Willis Eschenbach notes that the COP predictions from the Met Office, which I highlighted here, are all over the road.
He writes:
In the most recent one, they didn’t make a prediction, but they included the historical record, so let me start with that:
I’ve put rulers on it so we can read the happenings. This is WRT the year 1900, and since then we’ve warmed by about three quarters of a degree (0.75°C) …
Now, here’s the predictions:
COP4—2.3°C for land, 1.8°C for global.
COP5—1.8°C
COP6—about 1°C
COP7—0.8°C
COP8—Somehow, we’re now back to 1.8°C … hmmm …
COP9—New baseline, very short prediction. However, despite that, they still manage to overestimate the warming …
COP10 … no prediction …
COP11—They are claiming 0.8°C warming since 1975 … the reality is about half a degree … they can’t even get the historical numbers right.
COP12—No prediction …
I think it’s time we take their crayons away from them.
Time to send the cops after them? It is amazing that the best of the climate science is so bumbingly bad at any sort of prediction, maybe they should consult a psychic? Likely would get better results.
The UK is currently suffering “the worst drought since 1976”, according to official reports, (only in the east and south of the country), although there is hope, the Met Office have forecast a dry summer.
Xlnt Willis. The temp traveling wave which always promises a breakout, but never delivers!
Miss Cleo Predicts it all…
The met office are nothing but a bunch of propagandists on global warming. Unfortunately, during the era of “it’s only a lie if you get caught” government which made lying acceptable, the Met Office were taken over by a bunch of eco-nutters and accountants.
The former good science they used to do was sidelined to make way for the new commercialism of selling scaremongering. (AND THEY STOPPED PRODUCING FORECASTS WITH ANY INFORMATION THAT ANYONE COULD USE TO SHOW THEY WERE WRONG … I.E. WITH NO REAL INFORMATION).
They have consistently got their global temperature “forecasts” (propaganda more like) wrong, and yet they continue to make absurd forecasts even claiming that they are amazingly accurate only being 0.06C/year wrong (the same or same period PR admitted that they had predicted average warming per a year of 0.05C/year).
You really couldn’t make it up. One of the worlds premia weather forecasters have been turned into a propaganda machine …. and they don’t even do forecasts any longer. E.g. if you look at our local forecast it will be “white shading on brown” … white stands for: rain, snow, cloud, fog. Lighter shading stands for sunshine (easily mistaken for white on brown). In other words, when you look at one of their forecasts you don’t know if it is going to rain, snow, be foggy, cloudy, or sunny.
Which is about par for their global temperature forecasts and shows their complete lack of scientific credibility.
And the nail in the coffin, is that they have this bee in their bonnet that “cosmic rays cannot possibly affect the weather … because we are the experts on clouds”.
In other words, the little science they still have left is based on mystical beliefs and lack of research into cloud formation and they singularly deny the clear correlation between solar activity and climate.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/hadcrut3.html
Still hiding the decline: declining temperatures hidden by a side ad.
Hasn’t anyone ever noticed that, in the very first figure above, the temperature only dropped between 1940 and 1950 after which it started climbing again. If that was the reality then why was there so much talk in the 1970’s about us going into the next ice age. To me that is a sure sign that the temperatures in that first graph have been manipulated. And I remember, some time ago, actually seeing a temperature graph, published in the 70’s, depicting steadily dropping temperatures up to the 70’s. But I seem to have lost the reference.
Is there a statistically sound relationship between the increase in available computer power and the randomness/consistancy/chronology of the errors?
To give an explicit example of how the Met Office will never admit they were wrong. The winter before last, we had some work done on the House and I needed to fix the roof before winter. So I planned a day and watched and listened to the forecasts before it got dark (i.e. when I could get the work ready for the next day). There was absolutely no mention of snow.
The next day I work up to snow and everyone was so ill-prepared that the M8 (the major motorway from Edinburgh to Glasgow which goes over no more than a small hill) was blocked and people had to sit in their cars for up to 8hours. This made every in the area extrememly angry. There were parents with kids who were totally unprepared having to wait without even being allowed to go to the toilet!
Now, everyone knew the Met Office had failed to forecast the snow, but up comes a Met Office spokesperson who said: “yes we did forecast the snow”. Apparently (it may have been a Sunday) they forecast it late at night …. in other words when the snow started falling in the NW they realised that it was going to keep on falling and so “forecast it”.
In other words, “forecast” in the Met Office now means “something we already see happening”.
As far as I can see we could replace the whole Met Office with someone sitting on St.Kilda ringing in if it is snowing there – or better still we could take all the eco-nutters, accountants, and propagandists from the Met Office and stick them on St. Kilda (an uninhabited island) … and make them stay there until they can get a forecast right! (… I’m really being kind, there’s only one kind of weather …. horizontal rain and/or sea spray! … but it will still take them years to work that out)
Thanks Willis.
I find the way they scale the x-axis to be odd, especially in COP11; 15 years between major ticks? It’s as if they don’t actually want you comparing one to the other.
“This is WRT the year 1900, and since then we’ve warmed by about three quarters of a degree (0.75°C) …” And this is the figure that must be given to the public, time and time again. I am sure the majority of voters, who hear the Hansens of this world, think warming has been many times this figure.
my mum told me If I did not stop playing with myself I would go blind ,the met office gooses did not take there mums advice
Good idea the rulers to make it all more readable.
As shown in this detailed examination at Judith’s site: http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/15/on-the-adjustments-to-the-hadsst3-data-set-2/ removal of the majority of the variation from the pre-war SST data leads to the false impression that the later rise is an event in itself.
Having made speculative “adjustments” that remove over half the variation their still can’t get their models to match the remaining variation. A subject Bob Tis’ has looked at several times.
As John Kennedy of UK Met Office points out in that thread, the models are “tuned” to reproduce 1960-1990 climatology. This is then spuriously taken to be representative of earlier and later climate.
In tuning to such a short period they actually guarantee they will not catch any longer scale variation. Their failure to predict the lack of warming since 2000 is actually designed into their method.
I suggest they employ Colo. Go with a proven winner, I say.
http://www.ohio.com/news/break-news/ohio-zoo-gorilla-makes-mega-millions-prediction-1.287618
Looks like a job well done to me. Thanks.
A veritable melange of variation that will provide fine fodder for future social policy commentators. But by then we will have had the second Reformation, one that ensures an incontestable (blinded) division between science and policy makers (funding), much as the first Reformation saw the division between Church and State a desirable development.
@dennisambler says:
“The UK is currently suffering “the worst drought since 1976″, according to official reports, (only in the east and south of the country), although there is hope, the Met Office have forecast a dry summer…”
This is, of course, nothing to do with the fact that the last large reservoir built in the UK was in 1975. Since then, the population, particularly in the South East, has soared. But no major new storage infrastructure has been built since the Water Companies were privatised, and had to pay for their own investment…
Global Warming is such a useful excuse….
P.van der Meer asks about so much talk in the 1970s about global cooling. Well, there wasn’t much talk among scientists about this. Even then the consensus was warming….which has happened (how about that for a prediction!). There was a lot written then by journalists about cooling though. Stoat had a paper in BAMS about this I recall.
If, instead of models, we used a room full of monkeys…….?
dennisambler says:
April 16, 2012 at 12:30 am
The UK is currently suffering “the worst drought since 1976″, according to official reports, (only in the east and south of the country), although there is hope, the Met Office have forecast a dry summer.
A dry summer? Yes please, for the last three years I have been trying to spray the weeds on my drive & paths in the garden, I can only do it when it is still & dry, i.e. no rain for 24-48 hours. I get the occasional free evenings & weekends. I have only managed it successfully the once because of stiff breezes & rain!
What the Met Office frequently do is “Nowcasting”, as Piers Corbyn calls. They were doing this in the Summer back when we had floods, & in the winter snows, they actually forecast very little. The winter they got called out their winter forecast was 30% chance of milder than usual, 30% chance of as mild as usual, & 40% chance of being colder than usual. For ma as an engineer, they’re the same figures as they are statistical contructs. Their problem is very simple, when you have such dogma that everything you do & say must be linked in with Global Warming, you start a vicious spiral, when it is cold it is weather, when it is warm, it is Climate Change, simple!
Juraj V. says:
April 16, 2012 at 1:10 am
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/hadcrut3.html
Still hiding the decline: declining temperatures hidden by a side ad.
—————————————————————–
Right click on graphs and left click “see image” and you will get the full graphs on a new page (firefox). Interesting that the whole cooling of 10 plus years in the anomaly graph is hidden on the main page. 🙂
pwl says:
April 16, 2012 at 12:08 am
Time to send the cops after them? It is amazing that the best of the climate science is so bumbingly bad at any sort of prediction, maybe they should consult a psychic? Likely would get better results.
============================================================
How about hitting them with an astrologer? One who did some solar research…
See:
http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm
and:
http://landscheidt.wordpress.com/
P. van der Meer says:
April 16, 2012 at 1:16 am
“Hasn’t anyone ever noticed that, in the very first figure above, the temperature only dropped between 1940 and 1950 after which it started climbing again. ”
Yep, in direct contrast with Hubert Lamb
“It soon became clear, however, that carbon dioxide was not the whole story. Despite increasing production of this gas, with more and more industrialization and the ever increasing burning of oil and other fuels, the temperature trend reversed.
Thus, quite recent climatic trends have forced us to recognize that climatic changes and fluctuations are forever going on, even in our own times, and that we have to reckon
with changes brought about both by natural causes and the actions of Man.
The decline of prevailing temperatures since about 1945 appears to be the longest-continued downward trend since temperature records began.”
Time to link to the late John Daly again
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm
The UK has on average a drought every 5 – 10 years, the problem with the UK agencies definition of what constitutes a drought is much lower than the standards of countries such as the USA or Australia, clearly when the general public reads / hears news reports, reports that advise the country is experiencing a drought they are not going to understand that a drought under the UK Environmental agencies definition would not even be newsworthy in the vast majority of countries across the globe.
A good indication of how severe a drought actually is, is to look at the insurance claims from business or buildings due to soil problems or subsidence, remarkably the latest figures for the UK do not support the claims of the Environmental agencies that the UK is suffering a drought.
The UK has experienced less than average rainfall in parts of the Island, however the main problems are to do with the inadequate infrastructure to supply drinking water to the South East of the UK, this combined with the huge increase in the population which currently increases by 450,000 people a year (the equivalent of adding a city the size of Bristol each year) and which mostly moves to the South East of the UK is clearly going to put huge strains on water resources.
Mnafred says: April 16, 2012 at 2:31 am
A veritable melange of variation that will provide fine fodder for future social policy commentators. But by then we will have had the second Reformation, one that ensures an incontestable (blinded) division between science and policy makers (funding).
Mnafred … yes! Yes! Future generations will look back at our time with the same amazement of the church’s denial of the solar centricity of the solar system. It will be blindingly obvious to them that non-science had replaced science right into the heart of government and even e.g. the Royal Institution of Science & Met Office.
Totally agree that we will only progress when science is detached from politics … although that shouldn’t mean politics is devoid of science AND ENGINEERING skills … if anything we need more scientists and engineers in governmetn, just that the poision of partisan politics/viewpoints should be ruthlessly outed from science so it is impartial and can be relied on.
But I suspect that a bigger culpritt may be the way computer modelling has replaced real science. This may just be a temporary hitch, as the older scientists who were computer illiterate get replaced by more savey underlings who know their limitations.
On the other hand. Schoolchildren in the UK used to be taught computer programming. These days, kids just don’t see the point, and I suspect that far from being more computer savey, we may actually be nurturing a generation who haven’t a clue what is “under the bonnet”. In other words, far from a renaissance, this may be just the first of a whole series of utterly disasterous political policies supported by nothing other than bad computer models.
Dodgy Geezer says:
April 16, 2012 at 2:42 am
“This is, of course, nothing to do with the fact that the last large reservoir built in the UK was in 1975. Since then, the population, particularly in the South East, has soared. But no major new storage infrastructure has been built since the Water Companies were privatised, and had to pay for their own investment…
Global Warming is such a useful excuse….”
