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)
"Is it consistent with what we might expect from climate change?"
"Of course."
"It's also equally consistent with it having been caused by witchcraft. So would Julia Slingo suggest that we bring in an exorcist?" --Alex
I think an exorcist for the Met Office would be a wonderful idea. You might be surprised what he'd find. Or maybe you wouldn't.
Putting it another way, rainstorms are caused by witches. Droughts are caused by witches. We have droughts and rainstorms. Therefore witches exist! That's the level that Warmist "science" has descended to.
I would be happy to take a simple bet of £10 with the lady on this year's rainfall for England and Wales. If she accepts, I will send my estimate to Bishop Hill, and when he receives it, he will ask for her estimate - provided she sends it to him before the end of February. Then at the end of the year, the Bish will tell us who is closer, and if I am, then I will send her (and publish) my methodology once I receive her £10. Suffice it to say that my methodology does not account for climate change - neither do I have recourse to a supercomputer to guide me to my answer.
Somerset Levels, Australian and American bush fires just some of the things being blames on Climate change that are actually a product of poor management after green troughing measures have been put in place.
March 2012 - Slingo told the Environmental Audit Committee that that years winter drought was a symptom of increasingly cold winters due to the loss of arctic ice resulting from climate change.
February 2014 - Slingo says the extremely wet (and mild) winter weather is consistent with what we might expect from climate change.
Hot, cold, wet or dry - it's all our fault, where do I send the cheque?
Eric Pickles wants to divert cash from flood defences in the UK to send to foriegn aid carbon reduction projects abroad.
Maybe he should get a Gastric Band help reduce the carbon footprint of his fat gut.
Dear Julia,
Just to re-iterate what Pesadia said on page 2, that this is climate variability, which occurs regardless of the concentration of atmospheric CO2. See here for examples of historic climate variability.
lapogus
The Iceman Cometh,
that experiment has already been conducted!
Several years ago, the Met Office used to supply William Hills with weather data which Hills built their odds around (allowing for their juicy profit margin). However Piers Corbyn took them to the cleaners over 4000 bets and was eventually banned for winning too much cash.
So a bloke using totally different methods absolutely spanked the Met Office with their supercomputers in a prediction game (even after Hills margins!). And yet we laud the MO and make policy on their soothsaying and ridicule PC (who may be no better than chance himself but has proved he is better than the MO).
As a gambler myself that absolutely screams at you that the Met Office don't know what they're doing and are no better than failed tipsters. It was a major reason I got interested in this debate in the first place and nothing I have seen in the intervening years has caused me to change my mind about the MO's competence.
Corbyn should make a much bigger thing of this like displaying a signed letter from Hills confirming his banning. (I have also been banned from various bookies).
one point overlooked was peak flow in 1947 was 714m/s in 2014 that had dropped to 477m/s rather proves the point the rivers have lost the ability to shift the same quantity of water
Met Office: Arctic sea-ice loss linked to colder, drier UK winters
Decreasing amounts of ice in the far north is contributing to colder winters and drought, chief scientist Julia Slingo tells MPs
Speaking to MPs on the influential environmental audit committee about the state of the warming Arctic, Julia Slingo, the chief scientist at the Met Office, said that decreasing amounts of ice in the far north was contributing to colder winters in the UK and northern Europe as well as to drought.
Kevin -
If correct that is damning (no pun intended). Which River? Is that the Parrett at Chiselborough?
I see entropic man trots out the old half-theory for the ice ages which fails even basic logic: Nothing unusual for alramism.Viz..
"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?"
It's not the amplification that is important, it's what happens afterward that fails this simplistic notion. CO2 can only be a heating amplifier so when it has reached it's maximum value due to the maximum temperature the only way CO2 can drive climate back down is if a sudden and massive carbon sink appears out of nowhere. No climate scientist likes to dwell on this gaping hole in their theory because this time they can't rely on the old manmade aerosols excuse as per the1945-1975 drop in temperature. After years of us skeptics asking what causes the cooling event in this half-theory, the only half-hearted reply came from Richard Alley who hand-waved about rock weathering - completely failing to notice that that would be a retardant on the heating cycle too and could not initiate any sudden change in temperature.
Incidentally this is the main reason why current global warming can also easily be assumed to be natural - if nature can get in and out of ice ages all by itself on a macro scale so the idea that it cannot do much less on a micro scale is little more than a pessimistic philosophy that fails by both data and common sense.
When you can find a driver that explains cooling events then you have a whole theory and not just something that Gavin Schmidt pulled out of his arse.
EM says: "Three out of four temperature records show continued warming and the fourth, HadCRUt4, is demonstrably not sampling the whole planet."
If I understand you correctly, EM, you're saying that HadCRUt4 cannot be a reliable pointer to GLOBAL warming because it is not sampling the whole planet. So, have you told Michael Mann of your concerns, especially when you consider how much of the planet his Bristlecone Pines and Yamal series sampled? Does this mean that the 'hockey stick' is as much a pointer to GW as HadCRUt4 - that is, none at all?
Paul - this winter has been interesting in Scotland; October and November were colder than average with some cold frosts (-12C was the coldest in Braemar I think). December and January have not had any real cold, but have not been mild either, with average temperatures rarely above 5C. (I think we did have one day in January when it got to double figures). This is what's interesting - these rain bearing south-west winds are usually much milder. So we have had many days of rain (but no extreme events or floods, our rivers are fast and largely self-scouring), but the rain has been cold and fallen as snow on the mountains. The ski resorts are very happy - there's now about 2.5m of snow at 3000ft which will last well into the spring and early summer. This is like a return to the winters of the 1970s - when the mountain snow fields built up from westerly winds, unlike more recent years when the big snows have tended to come from colder north and easterly winds.
Slingo's confidence that current weather is consistent with climate change ("of course") suggests that there is not much explanatory content on offer. Is any weather inconsistent with climate change, I wonder?
With Chelsea Flower Show fast approaching, what is a poor horticulturist to do?
Having followed the MET advice since the millenium to design gardens of succulents and Mediterranean semi arids, Julia now tells us to prepare for a future of apocalyptic floods.
Well, the succulents never did do well and have all now rotted away so I suppose the best garden design this year will consist of a duckweed lawn contained in contrasting borders of ranunculus and marsh buttercup with waterlilies giving points of colour contrast.
Julia may inform us later as to whether we should wear our wellies, perhaps to the consternation of the usual socks and sandals brigade.
From further up the thread:
I'm sure the public have told you they would prefer a forecast which is sufficiently accurate AND precise (does UKMO understand the difference between these terms?) to be of actual use.
If the monthly forecasts are fantasy, what did that make the long range ones? The real reason they were dropped, by any objective measure they were useless, and giving the lie to the claim that the models are validated.
As expected, the catastrophists have rallied to the cause and the media this morning is full of quotes from all of them, all quoting from the gospels of green that it's AGW and we need to cut emissions urgently. (Which it is known will make SFO difference).
The Dutch design flood measures based upon 1:10,000 years return.
0I have mooted it before (Feb 9, 2014 at 1:26 PM; p.2 on this thread) that climate change is a myth, and the more I read and understand, the more I become convinced that this is the case. As global warming has effectively ground to a halt, a new, less obvious, but even more wicked by being so insidious monster has to be created – step forward, Climate Change!
Now, we have a "threat" that is completely pliable, and can be moulded to fit ANY scenario that Mother Earth throws at us, no matter how often it has occurred in the past: more rain – climate change! Less rain – climate change! Colder - climate change! Hotter - climate change! Forest fires – climate change! Volcano eruption – climate change! Earthquakes – climate change! And, even more bizarre, near-miss asteroids – climate change! Nothing is beyond these people and their manipulation of the facts or any rationality.
While winter has become apparently warmer, though the summers seem no warmer, I can accept that there has been a small amount of warming. I cannot see that it has been in any way detrimental to life on this planet (it has been generally beneficial), and there is probably scope for a lot more warming before that situation might change. What I cannot see is any change in climates, merely variations in weather patterns, as has happened throughout history.
Climate change is a myth, and that is a message that we should be promulgating as avidly as we are the CAGW myth.
Obviously what Julia Slingo needs is a better, more expensive, supercomputer...
Seperately, has no-one got any nice pictures of bent/broken wind turbines..? PLEEEEASE...??
Greg Cavanagh asked "Is there any list, formal or otherwise, of what is to be expected with Climate Change?"
Yes, it's documented here.....
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100222487/when-it-comes-to-climate-change-we-have-to-trust-our-scientists-because-they-know-lots-of-big-scary-words/
"First, I asked Stephen Belcher, the head of the Met Office Hadley Centre, whether the recent extended winter was related to global warming. Shaking his famous “ghost stick”, and fingering his trademark necklace of sharks’ teeth and mammoth bones, the loin-clothed Belcher blew smoke into a conch, and replied,
“Here come de heap big warmy. Bigtime warmy warmy. Is big big hot. Plenty big warm burny hot. Hot! Hot hot! But now not hot. Not hot now. De hot come go, come go. Now Is Coldy Coldy. Is ice. Hot den cold. Frreeeezy ice til hot again. Den de rain. It faaaalllll. Make pasty.”
"Startled by this sobering analysis, I moved on to Professor Rowan Sutton, Climate Director of NCAS at the University of Reading. Professor Sutton said that many scientists are, as of this moment, examining the complex patterns in the North Atlantic, and trying to work out whether the current run of inclement European winters will persist.
When pressed on the particular outlook for the British Isles. Professor Sutton shook his head, moaned eerily unto the heavens, and stuffed his fingers into the entrails of a recently disembowelled chicken, bought fresh from Waitrose in Teignmouth.
Hurling the still-beating heart of the chicken into a shallow copper salver, Professor Sutton inhaled the aroma of burning incense, then told the Telegraph: “The seven towers of Agamemnon tremble. Much is the discord in the latitude of Gemini. When, when cry the sirens of doom and love. Speckly showers on Tuesday.”
Hope that helps.
Nial - thanks for that. I feel very reassured by your report...
Clearly your interviewees have their fingers on the pulse. Or the still-beating heart of a chicken. Whatever....
Feb 10, 2014 at 9:56 AM | lapogus
Page 10 Table 9 of the highlighted report, clearly shows the decline of peak flow rate on the Thames etc over the century
Kevin - okay, got it, thanks. I thought 477m3s-1 was way too high for the Parret, even if it had been dredged.
I still think the big own-goal in the MO report is the claim that average sea-level in the English Channel will rise by 11-16cm by 2030. That's way off the current rate of 1.2~1.7mm pa and will come back to haunt them.
That would be roughly consistent (and insignificant) if it was mm.
What is a supposedly scientific body doing using cm anyway? I know primary school teachers love it for some reason, but cm is not an SI unit!
I kid you not!!
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/m/8/A3_plots-precip-DJF-2.pdf
Met Office 3-month Outlook
Period: December 2013 – February 2014 Issue date: 21.11.13
"The forecast presented here is for the average of the December-January-February period for the United Kingdom as a whole.
This forecast is based on information from observations, several numerical models and expert judgement.
The probability that UK precipitation for December-January-February will fall into the driest of our five categories is around 25% and the probability that it will fall into the wettest category is around 15% (the 1981-2010 probability for each of these categories is 20%)."
How that charlatan, Slingo, can have the bare-faced cheek to talk about the recent run of bad WEATHER as "being consistent with climate change" is beyond me.
Maybe Dr. Betts can explain?
I repeat: a change in climate (usual regional seasonal weather) cannot be CAUSED by climate change (no more than height is caused by distance from the ground).
