Guest essay by Roger A. Pielke Sr.
Introduction
I have posted in the past how the development of multi-decadal regional climate projections (predictions) to give to policymakers and the impact communities is a huge waste of time and resources; e.g. see
The Huge Waste Of Research Money In Providing Multi-Decadal Climate Projections For The New IPCC Report
Today, I want to discuss this issue in relation to the Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis
The 2013 WG1 IPCC Report – Chapter 11 and Annex 1![cover[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/cover1.jpg?quality=83)
Projections are presented in Annex 1:
http://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/guidancepaper/WG1AR5_AnnexI-Atlas.pdf
and
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_AnnexI.pdf.
This is titled
Annex I: Atlas of Global and Regional Climate Projections
The foundation of this Atlas is based on the information provided in Chapter 11 of the IPCC WG1 report titled
“Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability”
Click to access WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf
Multi-decadal regional climate projections, of course, can obviously not be any better than shorter term (i.e. “near-term”) projections (e.g. decadal) since decade time periods make up the longer period! The level of skill achieved for decadal time scales, must be the upper limit on what is obtainable for longer time periods.
As written in Chapter 11
Click to access WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf
Climate scientists distinguish between decadal predictions and decadal projections. Projections exploit only the predictive capacity arising from external forcing.
Projections then are simply model sensitivity simulations. By ignoring internal climate dynamics their presentation to the impacts communities as scenarios is a gross overstatement of what they really provide. They are only useful as improving our understanding of a subset of climate processes. To present results from them in the IPCC report without emphasizing this important limitation is not an honest communication.
The issue of how the climate model results are presented should bother everyone, regardless of one’s view on the importance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Chapter 11, fortunately, in contrast to Annex 1, is an informative chapter in the 2013 IPCC WG1 report that provides a scientific summary regarding predictability although their discussion on the uncertainties of the “external climate forcings” and skill is incomplete (e.g. see http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/r-354.pdf ).
The chapter focus is described this way
This chapter describes current scientific expectations for ‘near-term’ climate. Here ‘near term’ refers to the period from the present to mid-century, during which the climate response to different emissions scenarios is generally similar. Greatest emphasis in this chapter is given to the period 2016–2035, though some information on projected changes before and after this period (up to mid-century) is also assessed.
Skilful multi-annual to decadal climate predictions (in the technical sense of ‘skilful’ as outlined in 11.2.3.2 and FAQ 11.1) are being produced although technical challenges remain that need to be overcome in order to improve skill.
Some important extracts from the chapter are [highlight added]
Near-term prediction systems have significant skill for temperature over large regions (Figure 11.4), especially over the oceans (Smith et al., 2010; Doblas-Reyes et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2012; Matei et al., 2012b; van Oldenborgh et al., 2012; Hanlon et al., 2013). It has been shown that a large part of the skill corresponds to the correct representation of the long-term trend (high confidence) as the skill decreases substantially after an estimate of the long-term trend is removed from both the predictions and the observations (e.g., Corti et al., 2012; van Oldenborgh et al., 2012; MacLeod et al., 2013).
The skill in hindcasting precipitation over land (Figure 11.6) is much lower than the skill in hindcasting temperature over land.
The skill of extreme daily temperature and precipitation in multi-annual time scales has also been assessed (Eade et al., 2012; Hanlon et al., 2013). There is little improvement in skill with the initialization beyond the first year, suggesting that skill then arises largely from the varying external forcing. The skill for extremes is generally similar to, but slightly lower than, that for the mean.
As part of Chapter 11, there is a section on Frequently Asked Questions. I have extracted excerpts from the FAQ 11.1 which is titled
If You Cannot Predict the Weather Next Month, How Can You Predict Climate for the Coming Decade?
Excerpts read highlighted text.
“Climate scientists do not attempt or claim to predict the detailed future evolution of the weather over coming seasons, years or decades.”Meteorological services and other agencies … have developed seasonal-to-interannual prediction systems that enable them to routinely predict seasonal climate anomalies with demonstrable predictive skill. The skill varies markedly from place to place and variable to variable. Skill tends to diminish the further the prediction delves into the future and in some locations there is no skill at all. ‘Skill’ is used here in its technical sense: it is a measure of how much greater the accuracy of a prediction is, compared with the accuracy of some typically simple prediction method like assuming that recent anomalies will persist during the period being predicted.Weather, seasonal-to-interannual and decadal prediction systems are similar in many ways (e.g., they all incorporate the same mathematical equations for the atmosphere, they all need to specify initial conditions to kick-start predictions, and they are all subject to limits on forecast accuracy imposed by the butterfly effect). However, decadal prediction, unlike weather and seasonal-to-interannual prediction, is still in its infancy. Decadal prediction systems nevertheless exhibit a degree of skill in hindcasting near-surface temperature over much of the globe out to at least nine years. A ‘hindcast’ is a prediction of a past event in which only observations prior to the event are fed into the prediction system used to make the prediction. The bulk of this skill is thought to arise from external forcing. ‘External forcing’ is a term used by climate scientists to refer to a forcing agent outside the climate system causing a change in the climate system. This includes increases in the concentration of long-lived greenhouse gases.Theory indicates that skill in predicting decadal precipitation should be less than the skill in predicting decadal surface temperature, and hindcast performance is consistent with this expectation.Finally, note that decadal prediction systems are designed to exploit both externally forced and internally generated sources of predictability. Climate scientists distinguish between decadal predictions and decadal projections. Projections exploit only the predictive capacity arising from external forcing. While previous IPCC Assessment Reports focussed exclusively on projections, this report also assesses decadal prediction research and its scientific basis.
What is remarkable about this Chapter is that they now recognize that at least out to a decade skillful predictions are very difficult. Only the skill in hindcasting near-surface temperature over much of the globe out to at least nine years has been emphasized. Skillful multi-decadal projections must be even more challenging.
Yet, Annex 1 provides detailed regional projections decades out into the future. It is
Annex I: Atlas of Global and Regional Climate Projections
http://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/guidancepaper/WG1AR5_AnnexI-Atlas.pdf
I have excerpted text from this Annex that explains what is provided (i.e. detailed regional multi decadal climate projections)
Annex I: Atlas of Global and Regional Climate Projections is an integral part of the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. It will provide comprehensive information on a selected range of variables (e.g., temperature and precipitation) for a few selected time horizons (e.g., 2020, 2050, and 2100) for all regions and, to the extent possible, for the four basic RCP scenarios.
However, there is a fundamental flaw in creating Annex 1, and, thus, any papers and studies on future climate impacts that result from it. Despite the widespread use of these model results, it is really a fundamentally flawed activity.
For this approach to be a robust approach to use for impact studies, these model results (when tested in hindcast) must show skill in not only replicating current climate (which is tested by comparison with reanalyses in which the climate model is NOT forced by the lateral boundary and nudging from the reanalyses), but must show skill at predicting CHANGES in regional climate statistics. This later requirement is a requirement to accept the models as robust projection (prediction) tools.
Necessary and Sufficient Tests of Model Prediction (Projection) Skill
To summarize
· The ability of the model to skillfully reproduce the regional climate statistics from the climate model (from the GCM or downscaled by a higher resolution regional model) is a NECESSARY first condition.
· The REQUIRED condition is that they must show, in hindcast runs, skill at predicting CHANGES in regional climate statistics.
There is a common mistake is to assume that one can use reanalyses to assess model prediction skill for the future. However, as discussed, for example, in the paper
Pielke Sr., R.A., and R.L. Wilby, 2012: Regional climate downscaling – what’s the point? Eos Forum, 93, No. 5, 52-53, doi:10.1029/2012EO050008
using reanalyses to drive a model places a real world constraint on the results which does not exist when the multi-decadal climate models are run for the future decades (and indeed, lateral boundary conditions and nudging from the reanalyses must not be used in true hindcast tests of model skill). This issue is discussed in the paper
Pielke Sr., R.A. 2013: Comments on “The North American Regional Climate Change Assessment Program: Overview of Phase I Results.” Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 94, 1075-1077, doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00205.1.
As discussed above, unless the global climate model (dynamically and/or statistically downscaled) can be shown to skillfully predict current climate on the regional scales [when run over multi-decadal time scales in a hindcast mode, it cannot be accepted as a faithful representation of the real world climate.
Examples of IPCC Model Shortcomings
Multi-decadal global model prediction, in hindcast runs, however, have major shortcoming even with respect to current climate! Peer reviewed examples of these shortcomings include; as summarized in the Preface to
Pielke Sr, R.A., Editor in Chief., 2013: Climate Vulnerability, Understanding and Addressing Threats to Essential Resources, 1st Edition. J. Adegoke, F. Hossain, G. Kallos, D. Niyoki, T. Seastedt, K. Suding, C. Wright, Eds., Academic Press, 1570 pp. [http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/b-18preface.pdf]
are
Taylor et al, 2012: Afternoon rain more likely over drier soils. Nature. doi:10.1038/nature11377. Received 19 March 2012 Accepted 29 June 2012 Published online 12 September 2012
“…the erroneous sensitivity of convection schemes demonstrated here is likely to contribute to a tendency for large-scale models to `lock-in’ dry conditions, extending droughts unrealistically, and potentially exaggerating the role of soil moisture feedbacks in the climate system.”
Driscoll, S., A. Bozzo, L. J. Gray, A. Robock, and G. Stenchikov (2012), Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) simulations of climate following volcanic eruptions, J. Geophys. Res., 117, D17105, doi:10.1029/2012JD017607. published 6 September 2012.
“The study confirms previous similar evaluations and raises concern for the ability of current climate models to simulate the response of a major mode of global circulation variability to external forcings.”
Fyfe, J. C., W. J. Merryfield, V. Kharin, G. J. Boer, W.-S. Lee, and K. von Salzen (2011), Skillful predictions of decadal trends in global mean surface temperature, Geophys. Res. Lett.,38, L22801, doi:10.1029/2011GL049508
”….for longer term decadal hindcasts a linear trend correction may be required if the model does not reproduce long-term trends. For this reason, we correct for systematic long-term trend biases.”
Xu, Zhongfeng and Zong-Liang Yang, 2012: An improved dynamical downscaling method with GCM bias corrections and its validation with 30 years of climate simulations. Journal of Climate 2012 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00005.1
”…the traditional dynamic downscaling (TDD) [i.e. without tuning) overestimates precipitation by 0.5-1.5 mm d-1…..The 2-year return level of summer daily maximum temperature simulated by the TDD is underestimated by 2-6°C over the central United States-Canada region”.
Anagnostopoulos, G. G., Koutsoyiannis, D., Christofides, A., Efstratiadis, A. & Mamassis, N. (2010) A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data. Hydrol. Sci. J. 55(7), 1094–1110
“…. local projections do not correlate well with observed measurements. Furthermore, we found that the correlation at a large spatial scale, i.e. the contiguous USA, is worse than at the local scale.”
Stephens, G. L., T. L’Ecuyer, R. Forbes, A. Gettlemen, J.‐C. Golaz, A. Bodas‐Salcedo, K. Suzuki, P. Gabriel, and J. Haynes (2010), Dreary state of precipitation in global models, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D24211, doi:10.1029/2010JD014532.
“…models produce precipitation approximately twice as often as that observed and make rainfall far too lightly…..The differences in the character of model precipitation are systemic and have a number of important implications for modeling the coupled Earth system …….little skill in precipitation [is] calculated at individual grid points, and thus applications involving downscaling of grid point precipitation to yet even finer‐scale resolution has little foundation and relevance to the real Earth system.”
Sun, Z., J. Liu, X. Zeng, and H. Liang (2012), Parameterization of instantaneous global horizontal irradiance at the surface. Part II: Cloudy-sky component, J. Geophys. Res., doi:10.1029/2012JD017557, in press.
“Radiation calculations in global numerical weather prediction (NWP) and climate models are usually performed in 3-hourly time intervals in order to reduce the computational cost. This treatment can lead to an incorrect Global Horizontal Irradiance (GHI) at the Earth’s surface, which could be one of the error sources in modelled convection and precipitation. …… An important application of the scheme is in global climate models….It is found that these errors are very large, exceeding 800 W m-2 at many non-radiation time steps due to ignoring the effects of clouds….”
Ronald van Haren, Geert Jan van Oldenborgh, Geert Lenderink, Matthew Collins and Wilco Hazeleger, 2012: SST and circulation trend biases cause an underestimation of European precipitation trends Climate Dynamics 2012, DOI: 10.1007/s00382-012-1401-5
“To conclude, modeled atmospheric circulation and SST trends over the past century are significantly different from the observed ones. These mismatches are responsible for a large part of the misrepresentation of precipitation trends in climate models. The causes of the large trends in atmospheric circulation and summer SST are not known.”
I could go on with more examples. However, it is clear that the climate models used in the manuscript under review are not robust tools to use to predict climate conditions in the future.
Annex 1 of the 2013 IPCC WG1 report, therefore, is fundamentally flawed as it is based on multi-decadal climate model results which have not shown skill at faithfully replicating most of the basic climate dynamics, such as major atmospheric circulation features, even in the current climate. They have also shown no skill at predicting the CHANGES of regional climate statistics to the accuracy required for impact studies.
Views by Others
Now, in closing, below I have extracted text from separate e-mails of two very major well known players in the climate area. Both accept that CO2 is the dominant climate forcing and man is responsible and we need urgent action. These quotes are in e-mails that I have. They show that despite other topics in which we disagree, they presumably would agree with me on the gross inadequacies of Annex 1 in the IPCC WG1 report.
The relevant part of the first e-mail reads
“It is also worth pointing out that neither initialised decadal predictions nor RCMs are the entirety of what can be said about regional climate change in the next few decades – and in fact, it is arguable whether either add anything very much. ;-)”
The second e-mail reads
“The climate effects are largely warming, I cannot say today’s climate models can tell us much more with any certainty. I will add that there is probably poleward and continental intensification of the warming. One further feature that appears to be robust is the movement of the storm belts in both hemispheres polewards. This has implications for the general circulation and in particular the climatology of precipitation intensity and variability (i.e., drought and flood). This poleward shift is seen in the data. There is some model evidence that over the next century ozone recovery could cancel come of this poleward shift in the Southern Hemisphere, but probably not in the NH. I think this is about as far I as we can go in forecasting climate over the next 50-100 years. Of course, sea level follows naturally from thermal expansion of the water as well as land ice melting. I think there is very little information (above noise) beyond the above in global climate models at regional level, even including downscaling.”
Since, these individuals have been silent in discussing the issue of the value of multi-decadal model regional climate predictions, I feel compelled to communicate that my flagging the failure of this approach for the impacts and policymakers communities is shared by even some in the IPCC community.
Recommendation for Responding to this IPCC Deficiency
My recommendation is that when you hear or read of climate projections on multi-decadal time periods, ask them:
What is the quantitative skill of the models used in predicting their projected CHANGES? In other words, what is the predictive skill with respect to the climate metrics that are of importance to a particular impact?
If they cannot present quantitative evidence of such skill they are inappropriately presenting their studies. Annex 1 of the 2013 IPCC WG1, therefore, still needs an honest demonstration of the skill (if any) of their projections as part of a complete assessment of the state of climate science.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I don’t believe the climate alarmists expected, or wanted, to be under such thorough and effective scrutiny. Couldn’t you just put on the blinders, and placidly agree, the way they wanted? Thank Heaven’s that there are intelligent, unbiased scientists, to refute the lies of the Leftie shrills. Keep up the great work!
Roger:
Thank you for your stellar effort here.
I would encourage you to boil down your core question* even further: so that it is fully understandable by an everyday citizen. Ultimately this is a PR matter…
[*What is the predictive skill with respect to the climate metrics that are of importance to a particular impact?]
Thank you, Dr Pielke, for this detailed critique. From a policy perspective it is regional predictions that are of most relevance – and here in the UK, we have had several: no more winter snow; drier summers with drought; loss of species with warming…..and actually the reverse is the case – colder winters, wetter summers, and species gains (especially water birds!). Despite having these deficiencies of model projections pointed out to them, the UK Climate Impacts community of scientists and planners continues to believe they can predict regional climate shifts. In fact, adaptation to impacts has become a small industry in itself – seminars and ‘capacity building’ with little to show for it; meanwhile ‘global warming’ actually gains 99% of the attention and funding for ‘mitigation’…..with UK’s contribution a tiny drop in the ocean, and deluded anyway because we have exported so much of our intensive energy demanding production overseas to the non-signatories of the Kyoto protocol that we trumpeted.
and 1957chev…
less of the ‘lefty shrills’ please – go do some homework on just who supports the scary climate story…..it commands support from both left and right….and I am left on that spectrum and have been an active critic of the IPCC’s supposed consensus for more than five years, but oddly, only the right-wing free-market press will publish my views or review my book….it is not a simple thing, this political analysis!
Let’s take a practical question that policy makers may choose to address.
1. What is the future risk of UHI to human health and life in the state of california.
Some of the work has started
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/07/california-to-quantify-uhi-statewide/
But that is just the historical view of things.
UHI is real. everyone agrees on that. And at 40 cities are the world the local officials have installed UHI warning systems. They use these warning systems to protect vulnerable citizens, the old and young who are at higher risk from dying in heat wave.
As a Policy maker I come to you Dr. Pielke and I ask.
“knowing all you all know about UHI. knowing all you know about the climate the weather and our limitations in predicting it… knowing all that.. what is your best scientific position on the following?”
A. Will we see more heat waves in the future or fewer?
B, What is your evidence for A?, show your work
C. If you think we are going to see more or fewer can you give us a range of your expectation
D. what did you base this range on, show your work
If your answer is that you have no scientific opinion on this, then fine. Many others do.
Of course people may bridle at the fact that local officials try to prepare for risks. tough. elect different people. The political reality is policy makers want answers. Some scientist somewhere will offer up his best opinion on the matter. Simple fact is you can’t merely criticize. You actually have to provide better answers.
CAGW is real, and is something for us all to be fearful of – have a look at DP’s definition in the comments here to realise the truth of that: CAGW – Computer Aided Global Warming. Dare you argue with that truth?
It commands support from monied interests; no one wants to be ‘left out’ of collecting from the gravy train, which is what attracts ‘capitalists’ willing to go along with the program, especially if you call them ‘bad names’ .. notice, too, all the big brands sporting ‘green’ products? QED.
.
While we’re here, what makes you entitled to my things (property and earnings), through government force no less?
Can’t you just ask nicely? Do you have something against charities helping the poor, and would rather have govt doing so instead?
I have always wondered these things, so, an answer would be appreciated …
pax, _Jim
.
Mosher, “UHI is real. everyone agrees on that. And at 40 cities are the world the local officials have installed UHI warning systems. They use these warning systems to protect vulnerable citizens, the old and young who are at higher risk from dying in heat wave.”
What to do about it. Simple Mosh – give the old and young higher BTU air conditioners. Don’t you agree that we be orders of magnitude cheaper than any of your foolish lukerwarmer solutions?
REPLY: the real issue is fuel poverty, green solutions have made electricity so expensive that elderly and others on meager incomes can’t afford to run A/C – Anthony
This discussion about settled science is unsettling.
Here is an experiment one could actually perform.
1. Have a vacuum chamber, dimensions several meters across.
2. Keep its walls at uniform −196°C (77 K; −321°F) by applying liquid nitrogen from the outside.
3. Put a rotating table in it, well insulated against heat conduction.
4. Set a transparent sealed container on it.
5. Fill it with a semi transparent fluid.
6. Irradiate it with narrow band short wave radiation until its effective temperature reaches several hundred degrees celsius.
7. Arrange for high spatiotemporal resolution measurements of internal motions and heat distribution of the fluid and digital data collection thereof.
8. Construct a computational model of this setup from first principles.
9. Run the experiment multiple times with several prescribed rotation speeds and spatiotemporal distributions of irradiation.
11. See how well the computational model is able to predict experimental results.
12. Change optical depth of the fluid in restricted thermal bands, repeat previous item.
Improve computational model until a reasonable match is seen between statistical behavior of it and that of the experimental setup.
I do not have high hopes regarding swift success of this project. However, it is orders of magnitude easier than to make a computational model of the climate system with any degree of skill. Another virtue of it is its full experimental verifiability, which property does not apply to terrestrial climate.
Anyway, I propose to defund computational climate modelling completely until this toy project shall be brought to success, costs being covered by a small fraction of money spared.
Simple fact is you can’t merely criticize. You actually have to provide better answers.
Tosh. If something is wrong, it is wrong.
It’s stupid to go around saying something must be used because no-one has a better version. By that logic why don’t you base your life on astrology, on the basis that no-one has a better method of predicting the future?
To paraphrase the IPCC:
“Decadal model predictions are worthless”
“Multi-decadal projections reliably predict warming; ummm, because we programmed that in”
Steven Mosher says:
> “Simple fact is you can’t merely criticize. You actually have to provide better answers.”
I understand fully your desire to have reliable answers to tough questions. But yes, you can “merely criticize”, and I would argue that it is your duty to do so when the “answers” are clearly and demonstrably wrong.
An analogy to demonstrate the point (not prove it): if an umpire calls a fast ball pitch outside, is he required to be able to throw a straight fast ball? /End of analogy.
Roger A. Pielke Sr. has made a very large contribution to the subject by pointing out problems with the IPCC’s analysis. He is NOT required to fix the problems. He is not serving here a teacher. It is up to the IPCC to fix their own mistakes. His contribution is very valuable to policy makers. It tells them to be wary of the projects.
@Steven Mosher
@CO2-The Miracle Molecule
Even cheaper, give a bucket of water each to put their feet in. In a life threatening situation radical solutions like this are justified. However, in most cases a wet T-shirt and a hat are sufficient to keep core temperatures in a safe range.
Mooloo,
You said it much better than me, AND you beat me by 15 minutes!
“Simple fact is you can’t merely criticize. You actually have to provide better answers.”
‘don’t just do something, stand there’ is often the better answer
Anthony says: “the real issue is fuel poverty, green solutions have made electricity so expensive that elderly and others on meager incomes can’t afford to run A/C”
That’s why I live in a cave. Cool in the summer and warm in the winter.
Thanks, Roger. A great post, as always.
Steven Mosher says:
> “Simple fact is you can’t merely criticize. You actually have to provide better answers.”
Roger A. Pielke Sr. makes a solid contribution to the story of the inadequacies of the IPCC and weather forecasts and immediately The ‘Mosher’ pops up like a Gopher to defend the crumbling interests of Warmism using a completely irrelevant diversion to UHI. The subject and data of UHI has been used consistently and selectively by Warmists to supply the missing warming in their manufactured temperature data records to ease the pain of having so much missing effect from the legendary CO2 emissions. Mosher’s contribution is meaningless and his ‘answers’ are valueless but Roger A. Pielke’s contribution is invaluable to the search for truth.
@Steven Mosher
Never let policy makers off the hook. They are supposed to take responsibility for their decisions, not delegate it to “experts”.
If no valid scientific opinion exists in a matter, each “scientist” offering one is a crackpot by definition. To demonstrate this fact to politicians is an undeniable contribution to their ability to handle the situation, provided there is public pressure on them to keep away from crackpots in the first place.
So yes, you can merely criticize.
BTW, a better answer starts with choosing the proper scientific question, which may be very different from the ones politicians have to deal with. If you are actually concerned about the state of art in climate science, help me convince politicians to channel funds to the toy project outlined above..
Steven Mosher – Thank you for your comment. We have a way to address threats such as from UHI. We report on this approach, in detail, in a number of our papers
Pielke Sr., R.A., R. Wilby, D. Niyogi, F. Hossain, K. Dairaku, J. Adegoke, G. Kallos, T. Seastedt, and K. Suding, 2012: Dealing with complexity and extreme events using a bottom-up, resource-based vulnerability perspective. Extreme Events and Natural Hazards: The Complexity Perspective Geophysical Monograph Series 196 © 2012. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved. 10.1029/2011GM001086. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/r-3651.pdf
Pielke, R.A. Sr., 2004: Discussion Forum: A broader perspective on climate change is needed. IGBP Newsletter, 59, 16-19. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/nr-139.pdf
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: Global climate models – Many contributing influences. Citizen’s Guide to Colorado Climate Change, Colorado Climate Foundation for Water Education, pp. 28-29. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/nr-148.pdf
CB-37 Pielke, R.A. Sr., 2004: Introduction. Chapter E.1 In: Vegetation, Water, Humans and the Climate: A New Perspective on an Interactive System. P. Kabat et al., Eds., Global Change – The IGBP Series, Springer, 483-484. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/cb-37.pdf
CB-38 Pielke, R.A. Sr., G. Petschel-Held, P. Kabat, B. Bass, M.F. Hutchinson, V. Gupta, R.A. Pielke Jr., M. Claussen, and D.S. Ojima, 2004: Predictability and uncertainty. Chapter E.2 In: Vegetation, Water, Humans and the Climate: A New Perspective on an Interactive System. Global Change – The IGBP Series, P. Kabat et al., Eds., Springer, 485-490. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/cb-38.pdf
CB-39 Pielke, R.A. Sr., and T.J. Stohlgren, 2004: Contrast between predictive and vulnerability approaches. Chapter E.3 In: Vegetation, Water, Humans and the Climate: A New Perspective on an Interactive System. Global Change – The IGBP Series, P. Kabat et al., Eds., Springer, 491-495.http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/cb-39.pdf
CB-40 Bravo de Guenni, L., R.E. Schulze, R.A. Pielke Sr., and M.F. Hutchinson, 2004: The vulnerability approach. Chapter E.5 In: Vegetation, Water, Humans and the Climate: A New Perspective on an Interactive System. Global Change – The IGBP Series, P. Kabat et al., Eds., Springer, 499-514. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/cb-40.pdf
CB-41 Pielke, R.A. Sr., C.J. Vorosmarty, J. Brunner, C. Revenga, B. Fekete, P. Green, Y. Kura, and K. Thompson, 2004: Case studies. Chapter E.6 In: Vegetation, Water, Humans and the Climate: A New Perspective on an Interactive System. Global Change – The IGBP Series, P. Kabat et al., Eds., Springer, 515-536.http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/cb-41.pdf
CB-42 Pielke, R.A. Sr., and L. Bravo de Guenni, 2004: Conclusions. Chapter E.7 In: Vegetation, Water, Humans and the Climate: A New Perspective on an Interactive System. Global Change – The IGBP Series, P. Kabat et al., Eds., Springer, 537-538. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/cb-42.pdf
In your questions, you are not starting with the correct one. For example,instead of
“Will we see more heat waves in the future or fewer?”
the first question that must be asked is
what change in maximum and minimum daily temperatures and humidity must occur before the population of a city is threatened with increased mortality?
This will depend, on a variety of reasons, not just the actual temperatures, but the infrastructure in place to provide protection from the heat.
The IPCC models could provide forecasts of crossing key thresholds, BUT only when they show evidence of being able to skilfully predict (project) changes in these heat waves. They have not, however, so providing them to policymakers is not appropriate unless they caveat that they have no skill.
Best Regards
Roger Sr.
Its hilariously similar to people who claim they can predict the stock market.
Its always a lot easier to fit your “proven” model to past prices, than to correctly predict the future.
What can we agree on? Some amount of warming and sea level rise, consistent with that warming, is very like to occur because of increasing CO2 emissions and levels. IF THAT’S ALL we can be confident about, then that’s what policymakers should know. Mosher, isn’t that enough information for California to implement warning systems? Sea level rise similar to the last 100 years or greater is very likely. Isn’t that enough information for policymakers to implement policies for constructing barriers or limiting seashore construction and perhaps plans to return sea shores to the wetland “sponges” that many of them were before opportunistic construction.
Telling policymakers that IPCC models show regional or global futures that are quite uncertain gives them false insecurity, false hopes, and false confidence- all of which create unnecessary problems. False insecurity has resulted for hundreds of millions of coastal and island people who have felt very insecure the past two decades because false predictions about catastrophic sea level rise and allowed their politicians to use this fear for sometimes their own and not the people’s good. False hopes that the science was settled and everyone would praise the policymakers (and the scientists who instructed them) has created polarity, polemic, and ill will. It has also skewed climate science research so that we have practically lost 20 years of real research except for the courageous efforts of some like Dr. Pielke Sr. False confidence has allowed the hubris that Dr. Pielke describes, a hubris that is contagious- IPCC climate scientists to policymakers to tribal political grandstanding.
The result is a that real and potentially significant problem, global warming has become a litmus test of supposed science literacy and of good will. creating so much noise and hand waving by the extremists on all sides that both that potential problem and solutions is a casualty of climate wars and other known environmental, health, and similar problems with known solutions become neglected and trivialized. These other problems are trivial only because saving the world and humanity from catastrophe must be the overriding concern says one side, based on the settled science, climate science induced fears, and hubris of using unskillful models . The extremists on the other side attribute Machiavellian motivations of one world takeover and other conspiracies- when personal ambition, hubris, group think, and incompetence surely suffice as explanations.
Steven Mosher Feb 7 12:43pm says “Simple fact is you can’t merely criticize. You actually have to provide better answers.“. BS. Huge logical fallacy. Regrettably, we see this stupid argument used over and over again. Fact is, if an argument is wrong, it is wrong period.
Mooloo and David in Texas : you beat me to it! But I’d written it so I posted it.
” Decadal prediction systems nevertheless exhibit a degree of skill in hindcasting near-surface temperature over much of the globe out to at least nine years. ”
That’s peach. If they kinda work up to nine years , they are NOT decadal projections, are they?