There is only one published peer-reviewed paper that claims to provide scientific forecasts of long-range global mean temperatures

by Kesten C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong, and Willie Soon

The human race has prospered by relying on forecasts that the seasons will follow their usual course, while knowing they will sometimes be better or worse. Are things different now?

For the fifth time now, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims they are. The difference, the IPCC asserts, is increased human emissions of carbon dioxide: a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas that is a byproduct of growing prosperity. It is also a product of all animal respiration and is also essential for most life on Earth, yet in total it makes up only 0.0004 of the atmosphere.

The IPCC assumes that the relatively small human contribution of this gas to the atmosphere will cause global warming, and insist that the warming will be dangerous.

Other scientists contest the IPCC assumptions, on the grounds that the climatological effect of increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide is trivial—and that the climate is so complex and insufficiently understood that the net effect of human emissions on global temperatures cannot be forecasted.

The computer models that the authors of the IPCC reports rely on are complicated representations of the assumption that human carbon dioxide emissions are now the primary factor driving climate change and will substantially overheat the Earth. The models include many assumptions that mainstream scientists question.

The modelers have correctly stated that they produce scenarios, not forecasts. Scenarios are stories constructed from a collection of assumptions. Well-constructed scenarios can be very convincing, in the same way that a well-crafted book or film can be.

The IPCC and its supporters promote these scary scenarios as if they were forecasts. However, scenarios are neither forecasts nor the product of a validated forecasting method.

The IPCC modelers were apparently unaware of decades of forecasting research. Our audit of the procedures used to create their apocalyptic scenarios found that they violated 72 of 89 relevant scientific forecasting principles. Would you go ahead with your flight if you overheard two of the ground crew discussing how the pilot had skipped 80 percent of the pre-flight safety checklist?

Thirty-nine forecasting experts from many disciplines from around the world developed the forecasting principles from published experimental research. A further 123 forecasting experts reviewed the work. The principles were published in 2001 and they are freely available on the Internet to help forecasters produce the best forecasts they can and to help forecast users determine the validity of forecasts. These principles are the only published set of evidence-based standards for forecasting.

Global warming alarmists nevertheless claim that the “nearly all” climate scientists believe dangerous global warming will occur. This is a strange claim, in view of the fact more than 30,000 American scientists signed the Oregon Petition, stating that there is no basis for dangerous manmade global warming forecasts, and “no convincing evidence” that carbon dioxide is dangerously warming the planet or disrupting its climate.

Most importantly, computer models and scenarios are not evidence—and validation does not consist of adding up votes. Such an approach can only be detrimental to the advancement of scientific knowledge. Validation requires comparing predictions to actual observations, and the IPCC models have failed in that regard.

Given the expensive policies proposed and implemented in the name of preventing dangerous manmade global warming, we are astonished that there is only one published peer-reviewed paper that claims to provide scientific forecasts of long-range global mean temperatures. The paper is our own 2009 article in the International Journal of Forecasting.

Our paper examined the state of knowledge and available empirical (that is, actually measured) data, in order to select appropriate evidence-based procedures for long-range forecasting of global mean temperatures. Given the complexity and uncertainty of the situation, we concluded that the “no-trend” model is the proper method to use. The conclusion is based on a substantial body of research that found complex models do not work well in complex and uncertain situations. This finding might be puzzling to people who are unfamiliar with the research on forecasting.

We tested the no-trend model, using the same data that the IPCC uses. To do this, we produced annual forecasts from one to 100 years ahead, starting from 1851 and stepping forward year-by-year until 1975, the year before the current warming alarm was raised. (This is also the year when Newsweek and other magazines reported that scientists were “almost unanimous” that Earth faced a new period of global cooling.) We conducted the same analysis for the IPCC scenario of temperatures increasing at a rate of 0.03 degrees Celsius (0.05 degrees Fahrenheit) per year in response to increasing human carbon dioxide emissions.

This procedure yielded 7,550 forecasts for each method. The findings?