If climate has changed it cannot have been caused by, for instance, an accelerating rise in the Earth's average atmospheric temperature since such a cause is absent.
@Don Keiller Well done
.. Met O you can't have your cake and eat it. Forecast one thing and then say your Climate Change model is right cos exactly the opposite happened.
Hey Met office, do you believe in science?
or just throwing science in the bin ?
..shut up
..or put up
.. show us some proper scientific evidence
..otherwise you are just damm scaremongering !
James G
Orbital changes increase insolation at 65N at the beginning of an interglacial. They also reduce insulation at the end of an interglacial. The result is a drop in temperature.
A cooler ocean and more extensive tundra both take up CO2 and reduce the atmospheric concentration.The weaker GHE allows further cooling and further uptake by carbon sinks. The process continues until you have full glacial conditions with low temperatures and low CO2.
If "the 1981-2010 probability for each of [FIVE] categories is 20%", it means every outcome has the same a-priori probability.
In other words the MetOffice is saying that there is no possible climate change signal about it.
omnologos -
I read that line somewhat differently. I think the categories were established according to the quintiles of the 1981-2010 distribution. Rather like anomalies; so a prediction that the chances of the weather falling into category X was more (less) than 20%, means that it is considered to be more (less) likely to occur than in the base period.
Iapogus: "I still think the big own-goal in the MO report is the claim that average sea-level in the English Channel will rise by 11-16cm by 2030. That's way off the current rate of 1.2~1.7mm pa and will come back to haunt them."
I think it's already haunting them. See http://mygardenpond.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/met-office-report-says-sea-levels-likely-to-rise-11-16-cm-by-2030/ and various spin-offs.
Richard Betts says the report will be clarified.
Don's MO link is full of confusing graphs which as usual seem to obfuscate rather than illuminate. They should read this book!
Strangely it appears that the size of the ranges varies to ensure the 20% historical average split (rather than fixed ranges with say a normal distribution). So the 2 extremes (dry and wet) have bigger ranges and higher probability in the forecasts.
At the extreme, a forecast of 20/20/20/20/20 would literally mean: "we haven't a bleeding clue".
A forecast of 15/20/20/20/25 is only hoping to be marginally better than that. Seriously, what is the point of it all. Richard?
It would need many years to assess the accuracy of such non-predictions (there is not enough prediction to test!) but anecdotally they still seem to do worse than dice rolling.
I would still dearly love to know who uses these forecasts and what actions do they take upon receiving them. Somebody must receive them. Anybody?
To be of ANY use, the forecast should be more like: 15/60/15/5/5 or 50/30/10/5/5 AND then to be proven correct over a number of years.
We currently have neither of these outcomes. Scrap the lot and give us our money back please..
The most disturbing thing about Sling's incomptence is probably that it supports the prejudice that she got that job because she is a woman.
Hi Ruth
The report has been updated, and I've posted a comment on your blog about it. Thanks for spotting this.
SimonW: the seasonal forecasts are mainly for developing the science, testing the latest understanding and models. They're not useful for the public, and aren't intended to be. They are however made available at the request of the Cabinet Office, because they can provide some guidance for contingency planning. They do however come with heavy caveats, eg.
- see here.Manfred: yes, that is prejudice, and it's not true.
@Richard Betts "the seasonal forecasts are mainly for developing the science, testing the latest understanding and models. They're not useful for the public, and aren't intended to be."
On current form, Richard, they are not much use for anything- least of all "developing the science, testing the latest understanding and models."
And if they are not useful for the Public- which they are clearly not (shades of "barbecue summer"), then why publish this rubbish?
Don
For openness & transparency. The government ask for them, and they are provided (with the caveats carefully explained), and they're made public so people know what the government are being told about the coming season.
Richard Betts
Hi Richard
Under what pretext can that therefore be described as a forecast for "Contingency planners?"
There comes a time when "responsibility" has to be faced. It means the ability to respond, if the MO does not have the ability then who does?
