It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Hello John and hello to everyone
I could post the images and data and forecasts later on.
This is a hack for now, I am sure there are some errors and much improvement possible.
As you read this write-up you notice how different the backtesting lingo is than the papers you have read with climatologists's forecasts.
300 months of Darwin data was used for backtesting and then stats applied to understand the forecasts postmortem, as opposed to "last 2 years". No moving averages, all stats are postmortem. 16-cores cpu server runs for 2 hours to produce each backtesting batch with no errors! So on a regular desktop this might run about 2 days each!
All the papers you are reading FUDGE their input data for forecast, you see a FUDGE section and needs to be released and discussed technically and honestly.
John I could not help but add the Remark 1 on p 5... to sound theoretical physicist-ish.
There are no conclusions, I could be full of bologna, or others comment could be off, the idea is:
ONE. to produce REPRODUCIBLE computations that could be checked for veracity of the inferences by third parties, this is a corner stone of all scientific investigations which I find more and more lacking specially in some of the papers on forecasts for El-Nino
TWO. 100% computer science driven and free of preconceived notions about climate.
I am burning the midnight oil, review all the computations over this weekend in case of error I report back