"My comment that the author is being both absurd and dishonest still stands." __________
The author's comment was made with reference to the charts he was discussing, which are the surface data comparisons. He makes it clear that charts 2-7 all concern surface temperatures. So that includes the 3 'sceptic' projections (Vahrenholt & Lüning, Scafetta, Easterbrook - we could add to that list considerably), all of which have failed miserably. Chapter 11 of the IPCC report, which I referenced earlier, is mostly concerned about surface temperatures because the surface is where we all live.
So I don't see anything dishonest about the author's comment; nor is it absurd. It's a matter of 'fact' that surface temperature observations are consistent with both the CMIP3 and 5 model projections and inconsistent with the projections of the 'sceptics'.
Contrary to Mr Booker's false assertion, the 2007 Met Office decadal forecast is indeed "doing well". The CMIP3 model ensemble is also doing well. CMIP5 is on the low side at the minute, but within the 5-95% range, with observations for 2015 likely placing it closer to the multi-model average.
Observations are well outside the 'astronomical harmonics' error margins - on the warm side. A risible failure. Ditto Easterbrook's 'PDO cooling'; ditto Archibald's 'solar cycle 24' cooling... there are many other examples. Yet the people who made these demonstrably failed predictions are still heralded at 'sceptic' blogs such as WUWT as if their mistakes never happened.
Climate change scepticism is a strange sort of scepticism. It exonerates the glaring failure of cooling predictions yet dismisses out of hand the still valid warming predictions for not being precise enough! Now that *is* absurd.
Assuming 2015 stays warm, as widely expected, then 3 out of the 6 years since 2009 (2010-2015) will have been warmer than 1998. Also, the climate has continued to warm. The prediction is therefore "doing well" as the Met Office response states.
Anyone can make allegations about adjustments on message boards and blogs, but it's notable that no one has yet managed to successfully challenge the adjustment methods set out in the peer reviewed literature. Regarding uncertainties: these are attached to *all* the years, as the MO statement makes clear; that includes 1998. The 'best estimate' values all indicate that both 2010 and 2014 were warmer than 1998. 2015 looks set to be head and shoulders warmer than all of them.
Perhaps it boils down to how we define 'exceptional'. If it means outside the 5-95th percentiles, then you may have a point, because CET did fall outside this mark on the cold side a couple of times in July, as it did in June.
That would also mean though that periods in January, March, April and July 2015 should be described as 'exceptional', because temperatures exceeded the 5-95th percentiles in those months too, on the warm side.
If we define 'exceptional' as 'warmest on record', then only July qualifies, again on the warm side.
After adjustment, the raw trend is lowered considerably in the BEST estimate from 0.24C/dec to 0.14 (since 1948). This is what makes me think that the Met Office historic data is fairly raw (i.e. retains the UHI bias), meaning it can't really be compared on a like-for-like basis to CET, which removes the UHI bias. ______________________
"It's true that any measurement of temperature in these locations is "correct" in a strict sense, but it can't be attributed to "global warming" caused by CO2." ______________________
According to BEST, the adjusted trend at Heathrow appears to be very little different from the regional expectation (0.14C/dec versus 0.15 +/- 0.02 according to BEST). Removing biases and adjusting for breakpoints, then we still need an explanation for the ~ 0.15C decade observed in the area of Heathrow, indeed, across the UK as a whole, since the first half of the 20th century.
2015 is on course to be by far the warmest year on record. It's currently on target to hit the upper part of the vertical green line in the above chart (representing the Met Office 2015 predicted range). The models aren't there to forecast or explain ice ages. They're there to give a reasonable estimation of future temperature rise based on a range of emission scenarios. So far they are doing a reasonable job.
Parts of the US, Europe and Australia are cooler than average for the date (4th August). However, both hemispheres are above average the long term average temperature, based on the 1979-2000 period. The northern hemisphere is +0.51C warmer than average today.
Eastern Europe, Middle East, North Africa, western China, Alaska and north-west Russia are well above average temperature for the date. Much of South America too.
In order to *not* set a new record year in 2015, HadCRUT4 would need to come in below the 10 year average (2005-2014) every month between now and December. Given current ENSO conditions, then barring a meteor strike or an almighty volcanic eruption, that's not going to happen. The story's the same in both GISS and NCDC.
On NCDC: if Bob Tisdale has discovered some genuine discrepancy in the NCDC adjustment process, then he should waste no time in submitting a comment to the journal that published the NCDC team's paper. Alternatively he could publish a rebuttal of his own. On the other hand, if it's just his usual confused, conspiratorial blathering, then no doubt he'll stick to doing the 'science' on his blog.