Do We Need The Met Office?

[nodrog]

quite simpley, yes!

[davehsug]

I think that some here are getting confused by the difference between the METO & the BBC. We all know that the quality of BBC forecasts is nowhere near the level it was in the past, but is that the fault of the METO? They do far more than preprare the BBC forecast, as has been alluded to by others.

Of course we need the METO.

[Nick L]

I think that some here are getting confused by the difference between the METO & the BBC. We all know that the quality of BBC forecasts is nowhere near the level it was in the past, but is that the fault of the METO? They do far more than preprare the BBC forecast, as has been alluded to by others.

Of course we need the METO.

Fully agreed, the BBC forecasts are just a tiny branch of their huge product range. Businesses, the military, airlines, local authorities - they all depend on the METO.

[cheeky_monkey]

I've slated the MetO many times for their LRF abilities, as many on here are aware! So my proposal would be for the MetO to be privitised, thus saving the taxpayers millions, on over inflated wages and egos! A trimmed down MetO with no agendas, and doing what they do best. Forecasting the weather on a daily basis, without the dreaded words that Delta said not to use!

surely the met office agenda is to produce forecasts across all sectors and to do research into weather related areas..you portray it like some kind of sinister covert govt agency??..get a grip..life's too short!!

[valiant]

surely the met office agenda is to produce forecasts across all sectors and to do research into weather related areas..you portray it like some kind of sinister covert govt agency??..get a grip..life's too short!!

Quite right. Get a grip!

Cheeky Monkey will be saying next that the BBC, NHS, Police, Education, the justice system, Social Services are all politicised and engaged in subliminal social engineering at the taxpayers expence.

Laughable.

[Solar Cycles]

surely the met office agenda is to produce forecasts across all sectors and to do research into weather related areas..you portray it like some kind of sinister covert govt agency??..get a grip..life's too short!!

Nothing sinister about it CM, they have clearly put all their eggs into one basket. Thus leaving leaving them with little room to manourve, with their busted seasonal forecasts! As for Ossie's reply, I'm refering to the bonuses that they are paid. Other public services do not get such bonuses, ask your refuge collecter what his bonus was!!

Edited September 8, 2009 by Solar Cycles

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Other public services do not get such bonuses, ask your refuge collecter what his bonus was!!

Of course other public services get a bonus. I'm sure not everyone employed in the METO does, as i'm sure not everyone in other services does. But there is a bonus scheme for certain levels of epmloyment within the public sector. Would be silly not too have an incentive.

Anyway....

[Methuselah]

I've slated the MetO many times for their LRF abilities, as many on here are aware! So my proposal would be for the MetO to be privitised, thus saving the taxpayers millions, on over inflated wages and egos! A trimmed down MetO with no agendas, and doing what they do best. Forecasting the weather on a daily basis, without the dreaded words that Delta said not to use!

Not too sure about the privatisation bit, Solar...Look at the state the railway network has been in since being privatised: no one knows who's to blame when things break down; they all blame each other...

It wouldn't have been a 'BBQ summer', it'd have been a 'BLOWTORCH SUMMER'. And, what with the upcoming WINTER WONDERLAND??

I think some institutions are safer when kept out of the clutches of Private Enterprise?

Nothing sinister about it CM, they have clearly put all their eggs into one basket. Thus leaving leaving them with little room to manourve, with their busted seasonal forecasts! As for Ossie's reply, I'm refering to the bonuses that they are paid. Other public services do not get such bonuses, ask your refuge collecter what his bonus was!!

The house repossessor? Sorry mate. Couldn't resist!

[Solar Cycles]

Not too sure about the privatisation bit, Solar...Look at the state the railway network has been in since being privatised: no one knows who's to blame when things break down; they all blame each other...

It wouldn't have been a 'BBQ summer', it'd have been a 'BLOWTORCH SUMMER'. And, what with the upcoming WINTER WONDERLAND??

I think some institutions are safer when kept out of the clutches of Private Enterprise?

The house repossessor? Sorry mate. Couldn't resist!

The railways where poorly invested in whilst in the pulic sector, then sold off on the cheap, hoping some entrepenaur ( spell check not working ? ) would pump millions in! Maybe they could keep the militiary and civil service aspect of forecasting within the state. Giving us a combination of a private and state owned service!

[cheeky_monkey]

Nothing sinister about it CM, they have clearly put all their eggs into one basket.

And what basket would that be???

[Thundery wintry showers]

I think that some here are getting confused by the difference between the METO & the BBC. We all know that the quality of BBC forecasts is nowhere near the level it was in the past, but is that the fault of the METO? They do far more than preprare the BBC forecast, as has been alluded to by others.

Of course we need the METO.

Added to that, the MetO has lost some of its influence over how the BBC forecasts are presented in recent years- the general media has much more of an influence and this is reflected to some degree in the changes that we've seen in the forecasts.

Privatising the Met Office would be a risky move, for as we've seen with public transport companies, the desire to maximise profits in the short-term sometimes results in them providing the minimum service that they can get away with. The Met Office makes mistakes at times, but it has always struck me as one of the most efficient and forward-thinking government-run companies out there. I also doubt that scrapping the Hadley Centre, which seems to be implied by Solar Cycles's posts, would be particularly wise, taking away a top-rated government-funded climate change department. The MetO does have a strong pro-AGW stance (certainly much stronger than my own stance on the subject) but surely top-rated research with a pro-AGW stance is better than no research at all? Even if a given piece of research turns out to be wrong, we often learn something new by finding out why.

[Solar Cycles]

Added to that, the MetO has lost some of its influence over how the BBC forecasts are presented in recent years- the general media has much more of an influence and this is reflected to some degree in the changes that we've seen in the forecasts.

Privatising the Met Office would be a risky move, for as we've seen with public transport companies, the desire to maximise profits in the short-term sometimes results in them providing the minimum service that they can get away with. The Met Office makes mistakes at times, but it has always struck me as one of the most efficient and forward-thinking government-run companies out there. I also doubt that scrapping the Hadley Centre, which seems to be implied by Solar Cycles's posts, would be particularly wise, taking away a top-rated government-funded climate change department. The MetO does have a strong pro-AGW stance (certainly much stronger than my own stance on the subject) but surely top-rated research with a pro-AGW stance is better than no research at all? Even if a given piece of research turns out to be wrong, we often learn something new by finding out why.

Surely being unbiased, and starting with an open mind, is what science should be all about TW? Instead of putting all one's eggs into one basket!!

Of course other public services get a bonus. I'm sure not everyone employed in the METO does, as i'm sure not everyone in other services does. But there is a bonus scheme for certain levels of epmloyment within the public sector. Would be silly not too have an incentive.

Anyway....

Well the NHS certainly don't. Are they not more wothy of bonuses than the MetO?

Edited September 8, 2009 by Solar Cycles

[Thundery wintry showers]

Surely being unbiased, and starting with an open mind, is what science should be about TW? Instead of putting all one's eggs into one basket!!

I agree completely with the first part of the sentence, and I've criticised the MetO on occasion for making it sound as if the science on AGW is more settled than it really is. But it is worth noting that being unbiased and starting with an open mind applies to both sides of the debate. It is no good claiming to be open-minded and unbiased by rejecting the MetO's stance on AGW, only to then allow one's perceptions to be heavily biased by the stance that AGW is being overestimated, for example.

The "putting all eggs in one basket" comment is being applied rather too broadly. We are risking putting too many eggs in one basket regarding the CO2-AGW issue, but that's only one small part of the vast amount of work that is done in the field of climate research- it is a huge stretch to say that all of our climate research relies on AGW.

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Well the NHS certainly don't. Are they not more wothy of bonuses than the MetO?

Are you sure? No-one in the NHS, at all, gets paid a bonus?

[Solar Cycles]

Are you sure? No-one in the NHS, at all, gets paid a bonus?

Well Consultants certainly get some kick backs from drug companies. I can vouch for that! But we are getting off topic here!

