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.
Interesting. Not “potential future events” but “future events”. So they’re definite, then, are they?
Anthony,
RC climate modelers say “pooh on that, they don’t need such things”. And they may be right, because there is no accountability for them. If the climate model fails 50 years into the future. They aren’t around to be held accountable. Thus it appears they aren’t even interested in looking outside their own realm to embrace something that might improve the model forecasts. The arrogance on display there at RC is stunning.- Anthony
I’m quite interested in the psychology of all this. You’re probably right that there is some arrogance evident over there (although the courtesy that some like to celebrate is not always evident over here, I have to say!). And I appreciate your allowing me to post my contrary views here (although I might appreciate it much more if you banned me immediately so that I could spend more time on the rest of my life ;-)).
The thing is, speaking as a ‘warmist’, I guess, that one is assailed by all sorts of internally contradictory arguments. ‘CO2 is higher than it has been but that’s not a problem’/’CO2 isn’t higher than it has been anyway’, ‘The Earth has warmed but it’s natural’/’The Earth hasn’t warmed’, ‘It’s all the sun’/’It’s all volcanoes’. Internal contradiction abounds, but there seems to be no internal scepticism. Frankly, it seems that any old thing that suggest doubt of AGW is given equal uncritical treatment. There are regular items here commenting on how cold it is somewhere or other. Where are the items commenting on how warm it is somewhere or other? By all means commit yourself to one side of the debate but, if you do, then how can you be surprised when other sites commit themselves otherwise?
You suggest that RealClimate are closed-minded. I suggest to you that there is just as much a case to put that this site is closed-minded in its selection of ‘leads’ and in the weight of commentary upon them. Where is the ‘scepticism’ that people would like to associate themselves with?
I suggest that Armstrong’s ‘naive model’ with its ‘successive updating’ is a confidence trick. What on earth would you make of a climate projection that took advantage of ‘succesive updating’? It’s trivially obvious that if one keeps reworking the forecast according to what actually turns out then one will keep on nudging the percentages towards actuality. The long-term ‘forecasts’ remain entirely inadequate, as I have discussed above, but the rolling percentage looks ok! By contrast, the IPCC’s projections are being assessed in terms of their long-term adequacy. This is not a comparison of like with like. It’s risible, frankly, and amounts to the useless observation that if one runs the same trick from winter through to summer then the ‘forecast’ will be good for whatever percentage of the time. Is there so little scepticism here that people would like to ignore the difference between winter and summer so long as the case put seems to be ‘anti-warming’?
This whole “it’s a forecast” / “it’s not a forecast” thing is a bit tiring.
It’s just a semantic game. Here’s what my OED says:
The only lucid argument I’ve heard that the IPCC doesn’t do forecasts is simply that the input may change. Take this example from foinavon:
This doesn’t make them any less a forecast. Every forecast is made with certain assumptions, and those assumptions can change after the forecast is made. If that happens, it doesn’t invalidate the forecast, only the assumptions.
Consider a 5-day weather forecast. The forecast is made with the assumption that a volcano isn’t going to erupt tomorrow. If it does, the 5-day forecast will be far off, but not because of a flaw in the logic, only the assumption.
Similarly, climate models claim to predict future temperature, assuming a certain amount of human CO2 production. Claiming that they aren’t forecasts simply because CO2 output may go up or down is nothing more than a dodge. They are forecasts since they make specific predictions of future trends based on a set of inputs, any claim otherwise is simply dissembling.
Here is the post from Realitycheck I refer to above – Gee Flanagan…maybe you were caught in a big ol…….BS statement
realitycheck (15:17:40) :
Flanagan:
I appreciate you posting the publications. However, here is my concern and its a large one: – they are ALL based on the output from simulations (models) or in the case of the Mann paper on “climate proxies”. WHERE IS THE EMPIRICAL DATA proof? I have posted my comment on each paper after the R:
1) Natural variability of the climate system and detection of the greenhouse effect
R: In the abstract we read “…Simulations with a simple climate model are used to determine the main controls on internally generated low-frequency variability…” – they are using a model to determine what the range of “natural” variability in the atmosphere is, NOT ACTUAL data
2) Simulations of Atmospheric Variability Induced by Sea Surface Temperatures and Implications for Global Warming
R: The title says it all “Simulations” – they are not using ACTUAL DATA
3) Model assessment of the role of natural variability in recent global warming
R: “Model”, not ACTUAL DATA How can a GCM, which contains gross simplifications of the physics of the atmosphere, and which the IPCC have themselves indicated cannot be used for prediction (see AR4) reasonably be used to determine with the magnitude of natural variability is?
4) External Control of 20th Century Temperature by Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings
R: Here they attempt to replicate the 20th century record by a GCM – the GCM cannot replicate the temperature record – not surprising, since it does not reproduce many of the natural modes of variability in the atmosphere/ocean system such as NAO, AO, PDO, PNA, AMO etc. and even the IPCC indicate that GCMS should not be used for climate prediction (see AR4). So they adopt the old chestnut explanation – what else could it be? aha, must be CO2 NOT PROOF that CO2 drives climate.
5) Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries
R: This is a study by Michael Mann using….oh dear….climate proxies….oh dear. NOT ACTUAL DATA. I won’t even go further here – read any of the excellent work by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick for further explanation
I will repeat – where is the beef?
Robert Wood (12:37:45) :
“I see that this post and the last one has brought out the AGWers en masse.”
I think this is an excellent development. They make it very clear to everyone reading this blog that they have no case. Why don’t they say “I believe AGW is happening because of this key piece of evidence”? The dog that didn’t bark in the night.
Thanks Luis, following your own advice on rules, I’ll snip as needed.
Of course Anthony, unless you happen to believe that I am Santa, in which case I sincerely hope you follow my advice, or else I’ll be pissed off and ruin your holiday.
Another thing. The initial assumptions of a model determine it’s conclusion, result or whatever you want to call it. So if you set up your model with the “right assumptions” you can get the conclusion you want.
So you want to blame man’s CO2 emissions causing a bunch of dead polar bears or melting ice caps, you can do it.Just as church attendance can cause more drinking. Spurious, but the model says it does. The model has to be right!
Richard M (12:38:47) :
Yes, Richard, I did read my post before posting! I try to say what I think clearly, but I do sometimes mess up with the html edit markups which can be very annoying when the carefully-crafted message actually appears on the thread… I think you’ve reproduced only one of my answers…the other reason that those “principles” aren’t used by modellers is that they’re not appropriate in the circumstance of model design, implementation and analysis, being rather more relevant to policymaking
From my memory of Gore’s movie, there wasn’t much about modelling. And that remains the same in terms of our basic understanding of the climate system, its response to enhanced greenhouse forcing, the evidence that informs us, and the likely evolution of the Earth’s climate system in the future according to various emission scenarios. So one doesn’t need to get too worked up about climate models. On the other hand the models are very useful for exploring ranges of possible variation (resulting from the range of possible, but as yet unknown, emission scenarios, for example), and for allowing us to get an idea of the likely geographical distribution of consequences in a warming world…
foinavon (12:51:38) :
A climate model is only a forecast if someone chooses to use it as a forecast.
Would you agree that the IPCC create climate models? Lets look at the scientific “AR4 Summary For Policy Makers” From page 12 refers to Projections of Future Changes in Climate. Here we are using the TAR models to “predict” to the year 2100 temperature change of our climate between 2.4 and 6.4 degrees C. Furthermore, the prediction from the models are forecasting sea level rises of 0.26 to 0.59m. This is clearly evidence of models being used to forecast temperature changes. In this case, it’s not just a model.
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 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.
But models are generally run to test something!
I agree with some of the point above. I don’t believe I have mis-understood. The models are good to evaluate and validate experiments in lab conditions. But they are not validated, nor peer reviewed, against the real world.
Clearly the AR4 report concludes temperature will rise with increasing levels of CO2. The real world concludes that temperatures have plateaued despite these rises.
I’m not going to argue that the models have been invalidated on this bases as there are more un-modelled natural forcing’s in the real world, however, as the AR4 report, based on forecasts made by the IPCC models is being used as evidence of CO2 forced climate change, then they are not simply being used to test a Laboratory theory. The real world invalidates this.
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.
Principles of how models are built and for their purpose should happen during the model build. It is unrealistic to assume policy makers or scientific advisor’s can evaluate if the models are worth the listing paper they print results on. Principles built into the models ensure no bias is introduced, nor errors made. It is also unrealistic to assume modellers, climate scientists etc would know or have a set of transparent principles that can be used to predict climate. You need to bring in experts in their fields to fill these voids. I’m not just talking about the world premier authority on Forecasting, also consider biologists, chemists, paleo experts, computer programmers, statisticians, engineers and so on.
AJ Abrams (13:03:22) :
Please pay attention AJ. That “other thread” (if it’s the one I think you mean…perhaps you could be a bit more specific) was about assessing past temperatures from analysis of paleoproxies. It wasn’t about climate models. And I certainly wasn’t discussing the paleoproxy data in an attempt to “prove AGW theory”. We were discussing the quality of the proxies and their analyses if I remember correctly. It couldn’t have been about climate models if it was in reference to Mann (Dr. “notorious”!) could it, since I don’t think Mann does climate models….
Don’t say stuff that just isn’t true. If you think my recollection is incorrect or I’m referring to a different thread than you (I’ve posted on three/four threads in the past few days) point out the thread and relevant posts.
John Galt (12:43:40) :
Simon Evans:
I think our observations may be closer than you think, but clearly our conclusions differ.
I agree (if that doesn’t sound self-contradictory!).
I agree that models are not what we might want them to be. Where I differ from some (I’m not saying you) is in the view that therefore they are no use at all.
The IPCC summary projects a 10% chance, say, that AGW will not have much serious consequence at all over the coming century. On the other hand, it projects a 10% chance, say, that it might have a more serious consequence than we tend to address (the ‘alarmist’ view, perhaps!). In the middle of that, there’s the assessment of higher percentage chances which are more or less serious. This is all a bit vague, of course, I would agree.
Still, I think of it in terms of risk assessment. I am persuaded that it’s not a great idea to keep increasing CO2 (and other) concentrations, since this increases risk. I am very aware of uncertainty, but somewhat puzzled by the apparent certainty of those who think the whole thing is a ‘scam’, etc.
You don’t recognize Al Gore as both an AGW alarmist and profiteer?
I think his AIT presentation of potential sea rises was alarmist, in that it didn’t give a clear view of anticipated time scales – it allowed the viewer to think this might be happening ‘soon’. Otherwise, I think he made a few mistakes but felt that mostly it was a fair representation. That’s JMV, of course! I can’t comment on ‘profiteer’. Tbh, I’m not particularly interested – I’m just trying to figure out what the science suggests, rather than what players on one side or the other are up to.
James Hansen is also an alarmist. Is there any scientific basis for his declaration that Obama has only 4 years to save the planet?
I can’t quite remember what he’s said. Obviously, the planet will do just fine! It’s been through conditions that we might not like too much ourselves. My own view is that we are pushing up hard against the level of sustainability, so that we don’t have much headroom to cope with variability (I don’t want to sound too Malthusian here!). I’m concerned about the social implications, and the potentially huge ‘cost’, of perturbation. Scientists will argue about most everything, but I really don’t think there are many who would think it a particularly bright idea to keep on adding to a climate forcing. I am not able to assert that a particular level of CO2 is ‘critical’, but I’m not inclined to find out retrospectively that we didn’t know it was.
I offer you this heretofore unexplored facet to consider …
go to http://www.cbc.ca/podcasting/pastpodcasts.html#ref14
click on the “Best of Ideas” (about half-way down the page?) & you’ll find Gwynn Dyer’s recent documentary “Climate Wars Parts 1 & 2”, ready to download
Please give it a listen.
Of course, IMHO, the one aspect unfortunately NOT entertained, in that documentory, or anywhere ELSE, is the cast-iron psychological GRIP that THEIR WHEELS have, on the rugged-individualist’s psyche…
essentially it comes down to
“What? ME ride the bus?”
THAT little hiccup – the reality that there’s a goodly proportion of the (esp. lead-footed American) population who would actually rather FIGHT & DIE to maintain their gas-driven scoot – is just one more awesome chasm to be bridged in the not-too-distant-future: the seemingly self-contradictory data of zoomin’, but on foot.
davidc (13:17:57) :
Robert Wood (12:37:45) :
“I see that this post and the last one has brought out the AGWers en masse.”
I think this is an excellent development. They make it very clear to everyone reading this blog that they have no case. Why don’t they say “I believe AGW is happening because of this key piece of evidence”? The dog that didn’t bark in the night.
I’d suggest that you engage in discussion of particular points rather than seeking to denigrate others by such generalisations. There are a lot of comments of your kind on this and other threads.
I could post, in response, “The denialists make it very clear that they have no case”. What would be the point of such an exchange? If you have something to say that’s pertinent then do so, but generalised denigration adds nothing. You (and others) might rally the core, but you’re not going to persuade others unless you can address the science.
As for “I believe AGW is happening because of this key piece of evidence”?, I give you the absorption of IR by CO2 molecules.
Foinavon,
In an effort to save you a little typing:
“…a climate model run to explore the possible temporal evolution of the Earth’s climate…” = forecast
“…assess the effect of a putative volcanic eruption in the future and the climate response…” = forecast
“…Or one might choose to determine how the climate might evolve under scenarios…” = forecast
foinavon — Why should “forecasters” be used as reviewers of scientific papers that they’re unlikely to understand?
Also english majors read this blog and correct our punctuation and spelling. But we all sometimes agree that there(sp..) changes are correct….
Because English, is their specialty…:)
sentence structure
grammar
tense etc….
jp
Yes, it is almost as if the IPCC and RC true believers are confusing personal insult with logical argument. Armstrong knows his craft: forecasting. He can spot a pretender at 40 paces, and he is calling the IPCC and RC people pretenders.
It is a serious charge from a serious scholar. Anyone who covers his eyes and ignores the warning because it doesn’t suit his prior beliefs has a very real problem, which stares at him every morning in the mirror.
foinavon (11:45:02) :
If we agree that it doesn’t make sense for climate modellers to incorporate these “”principles of forecasting” into their work, since a cliimate model isn’t a “forecast”, nor for forecasters to review their publications as part of the peer-review process, then we could move on to a more sensible point…
The model itself may not be a forecast, although if the report on it contains predictions or possible outcomes it tortures the mind, as I’ve said, to say so, but the IPCC doesn’t do the models, they assess them and then use them to predict the risks to mankind of possible man made climate change. Isn’t that forecasting? Shouldn’t IPCC reports be fair game for comment by those expert in forecasting?
Here’s the stated IPCC mandate for example:
>cite/cite<
One cannot really breath the words "climate change" much less "global warming" without casting the mind forward, so to speak. We aren’t really worried so much about change or warming that has already happened are we? It seems to me that if we are really truly interested in this matter, if we find it compelling or important we would want to employ all the useful techniques and disciplines that we can find.
Possibly Armstrong’s assertions, conclusions, principles and methods could be criticized or improved, maybe there is a better forecaster out there to consult, but to see them dismissed on the premise that no climate forecasting has taken place is hard to accept.
I ran across testimony this guy gave to Congress about a year ago. If I recall correctly, he and his organization have promulgated a number of “principles” that they argue need to be followed when forecasting, but not many other disciplines actually endose the principles, at least not in toto. His critique of the modelers seeems to boil down to an averment that “they violated the principles that I believe are important.” This kind of blanket argument isn’t as persuasive as, say Anthony’s documentation that most of the temperature measurement stations in this country don’t live up to the standards that NOAA itself has set up.
Having said that, many (but not all) of the principles that Armstrong states are essential to accurate forecasts are no brainers, and if you analyze specific principles you can come up with some devastating arguments as to why existing models are useless. For example, the idea that a model should be first shown to produce the results it is used for before you rely on it seems to be self-evident, but climate models by their nature can’t be validated as accurate forecasting tools in anything less than a century. Also, the point that you can’t just rely upon expert opinion on something as comlex as predicting future climate, or attribution of certain observed climate changes to specific causes, is also self evident (and actually a corollary of the previous point – how can you be an expert without first proving that your opinions on forecasts or attributions have been demonstarted as accurate.)
Formerly known as Mongo – who died. I killed him.
Interesting new posters here, Anthony and moderating team. While livening up the debate, the attacks from authority have increased massively. I too, can regurgitate info from (pick a site/source) without understanding the underlaying principles.
“if the IPCC is not using climate models to forecast…” then what are they doing? The effect of these non-forecasts/scenario’s has the same effect as a forecast. IMO, they are one in the same in their application.
Ok – old news. I get it. Dr Armstrong has AGW proponents on him like a red rash. Got it. Anything this polarizing is going to manufacture controversy.
As a skeptic, folks, the net effect of this article is zero. Without falsifying this badly flawed theory, we’re still involved in an on-going train wreck. Nice to see this, but it’s kind of a sugar rush. i’ve already crashed…how about you?
Tom M (14:39:27) :
but the IPCC doesn’t do the models, they assess them and then use them to predict the risks to mankind of possible man made climate change.
I think it depends on interpretation. The TGICA clearly states that they don’t do climate models, however, there is also the quote;
***In order to allow climate modelers a quick start with their work after the completion of the AR4, the Expert meeting is also tasked to prepare a few benchmark concentration scenarios…***
To me this means they are involved in the creation of models. Yes, indirectly, but creation non the less.
Cite
I messed up on my citation from the IPCC website in my post above.
Here’s the quote that I meant to post:
The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage.
My apologies.
I can congratulate anyone who can put their full faith in either side…that either scientists know what’s going on, or don’t know at all. Such blind faith certainly results in easier living…not having to put much thought into definitive beliefs. Such an easy ‘out’.
Unfortunately, one need only have common sense to know that belching polutants into the atmosphere isn’t a good thing, and digging up oil to burn it into the atmosphere isn’t ‘paradise found’. It’s also a system that specifically benefits the enemies we create to satisfy our demand. So what’s the harm in creating a system based on solar and wind power, or other renewables?
The cost is the harm? Um…we just spend $1 Trillion on wars, got no-where in safety from terrorists, lost 4000 lives and 30,000 US casualties, 100k Iraq casualties. I think we need to take a different approach. I don’t care about the scientific forecasts. I’m just going with common sense. Duh. Let’s create our own energy, with less polution and less money getting siphoned directly to our enemies to supply it.
Nothing in the original posts or most of the comments seems to suggest any massive down-side to decreasing our reliance on foreign, non-renewable energies. Screw the forecasts. Just use your brain a little bit. “Global Warming” isn’t the only issue here.
OT, but will probably be of interest to many here :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/28/AR2009012803318_pf.html
I dont know what scares me more – that these people run our country …. or that people in our country elected them. Maybe we are doomed …. but not because of AGW.
I’ll point out that nobody has addressed the criticisms made of what Armstrong actually puts forward.
His ‘naive model’ hindcasts are completely useless over a 100 year period once warming is effected. They do not stack up against GCM hindcasts. That is blitheringly obvious!
His “successive updating” is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s trivially obvious that cumulative recalculation will tend towards the actuality.
I’m not particularly interested in his credentials one way or the other. His proposed ‘model’ has no usefulness whatsoever in terms of anticipating the future one hundred years hence. That’s self-evident if you consider its usefulness now rather than its supposed accuracy after its been “successively updated” for the next 99 years!
Jeff L (15:50:06) :
OT, but will probably be of interest to many here :
That article is the best laugh I’ve had all night. Excellent! 😀