From the London Times, signs that the Met Office might need a refresher course in basic forecasting skills and bonuses revoked. While I’m often critical of NOAA’s climate issues, the forecasts from NOAA put The Met Office to shame in terms of accuracy and detail. And, NOAA staffers don’t get bonuses, period.
Excerpts from the Times article by Steven Swinford
BUFFETED by complaints about its inaccurate weather forecasts, the Met Office now faces being dumped by the BBC after almost 90 years.
The Met Office contract with the BBC expires in April and the broadcaster has begun talks with Metra, the national forecaster for New Zealand, as a possible alternative.
The BBC put the contract out to tender to ensure “best value for money”, but its timing coincides with a storm over the Met Office’s accuracy.
Last July the state-owned forecaster’s predictions for a “barbecue summer” turned into a washout. And its forecast for a mild winter attracted derision when temperatures recently plunged as low as -22C.
Last week the Met Office failed to predict heavy snowfall in the southeast that brought traffic to a standstill. This weekend a YouGov poll for The Sunday Times reveals that 74% of people believe its forecasts are generally inaccurate.
By contrast, many commercial rivals got their predictions for winter right. They benefit from weather forecasts produced by a panel of six different data providers, including the Met Office.
Despite criticism, staff at the Met Office are still in line to share a bonus pot of more than £1m. Seasonal forecasts, such as the one made in September, are not included in its performance targets.
John Hirst, the chief executive of the Met Office, insisted last week that recent forecasts had been “very good” and blamed the public for not heeding snow warnings. He received a bonus of almost £40,000 in 2008-09.
Metra already produces graphics for the BBC, including the 3-D weather map that made some viewers feel sick when it was introduced in 2005. Weather Commerce, Metra’s UK subsidiary, has already usurped the Met Office in supplying forecasts to Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Marks & Spencer and Waitrose.
…
The Met Office was bullish, though, saying: “We have always been in the strongest position to provide the BBC with accurate and detailed weather forecasts and warnings for the UK.”
h/t to many WUWT readers
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Joe Bastardi at Accuweather nailed the “Year without a summer” last year. He nailed the “Once in a generation cold snap” this last month. And now he is saying that February could be the “Top 10-15 coldest”.
You go Joe!
They have simply drunk too much of the kool-aid to be rational about weather forecasting anymore. Good riddence….
johnh (04:43:26) :
Too many political appointments by a party more interested in managing the press than actually delivering on policy statements.
While not completely true, don’t they largely own the press (e.g. the BBC) already?
Mike Ramsey
Had the Met Office not pubished the mythological warm winter forecast many animals, especially wildlife and birds could have been saved. There are countless organizations that do so much work to protect wildlife, providing protection and food when weather turns cold, but the promise of a mild winter negated any concern.
Also, the cold spell happened over night and individuals and organizations were not prepared for the onslaught of continous freezing conditions. However, if the main stream media had presented Piers Corbyn’s alternative forecast, it in itself would have triggered better preparedness for a freezing spell. As we know his record is about 85% correct. .
In fact he is warning of another long freezing spell beginning the first week in February. So people should at least make the effort to warn people and councils to be prepared for another onslaught. Also Joe Bastardi (accuweather) is similarly indicating a return to freezing conditions in the coming weeks. The Met Office is still indicating the warmest winter scenario on their website, so treat with caution.
What on earth could be wrong with the MET forecasts? It has been the warmest winter on record. For instance only 10 years ago when we used to get hot summers, the sun would scorch the grass yellow in Hyde Park. This winter the sun bleached the whole nation white – such is the advanced stage of global warming 10 years hence
I followed the advice from vg and went to the Monibot piece, never have I seen so many deleted comments.
They could lease thier computor to some rogue Muslim state and pay Joe Bastardi for his reports. Joe isn’t burdened with a monster overhead and beureaucratic machine.
I can read current temperatures with my finger to the wind as rapidly as the Met forcasts.
Once upon a time (Nov 13 2007) there was a BBC that published an article by John Christy:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stm
These days are now long gone and forgotten. And probably the BBC doesn’t want to be reminded of its foolish ways back then. What fun we had together, beeb.
I’ve noticed the same forecasting problems from Environment Canada. In my opinion, the commercial sources like weather.com and accuweather seem to be able to provide more reliable forecasts. I can’t understand why – aren’t they all using the same data?
A comment from the Independent says it all:
“The met Office is using its forecasts to promote Global warming its as simple as that. Its wrong about Global warming so its forecasts will be wrong.”
————–
It amazes me that there aren’t more sceptics within the Met Office. I mean if their computer models fail so badly for forecasts a few months away what faith should they put on GCM forecasts for 2050.
Most here keep sayin things like
photon without a Higgs (23:00:36) :
Governments should be hiring people like Piers Corbyn and Joe Bastardi, shouldn’t they?
Can someone point me to past forecasts of theses people compared to actuality?
I have seeked but cannot find!
for decenht long range forecasting: Dr Piers Corbyn
http://www.weatheraction.com
@ur momisugly Walter Dnes (21:25:13) :
The Met Office’s reaction to charges off botched forecasts? From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8462890.stm
> Professor Chris Folland from the Met Office said a re-analysis
> of weather science might even show that the actual temperature
> measurements have under-recorded recent warming – making
> the Met Office forecast even more accurate than it appears.
Just like the IPCC “re-analysis” of its 1990 graph, which had shown the MWP, no doubt.
And Chris Folland is a prominent figure in the Climategate emails. I really don’t think we can trust a word he says.
@Nemesis
Yes. I enjoyed it, as it seemed nicely done. I got the impression along the lines, “yes chaos creates patterns/order”, and “but no we can’t predict what those patterns will be, only look at what patters chaos has already produced”.
So in a way, if the climate is truly being forced by CO2 in a way that it never has been forced before, then there’s no way to know what it will do.
That’s the message I got on the relationship between chaos and order.
What do you think of this article in The Sunday Times today Sunday “World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown”. Read it in the paper and found it on the net: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece
For a layman this would have been unbelieveable until I started reading blogs such as WUWT.
“A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.
Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.
In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.
It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. ”
You must read the whole story. Really this should be read by all politicians believing in AGW.
From that Times article –
“many commercial rivals got their predictions for winter right. They benefit from weather forecasts produced by a panel of six different data providers, including the Met Office.”
Oh, really? Which “many commercial rivals” are they? Who are the “6 different data providers”? Where is the justification for your implied statement that the independents’ forecasts aren’t based on their own work?
Carefully crafted weasel words. The Times has long occupied an exalted position in the Church of AGW. It’s always worth spending a few minutes on their pronouncements to spot the obfuscation.
“johnh (04:43:26) :
The troubles of the MET office are common to a lot of the UK Govt institutions, after 12 years of one party in power they have ceased to be independent and are now in the pockets of NU Labour. Too many political appointments by a party more interested in managing the press than actually delivering on policy statements.”
Read this in The Sunday Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6991086.ece headed:
January 17, 2010
“Whitehall rebels over ‘brutish’ Gordon Brown”. You will get it right from the top of the Civil Service. They think GB “micro manages” and totally lack a coherent strategy for managing Corporate Britain.
“John Peter (06:09:45) :
What do you think of this article in The Sunday Times today Sunday “World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown”. ”
Yeah, big numbers, 2035, 2350, you confuse that easily. Even the beeb couldn’t suppress it for unknown reasons:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8387737.stm
Makes you wonder how much doublethink they have to do, their heads must hurt.
p.g.sharrow “PG” (21:24:26) :
Then you should be using the Old Farmer’s Almanac instead of the lesser Farmers Almanac.
——-
Marlene Anderson (22:06:07) :
Oh, great – they lost it when they redid their web site, nice to see they put it back up. (That’s the article by Joe D’Aleo, and one reason why the OFA called for a couple decades of cooling in their 2009 edition.)
MODERATOR: FYI : “United Nations’ blunder on glaciers exposed ” published in the Australian – see http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/united-nations-blunder-on-glaciers-exposed/story-e6frg6n6-1225820614171
Thanks for your great work, CTM and Anthony!
Bob.
I’m not sure where to post this – but it very well could have a greater impact than climategate – I couldnt’ find the tips thread
From the times of london http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece “World Misled over Himalayan Meltdown”
Basically it reveals that the whole issue of the Himalayan Glacier meltdown that the IPCC used to say it had a 90 percent probability was based on a New Scientist article that was based on a phone call with the author of the article and an scientist. The scientist says that it was pure speculation
“Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was “speculation” and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.”
Sorry John Peter you beat me to it while I was writing 🙂
It seems that yesterdays temperature is never posted next to yesterdays prediction.
I would like to see weather forecasts with little stat boxes next to them showing if they were right for the past three days.
There should also be a tally of hits or misses for the year.
John Peter,
The real fun to me is that New Scientist is now demanding an explanation from Pacahuri and the IPCC:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527432.800-sifting-climate-facts-from-speculation.html
Do not try to use the chaotic nature of weather to debunk climate predictions. I started along this path at one time and it leads nowhere. It gets down to timescales. It doesn’t mean that a significant change in climate can’t happen on short timescales, however, it is unlikely. Just like weather can generally be forecast up to 3-5 days in advance (with occasional misses). Climate should be predictable 100-150 years in advance (assuming 30 years is a good definition of climate units).
The problem is not chaos. The problem is the lack of knowledge of the underlying principles of climate change.