Gales continue to batter Britain

Monbiot's article pretty much hits the nail on the head. We love to complain about our unpredictable weather, even more so when the forecasters get it wrong.



Yet the press (particularly the climate skeptic leaning rags) seem particularly unfair to the MO. A BBQ Summer we might not have got, however it was one of the warmest years, but wet.



The continual alarmist reports in the skeptic leaning press about blizzards and Arctic conditions were splashed all over their pages using some dubious forecasting companies, none less the PWS, but there seems to be a lack of accountability in either the press to own up to there sensationalised headlines being wrong or report on the failings of the companies they used to support them.



Could it be that newspapers have started using forecasting companies who produce reports that they are more likely to agree with even if they techniques are unsound?



What ever happened to the project to track companies predictions for accuracy that was reported on here some time ago?

Monbiot's tu quoque logical fallacy notwithstanding, the lesson remains the same - nobody has better tools to fight the unknown future of weather or climate than mere probablistics and worse-than-useless circulation models. That the independent weather predictors fare no better or worse than the Met on balance only exposes mankind's dismal lack of understanding of the behaviour, influences and drivers of the earth's weather systems and climate.



The real news, at least to those who have been tricked into believing differently, should be that in truth there are inherent uncertainties which utterly dwarf our understanding of the climate, by orders of magnitude - worse still, that our understanding is plagued by both epistemic and ontic uncertainties.



Judith Curry's exposé of climate uncertainty is worth a re-read: https://judithcurry.com/2010/09/22/the-uncertainty-monster/

Dear Mr.Hudson. Last Autumn, a Met Office 3-monthly forecast not meant for the proletariat was released into the public domain. As I remember, The Met O prediction was for 30% likelihood of warmer than average, 30% normal, and 40% cooler than average. Now weather patterns are essentially chaotic, and forecasting even 14 days ahead, let alone 3 months, is a risky business, which is why the Met's 3 monthly forecast is not generally available to the public, whereas the private companies display a little more confidence in their work. So far this Winter, the Met O forecast has been less than accurate, even allowing for the vagueness of the predicted forecast ( or was it merely a projection?). I suggest you consider the beam in the Met Office's eye before being too joyful about the mote in the eye of the private forecasters. All of you are in the same game, after all, and should be working together to improve forecasting, not fighting inconsequential turf wars to the detriment of the advancement of science.

Paul - stop been so smug about the independent forecasters getting it wrong.



The reason the Mail likes the kicking Met Office stories is that

1 They are good fun

2 We pay for the met office



If independent forecasters get it wrong they go out of business. When the met office gets it's wrong they get a new shiny multi million pound super computer and over a million pounds in bonuses.



I trust the Met office for one day - giving it about a 50% chance after 3 days - after that it's useless and the same for all other forecasters.

"There is a subtext at work. The Met Office, like the BBC, is the subject of intense tabloid hostility, because it refuses to accept the consensus in the rightwing press that man-made climate change is a myth."



I am not exactly clear why Mr Hudson, you think that Mr Monbiot's article is worth reading. The above extract shows how out of touch he is with reality. Anyone would have thought from Mr Monbiot that all the right wing press were constantly sceptical of global warming alarmism, but of course that is not the case.



As regards to the MET office well only just the other day the BBC expressed the concern that there would be a winter drought and what happens shortly therefter it rained and rained and rained.



You did comment on the Climategate 1 emails but not on the Climategate 2 emails, where I believe you were discussed by the team and Mr Monbiot lent his sword of truth to rubbish Mr Durkins The Great Global Warming Swindle even before it was aired.

Monbiot is actually really mixed up in my opinion, the Met office drew attention to themselves with their highly public overheated seasonal forecasts which became such an embarrassment they simply had to stop (releasing them publicly)

So when a warm ‘odds on for a barbecue summer’ was predicted we got a washout



Worse still when a warm winter was predicted for 2009-10 and 2010-11 we got the coldest winters for decades in some places.



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/8090325/Met-Office-data-suggests-mild-winter-but-dont-forget-last-year.html



Some wondered whether the forecasting models were biased



https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/a-frozen-britain-turns-the-hea.shtml



They felt obliged to deny that they had made any predictions in 2011 after the freezing winter I know Paul H believes this was forecast by October but even accepting that no suggestion was made by anyone that we were facing the coldest December ever on record for some of us Who predicted what became a contentious story



https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/21/what-sort-of-forecast-does-the-met-office-supercomputer-make/



Now we all know the Met Ofice was doing these overheated forecasts for political reasons. Now even more exciting is their new decadal global forecast with some very interesting statistics.



https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/decadal-prediction



We will wait and see but the current temperature record is already slipping out of the confidence intervals as shown(5% rather than 10% zone surely). On this basis we should expect some very hot weather indeed

I think that the MO "early" warnings are a joke.

The yellow warning for tonight's gales was issued at 11:20 this morning, although it was obvious from the pressure charts and individual forecasts that the winds were going to be just as strong as those yesterday.

Last Saturday, there was a yellow warning for winds in the whole of England but none for Scotland, when it was again obvious from the pressure charts that there would be stronger winds in Scotland than in England. I was told that the reason for this discrepancy was that the warnings for England were issued from Exeter and those for Scotland were issued from Aberdeen. What happened, were the Scottish MO staff still on holiday?

Eventually the warning for England was reduced in size and a yellow warning was issued for Scotland, which was eventually upgraded to amber and eventually red.

The red warning wasn't issued until 08:14 yesterday, when the strong winds were already in progress. Not much use as an "early" warning.

There was also a discrepancy between when the winds would peak, according to the BBC t.v. forecast and the one on the MO website.

Monbiot make valid points about the acccountability of private weather companies. But he is so off the mark with is assessment of the positioning of the newspapers he despises, or with his assumptions of the truth of the consensus. Here is a helpful analysis of his piece. https://www.climate-resistance.org/2012/01/its-that-monbiot-again.html

Dear oh dear - the anti MO brigade are at it again. What's all this rubbish about "secret" 3 month forecasts? The MO position (broadly)is that prediction beyond about a week is insufficiently precise to do in detail - period. They used to do "long range" stuff (probably to please public expectation) but now accept that (as current understanding allows) uncertainty outweighs the usefulness of the forecast.



Independent forecasters still insist that it can be done. And, quite the contrary to what is said above-#4- despite being frequently wrong they do NOT go out of business! Why? Because enough people are sufficiently gullible (and, even more perversely anti AGW enough) to brush aside any errors they make and forget.



It is true that the MO have produced "generalised" predictions that winters are -odds on - likely to be mild rather than cold. Fairly obviously, given that they accept GW theory, that is the logical thing to do! If they said winters were likely to be cold - that would take a bit of explaining!



Given that climate has an element of unpredictability, even chaos, it is extremely unlikely that winters will follow a flawlessly upward curve of warmth. To demand that they will as the only acceptable proof that GW is in operation and use that as an excuse to criticise the MO and GW theory, is ludicrous and a willfully obtuse evasion of climatological reality - as well, of course, as setting up a self fulfilling justification for pretending you have rational grounds for believing AGW is a flawed concept.



Neat - but rather transparent I'm afraid!

I missed the fact that Professor Bob Watson, of the U.E.A. has been given a knighthood in the New Year's Honours:

https://www.clickgreen.org.uk/events/events/123002-%5Cclimategate%5C-scientist-rewarded-with-knighthood-in-new-year-honours-list.html

I wonder how this will look in 10 years time?

Now to more sensible things. Paul H must sometimes wonder why he bothers doing his blog when almost everything he writes is twisted into a petty ding -dong about climate change.



Regarding the powerful westerly flow at the moment - quite a contrast with last year - perhaps even a foretaste of the pattern to come. If so, whatever happened to that theory (last winter) that thinning arctic ice would cause severe winters to become the norm in W Europe? I'm sure people can't have forgotten. A poster here called Dylan Ashlar (I think) was making great play of it at the time. Where is he now?



The westerly flow seems to have been marked not only in December but for much of 2011. As a result, in part, here we have had unusually dry conditions overall. By contrast, a friend of mine in The Lakes, reports that it has been exceptionally wet there. A textbook classic of wet west, rainshadow east. Paul H has also reported frequent rain in Pennine Skipton - quite alien to the often fine dry breezy weather we seem to have enjoyed here.



Will it continue? Lamb(1974) suggests that the weather pattern at New Year is a good indicator of what is likely to prevail later in the winter. It seems probable that storminess may be the norm until mid Jan at least (the end of "early winter" by the "5 season year" model of British climate). "Late winter"- (mid Jan to late Mar) might bring a change. If it does not, this year is likely to be one of the most advanced seasons - biologically - for many a year. Last years roses have hardly faded and already snowdrops, crocus, hazel - even budding daffodils are making an appearance.



The combined storminess and earlyness begins to remind me of 1990.

I dont know which is the biggest joke Monbiot or the Metoffice

The Met have spoken:-



Met Office 2012 annual global temperature forecast



4 January 2012 - 2012 is expected to be around 0.48 °C warmer than the long-term (1961-1990) global average of 14.0 °C, with a predicted likely range of between 0.34 °C and 0.62 °C, according to the Met Office annual global temperature forecast.



The middle of this range would place 2012 within the top 10 warmest years in a series which goes back to 1850.



https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/2012-global-temperature-forecast

#9 jkiller56 Says



'it is extremely unlikely that winters will follow a flawlessly upward curve of warmth'



This point explains the problem perfectly with the MO, the problem being with them in fact... they somehow forgot themselves that weather was not climate in desperate attempts to make *weather* forecasts conform to climate models





On a cheerful note the return to traditional? weather patterns is bringing record snowfalls in the French Alps for those of us planning to ski soon. Skiing looks safe for some time to come despite the scaremongering about that too.

#13. - greensand wrote:

"4 January 2012 - 2012 is expected to be around 0.48 °C warmer than the long-term (1961-1990) global average of 14.0 °C, with a predicted likely range of between 0.34 °C and 0.62 °C, according to the Met Office annual global temperature forecast."



Good, that's the central figure we thought.

And they seem to be sticking to the latest estimate of 0.36c for this year.

Also a bit of a coincidence that they should publish the figure when we are discussing it.

I wonder if they are reading this blog???

Another interesting consequence of this is that the forecast makes 2012 the third year in a row which will be below the 1998 high.

I suppose that even if 2013 and 2014 are higher that would still be "about half".

Sorry, I meant the third year since 2010.

Obviously, it will be the 14th successive year below 1998, based on

the MO calculation.

@15. QuaesoVeritas wrote:



"I wonder if they are reading this blog???"



Damn sure they are but doubt that what they read would motivate a press release.



Also there are further complications in the line, they have a new public beta site!



It has taken me 12 months to get over the last "new site" and still can't find some data!



https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/beta/



To be fair they do ask for feedback:-



https://web.questback.com/metoffice/webpagesfeedback/



Will have to have a trawl and join in.

The RSS figures for December have now been published.

Global anomaly = +0.114c, up from a slightly revised +0.032c in November.

N.H. = +0.163c, up from +0.075c and S.H. = +0.063c, up from -0.014c.

The December anomalies are equivalent to approximately +0.261c, +0.324c and +0.2c after adjustment to 1961-90.

So RSS shows an increase in the global and both hemispheric anomalies, unlike UAH, which showed a fall in the N.H. figure.

I am not entirely surprised at this, since the November RSS figures looked a bit on the low side to me, compared to the other series.

This does however, point to a possible small rise in the HadCRUT3, NASA/GISS and NCDC/NOAA anomalies.

#18. - greensand wrote:

"Also there are further complications in the line, they have a new public beta site!

It has taken me 12 months to get over the last "new site" and still can't find some data!"

Same here, it took me ages to find the data files I used on the new site.

Some times there were so many links to follow, it reminded me of a labyrinth - some sort of game to test the fortitude of those looking for the treasure of the data.

I am not saying that this was deliberate attempt at hiding data, but it became at the very least, a very user-unfriendly site.

I am confident that the new site will be worse again.

The bbc met office didn't even get last nights prediction right. There was supposed to be torrential rain and winds dying down last night. There was very little rain and the winds seemed worse last night. What chance have they of predicting longer term forecasts with any accuracy.

#21. - Sheffield_city wrote:

"The bbc met office didn't even get last nights prediction right. There was supposed to be torrential rain and winds dying down last night. There was very little rain and the winds seemed worse last night. What chance have they of predicting longer term forecasts with any accuracy."

I find that the MO are "generally" correct on short-term forecasts, but often wrong in detail.

For example, their recent forecasts of stong winds were generally correct, but they got the detail wrong. On Tuesday the on-line forecasts for my region predicted that winds would peak in the afternoon, while on the BBC they were forecasting that they would peak in the morning, and decline in the afternoon.

In practice, the latter happened, so the on-line forecast was wrong.

Some may say that it is good enough to get the forecast generally correct, but they shouldn't pretend to be able to forecast precisely, if they can't.

Since as far as I know, nobody, including the MO, monitors the accuracy of 5 day forecasts for a specific location, they can't claim their forecasts are accurate, since they don't know.

QuaesoVeritas. Last year they kept predicting snow that didn't come, then a few days or a week later it did. But it probably causes more problems, because people are concerned about things that never happen and then bad things happen, that people don't know are going to happen.

Based on the December anomaly figures, the final annual figures and rankings for 2011 and the linear trends over the last 10 years are as follows:



UAH

2011 anomaly = 0.149c (0.408c v 1961-90), making it the 9th warmest on record.

The 10 year linear trend is +0.0293c/decade, compared to +0.0327c/decade at the end of November.



The above figures are based on the anomaly figures to 3 decimal places, quoted on Roy Spencer's blog, not the figures to 2 decimal places which are quoted in the on-line data files, which have not yet been updated for December.



RSS

2011 anomaly = 0.147c, (0.296c v 1961-90), making it the 12th warmest on record.

The linear trend over 10 years is -0.0759c/decade, compared to -0.0740c/decade at the end of November.



In both cases, the 10 year linear trends continue to fall, although at the present rate, it may be late 2012 before the UAH trend becomes negative.

I should have added that the conversion of UAH and RSS to 1961-90 is approximate, since no satellite data exists for that period. Instead, it is based on the HadCRUT3 anomalies for the relevant base periods of UAH and RSS.

@23 Sheffield_city



Imagine that...predicting snow and it not happening. Blizzards and -20's only 6 weeks late now, or is it 7?

Am I the only one here thinking that Simon H (@2) must have received both the full OED and Thesaurus this Christmas?



For those who didn't follow his meaning, from wiki . . .

Ontic

"(i) ontology concerns the categorical analysis of entities by means of the knowledge categories able to classify them. (ii) ontics refers to a pre-categorical and pre-objectual connection which is best expressed in the relation to transcendent acts and (iii) metaphysics is that part of ontics or that part of ontology which concerns the residue of being that cannot be rationalized further according to categories"







I gave up after reading that.

lateintheday,

Thanks for making that clear!

Ack! LOL! It's simpler than it sounds! Epistemic uncertainties are uncertainties which can be reduced with study. Ontic uncertainties are inherently unresolvable.



So you've thrown a party and you are unsure if a particular friend is going to attend. If you have their mobile number you can ring to find out - an epistemic uncertainty that can be reduced or eliminated (nearly.. anything can happen when crossing the street). If you don't have any way to contact them to find out if they got your invite and will be attending, then there is ontic uncertainty which can only be resolved by the eventuality - they show or don't show.

Simon H I always thought there was considerable epistemic uncertainty about the ontic uncertainty of whether epistemic uncertainties could be resolved



or somethink



but very nice explanation



muchas gracias

"Interestingly it could be that after the last few years when the jet stream has at times been disrupted and pushed further south than normal, possibly because of an unusually weak solar cycle"





That seems to accept a remarkably fast and reliable connection between solar activity levels and jetstream tracks.



Given that we are close to the maximum of solar cycle 24 shouldn't the jets be further north than they are?



Jets following a 'normal' track at a time of solar maximum suggests that we are still in a period when the jets are further south than they would be in a 'normal' solar maximum.



During the late 20th century warming spell when solar activity was relatively high the jets were often further north than they are now at this time of year.



Is this as far north as they are going to get in winter during cycle 24 ?

Using the back garden test along side someones back garden in the USA, can we say that cooling is cancelled and warming is back in? The 2 back gardens were sufficient last winter to proclaim that GW was a scam...

My, my, we are running out of worthwhile conversation.



Pthinks#14 -



Of all people, I do not think the MO confuses "climate" with "weather"; they spend quite a bit of energy tortuously explaining this to those who are confused -including yourself it seems. In what way do their regular weather forecasts in any way hint at the influence of long term climatic trends? Is each summer weekly weather forecast hotter than last years perhaps? Is each winter expected to be milder than the last? NO, I think not. Only the broader much longer trends are, on average, expected to show gradual warming. But that is CLIMATE not the weather forecast!



(pause for weary sigh)



As for all this nit picking and demand for near perfect accuracy . Kindly bear in mind, if you can possibly pull in your claws for a minute, that with "warnings" - as with many bodies in the public eye, the MO are damned if they do and damned if they don't.



Too little warning and the public scream they were taken by surprise ; too much and they moan about being needlessly panicked!



Not that I, in case you are wondering, have the slightest connection with the MO. Its only that I don't believe that just because I pay towards them, I have a right to demand they perform to my every expection and personal whim and fancy - however biased and distorted by political perspective.



Namely: that because they concur with AGW concensus, I will look for and exagerate every trivial fault I can find, so that, with luck, other people who read what I write will start to think they are completely incompetent aswell - thus start to wonder (if they are daft enough) - "AGW might be equally suspect, mightn't it?"



Yet another of these transparent ploys I'm afraid!

@33. jkiller56



"My, my, we are running out of worthwhile conversation."



"(pause for weary sigh)"



"Yet another of these transparent ploys I'm afraid!"



Yup, that just about nails your contribution.

#33. - jkiller56 wrote:

"Too little warning and the public scream they were taken by surprise ; too much and they moan about being needlessly panicked!"

Personally I believe that it would be better to give a warning which turned out to be wrong, than not to give a warning. I don't see why a false warning should "panic" anyone. Unfortunately the MO seem to have a policy of not giving warnings unless a very strict test of probability is achieved, which often results in failure to give warnings until the last minute. The standard of probability for day -5 of the warning horizon should be lower than that for day -1.



"Its only that I don't believe that just because I pay towards them, I have a right to demand they perform to my every expection and personal whim and fancy - however biased and distorted by political perspective."

It's not a question of what is paid for the service, it's a question of performance versus what is claimed. If the MO can't forecast within the time-frame and accuracy which they claim, then they shouldn't pretend that they can. Moreover, they produce no evidence to support their implied level of accuracy. One can only judge by results. If short-term forecasts are wrong, then the assumption must be that longer-term forecasts are wrong too, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.

Having said that, I would trust the MO forecasts more than those produced by dubious pseudo-scientific methods.

The MO have 2 roles; predicting weather and raising alarm about AGW. I don't have too much of a problem with their performance as a weather forecaster if it is limited to 12 hours or so. The further out the forecast the more likely it is to be inaccurate in some respect. But that is in the nature of trying to predict a chaotic system. Their performance in raising alarm on AGW is second to none.

#33. - jkiller56 wrote:

'I do not think the MO confuses "climate" with "weather"; ' but they did! ... and kept doing it because it was politically desirable but not very good weatherforecasting and I put it to *you* are in denial about this.

I have no doubt they new the difference ,



here is a good example of the methodology behind the seasonal forecast for the winter 08/09 in Sept



"Met Office spokesman Barry Gromett said, according to the predictions, 2008/9 would be the eighth year in a row that Britain has had a mild winter - defined as having an average temperature higher than the average recorded for the winters between 1971 and 2000. "



(similar to each summer and winter forecast between 2008 and 2010)



So here we have a long term climate trend being used to make a short term forecast, AND they went on and on using that method until it was just too embarassing! cant wait to see how the decadal forecast works



(pause for a weary sigh)

For jkiller56



this is really a good analogy for what happened



Newcastle did not beat Manchester United today, because the long term trend is for Manchester United to beat Newcastle.



Credit to Stephen Goddard

If I really want to know what is happening to the weather in the UK I listen to the Shipping Forecast. This is in my opinion where the MO excels. I can’t recall any criticism emanating for our fishing fleets (not that many nowadays) or hear of boats in distress because the MO has got the forecast wrong?



Any forecast timescale longer than 24-48 hours and the accuracy must be lessen and this must be taken into consideration.



The issues I have with the MO are based on the certainties that the MO places on their “Decadal forecasts, also called 'near-term' climate predictions” which are not really “climate predictions” they are temperature forecasts.



The 2009 forecast had 2011 at +0.56C and it was actually +0.36C. Now we have the 2011 version which illustrates the other “beef” I have with the MO the 2011 chart varies from the 2009 one in both format and the historic data values, why?



I am sure somebody is trying to “improve” the presentation but what they have done is made it difficult for interested parties to carry out comparisons and this will inevitably lead to accusations of obfuscation. Why can they not just leave the format alone or if they want to mod then at least publish in the old format alongside?

@ Paul Hudson



as someone with more of an open mind than most are allowed at the BBC, Paul, you should have a look at the contributions of Robert Brown at WUWT and Tallbloke's. He seeks to explain why global temperatures are the wrong metric - at least as currently calculated - but also why models cannot get climate right. Ideal material for one of your blogs.

It would appear that we might be about to get an insight into the CRU raw data that Don Keiller from Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge recieved following a successful FOI appeal.



I will be very surprised if it produces a "smoking gun" that induces any significant changes the thoughts on present day temperatures but Keiller claims "I am going to cause a huge stir"



Check out the whole thread, things are a foot:-



https://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/1/7/an-hsi-sighting.html

Your report of the hilltop gusts are meaningless. Read Philip Eden in today's Sunday Telegraph Paul.

Pkthinks wrote:



"Newcastle did not beat Manchester United today, because the long term trend is for Manchester United to beat Newcastle.



Credit to Stephen Goddard"



This is fairly typical of the ignorance and misinformation on Goddard's blog. He is also well known for using regional data to claim a global trend even after scientists specifically state that the region does not follow the global trend;



https://reallysciency.blogspot.com/2012/01/no-evidence-of-droughts-getting-longer.html

greensand - seems you are right



"Well Annie was right. I am going to cause a huge stir.

The hard work has already been done, just awaiting confirmation of the result.



Jan 7, 2012 at 8:22 PM | Don Keiller"



Could be another nail in the coffing, has there ever in fact been a more safely sealed coffin in the history of coffin making? :-)

# 44 openside50 wrote



re "Newcastle did not beat Manchester United today, because the long term trend is for Manchester United to beat Newcastle.







"This is fairly typical of the ignorance and misinformation.."



This particular comment by Goddard can be defined as humour or satire, not a scientific argument



I think the potential mistake you refer to is the converse of the one I was highlighting in the MO's seasonal forecast and its common in all kinds of warmist arguments also

To QV at#35

Yes, I can see that "better safe than sorry" might be a better warning policy. But it's not that easy. People get pretty annoyed, even litigious if, for example, they decide to cancel a big money making event due to a weather warning that turns out to be a false alarm.



I am not aware that the MO claim to be as perfect as you seem to think either - they often use the term "some uncertainty" which is both honest and realistic when dealing with dynamic (or, just for quantities of sunshine in placid cloudy anticyclonic) weather - even a few hours ahead, let alone days or weeks.



Of course as greensand#39 mentions - there is the shipping forecast. I suggest that here is the proof of the pudding. So I'm not clear, QV, what it is you are really complaining about. And as I said, using a few tiny self percieved flaws as an excuse to throw out the baby, the water and even the bath itself, smells of political motivation - or if not - then downright petulance.



And, as you point out - imagine handing over the shipping forecast to Corbyn or Accuweather or whoever. Why don't those of you who seem to think the MO so useless write to your MP and suggest this?!



Now then, Pthinks #37

"MO spokesman....dah de dah...2008/9 would be the eighth year in a row Britain has had a mild winter..."



Not clear if from this, if we are talking past or future tense here. If we had had a mild winter (a retrospective statement) I don't see the problem.



If the meaning is that we are GOING to have another mild winter, (predictive statement), given that it is not MO policy to make such a definite prediction, I can only assume that it means that we are LIKELY to have another mild winter, based on very broad (but by no means absolute) probability in a globally warming world. There would seem nothing wrong in this - it is simple logic.



Those of you who seem to base your ire on data presentation, small variations in temp data etc. must bear in mind that the MO is responsible for conveying weather info to millions of people of vastly varying levels of understanding. The percentage who insist on minutely combed detailed stats must be as small as the % points you often argue about.



This is not an excuse of course, but it is a reality - part of which might also be that your "sceptic" demands are nothing like as important as you seem to believe they are.

Holly bush update: still showing a few berries.

Interpretation: continued mild UK January temps with a risk of brief cold snap from 30th Jan - 15th Feb. Soaking wet end of Winter/Early spring thereafter.

The Holly Bush has spoken.



Lazarus - I know that we rarely agree on anything, but I think that Goddard suffers from foot in mouth syndrome. Either that, or I simply don't get his sense of humour.



Spanglerboy . . .

re- Robert Brown. Thanks for that recommendation - very interesting stuff.

@46. Jkiller56



“The percentage who insist on minutely combed detailed stats must be as small as the % points you often argue about.”



“This is not an excuse of course, but it is a reality - part of which might also be that your "sceptic" demands are nothing like as important as you seem to believe they are.”



The “ire” I have is over the MO Decadal Forecast. Are you really suggesting that only a small percentage of people are concerned about the presentation and accuracy of the MO’s flagship climate model? Not least the MO, as this secures a lot of funding and they claim a world leading capability in the field?



Also let’s say you are right and because it is only of interest to a “very small %”, why not leave it alone? Why spend the time and expense required changing formats and historic values if nobody is interested and the numbers are so small as to be “nothing like as important as you seem to believe they are”? Well the MO obviously believes it to be necessary.



I agree that there is a lot of over the top criticism of the MO, there always will be with weather forecasting, but what you have put forward to justify changes in the format and values of their “Decadal Climate Forecast” is an excuse.

to greensand#48



Yes, fair enough - accuracy is very important and so is the interest - even if it were by a tiny minority (which in a broad sense, it is not). The MO must endeavour to cater for this as well as possible and it is a crucial part of their work.



However, as for format, I have no idea why the MO have changed that. As I have no connection with them myself, I certainly do not pretend to speak for them, so for an answer - only they can provide it.



Presumably the motive is to "improve" it - though inevitably this will cause annoyance to some and, worse, if it causes confusion.



However, I would be pretty sure that their motives will be sound. It would be disingenuous, I would suggest, for anyone to suspect them of trying to misrepresent data or obscure the figures deliberately and then go on to use this as a reason for claiming that it therefore undermines the entire basis for the AGW platform.



This was the main and more important line of my argument.



PS is anyone still reading this section of blog now there is a new one?!

@49 jkiller56

JK, I did not think we would be too far away.



I just wish that the MO would stick to a "theme" at least for the duration of a projection. Every time they change somebody will point. Why give the accusers the opportunity? Why? Any way they do, it’s a pain, I get there eventually but a lot don’t they just use it as a basis for mistrust. Maybe with a little thought the MO could greatly reduce the potential of anybody making such points.



“I would suggest, for anyone to suspect them of trying to misrepresent data or obscure the figures deliberately and then go on to use this as a reason for claiming that it therefore undermines the entire basis for the AGW platform.”



Thereby hangs the problem, the MO position on AGW is their “Decadal Forecast” therefore any changes will create an inevitable reaction I just do not understand why they leave themselves open to such accusations. Leave alone, then nobody can point.



"PS is anyone still reading this section of blog now there is a new one?!"



Probably not!

What I have to say has nothing to do with the weather but I've emailed the BBC before and just got back a standard answer, I'd like to ask the question, why is the North below the North East on the bbc tide times map? I use the site regularly and it never fails to irritate me, also on this map Spurn Point is classed as in the North, as anyone from the area knows it is clearly on the east coast and as such is in the East Riding of Yorkshire!!! The site needs updating and obviously by someone who has a clue about the geography of England!!