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

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).

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

“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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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,

@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.

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 😉

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).

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

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.

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?)

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].

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/

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.

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).