Weather review of 2011 - a year of extremes

What I love about Britain is the weather, it is changeable all the time. I used to hate going on holiday abroad and not seeing a cloud for two weeks. The other day I made a mistake and went in Meadowhall and it made me feel depressed. On the way home I looked up and saw beautiful clouds in the sky which removed the bad feeling.

How does Piers Corbyn at weather action and James Madden at Exacta weather, amongst others, get away with it? Without even a flinch My Corbyn has totally ignored his December huge snow and deep freeze forecast, hoping everyone will forget no doubt. And Mr Corbyn has the audacity to constantly attack the Met Office for inaccuracy!

But we mostly got away with it didn't we? Shows the resilence of us humans. And there the alarmists are, worrying about a 0.3c rise in temperatures over 3 decades.



That rise how now stalled and we have had no global warming for 14 years. I feel sorry for the Met Office and the likes of ex-scientist Phil Jones, who expected the gradual and beneficial warming to continue, and who staked their reputations on it.

With the Olympics in 2012 weather predictions will be an important feature of athletes competing in outdoor sporting events and ongoing training up to next year's Finale.

The US had even odder weather extremes and discussed in this short video;

https://video.pbs.org/video/2181432528



PingoSan wrote:

"That rise how now stalled and we have had no global warming for 14 years."



Do you mean globally or where you live? Or are you just cherry picking by using a very warm year as your start period? Try looking at 15 or 13 years. The warming trend has certainly continued over the last 14 year with the top 10 warmest onrecord being recorded within that time.

Quite Gadgetfiend, that is exactly how it works. Get it right and make a huge fanfare; get it wrong - bluster on and pretend it never happened, knowing that Mr. Average has more to worry about than past weather.



And of course the anti MO brigade cling to and magnify out of all perspective, anything at all that contradicts the MO, as a matter of principle,even if it has no overall relevance to what they might be saying (as per #3 above), simply because they "don't like" the MO for bearing the message of AGW - the established scientific view (which, as yet, still stands regardless of perceived "stalling").



Look no further than this to see how indie forecasters survive.



Richard Dawkins uses an analogy in evolution that describes the way natural processes like GW may work. Progress is a bit like watching a cork in the sea being transported across an ocean - it bobs back and forth seeming not to make any obvious headway. But sure enough, given time, that cork will bob itself from one side of the ocean to the other, pushed by inexorable winds and currents. So it will probably be with AGW - drawing the conclusion that the bobbing cork is going backwards or "stalling" in the space of a few years is probably reading far too much into small scale random movement.



As for - "well THEY said it would get warmer and warmer": this is just childish and a deliberately obtuse refusal to comprehend the nature of the beast - almost like expecting "daddy" to get everything right and getting peevish when you rumble that he is less than perfect!



Otherwise,Paul, a remarkable year. December here in the E riding has been rather pleasant this year. Even when not beautifully mild it seems to have been quite sunny and fresh. Rain belts have moved through quickly followed by drying winds. I would guess the sunshine amounts will have been well above average here.

Lazarus 5.



I suggest you look at the temperatures as recorded by satellites in 1998 and then you will notice we haven't warmed. Alarmists-in-chief James Hansen and Phil Jones know this, as recorded in the Climategate emails. You seem not to.

One of the worst summers on record and the met office/BBC are coming out with this garbage about it being the 2nd warmest ever, they cant help themselves can they



Dont remember this fanfare during the last three severely cold winters - enough the scam has been rumbled

and in 2012 we will have an extra 24 hours of weather.....

@ 9. Spanglerboy



Magic Spangler! Thank you for the one and only 2012 weather prediction that will eventually ring true.



HNY

@8 Openside



Garbage? It was the 2nd warmest. Sorry if that doesn't fit your perception. There was certainly a fanfare over last December, the Met Office were not shy in saying which records were broken. The Met Office press release about 2011 even mentions how 2010 was the 12th coldest on record. Hiding it away in plain site obviously.



Those crafty UN/Lizards/Socialists/weathermen/suncream salesmen can't help themselves can they...

Re 7:

5 year running mean of UAH satellite record:

https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/mean:60

7. PingoSan wrote:



"I suggest you look at the temperatures as recorded by satellites in 1998 and then you will notice we haven't warmed"



UAH annual satellite data since 1998 with trend line: https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/mean:12/from:1998/plot/uah/from:1998/trend



Same data plotted from 1999 (excludes the abnormally warm La Nina in 1998): https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/mean:12/from:1999/plot/uah/from:1999/trend



Both show warming.

8. openside50 wrote:



"One of the worst summers on record and the met office/BBC are coming out with this garbage about it being the 2nd warmest ever"



Paul Hudson makes it clear that he is referring to annual data, not 'summer' data:



"... *summer* [was] the coolest for nearly 20 years... provisional figures dating back to 1910 and released by the Met Office suggest 2011 *as a whole* has been the second warmest on record." (My emphasis.)



The BBC has also made this distinction in its main online news report on the subject: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16366078



"This *year* was the second warmest on record for the UK... Apart from January, *the other months that had below-average temperatures were June, July and August.*" (My emphasis.)



How could it be any clearer?



"Dont remember this fanfare during the last three severely cold winters - enough the scam has been rumbled"



I typed "2010 coldest december on record bbc news" into Google. The first five links give extensive coverage of the winter conditions in the UK in 2010/11. Again, what more do you require from the BBC?

@ 13:



Should read "abnormally warm 'El Nino' in 1998" - not 'La Nina'.

Openside50. I think the met/office bbc are out of their tree when they claim the 2nd warmest year on record, they seem to have their own agenda. There were definitely years when we could claim that we had very little winter and brilliant summers. But I think we need to go back 10 years for that. I think too many people are massaging figures and I wonder if their temperature measurement points are a true reflection of what is really happening in the world. I live 12 miles from Sheffield and the temperatures and weather can be totally different. Where do the met office capture temperatures for where I live.

Sheffield: As ever you follow the money, our government now collects more than £40b in environmental taxes, 'global warming' is the golden goose of all golden gooses and it keeps on giving as long as people like the met office keep on supplying the 'right' information



In return research scientists/on message organisations get their grants renewed, fame and fortune follows from book deals and the like plus they get to jet off to sunny places where they liase with other like minded people at the climate conference jambourees out of which governments get the answers they want so they can justify ever higher taxes



The people at the raw end of the deal are you and me who actually pay for it all

2011 bows out with a grade A grey day

Thanks Quake and newdwr54 for showing Pingosan how his beliefs are in error. With the temps over the last few years being higher than average, even starting in the cherry picked year, they now show warming. With the ten warmest years all in that period it is a physical impossibility that there hasn't been a warming trend.



Even if Pingosan truly believes in his heart than climatologists have been emailing each other wondering why it isn't warming, here is good evidence that they were wrong - and we know how he loves to believe they are wrong. Or is that just when he thinks they are wrong in a way that confirms his beliefs?



What I would like to know is; is Pingosan mature enough to admit he was wrong about no warming for the last 14 years or is he going to continue using that myth and continue losing his credibility for rational discourse.

Openside50. In 2005 I was a great believer in Global warming by man, then I worked for a Carbon Management company and it opened my eyes. I watched Al Gores inconvenient truth and fell asleep. I then watched the alternate view on Global warming expecting to ridicule it and the interview with Nigel Lawson changed my mind. I found out that the earth was warmer in 1000AD, than it is now and much colder in the dark ages. After the war when industrial production went through the roof, 1947 was one of the coldest winters and the temperature of the earth dropped. I totally detest paying 80% tax on every gallon of fuel I buy, to prop up the welfare state. I can't wait for a new pollution free car to come into production. It is being made by TATA and is of a french design. It will cost very little, it will do 300 miles between refills and a refill will cost a couple of pounds. It will run on compressed air and give out no pollution. It can achieve a top speed of 60/70 miles an hour. Let us see the government try and tax it. But remember we all produce one percent of C02, nature does the rest.

Mr Hudson, BBC moderators, good citizens of the world, pray a little light relief



Translated from the original Sanskrit by classical scholar and mystic, Ivor O’level



Carbodiox, ruler of the heavens,

Hallowed be thy Team.

Let world governance come.

Thy warming will be unprecedented on the surface

As it is in the troposphere.

Give us this day our daily scare

That we might spread alarm

Amongst the peoples of the Earth.

Forgive us our hypocrisy

And our attempts to hide the decline.

And lead us not into falsification.

But deliver us from FOI requests.

For thine is the sensitivity,

The PR and the consensus

For ever and ever

Amen

Spanglerboy. I like it. Even Jesus can't raise the Global warming myth from the dead. I wonder what Lazarus has to say about that.

Absolutely correct Sheffield, there is quite a simple formula that explains it all



Govt's need for money+Researchers need for grant renewal=global warming

I'd say that using any credible measure, global warming is a scientific fact. So is denial.

Just noticed that SS has published Part one of it's review of 2011, looking at climate events globally. The graphed data is hard to deny (thought I'm sure some will).

https://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1189



As the subheadings say;

The Data Keep Rolling in. 2011 Research Shows Global Warming has Continued.

The fact that the world was warmer during the MWP is a fact

The fact that global temperatures are no higher now than 14 years ago - contrary to every warmist model forecast made - and despite CO2 emissions continuing to rise is a fact

The fact that our government will within 10 years be getting 10% of all its revenues from environmental taxes is also a fact

"The fact that the world was warmer during the MWP is a fact"



Really? I thought the skeptic angle was that all the data was too unreliable to draw any certain conclusions...



"The fact that global temperatures are no higher now than 14 years ago"



They are higher than 14 years ago

26. openside50 wrote:



"The fact that the world was warmer during the MWP is a fact"



You can have no way of claiming that positively. There is much evidence that the MWP temperatures were lower globally than they are today, and most warming was strongly concentrated in the NH. The US national academy of science reported this very thing: https://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1



"The fact that global temperatures are no higher now than 14 years ago - contrary to every warmist model forecast made - and despite CO2 emissions continuing to rise is a fact"



You're ignoring temperature 'trends'. See the UAH graphs above that show warming since 1998, even though 1998 was the warmest year on the satellite record (NOAA and NASA both show 2010 as the warmest ever year on record). You're also overlooking glacier retreat, sea ice decline, continued species migration and glacial melt lake expansion, etc. Those things require increased heat energy.



CO2 and temperatures are not bound to rise in lock-step with one another. This has never been claimed. All that has been projected is that given a sufficient time span (30 years is the classic period) a statistically significant correlation between temperature rise and CO2 should emerge. This should be manifest in land surface temperatures first, due to thermal inertia of the oceans.



Here are the results of the last 30 years of the recent BEST study on land surface temps versus CO2: https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1981.25/to:2010.17/mean:12/plot/best/from:1981.25/to:2010.17/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1981.25/to:2010.17/trend/normalise

This is what the - ever so reliant on government funding - warmist scientists are saying in private





"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

Sorry Paul but what are you talking about "the big thaw set in in February"?! There was no snow on the ground throughout January here!! Nothing.

openside50 wrote:



"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."





Nice out of context cherry pick. The scientist who said this was Trenberth who was talking about a paper he wrote; An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy (Trenberth 2009). This is quite clear if you read the whole email exchange. He was complaining to other scientists that observation systems can't comprehensively track all the energy flow through the climate system not that the warming was there.



But the truth wouldn't support your beliefs so I guess you might just ignore the facts and keep insisting it means something else.



Actually, even if you take the quote in the context you imply it is proof that the scientists really believe that the earth is warming, and therefore proof that they are not just faking it for whatever reason your conspiracy suggests.

Tata's new car that runs on compressed air, will reduce pollution which we should all be concerned with. But C02 isn't pollution, we all breathe it out and nature creates much more than we can ever hope to create. On top of that with rising fuel costs everybody is looking at alternate ways of doing things. However over the next 5 years more and more evidence will come out to blow an hole in Global warming by man.

Lazarus - I'm afraid you just don't get it about SkS. It's now primarily an advocacy site which occasionally touches on the science. In a funny way, it's the actions of sites like this which further cement my own (and I'm sure many others) skepticism. I say funny because, the obvious bias, strawmen and lack of balance has grown worse over time as if they hope to win the war of words, irrespective of the science. That you can't see this is evidence that the tactic works on some people.

Personally, I'm more likely to be persuaded by arguments that don't involve so much obvious advocacy. Typically at SkS, they start with some good points, but then lose credibility with the garnish and exaggeration. It seems to me they are either preaching to the converted or trying to persuade the completely stupid.



BTW - anyone else looked at the 'new theory' posted over at WUWT. Seems to be getting a real mix of responses from garbage to genius. I mention it only because it seems to argue along similar lines that we've heard here before. I'm thinking of the chap who goes on about MENSA and the other one who talks much about the ideal gas law - apologies, can't remember your handles.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1189



thanks for that - I needed a laugh!



funniest most hysterical thing I have read for ages, loved the bit about accelerated sea level rise, was puzzled at first as traditional methods have been showing no such thing, then I saw they were using satellite measurements!



laughable

openside50 @ #34



In fact, tide guage measurements are probably more prone to errors than satellite ones because of the shifts in the continental plates and the "rebound effect" after the last glaciation.



Still, if you check Church et al (2008), "Understanding global sea levels: past, present and future", you'll see that both satellite and tide-guage measurements show an acceleration in sea level rise over recent years - towards the top end of what the IPCC has predicted.



It's just a shame that you don't follow the links in the Skeptical Science articles to REAL SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE which backs up what they're saying - that is where the site scores so very heavily against the sites you appear to rely on. I fear that it is their confidence in the real science they quote which lateintheday mistakes for "advocacy".



Accelerating sea level rise is NOT "laughable". What is definitely laughable, though, is:



Your apparent belief that you know what you're talking about with regard to a highly complex science that you clearly don't understand.



Your inability to check reliable sources to establish the facts before posting.



Your mocking of the science and scientists who actually know what they're talking about....... and all without actually reading their literature to see if it makes sense!



Paul

satellite measurements more reliable than tide guages? baloney



and btw poor little old Tuvalu that the warmist Richard Black keeps using as an example of one of those low lying threatened islands - you know the one that the BBC were telling us 10 years ago would be the site of the first climnate change refugee disaster stories?



guess what their population has doubled and they are busily building new infrastructure with all that aid money they are receiving from UN bodies due to their imminent destruction due to global warming?



its a con and Tuvalu are milking it for all they are worth - not that I blame them

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDKSkBrI-TM

NollyPrott - unable to accuse this chap of ignorance (given he is rather a learned chap) they will:



a)ignore him

b) stick their fingers in their ears and go 'bwah bwah bwah'

Sorry Paul but SkS is about as impartial as Real Climate is...and we all know who runs real climate and why its those same names that pop up time and time again in CG1 and CG2.



The sad thing here is that had climate scientists been open, honest and transparent from day 1 then climate science itself would most likely be decades further advanced than it is today. Sadly, because the self appointed guardians of the religion of Mann Made Global Warming (tm) have done everything possible to ensure that sun light is kept away from their work that we find ourselves where we are today.



Mailman

The thing that has confused me about the prediction of the UK’s future weather, due to climate change, why do they forecast dryer weather? Since more precipitation is certain, why might the UK be dryer.

openside50 @ #36



If you are so sure that the satellite data (which Church et al (2008) describe as "high quality") is "baloney", perhaps you might like to offer some EVIDENCE (ie. from peer-reviewed literature) in support of your claim. Sadly, your assertions are very short (ie. devoid) on such evidence.



I also note that you haven't addressed the Church et al findings on tide-guage sea level changes, which completely contradict your claims.



Paul



Paul

NollyPrott @#37



Ian Clark is actually a geologist rather than a specialist in climate science and he seems to be completely unaware of a great deal of scientific research which makes a nonsense of much of what he's saying.



Paul

Mailman,



I'm not going to waste my time trying to argue against your riduculous propaganda - we've been there before and I've concluded that your own posts are sufficient evidence of the utter folly of your position and your complete lack of balance.



I am a scientist and when dealing with scientific subjects I know that ultimately only peer-reviewed scientific literature really matters. Skeptical Science backs up what it says using this literature. Your sources do not. End of story!



Incidentally, all of the data which sceptics claimed was being hidden is now in the public domain and it has been shown that it wasn't fiddled, indicating that even if the scientists witheld their data, they actually had nothing to hide. Meanwhile, the BEST team, led by an acknowledged "sceptic", has reaffirmed the temperature record.



Your "global conspiracy" of evil scientists is unconvincing and beginning to sound like a very old broken record:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OB2prBtVFo



Meanwhile, the Skeptical Science article that yourself and openside50 have dismissed provides links to real scientific literature that you cannot easily dismiss - which is presumably why you are always so quick to turn to conspiracy theories!



Paul

@38. openside50



Congratulations! Only took to 00:39 for your new year prediction to be confirmed!



Happy New Year to all!

@43 Paul Briscoe



"Meanwhile, the BEST team, led by an acknowledged "sceptic", has reaffirmed the temperature record."



Niether the BEST team or the BEST data base comments upon the temperature of this planet.

37.NollyPrott:



Ian Clark doesn't say anything that isn't already well understood, and he makes at least one slightly misleading statement.



It is already known that the MWP was not caused by greenhouse forcing. It was caused by increased solar radiation and reduced volcanic activity. No one said CO2 is the only forcing on climate.



It is already understood that CO2 is not the driver of glaciations or thaws. CO2 lags ice age thaws by about 800 years. Whatever forces glacial maximums to thaw it isn't CO2. No one said CO2 is the only forcing on climate.



Turning to the IPCC projections: Clark is wrong to say that CO2 "cannot give us the warming that is being projected". That is his opinion at best. 97% of climate scientists disagree with him.



He says "CO2 is making the water vapour cycle work". That's not what is being claimed by AGW. All AGW is saying is that because of water vapour's rapid responsiveness to warming, even a little additional CO2 can create amplified warming throughout the troposphere. He calls this idea "preposterous". Again, 97% of working climate scientists and all the worlds national scientific academies disagree with him.



Then he says "the models [for greenhouse warming] predict a [tropospheric] hotspot... this is our thumbprint"



This is wrong. The "thumprint" is not the tropospheric hotspot (which is also a feature of solar warming); it is the cooled stratosphere. Solar warming does not produce a cooling stratosphere - greenhouse warming does. In the real world, satellites have confirmed that the stratosphere has been cooling at the same time as the troposphere has been warming.



*That* is the "thumprint" of greenhouse warming; not the tropspheric hotspot. Clark is a supporter of solar warming. That means that the absence of a tropspheric hotspot would be as big a problem for him as it is for AGW.

@46. newdwr54



Eh up DW



"It is already known that the MWP was not caused by greenhouse forcing. It was caused by increased solar radiation and reduced volcanic activity."



But, but, but the MWP does not exist, does it? But, but if it does exist as you say then our present cannot be "exceptional" can it?



So why is it different this time?



PS, Happy New Year! Trust all is well with you and yours.

greensasand @ #44 & 45



Happy New Year to you too!



"Only took to 00:39 for your new year prediction to be confirmed!"



Sadly, it is yourself and openside who are in denial. The scientific literature as a whole (as opposed to cherry-picked facts) utterly refutes what Ian Clark was saying. Some of the relevant science is covered here:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU&feature=channel_video_title



The following video thoroughly debunks another of Clark's myths:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nrvrkVBt24



"Niether the BEST team or the BEST data base comments upon the temperature of this planet."



Perhaps you'd like to provide some evidence based on sound science to support this assertion.



Paul

@48. Paul Briscoe



"Niether the BEST team or the BEST data base comments upon the temperature of this planet."

Perhaps you'd like to provide some evidence based on sound science to support this assertion.

--------------------------------------------------------------

The BEST project by their own admission represents less than 30% of the planet, is yet to be "peer reviewed". Once it has been "peer reviewed" it will then be reviewed by its actual "peers", the existing "data base owners" expect fun!



Paul, you have a brain that I respect, please use it. I do not like this constant "you are in denial". I am not in denial because I only quote facts. If you want to interpret those facts as me being in denial then I suggest a little of " physic heal thy self"

@46. newdwr54



Just to start the New Year off with a little insight. The reason why I am on the blogs as "greensand" is because I work for an organisation that is a world leader in the design of power generation systems. We have made major breakthrough especially in wind, tidal and wave technology. We understand what works and we are very, very, aware of the potential pitfalls but we have also secured the well being of a lot of people so we fully understand:-





"Again, 97% of working climate scientists and all the worlds’ national scientific academies disagree with him."



I am part of it!



But in real life we are practical engineers dealing with life hazard designs. Compared to the strictures of our design structures the due diligence that has been carried out on the AGW hypothesis is quite frankly nonexistent.

47.greensand:



Morning GS and happy new year.



There is pretty compelling evidence that the MWP *did* exist, but doubts remain as to its spatial extent (NH more than SH) and the level of warming.



The important point is that even if the MWP *was* warmer than modern warming globally, it says nothing about the causes of either.



It is different this time because the causes are different. The MWP or any other period of natural warming in the past few hundred thousand years doesn't get CO2 off the hook as the main forcing behind modern warming.

50.greensand:



The 97% figure refers to actual working scientists in the fields of climate, environmental and atmospheric science and is derived from a number of studies (not just the one with the small population). These specifically targeted scientists currently publishing in the field.



It's hard to contrast that type of work with technology and engineering in terms of strictures; but it's also important to note that much of the science supporting AGW is derived from repeatable observations that give quantifiable data. It isn't all *just models*, which is a glib comment too often heard.



'Sceptical' scientists are at liberty to dispute the 'hard' findings that there is an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere that 'must' mean excess heat energy is being stored in the atmosphere, or that the stratosphere is definately cooling, for example. We seldom hear about these though.



What we repeatedly hear instead is this erroneous and often self-defeating claim about the 'tropospheric hotspot', or rather its apparent absence. As I mentioned above, this is as much a problem for those who attribute warming to natural forcings as it is for AGW, but they never appear to acknowledge this. That should wave a big red flag in itself.



And what if improved satellite technology does start to find the tropospheric hotspot? Does anyone believe Prof Clark and co will be calling press conferences to announce that one of the "thumbprints" of AGW has been identified? Perhaps; but perhaps more likely we will start to hear more about how the tropospheric hotspot is also a signature of solar forcing?

greensand @ #49



"Paul, you have a brain that I respect, please use it. I do not like this constant "you are in denial". I am not in denial because I only quote facts. If you want to interpret those facts as me being in denial then I suggest a little of " physic heal thy self""



I did indeed use my brain and my reading of your previous posts.



At post #44 you reponded to an earlier one from openside @ #38, suggesting that his "prediction" (that the response to Prof Ian Clark from people such as myself would be "to ignore him" or "stick their fingers in their ears and go 'bwah bwah bwah'") had come true.



This was a complete misrepresentation of my position as it ignored (ie. was in denial of) a huge amount of scientific evidence showing that many of Clark's claims were either false or cherry-picked to the point of being seriously misleading.



You too have a brain and an intellect. I suggest that you use it to read up on the aspects of the science which the denial movement quietly brushes under the carpet and then apply proper scientific principles to consider the evidence in its entirety before drawing your conclusions. Any truly objective (and sceptical) scientist would use such an approach.



True, BEST is only land-based, but it is still highly significant that it has confirmed the warming trend shown by the other groups. It has also undermined one of the key

claims of doubters, regarding the UHI effect.



Paul

After falling for most of the first half of December, the AQUA CH5 temperature has risen rapidly over the second half of the month, i.e. by 0.2c in 3 or 4 days.

Based on the figure at December 29th., I would expect the UAH anomaly for the month to be around 0.08c, i.e. about 0.04c lower than for November.

Based on the same figure, the HadCRUT3 anomaly for December should be 0.32c, which would be about 0.32c, i.e. about 0.06c higher than November, but predicting HadCRUT3 from AQUA CH5 is proving unreliable, and since the predicted figure for November was 0.4c, compared to the observed 0.26c, a futher fall in HadCRUT3 would not be impossible.

Sorry, the second paragraph should have read:

Based on the same figure, the HadCRUT3 anomaly for December should be about 0.32c, i.e. about 0.06c higher than November, but predicting HadCRUT3 from AQUA CH5 is proving unreliable, and since the predicted figure for November was 0.4c, compared to the observed 0.26c, a futher fall in HadCRUT3 would not be impossible.

We still seem obsessed with the weather extremes of a small island off the NW coast of Europe. We will get extremes due to being an island influenced by a variable Gulf Stream.



Despite our present so called extreme weather a closer inspection at past weather, and its consequences, show we now live in a time of fairly calm conditions.



Past weather is listed on the SPPI web site with a little searching.

Christopher Booker writing in The Telegraph about the global warming scare states:

In the 20 years since the scare was launched, global man-made CO2 emissions have risen by 50%.But at the end of 2011 global temperatures measured by NASA satellites stood barely a 10th of a degree Celsius higher that their average throughout the 32 years since satellite measurements began - far lower than the projected warming".



Perhaps you various commentators would care to comment. Is the man right?

H2SO4,

I am sure that he is generally correct, the figures sound too precise to be made up, and it is true that global temperatures are currently lower than predicted by most IPCC models in the "commitment" scenario, which was based on ZERO growth in CO2 emissions since 2000.

However, I personally think it is CO2 concentrations which are more relevant than emissions although, they have been rising steadily too, although off hand I don't know the precise figure.

Short term regional weather is not a good guide to the bigger picture and season to season or year to year large swings are more characteristic of a cooling globe because the jetstreams swing about more across the latitudes:



https://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8890&linkbox=true&position=3



"Visual Proof of Global Cooling Since 2007"

Paul Brisco said "I'm not going to waste my time trying to argue against your riduculous propaganda"



Hahahahahaa....I win! :)



So you cant argue with the inconvenient truth. Go ahead then, bury your head in the sand while singing "those deniers are being mean to me mummy" ;)



What is increadibly interesting about your knee jerk response is that this mimicks exactly the kind of childish behaviour of some of those so called climate scientists, like the great Phil Jones :)



Mailman

So the decadal hiatus in global warming that none of their fabulous computer models predicted has now entered its 14th year almost a decadal plus half hiatus!



Statistically significant enough for them yet?



After all it was only the 18 year period of warming from 1980 to 1998 that got them so worked up in the first place!



I am going to guess the 18 years of warming was absolute irrefutable evidence of AGW while the 14 years without warming is irrelevant and should be ignored :-)

#61. - openside50 wrote:

"So the decadal hiatus in global warming that none of their fabulous computer models predicted has now entered its 14th year almost a decadal plus half hiatus!"

I'm not sure if it is true than none of the models predicted it, but certainly very few, and those which did were hidden in the "wood" of the multi-model means, caused by the majority of the models.

"Statistically significant enough for them yet?"

Probably not, but the point is that a change in a trend is probably never statistically

significant, but it doesn't mean that it isn't happening. In the end, it comes down to a judgement over whether what you are seeing is a real change or simply a fluctuation.

I believe that supporters of AGW are putting too much "blind faith" in statistical proof. Those of us who saw a change in the trend may yet turn out to be more correct, in the long-term.

57. H2SO4 wrote:



Christopher Booker ...states:



"In the 20 years since the [global warming] scare was launched, global man-made CO2 emissions have risen by 50%. But at the end of 2011 global temperatures measured by NASA satellites stood barely a 10th of a degree Celsius higher that their average throughout the 32 years since satellite measurements began - far lower than the projected warming"



Perhaps you various commentators would care to comment. Is the man right?

___________________________________________________



Hi H2SO4.



Firstly, the idea that there might be global warming associated with increased atmospheric CO2 is not 20 years old. It is well over 100 years old.



As for the modern era, scientists such as James Hansen at NASA have been projecting global warming due to CO2 increase since the late 1970s - so even in the modern era the 'scare' is well over 30 years old, not 20. So Mr Booker is wrong about that for a start.



I'm not sure about the exact figures for CO2 emissions since 1992 compared to today, but they have certainly increased. But should we expect to see global temperatures rise in lock-step with CO2? The answer is emphatically 'no'. There are many short term forcings on climate that can easily temporarily off-set the influence of CO2 for years or even decades.



For this reason the WMO has always regarded 30 years as the 'classic period' over which to identify climate trends from temperature data. When you use a 30-year period, you find remarkable agreement among the various data sets, in terms of trends at least. All agree that temperatures have risen at a rate of around 0.17C/decade in the past 30 years.



That might not sound like much, but it equates to a warming of 1.7C/century, compared to the 0.07C/century observed in the 20th century. This suggests that not only is 'global warming' (when measured over appropriate timescales) continuing - it's accelerating.

#63. - newdwr54 wrote:

"That might not sound like much, but it equates to a warming of 1.7C/century, compared to the 0.07C/century observed in the 20th century. This suggests that not only is 'global warming' (when measured over appropriate timescales) continuing - it's accelerating."

Sorry, can you please explain the logic of that?

Temperature rise over 30 years = 0.17c/decade.

Temperature rise over 11 years = 0.07c/decade.

Actually the 30 year trend peaked at 0.193c/decade in February 2004, since when it has fallen to 0.16c/decade by November 2011.

The 30 year trend shows a similar cyclical pattern of about 60 years, to the 50 year trend, and the previous peak was 0.173c/decade in January 1946, that's a rise (in the trend), of 0.02c in about 66 years.

Previous low points were -0.083c/decade in May 1907 and -0.054c/decade in July 1967. If the past pattern is repeated, the 30 year trend will be approximately

-0.025c/decade around 2027.

Oh, I forgot to mention, that because of the cyclical nature of the 30 year trend, your figure 1.7c/century is only representative of peak trend and the average is currently only about 0.07c/century.

64. QuaesoVeritas:



If you extrapolate the average current 30-year warming rate over a century it is +1.7 C/century.



30 years is the period you should be considering. Not 11 years.



"Actually the 30 year trend peaked at 0.193c/decade in February 2004, since when it has fallen to 0.16c/decade by November 2011."



I specifically said "around" 0.17C/decade in the past 30 years. The actual number ranges between 0.16 and 0.18. 0.17 is the mathematical mean. I see you have chosen to highlight the lowest of these estimates (which is Hadcrut3, if I'm not mistaken. You know, the group that has been conspiring via email all this time to 'raise' average temperatures?)



Can you confirm that the 60 year trend you refer to is reflected in the 60 year temperature averages?



If it is all only 'cycles', then we would expect to see the same average temperatures come and go over a 60 year cycle - wouldn't we?



Is that the case?

@43, Paul Briscoe wrote:



“ I am a scientist and when dealing with scientific subjects I know that ultimately only peer-reviewed scientific literature really matters. “



A scientist would look at all available sources. Peer-review may be an important means of money making for journals and for academics to score points but it is completely unnecessary for science.

The real peer-review only starts after a paper has been published and how and where it is published is immaterial to science.

#66. - newdwr54 wrote:

"If you extrapolate the average current 30-year warming rate over a century it is +1.7 C/century."

But since that was the peak trend over the last 60 years, and it is now declining, I don't believe that it is valid to extrapolate it over 100 years. If I am correct, and the pattern is cyclical, we won't see a trend of 0.17c/decade again for about 50 years, although I haven't done detailed projections. You have to see the cyclical pattern to understand what I mean.



"30 years is the period you should be considering. Not 11 years. "

Sorry, I misread your post to be the 21st century trend, not the 20th century trend.

I accept your point about the apparently accellerating trend based on the 20th centrury v 21st century, but I think it is too simplistic to base that on a sample of only two figures over 100 years. You really have to look at how the trend has evolved on a monthly basis, over the entire data series.

"I specifically said "around" 0.17C/decade in the past 30 years. The actual number ranges between 0.16 and 0.18. 0.17 is the mathematical mean. I see you have chosen to highlight the lowest of these estimates (which is Hadcrut3, if I'm not mistaken. You know, the group that has been conspiring via email all this time to 'raise' average temperatures?)"

I haven't chosen HadCRUT3 because it is the lowest, it's just the series I have done most of my work with, and it's the longest running dataset.



"Can you confirm that the 60 year trend you refer to is reflected in the 60 year temperature averages?"

Not sure what you mean - it's an approximately 60 year cycle in the 30 year trend (and 50 year trend as it happens).



"If it is all only 'cycles', then we would expect to see the same average temperatures come and go over a 60 year cycle - wouldn't we?"

It's not only cycles, but cycles are the main feature. It just so happens that we have just passed a peak in the cycle, which is why you can't extrapolate recent trend figures, any more than you could have extrapolated - 0.054c/decade in 1967. There is an apparent slight rise in the highs and lows in the cycle, but that would not produce a trend of 1.7c a century.

In the past I was criticised for extending the 10 year trend over an entire century, but you are doing the same thing with the 30 year trend.

@46, newdwr54 wrote:



“ It is already known that the MWP was not caused by greenhouse forcing. It was caused by increased solar radiation and reduced volcanic activity. “



You later write:



“ There is pretty compelling evidence that the MWP *did* exist, but doubts remain as to its spatial extent (NH more than SH) and the level of warming. “



It is difficult to believe that increasing solar radiation would cause different regions to warm at different times. This claim also contradicts a mainstay of paleo work which relies on the non-existence of these differences so that teleconnections allow a tree in the USA to measure NH temperature.



It is also interesting that the present 'global' warming is also larger in the NH.

'It is also interesting that the present 'global' warming is also larger in the NH.'



very - also interesting that when satellite measurements were first used to measure global temps they didnt see this increased warming nor did they after the first 'tweak', the second third and fourth did the trick though and they are now 'on message'

Mailman @ #60



As pointed out before, your posts are very short on verfiable facts and science (in fact, devoid of them for the most part). Instead you spout your ridiculous and distasteful propaganda. Do you really think that objective people reading this will take your points seriously when you consistently use terms like "Mann Made Global Warming" (sorry, I forgot the TM!)? The truth is that the only people you will ever impress with your approach are those who hold the same views.



It is an established fact that all scientific denial movements ultimately resort to conspiricay theories:



https://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php



"Almost every denialist argument will eventually devolve into a conspiracy. This is because denialist theories that oppose well-established science eventually need to assert deception on the part of their opponents to explain things like why every reputable scientist, journal, and opponent seems to be able to operate from the same page."



Sadly, I must acknowledge that I have failed to heed one piece of sound advice from the above (something which jkiller mentioned in another recent blog):



"Finally, some ground rules. We don't argue with cranks. Part of understanding denialism is knowing that it's futile to argue with them, and giving them yet another forum is unnecessary. They also have the advantage of just being able to make things up and it takes forever to knock down each argument as they're only limited by their imagination while we're limited by things like logic and data."



So until you start discussing the actual science, as described in the scientific literature, I shall bid you farewell. I will finish by pointing out that some day (and possibly sooner than you might think) you may well have to eat a huge helping of humble pie. So my advice to you would to avoid digging yourself into an even deeper hole!



Paul

RobWansbeck @ #67



"A scientist would look at all available sources. Peer-review may be an important means of money making for journals and for academics to score points but it is completely unnecessary for science. The real peer-review only starts after a paper has been published and how and where it is published is immaterial to science."



That's only partly correct, Rob and it is certainly NOT correct to say that peer-review is "completely unnecessary for science". Pressure groups trying to undermine science they don't like might CLAIM this, but I'm not aware of many mainstream scientists who would agree.



As pointed out before, it is such an easy matter to make any unsubstantiated assertions you want in an article if it does not go through a process of review by experts in the field. In a recent survey, 84% of scientists believed that without peer review there would be no control in scientific communication:



https://www.senseaboutscience.org/news.php/87/peer-review-survey-2009



In fact, Sense About Science have put together an excellent information sheet on peer-review and why it is so important. It's a PDF, but you can find the link to it here:



https://www.senseaboutscience.org/resources.php/16/i-dont-know-what-to-believe



Although non-peer-reviewed articles are sometimes used as sources of information, that information would still have to be thoroughly checked by the scientist using it. It is very unlikely that a scientist would accept scientific deductions and conclusions from an article which has not undergone peer-review.



You are certainly correct to say that peer-review is just the first step. Ultimately, it is the number of times a paper is cited in subsequent papers by other authors that is the best indication of its general acceptance.



Paul

The mindset of these people, they want warming, they are exasperated when they cant get it and annoyed when anyone dares to highlight periods of cold, as these shameful e-mails make clear...................



From: Phil Jones

To: Tim Johns , "Folland, Chris"

Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009

Date: Mon Jan 5 16:18:24 2009

Cc: "Smith, Doug" , Tim Johns



Tim, Chris,

I hope you're not right about the lack of warming lasting

till about 2020. I'd rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office

press release with Doug's paper that said something like -

half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on record, 1998!

Still a way to go before 2014.

I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying

where's the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal

scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.



Chris - I presume the Met Office continually monitor the weather forecasts.

Maybe because I'm in my 50s, but the language used in the forecasts seems

a bit over the top re the cold. Where I've been for the last 20 days (in Norfolk)

it doesn't seem to have been as cold as the forecasts.

I've just submitted a paper on the UHI for London - it is 1.6 deg C for the LWC.

It comes out to 2.6 deg C for night-time minimums. The BBC forecasts has

the countryside 5-6 deg C cooler than city centres on recent nights. The paper

shows the UHI hasn't got any worse since 1901 (based on St James Park

and Rothamsted).

Cheers

Phil

openside50 @ #70



"also interesting that when satellite measurements were first used to measure global temps they didnt see this increased warming nor did they after the first 'tweak', the second third and fourth did the trick though and they are now 'on message'"



Where do you get this stuff from, openside?!!



UAH is run by Spencer and Christy, two of the very few scientists actively researching AGW who are still sceptical. What possible motive would they have for making their satellite record "on message"?



It is certainly correct that the UAH did not initially show warming, but, if my memory serves me correctly, this was found to be due to a failure by Spencer and Christy to allow for the gradual decay in the satellite orbit, which caused a cooling bias in their results.



Paul

RobWansbeck wrote:



"It is also interesting that the present 'global' warming is also larger in the NH."



openside50 wrote:

"very"



That must be very embarrassing for those scientists who clearly have no idea what is happening and why that is .... Oh wait, they do. That is exactly what they predicted would happen with AWG. The NH would warm faster because it's Arctic region is mostly sea ice and a lot would be lost in the summer decreasing the Albedo. The SH would warm slower, even increasing in ice in the centre of the polar region because it is mostly land and with increased moisture in a warmer atmosphere the largest desert on Earth would start to get more snow.



All this predicted before it was even detected. If people would only take time to look at the research they would be a lot less ignorant about the science.

openside50 @ #73



I see nothing shameful about this! We've discussed several times in recent threads the reasons why the rate of warming might be lower at present - it doesn't by any means prove that AGW has gone away.



The point is that Jones, like most scientists researching the field, has a conviction that the warming trend WILL increase again in the near future. In the meantime, he is understandably sick of having to field questions from sceptics who don't understand the way internal variability in global temperature data manifests itself.



I'd say that Jones' sentiments are entirely human....... perhaps you'd forgotten that scientists are human too?!



Paul

All this predicted before it was even detected. If people would only take time to look at the research they would be a lot less ignorant about the science.



They also predicted warming would continue, accelerate even as CO2 emissions kept rising, they didnt



And what about the troposphere?



Seems to me they are making it up as they go along

67.RobWansbeck wrote:



"The real peer-review only starts after a paper has been published and how and where it is published is immaterial to science."



Good. I have a theory that global warming is associated with the increase in leprechauns. I issued this in the "Leprechaun spotter's Journal" [3:2.2000?).



It's about time debate surrounding my theory began.



What opinion do *you* hold on the Leprechaun theory of global warming?

68. QuaesoVeritas wrote:



"If I am correct, and the pattern is cyclical, we won't see a trend of 0.17c/decade again for about 50 years, although I haven't done detailed projections. You have to see the cyclical pattern to understand what I mean."



I do understand what you mean. I have also run the 30 and 60 year trend cycles. The point we have discussed before, several times, is that trends do not necessarily reflect real world temperatures. All they show is variation in warmer/colder.



If you transpose actual average temperatures over trends in the Hadcrut3 data (which should be fairly easy for you to do with your data sets), then you should see an obvious disparity. Despite the rise and fall of the 30 and 60 year trends, the underlying temperature rise is unmistakable.



We don't need an explanation for the cyclical rise and fall in trends; we need an explanation for why there is more heat energy in the real world.



My contention is that we already have the explanation; and that this explanation is as clear as day.

69.RobWansbeck wrote:



"It is difficult to believe that increasing solar radiation would cause different regions to warm at different times."



It's a good point. What I didn't mention earlier (to avoid clutter) is that ocean cycles also probably played a part in MWP warming. There is uncertainty in all of these things.



"This claim also contradicts a mainstay of paleo work which relies on the non-existence of these differences so that teleconnections allow a tree in the USA to measure NH temperature."



Again, these measurements are treated with extreme caution.



"It is also interesting that the present 'global' warming is also larger in the NH."



That's also a fair point. Maybe we are exaggerating things based on 'world outside our window' observations. But I wouldn't bet on it.

@78, newdwr54 wrote:

“ … Good. I have a theory that global warming is associated with the increase in leprechauns. I issued this in the "Leprechaun spotter's Journal" [3:2.2000?).



It's about time debate surrounding my theory began.



What opinion do *you* hold on the Leprechaun theory of global warming? … “



If you could provide a link then we could discuss it.



I have never said that peer-review has no benefits merely that it is unnecessary; science worked for centuries without official peer-review. A few thoughts here:

https://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2007/February/Comment.asp



Most people would run a paper past their colleagues to catch any obvious errors before publishing; have you tried this with your Leprechaun theory of global warming?



It doesn't always work. I have seen programmes like the X Factor where family and friends haven't had the heart to tell someone that they couldn't sing with embarrassing consequences. :)

@, Lazarus wrote:



“ The SH would warm slower, even increasing in ice in the centre of the polar region because it is mostly land and with increased moisture in a warmer atmosphere the largest desert on Earth would start to get more snow. “



Yes, and we're still waiting.

RobWansbeck @ #81



"I have never said that peer-review has no benefits merely that it is unnecessary; science worked for centuries without official peer-review. A few thoughts here:

https://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2007/February/Comment.asp "



The problem is that science has become much larger in scale and more complex over the years. In this day and age, a system where a scientist simply passed his ideas in front of colleagues in an ad hoc way WOULD be open to abuse.



Incidentally, in the article you linked to, Sir John O'Reilly is not saying that peer-review is unnecessary:



"But all this should not be interpreted as an attack on peer review per se. Rather it is a caution: all of us involved in the review process must avoid being unduly conservative or risk-averse if we are to secure the required balanced research investment portfolio, including an appropriate proportion of high-risk, high-return activities."



From what I've read and my own experience, I think most scientists would actually agree with this - it's just a matter of getting the balance right.



Paul

newdwr54



In fact, it seems that a certain amount of work has already been done to study the influence of leprechauns on climate:



https://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/Picture5-1.png



It may come as a disappointment to know that leprechauns actually have a small cooling effect (the "Pot of Gold Albedo Effect"):



https://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/skeptic_forcing1.png



Paul

There seems to be concern about atmospheric CO2 content and our contribution. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration, 350ppmv or so or 0.035%, is made up of two components from natural producers such as volcanoes, respiration of plants and animals, rotting of dead plants and animals etc, and our bit produced from burning fossil fuels. According to the US Department of Energy, alarmist at best but their figures do agree with others, our part of the overall annual CO2 budget is 3-4% of the total. So the feared doubling of atmospheric CO2 content by burning fossil fuels will not occur overnight or even in the next ten years.



Why a doubling of CO2 content is a problem I have no idea since in the past 500Ma atmospheric CO2 content went as high as 8000ppmv with no problems or warming, in fact we had a very prolonged ice age 450Ma ago.



There is also the problem that these IPCC model forecasts that increased atmospheric CO2 will increase temperatures is counter to the research that clearly shows that temperature rises BEFORE parallel increases in atmospheric CO2 content with a time lag of 800-1500 years. So this present slight rise in atmospheric CO2 content is most probably due to the Medieval Warm Period and certainly not our burning fossil fuels.

Paul Briscoe Peer review, sounds like MP's and expenses.

#79. newdwr54 wrote:

"If you transpose actual average temperatures over trends in the Hadcrut3 data (which should be fairly easy for you to do with your data sets), then you should see an obvious disparity. Despite the rise and fall of the 30 and 60 year trends, the underlying temperature rise is unmistakable."



I am afraid that I don't really see the point in doing that. Since the change in the trends is derived from what you call the "real world temperatures", there can clearly be no "disparity" between the two figures.

The evolution of the trends is simply another way of evaluating the "real world temperatures", which is not visible in the actual monthly data.

It is also a method, assuming that the cyclical pattern will be repeated in the future, of attempting to predict future temperature changes. I accept however, that that assumption may not be correct, but it is a matter of judgment. So far, the recent temperature activity fits well with the longer term cyclical patterns, from which I can predict that there will be little increase in global tempertures over the next 10 years, unlike the UKMO, which states that about 50% of those years will be warmer than 1998.

Judging from the Phil Jones e-mail in openside50's post #73, it appears that Tim Johns and Chris Folland (whoever they are), would agree with me, although obviously I have arrived at my conclusions by a completely independent method.

I have recently been struck by the difference between the interpretation of economic data and temperature data.

In the case of the economy, if growth slows to zero or declines slightly, that is a trigger for panic, and if there had been no growth, or a slight decline for the last 10 years, I am sure that nobody would dare to say that economic growth was still continuiing, as is the case with the global temperature figures.

#85. - John Marshall wrote:

"There seems to be concern about atmospheric CO2 content and our contribution. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration, 350ppmv or so or 0.035%, is made up of two components from natural producers such as volcanoes, respiration of plants and animals, rotting of dead plants and animals etc, and our bit produced from burning fossil fuels. According to the US Department of Energy, alarmist at best but their figures do agree with others, our part of the overall annual CO2 budget is 3-4% of the total. So the feared doubling of atmospheric CO2 content by burning fossil fuels will not occur overnight or even in the next ten years."

I may be wrong, but isn't it the case that the effect of rising CO2 concentrations diminishes as the concentration increases and that most of the longer term predicted temperature increases are due to the increase in water vapour in the atmosphere, resulting from the CO2 warming?

If that is the case, it may be the assumed feedback from water vapour which is not correct.

Apparently the BBC "weather test", to evaluate the accuracy of weather forecasts is nearly ready to start:

https://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9669000/9669983.stm

Unfortunately, the UKMO has declined to take part in the seasonal aspect of this test.

At least we should get an evaluation of the accuracy of such forecasts from Piers Corbyn and other independent forecasters.

"Judging from the Phil Jones e-mail in openside50's post #73, it appears that Tim Johns and Chris Folland (whoever they are), would agree with me, although obviously I have arrived at my conclusions by a completely independent method."





Jihns & Folland both Met Office chaps - all very pally in this game some would say incestuous - odd way of doing things too hoping temperatures rise just so yoi van 'wipe the smug grin off peoples faces'



And yet the warmists constantly tell us we should listen to 'proper' scientists

85. John Marshall wrote:



"... our part of the overall annual CO2 budget is 3-4% of the total. So the feared doubling of atmospheric CO2 content by burning fossil fuels will not occur overnight or even in the next ten years."



Just to be clear, the human contribution to overall annual CO2 emissions is in the order of 3%, that's true; but it's only half the story. The other half of the story is that natural sinks are sufficient to absorb *all* the natural CO2 emissions and about half the human ones. Think of the atmosphere as a one litre capacity bucket filled with 998.5 ml of water. You can add a further 1.5 ml of water without causing an overflow, but if you add 3 ml... Human annual CO2 emissions are the 'straw that breaks the camel's back'.

_____________________________



"Why a doubling of CO2 content is a problem I have no idea since in the past 500Ma atmospheric CO2 content went as high as 8000ppmv with no problems or warming, in fact we had a very prolonged ice age 450Ma ago."



A doubling of CO2 refers to a doubling on pre industrial levels, which were 280 ppm. We're currently at 390 ppm. At current rates, we should see a doubling before the end of this century. The reason the 'doubling' is always talked about is because this is what 'climate sensitivity' is based on - the amount of warming we might expect from a doubling of CO2. Of course you can calculate the warming any given increase in CO2 might have without waiting for it to double.



For instance 390 ppm should equal 1.4 C temperature increase on pre-industrial average (assuming 3 C climate sensitivity for CO2, which is the consensus opinion). So far we've seen 0.8 C; the rest is believed to be 'in the pipeline', delayed due to thermal inertia of the oceans.



Regarding the ice ages - we're still in one! The last 'glacial maximum' was around 20,000 years ago, when vast ice sheets covered North America and Western Europe. It's a sobering thought that global temperatures then were only around 6 C colder than they are today. If the scientists are right about the climate sensitivity of CO2, then before the end of the century earth's average temperature should be around 3 C warmer than it was before industrialisation.

_______________________________________



"There is also the problem that these IPCC model forecasts that increased atmospheric CO2 will increase temperatures is counter to the research that clearly shows that temperature rises BEFORE parallel increases in atmospheric CO2 content with a time lag of 800-1500 years."



That is *not* a problem for AGW. It has long been known that CO2 lags thawing of glacial maximums. It was climate scientists who discovered this. CO2 is not now, and never has been, the only forcing on climate. CO2 acts as a positive feedback at glacial terminations, it's not the trigger. But that *doesn't* mean that CO2 can't also lead temperature rise; there is abundant evidence that it has done so in the distant past and also over the past 30 years at least.

If the present warming is not unprecedented (if as many have stated the MWP was warmer) what does that do to the theory of AGW?



Its just that my BS detector goes into full on mode when I see so many rabidly denying the possibility that it could possibly have been as warm if not warmer back then

@84, Paul Briscoe wrote:

“ In fact, it seems that a certain amount of work has already been done to study the influence of leprechauns on climate:



https://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/Picture5-1.png “



I am glad that you recognize a spurious correlation when you see one or at least I hope you do.

Unfortunately some climate scientists aren't quite as observant and are prone to using data series whose correlation is every bit as spurious as your example.



Sorry but I have to bring up this quote again from Keith Briffa who is aware of the problem and wrote of Mann:

“ He is just as capable of regressing these data again any other “target” series , such as the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbage he has produced over the last few years , and … (better say no more) Keith ”



BTW are you aware of any peer-reviewed papers showing that the Irish population is a valid proxy for the number of leprechauns? :)

When searching for a possible UKMO forecast of the 2012 temperature anomaly, I came across the following:

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc

Has anyone posted this before? My apologies if anyone has.

It says it was last updated on December 14th., but I don't know if that was the original publication date.

The problem with this, as far as I can see, is that it doesn't have a specific forecast for 2012 but a rolling annual mean. I suppose it would be possible to estimate the figure for calendar year 2012 but it wouldn't be entirely accurate. I suppose we could all have a go and see what the consensus is.

Also, the anomalies are relative to 1971-2000 (why??), so would have to be converted to 1961-90 to bring them in line with HadCRUT3.

Also, does anyone know if Joe Bastardi has made a prediction for 2012 yet?

95.Veritas MetOffice forecasts after having been roundly castigated for the warming biased in their previous long term attempts, now read something like



33.3% chance of being normal, 33.3% chance of being warmer, 33.3% chance of being cooler



A slight exaggeration but so ridiculous has anything they attempt further out than a week that I'm amazed any pays for their information any longer

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc



wow the metoffice just cant help themselves - if you wanted to see an example of built in warming bias that has to be it



14 years of flatlining temperatures and yet again they claim it is about to accelerate upwards - no wonder they are treated as an object of ridicule these days

#97. - openside50 wrote:

"wow the metoffice just cant help themselves - if you wanted to see an example of built in warming bias that has to be it"

It's true that they don't seem to have learned from their past "success", i.e. demonstrated by the white line, which bears little resemblance to the black one.

Some of the more recent observed figures are at the very bottom of their probable range, which probably makes them accurate, according to some!

I have emailed them asking if the actual numeric values are available.

The red shading probable range gives them the out though - they will be able to claim results were within their forecast range!



Instead of admitting they have a warming bias as can bee seen from their continued forecast of warming they merely continued to forecast accelerated warming, most people change the record when they have a scratch that bad :-)

Well done Paul Briscoe, Newdwr54 and one or two others for doing your best to explain what the bulk of the rational scientific world is saying. But as I have said before, scientific arguments cut little ice with most posters above.



What really facinates me is the sheer FURY and venom in the more outlandish sceptic posts. I mean where does it all come from and why? It seems to be pure lashing out for its own sake - repeating the same things over and over as if mutual reasurance of numbers itself "proves" the sceptic case.



A pitiful sense of sheer impotence in the face of almost the entire serious scientific world probably accounts for much of it I would guess. In the rarified and overwhelmingly sceptic atmosphere of this and other blogs I suppose it is possible to feel you are in the right, so long as you don't look much further.



"WHY WON'T THEY LISTEN TO ME?" -is the sceptic cry. Probably because they have already thought of all your arguments and dismissed them. Some people are surprisingly clever, you know.



Do you sceptics really believe that science is so deluded, venal and incompetent - that if sceptic evidence really had the weight you seem to think it has, then it just might have made it through the validation process into general currency? Or is it only YOU who, towering above all other analysts, can really understand what is going on?!



What possible reason could scientist have for making up the AGW story? And don't say funding - there would be money galore for disproving it!