Tuesday
Jan082013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Today on Met Office models
Jan 8, 2013 For anyone who missed it, here is the Today programme on the new revision to the Met Office temperature projections. I gather there was an earlier segment on the same subject, but I haven't been able to find it yet.
Update on Jan 8, 2013 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
David Shukman's article on the subject is here.
Update on Jan 8, 2013 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
Paul Hudson's take is here:
The new projection, if correct, would mean there will have been little additional warming for two decades despite rising greenhouse gases.
It's bound to raise questions about the robustness and reliability of computer simulations that governments around the world are using in order to determine policies aimed at combating global warming.
Update on Jan 8, 2013 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
Tom Clarke here.
Reader Comments (61)
Speaking of models, see Tuesday 19:44 update here...
http://www.theweatheroutlook.com/twoother/latest.aspx
I just arrived from the US. The very first thing I see on TV is today's 10 o'clock news, on which one Mr Shukman is quoted as saying, with regard to Global Warming, that " ...natural factors may get in the way...". Of what?, I ask myself (not answered by Mr Shukman).
James Evans (5:53 PM): "All of the articles above go with the "20% lower rise" idea. I assume they must all have been fed that by the MO."
While both Shukman and Clarke use the 20% figure, it doesn't appear in the MO release on the subject. So I think it's just laziness on the part of the authors. [One could make it out to be even smaller by comparing absolute temperatures: the average is now projected to be 288.43 K rather than 288.54 K, a reduction of only 0.04%. ;-) ]
I agree with you that the actual reduction in estimates of temperature rise over the next 5 years is about two-thirds. I posted such in the "Archers" thread, though, and didn't notice your posts until now.
Going back to the MSM coverage, Clarke writes, "Their [MO's] 2011 estimate [...] was an increase of 0.54 degrees centigrade. [...] The new estimate puts the figure at 0.43 degrees [...] Slightly more than 0.1 of a degree is hardly a shocking down-revision of the numbers." Which is an interesting take on the revision: 0.1 of a degree, over a five-year period, comes to 0.2 degree per decade. Not so minor when put that way; it's comparable to many estimates of long-term warming potential rates. Pretty much any short-term prediction is going to have numbers which, in and of themselves, are small.
Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, writing in 2009
'The earth is no longer threatened by the catastrophic global warming forecast by some scientists; warming passed its peak in 1998-2005, while the value of the TSI by July - September of last year had already declined by 0.47 W/m2.
For several years until the beginning in 2013 of a steady temperature drop, in a phase of instability, temperature will oscillate around the maximum that has been reached, without further substantial rise. Changes in climatic conditions will occur unevenly, depending on latitude. A temperature decrease in the smallest degree would affect the equatorial regions and strongly influence the temperate climate zones. The changes will have very serious consequences, and it is necessary to begin preparations even now, since there is practically no time in reserve. The global temperature of the Earth has begun its decrease without limitations on the volume of greenhouse gas emissions by industrially developed countries; therefore the implementation of the Kyoto protocol aimed to rescue the planet from the greenhouse effect should be put off at least 150 years.'
http://climaterealists.com/?id=4254
Every time there's a piece of evidence that doesn't fit the models, they laboriously go back and tweak the models so that it does fit.
This is called modelling the noise rather than the signal, and is one of the most basically wrong (and worst) ways of constructing models.
Would it be correct to say that, if the warming caused by increased CO2 has been cancelled out by some unspecified, unconnected phenomena, our failure to curb CO2 emissions has saved us from significant cooling?
Alternatively, the warming caused by CO2 has triggered the sort of negative feedback postulated by Richard Lindzen, in which case there is nothing to worry about.
Further to his performance during the day David Shukman was on News at Ten last night. It was a painful experience. Despite the graphics behind him stating 2017 he spoke about 2015. He did mention the increase of 0.43 against an average temp but failed to say what it was(ie 1971-2000). More importantly he failed to mention that 0.43 with its error bars is little or no different from 1997/1998 and the intervening years, hence the fact that there is no statistically significant warming for 20 years. He then tried to wriggle out by saying global warming was a long term issue.
It was a pathetic performance and the look in his eyes and his body language suggested he didn't want to be there.
Geoff
I see another theme developing from Chris Rapley, who seems to be trying to redefine warming as 'energy balance'..
"Global mean temperatures - whether measured or predicted - are not the issue. What matters is the energy balance of the planet.."
Difficult when that energy comes from the sun, though, surely?
It's bound to raise questions about the robustness and reliability of computer simulations that governments around the world are using in order to determine policies aimed at combating global warming.
I thought that only deniers raised questions about the robustness and reliability of those computer simulations. Is the climate in league with the deniers?
I see another theme developing from Chris Rapley, who seems to be trying to redefine warming as 'energy balance'..
"Global mean temperatures - whether measured or predicted - are not the issue. What matters is the energy balance of the planet.."
He goes on
"90% of the energy imbalance enters the ocean and is not visible to the global mean surface temperature value."
So we have the travesty of Trenberth's "missing heat" again. All that heat going into the oceans, yet not being seen by satellites or Argo. Really?
and it gets worse:
"Even if the global mean temperature were to remain unchanged, if the geographic patterns of temperature and rainfall change, the consequences will still be potentially severe. We only need to look at what is going on in Australia at this very moment."
He must know this is total bollocks. If the temperatures remain the same, then climate will remain largely the same. How can we have an earth with the same temperatures and different weather?
Why can't he just be honest and say: 'it'll start warming again soon, mark my words. We humans are despoiling our environment and Gaia will pay us back – I can feel it in my heart, and my heart is never wrong.'
The thing that gets me about the Met Office revised forecast is that I can't figure out what the natural weather phenomena that cools the planet but only lasts five years is. I haven't seen any journalist ask what the phenomena is and it seems an obvious question to ask.
Anyone got any ideas? Or do you think they are just making it up as they go along?