On Thursday, the Met Office launched its new report on global warming, UK Climate Projections 2009 otherwise known as UKCP09. This is based on the output of Hadley Centre climate models that predict temperature increases of up to 6°C with wetter winters, dryer summers, more heatwaves, rising sea levels, more floods and all the other catastrophes that one would expect from similar exercises in alarmism.
What makes this report different from any of its predecessors is the resolution of the predictions that the Met Office is making. They are not just presenting a general impression of what might happen globally during this century, or even how climate change could affect the UK as a whole. They are claiming that they can predict what will happen in individual regions of the country. Apparently there is even a page somewhere on their website where you can enter your postcode and find out how your street will be affected by global warming in 2040 or 2080, although I’ve failed to find it.
All this is rather unexpected. In May last year, I posted here and here about a world summit of climate modellers that took place at Reading University. On the agenda was one very important problem for them; even the most powerful super-computers that have been developed so far are not capable of running the kind of high resolution models that they claim would allow them to reduce the degree of uncertainty in their predictions and also make detailed regional predictions that policy makers would like to have so that they can build climate change into infrastructure planning.
Here are a couple of excerpts from the conference website:
The climate modelling community is therefore faced with a major new challenge: Is the current generation of climate models adequate to provide societies with accurate and reliable predictions of regional climate change, including the statistics of extreme events and high impact weather, which are required for global and local adaptation strategies? It is in this context that the World Climate Research Program (WCRP) and the World Weather Research Programme (WWRP) asked the WCRP Modelling Panel (WMP) and a small group of scientists to review the current state of modelling, and to suggest a strategy for seamless prediction of weather and climate from days to centuries for the benefit of and value to society.
A major conclusion of the group was that regional projections from the current generation of climate models were sufficiently uncertain to compromise this goal of providing society with reliable predictions of regional climate change.
My emphasis
http://wcrp.ipsl.jussieu.fr/Workshops/ModellingSummit/Background.html
Current generation climate models have serious limitations in simulating regional features, for example, rainfall, mid-latitude storms, organized tropical convection, ocean mixing, and ecosystem dynamics. What is the scientific strategy to improve the fidelity of climate models?
http://wcrp.ipsl.jussieu.fr/Workshops/ModellingSummit/Expectations.html
This was summed up by Julia Slingo (at that time Professor of Meteorology at Reading University, who also chaired part of the conference) in a report by Roger Harrabin on the BBC News website:
So far modellers have failed to narrow the total bands of uncertainties since the first report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1990.
And Julia Slingo from Reading University admitted it would not get much better until they had supercomputers 1,000 times more powerful than at present.
“We’ve reached the end of the road of being able to improve models significantly so we can provide the sort of information that policymakers and business require,” she told BBC News.
“In terms of computing power, it’s proving totally inadequate. With climate models we know how to make them much better to provide much more information at the local level… we know how to do that, but we don’t have the computing power to deliver it.”
Professor Slingo said several hundred million pounds of investment were needed.
“In terms of re-building something like the Thames Barrier, that would cost billions; it’s a small fraction of that.
“And it would allow us to tell the policymakers that they need to build the barrier in the next 30 years, or maybe that they don’t need to.”
If, since the conference, several hundred million pounds had been invested in producing a new generation of supercomputers, a thousand times more powerful than the present generation, and the Met Office had already developed and run the kind of high resolution models which were so far beyond the scientist’s grasp just a year ago, then I suspect that this might have seeped into the media and I would have head about it. So far as I am aware, the fastest supercomputers are still a thousand times slower than the modellers considers necessary for credible regional scale modelling of the climate.
So I wondered whether Professor Slingo had anything to say about the Met Office’s new report, and googled accordingly:
“Through UKCP09 [UK Climate Predictions 2009] the Met Office has provided the world’s most comprehensive regional climate projections with a unique assessment of the possible changes to our climate through the rest of this century.
“For the first time businesses and other organisations have the tools to help them make risk-based decisions to adapt to the challenges of our changing climate.”
In an article headlined, U.K. Says New Climate Forecast to Cut Long-Term Planning Risks on the Bloomberg website:
Until today, projections didn’t distinguish between the likely consequences of climate change in the southeast of the nation compared with the northwest, for instance. “We can attach levels of certainty,” Julia Slingo, ….. told reporters today in London.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=ae6gM9bGo2Jw
So what’s changed since last year? Well one thing is that Julia Slingo has a new job. She has been appointed as Chief Scientist at the Met Office. So far as I know, the limitations that lack of computing power place on the accuracy and resolution of models are just the same.
During a rather bad-tempered interview on Thursday evening’s Newsnight, Kirsty Wark asked Hilary Benn, the UK Environment Secretary, why local authorities were being told to use the Met Office predictions as a template for infrastructure planning when their report had not been peer reviewed and the authors had postponed publication of information about the methodology that they had used. She also told him that there was considerable concern among other climate scientists about the Met Office’s research.
Myles Allen made an appearance on the programme warning that local authorities should be very wary about planning infrastructure projects on the basis of climate models unless they were very sure that the science was robust.
Mr Benn parroted the usual mantras without addressing the questions, and looked as though he would have much preferred to be elsewhere.
Update: The BBC’s Science Correspondent, Pallab Ghosh, has some interesting background on this controversy here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8106513.stm
There is also a critical take on these predictions at the Humanitarian Futures website here:
http://humanitarianfutures.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/ukcp09-launches-today/
Good article about my near -and increasingly bizarre -neighbours who seem to have entered the realms of tailor made predictions previously inhabited by fortune tellers. A sort of Mystic Met.
I have previously posted in the New Statesman thread their confirmation that essentialy they use the same forecasting techniques as for their usual weather forecasts and also an advert placed by them asking for a polar ice modeller as they admit to considerable uncertainties in the science.
It is about time we stopped being so deferential at their assertion that ‘predictions’ of 100 years ahead are more scientifically acurate than ‘forecasts’ for three days ahead. They dont take into account cycles and assume a linear trend which they project.
This junk science gets passed down the line to local authorities and govt agencies-one of whom I work with-and gets incorporated into policy. From first hand experience I know that some people at high levels in the agencies do not believe the predictions and indeed increasingly do not buy the sci fi series known as the IPCC assessment. However it is more thasn their job is worth to openly criticise the nonsencial assumptions behind all this. Lower down the line I would say it is mostly accepted as factual.
The idea that here in the South West we are going to aquire a mediterranean climate must assume that Britain is no longer going to be an island but will become firmly embedded in the European mainland around 1000 miles further south and out of the way of our major influences-the Atlantic and Jet stream.
Tonyb
Tony N, congrats on your lead post; molto interesante!
Erh, just a small point; concerning the declared need for a 1,000x increase in computer power, (and the increased funding thus necessary), I really don’t get it!
What is the point at this time of having more powerful model resolution, when crucial model inputs such as feedback magnitude and sign of various thingies, most popularly; clouds and water vapour, are still not adequately defined. (or understood!) There is an immense problem to define these within even just certain latitudinal band averages. (e.g. see the still spatially limited Dessler and Spencer studies).
What is more, latitudinal or global average integrations mean not much at all in terms of regional variations. Each latitudinal band comprises (typically) a mix of oceans, land formations including mountains, air/water circulations, deserts of various kinds, dry forest to rainforest, and, and, whatnot!
Yet, someone in fantasy-land is claiming that they can resolve all the broad-band uncertainties down to a postcode!!!!!!!!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If the computer power is increased 1,000 times, is there a commensurate increase in data input, and if so, where does it come from? Is there thus a need to employ/fund more researchers?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is I think, tongue-in-cheek stuff, and maybe it is all about, when the Met gets it wrong next time, they will have an excuse that they are hand-tied, relying more on expert judgement, whilst lacking a necessary 1,000x increase in computer power? (a pre-emptive escape clause for any more errors in the future?)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BTW, there is another data input consideration of evaporative cooling, that the IPCC/Trenberth puts at 41% of all HEAT loss from the surface. We don’t see much mention of this having an element of feedback, (and its interaction with clouds and water vapour), and how it might be considered regionally. ….. And, and, conduction/convection (regionally) etc
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As far as I can see, we humans do not have the capability to feed a 1000x super computer with the essential and accurate vast amounts of data that might yield a meaningful result
TonyN
Your lead article is an eye opener, to say the least.
Let me start off by saying that I am personally no expert on regional differences in UK climate. Sure, I have spent some time in and around London, in the Manchester area and in Aberdeen, Scotland and noticed slight differences in the local weather (in general, the further north you go, the brisker and wetter it gets).
But I think it is both arrogant and ignorant of the UK Met Office to give long-range climate forecasts for individual regions or even cities, when they cannot even get next week’s weather right.
TonyB has it right when he writes that this is a case of junk science being used in an attempt to shape policy.
I hope no one is really taking these idiots seriously.
Max
It’s worth having a look at the Newsnight coverage of this story which can be found here for a few days:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/newsnight
Click on the 18th June programme below the window and the item on the Met Office report starts about 32 mins in with a fairly pedestrian report by Susan Watts. Myles Allen’s outburst is far more interesting, and the tone of Kirsty Wark’s questions to the minister even more so.
None of this adds up to scepticism on the part of the BBC, but there are signs that the Met Offic’s latest opus has stretched credulity a bit too far and this time it will not just be sceptics asking awkward questions.
I’ve just watched this interview on the Newsnight website and yes, Mr Benn did seem distinctly uncomfortable. Local authorities everywhere in the UK have a lot less cash now, with which to “tackle climate change”, and I think that realistically, they are not going to be spending huge sums in the next few years to prepare for something that might (or might not) happen in 2050 or 2080. They have other, more immediate problems, such as finding the money to maintain next year’s housing, education, policing, transport and social services out of a somewhat reduced budget. So this whole exercise (apart from its dubious propaganda value) seems rather… empty?
Also interesting is another video on the website where Susan Watts discusses the certainties (and also the lack of certainty.) On the one hand, “…the government says the uncertainties mean this shouldn’t be taken as weather forecasting but a series of best guesses.” Which is fair enough, and we are also shown part of the Myles Allen interview where he expresses doubts as to the validity of climate projections at the 25km or 5km level.
On the other hand, the word “set”, as in fixed or certain, appears a couple of times too. “The models show the next thirty years as pretty much set, because past greenhouse gases take thirty years to work through the system.” And “…two thousand extra deaths caused by the heatwave of the summer of 2003, now set to become a normal summer, within a few decades.” Overall, seems like a bit of a mixed message.
“Gordon Brown’s government seems to have judged that whatever the criticisms of uncertainties, it needs to get a flavour [love that word!] of the science out to the public as it works towards a global climate deal with other governments later this year.” So what we have are “best guesses” but they are still enough to justify colossal commitments of time, effort and money that we can ill afford now. Do I detect a certain lack of wild enthusiasm, in Susan’s rather lacklustre wording, for our current government? Compare this with her glowing assessment of Obama’s science policies, at the start of this year.
“It’s a delicate balancing act, getting people to think about the risks at the same time as making clear what scientists do know and what they don’t.”
Interesting. Dissenting views, criticism and the beginnings of some halfway balanced reporting – from the BBC? Could the climate be changing there?
Sorry, took a while to write my comment, so comments 1-4 slipped in while I was still typing; it will look as if I’ve ignored them – but not so! :o)
Alex:
If I have time later today, I may transcribe Granatt and Allen’s contributions and post them. Also parts of the Benn interview.
I also got the impression that someone in editorial policy at the BBC may have revised the guidelines on AGW in an attempt to restore some kind of credibility to the way in which it is reported.
What tantalised me was Kirsty Warks remark about publishing the methodology being postponed. I haven’t been able to find out any more about this yet. If anyone else has a lead, then please post it.
Here is the original report.
http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk:80/
Alex is right about dissenting views, yesterday I posted a comment that Roger Harabin seemed less than impressed and in later interviews he was (almost) sceptical
Tonyb
Bob:
It’s worth following the links to the quotes from the Reading conference that I used in the header post. The pages there give an interesting insight into the way modeller are really thinking and the limitations on their predictions that they are prepared to acknowlege among themselves.
[…] Met Office brings doom to a place near you 20 06 2009 The Met Office brings doom to a place near you Guest post By TonyN, Harmless […]
Matthew commenting at Climate Audit has kindly provided some better links to the Newsnight coverage:
Incidentally I asked someone to mention this story to Anthony Watts, which has had rather surprising consequences.
There is some evidence that the BBC may be taking a (very) slightly more objective line on climate science. Kirsty Walk’s intriguing question about the lack of peer review and the postponement of methodology data re the Met Office report, Susan Watts’ comments on lack of certainty and the report on Myles Allen’s warning may be indicators – as may this surprising article on a BBC blog.
The Blog of Bloom is often an interesting read – check out some of Richard Cable’s posts for some distinctly un-alarmist cogitations…
By the way, has anyone managed to register and log on to the UKCP09 user interface? I registered yesterday, eager to see how my postcode will fare climate-wise in AD 2080, but can’t log on, as it keeps telling me “invalid username supplied.” The username is the same as one’s e-mail address, and this they know is correct, as they sent me an automated e-mail as part of the registration process. Will try again during the week…
TonyN, Reur 9, relating to: “World Modelling Summit for Climate Prediction”
Thanks for alerting me to your earlier lead articles, which somehow I have overlooked. I’ve now looked at your “Summit at Reading: Part 1”, and find it to be quite an eye-opener. Here are just a couple of extracts from your various references, that I find rather breath-taking! (I limit it to two!)
~~~1~~Purpose~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1. Overview: societal drivers; current status of weather and climate modeling; strategies for seamless prediction; crucial hypotheses
2. Strategies for next-generation modelling systems: balance between resolution and complexity; balance between multi-model and unified modeling framework; issues of parameterizing unresolved scales and regional models
3. Prospects for current high-end computer systems and implications for model code design
4. Strategies for model evaluation, modelling experiments, and initialization for prediction of the coupled ocean-land-atmosphere climate system
5. Strategies for revolutionizing climate prediction: enhancing human and computing resources; requirements and possible organizational frameworks
~~~2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Realizing the profound and far-reaching implications of these suggestions, the WCRP, WWRP, and the International Geosphere Biosphere Program (IGBP) decided to organize a World Modelling Summit for Climate Prediction. It is expected that the Summit will provide valuable input to the World Climate Conference – 3. The primary emphasis of the summit will be on simulating and predicting the physical climate system. Since the prediction of regional climate change is strongly influenced both by weather fluctuations on short time scales and bio-geo-chemical processes on long-time scales, the summit includes important elements of the WWRP and the IGBP.
The underlying goal of the summit is no less than to prepare a blueprint to launch a revolution in climate prediction.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gob smacking stuff, what?!
Oh BTW, Reur 4: “It’s worth having a look at the Newsnight coverage of this story…”
I tried, but it seems that it is not available for at least some countries outside the UK, including Oz.
Re #12: Robin
Kirsty Wark seems to have been remarkably well briefed for that interview and it would be very interesting to know who passed the ammunition to her. It is a great pity that she did not press her questions home, particularly about the missing methodology.
Steve McIntyre has a post which dovetails nicely with your link to the BBC’s surprising mention of Pielke’s criticisms:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6327
The US government now seems to be embarking on the same kind of AGW alarmism that began here in 2006, one symptom of which was Myles Allen’s notorious press release predicting 11C warming by the end of the century. Is there a hidden irony here?
Re: #13, Alex
Do please let us know how you get on.
See update on the header post for another surprise from the BBC.
TonyN: re your update, do you share my amusement at “the climate modelling community” having a “heated debate”?
Bob
I have a rather shaky download, but so far as I know, if I post it I may get hammered by Auntie for infringing copyright. Does anyone know what the situation is if it appears on YouTube?
Robin:
Yes, I do share your amusement, but I wonder how much of the ‘debate’ is a search for truth, and how much may be a turf war. I seem to remember that Myles Allen was the hero who briefed the MSM during last winter that unusually heavy snowfall is a sign of global warming because, Hey! snowfall is precipitation and the models
predictproject increased winter precipitation.There is some more information about the background to this very strange affair here:
http://humanitarianfutures.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/ukcp09-launches-today/
Re Youtube, I seem to remember the BBC doing a deal with them last year or the year before last (?) – the Beeb would get authorised channels on Youtube but had to waive the right to crack down on unauthorised BBC material there. Couldn’t swear to it though.
Interesting, the info on the humanitarianfutures site. I love the way that New Scientist excerpt ends: “Meanwhile, the tipping points loom.” Very typical and blatant NS alarmism.
Re logging into UKCP09, absolutely no go. It doesn’t recognise me as having registered, although I got an e-mail at the weekend saying “Thank you for registering with the UKCP09 User Interface. Please click the following link in order to activate your account.” Click on the link and there’s a login page; try to log in and it says “Invalid username supplied. Please ensure the specified username has already been registered”. Either they deliberately want to keep me out at all costs (!) or perhaps Defra’s IT system is not all that wonderful…
Thanks Alex. I’ll see if I can double check that it’s OK and then try and work out how to do it. Kirsty’s mincing of Hilary ought to be available to all, even in the Antipodes.
Given that the article at New Scientist expresses doubts about the reliability of models as predictive tools in infrastructure planning, the assertion that ‘the tipping points loom’ would seem to invite ridicule.
My wife is going to try registering with DEFRA tomorrow. I’ll let you know what happens, but is it possible that they have realised that they too may be vulnerable to ridicule, and have pulled the plug on the high resolution site?
Hi TonyN. This may have relevance to your recent complaint to the BBC as well as to the current thread.
The BBC’s Richard Black has recently done a piece on the Met Office’s latest offering in which he comments on the uncertainties of their long-term projections while pleading the case for nuclear fusion research. All well and good. However, the subsequent comments have been virtually monopolised by one calling himself “yeah whatever” who has managed to make 119 posts out of a total of 226 made in the last 5 days. He appears well-informed on climate issues and his agenda appears to be to dispute any comment which expresses a view sceptical of global warming. The BBC mindful of it duty of impartiality would no doubt say “not our fault what posters say”. However, I thought you might find what’s been happening sufficiently questionable to follow it up with them.
Here’s the link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/06/climate_meltdown_yet_fusion_la.html
Regards Jasper
This petition has just been approved:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CRUSourceCodes/
I did miss out “and data” and it won’t allow editing ,so if anyone wants to start one about the data feel free .
Doubt wether it will have any effect , but we can but try .
Neil
I signed about five minutes ago and got the email confirmation but so far no show.
It would be worth cross posting your comment to the Harmless Sky NS Continuation thread here:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=63&cp=46#comments