« Previous | Main | Next »

Met Office global forecasts too warm in 11 out of last 12 yrs

Paul Hudson | 15:08 UK time, Friday, 10 February 2012

Global temperatures fell quite sharply in January, according to the UAH satellite measure.

The anomaly of -0.093C below the 30 year running mean equates to approximately +0.16C above the more standard 1961-1990 time period.

As regards 2011 as a whole, according to the Met Office, 2011 was the 12th warmest year in their 150 years of global temperature records with an anomaly of 0.346C.

This compares to their 2011 forecast of 0.44C.

Although this discrepancy is within the stated margin of error, it is the 11th year out of the last 12 when the Met Office global temperature forecast has been too warm.

In all these years, the discrepancy between observed temperatures and the forecast are within the stated margin of error.

But all the errors are on the warm side, with none of the forecasts that have been issued in the last 12 years ending up too cold.

And, in my opinion, that makes the error significant.

Some scientists who I have spoken to suggest that one of problems is the lack of observations in the Arctic, which is known to have warmed faster than other parts of the world.

They point out that if proper account was taken of this area of the world, then the overall observed global temperature would be higher, a point acknowledged by the Met Office when I spoke to them earlier this week.

In short, it could be that the observations are wrong, with computer predictions right all along.

Climate sceptics, however, say that the real reason why the computer predictions are systematically too warm is because they don't properly take into account some of the natural processes that are occurring, such as weak solar activity, which may be holding back global temperatures.

But in recent research conducted by the Met Office and Reading University, the possible cooling exerted by a less-active sun was found to have only a small effect on global temperatures.

This year, the Met Office is predicting an anomaly which is 0.44C above the long term average.

Whatever the reason for the ongoing 'warm bias' in Met Office global temperatures, their forecast for the first half of this decade, published in early 2010, that half the years between 2010 and 2015 would be hotter than the hottest year on record (with an anomaly of 0.52C set in 1998) is already looking in doubt.

Follow me on twitter @Hudsonweather

Comments

Page 1 of 2

  • Comment number 1.

    Very interesting information from the Met Office.
    It could be that the information they input into their computers does not encompass a broad enough range.
    As for the solar output not making a lot of difference: how long have they been looking at this data? Perhaps the Met Office should take more notice and indeed work with scientists such as Piers Corbyn who have been making close studies in this area (solar activity) for a long time.

    Anyhow, I will hand over to the regular argumentative rabble so they can carry on contributing to global warming with their hot air posts.

  • Comment number 2.

    @1 Mr-Bluesky

    Mr Corbyn might of been studying the sun for a long time but as he doesn't produce any research on the matter why should the Met Office seek him out to work with? No peer review, no verification, no replication....not science the way I understand it.

  • Comment number 3.

    "Some scientists who I have spoken to suggest that one of problems is the lack of observations in the Arctic, which is known to have warmed faster than other parts of the world."

    Sigh...

    Mailman

  • Comment number 4.

    Nasa has posted a view of the cold snap across Europe

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=77126&src=eorss-iotd

    and others are keeping an eye on the Western Arctic Ocean freshwater storage increased by wind-driven spin-up of the Beaufort Gyre.

    https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo1379.html

    Could a freshwater bulge at some point interfere with the Atlantic conveyor?

  • Comment number 5.

    Quite true john_cogger, but why does this mean his (Piers Corbyn) forecasts, methods etc are wrong?
    I am not a subscriber to any weather websites but I do look at over a dozen every day, including the Met Office and Weather Action.

    There are too many people out there who look at things with a "black or white" viewpoint which is not good for science. Just because some methods of weather forecasting are unconventional does not make them wrong.

    Start looking at the bigger picture and taking account of all points of view however unconventional they may seem: the truth is out there, it just needs to found.

  • Comment number 6.

    John Cogger. "not science the way I understand it." What says your way of understanding it is correct? Sometimes too much of the wrong information. doesn't mean you are right. Common sense has to come into it some where. A thousand years of the earth warming and cooling via the sun versus, 20 years of data in its infancy, with far too much spin. I know which way I am betting.

  • Comment number 7.

    Well done Mr Hudson!

    A nice little Friday afternoon "cat among the pigeons" post?

  • Comment number 8.

    I did my annual post in January on these figures. Actually the bias has been evident for 12 of the last 13 years. See the post for the forecast compared to the measured result.

    https://climateedinburgh.blogspot.com/2012/01/official-bias-continues.html

    Enjoy. And thanks for your excellent blog.

  • Comment number 9.

    "Some scientists who I have spoken to suggest that one of problems is the lack of observations in the Arctic, which is known to have warmed faster than other parts of the world. "

    Since the predictions are for the anomalies based on HadCRUT3, and since presumably the UKMO are aware of where the observations are, that should be taken into account in the predictions.
    I agree that the fact that all of the predictions are on the warm side, does self-evidently indicate bias as a neutral forecast would have produced an approximately equal number of errors on either side.
    The MO have recently started to use other datasets to compare with their forecasts but if the forecasted anomalies corresponded to a different dataset to HadCRUT3, then that should have been made clear from the outset.

  • Comment number 10.

    #8. - climateedinburgh wrote:
    "I did my annual post in January on these figures. Actually the bias has been evident for 12 of the last 13 years. See the post for the forecast compared to the measured result."
    Thanks for the link -it's useful to have a source of the forecasted v observed figures.
    I don't recall you posting here before - is that a new site?
    Your post mentions that you haven't seen an official forecast for 2012 yet but presumably you are are aware of the is:
    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/2012-global-temperature-forecast
    and this:
    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc
    There has been some discussion of the above on this blog recently.
    It will be interesting to see whether the HadCRUT4 anomalies are any closer to the predictions than HadCRUT3.

  • Comment number 11.

    @9. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "Since the predictions are for the anomalies based on HadCRUT3"

    Forecasts and hindcasts?

    The 2011 Met Office +0.44C forecast has some interesting reading and charts under:-

    "Background information"

    Not sure having read it again if they are forecasting against HadCRUt3?

    Also worth a re-visit is:-

    "Verification of Annual Forecasts"

    Not sure I can see any change in the Global v 60S v 60N hindcasts?


    "Global-average annual temperature forecast"

    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/glob-aver-annual-temp-fc

    Going to be interesting watching this develop

  • Comment number 12.

    Feels cold tonight, yet a few days ago I woke up at 4.30 am (and got up to work) feeling warm and I had no heating on!
    I am a lay person but it is quite worrying. The dissolving of polar ice is well documented but often ignored by governments. CO2 emissions must be reduced and the USA is one of the biggest culprits for emitting CO2 emissions! The USA as a superpower should take a lead but they don't.
    In Knaresborough we have a great bus service and reasonable rail link so we can ditch the car a lot of the time to save CO2 emissions.

  • Comment number 13.

    Quite right Glynn Maldwyn: CO2 emissions are damaging the earths atmosphere but can we put all the blame on mankind? Are we actualy hastening something that would have happened anyway? Who knows the answer?
    Probobly one of the many know-it-alls posting on Pauls blogs!

    Paul could post a blog about a goldfish and one of the regulars would turn it into a debate about climate change!

  • Comment number 14.

    This is the obvious place for our forcasts for 2012
    I have removed Joe Bastardi from the list because we are by no means certain of the basis of his forecast
    New entries OR REVISIONS welcome through until the end of February

    “Warmists”
    +0.48 Met Office (+0.44)
    +0.45 Newdwr54 (N/A)
    +0.43 John Cogger (N/A)

    “Neutralists”
    +0.41 NeilHamp (+0.27)
    +0.41 quake (+0.36)
    +0.40 Paul Briscoe
    +0.40 Gagetfriend (+0.30)

    “Coolists”
    +0.34 QuaesoVeritas (+0.31)
    +0.29 millinia (+0.24)
    +0.29 LabMunkey (+0.25)
    +0.28 ukpahonta (+0.35) (2011 winning entry)

    No forecast yet found

    SmokingDeepThroat (+0.39)
    Ken Sharples( +0.18)
    nibor25( +0.15)
    jkiller56
    Lazarus

  • Comment number 15.

    'In short, it could be that the observations are wrong, with computer predictions right all along.'

    And the probability of that is greater than the models being wrong, or not?

  • Comment number 16.

    My forecast for 2012:
    We will have some rain, snow, and dry days. It will hot, warm, cool and cold. Next winter will be similar to one in the past and one in the future, as will spring, summer and autumn.
    Lots of people will complain and lots of people will be happy.

    One thing is certain: we will have weather.

  • Comment number 17.

    #10 @quesoveritas:
    "Thanks for the link -it's useful to have a source of the forecasted v observed figures.
    I don't recall you posting here before - is that a new site?
    Your post mentions that you haven't seen an official forecast for 2012 yet. . . "

    I lurk here from time to time with a few rare comments. The figures (for the predictions) were compiled with the help of the Wayback machine and some research by another blog - as some predictions could not be traced on the Met Office site. Climate Edinburgh has been posting since July 2010 with an Edinburgh/Scotland/policy emphasis.

    Thanks for the updated link. The Met Office used to make their annual prediction in Nov/Dec but by the time I posted the above link (3.1.12) I could find nothing for 2012. The MO gave the 2012 prediction the next day (4.1.12). Thanks.

    I first addressed this topic in Dec '10.
    https://climateedinburgh.blogspot.com/2010/12/official-bias.html

  • Comment number 18.

    @ Paul Hudson

    Paul, does the air in the arctic have the same mass, phase and thermal characteristics as the air in the tropics at each point in time that the relevant temperature measurements are taken?

    Does the air in the arctic even have the same mass, phase and thermal characteristics as the air in the arctic at each point in time that the relevant temperature measurements are taken?

  • Comment number 19.

    Whats the point of a blog if Mr Henderson never engages in discussions with us mere mortals?

    "In short, it could be that the observations are wrong, with computer predictions right all along."

    My eyes! My eyes! Am I reading right? Observations (ie. what is ACTUALLY happening) being ignored because they dont align with the computer models? Hmm...I seem to remember a few arguments with our resident warmist about his love affair with models in the past.

    Models arent experiments.

    Mailman

  • Comment number 20.

    @20 mailmannz

    Its Mr Hudson.

    Observations can be wrong if they don't cover the entire globe. Something the 'coolests' have been crying about for ages. Get more observations and temps go up they cry even more.

  • Comment number 21.

    Observational evidence is what it is. It is not right or wrong. Conversely, to short-quote the great Box, "all models are wrong". For precisely the reasons Box gave, climate models are invariably emphatically so.

    Paul Hudson's comment "In short, it could be that the observations are wrong, with computer predictions right all along" is a joke. I can only presume that it was a deliberate joke, to be read in mocking tone.

  • Comment number 22.

    Paul Hudson: "Some scientists who I have spoken to suggest that one of problems is the lack of observations in the Arctic, which is known to have warmed faster than other parts of the world."

    Without those observations which are lacking in the arctic, this is an assertion made with inappropriate certainty. I cry foul.

  • Comment number 23.

    In a major three part series Professor Bob Carter covers the most important events which influenced the climate debate in 2011.

    "Climate change is self-evidently a natural process. Warmings, coolings, cyclones, floods, droughts and bushfires have been coming and going since long before human industrial processes started adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere; and, indeed, since before there were humans at all.

    The appropriate question is therefore not whether climate change is “real”, but the more specific one of whether human-related greenhouse emissions are causing dangerous global warming.

    Scientists assess such speculative ideas against a norm called the null hypothesis, which, following long historical practice, is fashioned to be the simplest interpretation of any given set of material facts.

    The null hypothesis for today’s observed climate changes is therefore that they are of natural causation, unless and until specific evidence accrues otherwise.

    Contrary to prevailing political belief, and to the alarmist messages that come from the UN’s discredited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), much amplified by environmental organisations and a compliant media, scientists have searched for this accrual in vain.

    Instead, tens of thousands of scientific papers published in reputable journals delineate changes in climate and the environment, and ecological responses, that are entirely consistent with the null hypothesis of natural causation. In contrast, not a single paper exists that demonstrates an evidential cause-effect link between change in an environmental variable (be that more or less storms, floods, droughts, cyclones, honeyeaters or even polar bears) and warming caused by human-related carbon dioxide emissions.

    Given the astonishing amounts of money that are now poured into climate change research, it is no surprise that 2011 saw the publication of several thousand more scientific papers that contain data relevant to this problem. But it may perhaps be to some readers’ surprise that these papers simply added yet more evidence in favour of the validity of the null hypothesis."
    https://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2012/02/climate-review-i

    Good starting point!

  • Comment number 24.

    #22. - Simon H wrote:
    "Without those observations which are lacking in the arctic, this is an assertion made with inappropriate certainty. I cry foul."
    To be fair, the observations do exist, if you use UAH, which suggests that the rate of warming in the N.Polar region, over the last 10 years, is +0.213c/decade, compared to the HadCRUT3 N.H. rate of -0.069c/decade.
    On the other hand, the UAH 10 year trend in the S. Polar region is -0.19c/decade, compared with the HadCRUT3 S.H. rate of -0.13c/decade.
    So have Had/CRU added observations in the Antarctic, to take into account the fact that it appears to be cooling faster than the rest of the S.H.?
    I don't know, but it would seem to be reasonable to do so.

  • Comment number 25.

    Mr Bluesky

    When I first joined this blog about 18 months ago, I had exactly the same impression as you - that whatever the topic, it would soon evolve ( even begin from a dead start) into a wrangle about climate change. This is OK up to a point, but I suspect - as you seem to do - that it probably puts a lot of people off. As you put it - there is enough hot air here to warm the climate on its own.

    Rather - it will make no difference. The average person will be put off reading altogether - unless they have an infinite amount of time to while away, whilst a truely knowledgable reader would not regard the blog as an authoritative source either (except perhaps as a sociological study!). In truth this blog is mainly a valve for letting off steam. And Mr. Hudson - going on holiday for the week - has put a big heap of coal on the boiler this time.

    So the moral is - don't take it very seriously. Who among us can say whether there are enough data sites in the Arctic? You will hear arguments all week (mostly old rehashed ones).

    We have also had long discussions about "Weather Action" in the past. John Cogger sums it up though.#2
    And I agree- why give credibility to a lone maveric who claims, against all established science, to be able to make accurate weather predictions using methods which no one else can replicate; nor evaluate because they are "secret"!

    "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"

    It is not IMPOSSIBLE that a lone individual could come up with a scientific insight unknown to the rest of the world - but it is IMPROBABLE.

    So, until that person opens up their ideas to peer criticism to establish credibility, then their claims must be treated with extreme scepticism. If nothing else, you owe it to your own self respect as a thinking person not to allow yourself to be duped. (WA has been badly wrong recently as I said before - so why bring it up so uncritically?)

    Welcome to the blog, by the way.

  • Comment number 26.

    Many years ago I remember being told at school that when anything happens it for a reason.

    Something is happening with the earth and its atmospere but why?

    Like a said earlier, is the earth at point in a natural cycle it undergoes?
    Is the carbon dioxide being pumped out all over the planet affecting this natural cycle in ways that could be having a more harmful effect on the future?

    I am not a scientist but I do care about what is happening: the earth does appear to have warmed up, some of the natural disasters have been catastrophic and perhaps more frequent than scientists expected, but can these events be put down to something definate? No.

    Observations in my garden I have been making for the past 10 years or so may seem trivial or inconsequential to some, but the facts are these:
    I have noticed that more of my southern hemisphere plants are surviving our winters (and more importantly our springs) than ever before.
    Many of my not supposed to be hardy plants suffer very litte: I dont cover them up or bring them in, and my garden is a frost pocket.
    This is a country wide phenomena and has been reported by the RHS.
    Even the 2 bad winters we suffered in 2009/2010 did little damage to my SH plants: indeed, more damage was done to my more normal plants, and again, this was a widely reported situation around the country.

    Rather than sit on the fence or do nothing, I am trying to do my bit reduce my carbon output: my recycle rate is around 90% (better than my local authority), I cycle or walk whenever possible, keep lighting and heating down to a minimum, my house is very well insulated (by product of the wool industry) etc.

    But I would really like to know for definate: are we in a period of global warming or global cooling? What is going on?

  • Comment number 27.

    Pure guess - +0.42
    How come the coldists are all positive? Do we all accept global warming now?

  • Comment number 28.

    The Met. Office claim that the Arctic has warmed is not borne out by the record low temperatures in Alaska and Russia. If the Met. Office want more accurate predictions they should at least get some real time observations from the areas of concern not use some poor model predictions whose hindcasting success is zero. These people live in a dream CAGW world and give a good impression of alarmist activism rather than a QUANGO that should be acting responsibly.

    Global temperatures have plateaued since 1998 and are now trending down. This is from UHA data sets known to be more accurate that those of Hadcrut/UEA. Whilst this is happening atmospheric CO2 content is rising, mainly from natural producers since our part of the annual total is 3%, which the GHG theory claims is not possible. Solar output is down, including the magnetic field portion, which means that cosmic ray influence on our atmosphere rises producing more low cloud that result in further cooling especially the oceans.

    This cold snap, last week forecast to last a couple of days, may be with us a little longer.

  • Comment number 29.

    and the prize for the most stupid questions goes to . . .

  • Comment number 30.

    @28 John Marshall: John I have been reading some of your older posts regarding CO2 emmissions and adbiatic (?) heating. Very interesting and so obviously logical even to a non physicist/scientist like me.

    So why is this thinking being ignored by global warmists?
    Is this the sort of thinking that people such as Piers Corbyn follow (global coolist)?

    And does this science (the adbiatic cooling) explain why the met office predictions about global warming which this blog is about, are way off the mark?

    Any thoughts/comments in the very simplest terms would be most welcome to me and I am sure lots of others who read this blog.

    Thank you.

  • Comment number 31.

    #26. - Mr-Bluesky wrote:
    "I have noticed that more of my southern hemisphere plants are surviving our winters (and more importantly our springs) than ever before."

    I don't really undstand why it matters if these are S.H. plants or N.H. plants.
    There are winters and springs in the S.H. too, and I don't suppose the plants know what time of the year the seasons occur.
    Surely the most important factor would be which climatic region the plants are from, e.g. tropical?

  • Comment number 32.

    @29:lateintheday wrote:


    and the prize for the most stupid questions goes to . .

    If it was me, then I make no apologies! I want to know about what is happening to the earth and it seems that there is much to be garnered from the comments posted on this blog, past and present. Lots of links being posted to articles that never get a mention: why is this I wonder?
    Is there a government conspiracy.........?

  • Comment number 33.

    #25. - jkiller56 wrote:
    "When I first joined this blog about 18 months ago, I had exactly the same impression as you - that whatever the topic, it would soon evolve ( even begin from a dead start) into a wrangle about climate change. "
    Can I just point out that since it started in 2009 this blog has always been generally on the topic of weather and "climate change".
    It is true that often some of the responses are not directly on the individual topic of a blog post, but since the individual topical posts are closed off after 7 days, it often isn't possible continue a discussion on a particular topic.
    In any case, as I say, the subject of the blog is weather and "climate change", and it isn't as if we are posting comments about football or flower arranging.

  • Comment number 34.

    @31: It does matter whether they are SH plants.
    A lot come from South Africa, for instance. Yes they will get a slight frost and the odd bit of snow, but not for prolonged periods. They do not like damp, cool conditions as it will cause the roots to rot, and often the winter periods whilst wet, soon dry out. Plants are a good indicator of climatic conditions: you only have to look at what grows on the west coast of scotland which is under the influence of the gulf stream.

    What I am saying is that more evidence should be looked at and taken into account when theories are postulated. There will be many things that are overlooked just because they dont seem obvious.

  • Comment number 35.

    #29. - Feb 2012, lateintheday wrote:
    "and the prize for the most stupid questions goes to . . ."
    It may have been better if you had made it clearer which question you were referring to. Remember that posts don't always follow the one you might have intended.
    I assumed it was:
    "Do we all accept global warming now?"

  • Comment number 36.

    #11. - greensand wrote:
    "Global-average annual temperature forecast"
    Thanks for the link, I don't think I have seen that before.
    I got my figure from the MO news release.
    I will get back to you on this as I am getting a bit behind in my reading!

  • Comment number 37.

    @31 Mr Bluesky

    The Met office have not been 'way out', as the blog states it's within the margin of error. They have been much closer than the coldist predictions (looking at you Mr Bastradi).

    Adiabatic heating sounds much better in laymans terms or analogies than it does in science. Dr Roy Spencer has a piece on his blog about it.

  • Comment number 38.

    apologies Mr Bluesky, as QV correctly guessed, this was in response to Lazarus. I should have made that clear.
    Humbled.

  • Comment number 39.

    john cogger- have you tried following the recent Tallbloke posts on N&Z?

  • Comment number 40.

    John Marshall wrote:

    "The Met. Office claim that the Arctic has warmed is not borne out by the record low temperatures in Alaska and Russia. If the Met. "

    Is it borne out by the ice melting?

  • Comment number 41.

    @Lazarus #40

    John Marshall wrote:

    "The Met. Office claim that the Arctic has warmed is not borne out by the record low temperatures in Alaska and Russia. If the Met. "

    Is it borne out by the ice melting?


    Not necessarily, wind also contributes as does sea currents:

    https://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/22/wind-sea-ice-loss-arctic
    https://earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2815
  • Comment number 42.

    What do you expect from IPCC modelling? There are four basic physics' mistakes:

    1.because there is no mechanism for the transfer of quantised energy bit by bit to non GHGs, most thermalisation of absorbed IR will be at second phases, especially cloud droplets. Will Happer warned the modellers of this in 1993 but they ignored it.

    2. Arrhenius also got the heat transfer physics wrong. Ask any process engineer like me and they'll confirm that 'back radiation', really Prevost Exchange, cannot do thermodynamic work, an elementary mistake, so high feedback is an artefact.

    3. Hansens's 33 K present GHG warming conflates lapse rate, an elementary mistake.

    4. Cooling by polluted clouds supposed to hide high feedback CO2-AGW is wrong because Sagan's optical physics doesn't take account of a second optical effect. I thought I was alone in this but US cloud physicist G L Stephens says the same.

    So, the climate models are IR and heat transfer junk offset by using double real low level cloud optical depth. Hansen has just claimed net AIE has jumped ~ 50% when in reality that is the real heating and CO2-(A)GW may even be net slightly negative.

    This new Lysenkoism has been fraudulent since 1997 when it was shown that CO2 rose after T at the end of ice ages so CO2 climate sensitivity had to be calibrated against post industrial warming, cue fake hockey stick and fiddle past temperatures.

  • Comment number 43.

    newdwr54,

    Going back to your post regarding the RealClimate comparison of IPCC models and the actual temperatures in the previous topic:

    "RealClimate have been using the same measure for comparing temps against model projections for the past three years.
    Like you, I'm not sure of the exact methodology; but I'm pretty sure it hasn't changed to meet circumstances."
    Not sure what you are getting at. If I gave the impression that I had suggested that they had changed the methodology, that was not intentional.

    "The models are running substantially higher than the data. But the data is still within the range of the models, and it's too early to say yet that the model mean is too high."

    To say that actual data is within the range of the models is a bit misleading.
    I have replicated the RealClimate graph, using the end 2011 figures for all three series, and I can confirm that only 1 of the 21 models used in scenario A1B, was below HadCRUT3 and NCDC at the end of 2011. That model was cnrm_cm3, but that model seemed to produce very erratic annual forecasts. Sometimes it was much higher than the other models and other times much lower. For example, it forecast an anomaly of -0.104c for 1998, against the actual HadCRUT3 figure of +0.359c.
    Only two models were below the actual 2011 GISTEMP temperature, the above and iap_fgoals1_0_g. That model was less erratic than the cnrm model, but even it only forecasted an anomaly of +0.174c for 1998.
    So in reality, I think it is more accurate to say that actual temperatues were below about 93% of the model forecasts for 2011, rather than within 95% of the model range.
    Of course, even I wouldn't expect models to be correct for individual years. Normally I compare the 3 year means but in this case I have switched to individual years, because that is what the RealClimate comparison does.

  • Comment number 44.

    I forgot to mention that since both of the above models are forecasting much higher figures for 2012 of +0.393c and +0.572c respectively, both of which would represent record high temperatures, it seems quite likely that by the end of 2012, the actual temperature will be below all 21 models in scenario A1B.

  • Comment number 45.

    @28 John_Marshall

    "The Met. Office claim that the Arctic has warmed is not borne out by the record low temperatures in Alaska and Russia. "

    Or the high temperatures in parts of Canada or places like Svalbard. Svalbard has averaged 13.6 degrees above normal over the last 31 days. Salt mines in Canada are laying off workers due to their mild winter and the lack of road gritting.

  • Comment number 46.

    @39 Lateintheday

    Not been following it on Tallblokes blog to be honest. Kept an eye on it via WUWT, where at times there seems to be a civil warm over the subject. Lots of posters on there are convinced that CO2 is not a 'greenhouse' gas and the Greenhouse gas effect is all wrong. As far as I know even Watts, Monckton et al don't even believe that.

  • Comment number 47.

    Monckton has got it wrong because he's not an engineer or physicist so has tried to argue assuming the direct thermalisation and back radiation myths are correct.

    As for Watts. he is correct: there is AGW but because there are other warming effects including an AGW not involving GHGs, the GHG bit has been grossly exaggerated.

    By latching onto Arrhenius and Tyndall, who made elementary mistakes, then having insufficient advanced physics to realise the correct story, climate science fixed the models too early and can't back down.

  • Comment number 48.

    @48 spartacusisfree

    Wow really? Where is this paper? It will win a noble prize for sure, overturning 100 years of scientific theory should be a shoe in for the prize. Can't wait to see it.

  • Comment number 49.

    To Mr.Bluesky#26

    Interested in your comments about southern hemisphere plants.

    Where ever do you live Mr.B? Last winter not only wiped out many SH plants all over the country (except perhaps southern and western coasts) but quite a lot of NH ones as well. Admittedly the damage varied from locality to locality but if you are really in a frost hollow, you would have lost a great deal I am sure.

    If you want some idea of the extent of national damage, you might try the RHS website. They had lists of plant losses around the UK - though may have removed these by now. I am puzzled that you seem to think the RHS suggests the reverse. They might have done up to 2 years ago but the last 2 winters have been a major shock to gardeners. Many nurseries and growers lost the bulk of their entire stock last year (Dec 2010)

    Of the most obvious losses locally, Eucalyptus (many around 50' high) have been destroyed in many areas and cabbage palms (up to 15-20') are eliminated almost everywhere. Both of these were once widespread, and their sizes suggest have been around for several decades at least.

    In some places west of the Wolds particularly, even normally very hardy plants like Viburnums, Cotoneasters and Mahonias were badly maimed. I, myself, find it hard to imagine, that only 3 years ago, I had Lobster's Claw (Clianthus puniceus) growing right round the door!

  • Comment number 50.

    To QV at 33

    Yes, sorry, teasing a bit there. It is certainly possible to learn quite a lot from this blog but sifting through it can take some doing.

    Perhaps its just me, I don't really like reading from screens.

  • Comment number 51.

    J Marshall#28 & others

    By "Arctic" I guess we are mostly refering to the arctic ocean and Greenland. The bulk of Siberia and even most of Alaska is south of the arctic circle - so record low temps there may not strictly count as "arctic". They are however more typical of the scatter of record lows that N temperate areas have experienced recently.

    There was a brief discussion of this on "Material World" BBC R4. last week. Again the hypothesis about the weakening polar vortex (due to polar warming) was fingered as the cause of recent temperate severity. This idea was aired widely in 2010 of course.

  • Comment number 52.

    Re plants, in the late 1990's I was sent some echium pininana seeds and for a decade we had good fun, passed plants on to friends who called them "triffids". However none have survivedthe last 3 winters and looking at this year’s stock I doubt that they will survive and they have had far, far better protection than their forebears.

    https://www.wildchicken.com/nature/garden/nature_200_136.htm

    Just an actual, personal, observation that in the context of life means now’t

  • Comment number 53.

  • Comment number 54.

    Lost most of the last post.

    CO2-AGW

  • Comment number 55.

    48. john_cogger:

    spartacusisfree has been airing his theories for some time. I think he said he had submitted his paper to some journals. No takers - as yet.

  • Comment number 56.

    53. spartacusisfree:

    Bob Tisdale's graph that you link to refers only to the North Atlantic and ends in September 2011. Are there any up to date global SST charts?

  • Comment number 57.

    @36 QuaesoVeritas

    QV, take your time I get the distinct impression that issue has "legs"?

    I will sit back, watch and enjoy, but most of all learn.

    Just to prove that I am a heritic I visited WUWT today and found the following:-

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/10/new-wuwt-feature-scafettas-forecast-vs-the-ipcc-forecast/ cafe

    All I want is to see our own Met Office do the same and update their 12 rolling monthly Decadal Forecasts on a monthly basis?

    Lets see what is actually happening in the here and now?

  • Comment number 58.

    dw, there is really only one chart/graph of Bob's that we should all be concerned with:-

    Global SST anomalies

    https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/15-weekly-global.png

  • Comment number 59.

    43. QuaesoVeritas:

    If it is the case that surface temps are currently below all but a few model projections based on the A1B scenario then obviously the multi-model mean will be higher than the instrument observations. That is clear from the RealClimate graph. I don't see how that is misleading. At the same time, we are very early into the range of projections, and this could all change radically over the next few years.

    If the model projections are flawed then they will have to be changed. That's the way it works. If you want to consider a seriously flawed projection then look no further than John McClean's in March 9th 2011: https://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7349

    McClean is quoted as saying: "It is likely that 2011 will be the coolest year since 1956, or even earlier..."

    He was out by a very large margin. While it's good to see people nail their colours to the mast, it's disappointing that some don't step up to the plate and admit when they are wrong: https://www.skepticalscience.com/year-after-mclean-review-of-2011-global-temperatures.html

  • Comment number 60.

    58. greensand:

    Bob's chart that you link to only goes back to 2004. Are there any graphs that go back further than this, say about 30 years from present?

    Just to give the data some context.

  • Comment number 61.

    @60. newdwr54

    Absolutely loads! Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Annual, but the only data that is real is what is happening now!

    Why are you so attached to the last decade? Are you a Liverpool supporter?

  • Comment number 62.

    Correction, "attached to the last decade" should of course be "the last century"

  • Comment number 63.

    Lazarus

    'How come the coldists are all positive? Do we all accept global warming now?'

    Would that be past global warming, present global warming or future global warming as predicted by the climate models?

    Personally I fully accept that the Earth has warmed in the last century, the last decade has been flat lining and the future is looking colder.
    How about you, do you adhere to the premise that temperatures will only go upwards due to continually increasing CO2 levels or are you starting to see that the link is at best over estimated? I ask due to your 2012 guess being a good 0.6C below the prediction of the experts, which is indicating that you also think that the models are too high.

    Is everyone becoming a coldist?

  • Comment number 64.

    Talking of up dated forcasts I see that Jim Hansen seems to provide an up date of his infamous 1988 temperature forecasts for scenarios A B and C

    It can be found at https://www.columbia.edu/%7Emhs119/

    It is hidden away on the site
    Click on "Global Temperatures"
    Scroll down till you find "More Figures"
    The updated record of his 1988 forecast can be found inside this data

    Alternatively, go here
    https://www.columbia.edu/%7Emhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/PNAS_GTCh_Fig2.gif

  • Comment number 65.

    I have been a coldest since 2005, working for a Carbon Management company opened my eyes to the spin. I would shut the Carbon Management down tomorrow, it is a waste of space. 1000 of years of data doesn't lie, that the earth cools and warms due to the sun. C02 doesn't make any difference and 95% is created by nature any way. If you want to make the world a better place, plant more trees and stop cutting back rain forests. Clean technology for cars, especially the TATA compressed air car are the real big wins, not petty officialdom. Too many people are trying to make a name for themselves, but it only makes them look like fools later. Has anybody found the broken hockey stick.

  • Comment number 66.

    If one were to make a partisan point rather than a scientific one then for all those that have participated in providing a 2012 prediction on this weather and climate related blog then the consensus of opinion is that the models are predicting too high.

    But that would be rather silly now wouldn't it as a consensus is still only opinion and doesn't imply anything!

  • Comment number 67.

    BBC's Weather Test washout: Bid to check accuracy of forecasts vanishes in storm of wrangling that no one predicted

    Read more: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099922/BBCs-Weather-Test-washout-bid-check-accuracy-forecasts-vanishes-storm-wrangling-predicted.html

  • Comment number 68.

    #59. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "If it is the case that surface temps are currently below all but a few model projections based on the A1B scenario then obviously the multi-model mean will be higher than the instrument observations. That is clear from the RealClimate graph. I don't see how that is misleading. "
    What I said was that it was misleading to say that the actual temperatures were within the range of the models, or as you said earlier, or within 95% of the model runs.
    This is like saying someone's exam results were within 95% of the class results, if they came 21st out of a class of 21. Entirely true, but misleading.
    If someone hadn't seen the graph, and you said that the actual temperatures were within the range of the models, then you showed them the graph, I think they would say that the statement was misleading.
    When you look at the actual projections of individual models, it becomes apparent that the multi-model mean is of no more significance than if it were used to average the results of a random-number generator.
    Personally, If I had been producing the model projections, I would have used something like exponential smoothing to reduce the annual extremes.
    "If the model projections are flawed then they will have to be changed. That's the way it works."
    I will be pleasantly surprised if the model projections in AR5 are lower than those in AR4. The recent UKMO projections suggest otherwise.
    "While it's good to see people nail their colours to the mast, it's disappointing that some don't step up to the plate and admit when they are wrong."
    As far as I am aware that anyone has admitted (publicly) that any of the IPCC models were wrong. In fact, were it not for "sceptics", I doubt if we would ever have known just how wrong some of the IPCC models are. If you know of such an admission, could you let me know?

  • Comment number 69.

    Sorry, the last paragraph should have read:
    "As far as I am aware, not anyone has admitted (publicly) that any of the IPCC models were wrong. In fact, were it not for "sceptics", I doubt if we would ever have known just how wrong some of the IPCC models are. If you know of such an admission, could you let me know?

  • Comment number 70.

    #67. - ukpahonta wrote:
    "BBC's Weather Test washout: Bid to check accuracy of forecasts vanishes in storm of wrangling that no one predicted"
    If this is true, it would not surprise me in the least.
    From the (limited) attempts I have made myself to check the accuracy of MO forecasts, it has become apparent that this is a very difficult process, given the limited availability of actual data.
    The body which is in the best position to do this, at least in relation to it's own forecasts, is the MO itself, otherwise they are not in a position to claim any level of accuracy. Of course, the results would have to be audited.
    I am frankly amazed at how little accuracy checking the MO does on it's own forecasts.

  • Comment number 71.

    QV

    This question has been posed to Richard Betts of the MO over at Bishop Hills blog:

    "Perhaps Richard Betts can come and explain the "warming bias" in the Met Office model (forecast) and what they are doing about it."
    https://www.bishop-hill.net/unthreaded/

    He generally will respond or post comments when time allows, perhaps a topic response could be forthcoming?

  • Comment number 72.

    @71 ukpahonta

    "This question has been posed to Richard Betts of the MO over at Bishop Hills blog:"

    I have asked Richard Betts many times at BH to comment on the MO Decadal Forecasts/Predictions, so far no reply.

    Also requested that the MO update their forecasts, on a regular basis, with actual HadCRUT3 data. Even posted a link, as requested, at Tamsin Edwards blog.

    So far no updates and no comments.

    Maybe they just missed my comments, they are all busy people. Let’s hope the latest request bears fruit.

  • Comment number 73.

    If we are told that the world is suffering from ‘global warming’, I think that it is implicit in that statement that we are being told there is more heat in the earth system. However, the traditional metric for measuring ‘global warming’ is average mean global surface temperatures expressed as an anomaly (SST’s sometimes get a look in). Given that we live on the surface and mostly not in the sea we can perhaps leave SST on one side for the moment.

    So we are presented with a proposal that an increase in average mean global surface temperature anomaly necessarily equates to global warming ie. more heat in the earth system.

    As pointed out on numerous occasions, temperature cannot be averaged in a scientific sense. Temperature is what is known as an intensive quality. So, for instance, it requires more energy to raise a given volume of the humid air in the tropics 1C than it does to raise the same volume of dry air in the Arctic 1C. As far as I am aware, those that calculate and average temperature anomaly do not take this into account. If I am wrong on this I would be delighted to be corrected.

    There are also systematic errors in the way that temperature data are dealt with, but in my view they are secondary to the fundamental issue described here.

    Most of the energy from the sun is received in the tropical regions and that energy is transported around the earth in vast quantities by ocean currents and weather systems. Using land based thermometers to measure the distribution of that energy at random points in time twice a day and then claiming to know within hundredths of a degree C what the total value of that energy is, seems to me to be pushing the bounds of credibility beyond their limits. Which brings us back to the topic of this post. In my view it is impossible to ‘take the temperature’ of the earth system in any meaningful way and therefore for anyone to think they can predict something that is meaningless is in itself meaningless. At best global temperatures can be used as indicative only.

    So my prediction for 2012 is a number that is as meaningless as the number I did not predict for 2011.

  • Comment number 74.

    Greensand,

    Perhaps a discussion thread would prompt more of a response?
    Together with Philip I'm sure there will be enough pertinent questions, with a link on Tamsins blog for direction.

  • Comment number 75.

    QV @69 - would you recognise such an admission even if they made one. From realclimate GS said of his 2011 prediction . . .

    "Checking up on our predictions from last year, I forecast that 2011 would be cooler than 2010 (because of the emerging La Niña), but would still rank in the top 10. This was true looking at GISTEMP (2011 was #9), but not quite in HadCRUT3v (#12) or NCDC (#11). "

    What does not quite true mean?

  • Comment number 76.

    @74 ukpahonta
    “Perhaps a discussion thread would prompt more of a response?”

    Not sure, AM has stated (correctly) that we should not expect RB to be disparaging about the actions of his employer and that it would be counterproductive to pressure him to do so.

    I appreciate RB’s involvement especially as he expresses a need to discuss “the uncertainties”. However I think that any resultant discussions, especially regarding global temperatures, would benefit greatly from a regular and ongoing quantifying of “the uncertainties”?

  • Comment number 77.

    @74 ukpahonta

    Sorry, missed the last line off:-

    That said a discussion thread can't really do any harm, if it gets any answrs they may just be interesting.

  • Comment number 78.

    61.greensand wrote:

    "Why are you so attached to the last decade? Are you a Liverpool supporter?"

    No!! I'm a Bluenose. That's why I prefer to look back over 30 years, not ten!

  • Comment number 79.

    68. QuaesoVeritas:

    It's right that the multi-model mean is fairly meaningless. The models were constructed independently or at least with different assumptions that were bound to make them differ broadly.

    But the fact is that temperatures, as they stand at the minute, are within the 2007 IPCC range of modelled projections. The claim is often made that they are not.

  • Comment number 80.

    73. Spanglerboy wrote:

    "Given that we live on the surface and mostly not in the sea we can perhaps leave SST on one side for the moment."
    _______________

    I think we'd be making a very grave mistake if we did that. It takes the oceans a long time to warm up, but they also hold that heat for a very long time. Ocean heat transfer is what keeps Britain (well, Ireland, at least at the moment) so much warmer than land bound areas at the same latitude.

    "Most of the energy from the sun is received in the tropical regions and that energy is transported around the earth in vast quantities by ocean currents and weather systems."

    You mean the same systems that you just told us to leave to one side?

  • Comment number 81.

    75. lateintheday wrote:

    "What does not quite true mean?"

    It's a fair point. He was wrong about HadCRUT3 and NCDC. On the other hand, he will most likely be right according to HadCRUT4, when it is finally published, because the Arctic had its warmest year on record.

    To the extent that 2011 was 12th warmest out of a 162 year old dataset, and 11th warmest out of a 132 year old data set respectively (despite a very strong natural La Nina cooling effect), he was fairly close, you must admit? But no cigar.

  • Comment number 82.

    #75. - lateintheday wrote:
    "QV @69 - would you recognise such an admission even if they made one. From realclimate GS said of his 2011 prediction . . .
    Checking up on our predictions from last year, I forecast that 2011 would be cooler than 2010 (because of the emerging La Niña), but would still rank in the top 10. This was true looking at GISTEMP (2011 was #9), but not quite in HadCRUT3v (#12) or NCDC (#11).
    What does not quite true mean?"
    Sorry, I am not sure what point you are making.
    I said that I was not aware of anyone (implicitly anyone responsible for those forecasts), publicly admitting that the IPCC forecasts were wrong.
    But your example was of GS admitting that his prediction that 2011 would be in the top 10, was wrong, at least in the case of HadCRUT3v.

  • Comment number 83.

    #79. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "But the fact is that temperatures, as they stand at the minute, are within the 2007 IPCC range of modelled projections. The claim is often made that they are not."
    I am not entirely sure that is true. I think that the usual claim is that temperatures are lower than the the IPCC forecasts.
    Another way of looking at this is if you were describing the graph to someone who couldn't see it. If you say that temperatures are within the IPCC model forecast range, that actually tells you nothing about whether they are too high or too low, i.e. where within the range they are.
    On the other hand if you say that they are in the lower 25% of the forecast range, that does tell you where they are within the range.

  • Comment number 84.

    @81 QuaesoVeritas

    "describing the graph"

    There are two words that help:-

    "Converging" or "Diverging"

  • Comment number 85.

    #84. - greensand wrote:
    @81 QuaesoVeritas
    "describing the graph"
    There are two words that help:-
    "Converging" or "Diverging""

    Post #81 wasn't me!
    Did you mean #83?

  • Comment number 86.

    @85 QV

    "Did you mean #83?"

    Yup, living up to my normal strict adherence to accuracy

  • Comment number 87.

    @85 QV

    "Di Vergence" being the MO's decade+ girlfriend.

  • Comment number 88.

    I live in Kingston upon Hull and grow South African hardy geraniums, some Pelargoniums (also proving to be hardy) a large collection (40 varieties and species) of Crocosmia, 4 different Passiflora, 3 Hedychium species (ginger lilies), a lovely myrtle bush (Ugni sp.), some large Phormiums which were completely undamaged by the last couple of bad winters, amongst other items. I am a longstanding member of the RHS and found their article quite informative regarding the plants lost etc.

    Back to the blog: I would like a lovely summer as my holiday to South Uist can't come soon enough! I may not be understanding things correctly: are the Met Office saying that this year is expected to be a warmer than average year (over the long term) or something around 'normal'?

    And what are all the figures that bloggers are posting i.e.
    “Warmists”
    +0.48 Met Office (+0.44)
    +0.45 Newdwr54 (N/A)
    +0.43 John Cogger (N/A)

    “Neutralists”
    +0.41 NeilHamp (+0.27)
    +0.41 quake (+0.36)
    +0.40 Paul Briscoe
    +0.40 Gagetfriend (+0.30)

    “Coolists”
    +0.34 QuaesoVeritas (+0.31)
    +0.29 millinia (+0.24)
    +0.29 LabMunkey (+0.25)
    +0.28 ukpahonta (+0.35) (2011 winning entry)

    No forecast yet found

    SmokingDeepThroat (+0.39)
    Ken Sharples( +0.18)
    nibor25( +0.15)
    jkiller56
    Lazarus

  • Comment number 89.

    I also have a note that Lazarus has forecast +0.42

  • Comment number 90.

    @88 Mr Bluesky

    It's a fun guess the 2012 global temperature anomaly competition with no actual prize.

  • Comment number 91.

    Looking at the posts and thinking about my own views, I think I am 'warmist' but am not convinced that warming can be all man-made.

    I will go for: +0.42 so please add my name to the list.
    (What are the numbers in brackets)

  • Comment number 92.

    @91 Mr-Bluesky

    The numbers are last years entries.

  • Comment number 93.

    @88. Mr-Bluesky wrote:

    "I am a longstanding member of the RHS and found their article quite informative regarding the plants lost etc."

    As a fellow "longstanding member of the RHS" I find it interesting that we are no longer advised to invest in "Mediterranean drought resistant plants”.

    I await the day when somebody reminds certain "societies" that the "Royal" acclamation also carries a responsibility.

  • Comment number 94.

    Anyone seen this? Paul Briscoe. your comments would be interesting.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/13/do-latest-solar-studies-confirm-upcoming-global-cooling/

    "Relations between the length of a sunspot cycle and the average temperature in the same and the next cycle are calculated for a number of meteorological stations in Norway and in the North Atlantic region. No significant trend is found between the length of a cycle and the average temperature in the same cycle, but a significant negative trend is found between the length of a cycle and the temperature in the next cycle. This provides a tool to predict an average temperature decrease of at least 1.0 ◦C from solar cycle 23 to 24 for the stations and areas analyzed. "

    This is not good news as the recent moderate cold spell is taking lives.
    The official figures emerged after several days of Arctic conditions which drove temperatures across the whole country as low as minus 10C (14F). They showed that 1,876 patients were treated in hospital for hypothermia in 2010/11, up from 950 in 2006/07. The number of sufferers who died within 30 days of admission shot up from 135 to 260.

  • Comment number 95.

    The reasons the met office 'predictions' have turned out warmer than what was eventually observed is because they are a warmist organisation led by a warmist and staffed by warmists so its hardly a surprising outcome

    An organisation by the way without about as much credibility now as a Gordon Brown lecture on dealing with deficits

  • Comment number 96.

    #94. - oldgifford wrote:
    "Anyone seen this? Paul Briscoe. your comments would be interesting."

    I hadn't seen this but it is interesting, although I haven't read the paper yet.
    Thanks for the link.
    I did some work last year and found a negative correlation between the length of a solar cycle and the peak of the next cycle, and a positive correlation between the minimum SSN reached in a cycle and the peak of the next cycle. Using both of these, I was able to predict the peak of the next cycle quite accurately. Strangely, averaging both factors seemed to produce better results than using them individually, but there seems to be no doubt that these factors can be used to produce an approximate prediction of the next cycle.
    Using this method, I calculated that the peak 12 month MA SSN of the current cycle 24 would be about 85, making it the lowest since cycle 6, (1811-1823). So far, I believe the 12 month MA has reached about 59, but if the cycle lasts 11 years, I estimate the peak will not occur until 2014.

    I can't remember what work I did on solar cycle peak SSN and global temperatures, but if there is a correlation, then this would seem to confirm that temperatures may be about to decline.

  • Comment number 97.

    #88. - Mr-Bluesky wrote:
    "I may not be understanding things correctly: are the Met Office saying that this year is expected to be a warmer than average year (over the long term) or something around 'normal'?"
    Do you mean the global temp. or the U.K. temp? I am not aware that the MO
    has put out a prediction for the U.K. and it seems unlikely since it is even more random than the global temp.
    Actually both will undoubtedly be above "normal", since in both cases, the MO define that as the average temp. from 1961-90. However, that definition of "normality" has some problems. In the case of the U.K., 1961-90 was actually relatively cool compared to the long-term trend.
    In my opinion, the real issue is how much above "normal" the temp. is, compared to the predictions of the MO and the IPCC.

  • Comment number 98.

    #95. - openside50 wrote:
    "The reasons the met office 'predictions' have turned out warmer than what was eventually observed is because they are a warmist organisation led by a warmist and staffed by warmists so its hardly a surprising outcome."
    I tend to agree, although I don't think they realise that themselves. I think they may genuinely believe they are unbiased but they have become so brainwashed by their own propaganda that they can't tell.

  • Comment number 99.

    Lets hope the government turns their gaze in the direction of the metoffice when looking at areas to cut expenditure

    We do not need to be using tax payers money to fund these religious zealots, because thats what global warming has now become - a religion

    PS schadenfreude of the most pleasing kind that the Maldives of all places is facing that kind of trouble right now

  • Comment number 100.

    #99. - openside50 wrote:
    "Lets hope the government turns their gaze in the direction of the metoffice when looking at areas to cut expenditure"
    There has been mention of civil service bonuses on the news, including for some at the M.O. If such bonuses are performance related, i.e. based on the accuracy of forecasts, how do they assess that? If global temperature predictions are a factor, it might help with their accuracy if there was some downside potential (as there should be in all bonus schemes, but isn't), i.e. a reduction in salary if the prediction is too high or low (unlikely).

    "PS schadenfreude of the most pleasing kind that the Maldives of all places is facing that kind of trouble right now"
    Do you mean financial?
    Were the Maltives not supposed to be under the sea by now?
    Or was that somewhere else?

 

Page 1 of 2

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.