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.