Source: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2004/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2004/trend:2004
Paul Matthews writes: The skillful predictions of climate science
Smith et al (2007): 0.3°C in 10 years
In 2007, a team of climate scientists from the UK Met Office led by Doug Smith wrote a paper “Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model”, published in the journal Science. Although published in 2007, the paper made predictions for the decade 2004-2014. (Presumably the work was started around 2004 and it took some time for the paper to be published). The paper made claims about the “skill” of the model, for example “Having established the predictive skill of DePreSys…”
The Smith et al paper made the following specific predictions:
- There would be 0.3°C warming over the decade 2004-2014
- At least half of the years after 2009 would be warmer than the record year of 1998.
Note that at that time, 2007, the warmest year was thought to be 1998; subsequent adjustments to the method made 2005 warmer than 1998.
The predictions were spread far and wide. They were included in a Met Office Press release, and a glossy brochure on “Informing Government policy into the future”, with the almost obligatory scaremongering background pictures of black clouds and people wearing facemasks. Vicky Pope gave a talk on these predictions, saying that “these are very strong statements about what will happen over the next 10 years.”
And of course the faithful media reported the story without questioning it.
More here: http://ipccreport.wordpress.com/2013/11/20/the-skillful-predictions-of-climate-science/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I guess we won’t be hearing about this flop in the MSM, though, huh.
Too bad for them that the warming hid itself just in those places where we can’t measure it; the high Arctic and the deep ocean. What bad luck. Also, the warming is expressing itself in unmeasurable ways, such as extreme weather events. Not just any old extreme weather events, mind you, just those that cannot be quantified (which excludes hurricanes and tornadoes).
Not until 2014, then I expect MSM to ask the Authors tough questions unless events in late 2013 and 2014 prove them right.
/sarc off
Forecast falls flat, a.k.a. flat liner …
Really hoping ‘braddles’ simply forgot the sarc tag.
If not, please seek help.
“If it disagrees with experiment (observation) – its WRONG. That’s all there is to it.” (R. Feynman)
Fact: CO2 has been steadily rising for the last 15 years.
Fact: World-wide annual temperature “anomaly” has gone up, and gone down, and gone up and gone down, and over the same 15 years has not shown a steady rise in value.
Conclusions:
CO2 concentration at this point has little, to no affect on world-wide global temperature.
Therefore, CO2 is not dangerous to life on earth.
The earth is not in danger of any increase in CO2 . . . . . in fact just the opposite is true.
The earth NEEDS CO2.
CO2 has contribute to the “greening” of the planet. Crop yields have benefitted from CO2 increases. We need MORE CO2 to continue this beneficial effect. ‘
Denying these facts is simply luddite anti-science environmentalism. “Denialism” is going to take on a new meaning?
Thanks for making the effort to help us see the truth.
Over and over again, we see these models fail. Is anybody keeping score? It is sort of a
“guys with baseball bats 100, baby seals 0” senario.
woot, another one bites the dust.
But their forecast for 100 YEARS is robust? One thing you can be sure of is this: If their CAGW speculation is wrong, then expect endless model warming failures left, right and centre. This is what we are seeing now. Only 87 more years of failure to go. I don’t know if I can take any more of this sh!t.
Says it all really. The more the Met Office improves it PREDICTIONS the worse they get. By the way, who said climate scientists don’t make predictions. Oh yest they do.
An investment specialist Chris Orr, with claims in correctly recommending stocks affected by climate change, strongly recommends moving into scrip that benefits from a cooling global climate, based on lower sunspot activity. Pity all those people working on technology to capture and store CO2.
Here is another Met Office forecast that made the headlines , a 4 degrees C rise by 2060. They lost their credibilty on decadal and long term forecasts many years ago and have not corrected their obvious warming bias
http://news.gaeatimes.com/global-warming-could-result-in-4-degree-celsius-rise-by-2060-180129/
There is another Smith et al Decadal Forecast up and running:
“Real-time multi-model decadal climate predictions”
Climate Dynamics
December 2013, Volume 41, Issue 11-12, pp 2875-2888
Paywalled
Abstract contains:-
Full abstract:-
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-012-1600-0
How skillful! Prediction was 0.8C in 2014. The prediction is simply a trend line from 2004 through 2007, which of course they actually had the data for at publication time (submission, revisions, re-submissions, maybe even more revisions while new data flows in).
cnxtim says November 21, 2013 at 3:17 pm
” Pity all those people working on technology to capture and store CO2.”
—————————-
My cousins are up to their ears in this technology. It is called FARMING.
“Today, the average rate of energy capture by photosynthesis globally is approximately 130 terawatts, which is about six times larger than the current power consumption of human civilization. Photosynthetic organisms also convert around 100–115 thousand million metric tonnes of carbon into biomass per year.” -WIKI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis
Tell me again where that “missing heat” *may* be hiding?
Predictions/forecasts/prognostications should require a deposit, payable to the International Red Cross (for example)
Make a 5-year prediction, deposit $5,000,000
Make a 10-year prediction, deposit $10,000,000
Make a 20-year prediction, deposit $40,000,000
The standard of “success” of the prediction should be the same parameters used in the prediction
Richard G says:
November 21, 2013 at 4:19 pm
cnxtim says November 21, 2013 at 3:17 pm
” Pity all those people working on technology to capture and store CO2.”
—————————-
My cousins are up to their ears in this technology. It is called FARMING.
================================================================
I think farming would be considered “catch and release” for CO2.
No, this is actually good. This is finally real science. They made a prediction and now it has been compared to experiment and found wrong. Real science is falsifiable and this most certainly has been falsified. We just need to keep hammering that point home.
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.” Richard Feynman
It is easy to figure out what would still be required in 2013 to set a record for HadCRUT4. The average for the first 9 months is 0.474. The average anomaly in the record year of 2010 was 0.547. So an equation can be set up as follows: 0.474(9) + 3x = 0.547(12). Solving for x gives 0.766. So the last 3 months have to average 0.766. This is higher than the highest anomaly for any month in 2010 which was 0.676.
Furthermore, UAH, RSS, GISS and Hadsst3 all dropped in October. So unless HadCRUT4 is on a different planet, it will drop too.
Tsk Tsk says:
November 21, 2013 at 5:32 pm
No, this is actually good. This is finally real science. They made a prediction and now it has been compared to experiment and found wrong. Real science is falsifiable and this most certainly has been falsified. We just need to keep hammering that point home.
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.” Richard Feynman
Tsk Tsk,
You got it – exactly right!
It wasn’t necessarily good science, but they used data and a model to make a prediction that was testable over time. I can hear Agent Smart saying yet again “Missed it by THAT much, Chief!
MtK
We were sort of hoping some of that warming might be around this winter, but it doesn’t look promising in the north central states.
Matthew W says:
November 21, 2013 at 5:20 pm
” Pity all those people working on technology to capture and store CO2.”
—————————-
My cousins are up to their ears in this technology. It is called FARMING.
================================================================
I think farming would be considered “catch and release” for CO2.
———-
I heartily approve of recycling.
Werner Brozek says: “It is easy to figure out what would still be required in 2013 to set a record for HadCRUT4. The average for the first 9 months is 0.474. The average anomaly in the record year of 2010 was 0.547. So an equation can be set up as follows: 0.474(9) + 3x = 0.547(12). Solving for x gives 0.766. So the last 3 months have to average 0.766. This is higher than the highest anomaly for any month in 2010 which was 0.676.”
Except that “adjustments” have no limits,
As regards forecasting someone is putting their money but where their mouth is
http://longbets.org/653/