Green and Armstrong’s scientific forecast
There is a new critique of IPCC climate projections doing the rounds of the blogosphere from two 'scientific forecasters', Kesten Green and Scott Armstrong, who claim that since the IPCC projections are not 'scientific forecasts' they must perforce be wrong and that a naive model of no change in future is likely to be more accurate that any IPCC conclusion. This ignores the fact that IPCC projections have already proved themselves better than such a naive model, but their critique is novel enough to be worth a mention.
The authors of this paper actually have a much larger agenda, and that is to improve the quality of forecasting used in public policy and business everywhere - by the use of 'scientific forecasting principles' (of which they have enumerated 140). Most of these principles seem commonsensicial (don't overfit a statistical model, test models on out of sample data etc.) and are listed on one of their many websites. Basically, you just assign a subjective numerical score for reflecting how well you match a particular principle and at the end you get a 'scientific' number that says how well you are doing.
Armstrong helped set up a journal dedicated to this goal, as well as running yearly meetings for scientific forecasters. However, in a recent review of progress he notes: "the diffusion of useful forecasting methods has been disappointing", and that "forecasting meets resistance from academics and practitioners". This seems surprising - why wouldn't people want better forecasts?
G+A's recent foray into climate science might therefore be a good case study for why their principles have not won wide acceptance. In the spirit of their technique, we'll use a scientific methodology - let's call it 'the principles of cross-disciplinary acceptance' (TM pending). For each principle, we assign a numerical score between -2 and 2, and the average will be our 'scientific' conclusion…
Principle 1: When moving into a new field, don't assume you know everything about it because you read a review and none of the primary literature.
Score: -2
G+A appear to have only read one chapter of the IPCC report (Chap 8), and an un-peer reviewed hatchet job on the Stern report. Not a very good start…
Principle 2: Talk to people who are doing what you are concerned about.
Score: -2
Of the roughly 20 climate modelling groups in the world, and hundreds of associated researchers, G+A appear to have talked to none of them. Strike 2.
Principle 3: Be humble. If something initially doesn't make sense, it is more likely that you've mis-understood than the entire field is wrong.
Score: -2
For instance, G+A appear to think that climate models are not tested on 'out of sample' data (they gave that a '-2′). On the contrary, the models are used for many situations that they were not tuned for, paleo-climate changes (mid Holocene, last glacial maximum, 8.2 kyr event) being a good example. Similarly, model projections for the future have been matched with actual data - for instance, forecasting the effects of Pinatubo ahead of time, or Hansen's early projections. The amount of 'out of sample' testing is actually huge, but the confusion stems from G+A not being aware of what the 'sample' data actually consists of (mainly present day climatology). Another example is that G+A appear to think that GCMs use the history of temperature changes to make their projections since they suggest leaving some of it out as a validation. But this is just not so, as we discussed more thoroughly in a recent thread.
Principle 4: Do not ally yourself with rejectionist rumps with clear political agendas if you want to be taken seriously by the rest of the field.
Score: -2
The principle climatologist that G+A appear to have talked to is Bob 'global warming stopped in 1998′ Carter, who doesn't appear to think that the current CO2 rise is even anthropogenic. Not terribly representative…
Principle 5: Submit your paper to a reputable journal whose editors and peer reviewers will help improve your text and point out some of these subtle misconceptions.
Score: -2
Energy and Environment. Need we say more?
Principle 6: You can ignore all the above principles if you are only interested in gaining publicity for a book.
Score: +2
Ah-ha!
In summary, G+A get a rather disappointing (but scientific!) score of -1.66. This probably means that the prospects for a greater acceptance of forecasting principles within the climate community are not good. Kevin Trenberth feels the same way. Which raises the question of whether they are really serious or simply looking for a little public controversy. It may well be that there is something worth learning from the academic discipline of scientific forecasting (though they don't seem to have come across the concept of physically-based modelling), but this kind of amateur blundering does their cause nothing but harm.
In association with their critique, G+A have also launched a very poorly thought out 'climate challenge' that is essentially a bet on year to year weather noise. No one is likely to take them up on that, and they don't seem to be interested in the rather better thought through bets on offer from James Annan and Brian Schmidt. Thus again, the conclusion must be that they are not serious about their stated goals. That's a shame.
Shorter Armstrong and Green: If our publications are not cited, climate sensitivity is zero.
'Shorter' concept by Daniel Davies and Elton Beard
23 July 2007 at 8:31 AM
I am toying here with some gallows humor about global warming, and invite anyone else to join in with comments and feedBack. A new way to look at climate change, via humor. My blog is called “Gallows Humor for Global Warming”……..harmless stuff.
23 July 2007 at 8:54 AM
Gavin, I assume you don’t object to applying some kind of methodology
to forecasting but only to the way the authors have applied to their methodology
to the IPCC forecasts.
Since their web site says the following:
Peer review and independent audits are welcome, and will be posted if the site guidelines are followed. In addition, all peer review must include the authors’ names, positions, emails, and any relationship that might be construed as a source of bias.
You could provide an alternate assessment.
23 July 2007 at 9:15 AM
This article should be permanently enshrined in the “primary literature” required for close reading by anyone studying to become “a scientist”. It deals with common sense, which, it is said is called “common” because it is so rare!
23 July 2007 at 9:34 AM
The paper seemed to rely heavily on citations from the un-refereed publications and non-scientific literature. For example, several stories from the New York Times got mentioned as examples of climatologists predictions. Several non-refereed websites also found their way into the references. The “global cooling” myth got a run as an “expert”, which William Connolley might have something to say about.
Call me crazy, but in my field of meteorology, we would never head to popular literature, much less the figgin internet, in order to evaluate the state of the art in science. You head to the scientific literature first and foremost. Since meteorology and climatology are not that different, I would struggle to see why it would be any different.
The authors also seem to put a large weight on “forecasting principles” developed in different fields. While there may be some valuable advice, and cross-field cooperation is to be encouraged, one should not assume that techniques developed in say, econometrics, port directly into climate science.
The authors also make much of a wild goose chase on google for sites matching their specific phrases, such as “global warming” AND “forecast principles”. I’m not sure what a lack of web sites would prove. They also seem to have skiped most of the literature cited in AR4 ch. 8 on model validation and climatology predictions.
In short, the authors do not seem to understand the actual practice of climatology, or the physical sciences in general. A poorly thought out critque.
23 July 2007 at 10:06 AM
When I see statements like: “Based on our Google searches, those forecasting long-term climate change have no apparent knowledge of evidence-based forecasting methods, so we expect that the same conclusions would apply to the other three necessary parts of the forecasting problem” and I just cringe.
A “Google search” sounds like something I’d see on a second-rate undergraduate research paper; how about using the Science Citation Index for example and show me you’ve really done a thorough lit. review. This is just lazy.
23 July 2007 at 10:18 AM
Kesten Green and Scott Armstrong are right about one thing: the IPCC forecast is wrong, beyond any doubt. That is the nature of forecasts for chaotic systems with so much uncertainty in so many of the assumptions that must be made, and lack of complete understanding in how a myriad of factors, known and unknown, will influence outcomes. I stongly suspect that politics has had too much to do with the IPCC forecasts, and that reality will be worse: sea level rise will exceed the forecast, just as it did with the 1995 NOAA study for the “worst case” scenario. No evidence of an accelerating trend? That’s not what my analysis of the data I’ve seen tells me. When Russia, China, and the United States all put pressure on the IPCC to alter its report (to not make things seem as bad as they likely are) I knew we were not going to get a realistic assessment of what’s coming. G&A positing no change being more accurate? It’s wishful thinking, not science.
23 July 2007 at 10:39 AM
Thanks Gavin,
Some of us climate agnostics found the G&A piece underwhelming. There was a lot of heat
from both sides on the differences between forecasts, simulations, and projections.
( Dr. Curry had an odd sense of the necessary and sufficient conditions for forecasthood, for example)
A good portion of the discussion ( ok the messy portion) centered on the issue of forecasts
versus projections, which seemed a semantical side issue that would advance nothing but engender
plenty of food fights. Fun while they last, but not very nourishing.
One thing that came up was the issue of hindcast and the issue of confirming past “forecasts, projections
simulations” against the contemporaneous record.
SO thanks for the link to the 2007 paper. Unfortunately my subscription doesnt allow me to get it.
This is exactly the kind of paper that would make for a great discussion on the web ( and the
ancilliary food fights of course) but unless everyone has access dialogue is kinda thwarted.
Oh well.
23 July 2007 at 11:22 AM
President Bush turns up number 1 in google searches for certain naughty words. That Green and Armstrong’s website turns up number 1 in google searches for “forecasting” is equally significant.
23 July 2007 at 11:24 AM
It seems to me that much of the failure of the G&A article comes from the fact that they are economists. Economics doesn’t have anything resembling physics or thermodynamics, it only has models. For a long time, they thought the velocity of money was stable. Then it changed. For a long time, the P/E ratio of most stocks stayed in the range of 10 to 20. Then the range changed.
In this kind of world, non-linear models are simply an exercise in curve fitting. So it isn’t surprising that they don’t trust them.
It is also interesting that they use the word “forecast,” which isn’t what I think of scientific models as doing. Scientific modeling is part of the conversation Science has with Nature. Models are an executable representation of the thing being studied. They are (in the age of computers) a way to collect experimental results, and to make predictions. I doubt that G&A understand this. They live in a world where a the “quants” make forecasts of GDP, or the value of a particular secutity two weeks from now.
I find that stupidity is more often the cause of egregious behavior than malice. But in the current AGW politics, it is hard to say.
23 July 2007 at 11:44 AM
On principle 3. ‘Be Humble’. They sound like people who think they used to be conceited but now don’t have any faults. Their attack on climate models seems to be based on prejudged notions, and not very much research on the reliability of the models. In addition to the successes that Gavin mentions. Models run from the past have successfully reproduced present day conditions.Also the vertical distribution of the temperature of the atmosphere has been accurately reproduced, as well as the geographic distribution of precipition.
There are enough hits to put good reliance of their projections of possible future outcomes.They want perfection? Get real! Ted Williams,of the Boston Red Sox, the last player to hit 400(meaning he was out 6 times out 10) is considered one of the greatest hitters of all time.
23 July 2007 at 12:09 PM
re: Principle 6. Sadly, it will undoubtedly work. Expect to see G&A’s “To Heck With The Scientific Method Tour” trumpeted and appearing in person on Fox News (?) any day now.
23 July 2007 at 12:14 PM
Well, they do have the good intentions of making climate modeling every bit as accurate as economics. What I wouldn’t give to have 70 degree highs in summer in Florida…
23 July 2007 at 12:40 PM
Gavin,
Thanks again for some of the pointers. I found this:
Climate simulations for 1880-2003 with GISS modelE
The data page is quite nice so Kudos to Hansen et al.
One question. we can use the page to draw plots. Is there a way to access the data behind the plots?
23 July 2007 at 12:48 PM
So the paper hasn’t been submitted to a peer reviewed journal yet and they’re looking for peer review on the internet.
Seems like a good place to start. I Googled “Peer Review”, it seems pretty popular.
23 July 2007 at 1:07 PM
The debunkerati thoroughly misunderstand the essence and nature of climate models. This type of ‘analysis’ is utterly typical of their efforts.
I have long ago concluded that their tactics are simple and, in the short term anyway, probably more effective than any other approach they might take:
1. Discern the uncertainties and unknowns of climate science, and exploit them.
2. Develop pop theories that might be plausibly true today and declare them “alternative” theories, and then go the next step and declare them of equal or greater weight than current MCS understandings.
3. As soon as the ink dries on one alternative theory, quickly come up with another, to keep MCS on defense. If MCS are always responding to the latest Debunkerati “theory”, they never have time to give the public (a) a thorough explanation as to why the alt theory is bogus or at least flawed, and (b) they are keeping debunkerati theories alive by giving them play.
4. Once a debunked debunkerati theory has been out of mind for several months, repackage and re-present it. Keep the cycle going.
As ad hominem as it sounds, we are certainly arriving at a point where it is quite enough to know the source of the ‘theory’ in order to know - KNOW! - that it is bunk.
23 July 2007 at 1:31 PM
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12318-influence-of-global-warming-seen-in-changing-rains.html
(For those with paid subscriptions, the article is at Nature):
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature06025.html
New Scientist wrote about this:
“… Detecting the effects of climate change on rainfall patterns has proved much more elusive than temperature changes because of the much greater natural variability of precipitation.
“The key was to take results from 92 computer simulations, using 14 different global circulation models, and to compare the average of these with actual rainfall data over wide bands of latitude around the world.
“The results show a clear agreement with the observed trends in global rainfall data over the past century. In fact, although they agree in direction, the observed changes were much stronger than the predictions.
“‘Over the 20th century, we now detect the signal [in rainfall changes] that is predicted by climate models,’ says Francis Zwiers, one of the research team. ‘If you’re able to reproduce the past, you also have greater confidence for predictions of the future.’”
23 July 2007 at 1:53 PM
Gavin,
Thank you again for making Real Climate available to me.
The other day my daughter, after listening to me talk about Real Climate, asked me if I thought a worldwide transition to Wind Power would affect weather and climate. I posited a no. I suspect there are local effects but unlike the butterfly in the Amazon, I don’t see a major effect.
Bob
23 July 2007 at 2:25 PM
Of course there is a (USD) $95.00 paperback for sale on the website link included in this post. (USD $166 if you want a hard back).
A look at the list of authors and reviewers is enlightening. While a smattering are from information sciences or mathematics the majority are from business schools or business related institutions. Psychology is also represented. Unless I missed someone there is no one from the physical sciences as either an author or a reviewer.
Steve Horstmeyer
23 July 2007 at 3:02 PM
The first “paper” cited by G & A is titled, “FIRE AND ICE Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can’t decide weather we face an ice age or warming.” Is the use of “weather” supposed to be a pun? Or is it a misspelling? If the former, it makes no sense grammatically (i.e., to use a noun as a conjunction). If it is the latter, it would be, I suppose, even worse, though consistent with the quality of the actual reference.
23 July 2007 at 6:36 PM
Hank #16
This paper seems like nonsense to me. They say in the article that the detection of 20th century rainfall changes seems (seems? Is this a scientific term?) “barely discernible from the noise right now.” They then take results from 92 computer simulations, using 14 different global circulation models, and to compare the average of these with actual rainfall data. How does it make any sense to average these results? How does this represent anything? They then say the results show a clear agreement with the observed trends in global rainfall data over the past century. Clear agreement with the same observed trends that are barely discernable? They then conclude that they demonstrate that the pattern of rainfall around the world is being changed by greenhouse-gas emissions from human activities. Really?
23 July 2007 at 7:03 PM
Gavin,
A pity you chose to pen a petulant, silly and smug response to their paper. Real scientists interested in putting forward a lasting scientific contribution would have reviewed this paper carefully and responded appropriately. These authors are serious heavyweights in their field. They have a legitimate role to play to improve forecasts such as used in the IPCC paper. They have opened the paper up for discussion, so why not be serious about it. One can only conclude that you haven’t got the guts or the science behind you to respond in proper scientific terms to their paper.
23 July 2007 at 7:51 PM
re: 21. For goodness sake. Assuming you are not just another drive-by poster showing up as if on cue and if you’ve read anything else on this web site, we are talking about climate *science*. Science that has been extensively peer reviewed and followed the scientific method (both are cornerstones to science). So two laymen who are not climate science modelers (G&A) magically know more than literally thousands of expert climate scientists with decades of research and knowledge from around the world. And who magically know something that every major scientific atmospheric science society in the world does not, huh? And you suddenly appear to attack a leading climate science peer-reviewed researcher for “not having the science behind” him? Please! This is the 21st century, not some anti-science Medieval period. And please let everyone know G&A’s climate science peer reviewed credentials. Or one can only conclude that you haven’t “got the guts” (now there’s a scientific phrase…not!) to stand on the hard science of global warming research.
23 July 2007 at 7:53 PM
re 21. Richard
Gavin is a reasonable fellow. As you have seen I have asked him for access to the data for a recent paper from Goddard, an institution funded by taxpayers. He will produce it, I have no doubt. As for G&A, they really didn’t do all their homework. Even bright folks make mistakes. This is why folks like Gavin will open up to people checking his work. He is bright, but I don’t think he considers himself omniscient.
So, Gavin. Can I get a data dump from the paper mentioned above? I have a big hard disk.
[Response: Data for each figure you make is available at the bottom of the page. For more extensive data, more diagnostics and in a more convenient format are available through the PCMDI data server (see also updates and corrections at http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/modelE_AR4_issues.html ). - gavin]
23 July 2007 at 8:05 PM
RE 21 (Richard):
The point is that they are not in their field. Reading their CVs shows no expertise in climate.
It is like you looking over the plumber’s shoulder telling him what to do because you saw a show on the HG network and you work in nanotubes (what?!? They’re tubes, right?).
Best,
D
23 July 2007 at 8:15 PM
B. Buckner wrote: “This paper seems like nonsense”
You aren’t reading the paper. You’re reading an excerpt I took from an article in an entertainment magazine, New Scientist.
You can perhaps read the paper:
(For those with paid subscriptions, the article is at Nature:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature06025.html
23 July 2007 at 8:21 PM
This is not the article, this much is available to nonsubscribers; it’s at least amusing to compare this by climate scientists to the marketing department’s article on how to do forecasting.
the first page
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature06025.html
and the supplemental material
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/nature06025-s1.pdf
23 July 2007 at 8:23 PM
Re: #17
By “a worldwide transition to Wind Power,” do you mean, replacing the use of fossil fuels entirely with wind power? While you posit no major effect, I wonder how this could not have a significant effect on climate systems. Has this scenario been modelled?
23 July 2007 at 8:27 PM
Regarding Richard’s comment No. 21- If a marketing professor and an economics and business forcaster can critique a climatologist’s field, then turnabout is fair play. Granted Gavin’s ‘rating system’ is done with tongue in cheek and some lampooning,yet the essence of his points are clear. The science of economics and the science of climatology are two very different breeds of cat. Actually I find the assumptions of some economists to be a kind of baffling. There is or was a school of thought that considered 4% of 4.5% employment as ‘full employment’(Unless,I imagine you happen to be an employed economist).
23 July 2007 at 8:44 PM
This was a good post to demonstrate how to judge the reliability of a review paper. Its also a good demonstration on how the science is done out in the field.
I think when people don’t accept climate science some of it is not because they don’t understand the details of the climate science. Its because they don’t understand how science itself works. An effort to show people not just the scientific method but how scientific research is done could be helpful.
Does anyone know anything about Kesten Green and Scott Armstrong’s work? Are they legitimately trying to improve forecasting in regulations? Or are they free-market types who are disingenuously casting doubt on regulation. This issue reminds me of the way the business community pushes cost-benefit analysis to subvert regulation, and it might be that G&A are in the second category.
23 July 2007 at 8:56 PM
So let me see, this ivy league guy writes books and papers and gets recognized, all in the ’80s and ’90s and having nothing to do with climate science. Then, these authors apply the established principles to IPCC forecasting, upon which we’re supposed to be willing to bet our economy in order to save our children.
Then… the authors put their own money and reputation where their mouth is by offering a bet and publicizing it.
The realclimate response is to ridicule them with a sarcastic and irrelevant parody and to pretty much neglect to defend the IPCC against the serious claims in their paper. I was keeping an open mind, but your post convinced me that you see the IPCC’s position as indefensible. If not, I think you would have defended it, or at least tried to.
Your strongest reproach seems to be that they’ve got profit motives (BTW, I think you might have forgotten
to accuse them of being funded by the oil companies ;-).
They’re selling a book you know. Well I suppose everyone’s got a profit motive. If you can’t show me how their profit motive influenced their conclusions, then why bring it up? Again, I’m surmising it’s because it’s the strongest defense that the IPCC has.
According to these authors, the IPCC violated 72 forecasting principles out of 89 which were evaluated. Another 51 couldn’t be evaluated for whatever reason. What does RealClimate say about this? Do you dispute the principles that they claim were violated? Did the authors get it wrong and the IPCC didn’t really violate the principles? I guess maybe I overlooked the informative part of your post where you discussed stuff like that.
If you’ve got something useful and on topic, I sure wish you’d say it. This Real Climate post struck me as being a whole lot of words just to say “la-la-la-la I can’t hear you”.
[Response: Maybe I was being too subtle. The critique is worthless because the authors are not in any position to be able to make fair evaluations of their criteria. They neither bothered to read the more relevant parts of IPCC, nor engage anyone who would have been able to steer them to the appropriate literature. By performing their audit in a state of blissful ignorance, they themselves demonstrate the failing they accuse IPCC of - they used their methodology to give a scientific sheen to their prior prejudices. Clear enough? If you’d like more concrete examples, take any 10 of the principles they think were violated and I’ll point out why their scores were wrong. - gavin]
23 July 2007 at 9:01 PM
In fact, G&A, ask an excellent question, “Are current global climate models good enough to use as the basis for public policy decisions?” Moreover, while G&A did not frame their argument in terms that RC likes, the conclusion that current climate models are not adequate to support public policy is reasonable.
Yes, the models support the concept AGW is real and that we should do something about it. However current models do not suggest how much should invest this week, this month, this year, or this decade, given the realities of economic market places, discounting of future events, and the cost of money.
Consider my home state of California. The models say our water infrastructure will be impacted by AGW. The models say that we can expect real drought. So, we should invest, and build for drought? Maybe not. The models also say that given construction schedules and cycles, by the time we have gotten ready for real drought, our problem may be too much rain. Why spend $80 billion on drought infrastructure if by the time we get it built, we need to spend $80 billion on flood infrastructure? Why not just spend $160 billion now and build for both? Because , this year in California both rain and capital are in short supply.
Gavin’s models do not give us enough information to make these kinds of economic decisions. Sorry.
[Response: I’ve never suggested that the science of climate change should determine public policy exclusively. Economic decisions are rightly within the realm of politics. One could agree with every word in IPCC WG1 and still not think it worth doing anything. Personally, I would disagree, but action is not determined by the scientific understanding of the problem. However, G+A’s critique has nothing to do policy actions - it is solely concerned with what climate science has to say. On that, they are woefully (and I think deliberately) ignorant. - gavin]
23 July 2007 at 9:03 PM
G&A quote Roger Pielke Sr:
“Weather is very difficult to predict; climate involves weather plus all these other components of the climate system, ice, oceans, vegetation, soil etc. Why should we think we can do better with climate prediction than with weather prediction? To me it’s obvious, we can’t!”
It’s one thing for economists with little knowledge of science to make silly claims, but scientists should know better.
The response and mixing times of the atmosphere and the oceans are very different, for starters. This is also true for soils, vegetation and ice sheets. The ‘memory’ of the these components of the climate is far longer than that of the atmosphere.
As one example, look at the ability of large volcanic eruptions to inject a long-lived cooling signal into the oceans. There are a lot of primary literature discussions of this. A good news article on this topic is at Volcanic eruptions cool ocean (Krakatoa’s 50-yr cooling signal)).
At most, a large (stratospheric) volcanic eruption has a strong direct atmospheric effect for only a few years. The ocean signal lasts far longer. That’s one reason why long-term climate is far more predictable than short-term weather.
Take precipitation as another important climate issue. Warming oceans mean more evaporation and more precipitation. Warmer ocean waters also seem to lead to changes in atmospheric circulation which tend to keep moisture out of the continental interiors.
As far as the economic arguments go, there’s a discussion of the Stern report on the economic damages due to global warming in the july 13 2007 science issue (Stern and Nordhaus)
Meanwhile, we have unusually heavy rains and record flooding in Britain, while interior Europe is baking in yet another record heat wave - but both regions are experiencing severe crop losses and large economic damages.
23 July 2007 at 10:25 PM
Hurrah! The old and obsolete GIGO is dead!
Now you can buy the brand new GIJO computer model! “Garbage In, Jewels-of-wisdom Out”!
Famous University marketing professors G&A did it! Evaluate yourself any solution or proposal with reliable results! It only takes one hour! Beware of the “experts”! All life’s problems are about forecasting the future!
Seriously, the old snake oil peddlers are at it again. The business forecasting problem is different. Major future facts there are truly unknown or indeed unknowable. A new invention, a new competitor strategy, a new fad of customers, a new government regulation, a new war or a major natural disaster. They do not exist yet and are therefore unknowable. Some real world miracles there, revolutionary new ideas emerging from literally nothing. No model can reliably evaluate these impacts. Claims to the contrary are unfounded.
The idea of “unknowns” is being peddled in the physics as well, like the magical disappearance of human-produced carbon dioxide or its effects. In physics, forecasting is possible as the major facts are knowable and for the most part known. Miracles are extremely unlikely.
23 July 2007 at 10:26 PM
RE 31,
RCP. G&A ask a good question, but their attack on AGW science is fluff. You need to distinguish between AGW science and AGW “politics and economics”.
To be sure the AGW community has not done the best job of conducting open source science, But as Gavin pointed out G&A didnt dig very deep to understand their subject.
They didnt talk to anybody, read only one chapter of the IPCC and to my knowledge never asked for data or methods. You cannot audit without access to the data
and methods.
Now, Gavin has been kind enough to link to a some articles that address the only substantive questions G&A raise, questions about “projection skill”. Further,
I requested above that he give me a pointer to the data. Plots are nice, but data is better. G&A did a lousy audit. In my mind they didnt even look for the data. And Gavin is rightly calling them out.
So, seems only fair to actually ask for the data. His criticsim is spot on. They don’t appear to have read any of the supporting papers. I Just finished one authored by Hansen and asked for the data.
We shall see.
23 July 2007 at 10:27 PM
RE 23.
Thanks gavin. I wont bug you anymore. you can delete
my previous if you like.
23 July 2007 at 10:33 PM
I enjoyed your send-up of their methodology. I read their paper and wrote a piece about the “Climate Bet” and their paper about a month ago. Although I’m no scientist, I reached about the same conclusions that you did: the forecasting audit “instrument” operates (certainly in their application of it to the IPCC chapter) almost laughably as a device to hide their desired conclusions behind numbers; the guys are desperate for publicity; their thesis can be reduced to the assertion that no prediction is valid unless first run through their omniscient Prediction Validator(tm) software.
My piece also contains a certain amount of needlessly snotty commentary about Armstrong’s relentless self-promotion and an old paper he wrote called “Bafflegab.” I think the juvenile Climate Bet stunt just ticked me off. I mean, come on, a live counter on their website????
23 July 2007 at 11:15 PM
RE # 29: I don’t think they have a clear ideological axe to grind. I think they are mainly interested in promoting scientific principles in forecasting and - as luck would have it! - their own work along the way. If there is an underlying “bias” it might be that Armstrong has long promoted a skeptical view of expert consensus. He argues that expert consensus often is a better indication of laziness or groupthink than of accuracy. He spends several entertaining paragraphs in the paper providing examples of big embarrassing expert faux pas of the past. He has authored several papers wherein he propounds the thesis that naive predictors are equal to or superior than experts at predicting the results of complex phenomenon. Given this work, it seems likely that the frequently-cited consensus on global warming made him feel the area was ripe for his own special brand of debunking.
24 July 2007 at 12:06 AM
The egos and ignorance of the vast majority of economists knows no bounds, not content with making absurd predictions that our great grandchildren will be ten times better off than we are, so why do anything about global warming when they’ll be able to fix it before breakfast, and when the have carefully worked out that saving the planet in 2100 is not worth the present discounted cost of doing so, the same economists, about who it was said, according to one of the few economists that I ever cared a whit about, Kenneth Galbraith, “The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable”, and who seem to find no contradiction between an infinitely expanding economy and a finitely constrained planet, now they have to dabble in spheres in which they have absolutely no expertise and rubbish the conclusion of thousands of experts who have. Just contrast Gavin’s reasoned reponse to Aaron’s chiding that his models can’t help us make considered economic decisions “Economic decisions are rightly within the realm of politics. One could agree with every word in IPCC WG1 and still not think it worth doing anything. “, the scientist’s understanding of his own expertise, with the arrogance of such as Green and Armstrong and so many others of his profession. It’s bad enough that the whole world suffers under the delusional society that modern economists have helped us construct, to think that our science is going to be tainted with the same nonsense is appalling! (By the way, I have this thing about economists!)
24 July 2007 at 4:31 AM
“in a recent review of progress he notes: “the diffusion of useful forecasting methods has been disappointing”, and that “forecasting meets resistance from academics and practitioners”.”
But they were able to forecast that this would be the case, right? Or were their forecasts of how well the take-up would be a little awry?
24 July 2007 at 6:49 AM
[[A pity you chose to pen a petulant, silly and smug response to their paper. Real scientists interested in putting forward a lasting scientific contribution would have reviewed this paper carefully and responded appropriately.]]
Right, and the place to get such feedback is in a peer-reviewed science journal. But they didn’t submit their work to such a journal. Are you wondering why not?
[[ These authors are serious heavyweights in their field. ]]
They are not serious heavyweights in climatology, which is the field they need to be serious heavyweights in if they’re going to critique climate models. The fact that they are serious heavyweights in their OWN field means nothing. William Shockley was a serious heavyweight in solid state physics, but his opinion on race and IQ was still worthless because he was talking out of his field.
[[They have a legitimate role to play to improve forecasts such as used in the IPCC paper.]]
No, they do not. They have made no effort to understand what they’re critiquing, as Gavin’s review showed.
[[ They have opened the paper up for discussion, so why not be serious about it.]]
Because they themselves are not being serious about it. If they want to “open it up for discussion,” they can submit it to a peer-reviewed climatology journal like the Journal of Geophysical Research, Geophys. Res. Letters, Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Climate, or for that matter, Science or Nature. Opening it up for discussion by random amateurs on the internet won’t result in any improvement in the paper at all, and they know it. But you’re too gullible to see through what they’re doing.
[[ One can only conclude that you haven’t got the guts or the science behind you to respond in proper scientific terms to their paper.]]
One can only conclude you haven’t got [edit] the discipline behind you to learn a little bit about the science involved yourself so you can see why the G&A paper is a load of crap.
24 July 2007 at 8:40 AM
Gore should take the bet. Easy money, that naive model is a random walk predictor, and it is easy to see that local temperatures are not random walk (closer to white, actually).
24 July 2007 at 9:38 AM
UC from “signals.auditblogs.com” — that’s bad advice. I’d guess you know better since you seem to be a self-appointed auditor?
If you do believe what you’re saying, you haven’t read James Annan, who explains what’s wrong in simple clear language. A lot of us are waiting to see if the marketing prof ever answers the challenge issued weeks ago by Annan. But so far, nothing.
I would guess the marketing principle involved here is “there’s no such thing as bad publicity.”
24 July 2007 at 10:24 AM
I see more of the “if your not a climatologist, then you cannot speak about climatology” mind set is still good and well. Though you attacked the individuals I fail to see where you attacked their work. Armstrong is one of the leading experts in forecasting and has been for years. He points out where the IPCC is not following the established guidelines for forecasting that were established well be fore the IPCC came into existence. You say he does not understand climatology and how perfect the models are, but, if I read the IPCC report correctly, all he is doing is pointing out how the IPCC is making forecasts and not following the accepted guidelines.
From what I have read, nothing has be presented to show that the forecasting guidelines are wrong. The fact that climate models are constantly changing would indicate that one the major points they raise;
You have also failed to show where another major point is wrong, namely:
I do not see them making claims about the science but about the forecasts. Please point out where the they are wrong about what they are experts in, forcasting methodology.
24 July 2007 at 11:07 AM
Vernon (43):
Is forecasting a skill that can be separated from what is being forecast? I don’t think so. Do these “established guidelines” apply to forcasting, say, eclipses of the sun? No, astronomical forecasts involve involve nonlinearities and interactions. Astronomers agree on how to forecast eclipses, so they are not to be trusted!
And Vernon, why are you willing to accept economists as authority figures but not accept climatologists?
24 July 2007 at 11:39 AM
re: 43. We see more of the “complete failure to understand the significance and importance of scientific peer review within the realm of climate science” anti-science mind set is alive and well. There is an excuse for not understanding the scientific method (which the science of global warming and climate modeling follows). There is, however, very little excuse for the failure to try to learn about it especially since it has been explained many times here. The idea that laymen know more than literally thousands of climate researchers throughout the world whose work has been rigorously peer-reviewed and every major atmospheric science society is the height of (purposeful?) arrogance. If the idea that laymen know more than the peer-reviewed science is truly beleived, do not go to a doctor the next time you become ill as they follow peer-reviewed science for evaluating and providing treatment as well; go to perhaps a lawyer or a baseball player. Surely the later two occupations know more about treating an illness than a trained doctor.
24 July 2007 at 12:18 PM
Re # 43 “Agreement among experts is weakly related to accuracy. This is especially true when the experts communicate with one another and when they work together to solve problems, as is the case with the IPCC process.”
And where is the evidence to support this assertion that you find so compelling?
24 July 2007 at 12:25 PM
Once again, in addition to other errors, the G&A team avoid the theoretical basis for CO2 warming. They hide behind a pure empiricism (AFAICT, not having time to read it all, frankly) typical of AGW skeptics.
BTW, where is the best place to find the actual calculation of direct CO2 effect, in calories per m^2, and then temperature change, from the CO2 and other GH gases?
24 July 2007 at 12:27 PM
Vernon, the problem is that the problems you have quoted are all potential ones, and a scan through the “paper” shows that the authors have not seriously linked any problems to the actual IPPC forecasts. Using Google scholar is not enough. Comments by non-climatologists that are wrong, such as Carter:
“the slope and magnitude of temperature trends inferred from time-series data depend upon the choice of data end points. Drawing trend lines through highly variable, cyclic temperature data or proxy data is therefore a dubious exercise. Accurate direct measurements of tropospheric global average temperature have only been available since 1979, and they show no evidence for greenhouse warming. Surface thermometer data, though flawed, also show temperature stasis since 1998.”
are given prominence. Nobody but a mathematical iiliterate would claim that temperature shows stasis since 1998, and the Troposphere is actually warming.
Thus, this “paper” is a hatchet job.
24 July 2007 at 12:30 PM
Gene Hawkridge #7: I have an intuitive sense from my own experience that you are right, but even that things have already changed more than we’re told. I remember it snowing a lot more here in SE VA in the 60s, as a boy. I hear also from others, things have changed more over the last few decades than a degrees average. What’s up with that?
PS, I hope some of you got to look at the infamous WSJ “Laffer Curve” drawn around corporate tax data, whereas the collection really went mostly up with increasing tax rates up to a point.
24 July 2007 at 12:34 PM
The very first paragraph, 2nd sentence, of the abstract of the G + A paper is by itself quite revealing:
“In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Working Group One…issued its updated, Fourth Assessment Report, forecasts. The Report was commissioned at great cost in order to provide policy recommendations to governments.”
From the IPCC’s “Principles Governing IPCC Work” website (http://www.ipcc.ch/about/princ.pdf) is the following official statement of the IPCC’s role:
“2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.”
The IPCC DOES NOT MAKE POLICY. G + A don’t even understand this fundamental point. And as mentioned several times above, they’re not climate scientists, meteorologists, physicists, mathematicians, or chemists. How in the world can they expect to be taken in any way seriously?
24 July 2007 at 1:30 PM
What BPL said at #40. And said well.
Best,
D
24 July 2007 at 1:57 PM
Sorry, Gene Hawkridge # 6.
24 July 2007 at 1:58 PM
RE 23.
Gavin, the supporting data for the plots is half there. The plot selection allows you to pick a time period for the ModelE runs and specify a window for the moving average. So, for example, I select 1880-2003 with a 12 month window and the data table gives me the year ( in decimal months so 1895.085 for example) and the 12 Moving average of ANOMALY ( reference 1951-1980) recorded every month.
Thats nice, but the GISS observation data comes in a yearly average form ( same reference period) I’ll sort out how to align the two data sets, but it would be nice if you guys would make absolute C available. This would allow for alternative smoothing approaches, and easier comparision with CRU, for example, who use a 1961-90 period.. is that right?
Anyway, thanks for the pointer and consider my friendly suggestion about make absolute C (in addition to anomaly) available.
Since the data table contains data in a decimal form ( like 1880.917) I’m wondering how time gets intgrated in the model ( just curious, I know there are probably varying time steps for various components) Actually there is a substantive reason for asking. When you calculate a Tmean for a period of time. lets say a day.
Do you actually calculate a TMAX and TMIN? for each day?
When you figure a Tmean for every day do your specify a Time of Observation?
[Response: In the model, Tmean is a true Tmean - i.e. the average of every temperature taken at 30 min intervals ( which is the main physics timestep). You should be able to get just the annual mean from the 12 month running mean if you want - just pick the values from the mid-point of each year. Alternatively, don’t average at all (i.e. 1 month running mean), and create your own annual average. - gavin]
24 July 2007 at 3:00 PM
By the way, I recall seeing somewhere, on one of Dr. Anderson’s pages, his mention of a response he received — he’d submitted a comment on the draft IPCC report, recommending they adopt his approach. They explained to him that they were not doing weather forecasts, if I recall correctly. It’s probably in the archive of comments somewhere.
24 July 2007 at 4:21 PM
RE 54: Well, I could be wrong, but I do not think so, but there is no difference in what a weather forecasting model is doing and what a climate forecasting model is doing. If some one could cite where a GCM has not been updated, modified, etc. and the models of just a few years ago matched the ones now, I would like to see it. If anyone could show that the models done in the 80s got the global climate of today right, please point me to it. The models are huge and incorporate what the modeler believes is the correct assumptions that reflect the complex chaotic system that is climate.
I fail to see the difference, one is used to guess what the micro climate is going to be and the other is used to guess what the macro climate is going to be. No matter how you word it, forecasting is being done. Even though the IPCC said they were not doing forecasting, that is not what it says in the IPCC report.
These do not claim to experts on climate models or climate, just on forecasting. They have peer reviewed standing in the science of forecasting and they say that how it is being applied by the IPCC is wrong.
So why not quit bashing them as individuals and show why the forecasting guide lines do not apply to the IPCC in forecasting the future climate?
[Response: Weather forecasts take today’s situation and calculate how it will evolve over the next few days. They are initial value problems. Climate models do not assimilate current data but instead produce changes in climate as a function of changing boundary conditions, and thus are a boundary value problem - that is not the same as a forecast (which would require an estimate of the ‘weather’ component as well as the climate component). If you know anything about differential equations, you know those are fundamentally different kinds of problems. If you want models from the 80’s showing results for today, read about Hansen’s projections. Finally, try reading what I wrote, I never said their principles didn’t apply - I said they were mostly commonsensical - and my critique was based on their inadequate knowledge when applying their checklist, not the checklist itself. As I challenged a previous commenter, if you want more details, pick any 10 of the principles they marked IPCC down for and I’ll show you why the got it wrong. - gavin]
24 July 2007 at 5:08 PM
RE 53,
Thanks Gavin, On the Tmean issue. In some of the actual observation data I have looked at there appears to be a difference ( I would not call it systematic, since I only viewed a couple of sites )
Between the TAve and Tmean. from a physics perspective I suppose one would choose Tave. From the historical reality of observation stations we have Tmean.
So, in GISSTEMP, [the observation record] you report Tmean ( (tmax+tmin)/2))
and in the Model you report Tave — with a integration step of 30 min.
Was anybody curious in the least bit about how ModelE
Tmean would compare against Historical Tmean? Not a issue.
My sense is you are primarly concerned with a trend metric, so that differences between Tmean and Tave
are immaterial since you are concerned with trend?
Correct?
Thanks again
24 July 2007 at 5:19 PM
#42, No I haven’t, could you please provide a link?
My suggestion was just to find a better linear predictor than the ‘naive model’ (should be easy, as local temperatures are clearly not random walk… ). Maybe they would not qualify it as “currently
available fully disclosed climate model”, but that’s when you hire
the lawyers
24 July 2007 at 5:39 PM
#17 Bob,
It may be possible to affect the weather/climate by producing/controlling “vertical” winds as stated in the article “Taming Tornadoes to Power Cities, pbublishd in the Toronto Star on July 21. (article by Tyler Hamilton, Energy Reporter).
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/238291
L. M. Michaud, P.E., Inventor of the AVE says:
“If people accept it, the potential is unlimited. He says down the road, hundreds of vortex engines could be located in the ocean along the equator, where the warm tropical water would provide an endless source of energy.”
Why would anyone do such a thing?
“To cool the planet, Michaud says. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are what prevent the sun’s heat from radiating back into space, he explains. A series of controlled tornados along the equator would carry that heat to the outer edges of the atmosphere, where it could more easily escape.”
In other words, Michaud believes man-made tornados could function as exhaust systems for the planet, a massive air conditioner that could help manage global warming.
“There’s simply too much at stake to ignore this potential, he says.” more at www.vortexengine.ca
Comments?
_________
24 July 2007 at 6:23 PM
Re #43
Vernon,
it is clear that both you and G&A don’t really understand at all the difference between the typical forecasting methods used in economics and those of physics-based modeling as used for climate change predictions.
The type of forecasting that G&A seem to know how to do is a pure exercise in curve fitting using mathematical models that have very little connection with the underlying mechanisms that are responsible for the behavior of the system being modeled. In a pretty arrogant way, they think that because they are experts on that particular type of forecasting they know anything about how climate models are built. They probably think that climate models are just a bunch of equations that climate scientists took out of their hat in a whim and then fitted to past climate records to try to “forecast” future climates. Dead wrong!!!!
The models used to predict future climates are all physics-based, and are thus fundamentally different from forecasting models used in economics. So G&A have a lot of studying to do before they can say anything remotely intelligent about climate modeling. Most of their claims about climate modeling reveal such deep ignorance of the subject that they are pretty funny.
It’s as if a gardener, who digs small holes in a yard to plant
flowers, were to feel such an expert in Digging that he could knowledgeably criticize the way civil engineers dug the Panama Canal.
24 July 2007 at 8:02 PM
Is it not clear that one cannot forecast the future state of a system without knowing (at the very least) something about the system?
If the future state of an economic system is to be forecast and I know nothing about economics how am I to weigh the relative importance of the input variables? In fact how can I even reliably choose the input variables?
How do I know if a dependent variable reacts in a linear, nonlinear or chaotic fashion in response to a change in an independent variable?
If I build a linear statistical prediction model and the dependent variables respond in a highly non-linear way to a change in the predictor variables of what value is my statistical model? The situation is even more critical in physical prediction models.
Even more unsettling in the face of lack of knowledge of the system that is to be predicted is how do we know if we are merely dealing with correlations when we should be dealing with causation?
Credible forecasting requires an indepth knowledge of technique AND system dynamics.
Rafael Gomez-Sjoberg (#59) in his final paragraph touches on a point that plagues forecasting in the atmospheric sciences - SCALE.
I am assuming we have all heard of the “butterfly effect”. Can a butterfly flapping its wings in the Amazon Basin really affect the weather in the mid latitudes?
Of course the answer is no because the forces operating at that scale determine that the turbulent effects of the butterfly wings will not be of global consequence.
Just like the expert gardener in Rafael Gomez-Sjoberg’s post may know what is best for the small scale garden and the civil engineer may know what is best for the large scale dig, techniques that work at the small scale may not have any influence at the large scale while large scale excavation could very well obliterate any and all efforts in the small scale garden.
How does the small scale interact with the large scale (temporal and/or spatial)? Is the interaction linear or non-linear, chaotic, random or deterministic? Is there a continuous cascade of mass and energy from the large scale through the intermediate scales to the smallest? Do the smaller scales enhance the larger through feedbacks?
No matter how good one is at forecasting methodology if knowledge of the system that is being predicted is lacking forecast skill is likely to be null. fail Why? Because the questions posed here cannot be answered reliably.
24 July 2007 at 8:26 PM
I have never seen any of the posters here say non-climate scientists could not speak about climate. I have seen them indicate that people who completely disrespect and ignore decades to a century of work by the vast majority OF climate scientists are a priori fishy. I would say climate scientists, even the ones in the far end of the Bell Curve either way on acceptance of AGW and its dangers, have something in common - they all know the history of climate research, and have a day to day experience of reading the literature with a purpose. Of what’s been a pitfall, of what’s been fairly solid.
24 July 2007 at 8:40 PM
#re 29
Sarcastic? Yes. Irrelevant? Hardly!
Sure Gavin has chose a ‘cute’ way to format his response to G&A, but unwrap his comments from the “principles” and the “scores,” and you will see that each of the points made are serious (with the exception of the last which is merely cynical) and go to the heart of the errors G&A make. Of course their methodology is a soft target and so laughable that arguably it should not be dignified with a reply. But if a reply is made, surely sarcasm is the only appropriate tone to adopt.
24 July 2007 at 9:40 PM
“One can only conclude that you haven’t got the guts or the science behind you to respond in proper scientific terms to their paper.”
Paper? What paper?
Scientific terms?
Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!
Oh, geez, this is opening up unexplored heights of the ludicrous. It is unfortunate that Gavin and the good folks at RC actually had to respond to such a load of dung, because their not doing so would have been exploited by the denialists as “haha! they can’t reply to that!”
But seriously, this thread should not go much on further, it just gives legitimacy to the “paper” that wasn’t one, and the trolls feeding off of it!
Sometimes, I wish that the reality based crowd would have the same means of engaging in large scale mind manipulation as the, well, what could be the appropriate word? Other people? I’m not sure; as a non native english speaker, I’m out of words to describe nonsense and its promoters.
However, wouldn’t it be funny if a campaign of the same magnitude could be waged against all the very real flaws and failures of economic theories and “marketing” (quotations marks because I’m not sure what the word means any more), or even say, “Political “science? (oh, that would be so precious!!).
Working in health care gives me the opportunity to see how much more solid the science behind climatology is than much of what is accepted practice in medicine, and yet all those throwing stupid, lawyer-like rethoric at climate science wouldn’t think twice about taking FDA aproved drugs. All I can say to the denialists is that, every day that goes by, their “camp” (that is really what they made themselves into) looks more and more pathetic to me, regardless how much they can sway public opinion.
It is now to the point where it really undermines the process of understanding climate. Any new idea or study has to “belong” to a political side, while its only focus should be better understanding of reality. What a shame.
24 July 2007 at 10:24 PM
Rafael Gomez-Sjoberg (#59)
This is really part of the beauty of climate models - and at an abstract level, one of the most fundamental principles of climate modeling itself. It argues from general principles, typically fundamental principles of physics - although not strictly - as when the responses of organisms are incorporated into the models. It doesn’t allow the arbitrary element of curve-fitting. Such an approach would have little grounds for regarding its conclusions as applying to anything outside of what the curve was based on - and given the complexity of what we are dealing with, it would quickly evolve into a Rube Goldberg device which no one could understand the basis for - but which we would adopt merely like superstitious rats which are randomly rewarded - dancing about in the belief that some increasingly complex set of motions determines whether or not they get the reward.
But since climate models are based upon our scientific understanding of the world, we have every reason to believe that the more detailed the analysis, the more factors we take into account, the better the models will do at forecasting the behavior of climate systems. Since it is based upon our scientific understanding of the world, it is not some sort of black box. If we see that the predictions are not matching up, we can investigate the phenomena more closely, whether it is in terms of fluid dynamics, spectral analysis, chemistry or what have you and see what we are leaving out.
This would seem to be the only rational approach that climatologists can take, and if this general approach did not work, this would seem to imply that natural science is a failed project, that its success up until this point has simply been some sort of illusion, and that the world simply doesn’t make sense.
*
Anyway, I am as sick as a dog, a very, very sick dog. Not the kind that is feeling reasonably well. Going back to bed.
24 July 2007 at 11:16 PM
Modeling in the physical sciences vs forecasting in economics are as different as night and day. For example, in the physical realm, neural nets are capable in many, not all, settings of “learning” complex relationships between casually-related physical variables and “forecasting” the behavior of some derived statistic based on evolving inputs. In economics, the causally-related economic variables are unobservable - only derived statistics can be measured. When techniques like nets are applied directly to these derived measures, the results are very unsatisfactory because in economics the relations between various derived measures are in fact quite unstable. Any solution will probably be worse than a random walk could do. That is why economists have to set the bar very low and take a very dim view of what can be achieved. In fact, as an example of the inherent instability of the relations, it is true that in economics consensus can often be a bad sign, because it means that a lot of people have made their bet in the same direction - the opposite may very well occur soon. Economic systems are, at the margin, predominately mediated through human behavior, but the human actors are also standing off to the side and watching what the system is doing, which then affects their behavior, and so on adfinitum.
25 July 2007 at 3:10 AM
What seems more worrying here is the lack of understanding that some other scientists and scientific disciplines seem to have of climate change. We all know that the media will report on any contrarian stance on climate change and hence is this why some scientists are trying the contrarian viewpoint ?
OK so climate change is a political science crossing economics, politics and energy physics and energy policy and locking horns with the wealthiest companies in the world but all the same from whgat is being reported here you would suggest that its the scientific silly season.
25 July 2007 at 6:15 AM
[[BTW, where is the best place to find the actual calculation of direct CO2 effect, in calories per m^2, and then temperature change, from the CO2 and other GH gases?]]
Neil,
In the composition range from about 1 ppm to 1400 ppm, radiative forcing by CO2 in watts per square meter can be found with this equation:
RF = 5.35 ln (C / C0)
where C is concentration, C0 reference concentration (usually taken as the preindustrial 280 parts per million by volume), and ln is the natural logarithm operator. For a doubling of CO2, this yields a change in radiative forcing of 3.7 watts per square meter, and given a climate sensitivity of 0.75 degrees K. per watt per square meter, this results in about 2.8 degrees K. temperature increase at Earth’s surface. This includes all the feedbacks.
Source for the equation:
Myhre, G., E.J. Highwood, K. Shine and F. Stordal, 1998. “New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases.” Geophysical Research Letters 25(14), 2715-2718.
25 July 2007 at 6:17 AM
[[What BPL said at #40. And said well.]]
Hee hee! Thanks, Dano.
25 July 2007 at 6:23 AM
[[Working in health care gives me the opportunity to see how much more solid the science behind climatology is than much of what is accepted practice in medicine, and yet all those throwing stupid, lawyer-like rethoric at climate science wouldn’t think twice about taking FDA aproved drugs. ]]
I see your point. But to some extent, I find that people who accept one pseudoscience will often accept others as well. I have run into AGW deniers who think Venus is hot because it was molten a few thousand years ago and is still cooling down (i.e., Velikovsky freaks). Others deny AGW and insist that tobacco smoke doesn’t cause cancer. The antiscience attitude often carries over into several issues.
25 July 2007 at 9:17 AM
Re: Gavin, Rafael Gomez-Sjoberg (#59) and others
G & A indeed reference Bob Carter, writing:
“In practice, the GCMs failed to predict recent global average temperatures as accurately as simple curve-fitting approaches (Carter 2007, pp. 64 – 65). They also forecast greater warming at higher altitudes in the tropics when the opposite has been the case (p. 64)…”
Now, the Carter paper referenced claims that simple curve fit models, such as that in Loehle’s paper, is to be believed, writing:
“As an alternative to the deterministic GCM approach, there exist several other types of computer model of empirical nature. Such models use analysis of a portion of the climate record to establish the pattern of past temperature change and then project this pattern into the future…”
Bob Carter pointed to Loehle’s paper in his testimony before congress last year. Trouble is, Loehle’s analysis is deeply flawed, having violated a basic requirement of time series analysis called the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem
I pointed this out in a Letter to the Editor of EM, which they published. Here’s the reference:
Comments on “Climate change: detection and attribution of trends from
long-term geologic data” by C. Loehle [Ecological Modelling 171 (4)
(2004), 433–450]
Carter also used the wrong data when claiming that the troposphere is not warming. In both his 2007 paper and his congressional testimony, he presented a plot of Christy & Spencer’s MSU analysis for channel 2, the so-called “Mid-Mroposphere” product (called TMT). It’s long been clear that this product includes some of the well known cooling trend from the stratosphere, thus the TMT has an incorrect cooling trend. The C & S “Lower Troposphere” analysis introduced in 1992 (called TLT) was intended to address this problem. That Carter has relied on these outdated and misleading data further proves that he is not interested in the truth.
25 July 2007 at 9:26 AM
Re: #70
The reference to my letter should have included this:
Ecological Modelling 192 (2006) 314–316
E. S.
25 July 2007 at 10:06 AM
Eric Swanson (#70) wrote:
I used to think it would be so refreshing to run into a prominent creationist who was still honest. I finally gave up. At this point I am finding the same to be true of the leading AGW skeptics. As far as I can see, there are none left.
25 July 2007 at 10:25 AM
re: 40. And sadly, yet another “drive-by” poster (21) apparently has slithered back into their abode without acknowledging that they learned anything about the science, the scientific process or being able to admit that they could possibly be wrong. It seems no apparent effort was made or intended to learn.
25 July 2007 at 11:36 AM
Timothy, get well soon!
Philippe, maybe you can get some of your medicine cohorts to remove that bug from your butt…[;-)
Barton says “…Others deny AGW and insist that tobacco smoke doesn’t cause cancer….”
Now cut that out!!
25 July 2007 at 12:24 PM
Barton should have written “Another denies ….” I think.
You can look this stuff up. Try Lindzen. http://tobaccodocuments.org/
25 July 2007 at 12:36 PM
No way, Rod, there is no peer-review study indcating any health benefit from doing so.
Plus, I don’t have time, I’m disseminating info to all the species that have shifted their ranges because they read erroneous information based on flawed temperature data from bad surface stations. Those butterflies really have no critical thinking skills. It’s going to be harder to convince the ice that it can start freezing earlier and thawing later again, but not nearly as hard as to convince the tropopause to come back to its normal level. We’re also working at elucidating who the tropopause got its communist propaganda from.
Cheers.
25 July 2007 at 12:37 PM
Re modeling vs forecasting: Maybe a concrete example of the difference would be useful. Take astronomy. If you happen to be an ancient Babylonian or Mayan, you can keep detailed records of astronomical occurences for hundreds of years, and apply forecasting techniques to predict everything from the seasons to eclipses to the apparent motion of the planets through the sky. Or if you happen to be Issac Newton, you can come up with a model of the physics.
Now you can use either the forecasting or the model to predict future events, and as long as you’re dealing with things you have a record of, you would probably get similar accuracy. But suppose something unexpected happens: say a comet appears, or you make a telescope and discover the moons of Jupiter. Forecasting tells you nothing about this, while if you have the model, you can plug in new facts and immediately get useful predictions.
Seems to me that’s why forecasting just isn’t equipped to deal with something like global warming. G&A remarked that one should avoid non-linearities in forecasting, but with GW the non-linearity is in the physics.
25 July 2007 at 12:57 PM
#72- Timothy, I’ve tried to avoid comparing global warming deniers to Creationists, but really it is the only proper comparison. However, apart from the cheerleaders, I suspect most normal peoples attitutde is like that of the majority of ID supporters- they accept it without much questioning, because it fits with their presuppositions.
Mind you, it gets so bad these days that I had to point an apparently otherwise intelligent and well educated person to talkorigins. They thought Darwinism didn’t make any predictions, and seemed to be basing their equivocation between ID and evolution on half remembered schoolboy science from 30 years ago. Fortunately they seemed interested in actually learning why they were wrong.
25 July 2007 at 2:20 PM
gutherie (#78) wrote:
Well, I think there is a real spectrum, but when it comes to prominent advocates, I believe that honesty becomes a real issue. They have to have at least some familiarity with the science - or think that it is completely irrelevant. In either case… I think the same is necessarily true of the creationists who get involved in online debate - there is probably a short period in which they could turn either way. But given the debate they have constant exposure to more and more than they must disregard.
Odd, too, as this is something which they are presumably doing in the name of morality. Nothing corrupts the foundation of an individual’s moral being like systematic dishonesty. Except perhaps an us vs. them view of the world, but I believe that is largely implicit in creationism, given our scientific knowledge. It involves a rejection of modernity and implies alienation from the modern world. And how completely unnecessary this is, but that is a topic for another time and another place.
25 July 2007 at 2:49 PM
Eric, can you post the text of your letter somewhere, or point to it?
Google’s cache has the original Loehle article readable
http://64.233.179.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=cache:aGhcZqennt4J:www.geogra.uah.es/~emilio/pdf/cambio%2520climatico%2520natural/loehle2004.pdf
but I didn’t find your comment letter (resp. 70 above) online
25 July 2007 at 3:07 PM
Odd, too, as this is something which they are presumably doing in the name of morality. Nothing corrupts the foundation of an individual’s moral being like systematic dishonesty.
Thus the proliferation of websites pointing out this dishonesty. This site included and at the forefront. Other sites have proliferated that look at the rhetorical tactics used.
Best,
D
25 July 2007 at 4:43 PM
Re: # 80 Hank,
I found a direct link thru Science Direct’s pay site:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0304380005002899
If you (please, not everybody) send me your e-mail address and I’ll send you a copy.
I’m at: e_swanson ( at ) skybest dot com
Of course, remove the spaces and replace dummy portions…
25 July 2007 at 4:57 PM
Interdisciplinary teams are necessary for input into models on possible future social and economic choices, such as a ‘business as usual’ scenario where we use carbon at the current rate, or a future where people switch to alternative energy sources that burn less CO2. Also economists and social scientists should be part of the team that makes conclusions and recommendations to the decision makers.
However,economists,social scientists,and political scientists have no more credentials to critique the physics and climatology of the models than climate scientists have to critique the economics of social choices and human behavior, that might ignore, mitigate or stabilize climate change. We’re all free to express ourselves in fields outside our own, but that’s all that it is, an opinion, not a scientific conclusion.
25 July 2007 at 5:24 PM
I would suggest Prof Armstrong expands his (imo rather snide) seer-sucker principle to cover when marketing and economics bods decide to comment on the realm of climatology.
25 July 2007 at 5:48 PM
#79- testimony from several people who were creationists or ID friendly to begin with, was that they started turning against it all partly because or mainly bceause they realised that their leaders were feeding them lies.
So it is with this- many people will keep their heads in the sand, but we can win people over by piling on the data and arguments, such that the lies become clear.
25 July 2007 at 6:10 PM
Re #78: [Timothy, I’ve tried to avoid comparing global warming deniers to Creationists…]
Apropos of which, I just ran across this news story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070725/sc_nm/pope_environment_dc;_ylt=AlO.I3EZ3_iQRZyh8xjb0b5pl88F
Which, if the link doesn’t work, reports a recent statement by Pope Benedict, supporting both action against climate change, and evolution.
25 July 2007 at 8:06 PM
Perhaps the problem with a lot of the economic analysis of climate change is that economists are not required to learn much basic science - such as the First Law of Thermodynamics, for example.
It does seem that an economist can use the results of real scientific analysis to judge the problem, but for any honest economist the IPCC reports should be the primary source of information.
Furthermore, very few economists have discussed the economic difference between a renewable energy-based economy and a fossil fuel-based economy.
Economic predictions that aren’t based on good science have little value. Really, economic education needs some serious changes. Some people have tried to do this with “physical economic theory”.
Economists have a notoriously poor record when it comes to forecasting future trends, so why should anyone take an economist’s unscientific critique of climate science forecasting efforts seriously? How many ‘economic forecasts’ have turned out to have any value whatsoever?
25 July 2007 at 9:48 PM
What’s funny is, economists know that if you print a whole lot of paper money and put it into circulation, the prices on everything change.
They know the change from say the steam engine to the diesel locomotive completely changed the costs and prices of the rail industry.
They know what the cotton gin or the combine did to farm prices.
They know if you make a permanent change to a highway system, or an electrical transmission system, or a shipping port, the numbers change. They would never assume things would just go on the same when something they know matters changes.
25 July 2007 at 9:59 PM
Re 87:
So why aren’t we asking why, if G&A didn’t predict the tech crash of 2000, they think they can predict the average temperature of the world in 2050?
25 July 2007 at 11:07 PM
re - a bunch: Not being one to let any mine go unstepped on… This veiled guilt by association (with creationists) and declaring that one who disagrees with another’s solidly held belief, convincing without question to them, dishonest is the same gibberish as those who want to prosecute skeptics for crimes against humanity. Frankly not very becoming.
Hey! Another mine! There is considerable evidence for intelligent design of the Universe, or at least some omnipotent entity having some say and engineering of the process. I differentiate this from “creationism” as defined by fundamentalist, especially those who insist on a (silly) strict interpretation of the Bible, despite St. Augustine’s caution against doing just that. Plus I don’t accept how the Creationists have also co-opted the term “intelligent design” (or creative design), so I use the term in its pure meaning.
Timothy, you might try Francis Collins. There was an interesting article last November in, I think, Time of a discussion between Collins and Richard Dawkins. Or try Fred Hoyle. Or Einstein. Or a whole potful of, I trust, non-liars! Let’s don’t string them up quite yet….
Since I’m way off topic, Hoyle had an interesting and credible theory of the Universe that is orthogonal to the “Big Bang”.
25 July 2007 at 11:54 PM
#89: Clearly, forcasting the 2000 tech crash and far future weather are very different challenges; Economics are driven by intelligent agents enjoying information imbalance, while weather in the year 2050 is caused largely by chaotic events like the beating of butterfly wings in Brazil. We understand chaos theory much better than the stock market, the latter being mostly mob psychology punctuated by random acts of greed. So why shouldn’t we be able to predict far future weather and not so near future market movements? Butterflies are just stupid bugs, no challenge there.
Ha. That was fun. Let’s see if they quote me in the NYT.
26 July 2007 at 2:31 AM
Tim:
Go to Lubos Motl’s site and ask that same exact question. See if you don’t see a pattern emerging.
26 July 2007 at 3:11 AM
Economics is highly problematic because most of frameworks, neoclassical being predominant, do not readily allow for modelling of systems far from equilibrium. Physics also has its problems though. For example, the basic orders implied in relativity and in quantum theory are qualitatively in complete contradiction. Relativity requires strict continuity, strict causality and strict locality in the order of the movement of the particles and fields. In esssence quantum mechanics implies the opposite. What they have in common though is actually a quality of unbroken wholeness, as has been described by Bohm, for example.
It is perhaps unbroken wholeness, familiar in ecology, that needs to be addressed by economics, particularly with respect to ‘economics’ emergent through climate change. For example, one of the areas that is worthy of attention is the nature of a world economy under conditions of sea level rise of 5 metres, a BAU scenario for say 2100. By evaluating sea level impacts on multiplicities of nodes in diverse global supply chains it is possible to identify mechanisms of breakage, and, as importantly, permanancies of breakage (or relaxation times). Physical economics can say a great deal about that, although it has to be said that the formalisms used (Hamilton-Jacobi formalisms, catastrophe theory, far-from-equilibrium systems methods, organisational ecology, etc) are challenging on account of their application in such new areas. But in many respects, there is little difference with physics, partly because many of the tools being used to evaluate these scenarios are ported directly from physics, but also because there are no text books with the answers in the back.
As far as G&A are concerned, the tools thay use do have uses and it seems that one of the areas that might be addressed is the use of neural networks to detect patterns of behaviour from paleoclimatic records of sea level rises. Would it be possible to discern potential patterns of micro meltwater pulses (constituing a 5 m sea level rise to 2100) from such historical records? That would be useful in terms of risk profile evaluation for coastal infrastructure.
26 July 2007 at 3:24 AM
#86- The ID website Uncommon descent, day to day running in the hands of one Dave Scott, had a good old bash at global warming a few months ago. Needless to say they were wrong on every count. Credulity on one thing seems to me to be loosely correlated with credulity on lots of other things, but that sounds like a good study for someone to do, if they havn’t already done it.
26 July 2007 at 7:43 AM
Re #90 [There is considerable evidence for intelligent design of the Universe, or at least some omnipotent entity having some say and engineering of the process.]
Omnipotent entity? Complete klutz, I’d say, judging by the results!
Seriously, Rod, I think you’re making Timothy’s point for him.
[Response: That’s all fine, but no more ID/evolution discussions - go to PZ for that… - gavin]
26 July 2007 at 7:52 AM
Thanks for the head’s up, Gavin. I work professionally in the foresight business, and I *do* run in to climate skeptics quite often. When you go at them with evidence and some RealClimate-inspired counterarguments, they usually conclude that you know more than they do and back off. Individually, that is. They don’t usually change their slide deck for the next presentation, which makes me wonder where their head is at.
I find it rather shameful that the forecasting business is too much informed by econometrics - as dubious a “science” as I’ve ever heard - and not enough by rigorous sciences with solid predictions of the future. Astronomy and demography are quite good, really. I think that the shake-up that climate modelling is inspiring in the forecasting and foresight fields is a positive thing. We _need_ forecasting methods that work like the climate field does, modelling impacts for future events based on available evidence and science-based projection. We’ll be seeing a lot more initiatives like this in the 21th century, with varying degrees of success.
For example, take a look at G+A’s methodology tree (at http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/methodologytree.html ), the closest thing they have to “derive a model, test it, and use it predict outcomes” is “rule-based forecasting”, which appears to derive from “Univariate statistics” and “Intentions/expectations”. You might think that the “causal models” box comes closer to what we do in science, but you can see that it only applies to “linear” systems. Looking at the mouse-over box, “Causal models aided by the use of econometrics has been found to improve accuracy. The use of system dynamics has not.” Somebody better phone up the guys at Science and Nature and tell them to go find real jobs… you can’t forecast with science. You shouldn’t be able to publish in econometrics until you’ve passed a general science class. They wouldn’t write such rubbish otherwise.
26 July 2007 at 8:21 AM
#90- rod B- if Gavin will permit one last suggestion on the topic- go here:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=46949b03fd9b71eb;act=SF;f=14
Where you can discuss your evidence for omniscient beings and designed universes. No censorship, down and dirty scientific discussion, a bit like we get on here.
26 July 2007 at 9:52 AM
Re 85: Guthrie says:
“So it is with this- many people will keep their heads in the sand, but we can win people over by piling on the data and arguments, such that the lies become clear.”
I wish it were so, but some people will never be convinced. About a dozen years ago, then Pres. Bill Clinton said that the “science is in”. I believed it then and I believe it now. The debate should have been over a decade or more ago. But there will always be diehards.
The late biologist Steven Jay Gould, speaking about about another topic (the belief in the supposed ‘fallacy’ of Darwinism), said,in an interview shown on TV, that there were millions of scientists in the world and you’d never get them all to agree, at least on that particular subject. There will continue to be a minority of contrarians. The same thing is taking place on anthropenegic global warming. Trying to get some of the diehards to agree to this, is like King Kanute trying to persuade the tide to reverse direction.
26 July 2007 at 10:04 AM
Thank you Real Climate for this valuable, much needed website!
Speaking of climate projections near or over the edge, James Hansen’s latest paper on “Climate change and trace gases” argues that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is very sensitive to climate forcing and is unlikely to remain intact through the century. This implies, of course, that sea level rise this century will likely be very much faster and greater than predicted in IPCC4. I hope that Real Climate will devote some time to discussing the strengths and weakenesses of this important paper. Perhaps a conversation with James Hansen and Stefan Rahmstorf could be arranged?
Hansen’s paper appeared in Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 365:1925, 2007, and is pubically available via the Royal Society website.
26 July 2007 at 10:05 AM
Rod B (#90) wrote:
Not wanting to get into any sort of disagreement with anyone on this topic, let me just say that I believe you misunderstood me. I like Augustine and it is the opposite view that I was criticizing.
Anyway, if you would like, write me:
“timothy chase @ g ma il. com”
(No spaces) - and I believe I might have something you would like. (Or perhaps not - but I still might like to get your reaction.)
26 July 2007 at 11:03 AM
Well, I fail to see the difference between weather forecasting modeling and climate forecasting modeling. Both use physics and high mathematics take current information and project future events. Now Gavin said
However, the climate model takes the current conditions and the physics and adjusted the non-physics based assumptions on a best fit for past records. If there were no assumptions, then I would agree that this is just a model of the physical and there is no questions… put in x, get out y. The problem with your argument is that there are underlining assumptions in the GCM models which are based on the best guess of the underlying reality. Since there is less than complete understanding of all aspects of climate change, then the models have to guess how some of the aspects work, according to the IPCC. This means that the GCM models are doing forecasts. A&G specialize in forecasting, so their taking the IPCC to task for using GCMs for forecasting and not following the forecasting guidelines seems more than reasonable to me.
[Response: Wrong. The parameterisations that you allude to have nothing to do with improving the fit for past records. For instance, new physics is being added in to convection schemes to allow for lofting of ice particles by convective updrafts. The observations to evaluate this are drawn from field campaigns and satellite observations. The impact of the new physics on how well the models match up to the 20th Century trend is at the point unknown and the decision to incorporate the new physics has nothing to do with that. This is a fundamental difference between statistical modelling and physical modelling which neither you, nor A+G yet appear to grasp. - gavin]
26 July 2007 at 11:35 AM
I am curious about a critique of a document pertaining to physics and CO2. Abstract:
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861 and Arrhenius 1896 and is still supported in global climatology essentially describes a fictitious mechanism in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
Link: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf
Thank you
26 July 2007 at 11:39 AM
Rod B wrote: “There is considerable evidence for intelligent design of the Universe, or at least some omnipotent entity having some say and engineering of the process.”
It is self-evident that “intelligence” exists in the universe, instantiated in the form of intelligent entities, the paradigmatic example being human beings, along with non-human animals whose intelligence is similar enough to our own that we are able to recognize it as “intelligence”.
I would argue that there is plenty of evidence that intelligence is pervasive in the universe. It is not at all clear what the role<