The press release reads more like a global warming advocacy document rather than an objective summary.

The fact that 2008 is forecast to be cooler than any of the last seven years ... does not mean that global warming has gone away.

i.e. it's actually cooling, but our funding depends on people believing that it is warming.

forecast to be one of the top-ten warmest years.

i.e. we control the data, so we can make sure that it places in any position we think we can get away with.

The Met had a tough year in 2007. Besides their annual prediction issues, they had a bit of trouble with the UK summer prediction.

11 April 2007
Met Office forecast for Summer 2007 The latest seasonal forecast from the Met Office issued today, reveals that this summer is, yet again, likely to be warmer than normal. Following the trend set throughout 2006 and the first part of 2007, seasonal forecasters say there is a high probability that summer temperature will exceed the 1971-2000 long-term average of 14.1C.... there are no indications of an increased risk of a particularly dry or particularly wet summer.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070411.html

This year's postmortem

For many people in the UK, 2007 will be remembered as the year without a summer. The extreme rainfall of May, June and July and the large-scale flooding that followed gripped the nation for much of the summer, and the consequences are still being felt by many of those affected.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080102.html

I think they are trying to cover themselves once again just in case... I'll bet that 2008 is gonna be much colder than they think (when you add in TSI etc). Also, when both skeptics and AGW'ers cherry pick data to try to prove a point, is it not obvious that it proves that there is no global warming? (AGW = temperatures should be rising at ALL stations versus past data). What has happened to the lower troposphere forcing AGW theory? see IPCC versions 1-4. I don't think British Met office will be making any predictions after 2008... old soldiers never die they only fade away (same applies to AGW). BTW the Australian Met office also rose to the chorus pointing out the warmest ever temps in Southern Australia but not mentioning the coolest temps in Northern Australia so unfortunately they had to settle for 6th warmest!

cheers

Is this the death knell of AGW? latest lower troposphere temp (LTL) data December 2007 took a real dive we are now into negative territory pre 1979 before recordings started!
http://davidsmith1.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/0103082.jpg
Simply put:LTL cannot be going down and surface temps going up over the shown periods according to AGW. Expect UHA data to be even lower! Fortunately satellites cannot cherry pick (or can they?)

Hey, I have a prediction. I predict that the world will be warm, and the world will be cold. No, wait, I predict the world will be cold and the world will be warm.....No, wait again....I predict that Al Gore will break wind and it will wipe New York off the map......hahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

DENY DENY DENY THE GLOBAL WARMING LIE!!!!!!

Again these are just predictions. They can't get the weather right today yet along for the next year! So in a way it is pointless to say so.

YOU can help save the planet!

Easy and affordable carbon offsets. Nonprofit and verified. Just $5.50/ton.

www.carbonfund.org

Sign me up!

Interesting press releases. When the Met Office makes its forecast for 2007 saying it will be the warmest year on record they use words like "another warning that climate change is happening" (of course it is, but how much is attributable to man and should we care?) and "startling forcast" (startling in what way?). They also talk about how important this news is coming off the heels of a warm 2006 and the ongoing "strong El Nino". Of course we know now that 2007 was not the warmest year on record. In the 2008 forecast news release 2008 is predicted to "still fall wihtin the top ten" but that in no way means global warming has stopped. OK, but has it slowed? Is there possibly a new trend developing? Is it at least possible? Dr. Jones implores us all to focus on the rate of warming over the last seven years becasue that's what's really important. Funny, there was no mention of that in the 2007 forecast. The difference in tone and editorial comments between the two forcasts is striking. The 2007 forecast is sounding all sorts of alarms and the 2008 forecast sounds very defensive. Another statement I found curious in the 2008 forecast was, "The forecast value for 2008 mean temperature is considered indistinguishable from any of the years 2001-7, given the uncertainties in the data." Sounds like global temperature more or less leveled off over the past seven years while we've been pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere during that time. Could it be possible that CO2 is not the major player in climate change that we've all been led to believe?

I think world temp predictions are very similar to pre season football predictions, not worth the paper they are written on.

2/3's of the 1961 - 1990 time frame, led up to the prediction of the next ice age because it was so cold.
When you start your measurements at that point, even getting back to normal will show a huge underlying rate of warming.

Every years averages include anomalies. Trying to discredit a La Nina, when including other anomolies in the under-lying rate of warming, is lying.

BTW, how do they separate the underlying rate of warming from a La Nina, and not assume the same for El Nino's? They really pick and choose their data, don't they.

Until meterologists can better understand and better forecast ENSO events, seasonal and annual forecasts will remain hit or miss. The 2006-2007 El Nino event was weak at best, and should have signalled to forecasters that it would be short lived, and an El Nino neutral regime would evolve shortly. This is exactly what occured in early 2007, and by late summer our current La Nina regime evolved and has been strengthening ever since.

We seem to be at the tail end of a 30 plus years warm PDO event. We are also near the tail end of an active 200 year solar cycle. If anything, global temps will most likely begin slowly falling over the next decade. I'm sure most of our official climate organizations will continue to "adjust" temps upward -esp in favorable urban areas. If past climate transitions are good analogs, than we can expect quite a bit of extreme climate variations. The beginning of the LIA was marked not by extreme cooling, but by rapid fluccuations in both precipitation and temp patterns.

"These cyclical influences can mask underlying warming trends"

The same cyclical influences can mask underlying COOLING trends.

Strange they do not say the same thing about the past El Ninos.
But a current La Nina, only masks underlying warming trends.

And the point of this pronouncement is...????

I think that every group, or scientist, including the IPCC should be forced to make specific predictions based upon their expertise, experience, and clear consensus of what temperatures will be in just one years time. that way, when they bust bigger than life, we could finally put the whole AGW thing behind us and move forward with true science, instead of social engineered science.

Another forecast from the Brits! Sounds like they are hedging their bets after they missed 2007 by a mile. Just for fun, I went back to January, 2007 to see what they were saying then about the year just ended. I found an article in Reuters which reported on their 2007 forecast:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL0318315620070104?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

I don't think I'll be wagering any money on their 2008 forecast coming true after looking at their track record. Maybe the Brits should pay these forecasters based on how close they come to reality. If they nail it, they get a 25% bonus for work well done. If they miss it as they did in 2007 then they get no increase in salary but get to try again next year. Missing it 3 consecutive years gets them a transfer to a remote weather station in some artic outpost like Nunavut. I bet that the number of meteorolgists living in Nunavut will show a steady upward trend.

Well at least Nature is now considering another possibility....(and allowing it to be published). maybe they have decided to slowly get out of the one way AGW mess that may happen sooner than later
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7174/full/nature06502.html

The whole thrust of the alarmism is to stop this upward trend of co2 emission that is contributing to the upward trend in concentration. Obviously, if the doomsayers used any other tactic they would not be doomsayers and they would not influence policy makers. It's a very simple premise. Co2 warms the atmosphere; man emits co2, therefore man should limit co2.

It can be done reasonably.

Brett-
Every Friday you manage to pick a article that is just plain funny. Thanks.
...and how come nobody is asking the infamous yet personable Dr. Hansen what ever happened to the "Super EL Nino" that the 2007 forecast was partially based on?
They can't predict one year ahead with their computers and the want us to trust them for a 50 year view?
Here is a hint: Go out and buy a Farmers ALmanac. It's about as accurate but they include some really neat recipes. Think about all the electricity and carbon offests you won't have to buy. LOL
Everybody is not stupid. They really need to quit scaring children and the ingnorant masses with nonsense.

Rich,
"Easy and affordable carbon offsets. Nonprofit and verified. Just $5.50/ton."

Hey in the last 40 years NY state has gone from 30% forests to 70%. How can some of the landowners get in on the bonzana of letting productive farmland go to scrub brush and then forest??? Do they invest only in out of the way places that you can't get to even with a map?
Follow the money and you'll see who wants AGW no matter what the science.
Folks just burn your money at least it will keep you a bit warm and do the same amount of good as these scams will.
Still a skeptic and from living in upstate NY you don't always have to see the actual manure to know it's being spread.
LOL have a great weekend.

An excellent review of 2007 and expected 2008 temps
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/01/2007-warmest-year-on-record-coldest-in.html

Here we have an interesting collection of comments:

1. Criticism of a weather service for making an incorrect prediction. Um, need I point out the obvious?

2. A complete amateur making his own predictions regarding the weather in 2008.

3. The same amateur suggesting the death the AGW theory.

4. An anti-AGW flatulence joke (I use the term 'joke' charitably).

5. A complaint that weather predictions aren't perfect.

6. A deconstruction of the semantics of the 2007 weather prediction.

7. A denial of the value of meteorological science.

8. A restatement of hoary old "ice age prediction" myth. (pun intended)

9. A climate prediction based on two cycles only.

and

10. A demand that confuses climatology with meteorology.

These comments inspire me to ask the AGW deniers here:

Aren't you embarrassed to be seen in such company?

***** MANMADE-NATURAL BREAKDOWN NEEDED *****

I would like to add to what Anonymous has said (1/4 10:33 and 1/4 11:48)

I wish alarmists would change something in the way they make their arguments, and that is to always give a breakdown between manmade and natural contributions to a particular warming result. Where possible, of course. For example, when temperature is discussed one does not usually see/hear a breakdown such as "of the 0.7 degree increase, approximately 10% is due to manmade greenhouse gasses." This is almost certainly inherent to the GCM's to the extent that they incorporate natural forcings.

At least the natural cycles people are forthright -- it is crystal clear that they think natural forcings are 100% of the warming seen so far.

Can an alarmist quote us a reference that breaks down global temperature increase between manmade greenhouse gasses and natural factors as a function of time?

Many thanks.

This could also mean it could be the warmest ever and they would still be correct in saying one of the top 10 warmest! However, if they were to use my "TUNNEL" idea that would cool things off!!I bet the same computer model would prove it????

RICH,

Thanks for the tip. I love this line-

According to the US National Academy of Sciences, the Earth's surface temperature has risen ... with accelerated warming during the past two decades.

http://www.carbonfund.org/site/pages/about_climate_change/

Considering that the past decade has cooled by most measurements, and even Hansen's bloated numbers show temperatures flat - one would have to conclude that either carbonfund.org or the National Academy of Sciences is not telling the truth.

anonymous,

The reason they don't say that cyclical influences can mask underlying cooling is because the global temeprature regime is one of general warmth over the last two decades. Of course it's not linear warming which is parsed as "global warming" which tends to support the argument that greenhouse forcing visa vis humans is weak. But the current paradigm does lend credence to what these Brits are saying.

When the global data indicates freefall, then we can dismiss what these scientists are saying

With the beginning of Solar Cycle 24 in Dec 2007, won't there be an increased in solar winds that will further block cosmic rays (very energetic particles and radiation from outer space) and a reduction of global temperatures? Cosmic radiation increase cloud cover. A reduction of cosmic rays should decrease cloud cover. For more than a year, the sun has been experiencing a lull in activity, marking the end of Solar Cycle 23, which peaked with many furious storms in 2000--2003. "Solar minimum is upon us,"

Does anybody know of any testable condition that would refute AGW?

The first real fallout from global warming insanity is just about to hit. All of you moralizing about protecting the poor of the world - think again. Al Gore will soon be a perpetrator of genocide.

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=213343

A new crisis is emerging, a global food catastrophe that will reach further and be more crippling than anything the world has ever seen. The credit crunch and the reverberations of soaring oil prices around the world will pale in comparison to what is about to transpire

"It's not a matter of if, but when," he warned investors. "It's going to hit this year hard."

Mr. Coxe said the sharp rise in raw food prices in the past year will intensify in the next few years amid increased demand for meat and dairy products from the growing middle classes of countries such as China and India as well as heavy demand from the biofuels industry.

A cold spell soon to replace global warming:

MOSCOW. (Oleg Sorokhtin for RIA Novosti) � Stock up on fur coats and felt boots! This is my paradoxical advice to the warm world.

Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells. It started in the 17th century when there was no industrial influence on the climate to speak of and no such thing as the hothouse effect. The current warming is evidently a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases.

The real reasons for climate changes are uneven solar radiation, terrestrial precession (that is, axis gyration), instability of oceanic currents, regular salinity fluctuations of the Arctic Ocean surface waters, etc. There is another, principal reason�solar activity and luminosity. The greater they are the warmer is our climate.

The whole article: