Met Office Says It Took Hundreds Of Years To Become Completely Incompetent At Climate Forecasting

7 Responses to Met Office Says It Took Hundreds Of Years To Become Completely Incompetent At Climate Forecasting

1. Billy Liar says:

   May 31, 2013 at 10:15 pm

   It’s an appeal to their CO2 god Ahrrenius.

   Reply
2. Billy Liar says:

   May 31, 2013 at 10:16 pm

   oops! Arrhenius.

   Reply
   • grumpydenier says:

     May 31, 2013 at 11:27 pm

     And he thought a degree or so would be good for mankind, as did Callendar. You don’t hear much about that, do you?

     Reply
3. RAVerhoeckx says:

   May 31, 2013 at 11:47 pm

   Arrhenius Law tells us a decrease in concentarion of CO 2 by half or a doubling would be equivilant to changes in temperature of -1.5 C or +1.6 C. Based on more recent data, this is a bit on the high side of CO 2 alone. Let’s use basic physics to establish the theoretical temperature increase from doubling CO 2 levels from 280 ppmv, which were in 1900, to 560 ppmv, which they are projected to be 2100. Since the relationship is logarithmic, CO 2 will have to double again, to 1120 ppmv for an other 0.7 C to results.

   Reply
4. tckev says:

   June 1, 2013 at 12:15 am

   From what I read at http://www.bishop-hill.net/
   However, the claim that the increase in global warming is larger than could be explained by natural variability … is not the argument, it is the choice of statistical model alone that has been called into question.

   Reply
5. Jeremy Shiers says:

   June 1, 2013 at 8:11 am

   I am confused why anyone would look for a linear trend in temperature data, do they expect that temperatures are going to keep going up in more or less a straight line?

   Just looking at the data you can clearly see signs of cycles (around 60 year for example).

   I fitted the sum of 2 cosine to hadcrut4 global mean from woodfortrees
   http://jeremyshiers.com/blog/global-temperature-rise-do-cycles-or-straight-lines-fit-best-may-2013/
   The fit found periods of 64 and 305 years. And if there are cycles in temperature data then temperatures will go down some time won’t they. I wonder when that will happen.

   What causes the cycles – who knows. But cycles tend to make you think of things that go round and round.

   At the rest of going off topic, a related thing which confuses me is climate sensitivity and the fuss about recent papers suggesting lower values.

   Roughly speaking climate sensitivity is the change in temperature for a doubling of CO2

   The implication is not only do changing CO2 levels actually change global temperatures but CO2 levels are the dominant mechanism of global temperature change.

   Still more the definition means there is a single fixed value for climate sensitivity for all time.

   Now if CO2 does not control temperatures, you can still define anything you like. But climate sensitivity has no relation to anything that happens in the real world.

   And any predictions made using climate sensitivity will be rubbish.

   So why are people talking about it?

   Reply
6. Will Nitschke says:

   June 1, 2013 at 9:10 am

   Translation: if we waffle on enough as vaguely as possible hopefully enough idiots will assume we know what we are talking about. Imagine if a drug company tried to justify its product by reference to the history of science as opposed to statistical analysis of its drug trials…

   Reply