New results from Climate Change modeling

[malkiserow]

UK: Extreme summer rainfall may become more frequent in the UK due to climate change, according to new research led by the Met Office in collaboration with Newcastle University.

 

The new study, from the joint Met Office and Natural Environment Research Council-funded CONVEX project, uses a state-of-the-art climate model providing the first evidence that hourly summer rainfall rates could increase.

While summers are expected to become drier overall by 2100, intense rainfall indicative of serious flash flooding could become several times more frequent.

Dr Lizzie Kendon, lead author of the research at the Met Office, said: “The very high resolution model used in this study allows us to examine these changes for the first time.

“It shows heavier summer downpours in the future, with almost five times more events exceeding 28mm in one hour in the future than in the current climate – changes we might expect theoretically as the world warms. However, we need to be careful as the result is only based on one model – so we need to wait for other centres to run similarly detailed simulations to see whether their results support these findings.”

As the atmosphere warms it can hold more moisture and this is expected to intensify rainfall. In winter it is the daily or multiday rainfall totals that are important, because there tend to be steady, long lasting periods of rain from large scale weather systems – similar to those seen during the winter floods of 2013/14.

Climate models have been able to accurately simulate winter rainfall and have suggested generally wetter winters with the potential for higher daily rainfall rates in the future.

In summer, however, it is the hourly rates that are more important as rain tends to fall in short but intense bursts. Climate models have so far lacked the resolution to accurately simulate the smaller scale convective storms which cause this type of rain.

This study uses a climate model with a higher resolution than ever used before to examine future rainfall change – using 1.5km grid boxes instead of the usual 12km or larger – the same as the Met Office weather forecast model. This model gives a realistic representation of hourly rainfall, allowing future projections to be made.

It was so computer intensive that only the southern half of the UK could be studied and even then it took the Met Office supercomputer – one of the most powerful in the world – nine months to run the simulations.

They looked at two 13-year periods, one based on current climate and one based on expected climate around 2100.

Professor Hayley Fowler, from Newcastle University’s School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, and lead on the CONVEX project, added: “The next steps are to see if these changes are consistent with observed trends in summer rainfall extremes and changes projected by climate models in other parts of the world.”

The study was published in Nature Climate Change.

[keg]

Interesting but the important word is "may"

 

Current actual temps are not living up to the forecast, there is an unholy row going on between those who believe and those who challenge it.

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100234054/if-you-still-believe-in-climate-change-read-this/

 

 

 

[malkiserow]

The copy I put up was about rainfall rather than temperatures..... there is an awkward element for many climateologists that many quietly admit that some temperatures go down before they go up even on their own forecasts!

[Twistedsanity]

I think its only fair to say that as a result of the climate changing we can expect to see a difference in weather patterns , now show me something other than a " model" that proves we are causing it please? As far as I am aware the climate has been changing since time began

[Reece]

Interesting but the important word is "may"

 

Current actual temps are not living up to the forecast, there is an unholy row going on between those who believe and those who challenge it.

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100234054/if-you-still-believe-in-climate-change-read-this/

 

 

 

 

I'm no expert but I read that it was only a short term problem, caused by some models which didn't include something called El Nino.

 

That image looks like something from The Daily Mail (could be wrong). They have a reputation for terribly misleading reporting on climate change science, often not including all the data in question.

 

The Telegraph article is from James Delingpole, who denies the existence of almost all environment issues.

• He denies climate change.
• He denies acid rain in one of his books.
• He once compared supporters of renewable energy to paedophiles.
• He once said all environmental activists are "brain dead" and compared environmental and conservation groups to the Khmer Rouge.
• He insults all environmental campaigners as "eco fascists" for daring to have a different opinion to him on environment issues. Apparently he doesn't know what the word "fascist" even means, weird for an Oxford English graduate.
• He once wrote an article downplaying destruction of rainforest, describing it as "progress" if I remember correctly.
• He once called for the murder of a handful of climate scientists on his blog (but he says it was a joke - so that's ok then).
• He routinely misrepresents scientific data and cites the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank which reportedly has links to fossil fuel companies and refuses to reveal the identities of the donors who it gets most of its funding from.
• He also wrote an article denying that neonicotinoid pesticides harm bees, after a series of studies led to the EU banning them.

 

Delingpole's denial of climate change and other environmental issues seem to be more to do with ideology than science, as he stereotypes all environmentalists and supporters of renewables as left wing. The man is one of the least reliable sources for factual information on pretty much anything, let alone climate change.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Reece

[ack-ack]

This is classic Agency.

[keg]

The graph was indeed from the mail. We may think that James Delingpole is against all things environmental but then we have Gore and our own Muppet or Grommit Puppet lookalike Red Ed who just repeat "The science is proven" with no open mind at all.

 

The spite which is aimed at anyone who questions climate change makes me all the more inclined to question it. Too many government agencies & jobs and too many businesses have got a vested interest in it and no one in those agencies/departments and companies wants to be seen to question it.

 

I'm all for renewables, recycling and saving the planet but the unseemly rush towards this forecast is crazy.

[secretagentmole]

Er it seems like only two or three years ago we were going to suffer increasingly arid conditions in the UK, now we are going to be up to our collective anuses in water.

 

All you can safely say is that they had better sit down and give their mouths a chance to talk!

[keg]

Er it seems like only two or three years ago we were going to suffer increasingly arid conditions in the UK, now we are going to be up to our collective anuses in water.

 

All you can safely say is that they had better sit down and give their mouths a chance to talk!

[Nial]

I'm no expert but I read that it was only a short term problem, caused by some models which didn't include something called El Nino.

 

Yes. That confirms you are no expert.

 

The rest of your comment was similarly fact free (where do you get this stuff, 'skeptical science'?). Actually, do you have references for all those attacks against Dellingpole?

 

Here is a plot of the Hadcrut4 temperature record....

 

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850

 

..one of the 4 main global temperature records.

 

You'll see that there is _still_ only a 0.8 Deg C rise since 1840, you can play with the start date, if you set it back as far as 1990 you'll see nothing very much is happening.

 

You can also see that the warming from 1910 - 1940 (low CO2 concentration) was the same as from 1970 - 2000 (much higher CO2 concentration). Why is the second warming spell due to CO2?

 

 

The Alarmists are worried as the gravy train is coming to the end, they are shrieking at an ever increasing shillness to try to perpetuate the myth and keep the grants rolling in.

 

 

There is _nothing_ to worry about.

 

 

Nial.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Nial

[Boromir]

0.035% of the Earth's atmosphere is CO2 most made and stored in the worlds Oceans, there is nothing we can do about it to change it. Man made CO2 is only a fraction of natural CO2, stop listening to Government funded scientists so they can scare us into paying more tax's

[Reece]

The graph was indeed from the mail. We may think that James Delingpole is against all things environmental but then we have Gore and our own Muppet or Grommit Puppet lookalike Red Ed who just repeat "The science is proven" with no open mind at all.

 

The spite which is aimed at anyone who questions climate change makes me all the more inclined to question it. Too many government agencies & jobs and too many businesses have got a vested interest in it and no one in those agencies/departments and companies wants to be seen to question it.

 

I'm all for renewables, recycling and saving the planet but the unseemly rush towards this forecast is crazy.

 

There are far more government agencies and jobs dependent on fossil fuels. Governments don't like climate change because it means they actually have to do something about it. If anything, there is massive vested interest in covering up and ignoring climate change than there is in acknowledging its existence and taking action.

 

 

Yes. That confirms you are no expert.

 

The rest of your comment was similarly fact free (where do you get this stuff, 'skeptical science'?). Actually, do you have references for all those attacks against Dellingpole?

 

Here is a plot of the Hadcrut4 temperature record....

 

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850

 

..one of the 4 main global temperature records.

 

You'll see that there is _still_ only a 0.8 Deg C rise since 1840, you can play with the start date, if you set it back as far as 1990 you'll see nothing very much is happening.

 

You can also see that the warming from 1910 - 1940 (low CO2 concentration) was the same as from 1970 - 2000 (much higher CO2 concentration). Why is the second warming spell due to CO2?

 

 

The Alarmists are worried as the gravy train is coming to the end, they are shrieking at an ever increasing shillness to try to perpetuate the myth and keep the grants rolling in.

 

 

There is _nothing_ to worry about.

 

 

Nial.

 

Now that I look at it, the so called "pause" was short term and caused mostly by the lack of data from the Arctic.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/nov/13/global-warming-underestimated-by-half

 

 

I can indeed back up those arguments about Delingpole.

 

You of course have one of his books, with the insulting title. The preview of this book shows a section about acid rain which basically denies it is a major problem.

 

The renewable energy and paedophilia thing - "The wind industry is so wrong in every way that to be against it ought to be no more contentious than being against paedophilia."

 

Here's an incidence of him wrongly quoting someone for something he never said, among other things.

 

This article has a few insults about environmentalists.

 

Here's a new one I've just found - the (completely inaccurate) argument that Rachel Carson is somehow a mass murderer because of the DDT ban, comparing her to Mao Zedong.

 

Here's an article about the floods with one of his stereotypes in the title. The article wrongly blames flooding on the EU.

 

Another stupid article denying the impact of neonicotinoid pesticides on bees. He attacks environmentalists and scientists for making the accurate claim that the pesticides harm bees. He considers green campaigning to be "bullying".

 

He also thinks that teaching children about the environment is comparable to "terrorising" and "brainwashing" them. Again citing the GWPF.

 

Here's another article to note.

 

Here's the forest article - saying "So in what way is it acceptable for us to say to still-forested places like Sarawak: ‘Sorry guys, we’ve had our progress but you can’t have yours’?".

 

 

About the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which he cites a few times:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2012/mar/06/climate-change-sceptic-lawson-coal

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jan/20/global-warming-policy-foundation-donors

 

 

So I prefer to listen to what the actual scientists are saying, and most of them are in agreement that man made climate change is a real threat. Delingpole is one of the least reliable sources for accurate information, especially for environment issues.

[secretagentmole]

 

There are far more government agencies and jobs dependent on fossil fuels. Governments don't like climate change because it means they actually have to do something about it. If anything, there is massive vested interest in covering up and ignoring climate change than there is in acknowledging its existence and taking action.

 

 

Now that I look at it, the so called "pause" was short term and caused mostly by the lack of data from the Arctic.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/nov/13/global-warming-underestimated-by-half

 

 

I can indeed back up those arguments about Delingpole.

 

You of course have one of his books, with the insulting title. The preview of this book shows a section about acid rain which basically denies it is a major problem.

 

The renewable energy and paedophilia thing - "The wind industry is so wrong in every way that to be against it ought to be no more contentious than being against paedophilia."

 

Here's an incidence of him wrongly quoting someone for something he never said, among other things.

 

This article has a few insults about environmentalists.

 

Here's a new one I've just found - the (completely inaccurate) argument that Rachel Carson is somehow a mass murderer because of the DDT ban, comparing her to Mao Zedong.

 

Here's an article about the floods with one of his stereotypes in the title. The article wrongly blames flooding on the EU.

 

Another stupid article denying the impact of neonicotinoid pesticides on bees. He attacks environmentalists and scientists for making the accurate claim that the pesticides harm bees. He considers green campaigning to be "bullying".

 

He also thinks that teaching children about the environment is comparable to "terrorising" and "brainwashing" them. Again citing the GWPF.

 

Here's another article to note.

 

Here's the forest article - saying "So in what way is it acceptable for us to say to still-forested places like Sarawak: ‘Sorry guys, we’ve had our progress but you can’t have yours’?".

 

 

About the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which he cites a few times:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2012/mar/06/climate-change-sceptic-lawson-coal

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jan/20/global-warming-policy-foundation-donors

 

 

So I prefer to listen to what the actual scientists are saying, and most of them are in agreement that man made climate change is a real threat. Delingpole is one of the least reliable sources for accurate information, especially for environment issues.

Now listen, I will try to explain this in language you just might understand.

 

A man who is doused in petrol is naturally going to be afraid of naked flames. As are people who suddenly realise that all the data is pointing towards nothing and their jobs depend on it.

 

There is NO proof that there is

1) Global warming

2) That CO2 levels have anything to do with it

3) That man made levels of CO2 have anything to do with it

4) That there is any ways means or methods to prevent nothing from happening

 

You must realise that the climate is constantly changing, this is known as a phenomenon called weather. If the climate remained the same all the time it would mean no atmosphere and therefore no wind or precipitation.

 

The computer models will never be accurate as the least little thing that changes cannot be allowed for. Hell summer one year was wiped out by a volcanic eruption. Did man make that? No!

Your argument is not valid as you have not provided one iota of proof.

 

Scientists state that whatever weather conditions are affecting us is down to Global Warming/Man Made Climate Change. They used to be able to skate on the Thames and hold frost fairs in Dickens days, in Tudor times Orangeries were quite common in big houses. There have been periods when summers have been hotter and winters colder, hell I remember the early 80s when the summers were, quite frankly ruddy miserable rain lashed things.

 

I agree we should make better use of our resources, so we can enjoy them for longer but do not get your panties in a bunch. Al Gore is a fool and those who follow bigger ones!

[shaun4860]

My take on it is that it runs in cycles

 

In the bigger picture we are still coming out of the last ice age,

 

It will hit a point far into the future when the temperatures will start to fall again,

 

Long long after I have popped my clogs the world will once again be covered in ice, and after that it will heat up again and the cycle continues.

 

There you have it.

 

Climate change theories according to

 

 

[Nial]

 

Now that I look at it, the so called "pause" was short term and caused mostly by the lack of data from the Arctic.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/nov/13/global-warming-underestimated-by-half

 

I'm afraid if you're using the Guardian (and NuttyChelly) as your source of information I'm probably wasting my time but.....

 

I'd prefer to have multi-quoted you with replies in line but this will have to do...

 

The only books of his I have are his 'Coward' novels, an entertaining 2nd World War read.

 

Is acid rain a major problem? I remember 30 years ago being _scared_ about what was going to happen to the planet. In school we saw videos where we were told that acid rain was GOING TO DESTROY ALL THE FORESTS.

This hasn't happened (Sulphur scrubbers were added to coal stations and the problem went away).

 

> "The wind industry is so wrong in every way that to be against it ought to be no more contentious than being against paedophilia."

He's overplaying it for the audience, I'd say being against it should be no more contentious than being against drink driving (if you look into the economics, engineering and potential for CO2 reduction [if you're worried about that]).

 

>"Rachel Carson is somehow a mass murderer because of the DDT ban".

Did you read the article?

"Carson may not personally have authorised the ban on DDT. But she was most certainly responsible for the groundless scaremongering which led to its ban in the US, against all expert advice, by the EPA's William Ruckelhaus in 1970 - and which gave activist pressure groups the ammunition they needed to campaign successfully for similar bans all around the world.

How many people died as a result of Carson's scaremongering? We cannot be sure. But in 1965 the National Academy of Sciences estimated that over the two previous decades DDT had "prevented 500 million deaths that would otherwise have been inevitable."

Who is responsible for those deaths?

 

> Here's an incidence of him wrongly quoting someone for something he never said, among other things.

Desmogblog? Are you joking?

If you read the article they link to you'll find it doesn't stand up to what they claim.

In Viner did say "Children just aren't going to know what snow is" in 2003.

 

> Here's an article about the floods with one of his stereotypes in the title. The article wrongly blames flooding on the EU.

"These EU green diktats - such as the Water Framework Directive and the Habitats Directive - are the reason why, for example, the Environment Agency decided

to abandon the longstanding practice of dredging the rivers in the Somerset Levels, thus allowing the area to flood. "

That's what he claims. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

 

> "Teaching children about the environment is comparable to "terrorising" and "brainwashing"

It is if you groundlessly instill terror about what the future holds. Check out the graphs of what the climate 'science' models predicted against reality then ask yourself what message children should be getting? T

heir future is bright, they should be excited about it.

 

> Here's another article to note.

Note what? Again, have you read it?

 

Dellingpole does play to the audience to get the point across but he has usally got a valid thing to say/ point out.

 

 

GWPF. Have you any references to how their output is incorrect?

 

> So I prefer to listen to what the actual scientists are saying

 

Have you had a look at their advisory council who review all their output?

http://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are/academic-advisory-council/

 

It sounds like you could do with listening to them?

 

 

Nial.

Edited June 6, 2014 by Nial

[keg]

In 4 billion years time the sun will die so we're all doomed anyway. It'll be UKIP's fault

[secretagentmole]

In 4 billion years time the sun will die so we're all doomed anyway. It'll be UKIP's fault

I am surprised the Greens have not slapped a tax on that nasty, radiation polluting (uva and uvb along with other forms of radiation that are a hazard when out of the atmosphere) and globally warming incandescent ball of fire.

 

They will probably want it exitingguished next week!