Met Office porkies
- Thread starter zoidberg
- Start date
lustyd
Well-known member
If true there are some pretty serious questions for the Met Office to answer.
I'd hope there's more to it though. The article is not on what I'd consider a well balanced website. It's obvious that they need to interpolate data, that's what they do when modelling weather. The question is how that interpolated data is being used.
I'd hope there's more to it though. The article is not on what I'd consider a well balanced website. It's obvious that they need to interpolate data, that's what they do when modelling weather. The question is how that interpolated data is being used.
Baddox
Well-known member
Have you been raiding Viago's websites?
finestgreen
Active member
If only the met office said something like this on the webpage that's being "investigated":
[199490]
...
Conspiracy sites gotta promote conspiracies
Poignard
Well-known member
[199490]
...
I am well aware of the trash the Septic promotes
franksingleton
Well-known member
This kind of attack is hardly new. Remember ClimateGste? The instigator has said thst he was wrong and UEA were correct. Climate data are big bags of nails. The mischievous can often home in on some particular aspect and produce apparent nonsenses. You have to ask what is the point of the article. Every Met Service worldwide and ECMWF is agreed that we are in a dangerously warming. climate. You do not need temperature data to show that. You have only yo look at CO2 concentrations.
zoidberg
Well-known member
Deepfakery.....?
'You can fool some of the people all of the time. You can fool all of the people some of the time....'
'You can fool some of the people all of the time. You can fool all of the people some of the time....'
franksingleton
Well-known member
There are many problems with climate data. Instruments have evolved over time, observing routines changed over time to become universally agree, urbanisation and changing land use generally are all problems. The Met Office directly controlled sites are mainly at airfields. Other sites are often run on a voluntary basis. Ideally, somebody a few 100 years ago would have anticipated climate change and installed observing sites where conditions could have been carefully controlled. In reality we have a hotchpot of data that are assessed scientifically to produce the best data set possible. It is not the best possible data set. Scientists worldwide have had the same problem. Starting with different approaches, they have come up with the same answers. See http://weather.mailasail.com/w/uploads/Franks-Weather/Rev-data-2022.png
franksingleton
Well-known member
The deep fakery comes from those who either do not understand the problem or do not want to. You are probably in the second category. I have worked with scientists doing this work. I was in overall charge of Met Office data arching for a few years. I write from a position of knowledge. You are quoting half baked assertions by a mischief maker.Deepfakery.....?
'You can fool some of the people all of the time. You can fool all of the people some of the time....'
capnsensible
Well-known member
At least the Daily Mash and Newsthump are witty.
franksingleton
Well-known member
I have now found time to read through the detail. I have also looked at UK climate maps and data. The writer is either being stupidly ignorant or, equally stupidly, just trying to conjure up a story where none exists. If this is the best that Daily Skeptic can do then I have to wonder at the mentality of anyone who takes them seriously.
At Historic station data there is a list of 37 stations for which the Met Office has a reliable record. They have data of varying quality from many more locations. In order to get a handle on long term changes the Met Office maintains the Central England Temperature series. This was initially run by the late Professor Gordon Manley. The data quoted in the silly Daily Skeptic “story” were produced in a similar way. Clearly, they are not intended to provide evidence of global climate change. They are intended to help intelligent members of the public know something about climate for specific areas that might be of interest.
I cannot believe that the writer, presumably not without intelligence, was unaware of the source of the data and intended use. I cannot believe that he was unaware of the real climatological data.
Of course, I could be wrong and he is just plainly ignorant.
I have now read the letter sent to an MP. The writer clearly does not understand the difference between data used to help the general public and others to know about climate and data used to detect significant changes in long term climate change. No doubt, the MP will pass this to the minister who will barely glance at it before referring to the Met Office for a reply. More waste of taxpayer’s funds will be the sole result.
zoidberg
Well-known member
Yes. You told me that once... then again... then again...
Meanwhile, 'back at the ranch'....
According to datacentredynamics
'The contract was eventually awarded to Microsoft, which will integrate its Microsoft Azure’s supercomputing-as-a-service with an HPE Cray EX system for a 60 petaflops system. The Met Office currently operates three Cray XC40 machines, each capable of up to seven petaflops.
According to the Sun, the Met Office had hoped the new forecasting system would be up and running by July. However, Court documents claim “unacceptable” outages – presumably of the current HPC systems – threaten “critical UK weather and climate services” and potentially risk “safety of life.”
Meanwhile, I soldier on by regular 'looking out the window' and inspecting my trusty little bundle of dried Druid seaweed.....
Greemble
Well-known member
- Joined
- 4 Nov 2012
- Messages
- 1,226
- Location
- Close to the Edge, Down by a River
Sorry, but that's not a reliable source, far from reliable in fact.
There is a difference between 'weather' and 'climate'
Rum Run
Well-known member
I got to the phrase "citizen journalist" and immediately became sceptical of the Daily Sceptic.
franksingleton
Well-known member
It was not obvious that you had understoodYes. You told me that once... then again... then again...
So? As ever you cannot keep to the topic that you raised. Perhaps you now accept that the Daily Skeptic was spouting garbage.Meanwhile, 'back at the ranch'....
According to datacentredynamics
'The contract was eventually awarded to Microsoft, which will integrate its Microsoft Azure’s supercomputing-as-a-service with an HPE Cray EX system for a 60 petaflops system. The Met Office currently operates three Cray XC40 machines, each capable of up to seven petaflops.
According to the Sun, the Met Office had hoped the new forecasting system would be up and running by July. However, Court documents claim “unacceptable” outages – presumably of the current HPC systems – threaten “critical UK weather and climate services” and potentially risk “safety of life.”
Meanwhile, I soldier on by regular 'looking out the window' and inspecting my trusty little bundle of dried Druid seaweed.....
Last edited:
zoidberg
Well-known member
Kindly address your quibbles to datacentredynamics. It's their text quoted.
As for the second astute and incisive assertion.... I among many am rather more immediately interested in the former than the latter. Always have been, natch!
zoidberg
Well-known member
Yottie instructor rainer - "Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em.... then tell them what you have to tell them.... then tell them what you just told them."It was not obvious that you had understood
So? As ever you cannot keep to the topic that you raised. Perhaps you now accept that the Daily Skeptic was spouting garbage.
As for 'spouting garbage', I've sat through enough met briefings so I know it when I hear it.
Marsali_1
Member
Unfortunately the two are inextricably linked and as one gets more extreme so will the other. Head in the sand will only stay dry and cool for so long.
