Shock, horror! Paul Hudson, the Yorkshire-based BBC weather reporter who caused a furore last year when he dared to break ranks from his warmist fanatic colleagues and suggested that the sun, not CO2, might be responsible for perceived global warming, has entered the fray again. This time, he’s pointed out that Joe Bastardi, of the climate realist weather service Accuweather, correctly forecast back in September that we were in for a tough winter, while the buffoons at the Met Office were busy using their new £170m computer to tell us that it was going to be – as ever- much milder than usual. Mr Hudson asks how this could have happened and poses in response a question which will no doubt leave his warmist colleagues speechless:
Could the model, seemingly with an inability to predict colder seasons, have developed a warm bias, after such a long period of milder than average years? Experts I have spoken to tell me that this certainly is possible with such computer models. And if this is the case, what are the implications for the Hadley centre’s predictions for future global temperatures? Could they be affected by such a warm bias? If global temperatures were to fall in years to come would the computer model be capable of forecasting this?
How long before Black, Harrabin &Co pile in with a horrified rebuttal?
There were plenty of people predicting a cold winter (we had a cold one last year as well and a cool summer) except the experts at the BBC, MET Office and CRU.
No one takes that lot seriously now, but why is the head of the MET office paid 200K a year? Wouldn’t that money be better spent on grit?
Bad and all as it is with the head of the Met Office, a public body, getting £200k p.a., why is the BBC, a public body, paying out £2m p.a. to Graham Norton? And £1m p.a. to the likes of Jeremy Paxman and Adrian Chiles? (assuming all the above figures are accurate as reported, of course,) Wouldn’t £200k p.a. be more than ample for them?
But is that really a fair criticism of the BBC? Look how much footballers are paid. Its the market rate. I guess one argument that could be made for how much the BBC pays top talent (and regardless of the appalling bias of people like Paxman he certainly is a top talent, just a pity he abuses his position to serve leftism instead of the public) is that its coffers are largely filled by public money not earnings and could be considered unfair broadcasting competition. As for the BBC relying on the Met Office who have spent 170 million on perpetuating the global warming fad, well, birds of a feather … Good to know though that there are still people of integrity at the BBC willing to be objective despite the huge dangers they face. A dying breed indeed!
hippiepooter
Hippiepooter
The problem is that the climate models were designed to be biased (euphemistically ‘tuned’), the central tenets of warmist doctrine are enshrined in the models – warming is expected so they ‘predict’ warming
I do despair-has anyone in the warmist cult received any scientific training?
The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.
Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013.
According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html
Paul Hudson can be a bit of a loose canon, he generally sticks with the met, but he has at times made slight digs at the warmists.
He rather unusually, will answer emails on the subject personally.
The moment I heard that the Met Orrifice had “predicted” a mild winter I started stocking up on thermal underwear and thick coats.
Don’t you find it amazing that not only do these warm mongers and their “computers” claim to be able to give the mean temperature of a whole planet, sea, land and air, to a hundreth of a degree TODAY…
But that they can also tell us proles what it was in the year of our Lord 1010 AD.
Of course, if computers and their models were really THAT good, they should have no problem crunching the comparatively paltry amounts of data and exactly predict the stock exchange for say this time NEXT YEAR.
Or how about this time NEXT WEEK. Just to make it easy.
Piers Corbyn just been on Sky News beating up on thier wet luvvie weather-forecaster who was sticking up for the corrupt Met office.
http://www.weatheraction.com/
They’re all so busy banging on about what could or might happen in 40 years time that they aren’t remotely interested in getting short term forecasts right. After all local councils will get the blame when the Met office forecast a mild winter and they don’t stockpile grit and salt just in case.
Climate change: the true price of the warmists’ folly is becoming clear
“From the Met Office’s mistakes to Gordon Brown’s wind farms, the cost of ‘green’ policies is growing, warns Christopher Booker”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6958093/Climate-change-the-true-price-of-the-warmists-folly-is-becoming-clear.html
Farmer Brown’s Wind Farm — sound like a good title for a BBC Children’s series