Reducing the future to climate: a story of climate determinism and reductionism.

An excellent twitter thread by @RodgerPielkeJr concerning a paper by Hulme, M.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
68 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dave Fair
July 9, 2019 10:50 pm

Jesus Christ! It takes Hulme and the other mental masturbators thousands of words to say that the UN IPCC climate modelers and CliSci alarmists are full of shit scaremongers. A little bit of old fashioned science has show that for years.

It is not Western society that is driving these poseurs to predict doom, but money. And “indigenous knowledge” is not a panacea; most of those practitioners are frauds.

And, yes, I have studied philosophy. Most of it is pretentious words. At least some of it makes you think, as long as you don’t take it too seriously. Believing that Nietzsche actually came to any conclusions is a mental disorder.

commieBob
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 10, 2019 12:09 am

It’s interesting to look at how and why CAGW alarmism has become orthodoxy. It’s like studying how a disease spreads. ie. epidemiology vs. pathology

I once knew a crazy teenager who could quote extensively from Nietzsche. I suspect that his derangement was, in part, caused by reading too much Nietzsche.

Jordan Peterson says that Nietzsche predicted the rise of twentieth century totalitarianism as a result of the decline in religious belief.

Dave Fair
Reply to  commieBob
July 10, 2019 1:33 am

If you read Nietzsche enough, commieBob, you will realize he said everything. His was a rambling philosophy that tried to cover all the bases of human fallibility. By predicting everything, he predicted nothing.

Human nature can be dark, but other humans bring us back to sanity or, at least, justice. Philosophy, however, leads to ideology which leads to totalitarianism. The lesson is to never buy into any philosophical school or social movement; they will all ultimately abandon you. The best approach to life is …. (……)

[Edited for language. Mod]

Phil Salmon
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 10, 2019 2:18 pm

David

If you read Nietzsche enough, commieBob, you will realize he said everything. His was a rambling philosophy that tried to cover all the bases of human fallibility. By predicting everything, he predicted nothing.

That’s a pretty good description of alarmist climate science. By predicting everything, it predicts nothing.

That’s what Karl Popper said about Marx and Engels’ economic theories and Freud’s psychology. It led to his “Conjectures and Refutations” and his discovery that true science has to be deductive and falsifiable.

Reply to  commieBob
July 10, 2019 2:33 am

Yeah I could quote chunks of Nietzsche when I was an undergrad in the late 1960s. It went along with making yourself look like Che Guevara. Nothing particularly deranged about it. And nothing to do with politics. Mostly to do with pulling chicks.

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Martin Clark
July 10, 2019 8:06 pm

Dittos to Martin. Except that chicks in the 60’s were a) easy and b) clueless about the Nietch. The thing that most disturbed me about Nietzsche and specifically Zarathustra was that he always spaked but never spoke. When people spake you know they are full of it. Thus spake I.

pochas94
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
July 12, 2019 6:25 am

He also sometimes sprach.

LdB
Reply to  commieBob
July 10, 2019 2:54 am

There have been scare stories that gained popular traction with groups of people throughout history .. wiki carries a small list but the number would be way beyond that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events

People are always worried about anything they can’t control and the future is the ultimate of that. The so called Climate Emergency is just the latest in a long line and will be written about in the same manner we view all these stupid scare predictions.

Alasdair
Reply to  LdB
July 10, 2019 3:54 am

LdB:

I have a much simpler list:
1) When my brother aged about 6 came home from church and announced that. “Mummy was the root of all evil” We can igonore that with a good giggle.
2) In medieval times the horrors of the apocalypse was rampant in many forms: “Heresy is the root of all evil”
3) In the early 20th century and ongoing: “ Capitalism is the root of all evil”.
4) In the 1930s in Germany: “ Jews are the root of all evil”.
5) Today we have: “CO2 is the root of all evil”.

All these Memes have similar consequences definitely to be avoided and essentially are driven by the few to grasp control over the many.

The disenchanted in society inevitably seek a scapegoat for their situation and hence fall foul under the influence of these Memes which act like viral infections to addle their minds.
We live in dangerous times under the current CO2 Meme now being propagated by practices devoid of basic ethics, which again is a characteristic of all these Memes.

Rocketscientist
Reply to  Alasdair
July 10, 2019 9:32 am

IMHO “Ignorance and Fear” are the parents of all evils.

Duane
Reply to  Alasdair
July 10, 2019 10:59 am

Since it is really really hard to get people emotionally invested in attacking an invisible colorless odorless trace gas in the atmosphere, and demanding that it be killed .. the climate alarmists had to invent another boogie man as a stand in for the carbon … thus they invented the “climate denier”, selecting a particularly odious pejorative image associated with the evils of corporatism and those apologists and “deniers” who were all obviously beyond the pale.

Just as the Nazis had to invent cartoon images of Jews, with grotesquely huge noses, evil looking eyes, and generally of the type that makes Quasimodo look like a Hollywood movie star by comparison, along with “blood libel” stories about Jews killing and eating innocent little children and such … the modern climate alarmists have created these caricatures of the evil, oil-company-money-funded evil “climate deniers”. But these images are really hard to sustain with a straight face.

We in the USA did the same with Japanese (we called them “Japs” back in the day) in World War Two, when all of the cartoon pics of Japanese featured grotesque looking warped little guys with huge glasses and buck teeth that stuck way out the front of their faces. Like little buck toothed near sighted Quasimodos. White people in the USA also did similarly in their portrayals of black Americans, promoting stereotypical “Stepin Fetchits”, blackfaced minstrels, and big boobed mammies and Aunt Jemimas as being representative of their entire race. Make’em look stupid and ridiculous, so therefore you don’t have to pretend they’re human and give’em any human rights.

Needless to say, the climate alarmists have not had near the success of the Nazis did in making evil cartoon figures of us skeptics, or as we did portaying the Japanese similarly. Though not without the alarmists trying really yard.

But in order to sustain any evil-mongering ideology and its attendant propaganda, it is always necessary to personalize the “enemy” and create the cartoon character that everyone can glom onto and love to hate.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  commieBob
July 10, 2019 8:31 am

Someone once said that he had no need for police or religion to keep him honest, peaceful, fair, considerate etc. but that both were essential for the majority that needs rules, guidance and fear of consequences. This is is not lost on those who would govern and control our lives, for example, under the pretext of manmade catastrophic climate

Perhaps 3% of the population is a reasonable estimate of the committed, thinking dissidents to elitist governance. Visible dissidents in the very repressive USSR and The Third Reich were much fewer than this, of course.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  commieBob
July 15, 2019 6:23 pm

Nitzsche predicted Hitler because he recognized a rapidly rising technical / technological revolution, especially in steel production and above all – that the contemporary society would not be able to keep up mentally.

Susan
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 10, 2019 3:10 am

I stop as soon as the word ‘hegemony’ appears!

Editor
Reply to  Susan
July 10, 2019 10:00 pm

Just replace all references to “hegemony” with “shrubbery” and Monty Python will rise to save the day.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 10, 2019 9:31 am

“Believing that Nietzsche actually came to any conclusions is a mental disorder.” – Quote of the week.

July 9, 2019 11:02 pm

The current “ensemble” AOGCMs (climate models) must die if science is to survive this assault of scientific method and logic being replaced with “consensus” and group think. The modelers are nothing but an archiplego of Feynman’s cargo cultists, each hoping “climate” will prove their model correct and thus the most virtuous.
Most of the climate modeling nitwits actually come across as seeming to think “climate” will see the wisdom of their models and conform to their outputs. Climate of course doesn’t give a damn about anything in CMIP 3/5/6 or anything of the human imagination, of which those simulations are most certainly.
But as the first IPCC honestly reported, the complex, chaotic, non-linear nature of climate means it will never conform to any model, except by chance after the fact, simply becasue their are so many models now. Climate modeling is most certainly living in the realm of junk science, and we risk trillions of dollars of wealth chasing something that can’t be predicted, mainly so a few billionaires can get very wealthy in the West on their renewable energy scams, while China and Russia laugh their butts-off at our economic suicide.

Petit_Barde
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 10, 2019 1:10 am

The irony is that the only James Hansen’s scenario that seems to agree with reality is the scenario C (no increase of human CO2 emission since year 2000).

This says it all about this pathetic pseudo-science masquerade and the total failure of these junk models.

michael hart
July 9, 2019 11:32 pm

+1 Dave Fair. Saved me the trouble.

Pielke Jr is wrong in one important respect when he says climate policy is a failure. It keeps pseuds like Hulme and Mann in employment at great cost to the rest of us. A cost which is far far greater than the simple sum of their wages.

Chris Hanley
July 10, 2019 12:14 am

Climate Change is historically deterministic like its predecessor Marxism; Marx saw himself as the ‘Darwin of society’ and his theory of the natural progress from feudalism to communism as scientific as Darwin’s theory of natural selection.
Why this supposedly inevitable progress had to be brought about by violent revolution and the deaths of millions is a puzzle.
Just as Terry Pratchett’s ‘retrophenologists’ confirmed their theory of personality causing bumps by hitting the subjects on the head with a hammer, CC practitioners confirm their theory by ‘adjusting’ observed temperatures to follow the inevitable trajectory of future global temperatures as per their models.

Robert L Gipson
Reply to  Chris Hanley
July 11, 2019 12:57 pm

The difference between Marx and the Warmists is that Marx actually believed in his economic theories, which–while they bore some validity– at their core were a knee-jerk, romantic overreaction to the industrial revolution, the theories of Darwin, and the widespread anti-monarchist movements. The fundamental flaw of Marx’s economic theories was that they were predicated on a finite productivity. Darwin’s theories were likewise flawed; science is only now acknowledging that the vast biodiversity cannot be explained by canonical Darwinian/Mendelian mechanisms, that there are Lamarkian mechanisms at play, despite Lamark having been pilloried by “science” for over a century.

The warmists–with a few exceptions–don’t believe in their anti-CO2 tripe beyond their realization that it is a gold mine for those therein vested. It’s nothing more than a new, crushing form of taxation, like the lottery. The first Big Lie they had to foist (by endless repetition) was that Big Oil was in “opposition” to the warmists…that Big Oil will “lose” profits from a CO2 tax. When nothing could be further from the truth. It was Big Oil who concocted the whole scam in the first place.

July 10, 2019 12:19 am

I have said this so many times. At the root of this whole farce about
Climate and weather is still the key card. Its called CO2. Prove that as a scientific fact that CO2 is a good gas, and the rest is words, as Shakepeare would have said, or did he, “”Much chatter about nothing.””

So many books and learned discussion about what should be a simple thing.

What about it President TRUMP.

MJE VK5ELL

Reply to  Michael
July 10, 2019 3:04 am

“Full of sound and fury and signifying nothing”. (King Lear) Or possibly ‘Much Ado About Nothing’.

But Shakespeare can often be relied on for a sensible answer!

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Newminster
July 11, 2019 12:21 am

King Lear? More like The Scottish Play.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Michael
July 10, 2019 9:43 am

No substance is good or bad; that is a moral judgement. Substances have properties which make them useful or harmful to humans depending on the situation. CO2 is vital to the food chain since all plants rely on it, but in sealed environments like submarines or spacecraft, we must carefully monitor the levels of CO2 because if it gets too high the humans inside will suffer and could die. I know that the scientifically literate know this, but it’s important to point out to the lay person.

Robert L Gipson
Reply to  Michael
July 11, 2019 12:35 pm

If it wasn’t CO2 they’d use something else. I think they probably drew lots from a hat on what the “threat” would be. That is, the one that could best stick to the wall.

Steven Mosher
July 10, 2019 12:56 am

excellent piece

https://sci-hub.tw/10.1086/661274

probably too much for many here, but a pretty solid history of ideas.

Petit_Barde
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 10, 2019 1:18 am

Indeed and for most of us :

– downright inaccessible link ….

Javier
Reply to  Petit_Barde
July 10, 2019 4:29 am

Sci Hub has been blocked in France, but you can find unblocking instructions here:
https://sci-hub.now.sh/

Dave Fair
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 10, 2019 1:41 am

“probably too much for many here, but a pretty solid history of ideas.” (…….) You are not all that intelligent compared to the people who post on WUWT.

Selling much solar magic to the proles?

[Edited for language. C’mon, people, enough already. mod]

EdB
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 10, 2019 2:11 am

Worked for me.. thanks.
Yes, excellent description of the reductionist, simplistic mind of programmers versus the inventive, creative mind of humans to adapt, change, and improve.
There’s more to heaven and earth than is in your code!

LdB
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 10, 2019 2:58 am

Oh look it’s the layman pretend scientist who thinks he is above others .. I think your ego exceeds your knowledge or education.

Blunderbunny
Reply to  LdB
July 10, 2019 3:51 am

Not that Mosh needs me to stand up for him. But I’ve always found him to be both bright and articulate. He started his journey as a sceptic, he did a lot of work, called out bad things… people pretending to be other people springs to mind… he also started working with others. During which he came to be more orthodox in his views. I dont personally agree with him, but I respect both him and his journey. Plus, I think sceptical Mosher’s still in there…. might be wrong but there you go… he certainly got off his arse and got involved… so, layman… he ain’t.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Blunderbunny
July 10, 2019 6:33 am

He’s still a skeptic, as far as I can tell, but he just can’t help but belittle everyone. Even on those rare times when he sounds sensible and reasonable, people push back, because he has reaped what he has sown.

LdB
Reply to  Blunderbunny
July 10, 2019 9:03 am

I don’t care if he is a skeptic or a true believer he is not remotely a scientist by any imagination or definition. You could ask a pile of things any real science graduate could answer in heartbeat and Mosher simply would not have a clue. The only thing he is qualified in being English Lit you would barely know by his posts. So like Jeff Alberts I find it a bit rich that he should try and belittle others.

kim
Reply to  Blunderbunny
July 10, 2019 5:36 pm

Moshe is from the class of lukewarmers who believe something should be done about it.

New memo, moshe. The warming that we can accomplish will be net beneficial. And the greening would be miraculous if we didn’t understand it so well.

AnthroCO2 is filling billions of bellies, cumulatively, eventually many many billions.

Capiche? I thought you would.
=======================

kim
Reply to  kim
July 10, 2019 5:47 pm

The campaign of fear and guilt could only have been temporarily effective. You should have snapped to that. But, I still love you, most days anyways.
===================================

beng135
Reply to  kim
July 11, 2019 6:14 am

Exactly. Primitive man dealt w/a full glacial transition w/hundreds of feet of sea-level rise — in fact prospered after it was mostly over. Supposedly modern man running around in circles, wringing hands, yelling & screaming about a degree or so temp change? Hard to believe…

kim
Reply to  Blunderbunny
July 10, 2019 5:44 pm

I concur with Blunderbunny.

Also, nobody’s perfect, not even kim.
========================

TimTheToolMan
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 10, 2019 3:18 am

This link was ok for me

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228496695_Reducing_the_Future_to_Climate_A_Story_of_Climate_Determinism_and_Reductionism

Mosher, I’m surprised you’re backing this one. Perhaps I’m mistakenly recalling you backing all those arguments where you sided with the probably-not-causal, reductionist arguments made by the warmists. But I dont think I am…

Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 10, 2019 3:29 am

Flesch Reading Ease: 20+. Gunning Fog Index: 20+. University Graduate level. The whole purpose of words is to communicate ideas. I was taught that serious writing intended to communicate should be understood by the average undergraduate, and then only if it was a specialist subject and intended for specialists.

Anything above 20 on either of these scales is only meant to show how clever the writer (thinks he) is.

The GF index for this post is 13.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 10, 2019 4:06 am

All those ignorant denier yahoos will never follow the nuanced esoterica. Only those of us with superior intellect and refined sensibilities could be worthy.

Are there meds to treat narcissistic personality disorder? Just asking.

Joe Campbell
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 10, 2019 8:18 am

An extraordinary essay – thanks for bringing it out for us. But, jeez, Mosher, we can do without the snark…

Phil Salmon
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 11, 2019 11:55 am

It’s easy enough to open if you just follow the instructions.

Phil Salmon
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 11, 2019 12:08 pm

Steve could be finally acquiescing to the epistemological arguments of Karl Popper, who also argued against reductionism in so far as it was inductive, and in favour of a more deterministic deductive scientific method. This after having argued here against Popper and in favour of uber-inductive climate models.

The words of Francis Thompson’s “Hound if Heaven” could aptly apply to SM’s futile flight from Karl Popper:

I fled Him, down the nights and down the days;
I fled Him, down the arches of the years;
I fled Him, down the labyrinthine ways
Of my own mind; and in the midst of tears
I hid from Him, and under running laughter.
Up vistaed hopes I sped;
And shot, precipitated,
Adown Titanic glooms of chasmed fears,
From those strong Feet that followed, followed after.
But with unhurrying chase,
And unperturbed pace,
Deliberate speed, majestic instancy,
They beat and a Voice beat
More instant than the Feet
‘All things betray thee, who betrayest Me’.

OK Karl – you got me!

FabioC.
July 10, 2019 1:56 am

There’s something that makes me suspicious about this kind of approach:

” The argument put forward here is that the new climate reductionism is driven by the hegemony exercised by the predictive natural sciences over contingent, imaginative, and humanistic accounts of social life and visions of the future. It is a hegemony that lends disproportionate power in political and social discourse to model- based descriptions of putative future climates.”

There is a serious risk of diminishing or even denying value to the hard sciences even where there should be no dispute that they are the best tool available.

Bill T
Reply to  FabioC.
July 10, 2019 3:22 am

“There is a serious risk of diminishing or even denying value to the hard sciences even where there should be no dispute that they are the best tool available.”

Actually, they are the ones destroying scientific credibility. They parrot “97% of scientists…” and that includes Obama when he was President.

And I say that is good. If you believe science has the answers you have transformed it into a religion since you are operating on faith. When I started my MS in Chem I suddenly learned that all the absolutes I learned in my BS studies were no longer absolutes. It was like shifting from a white lab coat to a black one with all sorts of celestial symbols all over it (ref: The Sorcerer’s Apprentice”).

JonasM
Reply to  Bill T
July 10, 2019 8:30 am

This is why I use the word “confidence’ when speaking of science or the scientific method. The word ‘faith’ is often used by folks as a synonym for ‘confidence’ when speaking about science. I try to be more precise. I have confidence in the power of the scientific method.

Science generally does have the answers. There’s just no promise of whether it has them now, nor how long it may take to find them.

FabioC.
Reply to  Bill T
July 10, 2019 6:54 pm

Oh, I am well aware that science just isn’t equipped to answer all questions, and I have grown less and less tolerant of scientism.

Returning to the paper in question, I see that its conclusions are somewhat distant from the abstract. It is almost like “hegemony”, “disproportionate” and “power” are buzzwords that must be there in order to be published. Once that’s out of the way, one can do some actual reasoning.

Flight Level
July 10, 2019 2:10 am

Maya priesthood, freaking religious science practices, sacrifices and other scaremonger strategies reached, as historian/archeologists say a peak in their complex influence on society.

Stones are all that’s left. And tons of plausible yet unconfirmed theories.

History is a wheel. *plamface*

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Flight Level
July 10, 2019 6:36 am

“*plamface*”

Sounds painful.

Flight Level
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
July 10, 2019 10:58 am

Indeed…

July 10, 2019 3:05 am

Very good comments, thank you Joel.

My comments follow, with excerpts from https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/

THE IPCC’S CLIMATE COMPUTER MODELS ARE WORTHLESS NONSENSE, since they are based on the false assumption of that atmospheric CO2 is the primary driver of global climate.

However, this model equation works quite well:

“5. UAH LT Global Temperatures can be predicted ~4 months in the future with just two parameters:
UAHLT (+4 months) = 0.2*Nino34Anomaly + 0.15 – 5*SatoGlobalAerosolOpticalDepth (Figs. 5a and 5b)

Note the suppression of air temperatures during and after the 1982-83 El Nino, due to two century-scale volcanoes El Chichon and Mount Pinatubo.

Much of the atmospheric warming from ~1982-1996 (blue trend) was a recovery from the two major volcanoes – Nino34 SST’s (purple trend) cooled slightly.”
______

NOW WE SHOULD DEVELOP A GOOD PREDICTIVE MODEL FOR NINO34 SST, which is probably a function of TSI and ENSO. Since ENSO is ~irregularly cyclical, maybe we can just ignore it in long-term climate models; alternatively we can simulate it with a ~60-year period PDO assumption until we better understand it.
______

THE IPCC MODELS REVERSE CAUSE AND EFFECT, by falsely assuming that the future (CO2) is driving the past (temperature).

“6. The sequence is Nino34 Area SST warms, seawater evaporates, Tropical atmospheric humidity increases, Tropical atmospheric temperature warms, Global atmospheric temperature warms, atmospheric CO2 increases (Figs.6a and 6b).

Other factors such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc. may also cause significant increases in atmospheric CO2. However, global temperature drives CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature.”
______

THE IPCC CLIMATE MODEL ARE DESIGNED TO CREATE FALSE ALARM, by assuming excessively high values for climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2, for which there is ample contrary evidence.

“9. Even if ALL the observed global warming is ascribed to increasing atmospheric CO2, the calculated maximum climate sensitivity to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2 is only about 1 degree C, which is too low to cause dangerous global warming.

Christy and McNider (2017) analysed UAH Lower Troposphere data since 1979:
Reference: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/2017_christy_mcnider-1.pdf

Lewis and Curry (2018) analysed HadCRUT4v5 Surface Temperature data since 1859:
Reference: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1

Climate computer models used by the IPCC and other global warming alarmists employ climate sensitivity values much higher than 1C/doubling, in order to create false fears of dangerous global warming.”

icisil
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
July 10, 2019 5:00 am

“5. UAH LT Global Temperatures can be predicted ~4 months in the future with just two parameters:
UAHLT (+4 months) = 0.2*Nino34Anomaly + 0.15 – 5*SatoGlobalAerosolOpticalDepth (Figs. 5a and 5b)”

Help me decipher this. Did NOAA just change their Nino3.4 anomaly forecast from El Nino to La Nina (E3)? Cooling of one degree in SST into 2020?

comment image

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/CFSv2_body.html

Reply to  icisil
July 10, 2019 8:33 am

Icisil wrote:

“Help me decipher this. Did NOAA just change their Nino3.4 anomaly forecast from El Nino to La Nina (E3)? Cooling of one degree in SST into 2020?”
My response: Thank you icisil for your worthwhile post.

It does look like the “forecast ensemble mean” for Nino3.4 has cooled ~1C from their E1 (first 10 days of last 30 days) forecast here
comment image
to their E3 (last 10 days of last 30 days) forecast here
comment image

While the “forecast ensemble mean” has cooled by ~1C in the above time frame, the plots show a very large variance in the model runs, which makes me question how good the model actually is. It would be helpful to compare the historic predictions of the “forecast ensemble means” with the actual measured Nino3.4 anomalies, to get measurement of model predictive skill.

If anyone finds such a comparison of actual vs predicted Nino3.4 anomalies from CFS2, please post it here.

Regards, Allan

Background info and data is here:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/CFSv2_body.html
SEASONAL CLIMATE FORECAST FROM CFSv2
Jul 2019 to Mar 2020 (Updated: Wed Jul 10 06:36:50 UTC 2019)
This page displays seasonal climate anomalies from the NCEP coupled forecast system model version 2 (CFSv2). Forecasts are from initial conditions of the last 30 days, with 4 runs from each day. Forecast ensembles consist of 40 members from initial a period of 10 days. The 1st ensemble (E1) is from the earliest 10 days, the 2nd ensemble (E2) from the second earliest 10 days, and 3rd ensemble (E3) from the latest 10 days. Anomalies are with respect to 1999-2010 hindcast climatology. Temporal correlations between hindcasts and observations are used as skill mask for spatial anomalies. Standard deviation to normalize anomalies is the average standard deviation of individual hindcast members. For SSTs, anomalies with respect to 1982-2010 climatology are available here.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/CFSv2SST8210.html

The NCEP Climate Forecast System CFSv2 model is described here
https://cfs.ncep.noaa.gov/
and the paper is here
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2010BAMS3001.1

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
July 10, 2019 12:39 pm

A map of Nino Areas is here:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/enso/indicators/sst/

Actual Nino area SST’s have been dropping sharply since Nov-Dec2018.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/sstoi.indices

Yr Mon Nino1+2 Anom Nino3 Anom Nino4 Anom Nino3.4 Anom
2018 10 21.23 0.43 25.78 0.86 29.61 0.95 27.55 0.86
2018 11 22.27 0.68 26.02 1.05 29.59 0.95 27.64 0.99
2018 12 23.60 0.78 26.12 0.98 29.52 1.03 27.53 0.96
2019 1 25.10 0.58 26.17 0.54 29.00 0.70 27.08 0.51
2019 2 26.45 0.31 26.91 0.55 29.06 0.96 27.41 0.68
2019 3 26.80 0.16 27.89 0.76 29.10 0.91 28.22 1.01
2019 4 25.68 0.08 28.17 0.67 29.24 0.73 28.60 0.82
2019 5 24.38 0.10 27.69 0.60 29.58 0.79 28.57 0.72
2019 6 22.62 -0.26 26.81 0.38 29.62 0.78 28.24 0.59

It is surprising to me that the NCEP Climate Forecast System CFSv2 model would only reflect this significant cooling in the last ten days.

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
July 10, 2019 2:53 pm

The Nino areas are shown here:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/enso/indicators/sst/
The Nino3.4 area extends from 120-170 degrees West, and +/- 5 degrees N/S of the equator.

Note the “cold tongue” extending west into the equatorial Pacific as of July 9, 2019.
It now extends ~halfway across the Nino3.4 area, past 140 degrees West.
comment image

Here are Pacific Ocean temperature contours since January 2019:
comment image
comment image
comment image
comment image
comment image
comment image
comment image
comment image
comment image

Watch this space…

icisil
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
July 10, 2019 6:19 pm

I wonder if that means we’re officially in la Nina, and if so when NOAA will announce it.

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
July 10, 2019 7:57 pm

“Each country and island nation has a different threshold for what constitutes a La Niña event, which is tailored to their specific interests.[4] For example, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology looks at the trade winds, SOI, weather models and sea surface temperatures in the Niño 3 and 3.4 regions before declaring that a La Niña event has started.[5] However, the Japan Meteorological Agency declares that a La Niña event has started when the average five-month sea surface temperature deviation for the NINO.3 region is more than 0.5 °C (0.90 °F) cooler for six consecutive months or longer.”(wiki)

So not yet.

fred250
Reply to  icisil
July 10, 2019 3:12 pm

“5. UAH LT Global Temperatures can be predicted ~4 months in the future with just two parameters:”

Please do so.

Reply to  fred250
July 10, 2019 11:03 pm

Fred – See Figs 5a and 5b in my paper at
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/

The red line in predicted, the blue line is actuals.

Go to the Excel spreadsheet to find the data sources.

July 10, 2019 3:32 am

There were earlier scares involving senior scientists and lawmakers in the USA. One that is very well documented is the 1970-80s scare that man made chemicals were creating an epidemic of new cancers that needed government intervention to stop or reduce the magnitude of the imagined uepidemic. Told in 800 careful pages by Edith Efron in “The Apocalyptics”. This is valuable because we have the full cycle of a major scare described, including how it ended and how much damage survived in the form of crippling Acts and Regs that persist, despite being passed as one-off emergency measures commensurate with the (invented) serious problem.
The end of this cancer scare was marked by proponents of the scare crossing the floor, at first one by one, then in groups. It seems to me that this 2013 offering by Mike Hulme is a toe in the water in that direction re climate change.
It is most helpful to have these scares recorded in scholarly manner as Edith Efron did. The Roger Pielke input to date has been most important and it needs to be woven into the bigger picture of the climate change scare. In coming decades, these scares should be more easily nipped in the bud as earlier ones are better and more fully characterised. Is anyone acting in a thankless way to document the authoritative chronology of the climate change scare, or are we still too piecemeal? It is an important task, but it has to be so correct that it can withstand intense attack. Geoff S

paul courtney
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
July 10, 2019 12:33 pm

Geoff: Sounds WAY too important to be left to chance, better ask the government to do it. Congressional committee too slow and cumbersome, we’ll need a whole department to make sure it never gets done.

Linda Goodman
July 10, 2019 3:46 am

Seems the intention is eco-communism, based on the monster of big lies. And I’m no bible thumper but carbon is 6 protons, 6 neutrons & 6 electrons, the human body is mostly carbon and globalists intend to replace cash with a carbon card, then a chip, if they pull of the greatest fraud in human history. And only the truth shall set us free.

pochas94
Reply to  Linda Goodman
July 12, 2019 7:06 am

Sometimes the only way to make a living is to join the mob.

July 10, 2019 10:00 am

Climate Alarmism keeps a lot of people in money and employment and so is very powerfully defended. People like Michael Mann cost us a great deal more than just their salary. The waste of money brought about by Climate Alarmism is stupendous, in billions if not trillions of dollars. It reduces employment, wastes our money and depresses people, It also kills bats, bird and deprives s plants of needed CO2.

Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
July 11, 2019 4:54 am

Hi Nicholas – the costs are a lot higher.

Radical greens are the great killers of our age, rivalling Stalin, Hitler and Mao.

There is a reason why I published this paper on the 4th of July.

Regards, Allan MacRae in Calgary

“THE COST TO SOCIETY OF RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM”
By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., July 4, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/04/the-cost-to-society-of-radical-environmentalism/

9. Conclusion

Radical green extremists have cost society trillions of dollars and many millions of lives. Banning DDT and radical green opposition to golden rice blinded and killed tens of millions of children.

Green energy and CO2 abatement schemes, driven by false fears of catastrophic global warming, have severely damaged the environment and have squandered trillions of dollars of scarce global resources that should have been allocated to serve the real, immediate needs of humanity. Properly allocated, these wasted funds might have ended malaria and world hunger.

The number of shattered lives caused by radical-green activism rivals the death tolls of the great killers of the 20th Century – Stalin, Hitler and Mao – radical greens advocate similar extreme-left totalitarian policies and are indifferent to their resulting environmental damage and human suffering… … and if unchecked, radical environmentalism will cost us our freedom.

kim
July 10, 2019 5:51 pm

I’m also very much glad to see Pielke Fils back in combat. I regret to say I’ve called him cowardly after his dash to the sidelines after the 535 thing, and pushback @ his job.

Please accept my apology. I’ve misjudged. Heh, to err is human.
=================================================

%d bloggers like this: