The UK Met Office has revised one of its forecasts for how much the world may warm in the next few years. It says that the average temperature is likely to rise by 0.43 C by 2017 – as opposed to an earlier forecast that suggested a warming of 0.54C. The explanation is that a new kind of computer model using different parameters has been used. – David Shukman, BBC Science Editor
Have things finally begun to crack with the CAGW narrative? Lets look at the recent data and compare it to Met office forecasts from just 4 months ago.
What is really going on here is that their sophisticated climate models are being continuously tuned so as to “backcast” and agree with past temperature data. There has been no warming for ~15 years. As a result the parameters are now showing little AGW at all for the next 10 years.
A scientist should ask the following question. If predictions of GCM models from just 2 years ago have now been invalidated by the data, how can we now have any faith in new predictions made with the same models but with various fudge factors added ?
Lets look at the new 10 year forecast and compare it to the previous forecast and data compatible with the new forecast.
With fuel poverty rising, energy intensive industries closing, public debt rising, and renewable energy failing, is it perhaps not time to revisit the essentially “self-defeating” 2008 climate change act ?
The Met Office seems to be getting desperate to pin something(anything) on rising CO2 levels.
So for example Paul Homewood writes :
Following release of provisional rainfall data for the UK, showing that 2012 has been one of the wettest on record, Professor Julia Slingo, chief scientist at the Met Office, tells us
“The trend towards more extreme rainfall events is one we are seeing around the world, in countries such as India and China, and now potentially here in the UK”, adding that “the long-term trend towards wetter weather is likely to continue as global air temperatures rise. “
Global temperatures have not changed in 17 years, and UK temperatures have not changed in 72 years. The only thing left from model predictions is extreme weather, so I suspect we may hear more scare stories about storms, drought, floods, snow, heat-waves, Plagues of locusts, or ladybird infestations in the coming months.
Pingback: UK Met Office cuts projected 2017 temperature by 38% | ezzyhome
From inspecting the Global Temperature figure carefully, it appears that your statement “Global temperatures have not changed in 17 years” is stretching the real data. Change 17 to 15 would be more scientifically acceptable in my opinion. That is bad enough for those who declare Global Warming as the source of all evil, and certainly puts the CO2 argument on very questionable footing. The CO2 content in the atmosphere has kept on rising in that same 15-year period. So where is the connection?
I was basing the above statement on the graph shown below and the linear fit. If you use HADCRUT4 instead very little changes but the linear fit goes to +0.03C/decade.
If your statement is based on the shown data of Hadcrut 3, then my 15-year comment fits perfectly. 180 months equals 15 years, doesn’t it? What am I missing here? Besides, as I wrote before, the data are more than sufficient to put the CO2 argument to shame. Isn’t that what we are after?
PS – Are you aware that NASA is changing tune by invoking the Sun as main driver of Climate Change, in stead of the utterly weak argument based on CO2?
Henri – You are absolutely correct. I can’t count !
thanks – I will change it.
I think I picked 17 up from some other place !
The NASA Water Vapor Project (NVAP) has created a record of gridded total column and layered water vapor for the period 1988 to 2001 based a satellite and radiosonde data. The NVAP Data and Information is here:
Changes is water vapour in the upper atmosphere have a major influence on the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR). Line-by-line radiative code simulations show that a change of water vapour in a layer 300 to 400 mb (8 to 9 km altitude) has 30 times greater effect on the OLR than the same change in a layer at the surface.
All climate models assume that water vapour in the upper atmosphere increases with warming. The NVAP team reported that total column water vapour has declined from 1998 values.
And water vapour at 300 to 500 mb has declined significantly since 1995.
I created an animation of world mapped water vapour in the 300 to 500 mb layer of monthly data images from 1988 to 1999. The years 2000 and 2001 are available but the images are in a different format so they are not included in the animation. You can see a significant drying of the upper atmosphere.
That’s an amazing animation Ken. The monsoon oscillation over the Indian subcontinent fascinated me. Water vapor is the “missing link” in the “evolution” of climate science and I’m thrilled to see that the required data has been collected historically.
I downloaded the NVap layer water vapour monthly and annual data from the Langley website. I want to create global average values. The data is not in a format I can use. Here is the annual 1988 data for layer 1 (surface to 700 mb)
The NVap information is here:
Under Software Sample, All, “Global Average (Fortran)” the file:
The files says, “THIS PROGRAM PRODUCES A LIST OF THE GLOBAL AND HEMISPHERIC AVERAGES FROM THE NVAP FORMATTED FIELDS.”
I have no idea how to run this program. Is there Fortran software I need to download to run this? Can you provide a link? Can you explain how to use this to calculate the global average of the 1988 layer 1 data?
You need a Fortran Compiler. I’ll see if I can get it running on MAC OS10 this weekend and let you know.
I am using Windows 7 Ultimate with SP 1, on a PC with Intel 2.4 GHz processor, 2.0 GB RAM, 64-bit operating system.
I installed the Fortran compiler g95-MinGW-41.exe
Opened a dos window (From the Start screen type cmd and press enter.)
The installation creates three directories, one is /bin which includes the file /bin/g95.exe
So I assume the command to run the Fortran compiler is g95.
When I type “g95” at the DOS prompt I get “g95: no input files”
The program I want to run is nvap_all_glbave.f and the file I want to process is lpw1988.L1yravg_nvap.nat as shown in my previous comment.
When I type g95 followed by the path to the nvap_all_glbave.f file and a path the the input file lpw1988.L1yravg_nvap.nat, it gives a bunch of errors.
The first error: Type of argument ‘a’ in call to ;float’ at (1) should be INTEGER(4), not INTEGER(2)
How do I tell the compiler what input file to run the fortran program on? Am I supposed to edit the Fortran program to point to the input file?
I have compiled it and got it running. You wil also need to download the subroutines – http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/PRODOCS/nvap/read_software/nvap_ng_subroutines.f. Alternatively download the zip file for all the fortran code.
I simply just appended all the subroutines to the back of nvap_all_glbave.f
The command g95 is not recognized unless you change the user “environment”. So instead
CD to the directory you installed it in .
type : ./g95 lpw1988.L1yravg_nvap.nat -o avg1998.exe
The program should then run and prompts you:
Input filename: type in lpw1988.L1yravg_nvap.nat
with any luck it may work.
(I now have another problem because bytes are inverted for Macs !) – so more work needed this end.
You super-geniuses make me sick (with jealousy)
Natural cycles are the reason for the slight cooling which will last for 30 years from 1998 to 2028.
The reasons are …
The automatic development of a vertical thermal gradient (AKA “lapse rate”) in any atmosphere in a gravitational field has been confirmed by over 800 experiments since 2002. It happens at the molecular level, regardless of the surface temperature or the amount of convection. Details are in “Planetary Surface Temperatures. A Discussion of Alternative Mechanisms.”
This autonomous “lapse rate” fully explains that “33 degrees of warming” without any need for any greenhouse effect.
All should read this comment by, Geoff Wood, qualified in astrophysics.
The following are excerpts ..
As Doug has said about a dozen times, gravity modifies the mean free path between collisions. That is ‘every’ upward, ‘every’ downward ‘every’ sideways, ‘every’, ‘every’ free molecular path between collisions is modified. Therefore it is impossible for the modified ‘collisions’ that result, not to impart the gravitational ‘information’ into the macroscopic development of the gravitational thermal profile. This is the ‘diffusion’ process.
At this point, we have a reasonable depiction of the thermal profile of ANY atmosphere. FROM BASIC PHYSICS.
Given a simple reason why any atmosphere tends towards this isentropic profile as depicted and described by entry level physics, why would anyone look for a more complicated reason to explain what we already know!
The point which Geoff and I make is that the “33 degrees of warming” supposedly caused by water vapour and carbon dioxide etc was already there due to the effect of gravity on the atmosphere. This happens on all planets, and also fully explains why the poles of Venus are over 720K, even though they receive less than 1W/m^2 of direct insolation from the Sun. For more detail read my article “The 21st Century New Paradigm Shift in Climate Change Science” easily found with Google. I’ve also recorded an introductory 10 minute video here http://youtu.be/r8YbyfqUvfY
That’s pretty interesting because my elementary planetary temperature model based on Stefan-Boltzmann and Beer-Lambert leaves a shortfall of +/-100K from predicted to observed temperatures on Venus. I’d love to see the math behind it and how well your model fits Mars and the atmospheric moons of Saturn. Can your theory accommodate climate variation?
“type : ./g95 lpw1988.L1yravg_nvap.nat -o avg1998.exe”
I don’t see how that could work. We want to compile the Fortran source code, not the NVap data file.
I did change the user environment thru the control panel >> system >>Advanced system settings >> Advanced tab >> Environment Variables >> System Variables >> Path
The compiling worked to line 47 then got the error.
I copied the subroutine “nvap_ng_subroutines.f” into the /bin directory.
I ran c:\G95Fortran\bin>g95 nvap_all_glbave.f -o globalave.exe
The compiler response was:
In file nvap_all_glbave.f:47
gpercnt = rngp*100. / ( float(headi(10))*float(headi(11)) )
Error: Type of argument ‘a’ in call to ‘float’ at (1) should be INTEGER(4), not INTEGER(2)
In file nvap_all_glbave.f:47
gpercnt = rngp*100. / ( float(headi(10))*float(headi(11)) )
Error: Type of argument ‘a’ in call to ‘float’ at (1) should be INTEGER(4), not INTEGER(2)
I don’t understand why the NASA NVap webste is providing the Fortran source code for the Global Average Fortran program. If the source code compiles correcting producing an EXE file, while don’t they just provide the compiled EXE file?
Sorry – I meant g95 nvap_all_glbave.f -o globalave.exe
I installed g95 on a windows 8 64bit machine.
Note: Once installed you have to signoff and signin for the environment to be set up correctly. After which I then got the same compiler errors as you did.
The fortran code is so old that it was probably develop on a DEC VAX or even a PDP 11. The default integer size may even have been Interger*2 or perhaps integer*4.
I then fixed up the code so that it compiled OK. The new source is here : https://clivebest.com/data/nvap_all_glbave.f
It now compiles and produces an executable program. type nvap.exe to run it
enter file: lpwetc–etc.nat
BUT it DOESN’t work on windows either I get the same error :
Error reading requested header rec 1
This is exactly the same as ON THE mac. Therefore I assume again that the problem is to do with the default integer sizes ( 2 bytes or 4 bytes).
Even if their code is obsolete, NASA should at least describe the binary format of their files !
I used your modified code to create an EXE file. It prompted for an input file, and I got the error message you got.
“”Input filename: lpw1988.L1yravg_nvap.nat
ERROR reading requested header rec 1
may just be last grid in file
I have exchanges a series of emails with Michelle, NASA Langley ASDC User Services.
I had asked “Do you have the global average NVap water vapour values by layer for each month or year already calculated in a text file?” She replied “No.” I asked ” Can you recommend a Fortran compiler?” and gave my OS info. She replied “We highly suggest you ask your SA to assist you with this.” I assume SA means system administrator. I don’t have a SA!
Today I sent Michelle and email detailing the compiling errors, provided the link to your modified fortran code, the the error from the executable.
I requested “Please get Dave Randel or someone capable of writing Fortran code to correct the program, create an executable for the global average, and confirm that it actually calculates the global average from the file lpw1988.L1yravg_nvap.nat.
Then please provide me the executable global average program, and the corrected Fortran source code.”
I’ll let you know if this gets results.
I have it all working. There are two problems.
1) In order to get the first open and read to work in subroutine “nvap_read” I decided to do a simple formatted read in the first call – so this now becomes
C**OPEN FILE TO GET SIZE INFORMATION FROM HEADER
c > access=’direct’,recl = 38, status=’old’,err=90)
c read(101,rec=1,err=91) bufft
c read(bufft,1) ixsize,iysize
1 format( 30x, i4, i4)
2) On a MAC or PC you must specify the record length recl in bytes so in subroutine ‘nvap_read’ use (the lines with C are now commented out )
if(ixsize .eq. 360) then ! 1 degree nvap data
C irecl = 720 / 4 ! bytes / 4 ***this may need to be just bytes
irecl = 720
ipadl = 720 – 144 ! pad bytes in header
idatal = 720 ! length in bytes of data (360*2)
if(ixsize .eq. 720) then ! 1/2 degree nvap data
C irecl = 1440 / 4 ! bytes / 4 ***this may need to be just bytes
irecl = 1440
ipadl = 1440 – 144 ! pad bytes in header
idatal = 1440 ! length in bytes of data (720*2)
iheadl = 144 ! ascii header length
With regards to the 17 years, for RSS, the slope is flat since December 1996 or 16 years and 1 month. (goes to December) However there is no 95% significant warming for 23 years.
At what point will the little boy shout to the assembled dignitaries ?
“the emperor has nothing on !”
Werner, what does this tell you about climate sensitivity?
Here is John Christy’s plot of CMIP5 model runs for AR5:
After 1997, I see no models with no-temperature-rise for more than 5 years.
Ken, if I understand your question correctly, the climate is much less sensitive to CO2 as some claim. It is time to tell the emperor that an additional two data sets have exceeded NOAA’s 15 years for a slope of 0:
HadCrut3: since May 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to November)
Sea surface temperatures: since March 1997 or 15 years, 10 months (goes to December)
And by the way, for a combination of the satellite data, namely RSS and UAH, the slope is flat since December 1997 or 15 years and 1 month. (goes to December)
My previous email was incorrect because Chisty’s graph used a “7-year running average”.
I loaded the annual data for all 37 models from CMIP5, scenario RCP 4.5 into excel. I calculated the best fit slopes over every 15-year interval ending from 2011 to 2050. There was only one model that showed a negative slope at any 15-year interval. It shows two separate periods of negative slopes, 9 overlapping periods. No model shows a negative slope for the 15-year period ending 2012.
I calculate a 0.6% chance (9/(37X40)) of a 15-year period of no warming if the climate model assumptions are correct.
When I studied your latest temperature trends and in the same graphs the CO2 increasing behavior, it shows clearly that the correlation between the two data sets is almost insignificant or even negative. The exact numbers will bear that out, I have not done that yet, and frankly, it will not tell us anything more than what can be observed. This is not just a “statistical fluctuation”. It puts a definitive hole in the argument of CO2 being the cause of global warming. I sent you an email with this same comment, and an additional question which I will not repeat here, since it is of only ancillary interest.
Your data set is of great value!
There is a physics case that an increase in CO2 reduces slightly the amount of radiation to space from the atmosphere. It does not directly effect the radiation emitted from the surface. So everything depends on what happens to the atmosphere, and of course solar radiation. If nothing else apart from CO2 changed in the atmosphere then the surface would warm by ~1K by 2100. This increase could either be offset or amplified by knock on effects in water vapor content.
During the last 16 years there has been no net change in global temperatures. This coincides with the most rapid increase in CO2 levels ever by Man (China, India etc.). So the evidence is that something else is driving recent climate other than CO2 . This could be one or more of the following:
Water content decreases (negative feedback)
Clouds increase with higher cosmic radiation (solar wind)
Heat transport in the oceans changes
Small changes in Solar activity gets amplified somehow.
What has NASA said recently about solar influence on climate ?
NASA Issued a report by Dr Tony Phillips, “The Effect of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate”, which is an extensive amount of information regarding the Sun’s influence on the climate, rather than CO2. One comment by Dr Ball was that he considered this to be “a turn by NASA away from Dr Hansen” who is/was the big pusher and defender of the CO2 myth. Apparently, from the highest level up at NASA, Hansen was not to be criticised, and therefore he has lasted so long (30 years?) without being challenged, and of course neither did the press.
The NASA report is available from the National Academies Press, either by buying it or downloading it free. It is rather extensive and should be carefully assessed as to what is being claimed.
All the hemispheric and global temperature data from the CRU has gone missing.
It has been replaced with a page showing how wonderful Phil Jones is.
By the way, December is out on a different site of theirs.
0.269 on Hadcrut4 and 0.233 on Hadcrut3.
With Hadcrut4, the anomaly for 2012 is 0.436. This would rank 10th.
With Hadcrut3, the anomaly for 2012 is 0.403. This would rank 10th.
Thanks Werner. The problem was my computer loaded the temperature page from cache, but it was changed on the CRU server. The page I saw still had links to the .txt files, which no longer exist, so I got the CRU home page for all the txt files. Forcing a reload by holding Shift, click, I got a new Temperature page with .dat files.
Here is my HadCrut3 graph including December 2012:
The NASA Water Vapor Project (NVAP) has created a record of gridded total column and layered water vapor for the period 1988 to 2001 based a satellite and radiosonde data. The NVAP Heritage Data and Information is here:
Clive has helped me to calculate the global average precipitable water vapour by layer from the gridded data set. The fortran source code provided by NASA did not work. Clive modified the program to work on a Mac. The NASA help told me they do not have the global average values.
The global annual average precipitable water vapour by atmospheric layer is shown in the follow graph.
The data is in and Excel file at:
A paper titled “Weather and Climate Analyses Using Improved Global Water Vapor Observations” was accepted 28 June 2012 for GRL.
The paper describes an extension of this data, NVAP-M, to 2009. The paper gives the global average NVAP Heritage total precipitable water vapour (TPW) for even years. This does not agree with the TPW we calculated from the Fortran program and the gridded files. It also give TPW values for the same years of the NVAP-M data as shown below:
Year 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 Average
Heritage 25.12 24.62 24.18 24.01 24.17 24.01 24.82 24.42
NVAP-M 25.06 24.93 25.06 24.56 25.38 26.31 25.51 25.26
Fortran 34.54 36.26 31.54 30.74 29.82 29.99 29.80 31.81
Note that the NVAP-M average is 0.84 mm greater than the Heritage data.
The average of the Fortran calculated values are 7.39 mm greater than the Heritage values reported in the paper. Something is seriously wrong with the Fortran global average program.
A graph of the global monthly total precipitable water vapour from NVAP-M is:
The NVAP webpage says “NVAP-M will be transferred to the NASA Langley Atmospheric Science Data Center (ASDC) in fall 2012.” But it is not there yet.
Ken, when I drag friendsofscience.org onto my bookmark toolbar, why don’t I get an icon?
This is a fascinating thread and even after seven months of following the climate debate on the web for seven months, I’ve learned a lot from just this page we’re on now. I like to think that my opinions are flexible but oh boy have they been flexed today!
oldfossil says, “Ken, when I drag friendsofscience.org onto my bookmark toolbar, why don’t I get an icon?” I’ll try to set that up!