Met-Office invents infallible climate prediction method

Well spotted Roger. Stuff you cannot make up keeps getting made up none the less using our money!

Tallbloke's Talkshop

The Met-Office has issued a ‘decadal’ climate forecast which runs from 2018 to 2023. Maybe it should be called a ‘semi-decadal forecast’ instead, but we’ll let it pass, as that’s not the most amusing aspect of it by a long chalk.

For starters, there’s the baseline period chosen. 1850-1900. They’ve gone for this so they can scare us with the upper end of the blue prediction envelope exceeding the Dangerous! Global! Warming! politically chosen figure of 1.5C above “pre-industrial”.

Here’s the global measuring station coverage between 1891 and 1920. There was a lot less in 1850.

I thought it would be fun to see how the Met-O forecast is doing after 10 months, so I plotted the latest annually averaged HadCRUt 4 global data using Wood For Trees in red and overlaid it on the Met-O prediction plot:

View original post 278 more words

Climate Bombshell: Global Warming Scare Is Based on ‘Careless and Amateur’ Data, Finds Audit

You would think the main stream media should take an interest in this? Monumental incompetence and no oversight/QA leads to billions missspent on climate action, could there be a bigger story today?

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

Breitbart reports on a newly published audit of the Hadley Centre’s Global Temperature Dataset

Climate Bombshell: Global Warming Scare Is Based on ‘Careless and Amateur’ Data, Finds Audit

By James Delingpole

Giuseppe Ciccia/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images

The first ever audit of the world’s most important temperature data set has found it to be so riddled with errors that it is effectively useless.

HadCRUT4 is the primary dataset used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to make its dramatic claims about “man-made global warming”, to justify its demands for trillions of dollars to be spent on “combating climate change” and as the basis for the Paris Climate Accord.

But according to a groundbreaking analysis by Australian researcher John McLean it’s far too sloppy to be taken seriously even by climate scientists, let alone a body as influential as the IPCC or by the governments of the world.

“It’s…

View original post 967 more words