Met Office: Creating a five-year window into future climate

Posted: July 30, 2020 by oldbrew in climate, MET office, modelling, predictions
Tags: ,


Using computer models to make climate predictions? All we can say is: good luck with that.
– – –
Providing annually-updated five-year climate predictions at global and continental scales is the focus of a new international science collaboration co-ordinated by the WMO and led by the UK’s Met Office.

For the first time, climate scientists have joined forces and resources to produce an annually-updated climate snapshot looking at the next five years.

Harnessing the best computer models from ten climate centres around the world, every year will produce a new climate prediction looking out to five years ahead.

Professor Adam Scaife is the head of long range prediction at the Met Office. He said: “This is an exciting new scientific capability. As human-induced climate change grows, it is becoming even more important for governments and decision makers to understand the current climate risks on an annually-updated basis.”

The development of near-term prediction capability has long been an aspiration of the World Meteorological Organization – a so-called grand challenge.

“This study shows – with a high level of scientific skill – the enormous challenge ahead in meeting the Paris Agreement on Climate Change target of keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius,” said WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas.

Full article here.

Comments
  1. Graeme No.3 says:

    Will they include the least inaccurate model – the Russian one that ignores the CO2 level?

    The problem is that the models DON’T work, so averaging them merely results in a range that veers from unlikely to incredible (but scary). Particularly the insistence of the modellers in the belief that things must get worse.

  2. cognog2 says:

    And what pray were the actual pre-industrial temperatures? Why are scientists so shy about mentioning these figures? I’m fed up looking at all those dubious anomaly graphs which never tell you what the base figure is. Meanwhile I suspect pre-industrial temperatures were uncomfortably cold by our standards, judging by all those snowy Christmas cards and muffled up carol singers.

    Just wonder how the average of ten duff predictions will be less duff?

  3. dennisambler says:

    cognog2

    Exactly. Are we supposed to believe that the temperatures at the end of the LIA were normal and we should aspire to those temperatures by cutting CO2? Even if it were possible, I prefer a little warmer thank you very much.

    Who gets to decide what the correct temperature for the global atmosphere should be? The UN, with its propaganda agency, the WMO, ably assisted by the politically driven Met Office?

  4. ivan says:

    Maybe it is time to insert from XKCD

    [reply] GIGO: ‘Garbage in – Gospel Out’ (H/T Notalot… commenter)

  5. Ian says:

    These outfits should be shuttered.

  6. Coeur de Lion says:

    What is their figure for carbon dioxide sensitivity?

  7. oldbrew says:

    Climates don’t operate on five year timescales, so this looks like an excuse for a recurring publicity stunt designed to generate yet more alarmist headlines straight from computers. No doubt a well-paid exercise for those involved.
    – – –
    Coeur de Lion says: What is their figure for carbon dioxide sensitivity?

    Depends what day of the week it is 😆

  8. Paul Vaughan says:

    5 Lies Math Constitution …and Garbage Hammers Competition Myth

    What is the constitution of a consensus hammer?

    ivan illustrait-D above how the tool is created.
    A song emotionally UN dare scares how IT‘s “boldly” US-D:

    you will believe in me
    and I will never be ignored
    I will lie for you
    beg and steal for you
    ’cause I believe in you
    I would die for you
    I would kill for you
    I will crawl on hands and knees until you see
    ” — Garbage “#1 Crush”

    They cause terror. Financial terrorism is their new weapon. Millions of their followers AGGRESSIVELY want to see non-believers “rewarded” with joblessness (and thus homelessness).

    Remember that terror campaigns need military backing to survive. What military is backing this???

    They are logical but they base their logic on false assumptions. They flip like a switch to intense emotion (even if well-masked) when anyone dares to challenge garbage assumptions.

    The debate-box thus framed by their luminary masters is brute psy-ops. Meeting them on those debating terms signals self-caging surrender to garbage assumptions.

    Worse: anyone thus surrendering is complicit in the psy-ops of Big Tech Mono Pole Lie‘s escalating financial terror camp aims. BT mono pole lies need at least 5 (we ink, we yank) opponents each.

    Overdue Math Provocation

    Longer term we need to tee our math education systems to par China’s superior math education system so WAY MORE of our people (1/5 isn’t enough) are empowered to be more than just emotional competitors.

    Past “leaders” wasted the stable decades after WWII. Math education could have been iteratively refined to reliably produce amazing outcomes for at least 4/5 of the population.

    Amazing Math MET.ch

    What UN ITs? Hear we have a cause both left and right can believe in.

    $10 billion as best toss (we ink, we yank) into the big tech emotional garbage campaign could instead help fix west turn mat[c]h education.

    Why are all these wealthy donors — with an economy the size of Germanydividing politics instead of funding the math education needed for superior human evolution?? For “team” profit?? Is that what IT’s divisiveness is AB out?

    On second thought: I don’t trust THIS “kind” of corporate “leadership”, which is TOO tyrannical = strictly incompatible with democracy. Intervention is how we “vote out” mono pole lie.

    Someone has to point to root cause so we’re not caged by garbage assumptions. Maybe 5 free speeches (we ink, we yank) will help US ID mono pole lie roots of miss garbage mass myth MET[h]OD.

    Q: The naive IT AB out what’s go anon in the US is terrify UN?

  9. stpaulchuck says:

    the story of AGW:

    ————–
    “Computer models are no different from fashion models. They’re seductive, unreliable, easily corrupted, and they lead sensible people to make fools of themselves” John in OK
    ————-
    “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.” – George Orwell
    ——–
    As Mark Twain once said, “It ain’t what a man don’t know that gets him in to trouble; it’s what he does know for sure that just ain’t so!”.

  10. Gamecock says:

    Exactly, Graeme No.3.

    If they had ONE model that worked, they wouldn’t need 10. They confess that the models suck, but if they average 10 that suck, they get really good useful numbers.

  11. oldbrew says:

    Here they go again…

    Climate change ‘driving UK’s extreme weather’
    By Roger Harrabin
    BBC environment analyst
    7 hours ago

    Climate change driven by industrial society is having an increasing impact on the UK’s weather, the Met Office says.

    Its annual UK report confirms that 2019 was the 12th warmest year in a series from 1884.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-53601257
    – – –
    12th warmest year? Since 1884? No big deal there – is that all they’ve got to try and scare us with?

  12. Phoenix44 says:

    This is the exact opposite of what you should do. Have 10-50 forecasts and see which one works best as you go along. Try to narrow the field over time and learn why the ones that work (if any) work best. If none work well, learn from that.

    There is no reason whatsoever why the average of outputs of models that vary considerably should be any more accurate than any of the models individually. It just means you are in the position of being least wrong – but that’s completely different from being actually right.

  13. stpaulchuck says:

    Phoenix44 says:
    July 31, 2020 at 8:56 am
    ———-
    that is roughly what they have been doing for nearly 20 years now. The problem is that any one model of theirs can forecast reality for a short segment of future time, but then goes wildly off the track on either side of that time segment. So at some time they grab ahold of this one and then when it blows up a year or three later they jump to another. And another. And… well you get the idea.

    There is NO model that will accurately predict the climate/weather at any significant distance in the future due to the stochastic nature of the path from winter to summer and the HUGE number of actors affecting the final climate at each node. Even the IPCC scientists admitted to it years ago:
    ———-
    “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” – IPCC TAR WG1, Working Group I: The Scientific Basis

    If we could do that, I could predict the state of the stock market over the next 50 years as well. Think about that.

  14. oldbrew says:

    It just means you are in the position of being least wrong

    Not really. If they are all exaggerating warming you get a median of exaggeration, not a minimum which would be least wrong.

  15. Paul Vaughan says:

    spc wrote:
    “If we could do that, I could predict the state of the stock market over the next 50 years as well. Think about that.”

    No one can model human psychology accurately — spin, switch, slip, slide. Some escalate much harder than others. It’s on an exponential scale.

    Leaves plenty of opportunity for paradoxical outcomes if competitively betting on climate model trade secrets. Psychology redefines the odds every which way.

    Even if the playing field isn’t level, smart ones adapt fast and beat trade secret plans.

    This is another area where the West underestimates China. Something about northern European winters selected for belief in failsafe planning.

    The people who believe in conventional climate modeling are really something else. I never let on what I really think. I listen. Some of the stuff they believe is so far beyond insane I would never even imagine trying a sensible dialogue with them. Listening just helps me understand how people get trapped by base assumptions. The Orwell quote you gave above sums it up.

    The people who keep climate modeling trade secrets are having fun gambling.

    Of course that’s a problem for us because some of them are trying (and failing) to “lead” us onto the problem-gamblers path of governance.

    We don’t use logic to correct dangerous problem-gamblers trying to “lead” us like that. We have some climate logic, but we’re not stupid and naive enough to think we’re going to save ourselves from dangerous problem-gamblers by patiently reasoning with them.

  16. hunterson7 says:

    What is it with delusional tyrants and five year plans?

  17. Paul Vaughan says:

    An on-the-point Q hinter sun.

    Chris Cornell. Sound Garden. Superunknown.

  18. oldbrew says:

    JULY 31, 2020
    North Atlantic climate far more predictable following major scientific breakthrough
    by CMCC Foundation – Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change

    A team of scientists led by UK Met Office has achieved a scientific breakthrough allowing the longer-term prediction of North Atlantic pressure patterns, the key driving force behind winter weather in Europe and eastern North America.
    . . .
    Published in Nature, the study analyzed six decades of climate model data and suggests decadal variations in North Atlantic atmospheric pressure patterns (known as the North Atlantic Oscillation) are highly predictable, enabling advanced warning of whether winters in the coming decade are likely to be stormy, warm and wet or calm, cold and dry.

    However, the study revealed that this predictable signal is much smaller than it should be in current climate models. Hence 100 times more ensemble members are required to extract it, and additional steps are needed to balance the effects of winds and greenhouse gasses. The team showed that, by taking these deficiencies into account, skillful predictions of extreme European winter decades are possible.

    https://phys.org/news/2020-07-north-atlantic-climate-major-scientific.html
    – – –
    the study analyzed six decades of climate model data – doesn’t inspire confidence

    additional steps are needed to balance the effects of winds and greenhouse gasses – ditto

  19. Gamecock says:

    ‘A team of scientists led by UK Met Office has achieved a scientific breakthrough allowing the longer-term prediction of North Atlantic pressure patterns’

    Predictions are easy. It’s accuracy that matters.

    ‘Published in Nature’

    I’ve heard Nature used to be a reputable publication.

    ‘North Atlantic atmospheric pressure patterns (known as the North Atlantic Oscillation) are highly predictable, enabling advanced warning of whether winters in the coming decade are likely to be stormy, warm and wet or calm, cold and dry.’

    “We can now reliably reveal that it is going to snow in England in 2026.”

    That’s how useful their ‘warning’ will be. Cirrusly, ‘warning’ of weather months out is useless to anyone.

  20. oldbrew says:

    How’s the climate ’emergency’ going? Backwards in the UK…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s