No. Only a fool would make a prediction of an actual figure :)

TheBigYinJames

EM, a real trick would be for you to predict NOW the anomaly at the end of 2016, re the title of this thread and the original intent of this annual outing.

No. Only a fool would make a prediction of an actual figure :)

And the fool who asked for the prediction?

GISS confidence limits are +/-0.9C.

If you object to a specific value I can make it 1.03C+/-0.09C.

I am still waiting for your forecast. I am even ready to get financial. Less accurate forecasters donate £10 to a medical charity nominated by the winner. ☺

If anyone else wants to join the game, feel free, but to make it fair I suggest no valid entries after the end of January, 2016.

Judging? Usual sweepstake rules. Closest mean to the GISS value published in January 2017 wins.

TheBIgYinJames

I found or extra data

After the 1982 El Nino temperatures went from 0.13C to 0.31C.

After the 1994 El Nino temperatures went from 0.32C to 0.46C..

After the 1997 El Nino temperatures went from 0.47C to 0.63C.

Those 1-year rises were 0.19C, 0.14C and 0.16C. The average is 0.16C.

With extra support from the past data I think will stick to m 1.03C forecast.

TheBigYinJames

And the same point graphically

EM, so if predicting future temperatures is so simple, why do we have to pay for computer climate models, that can't predict?

I predict more scandals involving fraud and corruption in climate science, based on 2015s bumper crop in football, tennis and athletics, all of which had been rumoured for years, but denied by their top officials.

golf charlie
Can I predict that Adidas will withdraw sponsorship from the IAAF in 2016?

Sorry TBYJ, I have diverted this further.

EM needs to grow a sense of humour :)

This thread is meant as a humorous set of predictions about the world of climate, not a scientific projection of actual temperature. So the sort of things like 'Michael Mann shaves his beard", or "Met office admits it got it wrong" and other sorts of physical impossible things. "Julia Slingo talks sense" "Attenborough is a scientist" That sort of thing.

TheBigYinJames

It is hard to distinguish between humerous threads and straight threads at Bishop Hill; most of the comments are laughable.

EM, most of climate science is laughable. Get over a it.

I know what EM's beef is.

EM knows there is something smelly about climate science. Like most of us, it's a visceral feeling, not easy to pin down.
But because he is emotionally invested in the scientific establishment, he personally requires a high level of contrarian evidence in order to embrace the idea that the establishment has been fibbing to him. So he came here to find it.

Unfortunately the evidence on this side isn't really any better than the evidence for the orthodoxy*
This is a constant annoyance to him, he wants us to be better.

* the reason why the orthodoxy fails to convince on a visceral level, and by corollary why the contrarian evidence also fails to convince viscerally is because the data we have is not conclusive - either way. There is no viscerally satisfying position to take. In those quiet times, most people on either side know the evidence is not compelling. The reason there is a controversy is because of this. Nobody argues about the charge on the electron, only about things where a degree of interpretation is required to get to a position. When there is no clear winner, people choose tribally. If you prefer the establishment orthodoxy, this immediately makes the contrarians the enemy, to be disproved, made fun of, or vilified, because the only safety is safety in numbers, not safety in data. This is what drives EM.

The BigYin James

he personally requires a high level of contrarian evidence in order to embrace the idea that the establishment has been fibbing to him. So he came here to find it.

TheBigYinJames

It has been a great disappointment. Pseudostatistics, cherrypicks, nitpicking around the edges of current research and a lot of outright denial.

I had hoped for a workable alternative hypothesis to AGW, but you have NOTHING!

Annoying, isn't it? I wish the general quality was better on this side as well, but you can't eke
more detail out of the scant patchy measurements we have. 30 years of decaying satellite
measurements and 60 years of uncontrolled amateurish thermometer readings from airports,
throw in some contorted stats from poorly-calibrated proxies and you have the recipe for
interpretative disaster.

The cry that current understanding is "the best we have so go with it" has always annoyed me.

The problem and the saviour of this side is that you don't have to have anything to replace the
orthodoxy in order to point out the leaps of faith in the orthodoxy. It's patchy enough that to
cast doubt on its purportedly cast-iron conclusions is enough. For now.

I too wish that one side or the other would find that clincher that would end the controversy, so
we can either get on with solving it, or just send it back to the corners of niche science.

Radical Rodent

Who was it who said (paraphrased): to keep the people under control, you have to keep them afraid?

George Orwell used the idea in "1984" but I doubt it started with him.

So with whom did the idea start, EM? And why does it matter to you?

Tbyj, you seem to have rattled EM. His crayons are falling out of his wheelchair.

EM, the anomalies you quoted earlier, were they the anomalies quoted in January each year or the subsequently adjusted anomalies? And do you have a cut off for when anomalies can used and abused as evidence?

Radical Rodent

Willingly?

I hate the idea of AGW. Unfortunately I was trained by some first rate scientists in the 1970s and have read widely since.

I know the difference between bullshit science and genuine science. I also know the difference between seeing what is actually there and seeing what you want to believe.

I want to believe that AGW is wrong, but the internal logic, the match to other science and the match to observation are too good. Despite considerable effort I have failed to find any convincing counter arguments.

Alas, the problem is not that I am fooled by AGW, but that I cannot fool myself into denying it.

Entropic man

I also know the difference between seeing what is actually there and seeing what you want to believe.

Are you sure?

EM

I also know the difference between seeing what is actually there and seeing what you want to believe.

Well you would be a unique human being if that was the case.

In reality, it's the consequences of accepting there is something wrong with climate science that puts people off more than the science itself. It would mean that science is deeply flawed, and the historic institutions which make up establishment science are complicit with the covering up of these flaws. For some people, especially those who have spent their lives supporting science and rationalism against some nasty forces, the knee jerk reaction is to see the possibility but to go with the establishment position. To do otherwise would not only mean some rather serious beliefs would be overturned, it would also make that person one of the hated 'others'.

The actual science is on a knife edge. There is compelling evidence for both cases. There is evidence of tampering with statistical data to keep the show on the road. There is a lot politicking. In that sort of situation, some throw themselves on the opinion of authority, because on balance of probability this is more stable for science. In 99 times out of 100 you would be correct to go with establishment orthodoxy..

Unfortunately for a lot of genuinely concerned and well-meaning people, they have backed the wrong horse this time round. Climate Science is using the reputation of science to push scientific opinion as hard science. The data does not conclusively support the thesis of AGW, never mind CAGW.

You know it, deep down. But the personal cost to your peace of mind is too great.

TheBigYinJames

Well you would be a unique human being if that was the case.

I was waiting for the reply before saying the same thing. Mind you I could have predicted there wouldn't be a quick one, if there's one at all.