Do you really think it responsible to produce a forecast for contingency planners this far off the mark and then hide behind
Why don't we save the money Richard? And whilst we are guessing what the next 3 months will bring maybe we could invest it in a little infrastructure project or two that might alleviate both drought and flood?
Richard betts
The msm are continually talking about this being the wettest period since records began in 1760
I can not see that we have widespread reliable consistent measurements of rainfall covering the country dating back to that date. I know about the England and Wales figures on your website but they don't qualify as a reliable measure of widespread collection of rainfall.
Can you clarify where this 1760 figure comes from? Thanks
Tonyb
maybe we could invest it in a little infrastructure project or two that might alleviate both drought and flood?
Feb 10, 2014 at 11:39 PM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand
An excellent idea. It will help mitigate the effects of the extreme weather the scientists have been predicting for years. :-)
Green Sand,
"Why don't we save the money Richard? And whilst we are guessing what the next 3 months will bring maybe we could invest it in a little infrastructure project or two that might alleviate both drought and flood?"
Oh mate, what can I say.
Nothing to add.
Don Keiller @ Feb 10, 2014 at 2:23 PM
Don, there was a reference upthread to Allman bros band - I nominate "tied to the whipping post" for Richard :-)
http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcsaoffblock&type=A001GB105&p=Allman BROS whipping post
Just kidding.
@ Dr Betts
If the Met Office's seasonal forecasts are of no use to the public, how are they of use to the Government?
And in that case, is the Met Office happy with charging money for products that are of little use? - I presume that a government department pays for them?
Under no circumstances should Climate Change ? What Climate Change ? afficionados. roll their eyeballs too far north.</a.
EM says at 12:04 on the 11th: "An excellent idea. It will help mitigate the effects of the extreme weather the scientists have been predicting for years. :-)"
But that's just the point, EM, it's not what they've been predicting for years, it's what they haven't been predicting for months, if you get my drift.
"the seasonal forecasts are mainly for developing the science, testing the latest understanding and models. They're not useful for the public, and aren't intended to be."
This steaming pile of nonsense is clearly a cry for help.
Andrew
UK rainfall trends since the onset of solar cycle 24 are obviously wetter cooler summers and drier cooler winters:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/actualmonthly/
This winter is just an outlier to that trend.
Dr. Betts: your
"the seasonal forecasts are mainly for developing the science, testing the latest understanding and models. They're not useful for the public, and aren't intended to be."
But the seasonal forecasts are used for public policy and preparedness. Witness the forecast for warm winters, and the lack of stockpiled salt when the winters turned cold. Or the hose pipe bans, just before the torrential rains. Heathrows lack of preparation for snow, because there was supposed to be less snow. Or the forecast this winter of more likely drier weather, followed by the floods.
If the forecasts can't be used, they should not be published or given to government officials who will use it for public policy.
EM says at 12:04 on the 11th: "An excellent idea. It will help mitigate the effects of the extreme weather the scientists have been predicting for years. :-)"
But that's just the point, EM, it's not what they've been predicting for years, it's what they haven't been predicting for months, if you get my drift.
Feb 11, 2014 at 9:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield
Forecasting over days, months and decades are different problems.
Over days the information from stations, satellites etc allows a detailed description of the current state of the system, from which forecasts are made for a few days ahead. The system is chaotic, in the sense that very small differences in initial conditions can make a big difference to conditions a week later. This is why it is almost impossible to forecast weather more than a week or so ahead.
For seasonal forecasts, a few months ahead, the uncertainties generated by chaotic effects overwhelm everything else. Realistic forecasting becomes impossible.
Move up to climate forecasting and the position improves. Climate is weather averaged over decades. The short term chaotic variation averages out and the effects of long term trends such as CO2 drive conditions. Detailed weather forecasts are, of course impossible, but climate trends are predictable.
Overall, if you want to forecast weather four days or climate four decades ahead the results are good. If you want to forecast four months ahead the results are of marginal utility.