"Denier" wins climate bet
This ties in closely to the last blog, pertaining to the HadCRU data:
""...Britain’s Met Office projects 2014 temperature likely to be 0.3 degrees Celsius warmer than 2004. “Here is the climate forecast for the next decade [2007-2014]; although global warming will be held in check for a few years, it will come roaring back to send the mercury rising before 2014. This is the prediction of the first computer model of the global climate designed to make forecasts over a timescale of around a decade, developed by scientists at the Met Office. The new model developed at the Met's Hadley Centre in Exeter, and described in the journal Science, predicts that warming will slow during the next few years but then speed up again, and that at least half of the years after 2009 will be warmer than 1998, the warmest year on record..."
It seems that a bet was made in 2008 - a bet that has been won by Dr David Whitehouse, a former BBC Science Editor and a scientific adviser to the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
"...In 2008, the BBC programmmers came up with the idea of a bet. It was for £100 that, using the Met Office’s data set (HadCrut3), there would be no new warming record set by 2011. It was made between Dr Whitehouse and climatologist Dr James Annan..."
Dr. Annan's blog on the original bet:
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
The results are in: Dr Winehouse won. Using that same HadCRU data, up to now, there HAS NOT BEEN A YEAR WARMER THAN 1998.
So what does Dr Annan have to say?
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Although he admits to the loss (and, it's true that the other two data sets show warmer), they agreed to use HadCRU data.
As far as the other two sets, they've ALWAYS run warmer. So when the HadCRU numbers for 2011 came in at a blistering .543C above "normal", it's still the coolest of the three. That, compared to 1998 at .820C, makes a bone-chilling drop of .277C below the "warmest ever".
Then again, he states "...I estimated observational values for 2011, as they are not actually published yet..."
He'd better look again.
Sure - there's this:
"...That said, there is little sign of the acceleration in warming that most models had predicted, and it increasingly seems that the Smith et al forecast (for example) was a bit excessive. This new paper also suggests that the transient response of a modern model (albeit a particularly sensitive one) has to be significantly downscaled to match observations. Mind you, that paper also has a worrying discrepancy between the results obtained with 1900-2000, versus 1850-2010 data. Normally one would expect the latter to be broadly a subset of the former - more data means closer convergence to the true value - but the two sets of results are virtually disjoint, which suggests something a bit strange may be going on in the analysis (cf Schmitter et al with the land-only versus land+ocean results). But just a glance at the first figure shows a striking divergence between model and data over the first decade of the 21st century (compared to the close agreement prior to then). Something isn't quite right there..."
Seems more observation needs to take place.
No reader comments have been posted for this blog entry yet.