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.
Being a long term computer professional (33 years with IBM, supporting a wide variety of environments, now specializing in Information Management/statistical analysis) I will tell you that the almost complete reliance on models is what has convinced me that there is no basis for the CAGW stance. Yes, “LT” we are moving heavily towards more and more computer models in the world (thanks, by the way, that’s how I make my living), but I will tell you that a model is only as good/reliable as its data and calculations, and trying to model the climate of the planet when a significant number of the variables are NOT fully understood is not something you should be touting. People that believe a computer model can take poorly understood data and inputs and calculate something useful from that are sadly mistaken.
More recent editions of the Met Office’s COP series are here:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/library/publications/climate-change
The graph in COP 14 looks much smoother than those shown above and gives about 5 deg C as their ‘most likely’ estimate for the temp increase by 2100, similar to the ‘worst’ predictions in the graphs above.
That UK Met Office link from Julian Braggins above is utterly extraordinary! It’s truly hard to credit that such an organisation would publish such deliberately deceptive images.
Juraj V. says:
April 16, 2012 at 1:10 am
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/hadcrut3.html
Still hiding the decline: declining temperatures hidden by a side ad.
——————————————————————————————–
According to the referenced graphic, 2011 was only 0.4C but referenced to the 1961-1990 average, Even so, adding the (by eye) 0.15 in 1900 only gives around 0.55C for the 2011 anomaly.
Maybe they are using the GCM practice whereby, if you use enough different ones and 000’s of runs, one of them must eventually be right and they can then claim accuracy.
>>Bill H says:
>>I am curious… how much of that warming is natural and how will you quantify it if you remove it?
Here you go Bill, from COP4 http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/cop4.pdf
The key “evidence” that everyone has been searching for:
“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 the atmosphere, giving greater importance to those are as where 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.”
I assume what they are saying is that the actual global temperatures were different from their modelled ones, proving conclusively that man’s CO2 caused the warming. Of course that was 1995 and their models didn’t do so well after then.
What the scientists were predicting is immaterial. The point is that the actual weather in the 1970s was so cold that there was speculation that it was the start of the next ice age. Yet the first figure does not display a cold 1970’s, and shows an overall rise from 1950 to 1980, with every year in the ’70s warmer than 1950. If the ’70s were actually warmer than 1950 there would have been no Newsweek, Times, … cover stories proclaiming a concern for the cold temperatures. This is not the only case of CliSci disagreeing with historical accounts, and it always seems to go in the direction of increased alarm.
Try un-adjusting the curve so that the 1970’s are at the same level as 1910-1920. But then there wouldn’t be billions per year in the AGW gravy train.
matt v. says:
April 16, 2012 at 7:20 am
Their 2012 forcast is 0.480 C
Is that why on April 16 they still have not published the February numbers? The January anomaly was 0.218. February has not been published, but the following site indicates it is about 0.19:
http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#HadCRUT3%20TempDiagram
So when combined with 0.218, it gives 0.204. That would rank it in 19th place after two months. However 0.48 would mean 2012 is the 3rd warmest. I do not think they will even be close.
Here are the two trimmed charts in full:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual.png
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly.png
Scottish Sceptic:
The word you were trying to type was “savvy”, not “savey”. ;p
P. van der Meer says:
April 16, 2012 at 1:16 am
“And I remember, some time ago, actually seeing a temperature graph, published in the 70′s, depicting steadily dropping temperatures up to the 70′s. But I seem to have lost the reference.”
I recall seeing the same global cooling, new ice age, etc. predictions in the 1970’s. I think it was featured on the cover of Time or Newsweek if that helps.
@North of 43 and south of 44 at 7:04 am
I disagree – we could make a good start with Monty & Lazy.
This is the text of the Newsweek global cooling scare.
http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
Interesting reading
The temperature graph that appeared at the time is here:
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.
The second link is not working. Go to the pdf of the Newsweek article on denisdutton and the graph is there.
Monty says:
April 16, 2012 at 2:52 am
P.van der Meer asks about so much talk in the 1970s about global cooling. Well, there wasn’t much talk among scientists about this. Even then the consensus was warming….which has happened (how about that for a prediction!). There was a lot written then by journalists about cooling though. Stoat had a paper in BAMS about this I recall.
_____________________________________
BULL PATTIES!
If you do not believe that EYE WITNESS how about the CIA report:
CIA. 1974: A study of climatological research as it pertains to intelligence problems.
The original version was published in August 1974 but is no longer available directly from the CIA. A microfiche document of the 1974 report (36 pages) was obtained from the British Library. link or The CIA Global Cooling Files
Online Link to the 1974 paper: http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf
The 1976 version can be purchased from: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/general-intelligence-publications.html
I am getting sick and tired of the rewriting of “History” I am expecting to see Winston’s job at the Ministry of Truth in the Job Wanted Ads any day now. Or have they change the name from “Clerk in the Records Department of the Ministry of Truth” to “University Professor”?