From the “worse than we thought” department comes this new climate model, but at least they acknowledge the pause.
The next few years could be “anomalously warm”, according to a new study.
Researchers have developed a mathematical model to predict how average global surface air temperatures will vary over the next few years.
The results suggest that the period from 2018 to 2022 could see an increased likelihood of extreme temperatures.
The findings are published in the journal Nature Communications.
The warming caused by emissions of greenhouse gases like CO2 is not increasing at a perfectly steady rate.
In the early years of the 21st Century, scientists pointed to a hiatus in warming. But several analyses show that the five warmest years on record all have taken place since 2010.
These variations from year-to-year do not affect the long-term trend in warming temperatures.
Now, a new method for trying to predict global temperatures suggests the next few years will be hotter than expected.
Rather than using traditional climate simulation techniques, Florian Sévellec, from the CNRS in Brest, France, and Sybren S Drijfhout, from the University of Southampton, developed a statistical method to search through simulations of climatic conditions in the 20th and 21st Century and look for situations that are comparable to the present day.
Future possibilities
The team then used these climatic “analogues” to deduce future possibilities.
In particular, the anomalous warmth predicted over the next few years is due to a low probability of intense cold climatic events.
Once the algorithm is “learned” (a process which takes a few minutes), predictions are obtained in a few hundredths of a second on a laptop. In comparison, supercomputers require a week using traditional simulation methods.
Gabi Hegerl, professor of climate system science at the University of Edinburgh, who was not involved with the study, said: “The authors have tried to predict whether global climate variability will make the next years warmer or cooler overall than the mean warming trend. They have skilfully used worldwide climate model data for previous years to calculate probabilities for the next few years.
“The findings suggest it’s more likely we’ll get warmer years than expected in the next few years.
Full article here
As noted further in the article, the result is “purely statistical”, so take it with a grain of salt, because I suspect the “learning” part of the algorithm doesn’t handle long-term natural variation well at all, just like the short term memory of humans often can’t recall the intensity of weather events in the far past. Of course, humans programmed this, so…
UPDATE: Here’s the paper:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05442-8
A novel probabilistic forecast system predicting anomalously warm 2018-2022 reinforcing the long-term global warming trend
Abstract
In a changing climate, there is an ever-increasing societal demand for accurate and reliable interannual predictions. Accurate and reliable interannual predictions of global temperatures are key for determining the regional climate change impacts that scale with global temperature, such as precipitation extremes, severe droughts, or intense hurricane activity, for instance. However, the chaotic nature of the climate system limits prediction accuracy on such timescales. Here we develop a novel method to predict global-mean surface air temperature and sea surface temperature, based on transfer operators, which allows, by-design, probabilistic forecasts. The prediction accuracy is equivalent to operational forecasts and its reliability is high. The post-1998 global warming hiatus is well predicted. For 2018–2022, the probabilistic forecast indicates a warmer than normal period, with respect to the forced trend. This will temporarily reinforce the long-term global warming trend. The coming warm period is associated with an increased likelihood of intense to extreme temperatures. The important numerical efficiency of the method (a few hundredths of a second on a laptop) opens the possibility for real-time probabilistic predictions carried out on personal mobile devices.
There’s that weasel word “may”.
…and so predictable
Heat wave in Britain….as opposed to cold, cloudy, damp, rain, floods, dreary, and flat out miserable…and it’s permanent
But we already covered this extreme cold is also caused by global warming…
I bought some permanent ink and I hope it will not disappear as soon as the permanent hot weather did. 21degree C and cloudy is not a heat wave in my book.
Exactly right, Bob Burban. Whenever I see “may” used as related to a possibility, I mentally change it to “may or may not.” This is one of many tactics to fight confirmation bias.
“The results SUGGEST that the period from 2018 to 2022 COULD see an increased LIKELIHOOD of extreme temperatures.”
Three weasel words, same sentence. Unfalsifiable statement.
Just this morning I saw James Renwick on TV news in New Zealand spouting this rubbish.
He was head of NIWA in New Zealand and is now a professor at Victoria University in Wellington.
He along with Jim Salinger are New Zealand’s warmist elite and he was wheeling out the usual nonsense about the Californian wild fires and that global warming will bring more flooding more storms and more droughts as New South Wales is experiencing and rising sea levels .
It is a well known fact that the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere can only cause the global temperature to rise .6 of a degree Celsius
Any greater rise can only be through positive feed backs from increased water vapour in the atmosphere .
I cannot see how increased water vapour in the atmosphere , if that actually happened could cause more droughts .
At the present time the tropical hotspot that is driving this theory has not been located .
But this paper is excellent, save it! It’s a short term prediction made by the climate cult, and one you can probably add to the hepe in a few years.
And when the word “may” isn’t used its that despicable “settled science”. It a “probabilistic forecast system” ffs, what do expect?
Only those who know nothing about science, ever think that science is settled.
PS: Just declaring the science settled, doesn’t make it so.
I’ll give you a weasel word: tout
verb
1.
attempt to sell (something), typically by pestering people in an aggressive or bold manner
Something you excel at.
The interesting thing is that the “warmth” is coming from a lack of very cold weather, not more hot weather.
Which indeed summarises the warming since the 1970-ies: the winters were getting less severe, as opposed to the summers getting hotter.
That is exactly what they do not want people to know. Warming means longer, not hotter summers and shorter, less harsh winters. I am still looking for the downside of this, as the longer summers and less cold nights in summer means a better crop-growing season. A complete win.
Speaking as someone who was raised on lives on a farm that grows vegetables and such you are 110% correct, longer growing seasons means more food is harvested to feed people.
“That is exactly what they do not want people to know. Warming means longer, not hotter summers and shorter, less harsh winters.”
Are you making that up or do you have some data?
It really is amazing how many things Ryan knows, that just aren’t so.
PS: Whining “you’re wrong” over and over again isn’t data either.
Which basically is the greenhouse effect – more stability, less fluctuation – what you get in areas of higher greenhouse gases. Less extremes not more.
Not the greenhouse effect. It’s the effect of a warming pole or at least it should be. Except that the poles do not appear to be warming
Gotta remember to be correct about my terminology on this board – what I meant was ‘in areas of high greenhouse gas concentration’.
Tom, they were well aware of UHI…so it’s the nights getting warmer too right?
…that was the prediction I remember….night time temps would get warmer
…convenient
Did I read that right? They’re modelling – models?
Yo dawg, I heard you liked models, so here’s a model of models so you can model what you’re modeling.
Yes, an old Internet meme – but applicable here!
Which model is on first?
No Witch Model is on second.
LOL!
Even more silly than that, they are using predictions about the past from models as input to another model to predict the future:
“They have skilfully used worldwide climate model data for previous years to calculate probabilities for the next few years.”
Actual data from previous years obviously wasn’t accurate enough.
{facepalm}
Exactly,from earlier in the piece we have this…” developed a statistical method to search through simulations of climatic conditions in the 20th and 21st Century and look for situations that are comparable to the present day.”
It begs the question why not search for actual conditions that are comparable to the here and now? More useful surely!
The assumption seems to be that models that have current conditions that are roughly analogous to current conditions must be the most accurate, so there projections for the future must also be accurate.
So, did they basically just pick that Russian model, the only one that even comes close to reality?
Hilariously, actual data from previous years ISN’T accurate enough on a global scale. Neither is present data! But it’s good enough for pontificating.
Models all the way down…
Um, its about the future… what were you expecting them to use? An actual crystal ball? Unfortunately, they aren’t real so for now computers are all we have.
If they ever find a model that can accurately hindcast current conditions, let me know.
No, they have
“developed a statistical method to search through simulations of climatic conditions in the 20th and 21st Century and look for situations that are comparable to the present day.”
i.e. they are using voodoo and metaphor and astrological type techniques in order to get published in Nature Communications (because that is all it takes).
Since the models that generated the projections used as input are almost as accurate as a monkey throwing darts, then the predictions of this new & improved model should be almost as accurate as… a monkey throwing darts.
Such pronouncements will become more detached from reality than usual with cooling in the monthly records for AMO and UAH satellite data.
Would we have heard about this if it had predicted LOWER temperatures?
Or would they have adjusted the model until it produced higher temperatures?
How do we know they didn’t do that?
““The findings suggest it’s more likely we’ll get warmer years than expected in the next few years.
Who decides what is meant by “expected” temperatures ??
They’re expecting the next ice age to start soon but, it will be warmer than that.
Yes. ‘More likely’ we’ll get warm years…..
But if not, well there’s always uncertainty to blame.
If yes…then it the new model is ‘confirmed…and it’s worse than predicted!’.
This is actually brilliant.
A Marvelous Little Ploy:
Global Warming when it’s hot,
Climate Change when it’s cold,
and a Pause if it stays still…
“uncertainty to blame”? You really don’t get this math stuff do you. Its a probabilistic forecast system – probablities are what you get.
Ryan complaining about other people’s ability to understand.
That’s rich.
Maybe he meant ‘problematic’. He seems to have a difficult time with understanding basic language.
The maths is crap Ryan. Deal with it.
Only in cooked to a crisp books were the five hottest years all after 2010.
In the real world, rather than Planet GIGO, 1998 is still Number Two since 1979, just barely pipped out by its fellow super El Nino year of 2016.
Earth has cooled dramatically since 2016.
Note also that 2010 was an El Nino year.
It now goes 2016, 1998, 2015, 2014 and 2010, which of course ignores the 1930s, which were hotter than the 1990s. The super El Nino was building in 2015 and 2014.
And it took 18 years of “Pause” for GASTA to equal 1998.
And none of those temperatures reached levels seen during the 1930’s.
I was just about to mention the 1930s MarkW. Of course the 1930s have since been adjusted to be colder (as evidenced by the blink gif that everyone around these parts have seen numerous times that shows temps as they looked pre-2000 vs the adjusted post-2000 version of those same temps in which you can literally see the peaks on the 1930s and 1998 swap position as to which is a higher peak).
US or global?
Yes
Yeah, even the cool outlier of UAH show it plunging off the chart.
No hockey stick there Ryan.
And we should believe this model why? I predict it will be less accurate than current models.
‘at least they acknowledge the pause’
Now that it’s safely a couple El Nino years behind them, they can dismiss it. Sorta like Climategate – oh that was years ago – and it was debunked.
See how easy that is?
” … developed a statistical method to search through simulations of climatic conditions ”
It’s applied physics , not a social science . Show us the computational physics from the temperature of the Sun to our surface .
Caveat emptor! Past performance is no guarantee for future performance. Since any ‘learning algorithm’ tries to internalise the past performance, the expectation that it may tell you something about future performance that you do not already know is an illusion.
At least it’s a new and quicker method of getting to the wrong answer. That’s efficient in the new warped science world of smart, quick headline writing. Maybe it will generate more funding in the new, smart, quick modeling world.
Say, how many times in the past have we had long cycle down turn in the AMO, low solar cycle with two years of near solar minimum conditions, and neutral ENSO?
Re: “In the early years of the 21st Century, scientists pointed to a hiatus in warming. ”
Actually, it was the ‘climate scientists’ that denied the hiatus and it was the ‘skeptics’ that forced the hiatus in warming to the forefront of climate debate.
Note how even this simple truth has been ‘adjusted’ to fit the fraudulent AGW narrative….
Does anyone seriously deny that the models run hot and are therefore unreliable?
There’s a rule in statistics that says you shouldn’t process data that’s already the result of processing other data. Processing data that’s the result of unreliable models has to be one worse.
This is behavior is really adolescent. An eight year old has a pretty good handle on civilized behavior. Then, a few years later, puberty sets in and all the simple rules learned in kindergarten are forgotten. Teenagers do things they know they shouldn’t do.
In this case it looks like scientists doing what they know they shouldn’t do.
But, the recent El Nino has forced world temperatures up to the model trend line, thus proving that the models were right all along.
At least that’s what accredited climate scientists tell me.
The El Nino spiked GASTA to between the Scenario C and B lines, but nowhere near the A line, ie Business as Usual, which is what has happened to CO2. Scenario C assumed no more emissions after 2000, which of course is not what happened at all. Scenario B was basically Scenario C, but with reductions in trace gases other than CO2.
Far from stopping or even slowing down, CO2 growth has if anything accelerated since 1988, so reality smacks down the GCMs in general and Hansen 1988 in particular.
“They have skillfully used worldwide climate model data …”
Hmm, shouldn’t that have been “They have skillfully used unskillful worldwide climate model data …”
I have a better idea: I will input synthetic data into a model to generate what I can now call just “data”, which I will then input into another model, which will, thus, produce results based on modeled synthetic data.
Like many models, they look good on the surface, but when you get to know them, they can be crazy messed up inside.
That sounds like eye candy to me.
Yep, that sounds about right — computer models are eye candy for myopic intellects. No metaphors here. (^_^)
I’ve developed a great modelling instrument, it consists of a cube shape with 21 little dots.
IF the science were settled the BBC would be able to say:
‘will be be exceptionally warm’
Not:
‘may be exceptionally warm’
Exactly. Either its “may” (weasel word) or “is” (settled science).
Either way its Confirmation bias 101.
Irony is lost on you.
Basic question here: What is the shelf life of a BBC touted climate prediction? I’ll start the bidding at 3 months.
3 months. That would be about the time Northern Scotland experiences unexpectedly early snowfall. Good call.
That’s easy! They will last precisely until the event occurs. Then they are either true or not. 🙂
How to stop CO2 production during the solar minimum? Can not. Whats more, this CO2 will cool the troposphere!
Carbon-14 is produced in the upper layers of the troposphere and the stratosphere by thermal neutrons absorbed by nitrogen atoms. When cosmic rays enter the atmosphere, they undergo various transformations, including the production of neutrons. The resulting neutrons (1n) participate in the following reaction:
n + 14/7N→ 14/6C + p
The highest rate of carbon-14 production takes place at altitudes of 9 to 15 km (30,000 to 49,000 ft) and at high geomagnetic latitudes.
The rate of 14C production can be modelled and is between 16,400 and 18,800 atoms 14C ( m^−2 s^−1), which agrees with the global carbon budget that can be used to backtrack, but attempts to directly measure the production rate in situ were not very successful. Production rates vary because of changes to the cosmic ray flux caused by the heliospheric modulation (solar wind and solar magnetic field), and due to variations in the Earths magnetic field.
The highest rate of carbon-14 production takes place at altitudes of 9 to 15 km (30,000 to 49,000 ft) and at high geomagnetic latitudes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14
You make a big mistake by not appreciating the role of the stratosphere in climate change. The increase in GCR causes an increase in ionization in the lower stratosphere, depending on the geomagnetic field. This leads to a local temperature increase in the lower stratosphere at high latitudes. It will increase stratospheric intrusions in winter and spring periods.
Stratospheric Intrusions are when stratospheric air dynamically decends into the troposphere and may reach the surface, bringing with it high concentrations of ozone which may be harmful to some people. Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low tropopause heights, low heights of the 2 potential vorticity unit (PVU) surface, very low relative and specific humidity concentrations, and high concentrations of ozone. Stratospheric Intrusions commonly follow strong cold fronts and can extend across multiple states. In satellite imagery, Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low moisture levels in the water vapor channels (6.2, 6.5, and 6.9 micron). Along with the dry air, Stratospheric Intrusions bring high amounts of ozone into the tropospheric column and possibly near the surface. This may be harmful to some people with breathing impairments. Stratospheric Intrusions are more common in the winter/spring months and are more frequent during La Nina periods. Frequent or sustained occurances of Stratospheric Intrusions may decrease the air quality enough to exceed EPA guidelines.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zu_sh.gif
Total ozone in the southern hemisphere.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
GCR radiation is almost at the level of 2009.
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
Noctilucent clouds form when summertime wisps of water vapor rise to the top of the atmosphere and wrap themselves around specks of meteor smoke. Mesospheric winds assemble the resulting ice crystals into NLCs. In 2017 a heat wave in the mesosphere melted those crystals, causing a brief “noctilucent blackout.” Could something similar, but opposite, be happening now? Perhaps a cold spell in the mesosphere is extending the season. Another possibility is the solar cycle. Previous studies have shown that NLCs sometimes intensify during solar minimum. Solar minimum conditions are in effect now as the sun has been without spots for 30 of the past 31 days.
LATE-SEASON SURGE IN NOCTILUCENT CLOUDS: Noctilucent clouds (NLCs) are behaving strangely. Normally, NLCs begin to dim in late July, then fade away completely as August unfolds. It is their seasonal pattern. This year, though, the night-shining clouds are surging as July comes to an end. “We had a mind-blowing display of noctilucent clouds display on July 26th,” reports Kairo Kiitsak, who sends this picture from Simuna, Estonia:
http://www.spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=28&month=07&year=2018
The local increase in temperature in the lower stratosphere is responsible for the increase of water vapor in the mesosphere. Through these “holes” the water vapor escapes into the stratosphere.
“In this study we show that correspondence of the main structures of geomagnetic field, near surface air temperature and surface pressure in the mid-latitudes, reported previously in the 1st part of the paper, has its physical foundation. The similar pattern, found in latitude-longitude distribution of the lower stratospheric ozone and specific humidity, allows us to close the chain of causal links, and to offer a mechanism through which geomagnetic field could influence on the Earth’s climate. It starts with a geomagnetic modulation of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and ozone production in the lower stratosphere through ion-molecular reactions initiated by GCR. The alteration of the near tropopause temperature (by O3 variations at these levels) changes the amount of water vapour in the driest part of the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere (UTLS), influencing in such a way on the radiation balance of the planet. This forcing on the climatic parameters is non-uniformly distributed over the globe, due to the heterogeneous geomagnetic field controlling energetic particles entering the Earth’s atmosphere.”
http://journals.uran.ua/geofizicheskiy/article/view/111146
Influence of geomagnetic activity on mesopause temperature over Yakutia
Galina Gavrilyeva and Petr Ammosov
Yu. G. Shafer Institute for Cosmophysical Research and Aeronomy SB RAS, 677098, Yakutsk, Russian Federation
Received: 13 Jun 2017 – Discussion started: 04 Oct 2017 – Revised: 29 Jan 2018 – Accepted: 31 Jan 2018 – Published: 08 Mar 2018
Abstract. The long-term temperature changes of the mesopause region at the hydroxyl molecule OH (6-2) nighttime height and its connection with the geomagnetic activity during the 23rd and beginning of the 24th solar cycles are presented. Measurements were conducted with an infrared digital spectrograph at the Maimaga station (63°N, 129.5°E). The hydroxyl rotational temperature (TOH) is assumed to be equal to the neutral atmosphere temperature at the altitude of ∼ 87km. The average temperatures obtained for the period 1999 to 2015 are considered. The season of observations starts at the beginning of August and lasts until the middle of May. The maximum of the seasonally averaged temperatures is delayed by 2 years relative to the maximum of the solar radio emission flux (wavelength of 10.7cm), and correlates with a change in geomagnetic activity (Ap index). Temperature grouping in accordance with the geomagnetic activity level showed that in years with high activity (Ap>8), the mesopause temperature from October to February is about 10K higher than in years with low activity (Ap<=8). Cross-correlation analysis showed no temporal shift between geomagnetic activity and temperature. The correlation coefficient is equal to 0.51 at the 95% level.
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/3363/2018/
And 2007 was going to have a BBQ summer.
I don’t think they looked back enough for analogues of what is happening.
I see the next few years being slightly cooler than expected. But obviously it all depends on expectations.
Your graph also shows how grossly HadCRU has cooled the 1998 Super El Nino.
I thought the graph in Fig.1 published in the journal Nature Communications looks very familiar, but the authors failed to realise that the ‘residual’ is correlated to the ‘LOD’.
I posted same graph on WUWT (December 26, 2015 12:16 pm)
Here it is again: http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/Lod-CrT4.gif
( regretfully my old website was closed down by the operator; in any of the old internet links replace talktalk.net part with co.uk)
Anomalous Anthropogenic Global Warming
or
Exceptional Anthropogenic Global Warming
To think this all started with Global Cooling and reached its climax with Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. Chaos. I wonder what the uncharacterized or unwieldy factors may be for this change of heart.
Really now.
They look through the outputs of models to find situations that are comparable to the real world, then assume that whatever the models say will happen in the near future, will happen in the real world.
“The findings suggest it’s more likely we’ll get warmer years than expected in the next few years.”
The models that they are using for their inputs have all been tuned to assume that we will warm as CO2 goes up.
So is it a surprise that a new model that uses these existing models as it’s input, will find that we are going to warm in the next few years????
Maybe this has been prominently mentioned in another thread before, but a BIG problem with all these alarmists predictions, prognostications, modelings, and lies is accountability – there isn’t any. Somehow we need to hold people that make these wild claims to account. If only we had a wager system, some way to weight the claim. They put $X behind their claims, and anyone can take a bet against their claim up to the $X. If the claimant is not willing to wager $$$, then it is rightly assumed their claim is specious – no veracity. Of course a BIG problem with my wager idea is that some of the claims are for decades out when we’d all be dead. To me – those kinds of claims are automatically specious, and therefore should have no relevance to society. But this thread’s topic, “…next few years…”, is viable for wagering. So, put up, or shut up. 🙂
Dear Clay,
You are under the wrong impression. They make the predictions, they control the data. You’d loose no matter what.
Freedom of the Press can also be interpreted as freedom from fact checking, freedom from reality, and freedom from bias assessment.
You heard it here, first, stock up on snow tires, cold weather gear, and hot chocolate. If Al Gore shows up, bring a heavy coat.
EDIT – This is the perfect sort of report, so dumb it’ll be forgotten, so if true, they can point to it and say “See? Told ya”. And if not, it will never be mentioned.
I look at real factors I say layer the coats on and consider a backup generator. An unreliable grid combined with wrong way prediction can kill.
Tossing a coin the academic way just takes a lot more coin.
GIGO.
And if it is not GI?
Then it can still be GO. Then it’s the model that is garbage.
Where is the evidence it is not GI?
All the data shows that it is GI.
Well I, for one am gobsmacked that Warmist “scientists” have “discovered” a new, “better” model, based on the same, failed CO2 “forcing” idiocy, predicted more warming, and oh, of course, the obligatory “it’s worse than we thought” meme gets included, no extra charge.
I do hope this study is right. Warmer is better. I hardly ever enjoyed a warm summer more than this one. Even with temperatures close to 40° C, I got along well. Adaptation, you know…
I am so glad they forecasted the warmth because the exact opposite is going to happen. In the meantime overall sea surface temperatures keep treding down and so to will the global temperatures. This year being the transitional year to cooling.
Very low solar equates to lover overall sea surface temperatures and a slight increase in albedo due to an increase in global cloud /snow coverage and major explosive volcanic activity.
What a wrong article. 100% wrong! Their cluelessness shines through.
“could be” anomalously warm
So they don’t really know.
Has anybody pointed out to these clowns that the Sun has gone into a minimum?
Somebody should let them know.
Swe
We have here a short term prediction which can be checked out quite soon!
Yes, a welcome change from Thermaggedon in AD 2100.
Hmm, must mean that a new round of “adjustments” are coming !! LOL
The whole purpose of these “predictions” is to keep the charade going, even if for just a short while. The short-term value of these “predictions” outweighs any possible consequences of being proved wrong in the future. They know that humans memories and attention spans are short. Oh look, squirrel!
Keep in mind this “prediction” is actually a probability distribution. Therefore, there is some probability of cooling. As a result the “prediction” can never be wrong.
The benefit of this approach is that media can claim *scientists* are predicting warming when they really didn’t and the scientists can always say they got it right no matter what happens. The model just needs some tweaking to be even more accurate. More money please.
Garbage studies like this are not even worth commenting on.
I thought they learned their lesson and stopped making shorter predictions , this will be fun to track
Just another forecast that if it doesn’t go right, no one will bring it up, Hotter than expected? Does that mean you expect it to be that which means if you expect it, it cant be not expected. In addition… could be? could be cool too. By the way “could be” is not a forecast, A forecast predicts what will happen in an assertive way, with a metric that can be defined. Could be is not a forecast
But aren’t all forecast like that now, probabilities, so they can never be wrong?
Even if it isn’t warmer, they will adjust the figures until they are.
I have been forecasting lower overall sea surface temperatures for well over a year now.
It is funny when a prediction is wrong you hear from everyone when one is right there is silence.
with a title like that, how could Nature NOT publish it?
Yep, key word choice in the title was the most critical part of the effort.
What else could it be except warmer? It’s settled science! As if they have to tell us. But what if it isn’t? Well then little absent minded troll, we’ll just have to fix that. It just might be the hottest year EVER!!
The BBC tend to get punished when they try to forecast weather / climate a few years out.
‘Researchers have developed a mathematical model to predict how average global surface air temperatures will vary over the next few years.’
Weather predictions. 2018 to 2022 is too short a time period to be climate.
Predicting weather 4 years out is preposterous.
The paper was received back in January. The model includes 2018 as part of the prediction. Doesn’t look like they are doing to well. CFSR has shown a fair amount of cooling this year.
Looks like they may be hoping for an El Nino and that is not looking good either.
Certainly not during the winter in the southern hemisphere.
With all the warming predicted here short term and long term, the BBC might as well go ahead and advocate for a ban on fossil fuel home heating systems in new and existing homes. Let’s see them put some skin in the game.
What could possibly go wrong?
It sounds like their method uses data from models that have been wrong. Predictions based on wrong data and wrong models at the very least cannot be trusted. Garbage in, garbage out.
“Predictions based on wrong data and wrong models at the very least cannot be trusted.”
Maybe they are using the theory that two wrongs make a right… wrong data + wrong models = right answer (/sarc)
‘may be ‘ heads you lose , tails I win’ , is there any job has easy as climate ‘science ‘ where you can never be wrong and only be ‘right ‘ no matter what you do or say ?
In other news, researchers have looked for patterns in old game simulations, like Pong, space invaders and concluded that that the next successful blockbuster game will be Super Mario Pong Kong Elite tetris civ
For the statistical model to have found a basis for possible warming over the next 4 years in the past records of comparable (analogous) climate patterns would mean the coming predicted warming is not different than past warming periods, likely pre-1950. The analogous period would have to be 1938-1942 as my guess. And the IPCC clearly indicates its “consensus” that slowly rising CO2 levels were not high enough pre-1950 to be of consequence.
Thus, “Anthropogenic CO2 not required” is the message they do want to acknowledge.
CO2 levels were high enough in 1958 to make a difference at 10%. and 1993 at 25%… .. the trip from 10% to 25% was never interrupted by any downturns in the co2 that was accumulating the the atmosphere. It should have been warm and getting warmer from 1958 on wards.
And any amount of co2 should have been steadily warmer weather/climate… there is a feed back system according to the IPCC.
Hmmm, more wild ass guesses. My wild ass guess is that in a few years they’ll either: 1) drop all reference to this ‘new’ model, or 2) they’ll say they just need to make a few “tweaks” to the model, or the data record.
tweaking the data record will be in the interest of science. It has to match the models.
“… method to search through simulations of climatic conditions…”
I might give the study more credibility if they’d searched for past observation of conditions like present, and then made predictions based on what followed in fact.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/dec/23/global-warming-intensify-droughts
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/02/23/global-warming-changing-weather-in-the-us-northeast/
Oh. Hum.
Winter in the UK is going to be cold.
“people just wont know what a good prediction is…”
Keep plenty of screenshots and other copies of this bit of magical thinking.
The chances of this being accurate are close yo nil.
When the prediction fails, and the authors pretend they never made the prediction, confront them.
Notice that like basically all climate predictions, they waited until something happens – a heatwave- and then predict more of it.
Just like those predictions of more hurricanes after the 2005 season.
And how did that turn out?
Huh…OK, I am not sure where I am on this report.
I am perfectly willing to believe that one could predict (in general with a higher than random probability) hot and cool summers up to a few years out. Unfortunately without an actual stated temperature of the areas you are predicting, you will tend to claim victory if ANY place is hotter…so not useful.
Using climate model predictions that were tuned to manipulated historic data for your “analogs” means you have tied your new model into historic data in a very non-obvious, complex way that will defy understanding…so not useful.
You are still tying your new model into the belief that CO2 controls everything instead of letting it tell you what mattered…so not useful.
You have not differentiated your prediction from that of the Null Hypothesis (where CO2 is NOT the controlling factor) because most everyone agrees there is natural warming occurring. If natural warming produces a warm summer, you declare victory – even though your hypothesis is still not tested. So…yup…not useful.
Its a good idea…train a computer model to recognize patterns from historical data and predict the next one or two years out, but the implementation is…well…not useful. 😉
Am expecting the snow cover to set in early this year over NE Canada and NW Russia.
Increased jet stream activity in the Arctic is going to lead to the risk of early season cold in these areas.
June was strangely hot in Oklahoma but August has been 15-20 degrees cooler than usual. Very strange. Could this portend a very cold winter? Or just an early mild winter?
“Once the algorithm is “learned” (a process which takes a few minutes), predictions are obtained in a few hundredths of a second on a laptop. In comparison, supercomputers require a week using traditional simulation methods.”
This passes for science these days? We are doomed! Well, at least we are at the start of the predicted period, 2018. 2022 is not far away. No wait, was the laptop running Windows 7 by any chance? If so, 2022 is the end of the world for Windows 7 users.
We’re DOOOOOOOOOMED!
‘The next few years could be “anomalously warm”, according to a new study …’.
Creating expectations in the general population is a propaganda technique in this case the BBC audience, the purpose of the report is simply to reinforce an accepted narrative whatever the outcome:
“The propagandist seeks to change the way people understand an issue or situation for the purpose of changing their actions and expectations in ways that are desirable to the interest group …” (Wiki).
CLIMATE SCIENCE MUST BE DESTROYED BEFORE IT DESTROYS ALL OF SCIENCE. In the future I will be like CATO denouncing the Carthaginians. The difference is that the Carthaginians were no more evil than the Romans. However Climate science was born of evil whereas science itself is the search for the truth. Meteorology is the study of the weather. We wlll always need it. However since we can’t ever know the future of climate as even admitted by the IPCC, we have no need of trying to forecast it. 40 years of trying has evolved into the evil of alarmism that you see today.
**************************************************************************************************
CLIMATE SCIENCE MUST BE DESTROYED
“Researchers have developed a mathematical model to predict…” is code for “Caution–Unmitigated Nonsense Ahead!”
“Researchers have developed a mathematical model to predict…” is code for “Caution–Nonsense Ahead!”
“…This will temporarily reinforce the long-term global warming trend…”
Why does it need reinforcement, and why would this reinforcement only by temporary?
“We put that data in dozens of different climate models and ignore the ones that look wrong to us.”
(Dilbert- Scott Adams).
Excellent. So now they won’t need all those expensive computers anymore.
From the article: “the anomalous warmth predicted over the next few years is due to a low probability of intense cold climatic events”
And from the abstract: The coming warm period is associated with an increased likelihood of intense to extreme temperatures”
Something wrong there
“The post-1998 global warming hiatus is well predicted.”
Predicted? I don’t think they know what that word means.
I will not even bother to read about yet another model. Look up.
Mainstream media lick their lips at a story like this. In NZ it has been in both major news paper networks and the Government financed National Radio. Its exactly what I like to see. Give them plenty of rope and they will hang themselves – sooner or later. In this case it could be sooner.
Regards
M
The climate will get so bad in Nuh Zilund that the PM may consider moving The Beehive, and Govn’t, to Melbourne!
It seems that summer ends in the UK.
Heads hotter Tails cooler?
In particular, the anomalous warmth predicted over the next few years is due to a low probability of intense cold climatic events.
The physical reason for the general lack of intense cold events during the solar minimum years and early rising phase of the following cycle is TSI is either very flat or is increasing then without large enough sunspots for TSI to drop again below solar minimum levels.
Each solar cycle since 1960 has had about a total 0.6C swing in monthly HadSST3 data. SC24 is shown below in yearly data. HadSST3 rose about 0.3C between the solar min and four years later. If SST3 ends at this solar minimum around 0.3-0.4C, and then the next cycle were to also add another 0.3C over the next four years, 2022 temps would exceed the 2016 yearly record. The top of SC25 will definitely see record monthly temperatures again unless the next solar max sunspot number is very very low.
During their 4 year forecast window we will see another solar cycle onset El Nino, as we did in 2009/10, and then the climb to the solar max after the La Nina. In the fourth year after the last solar minimum, 2012, TSI was above the ocean warming threshold, making it a hot year, esp the second half.
2018-2022 summer land temperatures will continue to be high from drier skies high UV index conditions brought about by solar minimum low TSI low tropical evaporation.
That the authors used a probabilistic statistical method without understanding the solar influence is purely curve-fitting that can be done with enough data and a neural net. They can be right without knowing why.
Every bit of this is determined by solar cycles, which is why I have warned skeptics this year against overblown solar cooling predictions, and about being ready for SC25 warming.
“They have skilfully used worldwide climate model data for previous years to calculate probabilities for the next few years.”
Computer models? Skillful? Yeah right!
“They have skilfully used worldwide climate model data for previous years to calculate probabilities for the next few years.”
Why does the use of the word “skilfully” ring some kind of alarm bell?
UK media has (of course) gone ga-ga for this latest climate tittle-tattle despite it not being worth the paper it’s printed on. We’ve had 5 years of drab cold and lousy summers which the UK Met Office pronounced was the new normal. Incredibly nobody at the UKMO predicted this would be a scorching summer. Imagine my surprise.
These people are demonstrating the same predictive powers as a blind monkey chucking chicken giblets in a dish and dancing around a camp fire naked at midnight before ‘predicting’ this weekends lotto numbers, except they’re getting paid more than the monkey.
“developed a statistical method to search through simulations of climatic conditions”
Pure hocus pocus. Like people sho look at the shape of share value charts and predict future share value movement, while ignoring economic fundamentals, this is nothing but witch craft and superstition.
Gee i tell you what the last 3 years have seen great snow conditions here in OZ. This year the best for about 20 years I reckon?
I “liked” this for the laugh
last time they said that BBQ summer?-it was really cold n wet;-)
This is a completely invalid technique. Lets match weather maps from the past to today. Can you find an identical map? The answer is no, unless you choose a very small area, which clearly is uselss as weather and climate are not local phenomena! Matching simulations (which are really just weather maps) is equally invalid. Try matching maps on a series of days to predict the future and you will find that he entire technique doesn’t work! Surely they tried this before publishing? As I understand it they are effectively matching computer model outputs, but as these only indicate a few parameters at intervals they must be completely meaningless by my analysis above.
Let’s see….
A new El Niño cycle is developing, ergo, global temps will rise a little for about 2 years, until ireplaced by a subsequent La Niña cycle seating in in about 3~4 years…
How do I collect my $3 million for figuring this out?….
I do not think global temperatures will be rising. Look at the overall sea surface temperature trend.
But, if a butterfly flaps it’s wings next to my car, we’re may have “hellish” winters during the summer. (Have to get that weasel word in there)
“Worse than we thought”
doesn’t scare anyone.
Here’s what I recommend:
“Scientists say the future climate will be
ten times worse than the most pessimistic
forecast made last year — a forecast made by scientist
Mortimer Snerdly, PhD, whose dismal forecast
was severely mocked by Donald Trump and his
science denier cult !”
“They have skilfully used worldwide climate model data for previous years to calculate probabilities for the next few years.” Does that mean they used the input data for the climate models or output data from the models? Regardless they are using climate models to feed their models.
I wonder what odds Vegas has on this happening?
I bought some bathroom fittings which failed miserably to meet their specification and as a result crossed them off the list as possible suppliers for future products. Climate scientists had a product called global warming based on average temperatures which was going to deliver doom about a year ago now. While this was not a product I wished for it nevertheless was a total failure as a product and I see no reason I should buy into their current product which like the previous one does not stand up to any scrutiny.
In fact it is even more dubious in that if the warming is regional then average figures are totally meaningless as a shift in the location of hotter areas rather than any actual change can result in huge differences in the average.
To me the BBC has become a trendy lefty politically driven organisation worthy of nothing but utter contempt which I bitterly resent being threatened into funding by a long prison term when they are not even remotely held to their impartiality obligations.
Why should we believe this model to be any more accurate than all of the failed models from the past 30 years? The answer is this one will be just as inaccurate as all the rest
What is the probability of the BBC running news coverage of a model predicting cooling in the next few years based on long-term, natural climate (ocean) cycles turning down?
Under the random walk assumption the next summers in the UK should have an above average temperatures and weather in my experience is pretty random.
Could be a good approach, however it must fail having only the earth + athmosphere inside the observed boundary. The sun as the main „actuator“ (the radiation energy hitting the earth in one hour is equivalent to the worldwide energy consumed by humans a year!) should be included in the system. You will always get the wrong answer if you ask the wrong question…
Somebody forgot the Sun. The solar activity is low now and will become even weaker the nearest years. Consequently the cosmic radiation increases and as a result of that the global cloud formation will increase. A cold sun and more clouds makes more shade and a dampening effect on global temperatures. The future years are more likely colder than warmer on this planet, and there is nothing we can do about it… just adapt…