No Scientific Forecasts to Support Global Warming

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

The picture of the clouds and sea framing a small island, was taken off the coast of Sulawesi, Indonesia, by Eric Ness in 2007.

,

116 Responses to No Scientific Forecasts to Support Global Warming

  1. janama January 28, 2009 at 9:24 pm #

    Sanity has prevailed, yet again.

  2. Luke January 28, 2009 at 9:27 pm #

    So now a marketer has joined an administrator in beating up on AGW. Guess it’s a change from geologists.

  3. RW January 28, 2009 at 9:36 pm #

    “Computer modeling was used to create scenarios (i.e., stories) to represent the scientists’ opinions about what might happen.” – ha, that’s a good one. Clearly you don’t understand the difference between a computer model (which is a simulation of the climate system encoding either exactly or through reasonable approximations the physics of the system) and a scenario (an assumption about how forcings will change in the future, which is then fed into the model).

    Scenarios could be derived from opinions – so if you think the scenarios are unreasonable, make your own. Models are not opinions, they are physics. But as we see here time and time again, you simply don’t believe in physics.

  4. sod January 28, 2009 at 10:23 pm #

    Jennifer with a new attempt to mislead her readers.

    the uninformed will get the following impression from this article:

    IPCC scientists are involved in forecasting. (FALSE 1) this neutral institution (FALSE 2) by leading authors (FALSE 3) on the well established field of forecasting (FALSE 4) came to clear conclusion (FALSE 5) , that they are wrong.

  5. Jennifer January 28, 2009 at 10:26 pm #

    Sod,

    You make a good point.

    Now what are IPCC scientists involved in?

  6. BillT January 28, 2009 at 10:38 pm #

    Models are not opinions, they are physics.

    The data used to set the parameters for the modeling was based on an exaggerated level of CO2 rise and took no account of the earth’s rotation, Coriolis effect, or adiabatic circulation. A model is only a simulation based on extrapolations from the data — and you can construct a model which will allow you to draw any conclusion you desire.

    Which is exactly what they did.

  7. sod January 28, 2009 at 10:40 pm #

    1) most climate scientist would tell you, that they are NOT forecasting things.

    2) these guys are inactivists. they want to prevent government action, and chose a different way to achieve it. they are using climate change as a topic, to get publicity.
    i d be very curious, to read some stuff of these “leading forecast experts” on the financial collapse, that we experienced recently..
    then ask yourself: what does their failure to apply their “principals” to their own scientific field (economics), tell you about their ability to “forecast” other stuff…

    4) the field is on the fringes. most people will never have heard of these theories.

    3) that makes them not the “leading authors” in a not well established field, but rather the ONLY ones…

    5. all the points they brought up above are complete nonsense and demonstrate their lack of understanding.

    ————————-

    here is their approach:

    a) they oppose government action.

    b) they require government action to be based on “sound forecasting”.

    c) they raise the bar for “sound forecasting” by requiring it to fulfill 100s of “forecasting principles”

    d) by finding most forecast in contradiction to some of their “forecasting principles, they conclude that they are not a basis for government action.

    i would love to have a discussion with these fellows, applying their “principles” to the terrorism subject…..

    (read this for a start:

    http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Conflicts/PDF%20files/Terror_prediction.pdf)

  8. sod January 28, 2009 at 10:48 pm #

    Sod,

    You make a good point.

    Now what are IPCC scientists involved in?

    it shouldn t be too difficult to find out, what the scientists say about their own work.
    i m just guessing, but the IPCC reports might be a good starting point for some research.

    ——————

    for this topic on the other hand, it is pretty irrelevant.

    i could make the claim, that Jennifer Marohasy is running a satirical blog, but that i find you to be ignoring 7 of the 19 important principles of satire.
    it wouldn t matter all too much, what you re really doing. your strong feeling that you re NOT doing waht i claim, would give you a sound basis to dismiss it..

  9. Luke January 28, 2009 at 10:53 pm #

    Indeed Sod.

    Of course they’re not forecasting in the strict sense – how can they ? – what humanity does about CO2 emissions (or not) is a key variable and subject to various scenarios of growth.

    What they could do which would be useful is evaluate hindcasts of existing climate. However, this is what existing climate modellers already do. Really the lack of serious discussion on model validation underlines the high probability that the authors don’t even know what they are on about. Who says marketing forecasting principles apply to climate – these self-appointed experts?

    The other ruse we’ll see here soon is that the climate models are a computer game or virtual reality and not an expression of known physics. Hellva computer game !

  10. eco-EconDude January 29, 2009 at 12:15 am #

    Well, I’m not a forecasting expert, but it’s not too hard to determine that climate models’ forecasts (predictions) are not very good – kind of like the financial models that predicted housing prices will go up forever. Here’s a site to visually get a sense of climate models’ forecasting “success.”

    http://www.c3headlines.com/chartsimages.html

    Also, there was a great presentation at TED from a Nobel Laureate who just eviscerates climate scientists and their CO2-climate models. Go to the 20 minute point to see the action start. Great stuff.

  11. mAineAc January 29, 2009 at 2:34 am #

    RW: The argument used was that the modeling that was used was not reproducible by other scientists. Thus they are not able to be scientifically proved or disproved. Now if they used open standards to do their forecasting then it can be reproduced and it can be either proved or disproved. The software they use for this is proprietary and can be used to prove what you want to see and nothing else.

  12. tarpon January 29, 2009 at 2:38 am #

    I say we can easily solve this. Get all the climate computer models together. Set the initial conditions for 1 AD and run them to predict the climate for the next 2000 years. Come back when it matches the facts as measured.

    What we know about the climate, you could write a book – What we don’t know would fill a library.

    Common, start your computer models, lets see the predictions.

  13. gavin January 29, 2009 at 4:50 am #

    Jen; the photo by Eric Ness in 2007 proves the sea is rsing, not falling ..

    I like it!

  14. RW January 29, 2009 at 6:03 am #

    mAineAc: no, that wasn’t the argument, it’s just one that you’ve come up with because the original one was beyond ridiculous. Yours, too, is stupid. Proprietary? Either you are woefully ignorant, or simply a liar. Or maybe you think This web page, containing source code and extensive documentation, somehow fits in with your definition of proprietary.

    tarpon: yes, hindcasting is extremely common. That you think your idea is somehow new suggests unfamiliarity with the large body of literature on this. And how exactly do you know how much we don’t know?

  15. Mike January 29, 2009 at 7:28 am #

    Not being to into the science stuff myself, I have to rely on the guys who present themselves as at experts at sites like this one to understand what’s going on.

    OK, I think I’m starting to get it. I was under the impression Science people at the IPCC and elsewhere had made these forecasts of which there was some sort of scientific certainty in predictions there was a coming climate crisis of warming.

    The experts here now tell me I no longer have believe that. Whew…thanks guys. I was worried. I thought we actually had some sort of reason to believe a warming catastrophe was coming, but no…

    The expert Sod tells us, the IPCC was not involved in forecasting.

    The expert RW says there were no actual predictions, however there was something he calls scenarios. These he says, are nothing more than “assumptions” based on opinions drawn from stuff they saw happening in their math. So if I understand you guys correctly it’s kind of like astrology right, where you see stuff happening in the sky, planetary movements and such, then you notice what kinds of things happen under those movements and assume the same sorts of things you thought you saw there will happen again in the future, right?

    I was never really worried too much by astrological warnings myself, so I guess I’ll take a similar view of skepticism with this global warming is a crisis thing now too. Thanks again.

  16. gavin January 29, 2009 at 8:21 am #

    Mike; just keep your eye on the sea

  17. RW January 29, 2009 at 8:22 am #

    Mike – yes, it’s quite clear that you’re “not too much into the science stuff”. Best not even to comment in future, if you want to avoid looking like a complete moron.

  18. Mike January 29, 2009 at 9:17 am #

    @ RW “Mike – yes, it’s quite clear that you’re “not too much into the science stuff”. Best not even to comment in future, if you want to avoid looking like a complete moron.”

    —————————–

    Oh goody name-calling. I didn’t know that was the way it was done here. Very well then, when in Rome, I guess, you puffed up, entrail reading, pseudo-scientific cretin. How am I doing you indoctrinated, faith-driven, drivel-spouting, alarmist clown. Can I be in the gang?

  19. cohenite January 29, 2009 at 9:52 am #

    IPCC modelling and predictions have been looked at by Koutsoyiannis and Douglass and Christy but my favourite analysis of the predictive ability of the models is this;

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm

    Speaking of predictions, the Steig paper is still getting sorted; luke and others have linked to the RC site for a snarky defence of it; there Steig rather testily notes that 1957 was used as the starting point for temp trends because that’s when most of the actual stations were set up; I don’t get this;

    http://amrc.ssec.wisc.edu/databook/fieldreports/fldrep03.doc

    Anyone care to explain this apparent contradiction.

  20. Sparkyq January 29, 2009 at 10:24 am #

    How DARE anyone question the holy gospel of climate change. The gods have given us this message and we must convert all nonbelievers. There are terrible consequences for those who dare blaspheme or question the TRUTH. Their words shall be shredded and mutilated, they will be pillioried in the press, their names will be as mud. The seas are rising and the atmosphere warms to burn all those would not believe.
    Destroy the evil coal burning power stations! Derail the coal bearing trains! Annihilate those iniquitous service stations feeding the greedy stomachs of the internal conbustion engine. Let the wind blow gently through the glittering rotors of lofty wind turbines and the sun endlessly smile on neverending arrays of glorious solar panels.

  21. Marcus January 29, 2009 at 10:38 am #

    Good on you Mike!

  22. Ian Mott January 29, 2009 at 10:56 am #

    Once again, our reasonable readers will be appalled at the way Sod, Luke and the rest of the climate trolls have sought to sidestep serious discussion on a critical issue. And the device of associating the scientific discipline of forecasting with the general publics failure to foresee the current financial crisis is just a standard element of the climate spiv’s stock in trade.

    If you guys had not spent the past few years with your heads up Hansen and Karoly’s backsides you would know that numerous forecasters have been warning of the potential for serious economic correction for some considerable time. But the punters just kept on consuming, (until there was almost no tomorrow).

    There is no doubting that forecasting is a well established scientific discipline with decades of testing, a vast body of expertise, and very clear set of principles that distinguish between the intelligent estimates of informed practitioners and the vague and lurid pronunciamentos of assorted eco-shamans with chook guts, rectal thermometers and Global Climate Muddles.

    The record shows that you clowns did not make one comment on the specific attributes of the eight key problems with IPCC Vodoo. Nor was there any attempt at ascertaining what the 72 errors of forecasting principle might be, let alone provide any justification for these departures.

    It is clear that you simply do not want to know because these clearly established principles of best practice forecasting are the framework upon which questions of gross IPCC negligence, and CSIRO negligence, and Minister Wong’s negligent discharge of her legal obligations, will be informed.

    Indeed, the “Bimbo for Climate Change” has not even bothered to ensure that Garnaut et al provided a standard probability tree that weighted the full range of possible outcomes, from temperature decline, through no change, to the various warming “scarenarios”. They have not used this most fundamental of decision tools because all the outcomes in a probability analysis can only add up to a total probability of 1.0 (100%). Yet, the climate scum have willfully allowed the public to believe that any of a number of extreme extrapolations each had degrees of certainty in the order of 0.9 or more.

    So lets spell this out for the laggards.

    NONE OF THE IPCC “PEER REVIEW” PROCESSES, NOR ANY OF THE CSIRO PROCESSES, NOR ANY OF THE MINISTERIAL PROCESSES, THAT INVOLVE SOME SORT OF ATTEMPT TO INFORM ON LIKELY FUTURE OUTCOMES (FORECASTS) HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY A PERSON WITH A KNOWLEDGE OF THE FORECASTING SCIENCE.

    And they did it in the name of future generations.

    That ticking sound you can hear, folks, is the meter on the class action by everyone who will suffer foreseeable detriment as a result of this fundamental breach of duty of care. And it will be your kid’s school, and your mother’s medical care, that will be sacrificed to pay for it.

  23. wes george January 29, 2009 at 11:08 am #

    The fundamental problem with building an isolated model of the climate in a computer is that no sooner than the researcher presses the run button, the model will begin to deviate from the real world climate outside the lab window.

    This would be true even if the model was an almost absolutely perfect mathematical abstraction of the real climate, which they most certainly are not.

    Computer models work best when designed to study very specific inputs to limited systems to learn more about the mechanics of said system. Research should be contained to an academic outcome. If allowed to escape from the lab, computer scenarios quickly decompose into “forecasts” and are subject to whatever sort of politics one wishes to project upon them.

    Now that GCM results have escaped from the lab and into parliament, the socio-political feedback, the “precautionary principle” has become as much a parameter in scenario development as the empirical inputs.

    That’s the reality in the virtual world of computer modelling. The complex fractal nature of reality depends on which strange attractor you favour for expression. It’s the ultimate post-modern narrative. There is no truth, just nonlinear scenarios elegantly unfolding in total isolation from reality…

    The down side is that your favourite scenario is no more authoritative than any other. Therefore, Luke, et al, who depend on GCMs to make points about the nature of the climate might as well be debating the nature of shadows cast by firelight upon a cave’s wall in 10,000 bc.

    To discriminate one scenario over another as the basis for real world socio-economic engineering policy simply means that you have projected your political values upon one scenario above all others and have decided to alter physical reality to conform with your “belief” in that specific narrative. That’s fine. Humanity has been doing as much since the paleolithic. As long as you understand that is what you are doing and as long as that is communicated to the public.

  24. John F. Pittman January 29, 2009 at 11:13 am #

    Ian, you bring out a good point, thanks. I kept looking and reading the IPCC scenarios and kept thinking something is not right. Where is the risk matrix? The reason it is not laid out as typical for a proper risk heriarchy is your point. The desire to rank different warming scenarios at 90% each, without normalizing to 1. No wonder they have been able to sell that chapter on negative properties of global warming and not account for benefits. They were not normalized, nor are the benfits normalized with the detriments to obtain a quality cost/benefit ratio.

  25. Ian Mott January 29, 2009 at 12:00 pm #

    Yes, John Pittman. If I were doing a reference check on a young corporate thruster with an MBA, and it was revealed that the dude presented the CEO with a business plan that did not include a standard risk matrix, his resume would be immediately filed with the accounts payable clerks.

    And the continued absence of this sort of basic management analytical tool is a clear indication of the calibre of, Bimbo for Climate Change, Wong’s Senior Executive team. These people lack the intellectual traction to drive a bus, let alone a nation into an uncertain future.

  26. NT January 29, 2009 at 12:14 pm #

    Cohenite
    They use more than the AWS’s (automatic weather stations). The list you provide is only AWS (they use 65) – they use 42 occupied weather stations, which I assume have operated form 1957.

    It’s mentioned at the end of the paper.

    http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/SteigetalNature09.pdf

  27. Malcolm Hill January 29, 2009 at 12:27 pm #

    Ian Mott

    Have a look at this

    http://www.climatechange.gov.au/about/pubs/dcc-contractslisting-july07-june08.pdf

    The list of people/organisations who have their hands in the till, getting large sums of money is amazing. Rudd is throwing money around like a drunken sailor, on shore leave.

    The CSIRO in total is receiving an enormous amount as both a Contractor and as an Grant recipient. In that case they get hidden from view, by putting it through the Corporate Finance Group, not the operational group doing the work.

    So I think they are already aware that they may be sued in the future,as you have intimated.

    The real oddity is the Institution of Engineers getting a few $mill to rewrite the rain/ fall and runoff books.

    Of course the IEA was big backer of the orthodoxy -so now we know why.

    Why on earth would you give money and a contract to a professional association beats me.

    What that says is that there is none in Australia who could be trusted or capable of producing some look up tables on rainfall and runoff. Crap.Our local high school kids could do it.

    I guess the next step is the AMA being paid to run the hospitals.

    God helps us.

  28. DR January 29, 2009 at 1:10 pm #

    For those interested in what really goes on in climate models, I defer you to the following at RPS blog where he explains how ReinventedClimate once again obfuscates the issue. This may not be of concern to RC’s mindless zombies, but for those who care:
    http://climatesci.org/2008/11/28/real-climate-misunderstanding-of-climate-models/

    pt II
    http://climatesci.org/2009/01/20/comments-on-real-climates-post-faq-on-climate-models-part-ii/

    A relevant quote for RW who apparently thinks climate models enshrine all the physics of the universe required for climate prediction:

    “The only basic physics in the models are the pressure gradient force, advection and the acceleration due to gravity. These are the only physics in which there are no tunable coefficients. Climate models are engineering codes and not fundamental physics. If Gavin concludes otherwise, he should provide examples of any parametrization that does not use tunable empirically derived coefficients. Also, he should provide examples of where the “functional form” is reasonably well known. This is true for a few types of processes, such as turbulence very near the surface, and for clear sky long- and short-wave radiative fluxes, but is not true for most other parametrizations.”

    Have a nice day 🙂

  29. T G January 29, 2009 at 1:18 pm #

    No Scientific Forecasts to Support Global Warming

    But what about this one from Penny Wong.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/29/2477433.htm?section=justin

  30. Louis Hissink January 29, 2009 at 1:24 pm #

    DR,

    A more serious issue is the inability of anyone to succesfully model turbulent flow – and that, more or less, describes the physical behaviour of the atmosphere.

    In addition they omit any contribution by electrical forces in the climate system, an unfair criticism to be sure, since the science is nascent at best, but there is a large and growing body of the effects of space weather on the earth’s surface and its effect on systems.

    There is little wonder the GCM’s have difficulty mimicking the real world when the most important force in nature, electricity, it ignored.

    (Cue in Luke and his climate clowns for another ad hom’ of my, so called, fetish for nuttery).

  31. Will Nitschke January 29, 2009 at 1:31 pm #

    I guess the fact that we had one of the coldest winter month’s in 65 years in Sydney escaped Penny Wong’s attention. This quote is interesting:

    “All of this is consistent with climate change, and all of this is consistent with what scientists told us would happen.”

    But I’m not sure how a .2C averaged temperature rise over the next decade constitutes a “what scientists told us would happen” with regards to a heat wave in South East Australia. Which means she is either unusually stupid, or just doing what politicians do, which is manipulate the truth.

  32. janama January 29, 2009 at 1:37 pm #

    NT – here is a listing of all the stations in the antarctic region showing when they were established.

    (( http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPOL%2FPOL45_01%2FS0032247408007663a.pdf&code=823aaa04d39e5a12215d621ee092fd38 ))

  33. Patrick B January 29, 2009 at 1:39 pm #

    Oh dear, looks like the usual suspects are clinging to the outliers again. Any of you clowns (louie, motty, oh and Mike, welcome) notice the world outside your basements retreats? New POTUS and a lot of agressive talk about tackling climate change, hello boys!
    I fear for the future of this blog, it looks like it’s withering in a very inhospitable climate.
    And did anyone notice that Bjorn what his name categorically attributed global warming to human activity? It was on this blog yesterday I think. Doesn’t anyone think its a bit loopy to publish todays comment in the light of yesterdays, I mean talk about split personalities …

  34. NT January 29, 2009 at 1:58 pm #

    Janama, your link failed…
    I can’t answer where the data has come from, I don’t know. I was answering Cohenite’s query about the AWS station dates.

    The list on wikipedia gives many research stations having an estblishment date of 1957, and others prior to that.

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

    The oldest in that list is Orcadas (an Argentinian base) which started in 1904.

  35. J.Hansford. January 29, 2009 at 2:17 pm #

    Sod said………” i d be very curious, to read some stuff of these “leading forecast experts” on the financial collapse, that we experienced recently..”

    Well why read it…. I can show you what a Mr Shiff said two years before the collapse…. And everyone laughed and howled him down…. Sort of like a climate SKEPTIC, if you would like to accept my analogy. : )

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b0a_1232747931

    Very good article Jennifer. Seems that Scientists are starting to take a stand on the issue.

  36. janama January 29, 2009 at 2:19 pm #

    Yes – It appears the link has failed – sorry – fortunately I had downloaded the .pdf file

    here it is

    http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/antarctic_bases.pdf

    as you can see the majority of the bases (130+) were established after 1957.

  37. NT January 29, 2009 at 2:28 pm #

    Janama, I don’t know what point you are making.
    What point are you making?
    The authors start their data in 1957, which looks like the date when there was a sudden increase in the number of stations. It looks like a reasonable start date for their data set.

    I was originally answering a query by Cohenite. He seemed to be implying that there was no data from that time. Quite clearly there was.

  38. NT January 29, 2009 at 2:30 pm #

    Janama

    “For the International Geophysical
    Year (1 July 1957 to 31 December 1958) 54 Antarctic
    stations contributed data during the 1957 winter; 15 were
    on the peri-Antarctic Islands (two of which had also
    been operational in 1932–1933) and 39 on Antarctica.”
    So you see there was a large increase in the number of stations in 1957.
    Are you suggesting that if they’d started their data in some other year they would have got a different result?
    What is the dispute?

  39. Gordon Robertson January 29, 2009 at 2:32 pm #

    Apparently, forecasting is not in the IPCC mandate, rather it’s ‘assessment’.

    http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/05/the_ipcc_mandat.html

    That would make sense since the IPCC claimed in TAR that future climate states cannot be predicted.

    http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/

    Last paragraph in 14.2.2.2:

    “In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential”.

    Cohenite…I need a lawyer. What did that paragraph say? Does it say we ‘should’ recognize…? What does “the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions” mean? Why are they talking like that? They seem to be saying they are not interested in anything other than computer model outputs.

    According to link 1 above:

    The charter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (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.”.

    The IPCC seem to have a mandate to ‘assess’ the risk of human-induced climate change but they seem to have left themselves a few loopholes by not predicting much of anything. Everything to them seems to be a statistic and they talk like politicians.

