*EL NINO/LA NINA FORECAST 2010-2011*

[icefisher]

May 15, 2010 8:58:15 GMT glc said:

The closest I've come to making a gutsy prediction was betting 2009 would not be in the top five warmest years, knowing it would be close, but not knowing with high certainty. It was solely based on historical patterns/trends/ocean data, and probability, some of which I posted here and you ridiculed.


Magellan

Firstly, I didn't ridicule anything. Secondly, you appear to be wrong See hadobs.metoffice.com/indicators/index.html which says

Surface temperature data sets
Q. Which were the 10 warmest years on record?
A. In the Hadley Centre and Climate Research Unit data set HadCRUT3 the 10 warmest years on record were:

1998 0.52°C
2005 0.47°C
2003 0.46°C
2002 0.46°C
2009 0.44°C
2004 0.43°C
2006 0.43°C
2007 0.40°C
2001 0.40°C
1997 0.36°C

Thirdly, it is not actually possible to detect any difference in the global temperatures for 2004, 2006 and 2009. There is not a statistically significant difference between them. Any one year could have been warmer (or cooler) than either of the others.

As of Jan 1, 2010. . . .2009 was number 6 on the list. After that they adjusted 2004 from .45 down a couple of hundredths of a point.

But actually there is no significant difference between any figure on that chart demonstrating once again the lack of warming.

[glc]

I don't necessarily think given the normal natural progression of temperatures that we might see 1980 levels for maybe a few hundred more years.

A few hundred years?!!! Why? When the PDO flipped in the 1940s temperatures started falling immediately.

Now 1990 temperatures might be a possibility by say 2025 to 2035 figuring a cooling rate of about .06 to .1degC/decade. To get that looking at historical Hadcrut suggests you need something like a Dalton minimum running for 15 to 30 years

Which historical Hadcrut record are you referring to? Also, if we have Dalton Minimum conditions why would temperatures only fall a couple of tenths of degree. Why wouldn't we get Dalton Minimum temperatures? I admit to being a tad puzzled by the somewhat inconsistent climate response to solar forcing.

[glc]

But actually there is no significant difference between any figure on that chart demonstrating once again the lack of warming.

Has anyone noticed how Hadley is being used a lot more recently on sceptic blogs. Why is that, do you think? Surely this can't be the end of the love affair with UAH. UAH has been testing the relationship in the past few months, but I expect it will get over it's fling with AGW shortly and all will be forgiven.

I just find it a bit dis-orientating to find that that the most useless, crap, unreliable datasets are being cited to show that global warming isn't happening.

[socold]

skeptics still use UAH, they just cut it off at 2009 to hide the incline.

Or even use an old version and cut it off in 1999, see 28:24. But then Joseph D’Aleo is the anti-thesis of science.
ceiondemand.org/2010/04/16/cooler-heads-coalition-briefing-on-climategate/

[goldbuster1]

skeptics are like you, they are promoting CO2 instead of NOx-SOx to justify the CO2 casino scam.

socold can you prove me beyond reasonable doubts the Greenhouse effect and CO2 involvement in it?

If not, go get a new job

[nautonnier]

To get back onto the topic of the thread it is interesting to compare the years 2005 and 2010 same date. Joe Bastardi feels that they are very similar and will lead to a stronger than normal hurricane season.

May 14, 2005 Anomalies



May 14, 2010 Anomalies





To me the SST anomalies look colder this year although the mid-Atlantic from Cape Verde is warm its anomaly has reduced over the last month - we shall see what a month or so of warming brings.

[magellan]

May 15, 2010 8:58:15 GMT glc said:

The closest I've come to making a gutsy prediction was betting 2009 would not be in the top five warmest years, knowing it would be close, but not knowing with high certainty. It was solely based on historical patterns/trends/ocean data, and probability, some of which I posted here and you ridiculed.


Magellan

Firstly, I didn't ridicule anything. Secondly, you appear to be wrong See hadobs.metoffice.com/indicators/index.html which says

Surface temperature data sets
Q. Which were the 10 warmest years on record?
A. In the Hadley Centre and Climate Research Unit data set HadCRUT3 the 10 warmest years on record were:

1998 0.52°C
2005 0.47°C
2003 0.46°C
2002 0.46°C
2009 0.44°C
2004 0.43°C
2006 0.43°C
2007 0.40°C
2001 0.40°C
1997 0.36°C

Thirdly, it is not actually possible to detect any difference in the global temperatures for 2004, 2006 and 2009. There is not a statistically significant difference between them. Any one year could have been warmer (or cooler) than either of the others.

Nice you decided to use the Met O Prediction Verification Algorithm in favor of the actual HadCRUT data. If you bothered reading what the bet was, it was to based on HadCRUT3, linked here:
www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt



In reality it didn't matter to me until you blurted out how fabulously "spot on" your predictions are.

Thirdly, it is not actually possible to detect any difference in the global temperatures for 2004, 2006 and 2009. There is not a statistically significant difference between them. Any one year could have been warmer (or cooler) than either of the others.

Except when you determine a trend or difference is "statistically significant". We'll have to add that to glc's rules for statistics. It must be up to #150 or so by now.

[twawki]

Hey Magellan as more OHC is whisked away into space how likely then is it that the unprecedented happens especially when the heat balance of the earth is not being replenished because the sun is underactive?

[twawki]

Nautonier - definately colder in the pacific, looks warmer in the atlantic and indian. North pacific looks very cold.

Atlantic looking warmer though it also looks like greater extremes of hot and cold pools. As they say potentially a very active hurricane season.

Here in Australia with warmer waters in Indian ocean picking up moisture then hitting colder oceans in the pacific potentially mean a snowy year. Also as Lake Eyre and the Darling Basin continues to see an increase of water then there would be a likewise increase in evaporation being carried to eastern states as well.

Next few months will be interesting

[glc]

Nice you decided to use the Met O Prediction Verification Algorithm in favor of the actual HadCRUT data. If you bothered reading what the bet was, it was to based on HadCRUT3, linked here:
www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt

Nice that you're using old data. See hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem3/jan_2010_update.html for description of corrections to original data. See hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual for the corrected data and note the following

2004 0.431 (0.443,0.420)
2009 0.442 (0.452, 0.432)

95% uncertainty ranges are given in brackets - so it is just possible that 2004 was warmer than 2009 but the estimated mean says that 2009 was warmer.

[magellan]

May 15, 2010 23:10:09 GMT twawki said:

Nautonier - definately colder in the pacific, looks warmer in the atlantic and indian. North pacific looks very cold.

Atlantic looking warmer though it also looks like greater extremes of hot and cold pools. As they say potentially a very active hurricane season.

Here in Australia with warmer waters in Indian ocean picking up moisture then hitting colder oceans in the pacific potentially mean a snowy year. Also as Lake Eyre and the Darling Basin continues to see an increase of water then there would be a likewise increase in evaporation being carried to eastern states as well.

Next few months will be interesting

Stronger El Nino = more loss of OHC

Stronger hurricane season = more loss of OHC

Both of which is not being replaced.

We can be sure John Finn will still insist at the end of 2011 the globe is not cooling.

[magellan]

May 16, 2010 0:09:04 GMT glc said:

Nice you decided to use the Met O Prediction Verification Algorithm in favor of the actual HadCRUT data. If you bothered reading what the bet was, it was to based on HadCRUT3, linked here:
www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt

Nice that you're using old data. See hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem3/jan_2010_update.html for description of corrections to original data. See hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual for the corrected data and note the following

2004 0.431 (0.443,0.420)
2009 0.442 (0.452, 0.432)

95% uncertainty ranges are given in brackets - so it is just possible that 2004 was warmer than 2009 but the estimated mean says that 2009 was warmer.

I am already familiar with Met O's "methods" and how it was magically discovered their smoothing methods were in "error", just as their "adjustments" for 2009 just happened to bump it over 2004.
Like A Dog On A Bone

So HadCRUT is now unreliable after the multitudes of posts you defending it? If the tables were reversed, you'd be saying HadCRUT was the correct "pure" homogeneous data.

Quick glc, you'd better inform the hundreds of researchers (including the 2500 of the world's top scientists at IPCC) using HadCRUT3 for research they are using "old" data.

While you're at it, tell the web owner at Woodfortrees he's using "old" data as well and must use Met O's bleached version to help you save face.
www.woodfortrees.org/data/wti

#WoodForTrees Temperature Index
#Mean of HADCRUT3VGL, GISTEMP, UAH and RSS, offset to UAH/RSS baseline (-0.0975K)
#See www.woodfortrees.org/notes for details

Bottom line, I set the criteria for what database was to be used, period. Now you must weasel out, BAU. You're like a pesky gnat that no matter how many times it's swatted away, it just keeps coming back to annoy.

[icefisher]

May 15, 2010 9:30:23 GMT glc said:

I don't necessarily think given the normal natural progression of temperatures that we might see 1980 levels for maybe a few hundred more years.

A few hundred years?!!! Why? When the PDO flipped in the 1940s temperatures started falling immediately.

Now 1990 temperatures might be a possibility by say 2025 to 2035 figuring a cooling rate of about .06 to .1degC/decade. To get that looking at historical Hadcrut suggests you need something like a Dalton minimum running for 15 to 30 years

Which historical Hadcrut record are you referring to? Also, if we have Dalton Minimum conditions why would temperatures only fall a couple of tenths of degree. Why wouldn't we get Dalton Minimum temperatures? I admit to being a tad puzzled by the somewhat inconsistent climate response to solar forcing.

Thats not very observant of you GLC. If you were in a Pikes Peak road race would you expect a pothole on the upper reaches of the track to lower your vehicle in actual elevation above sealevel as a pothole in the lower reaches of a mountain?

Certainly not!

Likewise I would not expect the Dalton Minimum temperatures be the same in a historical record that saw advancing glaciers push the Vikings off of Greenland then turn and be documented in their retreat over the past 300 years. The Dalton minimum appears to be just a pothole in a much larger cycle and heck the NOAA sun experts and Leif aren't predicting a Dalton Minimum anyway. Of more interest are the Wolf, Sporer, and Maunder minimums all of which we have some pretty sketchy information about.

What caused the glaciers to advance and then retreat? Who knows?

Only thing we do know is it wasn't anthropogenic emissions of CO2 from the industrial age. And we do know that there are a lot of people who believe man unknowingly jumped in and took the warming handoff like a well-trained 400 meter relay team without so much of a hitch in his stride.

I realize there are a lot of people really impressed with the capabilities of the Captains of Industry but it looks more like a frame up to me.

Whatever the case is though. The uphill leg is usually pretty uneventful. When this race gets exciting it will be in the downhill leg.

Heck most people already know that. They made a horror movie out of it. But Hollywood has known since Beach Blanket Bingo a warming movie isn't going to scare people.

[glc]

I am already familiar with Met O's "methods" and how it was magically discovered their smoothing methods were in "error", just as their "adjustments" for 2009 just happened to bump it over 2004.

Of course. That'll be it. They've adjusted the data just to screw up your 'predictition'.

So HadCRUT is now unreliable after the multitudes of posts you defending it? If the tables were reversed, you'd be saying HadCRUT was the correct "pure" homogeneous data.

ALL data undergoes corrections. The Hadley corrections had no infuence on the overall trend - unlike the UAH 'corrections' earlier this year. The Hadley corrections were of the order of one HUNDREDTH of a degree (0.01). The UAH adjustments dropped the temperatures by around 10 times that.


Quick glc, you'd better inform the hundreds of researchers (including the 2500 of the world's top scientists at IPCC) using HadCRUT3 for research they are using "old" data.

The "hundreds of researchers" probably already know and the corrections are not likely to affect anything anyway.


While you're at it, tell the web owner at Woodfortrees he's using "old" data as well and must use Met O's bleached version to help you save face.
www.woodfortrees.org/data/wti

#WoodForTrees Temperature Index
#Mean of HADCRUT3VGL, GISTEMP, UAH and RSS, offset to UAH/RSS baseline (-0.0975K)
#See www.woodfortrees.org/notes for details

I'm not sure what this has got to do with anything. Do you even know what he's doing with this - it's just a temperature index using all 4 datasets. In the wti file it clearly says "Please check original source for first-hand data and information:". In other words his data might not be current.


Bottom line, I set the criteria for what database was to be used, period. Now you must weasel out, BAU. You're like a pesky gnat that no matter how many times it's swatted away, it just keeps coming back to annoy.

But this is the database that you specified. It's just that it's been corrected in the last few months. The fact that it hasn't been updated at each and every location is irrelevant. The Hadley Centre data is the primary source for all data. CRU will be updated in time.

[glc]

Thats not very observant of you GLC. If you were in a Pikes Peak road race would you expect a pothole on the upper reaches of the track to lower your vehicle in actual elevation above sealevel as a pothole in the lower reaches of a mountain?

So if something like the Dalton Minimum is comparable to a pothole on a mountain - what is responsible for the mountain?