Many Mixed Signals in the UKMO’s Latest 5-Year Global Surface Temperature Forecast

The UKMO issued their most recent 5-year global temperature forecast about a week ago. See their Decadal forecast press release for 2015.  It has been getting a little press recently.   The forecast description wasn’t as clear as it could have been, but the UKMO openly displayed the failure of the forecast from 2009 sea surface temperatures.

SUMMARY

The summary includes three bullet points.  The first reads:

Averaged over the five-year period 2015-2019, forecast patterns suggest enhanced warming over land, and at high northern latitudes. There is some indication of continued cool conditions in the Southern Ocean, and of a developing cooling in the North Atlantic sub-polar gyre. The latter is potentially important for climate impacts over Europe, America and Africa.

This suggests that the UKMO’s models are capable of regional forecasting, yet at the end of the forecast they openly discuss factors that prevent this.

The second bullet point is:

Averaged over the five-year period 2015-2019, global average temperature is expected to remain high and is likely to be between 0.18°C and 0.46°C above the long-term (1981-2010) average of 14.3°C. This compares with an anomaly of +0.26°C observed in 2010 and 2014, currently the warmest years on record.

In other words, over the next five years, their models forecast that global surfaces may be a little warmer or a little cooler than 2014, as much as 0.2 deg C warmer or as much as 0.08 deg C cooler.  [Sarc on.] That narrows it down. [Sarc off.]

Also, that second bullet point is basically the same as the 5-year forecast from 2014.  See the WaybackMachine archive here:

Averaged over the five-year period 2014-2018, global average temperature is expected to remain high and is likely to be between 0.17°C and 0.43°C above the long-term (1981-2010) average. This compares with an anomaly of +0.26°C observed in 2010, the warmest year on record.

The final bullet point from the 2015 forecast reads:

Although the forecast generally indicates that global temperatures will remain high, it is not yet possible to predict exactly when the slowdown in surface warming will end.

The phrase “global temperatures will remain high” is curious.  It leads one to believe that global surface temperatures might somehow return to “normal”.

Also, remarkably, the UKMO acknowledged in that bullet point (1) that the “slowdown in surface warming” continues and (2) that they still have no idea when the “slowdown” will end.

I suspect in response to that “slowdown in surface warming” statement we might see some flawed arguments that global warming continues, along with some graphs that show long-term (1900 to 2014) and short-term (1998-2014) trends are comparable. See my Figure 1.  Similar graphs have appeared around the blogosphere.

Figure 1

My Figure 1

Why is that a flawed argument?

Predictions of gloom and doom are not based on warming rates of 0.06 to 0.08 deg C/decade.  The climate models used by the IPCC for their recent 5th Assessment Report simulate much higher warming rates for the short-term. That is, the recent CMIP5 model estimates of short-term (1998-2014) warming and the projections of future global warming initially align with the warming rate from 1975 to present, not from 1900 to present.  See the two graphs in my Figure 2.

Figure 2

My Figure 2

THE FORECAST FROM 2009 GLOBAL SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES WAS A CATASTROPHIC FAILURE

Under the heading of Verification, the second paragraph of the 2015 UKMO 5-year forecast reads and includes the following illustration:

The maps in Figure 4 compare observed (A) and forecast (B) surface temperatures (°C) for November 2009 to October 2014 relative to the 1981-2010 long-term average. Forecasts were made starting from November 2009 using the latest system based on HadGEM3. Stippling shows regions where the observed temperatures do not lie within the 5-95% range of the forecast.

Figure 4 2009 Forecast

Their Figure 4

Just in case you’re having difficulty seeing the differences and the stippling, see Animation 1.  I’ve darkened the illustrations to bring out the stippling, which covers most of the globe. That means for much of Earth’s surface the observed global surface temperatures were outside the range of the multiple climate model runs used in the forecast.  In other words, the 2009-based forecast was an abysmal failure.

Animation 1

Animation 1

The closing paragraph begins:

The decadal forecast system predicted enhanced warming over high northern latitudes, and cooling in the Southern Ocean and North Atlantic sub-polar gyre. These are in broad agreement with the observations, although there are differences in the precise magnitude and location of anomalies.

“Broad agreement” is an odd phrase to use when stippling indicates the observed temperatures in much of the Southern Ocean and in the high latitudes of the North Atlantic did “not lie within the 5-95% range of the forecast”.

UKMO goes on to explain why the models failed in other regions:

However, the forecast did not predict the cooling in the eastern tropical Pacific associated with the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and the cooling over parts of China associated with a negative Arctic Oscillation (AO). This is consistent with the fact that decadal prediction systems are not yet capable of predicting the PDO or the AO for the coming five years.

And the fact that the decadal prediction systems are still not able to predict the Arctic Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (an aftereffect primarily of El Niño and La Niña events) highlights a couple of cold realities: 5-year forecasts from the past that are more successful are based solely on luck, not skill, and all future regional forecasts are basically valueless until the UKMO is capable of forecasting natural variability such as El Niño and La Niña events, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Arctic Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, etc.

 

Advertisements

About Bob Tisdale

Research interest: the long-term aftereffects of El Niño and La Nina events on global sea surface temperature and ocean heat content. Author of the ebook Who Turned on the Heat? and regular contributor at WattsUpWithThat.
This entry was posted in Climate Model Failings, UKMO. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Many Mixed Signals in the UKMO’s Latest 5-Year Global Surface Temperature Forecast

  1. earwig42 says:

    UKMO = Climastrological Agnotology. Making the world more ignorant one forecast at a time.

  2. Thanks, Bob. Good detection.
    The longer the pause, the greater their problem.

  3. Pingback: UKMO’s latest global 5 yr temperature forecast | CRIKEY !#&@ ...... IT'S THE WEATHER CYCLES

  4. goldminor says:

    “The pause that refreshes” remember that slogan? Buy stock in Coca Cola, the pause is going to get even better over time.

  5. Alec aka Daffy Duck says:

    Hi bob, new paper published yesterday

    The recent global warming hiatus: What is the role of Pacific variability?
    Abstract
    The observed global mean surface air temperature (GMST) has not risen over the last 15 years, spurring outbreaks of skepticism regarding the nature of global warming and challenging the upper range transient response of the current-generation global climate models. Recent numerical studies have, however, tempered the relevance of the observed pause in global warming by highlighting the key role of tropical Pacific internal variability. Here we first show that many climate models overestimate the influence of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation on GMST, thereby shedding doubt on their ability to capture the tropical Pacific contribution to the hiatus. Moreover, we highlight that model results can be quite sensitive to the experimental design. We argue that overriding the surface wind stress is more suitable than nudging the sea surface temperature for controlling the tropical Pacific ocean heat uptake and, thereby, the multidecadal variability of GMST. Using the former technique, our model captures several aspects of the recent climate evolution, including the weaker slowdown of global warming over land and the transition toward a negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Yet the observed global warming is still overestimated not only over the recent 1998–2012 hiatus period but also over former decades, thereby suggesting that the model might be too sensitive to the prescribed radiative forcings.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062775/abstract;jsessionid=E9FC835F61198F4FBB376C50123B7DDF.f01t04?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

  6. Bob Tisdale says:

    Thanks, Alec aka Daffy Duck. I especially liked the closing sentence: “Yet the observed global warming is still overestimated not only over the recent 1998–2012 hiatus period but also over former decades, thereby suggesting that the model might be too sensitive to the prescribed radiative forcings.”

    They also overlooked the other big-ticket item, the AMO.

  7. Alec aka Daffy Duck says:

    Actually I was searching recent ‘Atlantic multidecadal’ when I saw that paper.

    I believe they have just posted January AMO at 0.012

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s