
Guest Post by Barry Woods
In The Telegraph (UK newspaper), it was reported that Roger Harrabin, an environment analyst at the BBC, told the Radio Times:
“The trouble is that we simply don’t know how much to trust the Met Office. How often does it get the weather right and wrong. And we don’t know how it compares with other, independent forecasters.” – The Telegraph
Boris Johnson – The Mayor of London, is arguably perhaps the most democratically personally elected politician in the UK. As over 1.1 million London voters voted for him directly for the elected office of Mayor. This is compared to a UK Member of Parliament, who might win their seat with as little as 20,000 votes. In many seats, if you wore the right party badge a ‘mascot’ might get elected. Whilst the public are voting for a person, it is the party they represent that is being voted for.
In my opinion, no other Conservative candidate could have won that election to become Mayor, at a time (May 2008) when the Labour Party were still very much in power in the UK. Boris Johnson won peoples votes despite him being a Conservative for many members of the public that voted for him.
Thus, for a high profile Conservative like Boris to write glowingly about (arch sceptic) Piers Corbyn and criticise the Met Office, is in my opinion very significant politically in the UK. Especially in light of the fact that Boris wrote this before the Met Office started denying they had predicted mild winters and before their ‘secret’ prediction statement.
Boris Johnson cares whether London (including Heathrow airport) and himself is made to look bad in the eyes of a world audience. I wonder what Boris thinks about the Met Office ‘secret’ prediction?
As Boris is in the position of power, knowing whether or not London and Heathrow received the ‘secret’ warning’.
As the UK government, Heathrow airport particularly, were woefully under-prepared AGAIN this winter, the big budget UK taxpayer-funded Met Office have finally moved from being a laughing-stock, into surely a public enquiry by that ‘secret’ statement. In the time of recession, big budget organisations like the Met Office have to be seen to be performing, not acting in the public’s eyes as a global warming campaigning lobby group.
This time politicians have been publicly embarrassed by the Met Office.
In the Sunday Telegraph today, Christopher Booker calls the Met Office to account:
” First it was a national joke. Then its professional failings became a national disaster. Now, the dishonesty of its attempts to fight off a barrage of criticism has become a real national scandal. I am talking yet again of that sad organisation the UK Met Office, as it now defends its bizarre record with claims as embarrassingly absurd as any which can ever have been made by highly-paid government officials.” – Christopher Booker
Anybody in the age of the internet can now check on anything a public body or advocate has said, the politicians and journalists are only slowly becoming aware of this in my opinion. The Global Warming Policy Foundation has also publicly written to the Transport Secretary calling for an enquiry. On the board of the GWPF there are respected senior UK politicians, on the GWPF Academic Advisory Panel there are very well respected scientists including:
Professor Robert Carter, Professor Freeman Dyson, Professor Richard Lindzen, Professor Philip Stott, Professor Ross Mckitrick, Professor Paul Reiter, Professor Ian Plimer & Professor Hal Lewis
This issue will be he heard and will be discussed privately in the corridors of power.
For one particular high profile politician like Boris Johnson to have moved publicly even as far as he goes in the following, demonstrates that the CAGW ‘political game has changed’ permanently in the UK.
Before the Copenhagen Conference (Cop 15) – Boris Johnson, the Conservative Mayor of London (formerly the Conservative Member of Parliament for Henley-on-Thames – my local town), wrote dismissively of the Climategate emails in the Telegraph;
“That is why the polls show such an amazingly obstinate public refusal to accept the reality of global warming. That is why there is still a market for thermoscepticism of all kinds. That is why people seize on a few stray emails from the University of East Anglia which seem – wrongly – to undermine the scientific case.” – Boris Johnson
At the time Boris was fully behind the Labour Prime Minister, who went off to Copenhagen, stating ’50 Days to Save the Planet’, and spoke about ‘Flat-earthers’, ‘anti-science climate sceptics’. The Minister of State for the Department of Energy And Climate Change, ED Milliband (now the Labour Party leader, in opposition) apparently thinking calling CAGW sceptics ‘saboteurs’ was appropriate at the time all UK political parties were convinced that environmental ‘climate change’ policies were a vote winner, a UK General Election was possibly weeks, at most a few weeks away.
This year, we have a new government in the UK after 13 years of AGW consensus, a Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition, Boris is still mayor of London, and this week, he writes glowingly about Piers Corbyn (Weather Action) out predicting the Met Office. Piers is a total CAGW sceptic, behind the recent Climate Fools day – House of Commons meeting. For Boris Johnson to write publicly positively about Piers and criticizing the government-funded, Met Office, demonstrates how much things have changed. Boris Johnson, despite his slightly buffoonish comical genial image is nobody’s fool, serving prominently as a conservative politician for so long is evidence of that alone.
Telegraph: The man who repeatedly beats the Met Office at its own game, by Boris Johnson
“Piers Corbyn not only predicted the current weather, but he believes things are going to get much worse, says Boris Johnson.
“….It is no use my saying that London Underground and bus networks are performing relatively well – touch wood – when Heathrow, our major international airport, is still effectively closed two days after the last heavy snowfall; when substantial parts of our national rail network are still struggling; when there are abandoned cars to be seen on hard shoulders all over the country; and when yet more snow is expected today, especially in the north.”
“….So let me seize this brief gap in the aerial bombardment to pose a question that is bugging me. Why did the Met Office forecast a “mild winter”?
“…Piers Corbyn works in an undistinguished office in Borough High Street. He has no telescope or supercomputer. Armed only with a laptop, huge quantities of publicly available data and a first-class degree in astrophysics, he gets it right again and again.Back in November, when the Met Office was still doing its “mild winter” schtick, Corbyn said it would be the coldest for 100 years. Indeed, it was back in May that he first predicted a snowy December, and he put his own money on a white Christmas about a month before the Met Office made any such forecast. He said that the Met Office would be wrong about last year’s mythical “barbecue summer”, and he was vindicated. He was closer to the truth about last winter, too.”
Boris Johnson went on to say that man-made co2 is still a cause of global warming, according to an overwhelming majority of scientists, James Delingpole of the Telegraph summaries Boris’ current dilemma more eloquently than I in his blog.
“So what sounds like a fervent declaration of faith in the Warmist creed may on closer examination be a perfectly innocuous statement of the bleeding obvious cunningly calculated to appease all Boris’s rent-seeking chums in the City who stand to make a fortune from the Great Carbon Scam and would be most displeased if the Mayor of London were to show signs of wobbling.
Yet wobbling is, of course, exactly what Boris is doing. Or rather – remember, this is the man so ambitious he makes Alexander The Great look like Olive from On The Buses – he is slyly repositioning himself to take advantage of the inevitable collapse of public faith in the Great Anthropogenic Global Warming Ponzi Scheme.” – James Delingpole
If the politicians think trouble is ahead, they back the winners, not only has the Met Office predictions of mild winter been wrong three winters in the row, they have been SEEN to be wrong, there was plenty of mainstream press coverage before the harsh winters that other forecaster were predicting a severe winter. Following the last years mild winter prediction by the Met Office, there was even BBC coverage debating whether their very expensive super computer had a ‘warm bias’ which was wildly reported in the mainstream media in the UK.
BBC – A frozen Britain turns the heat up on the Met office – Paul Hudson
Could the model, seemingly with an inability to predict colder seasons, have developed a warm bias, after such a long period of milder than average years? Experts I have spoken to tell me that this certainly is possible with such computer models. And if this is the case, what are the implications for the Hadley centre’s predictions for future global temperatures? Could they be affected by such a warm bias? If global temperatures were to fall in years to come would the computer model be capable of forecasting this?
The Met Office (Hadley Centre) is an interconnected part of the UK Climate Science establishment. In the UK we have not just had a cold winter but the second coldest December on record, and the coldest winter on record. The UK CET record actually means something (not just a 30 year satellite record) the Central England Temperature (CET) dataset, goes back to the 1660′s. Again all this information, is now in the mainstream media with headlines including ‘mini ice age’ and ‘coldest winter in 300 years’ read by millions of members of the general public.
BBC – December 2010 Update – Second Coldest since 1659 – Paul Hudson
[For the uninitiated: (Mean cet data) = Central England Temperature dataset, more here]
There are two possibilities now.
1.) If the Met office are telling the truth.
Then the government failed to prepare or warn public bodies about what is now the SECOND coldest December in the UK since records began. London Heathrow was publicly embarrassed and closed for days as it could not handle a few inches of snow, it had only invested an additional £500,000 in de-icing equipment and the government apparently stepped into help ensure fresh supplies reached the airport. The lack of readiness for the snow will have had an effect on the UK economy. No doubt all this negative publicity shown by the media around the world, billions of pound in the economy and possibly risking future billions of foreign inwards investment, as London appears to be as organised as an undeveloped nation. I imagine some corporations, passengers, or airlines might want to sue.
There is even, also some suspicion that if this was the case, it was kept quiet because predictions of the coldest winter in the UK for decades would be a bit awkward for the Energy and Climate Change Secretary of State flying off to the man-made global warming, climate change, global climate disruption, future climate breakdown Cop 15 Cancun conference.
2.) If the Met Office are NOT telling the truth
If the Met Office are shall we say, spinning a line, to make out they are not useless at predicting the weather, then I imagine even the dimmest politician and non-questioning ‘investigative’ journalists might start asking what exactly is the Met Office for.
Bishop Hill and other blogs report that Freedom of Information request are being sent off for these ‘ so called ‘secret’ Met Office predictions made to the government.
After all it must be true, the BBC’s Roger Harrabin reported it?
I wonder if the BBC have thought to send any FOI requests in themselves, just to check the facts of this story. The BBC just renewed a 5 year contract with the Met Office to provide all the weather forecasting for the BBC. The BBC surely does not want to look as if it is being lax in its investigative journalism? If only to check that the service provided to the BBC by the Met Office is competent and can be trusted, as it is taxpayers money paying for this service.
“The trouble is that we simply don’t know how much to trust the Met Office.” – BBC Roger Harrabin, from the Telegraph
I’d like to wish a belated Happy New Year from RealClimategate.org to all readers of Watts Up With That.
Thanks again to Anthony Watts for indulging my thoughts from the UK
Geoff Sherrington, as a retired teacher, I really enjoy your sensible attitiude to written communications in blog posts. If the communication is clear, readers should definitely not concern themselves with nit-pickery. WUWT, which is NOT a literary society, adheres to a very acceptable standard of written English and code of behaviour, IMHO. Some pedants’ comments about posters who obviously have English as a second language are plain embarrassing!
At my local library in outer London, some drongo has set him/herself the task of proof reading crime novels and correcting the typos in heavy blue ink; to say this irritating is putting it mildly.
And yes, a mis-spelt word can add layers of humour to a communication; an asthmatic school friend’s parents received a note from his concerned teacher which began…
“Billy has trouble with his breeding…”
Picking on Boris Johnson is like shooting tuna in a tin.
Boris WAS a sceptic, until he ran for mayor and faced the expediencies of appealing to the metropolitan constituency in London and to be on-message with Dave Cameron.
He became a warmist and is now showing his sceptic petticoats once more.
You should see what he wrote in today’s Telegraph about India, it had me choking on my tea in indignation. Consistency is not his strong point.
Let’s face it.
No matter which way the Met office tries to squirm its way out of its inadequacy(s), the end result will not be pretty for them due to the domino effect in any direction.
What kills me the most though ?
Listening now to pro-AGWers (at other blogs and forums) rave on, in a desperate ploy of defense, about how the Met has on their website in, “big red letters”, the claim that their reports are only “probabilities” and “starting points” for seasonal forecasts and were “never meant as an actual seasonal forecast”.
So if that’s the case, I ask the warmists this: Just what exactly is this $200+ million/year publicly funded operation (armed with a $33 million dollar computer system and spanky new digs) that was set up as a “world leading weather services for the public, business, and government” doing then with their time, effort, and money ?? Since they have omitted (aka hedged) any and all responsibility to seasonal weather forecasting now, remind us again of what exactly the public is funding ?? And tell us also how the government offices are to delegate their annual budget for seasonal expenditures… since they now, apparently, no longer have a department to advice in that area anymore ??
You see… no matter which way this tries to get spun, there’s just no way of cleanly squirming out.
And to add some icing to the already delectable cake: We get a Met office spokesperson stating that they (as in the Met office faculty) could do a much better job with an additional $20+ million more for new and improved computers…
Really ?!
… Hmm, I wonder how much extra CO2 output would that additional $20+ million worth of computation spit up each year ?
You better believe Mr. Barry Woods hit the nail right on the head when he raises the question of what will be the implications of this public fiasco.
I’m not even sure why we are entertaining the idea that the Met Office had a “secret forecast” that they only told the UK government. All motives for such a bizarre declaration point to a lie.
It’s clear, and has been, that the AGW folks at the Met office are at odds with the new coalition government. As such, it isn’t beyond reason to imagine them trying to foist their failure off on the skeptics.
Likewise, their rationale for even having a secret forecast doesn’t hold up to reason. If they were afraid of being attacked for getting the prediction wrong then why wouldn’t they publicize the prediction they believed to be correct? It makes no sense.
Well, I guess there is another scenario where it does make sense, even if their reasons would still be completely fabricated. It is possible that they DID get the forecast right, but were so sold on AGW that they refused to believe it. In that case I can see them hedging by letting someone in the UK government in on the “secret” and then crossing their fingers that their other warmer prediction would be the right one.
I’m not sure which is more damning.
steveta_uk – Please can we comment on the content of the article now..
Please can we move on, it was my mistake….this article was not quite READY yet as has been explained. There was a bit of a silly cock up and misunderstanding. I sent an email to Anthony saying an article called – New Scientist – Those cursed climate emails, was pending review..
So I was a little surprised to get a reply saying my article called – The Met Office Secret Prediction and the political implications – was full of typos, etc, but had been fixed
I must have clicked pending review on the wrong article, and Anthony must have just logged onto WordPress, saw a pending article and not yet checked email (or been on the road) for a while, to see my email saying that a different article was pending.
it was nearly finished, Anthony probably read and published it without thinking he needed to spell check it.
If Anthony has made any mistake at all, it is only one of trust, he trusted me to have written it to a high standard and not thought spellchecking required – remember it was an unfinsished article, marked pending review instead of the correct finished article.
Busy people, blogging in the own times, make mistakes in good faith, how we handle them is what is important. No one has been hurt. I have apologised to Anthony for my mistake, and I hope I will be trusted to make other guest posts – that is of course if anyone is interested 😉
If I have offended anyone by my typo’s and grammatical errors elsewhere I am sorry, that is nothing to do with Watts Up With That. I am aware of my limitations, I cannot type for toffee, I can also read, and re-read things a number of times, and still miss spelling mistakes and missing words and duplicate words. I am also aware that I can torture grammar sometimes.
I do not have much spare time, to quote someone badly, no doubt, ‘I apologise for the length of the letter, I did not have the Time to make it shorter’
Since having a guest author logon, I have taken take particular care and time to get right and I even get my wife to doublecheck everything, which she did for the article I intended to get published at Watts Up.
(comment in other blogs are my own, as I’m not a full time paid by Koch or Exxon employee, I type and comment when I can.. I am aware of my haste sometimes, I have little time, I even started my own blog, just to get an edit function, if anyone knows my name, I suggest they can just ignore anything I comment lest they get offended by typos and bad grammar)
To get onto topic…
From the info above, that the Met Office HAD warned the cabinet office of a harsh winter.
I wonder if London Heathrow, and the Mayor of London knew about it?
Boris Johnson got it in the neck politically for the general unpreparedness for snow, in London and at Heathrow airport. 1.1 million london voters voted for Boris to be Mayor, was he made aware? I imagine he will be pretty cross if this info was not passed on to him, and the London Councils…
I believe a number of airline carriers are also threatening to sue BAA who own Heathrow, it would be a good defence for BAA, if they went on the non secret advice, or evidence of negligence if BAA were aware of the secret advice.
Did the cabinet office not warn the councils, or the airports, lots of questions and political consequences. A BAA enquiry was set up in December, what advice was received from the Met Office at the time, is an obvious question to put to BAA, in light od the ‘secret prediction’
BBC – BAA launches inquiry into Heathrow Airport snow chaos
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12071442
So, now instead of warmists, we have thermophobist?
Looks like the Global Warming Policy foundation (mentioned) has some political clout..
http://thegwpf.org/uk-news/2186-labour-mp-louise-ellman-set-to-head-probe-into-winter-transport-fiasco-.html
This is of particular interest:
“The Met Office stated that it warned the Cabinet Office – in charge of emergency planning – in late October that the onset of winter would be “exceptionally cold.”
But their extreme weather warning was kept under wraps by ministers. The Cabinet Office has refused to reveal which, if any, local transport authorities, airports and utility companies were alerted.”
Someone must come out of all this not looking very good(Met Office, The Cabinet Office, Councils, BAA or the Coalition government, or is nobody ever at fault anymore.
From the GWPF website – press release:
“A LIVERPOOL MP is set to head a Parliamentary probe into this winter’s transport “fiasco.” Riverside’s Louise Ellman, as chairman of the Transport Select committee, has received official requests to launch a wide-ranging inquiry into why snowfalls up to the Christmas/New Year break crippled the rail and road system. If given the go-ahead it will focus on the coalition government’s alleged failure to respond to Met Office warnings of severe weather.
That led to weeks of turmoil with trains cancelled, motorways shut and thousands of travellers stranded in appalling weather.
Mrs Ellman has circulated complaints to committee members from all major parties and they will decide whether they merit a full-blown investigation.”
Just ask the MET office what the weather will be tomorrow in the middle of a change in weather patterns over the UK, they wouldn’t have a clue.
They can only tell you what the weather will be like tomorrow as long as it doesn’t change from today.
Don’t believe me just watch there reports as a high or low pressure changes, there forecasts get worst to useless.
The MET office publicly owned, privately run. (Funny enough like the UK banks).
@Alexander K
‘And yes, a mis-spelt word can add layers of humour to a communication; an asthmatic school friend’s parents received a note from his concerned teacher which began…
“Billy has trouble with his breeding…”’
To parafrase an aussi: “Oi!”
You shouldn’t poke fun of the oxygen challenged folks, what if they roll around the floor laughing their collective butt off, having a blast, whilst untimely constriction of their (British) airways make them keel over, dead! An asthmatic judge could treat it comedic manslaughter.
I’ve just followed various links from the Register posting (mentioned earlier) to Harrabins “BBC Weather Test: Setting course” – http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9194000/9194332.stm – from last October.
Roger completes his summary like this:
No matter that the barbecue summer slogan was coined by the Met Office press office and the forecasters had made a more sensible probabilistic forecast.
Roger has said this more than once, but it is simply not true. I remember quite clearly hearing the original BBQ summer forecast spoken from the mouth of a forecaster on BBC radio 4 while driving home from work. This was NOT a PR person, it was a forecaster, and this repeated attempt by Roger and others to claim otherwise simply doesn’t wash.
Yarmy says:
Piers Corbyn predicted a bitter January for the UK, one of the coldest on record. It’s not looking like that so far.
One week into January seems a bit early to call it, but regardless, I’d say that Corbyn’s predictions are showing a greater correlation with reality than the Met.
Brian of Moorabbin, AUS says:
January 9, 2011 at 10:00 pm
I’m still trying to come to grips with this one:
The Global Warming Policy Foundation has also publicly written to the Transport Secretary calling for an enquiry, on the board of the GWPF there are respected politicians and scientists, this issue will be he heard and discussed privately in the corridors of power.
Do you mean:
The Global Warming Policy Foundation has also publicly written to the Transport Secretary calling for an enquiry. Unfotunately on the board of the GWPF there are respected politicians and scientists, so this issue will only be heard and discussed privately in the corridors of power.
Or was it something else you meant to say?
[snip]
REPLY: You make an excellent point with your addition of the word “Unfotuantely”.
– Anthony
I have to agree with Richard Verney.
Perhaps you should watch some of the ‘Yes Minister’ clips on You Tube. If something is important in UK politics it is discussed quietly in the corridors of power as politicians quietly maneuver to position themselves with the new understanding. There is no loud public verbal assaults or leaping off bandwagons until such quiet maneuvering has completed. Indeed – after such discussions – policies may just be quietly dropped or ‘run out of parliamentary time’ with no embarrassing explanations given or requested.
