UK: Global warming to bring heavier summer downpours

Jun 01, 2014
Global warming to bring heavier summer downpours

Global warming could cause extreme summer downpours to become several times more frequent in the UK by 2100, a new study suggests.

Its authors say this will likely lead to an increased risk of flash flooding, similar to the Boscastle floods of 2004 and the 'Toon Flood' in Newcastle in 2012.

While winter floods tend to be caused by prolonged and persistent spells of , floods tend to be 'flashier', caused by shorter, sharper downpours.

Scientists have already predicted wetter winters into the future, with UK summers expected to become drier overall. But as the atmosphere warms, it will be able to hold more moisture, potentially leading to more intense summer bursts of rainfall.

Until now, models have lacked the detail to reliably predict changes in intense rainfall. To overcome this hurdle, the scientists ran computer simulations at eight times the resolution of existing models - similar to those used to produce the 5-day weather forecast.

It required nine months of processing power on the Met Office supercomputer, one of the most powerful in the world, to run the simulations for just the southern half of the UK.
'The very high resolution model used in this study allows us to examine these changes for the first time,' says Dr Lizzie Kendon from the UK Met Office, who led the study.

'It shows heavier summer downpours in the future, with almost five times more events exceeding 28 millimetres in one hour in the future than in the current climate - changes we might expect theoretically as the world warms.'

The simulations were run for two 13-year periods, one based on the current climate, and the other based on the expected climate around 2100.

Researchers say the results, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, are a first step towards building a more complete picture of how UK rainfall may change as the climate warms. They say the findings will need to be verified by other similarly detailed simulations elsewhere.

'The next steps are to see if these changes are consistent with observed trends in summer rainfall extremes and changes projected by in other parts of the world,' says Prof Hayley Fowler, from Newcastle University, one of the study's co-authors.

'The first stage of this will be to run the same high-resolution simulation over the northern half of the UK.'

The study forms part of CONVEX, a three-and-a-half-year project funded by NERC and the Met Office to improve understanding of the causes and characteristics of extreme rainfall.

Explore further: Global warming making wet winters more likely

More information: Kendon EJ, Roberts NM, Fowler HJ, Roberts MJ, Chan SC, Senior CA, 'Heavier Summer downpours with climate change revealed by weather forecast resolution model', Nature Climate Change, 2014. DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2258

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Floods to become commonplace by 2080

Jan 08, 2009

Flooding like that which devastated the North of England last year is set to become a common event across the UK in the next 75 years, new research has shown.

Global warming making wet winters more likely

May 01, 2014

That's the conclusion of new research at the University of Oxford, which used spare capacity on thousands of volunteers' home computers to assess how greenhouse-gas emissions influence our weather.

Agriculture's growing effects on rain

Apr 15, 2014

(Phys.org) —Increased agricultural activity is a rain taker, not a rain maker, according to researchers at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and their collaborators at the University of California Los ...

Warming to shift heavy rainfall patterns in the UK

Nov 20, 2012

(Phys.org)—It appears that it's not just us Brits who are fascinated with the UK weather. A group of researchers from Germany has taken to investigating the potential changes in extreme rainfall patterns ...

New approach needed to deal with increased flood risk

Apr 17, 2014

Considering the impacts of climate change on flood risk may not be effective unless current risk is managed better, according to new research from the University of Bristol published today in the Journal ...

Recommended for you

Climate change: meteorologists preparing for the worst

2 hours ago

Intense aerial turbulence, ice storms and scorching heatwaves, huge ocean waves—the world's climate experts forecast apocalyptic weather over the coming decades at a conference in Montreal that ended Thursday.

Sunlight, not microbes, key to CO2 in Arctic

2 hours ago

The vast reservoir of carbon stored in Arctic permafrost is gradually being converted to carbon dioxide (CO2) after entering the freshwater system in a process thought to be controlled largely by microbial ...

Drying Sierra meadows could worsen California drought

3 hours ago

Carpeting the high valleys of Yosemite and other parts of the Sierra Nevada, mountain meadows are more than an iconic part of the California landscape. The roughly 17,000 high altitude meadows help regulate ...

User comments : 31

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

verkle
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2014
Wonderful! Will help get rid of water shortages.

This GW stuff is junk science. Next time there is a downpour people will say "see! it happened as predicted"

There have been centuries of extreme weather, now some men want to say "see! we have caused this!" when in reality it is still just more of the same---weather that we cannot predict nor control.
runrig
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2014
Wonderful! Will help get rid of water shortages.

This GW stuff is junk science. Next time there is a downpour people will say "see! it happened as predicted"


No they won't, at least not the intelligent ones. They will realise that if you put energy in the atmosphere, then there will be more to come out via wind/rain.
It's only "junk science" if you don't want to understand it.
You don't.
And I do, by virtue of being a (retired) Meteorologist, and by having a scientific, enquiring and concerned mind.
Have a nice life in the rabbit hole my friend.
Rustybolts
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2014
I can't get next week's weather predicted correctly. There is no way I would remotely believe anyone could get the variables even 10 percent correct for 86 years into the future or even 13 years if you want to go there too. This is crap, you have to be a meteorologist to fall for this stuff.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (11) Jun 02, 2014
Wonderful! Will help get rid of water shortages.

This GW stuff is junk science. Next time there is a downpour people will say "see! it happened as predicted"
No they won't, at least not the intelligent ones. They will realise that if you put energy in the atmosphere, then there will be more to come out via wind/rain.
What energy? How do we measure it? Temperatures? They haven't been rising for a long time.

http://www.woodfo....3/trend

So, as you have implied, is it kinetic?

If so, please explain the theory behind this magical transformation from the CO2/Greenhouse Heat Trapping Theory to the CO2/Kinetic Energy Trapping Theory. What are the mechanisms? How does it work?

It's only "junk science" if you don't want to understand it.
Please, do explain.

And I do, by virtue of being a (retired) Meteorologist, and by having a scientific, enquiring and concerned mind.
Then you should know better than to just make stuff up to fit your preconceptions then, shouldn't you?

thingumbobesquire
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 02, 2014
Also it is bringing the greatest amount of winter ice to the Great Lakes ever. Take a look see: http://wattsupwit...ite-era/
LariAnn
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2014
Also it is bringing the greatest amount of winter ice to the Great Lakes ever. Take a look see: http://wattsupwit...ite-era/

Oh, and we all know that what happens in the Great Lakes region is exactly what is happening everywhere else in the world. "Moronic" doesn't even begin to cover this kind of denier claptrap thinking.
Returners
2.7 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2014
Until now, climate models have lacked the detail to reliably predict changes in intense rainfall. To overcome this hurdle, the scientists ran computer simulations at eight times the resolution of existing models - similar to those used to produce the 5-day weather forecast.


Careful. There's a paper linked somewhere on Dr. Jeff Masters' site about weather forecasting models and how increased resolution of data (somehow) does not always produce better results for any individual forecast. While statistically it should improve the whole, no individual forecast is guaranteed to be better due to chaos theory related problems in the formulae used in the models.

Essentially a 1 digit improvement in precision of data in a notable case actually produced a less accurate forecast, by chance. Because the "weaker" data can, by chance, produce a very good forecase, and the stronger data can, by chance, produce a weaker forecast.

this should not happen on average, but specific instances..
Returners
3 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2014
Also, a 13 years simulation sample is not a big enough sample, because we classify flood levels by like 30, 50, 100 year occurrences in the U.S., and I think the Netherlands even uses 1000 year floods as a benchmark, so statistically a 13 year sample is unlikely to produce even 1 of a 30 year flood.

You really need a sample size of about 200 in order to smooth out noise in a comparison test, but they haven't even taken a sample size as large as a typical flood map benchmark, which basically makes the study worthless.
runrig
4 / 5 (8) Jun 02, 2014

Please, do explain.

I don't converse with idiots.
Specifically you and one, may be two others.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2014
I can't get next week's weather predicted correctly. There is no way I would remotely believe anyone could get the variables even 10 percent correct for 86 years into the future or even 13 years if you want to go there too. This is crap, you have to be a meteorologist to fall for this stuff.

No, you have to be ignorant and ideologically motivated, not to.
The variables are currently pinned by the IPCC error bounds, which the current ave global temp lies between.
Just like a kettle boiling has unquantifiable interactions/movement at the molecular level - we still know the exact amount of energy required for a specific amount of water to reach boiling point.
That is, the variables are internal.
Put simply - SW solar absorbed exceeds Terrestrial IR emitted. The equation is not balanced.
Now go and make your hilarious weathermen jokes elsewhere, to someone who hasn't heard them, and maybe will laugh their socks off. because, well, it's so original my friend.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2014

Please, do explain.

I don't converse with idiots.
Specifically you and one, may be two others.
Lol yep! Betcha I can name the one or two others......

It's the willfully stupid I have trouble with. Some are just misguided and/or do not know how to objectively consider the evidence. But those who go out of their way to parade how stupid they are deserve the derision they receive.

I know - lets post a graph! http://www.woodfo....3/trend

Some people are too stupid to understand that cherry-picked data conveys nothing.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2014

Careful. There's a paper linked somewhere on Dr. Jeff Masters' site about weather forecasting models and how increased resolution of data (somehow) does not always produce better results for any individual forecast. While statistically it should improve the whole, no individual forecast is guaranteed to be better due to chaos theory related problems in the formulae used in the models.

Essentially a 1 digit improvement in precision of data in a notable case actually produced a less accurate forecast, by chance. Because the "weaker" data can, by chance, produce a very good forecast, and the stronger data can, by chance, produce a weaker forecast.

This isn't extra data - it is computation using initial data at many more grid-points - this allows meteorological processes, specifically Cumulonimbus cloud formation/propagation/decay to be modeled. This being the convection cloud formation that produces these intense rainfall events. Hence indeed you gain higher accuracy.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2014
Also it is bringing the greatest amount of winter ice to the Great Lakes ever. Take a look see: http://wattsupwit...ite-era/

Oh, and we all know that what happens in the Great Lakes region is exactly what is happening everywhere else in the world. "Moronic" doesn't even begin to cover this kind of denier claptrap thinking.

This seems to be largely confined to North American denialists who indeed think they are "the Globe" and having witnessed their media, it's no wonder. As for WUWT - been there, got the tea-shirt, and barely escaped with my sanity intact. It's one thing to argue with an idiot and not get beaten by their expertise at being one, but to do so at length could really cause permanent damage to ones mental health - or at least it feels that way.
EnricM
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 02, 2014
Wonderful! Will help get rid of water shortages.

This GW stuff is junk science. Next time there is a downpour people will say "see! it happened as predicted"

There have been centuries of extreme weather, now some men want to say "see! we have caused this!" when in reality it is still just more of the same---weather that we cannot predict nor control.


Where did you earn your degree in geology?
Can you elaborate on your hypothesis or are you just talking to kill some time?

Have you ever seen GW Denialists going to the Artic to gather samples? If yes, could you please post some pictures?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2014
Please, do explain.
I don't converse with idiots.
But you do, every time you make a personal decision.

Specifically you and one, may be two others.
Right. You avoid those who ask questions and point out inconsistencies with the AGW religion. It's not about science at all with you, is it?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Jun 02, 2014
Some people are too stupid to understand that cherry-picked data conveys nothing.
So why do you consistently cherry-pick beyond the pause?

Do you even know what it means to cherry-pick? If you did, you would understand this is exactly what you do when you deliberately ignore the pause/cooling.

"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias."

http://en.wikiped...fallacy)

Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2014
Some people are too stupid to understand that cherry-picked data conveys nothing.
So why do you consistently cherry-pick beyond the pause?

Do you even know what it means to cherry-pick? If you did, you would understand this is exactly what you do when you deliberately ignore the pause/cooling.

"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias."

http://en.wikiped...fallacy)

Bahahaha! And again, "I don't, you do!"

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Jun 02, 2014
Some people are too stupid to understand that cherry-picked data conveys nothing.
So why do you consistently cherry-pick beyond the pause?

Do you even know what it means to cherry-pick? If you did, you would understand this is exactly what you do when you deliberately ignore the pause/cooling.

"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias."

http://en.wikiped...fallacy)

Bahahaha! And again, "I don't, you do!"
And just more of the same denial, from you.

ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 02, 2014
What are the quantifiable failure criteria for the prediction?
If predictions fail, what theory will be rejected?
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2014
What are the quantifiable failure criteria for the prediction?
If predictions fail, what theory will be rejected?
If only it was real science, eh?
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2014
and just more of the same denial! from you.

Right then.
With this logic, the vast majority of the worlds experts are also in denial, and only the chosen ones can see that the "Emperor is naked".
It being so astoundingly obvious to you that you are correct.
And what pray, confers this magic, god given gift to you and your ilk?
Do you think you have the gift of omniscience?
It must either be that or you think the Emperor is committing a deception on his blind subjects, for whatever reason.
The world does not work like that. It is driven by cock-up, not conspiracy, and for your kind to continue to rage against reality is no reflection upon anybody/thing other than your own psychological failings.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Jun 03, 2014
and just more of the same denial! from you.

Right then.
With this logic, the vast majority of the worlds experts are also in denial, and only the chosen ones can see that the "Emperor is naked".
It being so astoundingly obvious to you that you are correct.
And what pray, confers this magic, god given gift to you and your ilk?
Empirical data.

Do you think you have the gift of omniscience?
I can read and think for myself. Can you?

It must either be that or you think the Emperor is committing a deception on his blind subjects, for whatever reason.
The world does not work like that. It is driven by cock-up, not conspiracy, and for your kind to continue to rage against reality is no reflection upon anybody/thing other than your own psychological failings.
Here is the reality:

http://www.woodfo....3/trend

So who is "raging" now?

ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (10) Jun 03, 2014
rummy, you claim to be a weatherman, do you know the quantifiable failure criteria for the prediction?
Caliban
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2014
Here is the reality:

http://www.woodfo....3/trend

So who is "raging" now?



That's really real, ubybooby?

Especially since the mean temp has continued to increase(in your own dataset):

http://www.woodfo....3/trend

...and average GLOBAL SURFACE TEMP is at its highest since the end of the last ice age, with a continuous, uninterupted positive trend --increased and accelerated positive trend-- in the last 150 years?

Cherry picking your data is --for the goddam millionth time-- the resort of willfully disunderstanding moron trolls.

Among which you may number yourself, ubybooby.


PinkElephant
4.4 / 5 (8) Jun 03, 2014
What energy? How do we measure it? Temperatures? They haven't been rising for a long time.

http://www.woodfo....3/trend
Seems like tootyvonfrooty is still riding the Denial Escalator:

http://www.skepti...php?g=47

... reaching new heights of stupidity with every passing day.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2014
rummy, you claim to be a weatherman, do you know the quantifiable failure criteria for the prediction?
I think you need to refine your question, because as it stands, it is nonsensical. The article discusses a projected increase (the article writer, a reporter, uses the term "predicted", which is incorrect) based on the factors known to exist now and expected changes to those factors as projected a finite period into the future. The researcher himself speaks to the next step in the process:

"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,' says Prof Hayley Fowler, from Newcastle University, one of the study's co-authors."

I know you directed this at Runrig, but I hope this at least partially answers your question.
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2014
rummy, you claim to be a weatherman, do you know the quantifiable failure criteria for the prediction?
I think you need to refine your question, because as it stands, it is nonsensical. The article discusses a projected increase (the article writer, a reporter, uses the term "predicted", which is incorrect) based on the factors known to exist now and expected changes to those factors as projected a finite period into the future. The researcher himself speaks to the next step in the process:

"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,' says Prof Hayley Fowler, from Newcastle University, one of the study's co-authors."

I know you directed this at Runrig, but I hope this at least partially answers your question.

Thanks Maggnus - of course the predictions are just that and so there is no "failure".
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2014
Its authors say this will likely lead to an increased risk of flash flooding,

Oh, they added the wiggly word 'likely', which is NOT in the headline: "Global warming to bring heavier summer downpours"
The headline states it WILL, period, full stop.
AGWites need to hire better propagandists.
Caliban
5 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2014
Its authors say this will likely lead to an increased risk of flash flooding,

Oh, they added the wiggly word 'likely', which is NOT in the headline: "Global warming to bring heavier summer downpours"
The headline states it WILL, period, full stop.
AGWites need to hire better propagandists.


The first troll they won't hire is rygsuckn'.

rygsucn' really sucks at propagandizing.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Jun 07, 2014

Please, do explain.

I don't converse with idiots.
Specifically you and one, may be two others.
-riggy
Yet he talks to Maggnus and himself.
Conclusion: Too much of an idiot to know what an idiot is.
Caliban
5 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2014

Please, do explain.

I don't converse with idiots.
Specifically you and one, may be two others.
-riggy
Yet he talks to Maggnus and himself.
Conclusion: Too much of an idiot to know what an idiot is.


You are confused, auntiegriselda.

runrig was making reply to ubybooby --not maggnus or himself.

But that's okay, dearie --Nurse will be along shortly to change your diaper and give you your meds.