MET Office 6 month forecast

[marchesarosa]

from tonyb
December 24, 2010 at 2:57 pm
On Digging the Clay here diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/12/24/a-guide-to-metspeak/#more-1191


EXCLUSIVE!! As you know I live close to the Met Office and through a mole am able to reveal
the Met office forecast for the first 6 months of 2011!

January; The weather will be mostly around normal, but with some periods greater than normal with some below
normality. All in all, at times the weather will be surprising whilst at others it won’t be. It will be colder than average
in those areas of the country where it isnt warmer than average.

February; True to this months characteristics it will be on average somewhat cool except for those periods
that are somewhat mild. Cloud will appear from time to time and some may be persistent or not,
so sunshine might or might not be affected

March; Winds will be of a surprising degree of strength in certain areas-those periods greater than normal will be windy,
whilst those less than normal will be calm. Our new service for Wind turbine operators shows that whatever the weather
you will be raking in the subsidies. Wives of deputy Prime Ministers will do particularly well.

April; True to form there will be sunshine and Showers. The showers at times being greater than the sunshine,
meaning that all in all one or the other will be somewhat different from average values. Different parts of the country
will experience different weather at various times during the month. Temperatures may occur anywhere.

May. Wind. Rain. Cold. Warmth. ALL of these will appear at some time, causing this month to have outbreaks of
averageness, but with some variation between greater than and less than the average of normal.

June. Hotter than average. Although some areas of the country will be colder than average.
Some parts will be just average. There will be periods of wind in some areas that are greater than
the periods of wind in others.

The outlook for wind turbine operators remains very bright with subsidies reaching a peak
towards the end of the month.




According to Verity, who runs the blog, the UK Met Office meteorologist exhibits a lot in common with the astrologist
- needs to appear to be saying SOMETHING without ever being pinned down on ANYTHING

[marchesarosa]

Yogi Berra says “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”

[marchesarosa]

NASA has a similar problem with its predictions of sunspots. Below is a graphic showing how their prediction for the start of Solar cycle 24 and the peak number of sunspots have varied from the actual.

Why do they bother? It's such a vast waste of the public's money.

Thanks to Ira Glickstein on WUWT (there's a name to conjure with!)

wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/27/nasas-sunspot-prediction-roller-coaster/

[marchesarosa]

rc asks:
December 27, 2010 at 7:48 pm
How did they come up with their prediction? Models of course:
www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/sunspot.shtml

“BOULDER—The next sunspot cycle will be 30-50% stronger than the last one and begin as much as a year late, according to a breakthrough forecast using a computer model of solar dynamics developed by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). Predicting the Sun’s cycles accurately, years in advance, will help societies plan for active bouts of solar storms, which can slow satellite orbits, disrupt communications, and bring down power systems.
The scientists have confidence in the forecast because, in a series of test runs, the newly developed model simulated the strength of the past eight solar cycles with more than 98% accuracy.”



========
So many still believe that tweaked "hindcasts" are "proof" of a model's "validity".
Tee hee! Any fule can predict the past with 98% accuracy - I would go so far as to claim 100% in fact.

[abacus9900]

marchesarosa, it is transparently obvious that you are prepared to look at anything but the true reason the world is warming up in order to avoid measures that, for your own reasons, seem abhorrent to you for the authorities to introduce. I'm sorry, but you come over as a person who has mind up her mind and will not shift one iota, even in the face of the increasing scientific data that indicates human activity plays a major role in global warming.

[marchesarosa]

I try my best to read the runes, abacus. Currently my view is that AGW (insofar as it exists - minimal IMHO) is nothing to worry about. Cooling is.

[abacus9900]

Dec 28, 2010 13:05:19 GMT 1 marchesarosa said:

I try my best to read the runes, abacus. Currently my view is that AGW (insofar as it exists - minimal IMHO) is nothing to worry about. Cooling is.

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, however, so are other people and when other people have gathered, collated and interpreted scientific data that is consistent with AGW then an unbiased observer has to consider the weight of evidence.

[marchesarosa]

I am amongst the number of "unbiased observers", abacus.

I have no axe to grind except to see the advance of human knowledge and the diminution of financially and politically motivated scare-mongering.

You seem to have a curious attachment to the concept of climate "truth", abacus. Personally I am happy enough with the balance of probablities. That's as good as it gets with climatology, I'm afraid.

[abacus9900]

Dec 28, 2010 14:05:16 GMT 1 marchesarosa said:

I am amongst the number of "unbiased observers", abacus.{/quote]


This is patently false as you consistently present a one-sided argument. Sorry, but you do.

{quote]You seem to have a curious attachment to the concept of climate "truth", abacus. Personally I am happy enough with the balance of probablities. That's as good as it gets with climatology, I'm afraid.

What you fail to point out is that the probabilities in the case for AGW are heavily reliant on the scientific data, both for and against. Marchesarosa, I have a sneaking suspicion that you present information from websites that happen to concur with your personal opinions and ignore the rest. Is this correct?

[marchesarosa]

I guess you are suggesting I am biassed, abacus. Has it never occurred to you that exactly the same aspersion can be cast on you and the the 'evidence' you choose to support ?

The thing is, in this very junior and highly politicised field of research called AGW/climatology, that EVERY "finding", every piece of so-called "data" are open to contrary interpretations. This is uncontroversial. To pretend otherwise is naive.

So long as there are reputable experts questioning the "consensus" I feel safe in accepting that there is genuinely a great deal to argue about. I find this debate very interesting.