![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 love it when that IPCC graph of the models shows up. I saw it first in a Dr. Roy Spencer post. That post led me here — an intelligent skeptic community I did not know existed until several months ago.
That chart “speaks”. Anyone who can read a stock market report immediately gets it.
Of course, the CAGW crowd will quickly remind you that those models don’t “predict” rather they “project”. And there is a difference between the two (see any diatribe on “weather vs. climate for a detailed explanation.)
Here’s a paraphrased dialogue I recently had:
Me: Since 2000, ninety-five percent of model projections are inaccurate.
CAGW-er: The models don’t handle short term variability.
Me: Okay, let’s imagine we run the models out for 100 years. Are the projections more accurate?
CAGW-er: The models are inline with observed fluctuations.
Me: So they do handle short term variability?
CAGW-er: The models don’t handle short term variability. The observed data is well within the envelope of projections.
Me: Okay. The models are good at defining an envelope that observations fit into. What are the envelope’s parameters? Is “envelope” like saying error-bars without using the word “error” because it detracts from the message?
CAGW-er: The models’ projections match observed fluctuations.
Me: So the y axis labels don’t matter? Only the number of ticks between each data point?
CAGW-er: Why aren’t you getting it? You’re just a science denier.
“Willis Eschenbach says:
July 27, 2014 at 11:53 am
Oh, I see. Farmers use GMO crops because they’re too dumb to realize that they are crippling themselves because the varietals are limited … again, say what? Do you truly think that some guy whose shortest season GMO varietal is a 100 day corn, he’ll just throw up his hands if the growing season is shorter than that and say “I’m out of luck”?
Perhaps you might benefit from a year or two on the farm yourself. If GMO seeds become uneconomical to plant, because of weather or for any other reason, said farmers just pick a non-GMO seed and plant that … repeat after me, “Farmers are not stupid.”
w.”
What if he can’t switch?
Have you looked at the contracts for growing GMO crops?
They lock you in to a certain variety for a period of years. Not something I want to commit to. I like having the options of being able to switch. I happen to have the same objections for certain other hybrid varieties. There should be more options with both on available, but because of the way contracts to get them to grow lock you in, you end up with fewer.
Basically, if you signed up for one of the varieties that limits you and a year or two later you’ve still got snow on the ground when it’s time to plant the corn, what are you going to do?
Otherwise, I agree with you…
As to my other point…we now allow plants, but what is to say that is where it will stop? Nothing.
Life, in all forms, should be the ultimate ‘public domain’ item.
And back to the subject…yep, it’s a crock. Simply because there are choices as to what to grow (even if Willis and I don’t agree on how many there are, they do exist).
“…and our predigested food is cooked by infra-red”
Nice find. I’m lovin it.
Matt L’s comment prompts me to offer the clariifcation that while an IPCC-style “evaluation” provides for a visualization of the errors in the various projections, it does not provide for the possible falsification of the model. For the falsification of the model one needs the counts of observed events that are called “frequencies” in statistics. Predictions yield frequencies. Projections do not.
I’ve been waiting to submit my comment, below, for the “Weekly News Roundup” post, but, unfortunately, there hasn’t been such a post this week. Hence my bold attempt to attach my comment to this thread.
In that regard, let me say, that I fully understand and heartily endorse WUWT’s policy with respect to the inappropriateness of off-topic, off-the-wall commentary. But if the moderator would be so kind, I respectfully and humbly ask for an exception to policy, that would allow the below comment to be published here. I ask this, so that I can launch a timely “dig” at Hotwhopper as payback for her recent (26 July 2014 post) snotty, little, sucker-punch diatribe, that she aimed at Dr. Curry (NOTICE: No Dr. Currys were actually harmed in the making of Hotwhopper’s preposterously over-acted, cutey-pie, show-off “big-scene” (not to mention that “John”, in the comments section of the relevant post, left “Sou” (Hotwhopper) sputtering like some bumptious, pampered, spoiled-brat, alpha hive-heroine, who had just been taken down a notch and didn’t like that first-time experience, one bit!–though I give Hotwhopper credit for not deleting John’s comments)). Well, hopin’ for the best, here goes:
So, like, I was going to report the latest news about the Deltoid blog by comparing that improbable pesthole to a “dead-bug”, sucked dry of its juices by the last of the Deltoid’s carrion-phile, dead-ender denizens. And, then, I was goin’ to ramble on about how the Deltoid blog was only an exo-skeleton “shell” of its former self, and everything. And, then, I was going to wrap up my little, “newsflash” with this quip: “Too bad, so sad–but that’s how the chitin crumbles!” Pretty snappy, huh?
But now, I’m kinda thinkin’ that I don’t want to waste quality zingers, like those, above, on some nothing-booger blog, like Deltoid, and the handful of carbon-phobe phonies still flocculating there. Rather, better so save my little gibes for a more worthy occassion, I’m now thinkin’. You know, just sit-on them, for the time being, and then roll ’em out when, like, say, the Hotwhopper blog goes all “necrophage-magnet” on us, and all. You know, that sort of thing.
Speaking of which, while giving my tinfoil-“chapeau” a fashion-statement work-out, the other day, I suddenly got this conspiracy-theory “ideation” that “Hotwhopper” is actually “Watts”!!!–THINK ABOUT IT!!! You know, like, there’s Watts, all disguised as the Southern Hemisphere’s most obnoxious, picky-picky, snippy-to-the-max eco-fussbudget, firing off daily, urgent, little pseudo-critiques, always slightly cuckoo, what with their prim, neat-nik, mono-maniac intensity, of his VERY OWN BLOG-POSTS, MIND YOU, that actually work to draw even more attention to WUWT and, thus, to further ramp up WUWT’s already totally-awsome super-abundance of page-views and comments–VOILA!!! Pretty slick, huh?
Does anybody know much about the 77 Ghz frequency used by automated cars and the TSA airsport scanners?
It seems to me that the author of the video assumes that things like poverty, government totalitarianism and conflict have all been solved by the 1970’s as well.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
As my Phd Comp Sci buddy told me back in the 80’s:
ALL the major computational problems were solved in the 60’s.
He was quite correct.
I guess they thought tailfins would last 20 years. But they were gone in five.
A 100% bubble top? That didn’t happen either.
Nor did a yoke-type steering wheel.
What they missed:
Cruise control.
Seatbelts? (I’m not sure).
Side view mirrors on both sides.
🙂
It seems that the “future” we live today, is not that which could have been, and that is a sad “reality.”
I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.
I went to an auto show in SF in 1965. I think I saw Chrysler’s turbine car there.
There’s a whole website devoted to past visions of the future:
http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/
Where’s my flying car?
Telecom industry visions were basically peer-to-peer, grandma talking to grandkids on a picturephone.
As a modeler I spend a lot of effort trying to explain the difference between a prediction and a projection. The IPCC actually did a pretty good job of defining the two terms (I guess even these guys get some stuff right>
From the IPCC:
“Projection
The term “projection” is used in two senses in the climate change literature. In general usage, a projection can be regarded as any description of the future and the pathway leading to it. However, a more specific interpretation has been attached to the term “climate projection” by the IPCC when referring to model-derived estimates of future climate.
Forecast/Prediction
When a projection is branded “most likely” it becomes a forecast or prediction. A forecast is often obtained using deterministic models, possibly a set of these, outputs of which can enable some level of confidence to be attached to projections.”
The point to be made is nearly all predictions will be wrong because there is always uncertainty. However, good modelers will run enough projection to cover the full range of uncertainty in input variables and model algorithms (that is what design of experiment is all about). So when the actual temperatures fall outside the range of projections we can only come to two conclusions:
1) The algorithms use to model climate do not realistically represent physics.
2) Uncertainty in climate model inputs are higher than we thought.
In my line of work, if actual results fell outside my projections, I would consider it a serious failure.
(Now that’s off my chest and I can get off my soap box.)
Darrin Burton:
Like yourself, I’m a modeler. Unlike yourself, I think the IPCC missed the boat on its description of the difference between a projection and a prediction. That a projection is branded “most likely” does not make it a prediction. A “projection” is a computed time series. A “prediction” is an extrapolation from an unobserved state of nature to an observed state of nature. Being non-falsifiable, projections are non-scientific. Being falsifiable, predictions are scientific.
General Motors started in 1908, and went bankrupt/re-incorporated in 2008. Half-way in between in 1958, they were at their peak.
Sad to think of the names that have gone away Pontiac/Oldsmobile/Mercury/Meteor/Plymouth/Desoto and a host of others.
From the article:
Car: Cheap and inspected.
Highway: In need of repair.
That was easy.
In comic books back in the 40s, Dick Tracy’s wrist watch was sort of a prediction of our wireless devices for personal communication, although they called it a 2-way radio. In the 60s it even acquired visual communication abilities as a 2-way wrist TV.
Walter Dnes says:
July 27, 2014 at 7:24 pm
General Motors started in 1908, and went bankrupt/re-incorporated in 2008. Half-way in between in 1958, they were at their peak.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well now they are at Peak Recall. They are not yet at Total Recall. That takes place in the future.
The request is to prove man-made warming is not taking place. If the ultimate response is that ‘the heat is hiding in the deep oceans where there is not enough data to prove otherwise, then there is no possibility that the money can be won.
Keating can just cite a scientist such as Trenberth saying ‘it is hiding in the deep oceans’ and claim that there is no science provided to prove otherwise. Tisdale can prove it wrong by logic but only a tiny minority of people can follow a logical argument and Keating is unlikely to be one of them, based on his arguments so far. Sorry Keating, it’s true.
To prove the redefined challenge of showing that the ‘rise in 20th century’ temperature is not caused by human emissions of CO2 is trivial. The record of human emissions is pretty well known and there is no substantial proof that it a) caused the drop in temperatures from 1945, b) that it caused the rise in temperatures from 1976, c) that it caused the stoppage of that rise in 2001. The correlation is extremely poor.
If the sensitivity to CO2 was such that human-sourced emissions ‘mattered much’ then the temperature would not be going down, then up, then level while the rate of emissions continued to rise. Those emissions have indeed continued to rise and the temperature has, as far as can be detected, not demonstrated any statistically significant sensitivity to human CO2. I don’t have to add, ‘at all’. It is implied by the requirement for significance. If it is undetectable it cannot be ‘much’ or ‘more that half’ or ‘most’.
The major outcome of Keating’s exercise is that he will learn from intimate contact that what he has heretofore believed were the opinions of ‘sceptics’ were false assertions by biased calumniators intent on misrepresentation. His comment on Heartland is appalling. As always, independent investigation of Truth provides the best information even if you have to sift a bit.
Jeff says:
July 27, 2014 at 2:19 pm
> Jay Leno’s 1963 Chrysler Turbine Car ….
Wow, that was neat. Jay Leno is half a year older than me, and I strongly remember seeing the turbine cars on the Today show. They followed some of the people who were “assigned” them and they regretted having to turn them back in to Chrysler when the trial was up.
A few other futuristic events from around that time:
1958: Pan Am started offering Boeing 707 service, the plane that established the jet age in aviation.
1967: Indianapolis 500: “The race was dominated by Parnelli Jones in the radically new, four-wheel drive STP-Paxton Turbocar gas turbine entered by prolific car owner Andy Granatelli. With three laps to go, however, Jones coasted to a stop when a $6 transmission bearing failed.”
1968: Indianapolis 500: “the second and eventually the final year of participation by the controversial STP Granatelli Turbine machines. For 1968, the Pratt & Whitney turbine engine was installed in the Lotus 56 chassis, often known affectionately as the “Wedge Turbine.” In a veiled effort to curtail the turbine’s power output, USAC had imposed revised regulations regarding the maximum annulus inlet (reduced from 23.999 in² to 15.999 in²). … the green flag was given on lap 191. At that instant, both leader Joe Leonard and his teammate Art Pollard hesitated and instantly slowed with identical snapped fuel pump drive shafts. The turbine engines again failed in sight of the finish, stunning the racing fraternity.”
1969: Men walked on the moon. Today, we can’t get to Low Earth Orbit without hitching a ride with the Russians.
Well one thing is for certain. Climate is what we expect, but weather is what we get. And it is the weather that kills us. There are many lessons we can learn from the past. Don’t build on a flood plains, volcanoes erupt, Italy particularly, earthquakes happen regularly, pollution can be curtailed. Tsunamis happen and there is bugger all we can do to stop them other than give adequate warning and build stronger homes to withstand high winds. Tornadoes kill too as do Typhoons. If we build in flood prone areas, build levies. Make earthquake and high wind area homes more stable. Other than that we really can’t alter the climate to suit our needs. It’s the poorer countries that have nice little homes that are built on sticks not stones. Haven’t we learned something from the rhyme, 5 little pigs.
From bushbunny on July 27, 2014 at 10:19 pm:
This rhyme?
It teaches us we need cheaper affordable energy for all to eliminate scarcity and induce prosperity. All little piggies should be able to go to the market if they want, with affordable transportation and available goods. All should be able to have all the roast beef they want.
And no little piggies should go home crying because they couldn’t afford what they wanted or it wasn’t available for sale. Do we live in a free world or a socialist fairy tale?
No I meant the rhyme ‘Huff and I bluff and blow your house down’ The one who built his house of bricks sustained the attack. Forgive me folks.
Another failed prediction :
“Internal combustion’s such old science. Bubble travel is the way of the future.”
Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius (2001)
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.
Prediction may be very difficult, but it would be considerably easier if the criteria for success could be decided after the fact.