Overall, the no-trend forecast error was one-seventh the error of the IPCC scenario’s projection. They were as accurate as or more accurate than the IPCC temperatures for all forecast horizons. Most important, the relative accuracy of the no-trend forecasts increased for longer horizons. For example, the no-trend forecast error was one-twelfth that of the IPCC temperature scenarios for forecasts 91 to 100 years ahead.

Our research in progress scrutinizes more forecasting methods, uses more and better data, and extends our validation tests. The findings strengthen the conclusion that there are no scientific forecasts that predict dangerous global warming.

Is it surprising that the government would support an alarm lacking scientific support? Not really. In our study of situations that are analogous to the current alarm over scenarios of global warming, we identified 26 earlier movements based on scenarios of manmade disaster, including the global cooling alarm in the 1960s to 1970s. None of them were based on scientific forecasts. And yet, governments imposed costly policies in response to 23 of them. In no case did the forecast of major harm come true.

There is no support from scientific forecasting for an upward trend in temperatures, or a downward trend. Without support from scientific forecasts, the global warming alarm is baseless and should be ignored.

Government programs, subsidies, taxes and regulations proposed as responses to the global warming alarm result in misallocations of valuable resources. They lead to inflated energy prices, declining international competitiveness, disappearing industries and jobs, and threats to health and welfare.

Humanity can do better with the old, simple, tried-and-true no-trend climate forecasting model. This traditional method is also consistent with scientific forecasting principles.

_____________

Dr. Kesten C. Green is with the University of South Australia in Adelaide and is director of the major website on forecasting methods, forecastingprinciples.com, and has published twelve peer-reviewed articles on forecasting.Professor J. Scott Armstrong teaches at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and is a founder of the two major journals on forecasting methods, editor of the Principles of Forecasting handbook, and the world’s most highly cited author on forecasting methods. Dr. Willie Soon of Salem, MA for the past 20 years has published extensively on solar and other factors that cause climate changes. Copies of the authors’ climate forecasting papers are available at www.PublicPolicyForecasting.com.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

‘ on the grounds that the climatological effect of increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide is trivial—and that the climate is so complex and insufficiently understood that the net effect of human emissions on global temperatures cannot be forecasted.”
The climate is too complex. we conclude the effect of C02 is trivial.
skeptic logic.

Karl Blair

Plain, simple, easy to understand and, above all, believable. Why then do I get the feeling that our political masters will continue to ignore this side of the debate…..

Brian H

Does natural warming from the end of LIA show up?

Mike Smith

Yep, catastrophic warming is not a forecast. As best as I can tell, it’s a hope, an aspiration.

Ulric Lyons

“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm

007

‘ on the grounds that the climatological effect of increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide is trivial—and that the climate is so complex and insufficiently understood that the net effect of human emissions on global temperatures cannot be forecasted.”
The climate is too complex. we conclude the effect of C02 is trivial.
Alternatively, the climate is too complex but we conclude the effect of CO2 dominates. As a matter of fact we are 90%, no make that 95% sure.

milodonharlani

Steven Mosher says:
October 15, 2013 at 4:50 pm
It is your alarmist “logic” which fails, or maybe just your reading comprehension.
The passage you quote does not state what you claim. It plainly does not say that the CO2 effect is trivial because the climate is too complex, as you assert. It does state that 1) “the climatological effect of increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide is trivial”, & in an independent clause that 2) “the climate is so complex and insufficiently understood”, that therefore, for these two separate reasons, “the net effect of human emissions on global temperatures cannot be forecast” (spelling or grammar corrected).
It has been abundantly shown by actual observation & experiment that the climatological effect of increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide is trivial. The only way to generate scary, catastrophic scenarios is to assume positive feedback loops which not only are not in evidence, but which have been conclusively shown not to exist. Indeed the climate history of our planet shows that runaway catastrophic global warming from high CO2 has not happened, even at concentrations at least 17.5 times higher than now, for more than 541 million years, & probably much longer.
What is in evidence is that higher levels of CO2 in the air is a good thing.

richardscourtney

Steven Mosher:
Your post at October 15, 2013 at 4:50 pm is a gross misrepresentation of the above essay and – as such – is typical of what passes for “logic” amongst alarmists.
The essay says

