The science does not exist to make detailed forecasts for temperature and snowfall for the end of this month, let alone for December or even the winter as a whole.
The Met Office doesn’t have any idea what the weather will be like in two weeks, but they do know what it will be like in five years.
the Met Office’s decadal forecast predicts renewed warming after 2010 with about half of the years to 2015 likely to be warmer globally than the current warmest year on record.
I honestly wish we could have some global warming now.
Met office and prediction forecasting, about as reliable as casting the bones to adumbrate the weather and future climate. Julia Slingo, recently was angling for another super computer – Jeez they just don’t get it do they?
Modelling the climate, is an impossibility, there ain’t a mathematical equation for it – predicting chaos is just that – chaotic and the singularity mixed up.
The final answer of
=42
wasn’t understood, so now they need a better computer to define the question. This will take some time.
The met office wish to say thank-you to Douglas Adams for the idea.
I think that this has been superseded:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc
Bear in mind that just to cause more confusion, these projections are relative to 1971-2000, not the 1961-90 used for HadCRUT3 &4, so on that basis, the warmest year according to HadCRUT3, i.e. 1998, had an anomaly of 0.4c. Since the latest HadCRUT3 anomaly for 1998 was 0.517c, abd HadCRUT4 was 0.523c you have to add 0.117c to these projections to compare them with HadCRUT3, or 0.123c to compare them with HadCRUT4, although since they say that the warmest year was 1998, they are presumably referring to HadCRUT3.
In reality, they are forecasting a HadCRUT3 figure of over 0.9c by 2020.
Ray:
It has been superseded by the new and improved GIGO Method that gives even more ridiculous answers.
Bear in mind they still do not know WTF they are talking about!
They are probably as accurate as the authors of a new report that says that coffee is dying out in Ethiopia(its origin was here and Sudan) because of future climate change. Yes they modeled the data and made another scare story.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229582/How-caffeine-bean-Wild-coffee-plants-wiped-climate-change-70-years.html
From what I understand there is about another 100 such reports/ scare stories,based on similar methodologies, in the pipeline – everything from potatoes, to grain staples, to fruits and spices.
This article makes no sense on multiple levels. I.e., “Arabica grows in mountain forests and is the world’s most popular type of coffee…”
Commercial coffee production is grown on huge plantations, i.e.,
http://coolbeanscoffee.org/images/coffee-growing.jpg
Not in rain forests tendered by blue skinned South American pygmies who play bongo drums around their magic tree.
I agree. But the tree-huggers with education beyond their comprehension, are readying themselves to put out more of this style of bilge designed to frighten the sheeple.
With a little temperature adjusting, all your forecasts can come true! With a little scoring adjustment, Alabama can still be number one. With a little vote adjusing, Romney would be president. In any other line of work, those who “adjust” the books go to prison.
So they can’t predict temps at the end of the month or for winter but we are all going to drown due by the end of the century due to warming that will melt all the ice? Hmmmmm. I bet middle school kids would not buy that one.
I think the argument is that short term errors average out over the long haul. For example, if I flip a coin I can’t really tell on 10 flips with any reliability how many will be heads and how many will be tails. But over 1000 flips if I assume 50%, I’ll be fairly close to the mark.
The problem with this argument, of course, is that models tend to be tuned to what happened in the past and even here they only do moderately well, and don’t seem to have any value in regional prediction even for the present. So with the knowledge that the results of the past and present are mixed, assuming they can predict the future is something of an act of faith.
Climate models are necessarily iterative. Errors compound and diverge, rather than “averaging out”
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Real Science
My God, How angry some people get. One day we’ll all have something to really worry about.
And in the End……..