Sunday
Sep152013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Another climate splash in the Mail on Sunday
Sep 15, 2013 Climate: Models Climate: Sceptics Climate: Surface David Rose has a big splash in the Mail on Sunday, covering a leaked version of the Summary for Policymakers, Nic Lewis's report on the Met Office model and taking a well-aimed potshot at Bob Ward to boot.
They recognise the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.
Update on Sep 15, 2013 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
The Met Office has issued a holding response to the Mail article. Significantly, no mention is made of Nic Lewis's criticisms of their model.
Reader Comments (177)
EM, it was not an insult (I do think you are a bluffer, but that is just a personal opinion),
I could say "Hallelujah, Brother", but I think your statement unfortunately is not a Paul on the road to Damascus moment.
I leave your above quote to say everything that needs to be said,
Natural variation"reported first in the daily mail"???
In my submission to the House of Commons Climategate enquiry I spent quite a bit of time explaining how the climate signal could not be distinguished from natural variation.
"Here is a recent article by Naomi Klein where the realisation is dawning that the greens have been completely stuffed."
As I said last Nov/Dec ... Kyoto was the end of this scam ... but it would take the green groups some time during 2013 to finally realised that they had been stuffed.
Gordon Brown attacks 'flat-earth' climate change sceptics
Stuck-Record: "The MO can't change. Logic will have no effect on the true believers,"
That's rubbish. If you want to find true believers go to Wikipedia ... it's like a ghost town on the global warming articles.
The "true believers" have found they believe in other things.
Sep 15, 2013 at 5:35 PM | Unregistered Commenterentropic man
Uh? None of what you write addresses what I wrote, does it? Aahjhh. Forget it. I've had more fun banging my head against a brick wall. None so blind...
Entropy: one meaning is A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message alternatively a measure of the efficiency of a system, such as a code or language, in transmitting information
according to thefreedictionary
Entropic Man
One must give you credit for at least trying to be civil and explain your position but you must see that something is very wrong with this whole climate science debate? You must do surely?
In any event why wouldn't you feel the need to jump equally hard on signs that matters are not as dire as predicted? Don't you get any sense of hope that severe doubts are creeping in?
I used to feel as you do but became extremely wary of the "green" movement some years ago now and saw it as a simple battle of ideologies.
Sep 15, 2013 at 5:52 PM | HaroldW
Thank you for taking the trouble to provide a new view (to me) of an ancient procedure. It is a way of looking at the problem that I was not aware of before, despite having done umpteen LS fits. I had assumed that you were referring to weighting the terms in the sum of the squared errors (y-y_i), which is why I questioned it.
As far as I can see the conclusion in your third paragraph, the influence of y_i on the slope being proportional to (x_i-xbar), will hold whether or not the data are equispaced.
I’ll look at the rest of your reply, but it is a bit late to plod through any more algebra tonight ...
I agree with the comments of entropic man at Sep 15, 2013 at 1:49 PM that David Rose's first point, and indeed the actual headline, is a strawman.
David Rose wrote:
But the AR4 WG1 SPM actually said:
So the actual AR4 number for warming since 1951 was 0.13°C per decade, NOT “0.2C every decade” as David Rose claims.
The headline of "Global warming is just HALF what we said" is therefore based on a misrepresentation of what was written in AR4.
If the IPCC deserves to commended for any single achievement it is this: That willing or no, it issued a semi-quantifiable number by which the alarm over global warming could be assessed and ignored. This number of 0.2 Celsius per decade (or 2.0 Celsius per century, depending on who you ask) represents the line in the sand at which the IPCC becomes redundant by its own definition.
It is the gentle temperature rise that means everyone can go somewhere else and do something more important instead. No wonder it is being defended like a polecat.
For further IPCC reports, it would be rather necessary to implement suggestions made by the Inter Academy panel after climate gate, which includes
- avoiding conflict of interest (no authors from big Green, insurance compnanies, etc,...no private busisness interests,.. no author writing about or reviewong his own work,..)
- no grey literature
- presentation of dissenting views
Therefore it is rather disturbing to see Schellnhuber and others now suggesting not to continue with these reports.
In effect this would mean that AR5 will be an authoritve report for many years to come, even if new research further disproves many or most of its results.
With thousand of papers published each year, and many so called research centers set up around the world totally dependant upon climate alarm, there will always be someone supporting AR5 views in the future and there will be no authorative panel around to disqualify such practise.
Just posted this comment at the Met Office News Blog.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem to have made an untrue statement in “there is no scientific evidence to support this claim”.
Mr. Lewis actually did support his claim with scientific evidence, which includes most recent peer reviewed, high profile, top journal scientific papers and observational data.
Even if you may present scientific evidence to support your climate models, this does not make Mr. Lewis statement “unscientific”.
Sep 15, 2013 at 7:09 PM | Martin A
I think your second point disproves the premise in your first point. The Met Office's principle product is not "propaganda", it's science. Science should be critiqued and discussed in order for it to progress.
Nic Lewis is not an "enemy" - he's commented on a Met Office publication, backing up his comments with reasoned argument, and he deserves a response. This is the normal process of science - accept criticism of your work, reflect on it, and either defend or revise as appropriate according to the evidence.
Richard Betts is obviously soul searching over the Met Office model programmed to run too hot. No, he's not, he's over at Judy's pawing over the apples and oranges in the basket of Rose's.
==============================
Entropic Man doesn't have a position. He is a member of an anti science cult that has jumped like a flea on the back of the biggest scientific fraud in history. A fraud perpetrated not by scientists, but by politicians and journalists. Scientists are little robo drones who keep their mouths shut.
Dang, it's always an error to comment before reading through the whole thread. He's here, too, and lays his soul bare.
=====================
C'mon chaps. keep it civil!
It's good to see the Met Office 'holding' reply to Nic, and I'll look forward to their full response. It's obviously not a thing they have an off-the-shelf answer to, and so hopefully we'll all learn something.
It's also really interesting to see the degree of detail being argued against David Rose's article. Why, I find myself asking, is the same attention to detail not directed at Geoffrey Lean's output, or the Guardians's? (Well, it is by sceptics, but why not the upholders of the AGW flame? Is absolute correctness only demanded of one side?)
I think DR is playing them at their own game here, and the immortal words of Corporal Jones ring loud.
EM
If AGW is causing the droughts in the southwest of the USA, what caused them 500 years ago?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/drought/drght_500years.html
or even further back
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/drought/drght_2000years.html
Even the Boulder floods aren't as bad as made out in the recent history let alone the paleohistoric context. Look up the Pueblo flood of 1921 or the Big Thompson one of 1976
http://coloradovirtuallibrary.org/blog/pueblo-flood-1921-0
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2013/09/against-100-year-flood.html#comment-form
If it is natural variations, why is this time any different? And don't refer to models, use actual data (preferably peer reviewed like Roger's paper was).
jones, eSmiff
I've been following this for 40 years, since the nuclear winter concerns in the 1970s which first prompted serious investigation of climate. I'm not a climate scientist by profession, but do have scientific training and broad reading in science. My own position is fairly centreline IPCC. I see an oncoming serous problem for our civilization, but not the immediate doom that the more extreme Greens try to promote.
I see good quality evidence for the warming effect of CO2 from various sources; laboratory spectra, radiation physics, atmosphere and satellite sensors. I see the evidence that climate is changing as one would expect from this. I understand the limits of all that data and its interpretation, and regard the AGW case as successfully made.
I am anti pseudoscience. This is the sort of guff which appears regularly on spin-sceptic sites like this one in the guise of science, but whose contribution to the debate is negativity or propoganda at best, rudeness, ad hominems, etc at worst.
David Rose's articles are in this vein. Even a retiree like myself spotted its main flaw immediately. Unfortunately many here have accepted it with uncritical enthusiasm.
Richard, re your comment above, at 11:24 PM: Just as I said on Twitter: Your ellipsis above is stringing up two adjacent paragraphs that refer to two different things in Rose's article. Rose's 0.2 C/decade sentence refers to a 0.2C claim, made by the IPCC - I've seen it with my own eyes. Your quoted 0.13C refers to temperatures already observed, and at no point does Rose make a statement contradicting this. Indeed the second of the two paragraphs you so join, refers to a passage in a document none have seen (but you and Rose of course) and so are unable to comment at this point.
I read this article after the hype is kind of coming down, as I always do. It does not 'mislead' me. Perhaps that's because I've gotten incredibly sophisticated at reading alarmist material from journalists who use every little uncertainty and hedging in official documents to bend things their way.
Please take that civilization off our shoulders. You'll find it easier to breathe.
James Lovelock's excoriating view of the lying, dumb, little oinks who do modern climate science.
on CRU scientists
I was utterly disgusted. My second thought was that it was inevitable. It was bound to happen. Science, not so very long ago, pre-1960s, was largely vocational. Back when I was young, I didn't want to do anything else other than be a scientist.They're not like that nowadays. They don't give a damn. They go to these massive, mass-produced universities and churn them out. They say: "Science is a good career. You can get a job for life doing government work." That's no way to do science.
I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done
on computer models
I remember when the Americans sent up a satellite to measure ozone and it started saying that a hole was developing over the South Pole. But the damn fool scientists were so mad on the models that they said the satellite must have a fault. We tend to now get carried away by our giant computer models. But they're not complete models.
They're based more or less entirely on geophysics. They don't take into account the climate of the oceans to any great extent, or the responses of the living stuff on the planet. So I don't see how they can accurately predict the climate.
on predicting temperatures
If you look back on climate history it sometimes took anything up to 1,000 years before a change in one of the variables kicked in and had an effect. And during those 1,000 years the temperature could have gone in the other direction to what you thought it should have done. What right have the scientists with their models to say that in 2100 the temperature will have risen by 5C?
The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they're scared stiff of the fact that they don't really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show.
We haven't got the physics worked out yet. One of the chiefs once said to me that he agreed that they should include the biology in their models, but he said they hadn't got the physics right yet and it would be five years before they do. So why on earth are the politicians spending a fortune of our money when we can least afford it on doing things to prevent events 50 years from now? They've employed scientists to tell them what they want to hear.
on scientists
Sometimes their view might be quite right, but it might also be pure propaganda. This is wrong. They should ask the scientists, but the problem is scientists won't speak. If we had some really good scientists it wouldn't be a problem, but we've got so many dumbos who just can't say anything, or who are afraid to say anything. They're not free agents.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock?
Read Ben Goldacre and others on the unspeakable fraud that is the psychotropic drug industry.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3439687/
ChrisM
Flooding is not a new phenomenon. The concept of the 100 year flood is not the most useful measure, though. It leads to errors like not expecting another big flood for 100 years, when the next one might come within a few years
Flooding behaviour would be better expressed as a frequency diagram of intensity versus frequency, from which it would be possible to estimate whether preparations for a particlar size of flood would be economic.
A frequency distribution would also allow changes due to climate change to be detected. An increase in the frequency of exceptional rainfall would show as in increase in frequency of floods of any particular size, stretching the whole distribution to the right. A decrease in severe rainfall events would show a shift to the left. Goddard published general analysis of such changes affecting drought, flooding or temperatures as a guide to analysing changes in the occurance of extreme weather events.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_17/
I do not know if Colorado have such analysis for the Boulder region, or the US for the present drought.
entropic man
Others of your ilk are not interested in science. They have accepted an article of faith that human beings are damaging the planet and are jumping on this bandwagon. What do you think of the naomi Klein article ? The double whammy is that the oil industry is going to put the Greens out of business and wash their hands of the whole thing.
Entropic man. Just another little warm-monger in denial.
EM,
Yes, I've seen some rudeness and ad hominen drivel, particularly from ex Omagh schoolteachers who think they have a scientific training because they're one page ahead of the unwashed in a GCSE text book.
Smug? Just a tad.
Humility is valuable to professional scientists - a crucial part of our training is to hedge and not make ludicrously pompous statements that are utterly unsustainable. Do tell us about the climate change that your unique insight gives you and that nobody else has with any measure whatsoever of honesty been able to quantify, and then expound about how this successfully makes the case for AGW.
Nearly two decades of observations utterly confound your claims. Nobody knows what's going on, and those who think they do are are either on the make, dishonest or simply delusional. The state of our knowledge in climate science is similar to medicine in the 1600s - feeling a bit feverish? Time for some bloodletting. Got consumption? Hmm - maybe we'll bleed you - AND then ensure you die of hypothermia first. My, you look anaemic! Maybe it's time to give blood...
EM
The link doesn't work for me. However, it is written by Hansen who on previous form, does everything by models which only have a tenuous connection to data, and he has very little credibility even among his peers.
The comment of yours I was responding to was:
"Syria, the US southwest, northern Mexico and Zambia have all experienced long-term reductions in rainfall. So far these are weather events. If they continue beyond 30 years, they become climate events by definition."
