Monday, 3 January 2011

Who Would You Believe?

The photograph shows Professor Julla Slingo OBE, who is the Met Office's chief scientist, posing in front of "deep black" the MO's Supercomputer (courtesy of WattsUp).

Professor Slingo firmly believes in global warming.  Well she would wouldn't she as head of the Met Office.  A fellow blogger has quoted part of an interview Prof Slingo gave to Nature magazine.

What’s the biggest obstacle to creating better, hazard-relevant weather forecasts?
Access to supercomputers. The science is well ahead of our ability to implement it. It’s quite clear that if we could run our models at a higher resolution we could do a much better job — tomorrow — in terms of our seasonal and decadal predictions. It’s so frustrating. We keep saying we need four times the computing power. We’re talking just 10 or 20 million a year — dollars or pounds — which is tiny compared to the damage done by disasters. Yet it’s a difficult argument to win. You just think: why is this so hard?

So bigger computers, costing more millions, is the answer to more accurate Met Office forecasting.

My fellow blogger wasn't at all happy with the above comment and yesterday decided to email Joe Bastardi and Piers Corbyn to ask what computers they use in their far more accurate forecasts.

Already he has received comprehensive replies from both men.  You can read them here.  It will be a few minutes well spent.


Pavlov's Cat said...

Whether it's a Tandy T-180 or a cluster of Cray supercompters GIGO still applies as noted by both Joe the Bastrad and Mr Corbyn

JJ said...

My grandad just used to go into the garden - look up and say - 'aye it's going to rain'.

Oldrightie said...

It is the economics of the madhouse. If we just got on with living, evolving and let the unknown and un-knowable future develop, as it will, the human race would save trillions of dollars not attempting to influence climate and society. Nature will always triumph.

JRB said...

My New Year Resolution No:4

In 2011 I will avoid all argument/debate/discussion on climate change/ global warming/ meteorological anomalies, or any allied topic.

What will be will be , nothing I say or am prepared to do will make a jot of difference.

Joe Public said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Public said...

Of course they must have their "Toy".

A quote from the article below:- The Met Office said it was "completely untrue" that it had failed to give adequate warning. It said it had given at least nine hours' notice of the blizzard, thick ice and up to 10cm of snow.

And they want a bigger toy to be able to try to make seasonal & decadal predictions!!

I predict in 2020 it'll either be warmer, or cooler, with a slight chance it'll be the same.

subrosa said...

Exactly Pavlov's cat. It takes me back to my youth when I learned typing. The teacher would say "Your work will only be readable if you hit the right keys".

Love the GIGO quote.

subrosa said...

JJ, my Dad could sniff snow. He'd even tell you how long it would take to start and was usually bang on. Then he was a keen gardener and they seem to sense climatic changes.

Sandy said...

As my grandad used to tell me, a bad workman blames his tools.

Nuff said really.

Happy new year Rosie

subrosa said...

Very true OR. It's worth repeating your words. Nature will always triumph. Yet we have millions who believe that we should be taxed even further to pay for the lies.

subrosa said...

Morning John. It wasn't my intention to speak about climate change this morning but the responses from Bastardi and Corbyn were worth a post I thought. Also I was impressed by the speed of their replies.

I think every voice counts.

subrosa said...

How often have I heard the words 'lack of resources' over the holiday Joe? I've lost count. Now the Met Office feels miffed because they can't get a bigger computer.

What's that saying? A poor workman blames his tools?

Strathturret said...

Not sure you'd find it so funny if you were in Australia?

Apogee said...

Hi SR. Garbage in, garbage out is one thing, but if the data that is input is biased towards a certain result, that is what you will get.Bit like aiming a rifle.
Set up the program to pre-suppose a warming planet scenario, and you put quite a bias on the results. Remember Michael Mann and the hockey stick graph.? People who investigated found it didnt matter what data you put in, you still got the up-tick at the end.
But the thing to remember is that the computer is functioning correctly, remember that if you drive your car into a wall, it is you who 'programmed' the car that is responsible, the car just did what it was told to do.
Remember that the people using the computer have a history of warmism and the results are predictable.

subrosa said...

True Strathturret,but I've just been watching the news and it would seem floods like this are expected and the people prepare for them. That's the difference. I didn't see any panic either.

subrosa said...

Exactly Apogee. You only get out what goes in.

The Met Office decided they were going down the warmist route when the IPCC was set up. They're not going to be distracted now but the likes of Bastardi and Corbyn have to challenge them.

Strathturret said...

Subrosa do you not think you're just wrong about Global warming? Overwelming scientific opinion says its man made.

Unless you understand the science you are in a very poor position to argue with it.

