DEFRA : Summer Fog Is A Thing Of The Past In The UK

ScreenHunter_243 Sep. 05 10.15ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/media.jsp?mediaid=87948&filetype=pdf

The people caught in the 100 car pile up today in Kent will be thrilled to know that models said this won’t happen.

ScreenHunter_242 Sep. 05 10.12

‘Truly miraculous’ nobody was killed in 100-car crash, police say – Telegraph

About stevengoddard

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

28 Responses to DEFRA : Summer Fog Is A Thing Of The Past In The UK

  1. Atowermadeofcheese says:

    This is in very poor taste. In addition you are completely wrong; the divide by zero is caused by the model predicting 0.0 fog days annually during the 11 year baseline period, not by 0.0 fog days in 2080 predicted by the model which in case you hadn’t realized is not today’s date (its 2013) . This is entirely irrelevant of course as sheepy island is covered by a -60% pixel. I suppose I’m now going to be called a moron and blocked.

    • If CET temperatures plunge at the same rate as they have for the past decade, England will be buried in ice by 2080.

      • Atowermadeofcheese says:

        If arctic sea ice volume continues to decrease at the same rate of the past decade we will be ice free by 2020. What is your point, that’s irrelevant to what I said. You misread your source; why can’t you ever admit when you get something wrong

        • You must have missed 2013. Arctic ice is almost the same as it was a decade ago.

        • Don says:

          I thought it was going to be ice-free by 2013?

        • F. Guimaraes says:

          In fact, for the beginning of Septermber, the ice extents of 2002 and 2005 were very close and only 2003 and 2006 were higher.
          Therefore extent of 2013 is at 4th place (since 2002) and it’s reasonable to expect that the Arctic ice will be above the 2005 level at the end of this month.

        • Jimbo says:

          Atowermadeofcheese, some climate scientists have been keeping their eyes on the Arctic. The Arctic should have been ice free in 2012 and should be ice free in 2013 and 2015 and 2016 and so on. You say 2020, that’s just another date. Do you care to add more date? I would if I were you. 🙂
          References

  2. tom0mason says:

    From DEFRA website ( https://www.gov.uk/government/topics/environment )-
    Ministerial department
    Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs

    Topic
    Environment

    What we’re doing

    The government is working to protect our environment by reducing pollution, reducing the amount of waste sent to landfill, protecting areas of parkland, wildlife reserves and marine biodiversity, and enforcing regulations that keep our water and air clean. We also help communities avoid or recover from flooding and other weather-related hazards.

    That would be a fail then.

  3. Atowermadeofcheese says:

    Are you being serious. 2013 is about the same as 2009 by most measures, although I see you are still cherry picking that one dmi measure. Even then we are no where near what it was like in 2000 and the TREND is still pointing down. You mentioned decadal trend, well that is going to zero by 2020, By your logic the trend is sky rocketing on the hadley CET because 2011 was much warmer than 2010! Anyway despite all this, you still have failed to address my point. Are you incapable of admitting you are wrong about this post?

    • There has been a huge increase in ice this year.

      Did you have a bad experience in your childhood which led you to not trust people from Denmark?

      • Atowermadeofcheese says:

        No, but instead of cherry picking one measure I like to use them all. Incidently the newer and more accurate (in dmis own words) has 2013 at about 2009. Since you are resorting to sarcasm I guess you have really no argument. Now stop trying to change the subject and actually address the original point, are you going to admit you are wrong or just block me and pretend this conversation never happened?

        • Let me explain how it works here. I make a post pointing out the mindless absurdity of people pretending they can forecast something like fog in the distant future, Someone like you comes along, sets up a straw man, and expects me to engage your straw man. Then I proceed to make fun of you.

        • F. Guimaraes says:

          LOL!!

  4. Let’s please avoid cherry picking any data whatsoever. Can anyone tell me at what point will Antartica swallow the entire planet in ice? After all, climate know-it-alls have proven that trends never change! And I need to know when to buy my snowshoes.

  5. Atowermadeofcheese says:

    OK explain where the strawman is then? You said explicitly that “models said this won’t happen.”. If you are wrong about this then it is not a strawman to point that out, a strawman would be extrapolating your argument to ridiculous propotions before the refutations which has not been done. Indeed ironically you strawmanned DEFRA by saying “Summer Fog Is A Thing Of The Past In The UK”. Now to the topic at hand, the divide by zero is caused by a 0.0 anual mean (1sf) in the 11 year baseline, this is nothing to do with any predictions for 2013, and not even 2080. So what are you saying, that is not your argument? In which case why make up the strawman about DEFRA with an image that clearly draws attention to the divide by zero thing?

    • Most of my posts are sarcasm.This one is a play on Met Office David Viner’s “snow is a thing of the past” forecast from 2000.

      Anyone who thinks they can forecast snow or fog in the future is deluding themselves.

      • Atowermadeofcheese says:

        Have you read the paper? It doesn’t say fog is a thing of the past, it merely points out quantitative long term decreases. If you want to make fun of an inaccurate prediction then it does your credibility no good to say things that are demonstrably wrong. You run a blog called ‘real science’; but there is a reason sarcasm is not present in scientific lit. When someone makes an inaccurate prediction the proper process is reasonable and evidenced criticism and improvement of models, not sarcastic (and incorrect) sniping.

  6. Atowermadeofcheese says:

    Then respond to the article with your own paper, publish that in the scientific literature; point out the critisms and the flaws – that would be ‘real science’. But what seems more absurd than a methollogically sound way of using ensemble runs to predict long term trends is a post that implies that said article predicted zero fog in 2013. What is the point of the image you have shown? Do you admit to strawmanning defra and concde that I have not strawmanned you?

    • There are thousands of degrees of freedom in the weather/climate system, most of which are unpredictable. Every weather modeler I have talked to says that the models break down after 72 hours due to chaos.

      Did anyone predict 10 years ago that CET would drop 1.5C? I have seen no evidence that long-term forecasting has any value.

      • Atowermadeofcheese says:

        Assuming you are completely correct for the sake of argument. Why do you think posting an article that implies models completely failed to predict something would help your cause when it is demonstrably untrue. I am responding specifically to this article you have posted, I have pointed out where your conclusions are wrong and I have been accused of strawmanning by you.

        • Most people would recognize that a post saying that fog is impossible in England – is sarcasm.

        • F. Guimaraes says:

          Models based on the CO2 hypothesis for warming are ALL wrong.
          Any models that don’t place the Sun at the center of the evolution of climate on Earth (with modulations by oceans, volcanic eruptions, etc.) are wrong.
          Those models based on “solar forcing”, so to speak, are being proven correct again and again with the recovery of the Arctic ice, the record snowfall last winter, the reversal of the prediction of an El Nino last year to a La Nina this year, the successive records of ice extent in Antarctica, etc.
          Now these (real) scientific models are predicting that if the solar radiation continues the present low trend the world will be back to average temperatures like in the 1960’s 70’s until the end of this decade.
          It’s a matter of time now for the great debacle of the AGW pseudo-science to end forever.
          Peer reviewing can mean very little if the accepted paradigm is wrong, and this is one of the weakest points of AGW models, they cannot see their own failure not even when a large succession of facts shows the opposite of what they predict.

    • tom0mason says:

      Why should anyone respond to the article with their own paper. Most people are not egotistical enough or stupid enough to try and predict weather/climate to any degree of certainty. Climate models fall woefully short of the mark.
      The reasons of how and what makes our climate and weather the way it is not fully known or understood – only fools and charlatans would say otherwise. DEFRA has those paid fools, and they and the Department should be rightly ridiculed for it’s foolhardy inaccurate predictions.

      So keep at them Steve, DEFRA deserves it and more just for publishing.

  7. Bob Greene says:

    I’m enjoying this discussion, enough even to read the link. There was so much scatter between predicted and observed in the hindcast that I would be embarrassed to publish that because it shows the model really doesn’t predict all that well. The model failed in hindcast and yet they proceeded. You could probably get as good a prediction from random numbers.

  8. Atowermadeofcheese says:

    And similarly most people would recognize that sarcasm is not ‘real science’ which is what your entire blog is supposed to be. But any cursory glance of this post might lead someone to believe that DEFRA really did predict exactly zero fog by 2013. And in any case, don’t you think sarcastic jabs at a journal article would be better done (if needed to be done at all which they don’t) in light of an event that didn’t hospitalise 30+ people?

  9. Atowermadeofcheese says:

    Clear up one thing where exactly is the sarcasm here? “The people caught in the 100 car pile up today in Kent will be thrilled to know that models said this won’t happen.” . Is this supposed to read (with sarcasm removed) as “The people caught in the 100 car pile up today in Kent will NOT be thrilled to know that models said this won’t happen.” or as “The people caught in the 100 car pile up today in Kent will NOT be thrilled to know that models DIDN’t this won’t happen.” In the former case you are still wrong Steven, and in the later case you are agreeing with DEFRA in the context of the post you made which kind of makes this entire escapade seem rather pointless.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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