Willis Eschenbach notes that the COP predictions from the Met Office, which I highlighted here, are all over the road.
He writes:
In the most recent one, they didn’t make a prediction, but they included the historical record, so let me start with that:
I’ve put rulers on it so we can read the happenings. This is WRT the year 1900, and since then we’ve warmed by about three quarters of a degree (0.75°C) …
Now, here’s the predictions:
COP4—2.3°C for land, 1.8°C for global.
COP5—1.8°C
COP6—about 1°C
COP7—0.8°C
COP8—Somehow, we’re now back to 1.8°C … hmmm …
COP9—New baseline, very short prediction. However, despite that, they still manage to overestimate the warming …
COP10 … no prediction …
COP11—They are claiming 0.8°C warming since 1975 … the reality is about half a degree … they can’t even get the historical numbers right.
COP12—No prediction …
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mnafred says: April 16, 2012 at 2:31 am
A veritable melange of variation that will provide fine fodder for future social policy commentators. But by then we will have had the second Reformation, one that ensures an incontestable (blinded) division between science and policy makers (funding).
Mnafred … yes! Yes! Future generations will look back at our time with the same amazement of the church’s denial of the solar centricity of the solar system. It will be blindingly obvious to them that non-science had replaced science right into the heart of government and even e.g. the Royal Institution of Science & Met Office.
Totally agree that we will only progress when science is detached from politics … although that shouldn’t mean politics is devoid of science AND ENGINEERING skills … if anything we need more scientists and engineers in governmetn, just that the poision of partisan politics/viewpoints should be ruthlessly outed from science so it is impartial and can be relied on.
But I suspect that a bigger culpritt may be the way computer modelling has replaced real science. This may just be a temporary hitch, as the older scientists who were computer illiterate get replaced by more savey underlings who know their limitations.
On the other hand. Schoolchildren in the UK used to be taught computer programming. These days, kids just don’t see the point, and I suspect that far from being more computer savey, we may actually be nurturing a generation who haven’t a clue what is “under the bonnet”. In other words, far from a renaissance, this may be just the first of a whole series of utterly disasterous political policies supported by nothing other than bad computer models.
Dodgy Geezer says:
April 16, 2012 at 2:42 am
“This is, of course, nothing to do with the fact that the last large reservoir built in the UK was in 1975. Since then, the population, particularly in the South East, has soared. But no major new storage infrastructure has been built since the Water Companies were privatised, and had to pay for their own investment…
Global Warming is such a useful excuse….”
And then there’s the leaks of course –
“What is especially offensive is that Thames water – despite losing nearly 32 percent of the water it delivers, more than the current shortfall which gives rise to the hosepipe ban – is paying three of its executives £2 million in bonuses, with chief executive Martin Baggs taking home £1.67million in 2010/11”.
… but as you say the blame gets firmly put elsewhere and the propaganda continues
Richard North did an excellent post on this scandal recently –
http://eureferendum.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/water-thieves.html
I read regarding the COP4 forecast:
“Is this due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels? There are many factors that influence climate, and distinguishing the human-made signal from background natural climate variability is a challenge. To do this we use advanced statistical techniques which look at changes in patterns of temperature, both at the surface of the earth and through the depth of t h e a t m o s p h e re, giving greater importance to those are a s w h e re natural variability is low and vice versa. This statistical analysis indicates that, over the past 50 years, human-made greenhouse gases have contributed substantially to global warming.”
Does anyone know what these “advanced statistical techniques” are ???
Dennis Ambler 1230 says: UK suffering worst drought since 1976. We have just had a double dip La Niña and it looks like 1974 75 was also a double dip La Niña. Is there a link to there being a drought this summer following a winter where high pressures dominated (cold Europe, little rain in west eg in UK and Spain)?
COP11—They are claiming 0.8°C warming since 1975 … the reality is about half a degree … they can’t even get the historical numbers right.
————–
So does not these discrepancies between models and history prove that the figures are what fall out of the models and that it puts the lie to assertions that the model parameters are tuned to match the historical figures?
In any case I am not clear on what the article is supposed to prove. We already know that the models are only going to give a general indication. If they get within 20% of actual values over a reasonable time span I would call them very useful. Within 50% I would say moderately useful.
Notice how the charts become less and less readable and they make sure to change the axis to make comparison difficult. I’m sure that’s just an accident /snark.
Dodgy Geezer says
This is, of course, nothing to do with the fact that the last large reservoir built in the UK was in 1975.
————
This assertion isn’t very useful if you don’t mention the comparative rain levels.
I hope you are not catching germs from some of the numbnuts in this part of the world. They think that if you build dams they will fill with water without it actually raining. Strange but true.
When your department is funded by politicians it has only politicians to convince so this is what you get. It is the best argument for total privatization of the Met Office.
Scottish Sketic says
But I suspect that a bigger culpritt may be the way computer modelling has replaced real science. This may just be a temporary hitch, as the older scientists who were computer illiterate get replaced by more savey underlings who know their limitations.
———–
You have no idea what you are talking about. We have had computers as mainstream research tools for the whole time span between the scientists retiring now and the time those same scientists recieved their degrees.
The trend is more and more modelling on more and more complex problems across multiple disciplines, from bioscience to earth science.
[SNIP: LT, too many of your comments contain gratutious insult to other commenters. Stop it. Now. -REP]
I posted this on BH today (and really annoyed someone at the MET Office):
Unverified and unvalidated computer models can never provide useful information on the state of a system. Numerical simulations containing a large and uncertain number of dependant and independant vairiables, acting within a non-linear and sometimes chaotic system, can have no predictive power AT ALL!
@LazyTeenager: So you have a host of graphs to choose from, and you ignore all but one. This recent graph is 50% high and you call that “moderately useful”. I wish I could convince you to do my annual performance review at work! How easy my job would become.
BarryW says
and they make sure to change the axis to make comparison difficult.
———-
Making a wild guess BarryW I would say the graphs are produced at different times. They were not intended to be viewed together for comparison purposes.
In short the notion that they went to any effort at all to ensure it was challenging for someone like yourself to read the graphs is just silly.
[SNIP: LT, too many of your comments contain gratutious insult to other commenters. Stop it. Now. -REP]
um…Lazyteenager, anything that averages out to 50% is not moderately useful. It is pure chance. Heads or tails. So you are saying a coin flip is moderately useful? For what???? Making policy decisions that affect your paycheck? I made that mistake. I voted for Obama. Won’t be doing that again.
Jim Barker says:
April 16, 2012 at 3:14 am
If, instead of models, we used a room full of monkeys…….?
================================================
It would take an infinite number of monkeys I believe,…
mortis88 says:
April 16, 2012 at 6:37 am
Jim Barker says:
April 16, 2012 at 3:14 am
If, instead of models, we used a room full of monkeys…….?
================================================
It would take an infinite number of monkeys I believe,…
——————————————————————————————
That expains the situation, they need an infinate number of monkeys to do a proper job but only have access to jackasses.
A check of Met Office past performance on accurately predicting the annual global temperature anomaly shows that they have been high 12 of the last 13 years . Would you go back to a stock broker who lost money 12 of the last 13 years . They seem to have a deliberate warming bias which shows up in all their forecasts and makes all their forecasts unreliable . No astute organization will make the same mistake that often unless they are doing this high bias on purpose. Their 2012 forcast is 0.480 C when the 2011 was 0.360C .This looks again a high figure in my opinion .Their 2020 forecast is for an anomaly of 0.8 C relative 1971-2000 which will prove to be even more embarrasing .Their long term prediction is a rise of 4 degrees C by 2060 which is even worse.How a government can base its environmental and energy policy on these unrelaible numbers is hard to comprehend.
What is fascinating is that these graphs get published without the rulers so that the viewers can see the guesstimates. What is perplexing is that these government agencies still receive funding. What is beyond belief is the government is not held accountable for anything.
Willis, I disagree with measuring from 1900. Pre-1950 is acknowledged as non-CO2 wnatural warming.
It is only fair to measure from the 1940s peak. And then point out that the 1909 to 1944 warming is the natural capabilities of our climate system.
do these fools have any concpet of a cyclical system and how it oscilates?
up, up, up, and forget the natural varation down….
sunshinehours1 says:
April 16, 2012 at 8:16 am
Willis, I disagree with measuring from 1900. Pre-1950 is acknowledged as non-CO2 wnatural warming.
It is only fair to measure from the 1940s peak. And then point out that the 1909 to 1944 warming is the natural capabilities of our climate system
——————————————————————
I am curious… how much of that warming is natural and how will you quantify it if you remove it?
oh wait thats a warmists trick to say its all MAN MADE…
OY!
I see the lazy teenager is content to use worthless computations derived from worthless data that they created to show global warming as truth.. When the confidence factor of your program is less than 10% it should tell you something about it reliability..
LazyTeenager
Which implies that they are too lazy,or incompetent to provide consistency between differing versions of the report or they are trying to obfuscate the changes. Defend them and their pathetic output all you want or maybe go to a site where they want to listen to your rants. Not worth my time to respond to trolls.
Scottish Sceptic says: “…You really couldn’t make it up. One of the worlds premia weather forecasters have been turned into a propaganda machine …”
It goes somewhat beyond that. The Met Office has been selling private forecasts on the side. Insofar as these private forecasts have any value, they must contain information NOT available in their public forecasts. This is such a blatant conflict of interest that I’m surprised they weren’t pilloried in the press.
Well they have an excuse for not keeping up with past temperatures…they keep changing 😉
Julian Braggins says:
Oh, indeed…….I have asked them for an explanation for their chopping of the data at 1998. To the credit of the Met, I have a reply that states that they will attempt a further reply (“but it may take several weeks”).