jump to navigation

Forecasting the Future November 9, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , ,
trackback

Forecasting the Future

By Dr. Vincent Gray
ICECAP, November 8, 2009

“Forecasting is difficult: particularly about the future” This piece of wisdom is attributed to Yogi Bear.  But it does not apply to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, since they do not make “forecasts” at all, only “projections”.  As they make clear, “projections” are dependent on the correctness of the assumptions made by the computer models and the futures scenarios from which they are made.

This has not always been so. In the first IPCC Report (1990). on the first page of the “Executive Summary” there was nearly a whole page headed “ Based on current model results, we predict” with no less than ten actual “predictions”.They used the phrase “models predict” several times throughout, but they did, at least admit that there were “uncertainties”.

Chapter 4 was entitled “Validation of Climate Models”. Paragraph 4,12 “Methods and Problems of Model Validation” showed that such validation is quite a problem, and it seemed to show that, so far, no model has been truly validated. Chapter 8 “Detection of the Greenhouse Effect in the Observations” had the answer when it said (paragraph 8.4) “the fact that we have not yet detected the enhanced greenhouse effect leads to the question: when is this likely to occur”

The next Report (1995) had, in its first draft, another Chapter 4 “Validation of Climate Models”. I commented (with, perhaps, others), that since no model had ever been validated, according to their own opinions, the title was inappropriate. So in the next draft they changed the word “validation” to “evaluation” no less that fifty times, and that report and all subsequent ones have not used the terms “predict”, “forecast”, or “validate”. Also there has been no further discussion on how validation might be made. This is true of all of the four parts of the Fourth Report.

I frequently quote this example from their “Frequently Asked Question 1.2”: “A common confusion between weather and climate arises when scientists are asked how they can predict climate 50 years from now when they cannot predict the weather a few weeks from now. The chaotic nature of weather makes it unpredictable beyond a few days. Projecting changes in climate (i.e., long-term average weather) due to changes in atmospheric composition or other factors is a very different and much more manageable issue”.

Note that they insist that all they do is “project”. They are admitting that “scientists cannot “predict climate 50 years from now”. No wonder there is “A common confusion”, The claim that their “projections” are “very different” and “much more manageable” does not include a claim that they can provide successful predictions.

And yet, the politicians, activists and many ordinary people seem to be under the delusion that the IPCC “projections” actually can be regarded as “forecasts” to the extent of promoting all manner of economically damaging measures in the belief of countering them. The above statement seems also to agree that the only scientists capable of actually predicting are the weather forecasters and it might be worth while to examine how this has been achieved, however imperfect it may seem.

Despite all this, the public, the media and the politicians seem to think that the IPCC “projections” are “forecasts” even when the IPCC denies it. It is therefore useful to see whether these projections show any success as forecasts.

The following (enlarged here) table shows a comparison between the “projections” of the IPCC and the observed figures, extrapolated to 2010 from the latest available information. It shows that the IPCC are within range of prediction for population, coal production, CO2 emissions and CO2 concentrations, but they are completely wrong on methane concentrations, global temperature change and sea level change. It might be mentioned that the “projections” for global GDP are also all wrong, but I have been unable to find figures that make adequate allowance for the changes in the US dollar.

image

See full newsletter PDF here.

See also the post “Global Warming Predictions Invalidated” by Doug L. Hoffman on The Resilient Earth reporting on the new study in the journal Science has just shown that all of the climate modeling results of the past are erroneous here.

Comments»

1. Klem - November 9, 2009

People need to understand that the debate is over. The UN IPCC has declared that humans are responsible, and at the Copenhagen meeting, in the earliest parts of the Treaty there is a paragraph which makes the signer agree with that conclusion. Once this paragraph is signed, any further scientific investigation is not needed anymore. This will silence debate and end scientific investigation. This also means all of the climate science funding will dry up, Climate science will not be needed anymore, and the science will fall back into obscurity once again. It’s an amazing paragraph.

So get with the program folks. The Copenhagen meeting will not be a discussion of the truth of the science, it will be about population control, how much money we will pay to 3rd world countries for ‘carbon debt’, and the creation of the UN as our Global Government. Forget the science, that debate is over. The UN has moved on to bigger issues and the faster we wake up to it the better we’ll all be. We need a national debate about what the UN is up to, not more of blogg science.

2. Jennifer Jarratt - January 20, 2010

In the interests of accuracy, it’s not “Yogi Bear”, it’s Yogi Berra! The man has been much misquoted.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: