It Has A Gigantic Supercomputer, 1,500 Staff And A £170M-A-Year Budget

[Solar Cycles]

Well most know where I stand when it comes to the MetO, so no surprises that I think their LRF are dismal, and about as useful as Gordon Brown saving the world in 50 days! I think their short term forecasts are second to none, maybe if they just left the AGW bias out of their LRF, then we will find them as accurate as other independent organisations!

By the way, Piers Corbyn has a far better LRF record than the MetO. Compare his stats to the Met's!

Edited January 7, 2010 by Solar Cycles

[osmposm]

"If the UK's Councils had used Joe B's winter forecasts (instead of those provided by the MetO) over the past 10 years, the whole country would be buried under a mountain of grit!...."

Yeh but then they wouldn't be a risk at running out.

Does grit go off???

Um, yes, in one sense - it's mainly rock salt, isn't it? Huge piles of it left for years would slowly leach out in the rain, and run off into the soil and watercourses, doing the flora and fauna no good at all - it is well known that urban street trees suffer badly in cold winters because of the salt run-off.

They could, of course, have stored it - as they already do, I believe - in warehouses....but storing massive quantities of it would have required many massive warehouses, and their rental would have been paid for out of increased taxation - quite apart from the high upfront cost of buying the stuff in the first place, with no "return" on that capital for many years. Local authorities are required to run a pretty tight financial ship these days.

The best place to 'store' rock salt is untouched under the ground, and only to mine it, buy it and store it as and when it is thought to be going to be needed. Having more around than is needed is bad for your pocket, and bad for the environment. The problem - obviously - is guessing what that need is going to be months in advance.

[osmposm]

By the way, Piers Corbyn has a far better LRF record than the MetO. Compare his stats to the Met's!

Um....his real stats, or Piers Corbyn's own assessment of his stats? I went on his site recently, and to be frank found some forecasts - even those claimed as "successes" - questionable. See here: http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews09No102.pdf .

I can't speak for Copenhagen, but I don't remember any "blizzards" hitting London in December, unless the definition of a blizzard has changed a lot recently. Nor was I aware of "Severe storms & Floods" in the UK 28th - 30th December.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Um....his real stats, or Piers Corbyn's own assessment of his stats? I went on his site recently, and to be frank found some forecasts - even those claimed as "successes" - questionable. See here: http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews09No102.pdf .

I can't speak for Copenhagen, but I don't remember any "blizzards" hitting London in December, unless the definition of a blizzard has changed a lot recently. Nor was I aware of "Severe storms & Floods" in the UK 28th - 30th December.

METO forecast MILD winter.....no dates for ANYTHING...so please don't slate Piers in favour of METO....they are seriously poor.

BFTP

[Optimus Prime]

The Metoffice got the 2008/2009 winter wrong, the spring 2009 wrong (they went for cool/near average but it was very warm) the warm summer 2009 was wrong (it was warm int he east but it was cvool elsewhere and mean maxima were generally colder then normal and there was lots of rainfall) near to above average for Autumn 2009 was wrong, it was very warm and winter 2009/2010 looks very wrong.

I have to say, it's not a good record at all.

[paul tall]

METO forecast MILD winter.....no dates for ANYTHING...so please don't slate Piers in favour of METO....they are seriously poor.

BFTP

I thought the origninal METO winter forecast was a case of equal chances of mild, average and cold (roughly 30-35% on each) and equal chances of wet, average or dry. I was non impressed by the fence sitting, and thought it was not a forecast at all (even if my recollection of the actualities of their forecast is wrong, I remember I thought it was a cop out)

[Methuselah]

METO forecast MILD winter.....no dates for ANYTHING...so please don't slate Piers in favour of METO....they are seriously poor.

BFTP

'Piers' is very good at retrofitting what transpires into his forecasts and touting them as successes; and, even better at glowing self-assessment...What's the use of issuing dates for events that (chance notwithstanding) don't happen??? Astrology-esque anyone?

Another Ken Wrong, methinks...Why claim 'lunar' this or 'solar' that, when you can glean most of it from such earth-bound things as teleconnections and models??? Mystique???

[Optimus Prime]

I wonder how warm 2009 was Globally?

I seem to remember the Metoffice at the start of December declared 2009 would be the 8th warmest on record unless we get a cold December globally...which is what we got;

http://climaticidechronicles.org/2008/12/31/uk-met-office-predicts-warm-2009-record-temperatures-after-2010/

[Roger J Smith]

I'm not too concerned about the Metoffice performance on one given forecast, what concerns me is the mind-set that closes the door entirely on astronomical influences on weather patterns, even after repeated demonstrations of non-random correlation.

As I said before on Net-weather, it is rather obvious that in my case, people are going to serious lengths to either evade making a balanced judgement, or just plain waiting for me to lose interest, go senile, or die.

This is not science, this is the politics of orthodox meteorology, and they have very little recent success to claim as a justification for such a closed-minded attitude.

People love to knock Ken Ring also, but there are few if any detailed validation studies available for his actual forecasts; I have tried to assemble some and subject them to validation, my preliminary findings on that suggested that he wasn't doing too badly. His methodology is founded on some of the same principles as mine, but he openly calls it astrology, I would say partly as a marketing tool (if you're going to get labelled an astrologer, might as well appeal to that section of the public who find astrology intriguing). I know what astrology is supposed to be, and it has nothing to do with the processes at work in magnetic fields and gravitational systems. I don't believe in astrology and I don't think this work is astrological in any way. Surely nobody thinks that if they consult the tide tables in the newspaper, they are getting astrological advice.

Anyway, I have found that it makes no difference how much improvement is shown in an alternative research program, the critics will always do one of two things, either evade, or state errors in non-linear form so that if one year you are 3 degrees out, the next year 2, the next year one, then those are all the same sort of mistake, and so will next year's half degree and the year after that etc etc, until you get the picture that the real "error" is that you made the forecast in the first place.

Just a general ramble on this subject, not meant to be too specific to individuals or whatever. I feel pessimistic about our science really getting ahead if this attitude isn't totally reversed, because everyone who comes along with this alternative point of view is inevitably going to fail to crack that attitude barrier and sooner or later there may be an extinguishing process in terms of anyone in a given generation thinking of this methodology (since it isn't preserved in published literature). Perhaps a sexy young woman with a revealing blouse should have a go at it. Any voluteers?

I'm really serious in saying that I believe the met establishment is at that stage where a total shake-up of the paradigms is necessary and overdue. And I think the new direction should be towards the kind of research that Fred and I have been doing. If all the people doing that kind of research could collaborate full-time, I think an even better result would come out of that. And implications that some or all of us are frauds or charlatans are really ridiculous at this point. We are continuously subjecting an objective methodology to trial and error, narrowing the error, and being totally transparent about our methods and predictions. This is the scientific method. I think the mindless rejection of our work is not scientific, it is political and rooted in inertia more than anything else.

[Methuselah]

Just to put things into perspective, here's a science blog which looks at some of Corbyn's prognostications for last summer - the ones that (mysteriously?) usually escape any real scrutiny: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/08/corbyns_crp_predictions.php

What I'd really like to know is: how bad are the Met in comparison to some of the other self-aggrandizing codswallop?

[Great Plum]

Looks like the Met Office may be changing the way it does its long range forecasts!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8462890.stm

[dave48]

Looks like the Met Office may be changing the way it does its long range forecasts!

http://news.bbc.co.u...ech/8462890.stm

Interesting article, thanks for posting.

[johnholmes]

interesting G-Plum but it sheds no light on HOW if they are considering a change.

It might help if they published a detailed paper in say R Met Soc Weather Journal on just what parameters they use. The only one mentioned I've seen has been the NAO. Thanks to the posts over the past couple of years from GP and others we know that it is itself dependent on various other factors. I'm sure Met must use them but they for some reason keep stum about it!

[Great Plum]

Thanks John... it was a well written article from the Beeb I thought... I think it does highlight just how difficuly LRF really are!

[Thundery wintry showers]

Yes, credit where it's due- I thought that it was a superb article which presented a case for pretty much all sides of the argument.

Personally I think the Met Office have been inconsistent in their handling of the seasonal forecasts, going from being way too specific ("barbecue summer") to being too vague and probabilistic for Winter 2009/10, failing to provide any detail other than that it was more likely to be mild than cold. This winter has illustrated that sometimes failing to provide more than the bare minimum of detail can backfire, because their temperature anomaly projection maps clearly showed that they expected widespread cold anomalies over eastern Europe and western Asia. Had they referred to this in the main forecast it might have helped their credibility, at least giving the impression that they weren't completely wrong.

Perhaps they've also been a little too defensive about the accuracy of their forecasts, and an admission that long-range forecasting is a tricky and experimental business might have helped matters.

But the BBC article is quite correct to point out the "damned if they do, damned if they don't" line. After all, the Met Office's seasonal forecasts got off to a very good start, with an accurate prediction for Winter 2005/06, and yet some of the media somehow managed to make out that they were wrong on the grounds that they'd predicted another 1962/63!

[J07]

People love to knock Ken Ring also, but there are few if any detailed validation studies available for his actual forecasts; I have tried to assemble some and subject them to validation, my preliminary findings on that suggested that he wasn't doing too badly. His methodology is founded on some of the same principles as mine, but he openly calls it astrology, I would say partly as a marketing tool (if you're going to get labelled an astrologer, might as well appeal to that section of the public who find astrology intriguing). I know what astrology is supposed to be, and it has nothing to do with the processes at work in magnetic fields and gravitational systems. I don't believe in astrology and I don't think this work is astrological in any way. Surely nobody thinks that if they consult the tide tables in the newspaper, they are getting astrological advice.

http://weather.noble.gen.nz/lunarcy.php

http://www.sillybeliefs.com/ring.html

http://thesecondsight.blogspot.com/2006/08/true-lunatic.html

http://www.limestonehills.co.nz/Down%20On%20The%20Farm/Topics/Ringworld.html

Ken Ring's method is to print a year full of synoptic charts that are were valid for x years and y days in the past. He changes x and y from year to year.

He gets found out when he gets sloppy and forgets to Tipex out the names of tropical cyclones on his charts, which makes it relatively easy to go back in time and find out what x and y are.

[Methuselah]

Thanks for the links, J07...What a fascinating read! :rofl:

I see NW got a mention, too - we didn't see the arithmetical ineptitude in Ring's estimation of the World's Christian population! I guess we were all trying to avoid being bamboozled by all the other pseudoscientific tomfoolery, to see how the number of Christians in the World adds any validity (or otherwise!) to Mr Ring's nonsense! :D

That said, and back OT, the MetO's method for seasonal forecasting seems to be flawed, IMO. But, being scientific (unlike those of Ring et. al.) it should be amenable to remedial action??? :unsure:

[Iceberg]

Sorry if this has been posted on here already.But the below link, clearly sets out how the verification of the METO forecasts has been. I fully admit it doesn't go into the season forecasts and the forecasts of things like glosea3 but it's these forecasts that get the majority of the budget spend i.e as per the original question.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/verification/city.html

[gmoran]

What ticks a lot of people off, me included, is that the MetOffice have been putting out these annual and seasonal forecasts for some ten years now, and they really seem nothing more than a propaganda exercise to prove: AGW is occurring, and; climate predictions have some value. I think for a good proportion of this time the Meto have been helped by a warming trend, so they were (most of the time) backing the form horse. However since the mid noughties (globally) and from 2007 in the UK, things have changed, forecasting warmth has no longer provided such good dividends and the Meto have been caught out. GOOD. It is physically impossible to predict skilfully beyond what the current synoptics and teleconnections allow.

