Forecast for warming revised downward.
The UK Met Office has revised one of its forecasts for how much the world may warm in the next few years.
It says that the average temperature is likely to rise by 0.43 C by 2017 – as opposed to an earlier forecast that suggested a warming of 0.54C.
The explanation is that a new kind of computer model using different parameters has been used.
The Met Office stresses that the work is experimental and that it still stands by its longer-term projections.
These forecast significant warming over the course of this century.
The forecasts are all based on a comparison with the average global temperature over the period 1971-2000.
The earlier model had projected that the period 2012-16 would be 0.54C above that long-term average – within a range of uncertainty from 0.36-0.72C.
By contrast the new model, known as HadGEM3, gives a rise about one-fifth lower than that of 0.43C – within a range of 0.28-0.59.
This would be only slightly higher that the record year of 1998 – in which the Pacific Ocean’s El Nino effect was thought to have added more warming.
If the forecast is accurate, the result would be that the global average temperature would have remained relatively static for about two decades.
Blog suspicions
An apparent standstill in global temperatures is used by critics of efforts to tackle climate change as evidence that the threat has been exaggerated.
Climate scientists at the Met Office and other centres are involved in intense research to try to understand what is happening over the most recent period.
The most obvious explanation is natural variability – the cycles of changes in solar activity and the movements and temperatures of the oceans.
The forecasts are based on a comparison with the average global temperature over the period 1971-2000A Met Office spokesman said “this definitely doesn’t mean any cooling – there’s still a long-term trend of warming compared to the 50s, 60s or 70s.
“Our forecast is still for temperatures that will be close to the record levels of the past few years.
“And because the natural variability is based on cycles, those factors are bound to change the other way at some point.”
The fact that the revised projection was posted on the Met Office website without any notice on December 24 last year has fuelled suspicions among bloggers.
However the Met Office says the data had been published in a spirit of transparency as soon as it became available from the computer that produced it.
Future forcings
It describes the decadal projections as part of an experimental effort launched in 2004 to fill the gap between daily weather forecasts and century-long estimates for climate change.
But this is an emerging and highly complex area of science because of the interplay of natural factors and manmade greenhouse gases at a time when a key set of temperatures – in the deep ocean – is still relatively unknown.
One aim of attempting to project the climate on this timescale is to be able to rapidly check the accuracy of the models being used.
A paper published last month in the journal Climate Dynamics, authored by scientists from the Met Office and 12 other international research centres, combined different models to produce a forecast for the next decade.
It said: “Decadal climate prediction is immature, and uncertainties in future forcings, model responses to forcings, or initialisation shocks could easily cause large errors in forecasts.”
However the paper concluded that, “in the absence of volcanic eruptions, global temperature is predicted to continue to rise, with each year from 2013 onwards having a 50 % chance of exceeding the current observed record”.
Scrutiny of Met Office forecasts and climate science generally is set to increase in the build-up to the publication of the next assessment by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in September.
Source:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20947224
=========================================================
Re: that last paragraph, with the release of the IPCC AR5 leak #2 today, ya think?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It never ceases to amaze me the way cooler temperatures are always the results of natural variation, but warmer temperatures are always the result of CO2.
I never knew that all of natures variability went one way only.
December 24th…a good day to bury bad news, so the saying goes.
Did you duplicate a couple of paragraphs here or is it my browser?
The way I read the first line it seems like thay are saying we will have a half degree C rise in the next 4 years! Not what they are trying to say, but still!
Mod: part of article is duplicated at the end.
The earlier model had projected that the period 2012-16 would be 0.54C above that long-term average – within a range of uncertainty from 0.36-0.72C.
By contrast the new model, known as HadGEM3, gives a rise about one-fifth lower than that of 0.43C – within a range of 0.28-0.59.
within their stated uncertainties there is no difference between the two predictions…
Two words that hang around their necks like the weightiness of mill stones ‘settled science’
I would bet they love to have never have made such silly claims to begin with for it always clear it was from from ‘settled ‘ and worse its a revision ‘downward ‘ .
The British Met Office? Why do we never get reports from the Zimbabwe Met Office? Or the South Malaccas Met Office? What singles out Britain from these countries?
WOW!! roger harribin will not be a happy chappie, he tweeted that theres still a warming trend?
Could we be seeing the wheels really begining to fall off the AGW wagon,
lets see if the BBC addresses this on it news channels/bulletins/programmes..don’t hold your breath!
…and that lower error bar shows a distinct decline for 16 years and a 22 year flatline albeit with a nice symmetrical hump in the middle.
Anyone in the market for a dead parrot?
If temperatures remain the same, it’s ‘natural variation’. If they increase, it’s ‘man-made global warming’. Funny, that.
Re: with each year from 2013 onwards having a 50 % chance of exceeding the current observed record”.
I am sure they meant to say “with each year from 2013 onwards having a 50% chance of exceeding the previous years temperature”.
To complete the set perhaps another miracle could happen and the remainder of the Climategate
e-mails could be released, RC ?
…and it seems that despite this admission David Shukman wants to take that good old Warmist semantic machine for another spin:
“It says that the average temperature is likely to rise by 0.43 C by 2017.”
That’s nearly a degree a decade
“An apparent standstill in global temperatures is used by critics of efforts to tackle climate change as evidence that the threat has been exaggerated”
– An apparent standstill?
Even when the forecasts are lowered, even when the met office refuse to answer the public questioning them, the BBC still attempt to put a positive global warming spin on the issue. Would expect nothing more from the secretive bunch.
– “used by critics of efforts to tackle climate change as evidence that the threat has been exaggerated”
By definition, if the forecast has been lowered, then this shows that the previous claim was exaggerated?
I object to being labelled a critic.
I am sceptical when the claims of global warming forecasters are used to sell thousands of new boilers (our household was one of them) and increased revenue for big businesses involved in the fitting, servicing, insurance, manufacturing of new boilers, etc.
New boilers may I add, that never pay for themselves over the lifetime of said boiler in bill savings and never match up to the “up to” and “could” savings projected by the energy saving trust and the big six energy companies.
This is without going into the increases in customer bills to pay for the co2 saving perceived industry and the midata scheme (Read: smart meters) currently being promoted by ever stay at home blogger via energy company sponsored posts!
“And because the natural variability is based on cycles, those factors are bound to change the other way at some point.”
remember kids the planet only cools through “natural variability based on cycles” it never warms….
I love this “in the absence of volcanic eruptions, global temperature is predicted to continue to rise…”
Because, you know, volcanoes are not supposed to erupt. They never really do, right? Maybe they should have just said something like something like…. “in the absence of [INSERT UNCONSIDERED NATURAL FORCING HERE], ….” . Or are Volcanic eruptions absolutely the only thing that they don’t consider? They have everything else nailed, right?
Our forecast is still for temperatures that will be close to the record levels of the past few years.
The December anomaly for RSS just came out. It was 0.101. To put this number into perspective, a ranking of 0.101 for 2013 would rank it in 16th place.
With the RSS anomaly for December at 0.101, the average for the twelve months of the year is (-0.060 -0.123 + 0.071 + 0.330 + 0.231 + 0.337 + 0.290 + 0.254 + 0.383 + 0.294 + 0.195 + 0.101)/12 = 0.192. This would rank 11th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.147 and it will come in 13th, and 2008 is 22nd. Therefore three of the last five years are not even in the top ten!
I wonder if any of the expert attendees at #28-gate predicted that?
In its headline, the Beeb can’t bring itself to admit that it’s simply the ‘forecast’ rather than the ‘model’ which needs revising.
the slow climbdown begins?
8 Jan: UK Telegraph: John-Paul Ford Rojas: Global warming at a standstill, new Met Office figures show
The Met Office has downgraded its forecast for global warming to suggest that by 2017 temperatures will have remained about the same for two decades.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9787662/Global-warming-at-a-standstill-new-Met-Office-figures-show.html
——————————————————————————–
Typical behaviour of a teenager caught lying.
Spin faster, wilder fantasies.
(big stories” everywhere today:
8 Jan: NYPost: Current situation: Staffers talk about first meeting with Al Jazeera
Just call him Al Gorezeera.
Yesterday morning, the still shell shocked staff at Current TV was called to an all hands staff meeting at its San Francisco headquarters, which was teleconferenced to their offices in LA and NYC, to meet their new bosses…
“Of course Al didn’t show up,” said one high placed Current staffer. “He has no credibility.
“He’s supposed to be the face of clean energy and just sold [the channel] to very big oil, the emir of Qatar! Current never even took big oil advertising—and Al Gore, that bulls***ter sells to the emir?”…
How do they feel about Gore the savior of green energy now?
The displeasure with Gore among the staff was thick enough to cut with a scimitar.
“We all know now that Al Gore is nothing but a bulls***ter,” said the staffer bluntly.
We do stories on the tax code, and he sells the network before the tax code kicked in?
“Al was always lecturing us about green. He kept his word about green all right—as in cold, hard cash!”
http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/tv/current_situation_XLE3W50v6I9Gbyqe6Z4pFP
Fiddle, fiddle, fiddle. The planet has warmed by 0.12 deg C less than they predicted. So what do they do? Change their parameters to keep the upward bias but drop the long-term forecast temperature rise by … 0.12 deg C. It’s a lousy joke. Their explanation is natural variability. Where is natural variability in their climate models? It isn’t there. No solar cycles, short or long. No ENSO, PDO or AMO. No GCRs. Just nothing.
And now they are bleating “And because the natural variability is based on cycles, those factors are bound to change the other way at some point.”. This is beyond pathetic. If they did some real science and tried to understand something about those natural cycles, then they could start to work out what the temperature might do next (it looks like it will fall), and when it might start to rise again (around 2030 might be a reasonable guess, but there are plenty of real scientists predicting a longer cooling period).
there’s still a long-term trend of warming compared to the 50s, 60s or 70s.
And in another 30 years they will be saying “there’s still a long term trend of cooling compared to the 80s, 90s and 2000s.”