There are some kinds of behaviour that become compulsive. The alcoholic’s urge to fill another glass, a kleptomaniacs need to schlep away any enticing bauble, or some gambler’s attempts to prove to themselves and others that they really can profit by picking winners, in spite of the odds always being in the bookies favour. Such behaviour is well recognised by therapists as intractable unless the victim is sincerely committed to change their ways. The inevitable penalties of such compulsive behaviour – broken relationships and liver damage, criminal convictions and disgrace, bankruptcy and destitution – are not sufficient incentives for reform in themselves.
Yesterday I came across this headline in the Sunday Times:
El Niño could make 2010 the hottest year ever
Leaving aside the fatuous use of the term ‘ever’, my immediate reaction was that, whoever was making this prediction, it could not possibly be our very own Met Office. Surely they must have learned from their experiences over the last couple of years. Failed attempts to predict that the coming year would be the hottest yet, that we would have a barbecue summer, or a milder than normal winter, would make them think twice about risking ridicule yet again. So who could it be?
With growing amusement, I began to read the article and – yes! you guessed it – the source of the story really was none other than Vicky Pope, described as ‘the head of climate change advice’ at the Met Office. Apparently:
[Scientists] have collated global surface temperature measurements showing that the world has experienced near-record highs between January and April.
Later in the article, by the Sunday Times’ Environment Editor, Jonathan Leake, Ms Pope attempts to convince us that:
It was a cold winter in Europe but, globally, January to March was one of the seven warmest starts to the year on record. This year has more than a 50% chance of being the warmest on record.
Well there are a few odd things about that. There is no doubt that Europe felt the chill last winter, but so did most of North America and large parts of Asia. In fact much of the northern hemisphere shivered, which does make what the Met Office are claiming seem a little strange. Stranger still, Ms Pope seems to think that revealing that there have been six ‘starts to the year’ which were as warm, or warmer than, this year is exciting. And of course if the chances of 2010 being the warmest year on record were any less than 51%, then the prediction could not be that this year will be the warmest on record, but that it will not be the warmest on record. Add to this the fact that the ‘record’ only covers about 150 years, and the Met Offices’ attempt to spin quite unremarkable findings seems all too clear.
But of course we should have complete confidence in what the Met Office are telling us because:
Researchers working independently at the Met Office and Nasa are soon to publish data that reveal the trend is likely to continue for the rest of the year.
Now perhaps the term ‘independent’ has a unique meaning for climate scientists that we ordinary mortals are not capable of grasping. Otherwise it would seem rather surprising that two of the three supposedly independent research centres involved in the analysis of global temperature, which is probably the most fundamental data in climate science today, should know each others results ahead of publication.
Of course there is also a contribution to the story from Nasa’s James Hansen. Equally predictably he has managed to come up with something even scarier than the Met Office:
James Hansen, director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss), a world centre for climate monitoring, said: “Global temperatures, averaged over the past 12 months, were the warmest for 130 years.
“December to February was also the second-warmest of any such period.”
I’m not sure that sceptics who followed the weather trends through last winter are going to find it easy to believe all this. Even though spring is here, and the fruit blossom is on the trees, it’s still not the cherry-picking season yet. There are good reasons why climatology defines standard reference periods for comparison of data rather carefully. Where you have a vast number of variables and reference periods to choose from, it’s all too easy to make almost anything sound like a record. One of my favourite headlines from the early days of climate change advocacy was, ‘Warmest March night on record in Dundee’.
So far as I am aware, May to April is not a standard reference period, 130 years is not a standard reference period, January to April is not a standard reference period, and, although December to February is a standard reference period (winter) Hansen does not seem to have felt it necessary to mention when the record winter temperatures he is referencing occurred. Surely it can’t have been his bete noir, 1934? Saying that a temperature is the second-warmest without also revealing by how much, what the reference period is, or when it occurred, has only propaganda value. It tells us nothing about the climate.
Eventually, the article does add some balance, and it comes from a rather surprising source. Unexpected, that is, unless you have been following the efforts of some erstwhile alarmists who featured in the Climategate emails as they try to salvage their reputations, in which case it is not so unexpected.
There are just three research establishments that climate researchers rely on for global temperature records: the Godard Institute for Space Studies at Nasa (GISS), the Hadley Centre / Climatic Research Unit consortium at the Met Office (HADCRU), and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) at the American National Ocean and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA). Here is what Kevin Trenberth of NCDC has to say about his colleague’s claims:
“We have seen rapid warming recently, but it is an example of natural variation that is associated with changes in the Pacific rather than climate change.
“However, this warming is in addition to the 0.7C long-term rise in global temperature caused by climate change. The record temperatures are due to the two factors adding together.”
So perhaps one of the big three purveyors of surface temperatures really is showing signs of independence, so far as the interpretation of data is concerned at least. Indeed Trenberth even seems to be prepared to break the unwritten rule of never pouring cold water on a colleagues global warming scare story. This would show a certain awareness of the cataclysmic events that have rocked the once cosy world of climate science over the last six months.
A while back I wrote a post saying that ‘The warmists just don’t know what hit them’. Some now seem to be learning while others, like the Met Office and GISS, are still unable to adjust to the post-Climategate world. Two opinion polls mentioned at Bishop Hill and WUWT recently show rapidly diminishing concern among the general public about AGW, and that can only mean that the warmist’s apocalyptic message is not getting through. Worse for agencies such as the Met Office and Nasa, the wearisome, formulaic kind of propaganda which spawned the Sunday Times story just isn’t fit for purpose any more. It is more likely to promote scepticism among those who wonder why we keep seeing these scary stories while temperatures stubbornly refuse to follow the scenario that the IPCC has predicted.
More and more doubts are being expressed about the quality of the global surface temperature records that are presently available, and the only response that the warmists seem to be able to offer is that the three data sets are independent and reach the same conclusion, ignoring the fact that they all draw on the same extremely problematic data pool.
For an excellent appraisal of the current state of public opinion, on both sides of the Atlantic, it is worth visiting The New York Times which has an article entitled, ‘Climate Fears Turn to Doubts Among Britons’. Oh that a UK newspaper could bring itself to face up to printing such a clear and objective appraisal of the way in which the debate has changed.
Nice post Tony and sums up the muddled state that our climate scientists are in. I need to be reminded of the Journey that Vicky Pope made that resulted in her being appointed head of the Hadley Centre, but I’m willing to bet that it involved more skills in politicking and back stabbing than knowledge about what the people she leads actually do. It’s a failing of modern management that we no longer train those who have mastered the job they do to become future leaders, but rather train hordes of leaders that can not command respect due to their lack of knowledge and who resort to threats and other subtle subversive means to keep the “troops” in line
I have been appalled by how ill informed those who speak authoritatively for AGW actually are. These people in the main have been more interested in feathering their own nest than in looking out for the interests of society. We the public have seem a parallel breakdown in accountability within out government offices, and elected officials have been more interested in “leading the world” than in the interests of the people who elected them. Combine this with the way the press has been manipulated by the last government, and we the public have had to create our own new version of an investigative press, the blogsphere.
I think Tony, Vicky Pope is playing her last card to save her budget. If their budget depended on their predictions being correct they would have had to shut up shop long ago. They certainly could not get their equivalent of a 747 into the air, let alone keep it there. With the money running out we are already seeing cut backs in areas that we assumed would be safe. The problems with the Euro and that fact that some commentators are now thinking that Germany can not afford to bail the Euro out is forcing our new government to act harder and faster than many thought the would have to.
Its too early to know how much of our new governments rhetoric will come to pass, but if they follow through on the pledge to publish where all the money is spent, then I think we are in for a treat and some people are in for some rather lean times. Maybe Vicky Pope can take a pay-cut, let’s call it performance related pay based on how correct her predictions are.
This Met Office prediction back in January 2007 was especially rash. The phrase “hostage to fortune” springs to mind.
The Met Office “2010 warmest year on record” prediction also appeared in December last year (as per the press release here.) “… it is more likely than not that 2010 will be the warmest year in the instrumental record, beating the previous record year which was 1998.” The press release then goes on to state: “Looking further ahead, our experimental decadal forecast confirms previous indications that about half the years 2010-2019 will be warmer than the warmest year observed so far – 1998.”
I remember reading something similar in 2007. In this release, they state: “Over the 10-year period as a whole, climate continues to warm and 2014 is likely to be 0.3 °C warmer than 2004. At least half of the years after 2009 are predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record.”
Although they aren’t quite moving the goalposts, it is interesting that in 2007 the focus was on 2014 but in 2009 the focus was on 2019.
“It was a cold winter in Europe but, globally…” Here I agree she implies that it was cold in Europe but not particularly so elsewhere. “It was an unusually cold winter in Europe and over much of the northern hemisphere” would have been a better statement. But that would have clashed with the spin that the cold winter was more or less a local event and not significant in the wider world. On this subject, I found a news article from last month about low temperatures in Japan during the first few months of this year (I would have posted this in a comment, but it’s a bit long so I’ve posted it here on my own blog.)
The detrimental effects of the cold weather earlier this year were evident and well documented. “January to March was one of the seven warmest starts to the year on record.” Even if this happened to be true, I cannot help wondering where was the warmth-related disruption, economic hardship and loss of life?
The Met Office has made itself a laughing stock, with all the many failed predictions of record hot years, unusually mild winters and barbecue summers.
But, as TonyN has remarked, this foolish behavior has become an addictive habit.
It is actually sad to see.
Sure, there will be some gullible individuals (or AGW zealots) who have forgotten the many past failed Met Office predictions and will accept the latest prophecy as “gospel truth”.
As was credited to P.T. Barnum (but apparently actually originated from Barnum’s rival David Hannum):
Met Office depends on the truth of this postulation.
Max
NOAA can’t help it either predicting a busy hurricane season.
But why is it they can’t stop doing it? I suspect that eventually one of their predictions will be right, simply as a matter of chance. And then we will not hear the end of it.
There is apparent corroboration of the lack of independence of the GISS and Met Office / CRU surface temperature records here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/27/cei-files-suit-on-giss-regarding-foia-delays/
See the penultimate pargraph.
This article from the Oz BOM:
ENSO Wrap-Up: Tropical Pacific neutral; chance of La Niña increases
Issued on Wednesday 26 May 2010
Next update expected by 9 June 2010
Seems to confirm rather well with graphics etc, what has been inferred elsewhere for a while:
EXTRACT: International climate models predict continued cooling of the Pacific Ocean sea surface, with the majority of models surveyed by the Bureau predicting that this cooling will be sufficient to see the development of La Niña conditions later in the year. No climate models suggest a return to El Niño conditions.
I wonder if Vicky et mal are aware that La Nina has a global cooling effect?
“it is an example of natural variation that is associated with changes in the Pacific rather than climate change” (says Kevin Trenberth)
Does that mean that natural variation is nothing to do with climate change? I surmise that he means man-made CC, for which CC has become shorthand, like GW before it!
This is interesting – it certainly doesn’t seem to have registered with the Met.Office (page 2 probably upsets them, too)..
http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews10No20.pdf
I wish Piers Corbyn wasn’t quite so shouty, but one can hardly blame him.
JamesP
We watch in amazement and amusement how the MetOffice produces one failed “hottest year” blurb after the other, but we (including TonyN) are looking at this much too logically.
Sending out a “BBQ summer” or “record hot year” blurb costs nothing.
It has its effect at the time.
Most people don’t go back and check whether or not any of the “blurbs” were accurate or not.
And, what the hell, you might hit it lucky and one of the forecasts might really come true, (providing a real “told you so” moment.)
So I’d say we can look forward to more of these.
Max
Bob Ward’s latest piece in New Scientist,
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627624.700-how-climate-scientists-can-repair-their-reputation.html
attracts a comment suggesting that ‘we’ve just experienced the hottest 12 month period in recorded history’.
Having just experienced the coldest winter since I was in short trousers, I can only say that it must have been bloody hot elsewhere!
Very of use in turn and i bear found it pro a slow period,appreciation so much.