Realclimate Does A Great Job Of Predicting The Past

11 Responses to Realclimate Does A Great Job Of Predicting The Past

1. Russ says:

   January 22, 2011 at 7:26 pm

   Well what do ya know. it’s like the seinfeild show, allot to do about nothing.

   Reply
2. Jimbo says:

   January 22, 2011 at 7:26 pm

   I just can’t wait to see the divergence between GISS and the other datasets in 2011. If forecasts are right then 2011 will be a very tough year for the temperature adjusters.

   Reply
   • Russ says:

     January 22, 2011 at 7:36 pm

     I bet they will really really really really have their work cut out for them. Did I use enough reallys. I’m probably wrong about them having their work cut out for them, it’s already done for them in their personally pre-programmed supercomputer models. That won’t change. All the warmth is right there, in them Super Duper Puter Models, and can’t get out, and it is a travesty that it can’t! HAHAHA!

     Reply
3. Mike Davis says:

   January 22, 2011 at 7:45 pm

   Surrealclimate must have upped their dosage of Hallucinogens!

   Reply
4. Bruce says:

   January 22, 2011 at 9:50 pm

   Well RC, keep going. CET goes back to 1659. For that matter HadCRUT goes back to 1850 and NCDC to 1880. A hypothesis only becomes a theory if you can explain all the data. How did you do?

   Reply
5. Scott says:

   January 23, 2011 at 2:53 am

   So despite the El Nino year, 2010 ended up decently far under the ensemble value. What is really interesting to me is that HadCRUT nearly went out of the prediction zone on the high end in 1998 and in 2008 was starting to get near (though not too near) the bottom of the (ever widening) prediction band. My guess is 2011 will end up near 2008 in temperature, and the prediction for 2011 is a bit higher than 2008, so it’ll be even closer to going off the bottom of the prediction.

   It’ll be interesting to see how long it will take a temperature set to go from being near the high extreme of the prediction band (1998) to the low end (2011, or when)? If the models with their rather large projected uncertainty can’t do any better than to keep the temp set within the range for 13 years or so, something’s seriously wrong.

   I also like how the model ensemble has been above the actual results for the last FIVE years. I’d think that five years is enough to wash out pretty much any short-term phenomena.

   -Scott

   Reply
6. Scott says:

   January 23, 2011 at 3:13 am

   Oh, and AQUA channel 5 is currently 1.07 F colder than last year. I don’t think the whole month will average that, but something like 0.9 F is reasonable, which converts to 0.5 C.

   Last January’s UAH anomaly was 0.542 C, so we may see a UAH anomaly near 0, and I think a reasonable estimate is in the 0.05-0.10 C range. With the ~5 month lag between La Nina and UAH global temps, I think we can expect negative anomalies within a month or two, and by late spring I wouldn’t be surprised to see values that are significantly negative even using the previous 20-year baseline.

   -Scott

   Reply
7. Magnus A says:

   January 23, 2011 at 8:20 am

   You’re right, their rhetorical skills will need a hockeystick shape… In December a shift down to maybe zero, or sub-zero anomaly where we may be stucked?

   http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/12/globe-cooled-by-056-c-in-four-days.html

   Reply
8. Alan Simpson says:

   January 23, 2011 at 11:07 am

   Monday’s ENSO update may be interesting, all model predictions are showing a weakening, the graph looks to be heading more negative/strengthening. Interesting times eh?

   Reply
9. Doug Proctor says:

   January 24, 2011 at 1:45 am

   The RealClimate post struck me as very odd. The temperature rise as shown by Gavin appeared, on the graph, to favour Scenario “C”, not “B”, which meant that the general trend from 1984 was 0.185K/decade. This, at 1.9K/century, is similar to that of the 20th century, but certainly not the 3.4K/century that CAGW requires and Hansen et al proclaim. What gives? The divergence is such that I would say the IPCC terror-story was unsubstantiated, but Mr. S. seemed to think differently. I don’t get it.
   Second point: the oceanic temperature rise graph showed Lyman (2010) way off base as of 2002. Again the rise seemed part of the previous “normal” rise. I wondered if Lyman had changed his methodology in 2002. I also wondered if Lyman had demonstrated that what he was measuring was heat being moved around the world, not being created: if the air temperatures were not moving as the temperatures of the oceans, then the oceans couldn’t be responsible for warming the air, which, as the store of heat energy is greater in the oceans than in the air, you would expect. So I wonder whether what he was seeing was the same system in (dynamic) equilibrium, but now with the heat redistributed to fool him into thinking his preconceptions were being supported.

   I asked these questions as a comment on RealClimate. They did not pass muster and went into the digital void. I would appreciate if someone would respond as to whether I had missed something here. The trouble with blogs is that there is not a discussion and correction of errors, so those of us who make/may make errors keep on going.

   Reply
10. thetruthpeddler says:

    January 25, 2011 at 5:50 am

    I predict that the next couple of decades will see global cooling that will wipe out all of the supposed warming of the past 120 years.
    http://thetruthpeddler.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/latest-data-confirms-a-global-cooling-trend/

    Reply