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?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“critics”
Wow. Just wow. I mean, thank you. 🙂
Hey Anthony, do you have the article double printed from the chart thru the end “future forcings”?
For some reason Im seeing that same chart 2x and all of the print after it .. is the same 2x.
Jordan says:
January 8, 2013 at 11:55 pm
Leif Svalgaard says: January 8, 2013 at 1:28 pm “within their stated uncertainties there is no difference between the two predictions…”
That’s nonsense Leif. The lower end of the range has dropped from 0.36 to 0.28. The upper end from 0.72 to 0.59. There is no equivalence of the two predictions in these non-overlapping parts of the prediction intervals. These are significant differences between the two, so the predictions certainly are different.
It’s not a good sign that lay person needs to help you understand this point.
****************************************************************************************************
And of course, you Jordan can SIGNIFICANTLY feel this difference? LOL
Shukman: “The most obvious explanation is natural variability……”
“””””””””””””””””””
So Shukman, as the mouthpiece of the Met Office, has parroted the admission that natural variability is strong enough to overwhelm all their prognostications about CAGW.
If Solar Cycle 25 turns out to be even weaker than Solar Cycle 24 and the weakest for 300 years, as predicted by Livingston and Penn, it will be the end of the Modern Warm Period with temperatures falling as the climate of the earth moves into a new Little Ice Age, beginning in the next few years.
I hope the prediction is wrong, but politicians would be negligent if they did not consider this as a serious possibility and start thinking about how such a scenario could be mitigated.
David Archibald wrote about this on WUWT in January last year:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/25/first-estimate-of-solar-cycle-25-amplitudesmallest-in-over-300-years/
The first time I heard this subject broadcast was on BBC lunchtime news when our favourite Harrabin covered it and gave us the usual clap-trap about still-rising temperatures etc. By the time of the evening news Harrabin had been disappeared and replaced by Shukman, whose position was, by comparison, reasonably balanced.apart from the revelation that global warming is a long-term thing (with the unspoken – “so don’t turn your backs on it as it will come and bite you in the posterior”).
If the forecast is accurate, the result would be that the global average temperature would have remained relatively static for about two decades.
———
This doesnt make any sense. Temperate had gone up about 0.4C over the last 3 decades and according to this report we are going to gain an additional 0.04 over about 4 years. In other words the model trend is following matching the observed trend pretty well.
However the paper concluded that, “in the absence of volcanic eruptions, global temperature is predicted to continue to rise, with each year from 1659 onwards having a 50 % chance of exceeding the current observed record” and man made CO2 is the cause.
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/Armagh1659-2009.png
Met Office FAIL!
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/yet-another-met-office-fail/
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/yet-another-met-office-fail/
The reason there is such a big range around these predictions is because the UK Met Office HadGEM family of climate models have extremely large variability.
They are using the HadGEM3 version in this latest forecast but the earlier versions from a year ago, HadGEM2 submitted to the IPCC AR5, varies by over 1.0C from month to month and the HadGEM1 version from 5 years ago also varies by the same amount.
It is really pointless to put out a medium-term forecast using the HadGEM model – any version. Its just a random jumble of numbers going up at a certain rate based on the GHG forcing changes programmed into them.
http://s14.postimage.org/oxqcq1iwx/UKMet_Had_GEM_Climate_Models_vs_Obs.png
Well I guess Australia’s Bureau of meteorology also got something wrong. This week they had to introduce two new colours to there temperature maps to represent two new ranges of temperature they didn’t have to worry about before. After, a graduation from blue through to dark red and then black, they had to introduce a purple and pink to represent temperatures up to 54 degrees celcius. These term erasures were rare in Australia but after a record breaking heat wave they are becoming more common.
Its great to see everyone bag the Met Office – I enjoy it too – but at least they have the balls to put a prediction out there. And if after only a couple of years its way out ( ho ho ho!) – it is only by making a firm prediction in the first place that we can see they are way out.
The only person I have seen to make a serious attempt at predictions is Nicola Scafetta
Two others come to mind though they are virtually the same:
Girma Orssengo (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/predictions-of-gmt.pdf)
And Dr Akasofu (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/20/dr-syun-akasofu-on-ipccs-forecast-accuracy/)
Perhaps its time for some more people to put a line on the paper, because in the absence of an alternative, why wouldn’t you go with the only one you have?
Look at the Met Office forecast:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc
It is a “retrospective forecast”. “During 2012 our decadal prediction system was upgraded to use the latest version of our coupled climate model. The forecasts and retrospective forecasts shown here have been updated to reflect this change.”
He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.
I know that this is about global warming rather than the British and I am no climatologist but this is a story about the UK Met Office so I feel justified in raising a point or asking a question, whichever you prefer to see it as.
The Hadley Centre now keeps the Central England Temperature set. Looking at a graph of the temperatures through the years http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/ is quite interesting. The data shown is from 1772 to 2012 and to the untrained eye the average seems to be fairly stable until 1980 when it suddenly shows an unprecedented increase followed by a steep decline. This does not seem to fit with the idea that CO2 causes all the warming at all, rather it looks like the short term effect of some catastrophic event.
Now the UK has been at the forefront of international development throughout this period and so it could be assumed that these measurements are at least as accurate as those from any other country. Is the UK so unrepresentative of global temperatures as a whole or have global temperature estimates been innacurate.? If the latter then are they still telling the wrong story today?
@Lower Up,
Are they becoming more common? Where did you get that idea from, because the last few summers have been wet and coolish, and nothing particularly remarkable has happened in many years. Get a grip. We’re talking about a couple of hot days, in mid summer, in Australia. Crazy stuff huh? 😉
The BBC misquote the Met Office..
The BBC is WRONG to say 2017 will be +0.43C warmer than now..
when in fact the 0.43C is referenced from the baseline temps… ie 2017 will be aboutthe same as now..
Actual Met Office statement (that BBC mess up)
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc
“Global average temperature is expected to remain between 0.28 °C and 0.59 °C (90% confidence range) above the long-term (1971-2000) average during the period 2013-2017, with values most likely to be about 0.43 °C higher than average (see blue curves in the Figure 1 below).”
So why does BBC imply that 2017 will be 0.43C higher than now-?!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20947224
“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.”
And the Guardian are now repeating and quoting the BBC’s error:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/jan/09/global-warming-met-office-paused?commentpage=1
Cant’t these journalists read a press release properly..
A Crooks says:
January 9, 2013 at 3:21 am
I think the met off could see the cooling coming. They have stopped this forecast/ projection /prediction at 2017 for a reason and it isn’t to make a prettier picture. They are hedging their bets, IMHO. If they can decrease the forecast temperature over several years and start forecasting extreme weather in the meantime it will boost their reputation with the public and the goverment. All this will allow all of them to keep their posts including the more obscure jobs in the met off. (space weather expert)
Steve B says: January 9, 2013 at 1:29 am: “And of course, you Jordan can SIGNIFICANTLY feel this difference? LOL”
Yes – every time I pay for power and fuel supply because of the political response to these dubious predictions. Not-exactly-LOL
Lower pup says: January 9, 2013 at 3:19 am
Well I guess Australia’s Bureau of meteorology also got something wrong.
================================
We have long heard about that crowd- seems that they can’t get anything right
Brian Awford says:
January 8, 2013 at 2:41 pm
Good synonym. At the end though (because they are using your money) they walk away from the colapse without loss. Great pensions in tact, great redundantcy package etc. The only people that will suffer are the poor and vunerable.
Perhaps its time for some more people to put a line on the paper, because in the absence of an alternative, why wouldn’t you go with the only one you have?
This read like the old “better than nothing ” meme. If it is then it is a very big mistake. Better than nothing is similar to the precaution principle and has no place in any situation what so ever, unless we are all going to die. Won’t happen for another 2b years.
Roger Longstaff says:
January 9, 2013 at 3:37 am
Look at the Met Office forecast:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc
It is a “retrospective forecast”. “During 2012 our decadal prediction system was upgraded to use the latest version of our coupled climate model. The forecasts and retrospective forecasts shown here have been updated to reflect this change.”
He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.
I would love to see their version control and new release documentation. I don’t believe them one iota. This may well be the same model but with adjusted tuning parametres.
Just as folks were starting to notice that the lack of warming for 15 years was, you know, looking like a falsification of their models, out jumps the met office to the rescue.
“Look,” they say, “you folks simply can’t use decadal temperatures to draw conclusions about global warming, because natural variations will mask the trend. But be assured, on longer timescales the trend will be up.” So, everyone, we’ll have to take a 15 year time out, and see if their models will be falsified in a 30 year time span, although I suspect a replaying of the same gambit even further out:
“Look, you folks simply can’t use multi-decadal temperatures to draw conclusions, because of multi-decadal variations masking the trend.”
Interestingly, however, they do appear to have made one prediction – there is a 50% chance of any year from 2013 onwards exceeding the global temperature record.
Imagine you toss a coin – you have a 50% chance of it coming up heads. After 2 tosses, the probability of a head is 1 minus the probability of no heads. Ie Ph = 1 – Pnh. The probability of no heads is 0,25 (1/2 x 1/2). After 3 tosses, the probability of no heads is 1/8 (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2). And so it goes on, with the probability of no heads after n tosses being (1/2)**n. Therefore the probability of at least 1 head after many tosses becomes increasingly high: 1 – (1/2)**n.
It would seem like a bet they can’t loose. The more years go by, the higher the probability of another record temperature (tossing a head), according to their assertion (probability of 50%).
But – this is the interesting bit. What if after, say 10 years, there is no record. Their hypothesis states that the probability of no record after 10 years is (1/2)**10. This is 1/1024. In other words, their hypothesis is asserting that the is only 1 chance in 1024 that one of the next 10 years will not set a new global temperature record.
But what if there is no new global record set after 10 years? Wouldn’t that falsify their hypothesis?
King of Cool says:
January 8, 2013 at 4:19 pm
I would really love to hear an alternative meteorological theory as to why we are having a heat wave this year rather than it is because of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. I am sure that there is one as there was with these others….
But no-one seems to be keen to explore it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I do not know what is happening in the Southern Hemisphere but in the NH we are getting oscillations between very hot and very cold due to the jet stream moving from a zonal to meridonal flow in the last few years.
Explanation: ZONAL AND MERIDIONAL FLOW
global map
E.M. Smith article:
Of Turbulence, Hadley / Ferrel Cells, and Loopy Jet Streams
Stephen Wilde article:
link
NASA article:
Extreme 2010 Russian Fires and Pakistan Floods Linked Meteorologically (You get blocking Highs from meridonal flow.)
Oh – its all due to a new ‘model’ (HadGEM3)……
What happened to ‘The science is settled’….?
If the forecast is accurate, the result would be that the global average temperature would have remained relatively static for about two decades.
So they admit no warming for the last 15 years then?