zaphod
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 210
|
Post by zaphod on Jan 13, 2013 14:05:13 GMT
Well done, duwayne!
Does this mean we can chuck out these environmentally unfriendly mini fluorescent bulbs we've been forced to use and dig out the friendly (recyclable and light spectrum) incandescent ones again?
I suggested a thread entitled "Global Cooling Temperature Predictions" in an earlier post. Maybe I will start it now!
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 13, 2013 14:57:49 GMT
Yep you were first. Subsequently it was posted on Tallbloke's site as a Tip (a copy of your post). Then as Roger T's site is closely watched (by the Norfolk Constabulary among others) that got picked up by WUWT and others and the rest is history ;-) You started the snowball rolling - now the Chief Scientist at the Met Office is having to dodge the rather larger faster moving mega-ball it has become. duwayne looks like you could claim the 'Eagle Eyed Blogger' badge From Steve's favourite news paper .... Global warming stopped 16 years ago, Met Office report reveals: MoS got it right about warming... so who are the 'deniers' now?
By David Rose .......Surely the Met Office would trumpet this important news, as it has done when publishing warnings of imminent temperature rises. But there was no fanfare. Instead, it issued the revised forecast on the ‘research’ section of its website – on Christmas Eve. It only came to light when it was noticed by an eagle-eyed climate blogger, and then by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the think-tank headed by Lord Lawson........ www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261577/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-Met-Office-report-reveals-MoS-got-right-warming--deniers-now.htmlNautonnier, thanks for posting that.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 13, 2013 15:32:37 GMT
Well done, duwayne! Does this mean we can chuck out these environmentally unfriendly mini fluorescent bulbs we've been forced to use and dig out the friendly (recyclable and light spectrum) incandescent ones again? I suggested a thread entitled "Global Cooling Temperature Predictions" in an earlier post. Maybe I will start it now! I must admit that I have found it strange that the EPA that froths at the mouth about carbon dioxide and farm dust, insists that at least one heated capsule of mercury vapor is kept in every room in the land
|
|
zaphod
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 210
|
Post by zaphod on Jan 13, 2013 17:18:03 GMT
Agreed, nautonnier! I have always felt that an honest audit would result in a finding that there is no energy advantage in these mercury capsules once production and recycling energy costs are taken in to account. Plus the cost of scrapping stocks of incandescent bulbs and their manufacturing plant. Meanwhile, here is a discussion on a Guardian Online page which may be worth a look with regard to the Met Office graphs: www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/jan/09/global-warming-met-office-paused
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 13, 2013 18:14:56 GMT
Interesting link zaphod. I don't presently have time to read all the posts, but the first few pages are of interest.
I kinda get a kick out of how excited 1998 makes everyone. It was a record warm year, the oceans shed a lot of heat. The expected result would be a period of flat temps for decades, and that has happened.
A lot of the comments talk about increasing OHC, yet fail to produce credible papers or measurements to support that fallacy.
OHC, since 2003 has been flat with a negative bias. We all know that the XBT data was subject to very large error bars. ARGO data, as presented, has much smaller error bars because of tech improvements.
I can't find the paper that showed the imbalance of energy to be .5Wm2 rather than the .9Wm2 that had been used as a parameter of most climate models. Maybe the MetOffice new model incorporates this number?
One thing for certain, it sure isn't getting any warmer.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 13, 2013 18:15:23 GMT
duwayne looks like you could claim the 'Eagle Eyed Blogger' badge From Steve's favourite news paper .... Global warming stopped 16 years ago, Met Office report reveals: MoS got it right about warming... so who are the 'deniers' now?
By David Rose .......Surely the Met Office would trumpet this important news, as it has done when publishing warnings of imminent temperature rises. But there was no fanfare. Instead, it issued the revised forecast on the ‘research’ section of its website – on Christmas Eve. It only came to light when it was noticed by an eagle-eyed climate blogger, and then by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the think-tank headed by Lord Lawson........ www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261577/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-Met-Office-report-reveals-MoS-got-right-warming--deniers-now.htmlNautonnier, thanks for posting that. It has even been picked up in the Guardian piece that Zaphod refers to!! "Yesterday, the Met Office published a press release confirming that it had recently revised downwards a decadal global temperature prediction for the period up to 2017. It said it had been prompted into issuing the release following "media coverage" of the adjustment, something it had published without fanfare on its website on 24 December.
The adjustment was first spotted on 5 January by a poster called "Duwayne" on the SolarCycle24.com web forum. Climate sceptic bloggers soon picked it up and on 7 January Roger Harrabin, the BBC's environment analyst, tweeted that the Met Office had confirmed to him that it had cut its warming projection for the period up to 2017 by 20%. He followed it up yesterday with a brief item on the BBC Radio 4's Today programme, which, in turn, was later fleshed out by David Shukman, the BBC's science editor, in an article on the BBC News website "www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/jan/09/global-warming-met-office-pausedYou got a mention in the Grauniad - how's that for fame ;D
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 13, 2013 18:29:42 GMT
Duwayne is famous!
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 13, 2013 18:43:54 GMT
I also note that regretfully few people have picked up the most important point that you raised - the fact that the Met Office changed the line showing what its previous forecasts were.
This kind of revisionism is not expected among scientists but is unfortunately appears to be de-rigeur among climate 'scientists' who never admit to being wrong.
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Jan 14, 2013 0:33:56 GMT
duwayne, You may pick the gold star of your choice! You've earned it!
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 14, 2013 2:28:51 GMT
Well done, duwayne! Does this mean we can chuck out these environmentally unfriendly mini fluorescent bulbs we've been forced to use and dig out the friendly (recyclable and light spectrum) incandescent ones again? I suggested a thread entitled "Global Cooling Temperature Predictions" in an earlier post. Maybe I will start it now! First, I hadn't recognized Duwayne's excellent find for what it was; an excellent find. Good job Duwayne. In the U.S. the next phase of killing off the incandescent bulb is in effect. From what I recall only "industrial use" bulbs are still available, made in the U.S (I bought a few at Menards). Years ago bulbs lasted a long time, but like most things once they transferred production to China the quality went with them. I absolutely hate the fluorescent bulbs, and they don't last as long as claimed, especially outdoors. Anyway, this should light up your day www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/study-eco-friendly-lightbulbs According to a study from Long Island’s Stony Brook University, the lightbulbs give off extraordinary levels of UV radiation, which can burn skin and even cause skin cancer. “When there is something in your house,” said Miriam Rafailovich, Professor of Materials Science at Stony Brook, “you don’t perceive any danger, you wouldn’t get that close to an x-ray in a doctor’s office.” Marcia Simon, who teaches dermatology, said, “The results were that you could actually initiate cell death.”
The bulbs could have a disproportionate effect on children.
But at least the polar bears will sleep a little sounder tonight. And don't worry about those people workers in China being exposed to the mercury, there are plenty more people workers to replace them.
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Jan 14, 2013 6:19:43 GMT
Well done, duwayne! Does this mean we can chuck out these environmentally unfriendly mini fluorescent bulbs we've been forced to use and dig out the friendly (recyclable and light spectrum) incandescent ones again? I suggested a thread entitled "Global Cooling Temperature Predictions" in an earlier post. Maybe I will start it now! First, I hadn't recognized Duwayne's excellent find for what it was; an excellent find. Good job Duwayne. In the U.S. the next phase of killing off the incandescent bulb is in effect. From what I recall only "industrial use" bulbs are still available, made in the U.S (I bought a few at Menards). Years ago bulbs lasted a long time, but like most things once they transferred production to China the quality went with them. I absolutely hate the fluorescent bulbs, and they don't last as long as claimed, especially outdoors. Anyway, this should light up your day www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/study-eco-friendly-lightbulbs According to a study from Long Island’s Stony Brook University, the lightbulbs give off extraordinary levels of UV radiation, which can burn skin and even cause skin cancer. “When there is something in your house,” said Miriam Rafailovich, Professor of Materials Science at Stony Brook, “you don’t perceive any danger, you wouldn’t get that close to an x-ray in a doctor’s office.” Marcia Simon, who teaches dermatology, said, “The results were that you could actually initiate cell death.”
The bulbs could have a disproportionate effect on children.
But at least the polar bears will sleep a little sounder tonight. And don't worry about those people workers in China being exposed to the mercury, there are plenty more people workers to replace them. Quality? Regarding light-bulbs and others think about Programmed-Planned Obsolescense, there were light-bulbs so well done they would last for decades... so once upon a time both in USA and Europe, companies reached a deal and in fact made a cartel- both for prices and for duration of bulbs... So China is applying what worked so well before for increasing benefits on consumer´s back in western countries. That is how Capitalism keeps getting ´surnames´ of all kind...
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 14, 2013 7:31:55 GMT
You may remember that one of my key points when I originally posted the "new" Met Office Decadal forecast a week ago was that the Met Office had changed history. Their new forecast includes an incorrect version of their historical forecast. I was disappointed that this point was not given any attention as far as I could tell in the recent flurry of publicity. Now a blogger, Paul Homewood, has "re-discovered" this problem. notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/01/10/spot-the-difference/Hopefully this will get some publicity as well since it still irritates me that they would do this after I had given them credit for showing the correct historical forecast in their previous version. duwayne, good spot in seeing the updated prediction. But you must have noticed that the very first sentence of the release states that both the forecast and the hindcasts have been rerun with the new system. [/url]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc[/url] I am quite sure that the Met Office folk are mightily relieved that the new model shows a lot more of the right sort of natural variability. Otherwise the 15 years of research that has gone on between the old model and the new model would have been wasted.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 14, 2013 8:40:07 GMT
You may remember that one of my key points when I originally posted the "new" Met Office Decadal forecast a week ago was that the Met Office had changed history. Their new forecast includes an incorrect version of their historical forecast. I was disappointed that this point was not given any attention as far as I could tell in the recent flurry of publicity. Now a blogger, Paul Homewood, has "re-discovered" this problem. notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/01/10/spot-the-difference/Hopefully this will get some publicity as well since it still irritates me that they would do this after I had given them credit for showing the correct historical forecast in their previous version. duwayne, good spot in seeing the updated prediction. But you must have noticed that the very first sentence of the release states that both the forecast and the hindcasts have been rerun with the new system. [/url]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc[/url] I am quite sure that the Met Office folk are mightily relieved that the new model shows a lot more of the right sort of natural variability. Otherwise the 15 years of research that has gone on between the old model and the new model would have been wasted. [/quote] Indeed! Thats confidence inspiring! Proves they know how to read a thermometer!
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 14, 2013 11:35:59 GMT
You may remember that one of my key points when I originally posted the "new" Met Office Decadal forecast a week ago was that the Met Office had changed history. Their new forecast includes an incorrect version of their historical forecast. I was disappointed that this point was not given any attention as far as I could tell in the recent flurry of publicity. Now a blogger, Paul Homewood, has "re-discovered" this problem. notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/01/10/spot-the-difference/Hopefully this will get some publicity as well since it still irritates me that they would do this after I had given them credit for showing the correct historical forecast in their previous version. duwayne, good spot in seeing the updated prediction. But you must have noticed that the very first sentence of the release states that both the forecast and the hindcasts have been rerun with the new system. [/url]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc[/url] I am quite sure that the Met Office folk are mightily relieved that the new model shows a lot more of the right sort of natural variability. Otherwise the 15 years of research that has gone on between the old model and the new model would have been wasted. [/quote] So Steve you will want to correct the statement made in www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc by the Met Office? "Figure 1: Observed (black, from Hadley Centre, GISS and NCDC) and predicted global average annual surface temperature difference relative to 1971-2000. Previous predictions starting from June 1960, 1965, ..., 2005 are shown as white curves, with red shading representing their probable range, such that the observations are expected to lie within the shading 90% of the time. The most recent forecast (thick blue curve with thin blue curves showing range) starts from November 2012. All data are rolling annual mean values. The gap between the black and blue curves arises because the last observed value represents the period November 2011 to October 2012 whereas the first forecast period is November 2012 to October 2013."It might be me - but 'previous predictions' means 'predictions that the Met Office made previously' - not - hindcasts using a different model. They have altered history _again_ record rain - means record rain (in name a suitable time period) - now previous predictions - means predictions hindcast with a new model. Met Office newspeak I remember working with them while they were still at Bracknell, they were scientists in those days. Now they are lobbyists.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 14, 2013 18:07:37 GMT
You may remember that one of my key points when I originally posted the "new" Met Office Decadal forecast a week ago was that the Met Office had changed history. Their new forecast includes an incorrect version of their historical forecast. I was disappointed that this point was not given any attention as far as I could tell in the recent flurry of publicity. Now a blogger, Paul Homewood, has "re-discovered" this problem. notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/01/10/spot-the-difference/Hopefully this will get some publicity as well since it still irritates me that they would do this after I had given them credit for showing the correct historical forecast in their previous version. duwayne, good spot in seeing the updated prediction. But you must have noticed that the very first sentence of the release states that both the forecast and the hindcasts have been rerun with the new system. [/url]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc[/url] I am quite sure that the Met Office folk are mightily relieved that the new model shows a lot more of the right sort of natural variability. Otherwise the 15 years of research that has gone on between the old model and the new model would have been wasted. [/quote] Steve, thanks for the complement. As to your second point, yes, I did see that the Met Office used a the new method for calculating the white line. Here was and is my point. The Met Office is free to choose whatever method they want to make their decadal forecast. If they think a certain model is the best way to go, so be it. But their judgments and models and predictions then become history. They are representative of the Met Office ability to forecast. If they show their actual prediction history,then the user can make a judgment about their ability to forecast which includes their ability to model accurately. I specifically commented favorably at the time about their inclusion of history (the white line) in their "Old" prediction graph when it was posted some time ago. It was my understanding, and I doubt if I am wrong here, the white line represented the actual prediction history of their past decadal forecasts. The "New" forecast does not show their actual prediction history. My point is, it irritates me that they have taken one of the most useful things out of their forecast graph. It's as if the Met Office predicts a flood for tomorrow. Then when it turns out to be sunny they indicate it's just as they predicted based on their new weather model and you can continue to count on them for these highly accurate forecasts . Steve, I have a problem with that. In fact, I don't believe models which can't accurately deal with things such as clouds, ENSO, the PDO, AMO, the sun, aerosols and even the more mundane aspects of weather over a multimonth period should be put forth as accurate predictors of climate change. And there's nothing that would make me believe that an average of a hand-picked selection of these innacurate forecasts can accurately predict the future. Almost all of us who expect a lower rate of global warming than the Met Office and similar agencies have predicted in the past say that we were at one time fooled by their predictions but as we learned more we no longer believe their models are even close to being accurate. Steve, I see you may have joined us in that group when you said in an earlier post that the Met Office prediction was wrong after you seemed to have defended in it in the past and maybe you now support lower expectations for global warming over at least the next couple of decades.
|
|