Ooops – Met Office decadal model forecast for 2004-2014 falls flat

‘The Pause’ claims another victim.HadCRUT4trendfrom2004

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/

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate FAIL, Forecasting, MetOffice, Modeling and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to Ooops – Met Office decadal model forecast for 2004-2014 falls flat

  1. braddles says:

    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).

  2. A.D. Everard says:

    I guess we won’t be hearing about this flop in the MSM, though, huh.

  3. Sigmundb says:

    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

  4. SasjaL says:

    Forecast falls flat, a.k.a. flat liner …

  5. HGW xx/7 says:

    Really hoping ‘braddles’ simply forgot the sarc tag.

    If not, please seek help.

  6. DonV says:

    “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?

  7. Tim Walker says:

    Thanks for making the effort to help us see the truth.

  8. Snowsnake says:

    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.

  9. David Riser says:

    woot, another one bites the dust.

  10. Jimbo says:

    Ooops – Met Office decadal model forecast for 2004-2014 falls flat

    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.

  11. Jimbo says:

    “Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model”

    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.

  12. cnxtim says:

    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.

  13. herkimer says:

    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/

  14. Green Sand says:

    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:-

    “We present the first climate prediction of the coming decade made with multiple models, initialized with prior observations. This prediction accrues from an international activity to exchange decadal predictions in near real-time, in order to assess differences and similarities, provide a consensus view to prevent over-confidence in forecasts from any single model, and establish current collective capability. We stress that the forecast is experimental, since the skill of the multi-model system is as yet unknown…….

    ….. However, 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. Verification of these forecasts will provide an important opportunity to test the performance of models and our understanding and knowledge of the drivers of climate change.”

    Full abstract:-

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-012-1600-0

  15. Doug Proctor says:

    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).

  16. Richard G says:

    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?

  17. geologyjim says:

    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

  18. Matthew W says:

    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.

  19. Tsk Tsk says:

    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

  20. 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.
    Furthermore, UAH, RSS, GISS and Hadsst3 all dropped in October. So unless HadCRUT4 is on a different planet, it will drop too.

  21. Mac the Knife says:

    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

  22. Bruce Hall says:

    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.

  23. Richard G says:

    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.

  24. jorgekafkazar says:

    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,

  25. hideki motosua says:

    As regards forecasting someone is putting their money but where their mouth is
    http://longbets.org/653/

  26. J Giddeon says:

    @baddles

    “Too bad for them that the warming hid itself just in those places where we can’t measure it;’

    There’s every chance the warming is hiding in other places we can’t investigate eg the Penn state email system.

  27. gopal panicker says:

    they made the mistake of forecasting the immediate future….much safer to forecast 50-100 years ahead

  28. Stephen Richards says:

    Furthermore, UAH, RSS, GISS and Hadsst3 all dropped in October. So unless HadCRUT4 is on a different planet, it will drop too.

    Werner

    It doesn’t need to be on another planet. !! Just requires a larger adjustment. I’m sure Betts could arrange it, if asked ;)

  29. Stephen Richards says:

    Bruce Hall says:
    November 21, 2013 at 6:00 pm
    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.
    This from a french friend of mine. It has about as much value as the Met Off predictions/projections.

    Nous verrons bien et si cela se confirme, nous ne pourrons que subir !!!
    ATTENTION !…HIVER 2013 – 2014 …TRÈS, TRÈS FROID !…….
    Préparez vos couettes,vos pulls,vos grosses chaussettes vos babouches et vos djellabas…
    Cet hiver sera certainement très froid,
    pas besoin de météo pour le pressentir :
    Les sorbiers dans nos forêts sont couverts de sorbes, et c’est absolument infaillible…
    Selon les prévisions, l’Europe connaîtra l’hiver le plus froid depuis 100 ans

    Selon les prévisionnistes, l’hiver 2013-2014 en Europe sera le plus froid depuis les 100 dernières années.

    Des masses d’air arctiques arriveront dans quelques mois déjà et le soleil ne se pointera à l’horizon que très rarement. Quel est le niveau de probabilité de ces prévisions, les spécialistes promettent de les vérifier dans les semaines à venir,lorsqu’ils posséderont de nouvelles données.

    Les spécialistes européens estiment que les habitants de l’Ancien Monde devraient d’ores et déjà faire provision de pulls et de vestes chaudes. Le météorologue allemand Dominik Jung a déclaré que la saison hivernale 2013-2014 promet d’être anormalement froide. Le spécialiste dit qu’il « grelotte » rien qu’en regardant les cartes et les modèles établis par le Service météorologique national.

    Selon lui, les températures les plus basses seront enregistrées durant les mois de janvier et de février. Il ne faut pas s’attendre à un dégel de printemps, même en mars : les Européens devront attendre le mois d’avril pour pouvoir se réchauffer sous les rayons du soleil. Le météorologue Joe Bastardi, du service météorologique AccuWeather, partage l’avis de son collègue. Il pose également un diagnostic peu réjouissant en disant qu’« il va faire très froid ».

    Ses prévisions reposent sur le fait que le prochain hiver sera marqué par l’arrivée de masses d’air arctique qui se déplaceront au-dessus de l’Europe. La diminution de l’activité solaire durant cette période accentuera la chute des températures qui seront encore plus basses. Elena Volosiouk, spécialiste du centre météorologique Fobos, note que le Système solaire connaît aussi des changements de saisons.

    « Ce phénomène est lié tout d’abord à la perturbation de la circulation des masses d’air. Lorsque l’air souffle de l’océan Atlantique, l’hiver est alors assez doux et est marqué par des dégels récurrents et une neige mouillée. Rappelez-vous les derniers hivers : les dégels n’ont pratiquement jamais eu lieu. Nous n’avons eu que des cyclones venant du Sud, qui ont provoqué des chutes et des tempêtes de neige. Et puis, le froid arctique est arrivé. Habituellement, le changement des formes de circulation est lié à l’activité solaire. Aujourd’hui, nous somme confrontés à une période de diminution locale de la température, mais il est prématuré de parler de refroidissement global et de « période glaciaire. »

    Depuis les 5 dernières années, les bulletins météo donnent la chair de poule. En été, il y a des incendies : tantôt c’est la Grèce qui brûle, tantôt c’est l’Espagne. Et en hiver, des congères d’un mètre de hauteur peuvent s’accumuler en une seule journée. Les gelées qui ont frappé l’Europe la saison dernière fait des centaines de morts. En Italie, des amas de neige ont suscité des bouchons de plusieurs kilomètres et des vols aériens et des matchs de football ont été annulés. Les transports au Royaume-Uni a été paralysés pratiquement dans tout le pays à cause des chutes de neige en février. Selon les scientifiques, ce serait dû au changement climatique global. Toutefois, la question de savoir s’il va provoquer un réchauffement ou un refroidissement climatique reste ouverte.

    Selon certaines prévisions, la température sur la planète va commencer à baisser doucement, mais sûrement déjà à partir de l’année prochaine. C’est lié au fait que la température moyenne annuelle dans l’Antarctique augmente. Le schéma est simple : lorsque le soleil chauffe, la glace fond. La partie sombre de l’océan qui absorbe la chaleur plus efficacement s’étend. C’est un cercle vicieux. Et l’on dit encore que la température du Gulf Stream diminue d’année en année. Ceci serait dû aux icebergs qui ont fondu et qui en arrivant dans le courant chaud provoquent son refroidissement. Ainsi, le Gulf Stream apporte de moins en moins de chaleur en Europe. C’est ce qu’explique Elena Ponkratenko, spécialiste en chef du département de l’analyse globale et des prévisions du Centre hydrométéorologique de Russie.

    A faire savoir…

  30. MikeB says:

    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.

    This is wishful thinking. Unabashed by their dismal paper, Smith et al (2007) the Met.Office team have now published a new paper Smith et al (2013) which makes further dire predictions and claims that the models “have undergone rigorous evaluation and have been evaluated for forecast skill”.
    Although they may have ‘evaluated’ the models for ‘forecast skill’ they carefully omit to say that they failed, and they make no mention of the false predictions in their previous paper, Smith et al (2007).

  31. Olavi says:

    Met office is wrong again, there would be .5 celcius cooling during next decade.

  32. David A says:

    Hum, curious how the alarmists awfully wrong predictions instill increased confidence in future catastrophic warming.

  33. Brian H says:

    The only decadal forecasts the IPCC will acknowledge are the ones they backdate 10 years.

  34. Bruce Cobb says:

    At least they still have scary weather to frighten people with. Because now in fact “weather is climate”.

  35. knr says:

    file under ‘childern will not know what snow is’
    The MET will not and cannot change tack over this until those pushing it a poltical direction are gone , for its simply not about the facts .

  36. Peter Taylor says:

    Forecast success or failure seems to count for nothing with the UK MetOffice. In fall 2008, I visited their Hadley Centre and had convivial talks with some of their modellers, in particular the oceanographers. They were very helpful then in providing data – I was particularly interested in surface temperature trends in the Labrador and Norwegian Seas.
    At that time, I was aware that during the wet summer, the jetstream had altered to a more southerly track and I asked them who they had working on it (obviously it would have a strong impact on UK weather). They had nobody working on it. I later sent them a detailed document fully referenced, with some predictions based on what I had then accumulated from the peer-reviewed literature on natural cycles:
    1. I argued that surface temperature would more likely FALL over the next decade, unless there was another super El Nino around 2010 (12 years after 1998) which would likely mask the decline;
    2. I expected Arctic summer sea ice to rebound (it did in 2008/2009) and although the 2012 low point was unexpected (by me), the rebound is progressing now in 2013;
    3. I told them that contrary to CRU’s ‘children will not recognise snow’ forecasts, severe winters would return in 2008/2009 and mark the rest of the decade; I also told them to expect not dry summers and drought, but wet summers and torrential rain – as Norway would normally experience at the brunt end of the Jet across the North Atlantic;
    4. I pointed to the phenomenon of ‘blocking highs’ as the proximal cause, the ultimate cause being most likely solar UV mediating the changes in the Jetstream (and referencing Drew Shindell’s work at NASA between 2001-2003 on the Jetstream during the LIA); {He moved on, or was moved on, to standard theory after that}.
    5. I told them to expect new science on the dynamics of the jetstream, solar UV variability, and cloud cover as explanation for natural cycles – and that there were experienced solar specialists who were expecting solar UV levels to drop (along with the magnetic field), although NASA were then expecting a strong cycle 24;
    6. As a consequence of a weak cycle 24, I expected discussion to start on the prospect of another Maunder-type minimum, which in combination with turning ocean cycles and changes in cloud cover, could lead to global cooling into 2030;
    7. As a consequence of the latter, attention would focus upon world food supplies and food aid programs as stocks of surplus grain were diminished – the impact especially of cold in the northern grain belts, and reduced harvests in Argentina and Australia.

    ALL seven of those predictions ran contrary to their own predictions derived from models – as readers of WUWT would expect, of course.

    In June of this year, the MetOffice realised they had got things wrong (well, lets say, not exactly right) and called together a meeting of ‘experts’ to discuss the matter. I asked to join them, but was first ignored, then rebuffed (perhaps because in 2009, I published my analysis in popular form: ‘Chill: a reassessment of global warming theory’ and was very critical of their modelling approach.).
    Every member of the team was a full Professor. Not one, of course, had predicted any of the above.

    They are, however, working behind the scenes – now, on the jetstream, solar cycles, and even a very model of a modern Maunder minimum – but sadly, still doing their best to ignore the past mistakes and any potential lessons thereof – and find a way of spinning the future that INCORPORATES a returning MM but still gets warmer! This they are doing by going back to the original 23 years old IPCC Radiative Forcing equations, with a Lambda factor of 0.88 – high CO2 forcing, where much recent advice even within their own circles has been for half of that. If they used the low sensitivity, then, oops, they might be predicting cooling! And they would likely be right! (Gerry Meehl at NCAR has recently run a model using both jetstream dynamics and a lower sensitivity, and cooling until about 2060 is the result!) But as many of you consistently point out – this is not science for the MetOffice, but a game of thrones.

  37. Resourceguy says:

    Where is the follow up coverage? With no follow up coverage it will most likely happen again because there are no apparent negative consequences to the practitioners involved.

  38. Peter Taylor

    I had convivial talks at the Met Office just a couple of weeks ago primarily on the subject of CET but also encompassing other subjects.

    The place is stuffed full of very bright people as you say and that gives great expertise in depth in certain areas but gaps in others. For example its only 3 or 4 years ago they were looking for their first glacier modeller as prior to that they appeared to have no expertise in that subject which of course potentially also relates to sea level rise.
    I am not sure they have collected all the parts of the jigsaw puzzle let alone have someone assembling them all to provide the correct picture.

    tonyb

  39. Chris Nelli says:

    Peter Taylor,

    Interesting to know!

  40. Will Nelson says:

    HGW xx/7 says:
    November 21, 2013 at 2:17 pm

    Really hoping ‘braddles’ simply forgot the sarc tag.

    If not, please seek help.

    Sarcasm, and well done at that. (And I wonder, is sarcasm with a /sarc tag really sarcasm?)

  41. John Meget says:

    When exactly did the decade start? If at the start of 2004, it ends in a little over a month now.

  42. herkimer says:

    PETER TAYLOR
    You said
    ” As a consequence of a weak cycle 24, I expected discussion to start on the prospect of another Maunder-type minimum, which in combination with turning ocean cycles and changes in cloud cover, could lead to global cooling into 2030;”

    You are right on. The past winters of 2008-2011 were just a preview of what may lie ahead for UK. The cooling of the oceans, low solar flux levels and refreezing of the Arctic will all point to even lower Northern Hemisphere winter temperatures. Northern Hemisphere winters have been cooling since 1995. The winters of Uk as a whole seem to have been significantly cooler during the low solar flux readings around the last solar minimum.[ 2008-2011] If the sun spots (or solar flux readings) do go to Maunder minimum levels during this decade, as at least 3 solar scientists now predict and the oceans cool as well as a cooling Arctic , then UK winters may stay quite cold and below normal in my opinion for some time . This may be apparent in only a few years. There is plenty of past UK climate history where the key climate variables were similar to what lies ahead currently, to support this. The Met Office still seem to have global warming fever and may not produce credible decadal forecasts until they heal themselves of the CO2 virus, which seems to distort all their work to warming bias

    Ps I have already noted that the winter TEMPERATURES in Canada and our high Arctic have been dropping since 2010. Our winter this year has a head start with -20 TO -30 C temperatures in our Prairie areas already [ one month before the official start of winter].

  43. Brian H says:

    When the jet stream starts flipping and flopping, prepare for da woist!

  44. barry says:

    Mainstream science has little faith in decadal forecasts. They were wrong. No one is surprised, not even Realclimate.

    The basic idea is that a portion of the climate variability on interannual to decadal time scales can be associated with relatively slow ocean changes – for instance in the North Atlantic. If these ocean circulations can be predicted based on the state of the ocean now, that may therefore allow for skillful predictions of temperature or rainfall that are correlated to those ocean changes. But while this sounds plausible, almost every step in this chain is a challenge.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/decadal-predictions/

  45. phlogiston says:

    Dear old Vicky – what’s she doing these days?

  46. michael hart says:

    So they made a prediction for a decade, and then wrote a paper three or four years later saying how much improved their prediction was? And Science published it?

    In that light, the fact that the 10 year prediction turned out rubbish seems almost of secondary importance.

  47. michael hart says:

    Also, I assume they are being truthful about them having made the prediction around 2004, but I don’t know that for sure. It helps to get predictions publicized in good time. Perhaps it was published in another journal?

  48. VNTI7088 says:

    Just for clarification the paper doesn’t actually say there will be 0.3 C warming over the decade of 2004-2014, but that 2014 avg temp will be 0.3 C higher than that of 2004, specifically 0.3+/- 0.17 (I dont have the paper in front of me but the error was around that I think). Not exactly the same thing as stated in the OP.

  49. wbrozek says:

    VNTI7088 says:
    November 23, 2013 at 1:24 pm
    Just for clarification the paper doesn’t actually say there will be 0.3 C warming over the decade of 2004-2014, but that 2014 avg temp will be 0.3 C higher than that of 2004, specifically 0.3+/- 0.17 (I dont have the paper in front of me but the error was around that I think). Not exactly the same thing as stated in the OP.

    Assuming this is correct, 2004 had an anomaly of 0.445. Applying 0.3+/- 0.17 to this gives a range of 0.575 to 0.915!
    They would have to beat the 2010 record of 0.547 to even reach the low number. Unless a strong El Nino starts in a month or two, that will just not happen. CO2 is way too weak to do anything of the sort. By the way, HadCRUT4 is averaging 0.474 so far in 2013.

  50. barry says:

    There is a full verion of the paper online:

    http://startinternational.org/library/archive/files/smith_decadal_science_2007_68599b6ea9.pdf

    Their prediction is “further warming during the coming decade, with the year 2014 predicted to be 0.30°±0.21°”.

    The large range is not surprising, given the short time period. The prediction for 2014 is in the range 0.535C to 0.955C. 2005 and 2010 are the only years since to have fallen within that range (at the bottom end). Ignoring uncertainty, less than half the years since 2009 have been warmer than 2004. but I don’t know if it is wise to ignore the uncertainy.

    Caveat – they would have been working with HadCRUt3 data when they wrote the report in 2007. My figures, like the OP, come from HadCRUt4. I do not know which is a better choice for this analysis, they data set they worked with, or the supposedly improved data set.

    Note: they did not claim that their model had great predictive skill, ony that the skill was better than another model they compared with in hindcasting tests. There are a few researchers in this area that have confidence in their decadal predictions, but most modelers do not at this point (cf realclimate).

  51. nevket240 says:

    Just heard on TV news here in Victoria, Australia. So far this November is coldest since 2001.
    Where is FlimFlam Flannery when the truth is to be told???
    regards

Comments are closed.