UK Met Office promotes climate alarmism and ‘net zero’ energy policies

Posted: May 29, 2020 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, Emissions, MET office, predictions, propaganda
Tags: ,


In this blog post by the Met Office, everyday weather forecasting barely gets a look-in. Now it’s about ‘inevitable climate changes’ and so on. The whole thing reeks of propaganda, and we can expect another 30 years of it.
– – –

In Part I of this two-part blog series (published yesterday) Professor Albert Klein Tank described the history and highlights of the Met Office Hadley Centre over the past 30 years, says the UK Met Office.

Here the Director of the Met Office Hadley Centre focuses on the future.

The next 30 years

In the next 30 years, the role of climate science at the Met Office Hadley Centre will evolve to one of quantifying the predicted changes in climate, and providing more detailed information on what these changes mean to individuals.

How can we help societies plan for the future and manage the risks from extreme climate events and avoid impacts which are too drastic to cope with?

The next 30 years are extremely important regarding the need for stronger mitigation by proceeding towards a transition to a net zero emissions economy.

Climate science will play an important part in informing adaptation to the consequences of climate changes that are already unavoidable, whilst informing the mitigation actions aiming to avoid more severe impacts.

The emphasis on action and solutions implies a shift from climate science to climate services. But, underpinning science aimed at understanding climate system processes remains crucial. Albert Klein Tank said: “I strongly believe that the climate services of the future rely on the pioneering and underpinning research of today.

“New frontiers of research including capability to robustly simulate and predict weather and climate extremes will bring additional utility to our forecasts and projections, both nationally and internationally.”

Following the 5th IPCC Assessment Report, the Paris Agreement in December 2015 marked a turning point in climate negotiations with 195 governments agreeing to take global action to tackle climate change and limit global temperature increase.

As a result of the Paris Agreement, the focus of climate research at the Met Office has changed to reflect these changing drivers:

— moving from proving that climate change is happening and predictable to monitoring, understanding and managing current and future weather and climate risks

— informing the development of strategies for lowering greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the most dangerous impacts of climate change and assessing the risk of abrupt, potentially irreversible, Earth system change (including so-called tipping points)

Preparing for inevitable climate changes will require more local information, an example of which is provided for the UK as part of the recently issued UK Climate Projections.

Future projections require even more information on how global warming translates into local-scale changes in weather and climate extremes, such as windstorms, heat waves and coastal and inland flooding events.

Full blog post here.

Comments
  1. Stephen Richards says:

    What the hell is an extreme climate event ? That’s like an acute chronic disorder.

  2. oldbrew says:

    What the hell is an extreme climate event ?

    That’s for the headline writers to decide.

  3. Paul Vaughan says:

    Continuously MET Fails Discretion

    “[…] providing more detailed information on what these changes mean to individuals.

    How can we help societies plan for the future and manage the risks from extreme climate events and avoid impacts which are too drastic to cope with?”

    So here’s a scenario that’s too drastic for an individual to cope with:
    Locked down. Ran out of money. Couldn’t pay rent. Now homeless. All possessions: Lost. Frigid winter will make a hell of a drastic headline for this individual. Meanwhile people with money — it discretely doesn’t take much more — are partying non-stop.

    “The next 30 years are extremely important […]”

    MET garbage mess aging: Litter, Rule, Lie.
    Freezing homeless people MET no care in hell.

  4. Paul Vaughan says:

    Miss Take: UN Tie Wan

    Heegner numbers knit Earth-Loon cycles right into our solar system.

    Loom moon near rise. Can. fall O?
    Coarse outline O-MET UN D-tales
    “slicker than a We cell“:

    22.1392313051369 = (16/36750.3379015986+26253741264/10^10)*(16.8627856165909/2)
    “moon’s tour rise singin’ the sky” — a11 ice coup_”billion dollar^bee”
    22.1392315068494 =(φ^22+1/11)^(e/11+1/22)
    -0.000000911 = % error’s symbolic prelude to dial-in link bill O

    Ape-rule fools Ramanujan sea arch UN wrest queue-sequence 26253741264 tightly:

    Cumulative lunar draconic and apsidal cycle errors over a century meassuread water^vei._pour not in hours but rather FRACTIONS of a second.

    “This is the dawn of the wrest of our 11√(Φ-φ)(V-E)s on WHO’11ie D-eh?” — “Green” Day

    =
    The monster group is one of two principal constituents in the monstrous moonshine conjecture by Conway and Norton, which relates discrete and non-discrete mathematics and was finally proved by Richard Borcherds in 1992.
    […]
    Conway said of the monster group: “There’s never been any kind of explanation of why it’s there, and it’s obviously not there just by coincidence. It’s got too many intriguing properties for it all to be just an accident.” Simon P. Norton, an expert on the properties of the monster group, is quoted as saying, “I can explain what Monstrous Moonshine is in one sentence, it is the voice of God.”
    =
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_group
    Extra: DO show UN canoe hear ring.

  5. ivan says:

    Preparing for inevitable climate changes will require more local information, an example of which is provided for the UK as part of the recently issued UK Climate Projections.

    And just how fast will they back peddle when those ‘Climate Projections’ don’t materialise? It is laughable that they should make future projections longer than a few days especially when they can’t get local forecasts right for more than a couple of days.

    I suppose they are fishing for another super computer so they can make their unvalidated computer models produce garbage results faster. It would help if they looked at real world science rather than following the diktats of the UN Church of Climatology, but then that wouldn’t bring in the money.

  6. JB says:

    “How can we help societies plan for the future and manage the risks…?”

    Not possible. The “future” is always in flux.

    For years I was an active prep-er, believing that if I got all my survival ducks in order I could ride through tough times. What actually happened was the tough times I did go through my prepping helped very little. Twice I’ve been jobless and homeless for 3 years. All my prepping availed me nothing for prevent nor forestall the devastating effects of those experiences. After the 2nd episode I saved up enough to buy an RV I could live in should that happen again.Instead, the RV has become an albatross that sits in my driveway and a money pit for its constant need of maintenance and repairs.

    What I did learn was developing multiple skills, being adaptive in attitude, creative in using what resources were available, maintaining a functional network of friends, patient, and an upbeat attitude about life were what got us all through the calamitous setbacks.

    This has been the fallacy of government, academia, and social institutions for centuries: Man’s destiny requires “planning” and positive “intervention,” which is nothing more than positive feedback in a system that causes instability. As the saying goes in EE circles, Amplifiers oscillate, and oscillators won’t.

    If plans were physical items, the planet would be over-run with plan landfills, many scrapped before they get to phase one.

  7. cognog2 says:

    This Met office article reveals the group think trap which infects much of the climate debate. The IPPC was specifically set up to advise on the potential RISKS of increasing CO2 emissions. It was NOT required to advise or look at the way the climate works. It’s output reflects this bias where it is not required to consider climate processes other than the CO2 influence. It is definitely NOT in the interests of the IPCC to conclude that there is little or no risk to increasing human emissions; for that would result in it being closed down.

    The Met. Office however is there to consider ALL aspects which drive the climate; so the two organisations are incompatible.

    However it appears from the article that the Met. Office is using the IPCC assumptions and hypothesis as a base for their researches and operations as if they were facts rather than statistical projections. This is not only lazy but creates considerable bias and confusion, particularly where matters of policy are concerned.

    IMO there are processes in the climate going on which have not been properly considered and that should be the job of the Met. Office to research and incorporate into their forecasts INDEPENDENTLY of what the IPCC says. The question as to whether water provides a net positive or negative feedback to the greenhouse effect being of paramount importance as an example.

  8. oldbrew says:

    Climate models seem to be closer to reality without the so-called greenhouse effect.


    H/T Ron Clutz

  9. Damian says:

    “Climate models seem to be closer to reality without the so-called greenhouse effect.“
    Isn’t that what the missing “hot spot” falsified. Not anthropogenic greenhouse warming but the entire greenhouse effect?
    Surely, if the GHE existed, mankind would have found some way of exploiting it. That’s the true measure of a physical effect IMHO, can we use it to do work? Adiabatic heating is used to fire caseless ammunition, for example. If the GHE was a physical effect we wouldn’t fill double glazing with argon and we certainly wouldn’t use CFCs in refrigeration systems.

  10. stpaulchuck says:

    I can’t wait for the effects of this solar minimum to really get going. Of course that’ll turn into the ‘global cooling caused by the global warming’ or some other such rot.

  11. hunterson7 says:

    The premise of, and every claim made to support their case, is literally not based on facts.

  12. hunterson7 says:

    This is like televangelism: no matter the failure in prediction, no matter the red herring arguments, the important thing is for the suckers to believe
    ..and send the cash

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s