From where I stand many opponents of MMGW are against it because it compromises their lifestyle (Range Rover brigade), or their companies (big oil) or their economy (USA's selfish huge use of limited world resources).

Who do you think has most to gain by rubbishing MMGW?

JJ said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JJ said...

We have evidence of global warming when dinosaurs were merrily trampling around in the undergrowth long before Ugg appeared and began lecturing us about the weather/climate.

English Pensioner said...

You have to remember that any government department can do anything providing it receives enough funding. We could stop crime, have the best schools in the world and the best Health Service if only we supplied the funds. If the government of the day believed that the sun went round the earth, there would soon be some university professors who would jump on the bandwagon if funding was available.
And as for climate change, I am prepared to accept that it is taking place, exactly as it has done ever since the earth was formed. What I have never seen is any real evidence that it is man-made!
I occasionally give talks and use my laptop; As "wallpaper" on the laptop I've now got a picture of the three submarines in a lagoon at the North Pole on 18th My 1967. Somebody always asks about it!

Apogee said...

Hi SR. Reports in the last 24 hours that Russia has 10 ships trapped in the Arctic.Due to ice. The ice breaker, Magadan, usually used could not get to them and the reported 400 crew. The ice was reported by the BBC ,seemingly as 12 inches, other reports (Tass) suggest more than 2 metres of ice.This is evidence of melting Arctic ice and AGW? Dont think so.
Seems more like evidence of a scam loosing a wheel.
Learned about floods in the outback in Australia when I was a kid in school there, and that wasn't yesterday. They are expected from time to time, some worse than others.I seemed to see some buildings in news reports ( old buildings) on stilts, wonder why??

Autonomous Mind said...

Many thanks for the link Subrosa. Very kind of you.

Autonomous Mind said...

Strathturret, do you not think that perhaps you've been mislead about this 'overwhelming scientific opinion' on Global warming?

As you say, unless you understand the science you are in a very poor position to argue with it. So take a read of this...

Global Cooling Consensus Is Heating Up

From where I stand many believers of MMGW promote it because it will result in their political objectives (de-industrialisation and wealth redistribution) or their business aims (huge public grants and exclusive markets for their expensive 'carbon free' solutions) that result in extra profit and dividend.

Which one are you?

Strathturret said...

My opinion based on my own period in scientific research is that scientists will go for the truth. I don't buy conspiracy theories by worldwide scientists.

I remember a colleague in industry who fiddled his experiments to deliver the results he wanted. I told him his work was unsound and ignored anything he did thereafter! Buy I did not then say that all organic chemistry is bent!

There are bad/incompetent apples in all professions.

Unless you have spent years studying climate science you are unlikely to have the knowledge to seriously challenge those who do?

Autonomous Mind said...

I'm sorry, but for someone who has supposedly spent years in scientific research you seem to have anything but a scientific bent.

The point is clearly that scientists who have spent years studying climate science are pulling the AGW narrative apart with evidence. Yet you have offered no scientific basis for your personal position, which is curious.

I have never met a scientist who has passed up the opportunity to get their teeth into a finding of the type I linked to.

So why do you accept CO2 is driving this 'warming' and why do you reject the findings of those who have identified a longstanding relationship between temperature and solar activity, oceanic activity and volcanic activity?

subrosa said...

I'm no climate scientist Strathturret, but I do have a layman's interest in this and also an interest in politics (with a small p),

My opinion is not one in which I want to rubbish anyone's evaluations but to find the happy medium which is believable.

From my sparse knowledge of physics, I can't believe that CO2 is a danger to the world when it is such a necessity to human existence. For me it's pollution which is the man-made danger and yet we're being asked to pay more and more of our money into 'omissions' while China and India instal more and more polluting machinery.

Something's very wrong somewhere. Where's the money going? Into whose pocket? Because certainly I see nothing for it. Oh except the fact that I had to install a combi-boiler two years ago because the government wouldn't let me replace my old type.

I don't mind paying my fair share. It's just that my share isn't fair.

subrosa said...

I would presume the weather and climate have always been spoken about since we inhabited these islands JJ.

subrosa said...

Pollution is man made EP not climate change. It's a natural phenomena.

Your wallpaper does sound interesting. :)

subrosa said...

Aye Apogee, I read about that at EUR.

As for the floods in Oz, was listening to the TV earlier and, after the BBC tried hard to make them the worst tragedy to hit Oz in a century, I turned to Sky only to hear a local man saying the area was prepared for such events as they were expected.

Aye I saw the older houses on stilts. A couple of years ago Australian friend came to stay a few days and told me of their new house out that way. They were building it on stilts and were shocked some were building from level earth foundations.

subrosa said...

AM, it is a very important part of the argument for their replies to be publicised as much as possible.

Related Posts with Thumbnails