Archive for the ‘kesten green’ Category
The Italian newspaper La Stampa published an Alain Elkann Interview of Scott Armstrong on Sunday April 12 titled “J. Scott Armstrong: “Vi spiego perché le previsioni sul clima sono sbagliate”” here. Alain was particularly interested to know about the subject of theclimatebet.com: Professor Armstrong’s challenge to Al Gore to bet that temperatures will increase dangerously, as Mr Gore has threatened will happen.
Regular readers of this blog will be familiar with the Challenge, but for those of you who are not, or who are interested to read a fresh summary of what scientific forecasting tells us about 21st Century temperatures, you can find the full interview in English on Alain Elkann’s own site here. For those of you who have friends who are struggling to make sense of the dangerous manmade global warming alarm, the interview is a good place to start.
Kesten Green and Scott Armstrong tested the predictive validity of the United Nations’ IPCC global warming hypothesis of +0.03°C per year due to increasing CO2 against the relatively conservative hypothesis of natural global cooling at a rate of -0.01°C per year. The errors of forecasts from the global warming hypothesis for horizons 11 to 100 years ahead over the period 1851 to 1975 were nearly four times larger than those from the global cooling hypothesis.
Forecasts from the no-change model, however, were substantially more accurate again than those from the global cooling hypothesis. Findings from their tests covering a period of nearly 2,000 years support the predictive validity of the no-change hypothesis for horizons from one year to centuries ahead (Green and Armstrong, 2014). A pre-publication draft of their “Forecasting global climate change” chapter is available, here.
Green, K. C. & Armstrong, J. S. (2014). Forecasting global climate change. In Moran, Alan (ed.). Climate Change: The Facts 2014, pages 170-186. Published by the Institute of Public Affairs, Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia.
It may be hard to believe with the rhetorical bombardment of the warming alarmists and their supporters in the media that we are exposed to, but global average temperatures over the last seven years averaged less than the 2007 base year of the Armstrong-Gore bet. Yes, you did just read that!
The average of the monthly temperature anomalies in 2007—as calculated by the University of Alabama at Huntsville scientists from satellite observations—was 0.21°C. The average for the seven years since then was 0.20°C.
That doesn’t seem like a tipping point, Mr Gore!
The updated graph, to the right, shows not a tipping point, but lots of turning points. The net result? You guessed it, a sideways drift that is just what followers of this site and the evidence-based Green, Armstrong, and Soon no-trend forecast would expect.
The Institute of Public Affairs have published a collection of works on the physics, economics, and the politics of climate change (a.k.a. the alarm that dangerous manmade global warming is and will continue to occur.) The 21 chapters by leading researchers and commentators include Willie Soon’s “Sun shunned”, and Kesten Green and Scott Armstrong’s “Forecasting global climate change”. The book is available, here. We suggest sending Mr Gore a copy.
Update: Kindle versions of Climate Change: The Facts 2014 are now available on Amazon. Either search Amazon.com for the title or click the link to the book on your country’s Amazon site from the following list: US, UK, CA, AU, DE, FR, ES, IT, NL, JP, BR, MX, IN.
We imagine that Barbara Boxer will be particularly pleased that she did not respond to Professor Armstrong’s 2008 challenge to back her belief that the polar bear population was threatened with rapid decline by accepting his bet, based on scientific forecasting in Armstrong, Green, and Soon (2008), that polar bear numbers would remain at current levels or better.
It seems that modellers at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature agree with Armstrong, Green, and Soon that the models of polar bear biologist Steven Amstrup and colleagues, upon which Senator Boxer based her belief, are not fit for the purpose of forecasting the polar bear population. For more on this story see the article titled “Amstrup knows his polar bear predictions are flawed – but continues to promote them” on the polarbearscience.com site, here.
The September 2014 data showed a small lift in the global mean temperature to an anomaly of 0.3°C. Still a win for the month to Professor Armstrong and the Green, Armstrong, and Soon no-change forecast, temperatures have been cooler than Mr Gore and the IPCC’s alarming projection for 20 months in a row. Overall, global mean temperatures have come in cooler than the alarmist projection 80 percent of the time since the beginning of the bet nearly seven years ago.
A summary of the critique of the use of complex mathematical models for forecasting long term climate change by Kesten Green, Scott Armstrong, and Willie Soon is published in the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (2013).
The reference is as follows, and links to the relevant section and to the entire NIPCC report are available from the Global Warming Audit pages of the forecastingprinciples.com site, here.
Armstrong, J. S., & Green, K. C. (2013). Global climate models and their limitations: Model simulation and forecasting – Methods and principles. pp. 14-17 in Idso, C. D., Carter, R. M., & Singer, S. F. (Eds.), Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science. Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute.
“There are no scientific forecasts of dangerous global warming” shouts a new article in the Financial Post. Readers of this blog know that already, but will likely want to read what the op-ed titled “Climate forecast: All’s well, despite what the IPCC says” by Kesten Green, Scott Armstrong, and Willie Soon has to say about the implications for government policy. It has already attracted lively discussion. The article is here.
The authors claim to provide the only scientific forecast of long-term climate, namely the naive no-change or no-trend forecast that is the basis of Professor Armstrong’s notional bet with Mr Gore. The forecast was originally published in 2009, and the International Journal of Forecasting article can be found here. The authors’ current working paper investigating possible improvements to climate forecasting for policy makers is here.
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) has released a new report on the science of climate change: Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science. The key takeaway messages are (1) the human impact on climate is very small and (2) any change in temperatures that might be occurring or will occur in the future is so small that it will not be noticed against the climate’s entirely natural variability.
As part of the NIPCC’s process for preparing this volume, scores of scientists from around the world evaluated the most up-to-date research on the physical science of climate change. This report is at least as comprehensive and authoritative as the reports of the United Nations-funded Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) … and the NIPCC report is faithful to the scientific method. Whereas the mission of the IPCC is to find a human impact on climate change and thus justify government control of greenhouse gas emissions and our economy, the NIPCC has no agenda other than discovering the truth about climate change.
Section 1.1.1 of the report addresses forecasting principles and methods, and was co-authored by J Scott Armstrong and Kesten C Green. It is on p.14 of the Chapter 1 of the report, which is available here.
After spiking in January, temperatures in April were again well below the 2007 average that is Scott Armstrong’s forecast. (See the updated chart to the right for the state of the bet.) Over the duration of the 64 months to date of the bet, temperatures have been greater than Mr Gore’s IPCC-based warming forecast for 15 months or less than 23% of the time. In contrast, temperatures have been less than Professor Armstrong’s evidence-based forecasts for 36 months or more than 56% of the time. None of the forecasts was exactly equal to the actual temperature. The results support the contention that Mr Gore and the IPCC’s dangerous warming forecasts are insufficiently conservative given the state of knowledge about climate, and that the Green, Armstrong, and Soon (2009) no-change model provides a better representation of the considerable uncertainty that exists.