Met Office- now a political mouthpiece!

[Elroy Blue]

The Met office have increasingly turned from an organisation predicting the weather to a Government mouthpiece on MMGW.

This article takes the biscuit! This MMGW tripe is getting sinister and echoes the methods of the Stasi in the cold war.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/clima...

[motco]

Isn't this effectively manmade global COOLING?

[lawrence hello]

How is this being a government mouthpiece? They're just publishing their research.

[elster]

The observations were based on a single Miltary AWACS on a sunny day.

So the reality is when following a plane you get a reduction in sunlight, it doesn't say how long the temporary cover lasts.

I would base research on a bit more data than that.

[Pesty]

Elroy Blue said:

The Met office have increasingly turned from an organisation trying to predict the weather and failing misserably

EFA

[Fort Jefferson]

motco said:

Isn't this effectively manmade global COOLING?

It's called global dimming. And yes, it does keep the earth cooler.

The day after the twin towers attack, when all planes were grounded, the USA was 1 or 2 degrees warmer.


Here you go.

Edited by Fort Jefferson on Sunday 29th November 17:09

[Uncle Fester]

The Met office was originally a department of the Royal Navy. It has always followed orders, there is no change.

Remember Michal Fish telling us that there would be no hurricane in southern England. The various equivalent forecasters in nearby European countries were all advising their citizens not to travel to England.

Had the Met office said there would be a Hurricane then there could have been more casualties when people panicked and tried to flee. Was it was a mistake or a deception?

[TheCarpetCleaner]

motco said:

Isn't this effectively manmade global COOLING?

Don't give them taxable ideas!!!!

[ShadownINja]

But but...

article said:

Mr Haywood said aviation-induced cirrus clouds had both a cooling effect, because of sunlight reflected back into space, and a warming effect, because of trapped heat.

“Studies show that, overall, the warming effect is stronger so aviation-induced clouds are helping to warm the planet,” he said.

[Dogwatch]

I believe the head of the Met.Office is a full-on MMGW enthusiast so it is hardly surprising that their pronouncements reflect this.

[tinman0]

Uncle Fester said:

Remember Michal Fish telling us that there would be no hurricane in southern England. The various equivalent forecasters in nearby European countries were all advising their citizens not to travel to England.

Had the Met office said there would be a Hurricane then there could have been more casualties when people panicked and tried to flee. Was it was a mistake or a deception?

IIRC he said the storm would head up the English Channel rather than come onshore.

[tank slapper]

Uncle Fester said:

Had the Met office said there would be a Hurricane then there could have been more casualties when people panicked and tried to flee. Was it was a mistake or a deception?

It wasn't either really. There was no hurricane, which is a specific pattern of weather. There was a very severe storm and there were warnings given, although the storm wasn't expected to hit land as hard as it did. There were no automatic weather recording buoys or ships in the area that would have allowed a more accurate forecast at the time, but a forecast is exactly that - pretty much a best guess as to what is going to happen. The situation was complex, with 3 low pressure systems affecting the area and given that computing power was limited in comparison to today, it isn't really surprising that they couldn't be more accurate.

[Uncle Fester]

tank slapper said:

Uncle Fester said:

Had the Met office said there would be a Hurricane then there could have been more casualties when people panicked and tried to flee. Was it was a mistake or a deception?

It wasn't either really. There was no hurricane, which is a specific pattern of weather. There was a very severe storm and there were warnings given, although the storm wasn't expected to hit land as hard as it did. There were no automatic weather recording buoys or ships in the area that would have allowed a more accurate forecast at the time, but a forecast is exactly that - pretty much a best guess as to what is going to happen. The situation was complex, with 3 low pressure systems affecting the area and given that computing power was limited in comparison to today, it isn't really surprising that they couldn't be more accurate.

He could have tried listening to the european forcasts. They got it right.

Perhaps the word hurricane is a tightly defined specific term and not exactly applicable.

But from my windows, I saw the roof on the house opposite take off after being hit by a tree, watching my garden shed take off and fly over the trees at the back and spending the next three days trapped in a village without power, cut off because the sheer number of fallen trees on the road.

It looked a lot like a hurricane to me.

[tank slapper]

Uncle Fester said:

Perhaps the word hurricane is a tightly defined specific term and not exactly applicable.

It is. A hurricane is a tropical storm, which is developed by rising warm, moist air from the ocean which then cools at altitude. This sets up a convection current which builds over time to produce very large weather systems. They have a very well defined centre, and carry large amounts of water and therefore usually bring a lot of rain with them.

We aren't usually affected by hurricanes in the UK, but we do get wind storms, which are the result of deep low pressure systems moving in from the atlantic.

[jesta1865]

elster said:

The observations were based on a single Miltary AWACS on a sunny day.

So the reality is when following a plane you get a reduction in sunlight, it doesn't say how long the temporary cover lasts.

I would base research on a bit more data than that.

i think i must be missing something?

they look at a single plane that creates trails on said day, which don't dissipate as they expected, and then as the day goes on more clouds form, and its down to the plane.

couldn't possibly be that the conditions were on the verge and the plane tipped it over as it flew in those areas, then as the day went on the conditions changed ever so slightly and more clouds formed as they would have if the plane had never been there.

how much more are these people going to stretch peoples incredulity to make a little point?

by their reckoning, global warming could be being caused by the world wide lack of head gear since the 60's on as we radiate too much heat from our noggins into the sky.

good grief!?!

[BJWoods]

don't read the next article then:

GPs 'should offer climate change advice to patients'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/clima...

Edited by BJWoods on Monday 30th November 16:15

Then again, if you exert your self 'exercising' you give out more CO2

Edited by BJWoods on Monday 30th November 16:16

[rs1952]

BJWoods said:

don't read the Telegraph then:

EFA

[BJWoods]

? it has put some quite sceptical stuff as well/ to be fair

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/chri...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230943/Cl...

bbc response
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/10/what...
as the blogger (a BBC reporter says he recieved emails in OCTOBER, search the leaked emails for BBC and Paul Hudson)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/clim...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/clim...

Edited by BJWoods on Tuesday 1st December 06:39

[IainT]

Fort Jefferson said:

motco said:

Isn't this effectively manmade global COOLING?

It's called global dimming. And yes, it does keep the earth cooler.

The day after the twin towers attack, when all planes were grounded, the USA was 1 or 2 degrees warmer.


Here you go.

Edited by Fort Jefferson on Sunday 29th November 17:09

Not proof that it was caused by a lack of flights thoug is it? Might just have been a warm day...

[theaxe]

IainT said:

Fort Jefferson said:

motco said:

Isn't this effectively manmade global COOLING?

It's called global dimming. And yes, it does keep the earth cooler.

The day after the twin towers attack, when all planes were grounded, the USA was 1 or 2 degrees warmer.


Here you go.

Not proof that it was caused by a lack of flights thoug is it? Might just have been a warm day...

That seems to be the conclusion