Perhaps someone should watch the Met Office ‘line items’ in the budget for this year they may show the impact of these unpublished discussions.
As I’ve learned to expect from you, Barry, another excellent post.
As for mistakenly sending the uncorrected draft, that’s just Murphy’s Law kicking in. I’m a tad saddened by how,’much more exercised, some people get with a failure of form than an absence of substance.
It’s also interesting to see a pattern emerging with posts on non CAGW sites that elicit very swift and hostile responses from gangs of “drive-by” shootists.
It’s almost as if there are teams of dedicated individuals out there who continually monitor WUWT and etc for new posts, look for weak points or opportunities to nit-pick, Strawmanise or trot out trusty, old red-book mantras and then get to the head of the comment queue and basically hijack the thread.
Perhaps you should set aside some of your “Big Oil” money to hire a PR person, Barry? Bob Ward is, iirc, as cheap as they come. He’s a red-hot speed demon on a keyboard and he’s a real whiz when it comes to getting to the head of the comment queue.
In the CIF section of the Graundiad, he sometimes exhibits almost psychic powers and has his response ready before the article has been posted!
It is hardly surprising with the doctrine of ‘Post Normal Science’ so prevalent in the UK .
For those unfamiliar with this, as I was until yesterday, it is crucial to understand how a doctrine which believes science should be prepared to trade truth for influence and political ends has come to be an integral part of ‘climate science’ and political activity.
The article has quotes from Mike Hulme of UEA and Tyndall centre, he is one of the people who are highly influential on British Government policy, EU policy and the workings of the IPCC.
As Prof Hulme says “ ‘self-evidently’ dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking”
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/climate-change-and-the-death-of-science/
The great sadness in all this is that we hear so very little from sceptic MPs demanding from the floor of the house that a thorough investigation is an urgently needed by the government into these apparently conflicting statements from the Met Office. They should also demand that the totally biased Met. Office Chairman, Dr Napier be replaced forthwith by a proper chairman who is not blinded by bogus AGW science and who will not be afraid to tell the truth when seriously cold weather is on the agenda. So come on members of parliament, don’t sit back and be afraid to rock the boat. Stand up and be counted and speak for the majority of the electorate who are now far from convinced at the awfull scam that has been perpetrated by the AGW cult.
Bob Ryan says:
January 10, 2011 at 1:28 am
“… All AGW says about this winter’s weather is that cold as it is, without the impact of human emissions it would be colder still.”
AGW thesis is not disprovable and is thus not science, it is faith alone.
Jimbo says:
January 9, 2011 at 9:49 pm
For those who are unaware there is a license fee paid by owners of television sets. Currently £145.50 for a colour licence and £49.00 for a black-and-white.
——————————————————————————
Amazing….I hope our FCC here in the U.S. doesn’t find out about his.
I note from the previous thread that the Met Office ‘secretly briefed the government on a cold winter’.
Well that secret briefing obviously did not extend as far as Boris Johnson. Is he not to be trusted with such sensitive state secrets? I think one should know.
.
Even those of us with no scientific training have known for several years that there was no concensus on AGW.
What has previously infuriated me is now quite amusing in it’s own way, for even with a few weeks warning the game was up, as we simply don’t have the snow ploughs and other equipment to cope.
It will be highly amusing to watch Her Majesty’s Government “stick or twist” for next winter.
The get out excuse of the “warmers” has been that last winter was a blip.
This summer our leaders will have to make a decision……no extra equipment and another fiasco or prepare for colder winters.This would of course be the biggest of all embarrassments…….its going to get hotter..the Arctic Ice Sheet will disappear……but we need more snow ploughs.
What will this lead to?…..early retirements…..BBC AGW “believers” turning on their MET Office friends and a UK Government trying to explain why we are pay a CO2 tax
and awaiting the first cases of litigation for our money back.
What fun!!!…..with the added bonus of seeing Monbiot, Toynbee, Blair, Cameron. Clegg, Milliband et al totally shafted.
Hahahaha
Bob Ryan says:
January 10, 2011 at 1:28 am
“… All AGW says about this winter’s weather is that cold as it is, without the impact of human emissions it would be colder still.”
