2011 Global Temperatures

[tacoman25]

Depends which forecasts you are referring to. JB's sea ice forecasts are borderline delusional. We almost passed his 2011 guess in July lol.

His forecast was "at the lowest 5.5 million sq km." Current extent is 4.655 and continuing to drop.

The only bad Hansen forecast I know of was his ENSO forecast.

Several bad ENSO forecasts, and bad U.S. temperature forecasts from decades ago.

[ORH_wxman]

Several bad ENSO forecasts, and bad U.S. temperature forecasts from decades ago.

J.B. is horrible though. No denying that.

But I agree Hansen has actually been worse regarding a forecast that was much more easily detectable. Skier rips the ice forecasts a lot, but I think he has grown over confident on them. That is not a rip on him, its just natural tendency for a young person who predicts a few things right...I was the same exact way early in my day.

Its obvious that ENSO is way more predictable in winter than the fall ice extent. Hell we even just had a peer reviewed paper come out that said ice extent could make some wild fluctuations in the next 2 decades....you posted the link on it I think. But predicting a strong ENSO even in the face of every single bit of evidence that it had almost no chance of occurring is a far worse prediction IMHO. A 5.5 million sq km ice extent min had a much better chance of occurring than a strong Nino in 2011 IMHO...obviously the ice extent went way low, but that has WAY more variance than the ENSO forecast Hansen was talking about.

I think its pretty stupid to get into these petty debates about each parameter, but we should still remember how much variance all of the year to year predictions of global climate we still have.

[skierinvermont]

Several bad ENSO forecasts, and bad U.S. temperature forecasts from decades ago.

Well I don't remember the verification scores for the U.S. temperatures predicted by his 1988 model and paper. But as I've shown before, for the globe as a whole it has done quite well being only slightly too warm.

[skierinvermont]

J.B. is horrible though. No denying that.

But I agree Hansen has actually been worse regarding a forecast that was much more easily detectable. Skier rips the ice forecasts a lot, but I think he has grown over confident on them. That is not a rip on him, its just natural tendency for a young person who predicts a few things right...I was the same exact way early in my day.

Its obvious that ENSO is way more predictable in winter than the fall ice extent. Hell we even just had a peer reviewed paper come out that said ice extent could make some wild fluctuations in the next 2 decades....you posted the link on it I think. But predicting a strong ENSO even in the face of every single bit of evidence that it had almost no chance of occurring is a far worse prediction IMHO. A 5.5 million sq km ice extent min had a much better chance of occurring than a strong Nino in 2011 IMHO...obviously the ice extent went way low, but that has WAY more variance than the ENSO forecast Hansen was talking about.

I think its pretty stupid to get into these petty debates about each parameter, but we should still remember how much variance all of the year to year predictions of global climate we still have.

I rip an ice forecast of 5.5+ million not because I am overconfident but because I actually acknowledge that we have very little predictive power for an annual ice prediction beyond say taking a 4 or 5 year mean and perhaps taking a glance at the latest modeled ice volume. JB is the one that is overconfident. As I've said, 5.5 is probably possible with an absolutely ideal weather pattern, but you have to be completely delusional to actually predict that as the most likely outcome. A reasonable prediction would be around 4.8 +/- .8.

And the ENSO forecast did have some support. The OHC when he said that was quite high and would have most commonly been associated with a moderate El Nino. We even had some mets like HM speculating that a weak perhaps even moderate El Nino was possible. Of course actually forecasting strong is pretty stupid. Both men have a tendency to stick their noses in places they don't belong (out of their area of expertise) and make bold, arrogant, exaggerated and usually unsubstantiated claims.

[ORH_wxman]

I rip an ice forecast of 5.5+ million not because I am overconfident but because I actually acknowledge that we have very little predictive power for an annual ice prediction beyond say taking a 4 or 5 year mean and perhaps taking a glance at the latest modeled ice volume. JB is the one that is overconfident. As I've said, 5.5 is probably possible with an absolutely ideal weather pattern, but you have to be completely delusional to actually predict that as the most likely outcome.

And the ENSO forecast did have some support. The OHC when he said that was quite high and would have most commonly been associated with a moderate El Nino. We even had some mets like HM speculating that a weak perhaps even moderate El Nino was possible. Of course actually forecasting strong is pretty stupid. Both men have a tendency to stick their noses in places they don't belong (out of their area of expertise) and make bold, arrogant, exaggerated and usually unsubstantiated claims.

I'll just agree to disagree with you on this. Your defense of the enso forecast is just as bad if not worse than the ripping of the 5.5 million sq km sea ice min forecast back in April.

You are finding ways to defend a positive ENSO forecast when it looks pathetic just like I am finding a way to defend a possible 5.5 mil sq km forecast in April when that now looks pathetic.

[skierinvermont]

I'll just agree to disagree with you on this. Your defense of the enso forecast is just as bad if not worse than the ripping of the 5.5 million sq km sea ice min forecast back in April.

You are finding ways to defend a positive ENSO forecast when it looks pathetic just like I am finding a way to defend a possible 5.5 mil sq km forecast in April when that now looks pathetic.

I'm not sure why you are so insistent on disagreeing with me when I am basically saying the same thing as you. It often seems to me you have a knee-jerk reaction to disagree with what you perceive to be the 'AGW perspective' (or associated individuals) even when you are smart enough to see that it is right in particular cases.

1) Both forecasts were piss-poor.

2) Sea ice is not very predictable beyond taking the most recent 4 or 5 year average and a glance at the latest volume data. 5.5 is within the realm of possibility, but is improbable and a bad prediction. I think you are smart enough to understand that just because a forecast of 5.5 is possible doesn't mean it is a good forecast as the most probable outcome. JB doesn't have any more information or magical powers to predict this than anybody else and shouldn't go around making loose cannon forecasts.

What exactly is it that you disagree with?

[ORH_wxman]

I'm not sure why you are so insistent on disagreeing with me when I am basically saying the same thing as you. It often seems to me you have a knee-jerk reaction to disagree with what you perceive to be the 'AGW perspective' (or associated individuals) even when you are smart enough to see that it is right in particular cases.

1) Both forecasts were piss-poor.

2) Sea ice is not very predictable beyond taking the most recent 4 or 5 year average and a glance at the latest volume data. 5.5 is within the realm of possibility, but is improbable and a bad prediction. I think you are smart enough to understand that just because a forecast of 5.5 is possible doesn't mean it is a good forecast.

What exactly is it that you disagree with?

Wow, this a violent reaction.

I disagreed with this:

"you'd have to be completely delusional to predict this as a most likely outcome" (in reference to a 5.5 mil sq km min)

"and the ENSO forecast did have some support"

1. I agree perhaps that was a bit high....but we just recently had a min around 5.25 mil sq km and a paper that said ice extent could actually increase over the next decade because of natural variability....you must have thought that was total bunk. I'm not saying it was right, but I'm just weighing perspectives here.

2. No, I did not see any support of a Strong El Nino. If you are going to rip J.B. for a 5.5 mil sq km min ice extent as a totally delusional, then a strong El Nino for Hansen could not possibly be any more reality than the tooth fairy to you.

I'm not trying to be mean. We get along I think. We have some good discussion in the Red Sox thread about wOBA/+wRC from time to time...but I think its fair to call Hansen completely pathetic with his predictions as its just as fair to call J.B. pathetic with his. I'm being fair. I am calling both of them out. But I personally thought Hansen's was worse, that is all...I do not think either is particularly worthy of any short term climate predictions.

I do not see what is wrong with pointing that out. I wasn't saying much else.

[skierinvermont]

Wow, this a violent reaction.

I disagreed with this:

"you'd have to be completely delusional to predict this as a most likely outcome" (in reference to a 5.5 mil sq km min)

"and the ENSO forecast did have some support"

1. I agree perhaps that was a bit high....but we just recently had a min around 5.25 mil sq km and a paper that said ice extent could actually increase over the next decade because of natural variability....you must have thought that was total bunk. I'm not saying it was right, but I'm just weighing perspectives here.

2. No, I did not see any support of a Strong El Nino. If you are going to rip J.B. for a 5.5 mil sq km min ice extent as a totally delusional, then a strong El Nino for Hansen could not possibly be any more reality than the tooth fairy to you.

I'm not trying to be mean. We get along I think. We have some good discussion in the Red Sox thread about wOBA/+wRC from time to time...but I think its fair to call Hansen completely pathetic with his predictions as its just as fair to call J.B. pathetic with his. I'm being fair. I am calling both of them out. But I personally thought Hansen's was worse, that is all...I do not think either is particularly worthy of any short term climate predictions.

I do not see what is wrong with pointing that out. I wasn't saying much else.

1. well I don't know which paper you are referring to but presumably you'd have to see some concrete evidence of volume increase beginning (instead of the existing evidence which shows it has continued to decrease) before making a radically high prediction such as 5.5. I think you yourself made a prediction of 4.9 or 5.0 or something (a bit above my 4.8) which is still nearly two standard deviations below 5.5 for given typical annual variation.

2. by "support" I just mean that certain factors did point towards an El Nino though they were obviously handily outweighed by other factors which Hansen either ignored or is ignorant of. I think in context my meaning was quite clear since I emphasized in the same statement it was still a terrible prediction.

I'm not saying you're not being fair. I think you are being fair. And I think we essentially agree on the points I made even if you have a slightly rosier picture of arctic sea ice in general. I wasn't saying much else either besides what you just said. I just didn't get why you claimed to disagree. And I do enjoy our baseball (and climate) discussions.

[tacoman25]

Well I don't remember the verification scores for the U.S. temperatures predicted by his 1988 model and paper. But as I've shown before, for the globe as a whole it has done quite well being only slightly too warm.

You are comparing JB's off-the-cuff, unofficial, non-scientific paper predictions to Hansen's. Hansen has made a lot of predictions outside of his published scientific work that have failed...the ENSO forecast this year being the latest and greatest.

He has predicted record warm global temps on several years that it didn't happen (according to every other temp source than GISS), predicted strong/record strong Ninos that never materialized, and I already mentioned how his predictions for U.S. temps from 1986 have been way too warm.

[skierinvermont]

You are comparing JB's off-the-cuff, unofficial, non-scientific paper predictions to Hansen's.

I have made no such comparison. I provided a summary of the verification of each. You are the one that brought up Hansen's predictions. Obviously predictions made in scientific papers are different and are much more relevant in judging an individual's scientific contributions. That said, it still reflect poorly on both of them when they make arrogant, exaggerated predictions in areas they have little expertise.

He has predicted record warm global temps on several years that it didn't happen (according to every other temp source than GISS), predicted strong/record strong Ninos that never materialized, and I already mentioned how his predictions for U.S. temps from 1986 have been way too warm.

Link to these predictions? Hansen's predictions are done and to be judged by GISS, given that he and many others including myself believe it is the most accurate temperature source of the major 4. Thus the predictions are not incorrect.. you simply (incorrectly) believe GISS to be less accurate which is another issue entirely. Furthermore, you've already agreed in the past that HadCRUT+UAH poles is the most reasonable estimate of surface temperature trends, and it shows nearly the same thing as GISS.

Also you are incorrect regarding his predictions of U.S. temperatures, which like the global temperature predictions were also fairly accurate, especially when considering actual forcing has fallen slightly below scenario B. Somewhat too warm, but not bad for 1988.

Moreover, it is important to understand that Hansen's paper is not really a "prediction" of what will occur. It is a projection based on several assumptions. The most obvious assumptions are those of radiative forcing in each of the three scenarios (A, B, C). Another assumption is that climate sensitivity is 4.2C/doubling CO2. However, the paper specifically discusses uncertainties in climate sensitivity and acknowledges the scientific consensus that climate sensitivity may be anywhere be between 1.5C and 5.5C. Thus the paper is simply a projection based on certain openly acknowledged assumptions and uncertainties. Trying to plays games of "gotcha" is not how science is done. You have an obsession with trying to stick it to Hansen which blinds you to the scientific discussion of the underlying assumptions of the projection.

[tacoman25]

Link to these predictions? Hansen's predictions are done and to be judged by GISS, given that he and many others including myself believe it is the most accurate temperature source of the major 4. Thus the predictions are not incorrect.. you simply (incorrectly) believe GISS to be less accurate which is another issue entirely. Furthermore, you've already agreed in the past that HadCRUT+UAH poles is the most reasonable estimate of surface temperature trends, and it shows nearly the same thing as GISS.

Also you are incorrect regarding his predictions of U.S. temperatures, which like the global temperature predictions were also fairly accurate, especially when considering actual forcing has fallen slightly below scenario B. Somewhat too warm, but not bad for 1988.

I had a whole thread in the old forum with links to his failed predictions. I could dig them up again, but I made sure they were well-documented there - the quotes were mostly from his own GISS, end-of-year summaries in the early/mid 2000s.

I also documented the link to the 1986 newspaper article quoting Hansen as saying the continental U.S. would experience more than twice the actual warming it has seen by now. This wasn't that long ago.

Hansen's predictions should not be judged just by GISS, that is ridiculous. Not only is it a conflict of interest, that also conveniently igores the fact that almost every record warm global year from 1998 and before was agreed upon by all or most of the 4 major temp sources. Since then, GISS has been alone with 2005, 2007, and most recently 2010 all warmer than 1998. Go with the consensus, not the warm outlier.

[skierinvermont]

I had a whole thread in the old forum with links to his failed predictions. I could dig them up again, but I made sure they were well-documented there - the quotes were mostly from his own GISS, end-of-year summaries in the early/mid 2000s.

I also documented the link to the 1986 newspaper article quoting Hansen as saying the continental U.S. would experience more than twice the actual warming it has seen by now. This wasn't that long ago.

Hansen's predictions should not be judged just by GISS, that is ridiculous. Not only is it a conflict of interest, that also conveniently igores the fact that almost every record warm global year from 1998 and before was agreed upon by all or most of the 4 major temp sources. Since then, GISS has been alone in 2005, 2007, and most recently 2010. Go with the consensus, not the warm outlier.

Hansen's predictions are for the surface and based on the (likely correct) belief that GISS is correct. He's not predicting what the UAH or RSS or HadCRUT anomaly will be because he doesn't give a **** what they are because they are probably wrong. Trying to grade the predictions with a different source than they were intended for is just playing silly games of gotcha. If you think (incorrectly) that GISS is inaccurate, fine, but don't try to grade Hansen's predictions which are based in GISS on an alternate scale than they were intended. If you are desperate for a prediction from Hansen of the RSS or UAH anomaly, you could try emailing him or someone that works for him. Your area of disagreement with Hansen is the accuracy of GISS, not the accuracy of his annual global temperature predictions given the assumption that GISS is accurate.

Your current position is a reversal of your previous statement that HadCRUT+UAH poles (which agrees closely with GISS) is the best estimate. Typical self-contradiction for you.

Finally, there is no conflict of interest because the GISS code, data and methods are all publicly available and reproducible and have been for decades.

[tacoman25]

Hansen's predictions are for the surface and based on the (likely correct) belief that GISS is correct. He's not predicting what the UAH or RSS or HadCRUT anomaly will be because he doesn't give a **** what they are because they are probably wrong. Trying to grade the predictions with a different source than they were intended for is just playing silly games of gotcha.

Your current position is a reversal of your previous statement that HadCRUT+UAH poles (which agrees closely with GISS) is the best estimate.

I don't care what Hansen's predictions are based on, if he wants us to believe it was a record warm year, he should have support for that besides his own temp source. That was the case in 1998 and almost all previous record warm years.

Either way, Hansen has clearly made plenty of failed predictions, I'm not going to dig them all up for you again. You obviously didn't know what I was talking about with the U.S. temperature predictions that were way off (you even conceded in that thread that that particular predictions wasn't close).

[skierinvermont]

I don't care what Hansen's predictions are based on, if he wants us to believe it was a record warm year, he should have support for that besides his own temp source. That was the case in 1998 and almost all previous record warm years.

Either way, Hansen has clearly made plenty of failed predictions, I'm not going to dig them all up for you again. You obviously didn't know what I was talking about with the U.S. temperature predictions that were way off (you even conceded in that thread that that particular predictions wasn't close).

Again, your area of disagreement with Hansen is the accuracy of GISS, not whether his annual temperature predictions based on the assumption that GISS is accurate are correct.

And again it's not "his" temp source. The data, code, methods are all publicly available and reproducible and have been for decades. And are likely the most accurate representation of surface temperature trends, as you have previously acknowledged implicitly through your acknowledgement that HadCRUT+UAH is the best estimate which corroborates GISS.

[tacoman25]

Again, your area of disagreement with Hansen is the accuracy of GISS, not whether his annual temperature predictions based on the assumption that GISS is accurate are correct.

And again it's not "his" temp source. The data, code, methods are all publicly available and reproducible and have been for decades. And are likely the most accurate representation of surface temperature trends.

I'm not going to call a year "the warmest on record" when the majority of global temp sources don't show that. Sorry. There was agreement on previous record warm years (whether one believes GISS is the most accurate or not), no reason we shouldn't expect some kind of consensus now.

[skierinvermont]

I'm not going to call a year "the warmest on record" when the majority of global temp sources don't show that. Sorry. There was agreement on previous record warm years (whether one believes GISS is the most accurate or not), no reason we shouldn't expect some kind of consensus now.

You don't need to call it the warmest year in reality, you just need to acknowledge that a prediction based on GISS is not incorrect because HadCRUT is still cold. Hansen obviously isn't predicting UAH or HadCRUT to magically jump up and agree with GISS. He believes (likely correctly) that GISS is superior and that is what his predictions are based upon.

[tacoman25]

You don't need to call it the warmest year in reality, you just need to acknowledge that a prediction based on GISS is not incorrect because HadCRUT is still cold. Hansen obviously isn't predicting UAH or HadCRUT to magically jump up and agree with GISS. He believes (likely correctly) that GISS is superior and that is what his predictions are based upon.

None of that explains why in 1998 and almost every other previous record warm year, there was consensus. Despite whatever flaws you believe affect every other source but GISS, they still agreed those years, so there was no debate about if it really was a record warm year or not.

Tell you what: if HadCRU60/60 + UAH Arctic was warmer than 1998 in 2005, 2007, and 2010, I'll call those years record warm as well.

[skierinvermont]

None of that explains why in 1998 and almost every other previous record warm year, there was consensus. Despite whatever flaws you believe affect every other source but GISS, they still agreed those years, so there was no debate about if it really was a record warm year or not.

Tell you what: if HadCRU60/60 + UAH Arctic was warmer than 1998 in 2005, 2007, and 2010, I'll call those years record warm as well.

Ok so we're back to debating the validity of the accuracy of the temperature sources not of Hansen's predictions.. which I am happy to do since that is obviously what you object to not the annual temperature predictions which are based off an assumption that GISS is correct.

2005 tops 1998 on HadCRUT+UAH, 2007 and 2010 do not though 2010 only misses by .02C. Interestingly, 2002 only misses by .01C also.

I actually prefer HadCRUT+GISS 6060 +UAH poles which gives us a record in 2010 as well but still not 2007.

[gracetoyou]

Hansen's ego is too big to be objective...those who know him "know" that. How about his ridiculous El Nino prediction for this winter? Ain't gonna happen! It was a hopeful prediction...wishcasting. For the life of me I have no idea what he was thinking or what information he was basing his predictions on. Whatever he was thinking I'm sure he wishes now that he had not thought it.

[tacoman25]

Ok so we're back to debating the validity of the accuracy of the temperature sources not of Hansen's predictions.. which I am happy to do since that is obviously what you object to not the annual temperature predictions which are based off an assumption that GISS is correct.

2005 tops 1998 on HadCRUT+UAH, 2007 and 2010 do not though 2010 only misses by .02C. Interestingly, 2002 only misses by .01C also.

I actually prefer HadCRUT+GISS 6060 +UAH poles which gives us a record in 2010 as well but still not 2007.

So there you go: even using an unofficial hybrid source you feel is the fairest, it doesn't support the last two GISS "records".

This is all off-topic, really. The bottom line is that outside of his scientific papers, Hansen has made easily his share of erroneous predictions, for ENSO, U.S. warming, global temps, and the practical effects of said warming (see his remarks 25 years ago about what NYC would look like now).

[Strongbad]

So there you go: even using an official hybrid source you feel is the fairest, it doesn't support the last two GISS "records".

This is all off-topic, really. The bottom line is that outside of his scientific papers, Hansen has made easily his share of erroneous predictions, for ENSO, U.S. warming, global temps, and the practical effects of said warming (see his remarks 25 years ago about what NYC would look like now).

Taco, the argument is hopeless when in the face of objectivity your opponent operates only on his own confirmation bias. In this case, a good bit of cognitive dissonance as well.

Hansen is wrong about climate change, and should have stayed with Astronomy. He was a truly brilliant astronomer...

[skierinvermont]

2011 has been running as the 2nd warmest on AMSU for much of the last 2 weeks.. so much for that further cooling

[Strongbad]

2011 has been running as the 2nd warmest on AMSU for much of the last 2 weeks.. so much for that further cooling

You seem to disregard the map, showing a much colder globe with tremendous heat surges over parts of the Arctic and the U.S. Yes it has been 2nd Warmest, but a look at the past decade shows that this is unlikely to be a theme.

And to elaborate my point, you have to compare 2011 as a whole and not for two weeks. Two weeks?!?!!?

Source

[skierinvermont]

You seem to disregard the map, showing a much colder globe with tremendous heat surges over parts of the Arctic and the U.S. Yes it has been 2nd Warmest, but a look at the past decade shows that this is unlikely to be a theme.

And to elaborate my point, you have to compare 2011 as a whole and not for two weeks. Two weeks?!?!!?

Source

In this thread we typically track global temperature changes on a short term basis and sometimes predict where they will head. The immediate climate implications are small, but every 2 week period counts towards the year as a whole.

Thus far, 2011 has been much warmer than anybody on this forum expected and has been much warmer than any other similar La Ninas this decade.

[The_Global_Warmer]

will someone explain to me how they account for the arctic waters that have baselines near 0c or below?

[skierinvermont]

will someone explain to me how they account for the arctic waters that have baselines near 0c or below?

GISS uses land based temperature readings from the coast to extrapolate across the arctic ice.

HadCRUT doesn't include areas that are covered by sea ice and so leaves much of the arctic region blank.

The satellites, RSS and UAH are measuring tropospheric temperatures and thus it doesn't matter if the surface is sea ice covered or not. Neither has coverage all the way to the north pole, but UAH goes farther north than RSS.

[Strongbad]

In this thread we typically track global temperature changes on a short term basis and sometimes predict where they will head. The immediate climate implications are small, but every 2 week period counts towards the year as a whole.

Thus far, 2011 has been much warmer than anybody on this forum expected and has been much warmer than any other similar La Ninas this decade.

What's problematic is when we determine the beginning of the large upswing in temps. Wasn't the Nina weakening to near neutral status at this time? It is unfair to draw conclusions or to say what others were calling for for 2011 when the year has not concluded. Let's wait until January before we can put much of anything into context.

[skierinvermont]

What's problematic is when we determine the beginning of the large upswing in temps. Wasn't the Nina weakening to near neutral status at this time? It is unfair to draw conclusions or to say what others were calling for for 2011 when the year has not concluded. Let's wait until January before we can put much of anything into context.

unless the global temperature suddenly drops 1C (maybe a large meteor?) the global temperature will finish far above what anybody on this board expected including myself (except Rusty) and warmer than other La Ninas this decade.

if you want to wait until January go ahead.. but suffice it to say the suspense is not killing me.

also this is a "Nina year" for global temperature because global temperatures lag ENSO. For example we will be much warmer than 2008 which followed the 07-08 La nina but also had neutral conditions in summer.

[The_Global_Warmer]

GISS uses land based temperature readings from the coast to extrapolate across the arctic ice.

HadCRUT doesn't include areas that are covered by sea ice and so leaves much of the arctic region blank.

The satellites, RSS and UAH are measuring tropospheric temperatures and thus it doesn't matter if the surface is sea ice covered or not. Neither has coverage all the way to the north pole, but UAH goes farther north than RSS.

What about SSTs.

[skierinvermont]

What about SSTs.

They both use SSTs over the unfrozen ocean but GISS will extrapolate land temperatures several hundred miles offshore, while HadCRUT uses SSTs right up to the coast, using a weighted average of SSTs and land temperature in coastal grid boxes.

They also use different SST data sets.

GISS uses HadISST1 for 1870-1981 and then Reynolds satellite SSTs (also known as OISSTv2) 1981-present. Reynolds and HadISST1 are merged using a 1982-1992 base.

HadCRUT uses HadSST2.