Bishop Hill Diary dates, moving on edition
Dec 18, 2014 Bureaucrats Climate: MetOffice Julia Slingo is to give the Cabot lecture in Bristol on 4 February (details here). Here's the trailer:
The impact of human activity on our climate has become increasingly clear: with the IPCC stating that “Human influence on the climate system is unequivocal”. It has become clear that we are taking the planet into uncharted territory and changing the risk of extreme weather and climate events. Our exposure to these risks is also changing as a result of changes in how we live and a rapidly growing global population.
Climate science is now moving beyond questions of global average surface temperature change, and is now responding to questions about whether extreme weather such as heat waves, wet winters or flash flooding will become more or less frequent as the climate changes. This change in thinking requires the science to move on to more complex and high resolution simulations of what our climate is likely to be like across timescales from decades to centuries ahead.
This information allows society to make informed decisions about climate change mitigation and adaptation, and will help communities to prepare for weather and climate extremes across timescales.
Professor Dame Julia Slingo, Met Office Chief Scientist, will give this Cabot Institute lecture co-organised by Bristol Festival of Ideas and part of Bristol 2015. The talk will include a panel discussion from some leading Cabot academics and an opportunity for questions from the audience at the end. Julia Slingo will be made a special Cabot Institute Distinguished Fellowship in honour of her work in climate science at the event.
You have to laugh at the idea of global warming science moving beyond such simplistic questions as whether the globe's surface is actually warming. No doubt this change of emphasis is unconnected to the failure of the said surface to actually, erm, get any warmer.
The correspondent who alerted me to this event wondered if the Q&A session would consist solely of planted questions, as was the case for Mann's appearance. It's more than likely. Public servants are not there to be questioned by mere members of the public.
Reader Comments (120)
Slingo quotes the IPCC stating that climate change is more influenced by human greenhouse gas emission than any other forcing.
The IPCC reference published papers by the climate science community of which the UKMO is a large employer. The IPCC also utilise many UKMO employees as part of it's team.
When Slingo quotes the IPCC is she really expecting us to think that it is a separate entity that is backing the UKMO science and giving credence to the need for more scientific funding?
When Parliament asks a scientific question about climate, they will get a response directed by the UKMO, do they still believe that the IPCC as an external international body is giving a second opinion?
The influence maybe subconscious or self presevatory which is surely where the science is unclear or uncertain the best tack to take is the one that provides the least perceived risk and the most benefits in kind as in enhanced future funding.
The fact that this line is than posited as gospel rather than an unclear signal is the bit that is galling and a true gamble for science. The indication of a change in tack from GAT as the determining statistic to 'climate change', which is a lot less clear and harder to determine, is that the 'pause' is now accepted in climate science and is expected now to be extended or even turn into a drop.
Those metrological folk and their lying machines
The tempreture goes Up, Tiddly, Up, Up.
And never Down, Tiddly, Down, Down.
They enchant Poloticians and steal all the scenes
With their temperatures Up, Tiddly, Up, Up
And never Down, Tiddly, Down, Down.
Up! never Down! lying around.
Bluffing the bluff and defying the crowd.
They're all, frightfully mean
Those metrological folk and their lying machines
"Vicky is the first to admit that she got it wrong about the Smith et al (2007) decadal forecast paper."
Really? Where? That's news to me. I've never seen any such admission. What I have seen is the Met Office continuing to write papers about "skillful predictions", and even retrospectively claiming that the pause was "expected".
Smith of Smith et al 2007 is also very honest about that nonsense paper having said about the current plateau in Nature that 'we just don't know' what is causing it. Alas many climate scientists are yet still far less honest and still pretend it either hasn't happened or that we need 30 years plateau before they are convinced mans influence is somehow not unequivocal. Engineers, upon whose original work all of these fluid-dynamic based climate models sit, see through all this pause denial as craven, dishonest BS.
Lord Beaverbrook
I oft wonder how our politicians carry out their responsibility of due diligence with regard to IPCC reports?
The present process appears to be:-
1. UK climate scientists, mostly from establishments who are members of the Met Office Academic Partnership contribute to the IPCC process
2. The IPCC produce a report for policy makers.
3. UK policy makers then ask UK climate scientists, mostly from establishments who are members of the Met Office Academic Partnership for their opinion on the report.
I have no doubt the above is an over simplification of the true process so would be appreciative if somebody in the know could elaborate or correct?
"Climate Change 07 creating a low carbon economy" - Vicky Pope's presentation
"...and half the years after 2009 are predicted to be hotter than 1998, which was the previous record."
"Vicky is the first to admit that she got it wrong about the Smith et al (2007) decadal forecast paper."
(RB Dec 18, 2014 at 6:58)
Well that's alright then.
Notice the verbal sleight-of-hand: "It has become clear that we are ... changing the risk of extreme weather ..."
(Emphasis mine).
The sheep, of course, will read that as "increasing" the risk.
Thus she stays on-message, but without actually making a falsifiable statement.
Underhand and contemptible. But who's surprised?
Geronimo @ 9:02 am said
"That's nice of her. But didn't she make this forecast in 2004? And wouldn't it have been used to shape the Climate Change Act? And has she revisited her input to the IPCC and the advice she gave to Nicholas Stern on the back of this huge mistake she made in forecasting a 0.3C temperature rise by 2014? Power without responsibility. It's not a simple matter of putting her hands up and saying "I got it wrong" it's people's lives, the cost of energy is deliberately being increased on the back of advice from the Met Office it's a serious business, and frankly, given the propaganda emanating from the Met Office they're not taking it seriously, just trying to win the politico/religious war."
I agree with Geronimo's concern. That is why it worries me that Betts sleeps soundly at night! A man of character, of compassion for the common man would surely have resigned his position years ago, or done his utmost to put his house in order. Unfortunately we have seen neither.
I am unaware of Vicky Pope or Julia Slingo, of ever publicly saying we got the 'strong predictions' wrong - after press releases, governmen briefings, etc.
ever.. Maybe she would say it to me in a pub, but not the BBC or government committee..
I have heard a reinvention of the past, that decadal predictions, were merely 'experimental projections' - after they revised them downwards in Dec 2012)
They just don't give up, do they..?
The best comment I've yet seen on the effect of the UK warming up was in Spiked magazine: "Shock, horror, UK to become like Provence".
If the Met Office are only dealing with the UK then there is nothing to worry about - we have a lot of warming up to do before we even approach a decent climate. However if they are really worried about the rest of the world then they should seek funding for it elsewhere and not from the UK taxpayer.
Greensand
You've included politician and due diligence in the same sentence, that's extra bonus points for you.
Basically it's a run around, the politicians say the science depicts the policy, the scientists say that they have no control over policy.
The IPCC say the science concludes it's mans fault the scientists say it's the IPCC that defines the cause.
Then if the temperatures start falling there is going to be an almighty butt kicking contest and I would love to have front row seats!
Lord Beaverbrook
And I would love to have the ticket franchise, demand will exceed supply!
M.S. I don't believe the Met Office is telling lies, I believe that they from Slingo down believe (or for those that don't, pretend to believe) that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will cause problems. I also believe that a scientist who sets out with a belief, whatever it is, is in danger of proving what they believe in by ignoring contrary evidence, or uncertainties
In the case of Dr. Pope, Richard's response quoted a 2007 paper, which I haven't read, but was about decadal forecasts, which came later on when the scientists became conscious of the pause and felt the need to keep the kettle on the boil be moving from annual measurements to decadal to draw attention away from the, then, IPCC forecast of annual increases in line with the rise in CO2 being total bollards.
Dr. Pope was adamant that there would be a 0.3C rise between 2004 and 2014, I'm assuming that wasn't her own view and was the view being passed to the government by the Met Office. Like the majority of forecasts that come from the Met Office it was totally wrong, however it was the forecast used by our politicians and Nicholas Stern to plot the political course.
They will sleep well at nights because they believe there is a problem and they're sincerely worried. Their motives aren't to deceive and take part in a planned left-wing power grab - at lease I don't believe they are.
However I think they would do well to take these scientists and introduce them to some of the many people who won't be able to afford electricity this winter because of the policies their useless forecasts have instigated.
Richard Betts writes:
"Yes. The climate is already starting to become different to that previously seen in the instrumental record - not enormously different yet, but changes are becoming evident. And its clear that change (to some extent or other) will continue.
And if you go back beyond the instrumental period, it's still probably different to anything seen before by humans, and possibly even different to anything ever when you look closely. Even though global mean temperatures have been warmer than now in the distant past, there's no exact analogue for the changes we're driving now (different combinations of GHG concentrations, land cover, arrangement of continents etc)."
But is there any evidence for this?
In particular, for the bit about "the changes we're driving now (in the) arrangement of continents."
A "scientist" capable of writing such things should really be looking for another job. Writing comedy or science fiction, perhaps.
Dr. Pope was adamant that there would be a 0.3C rise between 2004 and 2014, I'm assuming that wasn't her own view and was the view being passed to the government by the Met Office....
Vicky Pope was, at the time "Head of Climate Science Advice".
https://uk.linkedin.com/pub/vicky-pope/2b/3b/98
What she said was the official Met Office line - she was not just some backroom researcher talking about her personal line of research. That was the foundation that the Climate Change Act was built on.
Drs Betts and Edwards claim to call out bad behavior of 'influential' commenters and climate scientists in the 'debate'. So far, since then, nada nixs no getting stuck into Naomi Klein for her very public rant ... now Greg Laden insults Steve McIntyre: Reply to Laden and Hughes on Sheep Mountain http://climateaudit.org/2014/12/19/reply-to-laden-and-hughes-on-sheep-mountain/ ... so, we're waiting on the guest post criticising Laden. I thought not ...
Richard Betts
What exactly did you mean to convey when you wrote earlier in this blog thread:-
"Even though global mean temperatures have been warmer than now in the distant past, there's no exact analogue for the changes we're driving now (different combinations of GHG concentrations, land cover, arrangement of continents etc)".
I find it hard to believe you intended to convey the idea that there is a human influence on plate tectonics.
Also I do not understand what you mean by :" the changes we're driving now [in] (....... land cover......). Could you explain what changes in land cover you were alluding to. Did you mean things like expanding urban areas, deforestation, cereal mono-cuture or had you some other things in mind like land reclaimed from the sea ?
Someone at some point - very soon hopefullly - will question very deeply the MO capex to establish its value as an organisation funded by the taxpayer. May this someone have a loud authoritative voice, and their questions be heard by many in a very public place.
Using events such as this, with science masquerading as a means to leverage money and funding is extremely concerning:
When will it end? When will the MO become genuinely accountable? How much has their decarbonisation advocacy cost, and what has the taxpayer received in return for it? A carbon price? A global emissions agreement? A trading exchange that hasn't become defrauded? No, the taxpayer has been fleeced beyond fleecedom from the exhaust fumes of the MO's CO2 mitigation agenda. Dame JS - the queen apologist for radical global decarb. Sack her.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/12/17/ethics-and-climate-change-policy/#more-17436
This describes Julia Slingo perfectly :
"Omitting the ‘doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts’ is not a morally neutral act; it is a subtle deception that calls scientific practice into disrepute."