Bishop Hill Julia Slingo on the storms
Feb 9, 2014 Climate: MetOffice Climate: WG2 The Met Office and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) - a government research centre - have issued a joint report into the storms in south-west England. To mark the occasion Julia Slingo has taken to the airwaves, trying desperately to insinuate that there is a link to climate change:
Dame Julia said while none of the individual storms had been exceptional, the "clustering and persistence" were extremely unusual.
"We have seen exceptional weather," she said.
"We cannot say it's unprecedented, but it is certainly exceptional.
"Is it consistent with what we might expect from climate change?
"Of course.
"As yet there can be no definitive answer on the particular events that we have seen this winter, but if we look at the broader base of evidence then we see things that support the premise that climate change has been making a contribution."
Of course, the storms are also consistent with business as usual, but such nuance is prominent by its absence from Dame Julia's public utterances. For a more balanced summary of the report, take a look at the blog post by CEH's Barnaby Smith. It's really necessary to read the whole thing, but here are some excerpts that Dame Julia felt it necessary to brush over entirely:
- A preliminary analysis suggest that outflows aggregated over six weeks were the greatest since the 1947 floods – the most extensive in England & Wales during the 20th century.
- In December and January, a few rivers (including the Mole, Wey and Medway, which, on the basis of preliminary data, recorded their highest flows since the extreme floods of September 1968) registered outstanding maximum flows.
- Generally, however, the peak flows registered during the recent flooding were not extreme. On the Thames the highest flow in 2014 has been exceeded during 14 earlier floods (most prior to 1950).
The impression you get is that the rainfall is high, but not unprecedented. A similarly nuanced view of the link to climate change is given. But all we get from the Met Office are weasel words like "consistent with" - the scientist's counterpart of the environmentalist's "linked to". Coming so soon after Dame Julia's self-serving briefing for central government it does look as if the Met Office is reverting to type.
Reader Comments (203)
"Britain’s international aid budget will help reduce flooding in the UK by addressing the causes of climate change abroad, Eric Pickles has said."
Controlling the weather with the UK's foreign aid budget. Is there no feat beyond the abilities of these genius central planners? Truly amazing.
Interestingly, the Dutch Met Office KNMI did not mention climate change in their news item on this years western European winter weather, rather stressing that this is all "part of the game". They could have chosen to, but apparently either decided against it or not even thought that there was any (scientific) merit in it.
In a news article of the Dutch press agency ANP a spokesman of KNMI says: “We don’t know the exact cause. It has to do with natural variability.”
via Marcel Crok.
http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2014/02/07/knmi-mild-winter-caused-by-deep-depressions/
There have been at least half a dozen years with similar amounts of rainfall, or more, since 1910, during the winter months.
By far the worst was 1929/30, when Oct - Jan rainfall was 18% higher than the last four months.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/so-what-about-1929-julia/#more-6878
- Are Richard Betts and Julia Slingo different people ?
- It is only you commenting under your name isn't it Richard ?
As Civil Servants, Richard Betts and his boss Senna the Soothsayer need to be reminded of provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010
This legislation placed the Civil Service values on a statutory footing and includes the publication of a Civil Service Code.
Integrity – putting the obligations of public service above personal interests
Honesty – being truthful and open
Objectivity – basing advice and decisions on rigorous analysis of the evidence
Impartiality – acting solely according to the merits of the case and serving governments of different political parties equally well
In 2012 the then environment minister was warning that climate change would cause dry winters and draughts. (Guardian and GWPF). I bet that gem of scientific advice came from the same Met Office expert.
Of course, 2 years is a very long time in climate science.
Sorry about my drought typo. I was just about to have a draught beer...
Let's not be too critical of Dickie Betts. He did some brilliant stuff when he was with the Allman Brothers.
Duane was the better Guitarist ;)
Allman Brothers.....'Stormy Monday' @ Fillmore East. Kinda fits.
Are the folk who would normally have received the rain that has drenched the UK for 6 weeks claiming that their relative dryness is consistent with climate change?
