NationalGrid – Not one of Met Office’s ‘intelligent’ customers?

According to a piece by the BBC’s Martin Rosenbaum in December last year, the UK Met Office puts probabilistic seasonal data on the scientific pages of its website where, in the words of a Met Office board paper, such figures can be ‘more targeted towards users who appreciate their value and limitations’, (i.e. not members of the public).

Rosenbaum goes on to add that:

As another document put it, ‘Intelligent’ customers (such as the Cabinet Office) find probabilistic forecasts helpful in planning their resource deployment.

Based on this and the information published in a document on NationalGrid’s website – as shared by Joe Public guest posting on Subrosa – we can only conclude that the NationalGrid is not one of the Met Office’s so called ‘intelligent’ customers…

It seems NationalGrid find probabilistic forecasts helpful in planning their supply of gas to the nation.  So it seems more than curious that the operator of this country’s gas network was not let in on the secret forecast that was withheld from the public.  Again it is pertinent to ask just why the Met Office issues these forecasts (that they claim are not actually forecasts) at all.

If NationalGrid – with its national strategic interest in seasonal forecasts – is not one, just who are these ‘users who appreciate their value and limitations’?  Perhaps that is yet another question the Met Office can answer.  In the meantime we await their formal response to the FOI we have submitted to them and the Cabinet Office.

6 Responses to “NationalGrid – Not one of Met Office’s ‘intelligent’ customers?”


  1. 1 permanentexpat 23/01/2011 at 11:25 pm

    Who pays for the Met Office?
    Who pays for the National Grid?
    Could it be the same people who pay for the bullets that are used in guns?

  2. 2 artwest 24/01/2011 at 2:47 am

    The first, and possibly last, time that the words ‘Intelligent’ and ‘Cabinet’ have ever appeared in the same sentence.

  3. 3 Cassandra King 24/01/2011 at 6:16 am

    The met office must be using its connections to prevent the scandal from emerging into the MSM yet bit by bit more information is coming to light yet its own website gives up clues as to the truth.

    What is the point of a weather forecaster if they will not or cannot forecast the weather? Yet the met office still claims to be able to predict the climate decades into the future to a stunningly high level of accuracy.
    The met office website highlights its support for a political CAGW narrative with a section on “supporting climate change week” Hmmm! What is climate change week I wonder? It seems that the met office is heavily involved in organizing a political campaign.
    The met office website places climate change second to weather with and yet more there is more information on climate change than there is on its actual responsibility with climate projections based on IPCC projections which they claim are “midrange” but what is this midrange of which they speak and what does it actually mean and why have they chosen to present a model from the IPCC at all? This is what the met office claim on their website.

    “The projections are also based on emissions scenarios, such as the level of CO2 emissions increasing or decreasing. Many different scenarios are used, based on estimates of economic and social growth, and this is one of the major sources of uncertainty in climate prediction. But even if greenhouse gas emissions are substantially reduced, the long lifespan of CO2 in the atmosphere means that we cannot avoid further climate change due to CO2 already in the atmosphere.”

    Now notice the use of scenarios and notice the determination that CO2 IS the cause of climate change and also notice the claim that CO2 has a long lifespan in the atmosphere when the latest research refutes this claim! So the met office seems to be using out of date science and using models we now know are wholly inaccurate because they fail to take into account negative feedbacks and natural forcings.
    The last sentence condemns them does it not? Just how does the met office know for sure that we cannot avoid further climate change due to the CO2 already in the atmosphere if there is now so much uncertainty as to the effects and longevity of atmospheric CO2? The met office is using out of date and now unreliable evidence to proclaim CAGW. They have morphed into a political pressure group as they hide from the latest science and rely instead on political trickery to attempt to cover this very inconvenient truth.
    The statement that “even if CO2 emissions are substantially reduced” is meaningless because humanity only produces a tiny fraction of atmospheric CO2 but rather than explain this they rely on the tricksters art of bait and switch, these confidence tricksters cannot even explain the ratio of natural and human contributions and I can only wonder why?
    The met office are selling a product, there is so much uncertainty and there are so many unknowns and yet they are so certain that CAGW is a fact and that CO2 is the cause of the current slight ‘measured warming’. This is the certainty of the fool. The met office website is nothing more than a politically motivated propaganda campaign using dodgy out of date science and a massive dose of cynical manipulation. I urge all readers to visit the met office website it is a treasure trove of information that shows the met office for who and what they really are.

  4. 4 Cassandra King 24/01/2011 at 7:21 am

    Just an added thought.
    Why is the met office taking part in a political campaign at all? Its clear that this “climate change week” is nothing more than a political campaign to spread CAGW propaganda and is not going to analyse the science in an impartial manner. The met office role is to add a credibility that is lacking, it is supposed to add an air of impartial authority ‘if the met office is involved it must be true’ and so its about shaping perceptions and manipulating people into accepting a political cause as having a scientific basis.
    Look how far the met office has sunk into the cesspit of political ideology!

  5. 5 Barry 24/01/2011 at 2:13 pm

    Cassandra King said: “Now notice the use of scenarios and notice the determination that CO2 IS the cause of climate change …”

    The ‘proof’ that CO2 is the cause of the temperature trend is entirely circular. Computer models programmed to use CO2 as the driver of temperature trends show a vague match to the temperature records if they are run from the start of the 20th Century.(But how accurate these records are remains to be seen) The CO2 signal is then removed and the models again run through the 20th Century. This obviously results in a much flatter trend which doesn’t correspond to the temperature record, and this is what is claimed to be proof that CO2 drives the warming trend we have seen.

    Except it isn’t. It is merely proof the computer models are pre-programmed to produce warming as CO2 rises.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-9-2.html

  6. 6 Joe Public 24/01/2011 at 7:43 pm

    Thanks for the HatTip.

    National Grid undoubtedly have more than one weather-information supplier, and this proves the value & importance of their strategic policies, because there were no widespread power cuts or gas supply shortages.

    [Or, they just looked at their calendar and though “winter’s on its way, better get some fuel stocks in”.)

    @ permanentexpat: Gas and electricity consumers choose to use National Grid’s services & pay transportation charges accordingly. It’s voluntary. [Or, you can choose to use windmills & photo-voltaic cells on your roof.]


Comments are currently closed.



Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive