IWatkins

As a forecaster at RAF stations and deployed sites for many years, I for one, appreciate this comment Les, thank you. Thankfully, I'm not hairless yet, maybe I got out of frontline forecasting in time

I tend to stay out of the whole climate change debate. I actually understand the science and the data (not an easy sbject) but I'm on the fence. So much of the interpretation is politically motivated it is difficult to make fair conclusions.

But you can make this conclusion: the climate (not weather) *is* changing. Is it caused by humans? I'm not convinced either way.

Cheers

Ian

Suresh

The Met used to be a proud part of the MoD.
Now its just a climate alarmist camp. If you can't forecast with any skill just say so and that's fine. Just don't then claim that you can extrapolate from your models to see doom and gloom a generation further. Even the more-reasonable such as Richard Betts are at it too!

IWatkins

The Met Office hasn't actually been part of the MoD for a while now.

As for being a climate alarmist camp? If that is your opinion, then nothing I can say will change that will it?

But the Met Office *can* and does forecast (weather forecasting) with skill. This level of skill is closely monitored and scored by independent auditors. Improvements continue on a yearly basis.

boomer

Les,

i am sure that many people at the Met Office work hard, but as an organisation (for whatever reason) they continually spout pro-AGW propaganda.

If they simply said "this is what we think the weather will be like tomorrow", or even "it looks like the climate will be hotting up in ten or twenty years time" to those who paid, either directly or indirectly - then fairy nuff!

However their mainly taxpayer funded (and to many - massively biased) "analysis" is now...

• Preventing me from legally purchasing frosted incandescent light bulbs.
• Forcing me to use a complex condensing gas boiler with circuit boards that fail and fans that break and drains that freeze should i wish to replace my existing one.
• Making me pay more for my electricity and gas to subsidise windmills and give rich people FITs for the next twenty five years.
• Increasing road tax should i purchase a car that uses more that a certain amount of fuel - despite the fact that i already pay duty on its fuel and VAT on both the fuel and the duty.
• Massively increasing air fares, especially if i want to fly out of Yerp.
• Suggesting that i help pay (into the billions of pounds) for a nasty network of "smart meters" that will allow power companies (or the gubmint) to turn off my lecky whenever they want.
• Loads more that i can't be arsed to list!

They should focus on what they are (not very) good at, and steer clear of social engineering

mb

boomer

mb

Suresh

I'm sorry but you are talking out of your hat. The science is far from settled. Feedbacks are poorly understood and the policy papers use analyses of data that has been first tortured by Michael Mann and the rest of 'The Team'. Primarily to hide awkward things such as the decline [in proxy temperatures compare to the instrumental record]

The fact is that the Met earns well from providing alarmist information and related policy advice.

How about this as an example of alarmist-central:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-...relevant/avoid


Avoiding dangerous climate change
Even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, some future changes in climate may already be inevitable. But there is a choice in how large these changes will be.


.
Now do you believe me?

boomer

WOW that is scarey.

The AVOID website directly links to the metoffice.gov.uk for ALL of its information!!!

And is linked to several pro-AGM organisations.

The website it even registered under the Met Office...

Domain ID:CNIC-DO605312
Domain Name:AVOID.UK.NET
Created On:28-Nov-2008 14:36:12 UTC
Last Updated On:16-Jan-2012 16:26:22 UTC
Expiration Date:28-Nov-2012 23:59:59 UTC
Status:OK
Registrant ID:H434484
Registrant Name:Met Office
Registrant Organization:Met Office
Registrant Street1:Fitzroy Road
Registrant City:Exeter
Registrant State/Province: Devon
Registrant Postal Code:EX1 3PB
Registrant Country:GB
Registrant Phone:+44.8453633630
Registrant FAX:+44.8453633631
Registrant Email:centralnic@names.co.uk


Conclusive proof that the (publicly funded) Met Office is totally biased and should be closed down!!

mb

IWatkins

Suresh,

Not sure what about what I said was talking out of my hat? Met Office forecasting skill has improved year on year for several decades. Or are you denying that fact? Or are you saying that the Met Office is still in the MOD? You see, if you want a serious discussion of these subjects, you actually need to critique individual points rather than make sweeping statements.

I'm sure you have read a lot about climate change and have made your own conclusions based on the information you've read. That is fair.

I've actually studied meteorology for 25 years (and I mean actually worked at learning) and after all that time I've come to the conclusion that AGW is not proven, or at least, I'm not convinced. I am convinced that climate change is happening though, but there again it always has been.

If you want a serious discussion, then I am willing to discuss. Want to make sweeping statements without having a proper discussion of points raised? Then you are no better than either the Pro-AGW or Anti-AGW gangs. Polar "discussion" is no better than no discussion at all.

Cheers

Ian

Suresh

Ian, apologies fo rmy lack of clarity. I meant your comment that the Met isn't a hotbed of alarmism. It very clearly is - per thel link to their AVOID pages above.

On the subject of the skill of their forecasting I'd love to see the stats! It does get very grey when they say 50% chance of it raining, 25% chance of it being sunny and 25% chance of a mixed bag. They'll be right whatever happens and it would be poor to see manipulated hit rates on such broad forecasting scenarios.

You are correct that I've done a fair bit of reading around CAGW and am actually concerned that the Met AVOID project is involved with Jeremy Grantham and his passive-agressive alarmist sidekick Bob W. Not really a stamp of credibility.

Leslie

My pleasure Ian, I spent a good many years in my job relying heavily on the forecasts and reports from your compatriots and although sometimes there were occasions when it did not work out as expected there was nothing that one could not cope with and we would have been lost without you.

I agree with you that the climate has changed over the years but I am more inclined to think that it is cyclical rather than due to human actions. Even more so now that the scientists who told us about global warming are now telling us that there has been none for some 15 years now!

The politicians won't like that bit of news will they!

Les

suBruce

iTrader: (1)

This guy is right...... Bad news

Leslie

I agree.

I think that using installations like HAARP or attempting to generate earthquakes etc. is a dangerous and irresponsible way to behave and is risking our natural protection against natural phenomena.

Les

jonc

Something is not right, it's sunny outside at the moment!

Leslie

I have to admit that I don't know whether it is the Met Office which was shouting about global warming or whether it was another bunch of scientists.

I read that the method they were using was not as accurate as it should have been. Apparently the balloon which was lifting the temperature probe was heating up in the sunlight and was causing a higher temperature than was correct to be shown. For some reason there was a sudden jump in the measured temperature which caused all the furore but which was more likely to be caused by the sun's heating effect on the balloon. I am not in a position to prove this of course, but it was published some time ago.

I feel just the same as you do about everything which stems from the GBW alert. What a great excuse to charge all those green taxes too?

I prefer to think that any sign of climate change we see is cyclical as it has been over the centuries in the past. As I mentioned earlier, they are saying that there has been no GBW now for over 15 years! Doesn't stop all the whining about CO2 etc. After all, water vapour is a far more effective greenhouse gas than CO2!

It will take a long time before all the GBW restrictions are forgotten about, it is far too convenient to have them in place of course! In the meantime they can still carry on bleating about "climate change" of course and using that as an excuse instead. I prefer to heap it all on the politicians rather than the Met Office.

Les

boomer

Les,

you only have to look at the AVOID web site mentioned by Suresh above!!!!

The entire site is based (check out the "behind the scenes links) at "metoffice.gov.uk". They are paying for the hosting, they are paying for the bandwidth - which means that it is actually the tax-payer that is paying for all of the (biased, unproven) propaganda!!

Sadly the "bright and dedicated people" are being manipulated by those with a "hidden" agenda

mb