Another Met Office Fail – Hotter Summers To Shift Peak Demand To Summer
By Paul Homewood
h/t Green Sand
In 2009, the Met Office carried out an analysis of how climate change would impact the UK energy industry.
This is how they reported it (my bold):
Impacts on the UK energy industry
What is the risk?
A changing climate could effect the generation and transportation of energy, not to mention the way we use it. Key UK energy companies needed guidance on how they can prepare for the threats and opportunities ahead.
What have we done?
Using our climate models to assess future temperature increases, we looked at how this could effect all aspects of the energy industry. This included factoring in issues such as the affect of heat on the efficiency of thermal power stations. We also studied the potential changes in demand as our seasons are altered under climate change – such as an expected shift in peak power demand to the summer as people rely more on air conditioning.
What’s the conclusion?
The majority of the energy infrastructure is already fit to meet the challenges of a changing climate. However, within the next ten years temperature rises are expected to affect energy demand in the summer. There will also be a need to adapt technology to the future climate, especially when redesigning or building new power plants.
Following our report, the then Energy and Climate Change Minister, Mike O’Brien, said: "Energy infrastructure is costly and can have a life span of 40 or more years, so it’s a smart move for the energy industry to seek the expert advice of the Met Office Hadley Centre. This will help anticipate the potential impacts of climate change and allow the industry to future-proof what it builds in the coming years."
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/services/climate-services/uk/ukcp/impacts/energy
We are now nearly ten years on, so how did these hotter summers work out?
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/summaries/actualmonthly
So much for their precious models then!
As for all of those air conditioners gobbling up electricity:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/electricity-section-5-energy-trends
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Perhaps it was not such a “smart move” after all for the energy industry to seek the expert advice of the Met Office.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
What do they teach to “scientists” these days? Looks more like politics than logic methinks.
Of course it is – they want them to work in the bloated Universities and attract big grants. Logic will not do that, only politics attracts the money. You illustrate almost hourly Paul.
It wasn’t like this in my day.
Yes, definitely politics with all the lefty academics infesting our Universities. Look what happened to an Oxford academic when he went against the lefty teachings about our history.
We recently did a BBC Radio 4 programme concerning a famous mountaineer in these parts (English Lake District). I was nominated to talk about climbing exploits. I showed the presenter and the researcher all the pictures I had of this famous mountaineer from 1980 onwards, i.e. about 35 years ago.
As it happens, every picture I have shows the great Sir wearing only shorts – no T-shirt even. We climbed frequently together. I can state categorically the Springs and Summers then were MUCH warmer than at present. I mentioned this as we recorded the programme – of course they edited it out and did not broadcast!!
You try and climb in the Lake District Summer now – you will need a hat, gloves and a duvet jacket unless we get a particularly warm spell.
Much colder now than back then.
Most UK summers (April – September) I can remember involve some form of evening heating in April, May, Some of June and some of September. For a couple of hours warmth then a gas or electric room heater is sufficient so a warming Spring and Autumn will reduce energy consumption. Even now in the warmest year ever the need for cooling by air conditioning barely lasts a couple of weeks. The graph above seems to bare that out.
While it says “the next 10 years”, it was updated in May 2012, so I guess its a rolling prediction.
“A changing climate could effect the generation and transportation of energy” But they do not bother to explain HOW it could generate energy or transport it. Or perhaps their spell checker doesn’t know the difference between “effect” and “affect”
Not quite the same, but similar lose* examples often seen ‘cross t’internets are
peninsular (as in Gower), degrees Kelvin and a current favourite, seal level rise. Further additions actively solicited…
* :-).
“What have we done?”
One day the MO will have to face up and answer that question!
“However, within the next ten years temperature rises are expected to affect energy demand in the summer.”
But for a country such as the UK where heating demand far exceeds cooling demand, ‘global warming’ will be net beneficial. As any fule kno.
As an APPROXIMATE example of the respective Heating & Cooling Degree Days:
Central London:
Heating Degree Days (HDD) to 21 deg C: 3,217
A 1 deg C rise in external temperature reduces that heating figure by 338 HDD to 2,879
Cooling Degree Days (CDD) to 25 deg C: 13 (!!)
A 1 deg C rise in external temperature increases that cooling figure by 6 CDD to 19
http://www.degreedays.net/#
The Met Office ignores the prime causes for additional summer cooling being the increase in buildings’ thermal insulation ‘trapping’ excess heat; and, increases in heat-emitting appliances.
Few mention the beneficial effect of a 1 deg C rise in external temperature is a net saving of (338 – 6 =) 332 Heating Degree Days – i.e. 10% thermal-comfort energy saving!
If the Met Office said it was raining I’d go outside to check. They are comically, continously wrong because they are guided by ideology rather than analysis and observation . Watch them make much out of common or garden winter storm “Dylan” in the next few days in a vain attempt to try to lend some credibility to their ridiculous prediction that 2017 /2018 winter would be the stormiest on record.
Nothing like rubbing their noses in it Paul 🙂
We are at 47°N and 680 m. elevation with hot summers. 32°C is common and 40° is reached most summers a few times.
At our elevation, temperature during night time drops fast on clear nights. We open widows and let the cool air in. Mid-morning we close the windows. Frequently at 3 PM or so we turn air conditioning on. It might cycle on and off for 4 hours.
In winter, the heat pump cycles on and off for weeks. The heat pump is “air sourced” so very cold temperatures require heat generation — resistance heating. That is a big user of electricity, and might be needed all day and night — for weeks.
Our electricity usage ramps up in November and goes down in March.
47°N is about the same as Dijon and the north part of the Burgundy wine region – Côte de Nuits.
To shift demand to the summer, average winter temperature would need to increase by about 20 Celsius degrees (36 F degrees). I’ll guess that is not going to happen.
A recent [2017] paper by Abdussamatov projects steady climate cooling until 2100. [Figures 1 and 3]. Maybe the Met Office report should be completely ignored instead, and attention paid to better securing supply, before it’s too late.
The paper actually dates from December 2014; it is a pity that he does not have a better translator. Cycle 25 WILL be interesting.
The mistake is and one that we all make and cleverly played up to by the Wet Office, is that they are a devotedly Scientific institution only given to make meteorological prognostication and totally objective – a that.
Now surely, only a complete idiot would believe that?
“the Wet Office”
A Freudian slip?
quaesoveritas
Athelstan rarely makes Freudian slips. His ‘Wet Office’ title would be, in my experience, entirely deliberate.
🙂
‘it’s a smart move for the energy industry to seek the expert advice of the Met Office Hadley Centre’
Er…no. Not unless or until they throw away their climate alarm blinkers and get real.
Pedantic, but did they really say ‘effect’ when they meant ‘affect’ and vice versa?
Just wanted to emphasise the fact the the Met Office does not know the difference between “affect” (verb) and “effect” (noun, being the result of something being affected). I see it is in their own text, not copied inaccurately by Paul…
And this is the authority that will the expert witness to comment on the BBC’s decision to interview Nigel Lawson on climate change, when Ofcom considers that decision and the tone of the interview.
When will the Met Office be accountable to Ofcom for its continuing inaccuracy in forecasting, forecasts that AFFECT us all? Why doesn’t the BBC publish Paul’s graphs, to show no long term trend in our weather, despite the fake news they broadcast every week on extreme weather?
Yes they did – good grief!
Reasonable people would by now admit their methodology isn’t anywhere near as accurate as they would hope, but we’re not dealing with reasonable people!
Politicians demand levels of certainty that current climate science simply cannot deliver, but instead of being honest – ‘we just don’t know’, ‘we can’t be sure’, ‘there’s significant margins of error here’, they’re forced to give misleadingly precise predictions to justify ever-increasing funding.
Inevitably there’s going to be either red faces or cover-ups, and given the towering ego’s in climate science and politics (not to mention the money) then cover-up’s rule, OK?
And despite their massive energy guzzling computer!
It hardly matters. Thanks to stories like this, there’ll be plenty to take our minds off it. There may even be UK sites added to the list!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/lists/20-destinations-to-visit-2018/
Published without a hint of irony.
More utter nonsense from the Green Blob. I share Deller’s view that 2017 has been a crucial year in many respects to see the beginning of the end of the liberal elite sociology that has damned the last few decades and I share his optimism that 2018 may be the year that sees off the Green Blob once-and-for-all. Go Trump!
Even the BBC doesn’t believe them anymore:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/bbc-weather-news-met-office-meteogroup-replacement-after-94-years-forecasts-a7195576.html
“The Met Office is to be replaced by private weather company MeteoGroup after 94 years’ service as the BBC’s weather forecaster.
The announcement from the BBC marks the end of almost a century of partnership between the state-owned Met Office and the broadcaster after the former lost its contract in August 2015.
MeteoGroup, which will take over in the spring of 2017, has offices in 17 countries around the world and is the UK’s largest private sector weather business. The BBC has said the company won on the grounds of being the “most economically advantageous”.
“MeteoGroup, which will take over in the spring of 2017”
It hasn’t happened yet.
Website and tv still say in association with the Met. Office.
Here’s something of interest, which I haven’t explored fully.
Readers might wish to download the Met Office Central England Temperature Record (CET) to the end of 2017:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat
Next, check the average temperature values.
Odd things seem to be happening. Not one 12 month average value for the last decade has been calculated correctly. As an example, 2014 is a glaring example. The given figure is 10.95 degrees Celsius, but I make it 10.92.
Similarly, for 2013 the given figure is 9.61, yet I make it 9.57.
I’d be very interested to see reader’s comments – do you agree, and if so, why is this happening?
Are you using monthly averages or daily?
The average for each month, added up, then divided by 12 as per the downloaded record; nothing else.
It may be that they use daily then
Remember the months are of different lengths.
You could try weighting the monthly figures according to the number of days in in each month, and dividing by 365 or 366 in leap years. I am not saying that this will “correct” the figures, but it will produce slightly different results.
All statistics have rounding errors, so I wouldn’t get too hung up over minor differences.
I believe this is due to rounding errors.
Probably the errors cancel out and are not considered significant by the MO.
I can;t remember whether I have ever raised this with them or not.
Here we have an official Met Office statement of CET values going back to 1659 – yet the rounding off is wrong. It’s bizarre.