Met Office experts meet to analyse 'unusual' weather patterns

[BornFromTheVoid]

 

Cheers for emailing them Weather-history. I look forward to their reply

 

 

 

All scientists, by their very nature, are sceptics.

sceptics

1. philosophy... a person who habitually doubts the authenticity of accepted beliefs.

2.a person who mistrusts people, ideas,etc, in general

 

True scientists are nothing of the sort they are not swayed one way or another but

seek to find the truth, knowledge,  facts etc.

 

Why investigate or research anything unless you are sceptical of the validity or completeness of the preceding ideas? Whether it be scepticism of the Earth being the centre of the universe, of the genesis creation story, of humans being too insignificant to influence nature, etc. Is it not why we continually strive to improve our knowledge and understanding of the world around us?

 

Perhaps this discussion could do with it's own thread? Maybe in the Space, Science and Nature area (seeing as so many are banned/suspended from the climate section)?

[Gael_Force]

The UK's recent run of damp summers could be down to a cyclical warming of the Atlantic Ocean. That was the view of scientists and meteorologists who gathered at the Met Office to discuss the unusual weather patterns of recent years. They said that this 10 to 20 year pattern of Atlantic warming was shifting the jet stream, leading to washouts in six of the last seven summers. But they suggested that the pattern would change at some point in the next decade. The researchers said the location of the fast moving winds of the jet stream was critical to the UK's weather. When it becomes fixed in position south of the British Isles, low pressure systems can get stuck in the peaks and troughs that form along the edge of the stream, leading to the seemingly endless rainy days that have characterised our summers in recent years. Even the buzz of the London Olympics could not disguise the washout that was last summer, the second wettest for the UK since records began. What the scientists meeting in Exeter were hoping to understand were the underlying factors that move the jet stream south of the UK .

 

Prof Stephen Belcher from the Met Office Hadley Centre, who lead the discussions said that changes in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), as the ocean current is called, was one of the prime factors.  "It's the pattern of warm and cold water, it's the contrast of the warm and the cold, when that sits in the right place beneath the jet stream, it can kind of steer the jet stream and influence where it goes," he said. "I'm excited about this work, it's a new thing that we didn't really know about."

 

Basket cases

 

The scientists said that the AMO phenomenon had occurred in the 1880s, the 1950s and in the early 1960s. The most recent research was published last year by a team at Reading University. Explaining the cold winters of 2010/11 and this past spring were more of a challenge, said the scientists. Dr James Screen from the University of Exeter said that a more complicated basket of factors was involved. "The cycle we've been talking about in the north Atlantic seems to be more important for controlling summer weather in the UK, our current understanding of the role of Arctic sea ice is that it is more important in controlling winter weather." The researchers say that the glimmer of good news is that the AMO might change in five to 10 years, and warmer summers might return. However the winter was more difficult to predict said Prof Belcher. "There are hints we are coming to the end of the cycle. With the cold winter weather, the loadings of the dice don't seem to follow cycles," he said. As to the current summer season, according to Dr Adam Scaife from the Hadley Centre, you'd be wise to keep an umbrella handy. "In 2012, like the previous few summers, we've had conditions in the northernmost Atlantic that were much warmer than normal. "So that pre-conditioning was there this year and that shifts the odds slightly in favour of this summer being wetter than the historical average."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22959578

 

That doesn't make any sense.

 

The pattern in this paper mentioned   http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n11/full/ngeo1595.html refers to the nineties, it is a very different pattern now yet we are being told it is the same driver.

 

I've found an AMO chart, I cannot see the periods the scientists are referring to as being in any way the same as at present.

 

Edited June 18, 2013 by Gael_Force

[Methuselah]

Why investigate or research anything unless you are sceptical of the validity or completeness of the preceding ideas? Whether it be scepticism of the Earth being the centre of the universe, of the genesis creation story, of humans being too insignificant to influence nature, etc. Is it not why we continually strive to improve our knowledge and understanding of the world around us?

 

Perhaps this discussion could do with it's own thread? Maybe in the Space, Science and Nature area (seeing as so many are banned/suspended from the climate section)?

And, whose fault is that?

[Tamara]

I agree that scepticism is very much a process of seeking to further knowledge and thus evolve opinions over given subjects. However I very much disagree with any idea that it inextricably means that increased knowledge = unequivocal agreement with every new piece of information one takes in. Evolving ideas can also mean consolidation of any existing opinion/belief as much changing ones mind. And that works for all differing opinions, not just any one which is supposed to hold more water than any other.

 

It is on this basis of mind that I approach climate and weather research and it is with that mind that I approach this particualar subject and answers to questions about this meeting. I welcome the meeting and don't attach any conspiracy theory to it. That would go against the principle of being sceptical. But that sure doesn't mean that I am necessarily going to jump a fence either and change my existing thoughts and beliefs. It happens if/when it is right and I am persuaded (if I am) - not ever because someone else thinks I should.

[BornFromTheVoid]

And, whose fault is that?

