2009.GLOBALTEMP.TOP5 Aug-Dec, Sep-Dec and now Oct-Dec Graph

August to December average global average anomaly for last 15 years, trend and required average for year to be in top 5:

http://climateprediction.net/board/download/file.php?id=31

Price range of 2009.GLOBALTEMP.TOP5 at time of posting is 27.1-37.

Does that price range look appropriate to you?

Just curious what other people think.

Chris57, I can't open the link. It says: The selected attachment does not exist anymore. Could you check it once more?

Sorry probably my fault for not submitting. Is this visible?

http://climateprediction.net/board/download/file.php?id=32

Edit:
Jan to Jul avg also now added:
http://climateprediction.net/board/download/file.php?id=33

If not visible that way, are they visible at
http://climateprediction.net/board/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1683&p=13518#p13518

(I have just editted into an old out of the way thread - don't expect any context for graphs there.)

Without having conducted in-depth research, the market looks about right by just looking at the graphs. There seem to be wild swings. What factors are at work here? Does the El Nino effect come into play?

ChrisVanNiekerk wrote:

Without having conducted in-depth research, the market looks about right by just looking at the graphs. There seem to be wild swings. What factors are at work here? Does the El Nino effect come into play?

Yep. El Nino is the largest effect on variations about the trend. The trend is obviously global warming effect. There are other effects like other ocean oscilations and solar. However it isn't clear that the 11 and 22 year solar cycles are noticable in the global temperature record.

El Nino (warming effect) is forecast to strengthen by year end and at beginning of year we had cooling La Nina conditions (but not long enough to be an episode) at the beginning of year.

Anyway you could conclude that there is a 50% chance of being above trend line before considering El Nino. (Or you could look at years below trend line and see 4 out of 6 such years are followed by year above trend line but this is pushing it based on small numbers.) With El Nino you would conclude it is more likely to be above trend line this year. Finally, if despite forecast strong El Nino it ends near trend line, this is still above the required rate.

So why not over a 50% chance?

Of course others may have totally different analysis....

and maybe they don't want to share their knowledge....

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3509/3892718368_cd1459b69b.jpg

Aug-Dec Temp anomaly graph.
Data should be attributed to GISS.

Is this graph just the compilation of data from one point in the world. I assume from the anomaly, somewhere near Mt. Pinatubo?

maxpedro wrote:

Is this graph just the compilation of data from one point in the world. I assume from the anomaly, somewhere near Mt. Pinatubo?

No it is global average temperatures from NASA at the giss temp site to be used as specified in the contract rules.

Pinatubo was a large volcano. Ash in the troposphere falls to earth fairly close to volcano. However, Pinatubo was powerful enough to put large quantities of small particles into the Stratosphere where it can stay suspended in the atmosphere for months and even a year or two. If it is staying up there for that long then it can spread out and travel half way around the world at the same latitude within a couple of weeks. North South spreading out takes longer. It is well known that you get spectacular sunsets a few weeks after a large volcano on the other side of the world.

The particles scatter sunlight and have a cooling effect on global average temperature.

HTH

If you want to check my graph, just start excel and file open and enter the URL:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

calculating a few averages to check my graph shouldn't take long.

New Graph

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3506/3900990101_34aa436c3b.jpg

now updated to show Sept to Dec Average temp anomalies.
Data should be attributed to GISS.

I have done the graph again but this may not be the best way to analyse the situation.

Jul to September was warmer that the average required in October to December.

In the last 10 years, only 3 have shown cooling: 2007, 2002 and 2000.
2007 would be expected to show cooling because of strengthening La Nina condition. Adjusting to this years forecast strengthening El Nino would adjust this to an expected warming.

2002 had a stengthening El Nino but not as strong as forecast for 2009. Adjusting to 2009 forecast, the cooling would (according to my adjustments) remain but be reduced to just insufficient and 2009 would just be in the top 5 years.

2000 shows considerable cooling and my enso adjustments would not change this result.

None of the other 7 years alter as a result of Enso adjustments.

So 1 year in 10 show a tempature change when adjusted for expected enso effects to not reach a top 5 position. This suggests a 90% probability.

If I extend this back to 1975 I get 4 years in 34 failing so this suggests an 88% probability. (That seems quite consistent with 90% above.)

I maxed out buying at 51, but I wonder if the price will adjust to anywhere near 88?

Chris57, are you sure that the data in the file you've used (GLB.Ts+dSST.txt) are exactly the same as those used by Goddard in their end-of-year rankings? The wording of the contract rules may have implied this, but my analysis suggested that it isn't quite true. By comparing the annual averages in GLB.Ts+dSST.txt with the graphs posted in their end-of-year announcements about that year's ranking, I came to the conclusion that the GLT.Ts+dSST.txt underweights the importance of the land-based measurements (found in the GLB.Ts.txt file on the same Web page) slightly. A linear combination of the two data sets weighting GLB.Ts.txt around 10-15% seemed like it fit the data on those graphs better.

If I'm right, this would obviously call into question the exact numbers in your analysis. Nevertheless, my analysis of these data also led me to the conclusion that this year is considerably more likely to come in at #5 than at #6. I'm not sure why there continue to be lots of sellers around 50. Do they have more information than is contatined in the data on that page, or are they valuing the contract based on less info?

Top right of figure 1 says global mean =0.44 and the GLB.Ts+dSST.txt says 44 so that seems to match. 9th place for 2008 also seems to match.

I tried reading values off the graph in fig 1 and got (going backwards from 2008 ) :
.44 .57 .55 .62 .48 .55 .56 .48 .335 .33 .57

The GLB.Ts+dSST.txt reads
44 56 53 62 48 54 55 48 33 32 56

This leaves me with one difference of .02, 5 differences of .1 and one difference of 0.05.

I would put these differences down to mainly my graph reading and some slight adjustments correcting the data since the 2008 summation was published. I don't see any reason to get into exotic explanations like "A linear combination of the two data sets weighting GLB.Ts.txt around 10-15% seemed like it fit the data on those graphs better"

Do they have more information than is contatined in the data on that page, or are they valuing the contract based on less info?

No idea - my attempts to provoke discussion here hasn't left me any wiser.

I suspect people giving too much weight to web sites like WUWT
eg
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/20/study-model-in-good-agreement-with-satellite-temperature-data-suggest-cooling/

but who knows? If they know more then they are probably unlikely to share it.

MC_Pundit wrote:

Nevertheless, my analysis of these data also led me to the conclusion that this year is considerably more likely to come in at #5 than at #6. I'm not sure why there continue to be lots of sellers around 50. Do they have more information than is contatined in the data on that page, or are they valuing the contract based on less info?

Of course, if you want to play games like that: 5th place isn't terribly likely and 7th place is more likely than 6th place even though current average would indicate we are in 6th place at present ......

What does that say about the probability of 5th place or higher against probability of 6th place or lower?