I was pointing out that for the US in particular, the droughts are already seem as climate from historical data. I included the flood situation because drought and flood often go together.
entropic man (Sep 16, 2013 at 1:03 AM), you say that you "...see good quality evidence for the warming effect of CO2 from various sources; laboratory spectra, radiation physics, atmosphere and satellite sensors. I see the evidence that climate is changing as one would expect from this". Do I take it that you're therefore a 'look warmer' (i.e. you see empirical evidence for the 'basic' greenhouse effect but are not yet convinced about the 'enhanced' greenhouse effect)?
If you are, then I can just about understand your claim that you "regard the AGW case as successfully made", within the current bounds of uncertainty. However, if you're claiming that the empirical data also confirms latter, then I really don't see how you can justify this and have to wonder about your degree of scientific understanding and detachment.
Check mate !
BREAKING: IPCC AR5 report to dial back climate sensitivity
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/14/breaking-ipcc-ar5-report-to-dial-back-climate-sensitivity/
Re Floods in Boulder:
The town is named after Boulder Creek, the waterway that brings down huge amounts of boulders as it regularly floods. That's why it's called Boulder.
Since the name itself reflects the area's historic flooding activity, it is surely hard to suggest that recent events are somehow exceptional.
Latimer
Steve Goddard is a resident of Colorado, the political postings at his place may not be to everyones taste but, he has made some interesting observations regarding the recent problems in Boulder. For instance.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/15/snow-falling-in-the-colorado-high-country/
and
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/15/boulder-flood-update/
The Met Office are in a difficult position.
They say:
"The article states that the Met Office’s ‘flagship’ model (referring to our Earth System Model known as HadGEM2-ES) is too sensitive to greenhouse gases and therefore overestimates the possible temperature changes we may see by 2100.
There is no scientific evidence to support this claim. It is indeed the case that HadGEM2-ES is among the most sensitive models used by the IPCC (something the Met Office itself has discussed in a science paper published early this year), BUT IT LIES WITHIN THE ACCEPTED RANGE OF CLIMATE SENSITIVITY HIGHLIGHTED BY THE IPCC." (my emphasis).
But according to the leaks of the draft AR5, the IPCC says when discussing models: ‘There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by unpredictable climate variability, with possible contributions from inadequacies in the solar, volcanic, and aerosol forcings used by the models and, IN SOME MODELS, FROM TOO STRONG A RESPONSE TO INCREASING GREENHOUSE-GAS FORCING.’ (my emphasis).
So the IPCC themselves are saying that some models (and the Met Office model would be included in this) have got it wrong because their programmed in Climate Sensitivity (the forcing they attribute to GHGs) is too strong.
So the Met Office's response that the forcing is within the IPCC range does not carry much weight when the IPCC are saying that the forcings used are too strong. One has to couple this with the rolling back on Climate Sensitivity. The impression from the leaked draft AR5 (by which I mean reading between the lines) is that the IPCC are inferring that Climate Sensitivity is probably within the 1.5 to 2 degC range. Of course they do not expressly say that but in my opinion that is the inference given by the various changes to the wording used in AR5 when compared with the equivalent provision in AR4 .
It will be interesting to read the Met Office's further comments, but this may well not be forthcoming before AR5 is published.
"There are also possible impacts, such as the one which looks increasingly likely to have caused the Younger Dryas."
Yes, that should be right up your line EM. An impact large enough to change global climate for a thousand years but left no tangible trace. No crater, no fallout, no iridium, no shocked quartz, no nothing.
Prof Betts turns up to argue over a point of detail, perhaps an important point but a point of detail that does not in any way refute the evidence that AGW/CAGW is all a load of over hyped tosh.
@ Entropic Man:
I know George Orwell is massively over-quoted in this sort of context, but surely you’ve just furnished us with a rather splendid example of Orwellian doublethink?
Orwell defined doublethink as “The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them”. You have maintained, paraphrasing, that
1/ models are reliable, but
2/ models are not reliable, because of stuff they can’t be expected to model.
So you have said, I think, that models are reliable except for the ways in which they’re not. That surely meets the definition? - not forgetting of course that denying your own doublethink is part of the skill of doublethink ("to apply the same process to the process itself....to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed").
It seems we have, at any rate, established a new zone of agreement with you, some way to the rear of your previous position, as follows.
- Models of the future depend for accuracy on correct inclusion of all factors;
- Nobody can know what all those are;
- None of those we do know of (energy price, source, consumption; population size; technology innovation between now and 2100AD) can be valued or estimated;
- the only useful data for climate between now and 2100AD will be the observational record in 2100AD.
The problems arise because of your addiction to doublethink. The above is, for sceptics, a case for disbanding the IPCC. For you, it’s a convincing case for deliberate fostering of fuel poverty and hence deaths among the old, sick and weak.
The grounds for debate are now around the ecofascist movement’s moral competence, no?
"It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the increase in global average surface temperature from 1951-2010."
----------------------------------------------------------------
It is virtually certain, that this statement is BS.
Sufficient to look at AR4 temperature data and uncertainty:
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/syr_fi42.jpg
Between 1951-2005, temperature increased by approx. 0.6 deg.
Temperatures dropped about 0.2 deg between 1940-1951, which may be due to the shift in PDO/AMO, but these 0.2 deg are likely recovered when both AMO and PDO turned positive again in 1976.
Which leaves at maximum of 0.4 deg of these 0.6 deg for human influence.
AND (!)
within these 0.4 deg we also have to consider uncertainty in temperature data.
How big is that ? A mere 0.2 deg would already shoot down the IPCC's selfconciousness.
Actually, the IPCC has no clue..
Their relevant paper quotes Donald Rumsfeld's famous known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns (no joke !)
"A definitive assessment of uncertainties is impossible, because it is always possible that some unknown error has contaminated the data, and no quantitative allowance can be made for such unknowns. There are, however, several known limitations in the data, and estimates of the likely effects of these limitations can be made [Rumsfeld, 2004]."
http://climateaudit.org/2007/01/30/hadcru-and-rumsfeld-2004/
http://climateaudit.org/2007/12/30/ipcc-figure-spm1/
Now, that was only a brief look at uncertainty of temperature data. Known unknowns of natural und human forcing and unknown unknowns, such as a natural warming trend since the little ice age, are to be laid on top.
And don't forget the unknown knowns. The things you think you know but actually don't. The ones, Rumsfeld did not consider.
Yes, that should be right up your line EM. An impact large enough to change global climate for a thousand years but left no tangible trace. No crater, no fallout, no iridium, no shocked quartz, no nothing.
Sep 16, 2013 at 9:11 AM | tty
There's a platinum signal in the ice cores at 12.9 milennia BP.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/07/17/1303924110
Various included minerals normally associated with impacts at a number of US sites dated 12.9 millennia BP
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16016.long
Even WUWT like the idea.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/widespread-evidence-of-cosmic-impact-documented-likely-cause-of-the-younger-dryas-cool-climate-episode/
Contrary to the low opinion of some here, I do not make scientific statements lightly.
Entropy: one meaning is A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message alternatively a measure of the efficiency of a system, such as a code or language, in transmitting information
according to thefreedictionary
Sep 15, 2013 at 10:16 PM | SandyS
Not a bad definition. In the context of a long term temperature record such as GISS, the long term trend could be regarded as the information . The short term variation is a loss of efficiency in the ttransmission of that information.
@EM "I'm not a climate scientist by profession, but do have scientific training and broad reading in science."
Just what is your scientific training and what science qualifications do you have?
DK - I think he once said he was formerly a schoolteacher of biology. EM - if I got that wrong, please correct me.
Don Keiller.
BSc and two science postgrads. How about you?
I had not realised there was a minimum matriculation required before one could discuss science here. Perhaps everyone would like to chip in with their qualificactions. I note that our host has a BSc in Chemistry but works as a Chartered Accountant.
Thanks EM. Now that you have shown me yours, I will show you mine.
M.A., (Natural Sciences) and PhD (Plant physiology) both from University of Cambridge.
Also 2 post-docs - at Leicester (photobiology) and Sheffield (mathematical modelling of photosynthesis).
Of course if you had done your homework, you woud have already known:-)
To raise the tone a bit - this is from Bjorn Lomborg.
"We should accept that there is global warming. But we should also accept that current policies are costly and have little upside. The European Union will pay $250 billion for its current climate policies each and every year for 87 years. For almost $20 trillion, temperatures by the end of the century will be reduced by a negligible 0.05ºC.
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/realism-in-the-latest-ipcc-climate-report-by-bj-rn-lomborg#Fk5ZDOPCDuk1MuAP.99
Further support for Nic Lewis can be found from Bjoern Lomborg see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/16/lomborg-climate-models-are-running-way-too-hot/#comments
Bjoern Lomborg suggests that climate models are running ~71%5 too hot when compared to thermometer records of the surface temperature, and a whopping ~159% when compared to the satellite temperature measurements.
It is difficult to see how the Met Office can seek to defend their model against the claim that it is running too hot. This is simply a fact, the issue is what is causing the model to run too hot?
MET Office making confident short term decadal predictions (note not ‘projections’) ... in 2007 (Ar4 time)
+0.3C by 2014 likely (there latest decadal forecast says completely flat.. )
http://web.archive.org/web/20080708230357/http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070810.html
Met Office - News release 10 August 2007
The forecast for 2014...
Climate scientists at the Met Office Hadley Centre will unveil the first decadal climate prediction model in a paper published on 10 August 2007 in the journal Science. The paper includes the Met Office's prediction for annual global temperature to 2014.
Over the 10-year period as a whole, climate continues to warm and 2014 is likely to be 0.3 °C warmer than 2004. At least half of the years after 2009 are predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record
These predictions are very relevant to businesses and policy-makers who will be able to respond to short-term climate change when making decisions today. The next decade is within many people's understanding and brings home the reality of a changing climate.
The new model incorporates the effects of sea surface temperatures as well as other factors such as man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, projected changes in the sun's output and the effects of previous volcanic eruptions — the first time internal and external variability have both been predicted.
Team leader, Dr Doug Smith said: "Occurrences of El Nino, for example, have a significant effect on shorter-term predictions. By including such internal variability, we have shown a substantial improvement in predictions of surface temperature." Dr Smith continues: "Observed relative cooling in the Southern Ocean and tropical Pacific over the last couple of years was correctly predicted by the new system, giving us greater confidence in the model’s performance".
Notes
Total global warming, on a decadal average, is 0.8 °C since 1900 (IPCC 2007)
1998 is the current warmest year on record with a global mean temperature of 14.54 °C
Rose's argument, as written, is indeed a strawman but the reality is actually worse! It is not the measurement of the actual rate that is important but the fact that the rate is dropping rather than increasing as we were told to expect.
But it is ironic that the Met office dare to complain about other peoples errors. Perhaps they should fix their own first. And btw they happily produce their own set of strawman arguments at every opportunity; the latest being the lie that their climate sensitivity is within the accepted range.
I'm not usually a supporter of privatisation but if they can do it to the Royal Mail then why is the Met office exempt? A dose of commercial reality might sort them out - and weed out the buffoons who try to tell us black is white.
@richard verney C'mon those duck moats arn't going to pay to clean themselves you know!
Almost all of the models, including those of the Met Office, are running hot compared with observations. The predicted and actual results have been diverging for years. There is no argument about that and it is obvious for all to see, even for most climate scientists.
It does not matter to me whether the Met Office thinks it is within or outside the IPCC range. I have no confidence in the IPCC range for the reasons given in my first paragraph. What matters to me is that the Met Office results are used by DECC to make policy and the models are obviously not fit for purpose. They are wrong. Is that straight forward enough or does the Met Office deny any of that?
"1998 is the current warmest year on record with a global mean temperature of 14.54 °C"
Sep 16, 2013 at 1:29 PM | Barry Woods
Working from the means three of the four temperature datasets put 2010 first, with 2005 second and 1998 third. The only one still showing 1998 as highest is Hadcrut3.
Hadcrt4, Hadcrut3. NCDC and GISS figures are listed at the bottom of this page.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature
In practice, all three years are within the same 95% confidence limits, so it is rather meaningless to quote any one of them as the record.
For the same reason it is difficult to know with 95% confidence what the current trend is. The confidence limits include anything from a rise of 0.1C in the last decade, through stasis to a 0.1C cooling. Anyone currently claiming they know what's happening is arguing ahead of the data. That includes both AGW proponents and sceptics.
Don Keiller.
Glad to meet another biologist. I've a BSc in biology with a PGCE and a PGCBiomedical science.
In no particular order I've been mentally totting up professions I've encountered commenting on Bishop Hill.
Climate scientist
biologist
teacher
petroleum geologist
various engineers
accountant
chemist
Civil Servant
housewife
IT
physicist
gardener
All have made useful contributions to discussion. I would hate to discriminate on the grounds of qualifications. I've met all levels. A Nobel prizewinner can be just as daft outside his speciality as the rest of us.