2011-06-07 06:14:33Experts Find That IPCC Climate Models Are Basically Worthless -- Rebuttal Needed???
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
99.95.221.238

A climate denier drone just posted a a link to a posting on a denier blog, "C3 Headline".

http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/06/newest-peer-reviewed-study-experts-find-that-ipcc-climate-models-are-basically-worthless.html

Here's the gist of the post:  

While presenting climate models' forecasts as gospel, there is ample real world evidence that the models are terrible at climate predictions, be they global temperature predictions or other climate condition forecasts (eg., sea-level, snow-pack predictions).

A new study by experts confirms what the majority of scientists are now reluctantly admitting: the IPCC climate models are worthless when used for future climate prognostications.

"“Forecasting researchers, with few exceptions, have ignored the current major forecasting controversy: global warming and the role of climate modelling in resolving this challenging topic. In this paper, we take a forecaster’s perspective in reviewing established principles for validating the atmospheric-ocean general circulation models (AOGCMs) used in most climate forecasting, and in particular by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)...The omissions in Chapter 10 of the IPCC report and most of the subsequent research lie in the lack of evidence that the models actually produce good forecasts. There is ample testimony in the forecasting literature of the difficulties of forecasting beyond the range of data on which a model is constructed...“…the structural weaknesses in the GCM identified here suggest that a reliance on the policy implications from the general circulation models, and in particular the primary emphasis on controlling global CO2 emissions, is misguided...“The scientific community of global climate modellers has surely taken unnecessary risks in raising the stakes so high when depending on forecasts and models that have many weaknesses.”" [Robert Fildes, Nikolaos Kourentzesa 2011: International Journal of Forecasting]

 

2011-06-07 06:22:12
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

So...a model capable of reproducing the last 50 million years of Earth's climate history won't be considered accurate until it has correctly predicted the NEXT 50 million years of climate history?

Bwahahahahahaha!!!!!!

2011-06-07 06:37:15
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Gotta love deniers.

"A new study by experts confirms what the majority of scientists are now reluctantly admitting: the IPCC climate models are worthless when used for future climate prognostications."

Not one part of that sentence was true.

Anyway, we have a rebuttal for this sort of thing in "Models are unreliable".

2011-06-07 07:07:26
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.97

Here my reply to Charlie A pointing to this paper.

2011-06-07 07:40:39
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

You have to love how they gloss over the email to Pielke from the lead author...

"In the paper, “Validation and forecasting accuracy in models of climate change, now published in the International Journal of Forecasting, we (Fildes and Kourentzes) cast doubt on the effectiveness of climate models when used in 10 year ahead forecasting.  In fact, the Hadley Centre model analysed could be improved by following recommendations long established from forecasting research. Does this research cast doubt on global warming? – no. But it does cast doubt on the methods being used by climate modellers to produce accurate forecasts and the levels of accuracy that are claimed." [added emphasis]

Jeez.  Talk about selective hearing (reading).

2011-06-07 09:01:37About the authors, from the publication page
Sphaerica

Bob@Lacatena...
76.28.5.93

Robert Fildes is Distinguished Professor of Management Science in the School of Management, Lancaster University and Director of the Lancaster Centre for Forecasting. He was co-founder in 1981 of the Journal of Forecasting and in l985 of the International Journal of Forecasting. For ten years from l988 he was Editor-in-Chief of the IJF. He was president of the International Instititute of Forecasters between 2000 and 2004. His current research interests are concerned with the comparative evaluation of different forecasting methods, the implementation of improved forecasting procedures in organizations and the design of forecasting systems. His interest in climate modelling arose from the realization that the forecasting community has made little contribution to the important debate about global warming.

Nikolaos Kourentzes is a post-doctoral research assistant in Management Science at Lancaster University Management School. He received his Ptychion degree from Athens University of Economics and Business (AUEB), an M.Sc. in Management Science and a Ph.D. from Lancaster University Management School. His research focus is on time series prediction, with a particular emphasis on neural networks, input variable selection and high frequency data.

So... the deniers are now throwing a Professor of Management Science and his research assistant in to clean up what climate scientists have mucked up.

I wish I could see this study, but I wouldn't pay $32 to use it for toilet paper, let alone read it.

2011-06-07 09:42:38Keep in mind...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
99.95.221.238

that the primary objective of the Clinmate Denial Spin Machine is to sow the seeds of doubt and confusion. Whether or not a particular paper is a block of Swiss Cheese makes no matter. If they can spin it to support their cause, they will do so. 

2011-06-07 10:07:13Here's an example of how the paper is being used in the climate denial echo chamber.
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
99.95.221.238

"So again, here we have someone who adamantly believes in global climate change (and warming), but simply takes issue with the calculation and presentation of its myriad details." Were did you obtain the information that leads you to believe one of the paper's Authors believes in AGW? By the way, forecasting is like gospel to the warmists, they use this information as evidence to influence policy makers...so yes this paper pretty much confirms what skeptics have been saying...IPCC climate models are worthless when used for future climate prognostications."

The above was posted erlier today on the comment thread to the NPR article,"Taking Stock of Climate-Change Skeptics." 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/06/03/136884396/taking-stock-of-climate-change-skeptics  

 

2011-06-07 18:11:08sneaky trick
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

 

concentrating on decadal predictions when centenial plus scales are the ones that are policy-relevant (they even acknowledge the IPCC "focus on the longer term - gee I wonder why?")

 

I am tempted to send an email to the editor pointing out that this paper is likely to damage the reputation of his journal.  If there isn't a comment submitted for this paper, there should be.

2011-06-07 18:11:16
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
192.84.150.209

I do not consider this as a skeptic paper and the authors themselves explicitly underline the consistency of the projected warming.
It is a technical paper on statistical forecast as opposed to the physics based projection of the GCMs. It focus on the medium term forecast (<10 years) and finds that assimilation of data would improve the GCM projections. The only skeptic sentence is in the last paragraph:
"The scientific community of global climate modellers has surely taken unnecessary risks in raising the stakes so high when depending on forecasts and models that have many weaknesses."
The reason for this claim is, essentially, that they consider 10 years as the policy relevant time. Though, I still think that they ovestated the problem.

Skeptics jumped on this train just because they read what they want to read, not because they understood what the paper actually says.

I have the paper, anyone interested drop me an email.

2011-06-07 18:22:18
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

Riccardo, I am reading the paper at the moment, and IMHO it is certainly a skeptic paper, there is lots of unfair rhetorical digs at the climate modellers that ought not to be in a scientific paper, e.g. footnote on page 4, "the term 'projection' being used in an attempt to avoid the issue of accuracy", that is 100% pure B.S.  The term is used to highlight the fact that the output of the model is conditional on the emissions scenario (and the assumptions of the model - but that is equally true of the forecasters as wll).

2011-06-07 22:43:22
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.166

Dikran

I commented again in the blog, I think there's value in making discussions in public. It helps to not have the discussion hijacked by skeptics and it makes readers think a bit more in depth.

2011-06-07 23:33:07
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

Riccardo, I agree and have replied there.

 

There is a funny bit at the bottom of the second column of page 11, where they say the IPCC say errors should be considered insignificant of they are smaller than the associated uncertainties (or words to that effect).  That pretty much is the definition of statistical significance!

2011-06-07 23:33:45Riccardo
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
99.95.221.238

Please forward the paper to me: john.hartz@hotmail.com  Thanks.

In your prior note, you spoke of commenting on the blog. Would this be the C3 Headline blog?

2011-06-07 23:45:31
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

See here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=762&p=3#53627

2011-06-08 00:25:06
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
99.95.221.238

"Diffenbaugh and Scherer analyzed more than 50 climate model experiment and found that large areas of Earth could experience a permanent increase in seasonal temperatures within only 60 years. Their analysis included computer simulations of the 21st century when global greenhouse gas concentrations are expected to increase, and simulations of the 20th century that accurately “predicted” the Earth’s climate during the last 50 years."

Source: "Stanford Climate Scientists Forecast Hotter Years Ahead", Planetsave (http://planetsave.com/2011/06/07/stanford-climate-scientists-forecast-hotter-years-ahead/)