tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post225488310416911858..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: They predicted 2030 was going to come and it hasn't yet! sez Anthony WattsSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-40655447221964556522013-08-20T22:53:10.897+10:002013-08-20T22:53:10.897+10:00"REPLY: Right, moving of the goalposts, a typ..."REPLY: Right, moving of the goalposts, a typical tactic." <br />Maslowski's 2007 prediction (using data to 2004) was remarkable in that it was the first to anticipate the rapid decline seen between 2005 and 2012, coming at a time when others were talking about possible ice free conditions in 2080 or later. Subsequently, he updated the model to include data to 2009, and stretched the period to 2016 +/- 3 years. <br /><br />To quote John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"<br /><br />Despite a rise this year, Maslowski's updated model is still proving the most accurate of all long range forecasts. This model forecast about 4500 km^3 for Sep 2012 (actually a smidge over 3000 km^3), and around 3000 km^3 for Sep 2013 (will probably come in at around 4500 km^3). So volume is still tracking either side of his linear forecast, and is still very much in play.<br /><br />Its also worth noting that in early 2011, Maslowski explained to Joe Romm that by "ice free" he meant an 80% loss of volume (or around 4000 km^3). Since we got lower than that in 2012, it would indicate that Maslowski's revised model was four years too conservative. Indeed, if that 4000 km^3 threshold was implied in his earlier forecast, he got it pretty much bang on.<br /><br />FrankDAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-52794723057149648872013-08-20T09:24:46.370+10:002013-08-20T09:24:46.370+10:00Yeah, it is a bit weird, but it's the way they...Yeah, it is a bit weird, but it's the way they roll. And my hunch was right. I used the Wayback Machine to get the daily sea ice extent exactly a year ago, when they were still using the 1979 - 2000 baseline:<br /><br /><a href="http://metzomagic.com/images/2013/climate/NSIDC-Sea-Ice-Extent-2012-08-17.jpg" rel="nofollow">NSIDC daily Arctic sea ice extent on 2012-08-17</a><br /><br />You can see that at this exact time of year last year with the old baseline, the -2SD mark was ~6.7Mkm^2. Now compare it to yesterday:<br /><br /><a href="http://metzomagic.com/images/2013/climate/NSIDC-Sea-Ice-Extent-2013-08-18.jpg" rel="nofollow">NSIDC daily Arctic sea ice extent on 2013-08-18</a><br /><br />Yesterday's value of ~6.0Mkm^2 is well below the old -2SD mark of 6.7Mkm^2 for this time of year :-(<br /><br />Those WUWT folk just *love* them newer baselines, the newer the better! It makes those anomalies (or in this case, deviations from the norm) look smaller, and from an ACC denier POV, that's all that matters :-)<br /><br />--metzomagicAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-87266476303733341812013-08-19T22:11:44.814+10:002013-08-19T22:11:44.814+10:00Correction: the standard deviation is for the base...Correction: the standard deviation <a href="http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/#stdev" rel="nofollow">is for the baseline period</a>.<br /><br />I find that a bit weird.Lars Karlssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158469980966810882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-38465682407389814332013-08-19T22:05:53.947+10:002013-08-19T22:05:53.947+10:00But the standard deviation is computed for the ent...But the standard deviation is computed for the entire time series, and not just the baseline period, so that shouldn't matter.Lars Karlssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158469980966810882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-38997657888960776112013-08-19T21:53:59.430+10:002013-08-19T21:53:59.430+10:00You can be sure the ACC deniers over at WUWT have ...You can be sure the ACC deniers over at WUWT have already forgotten (or never knew/cared since Anthony doesn't understand baselines) that NSIDC changed their sea ice extent baseline period very recently:<br /><br />http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/baseline-change.html<br /><br />Just on 1st July, from 1979 - 2000 to 1981 - 2010. Without that change, even this semi-unremarkable sea ice extent year would already be under the 2 standard deviations mark!<br /><br />--metzomagicAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-64112245734052301042013-08-19T20:34:14.055+10:002013-08-19T20:34:14.055+10:00Yep. I won't bet against you, Catmando.
Here...Yep. I won't bet against you, Catmando.<br /><br />Here are some predictions that have come true. Scientists predicted decades ago that the extra CO2 would warm the earth, and it has. Scientists predicted that rain would get heavier and it has. Scientists predicted that heat waves would get hotter and they have. Scientists predicted that the earth's ice sheets and glaciers would melt and they are. Scientists predicted that the Arctic sea ice would decrease and it has - faster than most scientists predicted, it's true.<br /><br />What have Anthony's science deniers predicted? Science deniers predicted years ago that earth would enter another ice age, and there's not the slightest teeniest tiniest sign that will happen any time in the next few millenia.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-44596673004038440352013-08-19T20:15:57.722+10:002013-08-19T20:15:57.722+10:00"Wake me up when something one of these guys ..."Wake me up when something one of these guys predicts comes true. – Anthony"<br /><br />Here it comes - Anthony Watts will make another stupid, hypocritical and ignorant statement before 20 August 2013. <br /><br />Now sit back and listen to that alarm going off.Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.com