Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t The Express – The British MET have forecast that large areas of the world will cool over the next 5 years, though they still expect global average temperatures to remain high. Of course, they also still claim that CO2 is in the driving seat.
Spatial patterns suggest enhanced warming over land and at high northern latitudes. There is some indication of continued cool conditions in the Southern Ocean, and of relatively cool conditions in the North Atlantic sub-polar gyre. Uncertainties in the forecast are considerable: for the period 2016-2020 most regions are expected to be warmer than the average of 1981 to 2010, but regional cooling is possible over much of the Southern Ocean and the North Atlantic sub-polar gyre. Differences with our forecast issued last year are expected because the updated forecast has been made with an upgraded version of our model. Nevertheless, both forecasts suggest relatively cool conditions in the Southern Ocean and the North Atlantic sub-polar gyre although the magnitude of the anomalies is smaller in the updated forecast. Further forecasts from other international modelling centres are available from the multi-model decadal forecast exchange.
During the five-year period 2016-2020, global average temperature (see blue shading in Figure 3 below) is expected to remain between 0.28°C and 0.77°C (90% confidence range) above the long-term 1981-2010 mean (0.88°C to 1.37°C relative to pre-industrial conditions represented by the period 1850 to 1900). The warmest individual year in the 160-year Met Office Hadley Centre global temperature record is 2015 with a temperature of 0.44 ± 0.1 °C above the 1981-2010 mean. Averaged over the whole five-year period 2016-2020, global average temperature is expected to be between 0.42°C and 0.67°C above the 1981-2010 mean (1.02°C to 1.27°C relative to pre-industrial conditions).
The forecast is for continued global warming largely driven by continued high levels of greenhouse gases. However, other changes in the climate system, including the largest El Niño since 1997 and longer term shifts in both the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), are also contributing. Near record temperatures are predicted for the coming five years, consistent with the Met Office annual global temperature forecast. However, the recent run of consecutive record years is likely to end in 2017 as El Niño declines. The forecast remains towards the mid to upper end of the range simulated by CMIP5 models that have not been initialised with observations (green shading in Figure 3). Barring a large volcanic eruption or a very sudden return to La Niña or negative AMO conditions which could temporarily cool climate, ten year global average warming rates are likely to return to late 20th century levels within the next two years. Nevertheless, the recent slowdown in surface warming is still an active research topic and trends over a longer (15 year) period will take longer to respond. For further discussion on the surface warming slowdown see the Met Office reports on the recent pause in warming and on big changes underway in the climate system.
Read more: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc
The last paragraph is interesting. The MET don’t know what caused the pause. They acknowledge the cooling effects they have identified could be substantial enough to drag down global average temperatures. The MET still think CO2 is driving a dangerously rapid rise in global temperatures, they’re just not sure when the temperatures will actually rise.
So they acknowledge that there has been a pause/hiatus?
Yes, and no. It is like this: “Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you. Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn’t bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don’t believe you really got bit. And fourth, I don’t have a dog.”
Fourth should be “that is not my dog”
(I don’t know why this is funny, it just is)
And if I had a dog its name would be Homework.
Heard of a guy once who was studying boas.
His homework ate his dog.
Tom in Florida
How about revisiting your comment
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/01/new-insights-into-the-solar-magnetic-dynamo/#comment-2135199
?
There is a commenter who uses the handle “BirdyNumNum” from The Party another great line from a Peter Sellers movie. I knew I had heard that before.
vukcevic February 3, 2016 at 12:39 am
“Tom in Florida
How about revisiting your comment
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/01/new-insights-into-the-solar-magnetic-dynamo/#comment-2135199”
Yes I have seen your reply. First question, yes the weather has been fairly warm here in Florida over the last few days, thank you. Second, if the new SSNs help your chart then fine. But I defer to the opinion of someone who has proven he knows a lot more than both of us in these matters so when he changes his views on your wiggle matching then I will. Nothing personal you know.
A special thank you to Tom. Now I am going down the rabbit hole watching these clips
Hi Tom over in Florida
You said: “Are you afraid the new numbers will make your wiggle matching not so matching?”
My reply was that new numbers provide even better amplitude match
You raised objection then, made an unfair comment without ever bothering to find out what Svalgaard data looks like, and for good measure you’ve just done it again, since at no time I asked you to change your views on anything, only answered your question (quoted above) as politely as I could.
Lol, yes, indeed, it is, Tom B. Thanks for the laugh 🙂
Well my bet is on Vostok Station and other vacation spots in the Antarctic highlands.
And if you get your ass bit by a dog there, I’ll take you to the emergency care myself.
But if the frost bites you that’s not my problem.
g
re: vukcevic
February 3, 2016 at 8:55 am
Continued over at the appropriate thread.
No, they apparently reworked their failed model and are now giving a prediction (if I understand correctly) that has a margin of error of +/- 117% of the total temperature rise measured during the base period 1981-2010 { (0.28°C + 0.77°C)/2 prediction = 0.525°C –> 0.525°C/(0.65°C – 0.2°C) rise = 117% }
So before the expected la nina, they are going to go out on a limb and predict some widespread cooling?
Wow, kind of going way out on a limb, aren’t they?
Glad they remembered to bow to their global warming masters while they were at it. Anything else would be downright unclimatescientific.
“Anything else would be downright unclimatescientific.”
Is “unclimatescientific” a Thought Crime yet?
Hey Moa,
# Oooooh sareful!
Some of the sweet religionist folk would have it as a real crime, it looks, with your brains exploding if you do not kow-tow to the present and terrifyingly-visible God-head.
Now – hyperbole – maybe, a bit. A little bit.
But /sarc? No sireeeee!
Auto
I know I’m not smart enough to understand this global warming b.s., but on the subject of “El Nina”/La Nina specifically; how exactly does the accumulation of warm water on the West side of the Pacific which moves to the East side translate into a “global” temperature rise? If someone can explain that to me I will be forever in their debt. Or until doomsday at least, which is imminent apparently. Doesn’t the Eastward movement of this warm surface water coincide with cooler temps in the Western Pacific that more or less balance out?
Worry not, grasshopper. Though it will continue to be mild to cooler in your neck of the woods, the temperatures will be off the chart jungle steaming hot everywhere in the world where no people happen to live, keeping the planet average temperature slightly above what it was when half the surface was still molten.
“Though it will continue to be mild to cooler in your neck of the woods,”
Only if you live in the Southern Ocean or the North Atlantic sub-polar gyre. The predictions are quite specific. They did not say “some areas will be cool and others hot, so whatever happens we will be covered” They said specifically where the cool areas are expected.
Then this will be interesting to see how well they do with this prediction. I think that we will see cooling in many other regions.
So the forecast for the next five years is for elevated global temperatures driven by high levels of greenhouse gasses. But do they expect the levels of greenhouse gasses to decline after five years from now? No. They do not. So, if they believe their theory why only a five year forecast? What silliness.
Because obviously it is just as easy to predict 20 years as it is to predict 5 years. What an utterly silly comment.
seaice1:
It is a very sensible comment because in 2007 the IPCC reported that global temperature was expected to rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system. But global temperature has not risen since 2000 (nor since 1999) and the MET now predicts little if any global temperature rise in the 5 years before 2021 while GHG emissions continue.
I explain this and its importance (i.e. the MET is saying all projections of global temperature are wrong) in a post that has ‘vanished’ and has not yet appeared so I will ask the Mods. to seek it.
Richard
According to climate scientists, it is actually EASIER to predict the long term than the short term. This, of course, is just what they say and has no value.
“According to climate scientists, it is actually EASIER to predict the long term than the short term. This, of course, is just what they say and has no value.”
I don’t believe you. Please show me where this has been said. You must of course be aware that some things that occur further in the future are easier to predict than other things that will occur soon. It is easy for me to predict average temperatures will be higher here in July than they are now. It is not easy for me to predict tomorrows weather accurately.
It is easy for me to predict tomorrows global temperature extremely accurately if I know today’s global temperature accurately. It is succesively harder for me to predict global temperature every day after this.
What you are saying is that climate scientists claim the same thing is easier to predict for the long term than the short term. I do not believe this to be the case.
Richardscourtney -your comment, however accurate it may be, is a non sequitur. It does not address the point that the forecast is said to be silly becasue they did not predict more than 5 years ahead.
Apologies for failure to end my bold properly. It should end afte “the same thing”
If you believe this, you should take up your point with Professor Joanna Haigh of Imperial College London, who has made precisely this claim. According to her, the long-term (multiple decades) movement of climate (code for the primacy of CO2 forcing, needless to say) is better understood that short-term movements.
This contention is obviously absurd – indeed, hearing it advanced on the BBC first made me question the consensus several years ago -, but she is not alone in thinking it, in warmist circles at least.
seaice1:
You say to me
The only non sequitur was your response to me that I have quoted.
This is not surprising because all your carping in this thread is silly.
The facts of your accusation of illogicality are as follows.
kevin kilty wrote saying in total
Clearly, kevin kilty was asserting that “only a five year forecast” was inconsistent with them having a belief in their theory, but you replied saying in total
I pointed out that the sillyness was yours saying to you
The IPCC reported predictions of “two decades” were the norm as recently as 2007 and, therefore, kevin kilty was right so the only non sequitur was your response to me.
Richard
Richard
1) “The norm” does not mean easier. Even if it was the norm, longer term predictions are less certain than shorter term ones.
2) The IPCC predictions of global temperature are totally different from this forecast. This forecast includes global temperatures but is much more detailed. In other words, you are comparing apples to pears.
3) Even if this was the same type of prediction, it would not invalidate a 5 year forecast, nor would it be silly to make one.
Fen Tiger.
What was stated is not absurd. I understand long term (annual) changes in temperature, I do not understand short term fluctuations nearly as well. Without commenting on whether the long-term (multiple decades) movement of climate is actually better understood that short-term movements, it is entirely reasonable that this would be the case. All it is saying is that we understand the trend but we don’t understand what we often label as the noise. It is because we don’t inderstand it that we call it noise.
seaice1:
Evade and obfuscate as much as you like but it does not alter the facts.
Everyone can see;.
You wrongly claimed kevin kilty’s sensible post was “an utterly silly comment”.
and
You wrongly claimed I had made a non sequitur when I had not but you had.
Richard
Richard. The comment was silly because it is a mistake to say it is silly to make a 5 year prediction instead of a 10 year prediction. I explained in detail why it is not silly to make a 5 year and not a 10 year prediction. You then argue (as near as I can make out) that because some people have made 20 year predictions about average global temperatures, then anyone must be silly to make a 5 year prediction about anything climate related. Nowhere has anyone explained why it is silly to make a 5 year forecast in this instance.
Today I heard the weather forecast for the next two days. I did not think “What silliness! If they believe the same factors will affect the weather next week then why not forecast for 5 days? Anyway, that must be true because I heard a 5 day forecast the other day.”
Compare that with this exchange and point out any significant differences that support your case.
The original claim was that if the Met Office believed one of the factors (CO2) was not going to decrease it was silliness to produce only a 5 year forecast and not a longer one. How does that differ from my weather forecast example? The only way is for the Met office to believe in a simple direct relationship between CO2 and temperatures all over the world. Since that is obviously not the case, I contend that the comment is sillier than the forecast.
The original contention that a longer forecast should have been made simply because CO2 is not predicted to fall is unsupportable, as a brief consideration would reveal. Yet you insist on trying to support it anyway.
To be fair it’s probably true. Over the long term, natural cycles will even out whereas the trends over shorter periods of a decade or so can be an influenced by ENSO and suchlike.
To use analogy: If you were to push a large rock over the edge of a cliff you might not be able to predict it’s change in altitude above sea level accurately over small time intervals but you could probably predict that it will reach the bottom of the cliff eventually. In this case, therefore, It’s easier to make an accurate “long” term prediction than a shorter term prediction.
Nylo – February 3, 2016 at 2:31 am
Agree – but, think “error bars”.
Error bars the size of the Eiffel Tower . . .
Auto
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
Did any of the (overheated) CMIP5 climate models, that drive the Trillion dollar climate crisis industry, predict the next 5 years to cool?
No, but “the science is settled” so who cares…
Did you read the post? They say “The forecast is for continued global warming” Why would you suggest that it predicted global cooling?
Not sure you read carefully enough. Here’s a copy paste of the first para.
“…large areas of the world will cool over the next 5 years, though they still expect global average temperatures to remain high.”
‘Remain high’ is where you might have confused yourself with my short-term ‘5 years of cooling’ observation.
😉
Here is the graph they predict for global temperature
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/q/o/fig3_dp2015_fcst_global_t.png
There is no cooling. Large areas are not the whole.
CMIP5 was supposed the latest greatest climate model developed between 2006 and 2011. It specifically predicted a pattern of warming in the North Atlantic sub polar gyre and southern ocean. This it turns out was wrong and they are now predicting cooling in those locations. But the science is still settled of course.
“…large areas of the world will cool over the next 5 years, though they still expect global average temperatures to remain high.”
I don’t believe the MET said large areas of the world, only Eric Worrall did. Not quite the same thing….
So I see some actual gaps in the graph that seaice1 posted, where suddenly they have no confidence of anything. Why is that ??
And anybody who uses the density of a monochrome to designate an amplitude can only be trying to hide something.
Most people would use a false color (rainbow) as a scale proxy, because the eye is good at detecting small changes in hue, and quite hopeless in differentiating density differences.
g
I think the red parts are the forecasts. They did not make forecasts for every time period, hence the gaps.
Warning is sure to occur in the run-up to COP 22.
“….than the average of 1981 to 2010,”
When did this become the new “normal”? The question is rhetorical, by the way…
LOL!
Science Realist: CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.
AGW Cult: Oh, uh….. well, … uh, it just…. IT IS WARMING, but, just not around here. It is warming ……. uuh….. uh WAY UP THERE! (pointing up to sky)
SR: Satellite data says, “No.”
AGW: Hm. Well, when I said, “up there,” (cough), ah… heh…. I REALLY MEANT UP THERE (pointing northward).
SR: In Massachusetts?
AGW: NnnnnnOOOOOO, dummy! Up – THERE, you know, where Santa Claus lives? (wink-wink)
SR: And where no one else does. Still, the non-kriged data says, “no dice.”
AGW: Oh. ……… THEN IT MUST BE IN THE DEEPEST PART OF THE OCEAN!!
SR: HOW – DID – IT – GET – THERE?
AGW:………………………………………………….(2 years later)……..It is warming at the upper latitudes.
SR: Back to Santa. Just who do you expect to believe your silly fairy tale, A.G.?
AGW: Well, Santa believes.
SR: Oh, boy, we are really having a world class debate, here, aren’t we? (eye roll)
AGW: “The debate is over.”
Earth: Well, (chuckle <– a combination of a dolphin’s laugh and the roar of a male lion amplified to the level of Iguasu Falls) I will have the last word. (more laughter) George Carlin got it. Why don’t they all? Humans. Amusing, appalling at times, vain, little creatures. And forgetful (ooo, boy) – they can never seem to remember how BIG I am.. (chuckle) AS IF their puny emissions can significantly affect ME. LOL.
Where do I audition for the roles ?
I want my own trailer.
And special food for my pets.
And pleasure. I need to have pleasure.
Well…. it sounds, Knute, ……. like you would be a great Santa! No need to audition! We will provide you with your own trailer and lots of hay and oats for your reindeer (a.k.a. “pets”) and Mrs. Claus for the pleasure of her company! Don’t already have a Mrs. Claus? Well, no problem! We will provide you with one! ….. YES, to live with her, you have to marry her…. none of that, no, siree, you are playing SAINT Nick, after all!!
Here are your lines:
Santa: Ho, ho, ho!
Santa: Ho, ho, ho!
Santa: Yup. (take off hat, wipe head) Gettin’ mighty warm around these parts. (act all sad) Up to minus 5. I’ll have to move… .
Pay is .000125 of every Netflix sale. #(:))
My gawd, there is so much potential in satire. I could give hockey sticks to the world. Hide the data in the Arctic under a Viking ruin. Have my reindeer fail to rescue obese polar bears. Deliver coal to Gore.
Endless material.
And here I thought the White House were experts on spin!
We’ve come a long way in 500 years. (sarc)
Here’s what the experts were saying in 1484:
“However, it has been found that witches have freely confessed that they have done such things, and there are various instances of it, which could be mentioned, in addition to what has already been said. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that, just as easily as they raise hailstorms, so can they cause lightning and storms at sea; and so no doubt at all remains on these points. ”
Back then, no parody was necessary, (or allowed). Since the thing that we seek to parody is more dumb than any potential parody
Whereas nowadays, with such absurd theater as Michael Mann’s pathetic squirming and then reinvention as saintly martyr and victim of a vast and mysterious conspiracy undertaken by the providers of gasoline, or Lews belief that science should ideally be conducted in secret by an exclusive privileged clique, whilst criticizing those who gravitate towards conspiratorial ideation, or the perfectly executed subversive brainwashing campaign which has convince the ordinary MSM consumer to believe that extreme cold events and record antarctic sea ice are “proof” of “global warming” – no parody is necessary, (or allowed). Since the thing that we seek to parody is more dumb than any potential parody.
It’s like deja vu, all over again…
http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/mm/mm02a15a.htm
outstanding effort janice ,roflmao.
Bit Chilly! — Thank you. #(:))
To get egregiously snarky, the UK Met office seems to have the same problem as NASA GISS–they have their heads so far up their butts they see teeth. This has a very strong element of “I believe” in the CAUSE of global warming, and how do I fit the report into that system.
The heartbreak of proctocraniosis.
Jorge
Almost lost the monitor and keyboard!
Proctocraniosis.
Fabulous; brilliant; impressed to the nth degree!
Stable enough now to lift a glass – in salutation!
Auto – admiringly!
@ur momisugly Tom Halla @ur momisugly6:39 pm “they have their heads so far up their butts they see teeth”.:
nope they got their heads so far under the sand only their heels show! (more civilized but I got the point with laughter!)
“During the five-year period 2016-2020, global average temperature (see blue shading in Figure 3 below) is expected to remain between 0.28°C and 0.77°C (90% confidence range) above the long-term 1981-2010 mean (0.88°C to 1.37°C relative to pre-industrial conditions represented by the period 1850 to 1900).”
So the mean temperature of the pre-industrial conditions represented by the period 1850 to 1900 has been established with a 90% confidence?? How stupid do they think we are?
Yet NOAA was off by almost 4 C in their 1997 temperature!
I was more noticing that their expected 0.4 to 0.62 degrees of expected anomaly didn’t have a confidence range.
The current claim of 0.4 ±0.1 is literally unbelievable. They cannot get that precision out of the instruments, coverage and infilling in the calculations.
“I was more noticing that their expected 0.4 to 0.62 degrees of expected anomaly didn’t have a confidence range.”
That is the confidence range.
I think they covered all the bases.
Any kind of temperature / weather / climate you can imagine will be “consistent” with this, subject to a bit of hand-waving to flick away whatever discrepancies those evil d*ni*rs point out.
Kick the can five years down the road, plenty of justification for a big increase in “research” spending, five years closer to receiving their gold plated pensions, what’s not to like?
Only thing that might make the MET and their fellow scammers pause, would be five years of the way things always were:-Eternal springtime except for white Christmases.
\sarc.
martin – I was thinking the same thing. They have bet both ways. Can’t be wrong. This all started when the term ‘climate change’ took over from ‘global warming’
CO2 the driver? Perhaps a word with their colleagues at NOAA:
“Water vapor is the primary gas responsible for the greenhouse effect.”
http://cpo.noaa.gov/AboutCPO/Glossary.aspx
Do you seriously think they don’t know that at the Met office?
seaice:
Of course they know it. They don’t mention it.
Please make some attempt be sensible when providing your carping.
Richard
It seemed sensible to me. I do not know what point Betapug was trying to make. One possibility was that Betapug believed the Met office did not know this and was pointing it out. This seems unlikely, but not impossible, hence the question.
Alternatively Betapug may believe that the Met office does not understand the difference between main greenhouse gas and main driver of change. This seems equally unlikely.
I am at a loss to understand what betapug was trying to convey. Perhaps Betapug could clarify?
I’m confused. Do you actually think humans are affecting the climate?
Mark -is that to me? My beliefs do not matter to this point. I am trying to establish what point Betapug was trying to make. The only way it makes sense to me is if betapug has not appreciated the difference between principle gas responsible for greenhouse effect and principle driver of change.
Water Vapour is transient. It’s effectively a feedback. Without CO2 in the colder, upper layers of the troposphere then the atmosphere would not be warm enough to hold current levels of WV.
The Met Office simply admitted that natural climate forces are stronger than man-made atmospheric CO2, but most of all, it doesn’t care much for NOAA – “It’s American you know.”
Well that makes perfect sense , much like saying that the flea upon the elephant’s ass is in charge of running the circus. Some days he has more influence than others.
lol
qbagwell
true, true.
One must however, in truth, make sure the flea is not capable of transmitting infections through the elephant …
A flea bite is small, but can kill sometimes and always will bite everytime.
An elephant bite, should it chose to do so, will kill.
With regards to these new forecasts, are they for the present Hadcrut4 or are they for a new Hadcrut5 which will have undergone 3 revisions in the next 5 years?
La Nina should be on her way soon.
Winter is coming
The met climate guys are an utterly loopy band of random witch doctors. Every year they predict that OMG Essex will be a desert within five years or the next year OMG Essex will be a swamp within two years. They just keep on and on and on and are of no more consequence to the average man than the ranting soapbox bloke on Sunday evening saying ‘the end is nigh’. It’s as though you were talking to your kindly but a bit odd Uncle who was telling you that his ‘soopa secwet computah pwogwam’ could predict the outcome in a game of Pooh sticks in a waterfall.
The master control knob of climate has been inadvertently downgraded by the Met Office.
The Met Office is as clever as The Oracle at Delphi – they safeguard their prophesies by making sure they can be interpreted in two ways. So come 2020 they will say, “Told you so”!
Come 2020 they will produce an anlysis of ho waccurate the prediction was, just as they did in 2015
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/q/3/fig4_dp2015_map_obs_fcst_stipple.png
You and everyone else will be able to see how good it was. The 2010 is not bad, considering the complexity of the system. If the cool and warm parts are not what they say we will all be able to see, so they won’t be able to say “told you so!” unless they are correct.
seaice:
You say
No! Come 2020 they will produce a comparison of their prediction with whatever they have then altered their time series of global temperature anomaly to be.
And after the ‘adjustments’ observed global warming will certainly NOT achieve the required global temperature anomaly rise of 0.4°C since 2000 that was reported as “committed warming” by the IPCC in 2007.
Also important is that the discrepancy of HadCRUT with satellite data is becoming embarrassing (see here) especially when the troposphere was predicted to warm faster than the ‘surface’.
Richard
“No! Come 2020 they will produce a comparison of their prediction with whatever they have then altered their time series of global temperature anomaly to be.”
QED.
“the 2010 is not bad considering the complexity of the system”
oh dear. it was wrong, very wrong. in fact so wrong it is comical. only in climate “science” could something so wrong be deemed “not bad”. you are delusional . do you work for the met office by any chance?
seaice1
February 3, 2016 at 2:45 am
Yes, but they homogenized and elevated the numbers since 2010. That’s the game. NOAA and GISS did the same. Skewed the temperatures higher in the last few years and then claimed a record!! I know you understand this
“it was wrong, very wrong. in fact so wrong it is comical. only in climate “science” could something so wrong be deemed “not bad”. you are delusional”
All models are wrong – we have established that. They got most of the world within 5-95% confidence limits – the hatched areas are those outside. Clearly not perfect, but it would could have been a lot worse. Given the complexity it looks “not bad” to me. One might disgree about what constitutes bad, but it is not delusional to think this is not bad.
seaice1:
You assert
A model is right when it provides outputs with accuracy and precision within their estimated range of inherent errors.
and
A model is wrong when it provides outputs with accuracy and precision within their estimated range of inherent errors.
If by “models” you mean ‘climate models’ then, yes, it is demonstrated that they are all wrong.
Scientific models are rejected for use when they are observed to be wrong.
Richard
Ouch!
Obviously, I intended to write
A model is wrong when it provides outputs with accuracy and precision outside their estimated range of inherent errors.
Sorry.
Richard
Translation: “We admit we’ve used up every conceivable stunt to pump up the post 1998 surface-measured record and we’ve nothing left in the bag. It’s back to ‘pause talk’, now that the Paris conference is behind us. With careful application of doublespeak and general obfuscation (and barring another Little Ice Age) we should be able to keep this AGW gravy-train on the tracks for another couple of decades and into a comfortable retirement.”
Nice Claude.
Other options include:
1. A mass movement by scientists to regain credibility by posting all raw data in a common repository. Disclosure of raw data is required anyway if you use public money.
2. Global deflation will prioritize funds.
@ur momisugly Knute 8:31 pm. ” A mass movement by scientists to regain credibility by posting all raw data in a common repository. Disclosure of raw data is required anyway if you use public money”.
It should be a National Holiday world wide and a designated long weekend like Sept 1 if that would ever happen!
Perhaps there is a robust business opportunity to establish it. Much like establishing standard methods and the rigor involved in validating them, there could be a market for such a thing.
Perhaps we need to sink lower for the need to present itself. It’s obvious to my little brain that a dependence on science to “save the people” which results in being dead wrong will drive the avocation to its roots.
It’s just a matter of when.
Perhaps the best way to replace one mass movement is with another.
Unfortunately they cannot do that. The CRU at the University of East Anglia has specifically said they lost it when they moved or maybe the dog ate it along with their homework but they definitely cant release it. Of course this has nothing to do with the Climategate email in which a leading climate scientist stated he would sooner delete it than release it under a FOI application.
KW
Yes, bad behavoir. No consequences. Awful.
My thought is that if science is to save its eroding credibility it first and foremost needs to reestablish transparency. As you are aware today’s peer review is broken.
Essentially, the goal is to push the restart button. Imagine setting up a group that laid out a platform which held fast to the concept of releasing all raw data (except personal identifiers unless agreed to) to any research that was submitted for review. Imagine taking that one step further to post real time data as the experiment was being conducted.
And yes, many would squawk about this and that but the current path is obviously not working because people are cheating.
Well carp, since the usually miss the mark by enough to nearly state the opposite will happen. So, what would the opposite be?
CAGW alarmists are in quite a conundrum….
There hasn’t been a global warming trend in almost 20 years, and with: a coming La [Nina] around 2018/19, the PDO entering its 30-yr cool cycle in 2008, the AMO entering its 30-yr cool cycle around 2022, the current solar cycle the weakest since 1906 and the next one starting in 2022 expected to be the weakest the Dalton Minimum (1790~1820), the only option is to warn of coming CO2 induced… cooling…
Hmmm…. The disparity between CAGW projections vs. reality are already off by 2 standard deviations and no global warming trend for 20 years, which is already sufficient divergence and duration to disconfirm the CAGW hypothesis. It’s likely that over the next 5 years, the divergence could exceed 3 standard deviations with no global warming trend for 25+ years….
It’s time to call it a day on the biggest and most expensive scientific scam in human history…
All the fabricated raw-data adjustments and lame excuses for why the CAGW hypothesis has failed so miserably are getting tedious and embarrassing…
[We have El Nino, La Nada’s .. Is a La Lina a long little La Nina? .mod]
Hmmmm
I just spent 2 weeks in this and that meeting with various big money decision makers. None, zero, nada question the concensus on CAGW. In fact, even mentioning concepts such as natural variability ruffled the feathers, quickened pulses and was quickly brushed off. I have to admit I am shocked at the blindness of otherwise thoughtful people.
Too much money is blindly following a ruse.
La Niña has started its effect will not be felt until late 2016 into 2017.
Looks like plenty of warming to come which makes a nonsense of this posts headline of large scale cooling.
http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/151/590x/secondary/MET-Map-455071.jpg
It’s a pretty graph.
At first I thought the red was scary but then I warmed up to it.
+ + + + etc.
i am trying to work out how the confidence levels increase at the extremes of the error bar ?
@ur momisugly bit chilly…was wondering the same myself. Looking at that graph it looks like the lower their confidence level, then the closer they get to reality.
What a peculiar chart. How did 1998 end up cooler than 2015? Didn’t the creator of it listen to NASA-GISS? They published the absolute temperature in 1998 years ago. The popularity of anomaly charts now seems to be disguising the fact that ’98 was, before adjustments, warmer than all years since.
And what the heck is up with all the confidence variation? How could they have confidence that is highly variable in adjacent years? What, they trust the instruments more in some years than others?
OK, here’s the headline.
And here’s the text (written by the MET office) that supports that headline.
The Southern Ocean and the North Atlantic sub-polar gyre constitute a large portion of the globe. It is accurate to say ‘Large Scale Cooling’. Note that the headline isn’t referring to the global average temperature. Note also that the MET is predicting cooling from current levels after 2017 and in that case they are referring to the global average temperature.
There’s nothing wrong with the headline. It is an accurate statement of what the MET office said.
The MET office says “enhanced warming over land” which just happens to be where the Earths population lives.
But let’s ignore that hey and instead highlight a bit of cooling in the Southern Ocean, and of relatively cool conditions in the North Atlantic sub-polar gyre.
When a dog bites a man, that’s not news. When a man bites a dog, that’s news
When the MET office predicts any cooling at all, that’s news.
The headline appears to be misleading, and some commenters here seem to have been mislead. It is not actually wrong, but it conveys the wrong message. The article forecasts warming, not cooling, as that graph clearly shows.
Why is the headline misleading? It is because the main point in the headline is not the main point in the article. A reasonable summary of the article would be “Warming predicted, but with some extensive areas of relative cool.” To represent this as “Extensive areas of cooling, with some areas of warming” conveys a very different message, and suggests the cooling is the point.
You have to consider the readership. Most of the denizens of WUWT know that the MET office will predict warming. It’s worthy of note that they’re predicting any cooling at all.
If the headline appeared in the New York Times, I would agree that it would be misleading. In this case, context is important.
Heap big warmy come.
Very very cold soon.
As I read the posted material, I kept wondering if this was a parody of the heap big warmy parody.
Otherwise examining the entrails of small animals would provide as accurate a forecast as this work of art.
Sure evidence we are currently governed by fools and bandits.
[The mods are worried about the heap big warmy things that keep coming out in the elephant and flea conversations, and that entails. ….mod]
In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “Rude, misshapen piles.” If they happen to entail entrails…
@ur momisugly mod, I thought bid heap warmy things came out of bulls.
Does the sentence
“Differences with our forecast issued last year are expected because the updated forecast has been made with an upgraded version of our model. ”
mean that the model change is responsible for the differences with NO input of data since the previous year?
If so then it would seem data is irrelevant!