Skip to content

Met Office’s 5-Year Forecast

February 1, 2018

By Paul Homewood


The Met Office have published their latest 5-year forecast of global temperatures:



A new forecast published by scientists at the Met Office indicates the annual global average temperature is likely to exceed 1 °C and could reach 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels during the next five years (2018-2022).

There is also a small (around 10%) chance that at least one year in the period could exceed 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels (1850–1900), although it is not anticipated that it will happen this year. It is the first time that such high values have been highlighted within these forecasts.

Prof Stephen Belcher, Chief Scientist at the Met Office, said: “Given we’ve seen global average temperatures around 1 °C above pre-industrial levels over the last three years, it is now possible that continued warming from greenhouse gases along with natural variability could combine so we temporarily exceed 1.5 °C in the next five years.”



What that chart really tells us though, is that, despite the benefit of hindsight, actual temperatures prior to the 2015/16 El Nino have been close to the bottom of both the retrospective forecasts and climate simulations.

Barring another record El Nino in the next five years, I see no evidence that temperatures will rise at all.

As ever with these forecasts, there is a huge range of forecast, up to nearly half a degree. Clearly they have little confidence in their ability to divine the future.

As for the banner line that the annual global average temperature is likely to exceed 1 °C , is meaningless as that is where current temperatures are anyway.

Why the Met Office is so obsessed with 19th climate is a mystery.

  1. February 1, 2018 2:58 pm

    I will be releasing my own forecast for Solar Cycle 25 in the next few weeks. It will be very much at odds with the Met Office’s 5-Year Forecast. You said “Why the Met Office is so obsessed with 19th climate is a mystery.” They should very well be interested in this period because we are in a Dalton Minimum.

    • Adrian permalink
      February 1, 2018 4:34 pm

      Well here’s my 5 year forecast, and it’ll be spot on.

      There will be weather. This will comprise some rain, heavy at times, and some more pleasant and sunny days. The latter will, at times be hot. In winter we can expect snow, this will occur more frequently and to greater average depths, the further north in the country you go. There will also be wind, it happens, sometimes this will be strong.

      I KNOW this, and it hasn’t cost you a penny.

      • Hivemind permalink
        February 1, 2018 10:54 pm

        More accurate than the MET Office’s forecast, certainly.

  2. February 1, 2018 2:59 pm

    The uncertainty in the global temperature in the pre-industrial era (1850–1900) must be enormous, since nobody was measuring much of the Earth’s temperature. Of course there is no such thing as a global temperature.

    So when the Met Office says “scientists at the Met Office”, you know they are not proper scientists, otherwise they wouldn’t make such non-scientific claims. It is just fake news, which Harrabin will no doubt be gullible enough to repeat on the propaganda arm of the BBC.

    • mwhite permalink
      February 1, 2018 6:08 pm

      “pre-industrial levels”

      yes, we need a figure for that pre-industrial; temperature?

      Any Guesses?

      • Hivemind permalink
        February 1, 2018 11:00 pm

        In 1724, the German physicist Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit was calibrating his new thermometer. He needed two measurements, reasonably widely apart. For the first one, he stuck it in the back end of a cow, which he called 100 degrees. This is why the normal temperature for a cow is exactly 100 Fahrenheit.

        For the second temperature, he stuck it into the snow outside. This is why 0 degrees Fahrenheit is -32 Centigrade (0 Centigrade is the freezing point of water). This is how we know that the temperature in pre-industrial times was bloody freezing.

  3. Jack Broughton permalink
    February 1, 2018 3:04 pm

    As Phillip notes the global temperature is a fiction “What should we make it say NOAA”. It would be more instructive to takes a random sample of the few good-quality-data stations and see what their trends are, using measured data not homogenised numbers. What does the CET set show?

    • February 1, 2018 3:21 pm

      There are very few (possibly no) good-quality stations that can be trusted all the way back to the 19th century.

      But, you can examine a small number of good REGIONS, with a high density of weather stations, and obtain the regional average temperature history, it just so happens that there is a new website that explains how YOU can do that:

  4. February 1, 2018 3:12 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  5. BLACK PEARL permalink
    February 1, 2018 3:30 pm

    I guess about as reliable as the Brexit forcasts we’ve had.
    Has the Met office EVER been on the mark for advanced forecasting (thought they’d given up on that years ago) ?
    Is this just MORE political / propaganda Fake News to help keep the climate change bandwagon rolling along ?

    • Paddy permalink
      February 2, 2018 7:29 am

      You’d think they’d work on getting a 24-hour forecast right first, and then go on to longer-term forecasts over a wider area, wouldn’t you? Crazy forecasts, crazy people.

  6. A C Osborn permalink
    February 1, 2018 3:34 pm

    The Official Values of the Global Temperature will say warming, while “people” over practically the whole world will experience cooling.

  7. A C Osborn permalink
    February 1, 2018 3:39 pm

    Roy Spencer has published the UAH temperatures for January.
    0.26C Above mean.
    The oddball part of it is that the NH is 0.46C, the SH as 0.06C and the Tropics as -0.12C.
    So the NH has been warm this January?
    The Tropics are Cooling?

    • jim permalink
      February 1, 2018 9:03 pm

      Anywhere there are people in the NH in January, they will tell you its been COLD. What you are quoting are anomalous anomalies. The +ve for the NH has been arrived at by use of guesswork over arctic Russia , the arctic and other oceans. No people, very few temp readings, so can make anything up. The UAH stuff might be slightly better than others, but satellites don’t measure temperatures, they measure stuff which is then put into complex computer models and out pops anomalous anomalies. Its all make believe.

      • AndyG55 permalink
        February 2, 2018 7:50 am

        Jim, there are still pockets of anomalous “not so darn cold” around the Arctic, where no-one lives.

        The wobbly Jet stream has been pulling the cold down from the Arctic and depositing it over NE USA and several other NH regions and at the same time taking less cold air up to the Arctic.

        Tropics actually have a NEGATIVE anomaly.

        I suspect that in a couple of months, the Arctic will also be back near zero anomaly in UAH.

  8. Curious George permalink
    February 1, 2018 3:49 pm

    The green band in the graph (climate simulations) bears no resemblance to CMPI5 ensemble. Where does it come from? It is not alarming enough.

  9. Phoenix44 permalink
    February 1, 2018 4:23 pm

    Well they’ve made their forecast. That’s good at least. Now if they are wrong, what will they do about it?

    • February 1, 2018 4:30 pm

      Getting forecasts completely wrong has never bothered the Met Office in the past. They will just carry on as they have always done, demanding bigger computers and more money whilst proclaiming that they are a centre of excellence. What the public says about them doesn’t matter (just like the BBC is always right and above criticism).

      • Paddy permalink
        February 2, 2018 7:32 am

        The BBC seems to be getting its just deserts now over the lies it told over wimmin’s pay. But as you say, they’ll just go blindly on saying they were right.

    • A C Osborn permalink
      February 1, 2018 4:31 pm

      The same as they and the rest always do, ignore it and make another one.

  10. Chris Lynch permalink
    February 1, 2018 4:31 pm

    The only thing that will be extreme and unprecedented in the next 5 years will be the torturing of temperature in a desperate attempt to keep the CAGW narrative alive.

  11. Broadlands permalink
    February 1, 2018 4:31 pm

    “Barring another record El Nino in the next five years, I see no evidence that temperatures will rise at all.”

    Yes, and, El-Nino is only one-third of the ENSO… La-Nina also affects sea water temperatures. We are currently in a La-Nina mode having passed through the neutral “El-Nada” already.

    Met Office: “…the annual global average temperature is likely to exceed 1 °C and could reach 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels.”

    It has already done that if pre-industrial includes the late Eocene when CO2 was more than double what it is now.

  12. Chris Lynch permalink
    February 1, 2018 4:32 pm

    Excuse my error I meant to say “torturing of temperature data”

  13. dearieme permalink
    February 1, 2018 4:54 pm

    “so we temporarily exceed 1.5 °C in the next five year”: ah, “temporarily”. Is that the first sighting of manoeuvring to retreat?

  14. CheshireRed permalink
    February 1, 2018 5:18 pm

    They drop the small 10% chance in there as both media bait and a planted opportunity for more hysteria.
    MSM will report ‘Temperatures could climb 1.5C above normal within 5 years, due to climate change’.
    If it does happen they’ll scream ‘It was only a small odds-against chance but it’s happened – It’s much worse than previously thought’!
    When it doesn’t happen they’ll say ‘we only gave it a small chance so we’re not surprised it didn’t happen. But this doesn’t change the underlying science…’

    Heads they win, tails we lose.

  15. Allan M permalink
    February 1, 2018 5:38 pm

    “1 °C above pre-industrial levels” contains an implied assumption which invalidates it as objective science.

  16. Bitter@twisted permalink
    February 1, 2018 5:44 pm

    Prof. Burper is just looking for his knighthood.
    You don’t get one if you are seen to endanger the gravy train.

  17. dave permalink
    February 1, 2018 6:04 pm

    Met Office gives…

    Who asked ’em?

    • dave permalink
      February 1, 2018 6:33 pm

      If one wants to be truly aware of what – if anything – is happening ‘with the instruments’, the Climate Re-analyzer home page is where it is at.

      The Global anomalies, right now, are

      2 meter level ‘atmospheric Temperature’ is + 0.3 C (compared to 1979-2000 base);

      ‘Sea Surface Temperature’ is + 0.1 C (compared to 1971-2000 base).

      What can one say in the face of such stunning ordinariness?

  18. tom0mason permalink
    February 1, 2018 6:34 pm

    Oh good it’s going to get warmer, wonderful news.
    Does that means the winters will continue to be without snow, summers will be like 1976, and more warm rain at other time? So this little cold blip we are going through currently is just transitory?
    Did they say which planet this refers to, or is it that virtual reality world of which they seem so enamored ?

  19. bob permalink
    February 1, 2018 6:38 pm

    So nothing new. Given we are still in the warming phase of the 600yr solar cycle which should bring 1c warming per century (with bumps and pauses along the way) this is not news. Medieval warm period peaked @1100AD then cooling to 600yr minimum (maunder min) @1700AD now warming to the modern warm peak @2300AD, before cooling again. So the overpaid Met office is now agreeing with what Astronomers have told us for decades. Of course CO2 has no part to play in any of this. 1C warning per century is normal at this phase of the cycle.

  20. February 1, 2018 11:29 pm

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
    It’s a very strange forecast/projection/darts chucked at a wall.

    First we have some strange mixed baselines; 2012 -(1971-2000), 2013-16 (1981-2010), 2018 – 1850-1900! The latter making no sense at all when they are showing from 1960 only and at 50 years is bizarre as a historical base period, but they have used it before. Probably because it sounds more scary. Just like the cooling since Permian is pretty scary since were using funny baselines.

    Then we have an increased probability range shown in the green envelope. Watch it grow. Lots of leg room there.

    The text of the forecast is “for continued global warming largely driven by continued high levels of greenhouse gases” until you read that nature may not play ball;

    However, other changes in the climate system, including a moderate La Niña in 2018 and longer term shifts in both the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), are also contributing. Near record temperatures are predicted during the coming five years, although La Niña is expected to cool 2018 slightly, consistent with the Met Office 2018 global mean temperature forecast. The forecast remains towards the mid to upper end of the range simulated by [GIMPS] models that have not been initialised with observations (green shading in Figure 3). Barring a large volcanic eruption or a very sudden return to negative PDO or negative AMO conditions which could temporarily cool climate, ten year global average warming rates are likely to be similar to late 20th century levels over the next few years. The recent slowdown in surface warming now appears to be at an end following a run of very warm years since 2014.

    So what they are saying is that nature could at any minute foil their dastardly plan. This makes no sense as Professor Adam Scaife was saying the following last September;

    “The end of the recent slowdown in global warming is due to a flip in Pacific sea-surface temperatures. This was due to a change in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which entered its positive phase, warming the tropics, the west coast of North America and the globe overall.”

    So if the PDO did it then it wasn’t CO2 unless it’s capable of having an on and offable selective switch which miraculously just repeats the past. You’d think any cooling would kill their forecasts but they have more get out clauses than the January transfer window.

    • dave permalink
      February 2, 2018 8:40 am

      I knew these nuns, a few years ago. They were convinced that God was sending them updates on his plans all the time. If the Mail was early it was because he wanted them to get an early start on figuring it out. If the Mail was late it was because it contained some bad news and he did not want them to worry about it during breakfast. If it was on-time it was because…

      You get my drift.

      • dave permalink
        February 2, 2018 9:03 am

        I should have said I knew OF these nuns. I steer clear of groups of hysterical females indulging in group activity, e.g. hen parties in Prague.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: