Forecast For 22nd June 2050
By Paul Homewood
The Met Office has taken to sending out forecasts of weather in three decades time, despite the fact that they are useless at forecasting more than a couple of days in advance!
https://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2022/06/23/how-we-make-our-2050-forecasts-and-why-we-do-them/
To be fair, they do explain they are not actual forecasts on their blog:
You may have seen some of our forecasts that look a little further ahead than you would usually expect. Although they use the same graphics as our normal weather forecasts, we’ve been producing theoretical ‘forecasts’ for 2050 to look at what conditions we could expect to see in the UK if global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise.
One of the greatest challenges with communicating the risks of climate change is how to show, in a relatable way, how changes in our atmosphere could impact the weather we experience on the Earth’s surface. By showing what the weather could look like by 2050 at certain times of year, it helps people relate to how different their experiences might be under a changing climate.
To date we’ve produced plausible scenarios for a July 2050 heatwave, Wimbledon and Christmas 2054, and now we’ve examined how Glastonbury could look in 30 years’ time.
Plausible scenarios
The key aspect to these ‘forecasts’ is that they are plausible weather events for 2050. Of course, it isn’t possible to create a genuine weather forecast for 2050, however it is possible to generate a realistic forecast based on the atmospheric conditions projected for the future.
The future forecasts are based on climate projections using a high-emissions scenario. One of the biggest sources of uncertainty in climate change is how much the world manages to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the years to come. That’s why climate scientists model future global warming under various scenarios.
https://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2022/06/23/how-we-make-our-2050-forecasts-and-why-we-do-them/
.
Here’s that forecast for Glastonbury:
.
The only trouble is that they are not in an way plausible.
For a start, the “high emissions” scenario, RCP 8.5 is simply not credible , as pretty everybody, except the BBC, admits. Using this scenario is purely designed to frighten people, and is reprehensible for a supposed public service body.
But more significant is the fact that their absurd forecast bears no relation to what has actually been happening to the UK climate.
For instance, their pretend forecast talks of 40C heatwaves in Doncaster, and for several days not just one. But the record temperature for Doncaster is only 35.5C. There is not the remotest chance of temperatures reaching 40C there.
In Central England it is a similar story, with a record of 34.2C, set in 2019. This was 0.8C higher than in 1990, and as the data shows was an outlier. Other than that temperatures since 1990 have failed to exceed that year or 1976:
There is always a chance of another outlier in future years, which may push the record up towards 35C. But to pretend that 40C heatwaves will become the norm is irresponsible, dishonest and disreputable.
Such claims have nothing to do with science, and are only designed for propaganda purposes. Hence the long winded lecture at the end of the video telling us we must all cut our emissions or else.
We might, of course, have a little bit more confidence in the Met Office predictions, if climate scientists had not assured us years ago that we would all be enjoying Mediterranean summers by now!
The inconvenient reality is that summers are still no hotter than in 1976, and even the boiler of 2018 was barely hotter than 1995:
Torremolinos? More like Frimpton-on-Sea!
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Love the propaganda colour palette they’ve chosen.
Imagine the lack of concern if they’d chosen this one ….
Typical propaganda – at least it is obviously so.
Typical propaganda from a side LOSING a total war.
Forecast?
“The North Pole will be ice-free in summer by 2013 because of man-made global warming”
Al Gore 2009
The Swedish equivalent SMHI tried a 10-day weatherforcast in [Swe] national television back in the 1980’s or 1990’s, but had to drop it quite quickly, as they were way off already on the fifth day. The still offer it, together with the Norwegian YR, with the very same ‘success’ … (They use the same raw data.) I know at least the Italian Meteo used to include a probability rate that usually was ~5% day five. Maybe they still do. I have not been in Italy since 2014 , so …
They still have alot to learn before they can break the ‘100h barrier of weatherforcasts’, so trying years is still a waste of time and money, but works fine for propaganda … Crystal balls, dices, fortune cookies etc, are much cheaper tools than big computers, in that respect …
Ah but a new super-duper computer helps them to be wrong more accurately!
👍
Processing garbage-in data faster still results in garbage out.
A supercomputer helps them be wrong either more quickly or with higher resolution.
Accuracy is unaffected.
Lies, damned lies and statistics.
Their excuse for why they claim to be able to predict the climate 30 years hence when they often fail to accurately forecast the weather a couple of days in advance is the most perfect example of sophistry imaginable.
Why do they do this? Does it make them money or something? I believe there’s a body of science which could equally forecast systematic cooling. Both wrong . Nothing is going to happen.
How do you know what is/not going to happen to the weather/climate?
What about.the imminent GrandSsolar Minimum’ s likely impacts?
i pay them to produce reliable forecasts in the here and now not speculate about forty years time
The models always over-predict heat, so the further ahead the forecast, the greater the likely heating error.
BBC is blaming monsoon floods on climate, but just seems we’ve gone back to the 1970s. More rational commentators point out the failure to upkeep flood defences, dredging, and destruction of the flood plain depressions, has not helped.
https://www.britishpathe.com/search/query/monsoons+bangladesh
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/natural-disasters/don-t-blame-just-climate-change-haor-destruction-also-behind-sylhet-floods-experts-83374
Indians pray for the monsoon. Monsoon means life.
Do they realise that this just proves the Met Office inhabit a virtual parallel universe.
the rest of us live on planet Earth.
GIGO. From Slingo’s Met. Orifice.
Destroying trust in public sector organisations such as the MET Office by indulging in cheap leftwing/marxist PROPAGANDA is a grossly dangerous and incompetent practice.
Here is an equally plausible scenario:
Very nice pic, Peak
District?
OMG… surely this article is a job for FB Fackcheck!! I can see it now. “This article is false and does not include full context”…. YEAH RIGHT… FB Factcheck LOL… that will be the day.
Following your suggestion I have just reported it. Let’s see what happens!
The Lefties had an epiphany. They realized outright lying about what is occurring now can occasionally draw questions whereas lying about the future consistently does not draw any questions at all. The ideologues on the Left are not stupid, far from it, it is their unswerving adherence to their bankrupt ideology which trips them up.
Meanwhile here in Norway, blue sky means it is not going to rain for 20min.
I pay close attention to the forecast on my iphone for no other reason to watch how dynamic the published forecasting is. The predictions not only change regarding 1-2 days into the future, they change as the day progresses regarding what will occur today! I have a mental image of a guy running it who sits in front of his computer with one eye looking out of the window.
I really don’t know why they get so excited/frightened about hot weather like this. Children scaring themselves with stories about the bogeyman.
That is exactly why they are doing it. These are not nice people.
it is Naziism revisited. Come up with a lie (Jews/climate) keep repeating it until it becomes accepted and when people become afraid, you have total control.
Project Fear again and again and again.
‘They’ work with the biological fact that we have a highly evolved ‘this is a worrying moment!’ module in our makeup. An emotional reaction which we are powerless to switch off. That trait was useful until we stopped living in small bands. For, in the extended family you could trust an informant – because he was related to you. The morals and altruism of humans are genetically determined. Our relatives tend to do things which directly or indirectly protect copies of their genes in us.* An incorrigible liar about life and death matters would be thought mad, and quickly expelled from the group.
All any of us as individuals can do is to recognize the tricks. They are not very subtle after all!
*In modern mass society the personal understanding of ‘who is a relative’ is confused.
Forgot to add, “The future forecasts are based on climate projections using a high-emissions scenario. One of the biggest sources of uncertainty in climate change is how much the world manages to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the years to come. That’s why climate scientists model future global warming under various scenarios”.
Small problem here. The magnitude of their gweenhouse effect is not proven so is not “settled science”. I mean they deliberately and disingenuously avoid calculating the main player which is water vapour. I take the lead from real physicists like Freeman Dyson and Will Happer who put the gweenhouse effect at a maximum of +/- 5% of the total heat budget.
If CO2 returned to the Carbon Cycle by the actions of man is really heating up the atmos then it should be occurring everywhere including at the Poles. Indeed clear skies in the desert are famously freezing cold whereas they are more bearable when there is cloud cover, and what is the difference, well the clouds are full of water vapour.
There are some serious flaws in the logic followed by the IPCC in their framing documentation because they start off from a conclusion, that CO2 did it! So instead of doing pure and honest science considering all possible causes they have a fundamental bias in their modelling and my does it not show. They have spent the best part of 35 years flogging that dead horse getting no where. If a school kid outlined a science project the way the IPCC framed their analysis, the outline would get an F grade for fundamental bias!
I am not sure how many out there realise there exists no statistically significant empirical data of any kind which supports the case they made against CO2. NONE. This is how bad their case is. This is why, wilfully disingenuous as they are they moved on from that avoiding discussing it at all and got the soft brained to worship the climate weather god. Why else do you think they are so obsessed with modelling? Simply a model will give you any answer you want (except of course the output is not empirical data something they “forget” to mention.
With no “proof” of cause (CO2) how can there be “proof” of effect (climate change) Q.E.D. I use the term proof reservedly because in science there is no such thing as proof, only empirical data based conclusions.
“…in science there is no such thing as proof…”
In the specialized sense of mathematics (transformations of tautologies) that is true.
Otherwise the statement seems specious and even nihilistic. It simultaneously makes more and less of science than it is. More, by implying it is so terribly hard and difficult to establish facts and rule-like behaviour in the natural world that only god-like people can do it – and even they cannot. Less, by implying that the ordinary processes of common sense and observation, which we use in everyday existence, and often regard as rising to the status of proof, are not available in science. But science is nothing but common experience; admittedly considered carefully, extended by discoveries and ingenious instrumentation,
and tested by experiment.
We can say ‘guilty’ or ‘not-guilty’ in the sphere of science as much as any learned judge in his sphere or any parent looking suspiciously at his child – after fairly hearing all sides. Sometimes we say ‘not proven’ or ‘we need more knowledge of the facts’ just as the judge does. But we SHOULD pronounce a definite judgement eventually, or find another line of business.
In other words, boo to Popper! And boo to Kuhn!
As always, the etymology of our words takes us back to the Aryans and their shining common sense. In PIE we can reconstruct the original meaning of ‘proved’ as, ‘right in front of your nose, you eejit.’ Which is the basic meaning in the dictionary today:
“cogent argument and facts which compel acceptance in the mind.”
Science is full of such cogent* arguments and facts. It is possible to forget how much has already been reduced from vague philosophy to definite understanding and ultimately to ordinary fact and technology. If it were not full of proved facts and perfectly useful validated theories and models, the whole enterprise would be good only for the knacker’s yard.
* actually meaning ‘things driven together to make a meaningful whole.’
Happer, based on detailed work using HITRAN published in 2020, shows that the effect of doubling CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm is 3 W/m^2, which equates to about 0.85 degC rise. In other words completely unimportant.
Everything else in the climate models depends on an unproven hypothesis of a 3x positive feedback multiplier from water vapour.
Which is why the tropospheric heat spot has been long predicted but never found in the real world and also explains why empirical estimates of climate sensitivity and rates of warming are at least 2-3x lower than climate models.
Last night on 27-6-22 BBC “The world tonight” at 10-00pm after 24mins 42 secs was an wild series of assertions totally accepted by the inept BBC presenter. These were made by Prof. Daniel Cannon of California Uni. who is responsible for their Sustainability programme and Advisor to US Agency for National Development.
Amongst much more he said:-
“Clean energy is now so inexpensive that it is cheaper to build a new solar or wind power plant than than to simply operate a fossil fuel plant”, and. “Dramatic decline in price of electric vehicles”, and “Of course driving an electric vehicle is vastly cheaper per mile than a fossil fuel car” (to which the Beeb man said “I take that point”) and then the Prof supported the Biden plan to “… fully decarbonise the electricity sector by 2035”.
There was much more of this in the unchallenged ramblings all simply justified without evidence that “the Science says”.
All this irrational talk is based on the old argument from classical logic which says “What is stated without proof cannot be disproved”. These dangerous people who are destroying the world’s economy and thereby the human sector of the world know well they must not declare what, if any, are their sources so their fallacies cannot be disproved.
Listen to last night’s “The world tonight” about half way in and weep.
Professor of sustainability from California. Enough said?
Meanwhile on blackout-news they are pointing out that there is not enough lithium for the all these battery cars. I note that there is no mention of all these mega storage batteries that will chomp up the lithium as well. So the good professor is spouting bollocks of the highest order.
“…not enough…”
Of many things…
It has emerged* that the Goverment is so staggeringly stupid that, as war in the Ukraine approached and then broke out**, it did not even talk to EDF about keeping Hinckley B going (enough electricity to power 1.7 million homes, as the cant goes) and now it is too late to stop its closure in a few weeks time although in the words of EDF it would have been ‘technically feasible.’ ***
* Answer to a Parliamentary Question.
**I suspect that the Government machine thought Ukraine would collapse immediately, Russia would get off scot-free with its liquidation of that country, and Putin would keep the gas flowing. All as Merkel had schemed for.
*** And as always the politicians lied about their failure. CAN people actually be THIS stupid, one asks oneself?
“What is stated without proof cannot be disproved.”
But why should anybody be interested in any case? I say, bring back Trial by Battle! Where the dead one is disproved with extreme prejudice!
There is a modern version of the classical quote which is the (Christophet) Hitchen’s Razor “What can be asserted without evidence can dismissed without evidence”.
The problem those of trying to deal in truth by objective inductive reasoning is that both sides of the argument exploit this and largely do not bother with evidence. By evidence I mean repeatable, demonstrable, experimental results conducted with the real world not just on a computer (As an Engineer I know about maths and computers!)
Native woodlands survived the warmer drier summers of the Tudor Drought Grape-vines were a hallmark of the English landscape – much further northward than the south east of England – during the Roman Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period . BBC propaganda is contingent on memory holing the climate of the past ..
Whatever’s causing it, mankind’s puny contribution to atmospheric CO2 isn’t enough to do anything but raise global temperatures by ~0.0001°C per year for ~25,000 years, to elevate temperatures by 2ºC.
Always assuming CO2 is the problem.
I see from the map used that Norfolk is still there .And I was getting all worried about sea level rises by 2050.Left and right hands..
I forecsat that the BBC will cease to exist well before 2050
Lol. Bet Shetland Islands are still basking in 14C tempertatures in midsummer.
‘To be fair, they do explain they are not actual forecasts on their blog’
An odd concern. You have no duty to be fair with people trying to destroy Western Civilization.
And in Mediterranean Surrey at 11am it is a heady 63F with quite a breeze. Not t-shirt and shorts weather except for those who seem to wear them from the start of May whatever the weather. Even some of the slightly honest ‘scientists’ say it is wrong to use RCP8.5.
Actually only just now got around to watching the broadcast….what a load of *******. This really is an insult to the intelligence. The Met Office should be ashamed of themselves.
The Met Office say that heatwaves like in 2003 and 2018 will happen every other year by 2050. I can see just three more of that type before the end of this century, and the next 1540-1757-1936-2006 type not until 2116.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQemMt_PNwwBKNOS7GSP7gbWDmcDBJ80UJzkqDIQ75_Sctjn89VoM5MIYHQWHkpn88cMQXkKjXznM-u/pub
How come France is so cold (green) compared to the UK? Is that due to better insulation since Brexit?
I can make a prediction for June 2050, the same way I can make a hindcast for 1976, 2003, and 2018, the next one of that type is in 2045, and two more this century. The hottest month in CET was July 2006, the next of that type is in 2116.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQemMt_PNwwBKNOS7GSP7gbWDmcDBJ80UJzkqDIQ75_Sctjn89VoM5MIYHQWHkpn88cMQXkKjXznM-u/pub
2050 is more likely to be like 2005
The 2005 BBC video : Too much rain at Glastonbury
“One of the biggest sources of uncertainty in climate change is how much the world manages to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the years to come.”
Significant reductions in CO2 emissions would decimate the current transition from conventional transportation to electric transportation, Without the fossil fuels for the vehicles needed to manufacture and install solar and wind “farms”, even nuclear power plants and facilities designed to capture and store CO2, nothing of consequence can take place. That is a certainty until reality takes over. The markets will decide what emissions will do. Not climate modelers issuing dire forecasts.