Skip to content

Met Office Congratulate Themselves For Getting It Right For Once!

January 23, 2015

By Paul Homewood

  

h/t QV

 

image

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/01/how-the-met-office-forecast-a-hot-2014-and-why-it-thinks-2015-may-be-even-hotter

 

Apparently, the Met Office has been bragging off about how clever that have been in forecasting global temperatures accurately for the last few years.

Although HADCRUT have still to come up with December numbers, their forecast from a year ago that this year would end up at an anomaly of 0.57C looks pretty close.

As we know, the uptick this year reflects El Nino conditions since March, and if that was what they were forecasting, I take my hat off to them.

However, a closer look at earlier predictions tells us that they have consistently forecast much higher temperatures than have actually materialised, and that 2014 was really just a fluke.

 

 

In December 2012, they forecast a temperature of 0.57C for 2013. And the outcome? 0.49C

 

image

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/2013-global-forecast

 

 

And 2012? Their forecast of 0.48C was well above the actual temperature of 0.40C (based on HADCRUT3, which was in operation when they made their prediction).

 

image

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/2012-global-temperature-forecast

 

 

 

And 2011? They forecast 0.44C, way above the actual 0.34C, again according to HADCRUT3.

 

image

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/2012-global-temperature-forecast

 

A tenth of a degree may not sound much, but it is the same amount by which temperatures have risen between 1997 and 2014. Or, put another way, it’s a bit like forecasting Arsenal will win 2-0, and end up losing 3-1.

The Met Office’s record for forecasting global temperatures is no better than their pathetic attempts to predict our weather more than a few days ahead.

As for their global temperature forecast for 2015 of 0.64C, unless we get a major El Nino event in the next few months, I would suggest you don’t bet the house on it!

 

 

 

POSTCRIPT

 

Just in case you were wondering who the Carbon Brief are, their website states: 

 

Carbon Brief reports on the latest developments and media coverage of climate science and energy policy, with a particular focus on the UK. We produce news coverage, analysis and factchecks, and publish a daily and weekly email briefing.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/about/ 

 

Their director and editor is Leo Hickman, better known as a Guardian journalist and WWF’s chief advisor on climate change.

Also, according to their website, their only funder is the European Climate Foundation, the left wing outfit, heavily funded by American liberal foundations, which channels millions of pounds every year to European climate activist groups. 

10 Comments
  1. January 23, 2015 9:31 pm

    Even a broken clock gets the time right twice a day.

  2. manicbeancounter permalink
    January 23, 2015 9:43 pm

    They seem to be like a gambling addict. They revel in the wins, thinking themselves real experts at understanding the horses. They forget the more infrequent losses. The real test is to get closer than a dumb model. For instance a dumb model on temperatures could be a reversal of the previous year. So if Y-1 > Y-2, then Y < Y-1.
    On that basis I would say 0.49 for 2015.

  3. AndyG55 permalink
    January 24, 2015 2:57 am

    Easy enough when you have a direct line to the dealer !!

  4. John F. Hultquist permalink
    January 24, 2015 6:22 am

    Are they still using a 1961 -1990 average?
    If so, why?

    The period from 1981 to 2010 is now used** for calculating “climate normals” and ought to have slightly higher temperature averages than the earlier period.
    If the MET folks do not believe in updating then they should explain why.
    _____
    **At least in the USA as provided to local places by NOAA. Maybe the UK isn’t a member of the WMO.

    • January 24, 2015 11:49 am

      It makes everything appear that much warmer now! That’s why GISS use 1951-80 and NCDC 1901-2000.

  5. January 24, 2015 8:11 pm

    Predicting the result a year in advance gives them plenty time to orchestrate that outcome from the ‘variability’ in the method.

  6. January 25, 2015 2:26 am

    – AGAIN It’s all about the PR, and not the facts, from this shameless team of propagandists. They take every opportunity they can get, oblivious to their plummeting credibility.

  7. January 25, 2015 4:37 am

    If they are really so smart, with their £ 33 million Super Computer, what do they need to spend £ 97 million on a new one for ?

  8. Anon permalink
    January 25, 2015 9:27 pm

    A real biggy was the 2007 pamphlet:

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/b/1/informing.pdf

    which made the following claim:

    “We are now using the system to predict changes out to 2014. By the end of this period, the global average temperature is expected to have risen by around 0.3C compared to 2004, and half the years are predicted to be hotter than the current record hot year, 1998. (p6)”

    It includes one of those strange plots made infamous by the Christmas Eve 2012 switch.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: