"The forecast...reveals that natural shifts in climate will cancel out warming produced by greenhouse gas emissions and other human activity until 2009, but from then on, temperatures will rise steadily. Temperatures are set to rise over the 10-year period by 0.3C. Beyond 2014, the odds of breaking the temperature record rise even further, the scientists added.
[...]
Climate scientists say the new high-precision forecast predicts temperatures will stall because of natural climate effects that have seen the Southern Ocean and tropical Pacific cool over the past couple of years."
What the folks at the Hadley Center are attempting with this forecast and the new forecasting method that gave rise to it is to be able to predict:
...droughts and other extreme conditions a year or two ahead. Previously, the models have been used to show that global temperatures may rise 6C above pre-industrial levels by 2100.
"If you look ahead on a 50- to 100 year time frame, then global warming is the big thing for the climate, but if you're working on a project that is only designed to last for the next few years, that information doesn't make much difference to you," said Doug Smith, a climate scientist at the Hadley Centre.
And one of the ways they are trying to make their decade-scale forecasts more useful is by working in the effects of relatively mid-term ocean-atmosphere phenomenon like the current La Niña episode (that Pacific cooling noted above), which began mid-way through last year and has been fingered as the likely culprit behind the shitty weather we've been having lately.
So in fact what we've experienced is more or less what was predicted. And it is notable that even with a gathering La Niña, 2007 turned out to be, depending on the source you use, the 2nd hottest year recorded.
13 comments:
Yeah, right. Good luck with that.
Biggest
Scam
Ever
Hadley Center in Exeter? Who made them infaillible? God? Can we see their God-given mandate?
As importantly, who in the f*** are they?
And only THAT theory can be listened to.
The other theories dealing with the effects of the solar cycle which suggest the drop in temperature is more long term,
those aren't the "correct" ones.
How do we know?
Well they're not the "correct" ones if you know what we mean.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled worldwide resource distribution scheme.
Little ol lady:
"This elixir you just sold me was supposed to make my stomach feel better, but it's actually feeling worse"
Snake oil salesman:
"Uhmm yeah, that's supposed to happen actually, I should've mentioned that before, heh.......it'll actually feel worse, but THEN feel better, now, can you give me that five bucks for the second bottle?"
This is the coldest snowiest Canadian Winter in years. It's so friggin' cold that we're de facto shut ins.
I've heard reports from the Berman Centre in Reading that the cold has caused a massive southward migration of polar bears, a phenomenon not seen since the Little Ice Age in the 16th century. I also understand that there have been polar bear sightings as far south as Markham, Ontario. Anyone spotting these white furry beasts in their frigid neighbourhoods should seek shelter and call the cops.
Dante: That's a bet I'm willing to take. Since you didn't say, I assume you mean global temperature so my prediction for March, 2008 (based on the LO index GISS) is: 14.35C
Please tell me what you are willing to bet - I am willing to cover anything you put up!
Regards,
John
John.
This is your guess or your high precision forecast?
dante: call it the CHPF (Cross High Precision Forecast). So, do we have a bet?
Regards
John Cross
A linear interpolation is the easiest way to forecast a trend in the short run though it fails over time. As a Statistician, I understand it and will use regression of a number of variables to model more complex interactions. The good test is applying such models in the short term to see if the model smells right. A fucking moron like Lenny wouldn't know that.
John. If you are creating your own guess, you are either missing the point or your reading comprehension is a bit off.
Dante: I think I did understand your point, but if I missed it I would appreciate it if you would try again.
My point was that as a simple individual who is not a climatologist I am willing to make a forecast accurate to the terms you specify. So if I can do it, is it so hard to believe that someone has produced high percision forecasts that are more accurate than what you specify?
regards,
John
http://nature.ca/notebooks/english/lestweas.htm
Time to do the chicken dance!
http://www.jibjab.com/view/90682
I guess if you use manipulated and falsified data, you can make anything happen.
Post a Comment