This BBC report looks at the report from the UK Climate Change Committee (CCC) and the claims which seem to be based on some computer calculations made in the USA. Below is an excellent letter to the members of the CCC by Rev Philip Foster
I note what your committee has released about future dangers of flooding and droughts ”due to man-made climate change• according to the BBC [this morning], who prefaced it with the usual ”scientists say•. This last remark is of course just lazy journalism. Which scientists? What are their real qualifications and expertise? Who is paying them?
Prof. Richard Lindzen (Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate at MIT) states: That the promotion of alarm does not follow from the science, is clearly illustrated by the following example. According to any textbook on dynamic meteorology, one may reasonably conclude that in a warmer world, extratropical storminess and weather variability will actually decrease.
The reasoning is as follows. Judging by historical climate change, changes are greater in high latitudes than in the tropics. Thus, in a warmer world, we would expect that the temperature difference between high and low latitudes would diminish. However, it is precisely this difference that gives rise to extratropical large-scale weather disturbances. Moreover, when in Boston on a winter day we experience unusual warmth, it is because the wind is blowing from the south. Similarly, when we experience unusual cold, it is generally because the wind is blowing from the north.
The possible extent of these extremes is, not surprisingly, determined by how warm low latitudes are and how cold high latitudes are. Given that we expect that high latitudes will warm much more than low latitudes in a warmer climate, the difference is expected to diminish, leading to less variance. Nevertheless, we are told by advocates and the media that exactly the opposite is the case, and that, moreover, the models predict this (which, to their credit, they do not) and that the basic agreement discussed earlier signifies scientific agreement on this matter as well.
Clearly more storms and greater extremes are regarded as more alarming than the opposite. Thus, the opposite of our current understanding is invoked in order to promote public concern. Clearly your ‘scientists’ don’t understand meteorology, which, sadly, would make sense if they are from the Met Office. They are advocates for the alarm about CO2. As has been observed, it is hard to make someone understand something when their job depends on them not understanding it.
Rev Philip Foster MA