You’re a risk taker, a CEO, a senior politician: you have to make choices about the future. That’s your job – in a word of imperfect information, multiple models and conflicting theories.
So when it comes to forecasting, which would you tend to rely on more: forecasts about economic change, or forecasts about climate change?
You know I wouldn’t even ask if this wasn’t the case:
We now have over twenty years’ worth of forecasts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Despite an endless barrage of criticism in the media, these forecasts are proving themselves to be highly accurate. As shown below, actual year-on-year trends in carbon concentrations, global temperatures and sea-levels have aligned strongly with the original IPCC forecasts, and the majority of climatic changes fell within the range predicted. Climate science is earning its stripes:
Source: IPCC
In fact, climate forecasts are actually outperforming many of the key economic forecasts cited by government departments and journalists. Looking at a selection of key long-term forecasts – population, debt-to-GDP and oil price – we can see that not only do many of the actual observations fall well outside the forecast range, the expected trend was way off the mark as well. But have you ever heard these measures condemned as “mumbo jumbo” in the media?
Source: ONS, HM Treasury, EIA
Forecasts have to be adjusted from time to time obviously .. such as global “warming” that is actually not happening, or countries’ debt levels or populations .. humans are an inventive lot and need less government intervention, not more !
“Forecasts have to be adjusted from time to time obviously .. such as global “warming” that is actually not happening…”
The whole point of the article is that the 20-year-old forecasts have proven to be almost exactly on the money. These are forecasts that have NOT had to be adjusted. The longer they continue to be accurate the more credibility they should have, and that should reflect back on the models which were used to construct them.
“Run for the hills! Sea level’s risen 6!”
“Oh, no, 6 already? Wait. 6 what?”
“Doesn’t matter, 6! 6 is a lot! Run, you fool, before it’s too late.”
Doug French,
Notice a lot of fear mongering on this site? I don’t. Do you have any comments on the actual article or data shown? For the record even though I know your comment was tongue in cheek there would be major economic/social consequences in many locations (Bangladesh comes to mind) with a 6 inch rise in sea level, never mind a 6 foot rise.
Hi Rico,
I like the blog a lot and I agree with pretty much everything except Gordon’s views on global warming.
In this case i think it’s fair to point out the undefined units on the graph – not Gordon’s fault, the Nef blog still has no units at this point (i can’t read their comments; my connection is dialup). Sea level has been steadily rising a little less than 2mm a year since 1880. So 20 years would be about 40 mm (or 1/6 of an inch). No where near 6 inches or feet, and no correlation with rise in CO2
Check out the middle diagram. It shows the IPCC projection range underestimating global temperatures for 2001 to 2005. That’s complete nonsense.
I suggest that Gordon didn’t think too much about this post, since even though the diagrams verge on parody, he presents them with a straight face. He’s a believer; so be it.
Ok if i stick around?
Doug
Speaking of units, 40mm isn’t 1/6 of an inch.
of course you’re right. same problem as with Gordon – I see something that is both wrong and supportive of my view and i accept it. thanks for noticing