    Further reading…here’s a site listing “50 articles that seriously question the credibility and integrity of the IPCC’s activities and claims”.

    http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm

    How could that be possible? Here’s this fine, upstanding institution, set up by the UN’s finest environmentalists, and people have the audacity to write 50 articles criticizing them. No wonder the AGW boys are upset.

  40. NT January 29, 2009 at 2:34 pm #

    Janama
    In fact if you look at Fig 4 of your paper, you can see that the number of stations operating in winter of 1957 was the highest… Ever. That, I suppose, doesn’t include Bases that operate solely in the Summer.

  41. janama January 29, 2009 at 2:37 pm #

    NT – I was supporting what you said about starting in 57. I thought, as cohenite said, that 1980 was a more appropriate time as that was when the University of Wisconsin started up a series of AWS but this article shows that there were indeed previously established stations.

    The Steig paper states in it’s intro that there was little data on the inland temps yet this article shows that there were various stations, automatic and occupied inland.

    What I find interesting is that this paper

    http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2008/antarctica.jsp

    by Andrew Monaghan, David Bromwich, and David Schneider, released only last may 2008 showed NO increase in antarctic temps using the same AWS stations. They even share an author in David Schneider.

  42. NT January 29, 2009 at 2:39 pm #

    Gordon you need a mathematician. Non-linearity is a mathematical concept.
    You need to go and learn about Chaos theory.
    It means that individual model runs will always be wrong.

  43. NT January 29, 2009 at 2:41 pm #

    Janama
    I thought the point of Steigs paper was to interpolate more data, so they use the AWS for recent times, then attempt to model the earlier times using the early data and substituting interpolated data at the AWS site… Perhaps I have it wrong. Anyway, they’re still using AWS data when it’s available.

  44. J.Hansford. January 29, 2009 at 2:45 pm #

    I was reading the posts and was about to type something of my own…. Then I read DR’s, Comment…… DR January 29th, 2009 at 1:10 pm

    He pretty much says it all.

    It’s extraordinary that these GCM’s have been afforded so much credibility….. It’s stunning that Climate Science has confounded itself by abandoning the most basic principles of the Scientific method.

    Here is some definitions for the term ” Scientific Method”…

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=GGLR,GGLR:2006-04,GGLR:en&defl=en&q=define:scientific+method&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

  45. NT January 29, 2009 at 2:45 pm #

    Janama,
    You need to read the Steig paper again. It shows very little warming in East Antarctica, if you use the last 35 years (as your link does) I think the Steig paper has East Antarctica cooling too.

  46. NT January 29, 2009 at 2:48 pm #

    Janama,
    Fig 3b of Steig basically shows the same thing as your link
    http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/SteigetalNature09.pdf

    Doesn’t seem to be any disagreement between those authors.

  47. janama January 29, 2009 at 2:55 pm #

    I have to disagree NT – fig3b shows warming in the western plains of the antarctic whereas the paper last year only showed warming in the western peninsular.

  48. Ian Mott January 29, 2009 at 3:05 pm #

    Again, not a gram of substance from Patrick B. And he still doesn’t get it. This blog is a forum, not a centrally controlled manifesto as per “Climate Lord Gore”. And that means Bjorn can post his position and we can all post ours. Get used to it gimp.

    This seriously perverted logic of the plodoscenti that forcasting is a “fringe” activity which can be ignored (ie a consensus of ignorance) is breathtaking. See the National Library at; http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Search/Home?lookfor=forecasting%20theory
    which has 174 texts under the google, “Forecasting theory”

    See 328 listings under “Prediction theory”. http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Search/Home?lookfor=Prediction+theory&type=all&limits=&submit=Find

    And if that isn’t enough then you can check out the 789 listings under “Forecasting analysis”. http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Search/Home?lookfor=Forecasting+analysis&type=all&limits=&submit=Find

    What a sad bunch of “AAA” rated neanderthals these climate cretins have proven themselves to be.

  49. NT January 29, 2009 at 3:08 pm #

    Janama
    You’d have to say there is more agreement than disagreement. There is only one area that is different, the area in western Antarctica – that is west of the mountains. This is could be due to the different methodology of Steig. Both show a cooler East Antarctica.

  50. Gordon Robertson January 29, 2009 at 3:11 pm #

    NT “Gordon you need a mathematician. Non-linearity is a mathematical concept”.

    And I should care, because….???” That wasn’t my quote…it was a quote from the IPCC.

    BTW….you’ve been missing for a while. Off galavanting with another blog? I thought it was mean of you to saddle us with Luke and SJT in your absence, but now SJT seems to be missing. Will it be Luke’s turn soon? 🙂

  51. Gordon Robertson January 29, 2009 at 3:31 pm #

    I forgot to credit Ross McKitrick with my TAR reference (14.2.2.2) but I thought his article was so interesting I’d post it in it’s entirety:

    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/econ-persp.pdf

    For you Aussies, just cross out the references to Canada and substitute Australia. We’re all colonial rejects and no one will notice the difference, except for the quaint accent you Aussies have that we Canadians don’t have. At least, I have never noticed we have an accent.

    For those who don’t recognize the name, McKitrick is one M of the famous M&M team that destroyed Michael Mann’s hockey stick. McKitrick talks about that in the article, and although he’s an economist, he does a presentable explanation of some basics physics principles.

    I don’t agree completely with his greenhouse explanation, prefering that of G&T. McKitrick claims heat transport in the atmosphere is half radiation and have fluid dynamics (convection) and that a real greenhouse traps radiative energy. Not so, claimed Gerlich of G&T, a physicist, The latter describes an experiment he did using real glass and rock salt, proving radiation has no effect in greenhouse heating. It’s purely convection. If you open up the door in a greenhouse, or car parked in the Sun, they cool down. It’s lack of circulation that warms a greenhouse, and G&T claim the atmosphere is warmed more by convection than radiative transfer. Funny enough, real climate scientists like Lindzen and Spencer seem to agree.

  52. DMS January 29, 2009 at 3:31 pm #

    Excuse the interuption but it doesn’t really matter what we all decide here.
    Senator Wong has drunk the Kool-Aid and uses the weather to ask others to join her and claims scientists (i.e. modellers) support her.

    from “our ABC” earlier this afternoon
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/29/2477433.htm

    “Heatwave a sign of Climate Change: Wong”

    “All of this is consistent with climate change, and all of this is consistent with what scientists told us would happen.”

    Not surprisingly… no comments allowed on this story.

  53. janama January 29, 2009 at 3:32 pm #

    NT said : You’d have to say there is more agreement than disagreement. There is only one area that is different, the area in western Antarctica –

    I’m sorry but they are entirely different. The May paper shows that the Antarctic is cooling apart from a small section on the end of the western peninsular.

    The Steig shows half of Antarctica warming! just the outcome they wanted so they could say Antarctica is warming. Mann said as much cos he mannipulated the data.

  54. DMS January 29, 2009 at 3:36 pm #

    Apologies – I did read teh preceding comments but missed the same link submitted by me being logged at 1.18 by TG and commented by Will Nitschke.

    Good point Mr Nitschke. I thought the same thing when Mike Rann attributed the recent heat wave to climate change. Not much point shouting at the radio though so I just grumbled my way off to work.

  55. Gordon Robertson January 29, 2009 at 3:37 pm #

    Jennifer…why is it when you insert a smiley ( here –> 🙂 ) it shows up elsewhere? I inserted a smiley in my retort to NT, to show there was no venom in what I was saying, and the smiley ended up at the top of the next post, which was mine too. Are the smileys programmed to follow the skeptics, or is it just my browser?

  56. janama January 29, 2009 at 3:42 pm #

    Yeah – it consfuses me also Gordon. May I make a simple request that if the programming is to be changed that they remove the “Show ALL” option, it’s so frustrating, it’s an old hangover from dialup days.

  57. Gordon Robertson January 29, 2009 at 3:44 pm #

    DMS re Wong ““All of this is consistent with climate change, and all of this is consistent with what scientists told us would happen.”

    The only source I’m aware of concerning statements about ‘consistency with climate change’ is realclimate. I do believe that’s the mantra of Gavin Schmidt. Now we know where Penny gets her info on climate change.

  58. sod January 29, 2009 at 3:48 pm #

    This seriously perverted logic of the plodoscenti that forcasting is a “fringe” activity which can be ignored (ie a consensus of ignorance) is breathtaking. See the National Library at; http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Search/Home?lookfor=forecasting%20theory
    which has 174 texts under the google, “Forecasting theory”

    the library also has 288 text on “creation theory”.

    http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Search/Home?lookfor=creation+theory&type=all&limits=&submit=Find

  59. sod January 29, 2009 at 4:00 pm #

    The record shows that you clowns did not make one comment on the specific attributes of the eight key problems with IPCC Vodoo. Nor was there any attempt at ascertaining what the 72 errors of forecasting principle might be, let alone provide any justification for these departures.

    It is clear that you simply do not want to know because these clearly established principles of best practice forecasting are the framework upon which questions of gross IPCC negligence, and CSIRO negligence, and Minister Wong’s negligent discharge of her legal obligations, will be informed.

    again, this is NOT a clearly established methodology!
    “forecasting” is just another attempt by inactivists, to keep government from taking ANY action.

    just take a look at the principles:

    http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/standardshort.pdf

    NONE OF THE IPCC “PEER REVIEW” PROCESSES, NOR ANY OF THE CSIRO PROCESSES, NOR ANY OF THE MINISTERIAL PROCESSES, THAT INVOLVE SOME SORT OF ATTEMPT TO INFORM ON LIKELY FUTURE OUTCOMES (FORECASTS) HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY A PERSON WITH A KNOWLEDGE OF THE FORECASTING SCIENCE.

    the only persons with a “knowledge in forecasting science” as used in this article, are Armstrong and his fellow economists!

    this is a code for claiming “i was not asked by the IPCC to comment, that for their work fails!

  60. NT January 29, 2009 at 4:08 pm #

    Janama,
    I don’t know what figures you’re looking at.
    Just check that the dates match. For one paper they were looking at data for the last 35 years (your ref) for the Steig one it’s the last 50, although they show one from about 1980ish… Which would be about 35 years. They are largely the same.

  61. Gordon Robertson January 29, 2009 at 4:16 pm #

    J. Hansford “Here is some definitions for the term ” Scientific Method”…”

    When I was in junior high school, and began the study of science, we were given a 5 point scientific method. It was basically:

    1)lay out an objective (experiment)
    2)lay out a method
    3)list apparatus and materials
    4)collect data (observation)
    5)reach a conclusion

    I had never looked at the scientific method since till I looked it up on Google as you did. I was flabbergasted to see how much it had changed and all the additions to it. The questions I was left with was who could possibly screw up such a simple procedure, and to what end?

    It’s no wonder we are so screwed up today as to the meaning of science and the method of studying it. In the 1960’s, computer modeling was in it’s infancy as computers became more readily available. How has this virtual science taken over the scientific method so suddenly?

    I have seen one explanation that makes sense. In the 1950’s US president Eisenhower started funding scientific research in the Sates. He had reservations about that because he was smart enough to realize what it could lead to. Computer modeling has allowed people to make a good living sitting on their butts instead of getting out in the field to do research. It has also allowed mathematicians and computer programmers to replace physicists at the forefront of scientific research and it has allowed every Tom, Dick and Harry to circumvent the scientific method.

  62. janama January 29, 2009 at 4:28 pm #

    NT – there is a huge difference between this

    http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/stations_2.jpg

    and this

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/antarctic_warming_2009.png

  63. janama January 29, 2009 at 4:30 pm #

    and this even.

    http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/stations_3.jpg

  64. cohenite January 29, 2009 at 5:19 pm #

    Gordon; you mention convection as the main heat agent; this of course is Chilingar’s thesis as well as Miskolczi’s.

    NT and Janama; I presume you both have the supplementary info from the Steig paper; the confusion seems to stem from the fact that the paper intermingles occupied and AWS’s for purposes of “predictor variables” [see Table S2]; the paper infills the gaps in the AWS data using interpolation by the PCA look-a-like, RegEM; they justify this because of the spatial coherence of the landscape; but how can 2 identical covariables [temperature] distinguished by time [57 years vs 20 years or < in the case of the AWSs] be satisfactorily matched? I’ve previously put up the Butler Island data which Steig lists as having the highest trend which seems impossible but here is the data from 2 of the ’57 vintage;

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/South_Pole_temps.jpg

    That is site 1, Amundenson Scot; here is site 15, Vostok;

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Vostok_Temps.jpg

  65. NT January 29, 2009 at 5:21 pm #

    Janama,
    If you read the paper you will see that the fig 3a (the whole continent in orange) is the anomaly for 1957-2007 (I think those dates are right). The one that has the west warmer and the east colder (in Steig 2009) is for 1969-2007. The first image you show, who knows what that is from.
    You need to take more car e and read what each image is supposedly showing.

  66. NT January 29, 2009 at 5:25 pm #

    Cohenite
    Stop pretending you know what you are talking about.
    Just because you, personally, can’t see a trend doesn’t mean it’s not there.

    Why not contact Steig if you don’t understand.
    You lack of understanding doesn’t actually mean there’s a problem.

  67. Sceptical of sceptics January 29, 2009 at 5:55 pm #

    Physical, visible, ecological carbon pollution = ecological desecration = biodiversity extinctions. Think about that. Are Theon’s eyes glued on? Now we are bombarded with yet another red herring from a member of Dad’s Army – a member who’s some 20 years too late. So Hansen should have been gagged says Theon. Since Theon states he was Hansen’s supervisor, where has Theon been since Hansen’s been speaking our publicly?

    Picking up his big fat cheques from NASA of course!

  68. cohenite January 29, 2009 at 8:34 pm #

    NT; the only trend I can see is the increase in your arrogance.

  69. bazza January 29, 2009 at 9:02 pm #

    Forecasting guru story is simply another recycled beat-up about forecasts that are actually based on behaviour and judgement or statistics, mostly time series, ironically. What relevance could it possibly have to mostly mechanistic climate models based mainly on physics. As the guru acknowledges the Principles are based on ‘expert judgement and even speculation’. Indeed, they are a worthy evwen if a bit tedious attempt to put a bit of much needed rigour into Marketing Departments and reduce their reliance on case studies. There is no science of isolated phenomena. Give me a break.

  70. NT January 29, 2009 at 9:03 pm #

    Ok, well apologies for arrogance. It must be very troubling.

    I want you tpo know first up that I am not defending this paper, I don’t actually know if it’s correct. I just see the usual poor analysis of any work on this site and I like to point it out.

    So what does this mean cohenite?

    “but how can 2 identical covariables [temperature] distinguished by time [57 years vs 20 years or < in the case of the AWSs] be satisfactorily matched?”

    How would two variables be satisfactorily matched?

  71. Ian Mott January 29, 2009 at 9:09 pm #

    Sod, thanks for the link to the forecasting principles. Of particular relevance is the attached;

    “2.1 Identify possible outcomes prior to making forecasts.
    Description. Brainstorming about possible outcomes helps in structuring the approach. For example, experts might be asked to brainstorm the possible outcomes from the imposition of an affirmative action plan in a workplace.
    Purpose: To improve accuracy.
    Conditions: Determining possible outcomes is especially important for situations in which the outcomes are not obvious or in which a failure to consider a possible outcome might bias the forecast.
    Strength of evidence: Indirect evidence.
    Source of evidence: Tiegen (1983) shows how the specification of outcomes can affect predictions. For example, as new outcomes are added to a situation, forecasters often provide probabilities that exceed 100 percent. Arkes (2001) summarizes evidence relevant to this issue.”

    This is precisely what the IPCC has done. They have refused to consider any variables that do not involve radiative forcing by anthropogenic gas. For example, variations in cloud cover have a direct impact on heat absorption, especially over oceans which absorb 95% of insolation when cloud free, leaving only 5% for CO2 forcing. This omission biases the IPCC forecasts and has clearly produced a situation where the sum of the existing probabilities exceed 100%.

    Courtesy of the International Institute of Forecasters, certifiers of same in conjunction with John Hopkins University.

    So tell us, Sod, is there an international institute of climate modellers? With a detailed and specific set of best practise guidelines to guide practitioners? Are climate muddlers appropriately certified before unleashing their squalid output onto an unsuspecting public? Do they even understand the distinction between a competent modeller and an incompetent one? And how do the hallowed profession of climate muddlers define their professional duty of care?

    Well, there is none, they have no best practise guidelines, they undergo no certification process, they have no concept of competence or incompetence, and they do not even understand the concept of duty of care, let alone apply one.

    They do, however, make very conspicuous use of disclaimers and waivers on everything they ever publish.

  72. Ian Mott January 29, 2009 at 9:27 pm #

    Interesting data from Vostok, Cohenite. Note how the very modest warming trend in the annual mean is entirely the product of higher winter temperatures. Yes folks, this “warming” is the result of a slight increase in winter temperatures in the range from -70C to -65C.

    Gosh, tie down the ice shelves and build that sea wall, Robin WILL be pleased. Just think what sort of changes +2C of warming will do to it all by year 2109.

    But wait, the f#$%& sun doesn’t even shine down there in winter so how the hell could CO2 forcing be raising the temperature?

  73. cohenite January 29, 2009 at 10:25 pm #

    Ian; it must be the missing sink; the ice stores the insolation and releases it Stefan-Boltzman style in the sunless months so CO2 can do its work 24/7!

    “How would 2 variables be satisfactorily matched?” Well, NT, since the variable is really the same, temperature, distinguished by time a measure of covariance is required; since the paper has assumed no micro-climate effects and a “high spatial coherence” the data nominally has a stationary quality making it suitable for PCA analysis or its equivalents, such as RegEM, which they have used; but this is an error for 2 reasons; firstly some of the occupied sites have no upwards trend as my 2 examples of Vostok and Scott show, and neither do the 4 Australian sites [and neither does MSU]; in itself this means either that those occupied sites which do show upward trends [and I don’t have that data] are defective, or vice-versa; secondly, if there are differences between occupied site results then that must mean that there are micro-climate variations and the assumption of “high spatial coherence” is a false assumption; flowing from this is the conclusion that the data is not stationary and therefore the statistical method used is inappropriate. The results are flawed.

  74. sod January 29, 2009 at 11:47 pm #

    So tell us, Sod, is there an international institute of climate modellers? With a detailed and specific set of best practise guidelines to guide practitioners? Are climate muddlers appropriately certified before unleashing their squalid output onto an unsuspecting public? Do they even understand the distinction between a competent modeller and an incompetent one? And how do the hallowed profession of climate muddlers define their professional duty of care?

    are calling for more government control?

    or did you just not think, about what you wrote?

  75. C3H Editor January 30, 2009 at 3:12 am #

    To eco-Econdude – thanks for mentioning the chart section of our site!

    For those that appreciate the wacky American political scene, we found an image on Flickr that ties past and present politicians with the global warming issue. Enjoy.

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/01/our-democratic-congress-working-hard-on-global-warming-final-solutions.html

    C3H Editor

  76. Jeff January 30, 2009 at 4:04 am #

    sod:

    1) most climate scientist would tell you, that they are NOT forecasting things.

    It is irrelevant what they TELL you. That is opinion, not fact. Fact – model outputs are being used to demand real action – This is forecasting.

    Your whole argument boils down to “I’m right and you’re wrong”. You sound like a petulant child.

  77. Cthulhu January 30, 2009 at 5:56 am #

    Point 7 is the most absurd. Their methodology tells us nothing about climate stability, in fact I don’t see what it does achieve.

    33% of years more than 65 years apart since 1980 are also within 0.5C of each other?

    Wow. There’s only one word for such waffling round the houses to bring out something irrelevant. It’s junk science.

  78. SJT January 30, 2009 at 6:11 am #

    “But wait, the f#$%& sun doesn’t even shine down there in winter so how the hell could CO2 forcing be raising the temperature?”

    It shines there 24×7 in the summer?
    The seas are warming due to CO2?
    The atmosphere is warming in general?

  79. Paddy January 30, 2009 at 6:33 am #

    Dr Henk Tennekes in a guest post at Climate Science Blog wrote:

    “Roger Pielke Sr. has graciously invited me to add my perspective to his discussion with Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate. If this were not such a serious matter, I would have been amused by Gavin’s lack of knowledge of the differences between weather models and climate models. As it stands, I am appalled. Back to graduate school, Gavin!”

    Read the entire post here:
    http://climatesci.org/2009/01/29/real-climate-suffers-from-foggy-perception-by-henk-tennekes/

    All Hasnen-Mann accolytes, stop sliming messengers whose messages refute the AGW hypothesis. Respond to their messages with facts, empirical data, and research that is based upon the scientific method. Oh, there isn’t any. Too bad for you.

  80. sjk January 30, 2009 at 9:37 am #

    Cthulhu is right – point 7 is meaningless.

    According to the formula, runaway average temperature change (either heating or cooling) of 0.0005C per year would fit perfectly as a “stable climate system”.

    After just 2000 years, the change in temperature would 10C. This would be considered a ‘stable climate system’ by the authors. Unless we’re prepared to do severe violence to the word ‘stable’ it looks as though the Green and Armstrong need to go back to the drawing board.

  81. NT January 30, 2009 at 10:06 am #

    Cohenite
    “but this is an error for 2 reasons; firstly some of the occupied sites have no upwards trend as my 2 examples of Vostok and Scott show, and neither do the 4 Australian sites [and neither does MSU]; in itself this means either that those occupied sites which do show upward trends [and I don’t have that data] are defective, or vice-versa; secondly, if there are differences between occupied site results then that must mean that there are micro-climate variations and the assumption of “high spatial coherence” is a false assumption; flowing from this is the conclusion that the data is not stationary and therefore the statistical method used is inappropriate. The results are flawed.”

    So in other words, you looked at the graphs couldn’t see any upward trend, therefore they’re wrong… Good work Cohenite, go to the top of the class.

    I thought waht they were doing was interpolating the automatic sites backward in time, using the occupied sites. They were attempting to extend the coverage by using occupied site data. So it doesn’t matter if two occupied sites show differences.

