They compare very well just up to 2007. 2009 failed miserably, perhaps there is another occasion for a “super El Nino” in 2023…

Well, probably not Hansen, as I expect he has better things to do than read this blog. But caution in the issuance of forecasts is certainly a lesson that many could learn from experience, and something I have written about at length.

Compare Mickey Glantz writing of Hansen’s forecast:

“The year 2006 was forecast by some well-known and influential scientists to be the year of a “Super El Niño,” a label never before used. It did not happen. Who really cares? If a super event had taken place, those forecasters would have been heroes. But it didn’t. They go along making forecasts, as if there had been no cost associated with bad forecasts. Yet, for each forecast that is issued, people are listening and taking action based on it.”
http://www.fragilecologies.com/feb05_07.html

“If he is proven right with this forecast, contrary to all of the models and statistics, then his credibility will rise far beyond its already stratospheric levels. If he is wrong, he will be brought a bit back to Earth by his critics who will use this against him.”

Does this, and the lack of any other discussion of “lessons” help to explain your purposes? Trying to help Hansen to be more cautious?

In this case “forecast evaluation” refers to the _accuracy_ of the forecast. With that information in hand we could engage is a discussion of the forecast as a product and as part of a larger decision process. Evaluation of a deterministic forecast in the context of a probabilistic is not so straightforward. The role of the forecast in decision making also matters.

Both of these perspectives (product, process) are elaborated on in our book, Prediction.

However, as you have seen here (and I see elsewhere) any such conversation about forecast evaluation did not occur because people wished to discuss whether or not Hansen withdrew the forecast.

I will now make my own forecast — predictions made (or withdrawn) by Jim Hansen do not really lend themselves to constructive blog discussions;-)

If you are interested in such discussions, I recommend the threads offering a forecast evaluation of the five-year RMS hurricane damage outlook. For some reason, a better tone there;-)

But I didn’t see any lessons, so I thought I could perhaps help by framing out what it looked, at first blush, that you were trying to accomplish.

Now I’m scratching my head.

Well, first, not everyone seems to agree whether or not Hansen withdrew the prediction after it was made.

I’m not sure what you are asking for. I co-edited a book on Prediction that addresses each of these questions in the context of the earth sciences, but maybe that is not what you are looking for?

I’ll go read your post now but will likely not have time to discuss much til very late in the day.