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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“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.