LONDON (Reuters) – Next year is set to be one of the top-five warmest on record, British climate scientists said on Tuesday.
The average global temperature for 2009 is expected to be more than 0.4 degrees celsius above the long-term average, despite the continued cooling of huge areas of the Pacific Ocean, a phenomenon known as La Nina.
That would make it the warmest year since 2005, according to researchers at the Met Office, who say there is also a growing probability of record temperatures after next year.
Currently the warmest year on record is 1998, which saw average temperatures of 14.52 degrees celsius – well above the 1961-1990 long-term average of 14 degrees celsius.
Warm weather that year was strongly influenced by El Nino, an abnormal warming of surface ocean waters in the eastern tropical Pacific.
Theories abound as to what triggers the mechanisms that cause an El Nino or La Nina event but scientists agree that they are playing an increasingly important role in global weather patterns.
The strength of the prevailing trade winds that blow from east to west across the equatorial Pacific is thought to be an important factor.
“Further warming to record levels is likely once a moderate El Nino develops,” said Professor Chris Folland at the Met Office Hadley Center. “Phenomena such as El Nino and La Nina have a significant influence on global surface temperature.”
Professor Phil Jones, director of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia, said global warming had not gone away despite the fact that 2009, like the year just gone, would not break records.
“What matters is the underlying rate of warming,” he said.
He noted the average temperature over 2001-2007 was 14.44 degrees celsius, 0.21 degrees celsius warmer than corresponding values for 1991-2000.
(Reporting by Christina Fincher; Editing by Christian Wiessner)
Well at least they gave a date and number.
This paragraph is the give away: “Theories abound as to what triggers the mechanisms that cause an El Nino or La Nina event but scientists agree that they are playing an increasingly important role in global weather patterns”.
They are backing away from AGW.
And parse their writing carefully- is the Met office actually claiming that climatologists are just now discovering that the Pacific Ocean warming and cooling events influence world weather patterns? Or are they saying that in the past the Pacific Ocean events did not influence weather so much?
Either way, they are idiots.
“Currently the warmest year on record is 1998, which saw average temperatures of 14.52 degrees celsius – well above the 1961-1990 long-term average of 14 degrees celsius.”
How is 1961-1990 a long term average? Hell, I am way older than that. And what happened to the infamous 1979-2000 base period? Why isn’t that being used? GIGO, cherry picking and algorean science methods. Give me a break.
These people are a disgrace to their profession and in time they will discover this
FTA: “…Currently the warmest year on record is 1998…”
I thought 1934 was the warmist year on record? At least we now know how the warmist will respond to continued cooling. It will be described as a unimportant bump on the long term road to an ever hotter world.
Brutal cold forming in Alaska, and you know where it is headed just as soon as it finishes the job of getting cyrogenic.
If this is warmest on record, it’s a cruel joke.
We’re in the middle of an unexpected Deep Solar Minimum, the sunspots are mere specks, the 10.7 cm flux is the equivalent of a flatlined patient on the operating table, the ionosphere has shrunk 30% , the cosmic rays have increased and form inversion layers in the lower atmosphere bouncing out the warming….and yet…. warmest on record?
Not to worry, though, people are starting to ask questions.
How come it’s so cold this winter?
Next year is set to be one of the top-five warmest on record, British climate scientists said on Tuesday.
Yeah, and the Lions will win the Super Bowl next year. And I’ve got a computer model that proves it.
They just want to enable the new vision of a global government in charge of all activity.
And any human activity is bad.
Sad to see so many humans desiring our own demise.
The same problem as why is a beaver dam, built by beavers for beavers’ purposes good, but a human built dam, built by humans for human purposes, is bad.
sigh.
Phil Jones…. LOL…. Steve McIntyre reamed him for not archiving his data and not submitting data for verification… Jones responded by saying he wasn’t going to provide any data so his work can be disproved. Jones is about as competent as Hansen and Mann… Not
There’s also the cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Anything else in the Pacific which they didn’ t mention?
Great news for Scotland. They should have a much better chance of catching the Loch Ness Monster this year:
http://www.pinedaleonline.com/archive/2002/jan/scr-andyicefishing.jpg
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070104.html
2007 – forecast to be the warmest year yet- climate change experts 🙂
The Met Office shares the same conflict as GISS. They control both the forecasts and the temperature data.
It is analogous being the coach, referee, scorekeeper and cheerleader – all for the same team.
A couple years ago you may recall that Gloucestershire (in the West of the UK) was totally flooded in the wettest and coolest summer and year for many decades. It was actually a national emergency with the army called out desperately defending power generating stations. The Met Office predicted in the spring that this would be a rather dry warm summer, with rain mainly in the North.
There is no reason to think anyone can forecast UK weather one year ahead. If you look at where the UK is located in terms of the flow of weather, this is in no way surprising. The surprising thing is, people keep forecasting, and people keep reporting their forecasts.
The Met Office has a heater strategically placed next to the thermometer just in case.
Never fear. Not everyone is buying it… including environment ministers.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/environment/environment-minister-sammy-wilson-i-still-think-manmade-climate-change-is-a-con-14123972.html
Cognitive Dissonance. Just once, it would be nice if the MSM would nail their feet to the floorboards for putting out these kinds of absurd predictions.
Fred, 1934 was the warmest in the US not globally!
This can become very, very funny.
According to the latest NOAA ENSO status report we’re back into a La Nina, which, according to NCEP ensemble forecasts, is expected to last through at least the first half of 2009. And once an El Nino or La Nina is established, it can be predicted months ahead with quite good skill. La Nina automatically means cooler temperatures, hence it seems unlikely that 2009 will be very warm …
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Hat tip to Lubos Motl.
The Met Office only seems to have been doing these annual forecasts for three years. (The quote below for 2007 says they have been doing it for seven years, but I couldn’t find any in the 2005 and 2006 archives, and they don’t go back earlier than that):
2007 is likely to be the warmest year on record globally, beating the current record set in 1998, say climate-change experts at the Met Office.
Each January the Met Office, in conjunction with the University of East Anglia, issues a forecast of the global surface temperature for the coming year. The forecast takes into account known contributing factors, such as solar effects, El Niño, greenhouse gases concentrations and other multi-decadal influences. Over the previous seven years, the Met Office forecast of annual global temperature has proved remarkably accurate, with a mean forecast error size of just 0.06 °C.
Met Office global forecast for 2007
* Global temperature for 2007 is expected to be 0.54 °C above the long-term (1961-1990) average of 14.0 °C;
* There is a 60% probability that 2007 will be as warm or warmer than the current warmest year (1998 was +0.52 °C above the long-term 1961-1990 average).
The potential for a record 2007 arises partly from a moderate-strength El Niño already established in the Pacific, which is expected to persist through the first few months of 2007. The lag between El Niño and the full global surface temperature response means that the warming effect of El Niño is extended and therefore has a greater influence the global temperatures during the year.
Katie Hopkins from Met Office Consulting said: “This new information represents another warning that climate change is happening around the world. Our work in the climate change consultancy team applies Met Office research to help businesses mitigate against risk and adapt at a strategic level for success in the new environment.”
2008 is set to be cooler globally than recent years say Met Office and University of East Anglia climate scientists, but is still forecast to be one of the top-ten warmest years.
Each January the Met Office, in conjunction with the University of East Anglia, issues a forecast of the global surface temperature for the coming year. The forecast takes into account known contributing factors, such as El Niño and La Niña, increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, the cooling influences of industrial aerosol particles, solar effects and natural variations of the oceans.
Met Office forecast for global temperature for 2008
Global temperature for 2008 is expected to be 0.37 °C above the long-term (1961-1990) average of 14.0 °C, the coolest year since 2000, when the value was 0.24 °C.
For 2008, the development of a strong La Niña in the tropical Pacific Ocean will limit the warming trend of the global climate. During La Niña, cold waters upwell to cool large areas of the ocean and land surface temperatures. The forecast includes for the first time a new decadal forecast using a climate model. This indicates that the current La Niña event will weaken only slowly through 2008, disappearing by the end of the year.
Prof. Chris Folland from the Met Office Hadley Centre said: “Phenomena such as El Niño and La Niña have a significant influence on global surface temperature and the current strong La Niña will act to limit temperatures in 2008. However, mean temperature is still expected to be significantly warmer than in 2000, when a similar strength La Niña pegged temperatures to 0.24 °C above the 1961-90 average. Sharply renewed warming is likely once La Niña declines.”
These cyclical influences can mask underlying warming trends with Prof. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, saying: “The fact that 2008 is forecast to be cooler than any of the last seven years (and that 2007 did not break the record warmth set on 1998) does not mean that global warming has gone away. What matters is the underlying rate of warming – the period 2001-2007 with an average of 0.44 °C above the 1961-90 average was 0.21 °C warmer than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000.”
2009 is expected to be one of the top-five warmest years on record, despite continued cooling of huge areas of the tropical Pacific Ocean, a phenomenon known as La Niña.
According to climate scientists at the Met Office and the University of East Anglia the global temperature is forecast to be more than 0.4 °C above the long-term average. This would make 2009 warmer than the year just gone and the warmest since 2005.
During La Niña, cold waters rise to the surface to cool the ocean and land surface temperatures. The 2009 forecast includes an updated decadal forecast using a Met Office climate model. This indicates a rapid return of global temperature to the long-term warming trend, with an increasing probability of record temperatures after 2009.
Professor Chris Folland from the Met Office Hadley Centre said: “Phenomena such as El Niño and La Niña have a significant influence on global surface temperature. Warmer conditions in 2009 are expected because the strong cooling influence of the recent powerful La Niña has given way to a weaker La Niña. Further warming to record levels is likely once a moderate El Niño develops.”
These cyclical influences can mask underlying warming trends as Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, explains: “The fact that 2009, like 2008, will not break records does not mean that global warming has gone away. What matters is the underlying rate of warming – the period 2001-2007, with an average of 14.44 °C, was 0.21 °C warmer than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000.”
There seems to be a very similar pattern to these forecasts and the caveats about masking global warming. You would have thought that each forecast would start off with a review of the previous year’s forecast and how good it was (or wasn’t) and why.
What amuses me is that the Met Office appears to have a split personality.
On the one hand: “temperature increases are likely to result in an increased frequency and severity of weather events such as heatwaves, storms and flooding. Rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere could set in motion large-scale changes in Earth’s natural systems. Some of these could be irreversible…”
(In the world of “climate”, warm = bad.)
On the other: “We are all more likely to feel the chill and catch cold or flu in winter, but for certain groups of people, cold weather can lead to more serious health problems such as heart attacks, strokes or pneumonia. Those most at risk of the effects of the cold include older people, families with young children and people with disabilities or long-term health conditions.
Cold weather is serious…”
(In the world of “weather”, cold = bad.)
“underlying rate of warming”
C’mon Phil Jones…
That’s been going on for 18,000 years!
“These people are a disgrace to their profession…”
What these people don’t want to admit is that their profession is politics, and not weather forecasting. They know full well that they are completely incompetent in their activity of weather forecasting.
“The fact that 2009, like 2008, will not break records does not mean that global warming has gone away. What matters is the underlying rate of warming – the period 2001-2007, with an average of 14.44 °C, was 0.21 °C warmer than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000.”
How to get an average figure by comparing a 7 year period to a 10 year period!!
Almost as good as their statement earlier this month that the average for 2008 was 14.3C when the data used was Jan to Oct. As they have since said that the first 2 weeks of December here in the UK were the coldest for 30 years methinks their average has been hammered….either that or they were at the Baileys (whisky cream liqueur for those that have never had it…yuk) again.
We are waiting with bated breath for the ice and snow from Siberia that was due yesterday/today. So far still above freezing, just, with fog (which they forecasted for last week!) If we get the 2 weeks of cold stuff then 2009 is not off to a good start for the warm year 2009 is going to be…LOL
Wonder if we’ll also get snow again in April for Easter just like we had in 2008? First time in who knows when….lots of “first times since xxxx” around at the moment.
Those in the US may like to know, if they do not already, that the Met Office in the UK is part of the government – Ministry of Defence in fact.
I have a friend in the Met office who says they are ‘not encouraged to deviate from the party line’
Hardly the place for independent scientific comment then.
nell in the UK
What matters is… thinking up a new reason why AGW is right.
Usually when a couple of friends are arguing drunkedly over a few beers, the guy who keeps inventing new reasons every time he gets proven wrong, eventually he just gets laughed at.
The last resort is “more CO2 means more warming”, er…. “I mean underlying warming”. We know this because it happens in a large and complex system where we can’t actually observe and quantify the process directly.
“Jos (01:23:21) :
This can become very, very funny.
According to the latest NOAA ENSO status report we’re back into a La Nina, which, according to NCEP ensemble forecasts, is expected to last through at least the first half of 2009. And once an El Nino or La Nina is established, it can be predicted months ahead with quite good skill. La Nina automatically means cooler temperatures, hence it seems unlikely that 2009 will be very warm …”
This should drive the Anti-La Nina troll nuts…
JimB
Like Bob Ueker said about Michael Jordan’s attempt to play MLB:
“Keep swinging – eventually the ball will hit the bat!”
I want to join Jos in his opinion that ENSO oscillations seem to be somewhat predictable for a few months and the current strengthening La Nina conditions – as described by the graphs Jos linked – suggest that 2009 won’t be too warm, and possibly as cool as 2008 or even cooler.
If the La Nina is followed by a strong El Nino in the second half of the year, the conclusion could change. But with the cool PDO phase, it is not terribly likely that there will be too many strong El Ninos in the near future.
And looks like Britain will be in the freezer another week.
http://www.wetter24.de/de/home/wetter/profikarten/gfs_popup/archiv/WEurope/t2m/2008123106/nothumb/on/0/ch/15acac2477.html
Its worth remembering that they control the data which they refuse to publish and which they need only modify by 0.1 to 0.2 °C to be correct.
Be careful, because unless this year is exceptionally cold, and that is highly unlikely, they may well ensure that the global temperature remains high. There are huge sums of money resting on it and honesty is not a trait yet shown by Jones et al.
One question. Does El Nino produce heat or is it only a redistribution of heat ? If it produce heat, I agree a El Nino year is a hot year ; but if it doesn’t, I do not understand why satellites or surface stations record an additional heat ! Bias in measurement ?
There was a comment on Sep 9th by John M in a post on this blog titled
UK’s Met Office blows another summer forecast
which assessed the Met Office record of temperature prediction since 1999. The figures were
year….mean forecast …actual
1999 …….0.38 …………0.33
2000……..0.41………0.32-0.33
2001……..0.47………0.42-0.44
2002……..0.47………….0.49
2003……..0.55………….0.45
2004……..0.50………….0.44
2005……..0.51………….0.48
2006…0.45(0.37?)…….0.42
2007……..0.54………….0.40
2008……..0.37………….0.28
IN 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2007 the Met Office made failed predictions that the next year would be either the hottest or the second hottest on record.
Note that the Met Office routinely claims that their predictions are vindicated, because the error ranges around each prediction covers the actual temp. However, there is obviously a systematic bias.
They overpredicted temperatures eight or nine times out of ten.
The accumulated error over 10 years is around +0.6 degrees. This doesn’t sound like much, but curiously, this figure is similar to (slightly greater than) the catastrophe scenarios from the computer models (up to 4.5 degrees per century).
Considering their track record, a prediction that next year will only be 5th hottest is very unambitious. Considering that 100 years of gradual warming knocks most years before 1998 out of the running, such a prediction is equivalent to an admission that there has been little or no warming for the last decade.
Earlier this year the UKs annual Plain English Campaign awarded the “Golden Bull” award to the UK Met Office for this gem. In their view saying “We’re not sure.” would have covered it. 🙂
“Seasonal forecasts indicate how slowly-varying large-scale climate influences make particular seasonal conditions more likely than others. Random, unpredictable factors (‘chaos’) also partly determine year-to-year variations, and these will sometimes override large-scale influences. Such uncertainty makes a probabilistic format, as used here, advisable for seasonal forecasts,” it read.
Over the previous seven years, the Met Office forecast of annual global temperature has proved remarkably accurate, with a mean forecast error size of just 0.06
I just love the way they manage to hype up the accuracy of their forecasts. An error of 0.06 doesn’t sound much until you realise that Hadley global temperatures have only varied by ~0.1 in the last 8 years. Most of us could have done considerably better by guessing. Taking the average of the previous 2 years as the next year’s forecast, since 2001, would more than halve their mean error.
Note how the Met Office and GISS and NOAA never mentioned El Nino when temps were going higher in the late-90s and up to 2006 when there was more El Ninos than normal.
One medium-sized La Nina in 2007-08 and the prospects of another one and suddenly the ENSO is important.
My analysis shows the ENSO has a very predictable impact on global temperatures but it is not as big as thought.
The ENSO itself only produces a maximum +/-0.2C on global temps, +/-0.4C on tropics temperatures, +/-0.2C on northern hemisphere temps and just +/-0.02C on southern hemisphere temps.
The effect is lagged 3 months after the ENSO event or, let’s say, the La Nina trends this December will affect global temperatures in March 09. If the current La Nina continues developing, it will be a little cooler than average throughout the summer at least.
If the AMO and southern atlantic SSTs continue trending down as they have been, 2009 will be the coldest year since 1996 or even the mid-1980s.
That would put a really big dent in the temperature trend charts which will be very hard for the warmers to explain. They will have to come up with new (10 year moving average?) charts.
Stephen Richards:”Be careful, because unless this year is exceptionally cold, and that is highly unlikely, they may well ensure that the global temperature remains high. There are huge sums of money resting on it and honesty is not a trait yet shown by Jones et al.”
And there, ladies and gentlemen, is where man made global warming really comes from. Perhaps we should change it to man made up global warming.
The Met Office is not known ror the accuracy of its short term forecasts (although it has been getting better since it so lamentably failed to spot the Great Storm of October 1987 only a few hours before it occurred) let alone its medium and long term forecasts.
The University of East Anglia is not one of the top twenty universities in the UK and remember that we have far fewer universities per head of population than does the US. We have about five or six world class universities, another half dozen “runners up” and perhaps another eight or so from which a degree is considered respectable. I do not believe that the University of East Anglia would be considered in any of these classes. No wonder they had to latch on to a popular cause in order to get funding. Please be kind to Professor Jones.
Forecasting weather in the UK?
Easy.
‘It’ll be the same as today’ – gets about 50%.
Or – ‘It’ll be different to today’ – also scores about 50%.
Couple of rules of thumb: 980 mb – gales [Bf8+]; 960 mb – storms [Bf 10+]; 940 mb – probably Bf 12 or ‘that which no canvas can withstand’!
Enjoy the site.
Happy New Year to you all, whatever your politics, from a very parky London!
“They are backing away from AGW.”
They have been for a few years now. “Climate Change” is the winter spin on GW.
Especially since the temperatures have not scaled in time with their predictions and with people digging into their “facts” rounded disproving them from Science 101 and upwards. So they needed something closer in name to still give them ‘power’ over their established ‘believers’ (Green Party Terrorists). “Climate Change” is a none seasonal name, so they can use it all year around.
But like others say it’s just the UN’s attempt to force a global govt on other nations. But what it clearly is, is an economic attack by EU country’s who have lost political & economic power over the last 100 years.
braddles (04:50:00) :
Nice of you to notice. 🙂
But topical to this and a couple of other recent threads, including a discussion about archiving on the Pielke/Times thread, one of the reasons I was able to come up with that summary was that the Met office was posting very nice annual summaries, which included a one year forward prediction and a summary of the previous year. Unfortunately, they have either moved these annual reports or removed them entirely.
Here is an example, which I was able to resurrect from the Wayback Machine (www.archive.org).
Wayback link.
If you click on the original link (below) directly, it now just takes you to some generic Met page.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/seasonal/global/pdf/global_temp_2004.pdf
Giving the benefit of the doubt, can anyone tell me where the Met has moved these historical predictions?
“Few discoveries are more irritating than those which expose the pedigree of ideas.” Lord Acton.
Tom in wonderfully warm Florida: Is it money or power? Or both?
Oh yea, “The man with the gold rules.”
I have noticed that most of the people who leave comments on this website don’t make proclamations. Most use evidence to prove that our climate system is extremely dynamic and not understood completely, while opining about trends dicovered from history that have been vetted by science. These are smart people. The others, well, they have been educated beyond their intelligence level.
When history proves the Met, et allia, wrong again, what will the next crisis be that will be used to gain power and money?
Thanks,
No, Barak Obama said that now that he is elected, the sea levels will fall, temperatures will normalise, the skies will clear, and all will be well with the world. He said it, therefore it is true. The met can kiss Dear Learer’s but they need to get in line.
AEGeneral
“Yeah, and the Lions will win the Super Bowl next year. And I’ve got a computer model that proves it.”
My computer model “proved” that the Lions would be 16 and 0 this year and that they would win the Super Bowl. Must have had a bad line or two of code.
Would you provide me with your code. I will average the outputs of the models and undoubtedly arrive at the correct result.
Let’s see. We have a la nina, meaning a cooler Pacific Ocean. A deep solar minimum, meaning less radiation from the sun. Maybe the MET folks have factored in some form of geothermal release that no one else was aware of. No wait, that would be volcanic wouldn’t it? And that would cause even more cooling. I hope they clue us in soon. I wait with baited breath as I must increase the layers I wear to play winter golf in Georgia this year.
I’d just like to mention that it’s very cold in Sussex! Central heating broke down yesterday and it has been 1-2C all day outside. Unusually, this has been with cloud cover – the previous few days were clear and down to -7 or -8 overnight and slightly above freezing during the day if you were in the sun, as you might expect. We have had frost in parts of the woods we walk the dogs in for almost a week now. Now we are overcast and just above freezing point day and night. 10c in the kitchen at the moment. Reminds me of the 1974 energy crisis. Got dressed under the duvet this morning, something I haven’t done since I was a kid.
Luckily, the pub is almost certainly warm. The missus, kid, 2 dogs and 4 cats wish everybody a splendid new year.
P.S. Any chance of a summer in England at all next year?
I’d challenge anyone anywhere to forecast weather a WEEK ahead with any consistent accuracy.
Gems : “El Nino, an abnormal warming of surface ocean waters in the eastern tropical Pacific,” and ” El Nino or La Nina event but scientists agree that they are playing an increasingly important role in global weather patterns.”
First, I’m not sure why these kinds of comments should ever be applied to naturally occuring phenomena – re “abnormal”. Finally, my oceanograhy courses taken pre-Hensen, clearly showed a significant and historical impact on climate by these currents. I grow really tired of the absoute ignorance in reporting such as this.
The Met Office couldn’t forecast their way out of a paper bag: they have a computer model saying it has 2.8871352 exits, all in the fifth dimension.
In October I saved each 5-day forecast and checked, not for accuracy, but the number of the 4 overlapping days that were changed each successive day. I am too lazy to do the sums, but the answer is in the range 2.5 to 3
Fred (19:44:44) :
FTA: “…Currently the warmest year on record is 1998…”
I thought 1934 was the warmist year on record? At least we now know how the warmist will respond to continued cooling. It will be described as a unimportant bump on the long term road to an ever hotter world
From the GISS Data (US Only) 1934 is still right up there.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.lrg.gif
At the global view – 1934 disappears… Maybe only a US feature.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif
Allan Morgan
“In October I saved each 5-day forecast and checked, not for accuracy, but the number of the 4 overlapping days that were changed each successive day. I am too lazy to do the sums, but the answer is in the range 2.5 to 3.”
I vote for 2.718281828. (:-)
It occurs to me that if the Met Office change 2 or 3 of the 4 overlapping days of a 5-day forecast (these were local forecasts), then they will count not the number of correct forecasts made, but the number of days correctly forecast, having had several attempts at each one.
Ed Scott
2.718281828? Do you think they know that much math?
This can become very, very funny.
According to the latest NOAA ENSO status report we’re back into a La Nina, which, according to NCEP ensemble forecasts, is expected to last through at least the first half of 2009. And once an El Nino or La Nina is established, it can be predicted months ahead with quite good skill. La Nina automatically means cooler temperatures, hence it seems unlikely that 2009 will be very warm …
So, also bearing in mind current solar activity, if 2009 does end up in the top 5 or 10 warmest, presumably you’ll have to accept that factors such as CO2 are driving temperatures up.
With the combination of all the ‘cooling factors’ that everyone appears to think are now in place, I’d be expecting to see regular negative anomalies in all records.
nell08 passes on a comment from a friend in the Met office. Wonder if he/she knows that the Met office is one of the UK Government’s assets that they are looking to sell off into “private” hands like they did with Quinteq and other scientific quangos.
It’ll be interesting to see how the forecasts may/may not change if/when the Met office is sold…depends on whose private hands get their mitts on it. If it’s a mate of Professor Jones we’re definitely doomed to hear a lot more hot air (sorry, global warming) predictions.
Maybe we should all have a whipround, buy the Met office for Anthony to run (if he fancies an extended sojourn in the expected warmer UK this year) and save the UK economy all at the same time….what do think fellas? Answers on a postcard to Gordon Brown, 10 Downing Street, England.
I would really appreciate it if someone would fint the MET office’s 2007 and 2008 predictions.
Doesn’t it look like La Nina conditions are reasserting themselves in the equatorial Pacific?
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/climo.html
Look at those barbs of darker blue, which have even broken through the pool of warmer anomalies west of the Ecuadorian coast that persisted all through the summer and fall and no doubt had the effect of pulling hurricane tracks to the southwest, i.e. into the Gulf, this past season.
The SOI has not yet responded, although the mates at the Long Paddock site seem to have been On the Beach for the past few days. Quite understandable.
MattN (05:04:06) :
See braddles (04:50:00) for an updated summary
I’ve described the issues with digging out old Met forecasts in
John M (08:04:16) :
Here is the Jan 2007 report/forecast.
wayback met2007
You’ll have to live with a press release for the forecast for 2008. I can’t find the summary report, even on the Wayback Machine.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080103.html
John Finn (04:14:56)
If the sun remains in it’s sleepy state and if La Nina conditions prevail then I will have to concede that other factors may be driving the climate including CO2. However only if 2009 is warmer on the average of the 5 warmest years in the last ten.
Nooo! Anomalies are derived from specific dates. It depends on those dates whether or not what you are measuring falls above or below the anomaly line.
Folks, I take real issue with the word “anomaly” being used – we have no idea what “anomaly” means in the context of our climate system we still don’t understand. Call me stupid, call me late for lunch, but words are important, and this one just doesn’t fit with our extremely limited knowledge. Additionally, it skews peoples perceptions of what is “natural” or “in the range of “normal”.
With that, I believe that when you look at how the word is used, it is clearly one weighted to support the AGW theory – re, that “the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature” (directly from Dr Spencers website). I know it’s a term used by all the climate reporting agencies, but it plays right in there with an AGW agenda. But if they adopted an ISO type convention, it would have to go away……I hate that word “if”.
Off soap box……it’s a little one, and probably collapsed under my weight…if in fact I stood on it…..
John Finn said:
More likely that the energy was hanging around in the oceans, which are still giving it up.
Of course, since that’s the only conceivable explanation, how silly of us. Even though there’s no evidence that CO2 has ever done so in the past, but we mustn’t let facts get in the way…
Mark Mudgett (08:23:21) :
The others, well, they have been educated beyond their intelligence level.
Every so often there is a gem… What a marvelous description:
~”education > Intelligence”.
Tight. Accurate. Insightful and informative at the same time.
Thank you sir, for a gift of wisdom.
When history proves the Met, et allia, wrong again, what will the next crisis be that will be used to gain power and money?
My guess is that it will be either one of a) Population size / resource scarcity issues or b) need to stabilize financial systems and “regulate” all money systems and flows due to financial collapse (just around the corner… don’t look!)
Whatever it is will be indistinct, hard to measure, scary, and long duration.
Andy_stun UK (11:02:29) :
Luckily, the pub is almost certainly warm. The missus, kid, 2 dogs and 4 cats wish everybody a splendid new year.
They let you take the 2 dogs and 4 cats to the pub to warm up? I’ve gotta get over there!
P.S. Any chance of a summer in England at all next year?
Yes, August 10th between 1pm and 4pm has a 20% chance… be sure to bring your brawly for the summer rains. 😉
(My mother was from England and told me something like this once about summers where she grew up…)
Jeff Alberts (11:46:01) :
I’d challenge anyone anywhere to forecast weather a WEEK ahead with any consistent accuracy.
Careful! If I remember the statistic correctly you can be 95% accurate forecasting weather in Phoenix Arizona with something like “Sunny and clear, hot in the afternoon.” every day of the year. The sad thing is that most weathermen in Phoenix do not get 95% accuracy… they keep wanting SOMETHING to happen!
John Finn (04:14:56) :
So, also bearing in mind current solar activity, if 2009 does end up in the top 5 or 10 warmest, presumably you’ll have to accept that factors such as CO2 are driving temperatures up.
Several things:
1) There will be a time lag. I don’t know how long, but prior sunspot / climate charts lead me to think it will be about 10 years for full impact. While all the waters cool there will be some places colder and some still warm (or maybe warmer if a strong wind drives warm air to the poles for cooling… like the East Coast of the U.S. when the West was freezing…)
2) It can be lots of things other than CO2 (i.e. we’re crossing the galactic plane centerline, don’t know ocean ridge vulcanism levels, exactly what IS the impact of all those asphalt surfaces and roofs? etc.) I’m not willing to attribute causality by elimination.
3) Warmer based on thermometers run by whom and with what ‘adjustments’ to their attitudes? By a fictional averaging method where a colder west gets averaged out by a less cold (but not hotter highs) East? With a constantly changing ‘adjusted’ past? No thanks. Straight time series, unadjusted, for ‘many’ locations, trend lines computed, then compared.
4) I’m not so arrogant as to think we know everything about climate. It is quite possible that there is something we don’t understand where lower solar output could cause an oscillation that would make a brief up, prior to a plunge down. Ignorance of one thing is not proof an another… and on geologic scales ‘brief’ could be years, decades, centuries, …
I will grant that a cold sun and hot planet is certainly cause to question ‘the sun did it’ as causal theory. Not eliminate, but strongly question.
With the combination of all the ‘cooling factors’ that everyone appears to think are now in place, I’d be expecting to see regular negative anomalies in all records.
Then you would be wrong.
It’s a highly variable chaotic system so expecting ‘all records’ to do anything will fail. I would expect to see somewhat more irregular negative anomalies in some (maybe many) records, perhaps with the number increasing slowly over about a decade+ time scale.
Given a 30 year PDO and a 180 (ish) year solar cycle you can make a decent guess that it takes about 15 years and 90 years respectively for the cycles to turn. Then you have to un-Fourier these cycles onto each other to get the net today… And this ignores the 1500 year Bond Event cycle and …
Get the point? You seem to think we ought to know what to expect. I’m pretty sure we don’t know what to expect, but we can measure our ignorance against what the world really does and maybe learn something.
Lol, I know you’re being sarcastic, but I wouldn’t call those “forecasts”, but guesses that are likely to occur. Not much better than saying it will be brighter in the daytime than it will be at night.