Thursday
Jan162014
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill More Met Office gongs
Jan 16, 2014 Climate: MetOffice Thanks to Greensand for alerting us to a new set of awards for Met Office staff, including our very own Richard Betts:
The new Science Fellows and their areas of expertise are:
- Mike Bell: Ocean Processes
- Richard Betts: Climate Impacts
- Dave Matthews: Computational Science and Modelling Infrastructure
- David Jackson: Space Weather and Stratospheric Dynamics
Julia Slingo, Chief Scientist, said 'I am delighted to make these appointments, which exemplify the excellence of our science, modelling and prediction activities across weather and climate. Along with the Deputy Directors and Strategic Heads, our Science Fellows play a critical role in the senior leadership of our Science Programme, and this leadership helps us to maintain our global standing in weather and climate science and services'.
Reader Comments (51)
Perhaps the higher he gets, the more RB will feel free to say what he likes*
*alternatively, they own you a little bit more :)
Perhaps Dave Matthews should move to Vegas where his expertise in making expensive random number generators will be perceived as an asset.
I wonder if they would be better employing their considerable talents producing a new series of Jackanory.
I think they would be naturals at it!
Awards all round and yet still the local area forecast for my region today was 100 per cent wrong - again!
And these people seriously expect us to believe they can predict years ahead?
Anybody know which excellent predictions she is talking about? Perhaps it's the ones for 50 to 100 years in the future.
What right has she to award the Met Office employees something which makes them "equivalent to a Professorship"?
I notice out very own Richard Betts is "Editor, International Journal of Global Warming". Well he won't have had anything to do in that role for the last 17 years.
Ár nDraíocht Féin
I find this whole gang obnoxious. The awarding of 'gongs' for a lack of honesty and contributing to the deaths of thousands of elderly people each winter leaves a very bad taste in the mouth.
What right has she to award the Met Office employees something which makes them "equivalent to a Professorship"?
Well she is a Dame now you know. She'll be just trying out her new magic powers to see what they do.
It's a different world to that which most of us inhabit. As I remarked the other day, Professorship as a title seems to be sufficiently diluted that folk who you wouldn't trust to make you a cup of tea now possess it.
And just imagine the riches and baubles if Richard and chums had got something right...
I'm glad to see that Richard hasn't been victimized yet for talking to climate infidels.
Congratulations, Richard.
And also congratulations to your colleague Dave Matthews. It can't be easy to balance a music career and science. Wiki notes that "Matthews has often supported environmental initiatives, such as biofuel availability and the fight against global climate change." ;-)
SimonW: All those years working in private industry and I never got an award like that. I feel distraught.
The only trophy in Bart Simpson's room was from "Everybody Gets a Trophy Day" at school.
If the Met Office is considered as a living organism, this is one of its protection mechanisms.
It knows that its survival depends on keeping its host convinced that what it does is science. This is an example of one of the creative ways it does that.
"and this leadership helps us to maintain our global standing in weather and climate science and services"
This is what is known as being seduced by your own advertising.
It must be true because we keep repeating it. (the mantra)
I would have more respect for these awards if the output of the Met Office had more credibility .
Private clients presumably pay mainly for weather forecasts. It is up to them whether they judge it to be value for money.
The rest of as pay through compulsory taxes. Like the BBC, the MO supplies us with biased programmes and propaganda in return.
'this leadership helps us to maintain our global standing in weather and climate science and services'.
why do the words 'damming with faint praises come to mind'
still perhaps one year they will get an award for correct weather forecasts, !
In the Met. Office, it never rains but it pours awards.
Big Yin,
I like Richard and whilst we should appreciate the fact that he talks to us from time to time and that he tries to counter some of the more outrageous warmist claims, when it suits him to do so, don’t go thinking he’s secretly on our side. He’s nowhere near it. See some of the articles he writes and the kind of stuff he retweets on Twitter. None of it is anywhere near what you’d term sceptical.
Nice one Richard! Congratulations. But stay grounded in reality.
It is hard to imagine anyone more smug or more buttressed from reality than 'Dame' Julia Sligo. She is the epitome of everything that is loathesome about 'big' government, its grotesquely wasteful spending of other people's money (aka yours and mine), its relentless self-satisfaction, its bone-headed stupidity, its endless self-congratulation.
She is marching us towards a kind of self-immolation while consistently praising herself for her superior knowledge – to say nothing of her superior salary.
How did a once rational people end up with such obvious cretins bossing us about?
Trebles and barbecue summers all round!!
It takes me back. 1789, Marie Antoinette gets a diamond pendant from the court as their most outstanding naturalist. Meanwhile, outside the pampered gardens of Versailles the natives grow restless...
It is not a perfect analogy since I think Marie has been much maligned, and was probably a very decent human being living in difficult times, and the massing mob was an early example of leftwing totalitarian fodder. But be that as it may, the echos of decadence, self-indulgence, and disconnection were too much to pass by.
The history of military awards, especially at the top end, is that they are often given at times of total disaster precisely because they were disasters.
Rorke's Drift was the highest awarded amount of VCs (and proportionately to the numbers involved particularly so). The reason was mainly to cover the bad news of Isandlwana -- which was an epic botch up -- with a minor tale of British heroism.
The purpose of medals is to distract from the nasty fact that people are being killed -- often for no good reason. To encourage people to do things that are actually pretty stupid on the face of it.
Why do we even bother with civil awards? The recent history of the Nobel Prizes in Literature and Peace suggest mainly as a political weapon to distract or obscure earlier blunders. In academic circles it is for being "right".
So it's no good complaining that these awards aren't justified. Almost no awards are. That's pretty much the point of them. They are given to distract attention from other matters, to award "correct" thinking/doing and to generally dish out largesse to make the benefactor feel good. It's pretty much beside the point if the recipient deserves it or not.
I respect people who fess up to their mistakes. So Met office, BBC & the rest please think about it sometime.
Latimer, HaroldW - Thanks for the congratulations!
Bish, Stephen Richards, MDGNN, Mooloo - note that this is a job, not an award or "gong"! (Hence the use of "appointment" in the Met Office announcement).
Incidentally, Phillip Bratby - Professor is also usually a job title not an award or qualification, unlike Doctor which is a qualification. (The exceptions are Honorary Prof or Visiting Prof, which universities can award to non-employees.) So, the Met Office is perfectly entitled to set up jobs which are equivalent to Professor. I'm already a Prof at Exeter University - see my home page. I am employed part-time there and part-time at the Met Office.
I look forward to observation of "leadership" ... let's start with its ethics.
SimonW wrote:
"Well she is a Dame now you know."
Would that be a pantomime dame? 'Widow Slingo' perhaps? in 'Snow White and the seven...' Oh, wait a minute, no snow; I was forgetting.
Philip Foster
Unfortunate choice of mockery there. Julia is indeed a widow - her husband Tony died just over 5 years ago.
Speaking of education at Exeter Uni, Tallbloke has flagged this up:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/01/14/exeter-university-climate-change-mooc-day-1/
There is a link to join - not sure if you can still enroll now the start day has passed.
Laurie Childs,
You missed out a word. Richard Betts doesn't talk to us, he talks down to us.
Richard Feynman had a lot to say about awards,medals, titles and prizes.
If he had had prior notice of his Nobel prize he would have rejected it, it was only because the whole world new about it before he did that he reluctantly accepted it.
But he was a proper scientist.
Congratulations, Richard Betts, and thanks for the clarifications.
What is it with jolly ole' England?
Are there really jobs for all of the truly loony climate wierdos in England and y'all give them awards too? Not only 'give' them awards, but those awards are going to several ex weather dum com show.
Please tell me it ain't so? (very pleading voice!)
I'm very impressed but what it's like to be 'standing in weather'?
Jan 16, 2014 at 10:28 PM | Richard Betts
Richard, first of all I want you to know that I forgive you for all your totally unsubstantiated opportunistic and knee-jerk accusations via oh-so-convenient tweet to the effect that I have "misrepresented" you and/or your words.
