In questions of science, the authority of a thousand
is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.

–Galileo Galilei

Epic Fail: Met Office Global Temperature Forecast for 2014

cartoonFrank Bosse puts the spotlight on a global warming forecast published by British Met Office scientists in 2007. It appeared in Science. The peer-reviewed paper was authored by Doug M. Smith and colleagues under the title: “Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model“. Using sophisticated methods, the target of the paper was to forecast the temperature development from 2004 to 2014 while taking internal variability into account. Now that it’s 2014 and the observed data are in, we can compare to see how Smith et al did with their forecast. Boy, did they fail! --Pierre Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, 24 June 2014

By 2014, we're predicting that we'll be 0.3 degrees warmer than 2004. Now just to put that into context, the warming over the past century and a half has only been 0.7 degrees, globally - now there have been bigger changes locally, but globally the warming is 0.7 degrees. So 0.3 degrees, over the next ten years, is pretty significant. And half the years after 2009 are predicted to be hotter than 1998, which was the previous record. So again, these are very strong statements about what will happen over the next ten years. So again, I think this illustrates that, you know, we can already see signs of climate change, but over the next ten years, we are expecting to see quite significant changes occurring. -- Dr. Vicky Pope, Met Office, 5 September 2007

As long as man is unable to determine with the needed precision the role natural variability plays in our observed climate, calculating the impact of greenhouse gases will remain prophecy. --Frank Bosse, Die Klate Sonne, 23 June 2014

One of the greatest failures of climate science has been the dismal performance of general circulation models (GCM) to accurately predict Earth’s future climate. For more than three decades huge predictive models, run on the biggest supercomputers available, have labored mighty and turned out garbage. --Doug L Hoffman, The Resilient Earth, 19 June 2014

Exactly how much climate alarmism and economic scaremongering will people endure before they turn off and decide to drive to the beach and otherwise have a good time, global warming or no global warming? Nobody knows, but a group of U.K. scientists said Tuesday that the tipping point may have already passed. In a report titled Time for Change? Climate Science Reconsidered group of eminent British academics from various disciplines and associated with University College London (UCL) warns that “fear appeals” may be turning the public against the climate issue as “too scary to think about.” If that’s true, U.S. President Barack Obama and his billionaire activists buddies — Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg and others — are on track to destroy their own campaigns. --Terence Corcoran, Financial Post, 25 June 2014

These two graphs are half-century plots of HADCRUT4 global temperatures. Both use exactly the same time and temperature scales. Which one is 1895-1945 (Nature’s fault), and which is 1963-2013 (Your fault)? --Paul Homewood, Not A Lot Of People Know That, 24 June 2014


Pin it


#1 amirlach 2014-06-25 19:52
Hey MarcDaniel ! Have a good look at how good the MET "climate models" your "friendly site created by climate scientists" did. This will help you understand... Quote:
Laughing Stock Met Office…2007 “Peer-Reviewed” Global Temperature Forecast A Staggering Failure
Quote | Report to administrator

Add comment

A great example of commenting guidelines can be found here. These are suggestions everyone should try to follow. Please note: 'Don’t take criticisms personally, don’t rise to bait or attempts at gotchas. Make the points YOU want to make.'

PLEASE report SPAM/egregious comments using the 'Report to administrator' link. Comments are listed chronologically. To respond to a comment, click the Quote link beneath that comment.