From the GWPF, here’s a collection of articles that are collectively ripping the Met Office a “new one”. And, it is easy to see why. Here’s the Met Office supercomputer enhanced model output forecast from October 2010:
The map and this below are from Autonomous Mind: The piece even goes on to name the Met Office employee who spoke about the map and talked up the effort that had gone into producing the start point for a ‘seasonal forecast‘:
Helen Chivers, Met Office forecaster, insisted the temperature map takes into account the influence of climate factors such as El Nino and La Nina – five-yearly climatic patterns that affect the weather – but admits this is only a “start point” for a seasonal forecast. She said: “The map shows probabilities of temperatures in months ahead compared to average temperatures over a 30-year period.
Click the links in stories below for more at each website.
Let’s hope Santa isn’t relying on weather forecasts from the U.K. Met Office. The British deep freeze of recent weeks (which has also immobilized much of continental Europe) is profoundly embarrassing for the official forecaster. Just two months ago it projected a milder than usual winter. This debacle is more than merely embarrassing. The Met Office is front and centre in rationalizing the British government’s commitment to fight catastrophic man-made global warming with more and bigger bureaucracy, so its conspicuous errors raise yet more questions about that “settled” science. –-Peter Foster, Financial Post, 22 December 2010
Dave Britton, the Met Office’s Chief Press Officer, e-mailed the following statement to the Global Warming Policy Foundation:
Following the entry on your blog regarding the Met Office please find the Met Office response below:
The Met Office has not issued a seasonal forecast to the public and categorically denies forecasting a ‘mild winter’ as suggested by Boris Johnson <http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/> in his column in the Daily Telegraph.
Following public research, the Met Office no longer issues long-range forecasts for the general public; instead we provide a monthly outlook on our website, which have consistent and clearly sign-posted the very cold conditions.
Our day-to-day forecasts have been widely recognised as providing excellent advice to government, businesses and the public with the Daily Telegraph commenting only today that ‘the weekends heavy snow was forecast with something approaching pin-point accuracy by the Met Office’.
The public trust and take heed of our warnings and it is misleading to imply that the Met Office did not see this cold weather coming.
Dave Britton Chief Press Officer, Met Office – FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom, E-mail: dave.britton@metoffice.gov.uk – http://www.metoffice.gov.uk
GWPF Note: The Met Office’s track record of forecasting mild winters can be found here: Warm Bias: How The Met Office Mislead The British Public
The Met Office denial of a forecast is fatuous and their temperature map demonstrates clearly their computer models, featuring the global warming bias that undermines the Met Office’s predictions, are as much use as a chocolate fireguard. –Autonomous Mind, 20 December 2010
The economic impact of the freezing winter will deepen this week as Britain prepares for more travel gridlock, and millions of workers, travellers and shoppers were expected to stay at home in the run-up to Christmas rather than brave the icy conditions. Estimates from the insurer Royal Sun Alliance (RSA) have put the cost of the weather to the economy at £1bn per day, a sum that is thought to be hitting retailers, restaurants and bars the hardest. The total cost is expected to be around £13bn. –Jonathan Brown, The Independent, 20 December 2010
The row over the need for a multimillion-pound investment in snowploughs, de-icing equipment and salt stocks deepened this morning with the publication of a government-backed report using Met Office predictions that successive hard winters are rare. But the findings of the government-commissioned study were contradicted by Sir David King, the government’s chief scientific adviser from 2000 to 2007, who warned that ministers should plan for more cold winters. Quarmby said the Met Office remained convinced that the severe cold snap is a one-off phenomenon. –Dan Milmo, The Guardian, 21 December 2010
This is the third winter running when we have had very cold and snowy conditions hitting the UK. It comes at a time of continued, unusually weak, solar activity. Perhaps we all need to get used to colder winters across the UK in the next few years.—Paul Hudson, BBC Weather, 20 December 2010
It turns out that Dr. Viner of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit was flat-out wrong when he told the Independent in early 2000 that within a few years snow would be rare. In fact, snow has been abundant during every year but one since then. — Donna Laframboise, No Frakking Consensus, 7 January 2010
HadCrut3 published its November anomaly (0.431). That assures that
1) 2010 will not be a record year
2) February 1998 stays the warmest month
3) The trend has been going down
Will the MET dare to tell us these are signs of global warming?
mmmmmm. So they’re ok with day to day forecasts.
I’ll just look out the window…..
Red sky at night……
Red sky in morning…..
Do I get a bonus now????
TreeHugger says at 9:32 am: “The Internet has given rise to . . . challengers who question every aspect of the science — even the physics, worked out in the 19th century, that shows that carbon dioxide traps heat. That is a point so elementary . . .”
Hugger would do well to better study the history of early climate science and CO2, particularly Arrhenius, Chrowder, Chamberlin, Eckholm, and Ångström. Ångström concluded that atmospheric CO2 and water vapor absorb infrared radiation in the same spectral regions and that any additional CO2 would, therefore have little or no effect on global temperature. He published the first infared spectrum of CO2. It was thought that atmospheric CO2 had already absorbed all the long-wave radiation; thus any increases in CO2 would not change the radiative heat balance, but might augment plant growth.
Nearly two decades following Chamberlin’s early work, the CO2 climate hypothesis had fallen out of favor. In a letter to Charles Schuchert of Yale’s Peabody Museum he wrote, “I greatly regret that I was among the early victims of Arrhenius’ error.” Towards the end of his career, Chamberlin thought in 1922 that the role of CO2 had been overemphasized.
Mr. Hugger, the physics had been worked out in the early 20th century. The physical properties of the CO2 molecule have not changed.
I have over the years had numerous conversations with this one weatherman who is as big a AGW alarmist as there is. He once sent me some of the maps he used. These maps looked pretty with all the colors and had very precise numbers for temperature and humidity ect. The only way to tell a forecast map from current or past conditions is to read the time, which is printed very small. I can well imagine that if one spent all one’s time looking at these maps one could easily get confused as to what is reality and what is a forecast. The Met office is so sure their computer models are right they ignore the reality that is staring them right in the face.
Ed Caryl says:
December 22, 2010 at 8:53 am
While Cricket is likely the grandfather of just about all bat and ball games, Baseball included there are different rules.
The inning of the team batting isn’t over until either 10 out of 11 of the team are out or they say it is over which is called Declaring.
In the case of AGW the Team are unlikely to declare so we’ll just have to keep getting them out one at a time.
You can be out by being run out (caught between bases).
Being bowled out when the ball hits the wickets.
If you accidentally hit your own wicket with a ball or bat and knock off the bails.
Being caught out on a fly ball
Being stumped because you have gone too far away from the wicket i.e. you are at bat but have left the batters box.
By Leg Before Wicket – leaving your protectively padded leg in such a place that if it hadn’t been there then the Umpire believes that the ball would have hit the wicket.
When a batsman is given out in Cricket the Umpire raises one finger. Sort suitable eh ?
Roger Longstaff says:
December 22, 2010 at 9:19 am
“The probability maps are prefaced “Raw data are displayed…….”
Surely, these are computer predictions of future temperatures, not raw data?”
Well, it is technically “data” and it must be the “raw” output from their computer models, but I still think it demonstrates that they have difficulty distinguishing between observed data and derived data – and they obviously think higher of the latter.
Perhaps they think the more difficult something is to do the more accurate it is – and it is certainly harder to snag a supercomputer to play “global thermoclimatic war” than it is to write down what the thermometer says outside.
Peter H says: December 22, 2010 at 9:55 am
People here clearly don’t understand probability.
————————————————————————-
Well Peter H whether they do or don’t my question is why play about with ‘probability’? IMO, that should be left to the bookmakers who know how to use it.