 

I dunno, the Met Office

[nick sussex]

The conclusions of this meeting are so obvious given the general Met Office line banded about during recent years that I really don't know why they're bothering! The blame will be laid at Global Warming but at least the 20 experts had a nice break!

At least those who own shares in those ghastly wind turbines should be happy!

Edited June 18, 2013 by nick sussex

[The PIT]

The conclusions of this meeting are so obvious given the general Met Office line banded about during recent years that I really don't know why they're bothering! The blame will be laid at Global Warming but at least the 20 experts had a nice break!At least those who own shares in those ghastly wind turbines should be happy!

I was expecting that but interestingly on the Beeb news they seemed rather muted about the subject when a couple of years ago that would certainly been the case.

[ANYWEATHER]

Met Office meeting.....G8 summit?  

[nick sussex]

I was expecting that but interestingly on the Beeb news they seemed rather muted about the subject when a couple of years ago that would certainly been the case.

I'm shocked maybe the experts sold their shares in wind turbines so didn't feel the need to blame everything on GW!Well at least good to see some refrain from the UKMO because I've grown tiresome in recent years of everything being blamed on GW.

[Methuselah]

I'm shocked maybe the experts sold their shares in wind turbines so didn't feel the need to blame everything on GW! 

They've followed Osborn's example, and invested in fracking...in the hope that it'll make even faster bucks?

[SomeLikeItHot]

All scientists, by their very nature, are sceptics. It's what drives them to investigate, study and improve their understanding of things, rather than a rule or something that they must abide by.

True up to a point, but ultimately most scientists are not broadly sceptical, but confine their investigations into only a few narrow areas. Very few seek to challenge the dominant paradigm but instead work within it answering questions only within the broader framework. This shouldn't be construed to be a necessarily bad thing, we need to take some things as established to build upon them not everyone can or should reinvent their entire framework. 

Just because someone calls themselves a sceptic though, doesn't make them one. That's why I put sceptical in quotation marks. Self proclaimed "climate sceptics" are rarely genuine sceptics, and only apply their version of "scepticism" when it comes to things they don't like the sound of, like most peer reviewed science or anything/anyone else that accepts the importance of humanity as a driver in our climate. Most of these will disregard their "scepticism" and blindly accept anything that backs up their opinions, thus showing themselves to be far from genuine sceptics.

Unfortunately most human reasoning is done this way. Reason is far more often used to rationalise an emotive reaction than to actual generate positions from balanced argument. In an issue as polarized as this its particularly bad most sceptics are just grabbing at facts to rationalise their pre-held belief.  That said I have read plenty of pro-AGW arguments that have followed the same line - mostly, but not always, from non-scientists. The whole environment of the debate  is pretty toxic for proper scientific research since any valid scientific criticisms that come down on either side are still likely you labelled as a denier or warmist by the partisans.

[laserguy]

Quite agree. After all we have had positive AMO's in the past they could have anologued.

Some of their remarks and quotes over the last few years make it hard to believe they

are a professional organisation at all with statements like this. 

Maybe its just poorly written and they need to invest in a new public corespondent.

They also need to reassess not just why its been cold but why there forcasts are

continually to warm.

Even though I am a forum member I am not allowed to post in the enviornmental

climat thread along with several others at least and I know this is not the  global warming

thread  but AGW or otherwise is a dead duck and has been for some time.

A quieter sun will show us which way the climate is heading.

 

Yah - it's so that when AGW finally dies a death we won't have the pleasure of sayin' "told you so". Miserable buggers.

[cooling climate]

Why investigate or research anything unless you are sceptical of the validity or completeness of the preceding ideas? Whether it be scepticism of the Earth being the centre of the universe, of the genesis creation story, of humans being too insignificant to influence nature, etc. Is it not why we continually strive to improve our knowledge and understanding of the world around us?

 

Perhaps this discussion could do with it's own thread? Maybe in the Space, Science and Nature area (seeing as so many are banned/suspended from the climate section)?

 

That does not make them sceptics. The knowledge and answers they seek stem from a

neutral , unbiased opinion or should do.

[knocker]

That does not make them sceptics. The knowledge and answers they seek stem from a

neutral , unbiased opinion or should do.

 

Surely it's not a matter of being biased or unbiased but questioning the previous science in any particular field. After all we have moved on from eugenics to modern genetics in which questioning of theories are part and parcel of research.

 

And I might add Watson and Crick were not exactly unbiased regarding Rosalind.

Edited June 18, 2013 by knocker

[nitro_deluxe]

It’s been revealed that David Cameron sold off the British summer 2 years ago to try and pay off some of the national debt. Meteorologists said that explains why we’ve been going straight from a wet spring to autumn for the past 3 years.

‘Of all the things to flog off, why summer?’ lamented weatherman Bill Giles, ‘Why not the profitable bits of winter, a couple of weekends in Spring, or Wales?

The government insists that summer will be returned to public ownership as soon as the economic climate allows, which, according to the Office for Budget Resonsibility, may not be at least until 2019. It’s also expected to cost much more than they sold it for, according to leading economists, as a result of seasonal inflation.

