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.
Foinavon! Just a quick question – what would you regard as “real science”?
While I respect your very eloquent points & clear understanding of the issues here, it appears that there is not a single scientist who offers any sort of challenge to AGW whose opinion or work you respect.
Are they all wrong?
Is there not a single point raised in this thread or any other where you would begin to concede even just a little ground?
Or are you completely convinced that even some of the very well informed contributers here are gullible idiots, deluded by the “blogosphere”?
Just sometimes, your contempt towards other opinions comes across as “he doth protest too much”!!
Agreed – others at times show unjust contempt for your comments, but surely they are best ignored in the interests of exploring the issues at hand in a way that is clearly unprejudiced and unemotive?
Addressing foinavon’s list:
ONE. …climate models are… not “forecasts” in the commonly used sense of the word.
Yes they are. CCM forecasts are widely applied in the political arena as forecasts and are conflated with economic models for increased taxation and socio-economic manipulations. They are used as value-laden predictions by the CCM modelers. See Hansen et al.
TWO. If a forecaster (of the type suggested by Armstrong) is involved, it might more usefully be in the arena of policymaking.
The contention that CCM’s are divorced from policymaking is specious and disingenuous. We all know that CCM’s are used for policy advocacy. To deny such is worse than naivety; it is counter-factual.
THREE. …Armstrong… works largely in the area of conflict forecasting. His complaint against “expert opinion” [in regards to CCM’s is irrelevant].
No, climate change is conflict forecasting. Again, attempts to shelter CCM’s from political implications and policy-making is counter-factual.
“…Expert opinions are an inappropriate forecasting method in situations that involve high complexity and high uncertainty.” But we’re not talking about “expert opinion”. We’re talking about scientific analysis.
No, CCM’s are expert opinions, (albeit the expertise may be questionable). Models are not mere formulas applied to data. They are amalgamations of theories, e.g. opinions.
FOUR. Armstrong says: “[How] might the effects [of GW] 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.” …There’s… plenty of… scientific analysis that incorporates the economic impact of global warming into predictions.
I submit that the predictions (foinavon’s word) of dire effects of GW have not been done with any skill or verifiability. Rising sea levels, hurricanes, the Venus Effect, etc. are speculation without scientific rigor. Furthermore, numerous scientific reports on the benefits of GW in the past fully contradict the dire speculations.
FIVE. …there’s an abundance of published science on cost-benefit analysis in climate change and mitigation.
Again, that work has been done without skill or verifiability, lacking as it does any conformance to the principles of forecasting, econometrics, or true benefit analysis of GW. Climate warming is beneficial in myriad ways; it cannot be assumed to be a “cost” and thus “mitigation” cannot be considered a “benefit.” Killing the golden goose does not result in net gain.
SIX. It’s not obvious that Armstrong’s apparent requirement for a naïve model is really very useful in climate change forecasting.
The naive model provides a baseline with which to judge complex forecasting (foinavon’s word) models. It is the null hypothesis required by Popperian science. The naive model does not ignore historical data as foinavon mistakenly implies. On the contrary, it is a treatment of the data as much as any complex model.
SEVEN. … how can one forecast the temperature of the following 100 years from the temperature of a single year anyway?
Armstrong did so! with his naive (null hypothesis) model precisely to test the reliability of more complex climate forecast (again, foinavon’s word) models. The nuance of null hypotheses may escape climate forecasters (who deny/confirm that they are doing forecasting), but said forecasters cannot then claim to be doing Popperian science.
EIGHT. Both the science and the policymaking seems pretty conservative to me.
That value judgment is accepted as such. I do not dispute foinavon’s self-described impressions since I don’t live inside his skin. But to me, from my vantage point, both the “science” of climate modeling and the associated policymaking seem radically authoritarian and destructive of economic well-being, quality of life, and fundamental human rights.
Mike D. (16:21:12) :
SEVEN. … how can one forecast the temperature of the following 100 years from the temperature of a single year anyway?
Armstrong did so! with his naive (null hypothesis) model precisely to test the reliability of more complex climate forecast
Excuse me butting in, but Armstrong’s ‘naive model’ is not a null hypothesis, since it is “successively updated”. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
A null hypothesis would assert no expectation of likely change one way or the other. A “successively updated” model simply tracks whatever change occurs. Surely this is evident?
Al Gore has nothing else, this is it, so no matter what, even in an ice storm he will demand money for his cause. Give him some credit though, he did invent the internet and global warming, the light buld, not the one that Edison invented, the one that you get over the top of your head when you get an idea.
Gore, let me educate you, I will write slower so you can grasp the concept. IN THE SUMMER, IT TENDS TO GET WARMER UNTIL WINTER COMES, THEN IT GET COLDER. Al, find a real job.
Salutwineco (15:45:38)
It’s not the only issue, but it pretty much is the main issue. As point #7 in the article states: The climate system is stable.
That means that CO2 is not having any noticeable effect. What follows from that realization is obvious: taxpayers should not have to fork over $Trillions for a non-problem. The climate is stable. Let’s take care of real problems, like sanitation, malaria, vaccinating kids in poor countries, etc. Money spent to “mitigate global warming” is money wasted.
No one argues that pollution isn’t a problem, or that alternative energy sources shouldn’t be used. Framing the argument that way creates a straw man. You don’t want to do that here, do you?
The central issue in the overall debate is this: a small minority believes that increases in CO2 will lead to runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. Fortunately, there are only about a half-dozen here who keep trying to convince the great majority of other posters and lurkers that the end is nigh. Most everyone else is convinced that CO2 is a beneficial trace gas, and that even if the Earth warmed up a degree or so, instead of doing its current cooling, humanity would be better off with a slightly warmer, more pleasant and healthier climate.
All the other ad hom, incessant, hairsplitting arguments stem from people whose egos are so intertwined with Al Gore’s hypothesis that they simply can not see that as CO2 rises and global temperatures fall, their CO2/climate catastrophe scenario has been defenestrated.
Once someone accepts the plain fact that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but a beneficial and necessary trace gas, everything else falls into place. As the general population gradually takes notice, they are coming around to the realization that the entire issue is motivated by money and power — not by real science.
Glad to have you come aboard. Visit here for a while and there’s a good chance you’ll begin to see what’s up. As you can see from some of the comments, others used to be believers in the CO2/doomsday scenario too. Then they saw the other side of the argument, and they began to see the agenda. So, be skeptical for a while. See where it leads.
All the other ad hom, incessant, hairsplitting arguments stem from people whose egos are so intertwined with Al Gore’s hypothesis that they simply can not see that as CO2 rises and global temperatures fall, their CO2/climate catastrophe scenario has been defenestrated.
That is an ad hom statement. Are you conscious of your hypocrisy as you write it out?
Jeff L says:
I don’t see why persistence implies negative feedbacks. Furthermore, if such negative feedbacks exist, how do you explain, for example, the ice age / interglacial cycles. You are going to have to come up with some big-honkin’ forcings to explain the changes in temperature that occurred in such a stable system!
A forecast is a forecast is a forecast, no matter what name you use in its stead such as a prediction or a projection (an estimate of future possibilities based on a current trend) or even a scenario.
A few years back a prominent statistician (Wegman) laid out a devastating critique of the infamous hockey stick and its lack of adherence to principles of statistics or even using a statistician in evaluating the work.
Now we see a world renowned forecasting guru rip to shreds AGW oriented climate models for failing to adhere to forecasting principles.
How many of the underpinnings of AGW have to be knocked out before the adherents discover that their belief system is a floating abstraction without a solid connection to reality? *sigh* That’s a rhetorical question, fantasies are clung to with fanatical devotion.
Simon, I mentioned no names, but I was referring to those who instantly attack people like Drs. Theon and Armstrong, Monckton, Lindzen, Goddard, Hays, and any others who don’t toe the UN/IPCC line.
You seem to be like the guy who walks up to a hat rack, picks up someone’s hat, puts it on and exclaims, “Hey, this hat fits me perfectly. So this must be my hat!”
Well, maybe it is.
@E.M.Smith (from way, way back up there) Thanks for your help!
Smokey (16:58:58) :
, I mentioned no names, but I was referring to those who instantly attack people like Drs. Theon and Armstrong, Monckton, Lindzen, Goddard, Hays, and any others who don’t toe the UN/IPCC line.
I don’t think there’s much mileage to be had in discussion from insinuating motives on the part of individuals. I do think it’s reasonable to check out authority or claimed authority in a particular field – if someone tells me I need a heart transplant I want to know that they’re a medic at least! Generally I tend to be a bit suspicious of supposed authority when someone is emphasising it as part of their ‘pitch’, but maybe that’s my own cynicism.
I’m really much more interested in what is being said rather than who is saying it. Personally, I think this thread has been rather diverted by discussion of Armstrong rather than of what he says which, personally, I don’t think bears much scrutiny!
It seems slightly odd to me that the ‘contrarians’ (or whatever) tend to scorn the significance of consensus on the one hand but then stress the status of whichever endorser-of-contrarianism is being discussed. We’ve had quite a bit of “how dare anyone question the views of this eminent person” on this thread. I don’t care about that. If his statements don’t stack up, then they deserve sceptical appraisal, IMV.
The ad hom accusations can be tossed around endlessly. If I objected to every ad hom against Hansen/Mann/Gore (who’s a politician anyway, so I’m not too much interested in his views) then I’d be posting even more than I am doing! Personally, I think discussion might be better if everyone reined it in on both sides. JMV, of course :-).
Against my better judgement I held my nose and did go and read the RC response that Luis Dias linked.
Not surprisingly it consisted of 99% ad hominem attack on the messenger rather than the message with the sole factual rebuttal being a claim that climate models have been extensively validated on data they were not ad hoc tuned to match.
That latter claim I regard with considerable scepticism.
Alan Wilkinson (17:40:21) :
Against my better judgement I held my nose and did go and read the RC response that Luis Dias linked.
Not surprisingly it consisted of 99% ad hominem attack on the messenger rather than the message with the sole factual rebuttal being a claim that climate models have been extensively validated on data they were not ad hoc tuned to match.
That latter claim I regard with considerable scepticism.
So, can you please address the criticisms of Armstrong’s case that I’ve made here? I would like someone to! I’ll summarise:
1. Their ‘naive model’ hindcast has no long -term (say 100 year) usefulness and is kicked over by the GCM hindcasts, as demonstrated way above (see my first post on this thread);
2. Their “successive updating” of that naive model simply sets up a self-fulfilling prophecy that is bound to tend towards actuality. It is not a null hypothesis and is of no usefulness if we cannot know its actual forecast, which could only be determined once a further 99 years have passed!
Can you address that? I’d like someone to. Sorry to be tediously repetitive, but all the self-proclaimed ‘sceptics’ here seem to have passed by any discussion of the nonsense presented in this “statement”.
G Alston (01:17:52) :
Kmye — Can anyone explain #7 (in the article list) in different, perhaps simpler terms?
Climate changes slowly enough that for short term (100 year) time scales, it’s relatively stable.
The bad news is that this is pretty much in accordance with what the AGW alarmists are claiming, that it’s been stable for ages but all this recent CO2 stuff [insert hockey stick here] temps are now climbing faster than ever seen historically.
Um, “I don’t think so G” … They did series of all lengths including single years. The test says that even in the 10s of years and singles of years, nothing is changing much. That would not be the case if the temps were moving like the ‘hockey stick’ or had any other rise of more than 0.5C scale.
The test they did finds both hidden cyclicality and sloping data at all time scales from 1 year to 100. The ‘naive’ case was good at all spans (so cycles may well exist but are not too strong, and there are no strong trends positive or negative in any of the spans.)
AGW takes an arrow to the heart here.
Brendan H (03:10:54),
Big oil interests you. And that is good. Now who is big grease funding? Because big grease wants to displace big oil.
These are some interesting talks you have going on here. Keep it up!!
Drat. Everything from “Um, I don’t think so G” on down is mine.
I need to learn to close the italics better…
Robert Bateman (02:57:57) :
Wiki is a poor place to find answers for work that has never been done.
I like to use it as a place to pick up references (at the bottom), search terms (if my google ideas were ‘thin’) and get a general flavor of ‘how much’ exists. If something is critical, I look elsewhere… but as a first cut it is usually OK (modulo the infestation with AGW junk).
I don’t know where you are, but from your statements it sounds like inland central California. That was fairly well explored and documented by the 1800’s (San Jose was founded in 1777 just to give an idea). Sacramento, per the wiki (an example of picking up a quick non-critical pointer…) says:
In either 1799 or 1808, the Spanish explorer Gabriel Moraga discovered and named the Sacramento Valley and the Sacramento River
So the spaniards were wandering inland at the time of the Dalton. A history of his travels ought to be enlightening.
BTW, they had thermometers since way back. A friend has a “Galileo thermometer” on his desk that is quite accurate. Early 1600’s is when they started making thermometers of odd sorts.
And I ought to point out that the inland areas weather is dominated by the coast. Most of the time inland gets what the coast got a while ago, only hotter or colder as the case may be. (Modulo the occasional Canada Express…) So the coastal conditions being ‘about the same’ implies that inland would be ‘about the same’.
I woud also expect that any ’49er lore might hold references to ‘different from the past’. I.e. something like ‘we had a drought in the past, but now we have plenty of water’ that could be helpful.
Good luck with your hunt.
This Global Warming thing seems pretty scary, how much hotter is it anyway?
Well, since 1880 maybe .6 or .7 degrees Centigrade.
Is that alot?
Well, no not really.
Are you sure about the measurements?
Well, maybe a little bit sure.
What do you mean?
There seems to be many questions about instruments and procedures.
Does that worry you?
No because now we have satellite data since 1979.
Well how bad is it?
The earth has warmed about .4C since 1979.
Are you sure?
Well there are still some adjustments being made, but we are pretty sure.
So, Global Warming is really bad?
Yes, it must be since the Global Climate Computer Models say it is.
Are you sure about the computer models?
Of course we are, but they DO seem to keep missing on the warm side.
What does that mean?
Oh nothing, don’t worry we will keep getting better computers until we are right.
So what should I do about Global Warming?
Just keep quiet and do whatever the scientists tell you to do, and do it immediately.
Simon Evans (18:03:28) : “all the self-proclaimed ’sceptics’ here seem to have passed by any discussion of the nonsense presented in this “statement”.”
What Armstrong accomplished was a more highly detailed explanation of observations we skeptics understand from the simple and obvious things AGW wonks ignore. For example, Dr. Hansen’s model presented in 1988 was very specific about what it projected, like a 1.2°C rise in temperature in 20 years. At the 20 year point the rise was only 0.2°C. The simple and obvious thing: the model was completely wrong, yet Dr. Hansen continues to declare its veracity. Example 2: Dr. Mann’s hokey schtick broke several fundamental rules by mixing data sets. Perhaps you didn’t notice—Mann took dendrochronology for a thousand years, hitched direct temperature observations for the last 120 years, then added the worst case scenario from the IPCC Working Group and presented it as reliable data. Dendrochronology is notoriously vague. Even so, he could have continued the dendrochronology to the present (since we still have trees) rather than insert temperature data. If he had done so, it would not have shown the 20th century rise just as it did not show the Medieval Climate Optimum or Little Ice Age. The direct observation temp data itself was problematic for lack of consistency. The model he glued to the end was an untested speculation from the IPCC and the worst of six scenarios which had huge margins of error. Mann’s hokey schtick is unscientific at its core.
Armstrong’s critique of the AGW models as being “unscientific” are spot on and not nonsense in the least.
This graph I got from Smokey is the way we should be looking at temperatures:
http://junkscience.com/GMT/NCDC_absolute.gif
The anomaly graphs make it seem that something is amiss.
http://www.climate-movie.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/uah_global.png
I would like to see a model that assumes weather as the driver. If CO2 can be assumed to be a driver, why can’t weather related events like PDO, Jet stream, water vapor linked to warm or cold waters, etc? In fact, just for the giggles, remove the anthropogenic trace gas amounts of CO2, and keep in natural occurring CO2, and yes, keep in the methane produced from my cows (why?…because if the cows were not in my pastures, the elk would be). Plug in the temperature changes we know happen (as in 1998) during nina’s and nino’s and then correlate their occurance frequency with PDO switches (and all the other decadel oceanic switches). Finally, run the models with varying jet stream positions. Then run the whole shebang with the anthropogenic CO2 put back in. By the way, keep the Sun at a constant (because changes in the Sun would mean that suddenly, the Sun had to get a helluva lot closer to us). If the two scenarios (without and with the small amount of anthropogenic CO2 added) fall within the error bars, there will be no statistical difference between burning oil and not burning oil.
And how about this idea. Run the current IPCC models with and without the small amount of anthropogenic CO2 added. If the difference is within the error bars, there is no leg to stand on in a court of law. Cap and trade would be based on a non-existent statistical difference. Wait. Hansen already did that. I don’t remember him saying whether or not there was a statistical difference between A, B, or C.
Simon Evans — A null hypothesis would assert no expectation of likely change one way or the other. A “successively updated” model simply tracks whatever change occurs. Surely this is evident?
The definition we use at my work is that a null hypothesis would assert no/little change in rates of change of a changing thing, not that there is no change at all. If temps are rising 0.01 deg/decade from the end of the LIA to 1900 then the null hypothesis assumes this is the norm for forecasting 1900-1950. Velocity is constant, not necessarily zero.
In that case the null hypothesis is mere acknowledgement that the temp seems to be slowly going up since the LIA with no attribution of why it’s going up. It just is. The alternative hypothesis would be to attribute a driving mechanism.
Without the hockey stick and other similar graphics purporting to demonstrate a significant and *recent* change in velocity, the null hypothesis wins. The cool thing about this site is that people are paying close attention to the underlying data claimed to support this recent significant change.
I’m a skeptic. And until I see conclusive evidence that 20th century land temps are purely reflective of manmade GHG’s, I will remain one. As far as I can tell the land temps are a better proxy for tracking changes in land use, population, and sprawl than they are for GHG’s. Just in case you misread this, I’ll spell this out: the temps aren’t the temps; they aren’t what we think they are. It’s why I was drawn to this site. The surfacestations project seems to be confirming my suspicion.
That said I’m positive that GHG’s have an effect. Of course they do. And for the most part skeptics will agree with this. Where the vehement disagreement comes is the premise, taken as given by the AGW side, that temps have risen **SOLELY** due to GHG’s.
In part this is a matter of attribution, isn’t it? And getting back to the opening bit, I’m guessing that modifying the null hypothesis (constant velocity) to add land use changes will come a lot closer to hindcasting than any GHG driven model can accomplish (starting at 1850 to present.)
This is why I reckon what Armstrong says is significant.
Brendan H (03:10:54) :
You know that’s not going to happen soon, if ever. You need to start dampening down the hopes and expectations you have raised, otherwise in a few weeks or months there are going to be some very disappointed people on WUWT.
Nope. We’re in it for ‘the long haul’. Until my dying breath.
It may take years, decades, or more; but until the science is clean and the answers come from more than computerized fantasies; I’m here, I’m digging into it, and I’m not letting go of this bone until it’s chewed down to dust and coming out the other end to be rapidly buried. Clear?
“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.”
True, energy policy is a different issue than climate change. But AGW is the strawman to justify massive changes in energy policy.
There are plenty of reasons to modify our current energy policy but those decisions should be made on their own merit (with quality science as input) not as a result of trumped-up “we only have four years to save the planet” nonsense.