When we don't have lots of rain next winter will that be consistent with anthropogenic climate change?
If temperatures have risen for 20 years and then they don't rise for 17 years is that consistent with anthropogenic climate change?
I'm struggling, what are the predicted behaviours that will demonstrate the unique fingerprint of anthropogenic climate change. Will it be a tropospheric hot spot in the tropics? Will it be decreasing global sea ice? Will it be increasing hurricane activity? Will it be the consequence of a chaotic interaction between ocean and atmosphere that has never been observed before? Will it be a pattern of behaviour of the jetstream which has never been seen before? Will it be the continuing rise of sea level that has been going on since the last ice age? Will it be shrinking glaciers that reveal ancient settlements? What will it be...please?
I have very little respect for the met office because it shows a complete lack of scientific objectivity. Its models run too hot resulting in almost every global temperature forecast being wrong. After a hiatus in observed temperatures for over 17 years, you would think that they would be ashamed, humbled and apologising. There is none of that. Their strangely named decadal five year forecast is still predicting warming.
Their problem is twofold. The first is that they have complete faith in their models. The second is that if the models are proved wrong every year for an infinite period of time, they will still have complete faith in their models. This is scientific blindness, arrogance and the denial of reality. That is why I have no faith in the met office and no respect either.
Let them explain in detail why they believe they are right other than by reference to their failed models, but instead all we see are ambiguous suggestions to the uncritical media and biased BBC that climate change is behind every aspect of unfavourable weather.
Perhaps Slingo would like to answer this question:
Could you name just one weather event that is NOT "consistent with" climate change? Just one. If you can't find a real one, describe a hypothetical weather event that would NOT be "consistent with" climate change.
"Climate Change" has become our new god of the skies.
To placate Zeus the ancient greeks made sacrifices of fruit, grain and their animals. We are now doing exactly the same thing by sacrificing our industries, power systems, and selfish luxuries to placate the new god of "Climate Change". No-one has the slightest idea whether it will work or not, but at least it satisfies our inner need for salvation and atonement.
When in a hole stop digging.
But all they seem to do is increase the size of the digger bucket ;)
Son of Mulder (7:08 PM): as Counting Cats has pointed out, the AGWists cling to the idea that weather that they predicted is a sign of climate change, whereas the weather they haven’t predicted is… well, just weather.
That the weather they claim to have predicted is NOT the weather that they predicted (remember the promise of droughts in 2012? The promise of more snowy winters in 2010?) does seem to be utterly immaterial to them, or their mouthpieces in the mainstream media. All we can say is thank heavens for the internet, and for the dedication of people like Bishop Hill to seek the truth – as you in particular should know, “The truth is out there.”
The UN defines 'climate change' as specifically climate change caused by human activity. The confusion is deliberate, and allows them to brand sceptics as 'climate change deniers' (and by implication, nutters). It also saves them from having to provide any evidence for climate change caused by human activity. Very clever, and very dishonest. No way are these people scientists.
The 2014 Met Office - CEH report that Julia Slingo was referring to "The Recent Storms and Floods in the UK" makes an interesting prediction about sea level rise by 2030 (on p.2):
This implies a more than doubling of the rate of sea level rise in the English Channel in the next 16 years (7 to 10 mm per year from the current 3 mm per year). Is there something special about the English Channel? It's hard to reconcile this with the IPCC projections in AR5 Ch13.
When in a hole stop digging.
But all they seem to do is increase the size of the digger bucket ;)
Feb 9, 2014 at 7:41 PM | Registered CommenterBreath of Fresh Air
They are onto the 20 tonne bucket already. These people are just scum, aren't they ?
Ruth,
Anyone, who is of a certain age, can remember their school master, geography teacher telling us all about 'isostatic readjustment' as they called it in those days. If you can imagine Britain and as a seesaw, where the highlands of Scotland and the north of England is rebounding ie rising and the south is subsiding - hence sea level is 'rising' as the land is 'dropping' but not because of water level increases.
It's not what they say that's important. It's the fact that nothing will stop them.