And then there’s the leaks of course –
“What is especially offensive is that Thames water – despite losing nearly 32 percent of the water it delivers, more than the current shortfall which gives rise to the hosepipe ban – is paying three of its executives £2 million in bonuses, with chief executive Martin Baggs taking home £1.67million in 2010/11”.
… but as you say the blame gets firmly put elsewhere and the propaganda continues
Richard North did an excellent post on this scandal recently –
http://eureferendum.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/water-thieves.html
I read regarding the COP4 forecast:
“Is this due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels? There are many factors that influence climate, and distinguishing the human-made signal from background natural climate variability is a challenge. To do this we use advanced statistical techniques which look at changes in patterns of temperature, both at the surface of the earth and through the depth of t h e a t m o s p h e re, giving greater importance to those are a s w h e re natural variability is low and vice versa. This statistical analysis indicates that, over the past 50 years, human-made greenhouse gases have contributed substantially to global warming.”
Does anyone know what these “advanced statistical techniques” are ???
Dennis Ambler 1230 says: UK suffering worst drought since 1976. We have just had a double dip La Niña and it looks like 1974 75 was also a double dip La Niña. Is there a link to there being a drought this summer following a winter where high pressures dominated (cold Europe, little rain in west eg in UK and Spain)?
COP11—They are claiming 0.8°C warming since 1975 … the reality is about half a degree … they can’t even get the historical numbers right.
————–
So does not these discrepancies between models and history prove that the figures are what fall out of the models and that it puts the lie to assertions that the model parameters are tuned to match the historical figures?
In any case I am not clear on what the article is supposed to prove. We already know that the models are only going to give a general indication. If they get within 20% of actual values over a reasonable time span I would call them very useful. Within 50% I would say moderately useful.
Notice how the charts become less and less readable and they make sure to change the axis to make comparison difficult. I’m sure that’s just an accident /snark.
Dodgy Geezer says
This is, of course, nothing to do with the fact that the last large reservoir built in the UK was in 1975.
————
This assertion isn’t very useful if you don’t mention the comparative rain levels.
I hope you are not catching germs from some of the numbnuts in this part of the world. They think that if you build dams they will fill with water without it actually raining. Strange but true.
When your department is funded by politicians it has only politicians to convince so this is what you get. It is the best argument for total privatization of the Met Office.
Scottish Sketic says
But I suspect that a bigger culpritt may be the way computer modelling has replaced real science. This may just be a temporary hitch, as the older scientists who were computer illiterate get replaced by more savey underlings who know their limitations.
———–
You have no idea what you are talking about. We have had computers as mainstream research tools for the whole time span between the scientists retiring now and the time those same scientists recieved their degrees.
The trend is more and more modelling on more and more complex problems across multiple disciplines, from bioscience to earth science.
[SNIP: LT, too many of your comments contain gratutious insult to other commenters. Stop it. Now. -REP]
I posted this on BH today (and really annoyed someone at the MET Office):
Unverified and unvalidated computer models can never provide useful information on the state of a system. Numerical simulations containing a large and uncertain number of dependant and independant vairiables, acting within a non-linear and sometimes chaotic system, can have no predictive power AT ALL!
@LazyTeenager: So you have a host of graphs to choose from, and you ignore all but one. This recent graph is 50% high and you call that “moderately useful”. I wish I could convince you to do my annual performance review at work! How easy my job would become.
BarryW says
and they make sure to change the axis to make comparison difficult.
———-
Making a wild guess BarryW I would say the graphs are produced at different times. They were not intended to be viewed together for comparison purposes.
In short the notion that they went to any effort at all to ensure it was challenging for someone like yourself to read the graphs is just silly.
[SNIP: LT, too many of your comments contain gratutious insult to other commenters. Stop it. Now. -REP]
um…Lazyteenager, anything that averages out to 50% is not moderately useful. It is pure chance. Heads or tails. So you are saying a coin flip is moderately useful? For what???? Making policy decisions that affect your paycheck? I made that mistake. I voted for Obama. Won’t be doing that again.
Jim Barker says:
April 16, 2012 at 3:14 am
If, instead of models, we used a room full of monkeys…….?
================================================
It would take an infinite number of monkeys I believe,…
mortis88 says:
April 16, 2012 at 6:37 am
Jim Barker says:
April 16, 2012 at 3:14 am
If, instead of models, we used a room full of monkeys…….?
