“Gordon Brown yesterday promised a full review of how the country had coped with the coldest winter for 30 years”
Heckuva a job there Brownie.
From the Telegraph:
Met Office to review forecasts after failing to warn public of fresh snow
The Met Office has admitted that it failed to warn the public of the heavy snow that brought swaths of Britain to a standstill on Wednesday.
Forecasters conceded that they did not spot the widespread snow storms that caused transport disruption and a surge of weather-related accidents until it was too late. Up to six inches fell in parts of the South West, with drifts of 7ft in Wales.
Even when the full extent of the threat was realised, flaws in the Met Office’s bad weather warning system meant that the public were not adequately informed, officials said. The system will now be reviewed.
…
Thousands of Britons endured nightmare journeys to work after waking up to several inches of snow despite reassurances that their regions would escape the worst of the latest flurries.
Hundreds of flights were cancelled at Heathrow, Gatwick and regional airports, while schools that had only just reopened were again forced to shut their doors.
Accident and emergency departments reported “unprecedented” numbers of patients, many suffering suspected fractures after slipping on ice.
An 18-year-old college student who died after locking himself out was last night feared to be the latest casualty of the weather. Police believe Nathan Jobe froze to death after falling from a window while trying to gain access to his home in Mountnessing in Essex.
In the Peak District, pregnant 40-year-old gave birth to a healthy baby boy after a mountain rescue team transported a midwife to her snowbound home. Melanie Pollitt had sought advice on the Mumsnet website about her labour pains before calling for help.
Gordon Brown yesterday promised a full review of how the country had coped with the coldest winter for 30 years, after councils were forced to cut their gritting by a half to conserve dwindling stocks.
==============================
I like Richard North’s (EU Referendum) take on it:
They got it wrong and keep getting it wrong.
Now for the reality check, more than adequate testimony that the Met Office is a waste of space.
===============================
Heh.
Seems like the Met Office has a terminal case of botchulism.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Actually Sean, I have to come clean here.
I might just be pulling your collective legs to see what you’re made of.
So far, OK. Not grand, mind you. But OK.
Few people are more politically conservative and pro-business than I am.
There’s your last hint.
inversesquare (23:14:50)
If you are addressing me, I can’t make any sense out of what you are saying: “Since you have given us a few links here (and yes I’ve looked at them all)…”
I’m pretty sure I haven’t posted any links here in months.
“My friend, you’ve proven your argument about AGW to be little more than a vehicle to vent on your political philosophy.”
I can’t respond to that one either because I have no idea what “argument abouit AGW” you are talking about.
Inversesquare:
Well fair enough. Almost.
Comparing Lord Monkton to graphs of actual warming might not be the best approach. Might be bad karma.
Since you have given us a few links here (and yes I’ve looked at them all) here is one from me to you.
And your opinion of said links as forged to graphic form based on more than a few days of numbers-crunching?
Right. Street theater is not my thing, but I’ll now look at it again to see if I missed something. I’m thinking not.
rbateman (22:45:58) :
Rbateman:
Watch Al Gore’s movie again. The C02 rise comes after the warming.
That’s what the ice cores tell us.
How long has it been warming?
Since the 1850’s.
When did the C02 start to rise?
Are you absolutley sure of this?
The climatologists who helped forge that graph (this is not really about me–I appraise real estate for a living, not climate graphs) have an answer for this.
(Are some under the impression they don’t?)
They claim that the recent upward trend in temps in several decades since the burning of fossil fuels really got into high gear correlates quite well. Association is not necessarily causation, no. They claim that natural fluctuations of C02 occur, as does warming, but adding the CO2 at such a sharp climb intensifies any background warming that might be occuring.
Up here in Vermont we know a thing or two about snow but I have to say I have never seen a plow truck move snow from one lane of a highway onto another lane like the one in the image above.
Nice work Mr Plow!
It didn’t correlate well at all, so they altered the raw data and manipulated the calculations to create the false appearance of a correlation where none actually exists. When qualified scientists and others exercised the right of free speech to dispute the improper and non-scientific methodologies and conclusions, the
Alarmists resorted to defamation of their critics’ reputations in order to suppress the criticisms of the scientific misconduct. Looking back into the geological record, the changes in CO2 and temperature are much more often anti-correlated than correlated. Even recent changes have demonstrated greater rates of change than now, before cycling back to lower levels and lower rates of change once more. Such anti-correlatons in the geolical ages and in the past century would be quite impossible if CO2 were indeed anywhere near as closely linked as claimed by the IPCC, much less hysterics such as Gore.
Sillier still are the Alarmist proponents demanding the adoption of hydrogen fueled automobiles and/or hydrogen=electric automobiles, while ignoring the fact that the hydrogen monoxide byproduct of the hydrogen fueled automobiles is a far more powerful so-called greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide can ever be.
Wakefield Tolbert (23:41:27) :
Ok, Wakefield, now you are making the [very common] argument or pronouncement that one should only listen to “real” Climatologists, or that only “real” Climatologists should speak on Climatology. Since you are not a Climatologist, why are you speaking on Climatology – even to state your own rule – and why should anyone listen to you?
It’s my rule that you should follow your own rules. Is that also your rule? But another of my rules is that I don’t have to follow your rules.
Baa Humbug:
You’re correct about the Wright Brothers, and many others as I’m sure you’d like to name, but you have to be careful with that kind of thing. People who’re also likely to be very sympathetic to your cause will also be more than happy to remind you this falls close to the Columbus Argument
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-columbus-argument-7362
Ya know, those valiant souls who risked torment and the rack while striving to free man from his fetters, while dark hooded members of the “establishment” tormented Galileo, Copernicus, good old Orville, and hosts of others.
But as an historian named David Stowe points out, this is mostly malarky.
The powers-that-be are there for a reason, and it’s not just style and speaking ability and panache with the ladies and being able to sparkle at parties. I’ts because more often than not, with some noted exceptions, they’ve seen quite a bit already. Nature seems to embed this in our very genes. All primate troops must operate on some kind of social consensus.
Sorry, rules of the house.
The sad fact is that the rare individual to buck the trends and the odds is rare for a reason. Most men cannot beat the rap on the consensus of their betters.
And while this might seem unfair and might stall progress on occasion (the unnamed dog forbidden to bark, as it were) it also spares us from radicalism in many areas.
Just because Brown says he’ll look at it doesn’t mean he’ll do anything.
We just had the worst expenses/embezzlement scandal in 100 years in our Parliament and now, they’re trying to tell the naughty ones that as long as they pay back, their names will remain secret. The public’s baying for blood, but the Prime Minister wants a whitewash. We’re talking claiming mortgage interest relief for mortgages which don’t exist….we’re talking upgrading your entire property portfolio with new furniture by changing your ‘main home’ each year just for that reason……claiming food because you’re in London, as if you wouldn’t eat anywhere else….repairs to your TENNIS COURT…all that sort of stuff. And Brown wants it all pushed under the table……
I wouldn’t read anything into what he says.
“They [real Climatologists] claim that the recent upward trend in temps in several decades since the burning of fossil fuels really got into high gear correlates quite well.
Right, Wakefield, and so I guess that’s why Kevin Trenberth calls the anti-correlation, divergence of temps. from CO2 levels a “travesty” – the fact that Climate Science can’t explain it given their Postulate that CO2 is the driver of temps?
OK. That link to Commentary to Stove is asking you to pay for the blasted thing.
Here’s a fairly good summation of what Dr. Stove had to say.
http://www.newcriterion.com/posts.cfm/liberty-equality-fraternity-3835
The UK Met Office is a department of the British government that is being funded with billions of pounds to prove carbon dioxide = global warming, and so help to prop up the worldwide carbon trading ponzi fraud and all the so-called “green” taxes inflicted on the public.
That’s why the UK Met Office is so lousy at predicting the weather.
Wakefield, what you very desperately need to understand is that I’m only using you for target practice. Many AGW Believers seem to have been descendent from Fearless Fosdick’s stock, but how on earth are you going to appraise real estate once you become only one big hole?
Wakefield Tolbert (23:45:15) :
The number of question marks is proportional to my surprise that people like you still exist.
You are confused. Oil companies don’t put you in jail for not spending your money with them. Try that with your tax office.
The genesis of AGW is UK Met Office and the UNEP. Both get their money from govt. thats you and me.
You obviously haven’t looked into the leaked emails. There is plenty there showing IPCC people in bed with not just green groups like WWF and Greenpeace but also BIG OIL. Talk about everybody’s woman.
Your attempt to undermine skeptics via big oil funding is pathetic.
So you are just trying to see what we are made of? You Richard Cranium you.
I could almost forgive the MetOff if it wasn’t for the fact that their ex-leader, I think it was 2008, annouced to all and sundry (BBC), that not only did they have a new computer but that they also have a new weather/climate model.
This model was capable of forecasting accurately 10 years ahead as well as giving 12 hrs ahead indications of precipitation quatities. He braged that they would be able to tell a small town that they will get 1″ of rain etc the next day.
There are massive cuts coming to the MOD UK this year, perhaps this latest incompetence will persuade the new minister to to make them at Exeter (MetOFF).
Wakefield Tolbert (00:09:46) :
as with all estate agents, I should really tell you to go away because you will never have the nunce to understand what’s going on but here goes.
When you look at graphs of climate parameters remember these points.
NASA, NOAA, CRU have been manipulating and adjusting data since the 1980’s and those adjustments have been shown to be mostly upward.
Temps over the last 160 years, as best we can measure them, have been going up, down, up, and now down.
The climate parameters that the climatologist graph are all moving to the cold side right now having been warm since 1975/6.
Now, before posting again, go and read.
anon:
Had they forecast it, exactly what would have been different? Those people would have stayed home instead of trudging to work in the snow? They didn’t notice the snow on the ground?
Very good, I guess we both agree that the met office doesn’t need to exist. Extrapolating our logic, neither does the CRU. Going further….goodby, ipcc.
“While the Met Office had been warning for days of overnight snow in the South West, Wales and parts of the Midlands, its forecasters were taken by surprise by how much of the country was affected on Tuesday night.”
They can’t forecast 48 hours ahead and they have the gaul to make seasonal forecasts of warm/hot/worse than we thought statements to the press.
“Next year [2010] forecast to be hottest on record”
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/next-year-forecast-to-be-hottest-on-record-1838184.html
“Next year to be the world’s warmest on record, Met Office predicts”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6952470.ece
It may turn out to be more promise than a forecast it seems to me.
TonyB (01:24:27) : Your comment is awaiting moderation
(sorry for repeated post but I originally placed it in wrong thread)
Joe D’aleo gave a great forecast about the exceptionally cold conditions the UK would experience and I seem to remember he suggested a thaw about now, which is what is happening.
Has anyone come across a forecast from him for the UK for the rest of the winter? Should I huint the shops for salt for our drive or merely get my raincoat out as the mild wet weather reasserts itself?
tonyb
“grzejnik (18:16:20) :
Is it me or is that truck plowing snow into the other lane of the road? LOL”
Yes, it is, but it makes sense.
In Europe the median strip is usually narrow or not existant; so the snow has to be shoved to the outside.
I would guess that a second lorry is following and shoving the snow off to the side.
Wakefield Tolbert
I am also not a climatologist but rely on the reported arguments for and against AGW. Maybe you could help me to determine the answer to a question I have.
If the rapid and consistent increase in CO2 levels over the past decades is directly responsible for the increase in global temperature then what is the reason for temperatures levelling and starting to decline over the last decade when the CO2 level continues to rise at the same rate?
I understand the argument that a small part of the CO2 is just our contributing factor to the rise in temperatures but fail to grasp the theory that it is a major contributer to the rate of change when temperatures rise, in proportion to natural cycles, but can be so easily overcome by natural cycles when temperatures stabalise and start to decline.
Wakefield Tolbert:
“Background warming” ?
Someone from RC tried (got an F) to pick holes in this already-
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2010/01/twelve-year-satellite-temperature.html
Your consensus- http://www.theclimateconspiracy.com/?p=291
Re the actual post, here is Piers- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAV7NHZcEcY
” grzejnik (18:16:20) :
Is it me or is that truck plowing snow into the other lane of the road? LOL”
No, it is towards the side of the road, the M48 is a dual carriage way motorway (two lanes each side) and we drive on the left in the UK. In the recent cold Arctic snap, the snow was so much worse than usual for winter in the UK that the best the “snowploughs” could do (actually just a gritter lorry with a small plough on the front) was clear one lane of the motorway.
Robert Kral (19:07:56) :
Remember their
2010 to be the hottest year on the record statement was made around the 10th December 2009 which coincided with the early days of the climate conference at Copenhagen.
Furthermore, John Hirst, the organisation’s chief executive, was head of WWF-UK which has been screaming about global warming for ages. It is this and coupled with the 90%> certainty that increased CO2 will cause warming of the planet that is going to cause them and UK citizens difficulty in years to come.
Our Wakefield Tolbert seems to have one trait in common with the english painter Walter Richard Sickert, who once wrote (by hand !) 5 letters to a newspaper in one day.