Taking environmental changes since the 1890’s December 2010 could have been even colder. There’s more evidence that AGW had no/very little affect and months can still be as cold as any that have been recorded since the Little Ice Age. Some regions also recorded there coldest ever temperatures for any winter month. This is depsite December normally being the warmest Winter month. Looking more like natural weather and natural climate change the longer this debate go’s on. All AGW says is everything is caused by it and therefore it’s a load rubbish. (not science)
Paul Hudson of the BBC wrote
While I have a problem with them not having it right so far (that is the main theme of this post, of course), we should be asking them – and they should be asking themselves:
“Will they make iterative changes to the models, in order to start getting rid of the errors?”
If it was you or me, we would do that, to begin to make better projections. But will they?
I heard on the radio, that Virgin airline are witholding landing payments at Heathrow, until the enquiry into the fiasco at Heathrow is resloved. Not the GWPF one, but the one that BAA instigated back in December..
Millions are at stake…
If BAA knew of the Met Office other prediction, airlines pursue BAA.
If BAA did not know, airlines then pursue the government, who did or did not know?
It’s getting nasty and complicated for the Met Office and the government now..
Guardian – 1oth Jan 2010:
BAA under fire from Bmi and Virgin over Heathrow snow shutdown
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/10/virgin-atlantic-heathrow-airport-snow
“This type of thing cannot keep happening and consumers cannot be ignored,” said a Virgin Atlantic spokesman. “We want the inquiry to be robust. If we can add impetus to that by any action we are taking, then so be it.”
I have to admit to skipping over what are probably erudite comments, and other salient points. If so, I apologise if I tread on anyone’s toes.
Christopher Booker, and I believe James Delingpole have a book published (CB) and about to be published (JD) with respect to what is really behind all this crap ‘science’, which is, and will be illuminating, to say the least.
Both journalists have commented on the extreme inaccuracy of the UK met office long-term forecasts.
If I, or anyone else in the private sector (so-called) had made such a complete balls-up, only to compound it with yet more nonsense, then I would be punting my cv around, without much hope of re-employment.
To cover the first points first:
To point out spelling errors in the initial post in a helpful “editor” type way is a good thing. To make claims like “Yor speeling eroors wer sew bad mi udderwere cought fir & ey am nou surving lyfe in a fedral penistentiary” are not a good thing.
To point out spelling errors in the comments is not a good thing. The initial post should be corrected, but the comments are fire & forget – especially without the aid of a preview.
Until there is a King, then it’s the Queen’s English.
The situation with the Met Office is quango suicide. There is no way – even if the Met Office acted like angels in this – that they are going to come out of this without taking a few bullets for the team.
Money isn’t on any of their radar screens, despite austerity, there is more than enough to go round – humiliation is on their radar screens. Politicos don’t like other politicos to ask them why they’re so inept.
The Met Office should have just shut up and accepted that since everyone thinks they’re crap, having everyone thinking they’re crap isn’t so much of a change. I personally don’t reckon much to their weather forecasts – it “converges” as time goes by to the weather that actually does occur. But anyone can do this by looking out of the window, and telling it how it is.
Faster computers do not make you more accurate. They make you just as wrong but quicker.
Trying to refute a cold January when we’re only half-way through it, is like claiming 2010 is the hottest year by far – when you’re only half-way through it. We can wait folks – it’ll not be long before Feb is here. It has been cold recently, colder than the usual post 70’s winters, but not bitterly so.
The Virgin move is an interesting one. Heathrow may point and say “Act of God”, but then all Virgin have to do is point to Norway (who I believe closed for mere hours) and ask if their’s is a different God. I forsee a back-hander going to Virgin to shut up.
These cold winters are kneecapping the AGW crowd. Plaintive cries of “warming makes it go cold” just don’t seem to be working.
But I don’t want another cold winter.
As though it’s up to me… 😉
Z said: ‘Faster computers do not make you more accurate. They make you just as wrong but quicker.’
All perfectly true and here is an example of where small is beautiful. With just a laptop ‘Bryan Leyland, a retired engineer in New Zealand, armed only with Excel and access to the internet and with the McLean et al. 2009 paper, was able to get it right.’
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/leyland/soi-temperatures-leyland-end-2010.jpg
It is getting cooler as we speak.