The UK summer was apparently bought as an investment by a Gulf State Sovereign Wealth fund to add to their already huge fine weather portfolio, a move analysts described as ‘just greedy’..

[UV-RAY]

If it wasn't for the fact that G-W has also been banned, you might even have a point. As it is...

Gray Wolf has been banned? Now I find his post depressing and doom laden but he's never said anything out of turn to anyone as far as I'm aware.

[knocker]

I was considering a banned thread but then I thought it would probably be banned.

[Kim Armstrong]

Stop whinging about the changing climate and embrace it is the general theme put forward in this Guardian Comment piece this morning!

http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/18/weather-grim-but-lets-enjoy-it

I can quite believe we have had wet summers in the past but when did we last have summers as wet as 2007 and 2012 so close together?

[Weather-history]

Stop whinging about the changing climate and embrace it is the general theme put forward in this Guardian Comment piece this morning!

http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/18/weather-grim-but-lets-enjoy-it

I can quite believe we have had wet summers in the past but when did we last have summers as wet as 2007 and 2012 so close together?

1954, 1956, 1957, 1958 and 1960 were very wet summers. Edited June 19, 2013 by Weather-history

[Weather-history]

My email has been referred to the Climate Science Enquiries team.

I'm finding it very hard not to be very cynical by these predictions going off past predictions that have gone awry.

Remember Dr Viner and how snow was going to be a rare thing etc etc. That comment was made in early 2000 and 13 years later.......then he said it will cause chaos in 20 years times because we won't be use to it.

Well guess what Dr Viner, snow has caused chaos for years in this country! Just read you history!

Then we had NASA solar experts saying this solar maxima is predicted to be very active etc back in 2006. Then 3 years later after some kind of denial and saying nothing to worry about, it is not unusual when activity didnt seem to be increasing, it became what is going on?!

Can we really predict such complex future events that involve so many variables?

[vforvendetta]

I was expecting that but interestingly on the Beeb news they seemed rather muted about the subject when a couple of years ago that would certainly been the case.

The BBC will never admit they were wrong on AGW, much like Born From The Void and others on here, they are too firmly wedded to their positions ever to climb down.

 

The reason I like Weather History's posts is that he always grounds his reasoning in data, unlike those who propagate the AGW fairy tale.  Even their ridiculous line about "consensus" has been shown to be a case of data manipulation, graduate students posing a biased question and then coming up with a subset of a subset of a subset of respondents to come up with the famous 97% consensus figure.

 

Anyway, here are some nice facts to supplement the "unusual weather" argument

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/19/a-data-review-to-supplement-the-uk-met-office-disappointing-weather-meeting/#more-88415

[ANYWEATHER]

Its only now that the doommongers and warmists are realizing there errors. After years of cheeszy nonsense from the media politicians etc we are now just starting to see a major climbdown from these hypocrites. Just looking foreward to them wriggling and squirming to reality. and about time too!  

[Evening thunder]

The BBC will never admit they were wrong on AGW, much like Born From The Void and others on here, they are too firmly wedded to their positions ever to climb down.

 

The reason I like Weather History's posts is that he always grounds his reasoning in data, unlike those who propagate the AGW fairy tale.  Even their ridiculous line about "consensus" has been shown to be a case of data manipulation, graduate students posing a biased question and then coming up with a subset of a subset of a subset of respondents to come up with the famous 97% consensus figure.

 

Anyway, here are some nice facts to supplement the "unusual weather" argument

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/19/a-data-review-to-supplement-the-uk-met-office-disappointing-weather-meeting/#more-88415

 

Can you please tell me how you know they were wrong on AGW, and how it's a fairy tail, with your crystal ball you must have taken you 50 years into the future? Although I can understand if you can't and this would be sensitive info.. 

Edited June 19, 2013 by Stormmad26

[shuggee]

Climate change discussions can continue here -

 

http://forum.netweather.tv/forum/105-climate-and-environment/

 

Please stick to the topic of the UK's weather patterns.

[UV-RAY]

My email has been referred to the Climate Science Enquiries team.I'm finding it very hard not to be very cynical by these predictions going off past predictions that have gone awry.Remember Dr Viner and how snow was going to be a rare thing etc etc. That comment was made in early 2000 and 13 years later.......then he said it will cause chaos in 20 years times because we won't be use to it. Well guess what Dr Viner, snow has caused chaos for years in this country! Just read you history!Then we had NASA solar experts saying this solar maxima is predicted to be very active etc back in 2006. Then 3 years later after some kind of denial and saying nothing to worry about, it is not unusual when activity didnt seem to be increasing, it became what is going on?! Can we really predict such complex future events that involve so many variables?

Indeed WE, some of the previous forecasts made by climatologist is looking rather foolish now. Lessons to be learned, most certainly I would say, one of them being our climate is far too dynamic to make wild claims regarding its future. Earths pasts shows this and any weather fan knows full well that everything we are seeing now has happened before and will happen again.