    Cohenite, that was a very weak rebuttal. You should quantify how they are wrong if you want to be taken seriously.

  82. cohenite January 30, 2009 at 11:36 am #

    NT;RegEM apparently, like PCA, to have any verification value between 2 sets [or more] variables must have a centered mean, the principle component; Steig uses 2 verification periods, 1982-1994.5 and 1994.5-2006 in a study period from 1957-2006; even if we ignore the Monte Carlo method of infilling [but how else could they get an upward trend at Butler island?] there is no standard mean to centre the conclusion at any point/site because there are 2 mean periods; the paper gets 2 bites of the cherry [which in coin-toss terminology means cancellation of the odds] and can choose the preferred result; the correlation of the infill in the period 57-2006, with the unpreferred results discarded, is thus a forgone conclusion.

    Do you have anything meaningful to say about this deception?

  83. NT January 30, 2009 at 12:02 pm #

    Cohenite
    You are calling this a deception?

    You say a lot without actually saying anything Cohenite. You are still playing the lawyer game of attempting to cast doubt.

    “but how else could they get an upward trend at Butler island?”
    What does this matter? Why is Butler Island so important?

    “there is no standard mean to centre the conclusion at any point/site because there are 2 mean periods;”

    Why is this important? Do they at all justify why they use two mean periods?

    “the correlation of the infill in the period 57-2006, with the unpreferred results discarded, is thus a forgone conclusion.”
    What would the result have been if they didn’t do this? Can you quatify what the result would have been?

  84. NT January 30, 2009 at 12:16 pm #

    Cohenite, their claim of spatial coherence was from earlier work:
    4. Schneider, D. P., Steig, E. J. & Comiso, J. Recent climate variability in Antarctica
    from satellite-derived temperature data. J. Clim. 17, 1569–1583 (2004).

    You should read that before dismissing it (though I know you will dismiss it).

    It would seem the use of two mean periods relates to them using two datasets:

    “We use two independent estimates of the spatial covariance of temperature across the Antarctic ice sheet: surface temperature measurements from satellite thermal infrared (TIR)observations8, and up-to-date automatic weather station (AWS) measurements of near-surface air temperature. We use a method9,10 adapted from the regularized expectation maximization algorithm11 (RegEM) for estimating missing data points in climate fields. RegEM
    is an iterative algorithm similar to principal-component analysis, used as a data-adaptive optimization of statistical weights for the weather station data. Unlike simple distance-weighting5,6 or similar7 calculations, application of RegEM takes into account temporal changes in the spatial covariance pattern, which depend on the relative importance of differing influences on Antarctic temperature at a given time. Furthermore, the iterative nature of RegEM allows it to be used with discontinuous time series, permitting us to take full advantage of the data available from occupied weather stations.”

    Did they choose the ‘preferred’ result based on how well it matched the satellite data?

    “Results from our AWS-based reconstruction agree well with those from the TIR data (Fig. 2).”

    You can believe this is some sort of deception if you like. In fact if you so strongly believe it is why don’t you actually write to Nature? It’s pretty small of you to claim deception in such a small forum. Speak up man, don’t be chicken.

  85. cohenite January 30, 2009 at 1:35 pm #

    NT; I can only assume you are being obscurantist; as I said and if you continue reading on from your quote above from the 1st page of the paper, Steig assume a “high spatial coherence” which is necessary for application of RegEM; the significant differences between the sites, both AWS and the occupied, means there is not a spatial coherence; so they have used a statistical method which relies on stationary data [ie spatially coherent] to analyse data which is patently not spatially coherent to produce a trend which is uniform [spatially coherent]; that is, an upward trend over the whole of the Antarctic.

    As to Butler; it’s significance is it gives the highest upward trend; here is the graph;

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=700892660009&data_set=0&num_neighbors=1

    Now, eyeballing the [interrupted] annual means [?] we get the following figures;

    1990: -16.6
    1991: -16.8
    1992: -16.6
    1993: -15.4
    1995: -16.9
    1996: -15.2
    1997: -17
    1998:-14.3
    1999: -15.3
    2000: -14.5
    2001: -15.8
    2002: -15.9
    2007: -18.2
    2008: -16.3

    Why don’t you impress us all and derive a trend from that; Steig says it is 0.45C per decade.

  86. cohenite January 30, 2009 at 1:38 pm #

    Oh, silly me, the data is linked to the graph; anyway, off you go NT.

  87. NT January 30, 2009 at 2:37 pm #

    Cohenite

    Let’s get some perspective here Cohenite. You claimed that the paper was “deceptive” and that the assumptions they used were wrong. Yet you haven’t actually looked at how they made their assumptions.

    I gave you the reference as to why it has high spatial coherence

    4. Schneider, D. P., Steig, E. J. & Comiso, J. Recent climate variability in Antarctica
    from satellite-derived temperature data. J. Clim. 17, 1569–1583 (2004).

    There, now you need to read that before you can claim there is no high spatial coherence.

    As to the Butler trend, I have no idea how they came to that conclusion. But I am not going to jump around claiming there’s a big problem or that this somehow changes everything or that the authors are being deceptive, that would be plain silly. Before you could do that you would have to go to their calcualtions and check if they had made a mistake (using their methods) and then, using whatever alternative method you think they should use do the same calculation and determine how much of a difference it makes. Just because you don’t think that those data show a trend (from 1957, not from 1990) doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

    As usual Cohenite you are all bluster, you claim you know how these papers are flawed and that they are “deceptive”, but in the end you do nothing about it. You are simply here to attack any paper that is pro-AGW, abd you do a pretty poor job of it.

  88. cohenite January 30, 2009 at 2:56 pm #

    NT; I’m not blustering; I’m indifferent; isn’t Schneider a co-author of the Steig paper? And didn’t he do this paper?

    http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2008/antarctica.jsp

  89. NT January 30, 2009 at 3:07 pm #

    Yes he did, and if you read the Steig 2009 paper they do address earlier studies, I assume they mean studies like that one.

    “Previous reconstructions of Antarctic near-surface temperatures
    have yielded inconsistent results, particularly over West Antarctica,
    where records are few and discontinuous5–7. We improve upon this
    earlier work in several ways.”

    5. Doran, P. T. et al. Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response.
    Nature 415, 517–520 (2002).
    6. Chapman, W. L. & Walsh, J. E. A synthesis of Antarctic temperatures. J. Clim. 20,
    4096–4117 (2007).
    7. Monaghan, A. J., Bromwich, D. H., Chapman, W. & Comiso, J. C. Recent variability
    and trends of Antarctic near-surface temperature. J. Geophys. Res. 113, doi:1029/
    2007JD009094 (2008).

    f you look at your link to Monaghan and Schneiders paper you note that there are large areas with no data, so this new paper has attempted to remedy that.

    It’s not unusual for scientists to end up changing what they said earlier. Although it’s more of a modification in this example as the diagram for Monaghan et al is for the last 35 years (I assume 1973 to 2007), the Steig paper in Fig 3b shows a similar period (1969-2000) and it’s quite similar. The only part that changes is the cooling west of the Transantarctic mountains becomes warming.

    Are you sure you’re not confusing Butler Island for Byrd Station?
    “Black circles in b show the locations of Siple and Byrd Stations, and the adjacent numbers show their respective trends13 for 1979–1997.” Byrd Station shows +0.45? Or maybe it’s Siple I can’t tell.

  90. cohenite January 30, 2009 at 3:56 pm #

    Butler Island is listed in Table S1 of the supplementary information as having the highest rate of temperature increase; Byrd is listed in table S2 as being one of the 4 AWS’s used as “predictor variables”; here is Byrd’s temp record;

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=700891250000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    Table S2 gives an r value for Byrd of 0.64 which r^2 is 0.3 so 70% of the covariance hasn’t been explained; Butler’s r is 0.45 or a r^2 of 0.22 or 78% unexplained; so I guess all you can say is Byrd is slightly less worse than Butler. Here is a map showing the respective positions of Byrd and butler;

    http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/stations.jpg

  91. Banger January 30, 2009 at 4:36 pm #

    I want to see a comparison between the amount of man made (burning fossil fuels) release of CO2 and the amount CO2 released from volcanic activity and the weathering of rocks. No IPCC report has mentioned this.

  92. janama January 30, 2009 at 5:39 pm #

    I’m sorry NT but you are expecting us to believe that top level scientific research can go from this

    http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/stations_5.jpg

    to this

    http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/new_warm.jpg

    in 8 months with basically the same people doing the research.

    I’m not surprised at the increase in graphic quality, but the dramatic change in temperature over a vast continent I find questionable.

    If their previous readings were so far out why should I trust the recent ones?

  93. Graeme Bird January 31, 2009 at 10:17 am #

    Where is my money Luke? You too sod. NT. SJT. Slim. That little tramp and transmuted gang-moll; True-Skeptic. You know the rules. Pay up. There is a big debt of unrighteousness you clowns have to start amortizing.

  94. Truesceptic January 31, 2009 at 10:07 pm #

    G’day Graeme,

    It seems you’re still confused. Don’t worry, though, I’ll be doing my best to help get you voted Wingnut Of The Year next time. It’s a travesty you didn’t get it this time: you’re in a whole other league!

    Please don’t change any past posts at your site. We’re only a month into 2009 and you’ve already done enough to guarantee a place in the final run-off. 😉

  95. Graeme Bird February 1, 2009 at 6:50 am #

    Isn’t it funny. A gang-moll and there you are smitten.

    “Y’know, I miss The Bird…….” I would have thought that was rather old news.

    ” ………In fact I pop over to his site every now and then to enjoy his rare but honest ……..”

    Right. Thats enough of that treacly shit. Clearly you are LOST. Lost for all time.

    But back to the subject at hand. You’ve never come up with any evidence for any of your delusional beliefs. Not just on this subject but for any of your delusional beliefs at all. Get me the compensation money you slut. Same goes for the rest of you. Because you aint coming up with any evidence for your lies. You’ve all gone into leftist projection mode. But if you had evidence you would post it.

    The other thing is that you must not type or speak my name without the words “supremely” and “vindicated” in the same sentence.

  96. TrueSceptic February 1, 2009 at 12:00 pm #

    Graeme,

    For the record, I think it was unfair to ban you from the JREF forums. After all, you believe what you say, whereas we have obvious persistent liars who somehow are allowed to stay. If you could only moderate your language you would still be there.

    I respect honesty, no matter how misguided. I despise liars. The question is, which are which here?

  97. TrueSceptic February 1, 2009 at 12:01 pm #

    Graeme,

    PS, Keep it up. Good material for the next anthology. 🙂

  98. Graeme Bird February 1, 2009 at 2:51 pm #

    Well there you are. Lost. I could rape her now and she would still wonder when we were going out for dinner.

  99. TrueSceptic February 1, 2009 at 11:30 pm #

    Just out of interest: how would you respond if I were to say something similar about Jennifer M? She’s not a bad looking Sheila, is she? 😉

  100. Graeme Bird February 2, 2009 at 5:16 am #

    I can see now that you are never going to leave me alone. What a feeble attempt to make conversation.

  101. TrueSceptic February 2, 2009 at 6:12 am #

    HaHaHaHahaHaHaHaHahaHaHaHaHahaHaHaHaHahaHaHaHaHahaHaHaHaHahaHaHaHaHahaHaHaHaHahaHaHaHaHahaHaHaHaHaha

  102. Graeme Bird February 2, 2009 at 1:38 pm #

    There she goes flying off on her broomstick cackling all the way. Be careful not to swallow that thing sister, you’ll drop clean out of the air.

  103. Jim Hollingsworth February 8, 2009 at 3:25 am #

    One thing that has always bothered me is the statement that unless you are a climate scientist with peer-reviewed papers in a scientific publication you are just not credible. Well, the fact remains that in a Republic the people actually do have something to say about public policy. And, since we are all going to be affected by climate policy for a long time to come, and since public policies on scientific themes have a way of being passed hastily and then not repealed even when the science is proven wrong it behooves all of us citizens to become informed and to take a stand. The global warmers are trying very hard to limit the discussiion to those who accept their view. This is a serious mistake. I hope to write something simple like global warming for dummies for those who really don’t want to do a lot of reading. If you have ideas I would love to hear them. jimhollingsworth@verizon.net

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Other voices on climate change » Jennifer Marohasy: Eight reasons why climate forecasts aren’t scientific - January 29, 2009

    […] To read the eight reasons, click here. […]

  2. Remember that “scientific” basis for global warming alarmism? - Orange Punch - OCRegister.com - January 29, 2009

    […] here for his eight-point refutation of the sloppy science that Al Gore has tried to pass off as […]

  3. Forecasting Guru Announces: “no scientific basis for forecasting climate” « Watts Up With That? - January 29, 2009

    […] if Washington, DC, offer a Certificate of Forecasting Practice. The story below oroginally appeared in the blog of Australian Dr. Jennifer Marohasy. It is reprinted below, with with some pictures and links added […]

  4. Forecasting Guru Announces: “no scientific basis for forecasting climate” « An Honest Climate Debate - January 29, 2009

    […] 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 […]

  5. Forecasting Guru Announces: “no scientific basis for forecasting climate” - January 29, 2009

    […] 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 […]

  6. Forecasting Guru Announces: “no scientific basis for forecasting climate” | Global Warming Skeptics - January 30, 2009

    […] 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 […]

  7. house of cards - AOA - January 30, 2009

    […] Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group a 4 billion dollar media giant with un affiliations Jennifer Marohasy No Scientific Forecasts to Support Global Warming __________________ fer 46 years ive been seeking a balance in life and I

  8. Climate news « Wolfville watch - January 30, 2009

    […] on the heels of that announcement was the reminder of another scientist who has been voicing doubts. The IPCC WG1 Report was regarded as providing the most credible long-term forecasts of global […]

  9. Modelos climáticos. Tres días de infarto. « PlazaMoyua.org - January 30, 2009

    […] Fuente: Artículo en el blog de Jennifer Marohasy [–>] […]

  10. Forecasting Guru Announces: “no scientific basis for forecasting climate” | Lux Libertas - Light and Liberty - January 30, 2009

    […] 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 […]

  11. Climate News… « Centurean2’s Weblog - January 31, 2009

    […] on the heels of that announcement was the reminder of another scientist who has been voicing doubts. The IPCC WG1 Report was regarded as providing the most credible long-term forecasts of global […]

  12. Celebrity Paycut - Encouraging celebrities all over the world to save us from global warming by taking a paycut. - February 11, 2009

    […] This article explains how politicians have been persuaded to adopt policies based solely on guesswork. The message comes from the scientist who used to be the head of NASA. […]

Website by 46digital