One of the defenses often used by climate modelers against charges that climate is simple to complex to model accurately is that “they do it all the time in finance and economics.” This comes today from Megan McArdle on economic forecasting:
I find this pretty underwhelming, since private forecasters also unanimously think they can make forecasts, a belief which turns out to be not very well supported. More than one analysis of these sorts of forecasts has found them not much better than random chance, and especially prone to miss major structural changes in the economy. Just because toggling a given variable in their model means that you produce a given outcome, does not mean you can assume that these results will be replicated in the real world. The poor history of forecasting definitionally means that these models are missing a lot of information, and poorly understood feedback effects.
Sounds familiar, huh? I echoed these sentiments in a comparison of economic and climate forecasting here.
Ever seen the disclaimers that come with a Wall Street forecast ?
If the climate modelers put out equivalent disclaimers we’d all be better served …
why don’t they ? well, you can’t get sued for falsifying climate data … Wall Street analysts on the other hand live in fear of it … or having the SEC come after them …
I’ve long made the economic/climate forecasting analogy as well. As far as creating and testing these mathematical model are concerned, they might as well be the same thing.
Which is to say you can never test them, or in model speak, validate them. This of course gives those that use these models an opportunity to play with them until they get what ever they want. Like when you hear someone from the CBO saying the Bush tax cut cost the government $2T, or the White House saying the stimulus “created or saved” 1M jobs, or what ever. Both kinds of statements come from mathematical models with a laundry list of assumptions, which may or may not be true, and of course you can never test them. So they get a cute head line and because you can never actually test it, you can also not prove them wrong. All you can do is point out why their methodology is flawed. At which point 70% of the American populace rolls their eyes and changes the channel to “Lost” or some such thing.
Which is essentially the same thing that happened with “climate change” up until almost a year ago. At which point the “scandal” factor brought all the eyes back on it.
People take to over valuing models like ducks to water.
During the recent brouhaha over the recent statistical destruction of the Mann hockey stick, I learned a little regarding “stationary” versus “non-stationary” processes.
I found figure 4 on page 9 of the McShane-Wyner paper to be astonishing. What it’s saying is, the apparent correlation between two random walks can be spurriously high.
I wanted to check this out for myself, so first I generated 5 runs of 25 Heads and Tails by flipping a coin, and got 5 series going
HTTTH TTHTH—- etc for 25 in each series, and 5 series.
I first converted H to 1, T to 0 and got 5 runs of 25 going
10001 00101
Then changed them to a non-stationary walk starting at a graph origin, counting H as +1, T as -1, and got
1 0 -1 -2 -1 -2 -3 -2 -3 -2 …… etc for each of the runs and series.
I then went to the Vassar site
http://statpages.org/#Regression
clicked on linear correlation and regression, punched in 25, the number in
each run, and got
http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/corr_stats.html
I then did correlations between pairs of runs from the 5 series.
When I ran pairs of stationary runs, I got correlations of 0.107, 0.221, etc
and got 2 tailed p tests of 0.1724 and 0.6274, meaning that I would get chance runs that close or better 17.24% of the time or 62.74 % of the time respectively-to be expected in coin flip data.
I then applied the non-stationary random walk series to check the correlation of
1 0 -1 -2 -1 etc with another random walk run, and got figures like
correlation of -0.617 and a 2 tailed p test 0f 0.1% for the same data!!
Keep the non-stationary effect of those temperature anomalies next time you
read about the “incredibly small probability” of one of those runs happening by
chance alone.
I love the old joke the definition of an economist is someone that can predict the past with 50% accuracy . With a 20 year lag the AGW scientists can predict the current trend and give a new cause other than the ozone layer of ten odd years ago . Excuse themselves of all the scientific errors over the last twenty years and have all manor of computer models to excuse them for the next twenty years yet they accuse skeptics of disrupting science via the payroll of oil companies. Given the ridiculous amounts of money funding the suspect babble of AGW .Why do self proclaimed experts arguments consist of “says me” and “your stupid”
Actually the observant folks will notice that climate modelers claim accuracy over and above financial models for reasons as stated here: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/10/climate-models/
Of course what they’re papering over is that ALL models in chaotic systems inevitably have assumptions built in: presumed cause and effect and sensitivity, and in the case of climate models, feedbacks. The problem with economic models is that usbjective value can’t be quantified and people have free will. Climate models have one leg up in that we can quantify certain aspects of the climate, but it’s a long way from proving CO2 traps heat to showing just what the effects of that will be in the overall system. To do that, in come the assumptions. Shitloads of them. And until genuine cause and effect relations between individual variables are determined, all the models are basically just working on presumed causation based on assumed correlations that may or may not hold in the long term. So in the end, what isn’t known about the climate system has the same overall effect as the subjective nature of people’s valuations and the unpredictable nature of their choices. It renders the models useless. Unless fo course validation gets dropped for functionality testing as is done with financial models. In which case the question is: what function are the modelers asking the model to perform? My guess would be: validate my pet theory despite the evidence.
I started following the AGW thing back when the hocky stick and the ice core data seemed to support the AGW idea. Since then, the hocky stick has been debunked and further study if ice core data shows that temp increased 800 years BEFORE CO2 increased. In the last dozen years, the temp has not increased at predicted by the models. The only thing left in support of AGW is the computer models, which do not follow reality.
For the last ten years before I retired, I developed computer models of complex chemical plant systems. These were rigorous models, based on first principles. They were definitly NOT empirical models. They were validated by comparing model output to actual plant data.
I could write a program proving that all men will become mothers next week. I am sure everyone would not rush off to his OB/GYN. Bottom line: computer programs are nonsense until validated. GI/GO!! Basing important decisions on unvalidated models is rediculous.
Will the faux Warren please show us that no AGW fear monger has ever used the argument of complexity?
Hunter says:
‘Will the faux Warren please show us that no AGW fear monger has ever used the argument of complexity?’
How is anyone supposed to take your opinions seriously when you say incredibly stupid stuff like this?
Thanks to the two trolls for making my point.
Hunter.
The burden of proof is on Meyer’s claim; that ‘One of the defenses often used by climate modelers….’
Meyer has not backed up this claim.
What exactly is your point?
I’m trying to remember how many posts on Climate Skeptic purport to show that climate models are demonstrably incorrect by talking about anything but climate science. Seems most of them if memory serves.
And take it easy on hunter. I suspect he writes in a flurry, and he has poor written expression to begin with, so when he gets agitated he tends to produce gibberish as above. Perhaps a course in composition 101 at a community college would be in order?
scientist/faux warren/pathetic twit,
Of course I would never believe anything you say write or promote. Do not worry yourself. And your nursie, I am cerain, has that nice 1000mg of thorazine wating for you, and a nice shock tomorrow as well.
Shills,
Stop while you are not so pathetic.
The whole point of AGW is that gullible fools like you bought into a pile of crap and now defend it like a relic of the true cross. Stop with the ‘you prove it’ crap. You abandoned that decades ago.
Hunter,
Lol. Do you deniers still think the rest of the world are ‘gullible fools’ and that you are the only sane ones? Maybe instead of just squealing appeal to pop. or authority fallacy, you should meditate on that idea for a second.
Besides, Hunter. Even if AGW is unsupported crap, two wrongs don’t make a right.
It’s comical how quickly any discussions related to climate turns into political excrement-slinging.
Going back to Fake Warren’s initial point (and I should probably point out that it’s remarkably poor form to post under someone else’s handle, but that bridge has long been crossed here). He correctly pointed out that if Real Warren was going to make a statement about climate modelers claiming in their defense “they do it all the time in finance and economics”, he should back it up with evidence, and anyone who purports to maintain a position of healthy skepticism, shouldn’t just accept the statement without seeing some supporting proof. Apologies for paraphrasing, but minus the inappropriate language (and false identity), Fake Warren had a legitimate point.
To answer Fake Warren’s point, with a few hours, Richard A. posted an excellent link to a 2008 Wired article featuring the following:
1. A quote from New Scientist defending the accuracy of climate models: “The claim is sometimes made that if computer models were any good, people would be using them to predict the stock market. Well, they are!”; and
2 A quote from Gavin Schmidt (of GISS) claiming that climate models are even better than economic models because the latter deal with human emotion while the former are based on observed physics (I paraphrased again here).
That would seem to settle the issue. Real Warren’s claim looks pretty well substantiated. End of story. Right?
Wrong… the thread continues for 3 more days with each side ignoring the evidence, and resorting to name-calling: “idiot”, “stupid”, “pathetic”, “troll”, “fear mongers”, “deniers”, “gullible fools”, etc.
Would a little civility be too much to ask here?
Great post Richard A.
****”That would seem to settle the issue. Real Warren’s claim looks pretty well substantiated. End of story. Right?”
I’m sorry Russ, but I didn’t quite follow how points one and two in your comment equate to an “end of the story” or how they substantiate real Warren’s initial post.
As always, I followed Warren’s primary source and found a single brief comment, essentially what Mr. Myer quoted above, and nothing more. It is only a single blog post with hardly any more information than is represented here.
In other words, neither the primary source nor Mr. Meyer’s post do anything to demonstrait that economic or climate forcasts are inaccurate – they simply state that such models are inaccurate. You can see the problem with this, right?
I hate to differ on such a civil blogsite, but it does appear that the climate models, while not perfect, are more or less accurate. I only find statements such as the above in the blogosphere, and I hope you understand why people like Shills and myself have a hard time swallowing them. Likewise, has anyone looked objectively to see if economic models (which have nothing to do with the climate) are generally accurate?
And then there is another question: are the comments from New Scientist and Schmidt viable? Frankly, in all honesty, you have not shown that they are inaccurate. Rather, you seem to make the case that they are not viable by simply paraphrasing them – it would appear you are relying on the a priori belief in model inaccuracy, something which certainly exists among some commentators but not among others. Again, this is not the most convincing approach.
Waldo,
“I’m sorry Russ, but I didn’t quite follow how points one and two in your comment equate to an “end of the story” or how they substantiate real Warren’s initial post.”
you seem to have misunderstood my simple argument. I’ll summarize the key points here:
#1. Warren leads off his post with a statement “One of the defenses often used by climate modelers against charges that climate is simple to complex to model accurately is that “they do it all the time in finance and economics.”
#2. Fake Warren quotes Real Warren’s statement (#1) and disputes it writing: “No climate scientist has ever said anything remotely resembling this.”
#3. Richard A. responds to Fake Warren’s assertion (#2) by linking to an article featuring climate scientists saying a) computer models are good because people use them to predict the stock market, and b) climate models are even better than economic models.
Those 2 examples (in #3) are sufficient evidence to refute Fake Warren’s assertion (#2), and in doing so, they support Real Warren’s initial statement (#1) . That was all I referred to when I wrote “end of story”. You seemed to read a lot more into it. I made no comment at all on the accuracy of any models (climate or economic).
But since you brought up the question of accuracy (and managed to refrain from name-calling), I’ll respond.
“In other words, neither the primary source nor Mr. Meyer’s post do anything to demonstrait that economic or climate forcasts are inaccurate – they simply state that such models are inaccurate. You can see the problem with this, right?”
I agree. I don’t rely on people’s statements (bloggers or otherwise) or interpretations to evaluate the accuracy of models. I compare the models’ predictions to reality. The data are readily available to anyone willing to look. I’ve looked back at the predictions from Hansen and from all 4 IPCC reports, and I’ve found that reality (as measured by any of the 4 primary data sets available here.) hasn’t kept pace with the temperature increases the models have predicted. So if the models predicted one thing, and something else happened, then there’s a problem.
The problem could lie with our measurements of reality (which I doubt, since all 4 data sets generally agree, though some, notably GISS, show more warming than others), or the problem could be with the models. This could relate to data, assumptions (explicit or implicit), or calculations. Since the data are widely available, and the calculations can be easily verified, I suspect the problem is with the assumptions.
I have no argument with the models’ assumption relating to the direct impact of CO2 on temperature (approximately 1.2 deg C for a doubling of CO2 concentrations). Where I have doubts is on the modeling of feedbacks, especially relating to water vapor and clouds. That could take us into a very long discussion, but you have one other point for me to address.
“are the comments from New Scientist and Schmidt viable? Frankly, in all honesty, you have not shown that they are inaccurate. Rather, you seem to make the case that they are not viable by simply paraphrasing them – it would appear you are relying on the a priori belief in model inaccuracy, something which certainly exists among some commentators but not among others. Again, this is not the most convincing approach.”
You seem to have misunderstood my point here. Apologies if I wasn’t sufficiently clear. My point was that the statements were MADE… (which is exactly what was claimed in the first sentence of this post.) I was not disputing their validity. (Also, I would not paraphrase something I was disputing.)
But since you bring up the subject of accuracy of financial models, I’ll reveal a bit about what I do for a living. I’m a financial analyst, and until recently I worked at an investment firm that managed north of $100 billion. Every investment decision was supported by an elaborate model, based on historical market and financial data, and built upon dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of assumptions about the future. Feed in all the data and assumptions, and the model spits out forecasts for various scenarios, which are used to guide investment decisions. In my experience, spanning the past decade, reality has routinely delivered results well outside the expected range predicted by the ‘best’ models and analysts. Don’t take my word for it. Take a look at Wall Street research reports and compare analysts earnings forecasts to companies’ subsequent earnings releases. The analysts consistently overestimate profitability. (See this McKinsey report for evidence.) The divergence is obvious, and I suspect the problem is the inherent optimistic bias of sell-side analysts which color the assumptions they feed into their models.
So, to summarize… I didn’t bring up the issue of any model’s accuracy, but since it seems to be a concern, I’d suggest you compare the model’s predictions to reality and objectively judge for yourself whether they agree. And if predictions and reality don’t agree, you might want to investigate the reasons why.
Sorry, I just realized that the report I cited above requires registration to view.
A non-gated copy can be viewed here.
Russ R,
How does Gavin Schmidt’s little quote support Meyer’s claim?
And the New Scientist author is not a climate scientist.
Plus, none of this supports the ‘defences often used’ part of Meyer’s claim.
Shills,
“How does Gavin Schmidt’s little quote support Meyer’s claim?”
Maybe I’m misunderstanding something here. In the article, Gavin Schmidt is quoted defending the use of computer models in climate science by comparing them (favorably) to the computer models used in economic forecasting. The quote revolves entirely around the issue of simple vs. complex systems, which is what Warren wrote about in his first sentence. Could you clarify for me how this would not be an example of what Warren described?
“And the New Scientist author is not a climate scientist.”
Fair point. I read quickly through the article, but didn’t check the author’s background. Fred Pearce is a science journalist, so you’re correct… since he’s not a climate modeler, this is not an example that would support Warren’s statement.
I don’t agree that one must be a climate expert to comment on the pro/con AGW argument. A math model of ANYTHING is in the form y=f(a,b,c,…). The question is, given a set of data, how well does it agree with the model? If the subject being discussed was hidden from the person evaluating the correlation, and only y and f(a,b,c,..) data provided, one could quickly determine how well the math described the data.
Conversely, a climate “expert” with no understanding of math can promote any hypothesis and argue that his qualifications alone entitle him to be blindly followed. This sort of nonsense occurs in every field of study. If one has a sound hypothesis, one does not have to shout down the doubters, but merely clearly explain the work that was done and the results obtained. The facts speak for themselves. A plague on all the zealots and shouters! Up with competent and objective investigation and discussion!
****”Up with competent and objective investigation and discussion!”
Ted, what are you doing here then?
This blogsight is extremely limited, biased, and tends to use prejudicial rhetoric. Look at the previous post (“Two Sides Debate”) for an example of a university/community project which voluntarily pulls its satellite data; in this scenario a university staff is mislabeled an “NOAA official” and accused of “whitewash” for simply admitting that an electronic component on a satellite malfunctioned. Look at the top of this page for a non-researched, non-substantiated claim made by the bloghost to which the denialists have yet to question. Look at any of the posts here or on WUWT or virtually any of the denialist blogsites for multiple examples of just this sort of rhetoric—which is the reason a AGW agnostic like myself comes to a blogsite like CS.
And Russ, despite your financial background, I believe you have misrepresented the gist of the WIRED article. The opening hook should make it apparent what the author was writing about:
“With Wall Street’s vaunted financial models looking shaky, could other models of complex systems — say, the climate models that underpin our understanding of global warming — have similar faults?
“In two words, say scientists and financial engineers: not really. It turns out that it’s much harder to model human sentiment, the basis of value, than particle interaction.
“‘It’s the physics. The issue is that economic models aren’t based on any underlying physically observed facts. They’re based on people’s feelings,’” said Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler at Goddard Institute for Space Studies. ‘We’re not having a climate crisis because there’s a lack of confidence in water vapor.’”
In other words, climate models are based on known physical laws and chemical interactions, even given what we do not know, while computer models cannot account for the emotional, mercurial, unpredictable temperament of human beings. Seems like a valid argument.
No offense, but I believe, Russ, you have fallen back on the typical denialist tactic of excerpting a small part of the whole, taking it out of context, misrepresenting and then misinterpreting what it says.
Which brings me back to the accuracy of climate models—a topic that was rather tender last time we posted, Russ.
The models are accurate.
What is most ironic is that you would’ve given your financial background, I assume, because that gives you some credibility in the realm of judging economic models. (Yes, I know, “judge for yourself”–but then why post that you are an analyst?) But you would not extend the same to climate scientists to understand the interaction of water vapor and cloud formation. In fact, here is some commentary on water vapor:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/
And so, Ted, when you write “I don’t agree that one must be a climate expert to comment on the pro/con AGW argument” that’s fine—but that simply because you do not “agree” does not make your argument valid.
If you are an equal to the NOAA, IPCC, NASA crowd, write an article, have it peer-reviewed, put it out there for the world to see. You might do the same, Russ. If you have the requisite knowledge, then prove it. If you think you understand climate science better than the scientific world, prove it. And while you are at it, tell your doctor that you will be examining your own prostate in the future, and that’ll show’em.
I’ve worked on Wall Street, and I can state from first-hand observation that econometric models are about as useful as Oija boards.
So Waldo it all boils down to ” trust us we are professionals”. No one else can read a graph can they ?
.
Even when the professionals models fail to predict the future and only predict the past because they are adjusted until they do.
.
Arguably, the most famous model prediction is Dr Hansen’s 1988 graph of expected warming which isn’t doing very well as of 2009. [We don’t know about 2010 yet.]
.
You don’t have to be a climatologist to see that reality didn’t match the prediction. Oh I forgot you DO have to be a trained climatologist.
.
Here is a graph from Dr Hansen’s 2005 defense of his model.
.
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/hansenscenarios.png
.
Here is the prediction itself. See page 7.
.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
.
As of 2005 he was doing pretty well, but the value of the anomaly as of 2009 is .57 ° C which puts it below scenario “C”.
.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt
.
Even using the UHI polluted data of GISS which is obviously too high he didn’t do well. My OUIJA board could do better !
.
Scenario “C” was what would be expected if massive carbon restrictions were put in place in 1988 which didn’t happen did it ?
.
Did any model predict the lack of warming from 1998 to 2009 ?
.
If it did it was hushed up and hidden from the public because it didn’t fit the agenda of the climate alarmists. The scientists whispered his results into a closet when no one was listening.
.
This one was used to extort huge amounts of funds from congress !
.
I believe the manipulation of the surface temperature data is to rescue this and other such models from utter disgrace. Who put the fox in charge of the hen house ?
.
Comparing climate alarmists to a doctor is insulting to the doctor. If the doctor is wrong he buries his mistake and if he is wrong often enough he is forced out of the profession. If a climatologist is wrong no one knows for 30 to 50 years. In the meantime he is lauded as a rock star by the other climate alarmists. [Dr Hansen comes to mind.]
Plot this
So Waldo it all boils down to ” trust us we are professionals”. No one else can read a graph can they ?
Don’t trust your own analysis because you can’t possibly interpret a graph.
.
Even when the professionals models fail to predict the future and only predict the past because they are adjusted until they do.
.
Arguably, the most famous model prediction is Dr Hansen’s 1988 graph of expected warming which isn’t doing very well as of 2009. [We don’t know about 2010 yet.]
.
You don’t have to be a climatologist to see that reality didn’t match the prediction. Oh I forgot you DO have to be a trained climatologist to read a graph.
.
Here is a graph from Dr Hansen’s 2005 defense of his model.
.
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/hansenscenarios.png
.
Here is the prediction itself. See page 7.
.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
.
As of 2005 he was doing pretty well, but the value of the anomaly as of 2009 is .57 ° C which puts it below scenario “C”.
.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt
.
Even using the UHI polluted data of GISS which is obviously too high he didn’t do well. My OUIJA board could do better !
.
Scenario “C” was what would be expected if massive carbon restrictions were put in place in 1988 which didn’t happen did it ?
.
Did any model predict the lack of warming from 1998 to 2009 ?
.
If it did it was hushed up and hidden from the public because it didn’t fit the agenda of the climate alarmists. The scientists whispered his results into a closet when no one was listening.
.
This one was used to extort huge amounts of funds from congress !
.
I believe the manipulation of the surface temperature data is to rescue this and other such models from utter disgrace. Who put the fox in charge of the hen house ?
.
Comparing a climate alarmist scientist to a doctor is insulting to the doctor. If a doctor is wrong he buries his mistake and if he is wrong long often enough he is forced out of the profession. A climate alarmist can be wrong for 30 to 50 years and be hailed as a near rock star. Someday one will be given a Nobel prize like Al Gore.
So Waldo it all boils down to ” trust us we are professionals”. No one else can read a graph can they ?
Don’t trust your own analysis because you can’t possibly interpret a graph.
.
Even when the professionals models fail to predict the future and only predict the past because they are adjusted until they do.
.
Arguably, the most famous model prediction is Dr Hansen’s 1988 graph of expected warming which isn’t doing very well as of 2009. [We don’t know about 2010 yet.]
.
You don’t have to be a climatologist to see that reality didn’t match the prediction. Oh I forgot you DO have to be a trained climatologist to read a graph.
.
Here is a graph from Dr Hansen’s 2005 defense of his model.
.
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/hansenscenarios.png
.
Here is the prediction itself. See page 7.
.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
.
As of 2005 he was doing pretty well, but the value of the anomaly as of 2009 is .57 ° C which puts it below scenario “C”.
.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt
.
Even using the UHI polluted data of GISS which is obviously too high he didn’t do well. My OUIJA board could do better !
.
Scenario “C” was what would be expected if massive carbon restrictions were put in place in 1988 which didn’t happen did it ?
.
Did any model predict the lack of warming from 1998 to 2009 ?
.
If it did it was hushed up and hidden from the public because it didn’t fit the agenda of the climate alarmists. The scientists whispered his results into a closet when no one was listening.
.
This one was used to extort huge amounts of funds from congress !
.
I believe the manipulation of the surface temperature data is to rescue this and other such models from utter disgrace. Who put the fox in charge of the hen house ?
.
Comparing a climate alarmist scientist to a doctor is insulting to the doctor. If a doctor is wrong he buries his mistake and if he is wrong long often enough he is forced out of the profession. A climate alarmist can be wrong for 30 to 50 years and be hailed as a near rock star. Someday one will be given a Nobel prize like Al Gore.
Waldo,
I read the WIRED article, and I understand what it’s point is. Yes, financial and econometric models ARE shaky. For a number of reasons with which I’m far too familiar.
The article goes on to argue that economic models are complex because they attempt to predict human behavior, whereas climate models merely predict observable physics. The author includes a quote from climate modeler Gavin Schmidt to help make that point.
Close to the end of the article, there’s an important point made… “Functionally, the ability to generate returns determines how useful a financial model is.”
The same is true for a climate model; the ability to predict future climactic conditions determines how useful a GCM is.
There are 5 “on-the-record” climate predictions of significance… Hansen (1988), and the 4 IPCC reports (1990, 1995, 2001, and 2007). I’d say it’s fair to verify the first two against subsequent climate observations, since 22 and 20 years have passed since they were published. The 1995 predictions are on the borderline with 15 years of observations for comparison. It’s too soon to fairly judge the 2001 and 2007 predictions.
I’ve previously given you the Hansen 1988 prediction graphs and the subsequent observation data to assess them. Actual warming has turned out to be less than his “Drastic emissions reductions Scenario C”, despite emissions that outpaced his “Business as usual Scenario A”. Fact is, Hansen (1988) overpredicted warming. Your unwillingness to accept this doesn’t change the fact.
Regarding IPCC (1990), it predicted: “An average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2—0.5°C per decade) assuming the IPCC Scenario A (Business-as-Usual) emissions of greenhouse gases;…”
In the 20 years since then, the world has gone about “business as usual” regarding emissions, but actual warming has been only 0.184°C per decade (UAH) or 0.192°C per decade (GISS). (Supporting data here). Both observations are below the lower bound of uncertainty given by the prediction. My conclusion is that IPCC (1990) also overpredicted warming. You’re welcome to interpret the data in whatever way you like.
Moving on to IPCC (1995), they reduced their warming prediction by approximately a third compared to their 1990 estimate: “Temperature projections assuming the “best estimate” value of climate sensitivity, 2.5°C, (see Section D.2) are shown for the full set of IS92 scenarios in Figure 18. For IS92a the temperature increase by 2100 is about 2°C. Taking account of the range in the estimate of climate sensitivity (1.5 to 4.5°C) and the full set of IS92 emission scenarios, the models project an increase in global mean temperature of between 0.9 and 3.5°C”
Evidence to from 1995 to date: emissions have been business as usual, but actual warming has been only 0.137°C per decade (UAH) or 0.168°C per decade (GISS). (Data here.) Because emissions have remained on track with the “high” scenario, this implies that climate sensitivity is lower than even the low estimate of 1.5°C used by IPCC. I acknowledge that 15 years of data are insufficient to draw firm conclusions, but would argue that a climate sensitivity value of 1.0 to 1.2°C would be more plausible given the combination of emissions and warming we’ve observed to date.
When reality doesn’t match predictions, an objective individual will reconsider the projections. You seem to prefer to ignore reality.
Waldo,
“‘It’s the physics. The issue is that economic models aren’t based on any underlying physically observed facts. They’re based on people’s feelings,’” said Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler at Goddard Institute for Space Studies. ‘We’re not having a climate crisis because there’s a lack of confidence in water vapor.’”
Ah, water vapor. Can any scientist give me model for cloud formation from water vapor that is anything like as certain as the fundimental laws of physics? The answer is of course no. So while climate models don’t have to take into account people’s behavior (well they do because they need to predict CO2 levels coming from human activity, but lets give you this one), they do have to attempt to model physical interactions that are very poorly understood. Maybe that’s better, but it isn’t that much better and far from confidence inspiring.
Then of course we have issues with having to model human behavoir. If we stop cutting down the rain forsts, would that not effect the models? What if we decided to build 20 nuclear plants in the next 20 years? What if we all wanted to start driving rebuilt 1966 Pontiac GTOs?
So in reality we have models made up of some well understood physics, some poorly understood physics, human behavior and of course are missing god knows what. Then the models that have been around long enough to compare to actual tempuratures are just not correlating as Russ describes.
Russ R.,
You say: ‘In the article, Gavin Schmidt is quoted defending the use of computer models in climate science by comparing them (favorably) to the computer models used in economic forecasting.’
Umm, no. Yes, he is making a comparison; He is showing a distinction between climate vs finance models. But he is not using the fact that finance modelling is done to justify using models for climate.
Wally,
Yet again, as the months role by, you express your opinion on an aspect of climate science that is not supported by the mainstream, which is fine. But, yet again, we have another indi report that supports the mainstream view:
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Executive%20Summary%20and%20Front%20Matter.pdf
Where is it that all the hard-working deniers send their theories? Because they just don’t seem to be making it though.
Shills,
I see your point, and yes, Schmidt’s quote does make a slightly different argument than what was stated initially by Meyer at the beginning of this post.
I stand corrected.
Now please do me a favor and stop using the term “denier” or its derivatives, unless you’re going to provide supporting data as to exactly what indisputable evidence is allegedly being “denied” and by whom.
Russ R,
Hmm. You would prefer I used the word skeptic? You don’t think climate denialism exists?
I think this article, from an actual skeptic organisation’s magazine, might help:
http://www.davidbrin.com/climate3.htm
Shills,
Yes, there are actual climate deniers out there. Probably lots of them… I’ve seen a more than few, and I don’t waste my time with them.
However, when you’re going to generalize about the entire population who don’t accept the narrative that AGW is a looming catastrophe requiring immediate government intervention, term skeptic is more appropriate. If you’re going to call someone a denier (much like if you’re going to call someone a liar or a thief) you should be expected to back it up with some supporting facts.
I’ve read through Brin’s article, and while the core point he makes is valid (i.e. the distinction between skeptic and denier is important), unfortunately his own biases still show through strongly, and many of his supporting arguments are either poorly thought out, or are strawmen. I’ll give just one glaring example (there are many more):
Brin writes, “James McCarthy, former co-chair of the IPCC, was asked how many of the world’s top 1000 climate experts would disagree with the basic scientific consensus that the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations over the last 50 years to levels not seen in 650,000 years is primarily anthropogenic and is the cause of an increase in global temperatures. He replied, “Five.”
I consider myself a skeptic, but would generally agree with the 99.5% in the majority on this question. However, this is only the first in a long series of necessary questions. The subsequent questions should be:
2) How much have global temperatures actually increased?
3) How much of the warming is due to man-made causes?
4) How much warming will those man-made causes create in the future?
5) What would be the effects of that warming (both positive and negative)?
6) What would be the net cost (positive or negative) of those effects?
7) What possible measures could be taken to reduce or mitigate the costs (preventative or adaptive measures)?
8) What would be the effectiveness and costs of those measures?
9) After comparing the expected effectiveness and costs of taking action, with the expected net costs of inaction, which measures (if any) should be taken?
10) And lastly, if any preventative measures should be taken, how should they be structured, managed and enforced?
Consensus on Question 1 doesn’t say anything about Questions 2 through 10. So anyone claiming any sort of “consensus” at Copenhagen is really getting ahead of oneself.
So, in light of the above, do you agree with Brin when he writes “Are we to believe that 99% of the experts are so discredited that there is less than a one-percent chance that continuing to pump anthropogenic carbon dioxide into the atmosphere would cause catastrophic climate change? Clearly, the Climate Skeptic accepts that some things ought to be done, urgently and with full force of national and public will, even-though and even-while he nurses doubts about the likelihood of the full Global Warming scenario. She does not arm wave vaguely against “rash actions,” but actively engages in negotiation over which urgent efficiency measures to promote. Even if only as a precaution.”
Note the bait and switch he employs… he starts by showing you a scientific consensus that man-made GHGs cause warming, but ends up selling you an argument that good, honest skeptics must accept that “catastrophic climate change” requires “that some things ought to be done, urgently and with full force of national and public will”.
Some AGW whack job has broken into the offices of The Discovery Channel and is holding hostages. The whack job’s manifesto sounds similar to the Malthusian nonsense of some of the trolls on this forum.
http://www.thecypresstimes.com/article/News/National_News/GUNMAN_TAKES_HOSTAGES_AT_DISCOVERY_CHANNEL_MANIFESTO_REVEALED/32950
Russ,
I have to disagree.
The term “denier” is rarely appropriate of anyone on the opposing the (C)AGW argument in general. For that term to be appropriate, you have to first have some sort of facts or truth to be denied. Exceedingly few “skeptics” or what Shills and Waldo might call “deniers” will deny things like the increasing CO2 levels, that CO2 is a green house gas and in a controlled microscale experiment CO2 gives warming, or that temps have been rising for the last 150 years. The true facts of this science are rarely “denied” by anyone and when they are they are at least equally as likely to be “denied” by those on the CAGW side as the skeptic side.
What the vast majority of the debate centers around is some combination of the climate model validity and their accuracy in predicting future climate, the effects of various levels of warming, and what should be done given the relative confidence in the answers to each of those issues and costs of various “solutions”. Its completely inappropriate, disingenuous and nothing more than an ad hominem to call someone a denier that, for example, doesn’t believe we have the required confidence in a catastrophic outcome to drastically change our lives. Particularly when developing nations that will increasingly take up more and more, and eventually a majority of CO2 output in the decades to come are unlikely to do the same. This is because it simply is not fact that we can either A) do anything about it, or B) what ever marginal effect do achieve will be worth the cost. These are unknowns or matters of our personal cost/benefit analysis that have no objectively correct answer. Thus, those that throw around this term “denier” so loosely are first, likely actually deniers themselves because they cast aside the fact that many of aspect this argument deals with are not facts themselves, which is implied in their very use of the word denier (the hypocrasy and irony is quite comical at times). Second, they are also doing nothing by attempting to use insults in place of logical arguments. Shills is particular quick to fall back to shouting “denier,” after attempting to have rational conversations with him several times, I suggest you ignore him. If you are to ignore true climate deniers, we might as well ignore the blind CAGW believers (and I mean that term in the religous sense) as well.
@Justa Joe,
Where’s Waldo? Where is the name stealer?
;^)
@Russ R,
You are wasting time trying to speak about nuance to a true believing AGW fundamentalist. There mental choices leave no room for nuance and distinction. You are either believing there is a looming climate apocalypse or you are a paid shill of big oil, and want to destroy the Earth.
***”I’ve previously given you the Hansen 1988 prediction graphs and the subsequent observation data to assess them. Actual warming has turned out to be less than his “Drastic emissions reductions Scenario C”, despite emissions that outpaced his “Business as usual Scenario A”. Fact is, Hansen (1988) overpredicted warming. Your unwillingness to accept this doesn’t change the fact.”
What about “Scenario B”?
Your unwillingness to accept this doesn’t change the fact.
And what of the data that is not Hansen’s per se?
Ptolemy’s geocentric model of the solar system we a pretty good predictor of celestial motion at the time.
The current climate and economic models are probably almost as good:)
Russ R,
Do you really wanna argue about the distinctions between denier and skeptic?
Suffice to say, you give a distinction: that a denier is one who simply opposes proven fact. Now however simple and ideal that distinction might be, you try applying it practically to much of what is deemed consensually scientific.
If you are offended by the term denier, toughen up. Peeps on my general viewpoint a called trolls or fundamentalists, or alarmists, all the time. It’s called informal discourse. For example, Wally would like you to know that: ‘Shills is particular quick to fall back to shouting “denier,” after attempting to have rational conversations with him several times, I suggest you ignore him.’
I might contest this claim, but really, who gives a shit.
you might not be what I might class as a denier, I dunno, and I don’t think I’ve called you one, yet.
How about this: a “denialist” is someone who ‘denies’ that the actual trained climate scientists who make their living in the science industry understand climate science better then they do.
My favorite is when denialists accuse those of us who are skeptical of the motivation and objectivity of the denialist camp with being irrational and un-willing to deal with the facts all the while ignoring primary documents in favor of clearly biased blogsites.
I like Russ’ questions @ 7:58am.
But I would suggest that these should probably be left to the climate scientists.
And upon preview I should have written “better THAN they do” and not “better then they do.” Very embarrassing. I apologize.
Great posts from both Russ and Wally.
The responses from Shills and Waldo are a good illustration as to why it is pointless to argue with them. They are clowns, nothing more.
Sorry, been away for a bit and have some catching up to do.
@ Wally – You and I seem to be saying the same thing. Yes, there are extremists on both sides of the debate. And yes, I will ignore the ones who can’t engage in civil discourse.
@ hunter – labeling people “fundamentalists” and questioning their mental abilities isn’t very constructive.
@ Waldo – I’m more than happy to look at Hansen (1988) Scenario B. It was based on a lower rate of emissions growth than Scenario A and as such forecast less warming. (It also included a hypothetical volcanic even, which did actually occur.) In reality, emissions growth exceeded that described in Scenario A, yet warming was less than Scenario C. Assuming 22 years is sufficient to start evaluating these predictions and treat the data as being more signal than noise, the only reasonable conclusion I can reach is that Hansen’s model was too aggressive in its assumed value for climate sensitivity to CO2 emissions. What do you conclude? Do you still believe “the models are accurate”?
No need to apologize for typos, but I take issue with your contention that the list of questions I compiled (which I admit is non-exhaustive) “should probably be left to the climate scientists”. While climate scientists absolutely are the experts on the science-related issues (meteorology, physics, chemistry, geology, biology, etc…) to answer the entire set of questions, a much broader range of expertise is required (unless climate scientists are also experts on transportation, agriculture, civil engineering, technology, economics, markets, tax policy, governance, international relations, etc…)
And if you really want to define the word “denialist”, what do you call someone who has been shown in explicit detail the various predictions made by Hansen (1988), IPCC (1990) and IPCC (1995), along with all the subsequent global temperature data from two separate sources (GISS and UAH), and had the material divergence pointed out to him, but still continues to believe the models are accurate?
@ Shills – I’ll repeat my main point for you. “If you’re going to call someone a denier (much like if you’re going to call someone a liar or a thief) you should be expected to back it up with some supporting facts.” As in exactly what indisputable fact(s) you allege they are “denying” (like I did for Waldo in the paragraph above). If you read back through my posts, you’ll note I take equal issue with labeling people “trolls”, “fundamentalists”, etc… All of the above are ad-hominems, used to evade the substance of people’s arguments.
“In other words, neither the primary source nor Mr. Meyer’s post do anything to demonstrait that economic or climate forcasts are inaccurate – they simply state that such models are inaccurate. You can see the problem with this, right?” – Waldosteria
Technically correct, however having been somewhat ‘in the field’ of economics for some time, asking someone to demonstrate the inaccurate nature of economic models is like asking someone to demonstrate gravity as if it hasn’t been conclusively proven yet. Economic models are crap, and for evidence look at the recent economic collapse.
Do some research and get familiar how much of the securitization market was influenced by economic models put together by ‘qants’, models that somehow came to the conclusion that if you took a bunch of risky mortgages given to people with shitty credit, mixed in a couple decent ones, hacked them up and restructured them, that they’d magically become an AAA rated investment. Or put more simply, if you want a demonstration of the inaccurance of economic modeling for forecasts, look at the US economy for the last three years.
Know onw of he main reasons people thought housing prices would never drop? Because they hadn’t dropped since the Great Depression. No one modelled it because the modellers assumed they knew the behavior patterns of a critical part of the system that they were DEAD WRONG about. But hey, it was a damn near fifty year trend so it HAD to indicate some fundamental thing about markets, RIGHT?! Well, no. Housing prices can fall just like any other prices.
Now, I’m not aware of any specific evidence of climate models failing, other than the fact that our current ‘warming’ seems to be inline with the lowest assumed sensitivity at best which WOULD indicate assumptions of higher sensitivities are wrong. However, given the nature of the climate system and all the variables at play and our current understanding of how they interact, would you honestly be betting agains such wrong headed assumptions showing up in those models as well? I’m not talking science, I admit I am not an expert. I’m talking about a lifetime’s worth of experience that lets me smell a line of crap when that’s what someone is laying out for me. And that’s what climate models suspiciously smell like.
“In other words, climate models are based on known physical laws and chemical interactions, even given what we do not know, while computer models cannot account for the emotional, mercurial, unpredictable temperament of human beings. Seems like a valid argument.” – Waldoweed
The problem with this is it’s the classic settled science vs unsettled science switch alarmists always pull. We know the properties of CO2, how much energy it will retain, the range of the spectrum it absorbs, etc. This is settled science and not arguable. This is not the sole component of these models. These models are much, much more complex and, as outlined above with the issue of clouds, we in fact DO NOT know how all the pieces fit together on a causal level. That’s the issue with modeling a complex chaotic system. The claim Schmidt makes is that because the physical world is a deterministic system, the models are much better. Robust comes to mind as a term for some reason. The fundamental point is correct, the underlying and unstated issue is that we DO NOT understand the system well enough to model it. And if we do, prove it. Release all the code, all the notes, all the programming and version control operations records, and sum it up for everyone from the layman to the educated nonexpert. The irony is that while critics here are correct in that the burden of proof is on Warren to supply statements from climate modelers to support his claim, the burden of proof is on the modellers to prove their models are accurate. And so far they don’t seem to be.
Russ,
It would be fairly easy to test how good the various model predictions match actual temps by doing a simple students T-test between the two regressions or average increase in temps predicted and actual. You could do this a couple of ways, but the best way would probably be to just see if the slope of the prediction is significantly different from the slope of the actual temps. Basically in this case, we’d throw out the model if it was significantly different. Given that we should probably adjust the model to match actual CO2 levels to fairly judge the model, which as you state were higher than scenario A, I honestly don’t even think finding the raw data (meaning all yearly data points from the models and the recorded temps) is worth the trouble. When the slopes are 2-3x different, the likelihood that they aren’t significantly different is pretty small.
This is something people that model the economy or financial data of various kinds do all the time in an attempt to validate and improve their models (not to mention the traditional sciences and engereers that do this constantly). As far as I’m aware, there are exactly zero climate articles that attempt to do this with any of the major GCMs. I would guess this is because they are ignorant of these kinds of statistical tests and why they are required in these situations, or they already know what they will find and choose to not publish how bad their models actually are.
If they do exist, maybe Shills and/or Waldo can point me towards them?
Wally,
I’ve fed the UAH and GISS data into excel and done a little basic statistical analysis.
Based on IPCC (1990), we are testing whether the 1990-2010 data support a predicted temperature rise of 0.3 degrees per decade or 0.03 degrees per year.
UAH data (1990 – 2010)
Observations = 247
Slope = 0.01840195
Standard Error = 0.001953884
Ho: slope ≠ 0.03
T Stat = 5.935894464
GISS data (1990 – 2010)
Observations = 247
Slope = .019243
Standard Error = 0.001579303
Ho: slope ≠ 0.03
T Stat = 6.811077087
Turning to IPCC (1995), we are testing whether the 1995-2010 data support a predicted temperature rise of 2.5 degrees per century or 0.025 degrees per year.
UAH data (1995 – 2010)
Observations = 187
Slope = 0.013700253
Standard Error = 0.002937661
Ho: slope ≠ 0.025
T Stat = 3.84651187
GISS data (1990 – 2010)
Observations = 187
Slope = 0.016804263
Standard Error = 0.002198422
Ho: slope ≠ 0.025
T Stat = 3.728008917
If I recall correctly, a t-stat greater than 1.96 indicated a significant difference at the 95% confidence level. But I’ll leave the interpretation of the above t-stats to Waldo.
The raw data are here, for anyone who’d like to check my work.
Russ, very nice. I wasn’t even going to do this given how completely obvious it was, but that really clinches it. A T-stat of 3-6 given the number of observations is just ridiculously significant, well less than .001.
“…that really clinches it. A T-stat of 3-6 given the number of observations is just ridiculously significant, well less than .001.”
But will it be enough to convince our friend Waldo?