A data review to supplement the UK Met Office 'Disappointing Weather Meeting'

Why is it disappointing? Didn’t they cause the environment-destroying wind turbines to be built to remove CO2 from the atmosphere so that it wouldn’t be hotter with more drought ? In other words, isn’t cooler and wetter what they wanted ?
They collectively don’t know if they’re having a shit or a haircut.

My father was also a meteorologist (and atmospheric Physicist) and I do think its was always “yawn”. Nothing unusual happening abnormal in weather or climate. Basically been there seen it many times and its extremely boring and repeatable. If you actually could be bothered to look at daily weather in cities such as Brisbane Australia weather events are extremely repeatable even to the day. For example the Ekka Festival beginning of spring, was always cold,windy and a wet weekend. I saw the event repeat at least 14 out of 20 years to the date! I think to non-weather people (especially ardent young warmistas), looking at a weather map sometimes it looks like a monstrous storm, drought or whatever low or high system is coming to kill us all! Its all the lines, arrows, numbers and colors me thinks.. like this map for example which re-inforces their fears of AGW
http://wxmaps.org/pix/avnmr.00hr.html
hahah LOL

Réaumur says:
June 19, 2013 at 12:49 am
People often say that today’s weather is “worse than anything they remember”.
——————————-
One can search the historical archives and find books and papers from the middle ages where folks complained that the weather was “worse than anything they remember”. Probably written on Babylonian cuneiform tablets as well. But back then most people thought it was punishment from god for their sins.

Dear Met Office,
here’s a free clue. Until you can get the next month right don’t forecast the next 10 years. You are only going to look like an inept money pit.
Yours,
David
x

vukcevic says:
June 19, 2013 at 11:03 am
Hey Doc, you make me chuckle
Seems to be the only thing you can do. But take that lesson to heart.

If the weather is back to what it was before CAGW and the greenies are still not happy, what weather will they be happy with? Is there any condition of weather that can co-exist with greenies?

Phil Ford says:
June 19, 2013 at 6:17 am
As someone who has lived in the UK all my life I can happily report that the weather is just as unpredictable as it’s always been. I remember well the ‘drought’ of ’76….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
I remember it well too. We walked into caves that were normally sumps you had to dive and I managed to get a sunburn despite spending most of my vacation in the UK underground.

David, UK says:
June 19, 2013 at 12:31 pm
Hate to play Devil’s Advocate, but why was 1998 chosen as the starting point?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have it in reverse order.
FIRST:
The IPCC expected that global temperature would rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century. Half of the rise would be due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system and as a result of the “slow response of the oceans.” That was the expectation and it says so right there in IPCC AR4 (2007) Chapter 10.7

The multi-model average warming for all radiative forcing agents held constant at year 2000 (reported earlier for several of the models by Meehl et al., 2005c), is about 0.6°C for the period 2090 to 2099 relative to the 1980 to 1999 reference period. This is roughly the magnitude of warming simulated in the 20th century. Applying the same uncertainty assessment as for the SRES scenarios in Fig. 10.29 (–40 to +60%), the likely uncertainty range is 0.3°C to 0.9°C. Hansen et al. (2005a) calculate the current energy imbalance of the Earth to be 0.85 W m–2, implying that the unrealised global warming is about 0.6°C without any further increase in radiative forcing. The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios.

SECOND:
The NOAA falsification criterion is on page S23 in its 2008 report The State Of The Climate

ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

This means the climate models show “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations”. However the climate models RULE OUT “(at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more”. (H/T to Richard S Courtney link )
So counting backwards to see if the NOAA criteria is met you get 2013- 15 years = 1998.
We have had (at the 95% level) zero trends for more than 17 years whether or not one interpolates across or extrapolates back across the 1998 ENSO peak. (Santer used a criteria of 17 years of no warming.)
Now that the 1998 ENSO peak can no longer be used to say “SEE, the earth is WARMING, be very afraid” and can be used to say we are cooling or at least showing no significant warming, the peccatogenesists are jumping up and down and screaming that the 1998 ENSO peak doesn’t ‘count’ and ‘Deniers’ are cheating. You can see this as they dance The Post Modern Mamba in response to Courtney nailing them with facts in WUWT Has Global Warming Stalled?
I think that WUWT readers might enjoy this snippet about the The Post Modern Mamba

The Post Modern Mamba is a dance routinely performed in AGW Land. It goes like this. A sceptical post is “rebutted” using all the tricks of the trade available to post-modern AGW cultists. They HAVE to use these tricks, since they can’t possibly argue the science. If you doubt this, we’ll take an in-depth look at some of FORM’s answers / tactics in a moment.
The outstanding feature of the Post Modern Mamba rebuttal is that is it all seems so reasonable. That’s because it usually is. At least at first glance. And at least as long as you don’t look too closely at what was being debated in the first place. Close examination usually reveals that the rebuttal, at best, usually only has some passing association with the actual debated subject. Often it has no bearing at all and by sleight of hand is actually about something entirely different….

(H/T to doesntplaywellwithothers commenting on Why do I call them bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco crucifixes….? by Delingpole for pointing me towards that very appropriate article.)

the posting of videos in the comments section is most annoying as they all start playing at once and none of them seem to be pertinent, i.e. everything Janice Moore posts.