Readers may recall seeing this article in Physics Today titled Predicting and managing extreme weather events by Jane Lubchenco and Thomas R. Karl
I had to laugh when I saw the “managing” part of extreme weather events. I’d love to see Tom Karl try to “manage” an F5. From what I hear, he has enough trouble just managing NCDC.
Here’s what Dr. Will Happer had to say in the WSJ:
I particularly liked this part:
…
There has indeed been some warming, perhaps about 0.8 degrees Celsius, since the end of the so-called Little Ice Age in the early 1800s. Some of that warming has probably come from increased amounts of CO2, but the timing of the warming—much of it before CO2 levels had increased appreciably—suggests that a substantial fraction of the warming is from natural causes that have nothing to do with mankind.
Frustrated by the lack of computer-predicted warming over the past decade, some IPCC supporters have been claiming that “extreme weather” has become more common because of more CO2. But there is no hard evidence this is true. After an unusually cold winter in 2011 (December 2010-February 2011) the winter of 2012 was unusually warm in the continental United States. But the winter of 2012 was bitter in Europe, Asia and Alaska.
Weather conditions similar to 2012 occurred in the winter of 1942, when the U.S. Midwest was unusually warm, and when the Wehrmacht encountered the formidable forces of “General Frost” in a Russian winter not unlike the one Russians just had.
Large fluctuations from warm to cold winters have been the rule for the U.S., as one can see from records kept by the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA. For example, the winters of 1932 and 1934 were as warm as or warmer than the 2011-2012 one and the winter of 1936 was much colder.
Nightly television pictures of the tragic destruction from tornadoes over the past months might make one wonder if the frequency of tornadoes is increasing, perhaps due to the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. But as one can read at Andrew Revkin’s New York Times blog, dotearth, “There is no evidence of any trend in the number of potent tornadoes (category F2 and up) over the past 50 years in the United States, even as global temperatures have risen markedly.”
Full story here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Prof. Happer repeats a popular misconception when he states that “The IPCC computer models predict…” As the climatologist Kevin Trenberth pointed out in 2007, the models don’t “predict” but rather “project.” Predictions are statistically falsifiable, projections are not.
REPLY: Yeah yeah, we get it, and it’s getting old – Anthony
It’s a “misconception” fostered and shared by the Hokey Team, apparently. Remember the 90% = ‘very likely’ nonsense? Confidence intervals, and even subjective likelihood WAGs, pertain only to predictions, by that or any other name.
Trenberth et al. pull out the “projections” card only when they need a last-ditch defense against the observation(s) that reality vociferously disagrees with their “scenarios”.
Brian H:
There is a subtlety that you may have missed. In statistics, the relation from the set of “predictions” that are made by a model to the associated set of statistically independent events is one-to-one. The latter set is an example of a “statistical population.” The IPCC has yet to identifiy the statistical population. This is important.
The events in the statistical population are susceptible to being observed. A complete set of observed events is called a “sample.” A sample provides the sole basis for falsifying or validating the model but as the IPCC has not identified the population, a sample is not a possibility. Thus, an IPCC model can be neither falsified nor validated.
Though global average temperatures have held constant for a decade while CO2 concentrations have increased, one cannot say that “reality vociferously disagrees with their ‘scenarios’ ” for these ‘scenarios’ are not falsifiable.
“article in Physics Today titled Predicting and managing extreme weather events”
Sounds an awful lot like this – http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/report
It hasn’t been this bad since the last time it was this bad!
{Sigh} Who are you lecturing and disagreeing with? Seems to me you did this once before, same topic. I am (clearly!) suggesting that the appropriation of statistical terminology by the ‘Hokey Team’ in relation to their model output is inappropriate, and that despite their pro forma denial that they are doing more than “projecting”, they carry on with using said output and analysing it as though it was just such a set of independent events, a ‘statistical population’. When called on it, they retreat to their “just projections” position.
Brian H (March 28, 2012 at 12:20 pm):
I apologize for the redundant lectures!
“”””” Terry Oldberg says:
March 27, 2012 at 6:55 pm
Prof. Happer repeats a popular misconception when he states that “The IPCC computer models predict…” As the climatologist Kevin Trenberth pointed out in 2007, the models don’t “predict” but rather “project.” “””””
Well I suspect that Professor Happer has every bid as good a command of the English Language as does Trenberth, and there’s not a hair’s lick of difference between Predict and Project. Both refer to suggesting what is going to happen. Will Happer I’m sure is well aware that it is window dressing.
When the MSM “project” that XYZ politician is “projected” to win such and such an election, on the basis of 0.1% of the votes counted; they ARE making a prediction; in the CYA mode.
If computer modelling does NOT predict, then what the hell good is it ??
I do computer modelling all day long every day (almost); and the manufactured articles made from my “predictions” have never failed to perform like the models. And I’d get fired in a trice, if they didn’t.
The trouble with climate computer models is that they can’t even replicate the raw data that was used to construct them. Well it isn’t really data after all, because it doesn’t conform to even the most basic rules of sampled data systems; it’s just noise.
George E. Smith (March 28, 2012 at 6:49 pm):
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I disagree with you on whether there is meaningful difference between “predict” and “project.” If you wish to debate the matter with me, please inform me of same and I’ll link you into threads in which this issue has already been debated so we don’t go over old ground.
“”””” Terry Oldberg says:
March 28, 2012 at 7:13 pm
George E. Smith (March 28, 2012 at 6:49 pm): “””””
Well Terry it is hardly a matter worth debating. I will agree that those two words have different meanings (in the dictionary).
“predict” means “this is going to happen; no matter what. ”
“project” means “this is going to happen; but maybe not. ”
But as used in “climate science” , both mean “this is going to happen; but of course I have to CMA.”
And that interpretation is permissible simply because the first statement of definition of “predict” describes something that is impossible; no matter what, unless one disbelieves Heisenberg.
But as I said, it is a matter of semantics, and not worthy of debate; so to me they are quite interchangeable; but you certainly may choose to differentiate if you like; just don’t be surprised if others don’t catch your drift.
When persons who claim to be expert physicists; (or why else would they claim to be climate scientists ?) use words like “forcings”, “anomalies”, “trends” ; none of which can be found in any listings of standard physics nomenclature; but belong more in fields like meta-physics, or astrology, or witchcraft; when the science community has spent countless eons setting up a common language of communication; that links all sciences; then I don’t look for rigorous meaning in any word usage they choose.
I know what Temperature is and how to measure it, so I’m not going to refer what purports to be a Temperatureto some quite arbitrary and floating basis that is not identical to zero Kelvins; so as to allow fudging by changing the basis. And I know a good deal about various forms of energy, and associated units; and “forcings” is on a par with the “pyramid inch” as a unit of any energy related quantity.
PS These last two paragraphs, in NO way refer to you; they are simply generic observations.