Forecast for warming revised downward.
The UK Met Office has revised one of its forecasts for how much the world may warm in the next few years.
It says that the average temperature is likely to rise by 0.43 C by 2017 – as opposed to an earlier forecast that suggested a warming of 0.54C.
The explanation is that a new kind of computer model using different parameters has been used.
The Met Office stresses that the work is experimental and that it still stands by its longer-term projections.
These forecast significant warming over the course of this century.
The forecasts are all based on a comparison with the average global temperature over the period 1971-2000.
The earlier model had projected that the period 2012-16 would be 0.54C above that long-term average – within a range of uncertainty from 0.36-0.72C.
By contrast the new model, known as HadGEM3, gives a rise about one-fifth lower than that of 0.43C – within a range of 0.28-0.59.
This would be only slightly higher that the record year of 1998 – in which the Pacific Ocean’s El Nino effect was thought to have added more warming.
If the forecast is accurate, the result would be that the global average temperature would have remained relatively static for about two decades.
Blog suspicions
An apparent standstill in global temperatures is used by critics of efforts to tackle climate change as evidence that the threat has been exaggerated.
Climate scientists at the Met Office and other centres are involved in intense research to try to understand what is happening over the most recent period.
The most obvious explanation is natural variability – the cycles of changes in solar activity and the movements and temperatures of the oceans.
The forecasts are based on a comparison with the average global temperature over the period 1971-2000A Met Office spokesman said “this definitely doesn’t mean any cooling – there’s still a long-term trend of warming compared to the 50s, 60s or 70s.
“Our forecast is still for temperatures that will be close to the record levels of the past few years.
“And because the natural variability is based on cycles, those factors are bound to change the other way at some point.”
The fact that the revised projection was posted on the Met Office website without any notice on December 24 last year has fuelled suspicions among bloggers.
However the Met Office says the data had been published in a spirit of transparency as soon as it became available from the computer that produced it.
Future forcings
It describes the decadal projections as part of an experimental effort launched in 2004 to fill the gap between daily weather forecasts and century-long estimates for climate change.
But this is an emerging and highly complex area of science because of the interplay of natural factors and manmade greenhouse gases at a time when a key set of temperatures – in the deep ocean – is still relatively unknown.
One aim of attempting to project the climate on this timescale is to be able to rapidly check the accuracy of the models being used.
A paper published last month in the journal Climate Dynamics, authored by scientists from the Met Office and 12 other international research centres, combined different models to produce a forecast for the next decade.
It said: “Decadal climate prediction is immature, and uncertainties in future forcings, model responses to forcings, or initialisation shocks could easily cause large errors in forecasts.”
However the paper concluded that, “in the absence of volcanic eruptions, global temperature is predicted to continue to rise, with each year from 2013 onwards having a 50 % chance of exceeding the current observed record”.
Scrutiny of Met Office forecasts and climate science generally is set to increase in the build-up to the publication of the next assessment by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in September.
Source:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20947224
=========================================================
Re: that last paragraph, with the release of the IPCC AR5 leak #2 today, ya think?
One thing to consider is that if ‘mistakes’ only ever happen in one direction and that direction in fact is beneficial a one view . Its highly unlikely there mistakes in the first place and much more likley there the result of a bias built into the process in the first place .
It is rather like listening to the inveterate gambler trying to explain his losses.
‘Well you see red has come up every year for the past 16 .It’s bound to change to black soon but I can’t seem to read the wheel and where it has a bias,so I can’t say when.’
Meanwhile they continue gambling with my money and will justify whatever happens with ‘I told you so-it’s all in the model’
It seems to me that Nature has the last laugh in all this with its wheel holding the natural odds of 36:37 in its favour.
I think David Rose of the Daily Mail should now have a proper apology from the Met Office over the “Global warming stopped 16 years ago” article he wrote- instead of that limpid, whining blog post post they put up as a supposed riposte.
Ahhhh, yes.
The Bolshevik Broadcasting Communistic Corporation,
I don’t thinl they realise how out-of-touch they are.
Never mind, if you bear it IN mind,
Thanks.
If you haven’t seen this already, Tallbloke picked up on the change in short-term climate forecast a couple of days ago, and I expanded on it:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/ukmo-lowers-5-year-global-temperature-forecast-and-omits-the-second-5-years-of-the-decadal-forecast/
As has been pointed out (indirectly) by others, by introducing the possibility of natural variability in to the temperature signal, they are essentially eliminating the possibility of the “catastrophic” part of CAGW (bad for the alarmist business & political agendas).
By definition, natural variability is “variable” – stating the obvious but profound also. Variability implies that rising temps are followed by cooling temps followed by warming temps, etc – ie it is not a one way trend. If the reason we are currently not warming is because there is a cooling signal of natural variability superimposed on a warming signal of CO2 / AGW, by definition, this must have been proceeded by natural variability signal of warming – ie we were adding natural warming on top of any CO2/ AGW warming – ie if you look at the warming from the 80s to 2000, it is the sum of some amount of natural variability & a CO2/ AGW signal. By definition, the AGW warming signal has to be smaller than the total warming signal.
Given that the AGW warming is smaller that the total warming from the 80s to 2000, one has to conclude that climate is sensitivity to CO2 is much lower than the catastrophic model projections – ie there is no looming catastrophe. This has been essentially the argument of skeptics all along – and the data is now showing this, the alarmist are even recognizing it, but are so blinded by their belief that they can’t recognize the significance of the data.
I once was in a technical meeting deciding on what should be done on a drilling operation where my technical team completely crushed the opposing point of view with our data. There was no debating it & there was only one logical conclusion. The opposing point of view knew they were defeated but could not admit it. Their only retort was ” Well , just because we are wrong doesn’t mean you are right” (even though it did mean we were right). I am expecting that kind of response to emerge from alarmist camps over the next 5-10 years as the data continues to not cooperate with the models & the true CAGW faith.
The Met has grudgingly lowered their temperature estimates all the while spinning. May be they’ll commit Hari Kiri if we experience another Dalton Minimum, or worse yet, another Maunder Minimum. The toll on lost lives will be monumental as millions will die of starvation as the arable land in northern Europe will freeze over.
pat says: @ur momisugly January 8, 2013 at 1:52 pm
(big stories” everywhere today:
8 Jan: NYPost: Current situation: Staffers talk about first meeting with Al Jazeera…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
WOW, talk about some ticked off and disillusioned liberals! With Al Gore doing an exit with gobs of Oil money in his fists, I think we just heard all four tires on the CAGW bus blowout.
Good ole’ Al baby couldn’t even be bothered to do the dance.
Told you so.
The jets have been becoming more meridional and / or moving equatorward since around 2000 but only now is the implication sinking in.
CO2 emissions still zooming up but the sun now quiet. Which is the more likely cause?
We cannot expect cooling just yet since the AMO is still positive and the oceans have huge thermal inertia.
This is part of a 1000 year cycle after all and we have only just neared the top.
It is even possible that the natural cycle could go up a bit more if the sun recovers soon enough but that still wouldn’t be good evidence of a human contribution.
MarkW says:
January 8, 2013 at 1:24 pm
Malcolm Miller says:
January 8, 2013 at 1:36 pm
Manfred says:
January 8, 2013 at 1:57 pm
Tilo Reber says:
January 8, 2013 at 2:07 pm
Adam says:
January 8, 2013 at 2:33 pm
Joe says:
January 8, 2013 at 2:36 pm
Kudos to these posters. All profound comments. In a very simple way, in unison, they completely destroy the CAGW argument , all based on the DATA. Yes, DATA.
I challenge any alarmist to try to do the same to the skeptical position.
“…global temperature is predicted to continue to rise, with each year from 2013 onwards having a 50 % chance of exceeding the current observed record”.
Wouldn’t that indicate that they are predicting temperatures to more or less flatline from 2013 onwards? If they were predicting an increase in temperature, wouldn’t each successive year have an increased chance of exceeding this years temperature?
Good Grief, the Huff n’ Puff is even covering the story http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/current-situation-staffer_n_2432385.html
“…. global temperature is predicted to continue to rise, with each year from 2013 onwards having a 50 % chance of exceeding the current observed record …’
5 years ago the same was mentioned for the period that didn’t warm. Based on science that the Met Office and BBC refuse to use when it comes to climate. Unless there is a further decline in global cloud albedo, increase in the sun cycle activity (whole cycle, extremely unlikely) and northward movement in the jet stream this will never happen.
The PDO negative, global cloud albedo increasing a little, jet stream well south across the planet, record NH snow cover for recent years, severe cold winters, increased La Nina’s and SST’s cooling. How can the Met Office miss this, the ignorance is unbelievable. I am glad I don’t have all my cherries in the model basket and use science instead.
“And because the natural variability is based on cycles, those factors are bound to change the other way at some point.”
Never mentioned this before with so much doubt so why now, either got no choice because your science ideas are awful or admitted ignorance regarding climate. Might become scientists when these own up that natural cycles also warm too.
The chance of the model prediction becoming correct seems more like 0-1% until 2017.
“If the forecast is accurate, ”
There’s the trick. Their key word is IF. 5 bucks says soon enough they’ll have a new article “proving” the static forecast is not accurate and that we are indeed headed for catastrophe.
This is a classic propaganda technique. From wikipedia:
“Unstated Assumption is a type of propaganda message which forgoes explicitly communicating the propaganda’s purpose and instead states ideas derived from it. This technique is used when a propaganda’s main idea lacks credibility, and thus when mentioned directly will result in the audience recognizing its fallacy and nullifying the propaganda.”
So what they do is, instead of just coming out and repeating CAGW is real, they go ahead and say ‘Look, here’s some evidence that CAGW might not be happening’.
Then they falsify that. So the reader says, ‘So if it’s untrue that CAGW is not happening… that means it is true! Oh god, time to buy those carbon offsets…’
That’s just what I think will happen, at least. I have unfortunately seen people practicing this first hand, scaremongering to drive business. This tactic usually comes out when people are doing a good job of disproving the lies.
So they go from:
[Horrible Thing] is true!
[Horrible Thing] is true!
[Horrible Thing] is true!
To:
Wait, maybe [Horrible Thing] is not actually true.
And then:
Oh no, that report is false! [Horrible Thing] really IS true!
(Time to bust out the wallet)
Well the CSIRO in Australia reporting that we are getting hotter blaming CLIMATE CHANGE on NSW bush fires and the heatwave that hit us on the 8/1/2013 . http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/records-will-keep-tumbling-with-blistering-heatwaves-here-to-stay-20130108-2cetq.html
Russ R. says:
January 8, 2013 at 2:07 pm
Static. What happened to “Catestrophic??
Don’t worry; both “catastrophic” and “extreme” are still very much alive and kicking. I’ve noticed Sky News has been pretty liberal with both lately, “extreme rain in the UK” and “catastrophic fires in Australia. Methinks the MSM is very busy preparing, (read conditioning) the viewers to link any and all “disasters” to … well, whatever they say is causing it. Mostly its climate change, but sometimes it’s the gun lobby and/or republicans.
2013 is starting with a beautiful bang. Premature I’m sure but then it was a few tourists seeking asylum in an embassy that started the cascade in 1989. Brick by stinking brick. It will fall when it’s friends in the media simply cannot bear it another moment.
How come skeptics have given up the high ground on 1934? It seems to me skeptics should talk about 1934 and the 1930s in general every day, because if we go back that far, there’s been no statistical warming for 80 years. We should make Hansen defend manipulating the raw data to make it appear the 1930s were cooler every day so that story seeps into the common consciousness.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/08/dear-noaa-and-seth-which-1930s-were-you-referring-to-when-you-say-july-is-the-record-warmest/
Maybe that post should be permanently at the top of WUWT.
It IS what they want their listeners to “hear”!
That’s what he wants his listeners to “hear”!
(Who copy-edited his copy?)
=================
I like the looks of the lower-range line on the chart. Make that my prediction.
PS: The head post has been double-posted!
ENSO meter has swung into negative territory.
Have things finally begun to crack with the CAGW narrative? Lets look at the recent data and compare it to the Met office forecasts from just 4 months ago.
What is really going on here is that their sophisticated climate models are being continuously tuned so as to “backcast” and agree with past temperature data. There has been no warming for 17 years. As a result the parameters are now showing little AGW at all for the next 10 years.
A scientist should ask the following question. If predictions of GCM models from just 2 years ago have now been invalidated by the data, how can we now have any faith in new predictions made with the same models but with various fudge factors added ?
Lets look at the new 10 year forecast and compare it to the previous forecast and data compatible with the new forecast.
see graph here
The Met Office seems to be getting desperate to pin something(anything) on rising CO2 levels. Global temperatures have not changed in 17 years, and UK temperatures have not changed in 72 years. The only thing left from model predictions is extreme weather, so I suspect we may hear more scare stories about storms, drought, floods, snow, heat-waves, Plagues of locusts, or ladybird infestations in the coming months !
Let’s not forget that this is really one model disagreeing with another model. They both have an equal chance of being right, ie: none to speak of.
Meanwhile perhaps the BBC would give some consideration to redeeming those much-loved presenters who were ‘un-personed’ because of their scepticism about AGW. Brilliant communicators such as David Bellamy, Johnny Ball and, of course, David Whitehouse.
As for who should be fired, we can start with (cont. p 94).
James Delingpole, is having a lot of fun with the latest events.
Wind industry big lies no 3: wind turbines are eco-friendly <a I"Of all the many lies put out by the subsidy-troughing scum-suckers of the wind industry and their greenie fellow travellers, the biggest porkie of the lot is this: that wind turbines are eco-friendly."
Global Warming? Not a snowball’s chance in hell
Man-made global warming: even the IPCC admits the jig is up
He hasn’t gotten to the Met/BBC news story yet but I am sure he will and it will be as enjoyable as the rest of his essays. I can’t wait.
They are like polar bears on a melting ice floe, aren’t they? 😉
They really haven’t thought this through. If natural variability can suppress the alleged effects of CO2 to this extent, why couldn’t it also explain the alleged warming of the past couple of decades?
The expression “hoist on their own petard” comes to mind.
Lord Lawson (the one who recently won a 100-pound bet) should challenge any and all Met Office employees to a hundred-thousand pound bet on that prediction.
Actually, any lord would do.