A Memo To Hansen and Sato
Guest commentary by Bob Tisdale
Date:August 21, 2011
Subject:A Request About Your El Niño Predictions And A Question About Anthropogenic Global Warming
To: James E. Hansen and Makiko Sato
Dear Makiko and James:
I am writing to you via my weblog with a request and a question. First, the request: Please stop predicting El Niño and Super El Niño events. Your track record is very poor. I, like many people who study ENSO, hope for extreme El Niño events, but when you predict a strong El Niño, a La Niña starts to evolve, and when you predict a “Super El Niño”, a mild El Niño comes to pass. Two examples come to mind:
Your March 27, 2011 mailing Perceptions of Climate Change was published at a number of websites, including Climate Story Tellers and Truthout. It included the following prediction of an El Niño event for the 2011/12 ENSO season:
Sometimes it is interesting to make a bet that looks like it is high risk, but really isn’t. Such a bet can be offered at this point. The NOAA web pages giving weekly ENSO updates predict a return to ENSO–neutral conditions by mid–summer with some models suggesting a modest El Nino to follow. We have been checking these forecasts weekly for the past several years, and have noted that the models almost invariably are biased toward weak changes. Based on subsurface ocean temperatures, the way these have progressed the past several months, and comparisons with development of prior El Niños, we believe that the system is moving toward a strong El Niño starting this summer. It’s not a sure bet, but it is probable.
Summer is well past its midpoint. And weekly NINO3.4 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomalies for August 10, 2011, based on the Reynolds OI.v2 dataset you use in your GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index, are approaching the threshold of La Niña conditions, Figure 1.
Figure 1
Note also that the NOAA models included in the ENSO updateyou referenced (now dated August 15, 2011) are forecasting La Niña conditions. Refer to Figures 2 and 3.
Figure 2
#####################################
Figure 3
And the majority of the other ENSO models are forecasting ENSO neutral conditions, Figure 4.
Figure 4
Based on the spread of model outputs, ENSO events are apparently difficult to forecast even in mid August, so there’s still a remote possibility that your prediction may come true, but right now, NINO3.4 Sea Surface Temperature observations are clearly pointing in the opposite direction.
Regarding Super El Niño events, let’s drop back a few years. In the draft of a paper titled Spotlight on Global Temperature dated March 29, 2006, you and a few of your associates predicted a “Super El Niño” for the 2006/07 ENSO season. (Thanks to DeSmogBlog for posting and maintaining the copy of the draft.) To refresh your memory, here’s what you wrote 5 years ago:
SUPER EL NINO IN 2006-2007? We suggest that an El Nino is likely to originate in 2006 and that there is a good chance it will be a ‘super El Niño’, rivaling the 1983 and 1997-1998 El Ninos, which were successively labeled the ‘El Nino of the century’ as they were of unprecedented strength in the previous 100 years (Fig. 1 of Fedorov and Philander 2000). Further, we argue that global warming causes an increase of such ‘super El Ninos’. Our rationale is based on interpretation of dominant mechanisms in the ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) phenomenon, examination of historical SST data, and observed Pacific Ocean SST anomalies in February 2006.
Please refer to Figure 5, which is a longer-term graph of the monthly Reynolds OI.v2-based NINO3.4 SST anomalies. You’ll note that I’ve indicated the 1982/83 and 1997/98 “Super El Niño” events. I’ve also marked the 2006/07 “Not-So-Super” El Niño, and the difference between the two, which results from your Not-So-Super Prediction.
Figure 5
If you’re not aware, there are many people who mistakenly believe that you are using your GISS Model-E General Circulation Models to make these erroneous predictions of strong and super El Niño events. I don’t feel it’s my responsibility to advise them that you are basing your predictions on your observations of climate data, not on your models, which as shown in Animations 1 and 2 do not appear model ENSO very well, if at all. Animations 1 and 2 are gif animations of time-series graphs that compare the observed NINO3.4 Sea Surface Temperature anomalies, which, as you are aware, are a commonly used index of the frequency and magnitude of ENSO events, to those hindcast by the GISS Model-EH and Model-ER.
Animation 1
#######################################
Animation 2
Your Model-EH and -ER, like other General Circulation models employed as future climate projection tools by the IPCC, do not come close to matching the frequency, magnitude, and duration of ENSO events. All three are very important when attempting to reproduce the instrument temperature record (and when trying to project future climate scenarios), since they dictate when and how much:
– heat is released from the tropical Pacific to the atmosphere, where it alters climate globally,
– warm water is distributed from the tropics toward the poles on the sea surface and below the surface of the oceans,
– warm water is created through coupled decreases in cloud cover and increases in visible sunlight over the tropical Pacific for use in the next ENSO event.
And now for my question: Where’s the Anthropogenic portion of the rise in Global Sea Surface Temperature anomalies during the satellite era? I can’t find it. I have been studying Sea Surface Temperature anomaly data for a number of years, and I cannot find any evidence of an anthropogenic component in Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly data. I’m referring to the satellite-era Reynolds OI.v2 Sea Surface Temperature dataset you use in your GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) data. Animation 3 provides a basic introduction to what I have found.
