Quote of the day from the MET Office

Posted: February 23, 2015 by tallbloke in predictions

From the New Scientist article Richard links:

Even if the best estimate is for temperatures to rise in the next few years, we shouldn’t be too surprised if the pause continues 

Talk about hedging your Betts! 🙂

Lets add some science to the uncertainty. This plot is taster for a Lunar based ENSO prediction technique.

Ian Wilson El Nino and Lunar timing study

Astrophysicist Ian Wilson has an interesting theory that we may well see an El Nino this winter – just in time for the IPCC COP in Paris to scream “WARMING – Told you so”.

Place Betts now!

Here’s a plot of solar cycle 24 with a 6 month smoother applied


If the sunspot number drops rapidly this year, that makes it more likely an El Nino will occur at around the same time as the Lunar line of Apse and Nodes aligns with the Sun. That prediction is based on observation of historical El Ninos in relation to the Lunar orbital parameters and Solar cycle progressions as shown in the plot below.


  1. oldbrew says:

    They will have to claim El Ninos are now man-made to try and bring their failing theory back to life.

    Another step on the road to absurdity.

  2. They are 100% wrong. Already the S.H. is showing signs of cooling and the sun is still in it’s maximum phase although it looks like it is in the process of finally winding down.

    When this occurs which is right around the corner the global temperature trend will be down. This year should be the turning year.

    In addition the overall sea surface temperatures have been trending down. Examples where this is most evident is the Southern Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean.

    These people (agw believers) are oblivious to how the climatic system works and predicting a burst of warming when the lull ends is ridiculous. In addition to their insane reason for the pause, heat in the deep Pacific.

    They show their ignorance more and more each and every time they try to resurrect their soon to be obsolete AGW BS theory.

  3. O2bnaz2 says:

    So is the standard for proving man made Global Warming now any warming at all. We are still in the warming phase of the Holocene aren’t we?. The planet should begin to warm again at some point, right!!

  4. oldbrew says:

    Can someone explain how ‘heat’ could be preferentially diving into the oceans without having any equivalent effect on land – how would it ‘know’ where to go? Sounds bonkers.

  5. “An issue here is that any non-linearities in the climate system might invalidate your stats. For example, variability in a system without summer sea ice (which might feasibly happen later in this century) could be fundamentally different from a system where it is present. This would mean that you couldn’t just add the variability from the control run and look at the statistics of no-or-negative warming.”

    No-or-negative warming, have you ever heard anything as stupid as this!
    Where are the probabilities of COOLING from the models because if they don’t compute then they are not worth the paper they are published on.

  6. tallbloke says:

    “Negative warming”.

    Can’t bring themselves to face the possibility of COOLING can they?. I reckon it would make them start to shake uncontrollably, and not just because of the cold.

  7. Kristian says:

    What’s really funny is that they still claim warming (from a strengthening “rGHE”, of course) over the last 15 years, but according to CERES, global “back radiation” to the surface (from, one would guess, the evidently strongly rising CO2 + more atmospheric H2O as a positive feedback to the rising temps, right?) has DECLINED since 2000 (by about 1 W/m2), so that the radiative cooling rate of the global surface has STRENGTHENED over that same period (by about 1.75 W/m2):

    All the while, net solar to the surface most assuredly has not diminished, although not risen much either:

    Net radiation to the global surface (net solar IN minus net IR OUT) is slightly DOWN since 2000, meaning the global surface has absorbed and stored a bit LESS radiative heat on average since then. Still, it’s all quite stable:

    According to CERES estimates …

  8. tallbloke says:

    “But the data are surely wrong” ™ Kevin Trenberth.

  9. Richard111 says:

    FOUR spotless days during the peak of solar cycle 24 must register with these dumbos?