UK Met Office / Uncategorized

Met Office Study: Rejoice! Scorching Scottish Summers To Become ‘The Norm’ By 2050

 

 

If you thought all those ugly wind turbines littering the Scottish Highlands and providing so much ‘clean’ energy at times that they have to be switched off would save the misty glens and wild snow-capped peaks from Thermageddon, think again. Experts from the Met Office, University of Edinburgh and Oxford University say that hot, dry summers like 2018 are to become ‘the norm’ by 2050 and will happen every year by the end of the 21st century. So much for ‘clean energy’ then. Just when the Scots were hoping that they had done enough to guarantee long, wet, cold, miserable windswept summers in perpetuity, they learn that all their efforts are in vain. Good news for Aussies though – it means that they don’t need to abandon coal to stop heatwaves and bushfires after all!

The Scottish summer heatwave of 2018 was part of the more extensive early summer heatwave which occurred over northern Europe generally at the time and which was also attributed to climate change in a study which was – to say the least – somewhat unconvincing.

You might be forgiven for thinking that hot, dry Scottish summers doesn’t sound like such a bad idea, but think again. For a start, foreign holiday firms will go out of business as people opt more and more for staycations and avoid jetting off to the Med and other far off exotic places, thereby not belching tons of planet destroying CO2 into the atmosphere . . . . . yep, the authors actually list this as a negative impact!

The researchers say the warm weather led to an increase in “staycations” and boosted sales of garden furniture, fans and ice cream.

But they found there were a series of negative impacts which may have been under-reported at the time. They include:

    • Foreign holiday operators and indoor recreation businesses suffered
    • Fashion retailers reported a drop in profits due to lower sales of coats and jumpers
    • An increase in pests like wasps, jellyfish and mosquitoes
    • Lower yields of peas, broccoli, potatoes and cauliflower due to water shortages and pests
    • A 30% increase in water demand, putting pressure on the utility company

It’s all because of man-made climate change of course, which is why Boris is banning petrol and diesel cars in 2035 and plans to rip out gas central heating systems across the United Kingdom (assuming Scotland is part of the UK by then). Maybe that will have more success in keeping Scottish summers grim than the windmills have had.

Human influences had made the heatwave more likely, researchers said, adding that their findings indicate the need to start sustainable long-term planning now to deal with heatwaves in Scotland induced by climate change.

Lead researcher Professor Simon Tett, of Edinburgh University’s School of GeoSciences, said: “Despite its cool climate, Scotland must start to prepare now for the impact of high-temperature extremes.

“The bottom line is that heatwaves have become more likely because of human-induced climate change.”

You wouldn’t want to question an expert’s ‘bottom line’ now, would you? Especially when he reveals his bottom in such a trusted and unbiased journalistic medium as the BBC. But, not being overly impressed by neat bums (and smart-arse experts), I thought I’d better just check the actual research paper anyway, on the off chance that not all was as it seemed, fully expecting of course said research paper to present impeccable scientific evidence to back up the claims of its authors and legitimise the BBC’s reporting of the findings of said study.

What I found was . . . . . RCP8.5. What I found was . . . . . . the Met Office’s new ‘state of the art’ ultra high climate sensitivity CMIP6 model HadGEM3-GC3.1. What I found was an unrealistic debunked worst case emissions/concentration scenario being used to drive an unrealistically sensitive climate model in order to make projections of future climate in Scotland and to attribute extreme weather events occurring during summer in that country to man-made climate change. Oh dear. Just when you thought that scientactivists and the climate alarmist media had cleaned up their act and had given up on the scare-stories being generated by the misuse of RCP8.5, amplified in the popular press. Just when you though integrity had finally returned to climate change communication. Just when you thought absolutely nothing of the sort!

The Event Attribution: 2018 Scottish Summer Heatwave

To understand whether high temperatures and temperature extremes are
important for climate change adaptation in Scotland, we place the 2018 heatwave in the context of past, present, and future climate, and provide a rapid but comprehensive impact analysis . . . . .

Anthropogenic climate change since 1850 has made all these high-temperature extremes more likely. Higher risk ratios are found for experiments from the CMIP6-generation global climate model HadGEM3-GA6 compared to those from the very-large ensemble system weather@home . . . . .

To analyse the anthropogenic contribution to the observed temperatures, we use simulations from the HadGEM3-GA6 model, which is the atmospheric component of the Met Office’s Global Environment Model version 6 (HadGEM3-A hereafter; Walters et al., 2017) . . . . . .

To assess projected changes in the likelihood of 2018 temperatures, we use the perturbed parameter ensembles (PPEs) provided by the UK Met Office as part of the UK Climate Projections 2009 and 2018 (UKCP09 and UKCP18, respectively) . . . . . .

The UKCP18 12-member PPE for 1980-2080 is based on the coupled HadGEM-GC3.1 model that uses version 7.1 of the atmospheric model (Murphy et al., 2018; Walters et al., 2019) and assumes emissions following the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 (Moss et al., 2010). The UKCP09 11-member PPE for 1950-2099 is based on the coupled HadCM3 model (Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, 2008; Murphy et al., 2009) and uses the A1B scenario (Nakicenovic and Swart, 2000; Murphy et al., 2009). A1B lies between RCP4.5 and RCP 8.5 in terms of the anthropogenic radiative forcing since pre-industrial over the twenty first century, and is very close to RCP8.5 until 2050 (Collins et al., 2013) . . . . . .

3.2. How much has anthropogenic forcing changed the risk of extreme temperatures?
We performed an event attribution study using the CMIP6-generation global climate model HadGEM3-A, and compared the results with those from the very large ensemble W@H system (Fig. 2). Both models show that anthropogenic forcings and the ensuing SST warming and sea-ice reductions have made all extreme temperature indices over the NBI more likely (risk ratios >1) at the 90% confidence level over many return times. The magnitude of these risk ratios varies substantially between both models, with the estimates derived from HadGEM3-A consistently higher than those from W@H [Isn’t that amazing!] . . . . . .

Model validation is difficult since the common historical period, for which both W@H data (1986-2017) and HadGEM3-A data (1960-2013) are available, is only 24 years. This is very short, causing uncertainties in the observed distributions of temperature indices to be large. We tentatively conclude, however, that W@H has larger biases than HadGEM3-A, both in the mean (which we correct for) and the tail of the distribution (Fig. 3). This suggests that the higher risk ratios derived from HadGEM3-A might be more realistic than the lower ones from W@H . . . . .

Projections of Future Extreme Summer Weather

3.4. How likely are these temperatures in the future?

We assess the relevance of these impacts for adaptation to future climate change using the UK climate projections UKCP09 and UKCP18 . . . . .

There are substantial differences between the two projection datasets, with UKCP18
consistently showing higher likelihoods than UKCP09 from about 2040 [Again, no surprise there, as UKCP18 ensemble is based on the high sensitivity HadGEM-GC3.1 model] . . . . .

Regardless of dataset and extreme index, the projections show a substantial increase
in the likelihood of 2018 temperatures between the present day and 2050 . . . . . Towards the end of the century, every summer might have extremes as hot as in 2018; for nighttime extremes, this could be reached by 2080 . . . . . 

Given the substantial increase in the likelihood of future temperature extremes
similar to the 2018 heatwave (Fig. 4), it would be wrong to suggest that Scotland should ignore extreme temperatures in its adaptation planning . . . . . Furthermore, there are many lessons to be learned from the negative impacts – and the costs of alleviating impacts – to conclude that despite its cool climate, extreme temperatures are important to consider for climate change adaptation in Scotland.

There you have it. RCP8.5 once again being used to frame climate policy, in conjuction with a CMIP6 high sensitivity climate model and the results of the research being communicated to the popular press minus any mention of caveats or uncertainties by the authors concerned or the journalists involved in writing up the story. It’s definitely still ‘business as usual’ for climate alarmism in 2020.

 

Addendum

Just as an illustration, Zeke had a post at Carbon Brief on the new CMIP6 models in December last year and he shows this graph of the expected warming under the new SSP scenarios. SSP5-8.5 is roughly equivalent to RCP8.5. You can see that the expected maximum mean warming under the CMIP6 ensemble has increased to 7.4C in 2100. Under CMIP5/RCP8.5 it was 5.8C. That’s a huge jump. HadGEM-GC3.1 has an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 5.5C – near the very top of the range, beaten only by the Canadian model at 5.6C. So projected warming using this model is above seven degrees! No wonder it predicts every Scottish summer to be a scorcher!

Screenshot_2020-02-03 CMIP6 the next generation of climate models explained Carbon Brief

 

18 thoughts on “Met Office Study: Rejoice! Scorching Scottish Summers To Become ‘The Norm’ By 2050

  1. What I found was . . . . . RCP8.5. What I found was . . . . . . the Met Office’s new ‘state of the art’ ultra high climate sensitivity CMIP6 model HadGEM3-GC3.1.

    I knew about the first (from Pielke) but not the second. Preposterous squared.

    …communicated to the popular press minus any mention of caveats or uncertainties by the authors concerned or the journalists involved in writing up the story…

    So so bad. Thank you Jaime. I feel I need to understand better how the CMIP6 models will feed into such scarifications in the future. (And their relative strengths and weaknesses. Where ‘strength’ is a very relative term.)

    Liked by 1 person

  2. The last of my ancestors who lived in Scotland left before 1830. Always thought that I would get there for a look one day, but looking at that photo of wind turbines I don’t think I’ll bother, never mind if it’s hot, cold or in between. Too busy trying to get around my favourite places here on my own turf, to see them one last time before they are similarly violated.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Roger Pielke quoted this article on RCP8.5 on Twitter:

    If we shouldn’t continue worrying about a future that no realistic amount of coal-burning can bring about, where can we find a more useful nightmare?

    The authors have the answer to their question:

    Recent updates to several climate models have been turning up surprising—and scary—new results. Models that previously agreed more or less with a 3°C long-term outlook have started putting out climate-sensitivity results higher than 5°C. It’s an emerging worst-case scenario that scientists are still unpacking.

    It was so obvious. There might be ‘debate’ about the usefulness of these models but mark my words, researchers will be attracted to them, like bees to honey, in search of scary projections, publicity in the media and grant funding.

    Like

  4. That’s amazing. What a bunch of frauds these climate scientists are. As a reminder (see previous posts by Jaime and me) this is the hindcast from the model they are using

    from Fig 29 in this paper. (The graph says UKESM1 but the main component of that is HadGEM3‐GC3.1 as used in the new Scotland paper). The model gives recent warming of about twice the observations.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. ” . . . looking at that photo of wind turbines I don’t think I’ll bother [visiting Scotland], never mind if it’s hot, cold or in between.”

    To put the issue into perspective, there are over 1,000 large (> 1.5MW) wind turbines within a 20-mile radius of where we live, a rural location just south of Glasgow. Other regions in Scotland have been as badly damaged; new sites are being added at a rate of about 100 a year, many of them large.

    That’s not counting off-shore projects but it gets worse. There is not even a record of how many smaller turbines (and solar panels) have been grid-connected by land-owners, farmers and others.

    Balancing the grid? What’s that? You filthy denier.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Not even Andrew Dessler is convinced about the high sensitivity climate models:

    Andrew Revkin gets it only half right. They still haven’t said goodbye to RCP8.5. As demonstrated here, they’re now using it in conjunction with CMIP6 models!

    Like

  7. Paul Homewood demonstrates that the ‘hot, dry summer’ of 2018, in context of previous hot summers in Scotland, was not all that remarkable anyway. In terms of mean maximum temperature, it was only the 7th warmest since 1885 – 1933 and 1955 were hotter. Who was around then to attribute the scorcher to ‘climate change’? In terms of rainfall, summers in Scotland have generally got much wetter since 1980 and 2018 was nowhere near one of the the driest summers. The driest summer was 1955, which means it was both hotter and much drier that year than it was in 2018. So the claim that 2018 was in any way remarkable is total BS and the claim that it was attributable to climate change is BS squared.

    Like

  8. They say from your quote above –
    “Anthropogenic climate change since 1850 has made all these high-temperature extremes more likely. Higher risk ratios are found for experiments from the CMIP6-generation global climate model HadGEM3-GA6 compared to those from the very-large ensemble system weather@home”

    “are found for experiments” !!!

    they are playing around with computer simulated climate models (add an input addon or 2, tweek a parameter or 6 & do a model run).

    what fun to come back after 8-24hrs? and announce your model result is a “experiment”

    ps. CAD/Parametrics/etc is great/useful & proven in industry but when it is extended to the future state of the planet i’m dubious.

    Like

  9. take it you’ve seen this from – https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2020/02/05/bob-ward-resorts-to-little-known-journal/
    https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2020/01/top-uk-climate-change-sceptics-group-is-stronger-than-ever/

    the usual attempt at smear – ”
    E&T’s investigation revealed that substantial amounts did come from abroad. The Charity Commission responded to E&T’s freedom of information request. Funders from outside of the UK gave £29,073 in donations.
    Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, sees a problem in foreign unknown donors supporting the charity. He says it is not illegal but it has ethical issues when funders remain unknown.”

    Like

  10. DFHUNTER,

    It seems to be the current trend to describe computer model runs as “experiments”. It’s a perversion of the scientific method of course, because an ‘experiment’ is either a controlled simulation of the real world in the laboratory or it is a process of carefully testing one’s theory by observation actually in the real world. It is not plugging numbers into a virtual world created by computer programmers. Computer models are not laboratories. To test a computer model run in an ‘experiment’ you would have to make observations in the real world and compare them to the results of the model run, but it seems climate scientists have now dispensed with the need for the real world and the requirement to independently verify their computer simulations – hence they are now calling the actual model runs themselves ‘experiments’. How ridiculous.

    Like

  11. Jaime I’m interested in your discussion of what and what is not an experiment in climate science, and your blanket condemnation of climate science of falsely claiming to conduct experiments. However, both Willis Eschenbach and Roy Spenser, in my view conduct true experiments, even using your stricter definitions. Both use real data sets, construct “simple” models and conduct experiments by combining both. Both, in my view, are doing excellent experimental science.

    Like

  12. Alan – I sort of agree.. but the output should not be considered anything, but an output from a computer model.. not considered real. useful perhaps, but not “real”
    This sort of believe in model output as real data ,is one of the reasons I didn’t do a PhD, got as far as MSc (Reading Cybernetic dept, yes Lovelocks old department, guess what sort of modelling).

    Like

  13. Alan, obviously my comment was not a “blanket condemnation of climate science of falsely claiming to conduct experiments”. I said that their description of an ‘experiment’ as being a model run not independently verified by real world data was wrong and a perversion of what most people would consider to be the scientific method. I fully stand by that. Note that Roy Spencer’s simple carbon model ‘experiment’ is verified by data – the historical Mauna Loa record. Even then I think I might hesitate to call it a fully fledged experiment as such – he is advancing an hypothesis (a projection of future CO2 concentrations) and testing it with reference to historical data. But semantics. Some people might call it an experiment. My main objection is the reference to model runs unverified by real world data as ‘experiments’. They’re not. They are computer games.

    Like

  14. Jaime and Barry. The studies made by Spenser and by Eschenbach are in my opinion similar or identical to what are called “natural experiments”.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_experiment
    Compare the methodologies and logic behind Wikipedia’s first example (John Snow and patterns of cholera in Soho) and the way Eschenbach examines and uses satellite data.

    Like

  15. Pingback: Alex & Andy: Madness or Culture? | Climate Scepticism

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.