http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/208012/Winter-to-be-mild-predicts-Met-Office/#
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
- “Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republican”
- “Something we are doing is clearly not working”
- October 26, 1921
- Hillary To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Ivy league Provost Calls For Assassination
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Greg in NZ on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Greg in NZ on “falsely labeling”
- Gordon Vigurs on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Disillusioned on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- stewartpid on “falsely labeling”
- dm on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- dm on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
Steve, I suspect you know that no one claims the ability to predict weather in 50 years.
(Yes, I know, stop spamming.)
That must be why they do it all the time
Sure, Steve. Can you point me to their London forecast for Novmber 29, 2060, please? Hell, the London winter forecast for 2060 will do. I trying to plan a visit.
ChrisD See my reply below. You can work out your own weather forcast by choosing the right year, the right season and the right area of the UK. Add temperature to rainfall and you’ve got as good a weather forecast as previous MetOffice seasonal forecasts – ie unlikely to come true.
ChrisD:
I thought you once said that climatologist have made predictions about climate that have come to pass so we should believe their current predictions!
I see you used the Weasel word Weather as opposed to “CLIMATE” because according to Climatologists they are two different things.
Tricky, Tricky!!!!
If you think climatologists try to predict weather 50 years in advance, you’re just as nuts as he is.
And if you think the distinction between climate and weather is just “weasel words”, you’re even more just as nuts as he is.
Only a moron would attempt to defend their dismal record at climate forecasting.
Well, cool, I guess I’m not a moron, since that’s not what I did.
Steven:
You missed the trick! They predict Climate not weather! They are Climatologists not weathermen.
Just because they use weather models for their predictions of climate does not mean they are wrong when the weather can not be predicted 4 days out to any degree of accuracy that can be used for any real purpose.
ChrisD says:
November 28, 2010 at 2:34 pm
I guess I’m not a moron,
Don’t leave it to guess work.
Mike Davis says:
November 28, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Steven:
You missed the trick! They predict Climate not weather! They are Climatologists not weathermen.
Yes. Why worry about if you can get the weather right 5 days from now? They know what “climate” will be 50 years from now. Why would they need to know weather 5 days from now? Only superior intellects can understand them. Weather, climate, weather, climate—they’re genius for long term, but can’t get that short term—because of the noise. You know, there’s no noise is climate. They got that ‘climate 50 years from now’ thing nailed down to an exact science—because, they say, there’s no noise in climate. But nope, not weather 5 days from now.
Climate, for them, is smooth sailing. But weather, it’s pretty rough for them—to many variables, too much “noise in the system”. That ole 50 year–5 day dilemma us little folk scratch our heads over to figure out, but they know it for sure and let us know they know it in that condescending tone.
How does a little saying goes:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” ~Joseph Goebbels
Climate 50 years from now—known for sure. Weather 5 days from now—too many variables to get it right for sure.
ChrisD says:
November 28, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Steve, I suspect you know that no one claims the ability to predict weather in 50 years.
We don’t know weather for sure 5 days from now, but we know climate 50 years from now. Excellent conclusion. You are deep ChrisD. We can all trust you know what the earth’s climate will be 50 years from now.
But since these people are so good with the physics of climate why didn’t they forecast the cooling of the last decade—where’s that missing heat? Jus wondrin. Oh wait, I’m sorry ChrisD, I just remembered, none of that matters. You know for sure it’s going to be warmer in “climate” 50 years from now. You’re no moron.
See here.
see here
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/met-office-massively-fails-every-seasonal-forecast-but-they-know-the-weather-in-50-years/#comment-16195
and see here
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/met-office-massively-fails-every-seasonal-forecast-but-they-know-the-weather-in-50-years/#comment-16203
On the contrary, they do attempt to predict the weather in 2050. OK, it’s not a day to day forecast but the general consensus is that a season is weather, not climate.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/climateexperiment/theresult/whatresultsshow.shtml
Move the slider to 2050 or beyond and click on the links.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/climateexperiment/theresult/graph1.shtml
Who was behind the experiment?
The BBC teamed up with Climateprediction.net, a consortium of research organisations, led by the University of Oxford, and including The Met Office, The University of California – Berkeley, The London School of Economics, The Open University, The University of Reading and The Rutherford Appleton Laboratory. This experiment was funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council, with additional support from Microsoft Corporation.
This was from back in 2006, by now they’ve learnt to be more vague.
That’s interesting, but it’s not exactly what I’d call a “weather prediction”.
This is a weather prediction: “Clear and chilly overnight, low about 5, followed by increasing clouds during the day and light rain after 8pm. High about 12.”
This is the 2006 “experiment”: “Average temp over the entire UK for entire summer of 2060 most likely to be somewhere between 2C and 4C above the current average.”
Not really enough to plan that picnic yet. 🙂
But similar to one of the previous seasonal forecasts. There’s a graph for rainfall as well. A common seasonal prediction for rainfall by the MetOffice was 33% less than average, 33% more than average and 33% equal to average. Presumeably this left them a 1% change of anything could happen.
But you’re right, it isn’t a weather forcast… does that make it climate? That would mean that their seasonal forecasts were climate forecasts and they were wrong. Or are they going to invent a new word to account for the unpredicatble space between weather and climate (which they claim to have excellent success with both).
Suggestions for the unpredictable gap – ‘cleather’, ‘wimate’, ‘MetUseless’?
ChrisD:
Even 5 day forecasts are not reliable enough to plan a picnic.
ChrisD:
You need to contact NOAA and tell them they do not predict short term climate /weather:
Regional Climate Centers
NOAA’s Regional Climate Centers (RCCs) are a federal-state cooperative effort. The RCC Program is managed by the NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). The six centers that comprise the RCC Program are engaged in the timely production and delivery of useful climate data, information and knowledge for decision makers and other users at the local, state, regional and national levels. The RCCs support NOAA’s efforts to provide operational climate services while leveraging improvements in technology and collaborations with partners to expand quality data dissemination capabilities. For more information, please see Partner maps (pdf) and Program
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/regionalclimatecenters.html
Or this:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/
You think NOAA provides weather predictions for 2060? Really?
ChrisD:
All climate research groups provide scenarios of future possible climate. In other words weather forecasts. Unless climate is not in any way related to weather.
ChrisD doesn’t know what he’s doing. So I wouldn’t expect him to know what he’s talking about.
Chris
As you don’t live in the UK, you fortunately don’t have to put up with the Met Office.
Over here they are a national joke. Their bosses even managed to pay themselves a bonus last year, despite failing to predict last winter’s weather.
They are run by an ex WWF activist with absolutely no qualifications for the job except campaigning against global warming.
Maybe their predictions for 2050 are right, but they are currently such a shambles that thay have lost all credibility.
It’s like a company that’s been losing millions for years asking you to invest on the basis that they will make a profit in 30 years time.
Paul, whether or not the Met Office is a national joke doesn’t address the point. Nobody claims to predict weather 50 years in advance.
If nobody does it, then they should stop doing it several dozen times a day in the press.
If you really, seriously don’t understand the difference between predicting weather and projecting climate, then perhaps you shouldn’t be doing a climate blog.
Nobody claims to predict weather 50 years in advance.
Droughts from less rain, increase in hurricanes, bigger snow storms, increase in tornadoes, floods from torrential rain storms—ya, you’re right, no one is predicting that.
Droughts from less rain, increase in hurricanes, …
You really don’t understand that these are not weather forecasts?
ChrisD,
Where is your “climate blog” ChrisD? You are so smart. So millions must be lining up just waiting to find a blog like you could do. After all, look how well RealClimate is doing.
But seriously, you should get a blog so trolls have another place to congregate, all 10 of you.
Chris
I am not saying they are.
What I am saying is that their work is so shoddy that nobody can really have any confidence in their climatic predictions .
ChrisD says:
November 28, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Droughts from less rain, increase in hurricanes, …
You really don’t understand that these are not weather forecasts?
Ahhhhh, I already knew that. There’s no weather involved in that at all.