As far as these forecasts: they should stop with annual projects of GMST - GMST is highly correlated data, so naive forecasts are not particularly difficult, and proclaiming that GMST will be X above the anomaly is not skilful, or significant (a situation the Meto constantly misuse) and is merely propaganda; secondly seasonal forecasts are fine but should concentrate on what the synoptics show when the forecast is made, and should only extend as far forward as they allow - something akin to GPs forecasts would be useful.

Finally the Meto should stop with the propaganda. They constantly make announcements that this year will be in the top 10 warmest years as if this is proof of AGW; they did it at Copenhagen Meto Copenhagen Announcement - but this is not as significant as they imply, because GMST is highly correlated, if climate is plateauing, or dipping GMST would still be high. Their director untruthfully stated on a BBC news show that they had predicted the levelling off of temperatures in the noughties Meto Director On BBC news. How many times have you heard that medium term predictions are difficult, but long range predictions of climate are accurate. Sorry this is rubbish, it is impossible to predict the future state of the climate beyond the current synoptics - what GCM's do is to try to determine the differing boundary conditions when different forcings are applied, but they have not yet proven to be particularly skilful in this endeavour (hindcasting demonstrates basic competency but not skill). I think the Meto would benefit if they split out their climate group.

In summary I think the Meto are the author of their own misfortune, and I have no sympathy for them.

[Methuselah]

Long-range climate-predictions may indeed turn out to be wrong; they are 'scientific' afterall. But unfortunately, for one to accurately state such an opinion as 'fact' 30 years' in advance, one would have to have clairvoyant abilities!

[gmoran]

Long-range climate-predictions may indeed turn out to be wrong; they are 'scientific' afterall. But unfortunately, for one to accurately state such an opinion as 'fact' 30 years' in advance, one would have to have clairvoyant abilities!

I'll refer you to climate scientist and modeller Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS: "there is so much unforced variability in the system which we can’t predict — the chaotic component of the climate system — which is not predictable beyond two weeks, even theoretically.", interview available here: Gavin Schmidt Interview. This is what I mean when I say it is physically impossible to predict future climate; and is subtly different to whether GCM's can skilfully project future boundary conditions in response to a forcing - though so far they do not appear to be skilfull in even this regard.

Edited January 17, 2010 by gmoran

[Methuselah]

I'll refer you to climate scientist and modeller Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS: "there is so much unforced variability in the system which we can’t predict — the chaotic component of the climate system — which is not predictable beyond two weeks, even theoretically.", interview available here: Gavin Schmidt Interview. This is what I mean when I say it is physically impossible to predict future climate; and is subtly different to whether GCM's can skilfully project future boundary conditions in response to a forcing - though so far they do not appear to be skilfull in even this regard.

Are you saying that it's IMPOSSIBLE to predict changes in global temperature a priori?

I agree with you, that 'local' climate is impossible to predict, but global temperature-prediction should be a lot easier to compute...That said, I'm not claiming that any particular prediction is right (or wrong). I can't possibly know that...

[rob48]

Thank goodness these three stories about the Met Office:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/

are on the front of the respected Times and not that evil Daily Mail!

Further down the page is the shocking revelation that the UN prediction of glacial meltdown in the Himalayas may have been a tad, er, optimistic.

Edited January 17, 2010 by rob48

[Michael Winston]

Click on the '5 day forecast' blue writing at the top right of that page.

Apparently it's going to be the mid-teens celsius this afternoon across the UK. Brilliant -you couldn't make it up!

Mind you this is the newspaper that is always holier than though on all matters, but is owned by some of the biggest tax avoidance merchants on this planet.

Absolutely agree, Shugee. See News International (the Sun, News Of The World, The Times, Sky T.V. etc., prop. Rupert Murdoch esq.) for similar 'money saving' wheezes!

Kind regards,

Mike.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

I see from the Sunday Times the BBC are looking for new tenders on the forecasts for the next 5 years, with the New Zealand, Metra looking a strong contender on the back of a report saying 74% of people find the Met forecasts to be inaccurate.

Rocky times ahead perhaps. Especially since Metra already provide the graphics...