We tested the no-trend model, using the same data that the IPCC uses. To do this, we produced annual forecasts from one to 100 years ahead, starting from 1851 and stepping forward year-by-year until 1975, the year before the current warming alarm was raised. (This is also the year when Newsweek and other magazines reported that scientists were “almost unanimous” that Earth faced a new period of global cooling.) We conducted the same analysis for the IPCC scenario of temperatures increasing at a rate of 0.03 degrees Celsius (0.05 degrees Fahrenheit) per year in response to increasing human carbon dioxide emissions.
This procedure yielded 7,550 forecasts for each method. The findings?
Overall, the no-trend forecast error was one-seventh the error of the IPCC scenario’s projection. They were as accurate as or more accurate than the IPCC temperatures for all forecast horizons. Most important, the relative accuracy of the no-trend forecasts increased for longer horizons. For example, the no-trend forecast error was one-twelfth that of the IPCC temperature scenarios for forecasts 91 to 100 years ahead.

There are valid objections that could be made to the adopted forecasting method because there are doubts associated with any method. But that does NOT say – as you assert –

The climate is too complex. we conclude the effect of C02 is trivial.

I will be charitable and assume your post only displays lack of reading comprehension.
Richard

David Riser

True forecasters! There is a lot of truth in the what you have today is most likely what you will have tomorrow. Very interesting that IPCC models are ok over 10years but complete trash after that. Its a wonder that they have managed to maintain their funding with such a horrible track record. Hopefully this 2013 report will be the last one.
v/r,
David Riser

Andy Oz

400 ppm sounds so much more dramatic than 0.04%. Alarmist logic.

Ian W

Steven Mosher says:
October 15, 2013 at 4:50 pm
‘ on the grounds that the climatological effect of increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide is trivial—and that the climate is so complex and insufficiently understood that the net effect of human emissions on global temperatures cannot be forecasted.”
The climate is too complex. we conclude the effect of C02 is trivial.
skeptic logic.

It follows forecasting standards and when it is validated against the real world it is more accurate than the IPCC models.
As you say skeptic logic.
Validated skeptic logic
.

TRG

A no trend model sounds like you just predict the next year will be about like the year before it. Is that it?

Jeff Crowder

Stephen Mosher says:
‘ on the grounds that the climatological effect of increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide is trivial—and that the climate is so complex and insufficiently understood that the net effect of human emissions on global temperatures cannot be forecasted.”
“The climate is too complex. we conclude the effect of C02 is trivial.
skeptic logic.”
No one has proven it isn’t trivial either. The burden of proof lies at the feet of those making the claim. 17 years later…

Ian W

This paper should be presented to the SCOTUS Massachusetts v. EPA as evidence.

DR

Mosher took his drive-by, will go MIA.

Ben Wilson

Steven Mosher commented:
“‘ The climate is too complex. we conclude the effect of C02 is trivial. . . . skeptic logic.”
As opposed to. . . . climate warming evangelists, who proclaim. . .
1. We know for sure that CO2 is the overwhelming factor that drives climate. . . . in fact, the science is settled and no more debate can be tolerated.
2. We’re not quite sure what the effect of clouds on climate and temperature is, but it doesn’t matter. . . . it can’t be as much as the effect of CO2. We know that. The science is settled.
3. It doesn’t matter that all our climate models so far have performed so badly that they are a bad definition. It’s all because all that missing heat is disappearing into the deep oceans or somewhere or another. And we didn’t include that in our models because, uh, shut up.
4. And the science is settled — CO2 rules!!

David L. Hagen

See: Kesten C Green publications
e.g., Golden Rule of Forecasting: Be Conservative, J Scott Armstrong, Kesten C Green, Andreas Graefe. Publication date 2013/7/11
Take away – IPCC scenarios are NOT conservative!

As Jeff Crowder points out, skeptics have nothing to prove.
The onus is completely on the alarmist crowd, to prove their point. But they have failed miserably, so all that is left are comments like Mosher’s.

David L. Hagen

Mosher

This procedure yielded 7,550 forecasts for each method. The findings? Overall, the no-trend forecast error was one-seventh the error of the IPCC scenario’s projection.

That appears to meet the scientific method.
Do you dispute the evidence, methodology or results?
Or have you descended into illogical fallacies?

Steven Mosher says:
October 15, 2013 at 4:50 pm
‘ on the grounds that the climatological effect of increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide is trivial—and that the climate is so complex and insufficiently understood that the net effect of human emissions on global temperatures cannot be forecasted.”
The climate is too complex. we conclude the effect of C02 is trivial.
=============================================================================No. even in the above quote they say it cannot be forecasted, they don’t say it is trivial, they say it can’t be forecasted. Only you say they say it is trivial.
They claim “A”, so I’ll will attack them for saying “B”. Steven Mosher logic.

JohnWho

Mosher logic appears to be bass-ackwards.
Perhaps that is what happens when one spends too much time on SkS?

Stuart

Mr Mosher
It does not appear that any such syllogism is intended, or implied, by the part sentence that you quote. It seems, simply, to be a statement of certain grounds on which ‘Other scientists contest the IPCC assumptions..’ Would you elaborate, please?

Luke Warmist

Steven Mosher says:………
Mod, please send this troll to the outer darkness. He’s only phishing for negative responses.

jorgekafkazar

Stephen Mosher says: “on the grounds that the climatological effect of increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide is trivial—and that the climate is so complex and insufficiently understood that the net effect of human emissions on global temperatures cannot be forecasted.”
Given that an assumption of no CO2 effect is seven times as effective as assuming a putative CO2 effect, it is thereby established that CO2’s climatological effect is, as you so aptly put it, trivial, QED. As for the net thermal effect of human emissions not being forecastable, the number of fairies at the bottom of my garden is also not forecastable, and for the very same reason.

Chris B

Andy Oz says:
October 15, 2013 at 5:19 pm
400 ppm sounds so much more dramatic than 0.04%. Alarmist logic.
______________________________________
They shoulda used 400,000 ppb, or 400 million ppt.

Jquip

“Overall, the no-trend forecast error was one-seventh the error of the IPCC scenario’s projection. They were as accurate as or more accurate than the IPCC temperatures for all forecast horizons. Most important, the relative accuracy of the no-trend forecasts increased for longer horizons. For example, the no-trend forecast error was one-twelfth that of the IPCC temperature scenarios for forecasts 91 to 100 years ahead.”
Money shot. If, as so the saying goes, science is self correcting and attempts to better approximate things? Then the ‘science is settled’ with this.
Most importantly is that the relative accuracy increased with longer horizons. eg. The more climate and the less weather they were forecasting — The. Better. It. Did.

TImothy Sorenson

I am just glad for more published peer reviewed articles like this.

DR says:
October 15, 2013 at 5:27 pm
Mosher took his drive-by, will go MIA.

Having succeeded in derailing discussion of a great article. When will WUWTians learn to ignore disingenuous people who raise controversy by twisting other peoples words?
The important issues to discuss here are those raised by Willie Soon.
The difference between scarynarios and forecasts and the results of Soon’s application of correct scientific method.being the prime examples.
You can be sure Mosher won’t be sticking around to discuss those.

Go Home

[snip wrong thread for this – mod]

michel

What worries me about this article is the reference to the analogical cases. I do not actually believe that we should be continuing to allow the relatively unrestricted use of white asbestos, organophosphates, lead in gasoline etc. I don’t think the unrestricted use of DDT was at all smart. (Its total ban is not at all smart either).
Global warming shows all the signs of being a great popular mania and madness of crowds. But it really worries me when I find myself associated in this view with people who seem to believe in the total abolition of all environmental protection from all kinds of noxious substances.
The problem by the way about organophosphates has nothing to do with psychology. Anyone who would voluntarily use the stuff as sheep farmers used to to dip their sheep annually? I don’t believe the authors would do it in a million years.
Mad cow disease? It did not happen, at least not on the scale that the disaster mavens forecast. But do you really think it makes sense to feed their own nervous systems as feed ingredient to meat animals? Do you really think we should be permitting that? Should we really be permitting the sort of poultry rearing conditions that led to the salmonella scare?
If these are my associates in dismissing the global warming hysteria, I am really quite worried.

Joel Shore

So, it has come to the point where we are somehow supposed to believe that a Professor of Business and a Professor of Marketing is somehow more qualified than, say, the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Physical Society, … to discuss climate change?
And, these guys show just how qualified they are with their insightful analysis of gauging expert opinion:
[quote]
Global warming alarmists nevertheless claim that the “nearly all” climate scientists believe dangerous global warming will occur. This is a strange claim, in view of the fact more than 30,000 American scientists signed the Oregon Petition, stating that there is no basis for dangerous manmade global warming forecasts, and “no convincing evidence” that carbon dioxide is dangerously warming the planet or disrupting its climate.[/quote]
This petition was run in the same way as an old-fashioned Soviet-style election: bombard people with propaganda and then only allow them to vote “YES”, not “NO”…And, yet they cite it as if it is some sort of serious survey of scientific opinion? Not to mention the fact that there was no attempt to determine that the people who signed were qualified to pass judgement on this.
Here is a discussion of this survey by Robert Park, an actual real and respected physical scientist (http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN03/wn080803.html), directed to his physicist audience:
[quote]
One of the purported abuses cited in the minority staff report involved the insertion into an EPA report of a reference to a paper by Soon and Baliunas that denies globl warming (WN 1 Aug 03). To appreciate its significance, we need to go back to March of 1998. We all got a petition card in the mail urging the government to reject the Kyoto accord (WN 13 Mar 98). The cover letter was signed by “Frederick Seitz, Past President, National Academy of Sciences.” Enclosed was what seemed to be a reprint of a journal article, in the style and font of Proceedings of the NAS. But it had not been published in PNAS, or anywhere else. The reprint was a fake. Two of the four authors of this non- article were Soon and Baliunas. The other authors, both named Robinson, were from the tiny Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in Cave Junction, OR. The article claimed that the environmental effects of increased CO2 are all beneficial. There was also a copy of Wall Street Journal op-ed by the Robinsons (father and son) that described increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere as “a wonderful and unexpected gift of the industrial revolution.” There was no indication of who had paid for the mailing. It was a dark episode in the annals of scientific discourse.
[/quote]
(The Willie Soon that Robert Park mentions as being part of this embarrassing episode is the very same one who has attached his name to this current post.

Steve Oregon

“Dr. Kesten C. Green is…..director of……forecastingprinciples.com, and has published twelve peer-reviewed articles on forecasting.”
Ok so he can forecast.
But can he predict or project the climate?
Forecasting is for weather and weathermen.,
I read about it on climatecentral.org

HankHenry

On Skeptic Logic –
I thought the role of the skeptic was to point out the illogic and implausbility of others, not to construct a thesis of his own. The stated proposition, “that the climate is so complex and insufficiently understood that the net effect of human emissions on global temperatures cannot be forecast” is such an basic and simple position that a skeptic would scarcely dare to call it his personal thesis. The burden is on those touting a thesis to demonstrate that it’s a plausible alternative to a state of ignorance. The skeptic merely mocks others making conclusory remarks and draws no conclusions of his own. For Mosher to complain about skepticism in this way amounts to believing you might be right simply because your thesis is well articulated.

Joel Shore says:
October 15, 2013 at 7:27 pm
So, it has come to the point where we are somehow supposed to believe that a Professor of Business and a Professor of Marketing is somehow more qualified than, say, the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Physical Society, … to discuss climate change?

Well Joel, it’s become pretty clear that the climate scientists don’t know what they’re talking about, so I guess it’s open territory.
Now, Joel, rather than engaging in your usual warmist smear tactics, why don’t you discuss the scientific content of the post. Or is that too much to ask?

rogerknights

Joel Shore says:
October 15, 2013 at 7:27 pm
Here is a discussion of this survey by Robert Park, an actual real and respected physical scientist (http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN03/wn080803.html), directed to his physicist audience:

. . . we need to go back to March of 1998. We all got a petition card in the mail urging the government to reject the Kyoto accord (WN 13 Mar 98). The cover letter was signed by “Frederick Seitz, Past President, National Academy of Sciences.” Enclosed was what seemed to be a reprint of a journal article, in the style and font of Proceedings of the NAS. But it had not been published in PNAS, or anywhere else. The reprint was a fake. Two of the four authors of this non- article were Soon and Baliunas. The other authors, both named Robinson, were from the tiny Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in Cave Junction, OR. The article claimed that the environmental effects of increased CO2 are all beneficial. There was also a copy of Wall Street Journal op-ed by the Robinsons (father and son) that described increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere as “a wonderful and unexpected gift of the industrial revolution.” There was no indication of who had paid for the mailing. It was a dark episode in the annals of scientific discourse.

(The Willie Soon that Robert Park mentions as being part of this embarrassing episode is the very same one who has attached his name to this current post.

But Soon presumably wasn’t to blame for his article’s being formatted in the style and font of Proceedings of the NAS, since it’s unlikely he was involved in the mailing and petitioning nitty gritty.

Txomin

Mosher = strawman

Jquip

tallbloke: “Now, Joel, rather than engaging in your usual warmist smear tactics, why don’t you discuss the scientific content of the post. Or is that too much to ask?”
Aye, rather puts the shoe on the other foot doesn’t it? It’s not just that they failed to reject the Null Hypothesis. The Nothing. The ensemble mean of an empty set of models. It’s that the claim is that the Nothing is beating them like a red-headed stepchild on every metric of interest. That’s such an outrageous claim that if it is refutable as flawed I have every confidence that the Climatologists will have the deed done by lunch tomorrow.
It’s an outright shoe d’etat.
And if basic math survives the onslaught of the thermometer jigglers this paper should be bronzed and enshrined in the masthead of WUWT. To be thrown in the face of everyone that has anything to say about the competency of the doomsayers. Not just with AGW modelling, but with the past Ice Age as well. Some 40 years of failure to beat a best guess of Nothing.
And it establishes, finally, a measurable criterion for a good climate model. Absolutely any model is preferable if it can manage to do better than Nothing.

thallstd

Just curious – why did they stop stepping their forecast forward in 1975? That wasn’t only “the year when Newsweek and other magazines reported that scientists were “almost unanimous” that Earth faced a new period of global cooling.” It’s also the approximate year that cooling stopped and warming, for whatever reason, resumed.

Kesten C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong, and Willie Soon have reminded me that there are basic guidelines for the orderly conducting of scientific investigations. After reading too many Warmist alarmist presentations, I had begun to think that it was all a matter of propaganda repetition, personal abuse and hiding of inconvenient facts. Many thanks for a clear presentation.
The difference between fictions and forecasts is found still in the application of correct scientific method not political reviews and re-writings.

A “scientific model” is one that conveys information to its user about the outcomes of events in the period before these outcomes become observable. That the associated model is “scientific” in this sense of the word is a necessity for the associated system to be controllable. As Green, Armstrong and Soon point out, the climate models of the IPCC are not “scientific”; hence these models provide no basis for control of the climate.

Lol-Mosher said next to sweet f***-all and got mentioned all the way down the time line. If you think the miserable failure of the IPCC means they’re just going to fold their tent and skulk into the wilderness think again. The price of freedom is ETERNAL vigilance.
http://green-agenda.com/index.html
http://www.resistingthegreendragon.com/

Willis Eschenbach

Steven Mosher says:
October 15, 2013 at 4:50 pm

‘ on the grounds that the climatological effect of increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide is trivial—and that the climate is so complex and insufficiently understood that the net effect of human emissions on global temperatures cannot be forecasted.”
The climate is too complex. we conclude the effect of C02 is trivial.
skeptic logic.

It wasn’t presented as an “X is true therefore we conclude Y” type of logic. It seems to me that the questions are very different. In their presentation they say on the grounds of A and also of B. They don’t say A implies B as you assert.
Is the climatological effect of CO2 trivial? At the surface, the global average 24/7 downwelling radiation is about half a kilowatt per square metre. The change due to a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 W/m2. This is far less than a one percent change in the existing radiation. From that perspective, yes, the effect of CO2 is trivial.
Add that fact to the overall complexity of the climate, and what you get is a tiny possible signal, buried in much larger signal variations of unknown natural origin.
Regards,
w.

I see Joel shore has skulked off. Probably crying into his beer with Mosh somewhere.

gopal panicker

it difficult to forecast…especially the future…just one little nit pick…how are Soon et al…able to claim that the error in their model is a fraction of that of the IPCC ninety or a hundred years from now…unless they have a time machine…in which case it would be nice to know the stock prices a few weeks from now…or even the football scores…seriously…IMHO…this so called global average temperature is nonsense…that said…. an average of a number of measurements in the same places over the years may be useful…i think that such an exercise will reveal a 60 year cycle…warming from 1920-1950…cooling till about 1980…warming till 2010…and cooling since then….using this extremely simple ‘model’ i predicted cooling at the height of the warming hysteria in 2010….doing pretty good so far

RoHa

“The human race has prospered by relying on forecasts that the seasons will follow their usual course, while knowing they will sometimes be better or worse. Are things different now?”
I vaguely recall that in some ancient civilizations the priests in charge of the calendar worked very hard at getting things right, since too many large errors would lead to an uncomfortable interview with the king’s executioner.
Alas, thing are different now.

See - owe to Rich

Interesting, but I have two points. First is that instead of comparing flat with 0.03K per year, they should have compared with the actual trend since 1850.
Second is that it is surprising to see Willie Soon supporting this. He should know that allowing for solar effects can enhance the fit to data. By allowing for solar cycle lengths and a modest CO2 contribution, I get a fit with mean residual 0.07K on 11-year periods compared to 0.11K for the flat method of forecasting. (And Scafetta’s model of two cycles plus quadratic does even better than that, but probably would not if matched to 1800-1850 temperatures.)
Rich.

Bill Sprague

Willis,
I have great respect for you and your ability to communicate your ideas. However, as a suggestion, we should all use data in the same units to prevent confusion, and to make comparisons more obvious.
In your comment, you say that, “At the surface, the global average 24/7 downwelling radiation is about half a kilowatt per square metre. The change due to a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 W/m2.”
This is equivalent to downwelling radiation of .5 kilowatt/ sq meter, and the change due to a doubling of CO2 of .00037 kilowatt/sq meter.
Alternatively, downwelling radiation is 500 Watts/sq meter, and the change due to CO2 doubling is
3.7 Watts/ sq meter. Keeping the units the same makes the comparison more obvious.
I realize that most of the readers here have the scientific and mathematical ability to make the conversions without thinking about it, but many in the general public due not. Were I King, we would always refer to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as .03%, never as 300 ppm, simply because 300 sounds like a big number, and is purposely misleading.
Similarly, in another context, we read that the deficit is $1 trillion, or whatever. To put this into context for some one who makes $100,000 per year, his salary is $0.0000001 trillion.
I very much enjoy your adventure stories as well as your adventures into AGW, and keep up the good work in behalf of all of us.
Best Regards,
Bill Sprague

Bill Sprague

…many in the general public do not.
Brainfart… sorry.
Bill Sprague

Good Morning All
Having tried to debate with the alarmists several times, I know that when hard fact & figures are presented to them which are contrary to their view they always fall back on the “The opinion of these websites/BLOGS/people don’t count as they aren’t climatologists.”
In the case of “ Oregon Petition one particular alarmist said that whilst there is 31K signatures, does a carpenter with a PhD opinion really count on climate change. Yet when I pointed out that less than 20 percent of the IPCC’s own WP1 who produced AR5 listed climatology as their primary or even secondary discipline, it fell on deaf ears. Pot & kettle I think.
The CO2 alarmist religion is exactly that, a religion. *IF* one was to start comparing religious fanatics to alarmists, there is an a shockingly scary similarity.

Seth

The Oregon Petition includes fictional names, was distributed with a paper that dishonestly implied that it was peer reviewed and published in PNAS (including a made up volume number and made up page numbers), and is a sterling example of how low the climate-skeptics can stoop.
Bringing it up is probably not a great idea. If you want to show that there’s scientific support for scepticism, it is best done honestly.