The IPCC: On the Run At Last

[AEGeneral]

Good research material here on the IPCC:

Jennifer Marohasy: The IPCC: On The Run At Last by Bob Carter

[mcclane]

"Endless circumstantial scare campaigns have been run about melting glaciers, more droughts and storms and floods, sea-level rise and polar bears, but all founder on one inescapable problem – as does Mr. Al Gore’s over-hyped science fiction film."

fear mongering, and lack of information, or better one sided information has drawn people into this global warming fad. They say the antarctic ice shelf is melting, and the scientists claim in 50 years it will be an ice cube due to greenhouse gases. Maybe if these scientists shut their yap they would help eliminate greenhouse gases ?

Weather is such a hard thing to predict, they can predict to some certainly what will happen the next day, but predicting the weather in X number of years, they must have a secret crystal ball.

[AEGeneral]

"Some" certainty. I was curious years ago on how accurate the typical 10-day forecast really is, so I did a little experiment. Here were the results:

Over the course of December, 2006, I analyzed high & low temperature forecasts over a period of nine days for ten different cities in the United States and compared those forecasts to the actual results (data from both forecasts and actual observed temperatures were gathered from the same source). Because the 10-day forecast included the forecast for the current day, only 9 days were analyzed. The forecast for the current day was deemed irrelevant for the purposes of this analysis.

Further, temperature forecasts for the following cities were used in this analysis:

1. Memphis, Tennessee
2. Baltimore, Maryland
3. Miami, Florida
4. Dallas, Texas
5. Lincoln, Nebraska
6. Detroit, Michigan
7. Seattle, Washington
8. Raleigh, North Carolina
9. Phoenix, Arizona
10. Bakersfield, California

Analysis Results

The following graph shows the average absolute temperature variances over the course of nine days' worth of high & low forecasts for all cities used in the analysis:







Chart Explanation

Taking the absolute value of the variance of temperature forecasts versus actual recorded temperatures, the results of the analysis are as follows.


Average Variances for High Temperature Forecasts:

1. 1-Day: 2.88 degrees
2. 2-Day: 2.90 degrees
3. 3-Day: 3.16 degrees
4. 4-Day: 3.30 degrees
5. 5-Day: 4.52 degrees
6. 6-Day: 5.58 degrees
7. 7-Day: 5.60 degrees
8. 8-Day: 8.50 degrees
9. 9-Day: 9.30 degrees

Average Variances for Low Temperature Forecasts:

1. 1-Day: 4.12 degrees
2. 2-Day: 4.01 degrees
3. 3-Day: 3.84 degrees
4. 4-Day: 4.25 degrees
5. 5-Day: 4.58 degrees
6. 6-Day: 5.30 degrees
7. 7-Day: 5.37 degrees
8. 8-Day: 6.45 degrees
9. 9-Day: 7.40 degrees

Now there's some dispute over whether this is a valid argument or not, as meteorology and climatology aren't the same thing. But I just used it to point out how little we understand about either one. If we can't design an accurate forecast model in the short-term, how are we supposed to design one for a long-term analysis?

The answer (as I found out after doing this) is that these "crystal ball" climate models -- predicting every doomsday possibility you can think of -- often have two key problems: 1) Thousands of variables to insert, and 2) the assumption that CO2 rises before temperature and not after.

The 2nd point is still under dispute, but the general public doesn't know it. There are scientists who have pointed out that CO2 appears to follow periods of warming, not vice-versa. Al Gore certainly didn't point that out in his sci-fi film. Just like he sent his cameras to the antarctic peninsula (which is warming) rather than to the antarctic continent (which has been cooling for decades).

But the first point is key. If you design a model with that assumption built in, then naturally you're going to get these doomsday-type results that make the media headlines. These scientists are making unfounded assumptions from the start, and thus their models are biased.

[mcclane]

Originally Posted by AEGeneral

The 2nd point is still under dispute, but the general public doesn't know it. There are scientists who have pointed out that CO2 appears to follow periods of warming, not vice-versa. Al Gore certainly didn't point that out in his sci-fi film. Just like he sent his cameras to the antarctic peninsula (which is warming) rather than to the antarctic continent (which has been cooling for decades).

exactly. these enviro-freaks twist scientific data around so it matches their argument, making it look like they know what they are predicting. If they disclosed all the information to the public, I'm sure this global warming fad wouldn't be where it is today.

[AEGeneral]

Here's the full text:

Science and Public Policy Institute - The IPCC: On the Run at Last

And another excerpt worth noting:

Knowing that their models are non-predictive and that despite their exhortations world temperature isn’t currently increasing, the IPCC has the effrontery to argue in 4AR that a decline in the sun’s activity and increased eruptions from volcanoes would “likely have produced cooling” of the planet were it not for offsetting human-caused warming. And this when there have been no recent volcanic eruptions of global import, and after 15 years during which the warming alarmists have consistently denied that solar activity is a significant cause of recent climate change. The self-serving nature of these arguments is breathtaking, and transparently the alarmists are now positioning themselves to explain away any continuation of the downturn in temperature that is now underway short-term.

Such stunts deny scientific method, because they fly in the face of Occam’s Razor, or the principle of parsimony. Of course volcanic dust or other aerosols might have affected the global temperature over the last few years. But only persons who are searching desperately to save a favourite hypothesis make such assertions in the absence of reliable evidence.

This reiterates (in very strong language) what has already been discussed on this forum: temperatures have been nearly flat for the last 10 years.