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.
And when they factor in the AMO moving into a cold phase, probably in the 2020’s, that will be 30 years or more of no warming.
A Crooks, you write about Girma’s forecast. Somewhere around March 2012, I persuaded Girma to make a one year forecast, with some reluctance on his part. This he did, using HAD/CRU 3 data. The forecast is somewhere in the comments on Climate Etc. I did not keep a copy, though I am sure Girma did. We are about 2 weeks away from getting the HAD/CRU data for December 2013, and Girma can, if he wishes, reproduce the forecast he made early last year, compare it with the actual data, and hopefully, update his data base, and make a forecast for 2014. He probably needs to use HAD/CRU 4 data this time, as the 3 data will probably not be calculated for 2014
I am a great believer is short term forecasts which can be checked on in a reasonable time frame. If Girma’s 2013 forecast turns out to have been accurate, maybe people will take notice of his 2014 forecast, if he makes one.
If the forecast is accurate
hahaha this is the UK Met office after all 🙂
“why wouldn’t you go with the only one you have?”
Why?
It’s quite clever to go with multiple forecasts.
It means you can always be right….
Paul Nottingham,
If you look again at the Met Office link that you give for the the Central England Temperature record then you can see that the baseline choice is entirely arbitrary. They have chosen the difference from the 1961 to 1990 average as the baseline of “0.0”. With such graphs if you choose a different baseline then the apparent “effect” usually looks very different or disappears entirely.
Having spent much of my life a lot closer to Central England than the Met Office, I can say I never noticed any very significant changes at that time. (Other than my home town building a light-house 70 miles from the sea in 1980: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Lift_Tower 🙂
Michael writes :
The full Central England Temperature from 1650 to 2012 can be seen here. The only trend observed in the data is a slow long term 0.03C/decade recovery from the Little Ice Age ! There is no sign whatsoever of AGW in UK temperature data.
The only pattern I see here is the pattern of covering their rear end with modifications to the message in the same way Mayan decendants and scholars come forward at the last minute to downplay the emminent fail on the prediction. This has the effect of calming reactions to their earlier position and tactics so as to buy more time. It is another aspect of the rule of thumb to follow the money–and the personality types. None of that involves science in any form or fashion.
“…global temperature is predicted to continue to rise, with each year from 2013 onwards having a 50 % chance of exceeding the current observed record”.
And, equally, a 50% chance of NOT exceeding the current observed record.
So they’re 100% sure it will be either warmer or colder than the current observed record. BRILLIANT!
Barry Woods says:
January 9, 2013 at 4:21 am
“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 about the same as now..”
Exactly, Barry (and others), that is the main point of the Met Office statement.
David Shukman, Science Editor at BBC News, is a geography BA from Durham Univ, UK. Take a look at the current syllabus here:
http://www.dur.ac.uk/geography/undergraduate/programmes/teaching_and_course_information/geography_ba/
Of course, the subjects studied may have changed a bit since Shukman’s day in the late 70’s, but a less charitable person might infer that a BA Geog does not properly equip a writer to properly understand the methodology and statistics that he/she is cutting and pasting.
Thanks – and a wonderfully Happy New Year to all at WUWT.
Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
Occasionally the fanatics correct themselves.
They had to do something because like everyone else living in the UK we KNOW how horrible and cold the last six summers have been and the Met Office must have realised trying to sell us yet more global warming claptrap was just not on!
It seems they used calculation that stop at year 2000. Haven’t temps been static or dropping through at least 2010? Hmmmmm?
Putting the news out on Christmas eve really shows you what they are thinking.
Keep up the good fight people.
OT slightly – we seem to have a real La Nina starting, as I’ve been predicting for a while now. Also the south Atlantic is very cold – there could be an “Atlantic La Nina” if there is such a thing.
http://www.clivar.org/organization/vamos/Meetings/VPM11_present/We8_Grodsky.pdf
JIM CRIPWELL
Girma Orssengo’s simple statistical model based on historical HADCRUT3 predicted 0.351C for 2012. The actual hadcrut2gl to the end of November 2012 is 0.417. Of the various predictions his seemsl the closest to reality at this point in time anyway and is the only one that correctly shows a decline of temperatures in the near term . . Most others showed rapidly rising temperatures .His model predicts 0.326 for 2013. [ compare this with the o.57 C by the Met Office . Here are some other figures calculated from his model
2014 0.302 C
2015 0.280 C
2020 0.160 C[ 0.8 predicted by the Met Office]
2030 0.06 C
2100 0.63 C
LazyTeenager says:
January 9, 2013 at 2:15 am
—
Are you actually trying to claim that the fact that temperatures have risen over the last 30 years, proves that temperatures have also risen over the last 18?
gail combs
‘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’….
I think the positive AMO and negative PDO have a lot to do with this like the 1950’s.and before . Also see paper called Pacific and Atlantic Ocean influences on multidecadal drought frequency in the US by G.J.McCabe et al and paper called Key role of the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation in the 20th Century drought and wet periods over the plains states by Sumant Nigam et al.
Maybe. But take a look at this.
clivebest says: January 9, 2013 at 9:56 am
Michael writes :
If you look again at the Met Office link that you give for the the Central England Temperature record then you can see that the baseline choice is entirely arbitrary.
The full Central England Temperature from 1650 to 2012 can be seen here. The only trend observed in the data is a slow long term 0.03C/decade recovery from the Little Ice Age ! There is no sign whatsoever of AGW in UK temperature data.
===================================
Plus, there is no reason to suppose that the Central England Temperature record has been subject to the sort of adulteration that more modern records have been i.e., GISS, NOAA, NCDC, etc.
In other words we have better reason to rely on that record than we have of the others.
Here is an MP from the left wing Labour Party (UK).
The consensus is falling apart I think. As long as temperature continues to stall or even cool then it can only get worse.
I looked up my file again on who else predicted flat global temperatures or cooling global temperatures for the near term . Prof. Don Easterbrook, Prof Syun Akasofu, Dr Clive Best, Dr N. Scafetta , Vukcevic , Joe Bastardi and Joe d’Aleo all predicted cooling rather than unprecedented warming.. I think there is an article listing some 20-30 people who predicted cooling of some type for the next 2-3 decades
Here is a more complete list of various individuals who correctly predicted the coming cooling already several years ago. Agw scientists are only now coming to this realization
.
Ihttp://notrickszone.com/2010/12/28/global-cooling-consensus-is-heating-up-cooling-over-the-next-1-to-3-decades/
Will Nitschke,
Your Comments don’t make sense. The BOM had to introduce the new colours to their temperature maps to represent extreme temperatures we are experiencing this year. This is because of the extreme temperatures we are experiencing now.
They didn’t introduce it because of the temperatures experienced in the last two years.
When I was active in research, I used models to make predictions; these predictions could be tested essentially immediately. If I was wrong, my ideas had to be revised. With climate, perhaps predictions have to be made over some period of time – but this period must be short enough to be meaningful!
Using a model to predicting warming “this century” is useless, because everyone involved will be long dead before the prediction can be tested! There is no way to show that the model is right – or indeed any better than just rolling dice.
If the model in incapable of making a testable prediction for next year or the next five years, it is useless. It doesn’t matter how plausible the model is. Anyone remember the Lorenz Weather Model? It produces perfectly plausible predictions – they just happen to have nothing whatsoever to do with reality.
Lower up:
Will Nitschke wrote at January 9, 2013 at 4:08 am
and at January 9, 2013 at 12:36 pm you have replied
His comments make perfect sense and your reply is plain daft. The BOM adopting an altered colour scheme says nothing about the temperatures the schemes are intended to represent.
Your contributions of nonsense disrupted a previous thread. Please don’t try the same here.
Richard