UK Forecasting Fear: Has the Met Office Lost Sight of Its Mission?

[Social Media]

 

Forecasting Fear: Has the Met Office Lost Sight of Its Mission?

 

While much of southern England recently sweltered in a record-breaking heatwave, other parts of the UK, such as Northumberland, experienced cool breezes off the North Sea. The UK Met Office promptly declared it “virtually certain” that human activity was responsible for the hottest June in England since 1884 and the second hottest across the UK as a whole. This declaration might appear to confirm the obvious, but upon closer inspection, it reveals a troubling trend: the nation's chief weather forecaster appears increasingly entangled in climate activism rather than objective meteorology.

 

 

Yes, greenhouse gases do contribute to global warming, but attributing exact temperature figures to human influence requires nuance. For example, the much-publicised 34.7°C recorded at St James’s Park in London occurred at a notoriously unreliable “class 5” weather station, one with an acknowledged error margin of up to 5°C. This station sits next to a busy tarmac path in the middle of the capital, where the well-documented urban heat island effect further amplifies temperatures. According to research by engineering firm Arup, London’s urban heat island adds an average of 4.5°C to recorded temperatures. So yes, some of this heat is indeed man-made — but perhaps not in the way the Met Office intended.

 

Historical comparisons also help ground the discussion. A century ago, in 1911, Northamptonshire hit 36.7°C — warmer than the recent peak. As the planet slowly warms, more hot summer days are inevitable. But it’s winter nighttime temperatures, not summer highs, that have risen more rapidly, just as the greenhouse effect predicts. The Arctic is warming faster than the tropics, and winter nights are becoming milder faster than summer days are growing hotter.

 

The Met Office, however, seems increasingly preoccupied with speculating about long-term climate scenarios rather than sticking to its core task: short- and medium-term weather forecasting. A visit to the organisation’s climate pages reveals projections for the year 2070 claiming summers may be one to six degrees warmer and “up to” 60% drier, depending on the region. These vague estimates offer vast leeway, hedged with caveats that make them nearly impossible to challenge.

 

More concerning is the basis for these forecasts: “We base these changes on the RCP8.5 high emissions scenario,” the Met Office admits. That revelation is startling. RCP8.5, a hypothetical pathway developed by economists, is widely criticised as an unrealistic and outdated worst-case scenario. It assumes a future where the world becomes hopelessly addicted to coal, burning ten times more than in 2000 and even using coal to produce fuel for cars and planes. It also assumes a global population of 12 billion by 2100 and a total stagnation in technological progress — assumptions that most experts dismiss as fantasy.

 

Even climate advocacy site Carbon Brief concedes the model was misused: “The creators of RCP8.5 had not intended it to represent the most likely ‘business as usual’ outcome… Its subsequent use as such represents something of a breakdown in communication between energy systems modellers and the climate modelling community.” The model’s lead architect, Keywan Riahi, has said, “I wished I would have been clearer with what I meant by ‘business as usual’.” The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change itself has warned against using RCP8.5 as a forecast. In 2020, the BBC — not known for climate scepticism — labelled the scenario “exceedingly unlikely.”

 

Yet in 2025, the Met Office still uses RCP8.5 as a foundation for long-term projections. This is not a simple communication error. It appears to be a deliberate choice to embrace the most extreme outcomes, generating fear and grabbing headlines. If the Met Office adopted more balanced, probable scenarios, the future might sound less apocalyptic — and perhaps less newsworthy.

 

It’s time for the Met Office to return to its core mission: providing the public with accurate, honest weather forecasts. If it must peer 45 years into the future, let it do so using credible, moderate assumptions — even if they’re not as frightening.

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph  2025-07-05

 

 

 

[stevenl]

Telegraph denying unwelcome facts.

[Gsxrnz]

Hottest since 1884 - so who was to blame for that?

 

Probably Nicolaus Otto for his invention of the low voltage ignition system - follow the science. Jesus wept!

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, Social Media said:

If the Met Office adopted more balanced, probable scenarios, the future might sound less apocalyptic — and perhaps less newsworthy.

Said without one iota of introspection.

[dinsdale]

Sydney just had a "cyclone bomb" and the MSM loved this terminology. I include the ABC a taxpayer funded "news" outlet in MSM now. A "cyclone bomb" is simply an intense low pressure system. 

[stevenl]

7 hours ago, Social Media said:

If the Met Office adopted more balanced, probable scenarios, the future might sound less apocalyptic — and perhaps less newsworthy.

Problem is that that the balance has long gone and the future is apocalyptic.

[Thingamabob]

Ever since the fear of climate change began to be forced upon us weather people have started to adopt a dramatic tone when forecasting on TV or radio. All rather pathetic.

[billd766]

The UK weather forecast mainly affects the people of the UK and any UK tourists going back in the next couple of days. It is of no use at all to Thailand where most people onl need the local weather report. 

[BLMFem]

6 hours ago, stevenl said:

Telegraph denying unwelcome facts.

Now there's a shocker....