Met Excuses Get Ever Thinner.
By Paul Homewood
Back in 2010, the Met Office had this to say about the halt in global warming.
Recent Met Office research investigated how often decades with a stable or even negative warming trend appeared in computer-modelled climate change simulations.
Jeff Knight, lead author on the research, says: “We found one in every eight decades has near-zero or negative global temperature trends in simulations. Given that we have seen fairly consistent warming since the 1970s, the odds of one in eight suggest the observed slowdown was due to happen.”
I wonder what the odds are for 17 years of no warming? I also wonder how much longer they will trot out the same excuse?
Footnote
In the same report, they forecast:
Our decadal forecast predicts an end to this period of relative stability after 2010. We project at least half of the years after 2009 will be warmer than the 1998 record. Climate researchers are, therefore, reinforcing the message that the case for tackling global warming remains strong.
As we know, this resumption of warming has not materialised, so does this mean that the case for tackling global warming is not quite as strong as before?
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
There’s got to be at least a FEW embarrassed people hiding at the Met. How quickly before it becomes “We knew it all along”? Of course, they’ll have to go back a adjust their claims in the past, but that shouldn’t be hard for experienced pros.
Half the years will be warmer (and half the years will be cooler) and half the years will be warmer (and half the years will be cooler), etc. … looks like a cyclical pattern developing, eh, UKMO? For ‘scientists’ they are not terribly smart … how does that old sayin’ go ? “knowing more and more about less and less until eventually they know everything about nothing” … I guess that they’re there already !
Reblogged this on CraigM350.