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
This is what I call the ‘Liberty Valance’ approach to journalism. “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend. “
O/T but for those at WUWT interested in national temperature records.
The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition said it had lodged papers with the High Court asking the court to invalidate the official temperatures record of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (Niwa).
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/niwa-faces-court-challenge-3702290
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/120800/niwa-faces-court-challenge-over-accuracy-data
If there’s any fudged data left can someone send it over to Tottenham Hotspur. We’re gonna need every spare point.
Oops, gazumped by Ian H 12:43
Didn’t expect to see reference on this post
Leif Svalgaard says:
‘world war’ without qualification is World War I …
And, indeed, temps have risen 0.8 since then 🙂
Very clever of the Guardian
The quote says second world war level.
What bugs me most about the warming, that is stressed by the media as alarming, is the tax angle.
My tax dollars go to research that supports findings targeted at milking more taxes out of me.
My vote is targeted at cutting off those institutions. Problem solved.
They will predict floods in areas that are flood prone, droughts in areas that drought prone, heatwaves where….I’m sure you get the picture. The exact timing will be suitably vague so when it happens they can say their models predicted them.
Dave F says:
August 15, 2010 at 1:40 pm
The quote says second world war level.M
Missed that word ‘second’. Thank you.
The study used data from 1946 on. So, let’s see:
dT for 1946 was -0.204, for 1998, it was +0.548, for an increase of +0.762 [i.e. 0.8 to one decimal place]. Rumor has it that 2010 will be hotter than 1998, so the 0.8 quoted sounds about right.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 15, 2010 at 1:04 pm
I can remember the day when my journalism teacher called implications, like “World War” without explicit reference, as material fit for the editors pen. Tricky by omission, yes, unbiased journalism, no.
rbateman says:
August 15, 2010 at 1:44 pm
What bugs me most about the warming, that is stressed by the media as alarming, is the tax angle.
My tax dollars go to research that supports findings targeted at milking more taxes out of me.
My vote is targeted at cutting off those institutions. Problem solved.
I hear yer buddy, couldn’t have said it better myself. Now if only we could reduce shonky research funding to pre 1970 levels.
Leif,
In England, WWI was the “Great War” and WWII was the “World War.”
Charlie
O-Levels described a (singular) group of tests.
stevengoddard says:
August 15, 2010 at 2:07 pm
In England, WWI was the “Great War” and WWII was the “World War.”
Yes, I missed that, my bad. But let’s see:
The study used data from 1946 on. So, let’s see:
dT for 1946 was -0.204, for 1998, it was +0.548, for an increase of +0.762 [i.e. 0.8 to one decimal place]. Rumor has it that 2010 will be hotter than 1998, so the 0.8 quoted sounds about right.
“The aim of the Colorado meeting is to” have a taxpayer funded boondoggle in Boulder and eat at some nice restaurants.
Sounds good. Maybe I will sign up.
The Guardians environment section seems to be firmly lost in the darkness of it’s own backside these days.
Today we have the rabidly interesting ‘Is it OK to eat fresh tomatoes?’ story – comparing the global warming impact of Spanish tomatoes vs UK equivalents. Last week we had highly stimulating ‘Is it OK to go wild camping’ – I have yet to understand what the difference is between wild camping and using a campsite.
Next week we might just get ‘Is it OK for old people to flatulate?’ this will look whether it would kinder to the environment if these people just accepted involuntary euthanasia.
Meanwhile George Monbiot has rescinded his self imposed ban on flying. Apparently he has justified the decision by the fact that he has offset his carbon footprint by planting an extra row of cabbages in his vegetable garden!
The Guardian: You couldn’t make it up – but they do!
Hmmm,
“From their second world war level” is 1946? Interesting that 1940 also is during “the second world war”, but I guess that would be an incovenient starting point.
I guess it would be nice to find the original reference. The closest candidate I’ve been able to find is this Nature paper, but unfortunately it’s behind a paywall.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6736/abs/399569a0.html
Has the Grauniad printed a retraction yet?
GCM’s also include long-term trends. I read this to mean that our current set of GCM’s, for both SST and surface temp, include a greenhouse gas (read CO2) calculation, even for short term GCM’s.
From http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf :
“The seasonal outlooks combine the effects of long-term trends, soil moisture, and, when appropriate, the ENSO cycle.”
LOOKOUT! Extreme weather like the Pakistan floods my be coming to a city
near you! The news just gets weirder with each passing day.
Concerning the Pakistan floods, this article:
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2010/08/06/wales-begins-task-of-helping-pakistan-flood-survivors-91466-27007853/
has this quote from Chairman Naseem Babur who said: “It usually happens every year but not like this. We haven’t seen anything like this since 1972.”
Yes, Pakistan had a big flood in 1972, and what do you suppose caused that. Well, back then it was global cooling which was apparently the prime suspect.
For the musically inclined, take a look at the Gwen Stefani music video:
http://muft.tv/watch/Video,Item,3831791378.html
about global cooling and stop frame at 1:36 where we see “During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan, and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries”.
Been there, done that! The more things change the more they stay the same.
Leif, I would venture to say that “depending on the temperature data series used”, 2010 may be hotter than 1998.
Leif
The study went through 1996, not 1998
1934 was +0.5°C (or higher, depending on the “adjustment”)
Another case of careful selection of starting point.
Now the AGWers have the Guardian lying too?
Snap! Caught in their web.
Wonder how many subscribers that just cost them.
I’ve been posting comments at the Guardian heavily yesterday and today. Today though some crazed greenie moderator must be in charge. I’ve been deleted wholesale for asking commenters for evidence and offering up contrary evidence particularly with regard to their story about scientists predicting natural disasters.
Steve Goddard says:
August 15, 2010 at 3:05 pm
The study went through 1996, not 1998
but the verification of their prediction was for 2010: “predicted in 1999, using temperature data from 1946 to 1996, that by 2010 global temperatures would rise by 0.8C, no?