Forecasts

[Liz_I]

We will weather the weather, whatever the weather, weather we like it or not.

A couple of years ago a chap arrived on our pontoon, confused. He had four weather forecasts each one different. 'Which one should I believe?'

The answer 'tongue in cheek' was whichever one benefited his particular requirement.!

The 'SO' has said over the years that weather forecastng has done more to limit sailing than anything else. Sad....

In fact the short range forecasts are pretty accurate, however, what seems to be lost to most people are the 'local' conditions. In addition 'large' area forecasts cannot predict these 'local' conditions with accuracy. Perhaps more reliance on a 'nanny state'?

 

[simonjk]

Very interesting Bill, its about time someone started to look at this...nice one.

Simon

 

[Boreades]

One of the Met Office's problems is, incredibly, a lack of computing power. Their resources are directed by Robert Napier (current chairman), ex WWF, also chairman of the Green Fiscal Commission, and a director of the Climate Change Group.

So the day-to-day operational forecasting is taking a back seat in favour of ever-more complex work for the IPCC & Hadley Centre. i.e. the super computer is diverted into theoretical mathematical modelling to try and prop-up the "Hockey stick" graph for Global Warming, which is falling apart at the seams as independent scientists start to get access to the original raw data and spot the holes in their methods.

Conflict of interest? Surely not?

In the meantime, we get more Weather Dollies on screen, to tell us it might be nice sometime somewhere.

 

[wotayottie]

Presumably Bilbo, you are aware that (to quote Wikipedia), Christopher Booker (a history graduate) has allegedly claimed that man-made global warming was "disproved" in 2008, that white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent risk" to human health, that "scientific evidence to support the belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist and that there is no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans. He has also defended the theory of Intelligent Design, maintaining that Darwinians rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions". I wonder if he accepts Galileo and that the world is round.

Whether he actually believes these things or is simply telling DT readers what they want to believe, I do not know.

 

[bilbobaggins]

Whether he actually believes these things or is simply telling DT readers what they want to believe, I do not know.

I do not know, either.

But isn't that the way with 'quack religions'? Including the present one? Surely it's our responsibility to look for the flawed argument, the 'non sequitur', the unsupported assertion, the unstated agenda....? And if we can't be bothered, do the 'lunatics take over the asylum' - or the Met Office?

I'm all in favour of you, and me, asking more questions.