Quite so: the balance has clearly shifted in favour of scepticism, and those who insist on clinging to the Titanic of AGW will go down to the bottom with it, unmourned and unmissed.

And it's worth pointing out that the alleged 'feedback loop' on which all the hysteria is based has never actually been observed under experimental conditions. You'd think, with tens of billions of dollars sloshing around, that SOMEONE could have found a few bucks to set up a couple of sealed chambers and test their fundamental hypothesis: but no, that was conveniently overlooked.

Keep throwing the deckchairs overboard, folks: you're bound to find something that will float eventually.

Well said Mark. And as you know, the poor forecasting you address is only one of the problems. Other key questions:

1. How come all the "adjustments" to the temperature records in many places (US and NZ are well documented examples) are always in the direction of making the warming worse?

2. It is clear that observed climate changes can result from natural factors, land-use factors (deforestation, urbanisation, agriculture etc) and possibly the effect of anthropogenic CO2 releases. How come we are told that effectively ALL of the changes are caused by CO2, and the impact of natural factors and land-use factors is minimal?

3. Most observers accept that the physics show that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (if it were to happen) could result in around 1 deg C of warming. However, it is the feedback assumptions that triple the IPCC number to a scary 3.5 deg C. These are just assumptions in a model. Quite a lot of work, and empirical analysis is showing that the feedbacks are likely neutral, or even negative, in which case CO2 caused warming is not really a serious problem.

4. How come the IPCC (which goes on and on about "peer reviewed" literature), accepts so much "grey" literature from WWF, Greenpeace and other green activist organisations?

There is much to question in all this. And particularly the role of the MSM(especially Fairfax and ABC) and the so-called independent Climate Commission of Flannery and Steffen.

But the carbon tax DOES make sense if you are using it as a cover to move society away from fossil fuels that are (in the case of oil) already peaking or that are predicted to peak within two decades (for gas and coal).

The problem with the IPCC is that it is the UN InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change. It is led by economists and, of course, it can only consider scenarios where the developing nations of the world continue on their self-evident path to greater prosperity. To suggest otherwise is simply politically impossible. The IPCC was warned very early on that their scenarios were impossible due to fossil fuel limits but they chose to ignore the science.

Mark Lawson here

Jon J - an excellent point. No one has looked carefully at the feedback issue, one suspects, because they won't like what they find. It is is extraordinary.

Herbert Stencil - quite so. I wasn't going to get into those issues as the article was way too long as it was. But they are worth making.

michael_in_adelaide - I see you've taken up one point I made but unfortunately for your take on the argument, even the environmental movement has dumped the peak oil stuff. It just won't be happening, at least not in the form they thought it would. As for the growth rates of developing countries, undoubtedly it is happening, just not at anything like the rates required for the extreme scenarios.

Curmudgeon, in the world we live in, there are many risks which are hard to see or understand easily.

There are particular characteristics of risk which can cause misunderstandings when communicated, and people do not perceive this information as important ‘‘news’’ which they should react to.

As Stringer and McKie explain (Stringer C, McKie R. African exodus: the origins of modern humanity. London: Pimlico; 1996.), “we are not biological devices newly constructed for the twentieth century, we still have Stone Age bodies, and therefore Stone Age brains, for what is true of our appearance must also be true for our behaviour.

Because of this ‘brain lag’ we are not programmed to perceive certain risk information adequately. One of the characteristics of ‘invisible’ information is that it is ‘hidden from the senses.’ We understand information with our brains by using our primary senses: sight, hearing, smell, touch and taste. Some information that is hidden from the senses, for example radiation risk from a nuclear power station or pesticides in food, would be more difficult to be perceived by human brains than risk information from a fire or approaching cars.”

Additionally, risks are based on how people perceive risk information when it contains ‘time-hidden’ information, hazard and risk change is too slow and the added problem of scale latency, it is very hard for humans to perceive risk information when the scale is too small or too large.

I think these ‘risk’ issues muddy the waters and given the entire uncertainty in climate science, perhaps a more precautionary approach is driving AGW mitigation strategies at the political and scientific levels.

Uncertainty and risk are two issues that humans will always struggle to grapple with. What our new policy is really based on has, I think, yet to be answered. It is certainly not backed by science nor politics or rational empirical evidence as to its effectiveness or usefulness.

Curmudgeon (Mark),

>"None of this is to say that the climate forecasts are actually wrong as such"<

So they might be right. (And a 0.35 degree increase against a 0.4 forecast is not a bad correlation, is it?) As for using back-testing to improve the accuracy of modelling, what alternative would you propose? At least back-testing affords opportunity to identify causative factors and degree of influence, as well as testing the very assumptions you laud.

Any forecast not based on the application of scientific method to unravel the secrets of accumulated data is alternatively based on what? Gut? (or magic?)

>"it is difficult to think of any reason at all to trust either the emissions forecasting or the greenhouse gas concentration scenarios."<

Why? Are population and general living standards not going to increase, and with it a considerable increase in energy consumption - meaning increased emissions (unless the world quickly goes nuclear or 'green')?

>"give(n) the recent history of greenhouse gas concentrations the most extreme scenarios (the only ones often quoted) seem unlikely."<

"Seem" unlikely? So, you're just not entirely convinced, but you're willing to stake the future of humanity on your gut feeling?

>"it is clear no concerted international effort to curb emissions is going to occur in the foreseeable future"<

Wow, the crystal ball must be working splendidly, but how far forward are we foreseeing exactly? Certainly there is a reluctance by major emitting nations to drastically alter their drive for growth, their modus operandi or their striving for dominance (particularly US, China, Europe and India) - so they deny the 'science' or the urgency - and developing nations are busy trying to catch up.

'Greenhouse', increasing emissions and climate cycles are realities, as are modestly rising temperatures, ice-melts and sea-rise, and only the interplay of factors contributing to climate change are in question, and hence the likelihood of severe or even catastrophic climate change. Given the track record of economists and bankers, I'll put my money on the science, and on the best reasoned hypothesis.

>"Persisting with our carbon tax ... makes no sense"< Agreed.

@Saltpetre "And a 0.35 degree increase against a 0.4 forecast is not a bad correlation, is it?"

Well, yes, if you forecast warming somewhere in the range between 0.4 and 6.0 degrees, and allow for it to happen over a period between ten years and a century, there's a good chance that during that period you will be right, more or less. The problem is all the other models based on the same principles which were wrong, hopelessly wrong, egregiously wrong, way-outside-their-own-error-bars wrong, and the advocates who are still telling us with heartfelt sincerity that they WILL be right, some day, and we need to cripple our economy and hand over large sums of money in small denominations to the holy prophets who can lead us out of those terrible dangers which never actually seem to occur.

"Driving for growth" has produced the happiest, healthiest, wealthiest human population the world has ever had. It's given us planes, cars, televisions, the internet and an end to smallpox. And we're supposed to give this all up because it offends your moral sensibilities? You'll need to come up with a better reason than that.

Jon J,

""Driving for growth" has produced the happiest, healthiest,wealthiest human population the world has ever had. It's given us planes, cars, television, the internet and an end to smallpox..."

"Unsustainable"

Shame we're not any good at moderation, don't you think?

Just thought I'd add this:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-23/obesity-produces-diabetes-epidemic-in-india./4148616

Geoff of Perth
Although I did not fully follow your argumement on risks, the problem with the global warming story at the moment is that people think that the risk is much higher than it actually is, in part because its never been properly explained to them what it is based on. Bear in mind, also, that the proposed high ranges for the temperature forecasts require increases at several times the rate we have measured to date.

Saltpetre
I see from your post I got across a part of the message, but you haven't grasped all of it. To take the bit about greenhouse gas concentrations in the air. We have a reasonably good, continuous record of CO2 concentrations in the air going back to the late 1950s. There has been some increase since then but the rate of increase would have to, say, double from right now to have any chance of reaching the business as usual scenarios by 2050.

In other words, although I, as a layman, cannot challenge the expertise of the many economists and scientists who constructued the scenarios, a little common sense and arithmetic indicate that the more extreme scenarios are unlikely. In fact, concentrations may fall well under the business as usual scenarios without teh need cut emissions. Perhaps something may change, but there is no way of knowing this.

While I cannot be certain that there will be no concerted international effort to reduce emissions, international meetings to date have yielded very few results.

Jon J - quite right. Thre is no indication at all that the climate models have any success in forecasting. Quite the reverse.

Poirot -- nobody is stopping you from being as 'moderate' as you like. But imposing your views of 'moderation' on other people -- particularly people in developing nations making their way up from grinding poverty -- is a bit rich, don't you think? In every sense of the word.

"Driving for growth" has produced the happiest, healthiest, wealthiest human population
Jon J,
This was only possible by adhering to the principle that ignorance is bliss. Teaching that philosophy has also contributed tremendously.
For time being the russian roulette is only firing blanks. Economics will soon change the ammo.

Jon J,

The minute people in third world countries begin to make their way up from grinding poverty they are swamped with Westernisation, which is the primary cause of the diabetes epidemic in India. It's not they that should practice moderation. They are already forced to limit their materialism. It's the West that fails to moderate, showering itself with superfluous geegaws and engaging in conspicuous consumption, while simultaneously reaching its grasping fingers into third world economies - all in the name of unending "growth".

What's wrong with moderation?

Lets call a spade a spade - it is a TAX so the politicians can waste more money, without having to increase current tax rates.
As many scientists say it is global warming as say it is not global warming caused by humans.
Politicians love it more money for them to prance around and give away (remember Rudd a few months back look at me I am important oh by the way here is a few million dollars from the Australian taxpayers )
It will also make a very few people like Al Gore billions of dollars.

@Poirot: 'What's wrong with moderation?'

Nothing: as long as you let people decide for themselves what 'moderation' means. For instance, in my view a 'moderate' response to the alleged AGW 'crisis' would be to commission a bit more research and do some objective analysis of the more hysterical claims, not to slap a whopping great tax on our most productive industries. Is that what you mean by 'moderation'?

Mark Lawson here

individual - Jon J was quite correct. Growth has produced considerably more happyness than the hair-shirt approach of the greens, and the really ignorant (you started using that word, so live with it) are those who try to invoke philosophy as a defence against facts. The pursuit of growth is not going to end in disaster, no matter how many times it may be prophecised.

Poirot - go back and look at your post. So the Indian people cannot lift themselves out of grinding poverty because a few of them (the epidemic) will get diabetes? The number of diseases prevented by people having enough to eat will far outweigh the diseases caused by affluence

Mark,

My initial points were on sustainability and moderation.

Do you honestly believe that it's possible for the billions in China, India and Africa to inhabit the same wasteful paradise as the richest billion have enjoyed in modern times?
...and the wheel nuts are already beginning to loosen on that bandwagon.

If "growth" is not sustainable, then it ain't going to last.

China
http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/

India
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/india_water.html

Forecasting for disaster is very reliant on past events! Around 90 million years ago, the palaeoecological/geological record tells us, that all life was very nearly wiped from the planet. The same record tells us this was proceeded by unusually active volcanic events, which pushed the global Co2 levels slightly beyond what they are now.
This then resulted in a 2C rise in ambient temperatures, which in turn caused the frozen methane to melt, forcing temperatures to rise a further 3C, a total increase of just 5C?
That said, it is not carbon that creates global warming; but rather, the greenhouse effect. Co2 acts on plant life as a super fertilizer, which then react, with vastly increased water vapour, and increased thermal blankets, which trap radiant heat, which is largely absorbed by our oceans, which then react by creating even more atmospheric moisture and trapping even more radiant heat. Exacerbating everything forecast, including increasing ice melts, which in times past, reflected radiant heat!
But, as water now absorb even more of it, creating an exponentially increasing problem.
We for our part contribute by preferring fully imported fuels, which produce four times more carbon than we would create, by just using locally available and copious NG, and our own virtually ready to use, sweet light crude.
We currently access around 80% of our oil needs from overseas suppliers. Supply that could be almost completely cut off, by full blown Middle East conflict.
Engage in the debate, but at least get practical and start on the road to total energy independence, particularly where that results in carbon reductions of around 35%, as the very first consequence of long overdue pragmatism!
Our sand pit politicians are so focused on the local political conflict, they are simply unable or unwilling to lift their heads high enough, to see the predictable future that faces all of us! Or what practical measures, we can employ to protect ourselves, from its worse consequences?
Rhrosty.

Poirot

"Do you honestly believe that it's possible for the billions in China, India and Africa to inhabit the same wasteful paradise as the richest billion have enjoyed in modern times?"

Look, sorry, but where have you been for the past few decades? The answer to your question is obviously yes, and there will be no problem. People like you were making exactly the same statements back in the 1960s (when the Hippie movement got into gear), and were equally concerned. Yet it has been shown time and time again that every limit set by those who believe that there will be a limit to growth is breached.

For that matter they were asking the same questions, in differnt form, around the time of the industrial revolution. If you think you are different from all the others who have been claiming there must be limits, then give solid reasons.

Curmudgeon,

If you are blind to the limits of growth in situations like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4994590.stm

then, so be it.....

(In addition, the land is now degraded and the water table depleted.)

Curmudgeon (Mark),

Certainly there are limits - it's a closed system, and the system is already under great stress from over-exploitation of land, sea, forests, wildlife, fossil-fuels, fertiliser resources and water resources (particularly ground water and aquifers).

Pollution, soil-salinity and acidity, ocean acidity and fish stock depletion, ecosystem-change favouring detrimental (non-food) species, and loss of natural soil fertility and microbial balance are all contributing to a shrinking banquet from which there is no identifiable recovery (genetic-modification and evolutionary adaptation included).

Past highly-developed civilisations have demised from localised over-exploitation of their natural and developed environments (and resultant famine, pestilence and war) - and the world is heading down a similar track, just on a far grander scale.

All around, harvests are shrinking, with ever-increasing use of synthetic fertilisers, insecticides and herbicides; rainforests are being cleared to produce only one or two years of viable crops (at cost of essential oxygen producing and climate stabilising ecosystems); food crops are being converted to bio-fuel production; antibiotic-resistant disease and deadly viruses are on the rise; and species are going extinct at an alarming rate.

Are we immune from the dictates of the natural environment in this finite system? I think not. In the end result, the full recycling of all human waste will succumb to the law of diminishing returns, and a more sustainable, though far-diminished world will eventuate. Or do you think food can be made from nuclear energy or the 'God' particle?

Millions are starving and conflict is reaching epidemic proportions - but it's full steam ahead? Perhaps we need a new 'mage'.

The pursuit of growth is not going to end in disaster, no matter how many times it may be prophecised.
Curmudgeon,
Again, it all depends on perspective. The islamic fundamentalists who believe that only after you're dead things will be ok for you is no different to the growth advocates. Please explain how on a finite planet you can sustain growth such as business & consumerism understand it ? Growth means just that, getting bigger, more etc.. Doesn't that also mean growth of pollution ? When you keep taking minerals don't they eventually start a growth in decline ?
Many might think ah well, let the following generations worry about it. The real problem with this mentality is that we may not have to wait for the next generation before things go ar$e-up. I am already coping with the consequences of this growth now. I only hope I can make it through the next twenty or so years without having to exist like a rat amongst cockroaches or vice versa.

Come to think of it, I wonder if the past great civilisations like Atlantis, Egypt, central America etc all depended on growth ? I'm sure England did & look at it now ?

individual

Okay, quite a number of misconceptions. I can only deal with a few. the probloem is, as has been pointed out many times now, the earth is a bounteous place. One point often made is that if land deposits of metals run out there are still enormous undersea deposits. Then there is the question of adaption and substitution. If oil does run out (which it won't do for a very long time) then there are electric cars. You want to read the book The Rationalist Optimist by Matt Ridley which deals with a lot of this. the rate of population increase is declining everywhere, incidentally.

As for the civilisation anaology no they didn't depend on growth. the Minoean civilisaiton sometimes considered to be the model for the fictional Atlantis was knocked over by a tidal wave, for example. The Egyptian civilisation never changed; it ossified. A victim of its own bureaucracy. The Central American civilisations that vanished - Mayan? - it is thought were a victim of climate change of the time.

Puzzled over the reference to England.

adaption and substitution. If oil does run out (which it won't do for a very long time) then there are electric cars.
Carmudgeon,
Yes, it'll be a long time yet before natural resources run out, if indeed they ever will. It's quite possible that there a renewable processes going under our feet.
What concerns me about newer & newer technology is that most of the environmentally friendly technology is actually highly polluting in its manufacture.
re the Labour Party in England I'd have thought it self-explanatory.

Dear Mark,

This is why we don't have economists and lawyers in charge of climate forecasting, especially given their efforts ignoring the bleeding obvious and thus unable to predict the GFC.

But one only has to go back to Hansen's 1981 paper to see just how really good he was.

“It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980’s.”

http://thedgw.org/definitionsOut/..%5Cdocs%5CHansen_climate_impact_of_increasing_co2.pdf

It should be remembered that this was in a time of fairly neutral temperature figures.

Real Climate has overlaid the 31 years of data over Hansen's predictions here;

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/#more-11398

If an economist had got their projections so spot on they would be up for a Nobel Prize.

Your article contained the word 'forecast' or its derivatives 49 times but projection only 3. It is hard to get past the feeling this was deliberate. People equate forecasting with weather while climate science is about projections so the ratios you used certainly served to assist your argument.

It might be useful for you to examine the difference between the two although even in the financial community I would think they are well understood. Here is a link that might assist.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/zine/archives/1-29/26/guest.html

This is a quick summary;

“A prediction is a probabilistic statement that something will happen in the future based on what is known today. A prediction generally assumes that future changes in related conditions will not have a significant influence.”

“Related to a prediction is a forecast, which I would suggest is a "best" prediction made by a particular person or with a particular technique or representation of current conditions.”

“In contrast to a prediction, a projection specifically allows for significant changes in the set of "boundary conditions" that might influence the prediction, creating "if this, then that" types of statements. Thus, a projection is a probabilistic statement that it is possible that something will happen in the future if certain conditions develop.”

Agree with other posters who postulate that global population is already too large and must be adjusted.
Firstly, we need to embrace an economic model that is never ever reliant on population growth, for universal prosperity.
Prosperity meaning enough of everything for everyone, rather than a gluttony of endless and or wasted abundance for an undeserving privileged few.
That alternative model must tackle poverty in all its myriad forms and guises; and embrace, a recycling model that wastes nothing. This pragmatism will invariably create almost endless economic opportunities, left, right and centre!
We currently pour trillions of tons annually, of still useful soil improving carbon, nitrates and phosphates into our oceans! And then complain endlessly, bitterly, about the high cost of fertilizer, energy or gas!
In times long past, the global oxygen levels could have been as high as 51% of the atmosphere?
Now it is hovering around 20%?
And then we wonder why we seem to have a vastly increased incidence of formerly unheard of disease?
Oxygen is a natural antibiotic/anti-fungal/antiviral product, as is sunlight and unpolluted seawater.
UV converts oxygen into ozone, which sanitises almost everything it touches, but particularly water.
We need to understand that the planet warming forecasts, ice-melt rates etc, have been hugely exceeded?
We can emulate the detractors and develop a Sergeant Schultz's Syndrome; and or, simply bury our heads!
Or by our voting patterns; [i.e, always putting the sitting incumbent last on the voting paper,] compel our, I believe, recalcitrant, combative, self-serving politicians; to at the very least, observe the precautionary principle, rather than conduct a business as usual, finger pointing/blame shifting approach.
It seems to me, there are plenty of very practical, eminently doable things, we could be doing right now, to ameliorate against disaster?
Those things never ever include kow towing to, debt funded foreign speculators; or, locked and bolted, closed mind, dream castle dwelling, eco fascists?
Pragmatism, which would also improve our economic prospects, outcomes and outlook.
What or who could that more pragmatic approach possibly hurt? Except, money faced, dictatorial Autocrats?
Well, if the cap fits?
Rhrosty.

Jeez,

Now I'm doing it.

"This is why we don't have economists and lawyers in charge of climate forecasting, especially given their efforts ignoring the bleeding obvious and thus unable to predict the GFC."

Should read;

"This is why we don't have economists and lawyers in charge of climate projections, especially given their efforts ignoring the bleeding obvious and thus unable to predict the GFC."

Please note Hansen did not use the word 'forecast' once in his paper.

csteele

I was sufficiently intrigued to look at one of your links comparing Hansen's forecasts with reality. If you look closely the forecast is in fact for a very modest - a mere 0.3 degrees over 40 years or so, which is absurd. He forecast far more than that back then. The IPCC foecast was for 0.2 degrees a decade minimum which, as I point out in the story, unkind people might consider to be wrong. My recollection is that Hansen forecast far more than that and, in any case, you still have the problem of temperatures being flat for the past 13 years or so.. so sorry, no win on that one. You may want to check the activist material against other sources..

I'll look at your response, should you choose to make one, but won't bother to post any reply .. time to move on..

Dear curmudgeon,

Lol!

“I'll look at your response, should you choose to make one, but won't bother to post any reply .. time to move on.”

That I am afraid is just so damn typical of you lot. Get a little on the back foot and you flip the bird and shuffle off.

My post was primarily about the difference between forecasting and projection yet you chose not to answer this.

Okay my friend when I post a more considered reply here I will be sure to address it to the general reader.

Tut tut.

Dear reader,

On another blog someone made the distinction between a skeptic and a denier. The author of this article is an eloquent example of the latter.

Here is Hansen's 1981 paper “Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”
http://thedgw.org/definitionsOut/..%5Cdocs%5CHansen_climate_impact_of_increasing_co2.pdf

A graph from that paper was used in a link I supplied the author to assess how the actual global temperature figures stood up to the projections proscribed within.

It was certainly in keeping with the author's own assertion; “For as those who study forecasting systems point out, any fool can foretell the past, the real trick is to say something useful about outcomes unknown at the time the forecast was made.”

Yet he calls the graph 'absurd' claiming “He forecast far more than that back then.” and “My recollection is that Hansen forecast far more than that”. He then went on to label the graph as 'activist material' and say it should be checked against other material.

But it is the original.

So the questions you need to ask should include;

Why does he give such a defensive and irrational response?

Why does he place his memory over actual source documents?

Why is he so intent, once exposed, on avoiding any further discussion on the matter?

Answering the above questions will give you the prescription for a denier.

Dear reader,

I wanted to address was the author's attempt to equate atmospheric physics and the projections derived from it as somehow being the equivalent to forecasts made by economists.

We are asked to consider on an equal basis the science that allowed the Curiousity space craft travelling at 21,000km/hr to come to a complete stop within 7 minutes to economic forecasts that can't even predict the Global Financial Crisis.

Anybody else see just how ludicrous this proposition really is?

Now I recognise we all talk from positions we are comfortable with and the author as a journalist with the Financial Review is doing just that. It is up to the rest of us to judge whether this has any veracity.

Should we have expected those doing the calculations at NASA of the Martian atmosphere to have waited until their work was 'independently verified'?

CO2 makes up over 95% of the atmosphere on that planet. Calculations of the drag on Curiousity dictated the thickness of the heat shield, the size of the parachute (the largest ever of its kind), the 'S' manoeuvres performed, and the fuel and size of the retro rockets all stemmed from the deep understanding of atmospheric physics.

This is the field that James Hansen comes from.

I'm afraid a self described tepid science degree, experience in the very inexact 'science' of economics and journalistic flair doesn't quite measure in my book.

Mark Lawson makes a number of important points in considering the global warming forecasts (or should I say projections, i.e. forecasts conditional on a particular emissions scenario). But in the political discussions which a British outsider shouldn’t contribute to, a fundamental assumption remains the forecasts and their validity. This is what is discussed in some detail in the Fildes and Kourentzes paper (Note the journal: International Journal of Forecasting, 2011). There remains little evidence of the validity of climate model forecasts – the models may well be structurally flawed (i.e. not capturing key features of the temperature time series) and this leads to forecasts that could and should be improved. So what’s to be done – as the paper argues, we need reliable, 10 and 20 year ahead forecasts relevant to regions such as Australia and the north-west of England where Lancaster lies. These require a research effort that combines the expertise of scientists with statistical forecasters. But at present there is little attempt by climate scientists to accept that there is a science to forecasting as well as to climatology.

Finally, a forthcoming article in the Journal of Forecasting casts serious doubt (as some of the commentators in this blog also do) on the scenarios used to produce the IPCC projections.

So yes, as Mark remarks, we do need to doubt the current climate forecasts whilst accepting the broad principles of the greenhouse effect. Business forecasting is no minor activity (despite Mark’s comment) – there are many more business forecasters than there are climate scientists. And there are important lessons to be learnt from their research. Some commentators doubt that business forecasting has anything to offer – what it does do and climate scientists don’t as yet is regularly evaluate how accurate their forecasts are. Often they are very inaccurate and it’s time to update the models and the methods and that’s the case perhaps here.

In short, forecasting research will help us produce better forecasts and hopefully better policies. But there is no reason for us to believe everything will be ‘alight’ and just like the past.

Dear forcaster,

Congratulations to your first post on OLO.

Thank you for not bragging about the current medal tally.

Just a quick question if I may just do we know where we stand. Have you personally met or directly conversed with or even directly emailed or been emailed by our Mr Lawson?

Mark Lawson here
Csteele - I finally got around to looking at your reply post, as I promised. I see you've been creating mischief, including stooping to casting doubt on the veractiy of posters who support the article. Dear! Dear! You are being naughty. No, I have no idea who forecaster is, and I can't help it if his post makes sense.

Anyone who has read CSteel's posts should read the original article. Yes, and contrary to CSteel's assertion the forecasts produced by climate scientists fit in the forecasting discipline. Although they have some basis in science, they also include important assumptions which have not been even adequately discussed, let alone verified.

One of the assumptions is highlighted by the Hanson paper which CSteele quotes. The paper says "The increase of equilibrium surface temperature for doubled atmospheric CO2 is ATs- 1.2°C."

Quite right. That is the direct temperature effect of a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. But the models forecast temperature increases of many times this from a doubling of CO2. How can that be? The answer is that they all assume a feedback effect. The warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapour, and its assumed that the water vapour increases to that limit.

Again, I'm not saying the assumption is right or wrong. What I am saying is that it should be properly identified and tested. This has not happened.

Then there is the problem that the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are unlikely to double until well after any of the target dates given, if it ever does. Methane concetrations have levelled off (look at the data collected by the CSIRO station at Cape Grim).

That is the problem. The climate forecasts are just that, forecasts, and should be treated as such..

CSteele I would hope that you would see sense after this, or at least be better behaved, but my hope may be in vein.

Dear Mark,

Oh my, “but my hope may be in vein”, can I at least counsel that mainlining is not the solution to the corner you have painted yourself into.

I must at least offer thanks as you have just earned me a bottle of red.

I had bet a mate I could get you to reply within a week despite your promise; “I'll look at your response, should you choose to make one, but won't bother to post any reply .. time to move on.”

I will admit thinking I was in a touch of trouble with only a couple of days to go but here you are as bold as brass. I will not brag about superior forecasting skills since he has won the previous three bottles off me however this has been a very appropriate thread to get a 'forecast' right.

You are asking us to equate financial forecasting with cutting edge physics. To illustrate how ludicrious the proposition is one only has to look at the huge influx of 'Quants' into Wall Street. Thousands of physicists have been lured from their fields to sup with the devil creating and enhancing financial models. Please give me one single 'forecaster' who has learned their trade purely in the financial game who has then migrated to NASA to assist directly in the task of putting a probe on another planet or to make predictions about another planet's atmosphere.

“Quants, in short, are part of the system. “They get paid, a Faustian bargain everybody makes,” said Satyajit Das, a former trader and financial consultant in Australia”. “What do we use models for?” Mr. Das asked rhetorically. “Making money,” he answered. “That’s not what science is about.””
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/science/10quant.html?pagewanted=3&_r=2&sq=wall%20street%20physics&st=cse&scp=2

The article quotes Dr. Derman “In physics there may one day be a Theory of Everything; in finance and the social sciences, you’re lucky if there is a useable theory of anything.”

While I'm happy to see climate models continually being refined the last place they need to be looking is your lot.