Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Summer Sun

Met Office 2013 annual global temperature forecast released warmer than the long-term average predicted

Recommended Posts

2013 is expected to be between 0.43 °C and 0.71 °C warmer than the long-term (1961-1990) global average of 14.0 °C, with a best estimate of around 0.57 °C, according to the Met Office annual global temperature forecast.

Taking into account the range of uncertainty in the forecast and observations, it is very likely that 2013 will be one of the warmest ten years in the record which goes back to 1850, and it is likely to be warmer than 2012. The prediction follows provisional figures for the observed temperature in 2012, published by the Met Office and University of East Anglia last month. These showed that global average temperatures in 2012 were 0.45 °C above the long term average based on data from the three international global temperature datasets used by the World Meteorological Organization. 2012 is currently ranked the 9th warmest year on record. The global average temperature for 2012 falls well within the range predicted by the Met Office for 2012 of between 0.34 °C and 0.62 °C, with a most likely value of 0.48 °C above the long term average. This is consistent with the Met Office forecast statement that 2012 was expected to be warmer than 2011, but not as warm as the record year of 2010.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/2013-global-forecast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can't even forecast 30 days out let alone a year!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the same forecast seemingly on repeat every year isn't it? I certainly remember the same prognosis either last year or the year before but don't know what the actual outcome is/was as I don't follow the global average.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More climate tomfoolery if you ask me, still it justifies the grossly inflated green taxes we all have to pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As is too often the case, sceptics attempt to turn a scientific debate into an economic one...

But both go hand in hand BFTV and some are making a lot of money on the back of it, that's not the scientists fault I grant you more human nature, as in where there's a problem there's money to be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest that there's money to be made on both sides- the pro-AGW argument is an excuse for green taxes while the anti-AGW argument is an excuse for promoting maximum energy consumption to boost various companies' profits.

The news is hardly news to me really- global mean temperatures only vary by up to a few tenths of a degree each year so unless we get a significant downward trend, next year will be almost certain to exceed the 1961-90 average, and also that of 1981-2010 by a smaller margin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No arguments there TWS, other than the fraction of degrees we are talking about is pretty negligible in the grander scheme of things, more so when you take into consideration how global temps have been static for over 15 years. Anyway that's enough from me, climate science tends to bore the socks of me with the same people arguing the same facts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the same forecast seemingly on repeat every year isn't it? I certainly remember the same prognosis either last year or the year before but don't know what the actual outcome is/was as I don't follow the global average.

I may be wrong but i don't remember the Met O forecasting a year as warm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can't even forecast 30 days out let alone a year!

I can't forecast how high the waves will be in 30 days but I can forecast the tides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the global temperature may be just ever so slightly and undetectably higher (to the human skin and senses) than it's 'supposed' to be?

Why are we supposed to be worried about that? I'm still waiting for all the forecasts of 'hot, dry summers and warm wet winters' to come true that we were told in the eighties were going to happen.

The Earths temperature is half a degree above normal levels? Considering the temperature of space around the Earth and the sun beating down upon is, I think the Earth is staying pretty level temperature wise, don't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif

image92.png

But both go hand in hand BFTV and some are making a lot of money on the back of it, that's not the scientists fault I grant you more human nature, as in where there's a problem there's money to be made.

You think there's more money in green energy that hydrocarbons?

And you think the 12 month temperature prediction by the Met Office is really related to that?

Could your perceived economic impacts of warming and/or regulation associated with its prevention, be clouding your judgement of a huge area of science and those even associated with it, just a little maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the global temperature may be just ever so slightly and undetectably higher (to the human skin and senses) than it's 'supposed' to be?

Why are we supposed to be worried about that? I'm still waiting for all the forecasts of 'hot, dry summers and warm wet winters' to come true that we were told in the eighties were going to happen.

The Earths temperature is half a degree above normal levels? Considering the temperature of space around the Earth and the sun beating down upon is, I think the Earth is staying pretty level temperature wise, don't you?

It is, the atmosphere is a remarkable thing. Outside it and shaded from the sun it's close to absolute zero, unshaded surfaces are bathed in dangerous radiation and roasted - but down here it averages about 14C and is safe. Me, I'm not going to be unconcerned about what scientists tell us about what our activities are doing to the thin gas skin of this fabulous planet. Sorry about that.

Put it another way. Why should we be oblivious to it given this is a climate forum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be wrong but i don't remember the Met O forecasting a year as warm?

Yes it looks like they think 2013 could well be the warmest on record with an expected anomaly around 0.57C. That would beat 2010 which had an anomaly of 0.54C?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why have they used the 1961-1990 average? Everything else, (including usually the METO), use the latest 30 year period as the global average measurement. The cynic in me suggests it's because it makes the warming figure appear more dramatic than it actually is. I guess that's what happens in a media savvy world; disappointing to have a leading organisation dabbling in such tactics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As is too often the case, sceptics attempt to turn a scientific debate into an economic one...

That argument can also apply the other way around, why is it the Governments always raise taxes on 'less environmentally frendly' fuels and claim its to protect the future of our planet, if that is the case then what they are basically saying is if you can afford to and are prepared to pay more then its ok to destroy the planet, i am not by any stretch saying that our carbon footprint is having no effect on the planet, im just saying that it may be exaggerated and until a few more hundred years of climate sample size we will not no for sure how much effect we are having, my other argument of course but a politically incorrect one is how about the human race control their breeding instincts a bit more and everyone who does exist might have more leeway and propensity to enjoy their existance without any reprocussions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how about the human race control their breeding instincts a bit more and everyone who does exist might have more leeway and propensity to enjoy their existance without any reprocussions.

I think that a somewhat unfair comment. Millions of women in the world don't get the opportunity to exercise this right within the patriarchal society in which they live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why have they used the 1961-1990 average? Everything else, (including usually the METO), use the latest 30 year period as the global average measurement. The cynic in me suggests it's because it makes the warming figure appear more dramatic than it actually is. I guess that's what happens in a media savvy world; disappointing to have a leading organisation dabbling in such tactics.

So, every time there is a record flood we should raise the level defined as a flood because not to do so over dramatises floods? Not imo, baselines provides a, well, baseline with which to compare things.

I'd be concerned if the baseline for climate forecasts was constantly moved because it might be being done to obscure warming (or indeed cooling) compared to a baseline level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, every time there is a record flood we should raise the level defined as a flood because not to do so over dramatises floods? Not imo, baselines provides a, well, baseline with which to compare things.

I'd be concerned if the baseline for climate forecasts was constantly moved because it might be being done to obscure warming (or indeed cooling) compared to a baseline level.

No Dev.

There is an accepted and established protocol in the arena of climate science and that is the 30 year average, used as a baseline. The most recent 30 year period is not 1961-1990. The METO do not use this earlier period when issuing seasonal forecasts, when we read the forecast for this winter, it doesn't say above/below average compared to 1961-1990 - they use the latest 30 year baseline.

Shifting goal posts does no one any favours, least of all professional organisations. The baseline 30 year average is there for a purpose, a scientific purpose. Choosing an earlier period, presumably to create drama where there is little or none, is not scientifically valid.

In the world of climate science there are a raft of blogs/claims/counter claims to wade through before you can get to the core science. The average man in the street isn't interested enough to bother, instead digesting the soundbites and taking that as gospel. When serious organisations like the METO produce and publish reports/press releases such as the one above, they have a responsibility to ensure it is accurate. What they don't have or shouldn't have, is the freedom to wrap it up in invalid science in order to produce a headline grabber. If you want to be regarded as professional, a source of unbiased science then you have to act accordingly.

I remain disappointed that the METO of all people now appear to be engaging in the shifting goal posts used by the blogosphere land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 61-90 average is the standard, as set by the WMO, for use in climatology. Recent averages are used in weather.

http://www.wmo.int/p...nd_products.php

But I guess good ol' tinfoil hat conspiracies are much less effort than actually looking into what's going on

That argument can also apply the other way around, why is it the Governments always raise taxes on 'less environmentally frendly' fuels and claim its to protect the future of our planet, if that is the case then what they are basically saying is if you can afford to and are prepared to pay more then its ok to destroy the planet, i am not by any stretch saying that our carbon footprint is having no effect on the planet, im just saying that it may be exaggerated and until a few more hundred years of climate sample size we will not no for sure how much effect we are having, my other argument of course but a politically incorrect one is how about the human race control their breeding instincts a bit more and everyone who does exist might have more leeway and propensity to enjoy their existance without any reprocussions.

feb1991blizzard, this isn't all directed at you, but some may apply.

Almost all the evidence already points to the fact that we are warming just as predicted. Over the last 15/16 years, the temperature rise has only slowed. That's despite most of the natural cooling drivers kicking into gear, -ve PDO, strong La Ninas and weak El Ninos, the longest solar minimum since the 20s, increased aerosol pollution from China and India (not natural) and so on. Despite all these things,we haven't even seen global temperatures drop, which really is remarkable.

If people want to say that they believe making changes now is not worth it and that we're better off adapting to climate change, then fair enough. Say that and provide some evidence to back up your ideas, preferably not from oil industry representatives.

But this dismissal of scientists, claims of manipulation, bias and corruption of all those involved in climate studies across the entire planet is nonsense. It just really doesn't hold up and makes so many people seem like easily manipulated conspiracy nuts.

Even when the sceptics hack emails, or use ridiculous freedom of information requests to get them, they find nothing. Then they resort to pulling a line out of context to try give the media a story. I'm sure everyone is familiar with the "hide the decline" bit. But are they aware that it refers to a reduction in tree ring growth in certain northern areas that started in the 60s and is a well known and well studied problem?

I really can't comment on the specifics of how much of the fuel tax in the UK goes towards green energy production or what they say about it. Perhaps someone can pull up some links for that?

But dismissing a temperature prediction by the Met Office/UEA because of taxes... really? That makes sense to people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Dev.

There is an accepted and established protocol in the arena of climate science and that is the 30 year average, used as a baseline. The most recent 30 year period is not 1961-1990. The METO do not use this earlier period when issuing seasonal forecasts, when we read the forecast for this winter, it doesn't say above/below average compared to 1961-1990 - they use the latest 30 year baseline.

Shifting goal posts does no one any favours, least of all professional organisations. The baseline 30 year average is there for a purpose, a scientific purpose. Choosing an earlier period, presumably to create drama where there is little or none, is not scientifically valid.

In the world of climate science there are a raft of blogs/claims/counter claims to wade through before you can get to the core science. The average man in the street isn't interested enough to bother, instead digesting the soundbites and taking that as gospel. When serious organisations like the METO produce and publish reports/press releases such as the one above, they have a responsibility to ensure it is accurate. What they don't have or shouldn't have, is the freedom to wrap it up in invalid science in order to produce a headline grabber. If you want to be regarded as professional, a source of unbiased science then you have to act accordingly.

I remain disappointed that the METO of all people now appear to be engaging in the shifting goal posts used by the blogosphere land.

I really don't understand you since, to me, constantly changing the base line seems like shifting the goal posts.

Edit: what Born says. For climate you need a baseline, for weather less so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why comparing it to an 30 year period that ended more than 20 years ago is anymore sensible or understandable to the public. Like Jethro, in my view it makes the scientific debate worse, because the public becomes cynical about the statistical basis and ignores the content.

Edited to add... Why don't they publish the comparison tomore than one baseline, then everyone would know where they stood?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why comparing it to an 30 year period that ended more than 20 years ago is anymore sensible or understandable to the public. Like Jethro, in my view it makes the scientific debate worse, because the public becomes cynical about the statistical basis and ignores the content.

I honestly don't get that, changing baselines every decade must confuse more that sticking to the same one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weather forecasts and anomalies are based on the most recent climatological mean, i.e., 30 year mean to smooth out the short term variability..

For climate data, you need a constant baseline temperature so that whether your looking at temperatures from 1 million years ago or temperatures 100 years into the future, you have a standard baseline to which they can all be compared and standardised anomalies generated.

Makes perfect sense to me at least?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as for fractions of a degree not mattering when does sea water turn to water? As I understand we can have a tripple point but a fraction of a degree above?

More open water equals more energy absorbed equals more heat re-absorbed by increasing GHG's?

Fractions can snowball and be a part of a positive feedback that will prove very damaging for both world and humanity.

After the year we have just seen do folk really dismiss the impacts of 'small changes' over time as a thing of concern? These 'little changes are , according to NASA, occuring twenty times faster than we see in nature. We know that Nature has checks and balances to limit the impacts of change but has Nature an answer for such swift change???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×