14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
122<br />
THE SCIENTIST’S PERSPECTIVE<br />
Julia Slingo (Met Office Chief Scientist)<br />
Protecting life, livelihoods and property is a<br />
fundamental responsibility of national governments.<br />
Weather-related hazards, including coastal and inland<br />
flooding, are high priorities in the UK government’s National<br />
Risk Register of Civil Emergencies 1 . The atmospheric, ocean<br />
and land-surface observations and forecasts provided by the<br />
Met Office play a central role in helping to mitigate these<br />
<strong>risk</strong>s.<br />
Our world is increasingly and intricately interdependent,<br />
relying on global telecommunications, efficient transport<br />
systems, and the resilient and reliable provision of food,<br />
energy and water. All of these systems are vulnerable to<br />
adverse weather and climate. The additional pressure of<br />
climate change creates a new set of circumstances and poses<br />
new challenges about how secure we will be in the future.<br />
More than ever, the weather and climate have considerable<br />
direct and indirect impacts on us — our livelihoods,<br />
property, well-being and prosperity — and increasingly we<br />
rely on weather forecasts and climate predictions to plan<br />
our lives.<br />
Uncertainty is an inherent property of the fluid motions<br />
of the atmosphere and oceans, which determine the<br />
weather and climate at the regional and local level. This<br />
was recognized in 1963 by Ed Lorenz in his seminal paper<br />
Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow 2 , in which he introduces the<br />
concept of the atmosphere as a chaotic system subject to<br />
small perturbations that grow through non-linear processes<br />
to influence the larger scale: as Lorenz said, “the flap of<br />
a seagull’s wings may forever change the course of the<br />
weather”.<br />
It is important to understand that a chaotic system is not<br />
the same as a random system. Chaos is manifested through<br />
the physical processes that allow energy to cascade from<br />
one scale to another and influence the final state of the<br />
system. The evolution of a chaotic system depends on the<br />
current state of the system, whereas a random system has<br />
no knowledge of the current state and assumes that each<br />
subsequent state is independent.<br />
The concept of the weather and climate as chaotic<br />
systems has had a profound impact on the way in which<br />
forecasting has evolved over recent decades. No longer do<br />
we produce a single, deterministic forecast, but instead we<br />
perform an ensemble of forecasts that seek to capture the<br />
plausible range of future states of the weather and climate<br />
that might arise naturally from ‘the flap of the seagull’s<br />
wings’. This enables the forecaster to assess the probability<br />
of certain outcomes and to couch the forecast in terms of<br />
likelihoods of hazardous weather. In some circumstances the<br />
weather is highly predictable, and in other circumstances<br />
there is a wide degree of spread and hence a high level of<br />
uncertainty.<br />
There are two major sources of uncertainty in the<br />
prediction process. The first involves the certainty with<br />
which we know the current state of the atmosphere<br />
(and ocean), known as initial condition uncertainty. Despite<br />
remarkable progress in Earth observation this uncertainty<br />
will always be present, because instruments have<br />
inaccuracies and we cannot monitor every part of the<br />
system at every scale. Tiny perturbations are therefore<br />
introduced in the initial state of the forecast, which then<br />
grow and cause the forecasts to diverge.<br />
The second source of uncertainty comes from the model<br />
itself — model uncertainty — and recognizes that there are<br />
unresolved ‘sub-grid scale’ processes that will affect the<br />
evolution of the system. These include turbulent processes<br />
in the atmospheric boundary layer, the initiation and<br />
evolution of cumulus convection, the formation of clouds<br />
and the production of precipitation. The sub-grid scale<br />
variability in these processes is represented by random<br />
perturbations at the resolved scale, and increasingly draws<br />
on information from detailed observations and fine-scale<br />
models that seek to characterize the spatial and temporal<br />
characteristics of this sub-grid scale variability.<br />
Uncertainty in climate prediction follows the same<br />
principles that are used in weather forecasting, incorporating<br />
both initial condition and model uncertainty. In climate,<br />
however, initial condition uncertainty is only important<br />
out to a few years ahead; beyond that, model uncertainty<br />
dominates. Indeed, both model uncertainty and the<br />
uncertainty in future emission scenarios dominate the range<br />
of possible climate change outcomes towards the end of<br />
the century. In this situation, model uncertainty goes beyond<br />
the unresolved, sub-gridscale processes, and includes the<br />
uncertainty in key physical parameters in the climate system,<br />
such as the response of the carbon cycle to a warming<br />
world and how readily cloud droplets are converted to rain<br />
drops through cloud microphysics.<br />
The reliability of ensemble forecasting depends on<br />
whether the forecast probabilities match the observed<br />
frequencies of predicted outcomes. In weather forecasting,<br />
a reliable ensemble is one in which the ensemble spread is<br />
representative of the uncertainty in the mean. In the context<br />
of climate prediction, a reliable ensemble tends to be one in<br />
which the ensemble forecasts have the same climatological<br />
variance as the truth. This means that probabilistic<br />
forecasting systems require substantial re-forecasting of past<br />
cases to characterize the reliability of the system. In climate<br />
change, of course, the past is not an analogue for the future,<br />
and therefore gauging reliability depends much more on<br />
scientific assessment.<br />
One recent development in weather forecasting and<br />
climate prediction is the translation of these probabilities in<br />
terms of <strong>risk</strong>. The UK’s National Severe Weather Warning<br />
Service warns the public and emergency responders of<br />
severe or hazardous weather (rain, snow, wind, fog, or heat)<br />
that has the potential to cause danger to life or widespread<br />
disruption. Since 2011, the severity of the warning (yellow,<br />
amber or red) depends on a combination of both the<br />
likelihood of the event happening, and the impact that<br />
the conditions may have at a specific location (flooding,