I agree completely with the first part of the sentence, and I've criticised the MetO on occasion for making it sound as if the science on AGW is more settled than it really is. But it is worth noting that being unbiased and starting with an open mind applies to both sides of the debate. It is no good claiming to be open-minded and unbiased by rejecting the MetO's stance on AGW, only to then allow one's perceptions to be heavily biased by the stance that AGW is being overestimated, for example.

The "putting all eggs in one basket" comment is being applied rather too broadly. We are risking putting too many eggs in one basket regarding the CO2-AGW issue, but that's only one small part of the vast amount of work that is done in the field of climate research- it is a huge stretch to say that all of our climate research relies on AGW.

But that's the point, their research is heavly biased towards the effects of AGW! One only has to look at how they have under estimated the effects of low solar activity, and other negative forcings, that they discount as being drivers!

Edited September 8, 2009 by Solar Cycles

[Methuselah]

Solar, no-one discounts the forcing-effect of the Sun. It's where 99.999999999999999% of our energy comes from!

[Thundery wintry showers]

But that's the point, their research is heavly biased towards the effects of AGW! One only has to look at how they have under estimated the effects of low solar activity, and other negative forcings, that they discount as being drivers!

No, they might have underestimated the effects of low solar activity and other negative forcings. It is distinctly hypocritical to, on the one hand, claim that AGW isn't necessarily a serious issue because the science isn't settled, yet then claim that AGW is being overestimated (which in itself implies that the science is settled, but in the other direction!) And in no way do they discount them as being drivers.

In a large majority of today's mainstream climate research, at the Met Office and elsewhere, a lot of effort is put in to make sure that the research is as non-biased as possible. The main problem lies with research that is largely dependent on outputs from computer models, in which case any bias in the computer models (usually caused by flawed assumptions being put into them) will tend to bias the results. This is why there is so much investment going into the next generation of climate models, and why the natural forcings will have to be tweaked in the climate models as we start to understand them more, a point made in a couple of recent insightful posts in the climate area.

The rest of the bias we see is mainly down to the mainstream ethos for engaging with the press and the public, rather than the research itself- i.e. the prevailing view that scientists should try to convince the public that the science is settled and AGW is a serious issue, so as to "avoid planting doubt in people's minds". The attitude of "engagement with the media and public is biased so the research must be equally biased" is one of many reasons why I don't agree with that policy. It is also a problem that occurs across climate science as a whole and not just at the Met Office, so I doubt that privatising the Met Office would help there.

I also think it's a bit hypocritical accusing the Met Office of being biased while being biased in the other direction (the phrase "do as I say, not what I do" springs to mind).

[Solar Cycles]

No, they might have underestimated the effects of low solar activity and other negative forcings. It is distinctly hypocritical to, on the one hand, claim that AGW isn't necessarily a serious issue because the science isn't settled, yet then claim that AGW is being overestimated (which in itself implies that the science is settled, but in the other direction!) And in no way do they discount them as being drivers.

In a large majority of today's mainstream climate research, at the Met Office and elsewhere, a lot of effort is put in to make sure that the research is as non-biased as possible. The main problem lies with research that is largely dependent on outputs from computer models, in which case any bias in the computer models (usually caused by flawed assumptions being put into them) will tend to bias the results. This is why there is so much investment going into the next generation of climate models, and why the natural forcings will have to be tweaked in the climate models as we start to understand them more, a point made in a couple of recent insightful posts in the climate area.

The rest of the bias we see is mainly down to the mainstream ethos for engaging with the press and the public, rather than the research itself- i.e. the prevailing view that scientists should try to convince the public that the science is settled and AGW is a serious issue, so as to "avoid planting doubt in people's minds". The attitude of "engagement with the media and public is biased so the research must be equally biased" is one of many reasons why I don't agree with that policy. It is also a problem that occurs across climate science as a whole and not just at the Met Office, so I doubt that privatising the Met Office would help there.

I also think it's a bit hypocritical accusing the Met Office of being biased while being biased in the other direction (the phrase "do as I say, not what I do" springs to mind).

So being biased = questioning the mainstream? As it happens I started off with a open mind, and still have one. I haven't ruled out AGW altogether, just it's magnitude! I haven't found one bit of evidence to support AGW being the main driver, you can't just say CO2 causes temperatures to rise. Therefore the more there is, the more temps will rise. In theory it does, but how many times does climate follow theory?

[Methuselah]

So being biased = questioning the mainstream? As it happens I started off with a open mind, and still have one. I haven't ruled out AGW altogether, just it's magnitude! I haven't found one bit of evidence to support AGW being the main driver, you can't just say CO2 causes temperatures to rise. Therefore the more there is, the more temps will rise. In theory it does, but how many times does climate follow theory?

But then SC, the same logic applies to all these 'projected' Solar minima??

[Solar Cycles]

But then SC, the same logic applies to all these 'projected' Solar minima??

You know Pete, I just knew it would be you, who would throw that one back at me! But your right, and this is what makes this current solar minima so exciting, because one way or the other, a theory is going to stand or fall!

[Thundery wintry showers]

So being biased = questioning the mainstream? As it happens I started off with a open mind, and still have one. I haven't ruled out AGW altogether, just it's magnitude! I haven't found one bit of evidence to support AGW being the main driver, you can't just say CO2 causes temperatures to rise. Therefore the more there is, the more temps will rise. In theory it does, but how many times does climate follow theory?

Being biased can be about allowing one's personal views significantly affect one's judgements of the situation, which can apply on both sides.

The argument that the MetO and others are biased comes from the idea that they convey an impression to the general public that the science is settled and AGW is a major problem, when the evidence for this is far from conclusive.

But at the same time, claiming that the MetO are underestimating natural forcings and negative feedbacks is guilty of the same thing. The evidence for that isn't any more conclusive- the large uncertainties that exist merely suggest that there's a chance that these alternative forcings could be being underestimated. There is also evidence out there suggesting that they might even be being overestimated, or that previously-assumed negative feedbacks might in reality be positive. Uncertainty, in essence, works both ways.

It might seem nitpicky but it's the same thing as what the Met Office and others get pulled up for on a regular basis in these discussions.

[CardiffStorm]

Meteorolgy is a science and im sure many people know that scientists often get things wrong but they easily learn from these mistakes.

I think the Met Office is certainly needed and I think with more resources (govt. money) it can become even better. IMO its the government that doesnt take weather seriously and so the MetO suffers. The Met Office is doing amazing things with relatively few resources.

[Solar Cycles]

Meteorolgy is a science and im sure many people know that scientists often get things wrong but they easily learn from these mistakes.

I think the Met Office is certainly needed and I think with more resources (govt. money) it can become even better. IMO its the government that doesnt take weather seriously and so the MetO suffers. The Met Office is doing amazing things with relatively few resources.

And what do you do down at the MetO?

Being biased can be about allowing one's personal views significantly affect one's judgements of the situation, which can apply on both sides.

The argument that the MetO and others are biased comes from the idea that they convey an impression to the general public that the science is settled and AGW is a major problem, when the evidence for this is far from conclusive.

But at the same time, claiming that the MetO are underestimating natural forcings and negative feedbacks is guilty of the same thing. The evidence for that isn't any more conclusive- the large uncertainties that exist merely suggest that there's a chance that these alternative forcings could be being underestimated. There is also evidence out there suggesting that they might even be being overestimated, or that previously-assumed negative feedbacks might in reality be positive. Uncertainty, in essence, works both ways.

It might seem nitpicky but it's the same thing as what the Met Office and others get pulled up for on a regular basis in these discussions.

A fair point TWS! No one can say with any certainy that they are right, I guess we will find out sooner, rather than later though, regarding negative and postive forcings.

[Mondy]

Please don't jot down anything related to Climate Change/AGW with regards the Met O as that's already been well documented elsewhere on NW.

Your thoughts?

Grrrr!!

Anyway, I agree with Solar.

[Solar Cycles]

Grrrr!!

Anyway, I agree with Solar.

Sorry Mondy, these debates always go the same way don't they! I'll get my coat!!