On Your Bike, Met Office!
December 22, 2024
By Paul Homewood
Since when was it the Met Office’s job to tell us how to travel?
89 Comments
Comments are closed.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.
Recent Comments
Gamecock on Three Years To Save The W… Gray on Net Zero Is An Engineering Fan… glenartney on Net Zero Is An Engineering Fan… oomhead on Three Years To Save The W… dougbrodie1 on Three Years To Save The W… Artyjoke on Net Zero Is An Engineering Fan… a-man-of-no-rank on Net Zero Is An Engineering Fan… Devoncamel on Three Years To Save The W… geoff bancroft on Three Years To Save The W… glenartney on Net Zero Is An Engineering Fan…
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
The Met Office is past redemption. An honest person would not work there.
I wonder what emissions they have in mind? Water vapour? Particulate matter? Heat?
Yes indeed Phillip, way past redemption. Every additional day I research the subject I find more weasel words, data manipulation and outright lies. I will shortly be publishing over on Tallbloke’s site their latest FOI response regarding aviation sites – aka yet another lie exposed.
The Met Office should be restricted to weather forecasting and nothing else.
With both budget and staffing-level proportional to its previous year’s accuracy.
.. and from another angle ( as always) it’s the Draft angle for a bit of penetration, you’ll understand …. “An honest person would not work there” Well our Children are wondering just WHERE to go find a job… WHERE is honesty nowadays? Maybe just dishing up produce: but don’t ask them about the sincerity/integrity of the ingredients or they’ll be done for misrepresentation !
“China to be an enemy of the State …” yet so much of what we buy and use has the advert line “Made in China” blazoned across it. So do you sell or repair using these components ?
Made in China now includes Colgate toothpaste….
100% of human emissions are from Homo sapiens , strange that.
Since they decided that “the science is clear”.
https://jaimejessop.substack.com/p/the-science-is-clear-warming-since
100% of human emissions come from Homo sapiens , strange that?
‘Everyday actions to tackle climate change’ – juvenile fantasy.
Gosh, in my juvenile days I had much more interesting fantasies!
Me too, one was having a nice warm reliable car to save me a 4 mile walk or bike ride to the nearest shop/bus stop/mates house!
Such as ‘How to make a bigger bang’? Or wasn’t chemistry your ‘thing’? 🤔
Glen and Joe, I have to admit that most of my fantasies revolved around either being a “Rock God” or young pretty ladies….or both!
The MET Office’s job to tell us how to travel?
Well, I’m sure you, Paul, and many other readers on here, could give the MET a few little hints about how they should do their job, or just revert to how they used to do it before being subverted by Fraudster activists like Sligo and Betts.
The total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04 % . And 97% of that is naturally produced . Of all the human emissions just 1% is from the UK and about 20% odd of that is from transport .
So that means just 1 part in 50 million parts of the atmosphere comes from vehicles .
The scientific evidence shows that all of the CO2 has no measureable effect on the climate , but the constant stream of lies and propaganda from the media is all about the Marxist plan to destroy our economy which is what the whole climate change fraud was invented for .
I had a conversion with my sister along the lines of your comment. Her answer was that she had written a paper on Climate Change for some sort of degree (so that makes her an expert doesn’t it?) and it wasn’t about the numbers. Although she couldn’t tell me what is was about.
Oh dear, did the ‘conversation’ hurt so much which led to the conversion? 🙂 but aye, not about numbers. our Maths Teachers told us that Life WAS about numbers. Even MartynLewis’ recent program about games said it.
Just shows how many useless degrees there are around in the bloated university sector.
“The total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04 % . And 97% of that is naturally produced . Of all the human emissions just 1% is from the UK and about 20% odd of that is from transport .
“So that means just 1 part in 50 million parts of the atmosphere comes from vehicles .”
But, but, but – that’s mathematics!
And mathematics is colonialist and sexist and all the rest!
The Met. Office seems to work on emotions – despite all the notional white coats!
Let’s all be WEFfy!
Auto
Aye, so they say. Carrot n Stick … in crool schuel. Do your maths, graduate, now DON’T believe the maths you learnt…. Is that not about it?
Here is a little example of the Met Office’s amazing ability in prediction. They have a weather station for which they claim a continuous temperature record for the same location since 1873.
Yes they predicted the Orville Brothers first flight by 30 years and the construction of an airport by 64 years, then managed to locate the “Stornoway Airport” weather station in just the right spot by the taxiway in 1873.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/historic-station-data
The small fact that the weather station was actually over 3 miles away in the grounds of Lews Castle up until 1968 is completely irrelevant!
Oh you ARE awful … But I do like your comment! “.. predicting all those things ..”
Once the leftie cancer creeps in the once respected institutions are hollowed out. BBC is another good example.
gezza, The trouble is that there are so many good examples – those you mention, plus the National Trust; the RSCPA [tho perhaps not ‘woke’ enough for the BBC bloke]; the Energy Institute [which used to be the Petroleum Institute!] and other ‘learned’ – now ‘boughten’ societies; the Church of England [aka XR at Prayer]; almost anything connected with education; the Metropolitan Police [and very possibly many other Police Services – no longer ‘Forces’]; most organisations in the ‘meejah’; lots of councils; certainly parts of the Armed Forces! [see link below];and – not least – what used to be called the ‘Conservative Party’, now ‘The Useless Tories’.
Link : – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66060490#:~:text=The%20head%20of%20the%20RAF,pressure%20to%20meet%20diversity%20targets.
Auto
The US has the API – American Petroleum Institute – but the body in the UK was the Institute of Petroleum which was august enough to hold “IP Week” every February, culminating in a black tie dinner at the Dorchester with a very high profile speaker – Maggie Thatcher herself while PM one year for example. You were likely to meet the odd OPEC oil minister at some of the other parties that were held, or Alexei Miller (Head of Gazprom): it attracted people with real power to meet up informally. A magnet for oil and gas traders from around the world, and a test of endurance for ability to manage alcohol intake and up to all-night sessions in assorted London night clubs such as Annabel’s, Tokyo Joe’s and Stringfellow’s (I recall one night when the man himself ran a lock-in til about 6:30a.m.). The biggest parties might have a well known band or singer as entertainment. Sometimes quite serious negotiations during the day which required a clear head.
Where are they going to put the weather stations to get even higher temperatures than alongside runways?
In walled kitchen gardens, alongside air con outlets, by electricity sub stations, surrounded by solar panels, alongside car parks, in front of south facing walls……the list is endless.
Trust me I know where they all are
All this tiresome moralising has the opposite effect.
The Met Office are just signposting a Government public policy advice from the Department of Transport .
All political parties are signed up to this belief.
cookers – “All political parties are signed up to this belief.”
I thought that Reform are rather agin the WEFfy agenda of Goodies [reliable electricity, travel, meat, etc.] for ME – but not for deplorable you.
Auti
In haste! Soz.
Auto
The Reform battle plan is to grow at a local level targeting the May elections that Liebour are now trying to avoid with their rushed and ill thought out local government reshuffle. Then in 2026 there are the Welsh elections to focus on. I think the election this year was too soon for Reform to win many seats but the level of the votes will encourage more people to dump the Nigerian led Tories and the Ed Davey clown party, and of course the Student Union are sinking themselves so fast they will lose votes.
gezza, I suggest that ‘student union’, as a synonym for Sir Starmer’s bunch of clowns on day-release, is really rather hard on many student unions – certainly the one I led [err, yes, 40+ years ago!].
But as shorthand – it’s pretty good!
Auto
91% of all incorrect weather forecasts are from the Met Office!
Those of a certain age will remember Bill Foggert, amateur weather forecaster who used nature to assist his accuracy which invariably beat the computer led MO.
Met Office forecasted the end of days snow storms to hit the UK December 21st……………..and we got………..nothing but miserable rain.
All that MetOrifice post does is point out how valuable road transport is to the economy.
Oh? not the railways ? What does Public transport use then? Is it safe to use the inland canals and towpaths ?
Canals replaced coastal shipping, cutting time and cost. Railways replaced canals, as they were able to reach more towns and cities quicker and more conveniently. Roads improved and self-propelled vehicles replaced railways, allowing door-to-door service. As with every technology, older versions still fill a niche, canals for leisure, railways for some freight and passengers, albeit on a much reduced network from their heyday. Aircraft have replaced surface transport for longer distances. Drones or somesuch may well replace road transport over shorter distances.
A road of some description goes to pretty much every place you might want to go and has done for centuries. The wonderful and compact internal combustion engine has provided the driving force for vehicles that are often the most convenient way to travel. No timetables to worry about, no wondering if any train drivers can take a break from counting their heaps of cash to drive a train etc.
Canals really replaced horse and cart rather than coastwise shipping which is still very much used for bulk goods, being cheaper than road transport for longer journeys. Canals enabled transport of goods and supplies for the Industrial Revolution. For oil there is also competition from pipelines. Rail was originally also about freight.
What’s the point of the met office? We can get our weather from other world wide sources. Rachel could save more than a few bob by closing it down!
Rachel from Accounts is not into saving money – just raising taxes. If only we could have a team like Donald and Elon here. By 2029 Donald will have served his second term so perhaps Elon can come over and with Farage wield the axe over the reams of waste here.
Yes, the purpose of high wasteful spending is to justify high taxation. High taxation is the goal.
Private weather companies get much of their data from government weather services, so they cannot immediately replace the government services.
It’s not going well on Twitter, nobody appears to agree with them!
I’ve been having a conversation elsewhere with someone who says forecasts out as far as 14 days are accurate enough to know how much gas needs to be available to keep the lights on.
I then got asked why big businesses were investing in renewables.
There’s still a long uphill battle ahead.
Warren Buffet answered the “Why invest?” question: it’s the subsidies.
I’d disagree that forecasts are good enough 14 days out: there are very good reasons why electricity trading is dominated by the Day Ahead market and 9 out of 10 of them are called renewables uncertainty. Even then there is often substantial trading right up to gate closure. Try looking at this page, and perhaps downloading some of the history to see divergences between forecast and outturn wind.
https://bmrs.elexon.co.uk/wind-generation
On the Twitter site they say ‘the climate is changing’. That’s a flat lie and way outside the Met Office remit which is to report the facts of today’s meteorology with the best short term forecasts they can manage. Wandering into climatology requires the requisite scientific staff and laboratory facilities and what not. Amateurs.
On the Twitter site they say ‘the climate is changing’. That’s a flat lie and way outside the Met Office remit which is to report the facts of today’s meteorology with the best short term forecasts they can manage. Wandering into climatology requires the requisite scientific staff and laboratory facilities and what not. Amateurs.
‘the climate is changing’.
The climate has always changed. It was changing long before humans appeared on earth and will continue to change long after humans have left earth.
We have a changing climate but ‘climate change’ is not real as it is a definition by the UNFCCC that says it is caused by humans producing CO2.
The climate has always changed.
A gross overstatement. No climate has changed in our lifetimes.
“The climate has always changed” is a simple statement of fact.
Your climate hasn’t changed in 150 years. You have double-ought zero evidence that any climate is changing now. liardetg’s assertion remains true.
Your climate
I don’t have a climate, but there are various climates.
I don’t claim to be able to see the future, but the climate has always changed, see historical climate change over the eons.
Where did 150 years come from?
UK climate has been Cfb (Köppen) since hard winters and cold springs ended in 1882.
“The climate has always changed” is a statement that has no national boundaries, but the UK winters + early springs of 1947 and 1963 were hard and cold by UK standards, which undermines “hard winters and cold springs ended in 1882“
“The climate has always changed and will always continue to change irrespective of human activities” undermines the believers’ belief that the climate was unchanging until CO2 levels created by humans increased.
You don’t know the difference between weather and climate.
Imagine a Birkenstock stamping on a pedal – for ever.
91% of emissions, but about 95% of journeys ? So arguably the most efficient !
Also, I wonder if they are properly taking into account air transport ?
Shipping does about 90% of world trade – either raw materials or goods, now usually containerised. And efficiently, as there is ‘only’ water resistance to be overcome.
Canals can be efficient, but rather rely on bulk goods movement, from well-defined starting and ending points – on a canal; once the ‘pipeline’ was full – one barge dispatched every day, for example, the goods would arrive efficiently [if slowly!].
Similarly, railways prospered, way-back, when the UK manufactured bulky ‘things’, with dedicated ‘factory sidings’.
And flying – https://fashionunited.uk/news/business/temu-and-shein-reportedly-responsible-for-88-flights-of-cargo-planes-per-day/2024052875777
Auto
It wasn’t quite so much cargo transport that I was thinking about, more people transport. I do recall there is something funny about how air transport emissions are accounted for by country.
Cycling
Modern agriculture is basically a system of turning fossil fuel calories into food calories.
Very inefficiently too. Beef is something like 200 fossil fuel calories per beef calorie produced. Plants are more efficient, but even so on average the ratio is something like 10 to 1.
That is the farm-gate efficiency. We need to add the calories used in transport, cold storage, processing, distribution, all those air-conditioned supermarkets with their freezers etc etc.
A cyclist as a machine is less than 10% efficient overall. So they are burning food calories produced at a fossil fuel ratio of well over 10:1 at an efficiency of 10%. The overall fossil fuel efficiency is then 1%, and even that is likely an overestimate.
Then you have to account for the increased fuel use caused by the resultant traffic congestion.
All in all it seems doubtful to me that cycling causes a net reduction in emissions.
Hey, dumb bot, food calories and fuel calories are NOT THE SAME.
What gives you the right to call me a dumb bot ?
Look up what I am saying, find out that I am broadly correct, and come back to apologise.
If you think you are being clever about the calorie and the Calorie, I assure you I know the difference full well. All you are doing is showing your own ignorance.
Gosh GC you seem to have managed to upset AI…well done!
Ray, Capt Kirk taught me how to talk down computers.
Surely everyone needs to eat whether they cycle or not. I would expect that a brisk bike ride would stimulate your appetite a bit so maybe you would eat more, but isn’t it more likely that you would burn energy that otherwise would have just made you fat? Regarding fossil fuel use in food production, and presumably distribution, I find it quite interesting that the energy in the food would be only a fraction of the energy used to produce it. Where the argument falls down is the fact that energy is only a part of the nutrition that we get from our food.
Stonyground.
I take your point that a person does not necessarily eat more when they cycle, they may loose weight instead. But you can’t beat the laws of physics, more calories burnt in exercise in principle means you need more calories of food intake.
The FF energy used in food production being greater than the calories in the food is well-established fact. It varies from over 200:1 for beef to just a few:1 for some plant foods. You can actually Google the ratio for a long list of foods if you are interested. When you do this, be aware the ratios are at the farm gate and don’t include the other stages in the food chain.
The fact that we get other things than calories from food is not relevant to the argument. People need to realise that modern food production is fully reliant on fossil fuels, and that the energy in those fossil fuels greatly exceeds the energy in the food produced.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2003-10-02/eating-fossil-fuels/
Grazing animals turn grass, which humans cannot digest, into meat and milk which we can. Since a lot of land in Britain is only suitable for growing grass, grazing animals are essential to our food supply, regardless of how many notional calories it takes to produce the meat and milk. And I would question the calorie count for animals grazing on grass which grows using the sun and absorbing carbon dioxide from the air.
Cattle are fed on cattle feed though. Grass is cut and often dried with fossil fuels. The fresh grass portion of their diet probably doesn’t contribute to their fossil fuel consumption nor their CO2 emissions.
If you look at that link I posted, it tells us that it takes 400 gallons of oil per year equivalent to produce the food for one average American.
That 400 gallons contains 15.2 million kcal, about 17 times the calories that an American would eat in a year.
There is a good thread with several different estimates here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-much-oil-does-us-agriculture-use.413197/
The global average is about 50 US gallons per head, or just over a barrel (42 US gallons).
@ it doesn’t add up:
I cannot find that figure of 50 US gallons in the link provided. However, globally, it might be true, but that is because much of the world is using subsistence farming. In the developed world that simply wouldn’t work. Agriculture is an industry, with the work being done by machines. The number employed in agriculture is tiny compared to pre-industrial times, and as a result our food is far cheaper in real terms.
If the energy used to produced our food and animal feed is greater than the energy contained in it, that would suggest that growing biomass for heating or electricity generation is a complete waste of time. Worse in fact because the process is less effective than just burning oil directly.
Stonyground.
Yes that is correct. Biofuels would have to be grown organically and processed with zero net emissions energy. I think they claim to do this now, but in the early days they used 1.4 units of fossil energy to produce 1 unit of biomass energy. It was worse than futile.
If the energy used to produced our food and animal feed is greater than the energy contained in it, that would suggest that growing biomass for heating or electricity generation is a complete waste of time. Worse in fact because the process is less effective than just burning oil directly.
Stonyground.
It’s not “inefficient”. You are simply ignoring the value. Beef has a high value, things that convert enery at higher rates have lower values. The measure is the creation of value.
The point was not about financial efficiency it was about energy efficiency.
All the cool kids are into Climate Change. Met Office wants to be in with the cool kids. Britain is run by adolescents.
Are you perhaps overstating the case – Britain is ‘run’ . . . by anyone?
Or simply going – rather niftily under Sir Starmer and his immediate predecessors – down the gurgler?
Auto – not one whit depressed, really /s
Administered better?
I stick with ‘run’ when it comes to energy. Your people didn’t run it into the ground, government did.
I think I might have done my bit. Between 2013 and my retirement in 2020 I clocked up 10,000 miles commuting on my pushbike.
Stonyground.
Stobo Hope – did GWCT ‘advice’ help avoid an Environmental Impact Assessment on the destruction of black grouse habitat?
https://raptorpersecutionuk.org/2024/12/22/stobo-hope-did-gwct-advice-help-avoid-an-environmental-impact-assessment-on-the-destruction-of-black-grouse-habitat-guest-blog/
The claim is clearly wrong. If we look just at oil then jet fuel is about 25% of consumption including petrol and road diesel. Add in direct use of diesel for trains and ship’s bunkers and the non road emissions are over 30%. Then add in fuels to make electricity for trains. The amounts for EVs remain small.
From what you say it looks like air and sea transport has not been included. As I suspected.
According to DfT the 2022 (most recent figures) emissions from cars and taxis were 53% and domestic total road transport 90% of transport emissions. Good luck with the pedal powered HGVs. Domestic of course not international transport, including of that bike no doubt. How long before all the Chinese coal and oil power that went into making and shipping it is offset (allowing for extra CO2 and methane emissions)?
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/energy-and-environment-data-tables-env#greenhouse-gas-emissions-env02
Thanks for the link. According to Table ENV0202a, domestic aviation is included in the total, and it is only 1% of domestic transport emissions.
However, further down we see international aviation and international shipping. These are not included in the total domestic transport emissions figure.
I’ve calculated the percentages of domestic transport emissions and they are 25.5% for international aviation, and 5.6% for international shipping.
I also see that domestic transport (all forms) is only 34.1% of total emissions.
International aviation emissions have increased by 84% during 1990 to 2022. Emissions from cars and taxis have reduced by 16% in the same period.
I used to run a large public sector organisation and if anyone did anything outside their job description I called them in. I simply said that if they had time to do these things I must have overstated their staffing requirements and i could cut their budget accordingly. That kept them in order when they tried to play politics!