|
Post by neilhamp on Dec 23, 2014 17:28:58 GMT
Wow! The Met Office have released their annual forecast for 2015 They are going for the record big-time! 0.64°C (95% range: 0.52-0.76°C) above the 1961-1990 average. This prediction is based on a combination of a statistical prediction and a GCM forecast. An unofficial forecast from Climate Lab Book, based on an empirical model under development: 0.63°C (95% range: 0.45-0.82°C) above the 1961-1990 average. www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2014/climate-forecasts-for-2015/#more-3149Both of these central estimates would make 2015 the warmest year on record, partly due to anthropogenic influences, and partly because of the ongoing weak El Nino event.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Dec 23, 2014 20:10:20 GMT
I'd hate to say it buy the Met Office are terrible at forcasting!
That said this is what Astromet has being saying. ...maybe the MO are following him???
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Dec 23, 2014 21:11:29 GMT
As noted previously, my forecast made in 2007 was for global temperatures to remain flat over the 2007-2037 period at the 1977-2007 least squares trend temperature for 2007. The 2007 trend temperature was 0.52C for Hadcrut4.
So far, the 2007-2014 average temperature has been 0.48C for Hadcrut4 or 0.04C below the predicted flat temperature. If the year 2015 averages 0.64C then the 2002-2015 average would become 0.50C, still 0.02C below the predicted average flat temperature of 0.52C for 2007-2037. El Nino or near El Ninos are expected every so often. A super La Nina is also very possible in the next few years if, as expected based on history, the ocean currents remain in their cool phase for another 22 years.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 23, 2014 23:01:46 GMT
Duwayne: It is hard to get excited about all this warmth.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 24, 2014 0:26:56 GMT
Mathematically it is simple to create an average with a few thousand places of decimals. However realistically,it is impossible to measure the temperature of the small room I am sitting in to an accuracy of a hundredth of a degree, let alone the entire globe. The error bars are probably of the order of more than a degree +/-. To claim that meanders within their error bars are reason to shut down industry and condemn thousands a month to die in fuel poverty is insane.
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Dec 24, 2014 8:47:36 GMT
I recall Astromet saying he expected a warmer year in 2015, before the big cool in 2017 Did he quote a temperature for 2015?
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Dec 24, 2014 9:24:19 GMT
Astromet did not specify a temperature in his climate forecast for 2015, but is certain it will give weight to the agw hypothesis/presumption/propaganda/lie
(Delete as u feel appropriate!)
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Dec 24, 2014 14:47:17 GMT
Wow! The Met Office have released their annual forecast for 2015 They are going for the record big-time! 0.64°C (95% range: 0.52-0.76°C) above the 1961-1990 average. This prediction is based on a combination of a statistical prediction and a GCM forecast. An unofficial forecast from Climate Lab Book, based on an empirical model under development: 0.63°C (95% range: 0.45-0.82°C) above the 1961-1990 average. www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2014/climate-forecasts-for-2015/#more-3149Both of these central estimates would make 2015 the warmest year on record, partly due to anthropogenic influences, and partly because of the ongoing weak El Nino event. well this signals all the weather station adjusters, grid smoothers, and extrapolators what the target is for the coming year
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Dec 24, 2014 14:57:19 GMT
Mathematically it is simple to create an average with a few thousand places of decimals. However realistically,it is impossible to measure the temperature of the small room I am sitting in to an accuracy of a hundredth of a degree, let alone the entire globe. The error bars are probably of the order of more than a degree +/-. To claim that meanders within their error bars are reason to shut down industry and condemn thousands a month to die in fuel poverty is insane. I checked the temperature in Tucson, AZ just now using the link below. The link shows readings from 3 Tucson locations. These temperatures were only a few seconds old and the locations had similar elevations. The temperatures at 7:26 am were 34.8,30.6 and 29.2 Fahrenheit. So I calculate the Tucson temperature at 31.53 degrees based on an average of these 3 temperatures. Can you imagine the consequences if the average temperature had been 31.54? Tucson temperature
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 24, 2014 19:23:09 GMT
Mathematically it is simple to create an average with a few thousand places of decimals. However realistically,it is impossible to measure the temperature of the small room I am sitting in to an accuracy of a hundredth of a degree, let alone the entire globe. The error bars are probably of the order of more than a degree +/-. To claim that meanders within their error bars are reason to shut down industry and condemn thousands a month to die in fuel poverty is insane. I checked the temperature in Tucson, AZ just now using the link below. The link shows readings from 3 Tucson locations. These temperatures were only a few seconds old and the locations had similar elevations. The temperatures at 7:26 am were 34.8,30.6 and 29.2 Fahrenheit. So I calculate the Tucson temperature at 31.53 degrees based on an average of these 3 temperatures. Can you imagine the consequences if the average temperature had been 31.54? Tucson temperatureIf the average had been 31.54 Tucson would cease to exist by nightfall. That extra 0.01F would have spelled such gloom to the fine folks there that they would have all committed Jari Kari and their hearts would be with algorithm.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Jan 1, 2015 14:35:40 GMT
Well its beginning to look as though our flirtation with negative naturals ( and their AGW component) it drawing to a close with some agencies now concerning themselves with leach out of accrued heat from the warmed oceans ( on top of the unhindered AGW influence and positive natural forcings). All in all the Meto has been pretty conservative in their prediction esp. if we are to see the worlds oceans acting like a giant Nino Plume until the excess heat from the past decade or so has been expelled from them?
Throw in a Nino and a low ice summer and folk will be wondering who told them that global warming was a myth...... see this for the next decade and folk will be wondering why they ever listened to folk incapable of seeing what 97% of science was warning them of......
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 1, 2015 15:19:20 GMT
Such excitement over nothing.
Draw a graph with the temperature axis from minus 50C to plus 50C (approximate spread of world temperatures) with all the Global Average Temperatures** rounded to the nearest degree Centigrade as with weather forecasts. The reason for GW panic is difficult to justify. Now mark the error bounds either side of that anomaly line and ALL the changes are well inside the error bounds. So it is impossible to claim any statistical significance to changes in 'Global Average Temperature'.
**Of course you can create a 'Global Average Temperature' based on the limited measurements made and you can use mathematical precision of hundreds of places of decimals. But it is meaningless. About as useful as having an 'average phone number' to several places of decimals.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 1, 2015 19:11:24 GMT
Well its beginning to look as though our flirtation with negative naturals ( and their AGW component) it drawing to a close with some agencies now concerning themselves with leach out of accrued heat from the warmed oceans ( on top of the unhindered AGW influence and positive natural forcings). All in all the Meto has been pretty conservative in their prediction esp. if we are to see the worlds oceans acting like a giant Nino Plume until the excess heat from the past decade or so has been expelled from them? Throw in a Nino and a low ice summer and folk will be wondering who told them that global warming was a myth...... see this for the next decade and folk will be wondering why they ever listened to folk incapable of seeing what 97% of science was warning them of...... First off, that 97% of science should have raised red flags for you Graywolf. Second: One can only hope that 2015 is warmer than 2014. The harvests of food stocks has increased tremendously because of the new found warmth. Mankind would gladly like to see this continue. Third: Glad you are starting to find natural forcings. CO2 is not the driver that some would like to think.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 1, 2015 19:12:11 GMT
Also, as a Fourth: Short Wave radiation is what warms water. Long Wave just isn't that effective.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Jan 1, 2015 20:40:04 GMT
Hi Siggy! this is why the loss of albedo across the poles is an issue as instead of tall the short wave radiation being bounced back harmlessly into space before being absorbed and re emitted in a form the GHG's can handle? The heat absorbed into the oceans will also be interfaced with the atmosphere in this form so the GHG's again will intercept. It's sad that , had the phase been positive, the heat would have interfaced with an atmosphere with less GHG's but now it has sat in the oceans for a decade it will end up meeting an atmosphere with far more GHG's.
It will also be fun to see the paid climate misleaders telling their disciples to focus on the heat being expelled from the ocean as a cause for elevated global temps ( and not a very sensitive GHG response) after spending years instructing them to inform the world that there was no missing heat in the oceans : -)
|
|