Skip to content

The UK Met Offices Model Muddle

August 3, 2017

By Paul Homewood

 

Last week, I took to pieces the Met Office’s latest piece of junk science:

 

 

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/07/26/met-office-unprecedented-rainfall-nonsense/

 

GWPF have now put together a very easy to watch video, which summarises some of my points and adds a few more.

 

 

https://www.thegwpf.org/the-uk-met-offices-model-muddle/

 

 

 

Advertisements
28 Comments
  1. Broadlands permalink
    August 3, 2017 4:16 pm

    How often is it that the public is told that some factor… temperature, rainfall, flooding or drought has been either better or worse than EXPECTED? Doesn’t this failure imply that whatever model was used for prediction was wrong?

    • quaesoveritas permalink
      August 3, 2017 4:54 pm

      It depends on what is meant by “expected”.
      I doubt if even the perpetrators of the models really “expect” them to be correct.

      • Broadlands permalink
        August 3, 2017 5:15 pm

        I don’t think they do either, but it seems they tend to use it to make things sound worse…rarely better.

      • Tim Hammond permalink
        August 4, 2017 7:36 am

        I think they do, as this is a problem across many sectors, not just climate science, but science overall, finance, business and elsewhere. Models are seen not just as accurate forecasts but as somehow able to produce something beyond their assumptions and programming.

        The businesses, banks and governments I work with find it very difficult to accept models that are just a few lines. They want people to produce large models with as many lines as possible because they think that makes them “better”. As my first boss said though that is simply “spurious accuracy”.

      • Jack Broughton permalink
        August 9, 2017 11:02 am

        Got to agree with TH, mathematical models that are complex need to be treated with great suspicion as they are almost impossible to validate. The best models of any process are simple and logical.

        The evidence of model failure is massive: financial collapse was not predicted, Chernobyl happened despite models used for control, climate models have proved totally worthless.

        With modern computing power anyone can generate sophisticated models in the true sense of the word sophisticated.

  2. tom0mason permalink
    August 3, 2017 5:13 pm

    In comparison to the Met Office, the GWPF’s video is a model of anti-alarmist fact filled probity.

    Why can not the UK sell-off the useless, expensive, inaccurate, and alarmist Met Office and it valueless forecasting?

    • August 3, 2017 6:31 pm

      Because the UK is tun by a bunch of gullible and ignorant politicians/civil servants in thrall to the Green Blob.

  3. August 3, 2017 6:12 pm

    Get the popcorn in, this years Arctic Ship of Fools (TM) is just about to set sail for the North Pole, much guff about science, but what they really want is an iconic propaganda picture:

    “If we can produce a visual image of a sail boat at 90 degrees north I think that could become an iconic image of the challenge that the 21st century faces,” said the explorer.

    http://www.ybw.com/news-from-yachting-boating-world/explorer-pen-hadow-aims-first-person-sail-north-pole-yacht-57013

    • John F. Hultquist permalink
      August 3, 2017 6:51 pm

      Ice area is about 7.8 Wadhams.
      Temperature is about to dip below zero.
      Daylight now getting shorter.
      Good luck to all.
      Is this another attempt to produce higher insurance rates?

      Who pays for this nonsense? It is a stunt, much like the fool that used a motorcycle to jump over canyons. The climate doesn’t care. The canyons do not care.

    • August 4, 2017 12:34 pm

      Fifty-nine years ago, at 11:15 pm, August 3, 1958, the USS Nautilus squeezed beneath the North Pole. When they reached open water and could raise the periscope, Commander William R. Anderson, U.S.N. sent the following message: “Nautilus 90 North”.

  4. Bitter&twisted permalink
    August 3, 2017 6:19 pm

    No wonder it is called the Met. Orifice, based on the cr@p that it pushes out.

  5. Athelstan permalink
    August 3, 2017 7:53 pm

    From GWPF link:

    […] Met Office’s models were consistently running much warmer than observations.

    increasingly, seasonal, annual, decadal, and century-long forecasts are being provided to policymakers and planners, providing the basis of import decisions and policies.

    These model-based forecasts have not stood up to testing, and do not seem to give better advice than observational records.[/quote]

    Anecdotally, the number of times West Yorks has been promised wet and consequently turned out dry [as today in fact] is a common flaw. Blimey and YEARS AGO Met office boy Paul Hudson pointed this out, that, the Met Office model algorithms are still over compensating computing for the myth of MM CO2 enhancing natural ‘warming’ and thus if you pump in garbage in, then, what else can you expect to be spewed back out?

    As you see from the above quote, the salient point to all of this is, your taxpayers monies are not only funding this alarmist propaganda but also the exacerbation factor in that, other gubmint departments councils, quangos et cetera take stock of and set great store in, the prognostications of the soothsayers and rune readers of Exeter’s Hadley centre – how stupid can it get – the Met office is your answer.

    Defund it [wet office] and shut it up and NOW.

    • quaesoveritas permalink
      August 3, 2017 8:01 pm

      I think the MO are very bad at forecasting rain. They forecast 3 hours of heavy rain + thunderstorms where i live and we got about 1/2 an hour of light rain and no thunderstorms.
      I don’t really know how that translates into their model forecasts, but the trouble is, neither do the MO. Or if they do know, they’re not telling us.

      • Athelstan permalink
        August 3, 2017 10:07 pm

        If they do know, it is through all their own fault. If you ask me they just bodgers acting as advocates and bettbots.

      • Gerry, England permalink
        August 4, 2017 1:03 pm

        As countryman Robin Page said, since they got all the technology their forecasting has got worse. I think they probably now lack the skills to interpret data and charts, and make a forecast. It is all modeled.

  6. August 3, 2017 9:22 pm

    MetOffer’s = MetTroffers (Met Troughers)

  7. August 3, 2017 9:26 pm

    BTW Look North tackled Lincoln Councils early switching off of streetlights.
    – The wildlife expert mentioned increased streetlighting causes earlier nesting and egg laying.
    …Something which normally gets laid on Climate Change.

  8. keith permalink
    August 4, 2017 7:52 am

    Another example of our ‘idiot’ politicians, letting Met Office have £97m for their super computer to put out more super inaccurate forecasts. That £97m would have been better spent elsewhere.

    • August 4, 2017 5:37 pm

      A decent crystal ball on ebay would leave the MetO at least £96.9m change.

  9. richard verney permalink
    August 4, 2017 9:00 am

    I consider these 5 minute bite sized video presentations concentrating on just one or two points to be a very good way to inform people.

    Tony Heller/Steven Goddard has made a number of very good videos in this style although his language is somewhat stronger and more confrontational.

  10. Matthew permalink
    August 4, 2017 11:08 am

    An informative video, but the presenter is awful. Very difficult not to shoot yourself it is presented in such a depressing way. Surely GWPF can find a better voice over person, someone who is engaging.

  11. August 4, 2017 12:47 pm

    My sorry excuse for a city council voted unanimously on Tuesday to support the Paris Climate Accord, stating that the move was not political…..and the moon is made of green cheese.

    I objected in an email to all the council people, stating that Christians Figueres who wrote the Paris Climate Accord had admitted 2 years earlier that it was not about climate, but about getting rid of capitalism in favor of Marxism. I stated that Michael Mann had been debunked and why and signed off with my title and list of degrees to give what I was saying credibility. Never mind. One, a woman, replied to me as “Ms. Gibson”. I did not let her get away with that attempt at marginalization and she backed down. She also indicated that weather with a bad snow storm or rain was proof of climate change. She also is enamored by “sustainability”. Two other replies were also hostile.

    Finally I sent them a link to the complete article of Professor Richard Lindzen’s remarks which addressed everything they said about why they were so in love w/ Paris. I also included a link to his biography from MIT. No replies.

    These wizards took office on July 1 after winning a May election by running under the radar. I understand they are about to do several other things which will likely make their term on city council “unsustainable.” Oh, the arrogance of the ignorant.

    • Jack Broughton permalink
      August 9, 2017 10:53 am

      This does not seem to me to show all the hot water lurking below the surface and about to cause massive temperature rises, or am I missing something?

  12. August 6, 2017 4:16 pm

    Reblogged this on ajmarciniak.

  13. Coeur de Lion permalink
    August 7, 2017 10:42 am

    Delighted to see the Wadhams unit of area being used. Do we think the BBC Today programme will have him up again to make another ‘forecast ‘ ? I think not.

  14. quaesoveritas permalink
    August 7, 2017 12:25 pm

    I have had a reply from Dr Vikki Thompson in response to an earlier request for more information.
    She says:
    “Very briefly: For south east England the Met Office has observations of rainfall from the late 19th century but we only use the past 35 years of data so any changes to the climate (as may have occurred due to climate change) are not included, as this might lead to an erroneous result. For example if the past 35 years is wetter than earlier observations I would end up with a higher risk than is true. ”

    This confuses me somewhat, as it seems to contradict the news release which gives the impression that the whole point of only using the latest 35 years of data was that the climate had definitely had changed.

  15. tom0mason permalink
    August 8, 2017 11:39 am

    Lest we forget —

    “In the UK wetter winters are expected which will lead to more extreme rainfall, whereas summers are expected to get drier. However, it is possible under climate change that there could be an increase of extreme rainfall even under general drying.”
    Telegraph, Dr. Peter Stott, Met Office, 24 July 2007

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: