Another month of data...in fact two months for the ENSO statistics:
These 3m centered means lag reality by quite a long way - the current index (27 Sept) is about -1.5. The red line should track the blue one quite closely for the rest of the year, I think. And here is the updated temperature, which is still rising (in terms of 12m lagged average) but not by much:
Here I'm using the 3v version of the data (which I prefer), the non-v version also has August data in and these are clearly cooler, so things are likely to head downhill from here.
Chris R suggested that it might have been better to show year-to-date values rather than 12m lagged average. I chose the latter partly due to Hansen's discussion (pdf here) where he argues that 12m rolling averages are more scientifically relevant, as there is nothing special about the year end that justifies focussing on this calendar period to the exclusion of (say) May-April. I suspect this issue only piqued his interest due to the fact that the 1998 calendar year temp was also so close to the max of any 12m period (as you can see from the above pic), so the calendar year 1998 shows up as particularly hot on the standard annual (calendar year) data plot.
These 3m centered means lag reality by quite a long way - the current index (27 Sept) is about -1.5. The red line should track the blue one quite closely for the rest of the year, I think. And here is the updated temperature, which is still rising (in terms of 12m lagged average) but not by much:
Here I'm using the 3v version of the data (which I prefer), the non-v version also has August data in and these are clearly cooler, so things are likely to head downhill from here.Chris R suggested that it might have been better to show year-to-date values rather than 12m lagged average. I chose the latter partly due to Hansen's discussion (pdf here) where he argues that 12m rolling averages are more scientifically relevant, as there is nothing special about the year end that justifies focussing on this calendar period to the exclusion of (say) May-April. I suspect this issue only piqued his interest due to the fact that the 1998 calendar year temp was also so close to the max of any 12m period (as you can see from the above pic), so the calendar year 1998 shows up as particularly hot on the standard annual (calendar year) data plot.
17 comments:
But remember that GISS shows 2005 as warmer than 1998, although perhaps Hansen was reacting to an overemphasis of 1998 by others.
In case you haven't already, be sure to drop by WTF for a bit of buffalo roadkill. Really, it's unbecoming to slow down to look at the mess, but I for one couldn't resist. :)
Also, a reduced anomalies are to be expected for the remainder of this year, but will they crash anything like 1998 did? I at least continue to hold out some hope for your bet.
In the linked comment Chris R has already shown that irrespective of what 1998 did, the current anomaly would have to actually increase over the rest of the year for 2010 to beat it. And I don't have time or energy to wade through WTF even with the temptation of the comedic gems it is rumoured to contain :-)
Steve, if you still hold out some hope for James winning with 2010, I would be willing to offer 10-1 odds.
Meanwhile, on intrade using GISS record, the odds now suggest less than 50% chance of record (trading range 45.5-48.9).
Ah, I'd forgotten that HadCRUT was actually quite that bad. Anyway, arguably some hope ~ 10-1, but even I'll throw in the towel completely if September fails to puff up.
Re GISS and the betting, that seems a bit strange for now, although perhaps some have done early approximations of September and gotten a low anomaly.
Re WTF, James, you are to be commended. The short version is that one of the Nature editors first solicited, then got a re-write on, but then rejected a letter from RP Sr. on the Exeter meeting. The text as published on WTF is the usual obtuse hooey about the surface record, but IMHO no more so than much of the pack of puerile Pielkeisms published in the past, so some change of attitude on Nature's part does seem to be indicated. It is in any event quite the come-down from the days of the breathless profile with photo of Pielke pere et fil.
Steve, OK you tempted me. If I'm not very much mistaken, *every* reference in that tendentious agenda-laden piece was to his own corpus of dodgy pielke-all-the-way-down-isms. I'm relieved that Nature saw it for what it was.
Or maybe it's just that the co-author names alone exceed the word limit. :)
The AMSU-A readings are still pretty impressive. What am I to believe?
Actually, now that I think of it, AMSu only starts in the latter half of 1998. My bad.
Heh! I thought acknowledgement of "undocumented changes to temperature records" and general incompleteness of station metadata went back to at least the time of papers by the likes of Alexandersson, Eastering, Moberg etc. in the mid 90s.
And what's with this "non-traditional climate scientists are now playing a significant role in constructing a better climate dataset" ... as if I didn't know.
>"Re GISS and the betting, that seems a bit strange for now, although perhaps some have done early approximations of September and gotten a low anomaly."
Steve, Strange enough for you to bet?
It looks about right to me.
Per
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
Per Ch5, Sept still looks warm but perhaps the SST is making people think Oct-Dec will be cool
Regarding Hansen's rolling averages, what got Hansen interested in the issue is pretty irrelevant. He is right, isn't he?
So now Hansen seems to be saying that this year is more or less on even odds with 2005, but in any case won't be a meaningful new record. He expects 2011 to run cooler, but then 2012 to be a new record. Bad timing for James, it seems.
Tim, in principle Hansen is right, but it's a minor enough issue that it shouldn't matter scientifically.
Some quotes from MEI page:
"One has to go back to July-August 1955 to find lower MEI values for any time of year."
"the Australian Bureau of Meteorology website ... continued at an impressive +18.8, only to be followed by an even more impressive +25.0. The last time that this index showed higher values in September was back in 1917"
"Given the continued drop in the MEI into exceptionally strong territory, La Niña conditions are guaranteed well into 2011."
Not looking good for James in 2010 or 2011.
Your preferred 3v temp anomalies are now showing September as .389.
Required average for last 3 months = .607
Highest anomaly this year March = .572
A 3 month average anomaly of .607 has been done a couple of times in 1998 but not following a figure as low as .389.
Is it time to concede bet offering 80% of amount (20% being an early settlement discount) to settle bet if he will accept another bet for 2012-2014 perhaps with payouts a little in his favour?
Yeah, it's not looking good. I'm not going to bother doing anything until the end of next year though!
Post a Comment