Bishop Hill They didn't audit the model
Nov 5, 2014 Climate: Parliament Climate: WG2 The National Audit Office has just issued a report into the UK's flood defences and declares that the country is not doing enough. Helpfully, the auditors report on the "risks to future sustainability", the first of which is as follows:
The projected impact of climate change on flood risk
2.16 The 2012 Climate Change Risk Assessment outlined that rising sea levels and increased rainfall will have a significant impact on flood risk. It noted that Northern Europe has had more frequent spells of very wet weather over the previous 40 years; that future winters will become wetter; and that rainfall will increase across all UK regions. Similarly, sea levels are expected to continue to rise and the rate of this rise is also expected to increase. The impact of climate change is one of 10 top issues the Department’s Chief Scientist recently raised concerning research and development issues facing the Department.2.17 These changes will increase the load on flood protection assets, which in the medium to long term will require an increase in maintenance requirements and may increase operational costs to sustain current performance.
As readers here know, climate models have little or no ability to predict rainfall the various assessments of their skill varying between the offiical ("modest") and the more realistic ("useless"). The UK's Climate Change Risk Assessment is made even more risible by the fact that it is based on the UKCP09 climate predictions, the underlying climate model of which is known to contain a major flaw.
It was bad enough to see public policy being informed by a climate model; worse still to see it being informed by one with a proven flaw. To see the National Audit swallowing the whole charade as well is almost too much.
Reader Comments (17)
"To see the National Audit swallowing the whole charade as well is almost too much."
Methinks Your Eminence, your generosity knows no bounds.
Surely climate modelers will now protest this abuse of science....oh well never mind...
There is no indication of the who the authors of the report are (Report prepared by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir Amyas Morse KCB, an Officer of the House of Commons) The Comptroller and Auditor General is a very busy man to do this all by himself (since none of his 820!!!!! underlings appear to have anything to do with it). There is no accountability when he is recommending spending vast quantities of other peoples' money (us taxpayers). There appears to be zero quality assurance associated with the report (no authors, no verifier, no nothing).
Naturally enough I would bet it was outside the audit offices remit to audit the science behind everything though.
After all its job is merely to report on what is being said inside official channels and nothing more.
Mailman
More money for Betts' department. That's why the models are soooooo important.
In the past the NAO has done good work in asking the searching questions - often outside financial areas. In doing this necessary public service, it has often courted unpopularity. But the NAO has failed in an area where nobody questions the magnitude and likelihood of the potential problems, and where there is no link between identification of problem and providing policy that has a reasonable chance of tackling that problem. There is a need for an independent organisation to do this task, both in policies for adaptation and mitigation.
Jolly pleased to read your Briefing, Bish. Useful to have at hand when our Council's climate change officers cite local newspaper coverage as evidence of increased risk of flooding - you know where they claim increased risk of flooding in a report to the Council with a reference link and only when you click on the link does it take you to the local paper's article.
The use of models like this makes the NAO look actually ... simply incompetent.
O/T but related - seasonal UK flooding is about to become (has already?) a part of the autumnal news diet and a modelling opportunity is being missed...
The data is available - rainfall radar, river flows and levels, remote telemetry rain gauges, precision topographic maps and a fair bit of academic research on the relationships yet nothing is apparently being done to construct models which would have obvious public utility and provide live verification of the modeler's art.... They can do some spiffy things with wind - but flooding seems to be being actually ignored and something of a bureaucratic political football.
The report has this gem in the Appendices:We reached our independent conclusions on whether current arrangements for flood risk management in England deliver value for money following our analysis of evidence collected between June and September 2014.
2 Our main evidence sources were:
• Presentation/discussion sessions with the Agency and Department on:
• Flood modelling.
[the list continued]
Models as evidence, once again.
Sorry...cocked up the html....
The report has this gem in the Appendices:
Models as evidence, once again.
Again I ask, what other branch of science, that has been a complete failure in its predictions, would be blindly accepted and lauded by The Establishment? Also what country would appoint as chief scientist, a person who seems incapable of understanding the scientific method?.
...Also what country would appoint as chief scientist, a person who seems incapable of understanding the scientific method?...
Um... the US? Also most of Western Europe.... and let's not forget Tuvalu. The establishment in NZ are also fighting a rearguard action...
The issue of climate is allegedly so important that no matter how wrong and pointless and incorrect, we must give those who make a living off of climate more money and more power and more authority.
Time to stop, I think.
It is quite depressing really and I am a card-carrying pint half-full man.
When I was a boy GB could run a really good bureaucracy, but now the country that once ran an empire with 4000 civil servants can't run a whelk stall without help and reference to climate change.
Actually most whelk stall holders would probably make a better job of running the NAO.
On reflection this all strikes me as desultory and "quite tangled". A significant number of invited respondent organisations did not participate, some quite arbitrary and unrelated (unless it's Noah's Flood) subject areas are dragged in to pad out the report
Who has the requisite in house competences to perform the modelling? DEFRA / DECC one suspects rely on The Environment Agency for technical support - who in turn make up stuff -consequent from their reading of old Met Office projections....
fwiw EA flood modelling antics / results support a cottage industry of consultants who regularly challenge + "win" and the EA AFAIK never actually admit "defeat" (combative bureaucrats with deep public pockets) - almost the antithesis of responsible professional behaviour and a truly appalling waste of money.
Talk about a house of cards .... AFAIK the detail technical case for the upgrade of Thames Estuary Flood Defences (TE2100) is still MIA after more than two years. Even though construction contracts are being awarded.... Just imagine if it were a more interesting project like another runway etc. at a major airport.....
There is one flooding related agency with a set of models which doesn't seem to have been infected by the global warming virus. The National Tidal and Sea Level Facility has a very good storm surge model which accurately predicted the storm surge associated with the last big North Sea storm - 5 Dec 2013:
http://www.storm-surge.info/highest-north-sea-surge-60-years
Here is their very informative website containing the surge model forecast and other tidal/storm surge information:
http://www.ntslf.org/
Storm surge forecast:
http://www.ntslf.org/storm-surges/surge-forecast
This, from their Sea Level Trends page, lacks the alarmism normally associated with sea level data:
Almost 6 inches/century! We're all going to drown.
@Billy Liar
thanks for that - I was aware of the model but unaware of this organisation. I'd bet £10 that The EA , DECC and the usual suspects are "unaware" too!. Maybe Mark Maslin is too.....