How Good Are Met Office Predictions? (Now Includes at Least May Data)

Image Credit: WoodForTrees.org

Guest Post By Werner Brozek, Edited By Just The Facts

“We are now using the system to predict changes out to 2014. By the end of this period, the global average temperature is expected to have risen by around 0.3 °C compared to 2004, and half of the years after 2009 are predicted to be hotter than the current record hot year, 1998.” Met Office Hadley Centre 2007

“The Met Office Hadley Centre has the highest concentration of absolutely outstanding people who do absolutely outstanding work, spanning the breadth of modelling, attribution, and data analysis, of anywhere in the world.” Dr Susan Solomon, Co Chair IPCC AR4 WGI

So let us see how “absolutely outstanding” the Met Office Hadley Centre’s 2007 prediction is turning out.

As of 2012, the 1998 record has not been beaten on HadCRUT3. The 1998 anomaly for 1998 on HadCRUT3 was 0.548. For the years 2010, 2011, and 2012, the anomalies were 0.478, 0.340 and 0.405 respectively. The ranks were 3rd, 13th and 10th respectively. To the end of May, the average on Hadcrut3 is 0.414 and this would rank 9th if it stayed this way. Simple arithmetic allows us to calculate what the average anomaly has to be for the rest of year to tie 1998. If we let x be the required anomaly, then 0.414(5) + 7x = 0.548(12). Calculating for x gives 0.644. Naturally this is above the 1998 average, but it is lower than the all time record for HadCRUT3 of 0.756 set in February of 1998. One must keep in mind that for every month that 0.644 is not reached, the later months have to be higher to set a new record.

Here are some relevant facts today: The sun is extremely quiet and ENSO has been neutral since the start of the year. Even if a 1998 type El Nino started to set in tomorrow, it would be at least 4 or 5 months for the maximum ENSO reading to be reached. Then it would take at least 3 more months for the high ENSO to be reflected in Earth’s temperature. If a 1998 type El Nino does not start within a few months, then it is doubtful that even 2014 would set a new record. CO2 passing the 400 ppm mark certainly cannot do it alone.

(Note: If you read my prior article Are We in a Pause or a Decline? and just wish to know what is new with the May and June data, you will find the most important new measurements from lines 7 to the end of the table.)

In the sections below, we will present you with the latest facts. The information will be presented in three sections and an appendix. The first section will show the period that there has been no warming for various data sets. The second section will show the period that there has been no statistically significant warming on several data sets. The third section will show how 2013 to date compares with 2012 and the warmest years and months on record so far. The appendix will illustrate sections 1 and 2 in a different way. Graphs and a table will be used to illustrate the data.

Section 1

This analysis uses the latest month for which data is available on WoodForTrees.com (WFT). All of the data on WFT is also available at the specific sources as outlined below. We start with the present date and go to the furthest month in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative. So if the slope from September is 4 x 10^-4 but it is – 4 x 10^-4 from October, we give the time from October so no one can accuse us of being less than honest if we say the slope is flat from a certain month.

On all data sets below, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 5 years and 0 months to 16 years and 7 months.

1. For GISS, the slope is flat since February 2001 or 12 years, 5 months. (goes to June)

2. For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since April 1, 1997 or 16 years, 2 months. (goes to May 31, 2013)

3. For a combination of GISS, Hadcrut3, UAH and RSS, the slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 7 months. (goes to May)

4. For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 7 months. (goes to May)

5. For Hadsst2, the slope is flat from March 1, 1997 to April 30, 2013, or 16 years, 2 months. (As of July 12, the May anomaly was not up.)

6. For UAH, the slope is flat since July 2008 or 5 years, 0 months. (goes to June)

7. For RSS, the slope is flat since December 1996 or 16 years and 7 months. (goes to June) RSS is 199/204 or 97.5% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.

The next graph shows just the lines to illustrate the above for what can be shown. Think of it as a sideways bar graph where the lengths of the lines indicate the relative times where the slope is 0. In addition, the sloped wiggly line shows how CO2 has increased over this period.

When two things are plotted as I have done, the left only shows a temperature anomaly. It goes from 0.1 C to 0.6 C. A change of 0.5 C over 16 years is about 3.0 C over 100 years. And 3.0 C is about the average of what the IPCC says may be the temperature increase by 2100.