Not reason (don't bother with science, it's just a useful tool for them).
Not appeals to humanity (present suffering means nothing compared to imaginary futures).
Not appeasement (don't forget the politicians, who would sell their granny for their own 'greater good').
If they are frustrated in their purposes ('climate change' is just one weapon in achieving them), they will (always) turn to force - bullies are enraged if they are resisted, and their typical reaction is force and brutality.
Mr Delingpole is right - we are seeing a resurgence of fascism. We none of us know what it will lead to, but the present conflict is just shadow-boxing in comparison with what will come.
Just remember - they are not reasonable people; they are not humane; nor are they lunatics. They are made wicked by their ideology. Good liberal-minded people are very reluctant to spot this, although they are quick to complain about its symptoms. This has all happened before - no one ever believes it can happen again.
Page 3 of flood report: "More research is urgently needed...."
And, "..requires climate models of sufficient resolution....Such models are now becoming available and should be deployed as soon as possible.."
In short, Give us lots more money for shiny new toys.
The odd thing is that the MO has produced a 30 page report, packed with tables, graphic figures and data graphs before the floods have even abated! I suppose a model must have told them before it happened.
The most useful thing the MO could do is get together with the EA and lay on each other 5 high across a wide river.
Yes, I wondered about that, Athelstan, but the Met Office report compares SLR in the English Channel before and after - I didn't think the rebound rate was increasing. That may be the reason, but 1cm/year?
Mind you, it's not just Julia:
Via Tom Nelson.
Aidan Harrison?..............
I am at a loss to understand how 'climate (average weather) change' can cause anything. I can understand that changes in the weather, if persistent, can cause the climate (average weather) to change.
I think I need a Newspeak dictionary to understand how a computational result (average weather) can cause storms.
Professor Slingo said this:
What does it mean? or have I taken it 'out of context'?
"That may be the reason, but 1cm/year?"
Hmm, I've usually seen yearly measurements annotated in terms of millimetres, at 1 cm per annum - well, that seems a bit 'steep' to say the least, it's a very gradual process, not sudden at all and there is no other uplift, ie no orogenic activity - well not for a long, long time back in the geological past;^)
The interesting news today is the panic in the alarmist camp. Thus Slingo did a very good cover up of the Met. Office's modelling failure by implying that a Poisson-statistic cluster of Atlantic depressions, driven by the split of the Polar Vortex, itself the result of major global cooling, is to be officially interpreted as evidence of near zero (in reality) CO2-AGW!
Then we had Pickles claiming that by spending foreign aid on climate related events we can reduce 'extreme weather' in the UK. Clearly he was under orders to do this, presumably from his boss who, so it seems is running with both hare and hounds on this matter (government has been told there is no significant net surface IR 'back radiation' cannot exist).
Is there any list, formal or otherwise, of what is to be expected with Climate Change?
I do know there is a list of proclamations said by various scientists at various times. The list is insanely contradictory.
But has anyone made such a list that is like reading; hot/cold, wet/dry, big/small, nonsense?
All this proclaiming of knowledge after the fact is reminiscent of a Nostradamus style prediction model.
Greg - yep, and it IS insanely contradictory:
http://numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
@Greg No warming for 17 years and 4 months (UAH satellite temperatures). The last 10 years of HADCRUT4 show cooling. The climate models are based on laughable physics' mistakes. BBC weatherman Paul Hudson has shown 13 of 14 Met. Office global weather predictions have a warming bias. Slingo is presiding over a massive scientific failure. It originated in mistakes Carl Sagan made, copied by Houghton. Slingo is Houghton's creation but she carries the can.
Mydogsgotnonose
I'm surprised that a physicist gets suckered by the "no warming for 17 years" propoganda. Have you no basic statistics?
This is the Julia Slingo that does not do observations+stats anymore?
This the Slingo that relies on models and simulations only.
Unless, of course, some good ol' propaganda can be fixed amongst likeminded nannystate poopers
THEN, of course, the "observations" matter.
In Galileo and Copernicus' time it was not our 2 right ones who got rich and stuature.
The riches were carried off for a few decennia/centuries longer by the bigots sociopaths and the selfservers.
@Entropic man: There was substantial AGW from Asian aerosols, from industrialisation, which reduced cloud albedo, increasing the GHE. This caused the rise in OHC but it saturated about 2000. The same mechanism accounts for the end of ice age amplification of delta tsi, increasing the GHE from about 2 K at the Last Glacial Maximum to the present 11 K. CO2-AGW is near zero because the atmosphere self-controls. We are now into substantial cooling from solar effects.
We all have to deal with disappointments in life - Google rankings being a late arrival for many but this is a catastrophe
She's not there any more, sob....
Mydogsgotnonose
The net effect of aerosols is generally regarded as negative, supported by the cooling effect of volcanoes such as Pinatubo. The decreased cloud albedo is counteracted by the larger direct albedo increase.
The orbital changes driving glacial cycles generate too little change in insolation to explain the observed temperature changes. The excess is explainable by a feedback cycle in which the temperature increase triggers release of CO2 from sinks such as tundra. The resulting increase in GHE amplifies the change.
If CO2 not acting, you need an alternative amplifier. Suggestions?
What data are you using to infer global cooling? Three out of four temperature records show continued warming and the fourth, HadCRUt4, is demonstrably not sampling the whole planet.
There is also a growing statistical case that at best 1998 was an excursion which has regressed to the mean trend. At worse, poor sampling of the Arctic distorted the trend, which continues unpaused.
Billy Liar
You have it backwards.
Global warming is the ongoing imbalance between insulation and outgoing radiation, which continues to pump energy into the climate system.This is the cause.
Climate change is the effect of that extra energy.
The sign of the indirect effect is wrong; Sagan got the physics wrong, assuming one optical process when there are two. US cloud physicist G L Stephens has observed the same as me; bimodal clouds have substantially higher albedo than unimodal clouds, about 10%. The effect, a few 100 m deep in our low level clouds, also explains high Venusian albedo and is the real AGW. Stephens also showed that in hind-casting, the climate models use about double real low level cloud optical depth, about 25% increased albedo. That is how they offset the vastly exaggerated heating. It's a con.
Floods resulting from weather 'consistent with' climate change
is the same as -
Deaths resulting from illnesses 'related to’ smoking
which might not be dissimilar to...
Tyranny resulting from lies 'associated with' charlatanism.
ectopic man
You have a comprehension problem. I never mentioned global warming.
Billy Liar
Exactly. You are only considering a limited part of the pattern.
Dame Julia:
"Is it consistent with what we might expect from climate change?
"Of course."
----------------------------
I don't recall any statement in the IPCC report expecting (with confidence) more storms in the UK or even just more storms anywhere. I do recall that the most devastating storms occured during the little ice age.
Is the Met Office no longer supporting the IPCC consensus ?
Mydogsgotnonose
References, please, on the relationship between unimodal and multimodal droplet size distributions, aerosols and albedo.
Also how this applies to the water free atmosphere of Venus.
I hope we' re not drifting into sky dragon territory.
If the new normal was drought in 2012 and floods in 2014, the climate has definitely been changing and all we have to do if we don't like it is follow the ancient tradition established about London weather, i.e. just hang on, and wait.
"the temperature increase triggers release of CO2"
Eureka! at last, you got that right sonny.
"The decreased cloud albedo is counteracted by the larger direct albedo increase."
And that's pure alarmist or, green loon argot, otherwise known as, total gobbledegook.
Read this and laugh your socks off.
http://www.thegwpf.org/uk-environment-minister-warns-climate-change-threatens-dry-winters/
Soon we will be hearing that every change in the weather is indicative of climate change.
It's moving in that direction, no?
In conclusion,
ACCEPTANCE OF REALITY = SANITY
Our beautiful, bountiful universe and humans could not be
1. Orbiting around the Sun in 1543.
2. Powered by the source of energy that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945.
The scientific revolution began when we accepted #1.
The scientific revolution ended when we refused to accept #2.