Skip to content

Shock News – Vicky Pope Not Infallible!

June 4, 2013

By Paul Homewood

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WyDmdcPw7Uw

 

 

In 2004, Vicky Pope, then the Senior Manager in charge of climate research at the Met Office, warned us that by 2014 global temperatures would be 0.3C warmer than 2004.

 

And the reality?

 

 

image

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.2.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt

 

Does any of this matter? After all, we are all used to the Met’s repeated bungling.

Unfortunately it does. According to Pope’s LinkedIn entry:-

 

I have a background in stratospheric research and climate modelling and led one of the teams who developed the climate models use in IPCC 3rd and 4th assessment reports and the UK Climate Projections published in 2009 (UKCP09).‬ Since 2002 I have had various senior management roles managing various aspects of our climate research programme, In these roles the focus was on the provision of climate change advice to underpin policy development. For example I led the Met Office contribution of science to the Stern Review on the economics of climate change.

  

So her flawed science has played a key part in not only IPCC reports, but also the Stern Review. It is the latter, of course, that led in turn to the hugely expensive, and potentially catastrophically damaging, UK Climate Change Act in 2008.

Apparently this is the sort of “settled science” that Ed “Dopey” Davey says the Media should not be allowed to challenge.

 

Meanwhile, the Met have promoted Vicky to be the “Head of Integration & Growth” (whatever that is). I guess you could call it the reward for failure!

 

 

Update

Paul Matthews points out that the speech seems to date from 2007, rather than 2004. This of course fits in with the Met’s first decadal forecast issued in the same year.

Given that they were only forecasting 7 years ahead, and not 10, makes the error even more glaring.

19 Comments
  1. June 4, 2013 11:12 am

    How many more failed predictions will climate scientists be allowed before the entire thing grinds to a halt ?

    • mkelly permalink
      June 4, 2013 1:52 pm

      As long as the people that do the promoting believe the same thing they will continue to be raised in position.

  2. Marco permalink
    June 4, 2013 3:01 pm

    Ah, she predicted. Fatal mistake, you should never predict. You should do as the IPCC and project. Projections are never wrong.

    On the other hand, it is not yet 2014 so she may still be right.

    • miked1947 permalink
      June 4, 2013 5:44 pm

      Marco:
      That was a “What-If-Scenario”! All her What-Ifs did not come to pass! 😉
      Climate Modelers do What-If-Scenarios based on Best Guess What-Ifs and using the most recent Al-Gore-Rhythms!
      IOW: GIGO! 😉

  3. June 4, 2013 5:08 pm

    A good example of the “Peter Principle” in action, i.e. that any employee will tend to rise to their level of incompetence. At what point, does this become a resigning issue?

    I don’t recall that we have had any admission that the forecasts were wrong. Far from it, she is probably one of those saying that warming is actually faster than they expected.

    Of course, the MO are still at it. Their forecast for 2013, issued on Decembr 21st., was for a temperature of between 0.43c and 0.71c, with a “best estimate” of 0.57c. v 1961-90, using a combination of HADCRUT4, GISS and NOAA.

    Otherwise, they said that a temp. of 0.71c was equally as likely as one of 0.43c, even though that would have involved an increase of 0.23c over the actual figure for 2012, based on their own prediction of 0.48c in December, which itself turned out to be about 0.02c too high due to cold December, which they evidently didn’t anticipate.

    The actual global temperature at the end of April, on the same basis is likely to be about 0.45c, altough we are still awaiting the HadCRUT4 figure for April.

  4. miked1947 permalink
    June 4, 2013 5:49 pm

    What we are experiencing is entirely “Consistent” with her projections. You must have missed the part where she said +/- 2C! 😉
    I missed it also but I know it was implied!

    • June 4, 2013 6:06 pm

      But is it “honest” to say “we expect”, when there is such a large margin of error?

      • miked1947 permalink
        June 4, 2013 6:16 pm

        She is a “Climatologist”, That makes the “We Expect” an unstated preamble!
        Remember their job is to add drama to their talking points! Other wise she would be dismissed from the Chicken Little Brigade!

  5. Brian H permalink
    June 4, 2013 7:00 pm

    “Integration and Growth” — of the errors in the error bars?

  6. Otter permalink
    June 4, 2013 8:37 pm

    Good Evening, Paul.

    I believe I have asked you on previous articles, but, might I repost your article and the accompanying anomaly chart? With credits and links back to you, of course!

  7. Paul Matthews permalink
    June 5, 2013 1:07 pm

    In fact it looks like the prediction was made in 2007, see start of video.

  8. Paul Matthews permalink
    June 5, 2013 1:23 pm

    2007 Met Office press release here.

  9. Billy Liar permalink
    June 5, 2013 3:44 pm

    I think poor Vicky is down the rabbit hole trying to do some Alice in Wonderland sums:

    “Let me see: four times five is twelve, and four times six is thirteen, and four times seven is—oh dear! I shall never get to twenty at that rate!”

  10. June 5, 2013 5:13 pm

    I like the way she points out (just to put it into context) that there has been only 0.7 degrees warming over the last century and a half, so a further 0.3c by 2014 is “pretty significant”.
    Yes Vicky, it would be if it were real. But it’s not, it’s pure fantasy, on your forecasts, NOT the real world.
    Did it never cross her mind that an increase of 0.3c in such a short time was unlikely?
    The problem was, she was so convinced that she was correct, that it completely invalidated her judgement.
    Judging from the latest forecasts, nothing has changed.
    In fact, it appears that they are convinced that it isn’t the forecasts which are wrong, it’s the “real world”.
    This is bordering on the delusional.
    As Einstein is supposed to have said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

  11. Barry Woods permalink
    January 9, 2014 11:24 am

    This 2007 Met Office document – Informing Policy – quotes it!!

    Click to access informing.pdf

    It also says lots of other silly things like:

    “On a timescale of several decades the prediction of global warming is now robust.”

  12. January 9, 2014 3:40 pm

    Complete transcript of the talk here, thanks to Alex Cull.

Trackbacks

  1. Anatomía de una ciencia basura | Desde el exilio
  2. Anatomía de una ciencia basura | PlazaMoyua.com

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: