Hansen Predicting a Strong El Nino Developing this Summer

[skierinvermont]

Hansen actually re-affirmed it dude, there is no debate here!

Basic fact is that NASA GISS is lower quality than NCDC, which is what you should be using.

No, Hansen says quite clearly that each has different strengths and weaknesses.

"it is a bad idea to anoint any group as being THE authority"

"I would not claim that one is superior to the other"

[BethesdaWX]

No, Hansen says quite clearly that each has different strengths and weaknesses.

"it is a bad idea to anoint any group as being THE authority"

"I would not claim that one is superior to the other"

He says "I wouldn't say it that way".... "appointing" someone as THE authority doesn't mean that one can't bet better than the other.

He never says "Thats not true"

Phil Jones Disagrees Too, and He is, after all, more qualified in his area of training....GISS is not really used in the IPCC report either.

Bottom Line, start using NCDC, you have no reason not to.

[nzucker]

This is blatantly false. GISS shows less long-term warming than HadCRUT, STAR, Raobcore, Rich, Fu, V&G and probably several other estimates I am forgetting. It shows less warming than all of these for the 30-yr period and for the 100-yr period when available.

The extrapolations over the arctic are not dubious and you know this. As I've posted multiple times, UAH approximately corroborates GISS's arctic extrapolations. This is more blatant manipulation and lying on your part. You should be ashamed.

I thought GISS and Hadley were about the same for the past thirty years, with GISS being at .18C/decade and Hadley being at .16C/decade. The main divergence is between the satellites and surface, and even that is not large on a 30-year time scale, but much greater on a 10-year time scale where GISS has shown a fairly steady global warming versus more of a plateau on RSS/UAH.

Some of the extrapolations are clearly dubious, dude...just look at the other thread and tell me that's a good measurement over Greenland by GISS. Should it even out in the long-term? Well, maybe the Law of Large Numbers states it should, but it hasn't been happening yet with GISS diverging from the other sources more. Also, I don't think a map of temperature anomalies should contain blatant errors, even if they do balance out; the goal should be accuracy. What if someone was doing a project on Winter 10-11 in Greenland and ran across the GISS and RSS maps. How would they continue with the project? Sure regional accuracy may not be as important as the overall global trend, but you don't want obvious mistakes showing up. You even said with the December 2010 maps that you thought GISS looked suspicious in parts of South America and Europe.

Why don't you use NCDC? NASA even admitted that NCDC is higher quality data than theirs, and I'll link this if you'd like.

There is going to be a new temperature source, the Berkeley one, coming soon.

Here is an article about it, haven't read much yet though:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/03/new-berkeley-surface-temperature-project-graphs-emerge

No, Hansen says quite clearly that each has different strengths and weaknesses.

"it is a bad idea to anoint any group as being THE authority"

"I would not claim that one is superior to the other"

He seems to have trouble basing things on the satellites though, and I wonder why anyone would argue GISS with its huge extrapolations is superior to AQUA/AMSU.

[nzucker]

Hansen's prediction is starting to look like a total joke, just like most of his climate forecasts, with the withdrawal of warm waters from Region 3.4 and the continued strength of the cold California current.

SST Anomalies 6.20:

SST Anomalies 6.23 (Current Map):

SOI has also been very positive, indicating a Nina-like wind/pressure pattern across the tropical Pacific.

June 24: +17.99

June 23: +15.04

June 22: +18.91

[Mencken_Fan]

BethesdaWX vs Jim Hansen.... One a Qualified Climate Scientist, one a High School Graduate.....One an alarmist, and the other an Objective thinker.

http://www.truth-out...ange/1301356800

If Hansen cannot understand the Climate System at such short ranges, well then,I don't know what to say.

OK hansen Defenders, lets hear it

Thanks for the cool website! I got lost reading other articles there, lol.

[Jesse]

Hansen's prediction is starting to look like a total joke, just like most of his climate forecasts, with the withdrawal of warm waters from Region 3.4 and the continued strength of the cold California current.

SST Anomalies 6.20:

SST Anomalies 6.23 (Current Map):

SOI has also been very positive, indicating a Nina-like wind/pressure pattern across the tropical Pacific.

June 24: +17.99

June 23: +15.04

June 22: +18.91

Seeing him completely blow an ENSO forecast just six months in advance kind of makes you wonder about those forecasts for 100 years from now.

I'll be interested to see what skier"defend agw theory at all costs"invermont has to say about this blunder.

[tacoman25]

Seeing him completely blow an ENSO forecast just six months in advance kind of makes you wonder about those forecasts for 100 years from now.

I'll be interested to see what skier"defend agw theory at all costs"invermont has to say about this blunder.

It's hardly Hansen's first blunder.

But he produces peer-reviewed scientific papers, dammit!!

[ORH_wxman]

It's hardly Hansen's first blunder.

But he produces peer-reviewed scientific papers, dammit!!

The two are pretty much in disconnect. A lot of what Hansen says or prints that is not peer reviewed is completely different than his peer reviewed stuff....especially in the last decade.

It doesn't do much for his own credibility, but I'm really not sure if he cares at this point.

[tacoman25]

He's writing as a self-described "storyteller"... it's not a scientific article... it's very simplified and colorful throughout.

Perhaps this is where Hansen's true strength lies...

[Mencken_Fan]

While I may ridicule people from time to time for espousing unfounded views, never in my long life have I ridiculed one for making rational points I may disagree with - or educated guesses.

"Forecasts" (for weather, climate, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.) are "educated guesses"; many of which won't pan out. If there's a scientist in any field who's never made an incorrect forecast, I suspect all the world would know of him or her by now. And when one suggests a forecaster is "almost always wrong" (Hensen, Bastardi, etc.) one may as well trumpet a horn to say "Hey; look how selective my memory is!"

While not a fan of Bastardi myself, I find none more boring on weather boards than "Bastardi bashers." And while I don't know of Hensen nearly as much, I can say I find "Hensen bashing" equally unenlightening.

If the aforementioned are so bad, perhaps someone can give us a list of scientists who do know what they're talking about?

[okie333]

Hansen's prediction is starting to look like a total joke, just like most of his climate forecasts, with the withdrawal of warm waters from Region 3.4 and the continued strength of the cold California current.

SST Anomalies 6.20:

SST Anomalies 6.23 (Current Map):

SOI has also been very positive, indicating a Nina-like wind/pressure pattern across the tropical Pacific.

June 24: +17.99

June 23: +15.04

June 22: +18.91

...and the Newfoundland cold pool is still there...

[tacoman25]

While I may ridicule people from time to time for espousing unfounded views, never in my long life have I ridiculed one for making rational points I may disagree with - or educated guesses.

"Forecasts" (for weather, climate, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.) are "educated guesses"; many of which won't pan out. If there's a scientist in any field who's never made an incorrect forecast, I suspect all the world would know of him or her by now. And when one suggests a forecaster is "almost always wrong" (Hensen, Bastardi, etc.) one may as well trumpet a horn to say "Hey; look how selective my memory is!"

While not a fan of Bastardi myself, I find none more boring on weather boards than "Bastardi bashers." And while I don't know of Hensen nearly as much, I can say I find "Hensen bashing" equally unenlightening.

If the aforementioned are so bad, perhaps someone can give us a list of scientists who do know what they're talking about?

So we shouldn't hold Hansen accountable for what he says/forecasts? The guy has consistently over-predicted Ninos, and it's pretty hard not to connect the dots to his bias.

[Mencken_Fan]

So we shouldn't hold Hansen accountable for what he says/forecasts? The guy has consistently over-predicted Ninos, and it's pretty hard not to connect the dots to his bias.

All scientists should be held accountable for their views; and if they don't cut the mustard they should be demoted or terminated. But when it comes to forecasting the level of accuracy depends on just what exactly is being forecast; e.g. one making a 3-day forecast should be held to a higher standard than one making 30 day forecast; etc.

Do we ridicule geologists who don't nail earthquake forecasts? Vulcanologists? Should we hold a climate forecast to the same standard as a weather forecast?

If ENSO forecasts are regularly forecast correctly and Hensen is "always wrong" then I'd agree there's a problem; but surely you understand why such ridicule sends up red flags to lay thinkers. The simple fact of life is - people who reach high standing without family connections tend to actually be brilliant - even if wrong from time to time (e.g. even the greatest investors make blunders along the way.)

That Hensen, Bastardi, and other characters are not universally liked is understandable; but when I see post after post railing against them, it tells me only about the posters and not the characters.

All I know of Hensen is what I read on wikipedia. Perhaps there are other worthwhile sources?

Thank you.

[tacoman25]

All scientists should be held accountable for their views; and if they don't cut the mustard they should be demoted or terminated. But when it comes to forecasting the level of accuracy depends on just what exactly is being forecast; e.g. one making a 3-day forecast should be held to a higher standard than one making 30 day forecast; etc.

Do we ridicule geologists who don't nail earthquake forecasts? Vulcanologists? Should we hold a climate forecast to the same standard as a weather forecast?

If ENSO forecasts are regularly forecast correctly and Hensen is "always wrong" then I'd agree there's a problem; but surely you understand why such ridicule sends up red flags to lay thinkers. The simple fact of life is - people who reach high standing without family connections tend to actually be brilliant - even if wrong from time to time (e.g. even the greatest investors make blunders along the way.)

That Hensen, Bastardi, and other characters are not universally liked is understandable; but when I see post after post railing against them, it tells me only about the posters and not the characters.

All I know of Hensen is what I read on wikipedia. Perhaps there are other worthwhile sources?

Thank you.

The thing about Hansen is that he makes all of these claims and predictions about the future which are directly related to climate. So is ENSO. So that doesn't look too good.

[Clifford]

When you look at the Sea Surface Temperatures.

Niño 1+2 has been warm for quite some time.

Niño 3 has also been generally warm.

Niño 3.4 has been neutral.

Niño 4 remains cool.

What has remained strong is what I think of as the "Blue Arrow", which apparently isn't part of the official La Niña definition.

Based on the Niño 1.2, 3, 3.4, and 4, you would not call this a strong Niña, although I do anticipate it to strengthen significantly this fall.

There are many different long-term weather forecasts. And, about half of those beyond 10 days are WRONG.

The place where Hansen & NASA (as well as several other models) went wrong is what I noted quite a while ago. A strong solitary single-year El Niño is almost always followed by a 2 or 3 year La Niña. And, of course, multi-year La Niña currents are far more common than single year La Niña currents.

I don't know if you can equate a failure in the short-term ENSO predictions to a failure in the long-term climate models, but it does cast doubt on whether they can adequately account for all the variables, as well as subjectively observing whether or not their models are predicting the historical patterns that one can observe.

[tacoman25]

The place where Hansen & NASA (as well as several other models) went wrong is what I noted quite a while ago. A strong solitary single-year El Niño is almost always followed by a 2 or 3 year La Niña. And, of course, multi-year La Niña currents are far more common than single year La Niña currents.

I don't know if you can equate a failure in the short-term ENSO predictions to a failure in the long-term climate models, but it does cast doubt on whether they can adequately account for all the variables, as well as subjectively observing whether or not their models are predicting the historical patterns that one can observe.

True, though the sample size is very small. Single strong El Ninos that were followed the next winter by a La Nina: 1972-73 and 1997-98. Both were followed by 3 year Nina events. Even 1982-83 was followed by a sustained -ENSO period during the height of the +PDO phase.

More importantly, the fact that being in a -PDO phase favors La Ninas and the fact that there have never been two strong El Nino events in 3 years weighed much more in favor of a La Nina in 2011-12 than an El Nino.

[CAD_Wedge_NC]

Give it up already Hansen.......bottom line is this.... AGW is not going to happen. Why do you folks continually drag up this joke of a "climate forecaster's" articles? Heck, I could get better predictions from the animals down at the local zoo.

[Clifford]

Give it up already Hansen.......bottom line is this.... AGW is not going to happen. Why do you folks continually drag up this joke of a "climate forecaster's" articles? Heck, I could get better predictions from the animals down at the local zoo.

What is obvious is that there is a strong bias of ice and weather predictions based on one's level of belief in AGW.

Those predicting strong AGW will invariably predict less ice and more El Nino and Hot weather.

Those opposing AGW will invariably predict more ice and cooler weather trends.

The truth is somewhere in the middle.

There is likely some component of AGW, and some component of intrinsic climate stability.

And, of course, we are all living in a changing world, and we are not always good at predicting the long-term consequences of our actions, nor of choosing actions that will serve our own needs without hurting others.

[U_Thant]

Interesting to revisit this thread...

[tacoman25]

Why would an unbiased scientist of Hansen's stature, with such a fine pedigree in the climate science field, be so wrong on an ENSO prediction? Why has he consistently over-predicted warm ENSO? Something just doesn't add up.

[gracetoyou]

Why would an unbiased scientist of Hansen's stature, with such a fine pedigree in the climate science field, be so wrong on an ENSO prediction? Why has he consistently over-predicted warm ENSO? Something just doesn't add up.

On more than one occasion Hansen has predicted not just Nino's but Super-Nino's. It's more of a wishcast than anything. He knows that Super-nino's eventually warm global temps. Say what you want but it's the truth. There was no reason to predict a super-nino for this year at all...serves him right, made him look foolish.

[WeatherRusty]

On more than one occasion Hansen has predicted not just Nino's but Super-Nino's. It's more of a wishcast than anything. He knows that Super-nino's eventually warm global temps. Say what you want but it's the truth. There was no reason to predict a super-nino for this year at all...serves him right, made him look foolish.

Temps are warmed only temporarily and he knows that too. Global warming is not of that sort of transient type but rather a semi-perminent warming involving the entire climate system of ocean, atmosphere and land. If Nino warms the atmosphere the oceans cool as a result. No net gain in heat is afforded. Global warming represents the whole system gaining thermal energy over and above the pulsations in ENSO or any other case of internal variability which does not add heat to the total system.

[tacoman25]

Temps are warmed only temporarily and he knows that too. Global warming is not of that sort of transient type but rather a semi-perminent warming involving the entire climate system of ocean, atmosphere and land. If Nino warms the atmosphere the oceans cool as a result. No net gain in heat is afforded. Global warming represents the whole system gaining thermal energy over and above the pulsations in ENSO or any other case of internal variability which does not add heat to the total system.

So why does he keep over-predicting Ninos? He is a climate scientist, and ENSO is a pretty important part of climate. Most of us hobbyists on here knew his prediction of a strong El Nino was likely to be wrong, simply because we know enough about ENSO. Doesn't reflect well on him at all.

[Strongbad]

So why does he keep over-predicting Ninos? He is a climate scientist, and ENSO is a pretty important part of climate. Most of us hobbyists on here knew his prediction of a strong El Nino was likely to be wrong, simply because we know enough about ENSO. Doesn't reflect well on him at all.

Correction: He is originally a clasically trained Astronomer. Now he's prancing around pretending to be a climate scientist.

[tacoman25]

Correction: He is originally a clasically trained Astronomer. Now he's prancing around pretending to be a climate scientist.

He was an astronomer originally, but he also has a Ph.D in physics. Since he has been involved in studying/researching climatology since the 1970s, I would say he is definitely a climate scientist.

[easternsnowman]

He's an example of a useless bureaucrat and a poster boy for downsizing government!

[WeatherRusty]

So why does he keep over-predicting Ninos? He is a climate scientist, and ENSO is a pretty important part of climate. Most of us hobbyists on here knew his prediction of a strong El Nino was likely to be wrong, simply because we know enough about ENSO. Doesn't reflect well on him at all.

I would have to agree that there is a degree of "wishcasting" inherent to his thinking. The guy is human and is I'm sure fully aware of how he is portrayed by the opposing sides of this debate. He needs to feel vindicated and nothing would serve him better than an unambiguous, undeniable new high global temp anomaly which he is 100% certain will happen in the near future. Better sooner than later so as to lend more tangible proof that the surface continues to warm despite protestations to the contrary.

[Alpha5]

This happened

[valkhorn]

This happened

What happened? Citations needed.

[tacoman25]

What happened? Citations needed.

Hansen was dead wrong with his ENSO prediction. Look at the original post.