tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post6239664723374503888..comments2024-02-15T04:42:41.606+00:00Comments on James' Empty Blog: Another decadal prediction...James Annanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-83398853755361559322008-05-03T10:17:00.000+01:002008-05-03T10:17:00.000+01:00Here's a more thoroughly cynical take on it:Their ...Here's a more thoroughly cynical take on it:<BR/><BR/>Their nudging method failed completely by most standard measures (eg RMS error). In an attempt to salvage something out of the work, they noticed that there is some synchronicity in the cyclical behaviour in some regions. That's an interesting result but hardly justifies so much attention. Given the length of the cycle (ie they only have one!) it is more of a weak hypothesis than a robust result. Moreover, the strength of the cycles is rather different (hence the different scales you noticed).<BR/><BR/>Most strikingly of all, their nudged model displays a clearly worse agreement with global mean temperature, so they have a lot of chutzpah to present their "forecast" of global temperatures and I think I am quite justified in not taking it too seriously. As Stoat pointed out, it was already shooting off in the wrong direction 10 years ago, according to their figure.<BR/><BR/>It will be interesting to see what spin RC puts on it - I'm sure they must be preparing a post.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-36236446421284083732008-05-03T07:40:00.000+01:002008-05-03T07:40:00.000+01:00Keenlyside's figure 3 is also a bit odd. Is it nor...Keenlyside's figure 3 is also a bit odd. Is it normal when comparing models to observations and other models to show different axis ranges as is done in 3a and 3b?Alfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04716071445410293814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-15514117000029028732008-05-03T07:00:00.000+01:002008-05-03T07:00:00.000+01:00I have always found hindcast/forecast plots a litt...I have always found hindcast/forecast plots a little hard to comprehend. Am I right in thinking that each forecast should be compared to the observations 10 years before? <BR/><BR/>So the hindcast made in 1994 said little change (the globe actually warmed), and the forecasts made in 2000 and 2005 predict significant cooling (I don't think temperatures have dropped below the ten year mean before 2000). It would have been good to have put the annual values on their plot so we could see how those forecasts are doing, as you have pointed out it looks like their RF runs are better at predicting what will happen after 1994.Alfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04716071445410293814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-11603919369395388562008-05-02T13:27:00.000+01:002008-05-02T13:27:00.000+01:00Frank,Try here and here (and also the linked radio...Frank,<BR/><BR/>Try <A HREF="http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2008/04/has-global-warming-stopped.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> and <A HREF="http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2008/04/more-on-4-year-bet.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> (and also the linked radio program).<BR/><BR/>Basically, I reckon we'll see the 1998 record broken by 2011, and David Whitehouse thinks we won't. However, he has not returned my email...James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-76606406117580900322008-05-02T10:51:00.000+01:002008-05-02T10:51:00.000+01:00What's this "bet", and where can I read about it?-...What's this "bet", and where can I read about it?<BR/><BR/>-- bi, <A HREF="http://frankbi.wordpress.com/" REL="nofollow"><I>International Journal of Inactivism</I></A>bi -- International Journal of Inactivismhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03030282249404084578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-52969475588391543232008-05-02T08:24:00.000+01:002008-05-02T08:24:00.000+01:00Good grief what's up with the linkspam below..look...Good grief what's up with the linkspam below..looks like someone is "borrowing" the scienceblogs output.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I'm really not sure how much to blame the Nature effect. Of course it has had more attention than it warrants, but it seems to me that the authors carry plenty of responsibility for <I>how</I> it has been represented. Although as I said, I should be careful not to be too critical of it. You only have to look at Roger Pielke's antics to see how easy it is to fall into the trap of viewing things through the prism of one's own self-interest.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-47979903973579126052008-05-02T00:55:00.000+01:002008-05-02T00:55:00.000+01:00The Nature effect!The Nature effect!John Fleckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01945772782727225745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-88176253100641557782008-05-01T23:08:00.000+01:002008-05-01T23:08:00.000+01:00I don't know where they get it from, but Keenlysid...I don't know where they get it from, but Keenlyside is directly quoted in the Torygraph as "The IPCC would predict a 0.3°C warming over the next decade" which is flatly false and directly contradicted by the IPCC text.<BR/><BR/>If those free-running integrations really generate a jump as shown in their figure then it is either an artefact of their model (massive response to sudden reduction in aerosols?) or just noise due to an insufficient ensemble size. Either way, it's hard to support.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-41648475728632600822008-05-01T21:00:00.000+01:002008-05-01T21:00:00.000+01:00"They also have a rather odd graph of the IPCC res..."They also have a rather odd graph of the IPCC results, which seems to imply that these models predicted a ~0.3C mean rise over the current decade..."<BR/><BR/>Are those IPCC models (I assume you mean the black line in fig 4). Or their own?William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-522559602347671552008-05-01T17:04:00.000+01:002008-05-01T17:04:00.000+01:00I may be looking at this wrong (I can't see the fu...I may be looking at this wrong (I can't see the full article), but that jump in the RF/A1B line is a little odd. It seems to account for the main difference in the two lines, until 2010, when their forecast accelerates to catch up. <BR/><BR/>Using the 2007 CRU anomaly of 0.4 the temp. line extended looks like it would lie between the two projections. If they have the IPCC one artificially high, then it would be looking better than theirs.skankyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14584908320777937193noreply@blogger.com