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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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: @ur momisugly 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.