In The News

[keithlucky]

Funny that met office sneaked this report out on December 24th NO global warming taking place http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research

[Methuselah]

That certainly looks like a curve with +ive gradient, Keith...Perhaps I need another eye-test?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Funny that met office sneaked this report out on December 24th NO global warming taking place http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research

You really think they sneaked in a report with no global warming?

Did you even read the report? Or just the misleading denier sites again?

If anything, I'd say the Met-Office are prediction too high a temperature. They predict an average of 0.43C above average between 2013 and 2017. When you consider that 1998 was just 0.40C above average, they seem to be predicting some record breaking years coming up.

http://www.metoffice...ange/decadal-fc

[knocker]

I'm due an eye-test as well.

Edited January 6, 2013 by knocker

[4wd]

I wonder why you've decided to deliberately misunderstand, and to make comment on the past data - the significant thing is the un-announced major change in future prediction - see link to tall bloke's blog above.~

Other predictions are available, predictions can go down as well as up. Never base important future decisions on this or any other prediction.

[knocker]

I see he has exceptional qualifications in the climate field.

"I’m a qualified engineer and a graduate of the History and Philosophy of Science".

[4wd]

Anyone without qualifications really ought to be banned from saving two graphs.

One graph only should be allowed - under supervision at all times.

[Methuselah]

Are there any long-term forecasts that don't change? Only politicians stand by predictions that events have already overtaken; take Osborne's latest fiscal pronouncements for example? I wouldn't want science to go down that route!

[4wd]

In that department everything goes up with each revision not down.

[Gray-Wolf]

I kind of think that the MetO are being a little heavy handed with their treatment of low solar and PDO-ve?

My own view has an uptick in TSI globaly, due to Asia continueing to clean up emmisions and the 'drop out' of older pollution that is not being replaced. This 'uptick' in energy arriving is augmented by the 'new energy' entering the system from the impacts low snow/ice and the saving of the energy usually speny on melting such over summer (plus the net gain from the albedo flip in terms of warmed land/Ocean?).

If none of these factors were brought into consideration I can see why folk would look to peak PDO-ve (which I also feel has 'peaked' and so will trend neutral and not strongly Neg) and the end of solar cycle 24 as a reason for surpressed temp rises, sadly I do see these factors as being as important in their weighting that MetO have given them?

This is a personal view based purely on what I have seen, learned and project (no graphs included 4!) so make of it what you will but I worry that the changes the Arctic has brought into play will, pardon the pun, snowball.

Edited January 6, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[BornFromTheVoid]

I wonder why you've decided to deliberately misunderstand, and to make comment on the past data - the significant thing is the un-announced major change in future prediction - see link to tall bloke's blog above.~

Other predictions are available, predictions can go down as well as up. Never base important future decisions on this or any other prediction.

So the important thing is not the forecast for record breaking temperatures and a likely new warmest decade on record?

So what if there's been a significant change? It's we'd expect improvements in understanding and ability to change these the forecasts. Even with the drop from the last one, we're apparently still on course for record breaking temperatures.

[4wd]

Well to me it seems like quite important that the Met Office have changed there forecast from steeply up to hardly any change.

Waffling on about warmest decades displays a muddled view of statistics.

we know there's been a warmer spell but if even the highly pro-AGW Met Office see things bumping along with little change for several years, those comments about no significant warming for X years get ever harder to bluster aside.

[Methuselah]

So the important thing is not the forecast for record breaking temperatures and a likely new warmest decade on record?

So what if there's been a significant change? It's we'd expect improvements in understanding and ability to change these the forecasts. Even with the drop from the last one, we're apparently still on course for record breaking temperatures.

Buggered if I know! But, whatever the true scale of any change, you can bet your bottom-dollar the 'sceptics' will use it to change black into white?

Taking things totally out of context they are right: global temps have indeed fallen since 2010!

[BornFromTheVoid]

Well to me it seems like quite important that the Met Office have changed there forecast from steeply up to hardly any change.

Waffling on about warmest decades displays a muddled view of statistics.

we know there's been a warmer spell but if even the highly pro-AGW Met Office see things bumping along with little change for several years, those comments about no significant warming for X years get ever harder to bluster aside.

Can you point out the muddled statistics please? Other than the mixing up of noise in the temperature data with the trend to claim the warming ended at however many years ago.

Is it that you would have preferred the MO block the site for a few days and said there a major announcement coming and then show the new forecast, WUWT style? How can you say that the next 5 years of global temperatures averaging higher than any 5 year period on record, or any individual year on record, shows only "little change"?

[Gray-Wolf]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/04/the-dr-david-viner-moment-weve-all-been-waiting-for-a-new-snow-record/

Yeah! Recovery!!!

[4wd]

The recent tendency to go on about the last decade being warmest, or so many recent years are in top 20 is a misuse of statistics to present a stronger case.

It carries no more weight than pointing out no significant warming for 17 years.

We know it warmed in the late 20th Century but it hasn't warmed much since.

It's a sort of plateau and saying it's the 'warmest decade evah' is no more significant than saying no warming since 1998.

If the trend remains flat despite a steady increase in CO2 things are not behaving as the models suggest.

This is already becoming increasingly apparent despite multiple downward revisions since the height of alarmism almost 20 years ago,

[BornFromTheVoid]

The recent tendency to go on about the last decade being warmest, or so many recent years are in top 20 is a misuse of statistics to present a stronger case.

It is, just because you or WUWT says it is? Why is it? Please explain.

It carries no more weight than pointing out no significant warming for 17 years.

I disagree. CO2 has no real effect on the year to year variability. What it does influence is the longer term trend. Picking out some high point influenced by a noisy data set and some low point on a noisy data set then drawing the conclusion that there's been no warming in between is a misuse of statistics imo. Why you might ask? Because as I said, CO2 doesn't influence the year to year variability.

We know it warmed in the late 20th Century but it hasn't warmed much since.

It's a sort of plateau and saying it's the 'warmest decade evah' is no more significant than saying no warming since 1998.

Once more, your focusing too much on the noise within the temperature data sets. The trend remains strongly upward, and will continue so if the new MO prediction is true. The short term will occasionally go above and below the trend, due to natural variability, but the trend will remain upward.

If the trend remains flat despite a steady increase in CO2 things are not behaving as the models suggest.

This is already becoming increasingly apparent despite multiple downward revisions since the height of alarmism almost 20 years ago,

Things are going pretty close to what was predicted. That despite an unexpected long solar minimum, multiple La Ninas, -ve PDO and plenty of aerosol pollution. Remarkable that the temperature has not plummeted really.

[BornFromTheVoid]

And for fun, if the Met Office prediction is accurate, this will be the anomaly graph (based on the HadCRUT4 temps, so 61-90 average) and trend line for 1998 to 2017.

[4wd]

The reality will be an extension of this

[pottyprof]

An interesting abstract. http://adsabs.harvar...AGUFMPP11A0203F

We therefore conclude that for a priod in the Early Holocene, probably for a millenium or more, the Arctic Ocean was free of sea ice at least for shorter periods in the summer. This may serve as an analogue to the predicted "greenhouse situation" expected to appear within our century.

I expect there will be something wrong with it.

Edited January 7, 2013 by pottyprof

[BornFromTheVoid]

An interesting abstract. http://adsabs.harvar...AGUFMPP11A0203F

I expect there will be something wrong with it.

Just based on the abstract, it seems ok. The one issue is that their basing it all on their being open water to the north of Greenland, and this meaning the whole Arctic must have been ice free. As we've seen over the last few years though, there have been occasions when the north coast has been ice free while millions of km2 still remain in the Arctic Ocean.

It's good evidence for relatively recent ice free oceans, but far from certain at this stage.

[keithlucky]

Radio 4 this morning the MO said they have revised their forecasts and said global temperatures will not rise after 2015 (they are bit late),also they said the sun might have some influence sounds like Peirs Corbyn .

[Devonian]

Radio 4 this morning the MO said they have revised their forecasts and said global temperatures will not rise after 2015 (they are bit late),also they said the sun might have some influence sounds like Peirs Corbyn .

Keith, they didn't say that. Well, not in anything I've read or heard.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Devonian

[keithlucky]

Keith, they didn't say that. Well, not in anything I've read or heard.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/

[BornFromTheVoid]

http://www.telegraph.../climatechange/

Doesn't back up a single thing you said.

Edited January 8, 2013 by BornFromTheVoid