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.
Thanks Dr. Pielke. Good analysis.
One problem with this CAGW scam is it needs to be constantly fed with lies, if not, it dies.
Steven Mosher says:
February 7, 2014 at 12:43 pm
1. What is the future risk of UHI to human health and life in the state of california.
A. Will we see more heat waves in the future or fewer?
———————————–
Why no option for exactly the same number of heat waves as has always occurred, not more and not fewer. A have you stopped beating your wife question.
As Roger Pielke Sr. points out, we shouldn’t be relying on any climate model for that.
If anything, UHI is based on population projections then and the Log(of those population projections by city) since the data shows that is the important metric for UHI.
Net In-migration has basically flatlined, natural growth of births versus deaths is still growing – economic policies have flatlined job growth so there will soon be out-migration reversing the trend of 150 years.
Smaller centres are growing and not so much the larger centres. I predict a small increase in UHI-induced heat-waves over time, primarily in the smaller centres which currently have heat-waves.
http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site571/2013/0501/20130501_080125_ssjm0502calgrowth90_500.jpg
To what end Steve? Just because a bunch of whackos, yes whackos, have decided that gradual temperature increase since the last ice age are a threat?
They have no evidence, for warmer weather to be a threat, none! Yeah, there are fools reading prehistoric tea leaves and then somehow jumping to the conclusion that climate change caused a catastrophe; but again they do not have proof, just assumptions.
During the history of man, warmer temperatures have been beneficial. That word severely understates just how mankind has thrived during warmer years. Contrast that with known famines during colder years.
The blunt truth is that the models are assembled groups of assumptions, inputs and calculations. They provide rough guidance, when they work; otherwise they’re learning exercises on the path to working models.
Instead of trumpeting disaster based on prophetic readings of model innards, modelers should be keeping their mouths shut and learning!
So the world is warmer this year. That’s great!! Do you really believe mankind lacks fur coats because we look better in animal and plant fibers?
Want to blame CO2 for the warmth? That’s also great!! Plants love higher CO2 and all animal life on this planet benefits when plants benefit. Or is the next step for not harming or distressing animals and some plants a migration to direct mineral consumption? I got news for you, you’ll prefer it warmer if animals and plants get to keep their fibers and flesh.
The truth is, natural variation is apparently trumping CO2 and all of those rabid warmists. When mankind has identified and observed all of the natural cycles, then and perhaps only then will man have an inkling which direction the natural variation is taking us.
Great post Roger A. Pielke Sr.!
Only, the more I read through your opening up the “2013 WG1 IPCC Report – Annex 1” and documented the language, the more I became convinced that the authors/lead editor does not understand the meaning of the word ‘skill’:
It seems to me that there is an attempt to imbue the weak climate models with anthropomorphic facilities. It’s bad enough that the phrase ‘computer models’ plays on popular science fiction in people’s minds, but trying to make the models sound human-like is distressing.
I’m just expressing my doubts so that others may perhaps also recognize when the IPCC is tweaking personal psychology.
Thank you for dissecting the Annex 1 and related documents so well!
With respect to Mosh – who I do actually respect. I think his comment has perfectly illustrated the blinkered view. Namely, that policy makers should be forced/coerced/cajoled/whatever into some ‘decision’ based on what amounts to general speculation. I’m sorry. but as a scientist (and engineer) I can’t support that stance. The ‘what if we are right’ , precautionary principle, etc – simply doesn’t (or more importantly it shouldn’t) wash with policymakers. Decision processes should be made on sensible facts and figures, not speculative or intuitive ideas/feelings.
As regards the UHI issue, I’m glad it is finally accepted as valid – but I have yet to see a downgrading of the surface temperature datasets to allow for it (i.e. for all ‘town’ stations, airports, etc). When we can actually look at a ‘corrected’ dataset and believe the corrections are valid (rather than some arbitrary adjustment!) then perhaps we can ‘use’ this data to ‘push’ policy makers?
The bottom line is that if you (as a scientist) cannot give reasonably scientifically supported ‘direction’ to policy makers – you should shut the feck up! – because ultimately, you are the one ‘pushing the button’ and should be held FULLY accountable. As a real simple example – Iraq was stuffed because of alleged WMD – were they found? – did the ‘specialist spies’ that said they ‘existed’ get fired? Many Billions were spent because of this ‘error’ (and yeah, I’m ignoring the ‘other’ reasons) but who paid the price? Answer – you and me…….and a sh*tload of innocent Iraqis (including the poor conscripts ‘sent’ to war by some stupid Iraqi dictator) and Allied servicemen and women….
My ultimate point being that people is such positions (i,e. climate scientists in this case) have a VERY high level of responsibility – to EVERYBODY – the fact the warmist scientific folk don’t seem to demonstrate any real CARE about their responsibility is the real bugbear, for me anyway.
rant off/ – sorry……
Steven Mosher says:
February 7, 2014 at 12:43 pm
” The political reality is policy makers want answers.”
====================
Nope, they want job security, and they’ll spend as much of the taxpayers money as it takes to keep it.
Yep, it’s reality, but why would they want an answer that makes them irrelevant.
Political opinions /
I thought the post was to point out the considerable lack of predictive skill in the IPCC reports, and some of the machinations behind this lack of skill.
Unfortunately people have let Steven Mosher distract them from thiswith:
Steven Mosher says:
February 7, 2014 at 12:43 pm
Perhaps instead of distracting, Mosher could contribute some facts (in a separate post !) about UHI.
I remember seeing urban planning documents (maybe Eurpoean?) referencing satelite measurements of surface temperature (NOT AIR TEMPERATURE) on passes from rural over city back to rural, showing 8 degrees C (up to even 11degrees C) higher surface temperatures over cities.
If Mosher is so well up with UHI he could present some of these facts with references (again in a separate post).
I doubt it will happen as it provides too much support for those saying the 0.3 deg/decade trend of Hadcrut, GISS anf Best are wrong, and the analyses of Watts and others, (the recent Chinese connection on WUWT) at 0.15 degrees /decade increase from 1979 to 2002 (after a similar drop from 1945 to 1979) are right.
I would like to add to Rodgers reply to Mosher, and that is about awareness, A few years ago a man died from heat exposure while laying out in the sun in a Vancouver park. After that incident, there was a policy implemented to check on vulnerable people, as well as the awareness that if you see someone lying out in the hot sun, you should call 911, at the very least.
Hindcasting is accurate because they have tuned in a degree of heat based on CO2/greenhouse gas forcing. However, this begs the question: Because heat is heat regardless of what forces it to rise, did the modelers consider that heat has more than one source?
I think they actually have considered that. Which has led to an early identified problem. Trial runs produced too much heat in the past.
In fact the null hypothesis is that heat is stored in the oceans and released slowly or all at once at Earth’s whim. I believe this is why aerosols and particulates are added to the hindcast atmosphere. When considering natural oceanic parameters that would predict heat release, the modelers have had to add particulates to the air to cool their over-revved inputs so that they can continue to say that added CO2 explains past temperature rise;
CO2-The Miracle Molecule says:
February 7, 2014 at 1:32 pm
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
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I was planning to become a lurker and stop commenting as there are so many smart people here that an aging brain can’t hope to even understand. But I just paid 90 cents a litre for a propane fill up on my farm where I usually pay between 41 and 52 cents a litre. That’s what a little bit of cold and a lack of supply infrastructure will do for you. Anthony’s comment is bang on. The only reason for a 100% jump in the price is the current high demand and while I can cut more wood on the farm, the poor and elderly will be stuck with turning down the heat and putting on a coat inside the house. Energy poverty is the big issue, whether we are taking heating or cooling.
Thanks for the comment Anthony. Hope you Californians are getting some rain now that the westerlies are blowing in.
Bob Tisdale says:
February 7, 2014 at 2:39 pm
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.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Speaking of a cave: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/02/07/human-footprints-800000-years-old/5277059/
– – –
Dr. Tim B all:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/08/wrong-prediction-wrong-science-unless-its-government-climate-science/
Dr. Pielke, your essay, while tough sledding at times for laymen such as myself (obviously my problem) was an invaluable contribution to this blog and thank you so very much. Your response to Steven Mosher’s comments that end with:
“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.”
were priceless, on the other hand, I chuckled..
Mosher: “A. Will we see more heat waves in the future or fewer?”
They could check.
“HADCET Daily Maximum data is available from 1878 on. There were 45 days over 30C since 1878. Of the 45 days 30C and over, 5 occurred from 2003 to 2006, none after 2006.
6 occurred in the 1940s. 14 occurred in the 1970s – 9 of which occurred in 1976 alone.
Is death by heatwave imminent in the area covered by HADCET? I think not.”
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/hadcet-maximum-temperature-days-over-30c/
Steve said: ”
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.”
The truth of the manner is they don’t know, there is no way to know it may not ever be possible to know. Anyone who claims to know is a charlatan.That is what the politician need to know and if they don’t they need to be told that, The real answer is be prepared for the unexpected, for that is what is going to happen. Politician must have contingencies for a warming or a colder, wetter or drier. stormier or calmer world and the best contingencies I know of for a changing world (ps Steve, its alway changing) is cheap, abundant and reliable energy. that should be their number one priority because that is what will allow all the most people adjust to what contingencies may come about. Instead the AGW crowd wants to do the reverse.
A serious waste of time and money. Sheer FANTASY.
With such level of complexity every expert will smash the other one without convincing any policy maker.
To me a simpler request for validation is: “using today’s most sophisticated models and all known historical observations up to end of 1997, please show an accurate reconstruction of the climate evolution that took place between 1998 and today!”
And to solve the quetsion of UHI, as Alphonse Allais was indicating at the end of the 19th century: if city life is getting unbearable we should build them in the country side.
Mr. Mosher, if a scientist who made a claim comes to the realization that it is wrong is he himself allowed to retract it even so he has no better answer? Or do you only deny others the right to test the claim.
The author seem to be claiming that studies based on these regional projections are not sound for policy-making. If that is true they are not sound for investment decisions.
However the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the European Union and development cooperation agencies such as USAID and DFID are now including climate consultants on infrastructure feasibility studies as a condition for grants and loans to developing countries..
If the author is correct it means that these institutions are wasting their resources on pseudoscience. Can it be true that all these clever and well-meaning people should be spending that money on education and health and roads instead of climate studies that will show how to regulate the climate and adapt to future climate disasters?
Berényi Péter says:
February 7, 2014 at 2:19 pm
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.
=====================
Exactly. Heating takes energy and lots of it. It is expensive and there is no low cost way to get around this.
Air conditioning also takes energy. However, there is a low cost alternative. Water. Add water to the environment and you get low cost cooling.
Thus, it is technologically simple and low cost to solve warming problems, but it remains complex and expensive to solve cooling problems.
It is a complete nonsense to worry about problems that are so cheap and easy to fix in the future if we face them. Sit naked under a palm tree on any ocean beach on the equator on the hottest day of the year. You will not be hot, you will be comfortable. If there is a breeze blowing you may even feel cold and want to move out into the sun.
In most place on earth, and in most seasons, the naked human sitting in the shade will die of exposure. They cannot eat enough food to maintain their core temperature. They must seek either clothing, shelter, or a heat source.
The domestication of fire is the only reason humans are found outside the tropics.
I have read so many peer reviewed studies that debunk the climate models. I can only assume scientists persevere with these supercomputers for fear of losing government funding. It just would not look good to admit the models are seriously flawed (which they are). So, it’s far easier to pretend the models are getting better etc etc etc etc. This way it maintains the money flood!
Hindcasting is not a valid test of any model if either the model or the model builder has seen the hindcast data. The experiment is flawed because it is not double blind.
Computers are very good at memorizing data and like parrots they can spout back what they have memorized. This lets them predict the past with amazing accuracy, but provides them no skill at predicting the future.
Similarly, if the model builder has seen the hindcast, they will unconsciously select the model that best describes the past, even if they don’t mean to. This influences model performance during hindcastng, but provides no skill at forecasting the future.
For any set of data of N+1 points, you can solve mathematically a polynomial of degree N that exactly passes though all the data points. This is the training run for your model, where you adjust the coefficients (weights) of the polynomial to fit the data.
From now on, your model will perfectly hindcast the past. However, it will have no skill at predicting the future. For example, consider:
ax^2 + bX + c = y
If you now have 3 data points (x,y), the computer can solve for a,b,c such that for every value of X, you will get the correct value of Y, Now consider that X is the date, and Y is the temperature. You model will now correctly predict the past temperature (Y) for any of the 3 dates (X) provided.
However, when you ask the computer to predict the temperature for any date it has not seen, it will demonstrate no more skill than a dart board.
Kev-in-Uk says:
February 7, 2014 at 4:14 pm
Kev-in-Uk: I think you have it backwards; it is not the scientists who are pushing some bad decisions on policy-makers — it is the policy makers who are fishing for excuses to expand their authority and they have found junk science is a powerful ally. Scientists are flattered by all the attention they get from those at the seat of power and they oblige their flatterers with the answer the powerful desire. They don’t want to lose access to the powerful.
If you start out with the question:
You usually get a very different response than you do with the question:
Policy makers shop for scientists who give them the results they want, just like celebrities shop for doctors who will authorize the prescriptions they desire. The honest scientist who says “the current body of scientific knowledge doesn’t offer guidance one way or the other on this issue” will simply be passed over the next time in favor someone more helpful.
Frederick Colbourne says:
February 8, 2014 at 4:20 am
If the author is correct it means that these institutions are wasting their resources on pseudoscience. Can it be true that all these clever and well-meaning people should be spending that money on education and health and roads instead of climate studies that will show how to regulate the climate.
===============
Clever and well meaning people have routinely done great harm. Because they are well meaning they believe their motives justifies their actions. Because they are clever it is hard for other people to convince them their well meaning actions will do more harm than good.
The classic example is food aid. Send free food to a country full of hungry people. Continue this for a few years and then cut off the aid. Instead of hungry people you will now have starving people. Your well meaning actions have made the problem worse and your cleverness has blinded you to the dangers of your actions.
A great many recurring problem exist because the knee jerk solution, the obvious solution that first comes to mind has unintended consequences, and these consequences work to make the problem worse.
Frederick Colbourne – You write
“The author seem to be claiming that studies based on these regional projections are not sound for policy-making”
That is exactly what I have shown. Many millions of dollars, euros etc are being wasted on the creation of multi-decadal projections of regional climate.. Until the people who are doing these studies are required to actually document the skill of their approach, this money will continue to be wasted.
Roger Sr..