« Previous | Main | Next »

Met Office scale back global warming forecast

Paul Hudson | 15:19 UK time, Tuesday, 8 January 2013

A new global temperature forecast published by the Met Office, through to 2017, has scaled back projections of the amount of warming they expect compared with previous estimates.

The new projection can be seen below with more details on the Met Office website.



I have written several times in the last few years on the subject of Met Office global temperature predictions, and how they have been regularly too warm.

In the 12 years to 2011, 11 out of 12 forecasts were too high - and although all projections were within the stated margin of error, none were colder than expected.

One of their most high profile forecasts came in late 2009, coinciding with the Copenhagen climate conference.

It stated that half the years between 2010 and 2015 would be hotter than the hottest year on record, which I wrote about on my blog.

This already appears wide of the mark.

The latest projection seems to address this error with a prediction to 2017 in which temperatures rise 20% less than previously estimated.

In November 2009 I wrote about this levelling off in global temperatures, using research available at the time on the Met Office website.

In it, the Met Office explained that the levelling off of global temperatures that we were experiencing can be expected at time periods of a decade or less, because of the computer models internal climate variability.

But intriguingly, the research ruled out zero trends for time periods of 15 years or more.

The new projection, if correct, would mean there will have been little additional warming for two decades despite rising greenhouse gases.

It's bound to raise questions about the robustness and reliability of computer simulations that governments around the world are using in order to determine policies aimed at combating global warming.

The Met Office says natural cycles have caused the recent slowdown in warming, including perhaps changes in the suns activity, and ocean currents.

And mainstream climate scientists, who are in a majority, say that when the natural cooling factors change again, temperatures will be driven up further by greenhouse gases.

But climate sceptics, who have long argued that natural processes are either underestimated, or not properly understood, will not be surprised at this scaling back of expected warming.

Follow me on twitter @Hudsonweather

Comments

Page 1 of 3

  • Comment number 1.

    Hi Paul. I did say to you after 2006, when working for a Carbon Management company that I didn't believe man was causing the world to warm, but it was a natural variance that happens over 100's of years. The sun is the global warmer. C02 has increased greatly, but has there has been little change in the temperature of the earth. What happened to the hockey stick? Rupert Murdoch even says that the increase in C02 is being soaked up by the plant world, which is growing larger. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It looks like the real winter is about to start. Best wishes for the New Year.

  • Comment number 2.

    The sun is the global warmer? Yet links to the sun and variations in the temperature are distinctly lacking. And it's not for want of looking.

  • Comment number 3.

    If you super impose the chart onto banking crisis it is the inverse could it be that's what causing the problem of global warming? People getting overheated with financial loss and the down turn is indicating a return to better times ahead with footsie hitting 6000 :)

  • Comment number 4.

    "The Met Office says natural cycles have caused the recent slowdown in warming, including perhaps changes in the suns activity, and ocean currents."

    Indeed, this same idea is put forward in a 2011 paper by Foster and Rahmstorf. The PDO has dived in recent years (associated with more La Ninas) and the Sun has dropped to the quietest it's been for 100 years.

    If AGW wasn't true we could have expected sharp cooling. But instead temperatures have risen slightly. The PDO and Sun are not permanent brakes on AGW though because they can't keep going lower for the whole 21st century. Once they bottom out the GHG warming continues again even if they remain low. When they start rising again we will enter a period of rapid warming where all three are causing warming simultaneously. Over the whole 21st century the only certainty is that the greenhouse gas forcing will dominate the Sun and the PDO as it is the only one certain to increase substantially whereas the other two cycle becoming largely zero-sum in the longterm.

  • Comment number 5.

    Ukip, I'd suggest that there is very likely a contribution from man to the climate equation. On balance, however, what that contribution is is not understood since the reality is that we don't know and cannot solve the equation.

    Paul, it should not be left to the climate sceptics to point out the fact that our understanding of the forces and feedbacks in our climate system is insufficient to make robust climate projections, nor should it be necessary for sceptics to bear the responsibility of uncovering the extent of uncertainties inherent in climate estimates promoted by the MO, IPCC etc.

    Moreover it is truly damning of the field of climatology that moderate (contra-alarmist) voices which find their computations more in accordance with the much less scary observed data are invariably described in the exclusive term "climate sceptics" rather than inclusive "climate scientist" terms, eg: Spencer, Lindzen, Christy and Curry, to name but a few. Given the politicised nature of climate science, while this is apparently inevitable, it is nevertheless an abhorrence.

  • Comment number 6.

    someone made a gif of the old projection
    http://i46.tinypic.com/123147s.gif

    (vanished without a trace, from the same web url, the new one appeared at)

    very bad sci comms.. Met Office
    http://i46.tinypic.com/123147s.gif

  • Comment number 7.

    It has to be said that the Met Office has managed to create a story due to poor handling of this release (they seem to mess this up consistently). The scientists behind the research seem to be able to explain the new research (on Tallblokes blog) far better then the actual release of info has.

  • Comment number 8.

    I suspect it will get down graded again in a few years, so that they don't lose too much face all in one go.

  • Comment number 9.

    I seem to remember headlines of no significant warming for the last 17 years during last year. If there is not going to be much if any warming until 2017 then that will be 20 years.

  • Comment number 10.

    I think quake nails this issue. Currently the climate system appears biased to mask anthropogenic warming. However there is still a underlying warming trend within stated uncertainty. It is only sense and science that the MO should re-evaluate the projections as more empirical evidence becomes available. After all the MO could not really have foreseen that the Sun would hit a century low and PDO is notoriously variable.

  • Comment number 11.

    mjmwhite wrote:

    "I seem to remember headlines of no significant warming for the last 17"

    That relates to scientific significance, ie, there is warming but over short time spans natural variability can mask trends. Climatologists tend to use 90% level for significance and a 30 year time frame. So it is somewhat less than 90% certain that the warming over the last couple of decades is man made.

  • Comment number 12.

    So far, most comentators have missed the most significant fact about the slow down in global warming. It is likely that natural cycles, such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, are not only slowing down the warming at the moment but were speeding up the warming during the 1970s to 1990s. Since the IPCC climate models implicitly assumed all of that warming was anthropogenic that means they have been incorrectly calibrated with a built in bias. If this is the case temperature increases will be minimal for a couple few decades and then increase at a rate similar to that at the end of the 20th century.

  • Comment number 13.

    @Ron

    You've hit the nail right on the head there. You can't suddenly accept that there are new cooling factors in town, without also acknowledging their positive contributions....

    CAGW, is dead and buried.... It's the beginning of the end and the scents of panic, blood and urine are in the air

  • Comment number 14.

    Hey Paul - if "natural cycles" are now as big as greenhouse gases - then maybe natural cycles were as big as greenhouse gases in the past ?

    You know - when things were getting warmer? Is this possible - that some of the warming was caused by ... natural cycles?

  • Comment number 15.

    HeHe... So, Quake, Mate...... Have you always been so accepting of potentially negative feedbacks and forcings?

    Just curious......

    Forcings that are apparently capable of almost completely counterbalancing any CO2 warming from rapidly increasing.... Plus, as an ancillary question, I'm interested in your opinions on how these same forcings and feebacks might have contibuted to the late 20th Century warming?

    Sorry Mate, I just cant help myself ;-)

  • Comment number 16.

    Oopsies, that should say rapidly increasing levels and contibuted, should read contributed..... way too happy to type properly.....

  • Comment number 17.

    Re 7: "It has to be said that the Met Office has managed to create a story due to poor handling of this release (they seem to mess this up consistently). The scientists behind the research seem to be able to explain the new research (on Tallblokes blog) far better then the actual release of info has."

    This is because John, as you probably know, there is no Met Office/scientific conspiracy about AGW. If there was such a conspiracy then the conspirators would work hard to release everything in a water tight fashion. The main IPCC reports for example would be finalized before the release of the summaries for policy makers for example. Something that makes no material difference given the changes made, but it just *looks* bad and so can be exploited to that end.

  • Comment number 18.

    Re 15
    "Forcings that are apparently capable of almost completely counterbalancing any CO2 warming from rapidly increasing.... Plus, as an ancillary question, I'm interested in your opinions on how these same forcings and feebacks might have contibuted to the late 20th Century warming?"

    The Sun and PDO are quieter than they were in 1970 yet we are not back at 1970s temperatures or heading that way. The quiet Sun and negative PDO haven't even caused the heat gain in the oceans to stop.

    Something to bear in mind. As powerful as the Sun and PDO are presumed it seems a little CO2 rise over a couple of years is enough to cancel out their cooling effect.

    So does that make the Sun and PDO weak? Or does it mean CO2 is strong?

    Either way CO2 is going to continue rising and causing warming. The PDO and the Sun are limited in how low they can go.

    From 1970 to 2000 the trend in solar output and the PDO was negative. So it isn't clear either contributed any warming over the 1970-2000 period.

  • Comment number 19.

    @quake #18

    In what way is the sun having a cooling effect? Just interested, plus if you're using TSI there's not been much of change in this, so exactly how does that account for all of the missing heat from C02?

    With regard to OHC this has not increased at all since 2003. You can check this on the argo website, which makes the following statement Incorrect:

    "The quiet Sun and negative PDO haven't even caused the heat gain in the oceans to stop"

    I'll stop there as, I'm most interested in your answer to the first question ;-)

  • Comment number 20.

    The Sun is in it's most quiet 11 year cycle for 100 years. This follows the quietest solar minimum in 100 years.
    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/

    If the Sun has any significant effect on climate this should have had a cooling effect in recent years. The 11 year running mean of Sunspots is now far lower than 1970 yet there's no sign temperatures returning to 1970s levels let alone lower. Ocean heat content has continued upwards in all these years (see depth 0-2000m especially):
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

  • Comment number 21.

    Game over! Time for the "climate scientists" to find more gainful employment perhaps?

  • Comment number 22.

    The AGW argument has always been that we can control the climate through the management of CO². We knew this was BS and now we have the proof. If natural variability can overwhelm the effect of a 'massive' rise in co² over 20 years then human control of the climate is impossible. ADAPT and stop feeding the rich and starving the poor.

  • Comment number 23.

    20.At 21:44 8th janv. 2013, quake wrote:
    The Sun is in it's most quiet 11 year cycle for 100 years. This follows the quietest solar minimum in 100 years.
    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/

    If the Sun has any significant effect on climate this should have had a cooling effect in recent years.


    It's called hysterysis or release of stored energy. The climate system cannot react instanteously. It contains too much energy which is why we will never control it.

  • Comment number 24.

    17: There are cockups, conspiracies and cocked up conspiracies.

  • Comment number 25.

    The downgrade/change is discussed at Tallblokes (Sceptic) Talkshop with Richard Betts from the Met Office:
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/01/05/major-change-in-uk-met-office-global-warming-forecast/

  • Comment number 26.

    Never mind the PDO's and TSI's the Metoffice needs to decide PDQ whether it's in the business of objective impartial scientific research or political messaging. It appears this major forecast revision was sneaked onto their website sometime in December only to be finally spotted by a blog commenter in Tucson on 5 Jan here

    http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=95&page=56

    and here

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/suggestions-2/

    and only announced today, after widespread coverage on sceptic blogs, while a non story about a putative increase in rain frequency in highly variable and trendless rainfall historic data was trumpeted out after the recent spell of wet weather.

    There is also suspicion concerning 'adjusted' earlier forecasts (thin white line).

  • Comment number 27.

    Told you so.

    The jets have been becoming more meridional and / or moving equatorward since around 2000 but only now is the implication sinking in.

    CO2 emissions still zooming up but the sun now quiet. Which is the more likely cause?

    We cannot expect cooling just yet since the AMO is still positive and the oceans have huge thermal inertia.

    This is part of a 1000 year cycle after all and we have only just neared the top.

    It is even possible that the natural cycle could go up a bit more if the sun recovers soon enough but that still wouldn't be good evidence of a human contribution.

  • Comment number 28.

    Regarding the ocean heat content argument, DeWitt Payne puts some numbers on it on a discussion at Lucia's Blackboard. He reckons they'd have to accurately measure to 0.003K

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/uah-ends-the-year-with-a-downtick/

    The often ignored aspect of the sun is the spectral variation, not total irradiance. It could act via the ozone layer or photosynthesis.

  • Comment number 29.

    26. PharosLight wrote:

    "finally spotted by a blog commenter in Tucson on 5 Jan here"

    It was posted by the MO on Christmas Eve and first picked on New Years Eve by Lord Beaverbrook here:-

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/unthreaded/?currentPage=15

    That is unless there is a previous sighting? The press release came a little later.

  • Comment number 30.

    well well well - so the sceptics wernt loons after all

    the best one can say about the alarmists is that they were gullible, the worst, well lets not go there, but shame on them, will they have the grace to fess up or even turn on the people who led them down this garden path?

  • Comment number 31.

    So, it's a lack of sunspots then thats counteracting the massive rise in C02, good to know mate. Maybe TSI or perhaps some sloar magnetic effects?

    Looking at just TSI we've got:

    1970 - 1365.97 W/m2
    2011 - 1365.83 W/m2

    A difference of -0.14 W/m2 in solar output? Plus or minus any PDO effects?

    The Argo figures that I was referring to on the same site you linked to above at:

    ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/yearly/h22-w0-700m.dat

    Note: Data from 2003 onwards

  • Comment number 32.

    Quake, I'm only playing mate.... doesn't anything about this recent little bit of discourse seem familiar to you? Just reverse the positions re: the sun and the PDO/NAO, natural variations, etc, etc. ringing any bells yet?

    To me it sounds like you're almost of the same opinion as Judith Curry - I always knew you were one of us really ;-)

  • Comment number 33.

    so 20 years without warming while CO2 emmissions continued to rise massively

    does this mean the theory behind AGW gets consigned to the same dustbin that already contains those other works of fantasy - 'my proof the earth is flat' and 'tobacco cancer - what link?'

  • Comment number 34.

    #29 greensand

    It's a pity that the Bish was busy over the holidays or he could of broke this on New Years day, first post of the New Year would of been even more memorable. Never mind it's got legs now.
    We both knew that something like this would have to happen eventually.

  • Comment number 35.

    If this blog had been open for comments over the holidays then Paul might have been receiving all the plaudits........

  • Comment number 36.

    how can the met office ever be trusted after this?

    of we can accept them getting it wrong, everyone gets it wrong now and then, we can accept the endless articles and press releases predicting global warming, their support for measures to combat said warming which included hitting millions with higher taxes they could ill afford

    but then when they realise the game is up to try and hide it with a furtive press release on christmas eve? pretty shabby stuff, lets have some honesty, as sobering as this humbling experience may be and a lesson in humility, tell us the truth

  • Comment number 37.

    @quake

    It's also worth pointing out that, whilst you're trying to invoke solar and natural variations as excuses for the lack of warmth, that 25-30% of all of mankind's emissions have happened since 1998, but actual warming.... Well that's not so much.... barely statistically significant, if at all

    Oh.. and out of general interest even Realclimate are currently examining the Peskiness of Clouds ;-)

  • Comment number 38.

    The David Shukman report made it onto the BBC 10 O'Clock News tonight, but not for very long.
    Clearly the BBC doesn't consider this as important, compared to, for example the latest David Bowie single, to which it has devoted literally hours of free promotion time today. Why is that even on the news?

  • Comment number 39.

    @38 QuaesoVeritas

    Yes the BBC have completely hidden it by having it on the news and website.

    It's like the sneaky IPCC keep things hidden by letting anyone be a reviewer and giving them access to drafts and allowing them to submit questions and reviews.

    So so sneaky... keep things hidden in plain sight...

  • Comment number 40.

    I don't really understand the apparent hatred of some sceptics towards 'warmist' climate scientists - who sincerely warned that the world's environment and humanity's ability to feed itself could be in peril in a few decades if greenhouse gas emissions were not cut. Even if the warming has plateaued somewhat, the world's climate is still becoming more extreme (a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture, and North Polar warming can make the jet stream more sluggish leading to prolonged rain or serious drought - depending on longitude).
    Whilst the UK has become wetter and somewhat cooler since 2006, things like THESE keep on happening:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/purple-alert-australian-heatwave-forces-climate-experts-to-use-new-colour-to-represent-extreme-temperatures-8443297.html
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/08/americas-hottest-year-on-record-in-two-charts/?tid=pm_business_pop

  • Comment number 41.

    If solar cycle 24 is a longer cycle than normal with an extended even if much lower maximum could it change our climate?

    'Indeed, Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) presented persuasive evidence that solar variability is leaving an imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific. According to the report, when researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific shows a pronounced La Nina-like pattern, with a cooling of almost 1o C in the equatorial eastern Pacific. In addition, "there are signs of enhanced precipitation in the Pacific ITCZ (Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone ) and SPCZ (South Pacific Convergence Zone) as well as above-normal sea-level pressure in the mid-latitude North and South Pacific," correlated with peaks in the sunspot cycle.'
    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

    Would that translate into sharper higher sunspot cycles producing periods of climate with more El Nino's and flatter lower cycles producing periods of climate with more La Nina's?

  • Comment number 42.

    #38 QV
    "The David Shukman report made it onto the BBC 10 O'Clock News tonight, but not for very long.
    Clearly the BBC doesn't consider this as important, compared to, for example the latest David Bowie single, to which it has devoted literally hours of free promotion time today. Why is that even on the news?"

    The BBC certainly do not appear to consider this important - what are their qualifications are for assessing the importance of this scientific story and effectively consigning it to the waste-bin?

    Whilst DB may be a rock icon, it should not have warranted more than a passing comment on the main news. Unless of course it was necessary to fill so much time to ensure there was little or none left to address a more relevant matter.

    This is typical of the BBC (and others) they have the facility for 24 hour rolling news and yet how many times do they draw discussions with experts to an early close because they're running short of time - all too frequently. They then go on to repeat earlier reports - a sad waste of a potentially great resource.

    Whatever the science/stats indicate, I think more evidence that the 'worm has turned' will be needed before the hockey stick can be finally chucked in the bin!

  • Comment number 43.

    Thanks Paul, for being the only honest weatherman on the BBC. I can see you are toeing the party line, but your honesty comes through and we appreciate it!

    By contrast, David Shukman states "An apparent standstill in global temperatures is used by critics of efforts to tackle climate change as evidence that the threat has been exaggerated."

    So the total absence of warming for over 20 years has been noted by normal people, threatened with dire consequences, our power supplies are under threat because windmills don't deliver and wear out in only 10-15 years, our taxes have skyrocketed by hundreds of pounds per family per annum, over 20,000 pensioners die every year due to cold, deaths directly caused by the high cost of heating. Does that make me a sceptic or a realist?

  • Comment number 44.

    @chris 42 / QV 38
    Just thrown The Times across the room as it appears today to be The Bowie !

    Half page devoted to the Met Office version of events, however, the "reporter" didn't see fit to get a balancing comment from GWPF or similar. So just a PR puff then.

    Mark Lynas suddenly gets The Thunderer column to push the 'GW has not gone away-let's do it for the kids" line.

    And the Australian Bush Fires/Hot Temps gets full cover but the deaths in N.India
    and Russia due to record cold are ignored, as too was the record NH Snow Cover for December.

    So, the brainwashing continues................

  • Comment number 45.

    Interesting piece picked up by Climate Realists concerning SSW from the MO website.

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=10911

    MO seem to think SSW's just "happen" as if by magic. They dare not mention that the sun could possibly have a role here.

  • Comment number 46.

    The followup post from NASA is also relevant to comment 45.

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=10912

  • Comment number 47.

    40: Why did you leave out the current conditions( record cold/snow) in India, Japan, Mongolia, China, Russia, Korea, Vietnam and Alaska? Don't worry the BBC do it quite frequently. Nice to see cooler weather relieving the situation in Australia reported on the BBC news. Any hope of a warmer interlude for the others?

  • Comment number 48.

    #39. - john_cogger wrote:

    "Yes the BBC have completely hidden it by having it on the news and website."
    So so sneaky... keep things hidden in plain sight..."

    That's part of the subtlety of the technique.
    The topic has been reported just enough for the BBC to say they didn't completely ignore it. And they only seem to have been forced to do it as a result of activity on the web.
    Furthermore, those reports which there have been have played down the significance of the reduction. No graphs showing the remarkable difference between the previous forecast and this one. So the general public, who don't have the time or inclination to check the details themselves, are left with the impression that the change was minor.
    Compare this to alarmist publicity in the past when the public were warned that temperatures were going to rise by the most extreme high end of the possible range of projections, usually perpetrated by reporters such as Shukman and to the massive amount of air time given to the Australian fires and to David Bowie.
    This morning's Today programme even had an item saying that Bowie had announced his new single at a time designed to get maximum publicity on .. the Today programme.

  • Comment number 49.

    So just to confirm - The new met projections which show global warming to be false and and non existent, still shows record breaking years (higher/equal to 1998) in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017?

    And why do people keep saying no warming for 20 years?

  • Comment number 50.

    @48 QuaesoVeritas

    Their devious subtlety show no bounds.

  • Comment number 51.

    I'm not sure if anyone has already posted this link to the latest MO news release:
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2013/decadal-forecasts

  • Comment number 52.

    Not sure if I can get too worked up by this news. Seems to me that the MO have simply covered more bases by widening the projection and setting up a no-lose scenario by calling the new projection experimental. Should the original projection prove accurate, they can ditch this forecast as just 'experimental'. However, should the experimental one prove more accurate, they can point to an improvement in model accuracy. They simply can't lose. Nice move.

    Lazarus said "It is only sense and science that the MO should re-evaluate the projections as more empirical evidence becomes available. After all the MO could not really have foreseen that the Sun would hit a century low and PDO is notoriously variable."

    Oh come on! Do they live on another planet? Have they only just noticed either of these. Leif Svalgard is a respected name in solar physics and he (as did others) predicted this lower cycle years ago. The Hathaway group have been lowering their group cycle forecast year on year since 2008 or thereabouts. The PDO changed to the cool phase years ago and this is widely acknowledged to signal an increase in La Nina events (proportional to El Nino) amongst other things. Are you seriously suggesting that the MO didn't know about these? Perhaps you ought to let them know that the AMO has peaked and will turn negative within the next decade.

  • Comment number 53.

    #50. - john_cogger wrote:

    "Their devious subtlety show no bounds."

    Clearly too subtle for some.

  • Comment number 54.

    #51 QV

    From the link:

    'Small year to year fluctuations such as those that we are seeing in the shorter term five year predictions are expected due natural variability in the climate system, and have no sustained impact on the long term warming.'

    That's a bold statement there must be evidence from the model output to back that up, have the graphs been cut short on purpose?

    'The Met Office routinely shares its research and this is often placed on our website, encouraging openness and transparency with our scientific colleagues and the public alike.'

    Oh, my mistake the runs must be limited to 5 years, so why the confidence?

  • Comment number 55.

    #54. - ukpahonta wrote:
    "Oh, my mistake the runs must be limited to 5 years, so why the confidence?"

    Those statements do seem contradictory.
    If the projections exist beyond 2017, and show continued increases, why not "share" them?
    If they don't exist, how can they be sure?
    Also, while the MO now seem to accept that short term fluctuations, caused by "natural variabilty" can cause temperatures to be lower than projected, they don't seem to have accepted that for higher temperatures.
    Personally, I don't think that there is no warming, only that the highest temperatures were increased by natural variabilty, although at the time they were blamed entirely on "climate change" and extrapolated.

  • Comment number 56.

    Quake @4 said "The PDO has dived in recent years (associated with more La Ninas) and the Sun has dropped to the quietest it's been for 100 years. If AGW wasn't true we could have expected sharp cooling."

    Another attempt to disguise reality with a few carefully chosen facts I fear. As always, the assumption that any negative solar forcing should be immediately visible.

    I'll repeat part of my post from a couple of threads ago . . .

    Since solar cycles are in spitting distance of 10yrs in duration, I thought I'd calculate the (moving) 3 cycle SSN maxima average, since this is a simple approximation of solar forcing across the 'WMO 30 years' which newdwr54 is so fond of.

    Now keep in mind that the mean average of the full solar SSN maxima record (starting in 1755) is 114.1

    3 cycle average period ending 1902 = 100.9
    3 cycle average period ending 1913 = 75.5
    3 cycle average period ending 1923 = 85.8
    3 cycle average period ending 1933 = 82.5
    3 cycle average period ending 1944 = 100.9
    3 cycle average period ending 1954 = 116.4
    3 cycle average period ending 1964 = 157.4
    3 cycle average period ending 1976 = 154.6
    3 cycle average period ending 1986 = 158.8
    3 cycle average period ending 1996 = 144.5
    3 cycle average period ending 2008 = 147.9

    That's interesting isn't it. In the early 20thC we see approx 30 year averages of 100 (or less) during the time when the planet warmed fairly rapidly. This warming has been largely attributed to natural causes, with solar activity supposedly playing a significant role and yet the first five periods are below the full record mean.

  • Comment number 57.

    "As always, the assumption that any negative solar forcing should be immediately visible."

    Here's a slide from the Oregon Petition signed by 31,000 climate skeptics that shows they expect temperature to closely track solar activity with no lag.
    http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Slide03.png

    Over the last 10 years Sunspot levels have collapsed back to levels of the 1920s. So these climate skeptics must have expected temperatures to follow suit. But they haven't.

    There was no expectation of a lag time when these slides were being promoted. Climate skeptics have only appealed to long solar lags in recent years since temperatures have failed to cool as they expected in response to a quiet Sun. Same with the PDO shift as well. That happened a few years ago and was heralded to begin a period of cooling which simply hasn't happened.

    The excuse that some solar lag means the Earth takes time to cool down is also contradicted by ocean heat content data that shows the Earth is still heating up, rather than losing heat.

  • Comment number 58.

    Quake: Your link shows a correlation with ARCTIC air temps - not global mean temps. I have no idea whether the correlation is accurate or significant or indeed, whether the correlation still holds.

    It clearly has nothing to do with what I said in my previous post and nor did I sign the petition. What those who did sign it think is of no importance to me.

    Ocean Heat content data shows that apparently, heating has occurred mostly where we have never measured it before! There is no established mechanism or trace/audit for how the heat may have got there even if it really did. The Oceans are a mystery and the current measurements/trends for deep ocean heat must be taken with a shovel of salt. We simply don't have the data.

    As I understand it the negative PDO shift is not a forcing entirely separate to ENSO. It is an Index which describes a subtle change in regime from dominant El Nino events to La Nina events over the course of a variable cycle period. Through this, it effects weather patterns and ocean heat pool distribution, geographically speaking.

    The overall effects of the AMO and PDO on global temps are best seen though the lens of time and in conjunction with other forcings over the same 25 - 35 year period. Sometimes they work in sync and sometimes they work against each other. Your expectation that there should be a clear and present signal for each of these natural forcings is unjustifiable. Your insistence that the CO2 signal is greater than natural variation is unfathomable.

  • Comment number 59.

    I'm still unsure about what the MO chart is showing.

    It's based on a 1971-2000 anomaly, which means it can't be directly compared to HadCRUT4 or any other of the surface data sets. HadCRUT4 is based on 1961 - 1990; so it's starting from a cooler baseline.

    The average annual anomaly in HadCRUT4 between 1971-2000 is 0.106, so we'd need to deduct this from the HadCRUT4 data in order to compare apples with apples. This would make HadCRUT4 for 2012 +0.34 instead of +0.45.

    The MO says it expects the average temperature between 2013 - 2017 to be +0.43 above the 1971-2000 average. The current record warmest years according to the HadCRUT4 data were 2005 and 2010, both +0.43 based on the 1971-2000 average.

    So is the Met saying it expects the 'average' annual temperature between 2013 and 2017 to be around the level seen in the record years of 2005 and 2010? Is that really such a big shock?

    The current 30 year trend in HadCRUT4 (no matter what anomaly base period you use) is +0.17C. If the average temperature for the next five years is as forecast, then the thirty year trend will drop to +0.14C.

    This would *not* be cooling; this would be a reduction in the rate of warming, which are two distinctly different but easily confused things. An average temperature of +0.43C over the next five years would still cause a year-on-year rise on the rolling 30-year temperature. The 30-year period ended 2017 would still be +0.8C warmer than the 30-year period ended 2012.

    I suspect some of the 'global warming is cancelled' tones expressed above may be a little premature.

  • Comment number 60.

    Here's another example from the climate skeptic NIPCC report:
    http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/nov/Soonetal2011fig1.png

    Again there's no lag proposed for solar influence on temperature. It's a direct linear relationship that's proposed.

    And another example: http://www.exploringinfinity.com/images/sunspot-temperature-chart.gif. That correlation has also since broken down, quite spectacularly given the length of cycle 23.

    And here's an example claiming a correlation between the PDO and temperature: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/09/18/pdo.gif

    Again no lag. An instantaneous linear relationship is proposed for these things. It's only since they've broken down that now we are told there is a lag.

    All these correlations were spurious in the first place. As you point out that graph comparing sunspots to ARCTIC temperatures. Why not global temperatures? because it never correlated.

    Mainstream science does expect some cooling from the solar minimum and immediate at that, perhaps a tenth of a degree since 2000, but it doesn't expect it to continue or be permanent. A tenth of a degree is highly significant. Warming since 1997 is about 0.05C +- 0.12C/decade according to HadCRUT. If 0.1C is added to that...

    We are in the absurd situation now where climate skeptics propose the solar minimum had NO cooling effect in recent years, because if they admitted a cooling effect they'd have to explain why there has been no cooling and that logically would lead to the answer of rising CO2.

  • Comment number 61.

    59. Correction:

    The 30-year period ended 2017 would still be +0.08C [not +0.8C] warmer than the 30-year period ended 2012.

    It's not much, but it's still positive.

  • Comment number 62.

    #59. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "So is the Met saying it expects the 'average' annual temperature between 2013 and 2017 to be around the level seen in the record years of 2005 and 2010? Is that really such a big shock?"

    I think that is what the M.O. are saying, looking at the graph.
    It isn't a shock to those of us who have been saying that the previous M.O. forecasts were excessive, but it should be a shock to anyone who believed those forecasts.
    Look at the differences in the forecast, can you not see them?
    The latest forecast is roughly where the previous lower confidence range was and the previous forecast is roughly where the latest upper confidence range is.
    This is a HUGE change.
    https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-0e9S3JvjWrg/UOmGJq06wYI/AAAAAAAABDY/3UHjSSHTfKo/s670/metOffice20112012DecadalForecast.gif

  • Comment number 63.

    Quake: link one is to China wide? Is that a regional correlation they think they have identified?
    If so, it looks a reasonable match though it doesn't go to 2012. Also, if it is a China LAND based construction then one might expect a more immediate response to changes in solar forcing since the longer lag times are associated with ocean heat storage.

    Link two: The correlation may have broken down - it's not clearly shown in your link if it has, but surely, there can be no worse a correlation than that between CO2 and global temps over the last 20 years? So what's going on here. Are you saying that CO2 doesn't need to show any correlation at all but any other possible cause of warming must show a close and unbreakable link?

    Link three: Doesn't actually show an immediate effect does it? Certainly a faster response to warm phase and lags are visible, particularly near the start of the graph as it enters the cool phase. In fact, the PDO cool phase simply seems to suppress the general warming that was otherwise evident. This includes the warming at the start of the 20thC which cannot be explained by CO2 levels without the help of natural or solar forcings. From my post at 56, you can see that Solar forcing was considerably lower at the start of the 20thC than that from mid century onwards.
    While one cannot say with any certainty, the sun is the cause of the warming, one cannot reasonably say it definitely isn't. All it takes is for there to be a lag or response beyond the length of one solar cycle, such that there is a carry forward of excess energy into the following cycle.

  • Comment number 64.

    62. QuaesoVeritas,

    No doubt it's a big reduction over 5 years. Comparing both charts is slightly misleading though, as they have different end years. Interestingly the Met's 2010 decadal forecast was much lower than the 2011 one: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/decadal-prediction

    But as I mentioned above, when set against the 30-year rolling trend the new forecast would only represent a reduction in the rate of warming of about -0.03C per decade (if it comes true) by end 2017 compared to end 2012. The rolling 30-year average would also remain positive.

    In other words the warming trend is expected to continue, but at a reduced rate over the next 5 years. We still need a physical explanation for why it's warming.

  • Comment number 65.

    63. lateintheday wrote:

    "... surely, there can be no worse a correlation than that between CO2 and global temps over the last 20 years? So what's going on here."

    This is global temperatures (HadCRUT4) vrs CO2 and solar (sunspots) over 20 years: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1992.93/plot/esrl-co2/from:1992.93/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1992.93/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1992.93/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1992.93/trend/normalise/plot/pmod/from:1992.93/trend/normalise

    And over thirty years: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1982.93/plot/esrl-co2/from:1982.93/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1982.93/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1982.93/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1982.93/trend/normalise/plot/pmod/from:1982.93/trend/normalise

    Do you honestly believe that sunspots are better correlated to temperatures than CO2, going by those graphs?

  • Comment number 66.

    @64 newdwr54 wrote:

    "In other words the warming trend is expected to continue, but at a reduced rate over the next 5 years."

    No, the warming trend is expected to be zero for the next 5 years the effect of which will further reduce the 30 year trend.

  • Comment number 67.

    Actually newdwr54, that graphing does surprise me, not least because I understood our CO2 emissions were increasing at an alarming rate. Clearly not. Or perhaps there's a scaling issue with your graph. With my post in response to Quake, I had in mind another graph which I had stumbled upon a few days ago.
    https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-DIuZMfy53ZA/UIbKVQiTExI/AAAAAAAAA5s/KAN33VgWIwM/s669/tempAnomaliesCO2decadalTrends1987on.jpg

    I notice you're not interested in the 30 year mean of sunspots maxima posted above or the fact that I clearly stated "All it takes is for there to be a lag or response beyond the length of one solar cycle, such that there is a carry forward of excess energy into the following cycle."

    Your choice of taking a recent short term solar trend (which is reducing from a peak) gives the rather cherry picked view of the trend since we are only half way into the reduced cycle 24.
    Just goes to show how many jigsaws you can make from the same pieces if you are so minded.

  • Comment number 68.

    66. greensand wrote:

    "No, the warming trend is expected to be zero for the next 5 years the effect of which will further reduce the 30 year trend."

    I suppose you could put it like that. But then how much significance should we attach to a 5-year trend? And at +0.14C per decade by 2017, the 30 year trend would still be at the high end historically (the average 30 year trend throughout HadCRUT4 is +0.05). 30 year average temperatures would still be at their highest on record, which means that the current extreme weather we're seeing globally will not have abated in the least.

    The fact that the Australian Met has just added two new high temperature colours to its forecasting maps seems to have slipped under the radar: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/01/09/uk-australia-wildfires-maps-idUKBRE90806T20130109

    Ditto the new record high temperature in the contiguous USA: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/08/us-usa-weather-idUSBRE90714420130108

  • Comment number 69.

    lojohn wrote:

    "So the total absence of warming for over 20 years has been noted by normal people"

    Actually normal people know that there has been warming in the last 20 years. Please don't confuse absence of warming with no scientifically significant warming just because it supports what you choose to believe.

  • Comment number 70.

    67. lateintheday wrote:

    Re your link: that chart shows 'decadal trends', not temperatures. In other words it graphs 10 year rolling temperature trends; not real world temperatures. This is the same data only using real temperatures: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1987/plot/wti/from:1987/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1987/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/from:1987/normalise/trend I'm sure you'll agree that it looks quite different?

    Re lags in solar forcing: you have not yet explained why you think there should be a lag in cooling due to reduced solar forcing but no lag in warming in response to increased solar forcing. In fact you stated above that "we might expect more immediate response to changes in solar forcing" on land. Well here is UAH (land only) from just before the last solar maximum in 2000 against TSI: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah-land/from:2000/plot/uah/from:2000/trend/plot/pmod/from:2000/normalise/plot/pmod/from:2000/normalise/trend No sign yet of any immediate response.

    If you prefer the longer term land temperature versus solar comparison then compare CRUT4 (land only global) with sunspot numbers: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/plot/crutem4vgl/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/normalise/trend The recent discrepancy between solar and temperatures becomes even more pronounced.

  • Comment number 71.

    68. newdwr54 wrote:

    I suppose you could put it like that

    No, it is like that! The statement was for a zero trend for the next 5 years. Simple!

    But it is of no consequence, nobody knows where we will be at the end of 2017. The previous MO Decadal Forecasts did not demonstrate any forecasting skill, why should we now put great store in the new one?

    No hypothetical trend has any significance only the ones based on actual observational data are of any consequence.

    No need to guess about the future when we can look at what is happening in the here and now. The HadCRUT4 30 year trend has reduced by 20% over the last 9 years. Commonsense and logic dictates that if temps remain flat the reduction in the rate of warming can only continue.

    Time will tell.

  • Comment number 72.

    #69. - Lazarus wrote:
    "Actually normal people know that there has been warming in the last 20 years. Please don't confuse absence of warming with no scientifically significant warming just because it supports what you choose to believe."

    My guess is that the majority of "normal people" would have no idea whether there had been warming or not, were it not for the propaganda coming from the M.O. and/or the mainstream media.

  • Comment number 73.

    This blog has been mentioned on the GWPF website:
    http://www.thegwpf.org/met-office-warming-2017-media-do/

    Note the comments about the BBC.

  • Comment number 74.

    Interesting article by Fred Pearce in New Scientist:-

    “Has global warming ground to a halt?”

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23060-has-global-warming-ground-to-a-halt.html?cmpid=RSS%7CNSNS|2012-GLOBAL|environment

    Lots in there for everybody so please read it all, however the following statement demonstrates a welcome growing awareness:-

    “Are these cycles just something scientists have invented to explain away the lack of recent warming?”

    “No. The Met Office admits that we still know far too little about how these natural cycles work, and how big they are. And climate scientists are open to the charge that they ignored the potential impact of natural variability when it was accelerating global warming. According to Brian Hoskins of Imperial College London, it now looks like natural cycles played a big role in the unexpectedly fast warming of the 1990s.”

    Professor Sir Brian Hoskins
    Director of Grantham Institute for Climate Change

  • Comment number 75.

    greensand wrote:

    "The previous MO Decadal Forecasts did not demonstrate any forecasting skill, why should we now put great store in the new one?"

    Because the previous forecast was always going to be wrong. We all knew that it was just a figure at the centre of a possible range. The real figure was within that range too, so the forecast was right within a defined margin of error. That is how real science works. Why would you ignore an updated one?

    It should be noted that this new forecast is for the short term only. Scientists know the importance of natural variability in the short term, where it can completely obscure the global warming signal. Four years ago Doug Smith from the MO said research "suggests that surface air temperatures will remain steady for the next six years or so, as cooler sea surface temperatures keep the lower atmosphere cool despite ever higher greenhouse gas levels".
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926691.500-climate-change-the-next-ten-years.html?

    There are NO negative figures within the error margins of this or any other credible scientific forecast that I know off - Global Warming will almost certainly continue.

  • Comment number 76.

    QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "My guess is that the majority of "normal people" would have no idea whether there had been warming or not, were it not for the propaganda coming from the M.O. and/or the mainstream media."

    Or it might be the empirical evidence of the many separate threads of research that show continued average warming trends and anthropogenic fingerprints and that the scientists are finally getting through to normal people.

    Using "propaganda" at every turn when the majority of the best qualified people don't agree with you makes you come across a a conspiracy theorist wingnut - sorry.

  • Comment number 77.

    #76. - Lazarus wrote:

    "Using "propaganda" at every turn when the majority of the best qualified people don't agree with you makes you come across a a conspiracy theorist wingnut - sorry."

    For what it's worth, the definition of "propaganda" from Wikipedia is as follows:

    "Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument. Propaganda is usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the chosen result in audience attitudes."

    How else would you describe what is going on?

    To be "propaganda", it doesn't necessarily have to be untrue, only to put forward one side of the argument exclusively.

  • Comment number 78.

    75. Lazarus wrote:
    “Because the previous forecast was always going to be wrong. We all knew that it was just a figure at the centre of a possible range.”

    No Lazarus it was withdrawn before it went out of “a possible range”

    The new one is the same format “just a figure at the centre of a possible range”
    Neither you nor I know what the outcome will be, so I ask again with the “why should we now put great store in the new one?"

  • Comment number 79.

    RSS down 0.09C in Dec. Both satellites now show no warming against 10 yr average, and this is at the end of a small El Nino.

    Me thinks the Met have finally seen reality!

    Remember as well that we are still in the warm phase of the AMO. When this switches to cold, probably in the 2020's, we will be looking at 40 yrs of no warming.

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/rss-uah-update/

  • Comment number 80.

    "Both satellites now show no warming against 10 yr average, and this is at the end of a small El Nino."

    Neither satellite records show no warming over the last 10 years. To show no warming they'd have to very finely show something close to 0C/decade trend.

    UAH since 2002 comes out as 0.004 degrees C per decade +- 0.346C/decade to 95%
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

    Such a large uncertainty range precludes being able to conclude there's been no warming. The given figure above does not preclude 0.2C/decade and so cannot be said to represent no warming.

    The surface records are somewhat better as they have less noise over 10 year periods, but they still have large uncertainty.

    bear in mind that the period 2002-2012 started with a string of el ninos and a strong solar maximum and ended diving into a solar minimum, string of moderate to strong la ninas and a weak solar cycle.

    How much warming from CO2 do we expect over this period? 0.2C?

    Okay. So how much cooling did the Sun provide? I don't think 0.1C is unreasonable, nor conflicts with mainstream science. And the El Nino-La Nina imbalance? I think 0.05C is reasonable.

    So in total that would be 0.05C/decade warming expected from 2002-2013 given all the above effects, including 0.2C warming from CO2. Now obviously 0.05C/decade is not falsified in light of the temperature data over the period and the large uncertainty in it. It really isn't anywhere near falsification.

  • Comment number 81.

    Well Young Paul - I came by to see if the usual CAGW crowd were still trying to push water uphill, with their usual handmade links from Warming Central.

    2012 has seen some high profile defections to the dark-side as good scientists, as opposed to the religious believers, see the evidence with their own eyes.

    Where have we got to??

    You have a theory (a hypothesis really) that increasing CO2 will massively warm the Earth's atmosphere. You make sure you build models that show that. Models that have not been right in the last 25 years. But hey we have a planet to save here. For a forecast from 25 years ago that was right research Richard Lindzen.

    You had mistaken the last upside of the multi-decadal variation that has been evident for 300 years as something unusual and unprecedented - turns out it wasn't.

    After 16 years of NO warming - but media releases constantly throwing propaganda out that we are going to hell in a handcart because of Global Warming which has morphed into Climate Change you are forced to admit it hasn't warmed, it isn't warming and we don't know when it will. If the Met Office are correct in the no warming until at least 2017, that will be 20 years without warming, during which time 35% plus of the CO2 ever emitted by man will have been released. Man is only responsible for a few % of the total anyway.

    As Richard Feynman famously said - if your actual data does not fit your theory - your theory is wrong.

    Climate Science is so corrupt now that they even question the data - our theory is settled science, surely the data must be wrong!!!

    On the back of all this the developed world has already wasted billions we don't have to solve a problem there is no evidence is there. If I was at the heart of giving this advice, I would be noting that some Earthquake experts have gone to jail in Italy for a lot less.

    Time to keep an open mind, If you don't think Climate Change is a mass hysteria event - clock this list of things that have been attributed to CC by folks seeking grant money.

    http://numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

    Absolutely Amazing.

  • Comment number 82.

    @75, Lazarus wrote:

    “ There are NO negative figures within the error margins of this or any other credible scientific forecast that I know off - Global Warming will almost certainly continue. “

    Assuming that you consider the models used to create the IPCC's 'ensemble' to be credible then real world temperatures have been consistently below the error margins of some of these models for 12 years.

    The most reasonable conclusion would be that some of the models used in the IPCC ensemble are not credible.

  • Comment number 83.

    @Quake

    Not really wishing to play the man, but I'm pretty sure that you really didn't seem to "believe" that solar effects were terribly important in the past, please correct me if I'm wrong?

    And, I was just wondering when this epiphany regarding their potential effects took place? Was there a particularly convincing paper that I might look up?

  • Comment number 84.

    #79. - PaulHomewood wrote:
    "RSS down 0.09C in Dec. Both satellites now show no warming against 10 yr average, and this is at the end of a small El Nino."

    There are indications that GISTEMP may also be down but these may be provisional and final official figures haven't been published yet.
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/_graphs3/Fig.C.gif
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/_graphs3/Fig.C.txt

    "Me thinks the Met have finally seen reality!"

    I doubt it somehow.

  • Comment number 85.

    84. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    Thanks interesting provisional GISS Nos.

    I notice the MO updated HadSST2 bright and early this month (inc the tardy Nov Nos) but no sign of HadSST3 yet?

    BOM now showing negative SST's in ENSO 1 through 3.4 only ENSO 4 is positive. Though no signs of a strong move.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtml?bookmark=nino3

  • Comment number 86.

    Message 43

    "So the total absence of warming for over 20 years has been noted by normal people...". Except that this has not happened. The noughties was a warmer decade than the nineties. And what about 2010?
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2013/decadal-forecasts
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12241692
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/2013-global-forecast
    I cannot rule out that it will be cooler than now in 2017 - but we are in 2013 NOT 2017.

    Did you bother to read the Shukman article at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20947224 (flagged under Paul's previous blog if not this one)
    I quote: "The UK Met Office has revised one of its forecasts for how much the world may warm in the next few years.
    It says the average temperature is likely to be 0.43 C above the long-term average by 2017, as opposed to an earlier forecast suggesting a difference of 0.54C...
    ... If the forecast is accurate, the result would be that the global average temperature would have remained relatively static for about two decades."

    Yes, the world was probably not quite so warm in 2012 and 2011 as in 2010. A two year period tells us little. Well it tells ME little anyway.

  • Comment number 87.

    Message 49

    "And why do people keep saying no warming for 20 years?".
    In the case of the people saying that here, I think it is probably because either it suits their agenda or because they are prejudiced in some way.
    The world yearly average is undoubtedly higher now than it was in 1994.

  • Comment number 88.

    Message 72
    "My guess is that the majority of "normal people" would have no idea whether there had been warming or not, were it not for the propaganda coming from the M.O. and/or the mainstream media."
    So you are saying that potentially worrying news must be kept from a poorly informed or preoccupied the general public? If so, then my opinion is that your point of view is ridiculous. Though there are countries where such bad news may indeed be 'buried' if reported at all.

  • Comment number 89.

    Message 81

    "After 16 years of NO warming ...". UNTRUE.

    Unless perhaps you are referring to the planet Mars from 1998 onwards?

    "2012 has seen some high profile defections to the dark-side as good scientists, as opposed to the religious believers, see the evidence with their own eyes".
    Conversions seem to take place in BOTH directions:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=0

    Sorry, but I think your propagandist tone just sets off alarm bells with me. Your "Time to keep an open mind, If you don't think Climate Change is a mass hysteria event ..." plea rings hollow (yes I viewed the link). The bandwagons people jump onto usually have something going for them, rather than being fringe ideas which are rapidly discarded or disproven.

  • Comment number 90.

    The way the Met office has delt with this has been shambolic. It just plays into the hands of idiots, see todays Daily Mail for proof!

  • Comment number 91.

  • Comment number 92.

    #90

    Is this what you mean:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2259942/The-crazy-climate-change-obsession-thats-Met-Office-menace.html

    'Dr Whitehouse notes that this is a sad betrayal of the Met Office’s traditional role: ‘When it comes to four or five-day weather forecasting, the Met Office is the best in the world,’ he says. ‘The tragedy is that, for the most part, the Met Office thinks weather forecasting is beneath it. Climate change is more glamorous — and brings in more money.’

    Perhaps it won't be bringing in more money than the commercial side anymore!

  • Comment number 93.

    @92 ukpahonta

    That’s the one. Dr Whitehouse isn't the idiot I referred to though....

  • Comment number 94.

    #85. - greensand wrote:
    "I notice the MO updated HadSST2 bright and early this month (inc the tardy Nov Nos) but no sign of HadSST3 yet?"

    Actually on or before the 8th. I posted on the previous blog, (#120) but we were discussing the MO explanation at the time. It's hard to tell if the fall in SST2 will translate into a fall in HadCRUT3/4 but I think it might.

    I queried the absence of the Nov. SST2 figures last month with the MO. They updated all of the others but must have forgotten about SST2.

    For some reason I can't access the NASA/GISS site this morning. I don't know if it is me or them.

  • Comment number 95.

    #88. - ashleyhr wrote:
    "So you are saying that potentially worrying news must be kept from a poorly informed or preoccupied the general public? If so, then my opinion is that your point of view is ridiculous. Though there are countries where such bad news may indeed be 'buried' if reported at all."
    No, I am saying that the facts should be reported without bias, the "good" news and the "bad" news equally.
    By only reporting the "bad" news, the MO and BBC are misleading the general public.
    Any unbiased news broadcaster would have given equal air time to the reduction in temperature forecasts as it did to the previous increases.

  • Comment number 96.

    94. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "For some reason I can't access the NASA/GISS site this morning"

    Same here

  • Comment number 97.

    @QV & Greensand

    Not that this helps much, but I'm having similar issues

  • Comment number 98.

    greensand/blunderbunny,

    Thanks, at least I know it isn't just me.
    My computer was a bit slow this morning but it is working now for other sites.
    I wonder what the problem is.

  • Comment number 99.

    79. PaulHomewood wrote:

    "RSS down 0.09C in Dec. Both satellites now show no warming against 10 yr average, and this is at the end of a small El Nino."

    Several times you have repeated the claim now that there was a "small El Nino" in 2012. On your site you say it peaked in June.

    I can find no published data source that confirms that El Nino conditions were formally declared at any time during 2012. SSTs in ENSO 3.4 rose above the +0.5C threshold for a time, but they did not persist long enough for El Nino conditions to be declared, either by the US NOAA or the Australian Met. Bureau. So can you cite your source that says there was an El Nino in 2012 please?

    Both the NOAA and Australian Met confirm that formally declared 'La Nina' conditions persisted through until March 2012, designating 2012 as officially a 'La Nina year' according to the NOAA definition. As such, 2012 becomes the second warmest La Nina year in the UAH record (and 9th warmest overall); and the third warmest La Nina year in the RSS record (and 11th warmest overall).

    2012 was above the long term average in both UAH and RSS in terms of both the annual anomaly and the December anomaly.

  • Comment number 100.

    newdwr54 - well 'trends' appear to be your preferred method of looking at potential solar influence or trying establish continued warming in the absence of clear evidence. There's enough statistical juggling room in climate science to support almost any argument which is why I said "Just goes to show how many jigsaws you can make from the same pieces if you are so minded."
    Re: Lags in solar forcing. I believe the term is Hysteresis. If you're happy to believe the consensus view that ocean heat is accumulating due to CO2 then why question the possibility of longer lag times for any forcing?
    Re: "you have not yet explained"
    Well actually, I did explain. I said . . .
    "one might expect a more immediate response to changes in solar forcing since the longer lag times are associated with ocean heat storage."
    I also used the word 'might' rather than 'should' since it was an off the cuff response to a paper Quake had linked to which had not hitherto, been under discussion. My thinking, if you're genuinely interested, being that water vapour dampens responses. I was thinking about the way deserts can rapidly heat up and cool down in one day, with around 40C range. Oceans on the other hand, at similar latitudes, show very small variation of perhaps a few degrees, over the same timescale. Of course, water vapour is always abundantly 'available' over ocean and presumably slightly less so over land, in which case, if a shorter lag difference of any sort is visible in the record, it would more likely be over land. Incidentally, right or wrong - makes no odds to me since I haven't given it any serious thought.

 

Page 1 of 3

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.