Met Office : 2013 To Be Super Hot

For seven years in a row, the Met Office has demonstrated that they are 100% incompetent with long range forecasting.

ScreenHunter_198 Mar. 29 11.29

Met Office says 2013 likely to be one of warmest years on record | Environment |

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Met Office : 2013 To Be Super Hot

  1. Marco says:

    2013 anomalies so far

    January: -0.4 °C
    February: -0.9 °C
    March: -2.x °C

    The forecast of 0.57 °C above normal is looking good…

  2. Ian says:

    The Guardian link no longer has the details. The actual Met Office link should be used:

  3. Notice how they say “long term average”.

    It is no such thing, it is the 1961-90 average, the coldest part for the last 80 years.

    Even the WMO says they should use the most recent 30 yrs, i.e. 1981-2010. After this is what we have all lived through and what is “normal” for us.

    Using this, the 0.57C would come down to about 0.3C.

    • Dave says:

      Anomalies only make sense if you keep the baseline used for comparison constant. So I don’t think anyone should use a rolling most recent 30 years. But I have problems with the idea in general, it strikes me as ridiculous to believe the period 1961-1990 is sacred as far as weather goes.

  4. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Interestingly even the CAGW people in the press corps are starting to give the Met Office curry:

    Met Office or bookie’s office?

    Roger Harrabin takes a wry look at the Met Office’s three-month forecast for last spring. These longer-term forecasts are not published, so Harrabin got it under FOI.

    “The Met Office three-monthly outlook at the end of March [2012] stated: “The forecast for average UK rainfall slightly favours drier than average conditions for April-May-June, and slightly favours April being the driest of the three months.”

    A soul-searching Met Office analysis later confessed: “Given that April was the wettest since detailed records began in 1910 and the April-May-June quarter was also the wettest, this advice was not helpful.””

    BBC environment reporter Roger Harrabin is now FOI’ing the Met Office because of their famously flatulent forecasts?!! The end of the world must have arrived without me noticing.

    • tckev says:

      ‘Reporter’ Roger Harrabin is a water melon greenie. Any report he pens/broadcasts has to have the ‘climate change’ riff in it, usually many, many times

      A quick Google search of –
      BBC “Roger Harrabin” “climate change”
      only gets:
      About 33,000 results (0.36 seconds)

      • Bruce says:

        That’s what I meant. Harrabin FOI’ing the Met Office over their dodgy warming forecasts is like having Chris Matthews FOI Obama about Benghazi. I’d’ve said pigs might fly, except one just flew past my window.

  5. kirkmyers says:

    Dr. Alberto Miatello makes these astute observations about global temperatures in a recent research paper that goes a a long way towards eviscerating the widely embraced greenhouse effect (GHE) theory:

    “Before leaving the topic of climate, it might be interesting to examine the bigger picture. When the temperatures of the various warm periods of the current interglacial, the Holocene, are examined using data unadjusted by the current data handlers, it is apparent that, from the Holocene Optimum, Minoan Warm Period (WP), Roman WP, Medieval WP, and Current WP, each successive peak temperature has been lower than the last. This suggests that the Earth is slowly sliding toward the next glaciation and renders meaningless the alarmist projections of constant
    warming for 100s or more years and even a permanent warm state.”

    Then Miatello goes on to write:

    “Unfortunately, the failure of the computer climate models to effectively model the past climate records without artificial adjustments or to usefully predict the future climate, as all predictions have failed, has produced the need for the GHE-supporting climatologists to unilaterally alter the temperature records, calling them “adjustments,” and cherry-pick published data to produce the needed warming and the related effects that the IPCC needs to be able to claim . . .

    “. . . Thus, believing that 0.39% CO2 in the atmosphere, with only a 0.002 emissivity, can effect an increase in global temperatures is something similar to believing that flies in the air can affect the motion of a space craft descending from orbit around the Earth.”

    Read the entire paper here:

    Click to access PSI_Miatello_Refutation_GHE.pdf

  6. william says:

    Well only time the thick met office might get this wright is the AO stays negative and lets warm hot continental to drift up from the south east but as we all know that is only local climate not stupid global warming crap but then met office could not forecast what is more than 4 weeks ahead yet the smaller forecasters can and get it spot on any time met office speaks about the summer forecast its naturaly pile of bull half of them probably could not forecast if they can get any fun at nights wankers they are

  7. Sparks says:

    -10 and 20ft of snow in spring, average that out!

  8. rw says:

    Stopping By Redux

    The world, they say, is super hot
    In every place that’s where I’m not
    It’s where I’m not, not where I am
    That forests burn and seas expand

    Not where I’ve been, but where I’ve not
    Is where the world has gone to pot
    It’s out of sight, but close at hand
    So …
    I wonder where the hell I am!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s