More headwinds for the UK Met Office

Posted: August 7, 2015 by oldbrew in climate, MET office, modelling, predictions
Tags: ,

[image credit: Richard Austin News Pictures]

[image credit: Richard Austin News Pictures]

Long-time critic Christopher Booker says: THE MORE MONEY THE MET OFFICE GETS, THE MORE INACCURATE ITS DOOM-MONGERING [Date: 07/08/15, Daily Mail]

The performance of the Met Office for which we pay £220 million a year is not just a joke, but a major scandal. And well done the BBC for allowing Quentin Letts, for once, to point this out.

Very surprisingly and somewhat boldly, on Wednesday morning Radio 4 put out a programme by the Mail’s Quentin Letts which ran flatly counter to the BBC’s normal party line on one of its very favourite subjects, global warming.

Under the title What’s The Point Of The Met Office?, Mr Letts focused on the way our national weather service has long been known to share with the BBC an obsession with climate change.

Indeed, the way this has in recent years tended to skew so much of its forecasting —remember the infamous promise of a ‘barbecue summer’ in 2009 just when the rain was set to fall for weeks? — has made it something of a national joke.

One of the guests interviewed by Mr Letts was the veteran Tory politician and climate-change sceptic Peter Lilley, who proceeded to poke fun about how Met Office officials would lobby for ‘more money for bigger computers to be more precisely wrong in future’.

The programme went on to target a particularly scary prediction, first announced by the Met Office in 2007, that the world’s temperature was set to rise from 2004 to 2014 by 0.3c.

That may not sound a lot, but in climate terms it’s a hugely significant increase: in fact, nearly half as much again as had been recorded in the preceding century.

The Met Office was so convinced of its research it produced a glossy brochure — with pictures of black clouds and people in masks (for no apparent reason) — with the portentous title Informing Government Policy Into The Future.

Vicky Pope, the Met Office’s head of climate predictions, said these were ‘very strong statements’ about what would happen in the next ten years.

‘And what happened?’ Mr Letts asked. ‘Zilch,’ said Mr Lilley. ‘Nothing. There was no global warming over the ensuing decade.’ And, indeed, when 2014 arrived, we could see that far from this forecast coming to pass, the temperature trend had not, in fact, risen since 1998.

Read the rest here: Booker: The More Money The Met Office Gets, The More Inaccurate Its Doom-Mongering | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).

  1. Joe Public says:

    As Paul Homewood points out, in April the Met Office’s “observations, models and expert judgement” failed to correctly predict into which of its 5 categories May-June-July 2015’s temperature would fall.

  2. willybamboo says:

    Once in a while, failed predictions become big stories, in a moment. Even though the ‘promise’ was obviously broken long before. Obama’s “If you like your insurance you can keep it” was not true and the plain text of the 2010 law said it wasn’t true. But it only became a story and a political albatross the fall of 2013 when millions of people were forced into the health exchanges and lost their current policies.

    The hiatus in warming, the likely coming decline in temperatures, will in a moment be the “big” story. And it will mortally wound policy driven by AGW. The left will say, “never mind” and turn to some other scientifically compelling ‘theory’ to justify their collectivist inclinations.

    The monster never quits growing heads.

  3. craigm350 says:

    Reblogged this on the WeatherAction News Blog and commented:
    veteran Tory politician and climate-change sceptic Peter Lilley, who proceeded to poke fun about how Met Office officials would lobby for ‘more money for bigger computers to be more precisely wrong in future’. GIGO

  4. My experience is something
    The Met Office could use,
    So I’ve applied for a job
    To help rhyme their ruse;
    I thought false predictions
    Might be better in verse,
    Might disguise the fact
    They’re just getting worse,
    And the Met Office is a place
    Where I feel I could belong,
    Performance related bonuses
    For getting it wrong!

    [reply] they may not appreciate your attitude 🙂

  5. Anoneumouse says:

    Woe, woe and thrice scorchio Senna the Soothsayer at the met orifice fails again.

    [reply] cheeky 🙂

  6. Paul Vaughan says:

    I’ve alerted the UK Met Office in very clear terms to this fatal error in NOAA’s ERSSTv4:

    We’ll see if they turn a blind eye, guaranteeing a further erosion of credibility. I’d say we’re nearing a critical point in the erosion of credibility.

    [reply] good move

  7. oldbrew says:

    Paul Homewood knocks down the MetO response to Booker’s attack.

    ‘Met Office React To Booker’

    Two words: satellite data.

  8. Scott says:

    They have to forecast that the next period will be the warmest ever, so their chances of being correct are at best 1 in 3….colder, warmer and no change.

  9. Fanakapan says:

    My forecast would be, that in increasingly troubled times in the next 5 years for a government with a slim majority, and hoping for spending reductions that get increasingly hard to achieve, public attention will be drawn towards the failed psychics of the Met Office in an effort to demonstrate folk who are even more incompetent than Dodgy Dave the PR man and his team 🙂

    I see Ms Slingo is 64, so a bet at ones preferred bookmakers with regard to her retirement not being to far off could be in order. Once the lead doggies retire I would imagine that those who follow will take a line less certain for fear that the ‘Pause’ could well turn into a decline ? Of course I base my view on the fact that progression to the top of large organisations must involve being intelligent enough to have a developed sense of Self Preservation. I could be wrong, it wouldn’t be the first time 🙂