Met Office brainstorms UK bad weather

Posted: June 14, 2013 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

Another gem from Paul Homewood

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

 

image

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/13/met-office-uk-bad-weather-cause

 

Have these idiots really got nothing better to do? The weather in recent years has simply returned to what was normal in the 20thC, as the Central England Temperature series shows.

 

image

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

 

The only thing that has been unusual is the few years of warmer than usual weather seen at the turn of the century.

It is, of course, highly inconvenient for the Met to have to keep on explaining why their forecasts of a rapidly warming climate have failed to appear. But isn’t it time they simply admitted their mistakes, apologized and moved on?

View original post

Comments
  1. Stephen Richards says:

    If you remember ! Last year the met off were advertising for someone to do something like this. They must have found him. Yet another idiot on whom to waste the UK taxpayer’s money.

  2. tckev says:

    I note with interest that the Met Office, with all their expensive technology, is unable to give reasonably good forecast for this weekend. Yet they insist that when using this same technology they can predict decades into the future. Until they can give valid, accurate, and verifiable forecasts for at least 1 month ahead they should be called to task for wasting tax-payers money.

    http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2013/06/14/forecasting-challenges-this-weekend/

  3. Bryan says:

    The Met Office have a much poorer record at forecasting than even random variation would suggest.
    They predict dry, and a record wet season occurs instead, and so on.

    When they depart from the usual 5 day forecast (which is quite accurate) into long range predictions they get almost exactly opposite to what they predict.

    At first this may seem as a bit unfortunate but it goes deeper than that.

    The long range forecasts are underpinned by inclusion of an input from the climate models.
    As we now know the models predict higher temperatures than really occur.

    So if the science underpinning the models is wrong then the predictions will not show a random sometimes right sometimes wrong series.
    Instead it shows a systematic error in the IPCC science so wrong science will produce wrong predictions rather than an unfortunate random scatter.

  4. NoAlarm says:

    The conclusion will be something along the lines that the climate has become so variable due the effects of climate change that it is defying science in forecasting.

  5. Brian H says:

    The question is: are they systematically wrong (incompetence) or systemically wrong (inherent hard-held error). I guess they could be demonstrating both.

  6. Arfur Bryant says:

    Brian H and Bryan,

    I’d say the latter (systemically). I’ve worked closely with UKMO forecasters for over thirty years (as a customer). As a general rule the MO forecasters are competent within the confines of short term forecasting.

    Where the UKMO are systemically failing is that they approach climate forecasting from a position of ‘belief based on an assumption’. This belief (that CO2=cAGW a la Arrhenius) leads to figures/algorithms based on assumption inputted into the models, which then output garbage.

    For short-term (5 days or less) forecasting, they use less modelled and more observed data (synoptic charts) and, applying some experience, generally (but not always) produce a reasonable stab at what the weather will be like. Having said that, their percentage success rate even for short-term forecasting is not overly impressive!

    It has been noticeable of late (last two years), as a customer, that the forecasters have shied away from making forecasts of more than 5 days (and usually just two days). Its just an opinion, but it seems to me that they have been instructed not to make long term forecasts because of the bad press UKMO have been getting for producing such appallingly bad long term forecasts.

  7. Stephen Richards says:

    Its just an opinion, but it seems to me that they have been instructed not to make long term forecasts because of the bad press UKMO have been getting for producing such appallingly bad long term forecasts.

    They still give the 5 day forecast to the BBC (taxpayers paying taxpayers) for “country people” and they still preach at the 100 yr alta of AGW so, no, I don’t think they have been instructed although these are intelligent people, in general, so I think they realise there are problem.

  8. oldbrew says:

    ‘UK’s disappointing weather’

    Doubly disappointing for those hoping for ‘accelerating’ warming as they kept claiming for years would happen, but it hasn’t.

  9. oldbrew says:

    ‘The weather in recent years has simply returned to what was normal in the 20thC, as the Central England Temperature series shows’

    Is it that simple, or are certain cyclical solar forces now in play?

    http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/abrupt-climate-change-action.htm

  10. J Martin says:

    How can they brainstorm anything when they have sold their integrity to the devil. Yes that’s harsh, but they take home their salary’s on the proviso that they constrain their output, if not their thinking to the religious and political co2 beliefs of senior management.

    I can understand that many must feel in a difficult situation, they have mortgages, families to feed, kids to raise, and for many, sacrificing their academic integrity is much the lesser of two evils. Who can blame them.

    The met office will continue to perform badly until the suffocating influence of the current management team has been removed and replaced with open minded individuals who value honest scientific integrity unencumbered by any preconceptions.

  11. Bryan says:

    Systematic error and systemic error are identical

    http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/systemic-error.html

  12. Stephen Richards says:

    Bryan says:

    June 15, 2013 at 12:07 pm

    Systematic error and systemic error are identical

    No bryan they are not:

    Systematic errors are errors in method

    Systemic errors are errors in a system.

  13. Stephen Richards says:

    A systemic drug, disease, or poison reaches and has an effect on the whole of a body or a plant and not just one part of it.› formal A systemic problem or change is a basic one, experienced by the whole of an organization or a country and not just particular parts of it:

    systematic: using a fixed and organized plan: approving We’ve got to be a bit more systematic in the way that we approach this task.disapproving We’re hearing reports of the systematic rape and torture of prisoners

    English Dictionary

  14. Stephen Wilde says:

    No need for a brainstorm if they had been reading my material since 2008.

  15. Bryan says:

    Stephen Richards

    I think we are into splitting hairs here.

    The type of error we are discussing is referred to as systematic in physics texts.
    Google it and you will find it is the more common usage.

    Words even change their meaning over time.

    “Unless you are referring to an organism, you probably want the word systematic.”

    http://www.dailywritingtips.com/systematic-and-systemic/

  16. tckev says:

    IMO payment by results might get the Met Office stay on track with their primary concern – accurately forecasting the weather.

  17. michael hart says:

    I’ve been trying to make sense of this story. Who is invited to this meeting. Is it just the Met Office meeting with itself. And if so, why? Don’t they do that every day? And are they discussing their understanding of the British weather/climate, or their inability to predict it?

    Perhaps there is a schism. The climatologists want to rule the world, but the meteorologists are bitter that they don’t get to attend conferences in the Bernese Oberland? I know I would be.

  18. Wayne Job says:

    Remove CO2 and its supposed forcings from the models then use a bit of real science to add in some useful stuff and the models may be more useful. If that does not work sack them all and employ a soothsayer who’s assistant can read chicken entrails, either way the forecasts would be better or more entertaining.

  19. dp says:

    So, lemme try to understand this. Today’s bad weather is the best of the normal weather (it was actually much worse, on average, then) before climate warming created catastrophic weather, but the modern catastrophic climate-driven weather is preferred, now? Do they not realize they can’t reverse CAGW without going back to really “bad” weather? Time to check the grain crops for fungus – there’s something crazy going on over there 🙂

  20. Paul Vaughan says:





    It’s the sun.

  21. Stephen Richards says:

    Bryan says:

    June 15, 2013 at 1:49 pm

    Stephen Richards

    The definition I gave you is one from the english dictionary. I think by habit the Eng Dict does split hairs in their effort to be accurate. Either way, wasn’t you that told me I was wrong? So I guess it’s you slitting hairs and not me. Incidently, I have no hair to split. :))

  22. A C Osborn says:

    Met Office 5 day LOCAL forecasts as supplied to the BBC ARE NOT FAIRLY ACCURATE!
    If you take Screen shots of them you will find that each day they change the next days forecast, sometimes they even change for the day you are on in a few hours.
    So come on you can say they get it “broadly” right most of the time, but then with the same satellite feeds any one of us could do the same.

  23. tchannon says:

    systemic (adj.)
    1803, irregularly formed from system, used in medicine and biology for differentiation of meaning from systematic. Related: Systemically.

    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=systemic&searchmode=none

  24. Paul Vaughan says:

    MET should humbly approach Piers Corbyn — e.g. he mentioned the following verbally in a video so I checked and he was right:

    Not the only thing he has been right about.

    MET: You look silly by ignoring him. It looks like what it is: stubborn pride. That’s useless. The public pays a lot of money to help you do a good job and you only give back stubborn pride? The public would be better off if the funding went to Corbyn. On the other hand, if you help him, he may help you.

    Nature is beautiful. Let’s appreciate and understand.

  25. Paul Vaughan says:

    Brief elaboration about above graphs:
    http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/12/sociology-of-the-pause/#comment-332688

    There’s another part to this story. When time permits I’ll illustrate how January systematically flips those patterns (CET & I(-SOI)) upside down for one part of the record but not for another. This is the sort of statistical paradox that – left unrecognized – blocks not only progress but also belief in the possibility of progress.

  26. Bryan says:

    Paul Vaughan

    I agree with you about Piers Corbyn.
    I used to check out his predictions on website Climate Realist.
    He often made predictions not only contradicting the Met Office but against seasonal trends.
    Its remarkable how successful he is.
    Its a pity that Climate Realist folded.
    Perhaps Tallbloke would include some of Piers public predictions in the interest of science?
    Was Piers just lucky in the past or is his method of ignoring the Greenhouse Effect of CO2, the way ahead.

  27. oldbrew says:

    Doug Hoffmann explains why the kind of computer models (GCMs) relied on by the likes of the Met Office have never really been up to the job, still aren’t, and are not going to be any time soon.

    http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/modeling-flaws-plague-climate-science

    Re Piers Corbyn, agree with earlier comments. He has in effect put the Met Office out of business in terms of public mid-range forecasts.

  28. Paul Vaughan says:

    I’ve written to Piers Corbyn (WeatherAction), John Hirst (MetO Chief Executive), Phil Evans (MetO Government Services Director), & Matt Huddleston (MetO Deputy Chief Adviser to Government) as follows:

    Subject:
    Piers Corbyn Letter to Met Office re 18 June Weather ‘Summit’

    Gentlemen,

    Please put aside any personal & political differences and work together in dutiful support of efficient human evolution.

    Sincerely,
    Paul L. Vaughan, B.Sc., M.Sc.
    Former Ecologist & Statistics Instructor
    Independent Climate Explorer
    Vancouver, Canada

  29. oldbrew says:

    The BBC sheds a bit more light on the Met Office ‘summit’ of weather experts.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22937375

  30. Tenuc says:

    Well, the verdicts on the Brainstorm (an oxymoron, I think, in view of the attendees) – “We haven’t a clue – Send us MORE MONEY.

    Pathetic!

  31. oldbrew says:

    We’re saved! MetO predicts 5-10 years of duff UK summers so weather should improve soon 😉

    To be fair Leo Hickman has avoided gratuitous propaganda this time, maybe the penny is starting to drop?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/18/climate-uk-weather-summer-rain

  32. Ulric Lyons says:

    It’s a lot to do with Adam Scaife, head of seasonal and decadal forecasts. He says:

    “In 2012, like the previous few summers, we’ve had conditions in the northernmost Atlantic that were much warmer than normal.”
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22959578

    See how SST’s were cooling from 2007, except for 2010 which had a drier Spring/Summer: