|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 10, 2013 1:02:10 GMT
Read it here first.... It's possible that I may well have been first to post comments about the Met Office forecast on any blogsite. This article www.thegwpf.org/met-office-warming-2017-media-do/ credits Tallbloke with posting it on January 5 and shows how that has lead to an explosion of discussions of the forecast. Apparently the Met Office made no effort to publicize the forecast. I learned of the forecast when my wife asked me a question about global warming and I went to the Met Office site to find their old forecast which has been so wrong. I was shocked to see their new forecast. The chances of my finding something first is pretty slim since I spend only a couple of minutes a day on this subject. Yep you were first. Subsequently it was posted on Tallbloke's site as a Tip (a copy of your post). Then as Roger T's site is closely watched (by the Norfolk Constabulary among others) that got picked up by WUWT and others and the rest is history ;-) You started the snowball rolling - now the Chief Scientist at the Met Office is having to dodge the rather larger faster moving mega-ball it has become.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 10, 2013 19:10:29 GMT
Last March, the Met’s “Chief Scientist”, Julia Slingo, told the Parliamentary Environmental Committee , “decreasing amounts of ice in the far north was contributing to colder winters in the UK and northern Europe as well as to drought. “ Apparently when she said drought, she meant floods. It's always helpful to the argument when you lie by omission. www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/14/met-office-arctic-sea-ice-loss-winterPS That's useful. Clearly you've become fed up of me tracking down the original quotes that you have distorted, so you're just making them up now.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 10, 2013 19:39:19 GMT
Happy new year to you Steve. So, um, Steve... Maybe one could claim that the Met office has zero credibility, as the top graph clearly demonstrates a less then zero percent chance that the model has anything to do with reality. Based upon this graph and others like it Your country and mine have spent billions of dollars (pounds) building giant bird shredders and other wasteful green projects that will never, ever come close to supplying the energy our countries need to keep our citizens healthy and living comfortably into their 80s and 90s. What say you? As I've always said, the credibility of long term projections of warming caused by relatively predictable rises in CO2 is not reliant on the credibility of shorter term forecasts. The short term forecasts are still a research activity. I'm not claiming the forecast *is* successful, I was posing the scenario to try and understand the excitement. If the forecast is wrong then the particular research activity still has a long way to go. It doesn't mean the research is rubbish any more than those searching for planets were rubbish till they found them, or that those searching for gravity waves are rubbish because they've never been detected. What *seriously* has to stop is to pretend that any failed forecast is some how proof that global warming is a fiction. The Met Office credibility is based on being one of the two best short-term operational forecasters in the world, not on the results of one of its research programmes.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 10, 2013 19:41:47 GMT
Steve: A serious question. Is the Met Office one of the best short-term forecasts in the world?
I know in the USA, the reliability is less than 50%. But with that stated, it is better than the 30% that was achieved in the 80's.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 10, 2013 19:45:10 GMT
What is useful about long term predictions, such as those made 20 years ago, is to look back at that prediction and see what parameters were rubbish and need to be changed.
Climate modeling is such an infant area of science, that one does not really expect a whole lot from it at present. What I do expect, is that the old models can be built on.
Today's models are better, hopefully. I will prob be dead before we really know if present models bear a resemblance at all to reality in 30 years.
One thing that is certain, no present model has a certainty that should be the basis of spending large amounts of tax payer monies.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 11, 2013 5:15:04 GMT
Happy new year to you Steve. So, um, Steve... Maybe one could claim that the Met office has zero credibility, as the top graph clearly demonstrates a less then zero percent chance that the model has anything to do with reality. Based upon this graph and others like it Your country and mine have spent billions of dollars (pounds) building giant bird shredders and other wasteful green projects that will never, ever come close to supplying the energy our countries need to keep our citizens healthy and living comfortably into their 80s and 90s. What say you? As I've always said, the credibility of long term projections of warming caused by relatively predictable rises in CO2 is not reliant on the credibility of shorter term forecasts. The short term forecasts are still a research activity. Are you serious? The only reason this forecast might be right is by accident. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and the Met model is demonstrably broken. When all of your predictions fail, when your forecast is so wrong, that policy makers are trying to pass drought legislation in the middle of a flood. When your best defense is to pretend that none of your past predictions exist. Why should anyone do anything except wonder why the folks at the Met still have jobs? Steve, what message do you think the Met office is giving? Can the Met predict the sign of the next ENSO event? Can the Met predict what the AO will look like in 3 weeks? If you cannot predict these things, you cannot predict the climate, and they need to stop trying. Otherwise people are going to point and laugh. Seriously, this needs to stop. Giant bird shredders are not the answer. Making energy cost more is not the answer. More government is not the answer. Catastrophic Global Warming Theory is all about the left grabbing money and power. Everything else is just window dressing. Is it too much to ask agencies to be honest, have no conflicts of interest or agenda? It just seems like you are defending the indefensible. The Met Office's shenanigans are well documented. beforeitsnews.com/eu/2012/05/met-office-forecasting-produces-another-epic-failure-2102289.htmlAmong other things, politics as usual: It’s always helpful to connect the dots. The Chairman of the Met Office is Robert Napier. Not only is he a Non-Executive Director of Anglian Water, which has a drought order in place, he is also the former Chief Executive of WWF-UK, the UK arm of the World Wide Fund for Nature. That is the same WWF exposed as being engaged in systematic fraud in the developing world and which supplies the International Panel on Climate Change with material to prop up the climate change industry.
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Jan 11, 2013 6:14:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 11, 2013 11:50:03 GMT
Steve said:
I'm not claiming the forecast *is* successful, I was posing the scenario to try and understand the excitement. If the forecast is wrong then the particular research activity still has a long way to go. It doesn't mean the research is rubbish any more than those searching for planets were rubbish till they found them, or that those searching for gravity waves are rubbish because they've never been detected.
The problem is that the entire 'green energy' industry has come into being based on these forecasts that you are now calling 'research projects'. They do not say to the politicians by the way this is a research project in an infant science area. They say: "unless you in the UK close down all these coal fired power stations the sea levels will rise by 6 metres and there will be extensive droughts and huge numbers of climate refugees."
If it is an infant science now - how extremely poor was the science in the late 1980's when all this began? I can't remember any uncertainty being expressed by the researchers in this infant science.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 11, 2013 16:08:08 GMT
Steve said: I'm not claiming the forecast *is* successful, I was posing the scenario to try and understand the excitement. If the forecast is wrong then the particular research activity still has a long way to go. It doesn't mean the research is rubbish any more than those searching for planets were rubbish till they found them, or that those searching for gravity waves are rubbish because they've never been detected.The problem is that the entire 'green energy' industry has come into being based on these forecasts that you are now calling 'research projects'. They do not say to the politicians by the way this is a research project in an infant science area. They say: "unless you in the UK close down all these coal fired power stations the sea levels will rise by 6 metres and there will be extensive droughts and huge numbers of climate refugees."If it is an infant science now - how extremely poor was the science in the late 1980's when all this began? I can't remember any uncertainty being expressed by the researchers in this infant science. Yes and Met O's website was (still could be) chocked full of braggadocios statements how important their predictions forecasts research projects are for policy makers; charlatans with a bloated budget.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 11, 2013 16:44:16 GMT
One must not loose sight of the result in all of this.
We all want models to be correct. That is human nature, to take some of the question out of the future. We all hope that continued research will eventually provide a useful product.
And one thing that anyone with an ounce of sense knows is that the current state of climate models is NOT perfected enough to provide ANY useful information in regards to the future.
That is a reality, whether the proponents of climate certainty want to admit or not admit this.
And very very few actually do admit this. The others are not dishonest, they are just stupid.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 11, 2013 19:53:42 GMT
You may remember that one of my key points when I originally posted the "new" Met Office Decadal forecast a week ago was that the Met Office had changed history. Their new forecast includes an incorrect version of their historical forecast. I was disappointed that this point was not given any attention as far as I could tell in the recent flurry of publicity. Now a blogger, Paul Homewood, has "re-discovered" this problem. notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/01/10/spot-the-difference/Hopefully this will get some publicity as well since it still irritates me that they would do this after I had given them credit for showing the correct historical forecast in their previous version.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 11, 2013 21:02:08 GMT
Paul Homewood has a lot of useful information on his blog.
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Jan 12, 2013 0:18:52 GMT
Less then a year ago, the Met Office was predicting a continuation and even worsening of drought conditions in their own back yard. In the middle of a flood.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 12, 2013 8:57:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 13, 2013 11:35:54 GMT
Read it here first.... It's possible that I may well have been first to post comments about the Met Office forecast on any blogsite. This article www.thegwpf.org/met-office-warming-2017-media-do/ credits Tallbloke with posting it on January 5 and shows how that has lead to an explosion of discussions of the forecast. Apparently the Met Office made no effort to publicize the forecast. I learned of the forecast when my wife asked me a question about global warming and I went to the Met Office site to find their old forecast which has been so wrong. I was shocked to see their new forecast. The chances of my finding something first is pretty slim since I spend only a couple of minutes a day on this subject. Yep you were first. Subsequently it was posted on Tallbloke's site as a Tip (a copy of your post). Then as Roger T's site is closely watched (by the Norfolk Constabulary among others) that got picked up by WUWT and others and the rest is history ;-) You started the snowball rolling - now the Chief Scientist at the Met Office is having to dodge the rather larger faster moving mega-ball it has become. duwayne looks like you could claim the 'Eagle Eyed Blogger' badge From Steve's favourite news paper .... Global warming stopped 16 years ago, Met Office report reveals: MoS got it right about warming... so who are the 'deniers' now?
By David Rose .......Surely the Met Office would trumpet this important news, as it has done when publishing warnings of imminent temperature rises. But there was no fanfare. Instead, it issued the revised forecast on the ‘research’ section of its website – on Christmas Eve. It only came to light when it was noticed by an eagle-eyed climate blogger, and then by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the think-tank headed by Lord Lawson........ www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261577/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-Met-Office-report-reveals-MoS-got-right-warming--deniers-now.html
|
|