![CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/cmip5-73-models-vs-obs-20n-20s-mt-5-yr-means11.png?quality=75)
But. like predicting the future, it seems that the true provenence is murky.
That said, whether you are making climate predictions, or predictions about what kind of car and highway you’ll be driving in 20 years, predictions about the future are indeed difficult. I stumbled on this film from 1956 today by accident, and I just had to laugh at how far off the mark it was. It made me think of climate science and it’s failed predictions we see in the graph in the upper right.
On the plus side, some predictions in the film have come true. We have GPS Navigation, we have automobile status displays, and we have OnStar vehicle to dispatch communications. What we don’t have is dual jet turbine powered consumer level cars, autopilot (though Google is getting close) or uniformed controllers at freeway intersections that sing.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“I stumbled on this film from 1956 today by accident,”
LOL I wondered where the idea for slot cars came from.
Chrysler made about 55 turbine cars in the early 60’s, and did a pretty extensive consumer test with them.
Jimbo says:
July 27, 2014 at 1:52 pm
…. “Hit it!”
=====
I did, it was pretty good.
Around two minutes in – they should have turned left at Albuquerque…;)
Jay Leno has one of the Chrysler Turbine cars – only a single turbine, but a lot of info about the technology behind it….trying to find the link…
Jay Leno’s 1963 Chrysler Turbine Car ….
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2A5ijU3Ivs%5D
For scientific forecasting, see The Golden Rule of Forecasting: Be Conservative, documented by J. Scott Armstrong and Kesten C. Green and Andreas Graefe
Kesten C Green, Willie Soon & J Scott Armstrong, (2013 Draft) Evidence-based Forecasting for Climate Change Policies
As I mentioned in one of my earlier blogs (12 JAN 2010 http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/2009-year-end-musings.html :
“Or in Scientific American of November 2009 :
‘STILL HOTTER THAN EVER’ – that may be believed by some – but again a thousand year old straight hockey stick handle of global temperature? And that in Scientific American? Such attempts to overwrite recorded history could make a respected title an oxymoron. Ironically, the last sentence in the immediately preceding article reads “It’s always difficult to predict, but if we could predict it, it wouldn’t be science.” Even more true if simulations cannot retrodict recorded history correctly.
In France, we attribute “La prévision est difficile surtout lorsqu’elle concerne l’avenir” to Pierre Dac.
Shall we now say “Prediction is very difficult unless you are allowed to have one hundred models with different results and only a few are expected to match reality”?
See: The Golden Rule of Forecasting for papers, guidelines, software etc.
Based on observations so far can we conclude that increasing co2 at current rates has not had a statistically significant effect on temperature ? That is assuming no other variable is providing cooling to offset the increase in co2 temp ? Meaning assuming things like heat hiding in ocean, solar cycles etc are not offsetting ?
ralfellis says:
July 27, 2014 at 9:47 am
“But you would probably find that if governments invested that money in Apollo programmes instead, most of those on welfare would be gainfully employed, instead of watching day-time TV.
________
No, Ralph I have to vociferously disagree. If governments didn’t essentially steal the excess money needed to support the welfare budget in the first place, then private industry and you and I would personally be funding the continued economic expansion and employment of all those people AND the people that the Government employees through which we wash our hard-earned dollars after they skim a bunch for special interests and well-connected off the top. THEY SHOULDN’T BE TAKING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!
Ralph, we are done when so many people (like you apparently) believe that government should take money and invest it. Private companies and people will ALWAYS make better decisions and put their money to the most efficient economic use vs governments. I suggest a book called “Economics in One Lesson” by H. Hazlett.
Bruce
With regard to socialism, seems to me by nature it grows and grows and then eventually crashes. There are too many groups vested and dependent a big government.
Forbidden Planet was way off (1956) :
“In the final decade of the 21st Century, men and women in rocket ships landed on the moon.”
James says (at 9:22 am)
I think I will pass on the predigested food…
==================
Good luck on that.
food additive # 471
►These synthetic fats are produced from glycerol and natural fatty acids, from either plant or animal origin. E471 is generally a mixture of several products, and its composition is similar to partially digested natural fat.◄
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono-_and_diglycerides_of_fatty_acids
“I suggest a book called “Economics in One Lesson” by H. Hazlett.” ~ Bruce
That is the best piece of advice I have seen here in a long time. Thanks Bruce.
PS: As a side note, I have not been able to post here using my WordPress account for months and months. I tried it again on a MacBook today and it worked. So, investigating led me to deleted all “site preferences” in Firefox and the restart the Browser. It seems to work as this message demonstrates. My prediction is that the odds are against this working for a long time. (is that all sciency?)
MarkStoval
To address your question:
A “prediction” is an extrapolation from an observed state of nature to an unobserved but observable state of nature. The unobserved state is called the “outcome.” In a prediction, a numerical value is assigned to the probability of each of the several possible outcomes. For example, a numerical value is assigned to the probability of heads and another numerical value is assigned to the probability of tails in a coin flip. Your “prediction” does not assign a value to the probability of each of the several possible outcomes nor is the identity of these outcomes clear to me.
What a great link! I read Briggs all the time but I must have missed that one somehow. Thanks to Terry for sharing that one. I recommend others spend a few minutes reading it.
Why has WUWT decided to open a thread right now saying that predictions are difficult and basically promoting FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) on predictions?
There is a very simple reason….
On 20 July 2014 Nature Climate Change published an online paper “Well-estimated global surface warming in climate projections selected for ENSO phase” by Risbey, Lewandowsky, Langlais, Monselesan, O’Kane and Oreskes. It shows that if you select only climate model runs in phase with the ENSO state (by picking those whose Nina 3.4 zone temperatures are close to the actual measured Nina 3.4 zone temperatures), then the climate models do a very good job of prediction over 15 year periods, including the period 1997 to 2012 where there has been a slow down in the rate of temperature rise (though it is still rising).
Here is the text of the abstract :-
“The question of how climate model projections have tracked the actual evolution of global mean surface air temperature is important in establishing the credibility of their projections. Some studies and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report suggest that the recent 15-year period (1998–2012) provides evidence that models are overestimating current temperature evolution. Such
comparisons are not evidence against model trends because they represent only one realization where the decadal natural variability component of the model climate is generally not in phase with observations. We present a more appropriate test of models where only those models with natural variability (represented by El Niño/Southern Oscillation) largely in phase with observations are selected from multi-model ensembles for comparison with observations. These tests show that climate models have provided good estimates of 15-year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific spatial trend patterns.”
This is a very simple and elegant piece of science that someone was always going to do at some point. The real question is why there is no headline reference to it on this blog.
The answer is that it is such a powerful piece of analysis contradicting claims made here that the climate models are wrong, so the policy has been not to draw attention to it.
Here’s a link to the article preview – http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2310.html.
Peter
The abstract of the paper of Risbey et al uses the term “projection” while you use the term “prediction” in reference to a related concept. In the literature of global warming climatology, “projection” and “prediction” have differing meanings. In particular, a prediction is falsifiable while a projection is not. When the two terms are used as synonyms, as you do in making your argument, the effect is to make of your argument an example of an equivocation. By rule, one cannot draw a logically proper conclusion from an equivocation. To draw such a conclusion is an “equivocation fallacy.” Your conclusion that “this is a very simple and elegant piece of science that someone was always going to do at some point ” is an application of this fallacy hence being improper.
I wonder if General Motors could’ve had the foresight and imagination, back in 1956, to realize not how advanced they’d be in 1976, but how truly advanced they’d be 30+ years beyond that date when the Obama administration took them over.
sarc
It’s easier to describe a plausible concept, than to specify attributes of something fantastic. This observation is what separates the professional and amateur prognosticators.
It was the need for plausible — or perhaps possible — deniability which forced doomsayers/opportunists to shift from describing their prognostications of global warming to climate change, and drop anthropogenic, and certainly catastrophic, as often as humanly possible.
I remember seeing this statement on a plaque: “We walk into the future blind, only when we look behind us do we see with 20/20 vision”. The problem is that even when we view the past, we are limited in our understanding of what we saw.
Peter;
The answer is that it is such a powerful piece of analysis contradicting claims made here that the climate models are wrong, so the policy has been not to draw attention to it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Huh? You must have missed the whole thread drawing attention to it before it was even published:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/19/a-courtesy-note-ahead-of-publication-for-risbey-et-al-2014/
And you missed the detailed review of it after it was published:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/20/lewandowsky-and-oreskes-are-co-authors-of-a-paper-about-enso-climate-models-and-sea-surface-temperature-trends-go-figure/
Do try and keep up Peter.
Peter says:
July 27, 2014 at 4:14 pm
“The real question is why there is no headline reference to it on this blog.”
————————————————————
O dear Peter, rule of life No1:-
Always, but always, look both ways before you try to cross someone!
You cannot predict things you cannot imagine. People in the 1950s could not imagine many of the sciences and technological advances that have been made. Look back a hundred years at 1914 and see them try to predict 2014 – there is no chance. Look back 200 years to 1814 and see what they might predict for 2014. So basically it is impossible for us to predict what things will be like in 2214. Will we have a Star Trek future?
My folks took me to a Motorama back in the early 50’s. It had a Disney feel to it – lots of dioramas and gee-whiz things all over. The superhighway diorama was future-world tech, because we hadn’t built the Interstate system yet.
They had a concept car with sequential turn signals that was pretty neat, but I remember best the tetrahedral ball bearings they had rolling around. My folks were interested in a new type of oven that cooked food with radio waves, but I don’t remember seeing it.