![]() | ||
2011-07-12 01:24:14 | More denier predictions discussed at Real Climate | |
Tom Curtis t.r.curtis@gmail... 112.213.179.194 |
| |
2011-07-12 01:58:30 | ||
dana1981 Dana Nuccitelli dana1981@yahoo... 64.129.227.4 |
It would be good to do an evaluation like this for McIntyre's prediction as part of the Lessons from Past Climate Predictions series, but we should wait until HadCRUT3 is updated in order to make a more accurate assessment. | |
2011-07-12 04:47:46 | ||
Riccardo riccardoreitano@tiscali... 93.147.82.154 |
Actually it was not a prediction, just an inflated adjustment to real data. | |
2011-07-12 05:06:59 | ||
dana1981 Dana Nuccitelli dana1981@yahoo... 64.129.227.4 |
Well, it was a prediction regarding what the adjustment would look like. It might be worth examining why McIntyre's adjustment prediction was so wrong (Gavin mentioned one or two reasons in his RC post). | |
2011-07-12 08:55:36 | ||
grypo gryposaurus@gmail... 173.69.56.151 |
I went a bit nutty in the comment section -- hohoho | |
2011-07-12 11:57:01 | Prediction series | |
John Cook john@skepticalscience... 121.222.9.229 |
Whether we blog on this would depend on why McIntyre went wrong. If it's some obscure data analysis method like conflating ocean temperature with global temperature, well, is it that big a deal? I would question whether it's worth doing when the core message of the Prediction series is "Predictions need to be based on physics" - this just seems like an opportunity to mock McIntyre (which I'm sure is pretty fun but not that constructive and doesn't really achieve the message we're trying to get across). |