Put it another way , Chris.
Give me one good reason why anyone should believe what the Met Office is predicting in 50 years time.
Paul
he already said he’s not talking about the Met—even though the post is about the Met.
GEE ChrisD:
Predicting climate is predicting long term weather patterns. If it was not then there would be no need for climate predictions.
NCDC Predicts weather patterns on a seasonal basis and calls it climate for a three month period.
@Amino:
you should get a blog so trolls have another place to congregate, all 10 of you.
Troll accusations: So boring. So lame. So predictable. So counterproductive.
he already said he’s not talking about the Met
Just plain old false.
There’s no weather involved in that at all.
Really seems like you just don’t get it. It really does. It’s possible to predict averages and trends without predicting individual events. Seriously.
No it isn’t. Feedback is iterative.
Chris
You still have not given any reason why anyone should believe anything the Met Office predicts.
They have become shoddy organisation whose forecasts are now biased to a global warming agenda and therefore carry little scientific credibility.
Paul H:
You still have not given any reason why anyone should believe anything the Met Office predicts.
I didn’t say you should. I just said that neither they nor anyone else is predicting the weather for 2060.
I found this at notrickzone:
First they ignore you.
Then they ridicule you.
Then they attack you.
Then you win.
We are now at stage III.”
It is a quote from Gandhi and describes Chris’ obsession with words.
The climate researchers are predicting trends in long term weather patterns and calling that climate. When they started focusing on CO2 they lost sight of what climate is. They veered into the realm of pathological science.
First, before you talk about attacks, you might want to review the comments that are generally aimed at me and others here who have the temerity to disagree with your hero. Pot, kettle, etc.
Second, if you think pointing out that weather and climate aren’t the same thing is just an “obsession with words”, next time you’re in your car, wonder why your little car computer displays both instantaneous MPG and average MPG. Since you think apparently think these are the same, there’s no reason for it to display both. Please write to the car manufacturers and let them know that they’re obsessed with words and that there’s no difference between events and averages.
ChrisD:
I do not have one of those in my Farm Truck!
Weather and climate are different things. Climate is the experienced weather and possible future weather over a long period of time. Claiming 30 years represents climate is a narrow minded approach because it is known that weather follows long term patterns that need to be taken into account to understand regional climate.
You claim they make predictions that prove the existence of ACC when the modelers say they do not make predictions even if what comes out of the groups sounds like predictions.
If you did not understand what was being referred to in this thread you deserve the comments directed at you.
chrisd
if their ‘climate’ predictions do not relate to weather then you are saying we have nothing to worry about…
No, I’m simply saying that Steve’s headline is wrong (again).
You misuse weather and climate yourself! No the headline is correct!!!!
ChrisD said
“If you really, seriously don’t understand the difference between predicting weather and projecting climate, then perhaps you shouldn’t be doing a climate blog.”
So then we had better explain it again to Steve:
Hot weather – like the heatwave in Russia – is a function of Global Warming or Climate Change or climate. Very cold weather, the stuff that’s being happening around the globe and the stuff the MSM is shy to present, is something that’s not to be confused with climate; that is unless it’s labeled. “Climate Disruption”. But Climate Disruption is a function of Climate Change which, in turn, is a function of Global Warming ( IOW, a warming climate). What this means is that cold weather does not provide indication of a cool or moderate climate but it can lend support to a warm or hot climate. Simple, huh?
The idea that the future can be predicted as some sort of “average” of the past is at the heart of climate forecasting. Sort of like tossing a coin, over time the heads and tails should average out. However, nature isn’t like that, as the 3 body problem reveals.
To understand the problem, consider this. Most people would believe that if you know the laws of gravity, and the position of the planets, you can predict their orbits. Common sense tells you this, and we have much the same ideas about predicting the future for all sorts of events, including climate.
However, if this was true, then a sufficiently fast computer could in theory predict the motion of everything, including you, and any decision you might make in the future. Which if it was true, would mean that in reality there is no such thing as free will, that we are completely ruled by the past.