—————————————————————————
Interestingly, with the very cold weather likely to continue, it’s possible the December might be the coldest in the CET instrumental record. And you know what? Not one of the kind of people WUWT likes to detest (‘warmers’) will start waffling on about some nit pick or other to try cast doubt on the figures. But, if we see a very warm month next year I can guarantee this blog will have a post casting as much nitpicking doubt about as it can…
————————————————————————
Are you a ‘turf accountant’ Peter H?
Douglas
Peter H,
“Last night they forecast a band of snow for parts of the middle of England which duly arrived and on time. ”
They didn’t make the forecast until the previous evening. Earlier that day – less than 24 hours out – the forecast for today was clear skies and sunshine. In other words, they failed to forecast until it actually appeared on the radar maps. I call that pretty poor, since xcweather had made the forecast a day earlier.
Alistair Ahs says:
December 22, 2010 at 9:38 am
“It’s perfectly possible that the Met Office did predict a colder than 2000 – 2009 winter, which is shown in the above maps as a warmer than 1970-2000 winter.”
That is some of the best spin I have seen to date. If there were a Golden Globe/Pulitzer Prize for media spin, I nominate your comment in its entirety.
I think you are right about the modeling tools. They are totally insane, and not just too warm. For example, just a few days ago, their long term forecast looked rather strange for early this morning (Dec 22) and one week on.
The black line is the predicted temperature, and the light and dark bands signify 80% probability, this is according to met.no itself. Trouble is, this graph shows that they predicted the temperature this morning at 6:00 AM to be -10C, and at 7:00 AM it would be -30C !! At the same time the 80% probaility should all the time stay near -30C.
My own temperature measurements (granted, not at the exact same location but 30km away) showed that at 6AM this morning it was -19C and at 7AM it was about -18.5C.
These forcasts are just total garbage. Met.no claims that there is “systematic error” in their long term forecasts. Indeed there is. But the short term forecasts are also in error, sometimes by 10C.
Unlike what the Met Office says, Met.no still issues seasonal forecasts and have predicted that central Norway should be 2.5C above normal for December-January-February. Trouble is, the measured average temperature so far in December is more than 10C below the prediction, and to get the seasonal forecast right we are going to need above freezing temperatures from now on through February.
But my thermometer shows -13.9C right now. Last night it was -21.5C. Just a few more days, and we are going to need tropical temperatures i January and february to meet the met.no target.
The Met Office has apparently concluded there is only a 1 in 20 chance of severe winter weather in Great Britain in any one year. Upon what detailed analysis is this important conclusion based? Is the analysis available for the public to review? What climate experts signed off on the analysis?
latitude says:
December 22, 2010 at 8:21 am
I would be nice if someone could predict the weather or climate, but they can’t.
——————————
Piers Corbyn does pretty well, at predicting extreme weather events in advance.
Don’t miss this one:
“12.14 For the purpose of this report, the following summarises what we understand:
The probability of the next winter being severe is virtually unrelated to the fact of just having experienced two severe winters, and is still about 1 in 20.
The effect of climate change is to gradually but steadily reduce the probability of severe winters in the UK.
However, when severe winters come, they could still be extreme – in terms of snowfall, wind and storms, though not necessarily in relation to temperature.
”
found on
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100069327/climate-change-there-just-arent-enough-bullets/
Per Prof Slingo from the The Independent article referenced above (my emphasis):
Professor Slingo said other factors may also be affecting the weather, such as the current in the tropical Pacific Ocean, called La Nina, which is disturbing the jetstream over the north Pacific and North America.
At the same time, the diminishing Arctic sea ice may be influencing a change in the weather patterns that are still not understood, she said. A final complication is that a regular pattern of natural climate change over the North Atlantic, called the multi-decadal oscillation, may be about to enter a cooler phase, just as it did in the 1960s, when Britain also experienced colder-than-normal winters.
With this much obfuscation, how can they have the gall to tell us what will happen to climate in 100 years?
If the Met is using a forecast model based on a linear trend, there is no way that they will be able to predict cyclic events.
Per Prof Slingo from the The Independent article referenced above (my emphasis):
Professor Slingo said other factors may also be affecting the weather, such as the current in the tropical Pacific Ocean, called La Nina, which is disturbing the jetstream over the north Pacific and North America.
At the same time, the diminishing Arctic sea ice may be influencing a change in the weather patterns that are still not understood, she said. A final complication is that a regular pattern of natural climate change over the North Atlantic, called the multi-decadal oscillation, may be about to enter a cooler phase, just as it did in the 1960s, when Britain also experienced colder-than-normal winters.
With this much obfuscation, how can they have the gall to tell us what will happen to climate in 100 years?
The old phrase “even a broken clock is right twice a day” comes to mind. I had another thought taking it a little further along to demonstrate the prophetic power of the phrase. That broken clock is right 730 times per year (not accounting for leap year), however that same clock is wrong 99.9619 percent of the time when considered by the minute. Now how often are the MET clowns wrong???
The Heatrow saga is all over the telly here in Oz. I hear the airport boss is going to forego his 2010 bonus, bless his cotton socks.
So how about those bonuses for the Met Office this year? They pocketed enough last year didn’t they? Any MetO wag humble enough to forego his/her bonus?
Sarf of the River,
If you have Freesat, at 6.55ish every weekday look at the weather forecast from BBC Scotland, and most days you will see a N. Atlantic isobar chart.
[snip – trying to make it look like you are in the UK, with a bogus email address, while the IP address comes from NASA in Pasadena, certainly doesn’t work. Again, see the policy page]
It’s not just the Met Office which needs roasting – all the politicians, government agencies, airport agencies, local councils, railways, highway agency and their top managers need a jolly good bashing as well.
After all, if London’s Mayor Boris Johnson manages to look at Piers Corbyn’s forecasts and acts upon them (or so he said), then why can’t the other top-notch managers and bureaucrats do so as well?
On the other hand, let’s take the Met Office and their warmy acolytes, like Monbiot, at their word. After all – haven’t they been preaching to us that harsh winters are a feature of global warming?
Which means, obviously, that with AGW there will be more harsh winters, no?
Therefore all those who have made life a misery for us all for the last five days have acted irresponsibly by not getting more snow ploughs, de-icers, sand, grit and salt. And that, equally obviously, runs very much counter to the precautionary principle which the AGWers, the Met Office, the politicians etc so love, and never stop using so that we shell out even more taxes for their windmills.
Goose – gander: meet sauce!!
Jo Nova has similar observations about the Australian equivalent to the MET. Same programs/ers at work??
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/12/could-the-australian-bom-get-it-more-wrong/
December 22, 2010 at 8:21 am JOhn of KEnt … Not too bad yourself…
Peter H says:
December 22, 2010 at 9:55 am
People on here understand probability just fine.
If you look at most long-term forecasts they are most often based on something like a 40% probability of warmer than average temperatures, a 30% probability of average temps and a 30% probabilty of below average temperatures. The same with precipitation.
Forecasting a “mild, wet winter” on that basis (it would actually have a 16% chance of happening) is completely meaningless. No wonder they end up with egg all over their faces.
I would agree that the Met generally do a good job of predicting the weather up to 3-5 days in advance, but beyond that it is pretty much guesswork, so why bother? Why try and pretend that they know a lot more than they actually do?
By consistently getting it wrong, they are achieving nothing more than damaging their reputation, and having articles, like the one above, heaping ridicule and scorn upon them.
Serves them right, IMO.
TreeHugger says:
December 22, 2010 at 9:32 am
“even the physics, worked out in the 19th century, that shows that carbon dioxide traps heat”
A CO2 molecule absorbs heat then re-emits the heat in equal directions.
Please explain in detail how the heat remains ‘trapped’?
Even someone who has had a class in thermodynamics knows that a CO2 molecule ‘traps’ nothing.