Animation 3
Before you reply, please study two posts I’ve published recently:
ENSO Indices Do Not Represent The Process Of ENSO Or Its Impact On Global Temperature,
And:
They will provide a few answers to your initial thoughts.
I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but many people outside of the climate science community have basic understandings of the process of ENSO. They realize that the warming and cooling of the central and eastern tropical Pacific during El Niño and La Niña events represent only a small portion of the processes that occasionally distribute vast amounts of heat from the tropics toward the poles, and they understand ENSO not only distributes heat through the atmosphere, but also within and on the surface of the oceans. They understand that the process of ENSO cannot be represented by a number in an ENSO index. Because of that, they understand the erroneous assumptions in the climate studies such as Fyfe et al (2010) “Comparing Variability and Trends in Observed and Modelled Global-Mean Surface Temperature” and Thompson et al (2008) paper Identifying Signatures of Natural Climate Variability in Time Series of Global-Mean Surface Temperature: Methodology and Insights. Those incorrect assumptions are carried over to blog posts such as Global trends and ENSO by your associates over at Real Climate. All portray ENSO as naturally occurring noise within the surface temperature record that can be removed through linear regression or through simple models that use an ENSO index to provide similar results. I have provided detailed explanations, illustrations, and animations in the above linked post (ENSO Indices Do Not Represent The Process Of ENSO Or Its Impact On Global Temperature) that illustrate the errors in these efforts.
In fact, as I noted in that post, the recent Compo and Sardeshmukh (2010) paper “Removing ENSO-Related Variations from the Climate Record” appears to be a step in the right direction. They write:
An important question in assessing twentieth-century climate is to what extent have ENSO-related variations contributed to the observed trends. Isolating such contributions is challenging for several reasons, including ambiguities arising from how ENSO is defined. In particular, defining ENSO in terms of a single index and ENSO-related variations in terms of regressions on that index, as done in many previous studies, can lead to wrong conclusions. This paper argues that ENSO is best viewed not as a number but as an evolving dynamical process for this purpose.
But Compo and Sardeshmukh also missed a very important part of ENSO. They overlooked the significance of the huge volume of warm water that is left over from El Niño events and failed to account for its contribution to the rise in global Sea Surface Temperature anomalies.
In closing, I, like you, look forward to the next strong or Super El Niño. I believe, though, we have different interests at heart. You appear to hope for one so that you can continue to piggyback your hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming on its multiyear aftereffects. I hope for a Super El Niño because the ARGO buoys are in now place, and it should be possible now to better track how the oceans distribute the warm water that’s left over from Super El Niño events.
Sincerely,
Bob Tisdale
James Hansen does not ever answer questions from mere mortals. He certainly poses them. There is zero possibility of a considered and thoughtful reply (99% confidence limit)
Looking at Figure 5: since 1981, strong heating events have occurred at intervals of 5-4-3-3-5-4-3 years (allowing for some fudging for noise, okay?). So the next warming event will be a big one in 2013, with a top value of 2.8C. The next will then happen in 2018 and have a top value of 1.8C .
Simplistic? Easy to say except for two things. 1: the world’s climate, according to the IPCC IS simple, so simple that the global temperature anomalies be reduced to a linear equation related to CO2 concentration. Natural variability by both assumption and necessary condition for the IPCC meme, IS simple and predictable. 2: pattern recognition is what computers and statistics look for, but in simple systems – if it exists – the correct graph and a good set of eyes can see the pattern.
If natural variability were significant and random, the IPCC meme would fall apart. So I hold that graphs, rulers and eyeballs can see patterns that are NOT perception biases but real. [An argument can be made that data since only 1981 is inadequate for even simple patterns to come through, but if they are simple, and if they are of the 4-year interval, then we have almost 8 cycles to review. Which is enough – if it isn’t enough, then the IPCC analysis of historical vs predicted occurrences doesn’t hold water either. At least to the level of accuracy (and precision) claimed by warmists.]
So here I go: a warm kick in 2013 at 2.8C, and another in 2016 at 1.8C. Call them what you will. A rose by any other name still has thorns, as one might say.
The warmists are looking for Dad to tell them how things will be, and Hansen-Gore-Suzuki want to be those fathers. Fathers who resent sons growing up and figuring things out for themselves.
I thought I had lost one of my gauntlets but now I see it has just been thrown down by Bob.
That is an absolute call-out. Now we’re getting somewhere.
I understand the distaste for Hansen. But, for those of us who do not closely follow all this, could somone post a concise list of failed predictions by Hansen? I think it might be informative. I might add that in fairness, a list of predictions that were accurate would be indicated. Then we can decide about the overall viewpoint.
What percentage (realisticly) do climate/weather forecasts/models have to meet to be deemed a success?
Hansen is not a scientist. He long ago crossed over into the realm of religion – faith. A scientist would examine his failed predictions, determine that his methodology was wrong, acknowledge that it was wrong, and proceed on a new path. Religion operates on faith. Facts don’t matter. Hansen is exactly like the guy walking the streets with a sign predicting the day the world will end. When the date passes with no end to world he simply changes the date and resumes walking the streets with no acknowledgement of past failures. Hansen makes no acknowledgement of failed predictions. It’s not about facts, it’s about faith in Church of Global Warming. “Calling him out” on failed predictions misses the point. Arguing from facts cannot shake the beliefs of another who is arguing from faith.
You have seen this over and over throughout the environmental movement. Nothing is going to change until we can wrestle environmental issues out of the realm of religion and back into the realm of objective science.
This will not be easy to do since like all religious leaders, these new religious leaders are charismatic figures, or people who hold political or economic power, and in some cases, power in the science community.
If you want to call them out, call them out for what they are – religious fundamentalists.
Grab the popcorn and a front row seat, Ladies and Gentlemen!
It’s the Sunday Morning Smack Down, brought to you by WUWT. The undefeated Brilliant Bob Tisdale single handedly takes on the man made temperature tag team of Hansen and Sato!
“Get Ready To Ruuuuuummmmmbbbblllllleeee!!!”
Nice job, Bob. I would not expect a reply anytime until after the next Super El Nino event.
I took the other side of that bet on Intrade, wagering (separately, at varying odds) that temperatures in Aug., Sept., and Oct. will not exceed a GISS anomaly of .65. Here’s the link: https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventClassId=20
If I am reading the charts correctly, we had strong – noticeably strong, though not exptreme – El Nino events in late 2002 and mid-2010.
OK.
Did Hansen, (et al) “predict” either of those events? If not, then he has no track record -> His theories cannot predict any other events – however (slightly more) strong or (significantly) weaker.
I’m as curious as Bob T. is regarding the follow-on heat distribution effects of a new Super El Niño but, then, I don’t live in a place (say the coastal hills of California) where the El Niño, itself, has a high pain index. (I just had to throw that word ‘index’ in someplace!)
I also agree with the first comment of John A. – Hansen and Sato will have moved on and not likely to revisit a failed study. They did write that it wasn’t “a sure bet.”
The point of these predictions is not accuracy. It is alarmism. The alarmist prediction will be reported, the failure of the same never. Thus the meme of dramatically increasing climate change danger continues on.
Why next they will suggest those pesky extraterrestrial aliens will destroy Earth in order to save it.
Oh wait…..
is this one of those deals where the best in the world has a track record of -006.
do any of these folks get any of it right??????
reminds me of a guy that used to post weather predictions on a bullitein board.
they were always a day or two after the weather occurred and always wrong.
C
On those two screen shots of Pacific El Nino Outlook for August 14 and August 15, notice that the value for the observed March anomaly went UP to nearly 0 on the August 15 screenshot. Why? What happened to cause them to warm the previous observations?
“I am writing to you via my weblog with a request and a question. First, the request: Please stop predicting El Niño and Super El Niño events. Your track record is very poor.”
I prefer that Hansen ignore this advise. The more failed predictions the better.
John F. Hultquist wrote:
“They did write that it wasn’t “a sure bet.”
Betting is what these predictions are all about. If or when he is ever right, he can pound his chest in triumph and claim unimpeachable knowledge and powers of scientific divination. Credibility works in only one direction for these guys.
I’m sure the Gate-Keeper McKibben will fill the moat. R Gates for closing?
From a book on Lying.by Sissela Bok
Once revealed, the gap is especially shocking in someone whose profession ideally requires a concern for truth. When judges and scientists are caught in fraud, the sense of betrayal is great. A fraudulent scientist goes against the most fundamental standards of science. Yet he may, paradoxically, act fraudulently in part on behalf of what he takes to be science and truth.
A scientist, for example, may believe a new discovery or theory to be true, but find the available data are as yet inconclusive. confident that future experimentation will bear him out, he may then falsify he data in order to gain support for what he feels sure to be true. He lies, in part, in the service of what he takes to be the truth. Sometimes these initial hunches turn out to be correct; often, they do no. IN the latter case, he may be driven into ever more deceit.
we cannot predict the weather 7 days in advance. otherwise, the daily forecast would be worthless and we’d get the forecast for the coming week every Sunday.
so not being a scientist, but somebody who just observes the world, I can’t understand why these climate “scientists” keep telling me the world is about to end and that billions will die if it heats up a degree or two.
seems to me all the really bad times in history came from it being too cold and good things happened when it was warmer. I can thank the warming for the fact that I enjoy the great lakes, which were carved out of the earth by glaciers that melted thanks to Global warming.
Bob Tisdale writes:
“Those incorrect assumptions are carried over to blog posts such as Global trends and ENSO by your associates over at Real Climate. All portray ENSO as naturally occurring noise within the surface temperature record that can be removed through linear regression or through simple models that use an ENSO index to provide similar results. I have provided detailed explanations, illustrations, and animations in the above linked post (ENSO Indices Do Not Represent The Process Of ENSO Or Its Impact On Global Temperature) that illustrate the errors in these efforts.”
Bob Tisdale has drawn a line in the sand. The line has been drawn at the correct place, angle, and time. The Achilles Heel of all the so-called science practiced by the people that Bob identifies has been made as clear as the nose on your face. Their so-called science does not treat ENSO phenomena as natural phenomena but as “naturally occurring noise within the surface temperature record.” And Bob presents major errors in their efforts which follow from failure to represent the process(es) of ENSO.
What I take away from Bob’s article is that he provides powerful evidence that Hansen and “team” are not engaged in physical science, unless by physical science one means what can be described in terms of radiation exchanges and associated temperature numbers. Surely, everyone can recognize that Hansen and “team” have no physical hypotheses of the sort offered by Willis Eschenbach in his posts here on WUWT of the last week. They have no descriptions of natural regularities such as the descriptions offered in Willis’ account of his “homeostatic systems.” That is my claim, not Bob’s. In my humble opinion, Hansen and team are interested in one thing only: creating a record of temperature measurements that will panic people into supporting huge taxes for mitigation of CO2.
All the AGW BS will continue until the research grantsmanship ends. If the climate ‘scientists’ can continue riding that gravy train, they will.
Don’t forget rule one of climate science, if the models and reality differ, its reality that is in error . This leads to know that predictions from this models are always ‘right’ but reality in falling to match them is in fact ‘wrong’ .
Bob Tisdale quotes Compo and Sardeshmukh (2010) as follows:
“An important question in assessing twentieth-century climate is to what extent have ENSO-related variations contributed to the observed trends. Isolating such contributions is challenging for several reasons, including ambiguities arising from how ENSO is defined. In particular, defining ENSO in terms of a single index and ENSO-related variations in terms of regressions on that index, as done in many previous studies, can lead to wrong conclusions. This paper argues that ENSO is best viewed not as a number but as an evolving dynamical process for this purpose.”
This is a call for a move back to physical science. An “Evolving dynamical process” consists of many sub-processes and each of them must be described by physical hypotheses that are discovered through empirical research in the environment.
This is especially interesting to me because I spent a considerable amount of professional time explaining to engineers that computer models are good analytic tools for refining one’s knowledge of natural processes but entirely worthless when they are treated as authoritative sources and the numbers that they generate are confused with reality.
Chuck says:
August 21, 2011 at 10:51 am
“Hansen is not a scientist. He long ago crossed over into the realm of religion – faith. A scientist would examine his failed predictions, determine that his methodology was wrong, acknowledge that it was wrong, and proceed on a new path.”
Very well said. And powerful evidence for your claim is found in the fact that Hansen and “team” studiously avoid discussing their failures but the genuine scientist is no less interested in the failures than in the successes. Someone who has the instincts of a scientist is fascinated by the failures, insists on confronting and explaining them, and will not let them go until there is a satisfactory answer. Thank God for genuine scientists. Most of what science offers us was found in the failures.
Doug Proctor says: “…So I hold that graphs, rulers and eyeballs can see patterns that are NOT perception biases but real.”
Graphs and rulers see nothing. Yes, human eyes can “see” real patterns, with a little help from the brain. We’re designed to pick out predators from shrubbery approaching 100% of the time. To get that level of detection, we also see shrubbery as a predator a significant part of the time, e.g., 10%. “Seeing” a pattern in climate can also be a true or false indication of something there. “Wiggle matching” is not science unless there’s a predetermined criterion for what constitutes a match and a method for calculating statistical significance for the result. ENSO is like a grandfather clock with a boa constrictor for a pendulum. Predicting the swings is impossible.
It is not possible to reason anyone out of a position that they did not reason themselves into in the first place.
Bcreekski says:
August 21, 2011 at 10:36 am
“I might add that in fairness, a list of predictions that were accurate would be indicated. Then we can decide about the overall viewpoint.”
Well, sure, you might be interested in this. But if you think it is relevant to Tisdale’s argument then you are attempting to change the subject through a Classic Case of Red Herring.
Adamski says:
August 21, 2011 at 10:42 am
What percentage (realisticly) do climate/weather forecasts/models have to meet to be deemed a success?
Classic Case of Red Herring. The topic is the set of disastrous errors described by Tisdale.
R Gates where are you ???
“Based on the spread of model outputs, ENSO events are apparently difficult to forecast even in mid August, so there’s still a remote possibility that your prediction may come true, but right now, NINO3.4 Sea Surface Temperature observations are clearly pointing in the opposite direction.”
Which proves once again it’s nearly impossible to accurately predict (beyond a few days out) either weather or climate with any regularity and that some people don’t even have an instinct for it.
a Hansen reply…. HMmmmmmmm
is there ICE DOWN UNDER????
and i mean really down under?
Is James Hansen and Jim Henson the same person, because they are both specialists in Muppetry?
I am surprised that no one has commented yet on the website name “Climate Story Tellers.” No mentions of fiction or fairytales.
I wish I hadn’t seen the picture of Sato. I thought Sato was a man, and whenever I read “Hansen and Sato” on a blog, I had Pink Panther images of Sato jumping out of a wardrobe and attacking Hansen.
Judging by their results, their scientific work is about as bumbling as Inspector Cloussos work.
Bob Tisdale says:
August 21, 2011 at 1:58 pm
I am surprised that no one has commented yet on the website name “Climate Story Tellers.” No mentions of fiction or fairytales.
_______________________________________________________
is it a government run website? cause our current government is one big one..
Now this is funny. Good stuff Bob.
When Gore comes to town – it snows: When Serreze says death spiral – the ice starts refreezing: When Hansen says warming will continue – it starts cooling: When Hansen says El Nino – put your money on La Nina: When the IPCC says anything – we know it is exaggerated.
These people are believers rather than objective scientists (although I had made a call on El Nino earlier as well).
“Well, sure, you might be interested in this. But if you think it is relevant to Tisdale’s argument then you are attempting to change the subject through a Classic Case of Red Herring.”
I can assure you that I was not attempting to change the subject as you state. My personal belief is not with the “warming” crowd. I still would like a concise review of missed predictions and correct predictions. If that is offensive, then so be it.
To Theo Goodwin: My comment was a question. I will try and rephrase it so that I might get a polite answer from yourself.
If I have developed a theory that predicts the temperature of the earth, that so far is correct 76% of the time, would this be deemed as a successful “model” in a chaotic system which is climate.
Obviously Hansen predictions are whack but as a learning newbie I was wondering if there is a rough benchmark to meet.
KnR says:
August 21, 2011 at 12:44 pm
Don’t forget rule one of climate science, if the models and reality differ, its reality that is in error.
Adamski says:
August 21, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Models cannot be used to make predictions. Only physical hypotheses can be used to make predictions. Models can be used for the activity that some meteorologists call “forecasting,” but that activity should not be confused with prediction. Forecasting is similar to extrapolating from old graphs. If someone is using a model to forecast something and it is wrong 24% of the time, it should be trashed.
Seems to be some confusion in Bob’s mind about the distinction between a bet and a prediction. Hansen says bet. Bob’s mind comes up with prediction.
I would say that if you are making a bet on something you are not claiming it will inevitably happen and no one is going to be surprised if you are wrong. So why us Bob surprised? I am sure Hansen is not surprised.
Bcreekski says:
August 21, 2011 at 3:20 pm
“I can assure you that I was not attempting to change the subject as you state. My personal belief is not with the “warming” crowd. I still would like a concise review of missed predictions and correct predictions. If that is offensive, then so be it.”
You continue to try to change the subject. Your request is not offensive, it simply changes the topic.
Great work! Nothing like getting slapped in the face with reality… though I doubt if Parson Hansen has much contact with reality anymore.
Perhaps someone could write a sentence listing everything Hansen has correctly predicted. Or maybe a half sentence.
I am constantly in awe of the knowledge of many of the commentators on WUWT.
But I fear most people including Bob have missed the point.
Hansen’s pronouncements have always been driven primarily by media imperatives not
scientific.
To put it bluntly his game was to score HEADLINES, preferably screaming ones which
fed into the Global media scare.
Over the years that flood (now trickle) of headlines has inevitably altered public opinion.
The real science, the doubt, the research, the refutation simply didn’t receive any media
attention…that’s why we skeptics are today on the ascendent in terms of science, but still
very much on the back foot in the battle to prevent irrational government Policies to ‘save
the planet.’
Sure he’s a charlatan, but he played the media like a stradivarius. That’s that those headlines were about…he simply doesn’t care if he was wrong.
It’s a bit like two football fans arguing over a game that was lost at the last minute by a bad refereeing decision. Sure the best team lost…but the result still stands.
A good moment to remember Dr. Theodor Landscheidt:
Solar Activity Controls El Niño and La Niña
http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/sun-enso.htm
I’m an ardent admirer of his work and continued his work up to 2009.
http://www.umweltluege.de/images/SOI-BFSc.png
Continuing the a-d-a-d… Golden Cuts, the next El Nino would have been in the first half of 2010 with ascending solar cycle.
And that was correct.
There will be a big La Nina in beginning spring that I predicted more than 2 years ago, due to low solar activity. As solar activity still keeps quiet, the following cycle 25 will be loer than cycle 24, according to the sun’s orbital perturbation by Solar Motion 2 program.
This means, for the coming 30 years or more, El Ninos will rule out more and more for increased La Nina probability.
If you’re interested in Dr. Landscheidt’s work, here are his studies.
http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/publications.htm
I’ll bet your going to be a climate scientist when you grow up.
LazyTeenager says: “Seems to be some confusion in Bob’s mind about the distinction between a bet and a prediction. Hansen says bet. Bob’s mind comes up with prediction.”
The confusion is yours, LazyTeenager. The reason my mind came up with prediction is because Hansen and Sato predicted an El Niño.
Merriam Webster definition of Predict: “to declare or indicate in advance; especially : foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason”
The quote from Hansen and Sato reads: “Based on subsurface ocean temperatures, the way these have progressed the past several months, and comparisons with development of prior El Niños, we believe that the system is moving toward a strong El Niño starting this summer.”
That is, without a doubt, a prediction, and based on their prediction they then state, “It’s not a sure bet, but it is probable.”
Game, set and match to Bob Tisdale.
The late Dr. Theodor Landscheidt in the late 1980’s and 1990’s began making accurate predictions of El Nino events. His track record was excellent, because he used totally predictable planetary mechanics to make his predictions. When using CO2 warming nonsense like Hansen does, why would you expect his predictions to be anything but wrong? The computer projections of the IPCC global climate models take the booby prize; you would be better off flipping a coin to predict anything.
The millstones of justice turn exceedingly slow, but grind exceedingly fine.
And remember that in three-syllable Japanese names the stress is always on the first syllable.
Right: MA kiko.
Wrong: maKEEko
(Not that correct pronuciation is likely to improve the quality of her predicitions.)
“Models” and “scientists” predicted more El Ninos and positive AO phase forever. Event hey understood that with plenty of La Ninas and negative AO, it won’t be warming. Both prediction obviously failed. So?
“Hansen is exactly like the guy walking the streets with a sign predicting the day the world will end. When the date passes with no end to world he simply changes the date and resumes walking the streets with no acknowledgement of past failures.”
You are completely wrong. Hansen predicts the earth will end 20 years from “today”. Whatever day today is, the earth will end in 20 years. When it is 2011, the earth will end in 2031. When it is 2020, the earth will end in 2040.
Your mistake is in assuming that somehow 20 years from today gets shorter as we move forward in time. Hansen never said this. 20 years in the future never gets shorter, no matter how far into the future we move.
The future is simply a carrot on a stick to get the donkey (government) to keep pulling the cart (paying for research).
Better be careful, Mr. Tisdale. James Hansen is one tough hombre. Haven’t you seen press releases of the man in his “Bwana Jim” sunhat with steely eyes peering off into the future? The man don’t need no stinking charts and graphs or pesky calculations to predict the future. He’s a visionary!
Visionaries are not like regular people. Visionaries often struggle with mundane chores ordinary people take for granted. Reading calendars, for example. So, he missed the date by a year or two or maybe even a few decades. So what? He’s operating on a mental plane ordinary mortals cannot comprehend, so they vent their jealousy by nit-picking the details.
Open up the mental windows and doors, Bob. I think chanting through a mouthful of magic rocks might help you in that exercise. You gonna’ have to “get outside the box” if you ever expect to catch up with Dr. Jim.
Charles S. Opalek, PE says:
August 21, 2011 at 6:37 pm
The late Dr. Theodor Landscheidt in the late 1980′s and 1990′s began making accurate predictions of El Nino events. His track record was excellent, because he used totally predictable planetary mechanics to make his predictions.
No mainstream scientists in the US of A would do this, because his/her work would be labelled as “astrology” by mainstream science. It is called prejudice
“Baa Humbug says:
August 21, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Judging by their results, their scientific work is about as bumbling as Inspector Cloussos work.”
That is an insult to Chief Inspector Clouseau. While Clouseau’s methods were unorthodox, he had a 100% success rate, even when he was not aware that he had succeeded.
In contrast, Hansen and mainstream climate science have a near 100% failure rate since 1998, when climate suddenly turned left, contrary to predictions. Had that happened to Clouseau he would have been demoted of fired, and Dreyfus would have remained as chief inspector.
Unfortunately in the world of climate science, a failed prediction simply means that you need more money for better tools. Unlike police work, climate science has no method to test if you are doing a good job, outside of the side of government grant you can rake in.
Please remember the rules. In the real world a failed prediction means you don’t know your job. In climate science it means you need more money.
Anyone else notice that Hansen and Sato have exactly the same facial expression, right down to the curve of the eyebrow? Maybe that visionary thing causes a whole person transformation.
The Nino 3.4 Index dropped to -0.74C last week so this year’s developing La Nina will make it 4 out of the last 5 years.
We would have to go back to the mid-1970s to find a similar pattern – the multi-year (or multi-year time periods dominated by La Nina or El Nino) eventually produce an accumulating impact. The length of time with no global warming will now extend out for another year – the climate models, and especially Hansen’s models, will be even further out.
Weekly NINO3.4 SST anomalies have dropped below the threshold of a La Nina:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/weekly-enso-index-drops-below-the-la-nia-threshold/
Thanks, Anthony
Hansen et al have had the ear of the “politicos” for so long that they ARE DESPERATE TO KEEP IT. The end is nigh, even the most lame brained politico must be realising that the faeces are going to hit the fan over the amount of money squandered on this nonsense. If carbon trading with all the Governement backing, cannot get off the ground as a business venture, it is telling something smells.. Lets keep after them and writing to our MP’s (UK)
Jorgekafkazar says:
August 21, 2011 at 1:05 pm
Doug Proctor says: “…So I hold that graphs, rulers and eyeballs can see patterns that are NOT perception biases but real.” and in response
Jorgekafkazar comments:
““Seeing” a pattern in climate can also be a true or false indication of something there. “Wiggle matching” is not science unless there’s a predetermined criterion for what constitutes a match and a method for calculating statistical significance for the result.”
Jorge argues, at its base, that the sort of insight that Aristotle up through Darwin brought to understand the universe is not valid as it is not done by scientists with access to computers and statistical algorithms to tease out predators from the shrubbery (love the analogy, by the way). It is an argument that says only the professionals – they top-notch, peer-reviewed, club of self-described professionals, of course – have access to the truth. It is also an argument that says unless you understand the process you cannot determine the outcome. To change analogies, it is an argument that says unless you understand the dynamics of human relationships you cannot predict the outcome of a failing marriage. Clearly not true.
I don’t profess to be a computer scientist, but as an earth scientist who is in a large field in which pattern recognition comes first and understanding later, and always an incomplete if not incorrect understanding, I have a lot of experience to say that predictive ability and understanding are not necessary in a working situation. Graphs, rulers, eyeballs (and brains) are definitely able to see what is going on if what is going on is fairly simple. Einstein was famous for saying that he didn’t do physical experiments, he did “mind” experiments. Our job as skeptics is largely to do those mind experiments, to audit what we are told to find internal consistencies that give us courage that what we suspect is true – regardless of the computers and modelling. Most climate science understanding is, after all, modelling, not observation., a matching of outcome patterns with historical data – a matching that is eyeball-worthy, by the way. If you need statistics to figure it out, it is probably not worth worrying about.
The IPCC, Gore et al say that the pattern we have seen for the past 30 years is clear, unambiguous in its meaning that CO2 generated by human beings is going to roast the planet. On that basis one should expect to see clear, unambiguous patterns. What I see is clear, unambiguous patterns through the 180 years of reasonable temperature data that have some 30 or more cyclic activity punctuated with repetitive cycles of around 5 years. There is a noticeable “hum” within the climate noise. In the Fig. 5 data there are significant warming spikes at the 5, 4, 3, 3, 5, 4, 3 intervals since 1981. Hansen et al employ sophisticated programs to find “true” patterns that don’t predict well, while also not – apparently – reflect this 5,4,3 etc. pattern. If you are modelling-centric, you say the observations are wrong, are noise, are happen-chance. If you are observation-centric, which I am, you suggest that the observations are right, and the mechanisms proposed are either wrong or not sensitive enough to develop the short-term patterns.
So I stick with my prediction based solely on the pattern of Fig. 5. The weather is what we live with, while the climate is what drives our economy (and our funding). Over the next 89 years the correct understanding of climate drivers will show as observations that match predictions. Over the next few years, the weather will be more likely predictable by those who note recent trends and project them only a short-time ahead. The warm spike I predict in 2013 and 2018 is based on what has recently happened.AND in line with the IPCC-Hansen view that the climate is linear, simple and progressive. Significant randomness is not within any climatic model that I know of – if it were we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Even Archibald’s prediction of a large temperature drop by 2020 (sunspot related) allows smaller, internal cycles.
Overall, if graphs, rulers, eyeballs and brains cannot determine reasonableness in the global warming debate, if those four cannot establish probable and improbable courses of temperature movement over the next few years, none of us skeptics (except a professional or two) have any right to disagree with orthodoxy. We are not learned enough. The Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Mayans, Chinese – all those groups created civilizations based on the reasoning of observant, patient, reasoning men. The 19th century was a revolution because of such reasoning people, people without a lot of data but the ability to trust patterns and detect internally consistent correlations (CO2-AGW is not internally consistent).
This is an interesting discussion and important point Jorge has raised. Are citizen-scientists, are citizen-thinkers armed only with paper, pencil, knowledge far more detailed and sophisticated that any Darwin of his time had, those with the ability to think through others’ arguments – are these groups truly qualified to figure out what might be going on?
The warmists say “trust the experts”. The skeptics – such as I – say we can figure some things out at least as well as the “experts”, and perhaps on a more practical level, better than the “experts”.
These days we are told we live in special times, where the past is no predictor of the future. Gore is a prophet, Hansen a disciple that will bring order from chaos. What was is not relevant, as today is Different. I disagree. 2.8C in 2013 and 2.0 in 2018. If not in detail, then in pattern. A prediction probably as good as the one the IPCC might give.
Theo Goodwin says:
August 22, 2011 at 5:18 am
“Anyone else notice that Hansen and Sato have exactly the same facial expression, right down to the curve of the eyebrow? Maybe that visionary thing causes a whole person transformation.”
Eureka! Visionary eyebrows! I believe you may be onto something. Come to think of it, that’s the exact same expression my high school classmate was wearing (ages ago) as he rolled forward in his desk and stared intently into our teacher’s eyes. Face-to-face a mere foot apart, eyes locked onto his, she raise her eyebrows in that exact same arc as if to say, “Yes, Gordon?” At which point Gordon cut a 130 decibel “blue hazer” that rattled the classroom windows.
I miss Gordon.
Occult Practices
9 When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. 10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD; because of these same detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you. 13 You must be blameless before the LORD your God.
The Prophet
14 The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD your God has not permitted you to do so. 15 The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him. 16 For this is what you asked of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, “Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die.”
17 The LORD said to me: “What they say is good. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. 19 I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.”
21 You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?” 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed.
Greg Holmes says:
August 22, 2011 at 8:26 am
Hansen et al have had the ear of the “politicos” for so long that they ARE DESPERATE TO KEEP IT. The end is nigh, even the most lame brained politico must be realising that the faeces are going to hit the fan over the amount of money squandered on this nonsense. If carbon trading with all the Governement backing, cannot get off the ground as a business venture, it is telling something smells.. Lets keep after them and writing to our MP’s (UK)
Greg. unfortunately the politicos are up to their necks in as well.
Cameron’s fa[]ther in law is heavily in to renewables,(why do think a £1.5 billion wind generation grant was annouced six months after the election) Cleggs wife is a director for a Spanish renewable company
Go look at the MPs website and see the interests they all declare, lot of renewables companies have MPs as directors /non executive directors and lots lobby for them,
As ever follow the money.Where there’s money to be made politicians won’t be far away
after all these are people who want power….and money and the more they get the more they want.
Writing to your MP is a waste of time, remember only 3 or 4 MPs voted against the climate change bill in 2008 out of 650+ MPs
Ref -John A says:
August 21, 2011 at 9:50 am
“James Hansen does not ever answer questions from mere mortals. He certainly poses them. There is zero possibility of a considered and thoughtful reply (99% confidence limit)”
Once something is posted on ‘The Web’ it is immortal. Rest assured that they will respond. If not now, then certainly in the next life. If not on this planet, than on another, in a galexy far, far away.
Climatologists “know” this to be true. Everything is possible in Climatology.
[In New York City by 2008] The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change. There will be more police cars. Why? Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up… Under the greenhouse effect, extreme weather increases. Depending on where you are in terms of the hydrological cycle, you get more of whatever you’re prone to get. New York can get droughts, the droughts can get more severe and you’ll have signs in restaurants saying “Water by request only.” – James Hansen testimony before Congress in June 1988
@ Theo Goodwin – At last a reason for the warmists bandwagon “… panic people into supporting huge taxes for mitigation of CO2 …” – which we already have done in the UK by means of hoiking up electricity bills to subsidise covering our landscape with 500 foot turbines.
Mycroft
A very good summary. It’s the governments of the the world who are funding the UN and the IPCC
who support the NGO’s in pressurizing MP’s to be Green and, until now, the populace have been prepared to go along with it for all kinds of cuddly ‘Gorey’ polarbeary reasons – but not much longer if this winter is as bad as the last couple, which is looking increasingly likely. The bills will arrive and there will be no money to pay them. People will get angry.
Sure, the elected elite (and the unelected ones in Europe) have their heads in the trough. Its AGW supported by the propaganda they are themselves funding that keeps them there while all the useful idiots cheer them on !
God forbid anyone should stop the party. Hence we had Sir Humphrey Appleby style inquiries set up in the UK to kick the issue into the long grass (English joke) and similar in the US with the EPA
driven by Obarmy trying to force his will on the country by bypassing the Senate by banning CO2 !
Don’t forget that the IPCC’s original mandate was to find the human link to Global Warming (as it was then) – NOT to find the actual causes of Global Warming. Only the skeptics seem to want to do that as everyone else seems to be otherwise engaged making money or covering their backs.
Bcreekski says:
August 21, 2011 at 10:36 am
“I understand the distaste for Hansen. But, for those of us who do not closely follow all this, could someone post a concise list of failed predictions by Hansen? ”
Try starting at….
http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/james-hansen-1986-within-15-years-temps-will-be-hotter-than-past-100000-years/
“Adamski says:
August 21, 2011 at 10:42 am
What percentage (realisticly) do climate/weather forecasts/models have to meet to be deemed a success?”
Climatologists don’t make predictions, they make ‘projections of scenarios’ and ‘probability spreads’. The Met office said last winter would be 40% normal, 30% colder, 30% warmer. And would claim success regardless of what happened. I kid you not!
I’d like to see some of these guys on ‘The Apprentice’ talking that rubbish to some hard headed businessman.
“Will it be colder this winter?” –
“Well Sir Alan it might be…or it might not” –
“You’re fired!”
Forecasting. There is an old story of a small town medico who had a 100% success record in predicting the gender of babies to be born. He would tell Mum-to-be that the child would be a boy, then say, “Look, I’ll write it up in my diary so whe can check afterwards” Of course, if he said “boy” he would write “girl”. If the verbal was accurate, no diary needed. If not, turn to the book ….