By Steve Goddard
Yesterday, the Guardian reported :
Meteorologists have developed remarkably effective techniques for predicting global climate changes caused by greenhouse gases. One paper, by Stott and Myles Allen of Oxford University, predicted in 1999, using temperature data from 1946 to 1996, that by 2010 global temperatures would rise by 0.8C from their second world war level. This is precisely what has happened.
Huh?
The temperature rise since WWII reported by CRU is 0.4C (not 0.8C) and it occurred prior to the date of the study. Climate models use thousands of empirically derived back-fit parameters. Given that fact, the only thing remarkable is that their prediction was so far off the mark. Their forecast is the equivalent of me predicting that Chelsea wins 12-0 yesterday. Off by a factor of two, and after the fact.
I recently attended a meeting of weather modelers, who told me that their models are effective for about 72 hours, not 60 years. GCMs use the same underlying models as weather modelers, plus more parameters which may vary over time.
h/t to reader M White
Meteorologists have developed remarkably effective techniques for predicting global climate changes caused by greenhouse gases.
Let me guess: some of the techniques involve shutting down rural stations, splicing non-calibrated data sets together, a campaign of airport stations, and interpolating selected stations over vast distances (like 1200 km).
Overwhelming odds favor the prescribed outcome.
Cost: loss of credibility and growing skepticism.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 15, 2010 at 2:13 pm
“The study used data from 1946 on. So, let’s see:
dT for 1946 was -0.204, for 1998, it was +0.548, for an increase of +0.762 [i.e. 0.8 to one decimal place].”
So it had already happened before the prediction. Excellent find, Leif.
Now explain how they used data from 1946 -1996 to make that specific prediction for “by 2010”.
Jaye says:
August 15, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Yes but in the absence of substantive comments as one’s “corrections” approach minutia, then one has likely lost the argument.
There really is no argument:
1) The starting year for the analysis is 1946.
2) There are strong indications that 2010 will be the hottest year ‘ever’ [ http://www.physorg.com/news200991063.html ],
3) From 1) and 2) it follows that the increase is 0.8C as the Article referenced in the Guardian states is correct [to the extent that our data is correct – but Goddard assumes that too, so no argument there either].
Glenn says:
August 15, 2010 at 9:34 pm
So it had already happened before the prediction. Excellent find, Leif.
Indeed. The prediction was made in 1999, if one can trust Goddard quoting correctly.
Now explain how they used data from 1946 -1996 to make that specific prediction for “by 2010″.
Not my prediction. Read their article to find out.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“The study used data from 1946 on.”
On to when? The present?
Dunno, doc; looks closer to +0.6C to me.
And with El Nino in swing (and the Monarch butterflies migrating south early again), I wouldn’t bet on 2010 breaking any records.
Glenn says:
August 15, 2010 at 9:58 pm
“The study used data from 1946 on.”
On to when? The present?
Read what Goddard wrote: “By Steve Goddard CRU Temperature Anomalies Yesterday, the Guardian reported : Meteorologists have developed remarkably effective techniques for predicting global climate changes caused by greenhouse gases. One paper, by Stott and Myles Allen of Oxford University, predicted in 1999, using temperature data from 1946 to 1996, that by 2010 global temperatures would rise by 0.8C”
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 15, 2010 at 9:56 pm
You said (and snipped here):
“The study used data from 1946 on. So, let’s see:
dT for 1946 was -0.204, for 1998, it was +0.548, for an increase of +0.762 [i.e. 0.8 to one decimal place].”
So it had already happened before the prediction. Excellent find, Leif.
Indeed. The prediction was made in 1999, if one can trust Goddard quoting correctly.
Now explain how they used data from 1946 -1996 to make that specific prediction for “by 2010″.
“Not my prediction. Read their article to find out.”
You’ve made claims about it, you read it. If you like I will refresh your memory in that regard. In the meantime, unless you have more data to go on than is in the thread, explain how a prediction made in 1999 that came true in 1998 is a prediction, Leif. Apparently you like to play with people while you are insulting them. Take some of your own medicine.
You might also want to support your contention that 2010 will be higher than any other, before 2010 is over.
Is there something complicated about this math?
The HadCrut WWII average (1939-1945) is -0.010
The HadCrut average for the last five years is 0.41
The most recent full year is 0.438
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt
No matter how you figure it, the increase since WWII rounds to 0.4C.
It is not 0.8C. It is not 0.6C
Why are we having this discussion?
Glenn says:
August 15, 2010 at 10:06 pm
explain how a prediction made in 1999 that came true in 1998 is a prediction
Their prediction was not for 1998, but for 2010.
You might also want to support your contention that 2010 will be higher than any other, before 2010 is over.
http://www.physorg.com/news200991063.html
stevengoddard says:
August 15, 2010 at 10:09 pm
Why are we having this discussion?
Because the starting year was 1946, and the ending year 2010, not 1939 and 2009.
Glenn says:
August 15, 2010 at 10:06 pm
You might also want to support your contention that 2010 will be higher than any other, before 2010 is over.
Every month of 2010 has been warmer than the same month in 2009:
2009 0.377 0.374 0.370 0.410 0.402 0.500
2010 0.490 0.474 0.571 0.559 0.508 0.522
Unless you can show otherwise, I’ll take that as a good indication that the rest of the year will not be much different.
“Leif Svalgaard says:
August 15, 2010 at 1:04 pm”
And many people forget that more people died after “The Great War” (The war to end all wars) from an influenza epideminc than those who died in actual combat.
“MartinGAtkins says:
August 15, 2010 at 1:53 pm”
Fortunatly, a court rulled those TV ads were misleading and inaccurate and were pulled off air some months back.
stevengoddard says:
August 15, 2010 at 10:09 pm
Why are we having this discussion?
“Because the starting year was 1946…”
Their 1999 Nature paper [ http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999Natur.399..569T ], explicitly states in the abstract, even:
“For the warming from 1946 to 1996 regardless of any possible amplification of solar or volcanic influence, we exclude purely natural forcing, and attribute it largely to the anthropogenic components”
You can disagree with their conclusion, but not with their starting year, 1946.
Leif,
This article is a critique of the misinformation in the Guardian piece. The title of the article is “The Guardian Fails Their O-Levels”
The Guardian article which I am critiquing states :
Nothing in that sentence was correct.
If you want to write up a critique of a paper published in Nature, please feel free. This article does not discuss that.
“Ian H says:
August 15, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Something happening in New Zealand you all might want to look at
From the article you linked:
Court action against New Zealand’s state-owned weather and atmospheric research body is “stupid” and just creating confusion, University of Otago pro-vice chancellor of sciences Keith Hunter says.”
Well, Mr. Hunter of UoO and all at NIWA have a vested interest in keeping their taxpayer funded employment and perks. Now that the NZ National Govn’t has implemented it’s ETS, everything in NZ is just that mcu more expensive. I know may NZ’ers who are considering leaving NZ permanently. I recall a weatherman posting an article on the same website sometime back in 2001/2002 I think it was where he stated that temperatures had not shown any significant change since 1941. The article was quickly removed (Wished I’d kept a cached copy).
Unfortunately, the federal election is this w/e in Australia. Sadly, with a strongly pro-AGW MSM many first-time and, in particular, younger (Gen-Y, Gen-Now and Gen-Next types) people appear to have fallen for the misinformation and hype. An additional ~1.3 million new voters registered this year. Australian Labor and The Greens will form a coalition and follow NZ with an ETS. What is funny is that Mr. Brown, leader of The Green party, states that his policy is to tax the big polluters (That’s the carbon polluters of course, must mean concrete industry I suppose) which won’t cost us (Voters? Consumers?) a thing. Yeah right Mr. Brown. We will then follow closely behind, in economic destruction, the likes of Spain, Greece and Italy etc etc.
Leif Svalgaard
Five out of seven months in 2010 have been lower than 1998
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
Clearly not headed for a record.
stevengoddard says:
August 15, 2010 at 11:01 pm
This article is a critique of the misinformation in the Guardian piece.
So you are criticizing their use of the term ‘second world war’ [should have been 1946], not the [very likely correct] predicted 0.8C increase. Thanks for the clarification.
Leif,
You quoted ““For the warming from 1946 to 1996.” Then you said “You can disagree with their conclusion, but not with their starting year, 1946.”
How about their ending year, 1996 from the same sentence? Temperatures rose 0.4C from 1946 to 1996.
Sorry, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.
In order to get an increase of 0.8C in hadCrut, you would have to go back almost 100 years.
Can we move on, please?
The Guardian gets it wrong? I’m shocked, I tell you. Shocked!
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 15, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Glenn says:
August 15, 2010 at 9:58 pm
“The study used data from 1946 on.”
On to when? The present?
“Read what Goddard wrote: “By Steve Goddard CRU Temperature Anomalies Yesterday, the Guardian reported : Meteorologists have developed remarkably effective techniques for predicting global climate changes caused by greenhouse gases. One paper, by Stott and Myles Allen of Oxford University, predicted in 1999, using temperature data from 1946 to 1996, that by 2010 global temperatures would rise by 0.8C””
I did read the article,what Steven wrote and what you wrote. You’re comparing individual year data. Global temperature has already risen by .8C, in 1998, the year before the prediction, and 1998 is “by 2010”.
You claimed “Which it did precisely, so good prediction”. It seems the onus is on you to support how they arrived at that “good prediction” with 1946 – 1996 data.
stevengoddard says:
August 15, 2010 at 11:14 pm
Clearly not headed for a record.
“the January-July period [of 2010] was the warmest first seven months of any year on record, averaging 58.1 F (14.5 C). In second place was January-July of 1998.” [National Climatic Data Center reported Friday].
stevengoddard says:
August 15, 2010 at 11:21 pm
How about their ending year, 1996 from the same sentence? Temperatures rose 0.4C from 1946 to 1996.
and they predicted another 0.4 for the following 14 years [which has indeed come to pass]. Clear enough?
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 15, 2010 at 10:29 pm
Glenn says:
August 15, 2010 at 10:06 pm
explain how a prediction made in 1999 that came true in 1998 is a prediction
“Their prediction was not for 1998, but for 2010.”
No, it was stated in the article “BY 2010”. But it amazes me that you can claim with a straight face, especially when you are holding on to the prediction being for 2010, already done, and a good prediction: “Which it did precisely, so good prediction”.
Glenn says:
August 15, 2010 at 11:33 pm
and 1998 is “by 2010″.
Looks like fuzzy math to me, but perhaps my standards are higher than yours…