe risks of impacts from extreme weather such as flooding and storm damage. However, these impacts could be mitigated through efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Lead author, Dr Doug Smith, emphasized the urgency of the findings: “These findings have major implications for understanding and preparing for extreme weather events. Our study suggests that taking model projections at face value could leave society unprepared for impending extremes. Mitigation efforts are crucial to prevent the severe impacts associated with an unprecedented increase in the NAO.”
Key findings from the study include:
- The study shows that some of the differences between model projections of the NAO is due to climatological water vapour limitations in the models.
- The research reveals the NAO’s significant response to external forcings such as volcanic eruptions and greenhouse gases.
- The study also takes into account the ‘Signal to Noise Paradox’, which suggests that climate models may underestimate the magnitude of the real-world NAO changes.
- The research results underscore the importance of mitigation efforts to avoid severe impacts from an unprecedented increase in the NAO.
- The study highlights the need for improved climate models to better predict future changes in the regional climate.
No Met Office scare story would be complete without the mandatory demand for us to give up fossil fuels:
“However, these impacts could be mitigated through efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
You might also note the silly scare is based on very high concentrations of greenhouse gases. In other words RCP 8.5 that is universally regarded as impossible.
But back in the real world, the NAO has not become more extreme, “despite” global warming.
The NAO has the strongest effect on weather in winter, but again we find none of the extremes claimed by the Met Office, which would surely have become apparent now after 200 years of warming.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/inao.dat
This latest piece of nonsense is another example of how the Met Office have lost their reputation for scientific excellence, dumped to pursue a political agenda.
It is time they faced the same sort of cuts that Trump is wisely imposing on NOAA.
And they will, of course, solve the problem by building safe, clean and reliable nuclear power plants.
I believe they will solve this problem in the usual way, by ignoring it and signalling virtue by doing something utterly useless. Eg the latest jabs are godsends (allegedly) to the obese, but the activists have been horrified by them…
Moreover, we know from randomised controlled trials that using them leads to ‘substantial, sustained weight loss’. Semaglutide and its competitors have done what all the sugar taxes, fat taxes, advertising restrictions and warning labels have failed to do elsewhere in the world – they have actually reduced the rate of obesity.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/10/15/ozempic-has-exposed-the-grift-behind-the-public-health-lobby/
They don’t want solutions; at all.
SOLUTIONS horrify government agencies – All of them.
Government agencies exist to WORK-ON problems; not solve them. The bigger the problem…
Don’t expect players to give up their turf. Power, influence, perks and funding mean everthing to them.
That’s why the US and its States, counties, cities and districts have taxation rules that run into thousands of pages.
Taxpayers who fear identity theft and the scammers who call everyday, need to wake-up! Their governments already have their IDs and can-and-do steal as much money as they please.
There’s no problem to solve.
And they don’t really want to solve any problem, just milk the issue as a political talking point.
All efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have failed spectacularly for 40 years now. The “study” forgot to study why that is.
Indeed so – just as we did with town gas heating and lighting electrical generators in the past.
climatological water vapour
Not to be confused with a sauna or Turkish bath.
The MO is a very expensive embarrassment.
That is as far as I got. “Taking account” is not “After fixing the problem”, so however the article or its claims proceed after those words is just a waste of my dwindling lifetime.
I found that bit of the language especially annoying too! Did they think no one would notice?
Mathematical masturbation. If they keep doing it, they will go blind.
portmanteau, Mathturbation.
Statistical onanism… Stonanism.
Stevie was never known to have recited the times table.
So there’s your null hypothesis.
“However, these impacts could be mitigated through efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
Oh, I’m sure China and India are already working on mitigating severe impacts on Northern Europe from their greenhouse gas emissions.
China and India are increasing coal usage in order to meet the industrial demand for equipment created by the West’s destruction of its generation and industrial base in an attempt to limit CO2 emissions. God we are idiots!
Our man Miliband is there in Beijing “negotiating” as I type…
“Miliband travels to China to discuss clean energy – but won’t mention their coal”
…
the UK closed its last coal power plant in September 2024, followed swiftly by a ban on new coal mines by Mr Miliband as a “signal to the world”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/14/ed-miliband-travels-to-china-to-discuss-clean-power-coal/
And China blanked it completely.
How dare they! Don’t they know that the science is settled?
If the science is settled – as they say – why do they need to improve…
“Artificial intelligence is helping improve climate models – The Economist
Does AI know the known unknowns whilst humans do not? Possibly even the unknown unknowns?
As if. It’s ‘trained’ to get the [desired] results. Fabricated known knowns aka parameters, twisted by a faux consensus based on a neo-religious belief. How else can attribution modelling work?
It’s the ides of March, and for the last week temperatures have been well below normal or average. Today we will easily exceed the fabled 1.5C by going from 0C to 7C and back to 0C tonight.
How does the Beeb report it?
“We may have seen the warmest weather of the year so far over the weekend, but now wintry weather has made another comeback”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/articles/cvge7m0qdv5o
It got up to 14C for a day or two. Maybe we need a [ocean boiling] factor of 1.5C? Then, 14C would be 9.33, but then 7C is only 4.6
Sorta related, sorta not. I live in SE Virginia, and i was wondering if it was going to warm up today so I could go out and do yard work. Even as recently as a couple hours ago this morning, Accuweather on the TV was predicting a high of 78°F while Weatherbug on the computer was predicting 63°F; a 15-degree difference – on the same day. Still mild enough to do stuff, but now wondering if I should take some plants out or keep them inside.
Yet, the science is settled and they can predict global temps to 0.01 degrees 100 years in the future..
And with little to no uncertainty, too….
Yeah, I forgot that part. Climate statistics are a completely separate animal from normal statistics (which are already misused and abused enough).
As well.
A can give you some temperature data for the first half of March recorded here in Scunthorpe, North Lincolnshire. This is my own data l record.
Max Min
1st 8.5C 0.5C
2nd 9.6C 1.1C
3rd 11.1C 2.2C
4th 11.4C 2.8C
5th 11.6C 3.3C
6th 14.2C 3.7C
7th 15.3C 8.5C
8th 15.6C 7.1C
9th 14.6C 5.2C
10th 11.4C 3.3C
11th 7.2C 3.1C
12th 6.6C 2.2C
13th 6.6C 0.9C
14th 8.1C 2.4C
15th 8.3C 1.0C
These temps are recorded in the middle of a town, so the night time lows will record warmer due to the UHI effect.
P. S. I tried to increase the spacing between the figures but it does not show up in the post.
Oh but im sure somewhere, sometime a digital device has recorded a peak higher than that. Might even be a record. THAT will make the news because that is the only thing alarmists care about. UHI is ( almost) never mentioned. Only climate deniers apparently..
And the ‘record high’ is almost always mentioned when i talk to my friends and relations, even in a cold and damp month. The people controlling the news knows that it lands and my once skeptical friends have been thoroughly propagandized..
So, when i ask them why they mention it they just give me the:’ just saying’ line. To which i answer: no, you are not ‘just saying’ that. It is a seed that has been planted in your brain. But that is usually too conspiratorial for them. Another seed by the way..
I could have sworn that just a few years ago, these same people were assuring us that natural cycles played no role in climate change.
This is also how headline writers operate and most marketing hawkers. It’s about substitution of facts and insight with eyeball attractants. Bug zappers also come to mind.
Well, there’s your problem. 😉
MO should read their own stuff.
”Ground breaking study…limitations…lead to uncertainties. Taking account of these limits ‘indicates a scenario with very high concentrations of GHG NAO will increase to levels never before seen’ “ ( and disaster follows).
Utterly ridiculous. Translation—we guesstimated accounting for limitation uncertainties and the expected modeled disaster followed by end of the century. More ‘climate science’.
“The research shows that limitations in the way that current climate models represent water vapour in the atmosphere lead to uncertainty in predictions of the NAO’s future behaviour. Taking account of these limitations reveals a substantial response of the NAO to volcanic eruptions and greenhouse gases.”
TL:DR: the models have no predictive power so we get to make up doomsday scenarios and you can’t prove us wrong.
Kinda smart in a weird way..
Where is the evidence that any of their models represent reality? Doesn’t exist.
And there you have it. Don’t wait, act now supplies are limited this offer will not be repeated not available in stores we are all going to die.
Of course. The UK Met office NEVER in recent times pursues a scientifically proven issue – only ever ones that can be skewed to maintain a possible (though almost always wrong) left of centre political one. We need real science – not a form of pseudo science. How Einstein and his allies are missed.
“Could” is not a word that should ever be used in science. At least, without an estimate of probability.
hmmm…the kinetic energy contained in wind can be calculated by 1/2 mV^2 using say 10000 cu M of air.
That’s the amount of air in 1 sq. M by 10 Km high, the height of the troposphere. Weight of that is 10 tonnes. Or 10,000 kg.
Doubling CO2 results in a CO2 forcing of 3 watts/ sq. m. By W&H, Modtran, Harde
your laptop has about a 3 watt fan. Put that fan in the 10 Km high column or a a 10,000 cu.M box and envision how it might cause major impacts on the contents…..can’t do it ?….neither can I….
Need a little read up on the energy movement in the atmosphere by advection? ( which is huge) Try page 35 here:
https://www.eoas.ubc.ca/books/Practical_Meteorology/prmet102/Ch02-radiation-v102b.pdf
The MET is a disgrace. If anyone needs a visit by DOGE it is the MET, it is the least we Americans can do for our British friends.
From the Nature paper:
“Latitude–year Hovmuller plots of rolling 31-year anomalies at 200 hPa (Fig. 4a) for hist-nat show tropical cooling following major volcanic eruptions (Krakatau in 1883, Agung in 1963, El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991). This weakens and shifts the jet equatorward54, resulting in a tendency towards a negative NAO”
Antiscience garbage, large tropical eruptions have a positive influence on the NAO, leading to 1-2 milder boreal winters following an eruption. Just look at the NAO from 1982 and 1991:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/month_nao_index.shtml
Water vapour increases during a warm AMO phase, and the warm AMO is driven by negative NAO regimes, as through 1995-1999 and 2005-2012. Negative NAO regimes and episodes occur when the solar wind is weaker, which they haven’t even thought of.
Rising CO2 forcing is expected to increase positive NAO states, so in theory it should be driving a colder AMO and reducing the water vapour. Which plainly didn’t happen from the 1990’s.
The study also makes the standard error of looking at winter only NAO, missing most of the negative NAO periods in those negative NAO years.
I live in Ireland, in the Northwest ( Donegal). I often check the Met Office f weather updates as my county lies west of Northern Ireland ( UK). Now and then they put up climate (change) alarmism videos and act as if the viewers are children in need of education. The most preposterous non scientific claims and propaganda any serious climatologist would cringe about.
Just statements, not of facts but of models using dubious assumptions and supposedly linear processes they hope we dont notice. So mindbogglingly stupid it irritates the hell out of me. But, given the frankly insane war mongering by politicians and state broadcasters w similar levels of stupidity it seems they no longer pretend to have a functioning brain and go straight to propaganda..
So the ‘science’ isn’t as settled as it was supposed to be?
But now that we’ve added a made-up parameter and tweaked it to give the response that the grant requires, the ‘science’ is completely settled!
So, using the totally discredited and almost completely impossible RCP 8.5 scenario, we’re all gonna die in a firey apocalyptic something or other.
Aaaaaand, the money shot!
With continuing funding!
Yes, I’m very cynical. But I’m not sure that I’m cynical enough.
Something much more relevant to real world climate…
… computer game news, from 2021.
The Highest NES Tetris Competition Score of All Time – CTM March 2021 Recap!
The report mentions water vapour as a driver greenhouse gas, yet one of the solutions to fossil fuels producing co2 is hydrogen which produces water vapour. Am I missing something?
Altogether now and repeat after Nick et al-
The science is settled ….the science is settled…
Unexpected Drop In Global Ocean Evaporation Discovered Amid Rising Sea Temperatures – Sigma Earth
Antarctic Ice Shelves Stabilizing? Controversial Study Challenges Collapse Predictions
Eschew impure thoughts children.