Abandon Government Sponsored Research on Forecasting Climate – Green

Kesten Green, now of U South Australia, has a manuscript up called Evidence-based Improvements to Climate Forecasting: Progress and Recommendations arguing that evidence-based research on climate forecasting finds no support for fear of dangerous man-made global warming, because simple, inexpensive, extrapolation models are more accurate than the complex and expensive “General Circulation Models” used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Their rigorous evaluations of the poor accuracy of climate models supports the view there is no trend in global mean temperatures that is relevant for policy makers, and that…

[G]overnment initiatives that are predicated on a fear of dangerous man-made global warming should be abandoned. Among such initiatives we include government sponsored research on forecasting climate, which are unavoidably biased towards alarm (Armstrong, Green, and Soon 2011).

This is what I found also in the evaluation of the CSIRO’s use of IPCC drought model. In fact, the use of the climate model projections is positively misleading, as they show decreasing rainfall over the last century when rainfall actually increased.

This is not welcome news to the growing climate projection science industry that serves the rapidly growing needs of impact and adaptation assessments. A new paper called Use of Representative Climate Futures in impact and adaptation assessment by Penny Whetton, Kevin Hennessy and others proposes another ad-hoc fix to climate model inaccuracy called Representative Climate Futures (or RFCs for short). Apparently the idea is the wide range of results given by different climate models are classified as “most likely” or “high risk” or whatever, and the researcher is then free to chose whichever set of models he or she wishes to use.

Experiment Resources.Com condemns ad hoc-ery in science:

The scientific method dictates that, if a hypothesis is rejected, then that is final. The research needs to be redesigned or refined before the hypothesis can be tested again. Amongst pseudo-scientists, an ad hoc hypothesis is often appended, in an attempt to justify why the expected results were not obtained.

Read “poor accuracy of climate models” for “hypothesis is rejected” and you get the comparison. Models that are unfit for the purpose need to be thrown out. RCF appears to be a desperate attempt to do something, anything, with grossly inaccurate models.

On freedom of choice, Kesten Green says:

So uncertain and poorly understood is the global climate over the long term that the IPCC modelers have relied heavily on unaided judgment in selecting model variables and setting parameter values. In their section on “Simulation model validation in longer-term forecasting” (p. 969–973, F&K observe of the IPCC modeling procedures: “a major part of the model building is judgmental” (p. 970).

Which is why its not scientific.


28 thoughts on “Abandon Government Sponsored Research on Forecasting Climate – Green

  1. As soon as I saw you reference your own “paper” from E&E I knew the rest that followed would be nonsense. Only E&E would allow you to reference your own blog as a source. Classic. What a joke.

      • here is the content davids99us

        REFERENCES1. Brewer,  K.R.W.  and  Other,  A.N.,  Some  comments  on  the  drought   exceptionalcircumstances report (DECR) and on Dr David Stockwell’s  critique of it, 2009.URL  http://landshape.org/enm/some-comments-on-the-drought-exceptionalcircumstances- report-decr-and-on-dr-david-stockwells-critique-of-it/.2. Hennessy, K., Fawcett, R., Kirono, D., Mpelasoka, F., Jones, D., Bathols, J., Whetton, P., Stafford Smith, M., Howden, M., Mitchell, C. and N. Plummer.  An assessment ofthe impact of climate change on the nature and frequency  of exceptional climaticevents. Technical report, Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, 2008.3. MAFF. Droughts to be more severe and occur more often in the future,  2008.

      • The report by Brewer and Other was on a preliminary evaluation, and their suggestions were incorporated into the final peer-reviewed E&E critique. Your second “content” is actually the CSIRO report “An assessment ofthe impact of climate change on the nature and frequency of exceptional climaticevents.” that was being critiqued in the E&E article! You really do need to get up to speed. No-one has disputed that in hindcast the climate models show increasing drought in Australia, but drought has significantly decreased in Australia last century. CSIRO hired a validation expert and has since improved their validation metholodgy in recent reports (eg http://www.cawcr.gov.au/projects/PCCSP/publications.html ).

      • none of which changes the fact that E&E have allowed a blog post as a reference which was the point that you seemed to have missed,

        Ajournal that accepts a blog post as a reference source is bad enough, one that accepts a blog post by the author as a reference is inane,


      • The reference to my blog (1) was to allow to user to find an unpublished critique of the article and was referenced with a footnote. “1 Two Australian National University statisticians have reviewed both the DECR and an initial version of this study1.” It was to give the reader access to an alternative viewpoint! Are you saying I should be more like your CSIRO friends that have not even acknowledged the existence of the E&E critique of their work?

      • Are you saying I should be more like your CSIRO friends that have not even acknowledged the existence of the E&E critique of their work?
        David submit the paper sans blog reference to a genuine journal and then they will take you seriously. 

    • John,

      could you provide supporting information or papers to show that NASA, GISS, or NCDC have actually done sufficient work to support their adjustments, implementation of those adjustments, and general methods of gridding. computing anomalies, and station verification and selection??

      Until this has been done their temperature series cannot be taken seriously. The recent BEST results are bringing all of these issue to the fore.

      • Sorry John, I have already been through a fair number of those papers. They only show that there MIGHT have been an actual increase in temps, if the underlying adjustments of data are actually appropriate.

        Again, show me that the adjustments have been done correctly and we have something to talk about.

        After we finish talking about that you then have the task of showing that such a small increase in temps actually have anything to do with CO2 and after that you have the task of showing that it could become a problem.

        Good luck bud.

      • Oh, and John, you are getting quite a reputation for attempting to answer questions that weren’t asked. You funny bud!!

  2. Pingback: bateria do laptopa acer

  3. Pingback: AMT Mining

  4. Pingback: informacje

  5. Pingback: polskie jedzonko

  6. Pingback: strona firmy

  7. Pingback: obligacje24.blog.com

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s