================================================
It would take an infinite number of monkeys I believe,…
——————————————————————————————
That expains the situation, they need an infinate number of monkeys to do a proper job but only have access to jackasses.
A check of Met Office past performance on accurately predicting the annual global temperature anomaly shows that they have been high 12 of the last 13 years . Would you go back to a stock broker who lost money 12 of the last 13 years . They seem to have a deliberate warming bias which shows up in all their forecasts and makes all their forecasts unreliable . No astute organization will make the same mistake that often unless they are doing this high bias on purpose. Their 2012 forcast is 0.480 C when the 2011 was 0.360C .This looks again a high figure in my opinion .Their 2020 forecast is for an anomaly of 0.8 C relative 1971-2000 which will prove to be even more embarrasing .Their long term prediction is a rise of 4 degrees C by 2060 which is even worse.How a government can base its environmental and energy policy on these unrelaible numbers is hard to comprehend.
What is fascinating is that these graphs get published without the rulers so that the viewers can see the guesstimates. What is perplexing is that these government agencies still receive funding. What is beyond belief is the government is not held accountable for anything.
Willis, I disagree with measuring from 1900. Pre-1950 is acknowledged as non-CO2 wnatural warming.
It is only fair to measure from the 1940s peak. And then point out that the 1909 to 1944 warming is the natural capabilities of our climate system.
do these fools have any concpet of a cyclical system and how it oscilates?
up, up, up, and forget the natural varation down….
sunshinehours1 says:
April 16, 2012 at 8:16 am
Willis, I disagree with measuring from 1900. Pre-1950 is acknowledged as non-CO2 wnatural warming.
It is only fair to measure from the 1940s peak. And then point out that the 1909 to 1944 warming is the natural capabilities of our climate system
——————————————————————
I am curious… how much of that warming is natural and how will you quantify it if you remove it?
oh wait thats a warmists trick to say its all MAN MADE…
OY!
I see the lazy teenager is content to use worthless computations derived from worthless data that they created to show global warming as truth.. When the confidence factor of your program is less than 10% it should tell you something about it reliability..
LazyTeenager
Which implies that they are too lazy,or incompetent to provide consistency between differing versions of the report or they are trying to obfuscate the changes. Defend them and their pathetic output all you want or maybe go to a site where they want to listen to your rants. Not worth my time to respond to trolls.
Scottish Sceptic says: “…You really couldn’t make it up. One of the worlds premia weather forecasters have been turned into a propaganda machine …”
It goes somewhat beyond that. The Met Office has been selling private forecasts on the side. Insofar as these private forecasts have any value, they must contain information NOT available in their public forecasts. This is such a blatant conflict of interest that I’m surprised they weren’t pilloried in the press.
Well they have an excuse for not keeping up with past temperatures…they keep changing 😉
Julian Braggins says:
Oh, indeed…….I have asked them for an explanation for their chopping of the data at 1998. To the credit of the Met, I have a reply that states that they will attempt a further reply (“but it may take several weeks”).
Being a long term computer professional (33 years with IBM, supporting a wide variety of environments, now specializing in Information Management/statistical analysis) I will tell you that the almost complete reliance on models is what has convinced me that there is no basis for the CAGW stance. Yes, “LT” we are moving heavily towards more and more computer models in the world (thanks, by the way, that’s how I make my living), but I will tell you that a model is only as good/reliable as its data and calculations, and trying to model the climate of the planet when a significant number of the variables are NOT fully understood is not something you should be touting. People that believe a computer model can take poorly understood data and inputs and calculate something useful from that are sadly mistaken.
More recent editions of the Met Office’s COP series are here:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/library/publications/climate-change
The graph in COP 14 looks much smoother than those shown above and gives about 5 deg C as their ‘most likely’ estimate for the temp increase by 2100, similar to the ‘worst’ predictions in the graphs above.
That UK Met Office link from Julian Braggins above is utterly extraordinary! It’s truly hard to credit that such an organisation would publish such deliberately deceptive images.
Juraj V. says:
April 16, 2012 at 1:10 am
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/hadcrut3.html
Still hiding the decline: declining temperatures hidden by a side ad.
——————————————————————————————–
According to the referenced graphic, 2011 was only 0.4C but referenced to the 1961-1990 average, Even so, adding the (by eye) 0.15 in 1900 only gives around 0.55C for the 2011 anomaly.
Maybe they are using the GCM practice whereby, if you use enough different ones and 000’s of runs, one of them must eventually be right and they can then claim accuracy.
>>Bill H says:
>>I am curious… how much of that warming is natural and how will you quantify it if you remove it?
Here you go Bill, from COP4 http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/cop4.pdf
The key “evidence” that everyone has been searching for:
“There are many factors that influence climate, and distinguishing the human-made signal from background natural climate variability is a challenge. To do this we use advanced statistical techniques which look at changes in patterns of temperature, both at the surface of the earth and through the depth of the atmosphere, giving greater importance to those are as where natural variability is low and vice versa. This statistical analysis indicates that, over the past 50 years, human-made greenhouse gases have contributed substantially to global warming.”
I assume what they are saying is that the actual global temperatures were different from their modelled ones, proving conclusively that man’s CO2 caused the warming. Of course that was 1995 and their models didn’t do so well after then.
What the scientists were predicting is immaterial. The point is that the actual weather in the 1970s was so cold that there was speculation that it was the start of the next ice age. Yet the first figure does not display a cold 1970’s, and shows an overall rise from 1950 to 1980, with every year in the ’70s warmer than 1950. If the ’70s were actually warmer than 1950 there would have been no Newsweek, Times, … cover stories proclaiming a concern for the cold temperatures. This is not the only case of CliSci disagreeing with historical accounts, and it always seems to go in the direction of increased alarm.
Try un-adjusting the curve so that the 1970’s are at the same level as 1910-1920. But then there wouldn’t be billions per year in the AGW gravy train.
matt v. says:
April 16, 2012 at 7:20 am
Their 2012 forcast is 0.480 C
Is that why on April 16 they still have not published the February numbers? The January anomaly was 0.218. February has not been published, but the following site indicates it is about 0.19:
http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#HadCRUT3%20TempDiagram
So when combined with 0.218, it gives 0.204. That would rank it in 19th place after two months. However 0.48 would mean 2012 is the 3rd warmest. I do not think they will even be close.
Here are the two trimmed charts in full:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual.png
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly.png
Scottish Sceptic:
The word you were trying to type was “savvy”, not “savey”. ;p
P. van der Meer says:
April 16, 2012 at 1:16 am
“And I remember, some time ago, actually seeing a temperature graph, published in the 70′s, depicting steadily dropping temperatures up to the 70′s. But I seem to have lost the reference.”
I recall seeing the same global cooling, new ice age, etc. predictions in the 1970’s. I think it was featured on the cover of Time or Newsweek if that helps.
@North of 43 and south of 44 at 7:04 am
I disagree – we could make a good start with Monty & Lazy.
This is the text of the Newsweek global cooling scare.
http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
Interesting reading
The temperature graph that appeared at the time is here:
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.
The second link is not working. Go to the pdf of the Newsweek article on denisdutton and the graph is there.
Monty says:
April 16, 2012 at 2:52 am
P.van der Meer asks about so much talk in the 1970s about global cooling. Well, there wasn’t much talk among scientists about this. Even then the consensus was warming….which has happened (how about that for a prediction!). There was a lot written then by journalists about cooling though. Stoat had a paper in BAMS about this I recall.
_____________________________________
BULL PATTIES!
If you do not believe that EYE WITNESS how about the CIA report:
CIA. 1974: A study of climatological research as it pertains to intelligence problems.
The original version was published in August 1974 but is no longer available directly from the CIA. A microfiche document of the 1974 report (36 pages) was obtained from the British Library. link or The CIA Global Cooling Files
Online Link to the 1974 paper: http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf
The 1976 version can be purchased from: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/general-intelligence-publications.html
I am getting sick and tired of the rewriting of “History” I am expecting to see Winston’s job at the Ministry of Truth in the Job Wanted Ads any day now. Or have they change the name from “Clerk in the Records Department of the Ministry of Truth” to “University Professor”?