But, more importantly, I want to thank you for telling us all about HELIX (High-End cLimate Impacts and eXtremes):
So ... reading the above reminded me that during the course of one (or more!) of our previous discussions you went to considerable lengths to "divorce" yourself from the [at least then] canonical 2ºC. Sorry, can't put my mouse on this (in much belated retrospect) somewhat ambiguous pronouncement of yours. But if you - or anyone - insist, I'll find it!
And while you are considering your response to this (or not) perhaps you'd care to articulate the difference(s) between HELIX's "ground breaking" research vs those organizations (which may or may not include the U.K. Met Office) who claim that their research is "cutting edge".
Thanks :-)
Two
JagsJobs Betts, sorry couldn't stop the thought popping into my head. Congratulations on jobs and their titles." Professor is also usually a job title not an award or qualification"
I thought academia were keen to bestow professorships on people who work for government funded bodies, I wonder if that is a reward for any funds going their way?
Hilary
I guess you mean this tweet. I did feel you misrepresented me because you claimed I'd "confirmed that the IPCC process is unimproved", when actually I had simply countered your earlier and obviously loaded question with a good-natured comment (with a smiley ;-) ) The entire twitter thread can be read by scrolling up and down from the tweet linked to above.
I do see you sometimes go out of your way on your blog posts to make a little remark about something I've said recently online, eg. claiming that I'm "deflecting", "diverting", etc. These remarks of yours generally seem to have a particular (negative) theme and ignore many other aspects of my online discussions, and an observer might wonder whether this is an attempt to build some sort of narrative about me. In reality it probably isn't - as Richard Drake noted on a recent thread, it's quite obvious that you simply dislike me. That's fine, you don't have to like me, but equally I don't have to like what you write about me, and if I think it's unfair then of course I may object.
On 2 degrees, I expect you mean this post by me at Bishop Hill - the one that upset Bob Ward. And incidentally, I also thought Bob had misrepresented me in that discussion, as he also claimed I'd said something I didn't. So, you can feel in good company there ;-)
My BH post still reflects my views that there are massive uncertainties in future impacts of climate change, and indeed this is part of the motivation for the HELIX project, i.e.: to bring some deeper understanding of what exceeding 2 degrees actually means in terms of the range of potential impacts and the extent to which warming above this can be be adapted to. We still won't be able to address whether 2 degrees is "dangerous climate change", because (as I said in my BH post), I don't think this is a scientific question, but that's not the aim of the project. The aim is to improve the assessment of the impacts of climate change, and options for adaptation.
Re: "Groundbreaking" - in my view, the project does contain some highly innovative elements. One of these is to take a more complete view of impacts of climate change on water resource availability - currently this is done in a rather fragmented way, taking the outputs of climate models and then using this data in hydrological models. However, this leads to physical inconsistencies (loss of conservation of the water cycle) which in some cases can make the impacts seems worse (i.e.: too great a loss of water resource). We aim to improve this by using methods which maintain the physical consistency. Also, we will compare the results of different models which take very different approaches - for example, Richard Tol is also involved in the project, and his model will be compared with others so see how and why they differ in their projections of the future. Of course we'll also be comparing models against data.
@Richard Betts: because the real GHE is ~11 K and the IR physics is wrong, the climate models cannot predict future temperatures. Therefore the 2 K limit has no credence. In reality, the atmosphere uses CO2 as the working fluid in a control system which keeps terrestrial temperatures within narrow bounds, as shown by real temperature data.
Richard Betts
Congratulations on the post. I was wondering have you ever thought about doing any IR heating of water experiments to get a better handle on "forcing". A characterisation curve basically?
One of the key issues with AGW is that various components of the process haven't been characterised to any sufficient level especially in relation to engineering principles.
It probably wouldn't cost that much and might make a good PhD project.
I'm a physicist and an engineer myself, having worked for over ten years with space engines and aerospace systems. I also live in Exeter having recently moved. I've spent quite a few years performing characterisation experiments many that clearly contradicted theoretical thinking, not including my PhD before that. I might be able to help, but only if you're interested. Obviously you may be a bit busier!
You can get me through my website - here
Micky H Corbett "page not found"
Richard B: Strictly speaking I didn't say that Hilary disliked you but that
There may be a small delta above dislike in my regard for you that would allow this to be interpreted in a way more favourable to the both of you. :)
Thanks Martin A
Try this:
corvosastroengineering.com
iPhone commenting has its risks!
I'm already a prof at Exeter University.
Now we know why it has become a hotbed for climate catastrophism.
Richard Betts - in your reply to Hilary: "We still won't be able to address whether 2 degrees is "dangerous climate change", because (as I said in my BH post), I don't think this is a scientific question, but that's not the aim of the project. The aim is to improve the assessment of the impacts of climate change, and options for adaptation."
Bearing in mind that, pace what you said, you do not know how this whole CAGW thing is really going to pan out (is it 2, 4, 6 degrees?), what are your thoughts on the fact that Governments are committing trillions of our money to something that may in fact turn out to be quite benign - and certainly not as 'catastrophic' as a long period of cooling that might be coming our way? Are you aware of how your day job actually affects so many millions of people? Does it ever give you pause?
Re: Jan 17, 2014 at 11:33 AM | Martin A
Quite, and that was stated over a decade into the stop in global warming (aka 'pause' by some!!).
Interesting to note the incredibly deceptive graph on page 4 of that brochure.
http://www.worcester.gov.uk/fileadmin/assets/pdf/Environment/climate_change/DECC-MET-office-warming-brochure.pdf
No doubt Richard Betts is very uncomfortable that this record of the deceit pushed by the Met Office prior to the Copenhagen negotiations is still available on the internet. He did after all cause the direct link to the Met Office to be broken, during a discussion of the same on this blog. Can't have the evidence of their misdeeds there to haunt them!!!
The aim is to:
- improve the assessment
--of the impacts of climate change,
-- and options for adaptation
As a breakdown for discussion, beginning with the obvious; that the climate models fail to 'model even the earth's average temperature'. Unlike regional climate specifics like weather, the global average should be the easiest metric to attain.
There is no current assessment process for climate impacts in the models; in that no one has 'modeled' exactly what causes specific weather impacts in a region with any certainty. Improving something that doesn't exist is misdirection sophistry implying that what might exist is going to get better while obscuring it's current abject failures.
Climate change is normal, climate change is eternal. Now explicitly, what do you mean by climate change? Use all the paper you need, we'll wait.
Options for adaptation... OK, we have miserable uncertified failures for estimating future temperature changes; where does adaptation come in? Are you stating that the models will somehow magically transmogrify into sophisticated wonder technology capable of informing us which stocks to buy? It sure sounds like that's your statement. I'm suspecting sophistry again. Perhaps Australia should build more dams?
Jan 17, 2014 at 2:57 PM Marion
"The Met Office does not do propaganda" (RB on BH)
Martin A
I don't think the Met Office's association with the ActOnCO2 campaign a few years ago (eg. the 2009 brochure) is something that would happen now.
Of course this now means that we get criticised by some Greens for not supporting their cause, and told we are underplaying the seriousness and urgency of climate change, but this just shows that even by being objective you still can't please everyone! However, I believe this is the right position for a scientific organisation. It's probably only a matter of time before we get protesters outside the gates chanting "shame on you" and firing distress flares at us because of our work for the fossil fuel industry.....
Re: Jan 19, 2014 at 11:04 AM | Richard Betts
Oh I'm quite sure even the Met Office would not do a repeat of the brochure they produced in 2009.
http://www.worcester.gov.uk/fileadmin/assets/pdf/Environment/climate_change/DECC-MET-office-warming-brochure.pdf
Many members of the publice are much better informed now than they were then and it would be met with the derision it deserves.
But then there are other methods of pushing propaganda aren't there Richard.......