I agree with what you say, Martin. In the current era of European
"get-togetherness" it appears increasingly out of step that we have all
these overlapping and competing national met services. It would surely
be far more cost-efficient to have a single European Weather Service.

Don't you mean cheaper rather than cost-effective, Norman? They're not
necessarily the same thing, except to those of the fundamentalist-accountant
tendency.
Each of the various models gives a different output, and sometimes one is
right, at other times another one is. The fewer models in operation the slower
the rate of improvement, it would seem to me. There is a scientific case for a
certain amount of diversity.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

"Norman Lynagh" wrote in message
news:sgkGraI3RV1AFwk8@weather-
I agree with what you say, Martin. In the current era of European
"get-togetherness" it appears increasingly out of step that we have all
these overlapping and competing national met services. It would surely
be far more cost-efficient to have a single European Weather Service.

Norman.

http://www.metoffice.com/corporate/p...r20030415.html

Jon.

For Michael Mckintyre's vision of future global forecasting see-
http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/peopl...n-of-future.ps

http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/people/mem/oldftp/
(published in the Bergen symposium volume 'Lifecycles of Extratropical Cyclones' ,AMS 1999,

--
regards,
david
(add 17 to waghorne to reply)

In message , Philip Eden
writes

"Bill" wrote in message
...
Oh dear another illusion shattered.

Good forecaster you may well be Philip but sadly you seem to be
yet
another right wing ideologue. Private is best and all that.

LOL ...

Wrong on both counts, Bill. Far too old and too lazy to be
called a good forecaster, and as for the other, you've no
idea how funny that is.

Philip Eden


No; I'm spot on about the forecasting your contributions and comment,
wherever I encounter them, are invariably excellent.

Great to hear I've got the right wing stuff wrong and I'm more than
pleased to admit my error, eat humble pie and offer a fulsome and
sincere apology.

--
Bill

"Bill" wrote in message
...
In message , Philip Eden
writes

"Bill" wrote in message
...
Oh dear another illusion shattered.

Good forecaster you may well be Philip but sadly you seem to be
yet
another right wing ideologue. Private is best and all that.

LOL ...

Wrong on both counts, Bill. Far too old and too lazy to be
called a good forecaster, and as for the other, you've no
idea how funny that is.

Philip Eden


No; I'm spot on about the forecasting your contributions and comment,
wherever I encounter them, are invariably excellent.

Great to hear I've got the right wing stuff wrong

If you believe that you will believe anything!

Philip supports the policies of Margaret Thatcher, has no
qualms about writing for that Tory rag The Daily Telegraph,
and sets up a UK weather newsgroup with the restriction that
global warming should not be discussed because it is
political. It is no wonder that with an attitude like that, he will
not face up to the fact that the greatest threat to mankind is
abrupt global warming. Read "The Discovery of Rapid Climate
Change" here;
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-56/iss-8/p30.html
if you do not know what I mean. He is as conservative as
all the other scientists :-(

Cheers, Alastair.

.... this thread is about the Met Office and it's history and futu
something we all have a right to write about, as directly and
indirectly, we all pay for the thing! I don't think we are going to get
anywhere discussing personal belief / politics etc. Have a look at
sci.geo.meteorology if you want to see how that newsgroup has been
virtually neutered by such "discussion".

Let's keep it clean and tidy people ... please ;-)

Martin.

In article ,
Alastair McDonald k
writes:
Philip supports the policies of Margaret Thatcher, has no
qualms about writing for that Tory rag The Daily Telegraph,
and sets up a UK weather newsgroup with the restriction that
global warming should not be discussed because it is
political.

This is a distortion. First, Philip didn't set up the group, but merely
proposed it. Second, and more importantly, there is nothing in the
group's charter saying that global warming should not be discussed. All
the charter says something to the effect that discussions should be from
a scientific rather than from an environmental activist standpoint. So
if you post an article presenting scientific evidence for global
warming, there is no problem with it at all.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"

"John Hall" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Alastair McDonald k
writes:
Philip supports the policies of Margaret Thatcher, has no
qualms about writing for that Tory rag The Daily Telegraph,
and sets up a UK weather newsgroup with the restriction that
global warming should not be discussed because it is
political.

This is a distortion. First, Philip didn't set up the group, but merely
proposed it. Second, and more importantly, there is nothing in the
group's charter saying that global warming should not be discussed. All
the charter says something to the effect that discussions should be from
a scientific rather than from an environmental activist standpoint. So
if you post an article presenting scientific evidence for global
warming, there is no problem with it at all.

Well I posted a link to a scientific article which shows that scientists
have been too conservative in facing up to the dangers of global
warming.
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-56/iss-8/p30.html
Did you read it? Do you and, more to the point, does Philp Eden,
accept that the danger is not from a slow steady global warming
but from sudden climate change taking place over a timespan
of only five years?

Cheers, Alastair.

"Martin Rowley" wrote in message
...
... this thread is about the Met Office and it's history and futu
something we all have a right to write about, as directly and
indirectly, we all pay for the thing! I don't think we are going to get
anywhere discussing personal belief / politics etc. Have a look at
sci.geo.meteorology if you want to see how that newsgroup has been
virtually neutered by such "discussion".

Does that sound like double speak to anyone else :-?

sci.geo.meteorology discuss a problem that 'the head of one of the world's
biggest oil companies has admitted makes him "really very worried for the
planet"'.

'His words follow those of the government's chief science adviser, David King,
who said in January that climate change posed a bigger threat to the world
than terrorism.'

'"You can't slip a piece of paper between David King and me on this position,"
said Lord Oxburgh, a respected geologist who replaced the disgraced Philip
Watts as chairman of the British arm of the oil giant in March.'

'He followed his long-standing academic career with spells as chief science
adviser to the Ministry of Defence and rector of Imperial College, London. A
crossbench life peer, he still chairs the Lords science and technology select
committee, although he must retire from Shell next year.'

See;
Oil chief: my fears for planet
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...240496,00.html

But we are not allowed to discuss the biggest problem facing meteorology
today because it is considered political. When senior British scientists are
speaking out about global warming, surely it is this newsgoup which is
"virtually neutered" by a charter which is too conservative!

Cheers, Alastair.

In article ,
Alastair McDonald k
writes:
Well I posted a link to a scientific article which shows that scientists
have been too conservative in facing up to the dangers of global
warming.
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-56/iss-8/p30.html
Did you read it?

I've read it now. An interesting read.

Do you and, more to the point, does Philp Eden,
accept that the danger is not from a slow steady global warming
but from sudden climate change taking place over a timespan
of only five years?

Reading the article, there seems to be evidence that a change on that
timescale has happened in the past on at least one occasion. That does
not prove that we are going to see a dramatic change over that sort of
timespan this time. It's not impossible, but my gut feeling is that it's
unlikely. But I'm no expert (but nor does the author of that article
seem to be, as he appears to be a physicist rather than a
climatologist). If it's any consolation, I do believe that anthropogenic
global warming is occurring, and that it's certainly possible that its
future progress may be neither slow or steady.
--
John Hall
"I look upon it, that he who does not mind his belly,
will hardly mind anything else."
Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-84)