Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Forecasting Guru Announces: “no scientific basis for forecasting climate”
Watts Up With That ^ | 1/28/09 | Anthony Watts / Jennifer Marohasy

Posted on 01/29/2009 1:33:07 AM PST by Straight Vermonter

It has been an interesting couple of days. Today yet another scientist has come forward with a press release saying that not only did their audit of IPCC forecasting procedures and found that they “violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting”, but that “The models were not intended as forecasting models and they have not been validated for that purpose.” This organization should know, they certify forecasters for many disciplines and in conjunction with John Hopkins University if Washington, DC, offer a Certificate of Forecasting Practice. The story below originally appeared in the blog of Australian Dr. Jennifer Marohasy. It is reprinted below, with with some pictures and links added for WUWT readers. - Anthony

j-scott-armstrong iif-website
J. Scott Armstrong, founder of the International Journal of Forecasting

Guest post by Jennifer Marohasy

YESTERDAY, a former chief at NASA, Dr John S. Theon, slammed the computer models used to determine future climate claiming they are not scientific in part because the modellers have “resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists”. [1]

Today, a founder of the International Journal of Forecasting, Journal of Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, and International Symposium on Forecasting, and the author of Long-range Forecasting (1978, 1985), the Principles of Forecasting Handbook, and over 70 papers on forecasting, Dr J. Scott Armstrong, tabled a statement declaring that the forecasting process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lacks a scientific basis. [2]

What these two authorities, Drs Theon and Armstrong, are independently and explicitly stating is that the computer models underpinning the work of many scientific institutions concerned with global warming, including Australia’s CSIRO, are fundamentally flawed.

In today’s statement, made with economist Kesten Green, Dr Armstrong provides the following eight reasons as to why the current IPCC computer models lack a scientific basis:

1. No scientific forecasts of the changes in the Earth’s climate.

Currently, the only forecasts are those based on the opinions of some scientists. Computer modeling was used to create scenarios (i.e., stories) to represent the scientists’ opinions about what might happen. The models were not intended as forecasting models (Trenberth 2007) and they have not been validated for that purpose. Since the publication of our paper, no one has provided evidence to refute our claim that there are no scientific forecasts to support global warming.

We conducted an audit of the procedures described in the IPCC report and found that they clearly violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting (Green and Armstrong 2008). (No justification was provided for any of these violations.) For important forecasts, we can see no reason why any principle should be violated. We draw analogies to flying an aircraft or building a bridge or performing heart surgery—given the potential cost of errors, it is not permissible to violate principles.

2. Improper peer review process.

To our knowledge, papers claiming to forecast global warming have not been subject to peer review by experts in scientific forecasting.

3. Complexity and uncertainty of climate render expert opinions invalid for forecasting.

Expert opinions are an inappropriate forecasting method in situations that involve high complexity and high uncertainty. This conclusion is based on over eight decades of research. Armstrong (1978) provided a review of the evidence and this was supported by Tetlock’s (2005) study that involved 82,361 forecasts by 284 experts over two decades.

Long-term climate changes are highly complex due to the many factors that affect climate and to their interactions. Uncertainty about long-term climate changes is high due to a lack of good knowledge about such things as:
a) causes of climate change,
b) direction, lag time, and effect size of causal factors related to climate change,
c) effects of changing temperatures, and
d) costs and benefits of alternative actions to deal with climate changes (e.g., CO2 markets).

Given these conditions, expert opinions are not appropriate for long-term climate predictions.

4. Forecasts are needed for the effects of climate change.

Even if it were possible to forecast climate changes, it would still be necessary to forecast the effects of climate changes. In other words, in what ways might the effects be beneficial or harmful? Here again, we have been unable to find any scientific forecasts—as opposed to speculation—despite our appeals for such studies.

We addressed this issue with respect to studies involving the possible classification of polar bears as threatened or endangered (Armstrong, Green, and Soon 2008). In our audits of two key papers to support the polar bear listing, 41 principles were clearly violated by the authors of one paper and 61 by the authors of the other. It is not proper from a scientific or from a practical viewpoint to violate any principles. Again, there was no sign that the forecasters realized that they were making mistakes.

5. Forecasts are needed of the costs and benefits of alternative actions that might be taken to combat climate change.

Assuming that climate change could be accurately forecast, it would be necessary to forecast the costs and benefits of actions taken to reduce harmful effects, and to compare the net benefit with other feasible policies including taking no action. Here again we have been unable to find any scientific forecasts despite our appeals for such studies.

6. To justify using a climate forecasting model, one would need to test it against a relevant naïve model.

We used the Forecasting Method Selection Tree to help determine which method is most appropriate for forecasting long-term climate change. A copy of the Tree is attached as Appendix 1. It is drawn from comparative empirical studies from all areas of forecasting. It suggests that extrapolation is appropriate, and we chose a naïve (no change) model as an appropriate benchmark. A forecasting model should not be used unless it can be shown to provide forecasts that are more accurate than those from this naïve model, as it would otherwise increase error. In Green, Armstrong and Soon (2008), we show that the mean absolute error of 108 naïve forecasts for 50 years in the future was 0.24°C.

7. The climate system is stable.

To assess stability, we examined the errors from naïve forecasts for up to 100 years into the future. Using the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre’s data, we started with 1850 and used that year’s average temperature as our forecast for the next 100 years. We then calculated the errors for each forecast horizon from 1 to 100. We repeated the process using the average temperature in 1851 as our naïve forecast for the next 100 years, and so on. This “successive updating” continued until year 2006, when we forecasted a single year ahead. This provided 157 one-year-ahead forecasts, 156 two-year-ahead and so on to 58 100-year-ahead forecasts.

We then examined how many forecasts were further than 0.5°C from the observed value. Fewer than 13% of forecasts of up to 65-years-ahead had absolute errors larger than 0.5°C. For longer horizons, fewer than 33% had absolute errors larger than 0.5°C. Given the remarkable stability of global mean temperature, it is unlikely that there would be any practical benefits from a forecasting method that provided more accurate forecasts.

8. Be conservative and avoid the precautionary principle.

One of the primary scientific principles in forecasting is to be conservative in the darkness of uncertainty. This principle also argues for the use of the naive no-change extrapolation. Some have argued for the precautionary principle as a way to be conservative. It is a political, not a scientific principle. As we explain in our essay in Appendix 2, it is actually an anti-scientific principle in that it attempts to make decisions without using rational analyses. Instead, cost/benefit analyses are appropriate given the available evidence which suggests that temperature is just as likely to go up as down. However, these analyses should be supported by scientific forecasts.

The reach of these models is extraordinary, for example, the CSIRO models are currently being used in Australia to determine water allocations for farmers and to justify the need for an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) – the most far-reaching of possible economic interventions. Yet, according to Dr Armstrong, these same models violate 72 scientific principles.

********************

1. Marc Morano, James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic, January 27,2009. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320

2. “Analysis of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gases”, Drs. J. Scott Armstrong and Kesten C. Green a statement prepared for US Senator Inhofe for an analysis of the US EPA’s proposed policies for greenhouse gases. http://theclimatebet.com



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: catastrophism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

1 posted on 01/29/2009 1:33:08 AM PST by Straight Vermonter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter
IPCC “violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting”

I figured the IPCC was bad, but I didn't know it was THAT BAD!

2 posted on 01/29/2009 1:45:58 AM PST by Need4Truth (...the borrower is servant to the lender. Prov. 22:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter; All

This is very interesting, for me.

On our Canadian sister site, a member who is connected with meteorology and who has been fighting this climate change stuff for nearly 20 years ( and getting a lot of grief for it ) has mentioned that in professional circles there is a lot of dissent, growing stronger every day, to the whole “man-made global warming” meme. Or “climate change,” whatever the shibboleth de jour is...

He says it is flying below the radar of the press- because they are firmly on one side, only— but that it is about to break out, big time, into the public sphere.

Stay tuned, it is going to get “interesting...”


3 posted on 01/29/2009 1:52:13 AM PST by backhoe (All across America, the Lights are going out...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backhoe

It can’t happen soon enough.

The amount of Kool-Aide slurping on this issue is incredible.


4 posted on 01/29/2009 2:05:30 AM PST by FreedomPoster (Obama: Carter's only chance to avoid going down in history as the worst U.S. president ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: backhoe

The sooner the better. Even with all the economic upheaval, Australia is still at risk of being lumbered with and emission trading scheme.


5 posted on 01/29/2009 2:19:09 AM PST by Nipfan (The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it - H L Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Need4Truth
IPCC “violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting”

I figured the IPCC was bad, but I didn't know it was THAT BAD!

72 of 139!

6 posted on 01/29/2009 2:20:14 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter
As if facts matter.
From Obama to Pelosi to Hansen, the Church of Man Made Climate Change allows no dissent.
7 posted on 01/29/2009 2:22:25 AM PST by IrishCatholic (No local communist or socialist party chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter; IrishCatholic; Normandy; According2RecentPollsAirIsGood; Fiddlstix; ...
 




Beam me to Planet Gore !

8 posted on 01/29/2009 3:18:46 AM PST by steelyourfaith (ObamaNation: Tax cheat sworn in as Treasury Secretary --- you can't make this stuff up !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster

More than 20 years ago I was acquainted with a grad student who was also employed by Boston University in its climatology department. He guffawed about “global warming” and said it was fundamentally a big scam to get research grants.


9 posted on 01/29/2009 3:25:38 AM PST by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter; OKSooner; honolulugal; Killing Time; Beowulf; Mr. Peabody; RW_Whacko; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

FReepmail me to get on or off

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Climate Research News

Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown

GREENIE WATCH

Ping me if you find one I've missed.


[insert Homer Simpson here]
10 posted on 01/29/2009 3:39:20 AM PST by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: angkor

“it was fundamentally a big scam to get research grants.”

That has been my contention from the beginning.
There is no grant money for any subject that says
everything is normal, but come up with a contrarian
view, then the money flows like honey.

After that, the politicians grab on to it as a way to tax and control.
Soon it becomes the mother of all snowballing scams,
making even a moron like Albert Goreon an billionaire.


11 posted on 01/29/2009 3:41:01 AM PST by AlexW (Now in the Philippines . Happy not to be back in the USA for now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter
In other news, headline AP:

Deadly Storm Coats Nation With Ice, Snow

(Jan. 28) - Well over a million people shivered in ice-bound homes across the country Wednesday, waiting for warmer weather and for utility crews to restring power lines brought down by a storm that killed 23 as it took a snowy, icy journey from the Southern Plains to the East Coast. But with temperatures plunging, utility officials warned that it could be mid-February before electricity is restored to some of the hardest-hit places. The worst of the power failures were in Kentucky, Arkansas and Ohio.

It is truly amazing how these Gorons continue to stick to this "Globull Warming" nonsense. These people are certifiably nuts.....

12 posted on 01/29/2009 3:45:23 AM PST by Thermalseeker (Government is not the solution to the problem. Government IS the problem - Ronald Wilson Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thermalseeker

My mother and my in-laws are without power due to that event. No fun, and it is not supposed to get above freezing until Sunday.


13 posted on 01/29/2009 3:57:01 AM PST by FreedomPoster (Obama: Carter's only chance to avoid going down in history as the worst U.S. president ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Thermalseeker

And just a handful of weeks ago, nearly the entire state of New Hampshire and vast swaths of Massachusetts were without power in the wake of another massive ice storm.


14 posted on 01/29/2009 4:12:27 AM PST by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter

Can anyone explain what factors have conspired to produce this outbreak of refreshing rationality after twenty years of propaganda drumbeat about global warming?

Prediction - Al Gore will take this to court and demand a re-count!


15 posted on 01/29/2009 4:18:20 AM PST by Senator John Blutarski (The progress of government: republic, democracy, technocracy, bureaucracy, plutocracy, kleptocracy,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Computer modeling was used to create scenarios (i.e., stories) to represent the scientists’ opinions about what might happen. The models were not intended as forecasting models (Trenberth 2007) and they have not been validated for that purpose. Since the publication of our paper, no one has provided evidence to refute our claim that there are no scientific forecasts to support global warming.
All those pretty colors and swirling figures are about as useful as an Xbox 360 game and not nearly as entertaining.
16 posted on 01/29/2009 4:22:28 AM PST by carumba (The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made. Groucho)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Senator John Blutarski
Can anyone explain what factors have conspired to produce this outbreak of refreshing rationality after twenty years of propaganda drumbeat about global warming?

Retirement

17 posted on 01/29/2009 4:28:35 AM PST by EVO X
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Senator John Blutarski

After listening to the oGre’s meeting on Capitol Hill yesterday, I can say that we’re totally screwed. Everyone there kissed his butt, and treated him as a climatology god. Too many people are either brainwashed or see a personal advantage about this issue. We’re gonna get screwed!


18 posted on 01/29/2009 4:38:06 AM PST by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ("Don't touch that thing! I'm a doctor, and I won't touch that thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter

GW is a pseudoscientific belief system, belongs on this list

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_science

with phrenology, flat earth and crystal healing.


19 posted on 01/29/2009 4:42:54 AM PST by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast (That's American Revolution II, overdue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra
We’re gonna get screwed!

Sooner or later Algore is going to have to stand up and defend his climatological "theology". When he can't (and he most certainly can't defend it) anyone who is associated with him is going to be branded a loon, particularly if the current cooling trend continues...

20 posted on 01/29/2009 4:43:51 AM PST by Thermalseeker (Government is not the solution to the problem. Government IS the problem - Ronald Wilson Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson