It has been an interesting couple of days. Today yet another scientist has come forward with a press release saying that not only did their audit of IPCC forecasting procedures and found that they “violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting”, but that “The models were not intended as forecasting models and they have not been validated for that purpose.” This organization should know, they certify forecasters for many disciplines and in conjunction with John Hopkins University if Washington, DC, offer a Certificate of Forecasting Practice. The story below originally appeared in the blog of Australian Dr. Jennifer Marohasy. It is reprinted below, with with some pictures and links added for WUWT readers. – Anthony
J. Scott Armstrong, founder of the International Journal of Forecasting
Guest post by Jennifer Marohasy
YESTERDAY, a former chief at NASA, Dr John S. Theon, slammed the computer models used to determine future climate claiming they are not scientific in part because the modellers have “resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists”. [1]
Today, a founder of the International Journal of Forecasting, Journal of Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, and International Symposium on Forecasting, and the author of Long-range Forecasting (1978, 1985), the Principles of Forecasting Handbook, and over 70 papers on forecasting, Dr J. Scott Armstrong, tabled a statement declaring that the forecasting process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lacks a scientific basis. [2]
What these two authorities, Drs Theon and Armstrong, are independently and explicitly stating is that the computer models underpinning the work of many scientific institutions concerned with global warming, including Australia’s CSIRO, are fundamentally flawed.
In today’s statement, made with economist Kesten Green, Dr Armstrong provides the following eight reasons as to why the current IPCC computer models lack a scientific basis:
1. No scientific forecasts of the changes in the Earth’s climate.
Currently, the only forecasts are those based on the opinions of some scientists. Computer modeling was used to create scenarios (i.e., stories) to represent the scientists’ opinions about what might happen. The models were not intended as forecasting models (Trenberth 2007) and they have not been validated for that purpose. Since the publication of our paper, no one has provided evidence to refute our claim that there are no scientific forecasts to support global warming.
We conducted an audit of the procedures described in the IPCC report and found that they clearly violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting (Green and Armstrong 2008). (No justification was provided for any of these violations.) For important forecasts, we can see no reason why any principle should be violated. We draw analogies to flying an aircraft or building a bridge or performing heart surgery—given the potential cost of errors, it is not permissible to violate principles.
2. Improper peer review process.
To our knowledge, papers claiming to forecast global warming have not been subject to peer review by experts in scientific forecasting.
3. Complexity and uncertainty of climate render expert opinions invalid for forecasting.
Expert opinions are an inappropriate forecasting method in situations that involve high complexity and high uncertainty. This conclusion is based on over eight decades of research. Armstrong (1978) provided a review of the evidence and this was supported by Tetlock’s (2005) study that involved 82,361 forecasts by 284 experts over two decades.
Long-term climate changes are highly complex due to the many factors that affect climate and to their interactions. Uncertainty about long-term climate changes is high due to a lack of good knowledge about such things as:
a) causes of climate change,
b) direction, lag time, and effect size of causal factors related to climate change,
c) effects of changing temperatures, and
d) costs and benefits of alternative actions to deal with climate changes (e.g., CO2 markets).
Given these conditions, expert opinions are not appropriate for long-term climate predictions.
4. Forecasts are needed for the effects of climate change.
Even if it were possible to forecast climate changes, it would still be necessary to forecast the effects of climate changes. In other words, in what ways might the effects be beneficial or harmful? Here again, we have been unable to find any scientific forecasts—as opposed to speculation—despite our appeals for such studies.
We addressed this issue with respect to studies involving the possible classification of polar bears as threatened or endangered (Armstrong, Green, and Soon 2008). In our audits of two key papers to support the polar bear listing, 41 principles were clearly violated by the authors of one paper and 61 by the authors of the other. It is not proper from a scientific or from a practical viewpoint to violate any principles. Again, there was no sign that the forecasters realized that they were making mistakes.
5. Forecasts are needed of the costs and benefits of alternative actions that might be taken to combat climate change.
Assuming that climate change could be accurately forecast, it would be necessary to forecast the costs and benefits of actions taken to reduce harmful effects, and to compare the net benefit with other feasible policies including taking no action. Here again we have been unable to find any scientific forecasts despite our appeals for such studies.
6. To justify using a climate forecasting model, one would need to test it against a relevant naïve model.
We used the Forecasting Method Selection Tree to help determine which method is most appropriate for forecasting long-term climate change. A copy of the Tree is attached as Appendix 1. It is drawn from comparative empirical studies from all areas of forecasting. It suggests that extrapolation is appropriate, and we chose a naïve (no change) model as an appropriate benchmark. A forecasting model should not be used unless it can be shown to provide forecasts that are more accurate than those from this naïve model, as it would otherwise increase error. In Green, Armstrong and Soon (2008), we show that the mean absolute error of 108 naïve forecasts for 50 years in the future was 0.24°C.
7. The climate system is stable.
To assess stability, we examined the errors from naïve forecasts for up to 100 years into the future. Using the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre’s data, we started with 1850 and used that year’s average temperature as our forecast for the next 100 years. We then calculated the errors for each forecast horizon from 1 to 100. We repeated the process using the average temperature in 1851 as our naïve forecast for the next 100 years, and so on. This “successive updating” continued until year 2006, when we forecasted a single year ahead. This provided 157 one-year-ahead forecasts, 156 two-year-ahead and so on to 58 100-year-ahead forecasts.
We then examined how many forecasts were further than 0.5°C from the observed value. Fewer than 13% of forecasts of up to 65-years-ahead had absolute errors larger than 0.5°C. For longer horizons, fewer than 33% had absolute errors larger than 0.5°C. Given the remarkable stability of global mean temperature, it is unlikely that there would be any practical benefits from a forecasting method that provided more accurate forecasts.
8. Be conservative and avoid the precautionary principle.
One of the primary scientific principles in forecasting is to be conservative in the darkness of uncertainty. This principle also argues for the use of the naive no-change extrapolation. Some have argued for the precautionary principle as a way to be conservative. It is a political, not a scientific principle. As we explain in our essay in Appendix 2, it is actually an anti-scientific principle in that it attempts to make decisions without using rational analyses. Instead, cost/benefit analyses are appropriate given the available evidence which suggests that temperature is just as likely to go up as down. However, these analyses should be supported by scientific forecasts.
The reach of these models is extraordinary, for example, the CSIRO models are currently being used in Australia to determine water allocations for farmers and to justify the need for an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) – the most far-reaching of possible economic interventions. Yet, according to Dr Armstrong, these same models violate 72 scientific principles.
********************
1. Marc Morano, James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic, January 27,2009. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320
2. “Analysis of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gases”, Drs. J. Scott Armstrong and Kesten C. Green a statement prepared for US Senator Inhofe for an analysis of the US EPA’s proposed policies for greenhouse gases. http://theclimatebet.com
Sponsored IT training links:
Get guaranteed success in 312-50 exam in first try using incredible 642-374 dumps and other 310-200 training resources prepared by experts.
Anyone
Threads are moving very fast these days and I often find that the comment I have been replying to lies lost in the past, and I don’t know if the person concerned has replied to me unless I scroll through everything, which can become quite a task unless you log in every few hours.
Is there the facility somewhere to link direct to a comment as with CA? Alternatively, is it possible to have a proper large number by the side of each post rather than numbers that I take to be the time? This would all help to keep the comments to the point and directed towards those who are interested in a particlar part of the thread.
Not a criticism, its a great blog, but things move so fast sometimes its not always easy to follow all the different conversations:)
TonyB
John Galt (09:14:42) :
I think there is a big disconnect between what the IPCC claims and what the AGW alarmists and profiteers claim. The IPCC says they do “scenarios”. You are correct that the IPCC doesn’t claim to do forecasts.
I’m not sure whom you categorise as “alarmists and profiteers”. I’m sure they exist, just as “denialists and profiteers” exist to the other side – that is, there are people on both sides of this debate driven by personal agenda rather than an interest in representing the science honestly.
But of what use are the scenarios? First thing we have to ask, did they get the science right? This has not been independently verified.
Is ‘they’ the IPCC? I’m not sure what you mean, if so. Their assessments are of independent scientific studies (not all independent of one another, I guess, but generally so).
A scientific theory must be falsifiable and it must correctly predict future events to be valid. The IPCC climate models fall short of this.
I agree, but with qualifications. In a closed system, where all inputs can be known and controlled, that is simple. However, let us say that I want to demonstrate that a melon and a plum dropped from the Tower of Pisa will hit the ground at (about!) the same time. In the course of my experiment, the plum bounces of the head of a passer-by, and thus reaches the ground later. I’m sure we’ll agree that I haven’t falsified my theory. So, we have to qualify any expectations to take account of unpredictable inputs that may come about in the course of our experiment. We could rerun the plum/melon experiment, but we can’t rerun the climate experiment (unless you accept model runs!).
Secondly, climate projections recognise areas of uncertainty – in particular, for example, the net effect of clouds. Say that I ran my melon/plum experiment in very uncertain wind conditions, strong enough and locally variable enough to affect the passage of the fruit. I would be unceratin of the extent of this effect. Sometimes the plum might be held back, sometimes the melon. In such conditions I would consider getting close to verifying expectations to be persuasive evidence.
I’m sure the climate models have use in helping to understand the climate. Right now, they are helping us to learn how the climate doesn’t work. But at a practical level, these models tell us nothing about future climate.
Currently, I don’t think they’re generally much use in terms of timing climate events (ENSO cycle, whatever), though that is developing apace. They’re not claiming that they do.
Climate models can’t predict human behavior and can’t predict nature. Will humans continue to use fossil fuels at the assumed rate for the assumed number of decades, or will hydrogen power become so economical that the world switches to it in a few years? Will the sun cooperate and continue to output energy at the rate assumed by the models? Will there be massive volcanic eruptions in the decades ahead that lead to severe global cooling (by blocking the sun). These things are completely unpredictable.
I agree, though they do seek to project nature on the basis of presuming inputs. What they suggest is that if nature remains in a fair state of equilibrium otherwise over time, then the addition of GHGs will lead to warming (with consequent effects upon that natural equilibrium, of course). You are entirely right that if nature chooses to surprise us then all bets are off. There’s plenty of science addressing the chances of such surprise (for example, the assessment of vulcanism), but for sure – we might be about to have a major impact event, fopr example.
Lastly, it’s generally accepted that increasing atmospheric CO2 from 280 PPM to 560 PPM will be itself lead to only 1.6 degree C of warming.
I agree, though it’s not by itself, as you say:
It’s well known the climate system is not linear, so we can’t even take that degree of warming as a given (this 1.6 degree C of warming will only occur if everything else remains the same and it won’t).
Indeed: that works both ways, of course.
The IPCC climate models and others have to add in various positive feedbacks and forcings to get their projected warming.
Hmm. This is not really to do with models. It’s basic theory of, primarily, water vapour response to temperature. What is one supposed to do? Ignore that?
None of those feedbacks and forcings have been shown to actually exist.
What evidence would count for you? If temperature rises but relative humidity remains constant, would that not be persuasive? If albedo changes, does that change ‘exist’ as a feedback?
In other words, nobody has shown the climate actually works the way the IPPC models assume it does. Most of the evidence shows the opposite.
I think the most powerful evidence of the influence of feedbacks upon climate is from palaeoclimatology (and no, I am not talking about the Hockey stick!). I am unaware of any plausible explanation of the evolution of Earth’s climate which does not take feedbacks into account. From a near-snowball state, it should have taken billions of years to recover simply from the influence of a warming sun. But it didn’t. To my mind, the past is inexplicable except in terms of the changing influence of GHGs.
Dr Armstrong’s CV info is instructive:
“A member of the Wharton Marketing Faculty since 1968, Professor Armstrong received his PhD in Management from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, his MS in Industrial Administration from Carnegie Mellon University, and his BS degree in Industrial Engineering and BA in Applied Science from Lehigh University. He has also taught in Thailand, Switzerland, Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Argentina, Japan, and other countries.”
He is a scholar concerning the science of prediction. Although he teaches marketing at the Wharton School of Business, U of PA, his expertise is undeniable.
You who criticize, stop sliming the messenger and respond to his message.
I blogged it in June of 2007 at:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2007/06/principles-of-forcasting.html
A comment on persistence & forecasting – back in the day at Purdue, we had a wx forcasting game. Students forecast wx at W Lafayete & a second city. I think we did 2 or 3 games per semester. Anyway, there was always a player called “Penny Persistence” – whose forecast was based only on …. persistence. Penny usually beat 2/3rd to 3/4th of the real players in the game. Not bad for persistence. If persistence has validity for short term weather, it probably has validity at some time scales of climatology (which scales …. I am not sure). I think Armstrong’s comment on persistence is quite interesting in that there is an underlying implication that feedback mechanisms in our climate system are largely negative & stabilizing – which in & of itself is a strong arguement that CO2 is highly unlikely to be a significant problem (other negative feedback mechanisms will cut it’s effect, if any exists)
AJ Abrams (11:37:28) :
That’s excellent AJ…it’s very healthy to laugh!
The question is whether one wants to apply rather nebulous criteria like Armstrong’s:
“do not address uncertainty in a traditional (unstructured) group meeting”
or whether one chooses to do what climate modellers do which is to apply stringent mathematical criteria to the assessment of the reliability of a model. Of course since the climate models address future events, one can only assess the “mechanics” (using the term loosely) of a model in this manner. However some models have been run sufficiently long to assess their capabilities given that we can observe in hindsight what the actual emission scenarios and temperature evolution and so on actually were (an example in [foinavon (09:40:25)]). Likewise one can assess a climate model’s reliability by “hindcasting”!
Some of your concerns apply with more relevance to the assessment of forecasting in relation to policymaking, where some sort of “principles” are obviously appropriate (and of course, these are already adopted by policymakers and their advisors, although whether they’re in the form of a “checklist” of the sort under discussion is doubtful I suspect) .
Anyway, if engineers are generally guided by the sort of principles proposed by Dr. Armstrong, I might avoid crossing bridges on the way to work tomorrow…I’d hope their principles are a bit more “sciency”!
AGW hypothesis/(McIntyre+Watts+Wegman+Arstrong) = BS
foinavon (11:09:51) :
The question I was addressing relates to why climate modellers don’t use these “principles of forcasting” when doing their modelling. The answer is because the model is not a forecast.
I’m sorry, but I have to disagree. What is the point of climate models if they don’t provide a forecast? The sole purpose is to extrapolate a given set of outcomes based on a given set of input. The output, regardless of how the IPCC would like to descibe it, is essentially a forecast. Furthermore, the output is being specifically cited in numerous scientific papers in an attempt to prove the AGW theory, the purpose being to prove that the climate will warm catastrophically. In essence, the basis of a forecast.
It’s an exploration of the evolution of a climate system to explore a particular chosen phenomenon (e.g. a possible greenhouse gas emission scenario or range of these).
and this is the problem with the models. As you say, the models explore a chosen phenomenon. This is simply not how the real world works. Nature is an interation of everything, all of the time, not a chosen phenomenon. The models are publicized as being a model of the climate, not a chosen few elements that one can find within the environment.
If someone devised some “principles” of any note, that might be designed to address scientific methodologies, for example, one would expect these to be published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, where their relevance, applicability and usefulness can be assessed.
I’m not saying that all of the principles given by Dr Armstrong are directly transferable to climate modelling, given that they have been designed to encompass all types of forecasting methods, it would be silly to elude to this as truth. However, there are a number of principles that can and should be used in modelling climate forecasts (I know, I know, they’re not forecasts…)
Findings from Evidence-based Forecasting:
Methods for Reducing Forecast Error
Extracts…
Empirical comparisons of reasonable approaches provide evidence on the best forecasting procedures to use under given conditions.
My search for evidence-based findings was intended to include all types of forecasting methods. I examined 17 basic methods: role playing,
intentions/expectations surveys, conjoint analysis, prediction markets, Delphi, structured analogies, game theory, decomposition, judgemental bootstrapping, expert systems, extrapolation models, data mining,
quantitative analogies, neural nets, rule-based forecasting, causal models, and segmentation.
As I say, it would be silly to include all of the above, but principles for “expert Systems”, “Extrapolation Models”, “Data Mining”, “Rule Based Forecasting” and “Casual Models” could be applied.
Has the methodology of the models been peer reviewed? I suspect selective elements have been, but the models as a whole have not. Peer review in itself relates to other professionals in the same field of expertise being able to validate the work, methodology and results. In that respect, Dr Armstrong has had a number of “peer reviews” all listed here
(picture a man with an old beat up rain coat and slightly tussled hair ..)
“Oh, sorry Mr. Hansen, I must apologize … there was one more thing I wanted to ask you … it completely slipped my mind. Sorry to trouble you ….”
(Sound of flipping sheets back in coffee stained pocket notebook)
Paddy (11:56:59) :
You who criticize, stop sliming the messenger and respond to his message.
The entire AGW movement has ignored any sort of recognized professional principles since the start. Notice the lack of response to my question of whether any GCM followed the IEEE standards for simulation.
They apply Cicero’s advice to one of his students: “If the facts support you, attack your opponent’s facts. If the facts support your opponent, attack your opponent.”
The failure to respond on a technical level to Dr. Armstrong is a de facto admission that he’s correct in his criticism. The failure to respond on a technical level regarding M&S standards and IV&V is a de facto admission that the GCMs are crap. The word play involved in calling them “forecasts” or “predictions” when using them to scare the public into accepting Draconian public policy, but claiming they’re simply “scenarios” when challenged, is a de facto admission that the “forecasts” (or “predictions” or “scenarios”) are bunk. Making an issue of Dr. Armstongs credentials, but ignoring the “credentials” of the political appointees to the IPCC, Dr. Hansen, Al Gore, et. al., constitutes a de facto admission that the agenda has nothing to do with science.
Flanagan:
I’d have to say that none of your arguments are persuasive. The climate may not be cooling, but it is certainly not warming either. Overall I’d say it’s plateaued. And what warming or cooling there is, which we observe in weather patterns, is pretty minor and expected (e.g., given the PDO has switched to the cool phase). Plus the overall fact that we are coming out of the Little Ice Age still. So if it’s warmer than, say, 400 years ago, then that is actually a GOOD thing. In fact, a bit of warming overall would actually be a good thing, globally. It is (even a bit of) cooling that is actually the worst of all possible threats.
The Arctic seems to be doing just fine itself as winter 2008 has brought an expansion of ice just about on par with what is average for recent years. And the Antarctic is not getting warmer. If you actually thought about it, you’d realize that you are referencing a peninsula and an ice shelf that borders water. First, that peninsula is surrounded on 3 sides by water, and thus is more subject to varying warming and cooling trends around the Antarctic periphery unlike, say, the interior. The same goes for the ice shelf which is subject to winds, oceanic currents, tides, and sundry other natural forces. Furthermore, that whole area is known for its vulcanism. If it were land instead of ice falling into the ocean, we might be concerned. But since a glass full of water with ice in it will not overflow even once the ice floats around in it and melts, there isn’t much reason to panic about a tiny piece of ice (even one the size of Connecticut) falling into the ocean. Considering the bias factors towards warming (oceanic currents, winds, volcanoes) I would be MORE surprised if ice were NOT falling into the ocean. In fact, I don’t believe I have ever heard of any ice in the Antarctic falling into the ocean that was not associated with that very peninsula and its evirons. Now why do you suppose THAT is?
But as to your first question, it is much more interesting:
“So, once again: if the simulations faults are so ominous, why didn’t anybody publish anything consistent about these “faults”? Why another op-ed instead of solid science?”
Why indeed. Although maybe Dr. Richard Lindzen can explain it for you.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf
Let’s try again, turning italiccs off …
Paddy (11:56:59) :
You who criticize, stop sliming the messenger and respond to his message.
The entire AGW movement has ignored any sort of recognized professional principles since the start. Notice the lack of response to my question of whether any GCM followed the IEEE standards for simulation.
They apply Cicero’s advice to one of his students: “If the facts support you, attack your opponent’s facts. If the facts support your opponent, attack your opponent.”
The failure to respond on a technical level to Dr. Armstrong is a de facto admission that he’s correct in his criticism. The failure to respond on a technical level regarding M&S standards and IV&V is a de facto admission that the GCMs are crap. The word play involved in calling them “forecasts” or “predictions” when using them to scare the public into accepting Draconian public policy, but claiming they’re simply “scenarios” when challenged, is a de facto admission that the “forecasts” (or “predictions” or “scenarios”) are bunk. Making an issue of Dr. Armstongs credentials, but ignoring the “credentials” of the political appointees to the IPCC, Dr. Hansen, Al Gore, et. al., constitutes a de facto admission that the agenda has nothing to do with science.
I see that this post and the last one has brought out the AGWers en masse.
They must be smarting or something.
foinavon (11:09:51) :
“The question I was addressing relates to why climate modellers don’t use these “principles of forcasting” when doing their modelling. The answer is because the model is not a forecast. It’s an exploration of the evolution of a climate system to explore a particular chosen phenomenon (e.g. a possible greenhouse gas emission scenario or range of these).”
I’m glad that’s all straightened out. Since a model is simply an “exploration” then we can all just ignore anything that comes out of them. It does make me wonder what Gore is so worried about.
Seriously, did you read this over before posting? You can’t hide the truth behind a bunch of nonsense words. Anything that provides evidence of future conditions is FORECASTING. Deal with it.
foinavon: “So climate models are explorations of the evolution of the climate system under a range of different emission scenarios parameterized according to our current understanding of the physical elements of the climate system and its interactions.”
That’s a fancy tap dance.
Let’s assume emissions continue as they have.
What do the models forecast?
Simon Evans:
I think our observations may be closer than you think, but clearly our conclusions differ. I’m not claiming no feed backs and forcings exist; but that they don’t appear to exist as modeled by the IPCC. When relative humidity rises, that helps trap heat. But humidity also brings clouds and rain, which have a cooling effect.
I also have little doubt that climate models will improve in the future. But for now, their ability to accurately model the climate appears limited. Should we shape public policy on unverified models based upon hypothetical interactions?
You don’t recognize Al Gore as both an AGW alarmist and profiteer? Gore can not only diagnose the disease but also sell you the cure! Surely you don’t think GE is lobbying for more green energy mandates because they plan to give away their wind turbines, do you? The lobbyists pushing cap-and-trade don’t work for free and their clients hope to profit dearly at our expense.
James Hansen is also an alarmist. Is there any scientific basis for his declaration that Obama has only 4 years to save the planet?
John W. (09:15:07) :
It’s one of the fundamental deceits of the IPCC that they don’t make forecasts or predictions but only “projections” or develop “scenarios” (so they can’t be shown to be wrong). Then they demand urgent action to avoid catastrophe, which implies the opposite, that they are predictions.
“From a near-snowball state, it should have taken billions of years to recover simply from the influence of a warming sun. But it didn’t. “ – Simon Evans.
“should have”… presumably…. There can be no other explanation? This is what is known as asserting a negative, about global events that occured millions of years ago for which almost all measurments are lost, no less.
Does this feel like logic to anybody? Looks like a rhetorical argument with a considerable admixture of hand waving to me. The rest of the post is no better. Who are you trying to convince? Us our yourself?
Paul Shanahan (12:23:07)
I have to disagree with you! A climate model is only a forecast if someone chooses to use it as a forecast. Otherwise it’s just a model. And the output is certainly not being used “in an attempt to prove the AGW theory”. the AGW theory and its evidence is completely independent of climate models. Otherwise there’s a whole lot of “point” to doing climate modelling (see just below, for example)
I think you’ve misunderstood. Clearly if one wishes to explore the evolution of the climate system under enhanced greenhouse forcing, one would like to know what the enhanced greenhouse forcing will be. Since we don’t know, a climate model run to explore the possible temporal evolution of the Earth’s climate will be run several times to assess the effects of different emission scenarios. Likewise one could run the model to assess the effect of a putative volcanic eruption in the future and the climate response. Or one might choose to determine how the climate might evolve under scenarios in which major efforts are made to minimize atmopsheric aerosols from burning “dirty” fuels, or the likely effects of long term recovery of the ozone layer….and so on…
That doesn’t mean that all other elements of the climate system and their known parameterizations aren’t always included in all the models as a “default”. But models are generally run to test something!
I don’t agree with that. My reasons are outlined in [foinavon (12:10:06)]. Armstrong’s “principles” have little relevance to climate modellers.
Where those sort of “principles” might be appropriate, is in relation to policymaking by policymakers and their scientific advisors. However in this case, one expects that the policymakers and their advisors are sufficiently well-informed that they would assess the entire body of scientific evidence for potential greenhouse-related impacts and consider the role of models appropriately. At least in the case of the IPCC we can be confident that they do so, since their (voluminous) reports are available for everyone to read.
Robert Wood (12:37:45) :
I see that this post and the last one has brought out the AGWers en masse.
This and the Theon thread!
Here is a professor in climatology who is testifying in an environmental case for an appellant in a windfarm case, Chris de Fretas, a prof at the University of Auckland in New Zealand. He has the degrees, he is currently publishing, and all the usual ad hominem that is used to kick at academics who come out against AGW doesn’t apply
http://www.odt.co.nz/the-regions/central-otago/41301/professor-denies-greenhouse-effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_de_Freitas
Excellent article. Professor Armstrong is one of the top scholars in forecasting.
I am a PHD economist, please don’t hold that against me. I am familar with econometrics and forecasting and my dissertation used spectral analysis to hunt out economic cycles. One time when I was young and foolish, I believed in power of the econometric models; today, hopefully wiser, I know all models have shortcomings. So did any econometric model forecast this current downturn one year ago, two years ago? As far as I know ,only the Austrian School economists were raising the red flags, and they don’t use econometric models. If you don’t include the right variables, etc. the model is misspecified. Since I figure the dynamics of the Earth are more complex than an economic activity, those climate model must have issues to say the least. I do not put any faith in them. Why economists fall for AGW, I don’t know except that cap and trade would provide employment opportunities for them. I ,however, am an AGW skeptic.
Robert Wood: “…has brought out the AGWers en masse.”
I’ve noticed the same thing since the Best Blog voting, but I think debate is a healthy thing.
Learned a lot in the last year. A year ago I didn’t know who Hansen was, and wouldn’t have thought that today I’d be tracking ice extent, sunspots, UAH temps etc.
foinavon (12:51:38) :
You say “I have to disagree with you! A climate model is only a forecast if someone chooses to use it as a forecast. Otherwise it’s just a model. And the output is certainly not being used “in an attempt to prove the AGW theory”.”
Yet on the other thread you did just that. In an attempt to prove AGW theory you posted numerous papers that were in fact model runs (and one notorious paper by Mann).
It was shown by another poster that each and every one of your cited evidence was a model run of one type or another and now you have the brass b_lls to state the what you did can’t be done…but you did it.
You have now been thoroughly discredited by your own words which are here for the world to read.
Luis Dias (11:25:01) :
Richard M – Did you somehow miss all the Ad Hominem attacks and strawman arguments?
“Just like the one you just did? Yes I did. All I watched was RC destroying the entire argument and showing how ridiculous the IIF’s study really is. If they compound it by calling “Stupid” what is definitely “Stupid”, I can hardly see that as “Ad Hominem”.
You entirely missed the ad hominem reference to Bob Carter. You entirely missed this strawman: ‘the authors of the paper have a much larger agenda’. You entirely missed this strawman: ‘G+A’s recent foray into climate science might therefore be a good case study for why their principles have not won wide acceptance’. You entirely missed this strawman: ‘When moving into a new field, don’t assume you know everything about it because you read a review and none of the primary literature’.
You miss a lot don’t you. Also, explain to me how pointing out the problems in RC’s article is ad hominem.