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.
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: @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.
———–
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: @ur momisugly January 28, 2014 at 10:55 pm
Kelvin Vaughan says: @ur momisugly 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