By Steve Goddard
Yesterday, the Guardian reported :
Meteorologists have developed remarkably effective techniques for predicting global climate changes caused by greenhouse gases. One paper, by Stott and Myles Allen of Oxford University, predicted in 1999, using temperature data from 1946 to 1996, that by 2010 global temperatures would rise by 0.8C from their second world war level. This is precisely what has happened.
Huh?
The temperature rise since WWII reported by CRU is 0.4C (not 0.8C) and it occurred prior to the date of the study. Climate models use thousands of empirically derived back-fit parameters. Given that fact, the only thing remarkable is that their prediction was so far off the mark. Their forecast is the equivalent of me predicting that Chelsea wins 12-0 yesterday. Off by a factor of two, and after the fact.
I recently attended a meeting of weather modelers, who told me that their models are effective for about 72 hours, not 60 years. GCMs use the same underlying models as weather modelers, plus more parameters which may vary over time.
h/t to reader M White
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As one great philosopher once said :- “Ah, the Guardian, bless their little cotton socks.”
Q: Who guards the guardians (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes)?
A: Looks like Goddard guards the Guardian (Goddardus custodiet Custodes).
And the CRU dataset is made up. If CRU were in charge of the Premiership, Newcastle United would win this year.
Steve, I thought as much – you’re English and a soccer fanatic! p.s. I’m a Southport supporter. What! You’ve never heard of them?
Hmm, Steve, I hate to be a wet blanket, and it does cause more questions than answers, and it doesn’t really change the basis of your statements, go here, http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1945.5/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1945.5/trend . To me, it looks closer to 0.7. I agree, demonstrating predictive prowess is better demonstrated in future events. I predict that yesterday a hockey stick was shattered, once again. Climatologists should hire me! I don’t even have to use a GCM for my predictive prowess to be demonstrated on retroactive future events!
The Guardian wrote an article in the mid-1970s discussing “the first atomic bomb blast in Los Alamos.”
A woman from Los Alamos wrote in : “I have lived in Los Alamos for a long time, and think I would have noticed had a nuclear explosion occurred.”
James Sexton
The WFT graph you linked shows 0.4C from WWII to 1996, which was the period of the study.
Just predict anything warming, and the Guardian will praise your infinite wisdom through all ages. Maybe their job is to look the BBC good in comparison. They do that well.
DirkH says:
August 15, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Sorry, that should have read
“[…]through all ages. Maybe their job is to make the BBC look good in comparison. […]”
.4, .8, whatever….close enough….
Bob,
I’m actually not English, but I have lived in England on and off for much of my life. I used to watch Oxford United when they were at the bottom of Division 3 and had barbed wire separating the fans.
That was back in the good old days when England was World Cup champions (based on some dodgy refereeing ;^) and you would see burned out trains on the way to London – the handiwork of football hooligans.
I do still play footie two or three times a week. Lots of foreigners and talent in the US these days. What did you think of the Liverpool own goal today?
Steve, it’s no longer O-Levels. Nowadays it’s called GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education). You must have been away for quite a while 🙂
Known as the Grauniad in the UK for their constant mistakes – so true to form in this case.
James Sexton: August 15, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Hmm, Steve, I hate to be a wet blanket, and it does cause more questions than answers [cut to hadcrut link] To me, it looks closer to 0.7.
There’s almost .3ºC difference between the CRU 1945 – 2010 graph and the hadcrut3gl 1945.5 – 2010 graph.
It’s worse than we thought!
%$#@ur momisugly!
Just refreshed and read Steve’s comment.
I’m going to bed…
QUOTE: “I recently attended a meeting of weather modelers, who told me that their models are effective for about 72 hours, not 60 years.”
The warmists are pathetic. Getting more desperate, every single day. Falsifing data by claiming that a weather model is accurate for predicting long term climate. What a shame… 🙁
Something happening in New Zealand you all might want to look at
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4026553/Court-challenge-to-Niwa-climate-records
While I’m very dubious that the courts are the right place to argue about science, the refusal of NIWA to fully explain how and why it adjusted the New Zealand raw temperature data to produce a temperature rise where previously there was none has been an ongoing annoyance.Yes the raw data is available. Yes the adjusted data is available. What they won’t do is explain the methods used to get from the first to the second. Instead of explaining the science they hired PR consultants to spin the reasons why they refused to talk about it. At least the court case may finally force them to finally come clean on that.
However the immediate reaction in the MSM has been ugly. The ‘D’ word has been in repeated use on the radio this morning.
Own Goal, worth 2 goals.
James Sexton
Plus we might as well use “adjusted” data (hoist them on their own petard, wot)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1946/to:1996/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1946/to:1996/trend
stevengoddard says:
August 15, 2010 at 12:25 pm
And gratuitously
Bill Tuttle says:
August 15, 2010 at 12:38 pm
“James Sexton
The WFT graph you linked shows 0.4C from WWII to 1996, which was the period of the study.”
Oops, my bad, you’re right, I didn’t end my graph at 1996 and went to most recent. Never mind.
‘The Guardian Fails [singular] Their [plural] O levels.’
You might want to make these match if you’re going to be critical of the Gradniau – unless it’s deliberate, in which case I’ll shut up and go to bed too.
Hey Anthony, bias NOAA shows that it was the warmest July
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2010&month=7&submitted=Get+Report
1.05??? You have to be kidding me. And yet UAH showed it at .49. NOAA adjusted the objective satellite based temperatrues .5 to fit their political agendas.
http://www.accuweather.com/video/73146202001/1998-still-beating-2010-by-objective-standards.asp?channel=trpexprt
yet Objective standards show this is not happening. It’s sad how NOAA will lie to get their political cookies and treats.
Ian H says:
August 15, 2010 at 12:43 pm
“Something happening in New Zealand you all might want to look at…”
Yes, it has been known for some time New Zealand’s official temp record is an arbitrary, subjective record of someone’s fanciful whims. You can look at the archives here, just do a search on New Zealand and you should find several references. I hope you guys kick a** in the courts!!!
The courts are a great place to settle this. Because they can force full disclosure of all evidence including data, sources and code
‘world war’ without qualification is World War I …
And, indeed, temps have risen 0.8 since then 🙂
Very clever of the Guardian