The Met-Office has issued a ‘decadal’ climate forecast which runs from 2018 to 2023. Maybe it should be called a ‘semi-decadal forecast’ instead, but we’ll let it pass, as that’s not the most amusing aspect of it by a long chalk.
For starters, there’s the baseline period chosen. 1850-1900. They’ve gone for this so they can scare us with the upper end of the blue prediction envelope exceeding the Dangerous! Global! Warming! politically chosen figure of 1.5C above “pre-industrial”.
Here’s the global measuring station coverage between 1891 and 1920. There was a lot less in 1850.
I thought it would be fun to see how the Met-O forecast is doing after 10 months, so I plotted the latest annually averaged HadCRUt 4 global data using Wood For Trees in red and overlaid it on the Met-O prediction plot:
It’s quite amusing to see that the annually averaged global temperature is already dipping below the blue prediction envelope, but when I pointed this out to the Met-O’s Professor of climate impacts, Richard Betts, he told me that it was:
Too early to say yet – you’ll notice the blue plume hasn’t started yet! It’s annual means, not individual months.
This made me look a little more closely at the data. You can see that although I started my overlay plot at the same 1960 date, I’ve had to offset it to the middle of 1959 to get it to line up with the Met-O plot of the same HadCRUt data.
Now since it’s annually averaged data, that will put the end point of the plot another six months back from the “start of the blue plume”. Taken with the offset already noted, this means the annually averaged data won’t reach the ‘start of the blue plume’ until the end of December 2018.
However, the Met-O ‘Deadal Forecast’ page tells us:
Forecast issued in January 2018. The forecast will next be updated in January 2019.
So the Met-O will be updating the forecast in January 2019, when, without a doubt, the “start of the blue plume” will be ‘adjusted’ to take account the previous year’s data, which will only just have reached it!
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present you with the Met Office’s unfalsifiable and infallible ‘Decadal’ climate forecast.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
so what is so sacred about 1.5C? And why pick 1850? Oh wait, maybe because it is roughly the end of the Little Ice Age. So let me think… ice age = very cold; not ice age = warmer. So either humans took us out of the LIA, or Mother Nature did. What are the odds?
Oh and BTW, we are still about a half to a full degree colder than pre-LIA when they used to be able to grow grapes in northern England, something we still can’t do today successfully. The Middle Ages Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period were both warmer than today and they were boom times for humanity with roughly 50% increases in population, a population well fed from bumper crops.
@oldbrew re goalposts: I don’t mind them moving. But when they are camouflaged and then put into the middle of a minefield within a barbed wire barrier and machine gun towers at the corners, I tend to think that is a bit much.
Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
🤔
The most recent forecast (blue) starts from November 2017. All data are rolling 12-month mean values. The gap between the black curves and blue shading arises because the last observed value represents the period November 2016 to October 2017 whereas the first forecast period is November 2017 to October 2018.
Politics, money, peer pressure and the lying, fact-free, fake news media’s censorship (BBC) have completely corrupted science. Climate change has turned science/engineering/economics into full time bullshit factories.
The Radiative Green House Effect theory contains a fatal flaw.
For RGHE to perform as advertised requires the earth’s surface to radiate upwelling LWIR as an ideal black body, i.e. 1.0 emissivity at 16 C, 289 K, 396 W/m^2. (TFK_bams09)
The contiguous presence of atmospheric molecules participating in non-radiative heat transfers through conduction, convection, latent renders impossible such BB LWIR, the effective surface emissivity being 0.16, i.e. actual 63 W/m^2 / ideal 396 W/m^2.
The LWIR upwelling 396 W/m^2 does not exist – the 333 W/m^2 GHG energy loop “warming” the surface and atmosphere does not exist – and the global warming and climate changes that are attributed to carbon dioxide do not exist.
Three decades of careers, books, papers, research, seminars all go straight in the trash bin and the trillion-dollar climate change industry is instantly unemployed.
No big deal, just some minor changes.
Hey, what can you say? It’s SCIENCE!!! Have any yourself? Bring it!
El Niño ALERT; positive Indian Ocean Dipole likely underway
9 October 2018
The Bureau’s ENSO Outlook has been raised to El Niño ALERT. This means there is approximately a 70% chance of El Niño occurring in 2018—around triple the normal likelihood. Similarly, in the Indian Ocean, a positive Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) may have started.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/index.shtml
Craigm: The gap between the black curves and blue shading arises because…
Try an overlay yourself. They’ve shifted the annually averaged data.back a few months so far as I can tell.
tallbloke, are you saying that most of this id based on the HadCRUD data set that has been shown to be totally unreliable, http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/first-audit-of-global-temperature-data-finds-freezing-tropical-islands-boiling-towns-boats-on-land/ after an audit? If it is then all the conclusions the met office tries to draw from it are likewise questionable.
In fact anything from the met office appears to need to be taken with a spoonful of salt especially when several of their good recording sites have been abandoned including those that were part of the radiosonde network – was that because their records didn’t fit the required narrative?
Reblogged this on Wolsten and commented:
Well spotted Roger. Stuff you cannot make up keeps getting made up none the less using our money!
Wow, that is just amazing, I can’t believe that the Met-O are still pushing such useless nonsense, Oh wait, yeah I can actually believe it.
Hope everyone is keeping well, just checking up on you guys 😉
TB – yes does look strange. They must be praying for the El Nino that OB highlights above but with lag won’t come in time to affect T by their next update.
Some earlier 5-year ‘decal’ forecasts:
– Averaged over the five-year period 2015-2019, global average temperature is expected to remain high and is likely to be between 0.18°C and 0.46°C (90% confidence range) above the long-term (1981-2010) average of 14.3°C.
– During the five-year period 2016-2020, global average temperature is expected to remain high and is likely to be between 0.28°C and 0.77°C above the long-term (1981-2010) average.
And from 2007:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/aug/10/weather.uknews
“The forecast from researchers at the Met Office’s Hadley Centre in Exeter reveals that natural shifts in climate will cancel out warming produced by greenhouse gas emissions and other human activity until 2009, but from then on, temperatures will rise steadily. Temperatures are set to rise over the 10-year period [2005-2014] by 0.3°C.”
It should be noted that the trend from 2005-14 was not statistically different from zero.
So if I assume 1850 -1900 was about one degree below optimal, we are nearly at the right temperature now.
Have I missed something?
These high global temperatures are consistent with continued high levels of greenhouse gases.
Or, consistent with recovery from the Little Ice Age and within the range of natural variability.
A puzzle rises in my un-scientific mind….
A few years ago we were told that CO2 would increase global average temperatures by 4-6 C above the average of the 1981-2010 period 14.3C, which I would expect 18-20 C global average.
Then we were told armagedon happens at 2C above the 1961-1990 average of 14C, which I would expect 16C global average.
Now we have doomsday scenario at 1.5C above the average of the 1850-1900 period which is what 13.5C? Thus giving 15C global average…
So this new deadly average temperature of 15C is less than 1C above what only a few years ago was considered the normal to measure change against….
To stop the average temp change going above a value that we can’t physically discern without measuring equipment and have experienced previously without harm is going to cost us $3.3 trillion a year….
The science is improving with models giving values of average temperature closer to actual as it progresses but the alarmist stance is still apparent at the lower temps and still requires the Marxist solution to be implemented or else….
Why are we not being told that if we continue as we are then we will be fine by the scientists?
Lord B – yes, funny how the less temperatures rise as alarmists predicted, the lower the figure they claim as the limit before something or other really unpleasant is supposed to occur.
Nickreality65 said:
“The Radiative Green House Effect theory contains a fatal flaw.
For RGHE to perform as advertised requires the earth’s surface to radiate upwelling LWIR as an ideal black body, i.e. 1.0 emissivity at 16 C, 289 K, 396 W/m^2. (TFK_bams09)
The contiguous presence of atmospheric molecules participating in non-radiative heat transfers through conduction, convection, latent renders impossible such BB LWIR, the effective surface emissivity being 0.16, i.e. actual 63 W/m^2 / ideal 396 W/m^2.
The LWIR upwelling 396 W/m^2 does not exist – the 333 W/m^2 GHG energy loop “warming” the surface and atmosphere does not exist – and the global warming and climate changes that are attributed to carbon dioxide do not exist.”
Could you elaborate on this/link to science that can be explained to those of us who never took calculus?
Thanks
IR near surface may well be 396W/m^2 and IR near cloudbase may well be 333W/^2. But this is simply the atmosphere radiating according to its temperature.
The multibillion dollar question is: Does this have anything to do with why the Earth’s surface is ~90K warmer than the Moon’s?
We think not.
As Nikolov and Zeller’s studies have shown, it is the pressure of the air which makes the surface warm, not what it’s composed of.
[…] year, I wrote a short post entitled Met-Office invents infallible climate prediction method, in which I showed how the MET-Office would always update their ‘decadal’ (actually […]