Discussion > What's the Met Office For?
Depressingly good geronimo.
One does wonder if the money spent on the Met Office would be better put towards free suncream and umbrellas.
I actually support the idea that the Met Office tries to model climate but their work should carry the warning 'this prediction is for entertainment purposes only'. They need to specify a timeframe over which their model will not match reality accurately but will eventually come good. ie 15 year 'pauses'. They should not be able to claim model success until twice that data period has been matched successfully to the model (future data not past data).
TinyCO2
Brilliant stuff, geronimo!
I wonder if the Met Office is actually a temple. In other words, it is for the celebration and promotion of religious duties. In their case linked to climate, with a bit of weather thrown in when it is bad enough to suit their pursuit of the divine through influencing the still benighted masses. Pioneering high priest was John Houghton. Note his words:
A special responsibility that God has given to humans, created in His image, is to look after and care for creation (Genesis 2:15). Today the impacts of unsustainable use of resources, rapidly increasing human population and the threat of climate change almost certainly add up to the largest and most urgent challenge the world has ever had to face – all of us are involved in the challenge, whether as scientists, policy makers, Christians or whoever we are.
But all that still needs money, so from outside the scientific climate cult, but well within the fundraising through scaremongering one, as was demonstrated in his dramatic transformation of the WWF, came Robert Napier. He can't have been appointed for his knowledge of climate, nor of weather, nor indeed of the Met Office. He must have been chosen to help get them on a strong financial footing. Did you think for a moment that doing good works is cheap?
Core to the Temple, and to the mystique of the Climate Cult, are the computers. Located in the inner sanctuary, and cared for by operatives trained to keep a straight face when they are asked to run the models for decades into the future. The priesthood, think of Dame Julia in a flowing Grecian gown, are chosen for their willingness to believe in the model used in that way. It is a crucial part of their faith, and of their scope for generating income.
So, we should turn to Ancient Greece, or perhaps Ancient Egypt, to find somewhat similar organisations, and perhaps from them learn more about the purpose and practices of our modern Met Office.
John Shade
Some may not have heard of:
"Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy":
In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely.
rhoda
Richard Betts could perhaps tell us the value of this kind of forecast:
"doesn’t give any guidance on sunshine hours, and neither does it forecast warm weather of the type reported.
While it does say that above average temperatures are favoured for the UK for Apr-May-Jun, this is only in regards to the UK’s mean temperature – which takes into account both day and night for the whole three months for the whole country. For reference, the top category of above average temperatures in the outlook is about 11C to 13C. So there’s nothing in there about the exact weather we’ll see for those three months.
Similarly, there were no strong rainfall signals for wet or dry in this particular outlook."
"So there’s nothing in there about the exact weather we’ll see for those three months."
In other words, their forecast is "we cannot make a forecast."
How much does the taxpayer fork out for this?
jollyfarmer
Pournelle's law, I have heard of it but not it's attribution. The best example I've found is in Catch 22 where the bureaucrats take over, can't run the show, so bring in an oath of loyalty programme for the combat officers.
geronimo
The Met Office is a Temple to the God of Fear, which god I shall call Jumponto. As in 'jump on to a chair', the response it wishes us to take upon seeing almost anything, from a mouse crossing the room, to whatever faddish spectre the humanity-haters and sundry highly-strung commentators have fastened on to now for our enlightenment. I imagine there is a picture somewhere in that temple of an Edwardian lady, gathering her skirts about her, stepping on to a chair as a little mouse scuttles away in the distance. 'Just see what can be done with so little' is the message for the acolytes as they pass it by each day.
Many quasi-religious movements are supported by the Temple beyond its walls. At least three main groups can be discerned:
The Lucrati - as in 'lucrative' - they are dedicated to fund-raising based on topical fears. They have been enormously, often by taking over organisations previously dedicated to other issues which have won the hearts of people everywhere, such as caring for wildlife or helping the world's poor, and utterly transforming them into fundraising machines dedicated to <.>Leaponto.
The Precauti - as in 'precautionary principle' - they are dedicating to suppressing any initiative deemed by the elders of the cult to be disrespectful to Leaponto, such as keeping a cow, or wanting to build a coal-fired power station to help your people escape from dreadful deprivation, or leaving your TV on standby.
The Presumpti - as in 'presumption of entitlement to power' - they are dedicated to getting into government, by election or by appointment, in order to further the awful and, somewhat mysterious, ends of Leaponto.
Beneath these leadership groups, there are legions of Fulidioti - as in 'useful idiots' - devoted to the various pursuits outlined above, running consultancies, producing films and tv programmes, writing unhinged articles in the press, creating websites to scare the kids, and generally aiding and abetting abominations in cuddly-sounding guises such as 'sustainable development' or 'renewable energy' or 'green just-about-anything'.
The Temple is important to them all. A quote from Booker and North helps explain why, despite not having the above theological insights to guide them back in 2007:
The precise part played by each of these groups [they are referring to 'scientists, media, politicians, officials, ngos'] in creating the momentum that can bring a scare to its tipping point may vary. But one contribution that is invariably crucial is that of the scientists. One factor any scare needs to be successful is plausibility - something which in our modern world only scientists have the authority to provide.'.
Is the purpose of the Met Office made clearer now? Is the otherwise mysterious attraction of the WWF's Robert Napier to it, and his subsequent appointment as its Chairman making more sense?
John Shade
Interesting John, what you're saying is that it gives authority to those who want to change our way of life to suit themselves by having scientists telling scary stories. Is that it? If it is it's a good point.
However, I believe it was set up primarily to give weather forecasts for shipping. So it was essentially a capitalist/military exercise. However Captain Fitzroy, the first Head of the Met Office was also given the brief to turn meteorology into a science, which again, to me at least is a sensible objective. So it started with two main aims, forecasting the weather and better understanding of the causes of weather. Again, I can't find fault there.
Prior to the late 20th century there was little reason to get the better understanding of the science in-house, I don't know whether they did, or not, but it would be equally valid to fund universities to take on this task. Later of course as the art or weather forecasting became more complex they have had to employ scientists and statisticians to try to model the atmosphere - with at best limited success, but still, in my view, a legitimate thing for the Met Office to do.
Having said that it has become robustly (thanks Martin A) defensive of its many failings. I believe Dr. Slingo is an activist who has been shown to, well, tell lies (at this point I was left with two options either Dr. Slingo was lying when she said there was a "clear global warming signal in our weather" or she didn't know the science sufficiently and was repeating a WWF briefing. I chose the former because it would be ungentlemanly to accuse the CS at the Met Office of not knowing the science - I do hope she understands).
I think the sort of activism we've seen from the leadership of the Met Office over the years will have "poisoned the well". Those who would have disagreed with the proposition that humans were destroying the planet would have left, or been forced out, while those who supported it would have flourished. It is the perfect example of how a scientific consensus can flourish.
I know I mocked the above statement from the Met Office, but it's a signal we shouldn't miss. The Met Office has spent £100 millions coming to the conclusion that my great-great grandad in the bogs of Ireland could have told them when they were set up in 1854, and what the entire nation has known since. Weather is unpredictable. One wonders at what stage they thought it was predictable.
So what is the Met Office for? Richard Betts' area is climate impacts, but like Jim Hacker I can't understand how they can forecast, or project, the impacts of climate change. Moreover, I can't understand who they believe can use the information sensibly. I'll give you an example. Let's say that Richard's team run their models and they show that the Chesire Plain will effectively be under water in 2100. What action would they expect the politicians to take? Should they begin to evacuate people from the Chesire plain? Should they build huge sea walls to keep the advancing sea at bay? Do they order all houses to be built on sticks? Am I too stupid to understand what actions could be taken? I don't know, I could well be, I've been too stupid to see things before.
So now we have two departments of the Met Office producing forecasts, one admitting it can't forecast weather three months out and one telling us that it can forecast climate 50 to 100 years out. Both have people who take this information, which even if it was good, there's barely anything that they can do about it, the first because the time scales are too short and the second because the solutions are too difficult.
So here's my suggestion for the Met Office. It has been badly served by its present management dragging it into politics and should refocus it's energies to weather forecasting leaving climate forecasting to the universities. Any research it should care to do should be focussed on weather. After all, as Jim Hacker says, it is our weather forecaster.
geronimo
Some time back, I kicked off a BH discussion What should replace the Met Office?
I suggested that its climate science should be redone from scratch, ring fenced from what has gone before. I have changed my mind in the meantime - I now think its climate science should simply be closed down.
I stand by what I thought should be done with its weather forecasting side:
Weather Forecasting:- Appoint a team of no more than 20-30 competent meteorologists and statisticians expert in time series analysis, with adequate support staff, to do weather forecasting. Software development, data acquisition and other non-core activities to be outsourced.
- Set up an independent group of five or six statisticians, in a different location and forbidden to fraternise informally with the weather forecasters, to audit and evaluate the weather forecasting results, their analyses being published for all to see free from any re-writing or effacement of history. Possibly based in the National Audit Office, where the appropriate attitudes and work practices prevail.
Martin A
Oh thank you thank you for introducing the Yes Minister/Prime Minister as a theme....
There are no end of scenes from this simply superb series that could be seen in the context of the climate debate..
I want to submit this one but there were others....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8keZbZL2ero&list=RDEikb2lX5xYE
and this one...why not....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA&list=RDEikb2lX5xYE
.
Just one more....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vidzkYnaf6Y&list=RDEikb2lX5xYE
jones
Oh bloody hell g, I'm stuck in a Yes Prime Minister groove now....................
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmOvEwtDycs&list=RDEikb2lX5xYE
jones
Met Office performance seems to me to be a good candidate to test the Gov's initiative to improve public services:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-administration-select-committee/news/more-complaints-please/
not banned yet
We are shocked by what the Met Office has been turned into, and by the harm it has encouraged or done as a result, not least to our society being misled by biased seasonal forecasts as the climate cabal seeps its influence into shorter term forecasting, presumably by way of its loaded models. But what should be done about it? It seems clear that the Met Office itself should be allowed to return exclusively to meteorology, and weather forecasting. I'd want all the computers acquired as part of the booty from climate scaremongering to be devoted 100% to weather work, from the routine operations through to research to improve forecasting skill over sensible periods, say 12 hours to 12 days ahead.
John Shade
I'd want all the computers acquired as part of the booty from climate scaremongering to be devoted 100% to weather work, from the routine operations through to research to improve forecasting skill over sensible periods, say 12 hours to 12 days ahead.
Apr 14, 2014 at 8:49 AM John Shade
No. Break them for scrap and sell the bits on Ebay.
The current annual support costs of the Met Offices 'super computers' would probably be adequate to pay for the entire Met Office if it had an appropriate size - say 20 - 30 professional staff.
Martin A
Here is a post I made several years ago which is relevant to this discussion: http://climatelessons.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/weather-agencies-as-trojan-horses.html
It was triggered by some writing of Tim Ball's, including this passage:
'Maurice Strong built the Trojan Horses around material provided by national weather agencies. Too many scientists and bureaucrats were willing carpenters complicit in the construction and operation. Some of the cladding has been pulled off, but the skeleton remains. National weather agencies continue controlling the IPCC and all climate issues. They also continue to fail miserably with their forecasts. Despite millions spent on a new computer the UKMO predicted a mild winter and were quickly proved completely wrong. They were equally wrong in previous winter and summer forecasts with cheaper computers. They did the IPCC ‘trick’ by saying they don’t do long term forecasts, they are “outlooks”. Environment Canada has similar spectacular failures for which they invent 1984 type newspeak. A Globe and Mail headline last week announced, Environment Canada admits to ‘underforecasting’ snow by 1,000 per cent. The Trojan horse’s all have broken legs; it is time to put them down.'
I noted in response:
I fail to see how you can 'put down' a weather agency. But a root and branch reform, with new leaders and more freedom to follow science rather than ideology would be a good thing. Perhaps if they just went back to weather forecasting, free from biased-models, that would suffice.
John Shade
On a different discussion thread a year or so ago I saw a comment by John Shade:
When you think about the effects of global warming hysteria, you might think of higher electricity prices, not people being thrown off their land and having their homes burned down. But that is exactly what’s been happening in the East African country of Uganda, where a British company called New Forests has been seizing land to grow trees and then sell the so-called “carbon credits” for a profit that could reach nearly $2 million per year. According to reports published in the New York Times and Telegraph of London, New Forests is backed by the World Bank and has been using armed troops, with the government’s permission, to forcibly evict over 20,000 poor people from their homes. This certainly gives terrible new meaning to the concept of Green neo-colonialism.http://www.cfact.org/2013/04/24/poor-being-thrown-off-ugandan-land-for-carbon-credits/
My response was to say that, if you pointed this item to the folk at the Met Office, I am sure they would be utterly unable to see a cause and effect relation between their work and the fate of poor Ugandans made destitute..
Yet, so far as I can see, the Met Office was a key player - maybe THE key player - in the creation of the Great Delusion, right from the earliest days.
Martin A
We are told by the pessimisti that weather is not climate. There is therefore, no reason to have meteorology and climatology coexisting or even in the same building. Separate the two and remove the credibility of the former borrowed by the latter. Then, utterances such as Slingo's 'consistent with' can be judged against climatology's always wrong predictions without contamination by meteorology's often right ones.
ssat
ssat - Slingo says they use the same computer model for weather forecasting that they use for climate prediction.
It has been suggested that the model being tuned to predict confirm global warming of climate explains the Met Office's track record of weather forecasting BBQ summers etc.
Using the same model would provide some justification for the weather and climate activities to be in proximity.
My own experience of modelling dynamic systems of various sorts is that modelling behaviour on short timescales requires different models and different methods from those needed for modelling the behaviour of the same system on long timescales. When I first heard that the Met Office used the same model for weather as they did for climate it simply confirmed my view that they don't have clue what they are doing - their hundreds of staff and their supercomputers notwithstanding.
Martin A
The government has now ordered the Met Office to monitor Iceland's active volcano systems.
Is there no limit to their abilities?
:(
ssat
Climate science is clearly flawed at a fundamental level. The Met Office has been pushing this flawed science for decades with huge consequences. It should be shut down. We could purchase adequate weather forecasting elsewhere at a fraction of the cost.
No doubt climate studies in our universities would continue, though I have grave doubts about its aims, quality, objectiveness and politicisation. I do not see any strategic or financial benefit in pouring the best part of £200m into the met office as well.
Schrodinger's Cat
S's Cat:
The Met Office commissioned a report. The consulting company they selected concluded that the Met Office provided great benefit, whose value exceeded significantly what was spent on the Met Office. (lives saved, property damage avoided,...)
Somehow or other, the consulting company forgot to include in their estimates the costs incurred UK wide as a result of incorrect weather forecasts, BBQ winters etc.
And, above all, they forgot to include the costs resulting from the Climate Change Act. Had the Met Office provided objective scientific advice, the Act, with its immense consequential squandering of resources, would have been inconceivable.
You pay for the Met Office twice. Once for its bloated staff numbers, gold plated civil service pensions, supercomputers, travel budget, and so one. A second time for the costs of the consequences of the "AGW is real" advice it continues to give to the government.
Martin A
The MO is not just the MO, the network continues to grow. The following originally posted on Slingo out to dry
---------------------------------------------------------------
simon abingdon
"(Joint btw means equally funded by the Met Office and Exeter University)"
Yup, is the Met Office becoming an academic version of Chelsea F.C.?
How many do they have out "on loan"
University of Exeter:-
Mat Collins - Joint Met Office Chair in Climate Change
Professor Richard Betts - Chair in Climate Impacts
Prof John Thuburn - Chair in Geophysical Fluid Dynamics, jointly funded by the Met Office
University of Leeds:-
Professor Paul Field holds a joint position with the Met Office and the University of Leeds
Professor Doug Parker is the Met Office Professor of Meteorology at Leeds
Professor Simon Vosper - Simon manages the Academic Partnership with Leeds, on the Met Office side.
Dr Cathryn Birch is a Research Scientist at the UK Met Office but is based in the School of Earth and Environment here in Leeds.
Plus
Some recent examples of Met Office staff secondments to Leeds:-
• Andy Hartley, Summer 2012, working with Doug Parker, Luis Garcia-Carreras, Sean Milton and Stuart Webster on the modelling of rainfall over variable tropical forest.
• Matthew Clark, September-November 2012, working with Doug Parker and Phil Rosenberg on the analysis of intense cold fronts over the UK in surface and radar data.
• Franco Marenco, November 2012, working with Jim McQuaid and Phil Rosenberg on the use of airborne lidar data to measure aerosol profiles.
• Volker Horlacher, working with Andrew Ross on the analysis of UK surface measurements of airflow in valleys.
University of Reading:-
A jointly funded Chair to lead the Reading part of the collaboration. Professor Peter Clark is the Joint Met Office Chair.
Moreover, the Department has hosted Met Office groups for over two decades, and currently hosts around 25 Met Office scientists in MetOffice@Reading,
University of Oxford also joined Met Office Academic Partnership in October 2013, so there will be more Joint Chairs.
The above list is not intended to be exhaustive
Edit: forgot to post link Met Office Academic Partnership
Green Sand
Statement from Met Office:
"Some articles refer to our 3-month outlook for contingency planners to bolster the idea that we could be in for some fine sunny weather, but this is not what our outlook says. Indeed our 3 month outlook doesn’t give any guidance on sunshine hours, and neither does it forecast warm weather of the type reported.
While it does say that above average temperatures are favoured for the UK for Apr-May-Jun, this is only in regards to the UK’s mean temperature – which takes into account both day and night for the whole three months for the whole country. For reference, the top category of above average temperatures in the outlook is about 11C to 13C. So there’s nothing in there about the exact weather we’ll see for those three months.
Similarly, there were no strong rainfall signals for wet or dry in this particular outlook."
Scene: Jim Hacker sitting at table in the Cabinet Room in Number 10 Downing Street. The door opens and Sir Humphrey walks in:
JH: Ah Humphrey have you seen this statement from the Met Office?
SH: Yes Prime Minister, is there a problem?
JH: There most certainly is Humphrey. Look at this, “Indeed our 3 month outlook doesn’t give guidance on sunshine hours, and neither does it forecast warm weather of the type reported.”
JH: And this, “So there’s nothing in there about the exact weather we’ll see for those three months.”
JH: And this: “Similarly, there were no strong rainfall signals for wet or dry in this particular outlook.”
SH: Yes Prime Minister I have read them, is there a problem?
JH: I’ll say there’s a problem Humphrey, they’re telling us they can’t forecast the weather, and they happen to be our weather forecaster. So if they’re not doing that what are they doing?
SH: (emollient as ever) No, no Prime Minister, forecasting the weather is extremely complex basically, to forecast the day-to-day weather, scientists use sophisticated computer models that simulate the behaviour of the atmosphere and weather systems. They provide the models with measurements of current weather conditions, including temperature, air pressure, wind speed and direction, rainfall and other conditions. To make the weather forecast as accurate as possible, the scientists need to feed in precise measurements of these conditions, covering the whole area that the model has been designed to simulate. Because the weather is ‘chaotic’, even the tiniest disturbance can build up into a large effect over time.
JH: So it’s unpredictable?
SH: Well… chaotic, with lots of stochastic events that…
JH: (Interrupting) Unpredictable?
SH: Well Prime Minister if you put that way, yes, but…
JH: (Interrupting) Unpredictable?
SH: Yes Prime Minister, unpredictable I suppose but to put it another way…
JH: (Interrupting) It’s unpredictable Humphrey, so why are we spending money on people who write three monthly forecasts that they themselves say are guesses at best, and who uses them?
SH: Contingency planners Prime Minister
JH: Whose contingency planners Humphrey?
SH: Ours
JH: Ours? They work for the government?
SH: Yes Prime minister
JH: So we are paying for people to run sophisticated programs on computers that can tell us nothing about the weather who then give the output to a group of other people who work for the government who can do nothing with the information?
SH: It’s not as simple as that PM…
JH: (Interrupting) It is a simple as that Humphrey. And while we’re on the topic are these the same computers that are forecasting droughts, mega-storms, famine, pestilence and wars 50 to 100 years out?
SH: (Emollient as ever) Noo Prime Minister you are confusing climate with weather they’re completely different.
JH: How so Humphrey?
SH: Short-term conditions, such as the temperature or amount of rainfall on a particular day, are weather events. Even unusually hot or cold – or wet or dry – conditions can be put down to weather variability. In contrast, climate determines both the average weather and the range of typical conditions. So how often a particular place sees an unusually hot or unusually wet day depends on the local climate.
JH: That’s what that Dame Slingo…
SH; (Interrupts) Baroness Slingo Prime Minister, she’s working as a junior minister in DECC, you personally authorised the P.
JH: Did I Humphrey? Who replaced her?
SH: Sir Richard Betts Prime Minister you chose him yourself from the shortlist and recommended the K
SH: Oh yes I remember Humphrey, genial fellow, the only candidate who didn’t look like he spent his weekend selling The Socialist Worker. And his socks weren’t odd, bit of a shoo in really
SH: That’s him Prime Minister
JH: So I’m going to ask you what I asked Baroness Slingo, I must say the look in her eyes when I asked it left me fearing for my safety, but is the climate chaotic?
SH: Yes Prime Minister but…
JH: (Interrupts) Never mind the “buts” Humphrey it’s chaotic so by the same reasoning for the inability to predict the weather we cannot predict the climate – it was at this point in my conversation with Baroness Slingo that I had the urge to put myself under my table out of harms way – can we predict the future state of the climate Humphrey?
SH: Ah Prime Minister we can’t predict the exact state of the future climate but they can make projections indicating what things might be should there be no small occurrences that might make their projections wrong
JH: I’ll take that as a “no” then Humphrey. Anyway back to these forecasters who make non-forecasts for contingency managers who can’t make any contingency plans because they’ve got no forecasts. Surely Humphrey there’s an opportunity for us to show the public that we are looking after their interests and not wasting their money by closing down what is effectively a non-activity?
SH: Gateshead Prime Minister
JH: Gateshead Humphrey?
SH: Remember Prime Minister you were instrumental in putting 2000 civil service jobs in Gateshead
JH: Of course I do Humphrey the best headlines of my premiership. “Jim Hacker The First One Nation Prime Minister in Living Memory”, “Jim Hacker Makes the Sun Shine in Gateshead”, “Prime Minister Put “Heart” into Labour Heartland”. My popularity went up by 5 percentage points
SH: Quite so Prime Minister, a PM for all the people. The contingency management team.
JH: What about the contingency management team Humphrey?
SH: That’s who we headquartered in Gateshead Prime Minister at your suggestion Prime Minister
JH: (flustered) The contingency management team that takes the non-forecasts from the non-forecasting Met Office?
SH: The very same Prime Minister
JH: (Leaning back in his chair and looking at the ceiling) Do you know what Humphrey I believe I’ve been a bit hasty. We should give the Met Office more time to perfect there predicting tools and keep things going as they are for the time being.
SH: Yes, Prime Minister
(Weather and climate info was from Science Museum website)
So let’s help Jim Hacker out. What is the Met Office for?