Paul Hudson, BBC Weather, says:
The global temperature in 2013 was 0.486C above the 1961-1990 average based on the HADCRUT measure, figures released by the Met Office show. So far this century, of 14 yearly headline predictions made by the Met Office, 13 have been too warm.
This makes 2013 provisionally the 9th warmest year in data which goes back to 1880.
This compares with a headline anomaly prediction of 0.57C.
It means that so far this century, of 14 yearly headline predictions made by the Met Office Hadley centre, 13 have been too warm.
It’s worth stressing that all the incorrect predictions are within the stated margin of error, but having said that, they have all been on the warm side and none have been too cold.
The 2013 global temperature also means that the Met Office’s projection that half the years between 2010 and 2015 would be hotter than the hottest year on record (which on the HADCRUT measure was in 1998), issued around the time of the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009, is already incorrect.
The Met Office believe one of the reasons for this ‘warm bias’ in their annual global projections is the lack of observational data in the Arctic circle, which has been the fastest warming area on earth.
They also suggest another reason why the global surface temperature is falling short of their projections is because some of the heat is being absorbed in the ocean beneath the surface.
Full story at the BBC
They forgot to mention that the Dog Ate It.
Does anyone in GB dare say that they could save a lot of money, AND get better forecasts, by simply disbanding the entire Met Office and offering a sum of about 1/3 of the Met Office budget to Accuweather (or any other private outfit) to do all of their forecasting.
Ah, but then they might not be so amenable to slanting the predictions in line with what was politically fashionable. They have a reputation to look after.
Ah… the all the warming in the past 15 years is happening in places where there are the fewest thermometers. Convenient. And an astonishing coincidence.
Of course if you follow their logic it flips the scientific method on its head- ‘We are right about warming, therefore the heat must be somewhere, the Arctic and Deep Ocean are somewhere, therefore the heat must be there.’ Note these locations haven’t arisen from prediction, they are the last places standing simply because they havent been measured.
Perhaps the BBC could print this famous quote along with their review of the MET office.
John Maynard Keynes–“When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do , sir?”
And that’s not even getting to the AMO chart that is now trending down!
“The Met Office believe one of the reasons for this ‘warm bias’ in their annual global projections is the lack of observational data in the Arctic circle, which has been the fastest warming area on earth.
They also suggest another reason why the global surface temperature is falling short of their projections is because some of the heat is being absorbed in the ocean beneath the surface.”
What a load of tosh, I cannot think of a way that the oceans can warm by CO2 induced global warming without the atmosphere warming as well. If there is not enough data from the Arctic, presumably the data showing the Antarctic is getting colder is also wrong! How can they say that the the Arctic is the “fastest warming area on Earth” but they don’t have the observational data to prove it. Obviously factual evidence is irrelevant when you are discussing a Belief not a Science
If this is the best they can come up with, one word springs to mind. Desperation!
If the supposed warming is happening in the deep oceans, how long would it be before we could positively identify that warming seeing as there are practically no long term records? Long enough do you think for the current batch of scientists and politicians to be able to retire and be off drawing their pensions?
“We can’t find the heat but we believe…” Maybe they should clap their hands and shout “I believe in CO2!” Like in Peter Pan…
“The Met Office believe one of the reasons for this ‘warm bias’ in their annual global projections is the lack of observational data in the Arctic circle, which has been the fastest warming area on earth.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ROTFLMAO link
Hold the phone:
So if: ” the lack of observational data in the Arctic circle,”
then why: “which has been the fastest warming area on earth.”
?
Did they predict that the ocean and the arctic would hide the “missing” heat? No they they didn’t so even in the unlikely event that the ” missing” heat is hiding in the arctic and the ocean their predictions were wrong. They sound like Fozzie on Happy Days, they can’t say they were wrong.
“They also suggest another reason why the global surface temperature is falling short of their projections is because some of the heat is being absorbed in the ocean beneath the surface.”
Right. And the dog peed on my homework.
Morons.
The most warming is happening in the places where we have the fewest measurements.
Stupid question: How do we know those regions are warming?
Answer: The models tell us so.
Then we take that non-existent “data” and feed it into other climate models.
Good enough for government?
Was it not just last year we were entertained by the amount of time MET employees spent visiting the sites of their competitors?
Has the temperature records lost/destroyed at the CRU, been recompiled by the MET?
As promised during theCRU email “investigations”.
As for this Average Global Temperature, when does the use of this “flexible metric” become a completely dishonest act?
To create 0.5C variation in this vaguely science like value, takes no mathematical skill at all.
Paging Phil Jones.
What is the statistical significance of this nonsense?
Under British socialism even the weather must be reported in such a way that it supports government policy.
So it seems to me, an American.
Eugene WR Gallun
So their predictions are certainly correct, it’s just a matter of finding why they don’t appear to be correct. Who said science isn’t fun?
What so humorous is that warmunists have been relegated to ranking years rather than discussing global temperature trends, because if they were forced to discuss temperature trends, CAGW would be toast.
As fate would have it, the Pacific looks like it’ll enter an El Niño cycle towards the end of this year, so 2015/~16 will most likely be warm years, which the warmunistas will, of course, blame on CAGW. Once it’s followed by a La Niña, the flat/falling trend will most likely resume and by 2017, it will be 21 years of flat/falling global temperatures, which hopefully will mark the end of CAGW….
It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out.
Excuses, excuses! When will you people understand your estimates and forecasts are based on faulty models all started by the Al Gore paid member of the NASA meteorological team. And then add on all of the grants people are trying to get that are all built on this global warming lie. When space exploration funding was cut back the idle scientists needed to have their rice bowl filled and came up with global warming as the next thing to make money on.
What really boggles the mind is that the AGW gaggle can’t see the patently obvious folly in their illogical dogma OR, “here comes that naked-nutter emperor again”.
The warmer the Arctic warms, the stronger the polar vortex becomes. The mechanism remains unclear but it may have to do with the rise in price of oranges–or lemons. –AGF
0.486C. Not 0.49C or 0.5C or 0C. No. 0.486C.
Eugene WR Gallun:
At January 28, 2014 at 10:29 am you say
The British Government is a Conservative-Liberal coalition.
The socialist Labour Party is the Opposition.
Merely because some Americans spout extreme right-wing bollocks does not mean all Americans are extreme right wing.
Or so it seems to me, a Brit.
Richard
But!
But it is even worse than you think!
The DMI has been plotting daily temperatures at 80 degrees north latitude (certainly an “arctic” location) since 1959. Across EVERY summer season, in EVERY year since 1959, despite 60 years of “global warming in the Arctic due to CO2 increases” the summertime temperature has been constant at +3.0 degrees C …. With almost a 0.0 standard deviation.
And, if you actually plot the summer temperatures year-to-year, you will find these summertime temperatures are decreasing. And decreasing faster as we get closer to today’s date!
(Winter temperatures are much, much more variable, and may (over time) be increasing. But the winter std dev. are on the order of 5-8 degrees. It is ONLY the “average” arctic temperatures (winter + summer) that can be claimed to be “increasing” …
more soylent green! says:
January 28, 2014 at 10:27 am
The most warming is happening in the places where we have the fewest measurements.
Stupid question: How do we know those regions are warming?
Answer: The models tell us so.
Then we take that non-existent “data” and feed it into other climate models.
————————————————————————————————
Even stupider question: If it only warms where most people don’t live, is it even warming?
Holy double speak Batman!
May I suggest that their models are crap?
The Met Office paper on the causes of the pause is speculation. No evidence provided only more model jerking.
So the models get the projections wrong and they use those very same crap models to figure out why the crap models are crap.
Well, they missed the mark (no surprise there) when they try to explain away their ‘warm bias’ in their forecasts … its a good example of confirmation bias.
What will they do when the glaciers return and start to make their way south? Of course … they’ll dismiss them as a purely regional effect.
Well, I am 55 years old, and 2013 is one of the coldest winters/coolest springs and falls I remember. So how the hell is it one of the warmest of the last 130 years? Does not compute.
And 2014 is looking to be colder yet.
Do the Brits have no shame. This looks and sounds like rubbing their nose in it. Oh wait, we have John Holdren. And the French have Hollande, out somewhere on the back of a motorbike.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2014/01/08/polar-vortex-explained-2-minutes
The Mental Office say that they have a “lack of observational data in the Arctic circle, which has been the fastest warming area on earth“. Here is other observational data on “Daily mean temperatures for the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel, plotted with daily climate values calculated from the period 1958-2002.”
2013 summer was the coldest on the DMI recored since records began in 1956.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2013.png
Check each year below.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
My apologies if my memory fails me but I vaguely recall that Arctic sea ice volume and extent were up around 50% on 2012. Maybe the heat went deep in a flash.
Eugene WR Gallun says:
January 28, 2014 at 10:29 am
Under British socialism even the weather must be reported in such a way that it supports government policy.
So it seems to me, an American.
Eugene WR Gallun
Difference between a socialist and a capitalist:
A socialist sees an old lady fall down and break her leg so he takes her to hospital. A capitalist sees an old lady fall down and break her leg so he takes her to hospital. He then sends her a bill for transportation.
Clearly singing from the same hymn!
(To the tune of Jesus loves me)
Temps are warming, this I know,
For the Models tell me so,
We feel cold but it is warm
They are true,we know its so!
(Chorus)
Yes,temps are warming!
Yes,temps are warming!
Yes,temps are warming!
The Models tell me so!
“One of the reasons for this ‘warm bias’ in their annual global projections is the lack of observational data in the Arctic circle, which has been the fastest warming area on earth.”
Surely they never said that!? That just has to be a misquote. Journalists are even sloppier than climate scientists so my money is on a misrepresentation of what they really said.
to richardscourtney, from an American: Your “conservatives” are our Socialists.
UKIP is the only party I see that is even close to a somewhat “conservative” party, and even they still like big government, they just want it to do different things.
Surely everyone knows by now how to read the met office predictions correctly , its the opposite of what they say , They started doing this in the last war to confuse any enemy agents listening in and it was so successful there has been no need to change it – so cold is warm , wet is dry etc etc .simples !!!
Sweet Old Bob says:
January 28, 2014 at 11:11 am
Brilliant!
I see “The global temperature in 2013 was 0.486C” and I don’t need to read any further to know that it is complete and utter pseudo-scientific tosh.
My professor would have a very long go at me when as a student, I presented temperature reading with three numbers after the dot, when we were running experiments.
Measuring Global Average temperature to the thousandth of a degree has no meaning, and those presenting it have no idea what they are writing about.
“The Met Office believe one of the reasons for this ‘warm bias’ in their annual global projections is the lack of observational data in the Arctic circle, which has been the fastest warming area on earth.
and their lack of ability to adjust the data in HadCru 4 high enough. BUT don’t worry 2014 will be the hottest year evah evah as soon as our HadCru 5 is adjusted for hidden warmth down in our computer rooms.
How about “DAFT”–Digitally Advanced Forecasting Technology…?
Jimbo says:
January 28, 2014 at 11:09 am
The Mental Office say that they have a “lack of observational data in the Arctic circle, which has been the fastest warming area on earth“.
This is a true classic is it not? “We know the arctic is the fastest warming place on earth because we can’t measure it.”
Even Monty Python would be proud of that one.
Tom Trevor says:
January 28, 2014 at 10:19 am
“They sound like Fozzie on Happy Days, they can’t say they were wrong”
Fozzie was on Sesame Street. Although he did favor a Pork Pie Hat and, coincidence piled on top of coincidence, Porky Pies seem to correlate well with the output of the UKMO.
“The Met Office believe one of the reasons for this ‘warm bias’ in their annual global projections is the lack of observational data in the Arctic circle, which has been the fastest warming area on earth.”
OK so what was their prediction for the areas they do have data for. To predict for something they can’t measure seems a bit daft to me, particulrly if it is funded by the tax I pay. Or as they knew the could use this excuse if they were wrong. If their predictions had matched reality do you think they would have said that they were actually wrong becuse they don’t have arctic records? Of course not. I want my tax back.
T.
Small correction on my last comment.
“2013 summer was the coldest on the DMI recored since records began in 1956.”
“2013 summer was the coldest on the DMI recored since records began in 1958.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/28/bbc-meteorologist-met-office-global-forecasts-too-warm-in-13-of-last-14-years/#comment-1552558
So they got one year right then?
“They (the BBC) also suggest another reason why the global surface temperature is falling short of their projections is because some of the heat is being absorbed in the ocean beneath the surface.”
In school we (including BBC types I guess, unless they were purely arts orientated) were taught
that :-
Warm air rises up displacing colder air which moves downwards. So, warm air at the sea surface would tend to rise, away from the sea.
And also:-
Warm water rises up displacing colder water which moves downwards.
Isn’t is simpler, and more honest that think that the atmosphere is cooling?
Steve from Rockwood says:
January 28, 2014 at 10:53 am
“Even stupider question: If it only warms where most people don’t live, is it even warming?”
Slight modification: “If it only warms where there are no sensors, is it even warming?”
The answer is an unequivocal “No!”
SARC ON /
I failed my exam yesterday because I am convinced my paper went missing in the basement OR because I never observed the teacher marking it OR………………the dog ate it………..OR…….
Meanwhile, the Met Office are forecasting another year of no warming in 2014.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/temperature-standstill-forecast-to-continue-in-2014/
Yep, even tossing a coin or a dart throwing chimp would have performed better. In fact why not replace the rats at the Met Office with bonobos.
Polite conversation in the UK usually starts with discussion about the weather.
Now you Yanks have been enlightened, the reason we talk about the weather a lot is because the Met Office weather forecast is so crap a more accurate method is to look out of the window in the morning or be out in it. : > )
The Met Office is a quasi governmental organisation, it won’t be got rid of easily. The best we could hope for is a changing of the green/red guard who steer policy.
Unfortunately all of the British mainstream political parties and most of the British establishment are left of centre and committed to the Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption/Weather Weirding (oh how I wish I’d made that last one up!) meme.
Peter Melia says:
Warm water rises up displacing colder water which moves downwards.
Isn’t is simpler, and more honest that think that the atmosphere is cooling?
Sort of… As water cools, it gets more dense, until around 4°C. Then it rapidly becomes less dense. Something to do with hydrogen bonding I think. So it is a little more complicated that that.
However, sea water does not act like fresh water. Sea water is more like you explained. It continues to become more and more dense, until it freezes (around -4 °C), then forms into the less dense ice and floats.
Here is a good graphic
http://sam.ucsd.edu/sio210/gifimages/dens.gif
This makes 2013 provisionally the 9th warmest year in data which goes back to 1880.
According to my numbers, it was 8th warmest. That is unless they include the uncertainty in their measurement. If we assume an uncertainty of +/- 0.1, then the 0.486 could be between 0.386 and 0.586. In that case, the warmest 15 years are in a statistical tie as shown below.
1 {2010, 0.547},
2 {2005, 0.539},
3 {1998, 0.531},
4 {2003, 0.503},
5 {2006, 0.495},
6 {2009, 0.494},
7 {2002, 0.492},
8 2013 0.486
9 {2007, 0.483}
10 2012 0.448,
11 {2004, 0.445},
12 {2001, 0.437},
13 {2011, 0.406},
14 1997, 0.392
15 2008 0.388
And the ones at the top have recently been honured with titles for doing such sterling work….. ????
‘Dame’ Slingo … http://www.rmets.org/prof-julia-slingo-recognised-new-years-honours-list
Does that mean she can continue her career in even more pantomine roles ?
Plus Executive John Hirst got a CBE
Eugene WR Gallun says:
January 28, 2014 at 10:29 am
Under British socialism even the weather must be reported in such a way that it supports government policy.
So it seems to me, an American.
Eugene WR Gallun
==
Eugene,
Very perceptive of you.
Despite the antecedents of the Cleggeroons* – public school, purported guilt trip about Daddy’s money, and even a desire to be the “Heir of Blair” – they are mostly leftish fellow-travellers. That explains the problems Call-Me-Dave has with his own party.
If Mrs. Thatcher was the ‘Leader of the Opposition’ for her eleven years in Downing Street – but on the right of the ‘then’ Tory Party; so, now, is Cameron – but on the left.
The Dim Lebs, of course, are mostly to the left of New Labour – some are as red as a baboon’s bum; and none fancy the coming elections – municipal and European, where they will do stunningly well to be merely decimated.
Auto
*Cleggeroon – a portmanteau word, from Cameroon – supporter of HM’s First Minister, the smooth-jowled Cameron – and Clegg [not a beetle – Cf. Doctor Syn] but described as a deputy prime minister.
Hate to be a stickler, but there have only been 13 years this century. The century starts with year 1, not 0. Of course that still makes the wrong 13 of 14 years. Even monkeys do better.
Jeeze-of-flip … just how hard is it to project one whole year into the future?
And the companion question is: what difference does it make (if they are wrong by a little)?
What a cush job!
Mark Buehner says:
January 28, 2014 at 10:09 am
Ah… the all the warming in the past 15 years is happening in places where there are the fewest thermometers. Convenient. And an astonishing coincidence.
Of course if you follow their logic it flips the scientific method on its head- ‘We are right about warming, therefore the heat must be somewhere, the Arctic and Deep Ocean are somewhere, therefore the heat must be there.’ Note these locations haven’t arisen from prediction, they are the last places standing simply because they havent been measured.
—————————————————————
Yes, and what’s more is that when they finally start measuring those places for the first time, whatever number they get will be alarming and unprecedented. They win no matter what. It’s “heads they win, tails you lose”
Kelvin Vaughan says:
“Difference between a socialist and a capitalist:
A socialist sees an old lady fall down and break her leg so he takes her to hospital.
A capitalist sees an old lady fall down and break her leg so he takes her to hospital. He then sends her a bill for transportation.”
That’s not socialism and capitalism; socialism would have her transported to the hospital in a government vehicle at cost to the taxpayers. Once at the hospital, she would be given a date to return for treatment.
This is a better example of socialism and capitalism:
Socialism: You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.
Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.
http://www.wired.com/beyond_the_beyond/2008/02/new-and-improve/
DART
Digitally Aberrant Recidivist Tap-o-dollars
/Sarc or not/Sarc. You tell me.
PS.
[Blair had no discernible politics, being – it seems to many seasoned observers – exclusively interested in Power, but wholly unclear about what to do with said power when two landslide victories allowed him to let Gordon Brown – GB is two thirds of KGB, note – free rein to change (destroy, I think) the UK’s economy.]
Auto,
learning about cut and pasta
“The Met Office believe one of the reasons for this ‘warm bias’ in their annual global projections is the lack of observational data in the Arctic circle, which has been the fastest warming area on earth.”
Pray tell how do they know the region they don’t measure is the fastest warming? Wouldn’t they need to monitor it to actually know?
And this is another thing that has baffled me since the late 1980’s when I first started debating AGW with the so-called AGW scientists: that the warming will occur at the poles but not necessarily here in my back yard. My summers and winters look like they always have because the warming is elsewhere, far away, where nobody lives.
If I put a turkey in the oven, I don’t expect just the drumsticks to get warm, I expect the whole thing to get warm. So if CO2 is covering the entire earth and is acting as a blanket to retain heat, shouldn’t that happen everywhere and not just at the poles or on the top of Mt Everest? What thermodynamic principle did they not teach me in P-chem that takes a round ball rotating around a giant heat source and then adds a miniscule component to the round ball that contains a profound “insulating” effect but only at the very poles and not somewhat evenly dispersed around said round ball?
Lastly, what is the mechanism by which heat moves from the air surface to the deep oceans without passing through the upper portion of the oceans? It’s like quantum mechanical tunneling on a macroscopic scale.
David l says: “Lastly, what is the mechanism by which heat moves from the air surface to the deep oceans without passing through the upper portion of the oceans? It’s like quantum mechanical tunneling on a macroscopic scale.”
In the imagination of those whose theories are steadily being discredited!
They just said the heat is hiding where they can’t measure it….bottom of the ocean and Arctic
…so they are making the whole thing up
They are away overestimating arctic warming, too. Each year, their estimate of summer ice extent is the lowest of 50 or so forecasts and invariably scads lower than it ultimately ends up (3.5 instead of 5.0km^2 roughly), so they are not missing the arctic heat – it ain’t there. Trenberth clutched straw has been clutched by Met Office and other desperados, too.
“If it only warms where there are no sensors, is it even warming?”
The answer is a quite equivocal “maybe!”
My main complaint with the BBC article is the line, “The Met Office believe one of the reasons for this ‘warm bias’ in their annual global projections is the lack of observational data in the Arctic circle, which has been the fastest warming area on earth.” emphasis mine
They may say it but they can’t believe it.
“They also suggest another reason why the global surface temperature is falling short of their projections is because some of the heat is being absorbed in the ocean beneath the surface.”
—
So the reason their projections were wrong is because the heat decided to go elsewhere. When the weatherman is wrong in his prediction of rain, is the excuse “The clouds decided to go elsewhere” a valid defense?
So it’ll be a cold one then!
If someone gets heads 13 out of 14 times they flip a coin, you would suspect a biased coin, wouldn’t you?
Louis
You would at least expect them to stop calling tails!
@Eugene WR Gallun
Under British socialism even the weather must be reported in such a way that it supports government policy.
So it seems to me, an American.
Actually, it seems to me that we’re simply supporting the current American president, whoever he is. As the Brits usually do…
“Louis says:
January 28, 2014 at 1:52 pm
If someone gets heads 13 out of 14 times they flip a coin, you would suspect a biased coin, wouldn’t you?”
That’s only if they are dealing with something that is random. But they are dealing with a hypothesis that the planet is warming. Hence if the warming hypothesis is correct then they should be right more than 7 out of 14 times. The fact that 13 out of 14 times they were wrong is not necessarily evidence of bias more likely they are crap estimates. After all if you were bright you wouldn’t put yourself in such a predicament for ridicule, unless you were masochistic.
Or as Michael Fish once demonstrated crass wrongness can lead to imortality.
The Met Office has stated that they use the same models for predicting weather as they use for predicting climate years into the future.
Early last year I made my own forecast (for some friends and relatives) for global temperature, but based on HadCRUT3 (which doesn’t include the poles but is a longer-lived series). Here is how I did it. I took the Met Office HADCRUT4 value (0.57K) and subtracted 0.07K for the Met Office’s average over-estimation (bias), and 0.05K for converting HadCRUT4 to HadCRUT3, giving 0.45K.
And the actual result? 0.461K.
Give me quatloos eh?
This year I suppose I should do the same but subtract 0.06K for the bias…
Rich.
“Early last year I made my own forecast (for some friends and relatives)”
They must be a very understanding bunch ;>)
David L. says: @ January 28, 2014 at 12:30 pm
…Lastly, what is the mechanism by which heat moves from the air surface to the deep oceans without passing through the upper portion of the oceans?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The heat was dragged there by Schrödinger’s cat who does not like to get wet and does not like to be cold.
Like other Western governments the UK is pushing pro-UN policies in favour of de-industrialisation. The Met Office simply a propaganda machine that pushes out the establishment preferred position of CAGW and the need to cut CO2 emissions.
This is the brochure they put out in 2009 just before the UN Copenhagen negotiations.
http://www.worcester.gov.uk/fileadmin/assets/pdf/Environment/climate_change/DECC-MET-office-warming-brochure.pdf
Note the nonsensical mega ‘hockey-stick’ on page 4 of the brochure!
It was also Julia Slingo of the Met Office who leapt to the defence of the so-called ‘science’ exposed by the Climategate revelations and pushed out this disgraceful petition to be signed by colleagues at the time fearful for their jobs and the availability of funding –
“Statement from the UK science community
10 December 2009
We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method.
The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here. As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that ‘Warming of the climate system is unequivocal’ and that ‘Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations’. ”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2009/science-community-statement
Note that phrase “providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method” which anyone reading Steve McIntyres many excellent posts on the subject would know to be simply untrue!!
Re Peter Melia says: January 28, 2014 at 11:31 am
“Warm water rises up displacing colder water which moves downwards. . .”
A WUWT commenter some months ago explained the phenomenon of hot water moving downwards:
“Immaculate Convection”.
The Met Office says:
“The Met Office believe one of the reasons for this ‘warm bias’ in their annual global projections is the lack of observational data in the Arctic circle, which has been the fastest warming area on earth.”
So we can either believe in the absurd tautology presented by the MO, or we could conclude their is something wrong with their models. And for the people claiming that the predictions are within the error bars – well if the error bars are no bigger than you would have reported statistically simply taking the average of say the last ten years, then you don’t need a supercomputer and you really don’t have a predictive model at all.
The HardCRUT global temperature anomaly for 2012 was 0.450 degrees. MET forecasted 0.570 for 2013. The actual was 0.486. In other words, they overestimated warming by 236%.
Gail Combs on January 28, 2014 at 2:29 pm
David L. says: @ January 28, 2014 at 12:30 pm
…Lastly, what is the mechanism by which heat moves from the air surface to the deep oceans without passing through the upper portion of the oceans?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The heat was dragged there by Schrödinger’s cat who does not like to get wet and does not like to be cold.
———–
The cat was just taking the heat for a visit to Maxwell’s Demon.
” Werner Brozek says:
January 28, 2014 at 11:53 am
This makes 2013 provisionally the 9th warmest year in data which goes back to 1880.
According to my numbers, it was 8th warmest. That is unless they include the uncertainty in their measurement. If we assume an uncertainty of +/- 0.1, then the 0.486 could be between 0.386 and 0.586. In that case, the warmest 15 years are in a statistical tie as shown below….”
Well, except Werner you are assuming that the world wide temperatures measured in 1880 were also accurate to within +/- 0.1 – which seems to me to be a very bold assertion. I suspect the accuracy of the measurement of worldwide temperatures pre-1940 were closer to +/- 0.5.
13 of 14th? Time to get a new coin for flipping!
geo,
I think that coin is in the same box as Hansen’s loaded dice. Right in there with the “Nature Trick”.
The fact that over 1000 signed it indicts more than just a rogue core group for this scandal. The blame impugns all of climatology and touches science itself.
The ‘warm bias’ must be a direct result of the Arctic Amplification model, where warming in the Arctic would suggest warming also in the mid latitudes, but to a lesser degree.
Which is well bizarre as they have all the data in front of them which shows that the Arctic warms most during negative AO/NAO episodes. After the barbecue summer, mild winters and wet drought forecasts, I used to joke that they had a couple of wires reversed on their super-computer, many a true word is spoken in jest.
If the IPCC projections were skillful and the errors reasonably symmetrical, wouldn’t we would expect half of the actual temperatures to be above and half below the projection? In that case, the probability of getting either 13 or 14 lower temperatures than projected out of 14 tries is 0.0009. So their argument reduces to “our projections are correct but they only seem too high because the climate has produced an unprecedented random fluctuation in the temperature data that would occur to only one out of one thousand projections. WHY OH WHY did it have to happen to ours? I guess we just had a very unlucky decade projecting.” Perhaps Gaia is testing their devotion.
Looked at another way, to see 13 cooler years out of 14 years only 5% of the time, the probability of an actual temperature being cooler than the projection has to be about 0.81. Now, I suppose one could construct a post-hoc assymetrical error distribution that would fix this (lots of small warm errors and a few large cold errors). But to my knowledge, no warmist predicted such errors that in advance nor are the warmists arguing that now, even after the fact.
Is this too simple? If not, then it really only took eight years to falsify the projections at the 95% confidence level. In the first eight years with at least seven of them cooler than projected, the IPCC projection had a p value of < 0.05, assuming symmetrical errors.
Kelvin Vaughan says:
January 28, 2014 at 11:10 am
Difference between a socialist and a capitalist:
A socialist sees an old lady fall down and break her leg so he takes her to hospital – then makes everyone else pay for the transportation / health care etc.
A capitalist sees an old lady fall down and break her leg so he takes her to hospital. He then sends her a bill for transportation.
Fixed it fer ya!
I meant p value of > 0.95
Are the MET’s “margins of error” also compatible with the whole history of climatic variation? If you make the error bars big enough, you can guess any damned thing you please.
I can tell you why they’re always wrong. It’s because of God. Science God. In 1998, when science God was playing darts with the weather, he accidentally hit a triple 20 on heat. Despite the Met’s predictions, he has been unable to do it again. Don’t give him a hard time though – it’s a very difficult shot. Just as hard as a bullseye.
And pray to science God that he doesn’t hit one of those. A bullseye means ice age!
The current Met office shower are akin to a script from Monty python, if there was a ministry of “silly Walks” Slingo would unquestionably be in charge!
Someone needs to redo the Dead parrot sketch, “this hypothesis is dead, it is no more it is deceased” 🙂
wws:
At January 28, 2014 at 11:15 am you write
to richardscourtney, from an American: Your “conservatives” are our Socialists.
That is what you assert, but it is not true..
Misusing the meaning words is a standard method which has always been used by the ultra-right. Orwell gave this tactic the name “newspeak” in his novel 1984.
We have ultra-right cranks who often assert on WUWT that H1itler was “left wing” and a “socialist”. He was a fascist! Fascism is as far to the right as it is possible to be.
The tactic is clear and is not new; i.e. redefine a word (e.g. socialism, Jew, capitalism, etc.) and any use of the word provides a distorted statement.
British Conservatives are NOT socialists, and they will tell you that.
I am a socialist and I am telling you that.
Only liars would try to claim these two statements are not true.
Richard
Richard says: “Misusing the meaning words is a standard method which has always been used by the ultra-right”
This is a tactic that is used by both sides of the political spectrum though more on the left side of politics than the right in the current zeitgeist. For a fine example check Nick Clegg’s recent “traitors” comment – when used against those opposed to closer EU integration. Both far left and far right idioms appear to impose big government solutions that from the individual’s view point are similar – “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which” – so I suspect the next lines in the sand to be not left/right but individualism versus collectivism.
fadingfool:
I tend to agree with your post at January 29, 2014 at 2:21 am.
We disagree about whether left or right use newspeak most. That is an opinion – not fact – so cannot be resolved, but I know of nothing from the left which completely reverses meanings such that fascism is claimed to be socialism.
Importantly, I strongly agree with you when you suggest
And I anticipate that the meanings of ‘individualism’ and ‘collectivism’ will then be deliberately misrepresented by some.
Richard
Joe Bloggs says: @ January 28, 2014 at 10:55 pm
Kelvin Vaughan says: @ January 28, 2014 at 11:10 am
Difference between a socialist and a capitalist:
A socialist sees an old lady fall down and break her leg so he takes her to hospital – then makes everyone else pay for the transportation / health care etc.
A capitalist sees an old lady fall down and break her leg so he takes her to hospital. He then sends her a bill for transportation.
Fixed it fer ya!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But the individualist has increased his wealth to the point he can donate money to help pay the hospital bill of they old lady.
(I have been part of such fund raising events BTW)
“The Met Office believe one of the reasons for this ‘warm bias’ in their annual global projections is the lack of observational data in the Arctic circle, which has been the fastest warming area on earth.
They also suggest another reason why the global surface temperature is falling short of their projections is because some of the heat is being absorbed in the ocean beneath the surface.”
————
The first paragraph doesn’t make any sense to me; how can they attribute the warm bias in their global annual temperature anomoly prediction to a lack of measurements from the fastest warming area on earth? Maybe it’s just me – I’ve had a long day. Or maybe the paragraph (excuse of the Met Office) doesn’t actually make any sense at all and I’m wasting my time trying to figure the logic of it. It’s actually making my head hurt.
The second paragraph is of course a reference to Mr. T’s missing heat hypothesis. Hiding in the ocean, waiting to come out and get us. This I get no problem: “the heat we forecast to be here by now is not here because it sneaked into the ocean and is hiding there (but it’ll come back)”. It really is completely laughable and just what we expect from BBC “reporting”, the political puppets at the Met Office and the muppets passing themselves off as scientists at the CRU at UEA (Phil not-good-with-excel Jones, etc.).
Are they actually saying that the Arctic is “hiding” some heat away up there, like they say the ocean is? The opening words of the second paragraph link it to the first one, meaning “the lack of observational data in the Arctic circle” is a “reason why the global surface temperature is falling short of their projections”. It just boggles the mind.
I just noticed that in Paul Hudson’s blog entry he does actually invite readers to learn more about the “missing heat” by clicking a link on the page. No doubt it will lead to the Trenberth nonsense. It really is just a circle of lies between the msm, “climate scientists” and government – each backing the other up. Question is: who is driving this agenda?
Kitefreak,
“The first paragraph doesn’t make any sense to me; how can they attribute the warm bias in their global annual temperature anomoly prediction to a lack of measurements from the fastest warming area on earth?”
Allow me to translate for you.
The MET offices forecasts appear to have a warm bias when compared to observations. However, due to a lack of measurements from the arctic (the fastest warming area) the reality is that the observations have a cold bias.
Now do you understand?
Thanks Matt, that makes sense: “the observations have a cold bias”, because there are very few thermometers in the Arctic (where it warming like heck). Same with the great oceans – they’re warming (deep down), but we can’t measure it. I see where they’re coming from now, in comparing the two. I see where I was getting confused between warm bias and cold bias. Matt, you’ve helped me see the light mate. 🙂
As many commenters above have pointed out, though, how, then, do they know it’s warming there (apart from the DMI and various other online sources readily available on the internet)?
That’s the logical disconnect that does my head in. First the Met Office makes a prediction, then the actual numbers come in, after they’ve been measured, right? Then they say their prediction was wrong because there are huge areas that can’t be “measured”. So how can the predictoin be verified in any meaningful way anyway? How do they know the prediction was wrong if they’re saying they can’t measure how much it is when it does happen? Is that where the averaging and grid smoothing and “interpretation” comes in?
When calculating the global “average” temperature they should rank the temperatures’ weightings according to their density by surface area. I know it wouldn’t really be an average then, but then it’s not now, so what’s the difference anyway? I’ve read about this subject many times on this site and I always find it fascinating: where do the numbers come from, how they are compiled and what “statistical techniques” are used on them before they are published. Who gets to say what the “global average temperature” is? Is it like the inflation rate, or the unemployment statistics? I think so. As in, pretty much any time you switch on the TV and watch the news it’s all BS. Not that I ever watch that crap.
With help from the Wayback Machine we can see it is slightly worse than Paul Hudson reports. The Met Office have been too warm in their predictions in 14 out of the last 15 years (not 13 out of 14):
https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5070858827607403479#editor/target=post;postID=2793076777456065256;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=0;src=link
For the billionth time, there is no global temperature!
Years ago, I did some work around statistical process control; in that field it’s a truism that if you get three consecutive results on one side of the centreline of the expected distribution, you started to get a little concerned; after five you worried, and after seven or eight you KNEW that something had changed in the process. results were truly randomly scattered either side of the mean, there’d something like a 1.5% chance of getting seven such results in a row