Global warming discussion III

[Haig]

What profit did the Met Office make last year? What dividend did it pay? What bonuses did it pay? Where is the profit and loss statement? What taxes did it pay on profits?

Seems the Met do make a large profit each year out of Climate Change

So you may get your questions answered here ...

In a reply to a question on the Official blog of the Met Office news team this answer was given ... (my bolding)

Met Office Press Office (11:04:14) :
John
The Met Office is a Trading Fund within the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Every day we deliver over 4 million individual products for the UK public, Government, our Armed Forces, and businesses as well as countless other customers around the globe. Operating on a commercial basis to minimise demands on public funds, we work to agreed Government targets paying a dividend back to Government.
Our Revenue in 2012/13 rose 4.4% to a record £204.9 million, and our operating profit grew by 35% to £12.3 million.

Yes, Climate Change is a global business

China, India: Where’s that $100 billion you promised?

Neither China nor India have made specific commitments on climate change, though Modi, who won the last election on the strength of his stunning economic track record as first minister of Gujarat, has repeatedly stressed that his priority is a strong pro-business economic model to alleviate poverty.

 

[The Atheist]

Not what you asked for but worth sharing nonetheless

Thanks!

I would say that while the slowdown in growth probably is a factor, it doesn't detract form the fact that China is launching a large scale and purposeful strategy to dramatically reduce emissions.

The plan to peak coal consumption was in place well before the current slowdown began. And since then they have also announced 1000 GW of new renewable capacity and another 250 GW of nuclear over the next 15 years as part of their bilateral agreement with the US.

Yes, and I hope they manage to keep to it, although with cheap Russian gas, I'd question the commitment to how clean clean is in their eyes.

I think the scope of the downturn has been underestimated as well, because it's a lot larger than most people realise or the Chinese regime lets be known. You can't go building infrastructure forever, even with a billion people.

Also, I'd need to know whether the effect of millions of Chinese travelling by air now is counted as China's carbon or not, because the growth has been exponential. The equation probably isn't as simple as it seems on the surface.

Also:

China, India: Where’s that $100 billion you promised?

India will be the next problem, and it would be unreasonable for the west - who haven't cut emissions by more than a token gesture, if at all - to expect a nation to stall development because they will use extra carbon.

When people in the west give up driving cars to work will be the time we can complain about developing nations.

Seems the Met do make a large profit each year out of Climate Change

So you may get your questions answered here ...

In a reply to a question on the Official blog of the Met Office news team this answer was given ... (my bolding)

Yes, Climate Change is a global business

That's the part that bugs me.

A few people I know are not deniers, but they end up siding with deniers because they see so many gravy trains and so little action when it comes to climate science.

 

[Reality Check]

These points are interesting ...

No, Haig: a climate denier site obsessing about the fact that a organization such as the Met Office makes money out of weather forecasts and
* being deluded enough think that this is climate change
*having a paranoiac fantasy about "narrowly one-sided view of global warming science"
is just the boring stuff that we expect from WUWT.
That rant is from the ignorant economist Christopher Monckton of Brenchley so delusion and paranoia id not a surprise !

Parroting the "No Global warming 18 years 3 months" lie is also as expected:
11th May 2015 Haig: 2. A lie by cherry picking the source and start date about "No global warming for 18 years and 3 months" as easily seen by anyone who looks at the data.

 

[Reality Check]

This shows the present ...
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_3823655573d9ce533f.jpg[/qimg]

No, Haig - it shows your continued posting of a lie because you cannot understand that image is a lie:
11th May 2015 Haig: 2. A lie by cherry picking the source and start date about "No global warming for 18 years and 3 months" as easily seen by anyone who looks at the data.

 

[a_unique_person]

Seems the Met do make a large profit each year out of Climate Change

So you may get your questions answered here ...

In a reply to a question on the Official blog of the Met Office news team this answer was given ... (my bolding)




Yes, Climate Change is a global business

China, India: Where’s that $100 billion you promised?

They pay the dividend to the government.

 

[Reality Check]

In a reply to a question on the Official blog of the Met Office news team this answer was given ...

What that blog entry from last year actually is Met Office in the Media: 16 February 2014, response by Professor Mat Collins and the Met Office - a response to an incorrect statement by David Rose (a reporter with the ignorant idea that we may be heading into an ice age) in the Mail on Sunday.

In the comments there is a bit of a rant ending with calling the Met Office a qunago that should be defunded. The reply is that the Met Office has an important role in the UK, etc. and makes an operating profit:

The Met Office is a Trading Fund within the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Every day we deliver over 4 million individual products for the UK public, Government, our Armed Forces, and businesses as well as countless other customers around the globe. Operating on a commercial basis to minimise demands on public funds, we work to agreed Government targets paying a dividend back to Government.
Our Revenue in 2012/13 rose 4.4% to a record £204.9 million, and our operating profit grew by 35% to £12.3 million.

(my emphasis added for Haig's information)
It would be stupid to defund the Met Service given the vital importance of weather forecasts.

 

[bit_pattern]

You can bet your bottom dollar that if the Met didn't generate a return the same people would be slamming it for being inefficient and a model of government waste

 

[Pixel42]

I'm sure Haig's favourite weather forecaster, Piers Corbyn, doesn't charge for his forecasts. Makes no profit at all, just gives them away out of the kindness of his heart.

 

[Haig]

They pay the dividend to the government.

The Met Office Press Office reply is "Operating on a commercial basis to minimise demands on public funds, we work to agreed Government targets paying a dividend back to Government."

Paying back a "dividend" isn't the same as paying back to Government ALL their profits ! They don't, as they say, they run on a commercial basis NOT a not-for-profit charity

The reply is that the Met Office has an important role in the UK, etc. and makes an operating profit:

(my emphasis added for Haig's information)
It would be stupid to defund the Met Service given the vital importance of weather forecasts.

Vital importance you say

The Met Service has been a national joke in the UK for a many years and continues to fail the public with it's forecasting.

Jim Dale: Why the Met Office got it wrong – again independent

Met Office's debate over longer-term forecasts bbc

Millions for the Met Office to carry on getting it wrong telegraph

You can bet your bottom dollar that if the Met didn't generate a return the same people would be slamming it for being inefficient and a model of government waste

They STILL take tax payers money in a way that shows they ARE inefficient and a model of government waste.

Five years after we paid £33 million to buy the Met Office a new computer, we are now to pay £97 million to give them a “world-leading super-computer” – described by its chairman as “our integrated weather and climate model, known as the Met Office Unified Model”. That’s because it will not only “produce the most accurate short-term forecasts that are scientifically possible”,

 

[Mikemcc]

The Met Office is actually one of the best in terms of the accuracy of it's forecasts. It is only thought if as a 'joke' by fools who believe everything written in the Daily Mail or Express...

 

[Haig]

I'm sure Haig's favourite weather forecaster, Piers Corbyn, doesn't charge for his forecasts. Makes no profit at all, just gives them away out of the kindness of his heart.

Not as much as the Met charges for their far inferior forcasting !

Five years after we paid £33 million to buy the Met Office a new computer, we are now to pay £97 million to give them a “world-leading super-computer”

Think again Pixel42

The Met Office is actually one of the best in terms of the accuracy of it's forecasts. It is only thought if as a 'joke' by fools who believe everything written in the Daily Mail or Express...

They claim accurate weather forecasts 4 days in advance but they don't match the reality 2 days in advance and sometimes not even 24 hrs

Just take a copy of the forecast 4 days ahead and watch how they "update" it each day and sometimes more often than that.

What we often get are actually a "Nowcast"

 

[Haig]

Natural variability seen as more likely than AGW

An Estimate of The Centennial Variability of Global Temperatures
Philip J. Lloyd

Abstract
There has been widespread investigation of the drivers of changes in global temperatures. However, there has been remarkably little consideration of the magnitude of the changes to be expected over a period of a few decades or even a century. To address this question, the Holocene records up to 8000 years before present, from several ice cores were examined. The differences in temperatures between all records which are approximately a century apart were determined, after any trends in the data had been removed. The differences were close to normally distributed. The average standard deviation of temperature was 0.98 ± 0.27 °C. This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations.

This seems a very appropriate comment ...

SAMURAI May 17, 2015 at 10:03 pm
With roughly 30% of all manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 being emitted over just the last 19 years, with virtually no global warming trend observed over the past 19 years to show for it, it’s becoming painfully obvious global temperatures are much less sensitive to CO2 than CAGW hypothesizes.

Dr. Lindzen and other scientists suggest CO2’s contribution to total global warming since the end of the Little Ice age could be as little as 0.2C, which is consistent with “The Pause” observed for almost two decades…

The longer “The Pause” continues, despite record annual manmade CO2 emissions, the higher the probability CAGW is a busted hypothesis.

Observed satellite temperatures are already 2+ SDs below CAGW model-mean projections, and could well be 3+ SDs off in 5~7 years if current trends continue…

CAGW is on the cusp of being laughed and eye-rolled into oblivion.. None of CAGW’s dire predictions are coming even close to reflecting reality, so if the Scientific Method is still the measure of science, CAGW’s days are numbered…

CAGW adocates are quickly running out of excuses and time to explain why their hypothesis has failed so miserably for such a long duration.

 

[Pixel42]

Not as much as the Met charges for their far inferior forcasting !

I'm amazed he has the nerve to charge at all. But then he's a scammer, and that's what scammers do - charge the gullible for worthless products.

Think again Pixel42

If only you would think just once,you wouldn't be listening to scammers.

They claim accurate weather forecasts 4 days in advance but they don't match the reality 2 days in advance and sometimes not even 24 hrs

I look at the 10 day forecast for my area on the BBC website every day, it's very accurate for the next 3-4 days, reasonably accurate for the next few days, and gives a good idea of what to expect next week. I plan when I'm going to go for walks/do my shopping/go on outings/mow the lawn etc based on it, and very rarely need to change those plans.

Just take a copy of the forecast 4 days ahead and watch how they "update" it each day and sometimes more often than that.

Of course they update it with more accurate information as they get it. They also add more detail, going from daily to half-daily to three hourly to hourly forecasts.

What we often get are actually a "Nowcast"

It's raining now. The forecast has been saying it was going to rain here Monday morning for about a week.

 

[Haig]

Of course they update it with more accurate information as they get it. They also add more detail, going from daily to half-daily to three hourly to hourly forecasts.

What's the point of a weather "forecast" 4 days in advance if it can end up radically different on the actual day ? And we ALL know in the UK they frequently do

How can you plan with that ???

An yet you criticise Piers Corbyn at Weather Action for his Long Range Weather forecasts made 6wks to 6mths ahead that are NOT updated daily ???

Talk about double standards !

 

[Mikemcc]

As shown here, his hit rate is <20%. He would be better todsing a coin!

It also shows than lack understanding of a weather forecast. The published forecast is the most likely outcome.

 

[CapelDodger]

You can bet your bottom dollar that if the Met didn't generate a return the same people would be slamming it for being inefficient and a model of government waste

It was the first Thatcher government which required all government departments and agencies to establish "revenue streams" wherever possible; this included the Met as part of the Royal Navy (which I think it still is).

 

[Haig]

As shown here, his hit rate is <20%. He would be better todsing a coin!

It also shows than lack understanding of a weather forecast. The published forecast is the most likely outcome.

Nope, read this HERE

See below for full independently Audited Assessment report of WeatherAction world extreme events forecasts March to Sept 2008 showing a success rate of 85% in forecasting of generally relatively unusual extreme events in narrow time windows.

Download pdf format report

See below the Audited Assessment report of WeatherAction world extreme events forecasts for the period October 2008 to April 2009 and a cover letter from the Auditors re USA & Canada events

Download pdf format formal audit report
Download pdf format report

Skill and forecast scope has been maintained and advanced since then and reports are issued every month.

 

[Pixel42]

What's the point of a weather "forecast" 4 days in advance if it can end up radically different on the actual day ? And we ALL know in the UK they frequently do

Occasionally, not frequently. I'm old enough to remember when weather forecasts were a lot less accurate. Given the inherent unpredictability of British weather the accuracy the Met Office manages to achieve never ceases to amaze me.

How can you plan with that ???

Like I said, I rarely need to change my plans. The Met Office forecasts are more than accurate enough for my purposes.

An yet you criticise Piers Corbyn at Weather Action for his Long Range Weather forecasts made 6wks to 6mths ahead that are NOT updated daily ???

I criticise someone who claims 80% accuracy and delivers 20%, yes. He should be honest about how accurate his long range forecasts can reasonably be expected to be, i.e. he should admit that they're utterly worthless.

In any case this is all off topic. Weather is not climate.

 

[CapelDodger]

What's the point of a weather "forecast" 4 days in advance if it can end up radically different on the actual day ? And we ALL know in the UK they frequently do

That's a straight-up lie. Like Pixel42 I use the Met office forecasts to plan my week ahead and very rarely have a problem.

How can you plan with that ???

Fortunately one doesn't have to, the real situation being (as so often) very different from your beliefs.

An yet you criticise Piers Corbyn at Weather Action for his Long Range Weather forecasts made 6wks to 6mths ahead that are NOT updated daily ???

And are no better than chance.

Talk about double standards !

Says the guy with no standards at all.

 

[CapelDodger]

Nope, read this HERE

An analysis of a carefully selected small subset of data which naturally fits Corbyn's lie, since he's the one who did the selecting for precisely that purpose. I pointed this out to you years ago when you first brought the subject up.