Annan On the Pielke-Hansen Kerfuffle

James Annan argues that Roger and I are both wrong in our discussion of how to properly think about James Hansens 2006 draft paper discussing the possibility of “super El Nino”:

  • It’s OK to hold Hansen to his 2006 El Nino forecast. (Fleck wrong.)
  • A careful reading of that forecast suggests Hansen got it right. (Pielke wrong.)

(See here for history, thought if you don’t already know it, you’re likely to be uninterested, so I recommend against clicking.)


  1. Here is what I said at James clarify as I never said Hansen got it “wrong” — I did say that there is something in the forecast for everyone. James expressed some puzzlement at that phrase.

    Something for everyone means:

    If the forecast is taken as deterministic:

    1. Yes, there was an El Nino
    2. No, it wasn’t “super”

    If the forecast is taken as probabilistic:

    Yes, no, maybe all can be invoked.

  2. Proof read much? Geez. Should be:

    “Here is what I said at James’ site to clarify, as I never . . .”

Comments are closed.