The next graph shows the above, but this time, the actual plotted points are shown along with the slope lines and the CO2 is omitted.

Section 2

For this analysis, data was retrieved from SkepticalScience.com. This analysis indicates for how long there has not been statistically significant warming according to their criteria. The numbers below start from January of the year indicated. Data go to their latest update for each set. In every case, note that the magnitude of the second number is larger than the first number so a slope of 0 cannot be ruled out. (To the best of my knowledge, SkS uses the same criteria that Phil Jones uses to determine statistical significance.)

The situation with GISS, which used to have no statistically significant warming for 17 years, has now been changed with new data. GISS now has over 18 years of no statistically significant warming. As a result, we can now say the following: On six different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 18 and 23 years.

The details are below and are based on the SkS Temperature Trend Calculator:

For RSS the warming is not statistically significant for over 23 years.

For RSS: +0.122 +/-0.131 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990

For UAH the warming is not statistically significant for over 19 years.

For UAH: 0.139 +/- 0.165 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994

For Hadcrut3 the warming is not statistically significant for over 19 years.

For Hadcrut3: 0.091 +/- 0.110 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994

For Hadcrut4 the warming is not statistically significant for over 18 years.

For Hadcrut4: 0.093 +/- 0.107 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995

For GISS the warming is not statistically significant for over 18 years.

For GISS: 0.105 +/- 0.110 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995

For NOAA the warming is not statistically significant for over 18 years.

For NOAA: 0.086 +/- 0.103 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995

If you want to know the times to the nearest month that the warming is not statistically significant for each set to their latest update, they are as follows:

UAH since May 1993;

GISS since October 1994 and

NOAA since May 1994.

Section 3

This section shows data about 2013 and other information in the form of a table. The table shows the six data sources along the top and bottom, namely UAH, RSS, Hadcrut4, Hadcrut3, Hadsst2, and GISS. Down the column, are the following:

1. 12ra: This is the final ranking for 2012 on each data set.

2. 12an: Here I give the average anomaly for 2012.

3. year: This indicates the warmest year on record so far for that particular data set. Note that two of the data sets have 2010 as the warmest year and four have 1998 as the warmest year.

4. ano: This is the average of the monthly anomalies of the warmest year just above.

5. mon: This is the month where that particular data set showed the highest anomaly. The months are identified by the first two letters of the month and the last two numbers of the year.

6. ano: This is the anomaly of the month just above.

7. y/m: This is the longest period of time where the slope is not positive given in years/months. So 16/2 means that for 16 years and 2 months the slope is essentially 0.

8. sig: This is the whole number of years for which warming is not statistically significant according to the SkS criteria. The additional months are not added here, however for more details, see Section 2.

9. Jan: This is the January, 2013, anomaly for that particular data set.

10. Feb: This is the February, 2013, anomaly for that particular data set, etc.

21. ave: This is the average anomaly of all months to date taken by adding all numbers and dividing by the number of months. However if the data set itself gives that average, I use their number. Sometimes the number in the third decimal place differs by one, presumably due to all months not having the same number of days.

22. rnk: This is the rank that each particular data set would have if the anomaly above were to remain that way for the rest of the year. Of course it won’t, but think of it as an update 25 or 30 minutes into a game. Expect swings from month to month at the start of the year. As well, expect more variations between data sets at the start. Due to different base periods, the rank may be more meaningful than the average anomaly.

1. 12ra 9th 11th 9th 10th 8th 9th
2. 12an 0.161 0.192 0.448 0.405 0.342 0.56
3. year 1998 1998 2010 1998 1998 2010
4. ano 0.419 0.55 0.547 0.548 0.451 0.66
5. mon Ap98 Ap98 Ja07 Fe98 Au98 Ja07
6. ano 0.66 0.857 0.829 0.756 0.555 0.93
7. y/m 5/0 16/7 12/7 16/2 16/2 12/5
8. sig 19 23 18 19 18
9. Jan 0.504 0.441 0.450 0.390 0.283 0.61
10.Feb 0.175 0.194 0.479 0.424 0.308 0.52
11.Mar 0.183 0.204 0.405 0.384 0.278 0.60
12.Apr 0.103 0.219 0.425 0.400 0.353 0.47
13.May 0.077 0.139 0.496 0.472 0.55
13.Jun 0.271 0.291 0.67
21.ave 0.219 0.248 0.450 0.414 0.306 0.570
22.rnk 4th 7th 9th 9th 11th 9th

If you wish to verify all of the latest anomalies, go to the following links, For UAH, version 5.5 was used since that is what WFT used,, RSS, Hadcrut4, Hadcrut3, Hadsst2,and GISS.

To see all points since January 2012 in the form of a graph, see the WFT graph below.

Appendix

In this section, we summarize the data for each set separately.

The slope is flat since December 1996 or 16 years and 7 months. (goes to June) RSS is 199/204 or 97.5% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.

For RSS the warming is not statistically significant for over 23 years.

For RSS: +0.122 +/-0.131 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990.

The RSS average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.248. This would rank 7th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.192 and it came in 11th.

Following are two graphs via WFT. Both show all plotted points for RSS since 1990. Then two lines are shown on the first graph. The first upward sloping line is the line from where warming is not statistically significant according to the SkS site criteria. The second straight line shows the point from where the slope is flat.

The second graph shows the above, but in addition, there are two extra lines. These show the upper and lower lines using the SkS site criteria. Note that the lower line is almost horizontal but slopes slightly downward. This indicates that there is a slight chance that cooling has occurred since 1990 according to RSS.

graph 1 and graph 2.

UAH

The slope is flat since July 2008 or 5 years, 0 months. (goes to June)

For UAH, the warming is not statistically significant for over 19 years.

For UAH: 0.139 +/- 0.165 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994

The UAH average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.219. This would rank 4th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.419. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.66. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.161 and it came in 9th.

Following are two graphs via WFT. Everything is identical as with RSS except the lines apply to UAH.

Graph 1 and graph 2.

The slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 7 months. (goes to May.)

For Hadcrut4, the warming is not statistically significant for over 18 years.

For Hadcrut4: 0.093 +/- 0.107 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995

The Hadcrut4 average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.450. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.547. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.829. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.448 and it came in 9th.

Following are two graphs via WFT. Everything is identical as with RSS except the lines apply to Hadcrut4.

Graph 1 and graph 2.

The slope is flat since April 1997 or 16 years, 2 months (goes to May, 2013)

For Hadcrut3, the warming is not statistically significant for over 19 years.

For Hadcrut3: 0.091 +/- 0.110 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994

The Hadcrut3 average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.414. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. One has to go back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.405 and it came in 10th.

Following are two graphs via WFT. Everything is identical as with RSS except the lines apply to Hadcrut3.

For Hadsst2, the slope is flat since March 1, 1997 or 16 years, 2 months. (goes to April 30, 2013).

The Hadsst2 average anomaly for the first four months for 2013 is 0.306. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.342 and it came in 8th.

Sorry! The only graph available for Hadsst2 is this

GISS

The slope is flat since February 2001 or 12 years, 5 months. (goes to June)

For GISS, the warming is not statistically significant for over 18 years.

For GISS: 0.105 +/- 0.110 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995

The GISS average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.57. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.66. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.93. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.56 and it came in 9th.

Following are two graphs via WFT. Everything is identical as with RSS except the lines apply to GISS.

Conclusion

You saw how an earlier prediction by the MET office ended. The MET office felt the need to revise its forecasts. Look at the following and keep in mind that the MET office now believes that the 1998 mark will be beaten by 2017. Do you agree?

Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
Richard LH
July 14, 2013 4:36 pm

Well I call that UAH at least will stay about the same as now until Dec 2013 but will then decline to lower values for the following 18 months or so. Now if all them ‘arrows’ fall right it will be a bit difficult to claim ‘chance’.

Leron
July 14, 2013 4:43 pm

I disagree, 2017 will be at least 0.2 degrees lower than the 1998 mark, I’ll bet 1000 dollars.on it.

Richard LH
July 14, 2013 4:49 pm

Leron says:
July 14, 2013 at 4:43 pm
“I disagree, 2017 will be at least 0.2 degrees lower than the 1998 mark, I’ll bet 1000 dollars.on it.”
I am afraid I do not have any dollars but I will share my ‘simple mathematical cheat sheet’ with you and ask what you would guess based on that.
http://i1291.photobucket.com/albums/b550/RichardLH/uahtrendsinflectionfuture_zps7451ccf9.png
Fig 1.
Fig 2.

Richard LH
July 14, 2013 4:51 pm

P.S. I did (by pure chance) get UAH right to 0.002c this month. Now that COULD be just chance, I mean….. But you might like to do a side bet just incase.

Leron
July 14, 2013 5:13 pm

Richard LH
My wag is based purely on the current value of TSI and the two year climate response lag usually observed with increases or decreases in TSI and it’s projected decline.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod

Jimbo
July 14, 2013 5:17 pm

The Met Office’s troubles started when they realised there was a lot of cash in the study of global warming. When the warming stopped they realised there was still a lot of cash in the study of climate change. They should re-name themselves the Calamatological Office or the Climastrology Office.

Werner Brozek
July 14, 2013 5:17 pm

Richard LH says:
July 14, 2013 at 4:51 pm
P.S. I did (by pure chance) get UAH right to 0.002c this month.
It should be noted that I used the UAH numbers from WFT and they are using the version 5.5 numbers. That is why I posted 0.271 for June whereas Dr. Spencer used the new 5.6 version and came up with 0.298 for June on that version. Dr. Spencer also says: “The resulting anomalies, which we will call Version 5.6, differ by as much as 0.04 deg. C from v5.5.“
According to Walter Dnes, the 5.6 version does not change the fact that the slope is negative from July 2008.
Last month, the slope for UAH was negative from January 2005, but with the relatively huge spike in June, the slope from January 2005 is very slightly positive, namely slope = 0.000199015 per year. It looks like 0 though at:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2005/plot/uah/from:2005/trend

Mike McMillan
July 14, 2013 5:19 pm

If they keep revising the data the way they did from Hadcrut3 to Hadcrut4, they should be able to beat it well before 2017. Hadcrut5 will probably have it beaten by 2003.

OssQss
July 14, 2013 5:23 pm

Another excellent post! You guys do such a great job with respect to diligence and detail!
As an applicable aside, I would ask you check this out and give a your take.
I found it quite interesting as I watched it for the first time.
Cheers to Spencer and Christy for helping us along. Thank you too……..
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/earth-from-space.html

Bill_W
July 14, 2013 5:31 pm

Yes, but UAH are warmists and RSS deniers, right? 🙂

Bill Illis
July 14, 2013 5:39 pm

July Global temps are crashing compared to June.
Ryan Maue’s collation of CFSv2 global temps follows UAH daily temps very closely.
http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2012.png
Daily UAH Lower Troposphere temps to the end of June on the same basis.
http://s8.postimg.org/lkla7e07p/Daily_UAH_5_6_2012_13_June_2013.png

Latitude
July 14, 2013 5:45 pm

Look at the following and keep in mind that the MET office now believes that the 1998 mark will be beaten by 2017. Do you agree?
=====
Werner, I say it’s a crap shoot…
…there’s consistently in the record many temporary spikes, going one way ( in this case up), when the overall trend is going in the other direction ( in this case down)
We do not have a record long enough to tell…and, we’re only talking a 1/2 degree
BTW, the second graph….you get the right graph with CO2 laid on it when you click on it…but I’m seeing the wrong graph in this post

Latitude
July 14, 2013 5:46 pm

nevermind, you caught it….LOL

Fred from Canuckistan
July 14, 2013 5:47 pm

In simple English, buy long underwear. You are going to need it 🙂

John V. Wright
July 14, 2013 5:48 pm

Thank you Werner. Facts are hard things. Warmists find them very hard things. This is why no coherent, respected warmist will reply to your post. The facts are too hard. Basically, warmists struggle with these kind of factual articles. They are just too hard. Michael Mann scratches his beard and moves on. The earth turns. As Gary Larson would have said: “Somewhere in the distance, a dog barked”…

Jimbo
July 14, 2013 6:00 pm

“……half of the years after 2009 are predicted to be hotter than the current record hot year, 1998.” Met Office Hadley Centre 2007

It’s funny how some Warmists accuse us of cherry picking by using the anomalous 1998 to start looking at the temperature standstill. Yet from 2009 the anomalous 1998 would not be anomalous any more!

Lance Wallace
July 14, 2013 6:10 pm

Any reason for not using BEST as well? The other non-satellite-based datasets are going to be pretty similar since they all depend on GHCN, but BEST uses many different stations so could show up as quite different.

DR
July 14, 2013 6:32 pm

I’d like to see Craig Loehle update his paper from [2009]

DR
July 14, 2013 6:33 pm

2009, sorry.

u.k.(us)
July 14, 2013 6:40 pm

In and out of ice ages, let’s tax the warmth.
They talk transparency, never had it shoved down their throat.
Here we go.

July 14, 2013 7:02 pm

the MET office now believes that the 1998 mark will be beaten by 2017. Do you agree?
Antarctic sea ice is around 1 million sq km above the anomaly and still more than a month away from the maximum extent, and we are nearly a month past the winter solstice and into the period when solar insolation on the ice is rapidly increasing. This means significant albedo cooling compared to earlier average years.
I predict cooler SH anomalies for the rest of this year. I also predict the increasing antarctic sea ice trend will continue.
FYI, the SH sea ice looks to have crossed the 2 standard deviations line, while NH sea ice is still well above the 2 SD line. Making the SH sea increase more statistically significant than the NH sea ice decline (this year).

July 14, 2013 7:54 pm

“The Met Office Hadley Centre has the highest concentration of absolutely outstanding people who do absolutely outstanding work, spanning the breadth of modelling, attribution, and data analysis, of anywhere in the world.” Dr Susan Solomon, Co Chair IPCC AR4 WGI
Video snippet of Solomon from a few days ago here.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/07/11/susan-solomon-theres-another-term-solar-forcing-which-i-didnt-include/

Werner Brozek
July 14, 2013 8:59 pm

Lance Wallace says:
July 14, 2013 at 6:10 pm
Any reason for not using BEST as well?
In these posts, I give the latest updates. BEST does not have any data past May 2010!
P.S. Thank you for all comments so far!

A Crooks
July 14, 2013 9:05 pm

Oooh I do love graphs like these and the opportunity to make predictions!
Hadcrut is a bit high for my liking but …
I have a major low in mid 2015 – back to a zero anomaly – before swinging back up perhaps as far as +0.4 on the 3.75 year cycle. Essentially though the trend will stick at 0.3 and slowly dropping over the next five ten years on the 60 year cycle. (I wont add the 7.5 year cycle because it doesn’t show up well on this data set – you need the moving average,
see http://www.climate4you.com/images/AllCompared%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979.gif
which incidentally show the Pinatubo and El Chichon really well too)
Whether it temp anomaly trend picks up again on the old trend out of the Little Ice Age remains to be seen, but it will be maybe twenty years before we find out.
This data, and the older stuff is just screaming out for some stock market analyst to draw some of those magic lines to seen when the data breaks out of long-term trends.

July 14, 2013 10:07 pm

Werner Brozek says:
July 14, 2013 at 8:59 pm
Lance Wallace says:
July 14, 2013 at 6:10 pm
Any reason for not using BEST as well?
In these posts, I give the latest updates. BEST does not have any data past May 2010!
P.S. Thank you for all comments so far!
########################
data until march 2013. we will start monthly updates shortly, since we update over 100K files
every update it takes a while
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Full_TAVG_complete.txt

July 14, 2013 10:32 pm

What if temps follow a random walk? How does anyone predict that?

A Crooks
July 14, 2013 11:51 pm

Frankpwhite says: What if temps follow a random walk? How does anyone predict that?
I predict its not random. There may be some short term variation on a 3.75 year cycle but it rarely strays more that 0.02 above or below a trend mean before returning to trend. There is a deeper inertia that holds trend on course – follow the running average on the climate4you site and see that there is an underlying 60 year cycle defined by;
A = 0.18*SIN(((YEAR-1993)/60)*2*3.14159)+0.2
There are short term deviations from the running average every 7.5 years (the first couple slightly deepened and widened by El Chicon and Pinatubo) which have been going for 5 X 7.5 year cycles.
These deviations in the running average are the result of a 3.75 year cycle in which every second one has a deeper trough which drags the running average down (7.5 years apart)
Sure there is noise – but there is also cycles and inertia. The next dip should arrive 2015, but its still just a short term deviation from the 60 year trend
http://www.climate4you.com/images/AllCompared%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979.gif

A Crooks
July 15, 2013 12:15 am

To put my observations into the context of the RichardLH graph:
http://i1291.photobucket.com/albums/b550/RichardLH/uahtrendsinflectionfuture_zps7451ccf9.png
I see a close together down-up inflection pair followed by a further apart down-up inflection pair; and so on. The further apart down-up inflection pair means a deeper trough in between.
On this graph there are 9 cycles over 33 years giving a 3.666 year cycle with a deep one then every 7.333 years Which sort of fits with my guestimate on the Climate4you graph?

Kev-in-Uk
July 15, 2013 12:15 am

Firstly, as has been oft demonstrated, the climate does not seem to be very predictable.
Second, given that past ‘revisions’ have nearly always been ‘up’ – there is no value in providing a prediction on some data that we know full well may require later ‘adjustment’ !!
To be honest, I am half expecting new ‘revisions’ before the next big IPCC release or big ‘conference’ ! This is, of course, excessively skeptical and highly dogmatic of me to think this way – but after all the treatment of data we have seen in the past, can you blame me?
All we can hope for, IMHO, is a significantly cooling as this current SC tails off, and then perhaps (and this is the only piece of hope I have) we will see the climate science boys admit that they actually know very little or indeed, ‘feck all’; and to wipe the slate clean and start over?

July 15, 2013 1:24 am

The problem with surface temperature measurements is they are affected by a host of anthropogenic influences on local to regional scales. To a lesser extent, the satellite measured troposphere temperatures have the same problem.
Antarctic sea ice is the best climate metric we have for 2 reasons.
We can measure changes with precision, and it’s the place on Earth with the least local to regional scale anthropogenic influences, for practical purposes none.
The Antarctic sea ice shows a clear cooling trend starting around 12 years ago, and accelerating.

Other_Andy
July 15, 2013 3:17 am

Just slightly OT.
The Woodfortrees graph with the Hadcrut3 data on the top got me going.
I graphed the 1930 – 1980 data, a 50 year period.
One of the arguments of the ‘warmists’ is that ‘pauses’, as the one we are experiencing at the moment, are not uncommon. Notwithstanding the fact that they did not predict the current ‘pause’, they are correct, there obviously have been long periods with pauses before.
Apart from the length, what is the difference between this pause and the 1930-1980 pause?
Who says we won’t have another 20-30-40 or even 50 year pause after which it starts warming again?
Anybody?

A Crooks
July 15, 2013 4:14 am

“I’ve just updated my global trend graphic and noted the level has really been quite stable since 2000 or so and 2008 doesn’t look too hot… Be awkward if we went though an early 1940’s type swing. MICK KELLY – Climategate emails
There you go Other_Andy – an early 1940s type pause 30 years of flat to cooling, and on current trends, who knows, back to a weak rise out of the Little Ice Age trend – but certainly not exponential runaway.greenhouse heating.

Gail Combs
July 15, 2013 4:25 am

A Crooks says: @ July 14, 2013 at 11:51 pm
…. There is a deeper inertia that holds trend on course….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, it is called 70% of the earth is a giant hot watter bottle.
You have to look at what effects the oceans and currents to determine what effects the climate. (And it ain’t CO2)

Werner Brozek
July 15, 2013 4:47 am

Steven Mosher says:
July 14, 2013 at 10:07 pm
Any reason for not using BEST as well?……
data until march 2013. we will start monthly updates shortly, since we update over 100K files
every update it takes a while

Do you have any idea when the latest will be incorporated into WFT? My original comment was based on what I saw there. As well, will BEST have a global part as well or just land?

Bill Illis
July 15, 2013 5:00 am

Steven Mosher says:
July 14, 2013 at 10:07 pm
BEST. we will start monthly updates shortly, since we update over 100K files
every update it takes a while
—————————————-
I checked BEST temperatures against a location which I know is a high-quality controlled long-lived station.
BEST is 1.0C to 2.0C higher than the quality controlled records of this site varying over time in a strange way.
I do not think that BEST’s break-point algorithm works properly and I wouldn’t use it.

Gail Combs
July 15, 2013 5:23 am

Kev-in-Uk says: @ July 15, 2013 at 12:15 am
…. All we can hope for, IMHO, is a significantly cooling as this current SC tails off…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We are already seeing the cooling off and it is being denied by the propaganda outlets media as they beat the Climate Disruption (Weather Weirding) drum. The name of the game is to keep the sheeple alarmed while they are set-up for more shearing. Once a carbon tax is in place they do not care if most of the poor freeze to death. They are not about to repeal it. You can see this in the UK where the Liverpool Care Pathway is used to kill off babies and old folks and Fuel Poverty is used to kill off pensioners and the poor, who are a drag on the government coffers. (Since the sandal hit the news the UK Government takes 1m out of fuel poverty by changing the rules)
If you do not think the Fabians are alive and well in the UK you can read The Guardian’s The Fabian Society: a brief history and The Spectator’s How eugenics poisoned the welfare state: A century ago many leading leftists subscribed to the vile pseudo-science of eugenics, writes Dennis Sewell, and the influence of that thinking can still be seen today
Then read what Fabian co-founder George Bernard Shaw in his Prefaces (London: Constable
and Co., 1934), p. 296 has to say:

“The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it … If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way. Is it any wonder that some of us are driven to prescribe the lethal chamber as the solution for the hard cases which are at present made the excuse for dragging all the other cases down to their level, and the only solution that will create a sense of full social responsibility in modern populations?”

What you will not see in the bought and paid for media:
Cold and snow wave grips the USA, nearly 10,000 cold and snow records set in the last six weeks
Record snowfall in HP revives 2,000 glaciers
Northern Hemisphere snow cover:
October
November
December
January
February
Norway Experiencing Greatest Glacial Activity in the past 1,000 year by The Inconvenient Skeptic” discussing this paper And his article explaining why we are not looking at run-away ‘Global Warming’ going forward. NH Summer Energy: The Leading Indicator

Steve Oregon
July 15, 2013 7:18 am

“the MET office now believes that the 1998 mark will be beaten by 2017. Do you agree?”
I anticipate that in 2016 the MET office, seeing no temperature compliance, will revise their projection to say they believe that the 1998 mark will be beaten by 2022.
And so on.
As we cross over into accumulating more years of none warming than the 20 year period prior to 1998 used to lobby the alarmism the MET office will adapt with whatever adjustments they find useful in preventing any consequences for their congregation.

Gary Pearse
July 15, 2013 11:02 am

I note that Hadcrut has their thumb on the scale for version #4 (compared to Hadcrut#3). It must be terrible for them (and their spouses and small pets, to quote Gunga din on a thread a number of months ago) when they are constrained by satellite measurements to limited temperature raising of the recent record. They’ve pretty much shot their bolts with revising the past downwards, too. Further downward revision of pre-1940s would make the abrupt halt in warming even more stark and would result in an increase in natural variation and a lower climate sensitivity.

See - owe to Rich
July 15, 2013 11:10 am

Steve Oregon says: “I anticipate that in 2016 the MET office, seeing no temperature compliance, will revise their projection to say they believe that the 1998 mark will be beaten by 2022.”
But 2016 will be a most interesting year, because although a number of people are predicting cooling, I have detected an 18 year cycle, and 2016 is 18 years after 1998. So of all the years this decade I think that 2016 has the best chance to beat 1998. For fun I’ll predict a not quite record breaking anomaly of 0.53K for that year.
Rich.

Auto
July 16, 2013 9:50 am

How Good are Met Office predictions?
I owe a lot to my late father, who flew in the 39-45 show; one thing – not a major thing – I remember him for was his view of Meteorology:
“It’s just astrology. But with added numbers!”
Still, with superior data, the Met Office did call it right on 6.6.44, giving Eisenhower and Churchill the go-ahead for the Normandy landings.
Auto