After the revelation: The Met office and the BBC- caught cold that the Met office had issued a forecast to the UK Cabinet office, and that forecast didn’t contain much of anything useful, the least of which was any solid prediction of a harsh winter, I offered BBC’s environmental reporter Roger Harrabin a chance to respond, to tell his side of the story. At first I didn’t think he would, because his initial response was kind and courteous, but not encouraging. I was surprised today to find this essay in my Inbox, which is repeated verbatim below, with the only editing being to fix some HTML formatting in the links he provides at the end. In his essay, he’s proposing a “weather test” of the Met Office, and Piers Corbyn has agreed to be tested as well. – Anthony
===============================================================
From Roger Harrabin BBC Environment Analyst
The latest who-said-what-when saga over the Met Office winter forecast has created a stir of interest and understandable concern.
I offer some thoughts of my own on the matter in my BBC Online column. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12325695
But the row only serves to emphasize the need for better information on the performance of weather forecasters over the long term.
That’s why I am attempting with the help of the Royal Met Soc, the Royal Stats Soc and the Royal Astro Soc to devise a Weather Test in which forecasters enter their forecasts to a central data point, so they can be judged against each other over a period of time.
We’d like to compile records of daily, weekly, monthly and seasonal forecasts. The UK independent Piers Corbyn is the only person to have volunteered so far to be tested in all these categories, though we will be in discussions with others to persuade them to take part.
We, the public, need to know which forecasters and which forecasting methods we should trust for different types of forecasting.
We are progressing with a protocol which will ensure that all participants submit data in the same form. Hopefully we’ll be able to launch the project fairly soon, although it is proving time-consuming.
Before we settle the final protocol we’ll publish it on the web to gather comments from citizen scientists. When it is finally agreed by the steering group it’ll be handed to Leeds University to run the project, with no further involvement in the data from the steering committee members.
In the meantime I’m hoping to avoid further controversies like the Met Office winter forecasts. I have been accused in the blogosphere of having so many different motives that I can’t keep track of them all.
My real motive is to try to do a decent job telling people about things that are important and they probably didn’t already know. For instance I first led media coverage about the value of the Met Office seasonal forecast a number of years ago. (My other motive – for those of you who keep emailing me at weekends – is to have a life with my wife, kids and friends.)
I do need to scotch one particularly bizarre bit of blogbabble, though. Some bloggers depict me as a puppet for the BBC’s pension fund trustees trying to boost their investments in green technology.
This is definitely going in my book – it is the most entertaining and baroque allegation I’ve ever faced. The truth is that BBC bosses issue very few diktats and most programme editors are stubbornly independent. I offered the recent Met Office stories from my own contacts and knowledge. No-one else asked me to do them. I don’t even know the pension fund trustees.
There are some very clever and inventive people out there in the blogosphere. Some are laudably engaged in a pursuit of facts about climate change and weather. Others might serve more use by trying to locate Elvis.
If you want to measure my journalism, you could take a look or listen to some of the articles or radio docs below. And make up your own mind.
Uncertain Climate docs 1 & 2:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tj525
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tmcz3
Copenhagen doc http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00w6pp4
Articles on Royal Society, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10178454
Met Office, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8462890.stm
Lord Oxburgh, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10507144
And Al Gore, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7040370.stm
Comments on comparing forecasts
I think you are opening up a can of worms. Having lived in London and Scotland, I can tell you there is no such thing as “a weather forecast”, because the elements that are important to a commuter in London aren’t those relevant to someone in Scotland. To use a simple example, in London it rains, in Scotland the effect of wind is dramatically changed by the degree of wind (it blows up the kilt!)
Another aspect of the Met Office forecast which drives me crazy is the way they’ll say: “it will rain tomorrow”, but not “it will rain at 10am”. Knowing that it will rain is almost completely useless if you have to do something anyway, but knowing when it will rain means you can change your actions to avoid the period.
I remember one particular Christmas drive down to England where the Met Office were issuing snow alerts. … and I looked for hours to try and work out whethere we should head off earlier or later as a result. No doubt the Met Office reported that their forecast was accurate, but in actual use it was almost entirely useless because I couldn’t turn that warning into action.
Far too often it seems the Met Office produce warnings, not to allow people to take action as a result, but merely to cover their own backs so that they can say: “we did forecast something sometime somewhere”.
Seasonal forecasts
As I know someone who sat in on the cabinet meetings in Scotland I can appreciate the huge problems government and other organisations have as a result of weather. Decisions have to be made months in advance, planning for training and resources have to be done well ahead of any severe weather.
The cost of bad weather … the flip side being the benefit of good seasonal forecasts is massive. Whilst seasonal forecast are inherently difficult, anything is better than nothing
Off the top of my head, what we need to assess is: Average Temperature, average rain, extremes of temperature, probability of high wind.
Global temperature forecasts
For nine years the Met Office produced yearly global warming forecasts. Something like 8 of the nine were high. When I checked that information I assumed that sooner or later they would issue an apology and clarify why the forecast had been so bad.
As it turned out, they did the opposite: they issued a press release saying how good their global temperature forecasts were stating that they were only 0.06C out, which coincidentally the same amount as yearly predicted warming … in other words if they hadn’t included a fictitious warming term they would have been quite good, but as it was they were hardly any better than just using the last year’s figure.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
In the valley of the blind the one eyed man is king.
Goodnight America.
A passing thought for us all, Steve McIntyre recently stated that Roger Harrabin is a man of integrity, who am I to disagree?
Nos da
What a dissapointment, Mr Harriban please just clarify your involvement in the matter at hand. The current evidence “FOI document” makes you appear to have grossly overstated your position or outright lied.
Either defend yourself or apologize.
I would love to know this all was a big misunderstanding but you will need to give us information to determine that.
Your silence rings of guilt.
Mr. Harrabin,
I have to ask, why isn’t the story about the poor methodology and overall prediction track record for the MET? It is hardly a journalists job to be to be devising protocols and data formats for a “Weather Test” but rather, I thought it was to “decent job telling people about things that are important…” I will infer, from what you’ve written to date, that the abysmal predictive ability of the models and theory the MET has used to date is not all that important.
Bias just isn’t in what someone says or writes, but it is more often revealed by what they choose not to say.
My advice – avoid.
The BBC will be holding the pen when it comes to writing-up the results. And if the past two weeks should tell you anything, this test has only the conclusion that Roger has already determined. Don’t trust the BBC folks.
If it had been proposed by a truly independent body (including the method and reporting) Roger would have dismissed the idea out of hand.
That just leaves the question posed by Ross ….
Harrabins “reply” does nothing to addressthe issue. Instead he proposes a bizarre weather competition.
What is a bbc journalist doing trying to co-ordinate such rubbish for anyway?
We are in an information war, and mr harrabin,by his journalistic record, is the enemy.
90% ad hominem 10% de dicto
Fail
Some commenters here are stupid, like Roger Harrabin intimates is generic in “the blogosphere” – well, Roger this is WUWT and it is not representative. Some commenters here are equal to Harrabin in ability. Some are better than Harrabin . And some are hugely better than Harrabin .
I have appreciated greatly reading through remarks here. The further I read, the deeper the insights became. I realize that this is how we are all growing in wisdom and polemics. I have been appalled by every one of Harrabin ‘s pieces. I suspect part of his problem is that he will not read the remarks here and so will deny himself the God-given opportunity to take those remarks to heart. I started off here inclined to have a lot more respect for Harrabin than I have ended up with.
Please show us we are wrong, Roger.
Let us go over why Mr. Harrabin is posting on this blog:
1. Mr Harrabin posted a story saying that the Met Office had indeed warned the Cabinet Office of a severe winter;
2. Those with a nose for journalism immediately spotted the real story which was that if the Met Office leak was true the Government deliberately witheld important information from the people. Which of course begs the question as to why Mr. Harrabin and his colleagues didn’t immediately follow up that story. The least we could have expected from this leak was a follow up investigation into the failure of the Cabinet Office to warn the British people, but no story followed, nothing, zilch, nada.
3. The other problem with the story was that it was pretty easy to find out if it was true by asking the Cabinet Office. Now mere mortals like us have to put in FOI requests to get the information we’ve paid to have produced by the government, but journalists need only pick up the phone to get the story confirmed, or denied. It would appear that Mr. Harrabin failed to do that, and simply passed on the Met Office leak without further investigation.
4. Meanwhile, mere mortals in their hundreds asked the Cabinet Office for the forecast provided by the Met Office in secret and found a forecast that could in no way whatsoever be translated into a forecast for a cold winter.
So, putting aside all the accusations of bias and complicity ( and refuting thatMr. Harrabin is working to save his pension fund) there are only two questions that Mr. Harrabin needs to answer:
“Why didn’t you check the Met Office story with the Cabinet Office before publishing it?”
“Why was there no immediate follow up story on the scandalous behaviour of the Cabinet Office in witholding this vital piece of information from the British public?”
And one question Mr. Harrabin’s boss needs to answer:
“Why did you allow an uncorroborated story from an anonymous source to be published when a simple phone call to the Cabinet Office would have settled the issue.”
“Why didn’t you commission an immediate investigation into the Cabinet Office witholding information about a severe winter from the British people, and indeed the government?”
Both are surely normal in the world of journalism, and until those questions can be answered to the satisfaction of the critics the accusation that the BBC colluded with the Met Office in a ham-fisted PR exercise to deflect justified criticism of the Met Office for it’s continual awful weather forecasts must stand.
In my opinion Mr. Harrabin and his editor didn’t instigate an investigation into the scandalous witholding of information about a forthcoming severe winter by the Cabinet Office because neither believed it to be true, in which case neither believed the Met Office to be telling the truth. So why was the story published?
Unless, of course, Jo Abbess insisted on it, which would explain all.
Mr Harrabin
You have been caught out in a lie, and you have failed to answer for it.
You should have apologised.
Shame on you.
Roger – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/28/the-met-office-and-the-bbc-caught-cold/
Who at the Met office sent you scurrying off to spin its lie that the Met Office ‘did suspect we were in for an exceptionally cold early winter, and told the Cabinet Office so in October’?
izen says:
February 1, 2011 at 12:37 pm
@- Mike Jowsey says:
“For balance, also mention the billions of research funds from governments which are driving the AGW agenda. ”
I have seen the figure of $2 Billion for federal research funding, although I think it can be pushed up by including all the NASA Earth observation satellites…
For balance Glaxo, the drug company, have put aside $2.2 Billion just for legal cost which the problems with their recent diabetic drug treatment may incur….
An the cost to BP of the Gulf oil spill dwarfs any figure I have seen for climate research costs.
________________________
Ummm, the difference being individuals aren’t forced, via taxation, to fund Glaxo and BP.
@-Brent Hargreaves says:
February 1, 2011 at 2:15 pm
“I, for one, welcome Roger Harrabin’s attempt to sort sheep from goats. Much of his reporting certainly seemed, in the past, to assume that AGW was a given. His recent Uncertain Climate pieces smacked of sincerity: here is a man who seeks to understand what can and cannot be predicted in chaotic systems. He’s embarking on a rational exercise in measurement. That’s good.”
Firstly, he is a journalist. His job is the create product that will sell the available advertising space at the best price by attracting the desired demographic.
The assumption that AGW is a given is inevitable and correct. It is the dominant narrative that human societies share of the physical processes that shape the climate on the timescales of relevance. If you only access information about human knowledge of the climate from this blog and media that shares its outlook it may be understandable that you could overlook that well over 90% of the work, (as opposed to the ‘reportage’) done on the physics of climate adheres to the AGW viewpoint. It IS the given for the majority of those who study the science, or act on its findings, rather than just hold a ‘belief’ about the subject.
Chaotic systems may still have ergodic properties.
I think the current terminology is that specific end conditions are inherently unpredictable because they are ‘Initial conditions’ problems. The envelope within which the end conditions will lie IS amenable to prediction because it is a ‘Boundary ‘ problem.
If you play around with chaotic systems you often find that while the sequential behavior is chaotic and unpredictable, the range of behavior IS determined by the parameters driving the chaotic system. Bifurcation rates would be one example.
Rational measurement is good, but difficult to do when criteria of success/failure are ambiguous. This quote might be equally applied to astrological forecasts and sums up the problems of judging a comprehensive physical theory by comparing predictions by those that hold it, and those that don’t
….
“”It is unusual for most of the detail to be completely correct, but equally it is rare for nearly everything to be wrong … Some forecasts are clearly very good, and a few are very poor, but the majority fall in the gray area in between, where an optimistic assessor would find merit, but a critical assessor would find fault.””
re: spending on climate change
This has been pointed out before. If we take $12 billion as the average for just those three years, that’s $36 billion, in just three years.
Note that, unlike the Glaxo and BP loses, this is not considered a “bad” thing, with every effort to avoid similar losses, but rather it’s considered by some to be “not enough”.
http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/military_vs_climate_security_the_2011_budgets_compared#
How big does the trough have to be?
Watch it fellows! You are bending over backwards, thanking and kudosing Mr. Hrabin you will get a cramp soon. As I have said before, the Harabinites will out maneuver you every time.
Roger
I too would like a straight explanation of the confusion, and if a genuine error was made, just an explanatory correction.
However, following the recent ‘documentary’ stitching up Lord Monckton, I have more concern regarding the the BBC’s presence at the Heartland Conference last May, including yourself, and can only assume that the reportage was planned and executed as described below by another attendee.
http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2010/05/23/bbc-bias-is-outrageous/
Roger Helmer represents a majority of your viewers the British electorate in the heart of our country as a standing MEP for the East Midlands.
@izen –
The problem arises when a journalist strays into becoming a mouthpiece for the dishonest manipulation of the truth on behalf of an institution such as the Met office. Nothing you say touches on that central issue that has caused Harrabin to become the focus of so much attention on the sceptic Blogs
There are some truly superb responses in this thread. It is unfortunate that Harrabin will likely not bother to read them, let alone address the prescient points raised. It is interesting that the best way to expose these folks is to merely give them an opportunity to speak. Thanks for giving Harrabin the opportunity to discredit himself Anthony.
Julian in Wales says:
February 1, 2011 at 4:22 pm
“The problem arises when a journalist strays into becoming a mouthpiece for the dishonest manipulation of the truth on behalf of an institution such as the Met office.”
Its NOT a problem when they do the same thing on behalf of the government, or vested interests in the media/financial sector?
“Nothing you say touches on that central issue that has caused Harrabin to become the focus of so much attention on the sceptic Blogs”
I’m unconvinced that it is a ‘central issue’, unless you ascribe to groupthink/pension fund conspiracies, the fervid response on sceptic blogs might say as much about their sense of perspective as about a BBC journalist’s bias.
Dave says:
February 1, 2011 at 2:17 pm
“Harrabin isn’t acting like someone with something to hide.”
You should direct your attention, Dave, to the verb in this sentence. He’s acting. As he waves his watch in front of your and our eyes (and persuades you or pays you to plead for him here). We know from bitter experience that it’s total bollocks – no matter how much you try to convince us otherwise. We know. Nothing to hide, my arse.
You Brits should privatise both the Met Office and BBC. You would probably find improvements all ’round.
I think that Cassandra King provides an excellent dissection of the response and many other posts draw out what is wrong here. I would add that I recollect that when Climategate broke that there were reports that this zip had already been in the hands of the BBC for a good number of days and it was sat on, IIRC it had been sent to Paul Hudson.
There is also a scurrilous rumour that when the story did break via other sources that Hudson wanted to get in depth but was made to sit on the naughty step by someone whose name escapes me. 🙂
The scheme for a “test” of predictions has been around for a while and is not a response to the MET sucker punch as might be implied by its use here. As has been said why not check against past predictions? Starting with all those record breaking hot summers that the UK was promised through the last decade.
As for the MET claim, it seems to me a truly investigative method would have been to check with another source first rather than make himself part of the story by proclaiming the intention to check via FOIA whilst also playing the story of how the MET Office was right all along.
Mick
Is this Dave then?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/biographies/biogs/news/davidshukman.shtml
THROWING A BONE JUST TO KEEP THEM HAPPY …
What a piece of laughable arrogance and mislead self- consciousness.
When marketing people run out of ideas, they usually play their last card : offering a promotional competition – sort of throwing a bone to keep silly people (or what they believe to be “people”) happy.
So what the hell does someone like Harrabin think to find on a place like WUWT?
A bunch of random idiots? wide open fields of ignorance?
Wasn’t he at least – let’s say the for last two years – reading the blog – or was he – a professional “BBC Environment Analyst” – just counting on other people/blogs to do the negligible job for him?
How ever. While everybody can watch the poor guy naked now, give him a coat.
Let him walk away with some dignity to his children, his wife and their hardly predictable climate future
Ralph
You mean no one keeps track of the accuracy of weather forecasts? Pretty basic stuff. A formal effort to do so sounds like a positive step.
I read the linked piece on Al Gore, in which Harrabin claims the Gorical studied climate science at university. I’m sure that’s a surprise to Al. He avoided math and science, according to what I could find. Tracking the accuracy of journalists might also be in order while we’re at it.