Decadal Climate Prediction? Might As Well Throw A Dice!
July 12, 2020
By Paul Homewood
h/t jelorenzo
https://hadleyserver.metoffice.gov.uk/wmolc/
The WMO has collated global temperature projections from twelve different organisations, covering this year and the next five years. They were produced in 2019.
First, the forecasts for this year, shown as anomalies from 1981-2010:
And the next five years:
It is totally clear that there is very little agreement between any of them, other than a warm Arctic.
An unkind person might call them a waste of space!
32 Comments
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Is India experiencing a new ice age?
The “Lead Centre”. The Climate Industry do like to give themselves grandiose titles when spending public money!
As they say. Smelly Brown Stuff in and Smelly Brown Stuff out!
What I see among a lot of supposed climate research is actually no research at all, just the regurgitation or scanning of other peoples work and then somehow a paper appears with 50 authors as if they achieved something. I know what game they are playing there. Point the first that will raise alarm bells for people who understands critical Thinking and the Scientific Method because the authors chose what to include and not include……. you can see where this is going. Critical Thinking and the Scientific Method are so important in any scientific endeavour that there should be a clear test devised through which all claimed experimentation and research must go which prevents the bankrupt Pal Review Process continuing the very real corrupting of science which is taking place today.
The biggest challenge of any piece of scientific endeavour was how to devise a piece of work which did not introduce bias into the process. Just read any of the garbage that the usual suspects in the media push and you will see claimed “studies” or “research” shot through with intentional bias, written to achieve an intended result.
“Just read any of the garbage that the usual suspects in the media push and you will see claimed “studies” or “research” shot through with intentional bias, written to achieve an intended result.”
BWTM: If the study supports the media agenda, the study will be raised to “new, major study.”
‘New’ and ‘major’ seem to have some bearing on truth, meaning “this one is really, really true.”
Correct. ive just encountered a new variation of groupthink. I replied to an article demonising CO2 pointing out the scientific reasons for it being no problem. The reply simply said that the UK Govts Climate Change Act says CO2 is a problem and must be reduced, therefore Co2 is a problem. That was it. Science doesnt matter – if the Govt says so then it must be true! The govt used to say homosexuals should be locked up and slavery was OK. Did Govt saying so make them good and true?
I was talk to a guy who works in a branch of Molecular Physics a couple of months ago, he said “In my area the science is settled, we just haven’t a clue what it is”.
That is not only funny, it is true. A two for one….
Thank you for your kind remark. Jokes are always a risk.
The latest set of 10 year predictions are about to be released by the Met Office, but they are having trouble with interdepartmental disagreement.
Neat!
Good one Mr Grim. Almost as funny as watching our once favourite prince, young Harry, reportedly jumping into a 6 litre Cadillac Escallade with Sparkles in the US not long after allegedly lecturing the rest of us on protecting the planet from our carbon sins. Ooh, the irony!
Obviously, Harry is either none too bright or he is suffering from some form of ‘unconscious bias’ towards the planet bearing in mind his proclivity to use gas guzzling cars and private jets that he believes harm the entity that he claims needs protection from people….er, just like him!
Strange times indeed.
There would be a very good use for those pojections if instead of the individual presentations and the overall average we could examine the extremes cell by cell, with a map of the minimums of all of them, and likewise the maximum, and another map showing the uncertainty as the range between the minima and maxima. We would then have some handle on the uncertainties implicit in the models over even short time horizons.
A follow up with scoring projections against reality might also be good, but there is the problem that data may be adjusted and judged to fit better. Can we trust them?
And another unkind person might call them something produced by a child playing with a random number generator!
There’s a mild La Niña coming, yes? Btw U.K. wind is at 4.9% right now. Bargain.
Great for running all those electrolytes to produce hydrogen!
I hate autocorrect! Electrolysers of course.
Five-year anomalies of 1.5C all over the place? Not going to happen.
I tried to explain climate predictions to a friend via an analogy to throwing a pair of dice. If a group of people each make a prediction, it’s likely that the average of their predictions will be seven. Now even if I actually throw a seven, the chances of any of those predictions correctly foreseeing the scores of the individual die is still low, as there are multiple ways of getting seven. If a climate prediction ever turns out to be correct, it’s still most likely to be just through luck.
A warm AMO and Arctic is normal during each centennial solar minimum.
It’s worth remembering that the likes of the BBC think it is OK to exaggerate and fib to advance their agenda quickly. The daft thing is that the interviewer says that everyone understands that the world will not really end in a few years – well if that were the case, it wouldn’t persuade anyone to act! Starts at about 1:50 for about 5 minutes – Michael Shellenberger interview. (You’ll need a BBC account.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w172wpklvmbsp0k
Who are NRL as they look out of step from the rest to the extent of being close to reality?
“I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.” – Thomas Carlyle
The average of junk is junk.
“First, the forecasts for this year, shown as anomalies from 1981-2010:”
“WMO now uses 1981-2010 as a baseline for computing Temperature variations at monthly, seasonal and annual time-scales. This replaces the 1961-1990 baseline used previously.”
1981-2010 long-term average is 14.3°C. A stunning increase from pre-industrial: 14°C, or even the 20th century average… 13.9°C. CO2 up 45% and that’s all?
Fun with temperature scales. An increase from pre-industrial 287.15K* to 287.45K.
Oh noes!
*Until the satellite era – 1979 – Man had absolutely no way to measure global temperature. Any number is an estimate, subject to massive error.
“Might as well throw a dice!”
Ideed. After all, that is what global temperature is doing in the Real World.
Of course, for this we don’t need the WMO.
Mallen Bake video : Michael Shellenberger caused a mini-storm amongst climate campaigners and scientists.
He said: “On behalf of environmentalists everywhere,
I apologise for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years.” Sceptics are ecstatic.
Campaigners are livid. What’s it all about? Let’s have a look.
So Michael Shellenberger .. climate gang were angry
so they sent a “fact checking org in”
Facebook took that org and Face value and slapped warnings ‘this in not true’
on posts mentioning Michael Shellenberger positively
but that “fact checking seems mostly bogus and heavily opinion not fact.
Two dice, one die! M B Lancaster
Currently, Oliver, Canada Prescience is wonderful if acted upon (MBL 2019)
On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 at 01:42, NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT wrote:
> Paul Homewood posted: “By Paul Homewood h/t jelorenzo > https://hadleyserver.metoffice.gov.uk/wmolc/ The WMO has collated global > temperature projections from twelve different organisations, covering this > year and the next five years. They were pro” >
so where’s the modelling from Neil Ferguson at Imperial?. He did such a good job at modelling Covid that he should have a go at this.. Can’t do any worse
O/T Country file, more nutjob re-wilding – European Bison in the UK. NA Bison are 3 times as dangerous as bears. Lone male Eu Bison and females with calves are known to be dangerous – recommended 50m at closest. Notable that they had absolutely destroyed every living thing in their paddock – this will help improve the environment apparently.
110 wildfires this year they said, all with a human cause – when will the sale of portable BBQs be banned? At least ‘climate change’ was off the hook for that article.
And they’re still making the same mistake, trying to restore the countryside to some imagined ideal point in time, glossing over the fact that it was man’s landscape management that enabled the “woodman’s follower” (heath fritillary) for example, to boom in the first place.
More evidence of junk models. GIGO rules!
However of note is that when the Arctic looses more ice than usual during the summer months (continuous arctic sunshine) the following usually has more than average snow in the regions that surround the Arctic. So watch out if all that increasing red (+1.5° anomaly) Arctic happens.
Even modeled results agree so it may or maybe not so …
Oops I forgot the link –
Click to access ghatak.snowcover_arctic.jgr12.pdf
“It is totally clear that there is very little agreement between any of them, other than a warm Arctic”
Decadal is too short a time span such that it would be impossible to sift out agw effects net of internal climate variability.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/07/16/the-internal-variability-issue/