The UK Met Office And It’s Erroneous Indicators

Not too long ago NOAA and the UK Met office came out with their 2009 State of the Climate Report which you can dowload are read here: 

High Resolution: 

Low Resolution: 

From that report the UK Met office makes their case based on what they call 10 leading indicators which is conviently listed by the UK Met Office on their site: 


 Increasing indicators.Seven indicators are rising and three are declining 

Rising indicators

  1. Air temperature over land
  2. Sea-surface temperature
  3. Marine air temperature
  4. Sea-level
  5. Ocean heat
  6. Humidity
  7. Tropospheric temperature in the ‘active-weather’ layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface

Declining indicators

  1. Arctic sea-ice
  2. Glaciers
  3. Spring snow cover in the northern hemisphere 

To which I say Oh Really? Lets test those claims.

Now what is interesting is not that the world warmed in 2009 as any sceptic will tell you. what is interesting is how the State of the Climate report plainly states  NATURAL phenomenoms known as El Nino and the PDO was responsible for the increase in world temperatures that year. 

The year was characterized by a transition from a waning La Niña to a strengthening El Niño, which first developed in June. By December, SSTs were more than 2.0°C above average over large parts of the central and eastern equatorial Pacific. Eastward surface current anomalies, associated with the El Niño, were strong across the equatorial Pacific, reaching values similar to the 2002 El Niño during November and December 2009. The transition from La Niña to El Niño strongly influenced anomalies in many climate conditions, ranging from reduced Atlantic basin hurricane activity to large scale surface and tropospheric warmth.

  Aside from the El Niño development in the tropical Pacific and warming in the tropical Indian Ocean, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) transitioned to a positive phase during the fall/winter 2009. Ocean heat fluxes contributed to SST anomalies in some regions (e.g., in the North Atlantic and tropical Indian Oceans) while dampening existing SST anomalies in other regions (e.g., the tropical and extratropical Pacific). 

Keep this in mind even though they call the report “State of the Climate” it is to me misleading since it is more “State of the Weather” more then anything else since they make one each year. Yes they look at long term trends but as shown in the quotes above they deal heavily with what is differences from year to year.Another interesting thing is what is missing from the UK Met Office page dealing with this report:

Scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable has been released today in the ‘2009 State of the Climate’ report, issued by US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

The report draws on data from 10 key climate indicators that all point to that same finding — the world is warming. 

The 10 indicators of temperature have been compiled by the Met Office Hadley Centre, drawing on the work of more than 100 scientists from more than 20 institutions. They provide, in a one place, a snapshot of our world and spell out a single conclusion that the climate is unequivocally warming. 

Relying on data from multiple sources, each indicator proved consistent with a warming world 

Now did you notice what was missing from that statement? 

Well if you didn’t here it is: The words Anthropogenic or Man-Caused in front of the terms warming world. Thats right they left those words out, I wonder why? Maybe because as I pointed out above the rise in temperatures was due to a NATURAL phenomenom and they can only try to infer man as the cause, since if they stated that the rise in temperatures in 2009 was due to man they know that lie would be quickly exposed by using their own quote from their own report. 

Another thing that is interesting is that they are using this report as being up to date when already the information used to make it is absurdly out of date, but notice they don’t tell the media that. Oh no they let them run around shouting from the roof tops that the Sea Surface Temperatures are rising, when in actuality they have been falling for the last few months as we start to enter a La Nina. You can even check it yourself just go here to the UAH Vortex site that I have listed on the Blog roll to the right. Once you get to that site look in the lower left hand corner for the “Show Global Average Temperature At” drop down menu and open it, then select Sea Surface. Once that happens a Graph will pop up showing the SST’s for 2008, 2009 and 2010. In that graph you will see that SST’s have been falling since March of 2010.

Click to Enlarge

Click to Enlarge

Want more evidence visit Bob Tisdale’s blog, for he shows the graphs from just about every major climate center including NOAA and Hadley: 


Monthly NINO3.4 SST anomalies have reached the threshold of a La Niña, which is -0.5 deg C. The central tropical Pacific (Monthly NINO3.4) SST Anomaly is -0.5 deg C, while weekly data has fallen well into La Niña ranges (-0.62 deg C).

Global SST anomalies have hesitated this month in their decline, but a glimpse at the weekly global data I posted last week reveals that the decline will continue next month. Refer to PRELIMINARY June 2010 SST Anomaly Update . The reason global SST anomalies stalled in their response to the drop in NINO3.4 SST anomalies is the decline in the Southern Hemisphere (-0.031 deg C) was less than the rise in the Northern Hemisphere (+0.049 deg C). Both the North Atlantic and North Pacific SST anomalies rose, with the larger rise in the North Pacific. 

So what does that mean for the indicators listed? Well it already shows that the “Rising SST’s” indicator is not rising so their report is out of date, but remember they even admit that the El Nino is what caused the Land, Marine air and Lower Troposphere Temps to rise so what do you think a decline in SST’s will do to those indicators?

At this pace of cooling, I suspect that the second half of 2010 could ruin the chances of getting a record high global temperature for this year. Oh, darn.


 by Dr. Roy Spencer:

 That’s right with 70% of the earths surface cooling down the land, marine air and lower troposphere will follow behind and you can see this in the UAH temperature anomalies (Which is based on Channel 5 of the NASA Aqua satellite and in the new NOAA 18 satellite) which are measurements of the lower troposhere:

Click to Enlarge

So that knocks out three more indicators as being out of date since they are no longer rising (warming) but falling (cooling). So we are now down to just 3 rising indicators left: Sea Level Rise, Ocean Heat and Humidity.

Ocean Heat: If the SST’s are falling that means the Oceans are losing heat not gaining so that one is gone.

Humidity: Now this is a tougher question but with lower temperatures you would expect less water to be evaporated but wind also plays a factor as does cloud cover.

Sea Level Rise: This also has more then one source, but one reason for the 1″ per decade (that’s right ONE INCH PER DECADE going from 2000 to the end of the graph)

17:00 mark

is from thermal expansion. This is not something new, when you heat water up it expands, this is what happens if you put too much water into a pot then set the temperature to High on the burner. As the temperature rises the water overflows the pot. Now logically if the water in the oceans start to cool they will go in the other direction so you should see some contraction. Will this be enough to get sea level to fall? My estimate is no, because the seas have been expanding since the end of the Little Ice Age at least and we will not drop SST’s to that level this year. However you should see a decline in the rate of Sea Level Rise. Now before you scream Glacial Melt or more foolishly Arctic Ice melt stop and think for a second. First most Glaciers that are melting are far inland and most of that water does not make it to the sea or ocean, and the majority of the ones that do sit near the ocean are in Greenland which has a unique feature. You see the Greenland Glaciers sit in a large bowl shaped indentation in the earth. What does that mean? Think of it as big bowl of Ice Cream that you leave sitting out. Any Ice Cream that touches the rim of the bowl or hangs over it when it melts will fall outside/run down the side of the bowl, the rest sits in the bottom of the bowl and goes nowhere. That is the thing about Greenland Glacier melt, the vast majority of any melt never reaches the ocean. So another strike against the OMG the melting glaciers will cause catastrophic sea level rise. As to Artic Ice melt causing sea level rise,  a 3rd grader can refute that one. It’s the reason melting ice cubes in glasses of water do not cause the water level to rise as they melt. Now on the other end of the globe is a different story. Antarctica is land that has many tons of ice sitting on top of it, if it ever all melted then the world would seriously be in trouble. The problem being for the warmer’s cause is that Antartic Ice is increasing not melting:

Click to enlarge

So instead of contributing to sea level rise it would be in the other direction, since any preciptation that falls on the continent stays there in the form of snow and ice instead of falling into the ocean and melting.

Which neatly brings us to the three declining indicators of Glaciers, Artic Ice and Spring Snow cover in the NH.

First lets talk about the Glaciers. I touch on some aspects earlier but here is more information on them:

Not all Glaciers are melting as shown by the “2035” Himalayan IPCC Fiasco. Of the ones being monitored (not all are) some are melting (retreating) while others are doing nothing and the rest are advancing (getting bigger). Here is another little tidbit, did you know a new Glacier formed in the 1980’s on Mt. St. Helens sitting right next to the Volcanic Caldera? Yep while the temps rose during the 80’s and all the Glaciers were suppose to be melting one formed in the shadow of the south rim of the crater. That Glacier is almost gone now but not due to AGW but due to the volcano and it is not the heat from the volcano either, at least not directly. You see what happend as more magma entered the chamber just below the surface it caused the ground to start swelling. As the swelling got bigger it started to physically push the glacier out of the crater. Since it no longer sat in the shadow of the rim on the south side but exposed on the north side it started disapearing. Found that out from the Park Service when I visited Johnston Observatory this year on vacation.

Now what does that have to do with other glaciers? Plenty! You see it shows that just straight air temperature isn’t the only factor that determines if a glacier melts or not. As in the case of Mt. St. Helens that was exposure to direct sunlight: without it, it grew with it, it melted.  Another factor is Precipitation and that is what is causing the glacier on Mt. Kilamajoro to melt as Dr. Christy found out when he studied the problem.

18:06 mark

 You see there has been no “warming” of the air temperatures around Mt. Kilamajoro, nor has there been a change in the physical layout of the mountain to cause a change in direct sunlight. What they did find is that as the years have been rolling along is that there has been a steady decrease in the amount of precipitation on Mt. Kilamajoro. You see all glaciers go through seasonal melt and glaciation cycles every year: In summer they melt, in winter they grow. What makes a Glacier advance and retreat is the ratio between the two: More melt that cycle the glacier retreats and if there is more glaciation the glacier advances. 

So what does that mean? Simple really: Just because glacier’s are melting and there has been a rise in temperatures, it doesn’t mean that the rise in temperatures are causing the glaciers to melt. You need to look at each individual glacier to see if “Global Warming” is causing it to retreat as the examples of Mt. St. Helens and Kilamajoro shows us. Correalation does not equal Causation.

Artic Ice melt: Couple of problems with this one.

First is the fact that the big dip in Arctic Ice Extent was not caused by temperatures in the Arctic it was caused by wind:

 A new NASA-led study found a 23-percent loss in the extent of the Arctic’s thick, year-round sea ice cover during the past two winters. This drastic reduction of perennial winter sea ice is the primary cause of this summer’s fastest-ever sea ice retreat on record and subsequent smallest-ever extent of total Arctic coverage.

A team led by Son Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., studied trends in Arctic perennial ice cover by combining data from NASA’s Quick Scatterometer (QuikScat) satellite with a computing model based on observations of sea ice drift from the International Arctic Buoy Programme. QuikScat can identify and map different classes of sea ice, including older, thicker perennial ice and younger, thinner seasonal ice.

Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.

“The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century,” Nghiem said.

Notice that they state that the winds were due to pressure not temperature and that the ice that did melt, did it far away from the Arctic in waters that were much warmer. So Arctic temperatures didn’t cause the big drop in ice cover and even more bad news for this indicator is that the Artic ice extent has been increasing ever since that time:

Click to Enlarge

So we had wind driven drops in Sea Ice Extent for the years 2006 and 2007 and the past 2 years the Sea Ice Extent has been RISING not decreasing. Thats 4 years where temeperature changes in the Arctic are known not to be causing the Alarmist claim that the Arctic is melting due to AGW.  So much for that claim in the list.

Which leaves us with the last and most pitiful claim in the entire list: NH Spring Snow cover. I thought we were talking about GLOBAL indicators to show the ENITRE WORLD is warming. Now the last time I looked the NH is not the entire planet, did we somehow lose the entire Southern Hemisphere? I know in an oil company funded plot Anthony Watts and his band of merry men from Watt’s Up With That stole the Southern Hemisphere and hid it so the people doing the report couldn’t study it. Now just excluding half of the Globe is bad enough but come on you just studied the Snow Cover for one quarter of the year. What did Mr. Watts also make off with the Northern Hemispehere the other 9 months out of the year? Do you know that snow falls in the Northern Hemisphere year round? So is the Snow Cover the other 9 months going up or down in the Northern Hemisphere? How about the bottom half of the Globe?

This has go to be one of the stupidest indicators to use to prove the GLOBE is warming. Really is it that hard to see that studing half the globe for only one quarter of the year isn’t going to tell you crap about what the ENTIRE world is doing YEAR ROUND. Well as Ron White said “you can’t fix stupid”, and maybe that is why the Alarmist can’t figure that out.

So lets Recap the list of indicators: For the ones stated as rising most of them is shot to hell because the data is out of date, so running around you got proof the world is warming while SST and lower troposhere temps are falling is stupid. The only one that will still be rising is sea level but as Dr. Christy has said if you can handle the 20ft sea level rise from a hurricane why are you alarmed over a 1″ rise over a decade?

For the declining indicators two of them are shown to not be 100% dependent on air temperatures and that one of those has been on the increase since 2007. The last indicator of studing half the globe for a quarter of a year to show as proof of GLOBAL warming is laughable at best. These are the same people that run around and say the Medeval Warm Period is not global because the evidence for it is found in the Northern Hemisphere and in local regions only (which is a false statement there is plenty of peer reviewed studies that show the MWP in both Hemispheres, but want us to believe that a  even more limited study (a fraction of the time compared to the MWP and in NH only) is evidence of Global Warming. Can anyone say HYPOCRITE? I knew you could, for at a minimum that is what they are. If they persist on using that metric it blows their objection to the MWP out of the water.

So in the end the big headlines from NOAA and the UK Met office about their indicators is shown to be not that big of news at all, since  the state of the indicators is out of date in most cases and completely erroneous in others


3 responses to “The UK Met Office And It’s Erroneous Indicators

  1. co2hound July 31, 2010 at 10:18 am

    So guess what you and Roy know more that all the other climate brains in the world?

    Don’t make me laugh! You and your bunch have not a clue about what is happening.

    And I suggest if billions die in the next 100 years over this issue people should look you up and put you on trial for ‘crimes against humanity’. Too bad you will be dead.

    And it will come to that … people, when they are lied to and their lives suddenly are on the line … they will find the people responsible … mobs will be in the streets.

    You are a criminal.

  2. boballab July 31, 2010 at 1:12 pm

    LOL here I’ll help you get a clue.

    Do you know how many “Climate Scientists” that work on the IPCC papers have Climatology degrees?

    Answer: None. There was no Climatology degrees until very recently, when Universities started realizing they could hash together couses they all give to make a “Climatology” Degree. Matter of fact Dr. Michael Manns Phd is in Geography and Dr. Gavin Schmidts is in Mathmatics.

    Do you know if the Holocene Optimum was warmer or colder then the 20th Century?

    Answer: Warmer. Matter of fact according to ice core reconstructions we have been in a steady cooling trend since the Holocene Optimum ended, even with the 20th Century warming, The MWP, The Roman Warm period and the Minoan Warm Period. Notice that Humanity survived those higher temperatues then what we have today.

    Now as to the IF billions die in 100 years I will counter that with what the UN has stated: people are dying today due to growing crops to make fuel out of. Thats right people like you with your call for so called “Green Altenative Energy” have aleady killed people, but don’t just take my word for it here is a quote from George Monbiot who is a devout BELIEVER in CAGW:

    An Agricultural Crime Against Humanity
    Posted November 6, 2007 Biofuels could kill more people than the Iraq war.

    By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 6th November 2007

    It doesn’t get madder than this. Swaziland is in the grip of a famine and receiving emergency food aid. Forty per cent of its people are facing acute food shortages. So what has the government decided to export? Biofuel made from one of its staple crops, cassava(1). The government has allocated several thousand hectares of farmland to ethanol production in the county of Lavumisa, which happens to be the place worst hit by drought(2). It would surely be quicker and more humane to refine the Swazi people and put them in our tanks. Doubtless a team of development consultants is already doing the sums.

    So far I showed evidence that was compiled by NOAA, UAH, Hadely Center and the CRU that shows that the wold is cooling now due to La Nina. I hate to be you in a few years when the Gand Minimum, PDO shift and the upcoming AO shift sets in and the next Little Ice Age starts up, you know the one that the UN modelers are now saying is going to last from anywhere from 20 to 50 years.

    Oh here is a bonus for you: according to the Greenland IceCore records there was a rapid rise in temperatures
    just prior to the start of the Holocene. Matter of fact the temps rose 22°F in the span of just 50 years. I wonder what kind of SUV’s the Cavemen were driving, and I’m waiting for some enterprising scientist to find the ruins of the Caveman’s Fossil Fueled Power Plants.

    Another Bonus: Did you know that the Polar Bears survived much higher temperatures in the past then they are experiencing today? Well check out the PEER REVIEWED paper on it:

    Polar bears of the past survived warmth
    Article #2018

    An ancient jawbone has led scientists to believe that polar bears survived a period thousands of years ago that was warmer than today.

    Sandra Talbot of the USGS Alaska Science Center in Anchorage was one of 14 scientists who teamed to write a paper based on a polar bear jawbone found amid rocks on a frigid island of the Svalbard Archipelago. The scientists determined the bear was an adult male that lived and died somewhere between 130,000 to 110,000 years ago, and that bear was similar to polar bears today. Charlotte Lindqvist of the University at Buffalo in New York was the lead author on the paper, published in the March 2010 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

    Talbot says the evidence of a polar bear from 130,000 years ago shows that the creatures somehow survived conditions warmer than they face today.

    “This is verifying that the polar bear lived through at least one warming period,” Talbot says. “The Eemian was a very hot period, and polar bears survived it,” she says.

    During the Eemian, about 125,000 years ago, the planet was warm enough that hippos lived where London is now. Polar bears, now adapted to eating seals that live only near sea ice, somehow made it through a few thousand years when there may not have been much sea ice, if any existed at all.

    Last time I looked hippos are nowhere living near London except in a Zoo. Well so much fo that claim that the Polar bears will die without Ice. Seems they did just fine 125,000 years ago.

    Of course we knew the Polar Bear was doing fine today anyway:

    Last stand of our wild polar bears

    Dr. Mitchell Taylor
    Polar Bear Biologist,
    Department of the Environment,
    Government of Nunavut , Igloolik , Nunavut , Canada

    May 1, 2006

    One polar bear population (western Hudson Bay ) has declined since the 1980s and the reproductive success of females in that area seems to have decreased. We are not certain why, but it appears that ecological conditions in the mid-1980s were exceptionally good.

    Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada , 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.

    It is noteworthy that the neighbouring population of southern Hudson Bay does not appear to have declined, and another southern population ( Davis Strait ) may actually be over-abundant.

    I understand that people who do not live in the north generally have difficulty grasping the concept of too many polar bears in an area. People who live here have a pretty good grasp of what that is like to have too many polar bears around.

    This complexity is why so many people find the truth less entertaining than a good story. It is entirely appropriate to be concerned about climate change, but it is just silly to predict the demise of polar bears in 25 years based on media-assisted hysteria.

    So lets summerize you think it’s crimminal to not believe in a fantasy or a what if situation, well I got one for you.

    If in 100 years billions will die from a possible asteroid and the only way to prevent that is by giving me all your money and you living in a cave are you going to do it?
    If not you are a criminal and I’ll send the “mobs” after you.

    Oh one thing I agree with you on, when the people find out they have been lied to they will be pissed at with the liars. Oh wait the people are finding out the scientists have been lying to them, thats why they keep saying no to living in the 18th centuy conditions you advocate.

    And you somehow confuse the minority of scientists that support the IPCC position (I guess its that whole 1,500 scientist fallacy when there is less then 60 in the reports)as the majoity which does not support it, including Nobel winners. Maybe this small sample of scientists that don’t believe will clue you in:

    Freeman Dyson Notable: Unification of Quantum Electrodynamics Theory.

    “My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.”

    Ivar Giaever Notable: Nobel Prize in Physics.

    “I’m a skeptic. …Global Warming it’s become a new religion. You’re not supposed to be against Global Warming. You have basically no choice. And I tell you how many scientists support that. But the number of scientists is not important. The only thing that’s important is if the scientists are correct; that’s the important part.”

    Robert Laughlin Notable: Nobel Prize in Physics.

    “The geologic record suggests that climate ought not to concern us too much when we’re gazing into the energy future, not because it’s unimportant, but because it’s beyond our power to control.”

    Edward Teller Notable: Manhattan Project Member, Developer of the Hydrogen Bomb and Founder of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory.

    “Society’s emissions of carbon dioxide may or may not turn out to have something significant to do with global warming–the jury is still out.”

    Frederick Seitz Notable: Pioneer in the field of solid-state physics and President Emeritus of the National Academy of Sciences.

    “Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.”

    Robert Jastrow Notable: Founding Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and hosted more than 100 CBS-TV network programs on space science.

    “The scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities.”

    William Nierenberg Notable: Manhattan Project Member and Director Emeritus of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

    “The available data on climate change, however, do not support these predictions, nor do they support the idea that human activity has caused, or will cause, a dangerous increase in global temperatures. …These facts indicate that theoretical estimates of the greenhouse problem have greatly exaggerated its seriousness.”

  3. Vedich August 11, 2010 at 2:40 am

    I would like to exchange links with your site
    Is this possible?

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: