Met Office Hadley Centre Celebrates 30 Years Of ‘Science Advocacy’
‘They think it’s all over; it is now’. After 30 long years of meticulous and dedicated research, the Met Office has kicked the doubters into the back of the net and proudly announces that:
The first 30 years
The impacts of climate change are already evident both in the UK and worldwide, through rising temperatures, diminishing snow and ice, rising sea levels and changes in extreme weather events. The development of global observation datasets such as HadCRUT (Hadley Centre and Climatic Research Unit global mean surface temperature dataset) and advances in attribution science have allowed these changes in our climate system to be detected and the human influence on these changes to be quantified.
The subsequent generations of Met Office HadGEM family of climate models have helped understand the importance of processes related to aerosols and clouds, and carbon cycle feedbacks. These models also demonstrated that it is possible to make skilful and meaningful predictions of future climate on seasonal to decadal timescales to provide early warnings and on centennial timescales to inform adaptation and mitigation. I’m particularly proud of the unique use of a seamless modelling system, developed in the Met Office over the last 30 years, allowing us to test the physical basis of our climate models through verification of weather forecasts and seasonal predictions.
Peter Stott goes one better and is quoted by the Guardian:
“The climate now is completely different from what we had 30 years ago. It is completely outside the bounds of possibility in natural variation,” said Peter Stott, a professor and expert on climate attribution science at the centre.
“We are seeing an unprecedented climate,” Stott said. “The human fingerprint is everywhere.”
Gosh. I remember 1990. I recall it was a really hot summer and the sea was bathwater warm, something I’d not experienced previously. I don’t remember Thatcher opening the Hadley Centre and I don’t specifically recall the weather throughout the year of 1990 being so radically different from today’s weather, but that’s just weather of course; we can’t really ‘feel’ climate change – even, I guess when it’s unprecedented. Only the Met Office’s £98 million supercomputer loaded with the latest climate models, driven with RCP8.5 in most UKCP18 climate projections can actually ‘see’ this human fingerprint – plus privilieged Met Office personnel like Stott of course. According to Stotty, these fingerprints are literally everywhere. I must get me some climate specs like Stott of the Met has.
But this Spring has been the sunniest in the UK since records began in 1929, so that’s ‘unprecedented’ I guess. Completely outside the bounds of natural variability due to man-made global warming? Hmmm, I’m not so sure. The ‘weather’ has been largely responsible too, courtesy of a jet stream bringing in air from the east and north east throughout much of the glorious three months of Spring. Sadly, this does mean that it hasn’t been unprecedentedly warm, a scenario which one would naturally expect if man-made global warming was dabbing its grubby prints literally everywhere. In fact, over the last decade or so, Springs have stubbornly refused to get warmer even though we’ve been pumping ever more heat trapping gases into the atmosphere:
So, after boasting about its ground breaking research which showed us beyond all doubt that human-caused climate change was real and ‘everywhere’, the Met office tells us what it will be up to in the next 30 years:
In the next 30 years, the role of climate science at the Met Office Hadley Centre will evolve to one of quantifying the predicted changes in climate, and providing more detailed information on what these changes mean to individuals.
Say what? They predicted changes, but they didn’t quantify them? Now they see their role as assisting society cope with the changes they predicted but didn’t quantify:
How can we help societies plan for the future and manage the risks from extreme climate events and avoid impacts which are too drastic to cope with?
What are ‘extreme climate events’? Also, if impacts are too drastic to cope with, what’s the point in the Met Office helping to manage the risks anyway? We’re all going to die – horribly – if we can’t cope, presumably.
Having done all the science legwork in the first 30 years, the Met Office now clearly envisages its role as being one of advocating mitigation and adapation policies in light of the ‘unavoidable’ and certain changes in climate which will happen.
The next 30 years are extremely important regarding the need for stronger mitigation by proceeding towards a transition to a net zero emissions economy. Climate science will play an important part in informing adaptation to the consequences of climate changes that are already unavoidable, whilst informing the mitigation actions aiming to avoid more severe impacts. The emphasis on action and solutions implies a shift from climate science to climate services.
As a result of the Paris Agreement, the focus of climate research at the Met Office has changed to reflect these changing drivers:
moving from proving that climate change is happening and predictable to monitoring, understanding and managing current and future weather and climate risks
informing the development of strategies for lowering greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the most dangerous impacts of climate change and assessing the risk of abrupt, potentially irreversible, Earth system change (including so-called tipping points)
Betts, Stott and pals are going to be providing ‘climate services’, not so much ‘weather services’, and not climate science (cos that’s all done and dusted, innit). How nice. How cushy. Employed at the public expense to advocate policies which will impoverish the public and limit their personal freedoms – rather like lockdown, but forever.
The ‘settled science’ with which the Met Office are going to beat the public into net zero submission comes to us in the form of the UKCP18 climate projections:
Preparing for inevitable climate changes will require more local information, an example of which is provided for the UK as part of the recently issued UK Climate Projections. Future projections require even more information on how global warming translates into local-scale changes in weather and climate extremes, such as windstorms, heat waves and coastal and inland flooding events.
As it happens, almost all of the local, regional and global climate projections in UKCP18 rely upon the now discredited RCP8.5. So, when the Met Office says there will be storms, floods, droughts, unendingly hot summers and deluge winters, what they mean is that unrealistic climate change projections based upon climate model runs using a debunked worst case emissions scenario say this.
Crap models supercharged with an even crappier emissions scenario (concentration pathway, as Betts likes to insist) will inform this crap government on how and why we need to get to Net Zero social and economic destitution in 2050. Lockdown forever. Talking of which, in conjunction with crap science and crap models:
The current coronavirus pandemic has shown the importance of an evidence-based scientifically informed approach to inform society’s response to challenges. If applied to dealing with climate change this would mean that governments accept early warnings and future projections from experts about the risks (despite uncertainty) and adopt adequate measures. The recent changes in ways of working for our scientists, enforced by the coronavirus, are giving us valuable experience (such as working from home and holding virtual meetings and conferences) that we will use in future as we aim to reduce the impact of our working lives on the planet.
‘Evidence-based scientifically informed approach’! Yeah, really. You couldn’t make it up could you?
Climate Scepticism 
The Hadley Center news report could not have been a better self-parody if it was written by The Daily Onion. Or Brad Keyes.
Or is this a Brad Keyes special???🙄
LikeLiked by 1 person
The best thing for all the faux academic climate-theological parasite orgs is to seize all funds and records, audit deeply, publicize the results and shut them down.
LikeLiked by 1 person
‘Skillful and meaningful predictions of future climate on centennial timescales’ ?
So they’ve been doing this for centuries?
If IKEA offered furniture guaranteed to last for centuries they might be in trouble with the advertising standards authority – not in 2220, but right now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
” …adaption to the consequences of climate changes that are already unavoidable, whilst informing the mitigation actions aiming to avoid more severe impacts.”
I know what he means but his abuse of the English language is not helpful. Adaptation is mitigation because it reduces impact. Avoiding severe impact is not mitigation, it is — well, avoidance.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And about those wonderful HadGEM climate models. How do they stack up?
Hottest models on the planet: no doubt about it. Divergence from observations: Worst of the bunch.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Perhaps the MET office could hire Pat Michaels and Willis Eschenbach to help them evaluate their mitigation policies.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/12/going-to-zero/
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ron, the Met Office haven’t got around to doing many climate simulations with their new HadGEM3 model and the Earth System Model, UKESM1, which is based on it. They boast about a better understanding of aerosol and cloud forcings but the truth is, UKESM1 incorporates ridiculously unrealistic aerosol forcings which greatly overestimate mid 20th century cooling. Paul and I covered this in these two posts last year:
https://cliscep.com/2019/11/05/met-offices-new-flagship-cmip6-high-sensitivity-climate-model-does-a-great-job-at-everything-other-than-its-primary-function/
https://cliscep.com/2019/11/05/new-climate-models-even-more-wrong/
When they do start using these models to inform mitigation policy, they will no doubt forecast even greater impacts than CMIP5 models because of their very high climate sensitivity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“What are ‘extreme climate events’”
Thats easy.
Any “bad” weather event is now an “extreme climate event”
Too much rain, too little rain, too much wind, too little wind…
too much cold..we have been told in Australia that we cannot trust the old mercury thermometers..but we only have about 30 years of digital reports..damn it..doesnt matter..full steam ahead..
LikeLiked by 1 person
ASECRETCOUNTRY,
Yes, it would now seem that the weather is a function of the climate, driven by the ‘climate’ and not meteorology. It used to be the other way round: climate was defined by the average weather recorded over 30 years – in retrospect. It’s a subtle change, but a significant one. Any extreme weather event has become a symptom of climate change, not ‘just weather’. Very useful if you wish to convince the gullible that ‘climate change is real and happening now’.
LikeLike
Jaime “…weather is [now] a function of the climate, driven by the ‘climate’ and not meteorology. It used to be the other way round: climate was defined by the average weather recorded over 30 years – in retrospect”.
This is a very profound and significant comment, one that I, and no doubt others, have missed. It deserves further consideration, please think upon it.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Met Office: ‘isn’t our confirmation bias wonderful?’ Er…no.
LikeLike
Alan, I do think that ideological shift has occurred at the Met Office. They talk only about ‘climate services’ now and where weather is mentioned, it is invariably in the context of the climate and often prefaced with ‘extreme’. ‘Event attribution’ is mentioned numerous times in this document, which sets out the Met Office’s priorities for the next decade. Clearly the focus is on communicating ‘weather’ (individual extreme events and seasonal predictions) both as a risk and as a function of climate (change). Stott’s fingerprints are everywhere in that document.
“https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/metofficegovuk/pdf/research/climate-science/climate-science-roadmap/mohc_climatescienceroadmap_2020-2030_frozen_22_may_2020.pdf”
LikeLike
I was considering your comment in a wider context, not just applying to the Met Office. The more I think about it the more implications there are. Weather events are explained by climate, despite varying by miniscule amounts or having long ago precedents. Almost any event, so long as it’s adverse is attributed to climate change and not to weather. Lacunae in adverse weather events, like hurricanes landfalling in the USA, are studiously ignored (or correctly dismissed as weather – but the first powerful hurricane immediately is attributed to climate change). How have we let confusion between climate and weather happen and the advantage fall to those pushing CAGW?
LikeLike
‘The subsequent generations of Met Office HadGEM family of climate models have helped understand the importance of processes related to aerosols and clouds, and carbon cycle feedbacks. These models also demonstrated that it is possible to make skilful and meaningful predictions of future climate on seasonal to decadal timescales to provide early warnings and on centennial timescales to inform adaptation and mitigation. I’m particularly proud of the unique use of a seamless modelling system, developed in the Met Office over the last 30 years, allowing us to test the physical basis of our climate models through verification of weather forecasts and seasonal predictions.’
Wonderin’ whether this is a time to celebrate, Met Office?
LikeLiked by 2 people
A critical review of fextreme weather attribution was done in 2016 by Mike Hulme, explaining:
“As many climate scientists can attest, following the latest meteorological extreme one of the most frequent questions asked by media journalists and other interested parties is: ‘Was this weather event caused by climate change?’
In recent decades the meaning of climate change in popular western discourse has changed from being a descriptive index of a change in climate (as in ‘evidence that a climatic change has occurred’) to becoming an independent causative agent (as in ‘climate change caused this event to happen’). Rather than being a descriptive outcome of a chain of causal events affecting how weather is generated, climate change has been granted power to change worlds: political and social worlds as much as physical and ecological ones.
To be more precise then, what people mean when they ask the ‘extreme weather blame’ question is: ‘Was this particular weather event caused by greenhouse gases emitted from human activities and/or by other human perturbations to the environment?’ In other words, can this meteorological event be attributed to human agency as opposed to some other form of agency?”
His paper is http://www.mikehulme.org/2014/06/attributing-weather-extremes-to-climate-change/
synopsis is https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/03/14/x-weathermen-are-back/
LikeLiked by 1 person
In 2007, Defra was congratulating its scientists in sharing in the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore and explaining the role of the Met Office:
“Defra provides financial support to the co-chairs and their supporting secretariats. As such the UK has provided underpinning funding for almost one-third of the major scientific reports produced by the IPCC, which the Nobel committee believes have “created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming.”
On Science:
The Climate Prediction Programme was not an academic research programme; its work plan and deliverables was driven by Defra’s requirements for science to inform UK government policy on climate change mitigation and adaptation. As the policy requirements changed, so did the research programme objectives.
The Met Office will focus on research that contributes to UK government policy objectives and will communicate the results to government and the public.”
Clearly still the case…
http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=12331
LikeLiked by 2 people
Defra’s role:
‘Liaison with other IPCC working groups and with international research programmes in order to ensure, wherever appropriate, collaboration between them.’
Collaborator.
LikeLike
I am beginning to feel like the unwilling victim of one of those Edwardian Music Hall entertainers who attempted to hypnotise volunteers — or more often their own stooges — by dangling a swinging pocket watch before their eyes with accompanying patter of “look into my eyes” or “you are beginning to feel sleepy” according to taste!
In this case I have a scientist (probably complete with white coat, thick-lensed glasses and frizzy hair) waving a representation of a CO2 molecule under my nose while trying to get me to believe that this miracle molecule (which he has obviously brought with him to the theatre from his previous incarnation as a snake oil salesman) is in and of itself the source of all mankind’s ills, or will be, probably, perhaps, in a few years, or a little longer, unless we give up our way of life and return to the blissful days before we discovered the evils of fossil fuels.
I’m sorry, professor, but I don’t buy it. I don’t believe a word of it and what is more I don’t think you do either. That anyone who professes to be a scientist can honestly claim that reducing mankind’s net output to zero is either practicable or desirable, given that the biggest emitter of anthropogenic CO2 is humanity breathing out every 10-15 seconds, beggars belief. Anyone who professes to be a meteorologist and claims that there have been “unprecedented” changes to “the climate” in the last 30 years has obviously never troubled to take any cognisance of historical fact or any sort of climatological research. At least not that pre-dates 1990.
I’m not sure which is the more depressing — that reputable (allegedly) scientists expect people to believe this guff or that intelligent (allegedly) politicians, journalists, and other “opinion formers” fall for it.
Incidentally, I should point out that, as anyone who knows their history of the Scottish Borders will confirm, the monks of Newbattle were mining coal in the hills around Carlops in the 11th century. Whether that added to the Mediæval Warm Period I couldn’t say but it certainly did nothing to stave off the Little Ice Age!
LikeLiked by 1 person
This one’s for you, Mike.
LikeLiked by 2 people
There is a surprising BBC Science mini-series available on i-player at the moment. I hesitate to raise it, because wider awareness will undoubtedly bring wrath and calumny down from on high to the presenter, Physicist and Oceanographer, Helen Czerski. She may be forced to recant and it would surely be banned on Facebook and Twitter as Fake News.
Episode two is the one that sparked my interest, (the whole series is worth watching, good home schooling!). She speaks of the fundamental Physical Laws of the Universe; you know, those that have been known by climate scientists for over a hundred years.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b09sc7yj/from-ice-to-fire-the-incredible-science-of-temperature-series-1-2-a-temperature-for-life
From 4 minutes in, compressed a little, for length.
“Only one place in the Universe we can be sure life exists and that’s here on earth. Nearest neighbour Venus, a little closer to the sun has a surface temperature of over 450 deg C. (No claim of CO2 causing the temperature on Venus).
Mars, next planet out, minus 60 degC. [Venus has 96% CO2 and Mars 95%]. Even Earth’s own temperature isn’t what you might expect. If you average out the temperatures across the planet, you get a rather pleasant 14 deg C. [Check out: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/abs_temp.html%5D
But that’s about 30 degrees warmer than might be expected, given the Earth’s distance from the sun. At 30 degrees colder you would expect Earth to be completely different, a barren desolate world. So why is our planet warmer than it appears it should be? The answer lies in one of the most intriguing substances to be found anywhere in the Universe. [Skip Icelandic waterfall]. More than 70% of Earth’s surface is covered with water, but that wasn’t always the case.
Early in our planet’s history when the surface was far too hot for liquid water, the planet was shrouded in a thick atmosphere of carbon dioxide and water and all you would have seen from space would be the white cloud tops.”
[Some sources say the early Earth atmosphere was around 95% CO2, similar to Venus, it’s now a measly 0.041%, but it is amazing stuff, control knob of the planet, no less].
9 minutes 30 seconds in
“Hydrogen bonds are key to water’s influence on Earth’s temperature. Hydrogen bonds are so strong that it takes a lot of energy to break them. And that means that the water in the earth’s oceans can absorb a huge amount of heat energy from the sun, without changing from a liquid to a gas.
The oceans act as a huge store of energy and as they move they distribute heat from the equator to cooler latitudes north and south. But it’s not only in the oceans that water plays a part in earth’s temperature. The bonds between water molecules are very strong, but provide enough energy and they’ll break apart and you get what’s all around me in the air here – water vapour. And in this form, as vapour in the atmosphere, water has perhaps its greatest influence.
The atmosphere traps the sun’s heat, a process known as the Greenhouse Effect and although we tend to associate this with carbon dioxide, it is actually water vapour that accounts for much of the trapped heat.”
[What’s that you say Sherlock?]. It has always been known that water vapour at up to 4% is the biggest “greenhouse” gas, but they can’t model it, so they ignore it and say it’s the result of CO2, a feedback]
“Were it not for the water in the oceans and the atmosphere, keeping earth’s temperature warm and stable, our planet would be as inhospitable as Venus or Mars, but the influence of temperature on life goes far deeper, because the story of how life began is a story of temperature and it starts with earth’s complex geology.”
The segment ends at 15 minutes 56 seconds
Czerski then moves onto Icelandic geysers and sub-sea thermal vents, which emerge into the ocean at 401 deg C, and then to Photosynthesis, “the energy store which, powers almost all life on earth.” Dependent of course, on adequate CO2 in the atmosphere.
You wouldn’t know it from their regular output, but Czerski’s story on water is backed up by NASA:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/global-maps/MYDAL2_M_SKY_WV
“Water evaporates from the Earth’s surface and rises on warm updrafts into the atmosphere. It condenses into clouds, is blown by the wind, and then falls back to the Earth as rain or snow. This cycle is one important way that heat and energy are transferred from the surface of the Earth to the atmosphere, and transported from one place to another on our planet.
Water vapor is also the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Heat radiated from Earth’s surface is absorbed by water vapor molecules in the lower atmosphere. The water vapor molecules, in turn, radiate heat in all directions. Some of the heat returns to the Earth’s surface.
Thus, water vapor is a second source of warmth (in addition to sunlight) at the Earth’s surface.”
The late Oceanographer Robert Stevenson, described the process here:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html
“The atmosphere cannot warm until the underlying surface warms first. The lower atmosphere is transparent to direct solar radiation, preventing it from being significantly warmed by sunlight alone. The surface atmosphere thus gets its warmth in three ways: from direct contact with the oceans; from infrared radiation off the ocean surface; and, from the removal of latent heat from the ocean by evaporation.
Consequently, the temperature of the lower atmosphere is largely determined by the temperature of the ocean. ”
So why are we told we must reduce the CO2 % of the atmosphere by 0.006% in order to save us from the currently postponed Climate Crisis?
LikeLiked by 6 people
Giss link on absolute temperature got messed up, here it is:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/abs_temp.html
LikeLike
Didn’t deliberately “like” my own post, it did so when I looked to see the likes that were there!
LikeLike
It was worth the additional ‘like’ Dennis.
Thanks to Jaime for turning our attention back to how official climate science (with policy baked in) has been transforming ie self-perverting. I agree with Alan that
is worth consideration as a statement of the new normal on its own, more widely than the Met Office.
As for Hunterson7:
I’ve been advocating the “audit deeply” and publicise the results. What happens from there … well, who knows? But it has to be more rational than policymaking based on mass delusion and emotionalism, with no firm grasp of the costs involved.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like it too, Dennis, likewise Ron’s cartoon, but for some reason can no longer register ‘likes.’ 😦
LikeLike
IPCC chief admits that climate change doesn’t have much visibility and is hard to notice because it’s ‘slow acting’. This is why Peter Stott and others at the Met Office and elsewhere are so keen to make climate change supposedly ‘visible’ to the general public in the form of extreme weather events and their supposed attribution to ‘slow motion’ climate change; also why they are so keen on stressing the risk of ‘tipping points’ (abrupt climate change) where the system is predicted to rapidly go from one state to another. That’s much more exciting than slow, plodding, boring old climate change which quite frankly is like slow boiling a frog in a saucepan and waiting for it to hop out. They need to get the public sufficiently alarmed to enable them to push through their net zero agenda. Heatwaves, storms, floods, droughts are the key.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yup, here we go, right on cue. These fanatics are a lot more predictable than the climate is in their mutlimillion pound models.
“It is because the jet stream has locked the fine weather in place, just as it locked the previous winter rainfall in place.
Professor Liz Bentley, chief executive of the Royal Meteorological Society, told BBC News: “We’ve swung from a really unsettled spell with weather systems coming in off the Atlantic to a very, very settled spell.
“It’s unprecedented to see such a swing from one extreme to the other in such a short space of time. That’s what concerns me. We don’t see these things normally happening with our seasons.
“It’s part of a pattern where we’re experiencing increasingly extreme weather as the climate changes.”
Mark McCarthy, from the Met Office, said: “If we look at the difference in rainfall that’s fallen over the winter compared to spring it is the largest difference in rainfall amount in our national series from 1862.
“The sunshine statistics are really astounding.
“The stand out is by how much sunshine has broken the previous record – set in 1948. There’s been more sunshine than most of our past summer seasons. It’s quite remarkable.”
One of his colleagues described the figures as “absolutely staggering”.
The Met Office says this year is not an indicator of the future, because the jet stream might behave differently.
Scientists suspect man-made climate change may be implicated, but it is too soon to tell.
Some of them believe the rapid man-made heating of the Arctic, which has led to record temperatures and wildfires in Siberia, may be influencing the jet stream, although that is not proven.
Professor Joe Smith, chief executive of the Royal Geographical Society, told BBC News: “For many people, the recent long sunny spell is simply ‘nice weather’.
“In a wider context it’s a signal of the increasing unpredictability of the UK’s climate. Planning for the growing season is starting to resemble a night at the gambling tables.
“The fact remains that bold early actions to slash emissions can still cut the larger risks associated with climate change in the UK and around the world”.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52877912?xtor=AL-72-%5Bpartner%5D-%5Bbbc.news.twitter%5D-%5Bheadline%5D-%5Bnews%5D-%5Bbizdev%5D-%5Bisapi%5D&at_medium=custom7&at_campaign=64&at_custom4=F6A82132-A3FA-11EA-8E7E-53F44744363C&at_custom2=twitter&at_custom3=%40BBCNews&at_custom1=%5Bpost+type%5D
LikeLike
‘weather is [now] a function of the climate, driven by the ‘climate’ and not meteorology. It used to be the other way round’
It’s both ways round now. It could almost be called circular reasoning, except the reasoning isn’t there.
LikeLike
seems I may be part of the “lunatic fringe”
Tree Story: The History of the World Written in Rings. Valerie Trouet – Johns Hopkins University, pp. 256, £20
nice link at – https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2020/06/14/tree-rings-michael-manns-hockey-stick/
snippet from the source – https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/tree-ring-analysis-has-solved-many-historical-mysteries
“Such analysis provided key evidence for the 1998 Hockey Stick graph, which stirred up a hornet’s nest of opposition from deniers, but has since persuaded all but the lunatic fringe that the spike in global temperatures is something seriously abnormal. Oscillating within a given range for 1,000 years or so, global temperatures suddenly started rising beyond that range in the 20th century, to reach skywards in 1998 — and that year is now only the tenth hottest.”
ps – not sure if this is the best post to add this comment, move to Lew post if apt.
LikeLike