2011-06-24 13:12:59Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Don Easterbrook
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.108.93

First post in the series examining past climate predictions.

Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Don Easterbrook

Feel free, nay, encouraged, to add more posts to this series!  As I noted at the top, we'll be evaluating predictions from both deniers and realists.

2011-06-24 15:34:56
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
121.79.16.40

Easterbrook says he got it from an “IPCC report figure”. Which IPCC report figure? This is important because we don’t want to misrepresent his prediction.

Also, why don’t you include Easterbrook’s third line, the one that drops sharply to the bottom of the graph?

Is there any indication of what PDO and AMO were doing in 1800 and 1650? We know what sunspots were doing, at least.

2011-06-24 16:39:32Pics added
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.9.229

Have done high-rez SkS versions of your pics - are these purty enough, Dana? :-)

Easterbrook Projections

Easterbrook zoomed

2011-06-24 16:43:37
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.111.39

The "betweey" in last paragraph needs correcting.

2011-06-25 09:04:05
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.108.93

James - Easterbrook didn't say which IPCC report.  I suspect the TAR, since it was published just after 2000, and that's where his temp data stops.  But regardless, as I said in the post, since we're talking anomalies and temp changes, we're not misrepresenting him by simply shifting his data downwards.  He started it right where the temp data left off in 2000, so that's what we did as well. 

Riccardo digitized the data for us, and didn't include the third line.  But I don't think it's that critical.  The third line doesn't show up in two of Easterbrook's three projection graphs anyway, and it's not very different from his scenario B in 2010.

No clue about PDO or AMO that far back.  In fact as I noted in the post, PDO data only go back to 1900.  That's another reason to exclude Easterbrook's third projection - there's no way to evaluate it anyway.

John - looks purty, but why is the "Easterbrook A" text green?

Ari - thanks good catch.

2011-06-26 16:24:26
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.125.118

Yeah, I think you've laid out Easterbrook's stupid for all to see. Thumbs up.

2011-06-26 18:02:03Green text
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.9.229

Oops, my bad, I've now colour coded all the text. Sorry, can't help myself, have to make the graphs as purty as possible.

Have added these to the hi-rez graphics:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=23

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=24

2011-06-26 18:47:47
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.107

Here the numbers of the lowest curve:

2000.3 0.56713
2001.59 0.558503
2002.76 0.545596
2003.79 0.528409
2005.22 0.506919
2006.25 0.481161
2006.9 0.446847
2007.42 0.416825
2008.07 0.378225
2008.47 0.339637
2008.99 0.301043
2009.51 0.26245
2010.03 0.223856
2010.55 0.185262
2011.07 0.146668
2011.85 0.108064
2012.5 0.07375
2013.15 0.0351507
2013.41 0.0179967
2014.19 -0.0163224
2014.84 -0.0506359
2015.62 -0.084955
2016.4 -0.119274
2017.05 -0.157873
2017.57 -0.196467
2018.22 -0.235066
2018.87 -0.273666
2019.52 -0.307979
2020.17 -0.346579
2021.08 -0.372332
2022.11 -0.398091

Here is the paleo PDO, and here the paleo AMO. Though, I'm not sure they'd add much to the post.

2011-06-27 05:01:52
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.108.93

Thanks Riccardo.  I'll leave it up to John if he wants to add the lower curve to the graph.  I don't think it's that important because the values for the lower two in 2010 are almost the same.

Thanks for the figure update John.  Any other comments?