Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t The Express – The British MET have forecast that large areas of the world will cool over the next 5 years, though they still expect global average temperatures to remain high. Of course, they also still claim that CO2 is in the driving seat.
Spatial patterns suggest enhanced warming over land and at high northern latitudes. There is some indication of continued cool conditions in the Southern Ocean, and of relatively cool conditions in the North Atlantic sub-polar gyre. Uncertainties in the forecast are considerable: for the period 2016-2020 most regions are expected to be warmer than the average of 1981 to 2010, but regional cooling is possible over much of the Southern Ocean and the North Atlantic sub-polar gyre. Differences with our forecast issued last year are expected because the updated forecast has been made with an upgraded version of our model. Nevertheless, both forecasts suggest relatively cool conditions in the Southern Ocean and the North Atlantic sub-polar gyre although the magnitude of the anomalies is smaller in the updated forecast. Further forecasts from other international modelling centres are available from the multi-model decadal forecast exchange.
During the five-year period 2016-2020, global average temperature (see blue shading in Figure 3 below) is expected to remain between 0.28°C and 0.77°C (90% confidence range) above the long-term 1981-2010 mean (0.88°C to 1.37°C relative to pre-industrial conditions represented by the period 1850 to 1900). The warmest individual year in the 160-year Met Office Hadley Centre global temperature record is 2015 with a temperature of 0.44 ± 0.1 °C above the 1981-2010 mean. Averaged over the whole five-year period 2016-2020, global average temperature is expected to be between 0.42°C and 0.67°C above the 1981-2010 mean (1.02°C to 1.27°C relative to pre-industrial conditions).
The forecast is for continued global warming largely driven by continued high levels of greenhouse gases. However, other changes in the climate system, including the largest El Niño since 1997 and longer term shifts in both the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), are also contributing. Near record temperatures are predicted for the coming five years, consistent with the Met Office annual global temperature forecast. However, the recent run of consecutive record years is likely to end in 2017 as El Niño declines. The forecast remains towards the mid to upper end of the range simulated by CMIP5 models that have not been initialised with observations (green shading in Figure 3). Barring a large volcanic eruption or a very sudden return to La Niña or negative AMO conditions which could temporarily cool climate, ten year global average warming rates are likely to return to late 20th century levels within the next two years. Nevertheless, the recent slowdown in surface warming is still an active research topic and trends over a longer (15 year) period will take longer to respond. For further discussion on the surface warming slowdown see the Met Office reports on the recent pause in warming and on big changes underway in the climate system.
Read more: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc
The last paragraph is interesting. The MET don’t know what caused the pause. They acknowledge the cooling effects they have identified could be substantial enough to drag down global average temperatures. The MET still think CO2 is driving a dangerously rapid rise in global temperatures, they’re just not sure when the temperatures will actually rise.
Classic British Civil Service (although Met is ostensibly no longer government/state run) doublespeak. The Met Office is just covering its backside, so whatever happens it can claim it predicted it. Clueless.
And to think there was a time when the Met Office’s scientists and forecaster’s predictions were trusted. D-Day went ahead on the basis of a very accurate call from the Met Office’s predecessor.
But back then the Met office had to answer to Eisenhower, Monty and Churchill , men with little patience for incompetents . Now they only have to answer to Cameron, not a man of any detectable stature .
@Ko, 10:34 pm, That was during the time that people in Europe still trusted the BBC and depended on it, oh my how times have changed!
“D-Day went ahead on the basis of a very accurate call from the Met Office’s predecessor.”
IIRC, the American forecasters were the first and most emphatic that the invasion should proceed.
Group Capt Stagg called the 6 June weather, based on weather data collected by US and British Met teams all over the N Atlantic. The US teams’ view was to go on 5 June, the British later in June. There was a weather window on 6 June, but few considered it stable or long enough. Based on local knowledge and his own experience, Stagg called it.
From History Channel webpage: “…Weeks later, Stagg sent Eisenhower a memo noting that had D-Day been pushed to later in June, the Allies would have encountered the worst weather in the English Channel in two decades. “I thank the Gods of War we went when we did,” Eisenhower scribbled on the report. He could also have been thankful for Stagg overruling the advice of the American meteorologists who wanted to go on June 5 as planned, which Ross says would have been a disaster….”
Far too many Hollywood versions of WW2 around, with the Yanks doing everything. Try Enigma and the movie made about that for example.
“most regions are expected to be warmer than the average of 1981 to 2010, but regional cooling is possible…”
It sounds to me like they’re scheming to maintain the global-warming narrative in the face of coming cooling. The story will be, “Yes, it seems cooler where you live, but the rest of the world is getting warmer. You’re local climate is just an anomaly.” They’re hoping that will be enough to quench the curiosity of anyone who notices that “adjusted” temperature data sets continue to show warming while their own observations show cooling. So repeat after me: “Cooling is local. Warming is global.”
I have to admit that, due to what appears to be intentional obfuscation, i don’t understand a word of this.
It’s going to get warmer in places we have no instruments, but cooler elsewhere? Have they heard of satellites yet?
The latest imperative from the climate fearosphere is to discredit satellite data, since it undermines such sound bite distortions such as “warmest year ever recorded”. The current attempt goes something like this: “Satellites don’t measure temperatures directly and the data must then be greatly massaged to get an answer, so therefore satdat can’t be trusted.”
Of course, “measure temps directly” is a rabbit hole, since not even thermometers measure temperature directly.
.
pimf
undermines
suchsound bite distortionsSounds a bit like ‘Hello Mr Pot have you met Mr Kettle?’ to me. The disparity between the two types of temp records is becoming a noticeable embarrassment the more they keep fiddling the surface records to create warming.
Hey, I’m impressed. Sounds all kinda sciencey and stuff
. The MET Office doesn’t know what caused the embarrassing pause and hope that it will go away, really soon. They think the future could be cooler but that this will be caused by something really, really, big and natural, fighting against the inexorable warming effects of CO2. However the MET Office still knows that CO2 is a really dangerous gas driving a very rapid rise in global temperatures, sometime in the future, really soon, in the future, but quite soon. So stay panicked.
The met office predict rain – and when it rains they claim their forecast was 100% accurate.
The met office predict rain and sun – and when it rains they claim 100% accuracy as they predicted rain – and when the sun shines its 100%accuracy.
The met office predict global warming and global cooling, and floods and droughts and high winds and calm and they are always 100% accurate.
How else would they get their bonuses?
This sentence needs reviewing:
“The forecast remains towards the mid to upper end of the range simulated by CMIP5 models that have not been initialised with observations”
Which model projections are they talking about? Is it better that observations are not used? How does this correlate with diagrams showing temperatures at the bottom end or even outside projections?
Nothing new about the MetOffice’s cooling forecast It has been on my since 2011. Anyone who clicked on Contents could see the forecast ‘future is cool’.
Some time ago the MO was introduced to a proper method for calculating annual temperatures (sort of ‘cul-de-sac’ acknowledgement, but no thanks), now they are learning how to do longer range forecasting. The CO2 thing is just a cover for their past ineptness in forecasting. I am pleased that they found some of my work useful again.
Forecast should be somewhere on the WUWT, but first google reference was for here , 15 December 2011
vukcevic – Interesting graphs. There has been a few years since the training set finished – are the current data coming in as expected? It may be too soon to tell with a 10 yr moving avereage.
For the last10 years (2006-2015) the CET average is 10.1C, for the preceding 10 years (1996-2005) the average was 10.3; I would say the CET is mowing in predicted direction, but since I live in the CET area I am not looking forward to be correct !!
I dont understand the science behind CO2 making things warmer AND cooler ?? I thought cold was a lack of heat. How the heck does CO2 cause cooling using exactly the same ‘greenhouse’ effect as claimed for warming? If I apply heat energy to my kettle, I have yet to see the temperature drop.
Eric Worrall:
Thankyou for your essay that reports
Your essay and comments in the subsequent thread do not mention that the MET forecast is an admission – indeed, it is a proclamation – that previous understandings and forecasts of global warming are wrong.
In 2007 the IPCC reported that global temperature was expected to rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system. But global temperature has not risen since 2000 (nor since 1999) and the MET now predicts little if any global temperature rise before 2021 while GHG emissions continue.
The explanation for the predicted rise of “0.2°C per decade” is in IPCC AR4 (2007) Chapter 10.7 and can be read at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html
It says there
This assertion of “committed warming” should have had large uncertainty because the Report was published in 2007 when GHG emissions had been “within the range of the SRES scenarios” but there was then no indication of any global temperature rise over the previous 7 years.
The emissions have continued “within the range of the SRES scenarios” but there has still not been any rise comparable to “0.2°C per decade” although
(b) we are now three-fourths into the “first two decades of the 21st century”
and
(b) the MET is forecasting that the “committed warming” will not have reappeared before the end of the “first two decades of the 21st century”.
Simply, the “committed warming” has disappeared and the MET is saying it will not be found (perhaps it has eloped with Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’?).
This disappearance of the “committed warming” is – of itself – sufficient to falsify the AGW hypothesis as emulated by climate models. If – as the MET now forecasts – we reach 2020 without any detection of the “committed warming” then it will be 100% certain that the computer model projections of global warming are complete bunkum.
Lest we forget, I remind that the predicted rise of “0.2°C per decade” over “first two decades of the 21st century” is in IPCC AR4 (2007) Chapter 10.7.
Richard
What is missing in all this is that the UKMO people are supposedly scientists. How the hell scientists can bring themselves to publish such utter, utter crap I simply cannot undestand.
weak minds
delusions of grandeur
fear of being left out
not enough mothers milk
living beyond ones means
blah blah
there are so many reasons
“Latest MET Prediction”
I think there is a “H” missing from that. Well, they have to be on some sort of hallucinogen!
IF it is going to cool….. THEN, according to Global Warming Theory, our weather should be getting much more stable and safe, with fewer disasters and lower insurance costs.
Lots of other things should be getting better too – read the Stern Review, and just reverse the findings for cooling weather.
I will be interested to see if this is:
a) pointed out by the mainstream media
b) actually going to come true…
Mods.:
I made a post that vanished over an hour ago. Please let me know if it is not in the ‘bin’ so I can resubmit it because the issue it explains has now been raised above.
Thanking you in anticipation
Richard
Yeah well, let’s keep it real. We’ll get what we get.
http://s27.postimg.org/rpot7nnwx/Valentia.png
http://www.met.ie/weathermaps/monthly_climate/VALENTIA_OBSERVATORY_TEMP.png
Having dropped the pick there on a couple of occasions I Love Valentia. A seriously rural site which needs to be homogenised with Paris to be credible /sarc. I’ve 100 dollars which says that 2017 will be ‘cooler’ than 1997. Takers?
Which temperature dataset are you using?
It seems not everybody is reading the same report from MET Office.
It predicts significant warming for the next 5 years. Since they expect temperature average between +0.28 and +0.77°C, the mean is +0.525. Since 2015 is at +0.44°C it is an increase of +0.085°C in 5 years, equivalent to +0.17°C/decade. This warming rate is higher than the warming rate of HadCRUT4 for the 21st century so far, so they are predicting an increase in global warming rate for the next 5 years.
That is a pretty bold and risky prediction, since the past 15 years have included one strong and 2 moderate Los Niños, and 2 moderate Las Niñas. The next 5 years have a significant chance of having a moderate to strong La Niña and no El Niño which will make it impossible to increase the rate of warming. A much safer prediction would have been that for the period 2016-2020 no significant warming to moderate cooling is expected.
Javier:
The MET’s prediction is only “bold” and “risky” because they know it will probably be wrong.
In 2007 the IPCC reported that model projections of global temperature rise would be “0.2°C per decade” averaged over the first two decades of this century. This warming rate would be a result of “committed warming” from GHGs already in the system.
The MET’s prediction of a +0.17°C/decade warming rate over the next 5 years is consistent with the IPCC prediction of “0.2°C per decade” averaged over the first two decades of this century except that no such warming has happened for the first 15 years.
Richard
Let’s move this ‘news’ story ahead a year.
The earth is unexplainably cooling. It is obvious to the public, the media, and the politicians that the entire AGW ‘science’ and general circulation modeling was incorrect. There is no AGW climate change issue. The ‘concern’ is global cooling. The MET has no idea why the planet is cooling or what will happen next.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2016/anomnight.2.1.2016.gif
MET Press Release: We found a couple of fundamental calculation mistakes with all of our general circulation models (GCMs). We had all (cult of CAGW members and fans) assumed the warming in the last 150 years had something to do with the increase in atmospheric CO2, however we have found basic mistakes made in the 1-dimension CO2 doubling no feedback calculations 30 years ago. The warming without feedbacks due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is less than 0.1C rather than 1.2C.
It is now clear (as the planet is cooling) that that the entire AGW ‘science’ was incorrect. Almost all of the warming in the last 150 years was caused by solar cycle changes. It appears that sun is significantly different that the standard model. The sun is now operating in a mode which we did not think was possible.
We could of course be excused as no one could have known the standard model for the sun and stars was incorrect. We have no idea what is happening now or what will happen next.
(P.S. William: The Paleo climate record is a guide as what to expect next.)
William: The fundamental problem with the solar model and the stellar model is not that observations indicate that convection velocities deep within the solar convection zone are 100 times less than expected which is impossible based on the assumed solar core temperature. The fact that convection velocities deep within the solar convection zone are 100 times slower than expected is only possible if massive amounts of energy are being generated by a non fusion mechanism and then transported from the core of the sun by a non convection mechanism to the surface of the sun. i.e. The physics of convection is not incorrect, the physics of what is happening in the core of the sun and stars is incorrect.
http://www.mpg.de/5913479/convection_sun_surface
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120709092457.htm
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/30/11928.full.pdf
Adds Birch, “There is no clear way to reconcile the observations and theory”.
=========================
The traditional method is to claim that the observations are wrong.
A very interesting result because it argues strongly that the sun’s magnetic field cannot be caused by convection.
The problem with the standard model is that it assumes that the core of stars is hydrogen. But gravity makes this impossible for 2nd+ generation stars. Hydrogen is the lightest element. The heavier elements would have collected at the core of the sun during its formation and would have been there at the core during ignition of the sun.
So, since ignition would have occurred without hydrogen at the core, there is no reason to expect that the sun and other stars have somehow switched out their heavy cores for a hydrogen core.
And once you accept that the sun and other stars have heavy element cores, the standard model flies out the window.
It has been obvious all this year that the Antarctic ocean is very cold now. It is high summer there and it is a cold ocean!
What’s new here? Global warming is always happening someplace else.
I note they say “greenhouse gases,” not CO2. Odd, that, since CO2 is supposed to be THE greenhouse gas we must fight against.
All this screams fraud.
The climate prognosticators have looked deeply into their new-and-improved
crystal ballclimate models, and closely examined the twice-baked (for robust flavor)tea leavesdata. They’ve humbly beseeched thegodssuper-duper computers for assistance in theirforetellingpredictions of the future, and what they have seen is alarming; support for the Climatist industry will be declining, eventually going into a death-spiral.Children just aren’t going to know what climate models are. . . .
I predict that over the next 5 years the last 5 years will cool significantly……
very astute prediction, the past is always a good guide to the future .
Well the mannipulation of the past anyway 😉
It is becoming pretty obvious that climate variations are not primarily driven by CO2.
This is the only current hypothesis that still fits the observations:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/
Investment money is still chasing the CAGW driven change in energy. Will 1970s type cooling affect the flow of this money ?
Figure 3: Observed (black, from Met Office Hadley Centre, GISS and NCDC) and predicted (blue) global average annual surface temperature difference relative to 1981-2010.
=====================
What would happen to the Met forecast if satellite temperatures had been used instead?
We already know there is a problem with the vast majority of models running hot. Maybe the problem isn’t the models. Maybe it is the data they have been fed. Garbage in garbage out.
Isn’t it time to consider all possibilities to find out why the models are running hot? The answer that seems to never be considered is data quality.
It would be interesting to see the same Met forecast done using the satellite and weather balloon datasets, and then compare the results against actuals in 5-10 years from now.
If the satellites turn out to give a better forecast that would say a lot about the relative quality of the surface temperature datasets. Such a result would argue strongly that the problem with the models is the Hadley Centre, GISS and NCDC datasets.
ferdberple
The entire conclusion of the models is that the “water-vapor-feedback-enhanced” CO2 forcing coefficient on temperature was concluded to be slightly above 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2. This value was based on global circulation models that began running in the early 80’s, and was “cemented in stone” by Hansen’s tricks in the July heat of Washington in 1988-89 when he turned off the A/C prior to his Congressional testimoney. (er, testimony.)
Regardless of all of the CAGW government money since, the CAGW community still “wants’ that 3.0 degrees C per doubling, and only now is slowly backing it down: 2.9, 2.8. 2.5 degrees per doubling are vaguely referred to in various papers. Projections of doom, of course, start at 3.0 degrees per doubling, project that to +4 degrees by 2100, then exaggerate the effect to +5 or +10 degrees C, and then study THAT +10 degrees to determine if Global Warming is a threat to ABC or XYZ.
But, look back at the RESULTS of these original global circulation models. If they were presented in 1988-1989 as published papers in the “science” literature, they were run as models in 1986-87 based on research and programming in 1985-87. But, at that time, the TOA radiation was 10 watts/m^2 HIGHER than what Dr Leif Svalgaard claims now is the correct TOA radiation. No wonder they project higher temperatures in the short run (and in the longer runs) than what occurred. His teams now use 1362 watt/m^2 as the average yearly solar radiation levels, but the previous “accepted” levels were as high as 1372. 1367 was accepted as recently as 2004.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI.jpg
If a “forcing” of +3 watts/m^2 from CO2 is going to produce +4 degrees warming, then a “drop” of 10 watts/m^2 in actual radiation received – compared to what the models expect – will certainly eliminate the predicted increase in temperature. Indeed, if their CGM models were correct in all of their calculations, then the world should be cooling substantially: It is actually receiving 4-88 watts LESS energy!
Look, the models – for as many billion dollars as are spent worshiping them in the temples of modern academia and government halls – can only calculate from what is pushed in their front modules. So, if the models in 1988-89 were accurate in both input parameters and in-process approximations, then they had to generate results based on the 1368-1372 watts/m^2 minimum TOA assumed correct in 1985-1990. If the real world TOA radiation is actually less – based on what Dr. S now tells us, then the models cannot be processing each step change in temperature right because the old started off so wrong.
As an open question to george m. smith, rgbatduke
RACookPE1978. Could you re-plot that graph with the Y axis starting at zero please? After all, people do not use a magnified view when navigating the world. We weill then see that there is no difference between any of your traces.
If that MET says it is going to cool over the next several years, then it will certainly rise, right? I mean, given their recent track record…
Fifty years ago or so, there was a celebrated fellow in Toronto who could predict what the sex of your child to be would be. The accuracy of is forecasts were legendary and through word of mouth alone he was making a fortune. He charged about 20 bucks or so – a lot in those days and the client had to go for a lengthy interview on the make up of both sides of the family, incidence of twins, whether the first born in the families were boys or girls, etc. all the while putting his varying speculations out there.
The client then had to stand up straight, walk across the room and back and toward and away from the consultant. All the while he kept up a patter, thinking out loud, weighing of all the factors to this point, mentioning the girl tendencies and the boy tendencies and finally saying this was a difficult choice. Early on he was convinced it was a boy but the signals for girl got stronger in the middle of the examination, although ‘boy’ remained in the picture but when we came to the walking past part, ‘girl’ was looking like the winner.
He consulted a complex chart going up columns and along rows and saying ‘boy’, ah ha, yes ‘girl’, boy, girl, girl, girl, boy. And then bringing his two index fingers together in a box in the chart, said girl,girl, boy, yes boy. Boy!
He then opened his ledger and opposite the client’s name wrote ‘GIRL’ in large letters. You don’t suppose Slingo and company are related to this trickster, do you?
Without trickery he could have simply offered “accurate or your money back.” He would have had 50% satisfied customers.
A gender prediction test kit for sale on Amazon has 936 customer reviews. 36% give 5 stars and 35% give no stars. A few give intermediate stars. This is exactly what you would expect for a test that gave random results. This test cost $62. It does say it is for entertainment purposes only.
Excellent!! Toss a coin, heads or tails.