The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Forecasting for disaster > Comments

Forecasting for disaster : Comments

By Mark S. Lawson, published 3/8/2012

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.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All
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.”
Posted by csteele, Tuesday, 7 August 2012 4:33:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 7 August 2012 5:20:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by csteele, Tuesday, 7 August 2012 5:31:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 9 August 2012 5:33:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by csteele, Thursday, 9 August 2012 5:57:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by csteele, Friday, 10 August 2012 12:19:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy