JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Skeptic win: UK Met Office quietly drops prediction by 20%, hopes no one notices

Joint Post: Jo Nova and James Doogue

The UK Met Office are completely impartial about global warming, and delighted that things are not going to warm as fast as they thought. So to draw attention to the good news they waited to release it on the … quietest possible news-day of the year. Oh. But remembering that they are public servants, they had to settle for the second quietest, and release it on the day before Christmas instead.

These are the people who said the science was settled, and the deniers were wrong, except that it wasn’t and they weren’t.

Unfortunately for the Met boys, the skeptics noticed (h/t Tallbloke and Richard Smith), and now, not only do they have to handle the heat of that partial reversal , now they also have to admit the cheap PR trick backfired — they were caught in a cowardly attempt to hide the news. Busted.  See Bob Tisdale here for very nice graphs.

Graph from The Australian. (Don’t blame me for the decadel’s – sic)

This has been picked up now by Daily Mail, GWPF, Delingpole, The National Post (Canada) and this weekend, The Australian.

Daily Mail

 “To put it mildly, it is a matter of enormous public interest that the Met Office has revised its predictions of global warming, whispering that new data suggest there will be none for the next five years. After all, the projection implies that by 2017, despite a colossal increase in carbon emissions, there will have been no rise in the planet’s surface temperature for almost two decades.  Why, then, did the Met Office choose to sneak out this intriguing information on Christmas Eve, knowing there would be no newspapers the next day?

The Australian

Climate results validate sceptics

Graham Lloyd,

“If the latest Met Office prediction is correct, and it accords far more closely with the observed data than previous predictions, then it will prove to be a lesson in humility,” said David Whitehouse (of the Global Warming Policy Foundation) .

“It will show that the previous predictions that were given so confidently as advice to the UK government and so unquestioningly accepted by the media, were wrong, and that the so-called sceptics who were derided for questioning them were actually on the right track.”

The National Post (Canada) compares it to the sea-change that hit economic theories in the 1970′s

“It’s like Keynesian economic models in the 1970s that kept predicting high inflation would bring down unemployment,” Prof. McKitrick said. “Eventually they were so far off reality that it was no longer a case of trying to fine tune bits that didn’t fit, economists had to admit the underlying theory was wrong and start over.”

Bjorn Lomborg talks of “humility”

“This does not mean that there is no man-made global warming,” said Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish academic and author of The Skeptical Environmentalist. “But it does mean that we perhaps should not be quite as scared as some people might have been from the mid ’70s to about 2000, when temperatures rose dramatically, because they were probably at least partially rising dramatically because of natural variation, just like they are now stalling because of natural variation.”

He called the revised prediction “a return to the humility that we probably should have had right from the start,” and a reminder that the climate is harder to predict than scientists once “naively” thought.[ The National Post]

h/t Gary Mount.

Does that mean Lomborg won’t call us “deniers” now?

Just how flat is that graph?

The UK Met Office has revised its global temperature predictions as a result of a new version of its climate model and climate simulations using it. (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc) It now believes that global temperatures  for the period 1950 t0 2017 will most likely be 0.43 deg C above the 1971 -2000 average, with an error of +/- 0.15 deg C. This will be achieved if the global average temperature remains the same as it is now. In reality this is a forecast of no increase in global temperatures above current levels, and for the 20 years to 2017. The average global temperature increase for the period 1950 – 2017 according to the UK Met office will therefore be just 0.12 deg C per Decade or 1.2 deg C per century with no indication that there is an increase in the warming rate.

Graham Lloyd The Australian

For the sceptical, the Met Office’s near-term predictions are coming home to roost. In 2007, it predicted that by 2014 the global average temperature was expected to have risen by 0.3C compared with 2004, and that half of the years after 2009 were predicted to be hotter than the current record hot year in 1998.

“Given that we have data for three of the five years of that period, and all show no departure from a constant temperature when analysed statistically, this is a prediction that will probably be totally wrong,” Whitehouse said.

“In any case, it is completely at odds with the new forecast.”

 

The Met Office excuse: but we can do long term predictions

Responding to media reports, the Met Office said “small year-to-year fluctuations such as those we are seeing in the shorter five-year predictions are expected due to natural variability in the climate system, and have no sustained impact on the long-term warming.”

Sorry boys. It won’t wash. Of course, we agree, natural variability could be countering the effect of CO2, but that’s not what you said in 2007 when you were calling us “deniers”. No one at the Met Office added the caveat that we might not have to build the sea-walls or wind farms for ten years, because temperatures might stay the same. No one at the Met Office said (publicly): the skeptics have a point, our models are as good as rune stones at Blackjack. Don’t panic yet!

Instead they said: “The science is settled”. “The models are accurate”. Which we now know wasn’t true. And that’s what matters about this episode, not the 0.02C, and not the failed predictions. What really hurts is that their PR has been so misleading. They can’t escape by acknowledging “genuine gaps in understanding” about “complex climate systems” — not when skeptics have been saying those exact things for two decades and the Met Office has just called them names.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (130 votes cast)
Skeptic win: UK Met Office quietly drops prediction by 20%, hopes no one notices, 9.1 out of 10 based on 130 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/ab9z3ck

333 comments to Skeptic win: UK Met Office quietly drops prediction by 20%, hopes no one notices

  • #
    Mark D.

    Well, could it be that science has returned to at least one small corner at the MET?

    Que Ross James and Maxine: “but but but IT’S WARRRRMING can’t you SEEEEEE??????????


    Report this

    291

    • #
      Otter

      No, I think they’ll just do the ‘call them names’ part.


      Report this

      172

      • #
        Joe V.

        Isn’t it rather a case of the Met office not wanting to get left behind, as their warming advocacy seems sillier & sillier ? While they still do credible NowCasts, based on what’s already happening not far away (& thanks to satellites), no one really takes there longer term predictions seriously.
        When the Met Office says its raining you look outside to check.
        When the Met Office says anything about 10 days hence, you think ‘whatever’ and if it matters to you you look at what Piers Corbyn is saying at Weather Action

        When you get past the first page of anti-warmist sentiment the 5 or so pages of forecast for 30 or 45 days hence are worth the effort to try and understand.
        Well laid out and divided into distinct 3or 4 day periods.


        Report this

        212

      • #
        Lank picks a horse

        Stand by for the rename…….. to “Bet” Office.


        Report this

        70

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      You will have to wait for Ross and Maxine to make an appearance. They have to await instructions from Communist Green Party Central Office.

      This will not be on their play-sheet.


      Report this

      384

  • #
    Jaymez

    Another great post thanks Jo. I am so glad you are working hard to try to keep these climate alarmists honest. But the fight seems so one-sided. They have billions of dollars in government funding and a compliant left wing media who don’t even notice when the message is changed 180 degrees right in front of them!

    I don’t know how you manage to do what is more than a full time job just on principle,(don’t you wish you were getting the fossil fuel funding they accuse you of getting), but I am glad you do. I live in hope that more and more people are gradually getting the message and realising they have been lied to and been taken for an ideological ride.

    To help keep you going a little bit longer I’ve shown my appreciation in the ‘Tip Jar’ and would urge others who can afford to do so to direct some cash your way to keep this vital site going. [The 'Tip Jar' is at the top right hand side of the page]

    Keep up the good work!


    Report this

    582

    • #
      Peter Miller

      It is now all about keeping climate scientists honest.

      And they don’t like this, they really don’t like this.

      You are not supposed to question the Holy Hansen, the godlike Gore, or the mighty Mann. The problem is that their writ is no longer law, but is being increasingly seen to be exactly what it is: unfounded, scary BS.

      “Keeping them honest” is probably not very accurate; “making them become honest” is much more accurate.


      Report this

      61

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Typo in your next to last paragraph:

    Sorry boys. It want wash.

    They may “want” it to wash but it “won’t”. ;-)

    You got ‘em again.


    Report this

    121

  • #
  • #

    This should be top media news. It doesn’t have to lead, but it should be there. The Met released the updated prediction and reporters should be running with it. They would if it was “worse than we thought”. We know why the MSM is not keen, but what’s their excuse?

    That said, hats off to the Daily Mail, GWPF, Delingpole and Graham Lloyd of The Australian. It’s good to see this getting some coverage. Thanks, too, for all you do, Jo. It’s been a long, tiring trip but we’re getting there.


    Report this

    303

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      … but what’s their excuse?

      They are, apparently, “Required to report back to Government by the end of the year, and Christmas Eve is, in reality, the last working day of the year.”

      Yeah, Right, We we believe that was the only motivation. “Move along folks, nothing to see here”.


      Report this

      231

    • #
      Ian

      Agreed and good for those that ran the story but it would be so much more, well, “scientific” if papers like the Guardian and the SMH also ran it. It was certainly after Christmas Eve that the Guardian ran Tim Flannery’s dire forecasts of extreme weather. Many of the posters to that story were nodding and agreeing and condemning the nay sayers and forecasting fire and brimstone with nary a mention of the Met Office statement or for that matter, with nary a mention of the woeful inaccuracy of Flannery’s statements on drought in Eastern Australia in 2007. David Karoly, also guilty of errors of fact on the drought in 2003, didn’t comment on the Met Office’s statement when on the ABC yesterday he was telling all and sundry the extreme weather was due to climate change. There never is acknowledgement from the “warmists” of anything that could possibly cast a little doubt on their fanatical beliefs. I use the word fanatical advisedly as the dictionary definition is “extreme uncritical enthusiasm or zeal. Of course, Maxine et al can probably describe exactly what it means better than any dictionary. I wonder if they’ll be here today?


      Report this

      171

      • #
        connolly

        I dare say Maxine is praying at the altar down at the local Church of the Latter Day Saints of Gaia – it being Sunday and all. Probably gave the dog a boot up the arse on the way out.


        Report this

        71

  • #
    John Page

    Have the Met Office said what changes they made to the model to produce these slightly changed predictions?

    They stick to their basic falsified theory, but can’t be called out if warming doesn’t restart for the next few years … as a layman did I understand right? How very convenient that their changes to the science happened to lead them to this relatively comfortable position.


    Report this

    171

  • #

    One way or another, it’s been yet another dismal year for them.

    For example, the by now famous computer models of the UK Meteorological Office (UKMO) predicted a drought for 2012 that might stretch into 2013. Suddenly hose pipe bans were declared and a lockdown of precious water in reservoirs was initiated at the start of the year. After the wettest summer, autumn and winter for years, with attendant flooding and loss of life, what few gullible people left who had any confidence in the UKMO’s predictive powers, finally decided they were totally incompetent

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/the-shape-of-things-to-come-snailbats-halsays-scarems-lewpapers-and-dickpols/

    Pointman


    Report this

    351

    • #

      Pointman is quite right. In early April I remember a reporter being taken deep down a well, to demonstrate how low the water table to recover. This was in Southern England where water is drawn from the chalk. Two weeks later it started raining and did not stop until the week before the Olympics in late July. By then the water table had recovered.
      A similar situation occurred in 1996, the last drought in England. Again it was boldly forecast that the water table would take years to recover.

      NB – “drought” in Britain is a relative term. A drought year here would be viewed as an extremely wet one in most of Australia. Also, the drought refers to England and Wales – in fact the area mostly South of Birmingham. Scotland’s rainfall has been relatively steady over the last 30 years averaging 1400-1500mm per annum.


      Report this

      261

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        I have always regretted not saving the series of headlines in the Fiji Times;

        3 days without rain – Suva faces drought. Each day adding one to the total, e.g. 6 days without rain – record drought in sight.
        The next day the headline was a 4 letter word!


        Report this

        60

    • #
      DavidH

      Great article – thanks Pointman. I loved the term “LewPapers”. But I am intrigued about “silicone chips” and would like to hear more about this new technology.


      Report this

      70

    • #
      william

      I wonder if the MET’s problem all along has been that they have been using unreliable British made computers?
      Us in the Auto Industry have known for almost a century that the Brits are no good at electrics/electronics.Joseph Lucas became well known as ‘the prince of darkness’


      Report this

      70

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        … they have been using unreliable British made computers …

        I thought British computers were made by Wallace and Grommit, and operated using bites (of cheese).

        “Some heavy computations required here lad, better fire up the Wensleydale …”


        Report this

        90

        • #

          The IBM computer is the Met Office’s chief weapon in what appears to be a losing battle with British cynicism. In its eternal quest to feed its keepers with the information they need to foretell our fiendishly changeable weather, it consumes more energy than 2,000 homes. Each of the nine nodes (the filing cabinet-sized blocks you see in the picture), weighs a ton and a half, takes up five square metres of floorspace and hosts 32 processor cores.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    john robertson

    2013 is off to a grand start for a return to sanity. However temporary.
    When will the self appointed experts by authority, admit they do not know?
    And that they were wrong to assert certainty and accuracy to such weak data as we had and have to date.
    Back to ;Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    Time to did up some John Daly emails , where he chastises the team for their incompetence.
    Maybe now politicians will listen long enough to grasp G.I.G.O.
    But I think it will be a while before we clear, Gospel Out.


    Report this

    111

  • #
  • #
    Tristan

    It looks to me like the met office are saying that its likely that 2015-16 will be the hottest years on record….Aren’t we supposed to be in the ‘cooling phase’ of the PDO?

    If this prediction comes to pass, the only things ‘busted’ will be all those PDO fits (Akasofu’s for instance) and the ‘no significant warming’ meme.

    So um, get your excuses ready.


    Report this

    332

  • #
    Otter

    I copied out the charts which Tallbloke had up at the top of his article on this, when it came out. I posted said image to the site where I post my climate arguments (linking back to Tallbloke and WUWT, of course!). I made it very clear that it was the Met CRU who had made these changes to their own predictions.

    Within minutes of posting it, I had someone stop by to tell me that ‘those charts were debunked months ago.’ And ‘you can’t work from One basis point, you need to see the global average.’

    Appalingly
    Appalingly
    APPALLINGLY STUPID.

    God help us if such people end up running the world… wait, they won’t: the Elites who have LIED to them for decades, will be ruling the world.
    The rest, will be Serfs.


    Report this

    262

    • #
      Otter

      Yeah, and my spelling is off. But I just had surgery on Thursday, so I have my excuse….


      Report this

      80

    • #
      Apoxonbothyourhouses

      Stuff the spelling its the verb you have wrong my watery friend! Not “will” be serfs, sceptics ARE the serfs and are being treated as such. Great opportunity to recast Les Miserables with Mann as Javert and Jo as Jean Valjean (well it is 2013 not 1815) and Anthony as the WUWT innkeeper. To the barricades mes amis! Fade to “Can you hear the people sing, singing the songs of angry men ……”


      Report this

      80

  • #
    Ted O'Brien

    Thanks for everything, Jo and David.

    Had David not blown the whistle when he did none of the other skeptics around the world could have succeeded against the tide of lies.

    Have no doubt that the AGW issue is wholly political, contrived to advance the cause of Marxism. i.e. abolishing all private control of industry.

    In Australia it started in 1986 when the Hawke government put their own brand of “political scientists” in charge of the real scientists at the CSIRO.

    At the time I did not know that AGW would be the vehicle, but this action was clearly intended to direct our science to the purposes of the Marxist ALP, who should never be dignified with the title of the once great Australian Labor Party.

    Hopefully the CSIRO is still generating real science, but on the climate issue they are seriously tainted by partisan management. As is any other federal government comment in Australia.


    Report this

    422

    • #
      Mark

      In Australia it started in 1986 when the Hawke government put their own brand of “political scientists” in charge of the real scientists at the CSIRO.

      Yup, oz science was Lysenkoised at that point. Too many people fail to comprehend the extent to which the ALP will go in order to politicize every instrument of public service.

      So-called “conservatives” utterly fail in yanking out these stooges. They fear the reaction of the media lefties who rally to the defence of their comrades.


      Report this

      320

    • #
      Dennis

      Carbon dioxide tax con and orders from Canberra


      Report this

      90

    • #

      Ted reckons

      Have no doubt that the AGW issue is wholly political, contrived to advance the cause of Marxism. i.e. abolishing all private control of industry.

      Wow! What can I say to something so stupid?

      Will just ask two questions:
      1. If AGW is not real why are we seeing record Arctic melts, enough to slow the Gulf stream while Antarctica is losing ice?

      2. Do you really think a 20% correction in something so noisy as weather observations is a big deal?

      Dunno where this 16 years of no warming comes from, basic lack of ability to read info I guess, just looking at isolated maxima which is not how it is done—we look at averages.

      God, the gush of relief, unwarranted relief, in this thread is something to see yet all it means a prediction has been slightly reduced.


      Report this

      01

      • #
        PeterB in Indianapolis

        Maxine,

        Currently the Arctic is 0.962 million square kilometers of ice below normal, still recovering from the August 1 through August 5, 2012 storm which broke up tons of ice and caused the record ice loss (the loss had nothing whatsoever to do with “global warming”, in early July, Arctic ice area was at precisely NORMAL for that date).

        Currently, the ANTARCTIC, which you SOMEHOW CLAIM is losing ice area, is 0.642 million square kilometers ABOVE NORMAL for total ice area. Globally, we are about 0.320 million square kilometers below normal for this date, which is within 1 standard deviation of normal, so it not at all unusual.

        Do you really think a 20% REDUCTION (not a “correction” but a REDUCTION) is a big deal? If not, you SHOULD.

        There, does that answer your 2 questions?


        Report this

        30

  • #
    Jaymez

    Funny that they didn’t manage to rush these new modelling results out for discussion at the recent 18th World Climate Conference, but perhaps those countries which either withdrew from Kyoto or declared they wouldn’t be signing Kyoto, representing about 85% of the world’s CO2 emitters already knew this?

    Also interesting that the organised pre-release leaking of the IPCC AR5 hasn’t mentioned this new downward adjustment in the forecast of global average temperatures even though the UK Met Office declared:

    “The Met Office Hadley Centre will also be contributing runs from the HadGEM2 family of models to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report planned for 2013.” http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/modelling-systems/unified-model/climate-models

    Professor David Karoly and the Climate Commission who today released a document claiming a link between the recent heat wave and bush fires in Australia and human caused climate change here, should read up on the UK Met’s report and modelling before shooting their mouths off.

    Although accuracy doesn’t seem to be a strong suit for Professor David Karoly and his climate alarmist mates. Remember he did have to embarrassingly withdraw his peer reviewed, published research paper claiming “Australasia has hottest 60 years in a millennium”. http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/gergis-hockey-stick-withdrawn-this-is-what-95-certainty-looks-like-in-climate-science/


    Report this

    231

    • #
      Hat Rack

      In conversation with a university lecturer recently, my wife & I were surprised at how busy this particular person was writing papers for publication and for presentation, both here & overseas.

      Apparently, the better known you are in your particular field = more students attracted to your lectures = more funding attracted to your faculty = job security for you. IOW, many professors are really part-time sales people whose commission is job security!

      My point is, could job security explain why “… Professor David Karoly and his climate alarmist mates …” are so keen to jump aboard any vehicle to promote whatever the latest name for man-made global warming is?


      Report this

      150

      • #
        bobl

        I don’t think so, Karoly Like Lewandowski and many other “climate scientists” is a media tart. He is an attention seeker, perhaps even with Narcissist tendencies. He just loves to see his name in lights. Job security is not it – he wants to be the white knights in shining armour riding to the rescue of the world, even if is is by burning the food of poor children.


        Report this

        30

  • #
    AndyG55

    It will be interesting to see how they react over the next few years, as the global temp starts to drop. :-)


    Report this

    143

    • #

      bwahahahahahahaha global temps start to drop! Oh man! Methane is bubbling out the Arctic ocean as methane clathrates melt and we have this sixth grader talking of cooling!


      Report this

      01

      • #
        PeterB in Indianapolis

        I can’t wait to see you eat crow as the sun enters a grand minimum and we do get 25 to 40 years of cooling. BOY are you gonna be fun to be around!


        Report this

        10

  • #
    old44

    Does this mean the Met are now deniers?


    Report this

    200

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Good question.


      Report this

      110

    • #
      MaxL

      Climate Change Deniers are those who believe that without mankind, the climate would not change.
      That’s why they say, “Humans are causing global warming”


      Report this

      121

      • #
        llew Jones

        That’s why they say, “Humans are causing global warming”

        That’s what we skeptics have been saying all along. In fact we do not blame all humans. Our postulate is that most of the human caused global warming is the work of those humans who manipulate the data.


        Report this

        120

      • #
        John Brookes

        You are so right! Historical records show that before modern man, the climate was always the same. It never changed! The ice ages are like the fossils – God put the record of them there to confuse scientists – they never really happened.

        So don’t go believing any climate scientist who goes on about Milankovich cycles, ice ages, snowball earth, or ice free earth. He/she is some sort of renegade, out of step with his fellow scammers. Climate scientists don’t actually believe in any of that. They don’t believe that volcanoes effect climate, or ENSO, or solar variability – only CO2. You could turn the sun off tomorrow, and provided we still had CO2 in the atmosphere, we wouldn’t cool down!

        I know it sounds unbelievable, but this is really what they teach them! And no one is brave enough to actually put these really obvious questions to them. “Phil Jones, do you believe that the sun provides warmth?” “James Hansen, is it true that climate was absolutely stable before humans and original sin came along?”


        Report this

        221

        • #
          Sonny

          Clap clap clap.
          Today we are 20% ahead.
          Your sarcasm sounds just a little bit like sour grapes.


          Report this

          80

        • #
          MaxL

          Ooooo now calm down John,
          Don’t go blowing a gasket just because someone touched a raw nerve.

          There are tens of thousands of eminent climate scientists out there who will happily talk about real measurable data from 6000 ice cores, 30 years of satellite data, 3000 Argo buoys, 28 million radiosondes, Milankovich cycles, volcanoes, solar variability, the water cycle, ocean currents etc.

          I think you do them a great injustice to lump them in with your loony “It’s human CO2 what does it!”, mob.


          Report this

          120

        • #
          AndyG55

          Are you expounding the XAGW point of view??? ……….. Sure sounds like it!

          If you are intending sarcasm, put the /sarc in !!! With you, its hard to tell if you are being serious or moronic. (probably the same in your case)

          “Phil Jones, do you believe that the sun provides warmth?” …………….He wouldn’t understand the question !

          “James Hansen, is it true that climate was absolutely stable before humans and original sin came along?”……….. James says…”Yes, absolutely, humans cause climate !”

          ps..what you been smoking tonight, JB ???? Funky stuff, dude !!!


          Report this

          40

        • #
          connolly

          John its over. Why put yourself through this public embarassment?


          Report this

          30

    • #
      Andrew

      Of course they are. I asked my warmist friend who the hell these “deniers” are, since I’ve never encountered a single human anywhere refute the scientific fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that increasing concentrations have to come exacerbated increased the pre-existing L/T warming trend.

      He informed me that “denialism” includes downplaying the extent of CAGW. In which case, since denying includes believing in a slightly less severe version, not only are the Met a denialist movement, but so (ironically) is the IPCC. After all, they no longer have conviction that CAGW is causing extreme weather events and droughts, which are two central tenets of Warmism as revealed by the Holy Trinity: Each of the Gore, the Flannery and the Holy Milne have claimed warmening to have these effects.


      Report this

      150

      • #
        Greg House

        Andrew says (#15.3): “…the scientific fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that increasing concentrations have to come exacerbated increased the pre-existing L/T warming trend.”
        ==============================================

        Yes, about that alleged “scientific fact”: in order to avoid going OT here, I humbly allow me to redirect you to the topics “A discussion of the Slaying the Sky Dragon science: Is the Greenhouse Effect a Sky Dragon Myth?” and “Why greenhouse gas warming doesn’t break the second law of thermodynamics”.


        Report this

        80

        • #
          Otter

          You are Improving, Greg (but not to worry, your Tenacity is admired and needed!)


          Report this

          20

        • #
          AndyG55

          “Yes, about that alleged “scientific fact”: “……

          More an unproven conjecture, that doesn’t stand up under empirical evidence or scientific logic.


          Report this

          31

        • #
          bobl

          Actually, its somewhat more complex than skydragons. The greenhouse effect of CO2 was worked out in a test tube – that is a non-chaotic closed system, a controlled environment. There is exactly NO proof that CO2 behaves the same within an open chaotic system, either feedbacks or non-linearities can either aid or buck the CO2 induced warming. In all likelihood the feedback is negative but there are also known non-linearities as well, for example the ocean tropical temperature can’t reach much over 30 deg before convection causes clouding to occur – this is a highly non linear tipping point of the negative feedback variety. Where the temperature to driver sensitivity goes rapidly to zero (or thereabouts).

          So while CO2 is a GHG, there is no proof that it’s greenhouse nature actually affects the real environment much at all. (Clearly there will be some impact IE between 0 and 1.1 deg C per doubling, but based on the way most stable natural systems respond (dominated by negative feedback) probably much less than 1.1 ). This is the argument, not whether CO2 has the POTENTIAL to warm, it does, but how much?


          Report this

          30

          • #
            AndyG55

            Yes, CO2 is used in greenhouses.. we all know that. :-)

            “there is no proof that it’s greenhouse nature actually affects the real environment much at all”

            Thank you.. :-)

            The atmosphere automatically compensates for any excess heat.

            Where does the heat from bushfires go? The smoke hangs around, and there is residual heat from embers etc, but once its gone, its gone.. It doesn’t hang around !!


            Report this

            10

          • #

            No, doesn’t affect the real environment much at all! Record Arctic melts are just nothing!

            140 bushfires just in NSW alone is not the real environment I suppose, like 45°C in Adelaide in early January, like migratory birds moving polewards every spring to avoid too–warm weather!


            Report this

            01

  • #
    Peter Miller

    A cynic might be forgiven for suggesting that there are those at the UK Met Office who realise the Global Warming Industry is soon going to receive a dramatic drop in funding in response to the long predicted Thermageddon event failing to appear.

    So, pointing out the “Emperor wears no clothes”, i.e. CAGW is obvious nonsense, could be a good job survival strategy.


    Report this

    112

  • #
    • #

      So how do we get to to hold the likes of Karoly yo account?

      I recently spotted Karoly & England’s names in one or other of the national curriculum committees membership lists. Can’t find them – looks like they have been removed.


      Report this

      50

  • #
    AndyG55

    I notice they use the adjusted period 1950 onwards, being very careful to avoid the late 1930′s.

    Amazing how many temp records still stand from the 1930′s, yet the “adjusted” records don’t show a level anywhere near that of current.

    As long as the Met continue to use HadCrud “adjusted” temp records or Hansenised Giss, their results are going to be WRONG no matter how good their models.!


    Report this

    192

    • #
      Redress

      Hi Andy
      I went looking for highest temperature records pre adjustment.

      From the Australian year book 1984, there are 9 temperature stations with max temperatures above 49C with year dates ranging from 1877 to 1939.
      Fast forward to the Australian year book 2012, and there are only two stations with pre 1939 temperatures still recorded, and these have an * next to them with the warning “*temperatures known not to have been measured in a Stevenson screen’.
      The offending temperatures are Swan Hill, 49.4 in 1908 and Cloncurry, 53.1 in 1889.

      Dropped completely since 1984 are
      Bourke 52.8C year-1877; Walgett 50.1C year-1903; Mildura 50.8C year-1908; Winton 50.7C year-1888; Eucula 50.7C year-1906; Kyancutta 49.3C year-1939.

      So there you have it. Any temperature “not to have been measured in a Stevenson screen’, is invalid and will be discarded.


      Report this

      100

      • #
        Redress

        meant to add.
        Apparently how the temperature was measured wasn’t a problem before 1984


        Report this

        50

        • #
          AndyG55

          Yet temperatures measured above ashphalt and concrete pads, and next to air con outlets, and near reflective glass buildings, and near exhausts of jet engines, are somehow valid, and used to homogenise other data.

          That’s “climate science” for you !!


          Report this

          50

      • #
        Angry

        Some interesting figures……

        • January 1896 – 437 people died
        • January 1908 – 246 people died
        • February 1921 – 147 people died
        • January 1927 – 130 people died
        • January 1939 – 438 people died
        • February 1959 – 105 people died
        • January 1973 – 26 people died
        • February 1981 – 15 people died
        • February 1993 – 17 people died
        • February 2004 – 12 people died

        http://schools.aemi.edu.au/heatwave/real-life-heatwave-stories

        Shows that it has been hotter in the past !!

        I guess it must have been all those suv’s and coal fired electricity stations back in the 1700 & 1800’s …….


        Report this

        122

        • #
          llew Jones

          Notice the ABC is majoring on the fires on TV. Falling a bit flat as none of their camera shots look like anything more than low level scrub and grass fires with the tree foliage seemingly untouched.

          Typical decent Aussie bushfires are crown fires with the eucalyptus oil in the air providing the fuel for rapid tree top propagation.

          Yet another really cool, jacket-on, non-modeled, summer day in Melbourne during this “unprecedented” heat wave weather.


          Report this

          121

        • #
          John Brookes

          Maybe they didn’t have aircon back then?


          Report this

          211

          • #
            AndyG55

            No….. CON has only come to the fore since “climate science” came into existence.


            Report this

            61

          • #
            bobl

            OMG John, a miracle has happened, using cheap coal fired power we can avoid the extremes of global warming with TaDa an Airconditioner – Never knew such wonderous Mankind saving technology existed. Oh, and the sea-wall comes in handy too!

            Instead of spending 100 Billion dollars on useless green junk lets adapt — I think you have finally got it!
            /sarc


            Report this

            41

          • #
            Sonny

            How ironic. Air conditioners – a product of the fossil fuel
            Industries SAVES LIVES.

            How many lives have solar panels, wind turbines, desalination plants, ethanol crops, saved?

            How many lives have been saved through Carbon Tax’s and Carbon Trading?

            How many lives have been saved through increases in electricity and water bills?

            How many lives have been saves through funding junk “climate science”

            Here’s a hint John – NOT ONE LIFE.


            Report this

            70

        • #

          Maybe it shows increasing use of insulation and airconditioning?


          Report this

          01

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    Given the strong negative relationship between what they predict and what actually happens, this new report really puts me on edge! It’s more or less neutral and I don’t know which way to move. I’ll stay put until next Christmas awaiting a more definitive solution.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Greg House

    “Skeptic win: UK Met Office quietly drops prediction by 20%, hopes no one notices”
    =================================================

    This might be a good news in some respect, but still my joy is limited. I see no reason to take any prediction about “global warming” seriously.

    The first problem is how they calculate their “global temperature”. One good example is this: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_Lebedeff.pdf . I find it scientifically outrageous.

    The second problem is even more important and I am afraid the most sceptics on blogs do not understand that: you can not predict future temperatures without understanding what and how causes the changes. Even if we assume for debate’s sake that their calculations of the past “global temperatures” are correct, it is absolutely unscientific to make any prediction based on this data alone.

    Example: the numbers are “1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7″. Can anybody predict the next number?


    Report this

    71

    • #
      AndyG55

      linked pdf, not found


      Report this

      10

    • #
      AndyG55

      And 1987 was well before they REALLY got into record adjustments. ;-)


      Report this

      60

    • #
      MaxL

      Next number is 10
      You didn’t say I couldn’t count in Octal :)


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Bite Back

      Example: the numbers are “1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7″. Can anybody predict the next number?

      Greg,

      Certainly I can, it’s 29.

      How do I know? I know because I have a climate prediction generator (sorry) random number generator.

      Isn’t that how they do it?

      Anyone should be able to do a trick like that. And that’s what it is, just a trick with numbers.

      Sarcasm aside — you should never interpolate beyond the end of your data and that’s what these climate models do; an epic failure at the basic math level.


      Report this

      50

      • #
        AndyG55

        “you should never interpolate beyond the end of your data ”

        You cannot do that anyway, its an impossibility.

        but I will accept, “you should never EXterpolate beyond the end of your data” ;-)

        Even then, you can, so long as you are willing to except the assumptions have made in doing so, may not be correct.
        The further you go outside, the more and more likely you are to be INCORRECT !!!


        Report this

        40

        • #
          Bite Back

          OK! Be picky. But don’t do it. The next thing you know some fool will start to believe you. :-)


          Report this

          30

          • #
            Bite Back

            PS:

            Yes you can interpolate beyond the end of your data. :-)

            A slipshod interpolation function will do it without comment. I know because I was once told point blank to do it that way.


            Report this

            30

          • #
            AndyG55

            by definition.

            “inter” in a mathematical sense means “within” or “between”

            interpolate means to calculate “within the data”

            anything “outside the data” is “extrapolation”.


            Report this

            40

          • #
            AndyG55

            But apart from that , I agree, although you can, (sometimes) extrapolate a small distance outside your data boundaries……. what the climate guys pretend to do, applying linear or other trends to extrapolate from chaotic data, is a nonsense.


            Report this

            60

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Within climate science (note, no capitalisation) it is perfectly acceptable to interpolate outside of the available data.

            The technique calls for an additional number that represents the assumed temperature at some future point in time. With that point as the target, you can then interpolate the trend from the end of the available data to that value. Simples.


            Report this

            60

    • #
      Andrew

      Well the next numbers are clearly 11 and 27, since we have reached a Tipping Point.


      Report this

      50

    • #
      Greg House

      Greg House say (#20): “Example: the numbers are “1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7″. Can anybody predict the next number?”
      ===============================================
      Well, 10 hours passed and not a single warmist has answered “8″. Conclusion: they are not stupid.

      Why all the predictions then? :roll:


      Report this

      20

      • #
        MaxL

        “Why all the predictions then?” I guess it’s called the Scientific Method.

        We observe some phenomena. (Well actually it’s your hypothetical phenomena)
        We obtain data about that phenomena. Fortunately you gave us the data “1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7″.
        We ask a question. Fortunately you provided that question “Can anybody predict the next number?”.
        We formulate an hypothesis. We make a prediction based on our hypothesis. (An educated guess)
        We obtain more data to test our prediction. It’s your data, it’s your question, it’s your hypothetical phenomena.

        We hoped for an answer, but we are told there is no scientific basis for making predictions based on the data alone.
        You tell us that “…you can not predict future temperatures without understanding what and how causes the changes.”

        That’s why we use the scientific method, so that we can form an understanding of the observed phenomena.

        Your statements seem to imply that we must have a priori knowledge before making predictions. If we had such knowledge then we wouldn’t need the scientific method. We look for patterns in the data which might suggest something that could be causing that pattern. Who knows? It could be that it just gets a bit warmer when the sun is up?

        Your example was a simple algebraic progression and you ask for a prediction of the next number yet, you accept no answer as being the only valid (not stupid) response.
        Had your example been, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, then one may recognize that these are the first 7 prime numbers and it would be reasonable to predict the next number as 19. However you assert that to do so would be unscientific and stupid?


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Greg House

          MaxL says (#20.6.1): “Your example was a simple algebraic progression and you ask for a prediction of the next number yet, you accept no answer as being the only valid (not stupid) response.”
          ============================================

          Not quite. The right answer would be, as I see it, “the next number is unpredictable”. And I actually said that in my #20, where I asked the question. So, no answer given I interpreted as understanding of the problem by those who did not give any answer, like they agreed with me that the next number would be unpredictable.

          May I assume that your answer would be “8″? If yes, could you please explain why?


          Report this

          00

          • #
            MaxL

            Hi Greg, thanks for responding.
            I’m not sure that I can see your logic in assuming that those who don’t respond must agree with your assertion. I’m sure that like me you have commented here and found that nobody has replied and nobody has bothered to give a thumbs response.
            In those cases, we could assume that either nobody has read it, or nobody gives a damn about our thoughts. We certainly can’t assume that everyone agrees with our comment. Had nobody responded would you think that everyone agrees with you?

            Your conclusion that because no warmist gave an answer of 8 therefore they are not stupid, is a non sequitur.

            As to my answer (which was 10), it was meant as humour, but in a sense validates your assertion that without further evidence any guess may turn out to be incorrect. However, to test an hypothesis, a guess must be made. The given data suggested a straight line increment to 7, so why would you expect the asked for next number should vary from this identifiable pattern?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Greg House

            MaxL says (#20.6.1.1.1): 2As to my answer (which was 10), it was meant as humour, but in a sense validates your assertion that without further evidence any guess may turn out to be incorrect. However, to test an hypothesis, a guess must be made. The given data suggested a straight line increment to 7, so why would you expect the asked for next number should vary from this identifiable pattern?”
            ============================================

            The last sentence was meant as humour again, right?

            Anyway, climate predictions are not a test nor are they a part of a test, they mean it. They do not sell it as a guess either.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            MaxL

            Was it humour? Well you did ask why I might have replied with 8. :)

            On warmist climate predictions, I agree. They mean it and they “sell” it as a scientific fact.
            Both of us know that were they to follow the scientific method properly they would not have been able to conjure up this fraud, but then they would not have been able to gain money or prestige or whatever it is that they desire.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      John Brookes

      And Andrew doesn’t know where to look to find “deniers”…


      Report this

      113

  • #
    old44

    Has Tim Flannery made a comment on this new development?, has Tim Flannery been seen in public lately?, is Tim Flannery still alive?


    Report this

    60

  • #
    pat

    when will greg hunt, tony abbott & the rest of the Coalition bring this to the australian public’s attention?

    after all, i would have thought it would be politically advantageous for them to do so! LOL.

    120

    • #
      william

      They likely won’t though Pat.Instead of Abbott waisting time fighting bushfires, surf lifesaving or riding his bike,( there are enough volunteers for those worthy tasks),he should concentrate, knuckle down and do the job we pay him to do and research the information re climate science that is no doubt regularly forwarded to him by some of the learned individuals from this and similar sceptical blogs.
      His failure to inform himself and raise the subject when Parliament next sits would confirm my personal opinion that although he may be a decent sort of chap,he is not alternative PM material, and the LNP are merely the lesser of the two evils come the Federal election.


      Report this

      72

  • #
    Brendan

    The Met’s behaviour is even dodgier.

    As posted on Bishop Hill’s blog, have a look at what Paul Homewood has found.

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/01/10/spot-the-difference/

    Not only have the Met now revised their actual forecasts, but have a look at the white line in their final graph. This is defined as

    ” Previous predictions starting from June 1960, 1965, …, 2005 are shown as white curves, with red shading representing their probable range, such that the observations are expected to lie within the shading 90% of the time”

    The previous graph can be found here.

    http://web-beta.archive.org/web/20120206093904/http:/www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc

    The white line has been re-drawn to indicate that the Met’s predictions were in fact accurate.

    What ???

    Look at the period of the early 1990′s. The previous graph had their predictions massively overstating the actual observations.

    But voila, in the new graph, they have produced the ‘hide the massive miss’ trick, and it would appear that their predictions are all now spot on.

    Their massive ‘over predictions’ for 2010 have been completley re-drawn. The double message of the graph is that (a) it’s not as worse as we thought and (b) our predictions have been re-drawn to show that even though we got this wrong, we are always right.


    Report this

    261

    • #
      Popeye

      Brendan

      Many thnaks for pointing that out.

      It is basically as simple as this – THEY ARE COMMITTING FRAUD!!

      Pity no-one will be charged though.

      Cheers,


      Report this

      161

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Charges will be laid if enough complaints are made to the police, and made in public, with open letters to the various UK Expenditure Committees, the Audit Office, etc.

        That doesn’t mean that any resulting investigation will not be a whitewash, but each drop of water helps to bring down the cliff.


        Report this

        30

    • #
      AndyG55

      Not only that, the figures both start with “Observed (black, from Hadley Centre, GISS… ”

      This is NOT the “observed” in any way shape or form. It is ADJUSTED values.


      Report this

      110

    • #
      Ian

      But will anyone in the MSM pick this up? Will any of the warmist blogs comment? Will the general public ever get to know that what they’re told, largely by politicians. academics and scientists toeing the warmist line, may not be entirely accurate. Why can’t both sides of the story be put. Surely Green/Labor voters who, according to Professor Reser, are “simply more objectively knowledgeable about the phenomenon and the issue,” and females who, again according to Professor Reser are “were generally more knowledgeable, more concerned.” would jump at any chance to increase their knowledge of climate change


      Report this

      110

  • #
    pat

    fairfax/peter hannam haven’t noticed. the article is funnier than the comedies on aussie tv in recent years:

    13 Jan: SMH: Peter Hannam: Climate-change denial feels the heat
    Scepticism about climate change in Australia may be something else that will melt during the nation’s great heatwave.
    ”There’s a powerful climate change signal in extreme weather events in Australia,” said Joseph Reser, an adjunct professor at Griffith University’s school of applied psychology. ”The current heatwave is outside people’s experience.”
    A study released by the university and co-written by Professor Reser found Australians were more ready to accept climate change was happening – and many believed they were experiencing it.
    The peer-reviewed national survey conducted in mid-2011 and published late last year found 39 per cent of respondents viewed climate change as ”the most serious problem facing the world in the future if nothing is done to stop it”…
    Conditions across the country in recent days would provide evidence to support this view…
    ***He said a ”remarkable” finding was 45 per cent of respondents reported direct personal experience of climate change. By contrast, the ratio in the US was about a quarter, he said.
    That experience included floods (29 per cent), bushfires (23 per cent) and cyclones (18 per cent).
    Perceived climate-change experiences varied according to voting intentions. Some 75.7 per cent of Green voters and 60.3 per cent of Labor selected the ”We are already feeling the effects” option. Among National Party supporters, 40.5 per cent picked the option but just 32.7 per cent of Liberal voters did.
    Results of a test about climate change also saw divergent results.
    ”Those who voted Green or Labor were simply more objectively knowledgeable about the phenomenon and the issue,” he said. ”Our female respondents were generally more knowledgeable, more concerned.”
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climatechange-denial-feels-the-heat-20130112-2cmhu.html

    ***”remarkable”??? were the other 65% living in hermetically-sealed air-conditioned cubicles? i find it remarkable 100% hadn’t had such a personal experience!

    meanwhile, the weather we’re experiencing seems totally natural to me.


    Report this

    131

    • #
      john robertson

      Expect shrieking and name calling, combined with delusional wish fulfilment rhetoric.
      The profiteers are backing away with full swag, the useful idiots are being encouraged to rush into the breach, to cover the moneyed ones retreat.
      Next Gillard and friends will finish creating &funding a QUANGO that they can slip into, when booted.


      Report this

      80

    • #
      AndyG55

      What’s this “massive heat wave” that these people are going on about ?

      I’m on east coast, couple of warm days, as you sort of expect during summer, but heat wave ????


      Report this

      132

      • #

        Good point.

        A few days ago up here in the north, I heard several people saying ” Isn’t it HOT … ” when it was a very reasonable 31°C 40% RH. Could this perception be the result of seeing all the Hot down south on the media?
        Uh-oh … From Pat:

        Joseph Reser, an adjunct professor at Griffith University’s school of applied psychology. ”The current heatwave is outside people’s experience.” ” ..study released by the university and co-written by Professor Reser found Australians were more ready to accept climate change was happening – and many believed they were experiencing it.

        Auto-suggestion? Hypnotic suggestion? Not sure what the term is. Seems the psychs may have picked up on it for all the wrong reasons.


        Report this

        101

        • #
          AndyG55

          I wish these psychologists would get the heck away from climate science.

          Their very presence pollutes any semblence of real science.

          Lewenjokesy, now this guy……. both with “sirveys”

          Sorry guys, but surveys can be design to give the exact answer you want in the first place.. Their results are meaningless in the final scheme of REALITY !!


          Report this

          100

        • #
          Streetcred

          It’s only “outside of their experience” because they’ve not lived here long enough … or they’re southerners moved north.


          Report this

          60

        • #
          Mark

          ”The current heatwave is outside people’s experience.”

          If you’re eight years old, just maybe.


          Report this

          60

        • #
          AndyG55

          From what I can find, this guy is from England.

          WTF would he know about heat waves in Australia. !!!!


          Report this

          20

      • #
        Andrew

        I had north coast friends posting things to the effect of “praying for my Sydney friends – it’s going to be 45 tomorrow.”

        Actual temp: 31C

        At election time, how this “extreme weather event” will be remembered: “45 degree day in Sydney.”


        Report this

        110

    • #
      william

      I slipped off a ladder and broke my leg a few months ago Pat. And even that was funnier than any of the Australian comedies on TV in recent years.


      Report this

      70

      • #
        Angry

        Thank god for the internet!

        We DL a huge variety of good quality shows, no ads, and not restricted to the crap that is screened on Australian tv and foxtel.

        New episodes of favourite shows the same day they are screened overseas also.


        Report this

        21

  • #
    SharkfinSoup

    How do we get our money back?

    These guys have been wrong for so long now they owe the tax-payers a huge debt. Can we class-action sue for damages? I want their bonuses stripped from them retrospectively!

    Most of them would be unemployable in private industry. Abolish the CSIRO and see how many of them find real jobs


    Report this

    81

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    This is a very encouraging event, especially when you read the New Scientist write up:

    So what are these natural cycles?
    Mostly they involve the movement of heat between the atmosphere and the oceans. The oceans are the sleeping giant of climate change. They act as a huge heat sink: 90 per cent of the heat generated by accumulating greenhouse gases is absorbed by the oceans. How fast this happens is variable, depending on ocean currents and other fluctuations.

    Scientists have known for a long time that in El Niño years, when warm water spreads out across the equatorial Pacific, heat leaves the ocean for the atmosphere. But there are also longer-term cycles. The biggest cycles are known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Recently, both have been causing the oceans to absorb more heat, shutting off atmospheric warming.

    So the UK Met Office has either noticed or been forced to consider the PDO and AMO!

    Which is interesting since this fluctuation is easy to see in their very own HadCRUT dataset, corresponding to 1/3rd of the temperature increase between 1900 and 2000.

    Which obviously drops CO2 climate sensitivity by a third if taken into account.

    Now add that NASA GSFC has also come out this week with the acknowledgement that solar effects have a larger impact on temperature than they hitherto had expected and we have the next domino to drop.

    Solar output, TSI + UV + magnetic influence, overall correlates to about 1/2 the temperature rise last century.

    Which if added to the ocean cyclic component drops climate sensitivity to 1/6th or less of the IPCC’s estimate. Which is consistent with Lindzen, Spencer and other empirical measurements of 2XCO2.

    Friends, we only need two things now: Hadley and NASA to compare notes, and them both to actually use realistic values in their models, and the CAGW religion will be consigned to the dustbin.


    Report this

    150

    • #
      ColdOldMan

      That’s all well and good, Bruce, until you get to the last paragraph where they find the correct page in the ‘King’ James Hansen Hymn Book;

      What’s the outlook?
      Scary. If oceanic cycles do what the Met Office and others expect, then global average air temperatures will stay fairly stable – though still hotter than they have been in the past – until later this decade. The cycles will then flip into a new phase and the oceans will probably start releasing heat instead of soaking it up. Combined with continued accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, that could mean that sometime round 2020, warming will start to race away again as the atmosphere makes up for lost time.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Let’s do an analysis of the quote:

        “If oceanic cycles” – equivocation
        “others expect” – transference
        “probably start” – equivocation
        “could mean” – equivocation
        “sometime around” – vagueness.

        As the quote stands, it says very little.


        Report this

        40

    • #
      john robertson

      Thats why its, The” New” Scientist, Satellites & Argo Buoy systems indicate the oceans are cooling overall, Travesty mann Trenberth, claims the oceans are taking up heat, below 2000m. But we do not see it between surface and 2000m, where the argo system can measure. So heat is flowing down, but can’t be seen to do so.
      Its new science alright.
      Suddenly they recognize natural cycles, but they told us natural drivers could not explain the warming. Only co2, now their pseudo-correlation is busted, its we always knew that…But its a travesty we can’t account for the lack of warming, except by lying.


      Report this

      70

    • #
      Chris M

      Bruce, the alarmist New Scientist (part of Gore’s fan club for a couple of decades) has got it exactly bass ackwards, I believe. The oceans heated up as a result of increased solar insolation (as per Svensmark, active sun = cosmic ray shielding = reduced cloud cover) during the grand solar maximum of the latter part of the 20C. Svalgaard denies it with lots of verbose expertise, but you only have to eyeball the sunspot chart to see the sun was very active for many decades until the present cycle 24.

      Anyway, less cloud cover resulting in warmer oceans with much thermal inertia, releasing more heat than before to the atmosphere, would account for most if not all of the late 20C warming. Now that the sun is much less active we can expect cooling around the corner, the current plateau being due to the gradual release of oceanic stored heat, while cloud cover increased to reduce the above-average ocean insolation. Cooling oceans should result in a cooler lower troposphere before the decade is out, if this scenario is correct.


      Report this

      41

      • #
        Bruce of Newcastle

        Chris you are right, Met Office only has half the story (and maybe not all of the half). But as I said NASA has the other half or a start at it.

        I have a model with these two variables. If you use previous solar cycle length as a proxy for solar activity (link) and the ocean cycles seen in HadCRUT the residual fits Lindzen’s value for 2XCO2 rather well.

        I used to read NS and subscribed for many years, but they jumped the shark after Nigel Calder left, so I cancelled.

        Now if only the UK Met Office and BoM ever notice this big hot ball thingy in the sky we’ll be really talking!


        Report this

        40

        • #
          Richard C (NZ)

          “Now if only the UK Met Office and BoM ever notice this big hot ball thingy in the sky we’ll be really talking!”

          We might have to wait a while for the penny to drop though, their present scope is:-

          Underpinning science

          The climate system consists of four basic elements – atmosphere, ocean, land and cryosphere (land ice and sea ice)

          http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=10925

          Thermal lag in the ocean (the slow response) seems to be difficult concept too going by the demands for a fast-only response to solar forcing (e.g. Sherwin, Haigh disputed by Alec Rawls). But according to Skeptical Science (propagated mindlessly especially at Hot Topic), it is possible to “take out” solar and ENSO leaving the “underlying” anthropogenic global warming trend as per Foster and Rahmstorf.

          Apparently – according to their rationale – ENSO is some sort of energy source in itself and an El Nino event isn’t a short-term release of long-term solar energy accumulation after all, therefore “taking out” El Nino energy is fully justified.

          That example of the extent to which warmist self-justification has reached is laughable when on the other hand UKMO is in the process of backpeddling from their previously “settled science” of inexorable temperature rise decade after decade and have effectively joined the “deniers” with their discovery of natural cycles and new prediction of, wait for it…..no warming until after 2017 at least.

          An extrapolation of the Foster and Rahmstorf trend (the “underlying” AGW trend according to SkS) is off at a tangent and contrary to the new UKMO prediction, but hey! Why “muddy the water” (as we “deniers” are accused) with little inconsistencies like that?


          Report this

          40

    • #
      Speedy

      Happy New Year Bruce! Here’s hoping for a decent Ni price eh?

      Cheers,

      Speedy


      Report this

      20

    • #

      You do realise the amount of heat is not falling? It is just where it is stored that changes?


      Report this

      01

      • #
        Bruce of Newcastle

        Ah, Maxine, you are invoking the Trenberth excuse. Below 700 m? Below 2000 m? Its hiding rather effectively don’t you think?

        Late last year our own John Church came out with a paper Gleckler et al 2012 which the ABC became very excited about. It said humans caused all the warming seen in SST’s in the last 50 years.

        A whole 0.125 C of warming due to bad naughty humans!

        Let us look at this figure.

        To calculate what that would be in CO2 terms the equation is 2XCO@ = delta T x log 2 / (log CO2 now – log CO2 then)

        So 2XCO2 = 0.125 x log 2 / (log 395 – log 315) = 0.4 C/doubling of pCO2

        And I’m assuming for the sake of calculation that all of the 0.125 C was due to CO2, ie excluding net solar insolation … which we know rose to a 200 year peak in 2005.

        So I am quite happy with Dr Church’s conclusion that all this warming is due to humans. What he forgot to say is that a 2XCO2 of 0.4 C is so completely harmless that burning all the coal, oil and gas in the world we could ever find would raise the global temperature by just 1 C.

        So if you don’t believe CSIRO’s data who do you believe?


        Report this

        50

  • #
    Redress

    “”The peer-reviewed national survey conducted in mid-2011 and published late last year found 39 per cent of respondents viewed climate change as ”the most serious problem facing the world in the future if nothing is done to stop it”…”"

    Is this online? Does anyone have a link to this survey?


    Report this

    10

  • #
    MadJak

    I think it’s important to recognise that we are finally starting to see some recognition from the UK met office based on real observations and data.

    I am heartened to hear the term “natural variation” finding it’s way into their Vocab – as Jo rightly puts it their earlier oversimplification that we controlled the weather into a less accurate perspective.

    Whilst this may be their attempt to try and cover their arses or for them to try and spin the fraud out longer, it doesn’t matter. What matters is that people are more aware of the natural influence on the climate.

    For them to have changed their predictions (regardless of how willing or not), is a good thing which should be commended.

    The alternative is the australian chicken little approach from the garnuts and flanneries.

    For sceptics, all we need to do is to sit back and help the research and announcements as they come to light – in lieu of the lamestream medias bias. Keep working to ensure that the voices of reason and counterbalance finds it’s way into the issue at hand.

    On a side note – I find it really interesting to see the australian lamestream media chomping at the bit to hear of higher temperatures (and predictions thereof). I think it’s fair to say that Catastrafarians look forward to hot days so they can inaccurately play the blame game. Sceptics do something more useful.


    Report this

    120

    • #

      Just look at any real temperature chart, see it has ups and downs peaks and troughs? You really think variation is not taken into account in meteorology? What a weird idea!


      Report this

      01

      • #
        MadJak

        Maxine,

        The issue from my perspective is and always has been the fact that whenever global warming has been preached it has been from an angle which tries to minimise the idea of natural variation and really pushes mankinds’ influence.

        Talk to any kid who has been indoctrinated in it – the younger the child, the more the impression that we control the weather and the climate through what we do on the planet.

        Of course that’s what happens when propogandaists get involved eh maxine?

        Still, as I mentioned, it’s great to see a little more balance to the conversation.


        Report this

        10

  • #
    • #
      Otter

      I was working on a sci-fi short a few days ago, and trying to figure a name, and along come ‘Clipe.’ ‘Clipe’? Where did I get ‘Clipe’?

      Now I know. Better make sure I made him, her or it a good guy…


      Report this

      20

  • #
    david

    The UK Met Office and others relate present temperature variations to the “long term” average 1971 to 2000. Doesn’t this short period distort real comparisons especially as we are arguing about a few tenths of a degree change? Why not have a truely long term average comparison, say 1900 to 2000? Surely there are ample worldwide accurate recordings pre 1971?


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Jo, there’s a lot more to this than what you’ve picked up on.

    The two “spaghetti” plots of HadCM3 vs HadGEM3 do not reconcile with the “synthesized” UKMO 2011 vs 2012 decadal forecast comparisons around.

    First the spaghetti plots (the HadGEM3 centred anomaly of the spaghetti doesn’t reconcile between these two either and the respective plates of spaghetti are different):-

    HadGEM3 http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/Met%20Office%20413.jpg

    HadGEM3 vs HadCEM3 http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/65157000/jpg/_65157024_65157023.jpg

    Now the synthesized plots.

    From The Australian in the post, HadGEM3 vs HadCM3 (a UKMO plot apparently):-

    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/temperature/uk-met-office-global-annual-temperaure-sml.gif

    From SkS (again, UKMO plots):-

    HadGEM3 http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/global-forecast-3.jpg

    HadCM3 http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/global-forecast-3.jpg

    Note that in the second of those SkS plots, the blue forecast (HadCM3 from 2011) doesn’t simply carry on from the red forecast indicating that even the 2011 HadCM3 forecast was itself a revision of (possibly) an earlier red forecast.

    The spaghetti plots show only a minor alteration (depending on which HadGEM3 plot is used) but the change to the synthesized plots is radical (does anyone see what I’m getting at?).

    Re “..the blue forecast (from 2011) doesn’t simply carry on from the [earlier I'm guessing] red forecast…”

    John Mason at SkS states:-

    “In 2012, the Hadley Centre (the climatology section of the UK Met Office) introduced its latest multi-year forecast model, HadGEM3, into the decadal forecasting system, replacing the earlier HadCM3 (figs. 2 and 3, below), developed in the earliest years of the 21st Century. HadGEM3 represents the product of many years of detailed research and involves a better understanding of the many variables that work together to bring us the climate we experience. Running the model involves a phenomenal amount of number-crunching, to such an extent that it is only run out to T+ 5 years — to run it out further would hog too many computing resources.”

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/met-office-HadGEM3-forecast.html

    This may explain why the 2011 HadCM3 blue forecast doesn’t carry on from the earlier (I think) red forecast. Perhaps the red forecast was a longer run where T was 2000 and the run T + 20 but for the blue forecast T is 2011 (I’m guessing) and the run T + 10.

    There is an element of cheating in this I think if that is so, or at least the lack of acknowledgment that the red forecast was wildly wrong and starting over with a new T is somewhat less than forthright.

    I’ve asked Richard Treadgold at Climate Conversation Group to post these 5 plots sequentially for direct comparison and scrutiny. Perhaps you could do this in a followup post Jo?


    Report this

    160

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      I see Brendon #23 has already placed an earlier comment in the same vein as mine that I missed, picking up on the UKMO sleight-of-hand. Links to Paul Homewood and Bishop Hill.

      This is getting interesting.


      Report this

      70

    • #
      Streetcred

      Betts has tried to explain this away at Bishop Hill, very weak. Clearly there is an attempt to hoodwink the public at large … a release on Christmas eve, graphs that don’t reconcile, and passing off hindcasts in the ‘new’ model as historical forecasts.

      Basic facts of the matter are that the principle foundations of their models are WRONG … they’re desperately attempting to move away from the rotting elephant in the corner of their ‘lab’.


      Report this

      160

      • #
        ianl8888

        The BMO initially used the phrase “retrospective forecast”

        Because this is a perfect example of a complete oxymoron, I asked Richard Betts if this really meant “hindcast”

        YES, he answered (see the BH website thread)


        Report this

        30

        • #
          Richard C (NZ)

          ianl8888 #31.2.1

          At least Richard Betts explains the red (and white) revision):-

          Jan 10, 2013 at 9:47 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Betts

          The white lines [average of red] show hindcasts, ie: model simulations started from older initial conditions and then run onwards, and compared with the observations to see how well the model does. The point here is that the hindcasts with the new model (HadGEM3) compare better with the observations than the old model (HadCM3) and so this gives us more confidence in the new model.

          These decadal forecasts use “initialised forecasting” techniques, ie: the models are started at the observed state for the current time – as distinct from the long-term climate projections that start back in pre-industrial times, run through the 20th Century and then on into the 21st Century, meaning that they can’t be expected to capture the exact year-by-year variations that the initialised forecasts are attempting to capture. Because the initialised forecasts are started off at, say, the right place in an ENSO cycle, they potentially can capture the natural variations arising from ENSO and other modes of variability. This is still early days of course, there is still a lot more work to do, but you can see from the 2012 figure that the hindcasts show the model agreeing with the observations reasonably well (and better than the HadCM3 hindcasts as shown in the 2011 figure).

          The first time that these initialised forecasting techniques were used for decadal forecasting was this paper published in 2007. So this was the first time there was actually a proper forecast looking forward in time – anything before then is a hindcast. This is the case for all versions of the decadal forecast that you might find.

          http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/1/10/spot-the-difference.html#comments

          It’s like car company advertisements for a new “better” “more refined” model that effectively consigns the previous model to clunker status.


          Report this

          20

        • #
          Richard C (NZ)

          Interesting. HaroldW at BH observes:-

          “HadGEM3 is not listed on KNMI Explorer among the CMIP5 models”

          Basically, the “better” HadGEM3 model (as Richard Betts puts it) is not a CMIP5/AR5 model but presumably supersedes the UKMO CMIP5 model, rendering the UKMO contribution to CMIP5 obsolete. Richard Betts effectively confirms this:-

          Hi HaroldW

          1) Because HadGEM3 is much more computationally expensive to run than HadCM3, being higher resolution and having much more detailed equations, so the hindcasts to check the model’s performance were only done for 5 years as opposed to 10 years. Notice that the red bands (the hindcasts) are only 5 years in length in the 2012 figure, but 10 years in the 2011 figure.

          2) HadGEM3 is still under ongoing development so couldn’t be included in CMIP5 – models had to be “frozen” (ie: no more changes) in order to included in the comparison. So, it’s not been used for those scenarios yet

          Jan 10, 2013 at 11:03 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Betts


          Report this

          20

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      Correction to above comment #31

      From SkS (again, UKMO plots):-

      HadGEM3 http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/global-forecast-3.jpg

      HadCM3 http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/global-forecast-3.jpg

      Should be,

      From SkS (again, UKMO plots):-

      HadGEM3 http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/global-forecast-3.jpg

      HadCM3 http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/global-forecast-3.jpg [this link corrected]

      Paul Homewood’s revelation that the red forecast was revised explains why the 2012 blue forecast didn’t “carry on” from the 2011 red. I didn’t realize the red had been revised between 2011 and 2012.

      Paul highlights the revision of red and white, my issues are with blue and how the UKMO gets from “spaghetti” plots to “synthesized” plots.


      Report this

      10

  • #
  • #
    Dennis

    Has anyone told Commissioner Flannery? I understand that he is in his boat fishing the Hawkesbury River not far from his two waterfront properties.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    A C of Adelaide

    I dont think people should get their hopes up too much here. The Met Office says:

    “Our forecast is still for temperatures that will be close to the record levels of the past few years.”

    I think they will probably be right.

    I would expect mid 2013 to be a very high peak and late 2017 to be high also. But there should be a deep low in between. If one looks at the Global Temp Anomaly graph you will see four cycles of dips in the moving average every 7.5 years – assuming inertia then there is one due in June 2015.

    One should remember that the climate “noise” is in the order of 0.8 degrees C so it will be a long time before any new trends show up. After all, the 60 year trend in the graph is also just “noise” on an an even more difficult to spot trend.

    See Dr Girma Orssengo or Dr Syun Akasofu


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Streetcred

      I have no opinion of where their forecasts will end up, as clearly they don’t either … probably in the round bin … but I object strongly to them altering their historical forecasts with updated hindcasts and attempting to pass these off as their accuracy in past forecasting. Nothing of the sort, just a fraud … keep your eye on the pea! In this case examine the white line on each of the old and new graphs.


      Report this

      110

  • #
    Streetcred

    Loved this comment from Jeremy at WUWT, Finally, one of Gore’s trained presenters debates a climate skeptic:

    The fact is that those who have orchestrated the CAGW fraud (not the pawns that believe it) are simply enriching themselves by having created global hysteria with significant related expenditures, increased taxation and onerous legislation – all from what is certainly a non-problem.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    A C of Adelaide

    Incidentally, It wouldn’t it be nice to hear just one global warming alarmist say this is good news?


    Report this

    90

    • #
      Streetcred

      Have you ever heard of a cult member welcoming a statement that undercuts the basis of their cult belief ? Rather, they tend to go down in a blaze (‘scuze the pun).


      Report this

      110

    • #
      MadJak

      That’s right,

      They seem to be hoping and hanging out for warm weather because then they can get all righteous on everyone again.

      As for me, I must suffer the apparently cippling diability of just needing to understand what’s going on wihtout just accepting what others tell me to accept.


      Report this

      30

    • #

      A mere 20% correction? Why wouldn’t that be good news? Refinement of models and so on, all good.

      I say again, 20% is a lot less than 100%.


      Report this

      01

  • #
    janama

    so he new computer program has predicted a reduced increase in warming by 20%

    What would be the result if they used the new program but started in 1989?


    Report this

    30

  • #

    Thanks for the link, Jo.

    Regards


    Report this

    50

  • #
    MadJak

    O/T,

    I call BS here. The ninemsn poll this morning was asking whether the carbon tax was as bad as you thorught – with >70% answering yes (myself included).

    But now the poll question has changed to “Has Julia Guilleard achieved more than kevin Rudd?” with the same results and behaving as though I have voted!

    Someones rigging something!


    Report this

    70

    • #
      Streetcred

      Who was worse – Kev or Jules

      Looks like ju-LIAR by the throat … mind you, li’l kevvie should be afraid of the new Heiner Royal Commission.

      [ ... ] a nine-volume audit produced by Sydney QC David Rofe that contains details of 68 alleged prima facie charges that he believes could be brought against public officials past and present.
      They include Prime Minister Kevin Rudd – Mr Goss’s former chief-of-staff – the Governor-General Quentin Bryce, who took no action after requesting and receiving a report on the affair from then Premier Peter Beattie in 2003, and six serving Queensland judicial officers.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        ianl8888


        li’l kevvie should be afraid of the new Heiner Royal Commission

        NO – the terms of reference deliberately exclude investigation of reasons for destruction evidence by the Goss Cabinet


        Report this

        20

        • #
          Streetcred

          Take your point, Ian. However, Krud being associated with the destruction, for whatever reason, will not do him any favours politically. More people need to know this and the process of the Inquiry will reveal this to the public.


          Report this

          10

      • #
        MadJak

        I think Kevin Rudd would have “achieved” more in the last 6 months of his term if JuLiar wasn’t busy undermining him and workign on her way to the top during that time.

        Of course, kevins achievements would have been just as disastrous as the Ginga Ninjas.


        Report this

        30

      • #

        Oh god, not Akerman’s confected Heiner Affair again?


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Catamon

      Someones rigging something!

      Of course they are Maddy my lurve. Its a hobby for some to script stuff that distorts online polls. Their security is non existent, and their results meaningless.

      Always remember point 1 of the “Young Liberals Practical Guide to Activism and Hitting on Right Wing Chicks”:

      Vote Early and Vote Often. :)


      Report this

      214

  • #
    rukidding

    It now believes that global temperatures for the period 1950 t0 2017 will most likely be 0.43 deg C above the 1971 -2000 average

    And what the hell does that mean what is the 1971-2000 average.How much will it be above the 1900-2017 average or maybe the 1860-2017 average.
    So folks what is the current global average temperature and no it is not 0.4c or 0.6c.
    Silly stupid meaningless figures.


    Report this

    70

    • #
      john robertson

      Apparently this average of an average, of an average of an average can be accurate to 0.001C, is whatever you need it to be.
      Therefore it is never stated as a value in degrees Celsius, with estimated accuracy of the guess, on the Anomaly Chart obsessing about 0.005C variation.
      Fog? Or fraud?


      Report this

      30

    • #
      rukidding

      Well I’ll tell you.

      14.4c.fourteen point bloody four degrees so 100 years ago it was 13.4c.So what is everyone getting their knickers in a twist over.

      look under enviroment.


      Report this

      10

      • #
        john robertson

        But in or around 1980-the IPCC and team global warming NASA were using 15 C.
        Its seems that the warming went, so 14.5 C got picked.
        But its a very flexible number, like the joke of the two accountants, what do you need the numbers to say.
        Pull up any anomaly and see if you can locate the mean being used as a Zero and then find an accuracy estimate for that number.
        Best I have found is the SST satellite .
        Most its deliberately not specified. The team uses a different mean for each research group, 3 different values, but apparently they are talking about the same thing.


        Report this

        10

  • #
    Streetcred

    In the meantime, the U.S. National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee (NCADAC) draft report released for public comment is taking a pounding at Dr Judith Curry’s site.

    curryja | January 12, 2013 at 2:26 pm |
    To me this looks like a substantial cut below the AR4, i.e. worse.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    RoyFOMR

    A repost from unthreaded on BishopHill:

    Love the way that the Met Office via its mouthpiece, the BBC, has come up with a new meme.
    Sudden stratospheric warming responsible for UK’s icy blast.
    Yup. we may be bucking Global Warming by abnormal natural variations but don’t worry folks we’re still knackered by anthropogenic carbon(with or without that nasty dioxide postfix)
    Got to give credit where credit is due; warmists are never wrong. Never mind the continual stream of post-facto prognostications that seek to justify pre-current predictions/projections. The models are never, evah wrong.
    I suppose, with hindsight, it should have been obvious that when the models were indicating elevated tropospheric temperatures, aka HotSpots, due to elevated CO2 levels they actually meant stratospheric temperatures.
    For goodness sake folks, we all suffer from ‘fat-finger’ syndrome from time to time. They are scientists after all. Even HRH Charles, as described by Willis E on WUWT recently as ‘The Artist (ArseTit?) currently known as Prince’, gets it wrong from time to time.
    The Science is solid despite the occasional muddle of words! As Bob, fast-fingers, re-Ward keeps telling us – We need better co


    Report this

    40

  • #
    rukidding

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-12/climate-commission-predicts-more-heatwaves-bushfires/4461960

    DR Karoly shooting his mouth off again.The man works for the WWF why is this never mentioned.

    Unbiased my foot


    Report this

    100

  • #
    rukidding

    What ever is coming over this country!People struck almost lifeless in the streets, animals falling as though killed by some insidious disease, and man and beast in city and in county in torture.

    Sound formiliar?.

    SMH Tuesday 14 January 1896 page 5


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Dennis

      I have a 100th year addition of The Macleay Angus newspaper published October 17th 1985 with extracts for each of the past 100 years. It reports many floods and in 1903 “Terrible Climax To Heat Wave” Jnuary 10 For nearly 16 days between December and January the Macleay district was subjected to the worst heat wave in its known history. Crops withered and died, birds and animals too. A strng scorching westerly wind prevailed.


      Report this

      70

  • #
    ghl

    I think it is an exercise in diversion.
    Working from the graph, by eye.
    Current anomoly (’03 to ’12) ~.35
    Previous prediction for 2018 ~.73
    New prediction for 2018 ~.4
    Previous prediction for warming from today until 2018 ~.38
    New prediction for warming from today until 2018 ~.05
    Headline reduction in predicted warming in next 6 years, (.33/.38)=87%.
    I wonder if our BOM hysterics about hot weather are a diversion?


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Catamon

    So to draw attention to the good news they waited to release it on the … quietest possible news-day of the year.

    Oohhhh, a conspiracy. Goody!! Will kick the outrage meter along a bit among the usual suspects.

    So, for the true disbelievers the take out from this is that everyone bar them is corrupt, stupid or both, and they were right all along. rinse, recycle, repeat.

    For others, the take out is that the “ocean weather” cooling influences that seem to have slowed the atmospheric warming trend are to continue a few more years. :) Which begs the question of what happens when they cycle round to warming influences. :(


    Report this

    125

    • #
      Streetcred

      The ocean cooling influence has hardly begun and, as you know, unlike the claimed CO2 forcing, it has a delayed effect.

      Enso has been flopping around neutral for some time.

      ‘Never could get my mind around the perpetual motion energy machine called CO2 … no point, there’s no empirical evidence to support it.


      Report this

      61

    • #
    • #
      Streetcred

      Labour MP Graham Stringer said the Met Office’s short-term forecasts had improved, but their climate change analysis was ‘poor’.

      He said: ‘By putting out the information on Christmas Eve they were just burying bad news – that they have got their climate change forecast wrong.

      ‘For a science-based organisation, they should be more up front, both about their successes and failures.’


      Report this

      70

    • #
      llew Jones

      “So, for the true disbelievers the take out from this is that everyone bar them is corrupt,”

      As far as we skeptics are concerned it is only true believers of the climate scientist variety that get a chance to corrupt the data.

      If “our” climate scientists had their hands on some of that lovely government largesse, to examine whether natural internal and natural external climate variability was the prime factor in global warming then there may be some validity in the sarcasm.

      To date then it is the true believing tribe’s monied scientists alone with any chance to be corrupt. Thus once again we see another sample true believer who is not blessed with standard issue uncorrupted brain wiring.


      Report this

      60

    • #
      AndyG55

      “hhhh, a conspiracy.’

      I don’t see why you think its a conspiracy. I mean, if you have to put out something that you didn’t want anyone to notice, the obvious release day is on a day when nobody is going to bother with reading a newspaper.

      For once, maybe you could credit the Met with some common sense ?? No.. maybe not.

      I do hope the person doing the release got paid quadruple overtime. :-)


      Report this

      40

    • #
      wayne, s. Job

      Catamon, The ocean page of heat anomalies shows but a tiny pool of heat impinging on the Arctic ice, it is the last pool of excess heat left in the oceans from the large solar cycles we had in the latter part of the twentieth century.

      The heat bank is just about caput, and the sun is on holidays, and will be for some time. Revising your thought processes such as the MET office has been forced to do, because the real world is catching them out, may give you a more balanced out look on life.

      With a little bit of thought and the application of some research and logic you will see that our world has been slowly cooling for thousands of years toward the next glacial period i.e. it has been warmer and regardless of what you feel and think our future is cooler.

      Do some thinking and perhaps you may not be such a smart ar#e


      Report this

      90

      • #
        AndyG55

        “Do some thinking”

        Oh come on, Wayne, be realistic.. the fur-brained one is not capable of rational thought.

        Not sure it is even capable of irrational thought.


        Report this

        40

    • #
      Sonny

      Hey Cat.

      What’s with you and the “outrage meter” buddy? I’ve seen you mention this in a few posts. Is this a real meter or a figurative one? Does the “outrage meter” have any influence on the climate?

      I also LOVE how you buy into the “ocean climate” excuse.

      But Catamon!! I thought that man’s emissions of CO2 was the dominant cause for warming in our modern age?

      Doesn’t this back peddling from the Met Office prove what we’ve been saying all along? “That CO2 is not a dominant climate driver?”

      How many more embarrassing revisions to climate science will you defend until you acknowledge that this climate science business is just that – a business.

      O no!! Did I just bring up a conspiracy?

      What’s that on your “outrage meter” buddy?


      Report this

      40

      • #
        Catamon

        Sonny, your reactions to various postings here are almost the definition of the “outrage meter:. :)

        Its interesting to see the reactions from the different types of commenter here, and the degree to which Jo’s posts drive the level of outrage depending on the topic of the hour.

        I’m happy to contribute hits for the entertainment value, the occasional interesting link, and the occasional interaction with people who will discuss rather than rant.


        Report this

        08

        • #
          Sonny

          So in other words you don’t have any valid response to the points I raised that… You know… Are about climate change.

          Nice one BUDDY


          Report this

          20

          • #
            Sonny

            Some “discussion” you’ve got going.

            Ever thought that it’s not “Jo’s posts” that drive the outrage but rather what’s actually happening in the world?

            We would be far less outraged if you would actually engage with the subject matter discussed rather than talking smack about “outrage meters” every time Jo brings up FACTS that render all intelligent rebuttal from your side obsolete.

            WE HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT THE MODELS HAVE BEEN EXAGGERATING FUTURE WARMING.

            We were right!!!

            Feeling outraged ?


            Report this

            50

        • #
          Otter

          the occasional interaction with people who will discuss rather than rant.

          But, you see, to people with critical thinking skills, those you interact with ARE the ones ranting.

          Including you.


          Report this

          10

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      For others, the take out is that the “ocean weather” cooling influences that seem to have slowed the atmospheric warming trend are to continue a few more years. Which begs the question of what happens when they cycle round to warming influences.

      Catamon,

      I’m willing to simply wait and see what happens. No hysteria, just wait for the planet to show us what it has actually done.

      Are you?

      In the meantime you have yet to show any human connection with anything about which you complain so loudly. Maybe while we wait you could work on that problem.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Streetcred

    Professor Myles Allen of the University of Oxford said:

    ‘A lot of people were claiming, in the run-up to the Copenhagen 2009 conference, that warming was accelerating and it is all worse than we thought.

    ‘What has happened since then has demonstrated that it is foolish to extrapolate short-term climate trends.

    Allen thinks that David Karoly is an idiot (tell us something we didn’t know) … he’s extrapolating just a few disconnected days of weather. Toss ju-LIAR and FlimFlammery into the same black pot.


    Report this

    70

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      These people are Not idiots. They are cold, calculating, destructive manipulators.

      The national debt, incurred by the Federal Government on our behalf was something over $147 billion late last year.

      This is all new debt; there is little to show physically anywhere that can be said to have been bought with this money.

      It has not been “wasted” as many say.

      It has found a new home both locally and internationally and is very much appreciated.

      Besides the 20 million dollar annual interest bill accruing on the “debt” which we have to pay before we begin to pay off the principal, there are the 26,000 recent boat arrivals who are taking near half a billion dollars annually to feed and house.

      Meanwhile back in the cities and farms of Australia we have many Gigatonnes of undergrowth, the result of 30 year long Anti Fire Hazard Reduction Campaign by concerned Greenies and Labour enthusiasts.

      Truly, Australia is a “Lucky” country.

      How do we bring these people to justice.

      KK


      Report this

      62

      • #
        Len

        One of Lenin’s policies was to debauch a country’s currency to allow the country to collapse and go further down the Marxist track.


        Report this

        40

      • #
        Dennis

        Federal debt at 30 June 2012 was $250b, not including off budget NBN Company debt, national public debt adding state-territory and local government exceeds $700b, PLUS interest every year.


        Report this

        30

        • #
          Dennis

          Former Federal Treasurer Peter Costello estimated that the $250b, set to increase to $300b by 30 June 2013, would take 40 years to repay with interest assuming that the terms of trade were no worse than 1996-2007 Coalition government term, far less than the period 2007-2012 Labor government term. Young people who vote for these fiscal fool socialists will pay a high cost, services falling behind, taxes having to increase, cost of living rising. Think hard before you decide to vote Labor or Green, yours and your family future are at stake.


          Report this

          40

      • #
        john robertson

        Keith if we take a page from hystery, as the weather turned cold, crops failed and scapegoats were required, an awful lot of brush was necessary to burn the witches.
        Yah new word, hysterical moments in history, like what we are living.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    A C of Adelaide

    Now that the UK met office has revised its forcast I wonder if they will tell us exactly what natural factor has countered the expected CO2 warming for the last 15 years – and precisely why they expect it to stop and the warming continue. I’d like to see some science please. One assumes the science has been modelled by the new computer model.

    In particular, what mechanism suddenly started partioning heat into the oceans in 1999, and why will it stop partioning heat post 2020?


    Report this

    80

    • #
      Streetcred

      They’re like a Monty Python skit.

      We’re very good at forecasting the past. ;)

      In order to prevent us making continual fools of ourselves attempting to model 10 years for decadal forecasts we just do 5 year ‘projections’.

      Model outputs are merely the projections of the modellers own thoughts … how many ‘modellers’ actually have the necessary scientific credentials to begin to understand chaotic weather systems ?


      Report this

      70

      • #
        AndyG55

        “We’re very good at forecasting the past. ”

        I don’t think so.

        They are matching the HadCrud and Guss calculated average temps, so their models are not getting anywhere near reality.


        Report this

        20

        • #
          AndyG55

          I suspect that the fact they try to match those records is what makes all the models works do darn badly.

          If they used raw, unadjusted data, the models might, maybe, have some remote chance of being correct.

          But they don’t, so they are basically DOOMED to be incorrect, right from the outset.


          Report this

          50

        • #
          Streetcred

          Yes … we’re very good at forecasting the past :LOL:


          Report this

          30

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Model outputs are merely the projections of the modellers own thoughts…

        Modelers have thoughts? :-) or is it :-(


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Mattb

    Slight revision down of a short term forecast as when you get closer you are better able to estimate where some shorter term cycles will be at, and an upgraded model. I don’t really see the drama here at all.

    It is kinda hard to reconcile a downward revision with the accusation that AGW is a global scam that is abusing science though.


    Report this

    227

  • #
    Boadicea

    Karoly doesnt inspire me with any confidence any more than Flannery/Steffen do.

    All done up in his best suit, and looking very much like some pox doctors clerk. All spivved up for his breathless little spiel yesterday, on their ABC.

    Have a read of Walter Starck’s paper in Quadrant a few weeks ago…its all about the havoc and destruction of our country by NGO’s, such as WWF, Greenpeace etc

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2012/12/government-by-ngo

    Yes Karoly was a member of WWF ( and probably still is)and very active in producing glossy documents, ready for inclusion IPCC….no Peer Review of course.

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/01/13/is-a-meteorologist-a-drought-expert/

    Conflict of interest..nahhh par for the course with these types


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    In case no-one’s mentioned it, it’s now been picked up by Christopher Booker in the Telegraph.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9797315/A-forecast-the-Met-Office-hoped-you-wouldnt-see.html


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Boadicea

    Slightly off topic but worth commenting is that the WWF web site identifies that Karoly is indeed a member of their Science Advisory Panel,(SAP) along with a number of other Australians.

    But the Melbourne University Earths Science site makes no mention of this fact in Karoly’s bio.

    Slippery little critters these scientists…. pity …I wonder if Karoly and crew are still paid out of the public/university purses when they are on WWF frolics


    Report this

    80

    • #
      llew Jones

      A quick check will find that many if not most of the alarmist climate scientists here and in the US, at least, are first and foremost activists in radical conservationist organisations.

      You may have noticed that Karoly also is a member of the Concerned Scientists group. Pity they are not concerned about the prosperity of future generations. These activists have no concern for the havoc their half baked backward looking ideologies will wreak on the standard of living for present and future generations of Australians let alone for those in non-developed economies.

      Karoly is an unenlightened spokesman for an incredibly clueless government but not more so than on this issue.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    handjive

    Be warned.

    ABC 7pm news announced that all next week there will be nightly specials explaining what a world 6 degrees warmer will look like on ABC.


    Report this

    50

    • #
      Louis Hissink

      I smell an election coming on – these programs are designed to frighten the punters into seeking help from the ALP to mitigate warming.


      Report this

      51

    • #
      Bruce of Newcastle

      Yeah yeah yeah. Karoly was on SBS TV news last night being lurid. Never let slightly hotter temperatures go to waste. I bet ABC has been waiting for the opportunity of some hot weather for months now.

      Pity the La Nina which appears to be forming didn’t happen a few weeks ago. That would’ve been entertaining them spouting this crap in the teeth of more wet weather.


      Report this

      50

      • #
        Jaymez

        Whenever you see Prof David Karoly from the Climate Commission, just remember the paper he and his buddies wrote declaring that the last 60 years were unequivocally the warmest in the last 1,000 years of Australia’s climate history. They were paid $300,000 of taxpayers money to come up with that propaganda. The paper was peer reviewed and published by the American Meteorological Society with great fanfare and main stream media publicity.

        But within days Steve McIntyre and others spotted problems with the statistical analysis. Karoly claimed they were insignificant and didn’t change the end conclusions. But after proper scrutiny they had no choice but to withdraw the paper and it has been deleted from the AMS website. Of course the withdrawal didn’t get the same publicity.

        Karoly’s scientific credibility is about as good as Tim Flannery’s climate predictions. Which of course doesn’t stop this Government from using him as an excited talking head for climate alarmism; but it’s an almost certain pointer that whatever he is saying has no scientific substance!


        Report this

        80

        • #
          Bruce of Newcastle

          He also apparently forgot to mention that snow in the Northern Hemisphere is at an all time record and global temperature has been falling for a decade. I notice little things like that.

          I don’t blame SBS, they operate on the smell of an oily rag. Unlike the ABC.


          Report this

          50

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        An election can’t be held before Feb.9 if called today. Allowing for time to assemble the troops in Canberra (interrupting their holidays) and practice the “appeal to the nation” etc. I wouldn’t expect it before the end of February. Temperatures will be dropping by then, and people will have had time to remember previous hot days.

        In any case an election before the next budget is highly likely, in order to avoid the announcement of the deficit. Given the news that various Labor MHRs want to “loosen the purse strings and buy votes” that deficit might not look nice.

        The question is “can you buy votes”? For all Julia splashing largesse (current and future), the polls at the end of the year are the same as at the start of the year.


        Report this

        10

    • #
      Jaymez

      It’ll probably remind me of when I was a kid in suburban adelaide living in a treeless new housing estate in the late 1960′s and early 70′s. We had a number of summers where for days on end you really could fry an egg on the ground, my brother and I did it!

      We had dust storms blow in from the interior once or twice a year which left a layer of dust throughout the whole house even though all the windows and doors were closed.

      If you spent the afternoon out in the sun your exposed skin would blister that night and scab for the next couple of weeks.

      Water supplies were so low it ran red/brown out of the taps and a layer of mud sediment would soon form at the bottom of the bath/sink.

      Walking on the edge of the road meant you had melted tar stick to your shoes and you would leave bike tyre tracks in the tar as you rode. You could twist melted tar on to a stick.

      They had to replace all the thermometers in my primary school because they all broke even though they were inside in the shade on the walls.

      Kids fainted in class all the time in summer due to heat and occasionally a teacher did too.

      On really hot days the principal would put the sprinklers on the oval and we’d run through them fully clothed at recess and lunch. By the time we walked from the oval to our classroom our clothes were dry.

      And boy did we have bush-fires in the 1960′s and 70′s! In fact in the summer of 1974/75 bush fires were estimated to have burnt 15% of the entire continent. 117 million acres in the Northern Territory alone!

      And as I have previously posted I have plenty of documentary evidence of higher recorded temperatures than last Monday. So excuse me when I don’t believe the claims that we are having unusual and extreme hot weather!


      Report this

      111

  • #
    Sonny

    Well I’ve been saying for a long time that I’m not scared nor convinced of man made global warming. I’ve always said that the hysterical media claims that it’s “worse than we thought” was merely scripted propaganda.

    But I will resist celebrating. All that is happening is that the alarmists are discretely lowering their predictions so that they can keep their scam going for longer.

    Soon the crisis will be global climate stagnation with an unprecedented and dangerous immobility of the climate. You see without consistent climate change evolution is stopped in it’s tracks, coral dies, arctic ice becomes old and stale, polar bears get lethargic etc.

    The solution will always involve greater taxation and new government backed industries that cost a bomb and predictably deliver nothing of any benefit to the public.

    Today I get to celebrate in a small way.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Dennis

    Our Australia cannot prosper while socialists create debt and waste that money.


    Report this

    72

  • #
    Sonny

    COME BACK MAXINE!
    We want another one of your brand of scary climate bedtime stories!

    Ooooo boogy boogy boogy !!! The Warmings coming to get Ya!!!!


    Report this

    41

  • #
    Byron

    I`m in shock ,
    Northern Tassie`s local rag has dared to print an opinion piece about the weather that doesn`t scream “Unprecedented” or “worse than we thought” but calmly points out that We`ve seen it all before


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Dagfinn

    In fairness to Lomborg, he seems to have used the phrase “so-called deniers”, implying that some use that label, but not necessarily that he thinks it’s a good one. It doesn’t seem to be a word he uses regularly, he is regularly labeled as a denier himself, and seems to understand that it’s problematic.

    There is a disturbing tendency among many in the climate debate today to deride as “deniers” anyone who does not advocate making huge and immediate carbon cuts. The framing began nearly a decade ago with discussions about the science of climate change. People who questioned the link between carbon emissions and warming were branded “deniers”.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/environment/2009/11/global-warming-climate-carbon


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Lomborg accepted the IPCC projections on temperature, and that they were driven by CO2, but pointed out that trying to reduce CO2 emissions would be very expensive and achieve very little.
      The result was hysteria. They tried to get him sacked by his University etc. The ‘Scientific’ American put out a whole issue attacking him. I gave it up years ago, but I assume The New Age Scientist was in-temperent etc.

      10 years later his predictions about the uselessness of the anti-CO2 idea look far more healthy than those made by Gore, Mann, Hansen, Flannery, Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    J Martin

    Looks like some of the religious CAGW faithful have realised that a minimum is in train and that temperatures will not be going up any time soon and perhaps not for tens of years and may even go down.

    So they have had to find a new message, and that is to claim that the need to curtail co2 emissions is more urgent than ever because they have just found (models) that the benefits won’t be felt until the next century.

    From the Extremist Religious Rag that is the UK New Scientist publication;

    Are we the altruistic generation? Do we care what happens to our grandchildren, and to their children?

    The big dividend – cooler temperatures, fewer floods and droughts and better crop yields, compared to carrying on as we are – would only become clear by about 2100.

    This, says Arnell, underlines that there is a lot of global warming “in the pipeline” that cannot now be prevented.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23070-benefits-of-emissions-cuts-kick-in-only-next-century.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|online-news


    Report this

    30

  • #

    I heard a scary weather story last Saturday. The news told me that the weather was the worst for fire conditions since Tuesday!


    Report this

    30

  • #

     
    The New 21st Century Paradigm for Climate Change

    The emissivity of a gas can be estimated from the width and intensity of the various spectral lines corresponding to the frequencies which it absorbs and emits. The intensity of each such spectral line must be limited by the Planck curve, and so the emissivity pertains to the total area which is occupied by those spectral lines and bands contained within the area under the Planck curve. In a perfect blackbody, the full area is occupied, thus we derive Stefan-Boltzmann values from that area. The slowing of radiative cooling must be calculated using emissivity for both the warmer surface and the cooler atmospheric water vapour or radiating gas. This is standard physics using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

    Clearly carbon dioxide has fewer spectral lines than water vapour does. And at lower atmospheric temperatures CO2’s main 15 micron line is off to one side of the Planck curve, and thus has a lower intensity than it does at -80 deg.C up in the mesosphere. Water vapour (per molecule) has thus a far greater effect than carbon dioxide in slowing that small portion of surface cooling which is due to radiation. Oxygen and nitrogen slow the major portion which is by way of NON-RADIATIVE cooling.

    The amount of surface cooling is, in total, limited each night by the long-term atmospheric thermal profile established primarily by gravity and the level of solar radiation. Even though such surface cooling is indeed slowed, about 70% of the energy is transferred by non-radiative processes which are slowed by all air molecules. The remaining cooling by radiation is slowed primarily by water vapour which has far greater emissivity than carbon dioxide and more than 100 times the effect in total.

    Even though radiative cooling is slowed by back radiation, and carbon dioxide does less than 1% of this slowing, whilst water vapour does nearly all of it, there is still a compensating effect brought about by a greater energy transfer by NON-RADIATIVE cooling over which back radiation can have no effect. This nullifies the effect of back radiation, because, in the long-term, it is the thermal profile made steep by gravity (not any greenhouse effect) which supports the surface temperature.


    Report this

    21

  • #
    Greg House

    Doug Cotton says (#61): “The slowing of radiative cooling must be calculated using emissivity for both the warmer surface and the cooler atmospheric water vapour or radiating gas. This is standard physics using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. [...] Even though radiative cooling is slowed by back radiation,…”
    ================================================

    “Using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law”, I see. The problem is that using can be generally right or wrong. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law does not deal with back radiation, so you can not just use it as if it does.

    The problem with the effect of the back radiation on the temperature of the source is that it apparently has not been proven experimentally. Until it has been done your using has no basis in science.

    An example to illustrate the logic here: I am using the Law of Arithmetic to calculate the number of tomatoes I get out of apples and oranges, here we go: 2apples+3oranges=5tomatoes. Must be correct, because 2+3=5, right. Any problem with that? You use Stefan-Boltzmann Law in a not much different way.

    If you are going to comment on that, please, do it if possible on the “A discussion of the Slaying the Sky Dragon science: Is the Greenhouse Effect a Sky Dragon Myth?” thread, in order to not derail this one. Thanks.


    Report this

    10

  • #

     
    Greg

    My response to you is contained in Sections 1 to 5 of my peer-reviewed paper Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics published on several websites in March, 2012, and easily found with Google.
     
    You will have absolutely no idea of the content therein until you study it and the cited references which prove what I am saying here.

     


    Report this

    01

    • #
      Greg House

      Your paper contradicts your #61, as far as I can see.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Perhaps you can’t see because you don’t study it well enough. I’m unable to help you if you can’t explain your confusion. I don’t contradict myself, because I always use correct physics, supported by empirical evidence and appropriate theory, computations etc. Perhaps you should read my article published today, because all the talk about radiation is basically irrelevant, as explained in my 12:15pm comment just above.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Greg House

          Doug Cotton says (#63.1.1):”Perhaps you can’t see because you don’t study it well enough. I’m unable to help you if you can’t explain your confusion.”
          ==============================================

          Well, I am afraid I can see, and as I said, as far as I can see, I see that your paper contradicts your #61. Call it my confusion, if you wish.

          In your #61 back radiation works and in your paper it does not, and this is my confusion, of course, what else can it be…


          Report this

          00

    • #
  • #
  • #

    Hi Jo

    An excellent post as always – and sincere thanks for keeping up the pressure.

    My only worry about their latest forecast/prediction/prophesy is that they have been so consistently wrong for so long – is it possible that we may well be in for some Global Warming???


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      Stuart, you ask:-

      My only worry about their latest forecast/prediction/prophesy is that they have been so consistently wrong for so long – is it possible that we may well be in for some Global Warming???

      Yes. But meantime we’ll have to endure a 70s style global cooling scare until around 2030 or whenever it is that the cycle turns up again.

      No doubt the global ccoling will be blamed on global warming as recent record cold temperatures have been, e.g.:-

      Record low temperatures in Bangladesh

      DHAKA, Bangladesh, Jan. 9 (UPI) — Bangladesh has recorded its lowest temperatures in nearly 60 years, an unexpected result of global warming, scientists said.

      In the capital of Dhaka and elsewhere in the country the temperature dropped to 37.7 degrees F Wednesday, the lowest temperature in the last 57 years<,

      [...]

      Experts are blaming the cold temperatures on more intense cold fronts resulting from global warming melting polar ice.

      “Extreme events are on the rise throughout the world and they will continue to increase further due to global warming,” said Aninun Nishat, an environment specialist.

      “We’re part of the world. So, we’re also feeling here the pinch of the global warming.”

      Read more: http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2013/01/09/Record-low-temperatures-in-Bangladesh/UPI-16051357767641/#ixzz2HhmPQj4o

      So there you have it. The more global warming increases, the more cooling we’ll be feeling around the globe.

      I hope I’ve made this clear. It is a difficult concept I’m sure you’ll agree.


      Report this

      10

  • #

     

    In still air in adiabatic conditions any region of the atmosphere has a propensity towards isentropic conditions such that molecules move retaining PE+KE=constant in free path motion between impacts. This means there must be a thermal gradient, not formed by convection but by diffusion. Convection can form it, but is not essential. Venus temperatures can only be explained by diffusion which has ensured isothermal conditions in horizontal planes right around the globe, but temperature gradients in vertical planes. The gravity induced gradient in the troposphere is then reduced by up to about a third due to intra-atmospheric radiation from warm to cool layers above.

    There never can be no radiation absorbed or emitted by any atmosphere. Even hypothetical pure nitrogen and oxygen atmospheres would absorb and re-emit some UV and visible radiation, this being the source of heat for such atmospheres at all altitudes. The heat then diffuses where necessary to “perfect” the gradient in calm adiabatic conditions. Obviously weather conditions cause variations, but these are just like waves on the top of the ocean – everything settles down to the required level in calm conditions.

    I have summarised all this in a new article just published on Principia Scientific International entitled “The 21st Century New Paradigm in Climate Change Science” which should be able to be found on Google soon. You can of course just go to the PSI Home page and use the link top left.

    It’s all there, and you should find answers to all the above questions that several have asked. The key issue is to consider the atmosphere as it is, and the effect of variations, such as additional water vapour causing more intra-atmospheric transfer of heat from warm to cool layers, thus reducing the thermal gradient and hence the surface temperature.

    There’s also my paper on “Planetary Surface Temperatures. A Discussion of Alternative Mechanisms” which provides cited papers, experiments etc in support of this.

    I’ll be in hospital tomorrow, so won’t be answering questions for a while. As I said, you should find all you want to know about what we all at PSI are now talking about in this new paradigm shift, whereby radiation reduces the thermal gradient, whilst oxygen and nitrogen play the main role supporting the surface temperatures.

    And that’s the way it has to be, because nothing else keeps within all the laws of physics and explains all observations (even on other planets) as does this hypothesis.


    Report this

    10

    • #
      MadJak

      Doug,

      Thank you for posting this reference. I will admit that it is out of my league, but the fact that your paper is going to be made publicly available (and I hope any reference data), I must commend you for posting this.

      Furthermore, I wish you well with your recovery.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      MadJak

      Doug,

      I’ve just clicked through and watched one of the videos of your site. Very clear and well explained.

      Well done!


      Report this

      00

  • #

    UK Met Office

    “UK Outlook for Monday 28 Jan 2013 to Monday 11 Feb 2013:

    There is greater than average uncertainty through this period, with no strong signal for any one weather type to dominate. However, on balance colder conditions are more favoured rather than the milder weather experienced so far this winter.

    Issued at: 0400 on Mon 14 Jan 2013″

    And their computer only cost 30 millon UK pounds!


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Maxine, I think if you look at the trajectories of the 2 predictions it looks like a whole lot more than a “20% correction”

    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/temperature/uk-met-office-global-annual-temperaure-sml.gif

    Furthermore, all but about 3 or 4 models failed to mimic the flat 21st century trajectory of observations (the latest HadGEM3 projection was AFTER the AR5 “frozen” date so will NOT be included in AR5). This plot of CMIP5 is incomplete but it illustrates the situation:-

    http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/christy-fig.jpg?w=808&h=622

    The new HadGEM3 prediction is below the lower StDev dotted line by about 0.15 C. What does that say about the CMIP5 ensemble projections ABOVE that level?

    Any model that fails to mimic observations is superfluous i.e. UKMO decided HadCM3 was rubbish and had to be discarded. By that reasoning, all but about 4 CMIP5 ensemble projections are now redundant and should be discarded from AR5.

    I would also point out that at 2017, the 2012 prediction has peaked at 2016 and is on a down phase. Now, UKMO have (apparently) introduced the influence of natural cycles to HadGEM3. Given that there is no cycle (e.g. solar, PDO, AMO) that would boost temperature above 2016, what possible mechanism is there to take temperatures back up above 2018?

    And why the peak at 2016? Have UKMO gained the ability to predict El Nino? That 2016 peak is totally reliant on the release of residual ocean heat now that the sun is going into recession but that residual heat will not just keep boosting temperatures higher and higher if the solar force for accumulation is removed will it?

    Don’t forget too, that GHG “forcing” (valid or not) is merely recycled solar energy. A reduced solar forcing also reduces GHG forcing but we don’t hear much about that do we?


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      Typo

      “….what possible mechanism is there to take temperatures back up above 2018?”

      Should be

      what possible mechanism is there to take temperatures back up above 2016?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Has the Met Office committed fraud?

    Guest post by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

    In short, the Met Office lied repeatedly to do down a journalist [David Rose, Mail on Sunday] who had uttered the inconvenient truth that there had been no global warming for at least 15 years.

    The Fraud Act 2000 defines the serious imprisonable offence of fraud as dishonestly making an express or implied representation that the offender knows is or may be untrue or misleading, intending to gain money or other property (here, grant funding) or to cause loss or risk of loss to another ($30 billion a year of unnecessary “green” taxes, fees and charges to the British public).

    So I reported the Met Office to the Serious Fraud Office, which has a specific remit to deal with frauds that involve large sums (here, tens of billions) and organized crime (here, that appreciable fraction of the academic and scientific community that has been telling similar porkies.

    >>>>>>>>>

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/14/has-the-met-office-committed-fraud/


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Craig Thomas

    What a hoot.
    Conned by the latest group-think craze currently sweeping the crank blogs, you compare a 2012-2021 projection with a 2013-2017 projection and decide “it’s been revised down!OMG!”.

    Do you really wonder why people just laugh at you idiots?

    Do you know where to find the actual data?

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/a/p/hadcm3_zoom-800px.jpeg

    Doesn’t look like it’s stopped warming tome. Nor to any other mentally competent person on the planet. Doh!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter C

    In 1970 I was a lowly 1st Year Dental Student on Christmas Holidays in Broome.
    My Dad was a weather bureau employee and I was given a tour of the Met Office.
    The OIC tried to impress me with science and said that the Met Office had a 95%+ success rate of prediciting the temperature to “Within 5 Degrees”
    Think about it – Thats a 10 Degree RANGE & Centigrade Degrees at that!!! You could GUESS any day of the year to that accuracy without looking at a fancy map

    Also at that time the weather bureau office was on the corner of Wellington and Hill Streets, East Perth (where the garage is now). It backed onto Bishops Row. It had a Huge block of flats to the South and A big warehouse to the east and the Dental School and RPH Nurses Quaters to the WEST. North was a small Park with big trees surrounding it>
    It was in a Canyon!! They couldn’t even look out the window for a forecast.

    The weather bureau is a joke! How often do they get the 5 Day forecast right.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Peter C

    Climate change supporters can’t loose.
    If the Temperature goes up they will say we told you so.
    If the Temperature doesn’t change it will be – well our intervention measures worked!!!


    Report this

    10

  • #

    [...] the British Mets find much the same but they keep it [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #