|
Post by steve on Jun 15, 2013 14:52:22 GMT
The Met Office are about to be thrown under the bus. They have done their part in providing the ammunition for setting up the tax regime and crippling the energy supply. UK will run out of electricity generation capacity inside 18 months thanks to the 'green' advice that the Met Office is now admitting was "a systemic error", but which led to the Climate Change Act and the associated stupidities and troughing greed of the MPs. Imagine the effect of a severe winter with rolling power outages. Plan for how you will deal with extended power cuts because with the continuing closure of baseload power generation and no replacement that is what is going to happen. I suspect that there will be no such power cuts in the UK and that the Met Office will be thrown bags of money rather than be thrown under a bus.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 15, 2013 16:32:19 GMT
The Met Office are about to be thrown under the bus. They have done their part in providing the ammunition for setting up the tax regime and crippling the energy supply. UK will run out of electricity generation capacity inside 18 months thanks to the 'green' advice that the Met Office is now admitting was "a systemic error", but which led to the Climate Change Act and the associated stupidities and troughing greed of the MPs. Imagine the effect of a severe winter with rolling power outages. Plan for how you will deal with extended power cuts because with the continuing closure of baseload power generation and no replacement that is what is going to happen. I suspect that there will be no such power cuts in the UK and that the Met Office will be thrown bags of money rather than be thrown under a bus. Indeed you don't throw the weather agency under the bus. But a major reorganization would not be included in that prohibition. When it comes to climate prediction they are at least strike two and not close to getting a walk as thus far the agency has provided no tangible value and has caused harm both from above and from the botched seasonal forecasts a few years ago before they went underground with that trash.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 15, 2013 18:18:32 GMT
I suspect that there will be no such power cuts in the UK and that the Met Office will be thrown bags of money rather than be thrown under a bus. Indeed you don't throw the weather agency under the bus. But a major reorganization would not be included in that prohibition. When it comes to climate prediction they are at least strike two and not close to getting a walk as thus far the agency has provided no tangible value and has caused harm both from above and from the botched seasonal forecasts a few years ago before they went underground with that trash. A slightly delayed tanker from the middle east and there would have been power cuts in March. Since then they have closed a couple more power stations with no replacement. The Met Office does not publicly call an urgent meeting about its systemic lack of skill over 12 years without there being panic in the system (steve is probably closer to that then I am). They make another goof like 2012 and there will be cuts. Especially as their long range forecasting showed less skill than commercial counterparts that cost the taxpayer nothing. All the Exeter empire building seems to have resulted in a less skilled organization. I am not suggesting that they move back to Bracknell but they could easily be privatized as DERA became Qinetiq, cease to be supported by the exchequer and have to bid against other weather companies for government contracts. It is extremely unlikely that they could continue their work on the 'world stage' in climate science as they can only do that with government funding and they would need to bid for that as well. For a long term Met Office employee that is going under the bus. Put the cost and lack of skill demonstrated by the Met Office against the self funded skill of commercial weather companies and the Met Office would be unlikely to be contracted by any sane contracting officer. The UK finances are not in altruism mode at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 16, 2013 15:06:06 GMT
Indeed you don't throw the weather agency under the bus. But a major reorganization would not be included in that prohibition. When it comes to climate prediction they are at least strike two and not close to getting a walk as thus far the agency has provided no tangible value and has caused harm both from above and from the botched seasonal forecasts a few years ago before they went underground with that trash. A slightly delayed tanker from the middle east and there would have been power cuts in March. Since then they have closed a couple more power stations with no replacement. The Met Office does not publicly call an urgent meeting about its systemic lack of skill over 12 years without there being panic in the system (steve is probably closer to that then I am). They make another goof like 2012 and there will be cuts. Especially as their long range forecasting showed less skill than commercial counterparts that cost the taxpayer nothing. All the Exeter empire building seems to have resulted in a less skilled organization. I am not suggesting that they move back to Bracknell but they could easily be privatized as DERA became Qinetiq, cease to be supported by the exchequer and have to bid against other weather companies for government contracts. It is extremely unlikely that they could continue their work on the 'world stage' in climate science as they can only do that with government funding and they would need to bid for that as well. For a long term Met Office employee that is going under the bus. Put the cost and lack of skill demonstrated by the Met Office against the self funded skill of commercial weather companies and the Met Office would be unlikely to be contracted by any sane contracting officer. The UK finances are not in altruism mode at the moment. The seasonal forecast is not a bread-winner for many agencies since few models have skill in general and none have much skill over NW Europe due to the fact that the weather is balanced between very different continental and ocean types. I understand that the recent improvements in resolution are hinting at better winter skill, but summer skill is not there (for anyone). The government will throw money at seasonal forecasting until it can be shown either that the problem is unsolvable or that the Met Office are incompetent compared with anyone else, and I've not seen evidence that commercial forecasters do it better. I've seen plenty of BS from certain such forecasters who depend on predicting dramatic weather non-stop and then making a big thing about their "success" when occasionally dramatic weather occurs. Most proper companies are dependent on model outputs and there isn't a huge differential between the major models, though I believe ECMWF has the edge for seasonal forecasts. With its vastly larger piles of tax payer cash, its huge EU-gravy train salaries and its more limited remit it ought to.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 16, 2013 15:42:52 GMT
A slightly delayed tanker from the middle east and there would have been power cuts in March. Since then they have closed a couple more power stations with no replacement. The Met Office does not publicly call an urgent meeting about its systemic lack of skill over 12 years without there being panic in the system (steve is probably closer to that then I am). They make another goof like 2012 and there will be cuts. Especially as their long range forecasting showed less skill than commercial counterparts that cost the taxpayer nothing. All the Exeter empire building seems to have resulted in a less skilled organization. I am not suggesting that they move back to Bracknell but they could easily be privatized as DERA became Qinetiq, cease to be supported by the exchequer and have to bid against other weather companies for government contracts. It is extremely unlikely that they could continue their work on the 'world stage' in climate science as they can only do that with government funding and they would need to bid for that as well. For a long term Met Office employee that is going under the bus. Put the cost and lack of skill demonstrated by the Met Office against the self funded skill of commercial weather companies and the Met Office would be unlikely to be contracted by any sane contracting officer. The UK finances are not in altruism mode at the moment. The seasonal forecast is not a bread-winner for many agencies since few models have skill in general and none have much skill over NW Europe due to the fact that the weather is balanced between very different continental and ocean types. I understand that the recent improvements in resolution are hinting at better winter skill, but summer skill is not there (for anyone). The government will throw money at seasonal forecasting until it can be shown either that the problem is unsolvable or that the Met Office are incompetent compared with anyone else, and I've not seen evidence that commercial forecasters do it better. I've seen plenty of BS from certain such forecasters who depend on predicting dramatic weather non-stop and then making a big thing about their "success" when occasionally dramatic weather occurs. Most proper companies are dependent on model outputs and there isn't a huge differential between the major models, though I believe ECMWF has the edge for seasonal forecasts. With its vastly larger piles of tax payer cash, its huge EU-gravy train salaries and its more limited remit it ought to. It is unfortunate then that so many far reaching political decisions are made on the strength of the 'seasonal forecast'. Perhaps the Met Office should make it plain that these are really experimental forecasts with doubtful skill and indeed have only been correct less than 1 in 10 times (with all the errors in the warm direction). Therefore, long term decisions on water policy, winter snow clearance and energy requirements should not be based on the Met Office forecasts. I cannot remember seeing this type of caveat on any of their forecasts although the use of probabilities does allow them a mathematical escape (we said it was only a 5% chance not impossible) that the unwary politicians will not understand.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 16, 2013 17:34:48 GMT
The seasonal forecast is not a bread-winner for many agencies since few models have skill in general and none have much skill over NW Europe due to the fact that the weather is balanced between very different continental and ocean types. I understand that the recent improvements in resolution are hinting at better winter skill, but summer skill is not there (for anyone). The government will throw money at seasonal forecasting until it can be shown either that the problem is unsolvable or that the Met Office are incompetent compared with anyone else, and I've not seen evidence that commercial forecasters do it better. I've seen plenty of BS from certain such forecasters who depend on predicting dramatic weather non-stop and then making a big thing about their "success" when occasionally dramatic weather occurs. Most proper companies are dependent on model outputs and there isn't a huge differential between the major models, though I believe ECMWF has the edge for seasonal forecasts. With its vastly larger piles of tax payer cash, its huge EU-gravy train salaries and its more limited remit it ought to. It is unfortunate then that so many far reaching political decisions are made on the strength of the 'seasonal forecast'. Perhaps the Met Office should make it plain that these are really experimental forecasts with doubtful skill and indeed have only been correct less than 1 in 10 times (with all the errors in the warm direction). Therefore, long term decisions on water policy, winter snow clearance and energy requirements should not be based on the Met Office forecasts. I cannot remember seeing this type of caveat on any of their forecasts although the use of probabilities does allow them a mathematical escape (we said it was only a 5% chance not impossible) that the unwary politicians will not understand. No far reaching political decisions have been made on the strength of the seasonal forecast. I think unwary politicians should be chucked out of office. They aren't all stupid, and they obviously make decisions based on many other models, theories and gut instincts which have less basis than a seasonal model. There are plenty of politicians who will make much of the colder wetter summers when the forecasts are predicting drier ones (in 20-30 years mind you). That said, yes they should be wary. I understand the later models are showing some parts of Europe getting wetter summers, not drier ones. That's why we need better and higher resolution models which means much bigger computers.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 16, 2013 19:53:33 GMT
It is unfortunate then that so many far reaching political decisions are made on the strength of the 'seasonal forecast'. Perhaps the Met Office should make it plain that these are really experimental forecasts with doubtful skill and indeed have only been correct less than 1 in 10 times (with all the errors in the warm direction). Therefore, long term decisions on water policy, winter snow clearance and energy requirements should not be based on the Met Office forecasts. I cannot remember seeing this type of caveat on any of their forecasts although the use of probabilities does allow them a mathematical escape (we said it was only a 5% chance not impossible) that the unwary politicians will not understand. No far reaching political decisions have been made on the strength of the seasonal forecast. I think unwary politicians should be chucked out of office. They aren't all stupid, and they obviously make decisions based on many other models, theories and gut instincts which have less basis than a seasonal model. There are plenty of politicians who will make much of the colder wetter summers when the forecasts are predicting drier ones (in 20-30 years mind you). That said, yes they should be wary. I understand the later models are showing some parts of Europe getting wetter summers, not drier ones. That's why we need better and higher resolution models which means much bigger computers. Only minor things like the amount of grit and salt or the number of snow clearing machines. But what's a few deaths in the snow and closed airports? And as the Met Office has been proudly telling us the same model is used for both short range and climatic forecasts so the models have been used to good effect look at 4200 windmills - only there because of the Met Office model convincing parliament in 2008. I can't remember anyone talking about probabilities and error bars. And of course the Met Office was telling politicians with inside trading interests precisely what they wanted to know. So no - nobody is taking the Met Office seriously. Well not now.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 17, 2013 1:58:22 GMT
No far reaching political decisions have been made on the strength of the seasonal forecast. I think unwary politicians should be chucked out of office. They aren't all stupid, and they obviously make decisions based on many other models, theories and gut instincts which have less basis than a seasonal model. There are plenty of politicians who will make much of the colder wetter summers when the forecasts are predicting drier ones (in 20-30 years mind you). That said, yes they should be wary. I understand the later models are showing some parts of Europe getting wetter summers, not drier ones. That's why we need better and higher resolution models which means much bigger computers. LOL! Good God Steve, which side of the turnip truck did you fall off of? All the models have is theory. And the only basis theory has is in results, which for the theory behind the models has zero empirical basis. . . .e.g zero positive results. "Gut instinct" however has tremendous basis. Its risen a bunch of ragtag monkeys to near masters of the planet in a success story that provides a basis non pareil. We can't look to models for answers, all models can do is accelerate processes of learning. But 72 models all sporting the same set of primary assumptions demonstrates a startling lack of imagination, gut instinct, or free thinking, or two or all three of the above. One can no doubt attribute that to the politicization of this topic. What drives gut instinct to the top of the heap is the freedom to have gut instinct and when you have that the cream naturally rises to the top. When you have a homogenized "group think" little progress is ever made.
|
|
zaphod
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 210
|
Post by zaphod on Jun 17, 2013 16:28:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 18, 2013 5:33:11 GMT
Objectively that story sounds rubbish. I haven't been following this but it sounds like a London-based journalist has got a bit hot under the collar because a bit of warm air has pushed across the Channel. The forecast has been and continues to be for changeable weather with average to cooler temperatures more likely. I've been keeping an eye on it because I'm looking forward to my second wet and windy Welsh holiday in two consecutive Junes. One or two days of slightly warmer temperatures in London doesn't change or undermine this forecast especially when it is qualified with: "it it will not be wall-to-wall sunshine; it will be mainly cloudy with a chance of thunderstorms".
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 18, 2013 5:46:33 GMT
No far reaching political decisions have been made on the strength of the seasonal forecast. I think unwary politicians should be chucked out of office. They aren't all stupid, and they obviously make decisions based on many other models, theories and gut instincts which have less basis than a seasonal model. There are plenty of politicians who will make much of the colder wetter summers when the forecasts are predicting drier ones (in 20-30 years mind you). That said, yes they should be wary. I understand the later models are showing some parts of Europe getting wetter summers, not drier ones. That's why we need better and higher resolution models which means much bigger computers. Only minor things like the amount of grit and salt or the number of snow clearing machines. But what's a few deaths in the snow and closed airports? And as the Met Office has been proudly telling us the same model is used for both short range and climatic forecasts so the models have been used to good effect look at 4200 windmills - only there because of the Met Office model convincing parliament in 2008. I can't remember anyone talking about probabilities and error bars. And of course the Met Office was telling politicians with inside trading interests precisely what they wanted to know. So no - nobody is taking the Met Office seriously. Well not now. Nautonnier, Heathrow was closed in 2009(?) because they didn't invest in equipment. At the same time Heathrow was closed, Gatwick which is just down the road was open and the M25 between M3 and M4 less than a mile from Heathrow was clear and driveable at full speed. I know this because I flew into Gatwick while colleagues flying to Heathrow were stuck. Blame the Spanish owners, not the weather forecast. But this conversation is getting confusing. The original issue was whether the Met Office would be thrown under a bus because a high-profile but relatively minor output - the seasonal forecast - was embarrassingly useless. It won't be. I'm pretty sure that the ministers with the purse strings are well aware of the uncertainty, and previous and current government chief scientists as well as other high profile scientists have banged on pretty loudly about the need for proper funding of climate and seasonal research.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 18, 2013 7:02:18 GMT
Nautonnier, Heathrow was closed in 2009(?) because they didn't invest in equipment. At the same time Heathrow was closed, Gatwick which is just down the road was open and the M25 between M3 and M4 less than a mile from Heathrow was clear and driveable at full speed. I know this because I flew into Gatwick while colleagues flying to Heathrow were stuck. Blame the Spanish owners, not the weather forecast. But this conversation is getting confusing. The original issue was whether the Met Office would be thrown under a bus because a high-profile but relatively minor output - the seasonal forecast - was embarrassingly useless. It won't be. I'm pretty sure that the ministers with the purse strings are well aware of the uncertainty, and previous and current government chief scientists as well as other high profile scientists have banged on pretty loudly about the need for proper funding of climate and seasonal research. Obviously it would be desirable for the reasons mentioned above to be able to predict climate. However, that remains as pie high in the sky. . . .uh. . . . literally. No doubt research should continue and it will. You say "proper funding". I get the impression you think it has been underfunded. I think in that regards the Met is getting thrown under the bus because they are likely to get less funding. In fact prominently mentioned in James Hansen resignation open letter was that he was motivated to quit by the ongoing budget cuts. Federal funding should focus on improving observation technologies. So cutting Hansen's area makes a lot of sense. Weather prediction for up to 17 years is completely unachievable at this point so why invest in it? You say seasonal forecasts. Well thats not a climate forecast! Thats a weather forecast! The weather for the past 15 years (since warmists have determined that 15 years chunks of weather needs to be disregarded) has shown that you can't base seasonal weather forecasts on climate technology. . . .it just can't be done as the weather overrides it. So obviously the appeal for more funding is reduced to a plea for a few billion to send Sir Phil "Galahad" Jones et al on a quest for the Holy Grail. . . .uh. . . .Missing Heat. But I think there is something else to consider as well. All the brouhaha about the climate has revived grass roots volunteer research. Heck you don't even need to hire anybody. Everybody is doing it for nothing. . . .and doing a better job of it because of individual non-pecuniary passions to get it right. Nope Steve, a bigger computer is not going to make your model work. . . .its already to the point where the modelers cannot see the forest for the trees and a bigger computer is just going to lose them deeper in the forest. Pay attention to the tale of the Tower of Babel. We are talking a "bridge too far". I am sure funding will be provided once the monitoring platform discovers some new information. . . .like a major ultra super El Nino that catches up with a couple of decades of missing heat or starts being able to count aerosols or something like that. . . .but all that is highly speculative. It would be better to work in the meantime on intercepting and either dissembling or misdirecting that giant asteroid that could change the planet forever, is real, and we have a real chance of doing something about it.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 18, 2013 10:30:18 GMT
Only minor things like the amount of grit and salt or the number of snow clearing machines. But what's a few deaths in the snow and closed airports? And as the Met Office has been proudly telling us the same model is used for both short range and climatic forecasts so the models have been used to good effect look at 4200 windmills - only there because of the Met Office model convincing parliament in 2008. I can't remember anyone talking about probabilities and error bars. And of course the Met Office was telling politicians with inside trading interests precisely what they wanted to know. So no - nobody is taking the Met Office seriously. Well not now. Nautonnier, Heathrow was closed in 2009(?) because they didn't invest in equipment. At the same time Heathrow was closed, Gatwick which is just down the road was open and the M25 between M3 and M4 less than a mile from Heathrow was clear and driveable at full speed. I know this because I flew into Gatwick while colleagues flying to Heathrow were stuck. Blame the Spanish owners, not the weather forecast. But this conversation is getting confusing. The original issue was whether the Met Office would be thrown under a bus because a high-profile but relatively minor output - the seasonal forecast - was embarrassingly useless. It won't be. I'm pretty sure that the ministers with the purse strings are well aware of the uncertainty, and previous and current government chief scientists as well as other high profile scientists have banged on pretty loudly about the need for proper funding of climate and seasonal research. "Blame the Spanish owners, not the weather forecast" -- But I do blame the Spanish owners for believing the UK Met Office forecast. Gatwick had already previously made the correct investment, Heathrow did not because "snow was a thing of the past" and even the latest regional long term forecast supported that. (I flew into Gatwick the day it started to snow - the M25 was actually extremely 'iffy' on the first morning around 8 - 9am and some relatively major roads like the A30 were only just drivable.). The Met Office is now on 'thin ice' - they persuaded the government to 'invest' in something and got it wrong - if they get it wrong again - 2012 drought becomes floods and the Met Office says 'we expect this kind of rain' when that was NOT what they were saying loudly an d publicly in only March a few weeks before the rains. Remember - after the Heathrow closure, the first thing the Met Office said loudly and publicly was that they had forecast correctly. This is almost certainly purist view of probabilistic forecast meets arts graduate minister but the politicians feel they are being misled as the probabilistic nature of the forecasts had NOT been apparent when the Met Office released them (it is now - now that they are covering their backs). So, 12 out of 13 times the top billing probability has not occurred. You go to your funder with a record as poor as that when he is being held to the wall by Treasury mandarins who are cutting severely all their sacred cows and receiving flak from all quarters and try to ask just for continuing funding at the same level - and you will be under a bus. It will be ever-so polite but every bit as nasty. But you may know that if you have ever had to deal with the Treasury. Watch for establishment cuts at the Met Office that the Exeter people will try to visit on the outstation forecasters/observers rather than on them.
|
|
zaphod
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 210
|
Post by zaphod on Jun 18, 2013 18:04:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Jun 18, 2013 19:13:38 GMT
From the Met Office Workshop
Prof Stephen Belcher from the Met Office Hadley Centre, who lead the discussions said that changes in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), as the ocean current is called, was one of the prime factors.
Professor Stephen Belcher: "We need to know what's loading the dice for the position of the jet stream"
"It's the pattern of warm and cold water, it's the contrast of the warm and the cold, when that sits in the right place beneath the jet stream, it can kind of steer the jet stream and influence where it goes," he said.
"I'm excited about this work, it's a new thing that we didn't really know about."
Really! You have only just realized the AMO could affect the UK climate!
|
|