Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Do you Trust the Met Office?

Green Sand

Their involvement has ceased, on mass. Group think or directive?

Directive without a doubt. They are civil serpants and under strict rules about publishing stuff relevant to their work. Clearly it is/was in Richard Betts' job description and objectives ("outreach") but there can be no doubt that the others were reminded of their obligations.

Nov 20, 2015 at 10:22 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

NialC, you said

What I don't understand is how at any point any where at any time apart from seasonal variation, can temperatures go down given CO2 levels are rising. How do you explain any drop in temperature.
which implies that you accept that UK (I presume you are talking about UK as you used CET in your graph) temperatures can drop because of the seasons but not because of weather systems. You think that the weather is dominated by CO2. Or you think that is what warmists think. Or something....

Nov 20, 2015 at 1:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

I think global warming theory suggests increasing CO2 levels increases temperature. If that is true, with increasing CO2 levels in the real world, and temperatures not rising, the theory is incorrect.

Nov 21, 2015 at 5:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterNeilC

Raff: as you cannot get a person’s name spelled correctly, even when it is right in front of you, and available to copy and paste (NialC as opposed to NeilC), one has to suspect any information that you deign to offer to us to consider.

Nov 21, 2015 at 7:30 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

NielC are you still talking about CET? Or are you admitting that your essay on CET was nonsense and moving on?

Nov 21, 2015 at 8:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff


The advocates of climate science including the UKMO state CO2 is a well mixed gas within the atmosphere, ergo the measurements are the same all over the planet (with the exception of summer-winter seasonality).

So what is the problem of using a good temperature record like the CET to analyse the CO2/temperature argument. But it doesn't really matter what unadjusted temperature records you use. The principle is the same, if levels of CO2 is rising and temperature has either a zero or negative trend. The theory fails.

If you don't understand how simple that is, you are not very clever.

Nov 22, 2015 at 10:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterNeilC

ergo the measurements are the same all over the planet
No you misunderstand, the only 'ergo' is that, being well mixed, CO2 has the same effect on IR radiation all over the planet. Measurements on the other hand depend on lots of things (the combined effect of all other influences on local temperature). Even on BH, there's got to be a few people who understand that. I doubt they'll put you right though.

Nov 22, 2015 at 2:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Inspired by the King's lion-like fearlessness, the[url=] LeBron 11[/url] is designed to harness explosive force for complete control.
Cheap Lebron 11 South Beach Green Pink Blue Black

The[url=] Lebron 10 Store Offers Authentic Cheap Lebron 10[/url],Cheap Lebron Shoes,Cheap Lebron 10 MVP,New Fashion OF The Cheap Lebron 10
Cheap Lebron 10 Red Green

The new style[url=] Lebron 10 low cheap[/url] sale online.100% authentic Lebron 10 low for sale!Big discount and free shipping from Cheap Lebron 10 low store!
Cheap Lebron 10 Low Royal Blue

Nov 23, 2015 at 9:35 AM | Unregistered Commenternikefree50womens

Measurements on the other hand depend on lots of things (the combined effect of all other influences on local temperature)
NeilC has you bang to rights, I’m afraid, Fluff, as the “combined effect of all other influences on local temperature” can be considered a constant in the argument, as it is only the increase in CO2 that is causing the temperatures to rise. Or have you forgotten that part of the argument?

Nov 23, 2015 at 10:43 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Booker points out that the Met Office attempt to stir up the public's interest in storms is to name them, so we have had Abigail followed in alphabetical order by Barney. Unfortunately for the Met Office, the gales fizzled out and do not actually meet the definition of storms, but that didn't deter the MO from pressing ahead with the deception. Perhaps the next one will be Connie.

Nov 23, 2015 at 11:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

Of course the combined effect of all other influences on local temperature are significant,.
That's why we can't discern or measure the effect of CO2 on the climate anywhere.

And it's why AGW is nothing to worry about. It's irrelevant compared with that combined effect of all the other influences on local temperature.

Does anyone disagree with that?
Does anyone really doubt that the combined effect of all other influences on local temperature are significant?
Every observed temperature record shows those doubts would be unfounded.

Nov 23, 2015 at 12:28 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

Precisely, M Courtney – however, the basic tenet of the AGWistas is that it is only CO2 that is causing global warming, thus it is the total cessation of CO2 emissions that is essential. That this would mean reverting humanity to the Dark Ages is an unfortunate side effect, but – hey – they never said it would be easy! (Well, except for them, as, well, somebody needs to in charge!)

Nov 23, 2015 at 4:35 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical, in a stroke you have eliminated weather. Well done!

Nov 23, 2015 at 5:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff


You do have a quite remarkable ability to completely misunderstand the point of a person’s post, don’t you, Fluff?

What is the most commonly-blamed cause of the whole global warming/climate change/call it what you will farrago? Would you accept that this is/has been blamed as the prime component in AGW/ACC/CIWYW? Should you accept that to be true, then surely it has to surpass the “combined effects of all other influences on local temperature”? (It has to, else how could it be considered the prime component of AGW/ACC… you get the message?) If you think otherwise, then why should we be in such a lather to reduce CO2 emissions, as they do not have the drastic effect that has been claimed for them?

Now, I shall sit back and observe how you much more of a fool you make of yourself in your twisting of the logic of this post.

Nov 23, 2015 at 9:52 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Ratty, you seem to think that for an average to go up, all components of that average must go up. In other words, as you probably need that explained, CO2 raises average global temperature and you think this means that temperatures everywhere must rise, with no local variation (weather etc).

Nov 24, 2015 at 9:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Lordy, Raff.

If the global warmers and their models could tell us which temperatures they expect to go down, then I would start to consider taking them seriously.

But we know that their local/regional predictions are even worse than their global predictions.

And they know we know.

Nov 24, 2015 at 11:00 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Michael, NielC (and perhaps Ratty) thinks that the central England temperature (CET) record is a sufficient proxy for the entire planet because CO2 is well mixed - see above. If CET goes down, the whole planet is getting colder. Nothing to do with models, just scarcely believable idiocy.

Nov 25, 2015 at 1:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Daff: do we? Where on Earth do you get that conclusion from?

Nov 25, 2015 at 2:15 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

I agree. If the Judge really described Yeo's evidence in the terms cited at the foot of the article, in my opinion, he should immediately be kicked out of Parliament without any golden goodbyes/parachutes.

Nov 25, 2015 at 12:01 PM | Unregistered Commenterrichard verney

Richard Verney, Yeo is no longer an MP.

He was, so the story went, spending so much time gorging at the green trough that his own constituency Conservative Party de-selected him before the election. A fate more often reserved for MPs who may not have been prosecuted, but who have been seen publicly as being guilty of gross moral turpitude.

Nov 25, 2015 at 2:57 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

sorry. wrong thread.

Nov 25, 2015 at 2:59 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

See NielC above with his "ergo...". I don't know whether you think the same, which his why I said "and perhaps Ratty".

Nov 25, 2015 at 5:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

"Michael, NielC (and perhaps Ratty) thinks that the central England temperature (CET) record is a sufficient proxy for the entire planet.."

There you go again, Raff, making up things that people never said. I do not recall ever having expressed an opinion, anywhere, to the effect that the CET is, or is not, a good proxy for the planet.
I challenge you to show otherwise.

However, since is thread is about the Met Office, I can indicate that at least someone at the Met office thinks that the CET is such an adequate proxy. I quote Tonyb, writing only a few hours ago at Judith Curry's blog:

climatereason | November 25, 2015 at 10:21 am | Reply
Ceresco kid.

In the last point of my ‘notes’ section I mention those who believe CET is a worthwhile proxy.

Certainly the Met office believe it to be so, they have actually said it to my face during meetings there I have had.


Tonyb has spent a lot of time manually searching the archives at the Met Office during his work to extend the CET further back in time, and always indicates that he is on good terms with them. Do you doubt either of them is being truthful on this specific point?

Nov 25, 2015 at 5:30 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

The advocates of climate science including the UKMO state CO2 is a well mixed gas within the atmosphere, ergo the measurements are the same all over the planet…
Are you truly unable to see what NeilC is saying, there? He is not the one claiming that the measurements are the same all over the planet, he is pointing out that it is the advocates of climate science who make that claim. Let me rephrase it for you: “The advocates of climate science (including the UKMO) state that, as CO2 is a well-mixed gas within the atmosphere, it uniformly influences temperature measurements, worldwide…” Really, you are only proving his last sentence in that posting, Daft.

The reason why the CET is so important is that it is the oldest continuous series of temperature measurements, thus is the only record that can show a trend over that time period. That the trend is more or less flat can be taken as you wish.

Nov 25, 2015 at 7:55 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Michael, when I said, "Michael, NielC (and perhaps Ratty) thinks that the central England temperature (CET) record is a sufficient proxy for the entire planet.", it was not a list of Michael and NielC. I put "Micheal" there to indicate that I was answering you, just like I just did here. If I had wanted to make a list, I would have said, "Michael, NielC and (perhaps) Ratty think that...". See the difference? See the verb tense (think vs thinks). See how the language works? It is tricky, I admit.

On CET as a "worthwhile proxy", it may well be useful as such for some purposes, but I doubt anyone thinks equivalent to a measure of global temperature, as NielC says with: "ergo the measurements are the same all over the planet".

Nov 25, 2015 at 7:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff


Take deeper breaths.

Nov 25, 2015 at 11:56 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart