Guest Post By Walter Dnes
The NOAA(NCDC) January data set update was delayed. It came in during the afternoon/evening of March 6th. With all the January data being in, now is the time for the January Leading Indicator “JLI” algorithm forecast to “put up or shut up”, and make forecasts for 2014. As described here and here, the JLI algorithm is not a “real forecast” per se, but rather a “zero skill baseline” that a “real forecast” has to beat in order to show skill. The only excuse I’ll use for missing the forecasts is a Pinatubo-scale event, i.e. a major volcano (or meteorite/comet impact) that kicks up a significant amount of particulates/sulfates/etc. into the stratosphere.
First, the raw data. Because some of the data sets adjust their past data every month, the algorithm would produce slightly different results each month for the quantitative forecasts. In close cases, even the qualitative forecasts can change. In order to allow reproduction of the results, the January 2014 data sets, as downloaded in February 2014, are attached here, along with the spreadsheet used for the calculations.
The Qualitative Forecasts
- HadCRUT v3
The January 2014 HadCRUT3 monthly anomaly was 0.472 versus 0.392 in January 2013. The 2014 annual mean anomaly is forecast to be warmer than the 2013 annual mean of 0.459.
- HadCRUT v4
The January 2014 HadCRUT4 monthly anomaly was 0.506 versus 0.450 in January 2013. The 2014 annual mean anomaly is forecast to be warmer than the 2013 annual mean of 0.488.
- GISS
The January 2014 GISS monthly anomaly was 0.70 versus 0.63 in January 2013. The 2014 annual mean anomaly is forecast to be warmer than the 2013 annual mean of 0.603.
- UAH v5.6
The January 2014 UAH5.6 monthly anomaly was 0.291 versus 0.497 in January 2013. The 2014 annual mean anomaly is forecast be cooler than the 2013 annual mean of 0.236.
- RSS
The January 2014 RSS monthly anomaly was 0.262 versus 0.439 in January 2013. The 2014 annual mean anomaly is forecast to be cooler than the 2013 annual mean of 0.218.
- NOAA (NCDC)
The January 2014 NOAA (NCDC) monthly anomaly was 0.6480 versus 0.5491 in January 2013. The 2014 annual mean anomaly is forecast to be warmer than the 2013 annual mean of 0.625.
The Quantitative Forecasts
Due to the noisiness of the data it is possible for the qualitative forecast to indicate a warmer value than the previous year, while the quantitative forecast indicates a cooler value (or vice versa). This type of mixed signal occurs for 2014 in the land data sets, where the qualitative forecast is for warmer than the previous year, but quantitative forecast is for a cooler year.
Tab “jan_and_avg_2” of the spreadsheet has some statistics in the block P1:V4, comparing the January anomalies with the annual anomalies. These include slope() and intercept(). Once we have the January anomaly, we can apply the old “y = mx + b” linear equation to get a quantitative prediction for the year.
- HadCRUT v3 * The slope in cell Q3 is 0.81614. The intercept in cell R4 is 0.02345. The Jan 2014 anomaly is +0.472. Applying the standard “y = mx + b” equation, we get a predicted 2014 annual anomaly of +0.409 with an unknown error margin.
- HadCRUT v4 * The slope in cell R3 is 0.77609. The intercept in cell R4 is 0.02637. The Jan 2014 anomaly is +0.506. Applying the standard “y = mx + b” equation, we get a predicted 2014 annual anomaly of +0.419 with an unknown error margin.
- GISS * The slope in cell S3 is 0.81358. The intercept in cell S4 is 0.03062. The Jan 2014 anomaly is +0.70. Applying the standard “y = mx + b” equation, we get a predicted 2014 annual anomaly of +0.600 with an unknown error margin.
- UAH v5.6 * The slope in cell T3 is 0.64062. The intercept in cell T4 is 0.01732. The Jan 2014 anomaly is +0.291. Applying the standard “y = mx + b” equation, we get a predicted 2014 annual anomaly of 0.64062 * 0.291 + 0.01732 = 0.204 with an unknown error margin.
- RSS * The slope in cell U3 is 0.64755 and the intercept in cell U4 is 0.03456. The Jan 2014 anomaly is +0.262 The predicted 2014 annual anomaly is 0.64755 * 0.262 + 0.03456 = 0.204 with an unknown error margin.
- NOAA (NCDC) * The slope in cell V3 is 0.84179 and the intercept in cell V4 is 0.04571. The Jan 2014 anomaly is +0.648 The predicted 2014 annual anomaly is 0.84179 * 0.648 + 0.04571 = 0.591 with an unknown error margin.
In weather forecasting, one generally goes with the model consensus, or at least the majority opinion. The JLI …
- qualitative forecast indicates 4 (surface) data sets warmer and 2 (satellite) data sets cooler
- quantitative forecast indicates all 6 data sets cooler
The “cooler” runs outnumber the “warmer” runs 8 to 4. So I’ll go with a somewhat cooler year overall.
The Met Office 2014 Prediction
19 December 2013 — The global average temperature in 2014 is expected to be between 0.43 C and 0.71 C above the long-term (1961-1990) average of 14.0 C, with a central estimate of 0.57 C, according to the Met Office annual global temperature forecast.
Their forecast is based on the average of HadCRUT4, GISS, and NOAA(NCDC) anomalies. Using the numbers from the JLI quantitative anomaly forecasts, the JLI equivalent forecast is…
( 0.419 + 0.600 + .591 ) / 3 = 0.537
I acknowledge that I have an additional 2 months of data available compared to what UK Met Office had when they made their forecast.
from The Weather Channel 03-06-2014:
“A new report from NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center suggests changes could be on the way for weather patterns across the U.S. and the globe.
According to the report, the chance of an El Niño reemerging this year has increased. And, if the models from the report play out, that could mean fewer named storms in the 2014 Atlantic hurricane season and potential drought relief for parts of California later this year.”
Does your post reflect this prediction? Maybe a negative anomaly for hurricanes in 2014? And what about EL Nino for 2014?
Julius, my monkey, said it will be slightly cooler than normal and no El Nino.
So, JLI os basically a warmista forecast. One is warmer, one is cooler.
Hard to be wrong, that way.
I agree, I believe that this years temperature figures will, on average, be lower than last years. Now all we have to do is wait 10 more months or so to see 🙂
But I do like the work. I use the JLI as well, and not just in finance. It appears to be more accurate than monkeys throwing darts, at least.
Zek202 says: March 7, 2014 at 10:26 a
from The Weather Channel 03-06-2014:
“A new report from NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center suggests changes could be on the way for weather patterns across the U.S. and the globe.
According to the report, the chance of an El Niño reemerging this year has increased. And, if the models from the report play out, that could mean fewer named storms in the 2014 Atlantic hurricane season and potential drought relief for parts of California later this year.”
According to CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/06/us/el-nino-weather/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
“The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Thursday that there’s about a 50% chance of a weather phenomenon called El Nino developing this summer or fall. That’s not a guarantee, but conditions are favorable enough in the next six months to warrant an ‘El Nino Watch.'”
“Because El Nino warms up the atmosphere as a whole, we may see a mini global warming phenomenon, Trenberth said. Places that shivered through a deep freeze this year may see above-average temperatures next winter, if the pattern continues, Trenberth said”
“Right now the El Nino Southern Oscillation is in its “neutral” phase — neither warm nor cool — but models suggest that El Nino could develop.”
In summary, we have no idea what’s going to happen…
Those El Nino models have been predicting a significant El Nino for two years now. They have zero skill. Nobody knows what will happen this year or next.
Zek202 says:
> March 7, 2014 at 10:26 am
> from The Weather Channel 03-06-2014:
> “A new report from NOAA’s Climate Prediction
> Center suggests changes could be on the way
> for weather patterns across the U.S. and the globe.
>
> According to the report, the chance of an El Niño
> reemerging this year has increased. And, if the
> models from the report play out, that could mean
> fewer named storms in the 2014 Atlantic
> hurricane season and potential drought relief for
> parts of California later this year.”
>
> Does your post reflect this prediction? Maybe a
> negative anomaly for hurricanes in 2014? And
> what about EL Nino for 2014?
The JLI doesn’t forecast Nino/Nina. Maybe indirectly in that warmer implies El Nino and cooler implies La Nina. The forecast at http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif seems to always be indicating a strong El Nino “Real Soon Now”. So I tend to take their forecasts with a bag of salt.
Assume a well-trained monkey.
The forecast for El Nino (ONI >+0.5C) to appear it needs a La Nina charging event (i.e. strengthening tropical pacific westerlies). In the Monday 3 March ENSO, there is this chart statement, “During the last half of January 2014, a strong westerly wind burst occurred
over the western equatorial Pacific. Over the last couple weeks, another strong burst has emerged.” So rather than sustained strengthening westerlies, there are these “bursts”. Suggests weak charging events are occurring. Whether these pickup in frequency the next 3 months will dictate how much El Nino tropical heat redist. comes out in Aug/Sept/Oct.
Using the simplistic assumption, but often correct, that immediate previous dynamics suggests the next, I find it more likely than not that this 2014 El Nino will peter-out before it can begin, just like it did in 2012. (Easterbrook would likely say it is the negative PDO suppressing El Nino’s).
Thus El Nino if it appears will be quite weak and not enough to affect the long term bump in temps that Trenberth is anxiously awaiting to save face.
The JLI thus is likely to be correct (within error bars) that 2014 wont be significantly diff from 2013. The Pause Continues is where my money is.
John A. Fleming says: March 7, 2014 at 10:39 am
Those El Nino models have been predicting a significant El Nino for two years now. They have zero skill. Nobody knows what will happen this year or next.
Yes, per the quote at the top of the new WUWT ENSO Forecast Reference Page;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/enso/enso-forecast-page/
“Model predictions of ENSO made before March-May have been shown to have very low skill. The low skill is caused by the Spring Prediction Barrier, which is discussed in the IRI webpage here.” Bob Tisdale
And per this paper;
“Real-time model predictions of ENSO conditions during the 2002–11 period are evaluated and compared to skill levels documented in studies of the 1990s. ENSO conditions are represented by the Niño- 3.4 SST index in the east-central tropical Pacific. The skills of 20 prediction models (12 dynamical, 8 statistical) are examined. Results indicate skills somewhat lower than those found for the less advanced models of the 1980s and 1990s. Using hindcasts spanning 1981–2011, this finding is explained by the relatively greater predictive challenge posed by the 2002–11 period and suggests that decadal variations in the character of ENSO variability are a greater skill-determining factor than the steady but gradual trend toward improved ENSO prediction science and models. After adjusting for the varying difficulty level, the skills of 2002–11 are slightly higher than those of earlier decades. Unlike earlier results, the average skill of dynamical models slightly, but statistically significantly, exceeds that of statistical models for start times just before the middle of the year when prediction has proven most difficult. The greater skill of dynamical models is largely attributable to the subset of dynamical models with the most advanced, high resolution, fully coupled ocean–atmosphere prediction systems using sophisticated data assimilation systems and large ensembles. This finding suggests that additional advances in skill remain likely, with the expected implementation of better physics, numeric and assimilation schemes, finer resolution, and larger ensemble sizes.”
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00111.1
ENSO forecasts are apparently getting worse…
““Right now the El Nino Southern Oscillation is in its “neutral” phase — neither warm nor cool — but models suggest that El Nino could develop.”
In summary, we have no idea what’s going to happen…
#################
actually that’s a pretty bad summary of what is known.
Brian H says: March 7, 2014 at 10:46 am
R Babcock says: March 7, 2014 at 10:27 am
“Julius, my monkey, said it will be slightly cooler than normal and no El Nino.”
“Assume a well-trained monkey.”
I believe that this is the monkey you may be referring to, and the video is well worth a watch:
“The Pause Continues is where my money is.”
I realize it’s immensely complicated given various starting points etc, but anyone have a number on how much warmer it would have to get for 2014, for the warmists to credibly argue the pause has paused?
Steven Mosher says: March 7, 2014 at 11:02 am
actually that’s a pretty bad summary of what is known.
Please enlighten us as to “what is known”. Do you think that “we may see a mini global warming phenomenon”?…
For the absolutely, most accurate predictions, the monkeys should be blind-folded before throwing the darts.
I’ll say cooler because El Nino has not even starting forming and more importantly no one is even talking about El Nino intensity or intensity in context with multidecadal cycle cooling.
This may interest:
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/opinion/post/-/blog/21745961/el-nino-this-year-probably-not/
Essentially, next El Nino due to start July 2015 according to http://www.predictweather.com
Steven Mosher says:
March 7, 2014 at 11:02 am
““Right now the El Nino Southern Oscillation is in its “neutral” phase — neither warm nor cool — but models suggest that El Nino could develop.”
In summary, we have no idea what’s going to happen…
#################
actually that’s a pretty bad summary of what is known.
Steven, STOP IT !! That says nothing about what’s known and it says that nothing is known and that is about what well known climate scientist have been achieving in terms of forecasts over the past 15 years.
Anybody who forecasts a chaotic system with more than one forcing more than 5 days ahead is either a fool or very courageous.
pokerguy says:
March 7, 2014 at 11:07 am
but anyone have a number on how much warmer it would have to get for 2014, for the warmists to credibly argue the pause has paused
That is an excellent question, however it is impossible to answer unless we know exactly what you wish to know. Just to illustrate my point, take a look at the following that shows RSS and Hadcrut3 along with the times for a slope of 0.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.65/plot/rss/from:1996.65/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.55/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.55/trend
Look at the Hadcrut3 starting point. It is right on the upward sloped blue line so a warm February could knock it off and the pause for Hadcrut3 decreases from 16 years and 6 months to over 13 years.
Now look at the area below the green line for RSS. Here, we could almost have a year of fairly high temperatures before the new area above the green line on the right equals the area below the green line on the left. So if an El Nino started tomorrow, the time would stay at close to 17 years and 6 months for a while. It is just that the starting and ending time for the pause would continually shift by a month or so each month.
Then we need to know what is meant by the pause. Are we talking no change at all for 16 years or is 13 years also considered a pause? Or is 10 years considered a pause?
Or we may have to ask if we mean 95% statistically significant warming. Does that have to be more than 15 years in order for us to officially say we are in a pause, at least for any particular data set?
kenmoonman says:
> March 7, 2014 at 11:26 am
>
> This may interest:
> http://nz.news.yahoo.com/opinion/post/-/blog/21745961/el-nino-this-year-probably-not/
> Essentially, next El Nino due to start July 2015 according to http://www.predictweather.com
I read the blog post. Total hooey. It’s bad enough when it claims that ancient Hindi astronomers knew about Pluto, but attributing the recent British floods to it takes the cake. Even if we believe in planetary tidal influences, Venus/Mars/Jupiter/Saturn/Uranus/Neptune are all much closer and heavier than Pluto. Pluto (actually Pluto/Charon) is composed of a couple of overgrown snowballs orbiting a mutual centre of gravity.
A Model prediction with an “unknown error margin” is a prediction?
You could calculate an error by doing this for back years and finding the standard deviation.
Monkeys? I’ve got – no, sorry, I serve – cats who can do as well.
And one of them is a right stroppy little so-and-so.
Predicting weather really is a mug’s game here in “Euro Region XVII” as I understand these sceptr’d isles are to become.
Climate – summers and winters sort of thing – is less difficult. We can have the cricket stop play for snow: cricket is a summer game (nominally).
Weather tomorrow – pretty close to today, even here in England.
At least – that’s the way to bet.
Has the Met Office ever done a study on when their weather forecasting was better than ‘Like today’ – perhaps with error margins; if so, I bet it was in the Seventies. Far more voluntary observing ships then, more scientific rigour, and far less watermelon prejudice.
Auto
“And, if the models from the report play out, that could mean fewer named storms in the 2014…”
What?? THIS coming from The Weather Channel? Fewer named storms? They are the masters of naming every little puff of wind in sight! If anything, The Weather Channel will starting increasing their storm naming just to spite us… [heh]
“Please enlighten us as to “what is known”. Do you think that “we may see a mini global warming phenomenon”?…”
what is known? you read the document, how could you miss the facts
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/06/us/el-nino-weather/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
What is known
1. An El Nino event occurs about once every three to seven years,
2 As the ocean builds up heat in the western Pacific Ocean, some of the heat goes into the atmosphere through evaporation.
3.Right now the El Nino Southern Oscillation is in its “neutral” phase — neither warm nor cool
4. If we get an El nino, temperatures are likely to warm.
5. models make forecasts
That is hardly summarized by you as we know nothing.
Do you think that “we may see a mini global warming phenomenon”?…”
Of course we may see it. Then again we may not. The sun may come up on Saturday. Then again it may not.
can we put numbers on this word “may”. Of course we can put numbers on it. Are those numbers perfectly accurate? of course not. When it comes to the future all we know are maybes and maybe nots. Will the law of gravity be in operation tommorrow. Maybe. I sure hope so. I would never bet against it no matter what odds you gave me. Its almost certain. will 2+2 = 4 on saturday? certainly.
suppose there is a 1% chance of el nino.. Do I think that “we may see a mini global warming phenomenon”?…” Of course we may, the odds might be slight, but of course we may. I know its not impossible. I know its not certain. Im certain of both of those. I’m less certain about the “may” part. But pointing out uncertainty and equating it with ignorance puts us in a place where all we know are things ( like logic and math ) which seem absolute and immutable.
So, stating probable knowledge is not the same as claiming ignorance. If it were then all you know would be constrained to things that could never be wrong
“… It’s bad enough when it claims that ancient Hindi astronomers knew about Pluto, but attributing the recent British floods to it takes the cake. Even if we believe in planetary tidal influences …”
Agreed. It is as bad as claiming mankind’s tiny, tiny addition each year to a trace gas has any impact at all. I bet Pluto has more impact. 🙂
Well, that is if the “magic molecule” is not the real Jesus and can turn heat into cold along with water into wine.
Some of you who grew up in the age of Flower Power will recall that black light poster depicting two vultures sitting on a limb. (As we all know, vultures dine on carrion only – something already dead. They have to wait around a lot.)
One vulture, frowning, says to the other: “Patience, my a__. I’m gonna kill something!”
I think of “climate experts” that way. After two hundred years of not being expected to predict the future of something so complex and chaotic as the global climate system, one of them finally stood up at a conference and announced “Patience my arse. I’m going to predict global temperatures 100 years from now!”
My Nino Index based on various ocean temp areas above and under the surface has fallen from plus 29 to minus 29 in the past 2 months suggesting fairly strongly that El Nino development will take place during 2014. This Nino Index of mine has been pretty well on the ball almost all years.
I would therefore suggest El Nino and a warming temp trend globally for the next 1 to 2 years as influenced by warmer average global temps caused by El Nino effects not CO2,
Re: :Monkey ‘bidness”
Like most people, monkeys can be counted upon to see whatever they’re predisposed to see. My monkey sees that the colder a winter gets, the louder and more entrenched the “warmists” become. This year’s “propaganda blizzard” has dwarfed anything Mother Nature could dish out.
I’m “betting” on a year in 2014 that is not in the top 10.
I wish Anthony would start a thread where we all could put down our predictions.
Do warmists believe (like the famous Irving Fisher), that the global temperature has reached “a permanently high plateau”? Their proclamations imply that they do.
If so, heads-up below!
Steven Mosher says:
March 7, 2014 at 1:24 pm
==================
So, we’re building windmills… why ?
Wow! Probably knowledge is a new euphemism for guess and speculate.
anonymous(?) piece at The Economist – ***final line tells you where this piece went:
8 Mar: The Economist: Who pressed the pause button?
The slowdown in rising temperatures over the past 15 years goes from being unexplained to overexplained
BETWEEN 1998 and 2013, the Earth’s surface temperature rose at a rate of 0.04°C a decade, far slower than the 0.18°C increase in the 1990s. Meanwhile, emissions of carbon dioxide (which would be expected to push temperatures up) rose uninterruptedly. This pause in warming has raised doubts in the public mind about climate change. A few sceptics say flatly that global warming has stopped. Others argue that scientists’ understanding of the climate is so flawed that their judgments about it cannot be accepted with any confidence. A convincing explanation of the pause therefore matters both to a proper understanding of the climate and to the credibility of climate science—and papers published over the past few weeks do their best to provide one. Indeed, they do almost too good a job. If all were correct, the pause would now be explained twice over…
***Like the Terminator, global warming will be back.
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21598610-slowdown-rising-temperatures-over-past-15-years-goes-being
Steven Mosher says: March 7, 2014 at 1:24 pm
what is known? you read the document, how could you miss the facts
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/06/us/el-nino-weather/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
What is known
1. An El Nino event occurs about once every three to seven years,
2 As the ocean builds up heat in the western Pacific Ocean, some of the heat goes into the atmosphere through evaporation.
3.Right now the El Nino Southern Oscillation is in its “neutral” phase — neither warm nor cool
4. If we get an El nino, temperatures are likely to warm.
5. models make forecasts
That is hardly summarized by you as we know nothing.
Thanks for the ENSO 101 there, but if you try some reading comprehension, I never said “we know nothing”, I wrote that, “In summary, we have no idea what’s going to happen”, and per this comment;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/07/jli-final-forecasts-for-2014/#comment-1584992
I think I’ve demonstrated that quite well. When you are done with your semantics dance and trying to put words in my mouth, perhaps you can enlighten us as to “what is known” about “what’s going to happen”…
Of course we may see it. Then again we may not. The sun may come up on Saturday. Then again it may not.
can we put numbers on this word “may”. Of course we can put numbers on it. Are those numbers perfectly accurate? of course not. When it comes to the future all we know are maybes and maybe nots. Will the law of gravity be in operation tommorrow. Maybe. I sure hope so. I would never bet against it no matter what odds you gave me. Its almost certain. will 2+2 = 4 on saturday? certainly.
suppose there is a 1% chance of el nino.. Do I think that “we may see a mini global warming phenomenon”?…” Of course we may, the odds might be slight, but of course we may. I know its not impossible. I know its not certain. Im certain of both of those. I’m less certain about the “may” part. But pointing out uncertainty and equating it with ignorance puts us in a place where all we know are things ( like logic and math ) which seem absolute and immutable.
Have you considered entering the legal field? Between you and Bill Clinton you could spend your twilight years parsing out the meaning of the words “may” and “is”…
So, stating probable knowledge is not the same as claiming ignorance. If it were then all you know would be constrained to things that could never be wrong
There is no “probable knowledge”, we are talking about forecasting here, and as I wrote several years ago;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/09/why-are-we-so-bad-at-long-range-weather-forecasting/
we are awful at long range forecasting. At present, Walter’s approach of assuming that the future will be like the recent past, appears to be the best we’ve got…
Steven Mosher says:
March 7, 2014 at 1:24 pm
What is known
===
whew, what a relief
At least we know we don’t know squat………
Jim says:
March 7, 2014 at 12:17 pm
A Model prediction with an “unknown error margin” is a prediction?
____________________________________________________
I’ll clear matters up for you, not really, but maybe they meant to say 0 + or – 0.5 and got confused.
My Kingdom for a one-armed weather forecaster.
lots more at the link:
8 Mar: Bloomberg: Brian K. Sullivan: Aging El Nino Buoys Get Fixed as Weather Forecasts at Risk
Two years ago, Congress cut about 20 percent from NOAA’s climate research branch, including the ocean observation unit that oversees the devices, said Trenberth, who has advised NOAA and shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize that went to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for work he did with the organization.
Responsibility for operating the array was transferred in 2006 from the agency’s research branch to the weather service, according to Trenberth.
“In the National Weather Service, their priorities are always on the short-term weather, and the climate aspects and the inter-annual variability aspects just have been lost in the priority system, so that has been part of it,” he said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-07/aging-el-nino-buoys-getting-fixed-as-weather-forecasts-at-risk.html
7 Mar: Bloomberg: Matthew Carr: China Calls on Rich Nations to Give $490 Billion for Climate
From 2020, richer countries should give at least 1 percent a year of their gross domestic product to the Green Climate Fund based in Songdo, Korea, China said in a submission published today on the website of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. They should give annual funding of $40 billion this year, rising to $100 billion in 2020, it said…
“Developed countries are responsible for the current and future concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere because of their historical, current and future emissions,” China said. They need to cut emissions 40 percent from their 1990 levels by 2020, it said.
The European Union proposed in January to cut its emissions by that amount by 2030…
The U.S. “would not support a bifurcated approach to the new agreement, particularly one based on groupings that may have made sense in 1992 but that are clearly not rational or workable in the post-2020 era,” the north American nation said Feb. 12 in its submission to the UNFCCC.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-06/china-calls-on-rich-nations-to-give-490-billion-for-climate.html
Auto says:
March 7, 2014 at 1:08 pm
“Predicting weather really is a mug’s game here in “Euro Region XVII” as I understand these sceptr’d isles are to become.”
Euro Region XVII !!!! That’s what you are going to be labeled? Auto, please lad, this alone should be enough for the UK to shut the door on Euro-madness and conclude free trade deals and treaties with a dynamic business friendly (but fading fast if we don’t do something) English-speaking world and leave the Lilliputians to tie each other down. We would also invite Germany and the Nederlands to leave with you. These three industrious countries surely have seen more than enough. After ruling the waves and much of the world for several centuries and making the English language essential for earth’s survival, you guys are going to be numbered XVII ? Doesn’t this bother you more than how bad the forecasts are. Who do you suppose took #1 and labeled it #17. Ah..who is Euro #1, that should reveal much. It sounds like a jealous France or Belgique.
Serious Question – HELP please – I need this.
Does ANYONE out there have a strong predictive track record, say 3 or 6 or 9 or 12 months in the future, for North American winter temperatures?
Please cite evidence if available.
Thank you in advance – much appreciated.
Whatever the MET Office says, I’ll go with the opposite!
I cannot make short term predictions of weather / temperature.
I can only make long term predictions – about 15- 20 years or more. 🙂
I wrote in an article in the Calgary Herald published on September 1, 2002 as follows:
On global cooling:
“If (as I believe) solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
When I wrote this in 2002, SC 24 was predicted to be strong, and we now know it is quite weak.
I still think my 2002 global cooling prediction will materialize, although I wonder if this cooling will start a bit sooner than 2020.
Good people, if you must worry about something, worry about global cooling.
Bundle up!
Regards, Allan
Allan M.R. MacRae says:
March 7, 2014 at 5:16 pm
….I still think my 2002 global cooling prediction will materialize, although I wonder if this cooling will start a bit sooner than 2020.
Good people, if you must worry about something, worry about global cooling.
Bundle up!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is 32.4 °F ===>>> 27° F tonight complete with Winter Weather Advisory in effect until 9 am EST Saturday and Flood Warning
Normal lows for today in mid North Carolina are 38 °F. It is DARN cold for this time of year!
We will not see normal temperatures till Monday (forecast 70° F Monday and 73° F Tuesday)
As far as the forecast goes. I am praying for a strong La Niña.
Here on the Northern tablelands of NSW, it is largely nice rural towns and a lot of mixed agrarian industries, and the farmers look up at the sky. Because even the weather radars can change in a few hours. The other day we had a weather radar that suggested not much rain, and within a few hours we had thunderstorms. So obviously weather forecasters must have a crystal ball, as weather can change quicker than their brains work. LOL. And even then, some parts don’t get affected by rain, it is called rain shadows. We had a very destructive hail storm a few years ago, that hit the eastern part of Armidale, we up on the heights never even had a few drops, and we are only a few kms away from each other. Predicting weather is like fortune telling, ‘one day you will meet a handsome rich man’. You could be before a handsome judge!
If we need 17 plus years of no warming to suggest that global warmingclimatechangecatastophre isn’t occurring, then will we not have to wait for 17 plus years of warming to suggest that global warmingclimatechangecatastrophe is occurring?
Steve from Rockwood says: “My Kingdom for a one-armed weather forecaster.”
Then you’d get no prognostication at all.
“Good people, if you must worry about something, worry about global cooling.
Bundle up!
Regards, Allan”
==============================
If I had to put money on either the Hansen-Trenberth horse or the Allan McRae horse, it would all go toward the McRae horse. Right now the odds that 2030 will be significantly cooler are a lot better than it being significantly warmer.
To be clear, the serious work on the 2020-2030 global cooling forecast came from Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson of Carleton University.
I was writing an article for the Calgary Herald and phoned Tim and said: “Tim, you and I both believe climate change is natural and cyclical, correct?” Tim immediately agreed. So I said “OK, when is it going to get colder?” He then said, with a pause of just a few seconds, “2020 to 2030”. I asked why, and he explained that he based his answer on his research into the Gleissberg Cycle, which is about 90 years long. I asked Tim if the ~60 year PDO cycle might be a better fit, but he preferred the Gleissberg.
If the PDO governs, then global cooling has probably already begun, but it will take a few more years to be sure.
I am increasingly convinced that CO2 is utterly irrelevant as a driver of global temperature. Wait ten years and this will be the new conventional wisdom in climate science. Some people will say they knew it all along… 🙂
Regards to all, Allan
.
Allan M.R. MacRae says:
> March 7, 2014 at 4:52 pm
>
> Serious Question – HELP please – I need this.
>
> Does ANYONE out there have a strong predictive
> track record, say 3 or 6 or 9 or 12 months in the
> future, for North American winter temperatures?
You can get general forecasts from commercial firms if you’re willing to pay. I can’t personally vouch for anybody’s accuracy.
Latitude says:
March 7, 2014 at 3:54 pm
“Steven Mosher says:
March 7, 2014 at 1:24 pm
What is known
===
whew, what a relief
At least we know we don’t know squat………”
I respectfully disagree with you, Latitude. I think we DO know squat.
We are about to get a La Nina, not el Nino. This will pull temperatures down.
“Due to the noisiness of the data it is possible for the qualitative forecast to indicate a warmer value than the previous year, while the quantitative forecast indicates a cooler value (or vice versa). This type of mixed signal occurs for 2014 in the land data sets, where the qualitative forecast is for warmer than the previous year, but quantitative forecast is for a cooler year.”
…………..
In other words,the average slope of their linear temperature rend continues to be zero. When noise is included, 2014 could either be above or below 2013.
Steven Mosher:
“What is known
1. An El Nino event occurs about once every three to seven years,
2 As the ocean builds up heat in the western Pacific Ocean, some of the heat goes into the atmosphere through evaporation.
3.Right now the El Nino Southern Oscillation is in its “neutral” phase — neither warm nor cool
4. If we get an El nino, temperatures are likely to warm.
5. models make forecasts”
………….
Difference in opinion about what’s “known” may be around certainty. Your statement above is filled with “about, some, if, likely”.
In grad school I knew two profs (a philosopher and and physicist) who were arguing over the certainty of science. The physicist said “if you drop a pencil I can tell you the speed it falls, the distance, the kinetic energy, etc.”. The philosopher said “can your science tell me if I’ll drop the pencil”.
” The Met Office 2014 Prediction
19 December 2013 — The global average temperature in 2014 is expected to be between 0.43 C and 0.71 C above the long-term (1961-1990) average of 14.0 C, with a central estimate of 0.57 C, according to the Met Office annual global temperature forecast.”
Can anyone explain why the Met Office refers its prediction on a long term (1961-1990) average? Why not (1951-1980) or (1971-1990) or the most recent (1981-2010)? Is it because the anomaly may look higher when using 1961-1990 as the base? Or is it because they might find it difficlult to exclude UAH and RSS from their averages if they selected the later periods?
RE Seasonal Weather Forecasting in North America
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/long_range/tools/briefing/seas_veri.grid.php
NOAA predicted in November 2013 that this winter (December January February) would be warmer than usual in northeastern and south-central USA. It was actually much colder than usual in these regions.
NOAA’s recent Temperature Forecast Heidke Skill Scores are terrible (near-zero), but still seem inflated given their utter failure.
Would it be unfair to suggest that NOAA can compete head-to-head with the UK Met office for “worst seasonal weather forecaster”?
Is any organization good at this? Names?
I predict a weak El Nino towards the end of this year based on this graph/predictor
http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/uah-tropics.png
Just the facts
Here is what you asked
“Please enlighten us as to “what is known”. Do you think that “we may see a mini global warming phenomenon”?…”
And before
“Thanks for the ENSO 101 there, but if you try some reading comprehension, I never said “we know nothing”, I wrote that, “In summary, we have no idea what’s going to happen”, and per this comment;”
So let me answer your first question again
Of course we have an Idea of what is going to happen. It’s pretty simple. some people have an Idea that El nino may happen. It’s pretty clear what that means. I have an idea that the sun may go down today. The fact that I am uncertain about it doesnt make it any less of an idea.
##############
Next question was
Have you considered entering the legal field? Between you and Bill Clinton you could spend your twilight years parsing out the meaning of the words “may” and “is”…
Parsing out the meaning of the words “May” and “Is” would be Philosophy son not law. I find it ironic with your name “Just the facts” that you dont pay more attention to facts which are about what ‘is’ and ideas which can be about what “may” exist.
funny actually.
################
There is no “probable knowledge”, we are talking about forecasting here, and as I wrote several years ago;”
Of course there is probable knowledge. Further citing yourself to make an argument is really funny.
Uk.
Why are we building windmills?
It would depend. Which “we” are you referring too?
Regardless of which however you are asking for an explanation of motivations. These explanations
Are always probable not certain. So you might have
An idea and you might point to statements
About motivations but in the end you just have probable
Knowledge. Another word for that is belief. Its funny when
Skeptics are not skeptical.
Steve: I am unclear as to what you think will actually happen.
As far as I can tell all you have said is that there ‘may’ be a El Nino.
As you correctly observe, the sun ‘may’ come up tomorrow.
Care to give any actual prediction of how large or small the upcoming El Nino might be? And when it might happen? Just to get off the fence.
Solomon Green says: March 8, 2014 at 1:57 am
Can anyone explain why the Met Office refers its prediction on a long term (1961-1990) average? Why not (1951-1980) or (1971-1990) or the most recent (1981-2010)? Is it because the anomaly may look higher when using 1961-1990 as the base? Or is it because they might find it difficlult to exclude UAH and RSS from their averages if they selected the later periods?
They should be using 1981–2010 as their base period “in order to comply with a recommended World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Policy, which suggests using the latest decade for the 30-year average.”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php
However, HadCRUT4, “time series are presented as temperature anomalies (deg C) relative to 1961-1990.”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/download.html
According to the UEA CRU:
“Why are the temperatures expressed as anomalies from 1961-90?
Stations on land are at different elevations, and different countries measure average monthly temperatures using different methods and formulae. To avoid biases that could result from these problems, monthly average temperatures are reduced to anomalies from the period with best coverage (1961-90). For stations to be used, an estimate of the base period average must be calculated. Because many stations do not have complete records for the 1961-90 period several methods have been developed to estimate 1961-90 averages from neighbouring records or using other sources of data (see more discussion on this and other points in Jones et al. 2012). Over the oceans, where observations are generally made from mobile platforms, it is impossible to assemble long series of actual temperatures for fixed points. However it is possible to interpolate historical data to create spatially complete reference climatologies (averages for 1961-90) so that individual observations can be compared with a local normal for the given day of the year (more discussion in Kennedy et al. 2011).”
The UEA CRU explanation incoherent, thus as you say, it is probably “because the anomaly may look higher when using 1961-1990 as the base”.
For reference for:
UAH “the global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average”;
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2013-0-18-deg-c-again/
GISS “anomalies are relative to the 1951-80 base period means”;
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
HadCRUT4 “time series are presented as temperature anomalies (deg C) relative to 1961-1990”;
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/download.html
RSS “anomalies are computed by subtracting the mean monthly value (averaged from 1979 through 1998 for each channel) from the average brightness temperature for each month”;
http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#rss_msu_data_analysis
NOAA NCDC “the global and hemispheric anomalies are provided with respect to the period 1901-2000, the 20th century average.”
However, they also note that, “beginning in December 2010, all lower troposphere, middle troposphere, and lower stratosphere satellite data are reported here with respect to the 1981–2010 base period. Prior to December 2010, data were reported with respect to the 1979–1998 base period. Remote Sensing Systems continues to provide data to NCDC with respect to the 1979–1998 base period; however, NCDC readjusts the data to the 1981–2010 base period so that the satellite measurements are comparable.”
In terms of “why do some of the products use different reference periods?” NOAA NCDC states that:
“the maps show temperature anomalies relative to the 1981–2010 base period. This period is used in order to comply with a recommended World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Policy, which suggests using the latest decade for the 30-year average. For the global-scale averages (global land and ocean, land-only, ocean-only, and hemispheric time series), the reference period is adjusted to the 20th Century average for conceptual simplicity (the period is more familiar to more people, and establishes a longer-term average). The adjustment does not change the shape of the time series or affect the trends within it.”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php
“NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center has already changed their Normals to the 1981 – 2010 base period? Why are those Normals not available?
Many organizations, including NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center (CPC), develop their own averages and change base periods for internal use. However, NCDC’s climate Normals are the official United States Normals as recognized by the World Meteorological Organization and the main Normals made available for a variety of variables.”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php
NOAA Climate Prediction Center’s CAMS station temperature anomaly dataset. “CAMS” is an acronym for the “Climate Anomaly Monitoring System” in use at the Climate Prediction Center (CPC). “CAMS station surface air temperature anomalies for the globe with respect to the 1971-2000 climatological base period.”
http://iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu/maproom/Global/Atm_Temp/Monthly_stn_anom.html
“They should be using 1981–2010 as our base period “in order to comply with a recommended World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Policy, which suggests using the latest decade for the 30-year average.””
You can align all the data sets in their overlap period of 1979-today and thus remove the base period sampling problem and get them all on the same page.
You can go from
http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/hadcrut-giss-rss-and-uah-global-annual-anomalies-with-gaussian-annual-and-15-year-low-pass-filters-from-sources1.png
to
http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/hadcrut-giss-rss-and-uah-global-annual-anomalies-aligned-1979-2013-with-gaussian-low-pass-and-savitzky-golay-15-year-filters1.png
Steven Mosher says: March 8, 2014 at 7:13 am
So let me answer your first question again
Of course we have an Idea of what is going to happen. It’s pretty simple. some people have an Idea that El nino may happen. It’s pretty clear what that means. I have an idea that the sun may go down today. The fact that I am uncertain about it doesnt make it any less of an idea.
So now you want to argue about the meaning of the word “idea”? The point is that during February to May our predictive capacity as it relates to ENSO is essentially nil, i.e. “The period from February through May is commonly referred to as the spring barrier. During this time, models generally have the least skill to predict the coming season.”
http://iri.columbia.edu/news/la-nina-still-hanging-on/
Parsing out the meaning of the words “May” and “Is” would be Philosophy son not law.
That’s funny, and I am even more amused by the thought of Bill Clinton as a modern day philosopher, but having dealt with contract law, I’d argue that a good attorney could hold their own against any philosopher in arguing about the meaning of a word ad nauseam.
I find it ironic with your name “Just the facts” that you dont pay more attention to facts which are about what ‘is’ and ideas which can be about what “may” exist.
funny actually.
I am glad that you can amuse yourself. Perhaps you could set aside a bit of time to do some research on what’s going to happen with ENSO this year? You are clearly outwordsmithing me, but in terms of our lack of predictive capacity, you haven’t presented any evidence to the contrary.
Of course there is probable knowledge.
You seem to think you’ve stumbled on to some philosophy thread, we’re taking about “probable knowledge” about what’s going to happen with ENSO and global temperatures this year. Your perception of “probable knowledge” seems to encompass laying out the options, i.e. it might get warmer, it might get colder or it might stay the same. Show us a shred of evidence that anyone has any predictive capacity as to what ENSO will do this year.
Further citing yourself to make an argument is really funny.
I am not citing myself, I am citing the dozens of quotes and references within the article and thread that support the fact that we cannot accurately predict global temperatures a few months into the future, much less a few years or decades…
Apart from Nino4 things are running in the cool side currently:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtml
The QBO should move into the easterly phase around July, which is more conducive for La Nina:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/qbo.data
I’m looking at a trend for a more positive AO July through Oct which again would indicate a La Nina bias like last summer.
I see a La Nina coming that will last around 3 years, breaking back to El Nino in 2016/17. It should be close to a -2 event in scale. The end of this year might see a short small El Nino.
My thanks to Just The Facts for answering my questions. Which leaves me with only one more question. How can Climate Scientists really believe in their fudged data?
Thanks, also for your reponses to Steven Mosher. It would be interesting to learn just what percentage of medium term (3-12) months have been accurate. For the UK many of us have noticed that the Met Office’s predictions have a very high degree of correlation with the outcomes. Unfortunately it is negative correlation.