tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post5273284394054351986..comments2024-02-15T04:42:41.606+00:00Comments on James' Empty Blog: Hansen's El Nino forecast reprisedJames Annanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-86216835802126991012009-02-12T11:47:00.000+00:002009-02-12T11:47:00.000+00:00But I need help picking one of these to back the i...But I need help picking one of these to back the interpretation:<BR/>http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3AdeterministicHank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-47130613073658044632009-02-12T11:39:00.000+00:002009-02-12T11:39:00.000+00:00An email draft is a forecast.A "100 percent" expec...An email draft is a forecast.<BR/><BR/>A "100 percent" expectation can't be determined to have been true or false.<BR/><BR/>A "good chance" expectation can be determined to have been true or false.<BR/><BR/>A finished text does not supplant a draft.<BR/><BR/>I think I'm getting the hang of this.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-59480795460910294632009-02-10T12:16:00.000+00:002009-02-10T12:16:00.000+00:00The ONI values clearly indicate that a weak El Niñ...The ONI values clearly indicate that a weak El Niño occurred from middle 2006 to early 2007:<BR/><BR/>2006<BR/>JAS 0.5<BR/>ASO 0.6<BR/>SON 0.9<BR/>OND 1.1<BR/>NDJ 1.1<BR/><BR/>2007<BR/>DJF 0.8P. Lewishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08586624400531767627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-71636775215177208642009-02-10T09:49:00.000+00:002009-02-10T09:49:00.000+00:00How was 2006 an el nino year? The SOI wasn't even...How was 2006 an el nino year? The SOI wasn't even -2, and it was significantly higher than any of the previous four years.C W Mageehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09706100504739548720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-10843650924862376362009-02-09T13:59:00.000+00:002009-02-09T13:59:00.000+00:00James-Do your really think that forecasts with les...James-<BR/><BR/>Do your really think that forecasts with less than a 50% expressed probability of occurring cannot be evaluated with deterministic methods?<BR/><BR/>Where did I say Hansen's forecast failed? I gave you a whole range of options for evaluating it, including success.<BR/><BR/>I have tried to provide your substantive answers to your comments. If you want to see bad faith or some sort of malice in them, I suppose you will. But there are other options.Roger Pielke, Jr.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04711007512915460627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-34942635062804850882009-02-09T10:59:00.000+00:002009-02-09T10:59:00.000+00:00The relevance is that under any reasonable interpr...The relevance is that under any reasonable interpretation, Hansen thought that a super El Nino was less than 50% likely to happen. This makes your sniping at his supposedly failed prediction of a super El Nino completely bogus.<BR/><BR/>It is disappointing, but sadly no longer surprising, that you don't think such things matter. They do matter to people who actually do quantitative evaluation of predictions for a living.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-77427694049638394222009-02-09T07:27:00.000+00:002009-02-09T07:27:00.000+00:00James-I don't see the relevance of your parsing of...James-<BR/><BR/>I don't see the relevance of your parsing of these terms. Again, I don't think it matters.<BR/><BR/>If I predict that the Pittsburgh Steelers will win the Super Bowl next year based on history (6 of 43, or so), I can do so in deterministic fashion without having a high probability of likelihood in my judgment. <BR/><BR/>After next season you can evaluate my forecast in different ways.Roger Pielke, Jr.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04711007512915460627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-11772770901685459492009-02-09T04:31:00.000+00:002009-02-09T04:31:00.000+00:00Roger,In this context, "a good chance" is obviousl...Roger,<BR/><BR/>In this context, "a good chance" is obviously lower probability than "likely". For starters, the former (super El Nino) is conditional on the latter (any El Nino), and thus logically cannot have higher probability, and secondly, he could easily have said the super El Nino was "likely" if he'd though that appropriate. Thus I see no basis for your interpretation that Hansen thought a super El Nino was more likely to happen than not - maybe there is something else in the draft that supports your interpretation? Hansen was clearly warming of the possibility of an event which while not predicted to occur with high probability, would be high impact if it came to pass.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-43508135211365473072009-02-09T03:33:00.000+00:002009-02-09T03:33:00.000+00:00James-A deterministic forecast is a prediction of ...James-<BR/><BR/>A deterministic forecast is a prediction of the occurrence of an event. It does not mean a prediction of occurrence with 100% probability (that of course is a probabilistic forecast). I'm sure you know this.<BR/><BR/>A probabilistic forecast can be evaluated using deterministic methods, and vice versa. But you probably know this as well.<BR/><BR/>Hansen didn't provide numbers, so I don't know what he meant by "good chance of" or "is charged for" a Super El Nino.<BR/><BR/>Hence, recognizing these uncertainties in exactly what was being forecast, I said in the comments on evaluation that there is something for everyone. On _could_ choose to evaluate the forecast in deterministic or probabilistic fashion.<BR/><BR/>Hope this clarifies.Roger Pielke, Jr.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04711007512915460627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-63597953963730281282009-02-09T02:26:00.000+00:002009-02-09T02:26:00.000+00:00Roger,Thanks for the clarification, but surely you...Roger,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the clarification, but surely you aren't suggesting that any honest competent reader could have misinterpreted the "likely" El Nino and "good chance" of a super El Nino to have been meant as a deterministic forecast that these things would definitely happen?<BR/><BR/>If Hansen had said a super El Nino was "likely" then you might (no, <B>would</B>) have a case for claiming that he was predicting this as the most likely outcome, but I don't think I am over-parsing his words by applying my simple and straightforward interpretation to the quotation you provided.<BR/><BR/>I note that Steve Bloom <A HREF="http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/?p=1446" REL="nofollow">called you out on this exaggeration</A> three years ago when you first blogged about it.<BR/><BR/>Equally, Glantz seems to be building up a bit of a straw man in <A HREF="http://www.fragilecologies.com/feb05_07.html" REL="nofollow">the article you cited</A>. Maybe the press coverage didn't present things fairly, or maybe there's a bit of turf protection going on...James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-20487825991138045632009-02-08T15:22:00.000+00:002009-02-08T15:22:00.000+00:00James:Something for everyone means:If the forecast...James:<BR/><BR/>Something for everyone means:<BR/><BR/>If the forecast is taken as deterministic:<BR/><BR/>1. Yes, there was an El Nino<BR/>2. No, it wasn't "super"<BR/><BR/>If the forecast is taken as probabilistic:<BR/><BR/>Yes, no, maybe all can be invoked.Roger Pielke, Jr.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04711007512915460627noreply@blogger.com