Another BBQ Summer Fiasco: Met Office Gets It Wrong (Again)

Warm Bias: The Met Office’s Disastrous Track Record

From the GWPF


The Met Office has defended its forecast for a hot, dry summer despite some areas looking set to have the most rain since records began. As summer officially came to a close amid extreme downpours on Monday, the forecaster was left facing questions about why it predicted a ‘drier-than-average’ season even though a strong El Nino climate event was expected. In May the Met Office said that it ‘wouldn’t expect (El Nino) to be the dominant driver of our weather’ in the summer months. Yet this weekend Met Office chief scientist Professor Dame Julia Slingo said that the El Nino phenomenon had disturbed weather patterns, which might have been predicted. “We all know that forecasting months and seasons ahead is still in its infancy and much more research needs to be done.”–Sarah Knapton, The Daily Telegraph, 31 August 2015

The Met Office’s prediction for the summer issued at the start of June led us all to believe it would be hot and dry. Instead, it has been one of the coldest and soggiest holiday seasons for nearly 30 years. The level of rainfall was already up 13% on average across Britain by last Wednesday, at 11in. It means it has been wetter than all but five summers since 1988 and the wettest since 2012 – which was the soggiest for 100 years. At the same time, temperatures have fallen to an average of 14C, which is 0.4C down on normal. It means it has been colder than all but four summers since 1988 and the coldest since 2012’s average of 13.9C. –Alistair Grant, Daily Star, 30 August 2015

The chief reason why the Met Office has been getting so many forecasts spectacularly wrong, as reported here ad nauseam, is that all its short, medium and long-term forecasts ultimately derive from the same huge computer model, which is programmed to believe in manmade global warming. Hence the fun we’ve all had with those “barbecue summers” when rain never stopped, and “warmer than average” winters, which promptly saw Britain freezing under piles of snow. –Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph, 30 August 2015

In September 2008, the Met Office forecast a trend of mild winters: the following winter turned out to be the coldest for a decade. Then its notorious promise of a ‘barbecue summer’ was followed by unrelenting rain. Last year, it forecast a ‘drier than average’ spring — before another historic deluge that was accompanied by the coldest temperatures for 50 years. Never has the Met Office had more scientists and computing power at its disposal — yet never has it seemed so baffled by the British weather. But there is no paradox. It is precisely the power of this technology in harnessing climate scientists’ assumptions about global warming that has scuppered the Met Office’s predictions — and made it a propagandist for global warming alarmism. It has become an accomplice to a climate change agenda that now affects where and how we travel, the way houses are built, the lights we read by. And its errors are no laughing matter to tourism industry chiefs in Cornwall and the north-west, who say the Met Office’s false warnings of dire summers cost hundreds of millions of pounds in cancelled bookings. –Rupert Darwall, The Spectator, 13 July 2013

Another Bank Holiday, another washout! It was not meant to be like this! Back in 2006, climate genius David Viner told us: Climate change could “dramatically” change the face of British tourism in the next 20 years, with European tourists flocking to the UK to escape unbearably hot continental summers, experts say. Research shows that European tourists may choose to holiday in Britain as resorts nearer to home become too hot.Weather changes may provide revival opportunities for northern seaside towns such as Blackpool and put new strains on roads and development in southern coastal resorts, a study in the Journal of Sustainable Tourism said. Academic David Viner, a researcher at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in Norwich, produced the report after analysing the work of experts around the globe. “The likelihood [is] that Mediterranean summers may be too hot for tourists after 2020, as a result of too much heat and water shortages,” the study said. Apparently nobody thought to tell the tourists! –Paul Homewood, Not A Lot Of PPeople Know That, 31 August 2015

A decade ago, Hurricane Katrina slammed Florida and then the Gulf Coast,  creating a humanitarian catastrophe in New Orleans. While memories of that devastation remain vivid, there would be 16 more named storms before that year was out, more than in an entire typical Atlantic hurricane season. The record level of activity in 2005 exhausted the traditional alphabetic list of names, ushering in Alpha through Zeta. It might seem disasters on the ground would become financial ones for companies that shoulder those risks. But, if anything, the opposite is true. Spencer Jakab, The Wall Street Journal, 31 August 2015

European Union bureaucrats sank more than £10 million into subsiding television shows last year, it was revealed yesterday. The money went to make programmes promoting the merits of the EU and warning of the dangers of climate change as well as to support popular series that are already highly successful. A number of the subsidised programmes have been seen on British television – and one, The Great European Disaster Movie, was broadcast by the BBC to widespread derision from critics. Other shows backed by Brussels included one in which a climate change activist searches the world for ways to save the planet. –Steve Doughty, Daily Mail, 1 September 2015

115 thoughts on “Another BBQ Summer Fiasco: Met Office Gets It Wrong (Again)

  1. “We all know that forecasting months and seasons ahead is still in its infancy and much more research needs to be done.”
    …but the science of forecasting decades or centuries ahead is settled.

      • But we’ll have to wait half a century to find out if they were talking from where the sun don’t shine.
        Yeah. Right.
        You know it’s BS once you pose the question: “OK, then, why not make two short forecasts rather than one long forecast?.”

      • You should have included this by Mosh in your reply:
        “Nice, so when a NEO is identified that has a 95% chance of hitting the earth in 51 years, you’d not listen to them?”
        Apparently he thinks that computer based climastrology compares with the accuracy of orbital asteroid prediction. So lets use his methods, plot out say 50 different trajectories and them average them (like with climate models). Who now would feel confident about the asteroid orbits accuracy, or even the earth’s; oh no our averaged models predict that the earth is going to fall into the sun!.

      • And the beauty of long range forecasting is you are collecting your pension and living in the south of France before you are proved wrong.

      • It’s not unreasonable.
        Imagine a drunk staggering back to his hotel room – but he’s lost and has no idea where it is.
        He’ll go left, he’ll go right. No-one knows where he goes.
        But by the end of the night chances are he’ll be nearer the beach than the top of the hill.
        The argument is that CO2 will overwhelm all other factors eventually and then the climate will be a single control knob system.
        It’s not unreasonable.
        Just improbable. As if that was the case then it would have happened sometime there was a forest fire over the last few millennia.

      • IMO that hypothesis is highly unreasonable.
        CO2 was not the single control knob on climate when its concentration was 7000 ppm in the Cambrian, when the sun was 95% as powerful as now. The sun was only one half of one percent weaker during the PETM, when CO2 soared to 2250 ppm, yet the magic gas never became the single control knob on climate during that warm interval.
        How then could it be at a mere 400, 500 or 600 ppm, especially during an ice house phase of earth’s history? (The PETM occurred during a hot house interval.)

      • What pompous BS…..
        steven mosher says:| February 17, 2013 at 3:27 am over at J. Curry’s.
        “The physics of climate are such that we know more about what happens after 2060 than before. Strange but true.”
        based on what? the accuracy so far?

      • From Mosher:

        “The physics of climate are such that we know more about what happens after 2060 than before. Strange but true.”

        I found that so astonishing I had to go and check that he really said that. (He did – in 2013.) So let’s think about that. According to Mosher, our predictions about the climate in 47 years’ time (2013 + 47 = 2060) will be more accurate than those of earlier times. So we have, do we, a prediction method that works better the further we are from the available data (which ran, when he said it, to 2013)? If so, we can have that more accurate method today. 2015 – 47 = 1968. So let’s get those accurate predictions right now by ceasing to use any climate data post-1968! Heck, why not go the whole hog – only use climate data predating the sacking of Carthage, and we’ll have predictions so accurate we can just throw out the thermometers and use the far more accurate predictions!
        I think Mosher’s statement is stupid, but it merits more than the put-down I’ve just given because it is dangerous stupidity, of the kind that destroys civilisations. Our imaginations work better than reality, according to this view of the world. My criticism of it is fully valid, even if I am guilty of poking ridicule. After all, what could one say in objection?
        “Don’t be silly, there was no climate data before the sacking of Carthage.” No, I don’t think Mosher wants to try that line.
        More likely, he would argue that 2060 itself is special because by then “global warming” will have overwhelmed “natural variability”. Oh? But by what scientific or fact-finding method did anyone determine that “natural variability” (which is just a name for things not in our theory) actually decreases? Because if it doesn’t, the climate in 2060, no matter how great “global warming” might be, the actual value of it will still have “natural variability” added or subtracted. And to that, no matter how certain they are of their theory, whatever uncertainty there may be in exactly how much “global warming” there will be is added to the “natural variability” uncertainty. Remember, today we know the starting point. Of 2060, we don’t know which, if any, of their models will be the accurate one.
        So how does climate in 2060 become so well known? Only by the postmodernist, obscurantist, superstitious route of calling our imaginations and beliefs “knowledge” – which they are not. The comment I criticise, short and careless as it may be, comes from a deep cultural pool of dangerous primitive thinking.

      • It was a remark of precisely this kind that started me on my journey to “climate” heresy.
        Seven or eight years ago, I heard a woman being interviewed on the BBC about (inevitably) failed medium-term forecasts by the Met Office. Evidently she was there to defend climate alarm orthodoxy, and her main point was identical to Mosher’s: so much so, that when the interviewer gave her the chance to summarise at the end, that was the point she chose to repeat.
        The first time she said it (I was making a meal, and only half-listening), I thought, “that doesn’t sound very likely.” The second time, I thought, “no, that’s categorically wrong: they CANNOT KNOW whether their understanding of distant future climate is well-founded or not – it’s opinion, and nothing more.” And as the woman in question was certainly well-educated enough to appreciate this, I concluded that either she was knowingly telling a lie or she was deluded (hubris, probably).
        But it was a shock: the case for alarm was so weak that it had to rely on such a defence. Everything else stemmed from that moment, for me. If I knew who she was (wasn’t up on such things then, but I now know she was one of three or four possible suspects), I would thank her.

  2. I need a large grant so I can study why Nature refuses to cooperate with the Met Office Stupor Computer. I’ll call myself a climate communicator and attempt to convince Nature that she/he/it is a deniar because 97% of 33% of scientists think she/he/it isn’t behaving as predicted, projected, prophesied.

  3. I gather that the embarrassment over climate is not confined to our Met Office, The UK News reported today that President Obama is going trekking in Alaska with Bear Grylls, which is being turned into a TV programme to highlight climate change. No doubt judicious editing will be used to make sure that snow and blizzards are not seen!
    Back to our national embarrassment, the Met Office, the BBC will not use them any more for their weather forecasts because they are so inaccurate. Meanwhile Piers Corbyn (Jeremy’s brother) is putting in a bid to take over the weather forecasting for the BBC with his “Weather Action” company. Piers Corbyn on the other hand totally disagrees with the principle of AGW, and believes that solar output has more effect on our climate than CO2.To cap all of the, Julia Slingo was made a Dame in the New Years Honours List.
    Personally I think the Monty Python team would do better than the Met Office, but I think Weather Action should be given the contract.

    • the BBC will not use them any more for their weather forecasts because they are so inaccurate. I don’t think that is the reason. I can’t be sure. The BBC said it was cost and that is possible with their new “faster to the wrong answer” computer to run and man.
      There isn’t a snowball in hell’s chance that Piers Corbyn will get the contract. The BBC have spent real effort trying to discredit him for many years.

    • And to be fair to the UKMO their short range forecasts are as good as any other national MO. Even more ridiculous is that they are the only producer of weather data in the UK. It ‘s their weather stations, satellites, outpost etc that collect, coordinate and record data everyday of th year.
      Any new contractor will have to buy UKMO data. I hope they figured that in their bid document.

      • sorry, i have to disagree with that. as someone who spends a large proportion of my time in and around the sea in the uk i can tell you they are pretty poor a lot of the time,even within 24 hours. take saturday past, wind forecast to drop in early afternoon in the solway firth .with it being a large tide the sea would have died down rapidly to make for a pleasant afternoon/evening sailing had the forecast been correct.
        it was still gusting at up to 20 mph in the mid solway by 9pm. anyone basing their day on the forecast and travelling any sort of distance would have been disappointed ,and any small scale fisherman setting out from one of the sheltered areas expecting the wind to drop could easily have ended up in a bit of trouble. fortunately fishermen do not pay much attention to the met,and neither should anyone else.

      • It is not the data that is the problem but how it is mangled by the computer program. When there was less computing and more human skill they were better – think of the forecast for the Normandy landings in 1944. They also hadn’t invented global warming then either.

    • I’m in Alaska right now and it was snowing today and two days ago.Didn’t stick but it is bitterly cold here. I have a campground that has to have the water shut off because of freezing. Very early start on winter. I think it is Obama’s fault. I think its the Gore effect again–it should at least be warm here!

    “The AGW scenario is an excellent example of an unintended consequence of setting up intergovernmental bodies outside the political checks and balances of the system of Representative Democracy that has served western civilisation and most other civilisations (if indirectly) very well over the past 500 years.
    Bodies such as the IPCC should be consultative only. They are not qualified to make accurate scientific judgements without independent overview and are not qualified to make policy decisions without deferring to proper elected authority yet they are trying to do both.
    The IPCC could be said to be in breach of it’s own obligations in taking an inappropriate view of it’s own power and significance and to have acted irresponsibly by accepting the encouragement and support of third party interests seeking to gain from that breach of duty.”

  5. “We all know that forecasting months and seasons ahead is still in its infancy and much more research needs to be done.”
    Except in the the field of global warming doom and gloom, where it is spot on.

    • Indeed , they cannot forecast weather worth a dam for more than 72 hours and yet can predict to two decimal place accuracy weather features such has temperature for years ahead., or so they claim.

      • The UKMO recently had great difficulty forecasting 6hrs ahead. Even their info suggests that the computer model works best when the weather is predictable. That is when the Atlantic weather systems are being driven by a constant velocity jetstream. If there is a anticyclonic block over greenland or scandinavia they are just guessing. That’s what happened last week and is happening again now.

      • Stephen makes a valid point about their computer model. It was admitted live on tv that when the jetstream becomes meridional their model doesn’t work. A zonal jetstream across the Atlantic is fine. The change that is in progress to a mini-iceage involves the jetstream being increasingly meridional and so their ability will be next to zero at a lot of times. Can’t really see the new service being much better unless they can understand this and what drives the changes.

      • The fact that they can’t predict whether or not the jet stream will be zonal or meridional tells us that they don’t have anything right.

  6. Why oh why did my parents teach me to never lie about anything? I could have been a wealthy ( but sleepless, although I guess I could then lie myself to sleep) person years ago

  7. I can tell you their forecast for the summer of 2016 – Hotter and Dryer
    They have to forecast that, “weather” they believe it or not, to keep the hoax alive.

  8. I doubt anyone died because of the Met Office forecast. It’s all just for fun, like the Farmers’ Almanac.

    • I seem to remember a couple of years back that some UK local goverments cut back on winter preparations (to have more funds to waste) based on a MET forecast of a mild winter. When winter hit hard with lots of snow, they didn’t have enough people, equipment, and materials to keep the roads safe. People died.
      Can someone verify that?

    • “This Outlook provides an indication of possible temperature and rainfall conditions over the next 3 months. It is part of a suite of forecasts designed for contingency planners.
      The Outlook should not be used in isolation but should be used with shorter-range and more detailed (30-day, 15-day and 1-to-5-day) forecasts and warnings available to the contingency planning community from the Met Office.”
      I wonder which contingency planners has actually found any value in this forecast. Can somebody who has found value in this forecast and actually used it for something valuable please enlighten us on how it was used and what for?

      • Nick,
        Nobody said “another bbq summer”. The headline said “another bbq summer fiasco”
        That’s “another fiasco”, not another bbq summer.
        You and Joel seem to think they just announced that they really didn’t know what was going to happen and that forecasting is really hard.

      • BFL
        My forecast for the 30th to 38th Centuries [AD/CE] is that there will be weather, and the climate will sometimes be a little warmer than today, and sometimes a little cooler.
        It may be more unsettled, amongst settled spells.
        Now, dry spells must be expected, although wet-to-torrential rain must, likewise, not be discounted.
        Flooding is possible, certainly on flood plains; there really is thought to be a clue in the first word of the name of ‘flood plains’. No kidding, Sherlock.
        PS – I expect to be dead (well) before the start of my forecast envelope.
        But – I expect to be pretty well right from the start of my forecast envelope.
        Well, I would say that, wouldn’t I!

    • Indeed, the last paragraph of that reads:
      “Computer model signals are weak regarding the most probable atmospheric circulation types over Europe this summer, although there is a slight preference for higher-than-average pressure across northern Europe. This lends support to the increased likelihood of above-average temperatures, which can be seen in the graph in figure T2; however, uncertainty is large and there is still a broad range of possible outcomes.”
      So, it sounds like scientists accurately representing the fact that the uncertainty in the forecast is high.
      I would also be curious to see whether anybody can give me the evidence that backs up Christopher Booker’s claim: “The chief reason why the Met Office has been getting so many forecasts spectacularly wrong, as reported here ad nauseam, is that all its short, medium and long-term forecasts ultimately derive from the same huge computer model, which is programmed to believe in manmade global warming.” Looks like a lot of incorrect logic and unproven assertions that ought to make a real skeptic cringe.

      • Is it not ‘lucky’ that they always get in wrong in manner that just happens to support CAGW? , and while let us remember the reason that stop making long and mid-term forecasts public in the first place ,was becasue they kept getting them wrong and it became embarrassing.

      • Go to their site. There used to be an article by the CEO which said exactly that. We use the same model for short range, medium and long. It was the same which forecasts something about half the years between 2007 and 2015 would be hotter than 1998.
        Of course he didn’t mention that he would make sure of that by manipulating the data.

      • knr: I seem to have missed the careful statistical study that shows that “they always get in wrong in manner that just happens to support CAGW”. All that I have heard are occasional anecdotes when they do get it wrong in that direction.
        Also, what is this change you speak of in making the forecasts public? If they are not public, how did GWPF obtain it?

      • You answered your own question – its right there in your text.
        “Computer model signals are weak regarding the most probable atmospheric circulation types over Europe this summer”
        They were so fixated on the computer models they lost track of what was happening in the real world.

    • Nick for crying out loud. You are defending the indefensible. No-one particularly minds the forecasts being wrong until they say they are not wrong and can use the same model to provide 10 weather forecasts.
      A forecast which says there is a 30% chance of a dry summer, 30% chance of a hot summer, and a 30% of a wet summer is USELESS to everyone.
      Stop making yourself look more stupid than you really are. Their details are available to all. Why didn’t you just pull one off their site to demonstrate your point?

      • “You are defending the indefensible.”
        Actually, all I did was to provide a link to the actual forecast, notably not linked, or even quoted from, in the head post. So the accusation swivels from
        “The Met Office’s prediction for the summer issued at the start of June led us all to believe it would be hot and dry.”
        “A forecast which says there is a 30% chance of a dry summer, 30% chance of a hot summer, and a 30% of a wet summer is USELESS to everyone.”
        ie ambivalence.
        It saves time to actually figure what the forecast said first, and avoids the distracting effect of contradictory accusations.

  9. Last paragraph, first line: “subsidizing” [or “subsidising”] not “subsiding”
    The Wild Proofreader Strikes Again. The spell-check program does not like “subsidising.” I don’t either, to be honest.

    • Nick,
      From both links you offered above:
      No timetable has been set for the panel to report.”
      “The deadline for submitting evidence is 30 June 2015.”

      • Eyesonu,
        Yes, but I thought they might have something to say about submissions being received, for example. The site also says:
        “After review by the panel, all submissions will be published and can be examined and commented upon by anyone who is interested.”
        Again no deadline specified, but there is still a case for curiosity.

  10. Thank God James Stagg didn’t have a super computer when he was advising Eisenhower on the weather for D-Day.

  11. Please remember that we Brits know how to read our Met offices long range forecasts , that are absolutely right practically all of the time , ITS GOING TO BE THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THEY SAY !!! it will be chaos if they started being right – we just would not know what to do then !!!!

    • Yes, it is a brilliant system, that works every time. Just take the opposite of what the BBC says, and plan your day or week ahead. Foolproof.
      Mind you, that goes for almost everything the BBC says, nowadays.

  12. Britain would do well to step around the venerable old public institutions and go with what works in a more competitive framework, even it it means paying for both for a time. You may actually find it saves money in the process of realizing quality gains. The U.S. examples are a little different. NPR is small compared to BBC influence but the current backing away from cable monopolies, Detroit big three autos, and MSM news outlets in the regulated private space are also somewhat analogous. The choice among weather forecast groups is also wider.

  13. Science is going down a hole, and that is the real reason I love this site. WUWT shines the ugly white light on the descent. If your premise is wrong – your science is wrong. God spare us from this broken paradigm. Flush it down the toilet and let’s start all over again.

  14. Gary on September 1, 2015 at 3:49 pm
    Science is going down a hole, and that is the real reason I love this site. WUWT shines the ugly white light on the descent. If your premise is wrong – your science is wrong. God spare us from this broken paradigm. Flush it down the toilet and let’s start all over again.

    And the reason some of the publically prominent members of the climate science community picked the wrong premise is ultimately much more damning and destructive than the wrong premise itself.

  15. Yes, I live in the UK and have first hand experience of all this rain. I have constantly been mowing the lawn and it is still as lush and verdant as it was in Spring. Normally at this time of year it resembles so much Shredded Wheat and the mower is complaining of boredom not overwork.
    We have had more rain than when rain began let alone bloody records!!!

  16. Maybe they should stop trying emulate The Weather Channel and Weather Underground and just pay attention to what’s happening outside their window?

  17. @Gerry, England September 1, 2015 at 2:50 pm
    Wait for it….here it comes….any second now…
    “…the finger prints of Global Warming were present in the forecast for the D-Day landings. Using carefully adjusted data that factors in the signal lost due to poor instrumentation…” says a gravy train, rent seeking numpty from East Anglia.

  18. Why do some people have difficulty with this? Katrina was not a superstorm. New Orleans is below sea level and a levee (dike for you Europeans) broke. The resultant flooding caused 95% of the damage, injuries and deaths. Being the city is below sea level there was no “runoff”. The water just sat there week after week till it was finally pumped out. Had the levee (dike) not broken Katrina would be unremembered.
    Eugene WR Gallun

    • You are totally wrong.
      Katrina was and exceptionally large, intense and symmetrical circulation, with a massive strong Windfield and exhibited central pressure drops that were shockingly deep at maximum. It only came ashore in a slowly weakening high Cat-4 mode due to drier air on its western limb wrapping in of the land. Katrina was without a doubt a super Hurricane, in both area and strength.
      AND new Orleans is below sea level.
      See the difference?
      So stop pretending one being true means the other was false, or that data on a storm can be ignored to serve your warped assertion about it, you apparently were not paying attention back then, or since.

      • Unmentionable,
        Do you see the difference between your “weakening high Cat-4” and the FACT that when the storm made landfall, it had a Category 3 rating on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale? Gallun is right, you are wrong.

      • Wrong. When it went over the southeast half of the delta it was still cat 4, several hours later it came on shore as a high cat 3, (thought then to still be a Cat 4, btw). Rapidly weakening it was not. And rapidly weakening cat 3s, that are not both unusual strong and unusually large do not produce surges anything like 30 feet high for kilometers inland as Katrina produced. Nor large surges all the way into the Florida pan handle .I watched the tops of the street lights in Mobile Alabama go under water that morning. And Mobile is a long way from where the eye came ashore. The effect of Katrina was far bigger than Camile.

  19. “The chief reason why the Met Office has been getting so many forecasts spectacularly wrong, as reported here ad nauseam, is that all its short, medium and long-term forecasts ultimately derive from the same huge computer model, which is programmed to believe in manmade global warming. ”
    The second chief reason why the Met Office has been getting so many forecasts spectacularly wrong, as reported here ad nauseam, is that all its short, medium and long-time forecasters are programmed to believe in manmade global warming.
    I’ll bet the entire bureaucracy staff is a bunch of entrenched activists.
    That’s what happens over time when an ideology seeks control and they want their friends on board.

  20. Clearly inputs and cumulative errors in models limit useful forecasts to 4 to 5 days. The rest of the weather bureau blurb past that period is delusional pseudo-science.

    • No forecaster worth his salt goes strictly on models. Seasonal forecasts especially require a degree of common sense and an ability to see what is really driving the local or regional weather patterns for the next 2-3 months. The UK Met office missed a rather obvious major parameter – plunging North Atlantic sea-surface-temperatures.

      • I figured that would be the case, but is their guidance model so bad it doesn’t look at change in change of SST? The seasonal guidance model is only as good as the forecaster that uses it, and the forecaster is only as good as the guidance model can make them. I’m still going with 4-5 days divergence, until I see far more consistent results from the season trends and stat prediction maps. I don’t really expect to see it before I drop off the twig. 😉

  21. I wonder if future historians will look back this period in our history as being that of the electronic tarot card.

  22. Perhaps, the Met Office should have looked at the plunging North Atlantic SSTs the last 10 months or so. Sheesh. The Central Pacific is on the other-side of the world. The North Atlantic is in their backyard.

  23. Didn’t they recently replace their supercomputer with a bigger faster more powerful supercomputer costing 100million pounds? Seems like they need a newer, faster more powerful one still, one they can spend 200million pounds on. Then they can be more wrong even faster.

  24. Let us invite Professor Dame Julia Slingo ( What a marvellous title for getting it wrong so often) to put out one of her many press releases explaining why she and the Met Office have got their predictions wrong once again.

  25. “We can accurately forecast the future, but not the present”.
    That is the paradox a panel of senior climate scientists will discuss at a meeting in London later this year. A representative from the Met office will be a guest speaker. A spokesperson for the group said “this is a huge issue, especially for the weather forecasting community. No one likes to be consistently wrong in their forecasts, even though we know that, when added together, those forecasts will get us to where we expected to be”. “Clearly, bigger computers, more funded studies and more human resources are needed if this paradox is to be solved”.

  26. “Yet this weekend Met Office chief scientist Professor Dame Julia Slingo said that the El Nino phenomenon had disturbed weather patterns, which might have been predicted. ”
    Looks like the Met Office played the same game as NOAA did in 2014 first denying that the 2014/2015 El Nino existed or even had an effect . This way they can falsely claim that the warm weather is purely due to man induced global warming

  27. I projected this poor summer in early June due to mainly ocean temperatures in North Atlantic ocean, strength of El Nino and pattern with AO & NAO. The ENSO on the UK generally has low influence, but there are exceptions when we have a strong El Nino or strong La Nina. A very expensive computer is not required at all, especially as HH Lamb’s knowledge far better than any at the Met Office now.

  28. Despite an El Nino existing during the last 3 months of 2014 ,NOAA in their State of the climate Report for 2014 said
    “ Although 2014 was largely ENSO-neutral, “
    Referring to 2014 they again said
    “ Similar to 2013, the North Atlantic season was quieter than most years of the last two decades with respect to the number of storms, despite the absence of El Niño conditions during both years. “
    In their press release for the 2014 Report, they said
    “The El Niño–Southern Oscillation was in a neutral state during 2014, although it was on the cool side of neutral at the beginning of the year and approached warm El Niño conditions by the end of the year”
    So the global warming alarmists use the El NINO as they see fit , denying it when they want to blame warmer than normal weather on man induced global warming or blaming it for their missed forecast even though it was in existence for months before the forecast

  29. At least they are not trying to predict public health outcomes like asthma with climate science models. That is what the EPA is doing and saying with regulatory over reach spreading outward from California.

  30. So, just for fun, who wants to try their own hand at some predictions? Chances are that we will do far better than UKMO or NOAA for the upcoming NH Winter!!
    Given that the sun has been trending towards spotless again (average of 3 to 5 sunspots on the entire sun – not just the Earth-facing side, but the whole thing) for the past several weeks, and given that the Nino 1+2 region appears to be starting to cool down, how does this affect the upcoming NH Winter?? My guess is that most of the Northern Hemisphere is going to be cooler than normal, with above average precipitation because of the lack of sunspots and the El Nino which will be weakening (in my opinion) over the next several months, but it won’t be completely going away just yet…
    Probably about time for another solar cycle update here on WUWT, the cycle finally seems to be winding down, and we haven’t had an update for a bit now (hint, hint).

  31. Are we actually sure the Met didn’t get it right, and the actual climate (you know, the thing Mother Nature does…) got it wrong?

  32. Just briefly reading some of the comments and I would like to note that what Mosh said is not unreasonable in the context within it was probably intended – i.e. detecting a long term trend (say, in temperatures) and forwarding that (based on assumed continuation) does indeed suggest we would know more about ‘future’ climate than next ‘month’. So, I see nothing wrong with his statement really, its basic ‘modelling’ at its best!
    Next; on the Met Office forecasting failures – my prime beef is that the various parts of MSM seizing on any forecast hints are usually WITHOUT equally seizing on the uncertainties involved. As usual, overly stating a ‘BBQ summer’ sells page views, as opposed to stating that its ‘uncertain we will have a BBQ summer’. Of course, in the case of the Met Office (following the CAGW theme) they EQUALLY do NOT exactly HIGHLIGHT the uncertainties either in their press releases, often clouded in semi-logical English phrasing – which is perhaps just as well, as otherwise all their press releases would simply state the DART method and add that they ‘haven’t got a clue, really!’, in order to be factually correct, anyway.

  33. The Met office should move to San Diego California. All the weatherman has to do is say tomorrow is going to be nice. He will be right most of the time.

  34. “We all know that forecasting months and seasons ahead is still in its infancy and much more research needs to be done.”
    Pretty sure that’s what she meant.

Comments are closed.