Benchmark forecasts for climate change
AbstractWe assessed three important criteria of forecastability—simplicity, certainty, and variability. Climate is complex due to many causal variables and their variable interactions. There is uncertainty about causes, effects, and data. Using evidence-based (scientific) forecasting principles, we determined that a naïve “no change” extrapolation method was the appropriate benchmark. To be useful to policy makers, a proposed forecasting method would have to provide forecasts that were substantially more accurate than the benchmark. We calculated benchmark forecasts against the UK Met Office Hadley Centre’s annual average thermometer data from 1850 through 2007. For 20- and 50-year horizons the mean absolute errors were 0.18°C and 0.24°C. The accuracy of forecasts from our naïve model is such that even perfect forecasts would be unlikely to help policy makers. We nevertheless evaluated the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 1992 forecast of 0.03°C-per-year temperature increases. The small sample of errors from ex ante forecasts for 1992 through 2008 was practically indistinguishable from the naïve benchmark errors. To get a larger sample and evidence on longer horizons we backcast successively from 1974 to 1850. Averaged over all horizons, IPCC errors were more than seven-times greater than errors from the benchmark. Relative errors were larger for longer backcast horizons.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 12163.
Date of creation: 12 Dec 2008
Date of revision:
backcasting; climate model; decision making; ex ante forecasts; out-of-sample errors; predictability; public policy; relative absolute errors; unconditional forecasts;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- C53 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Forecasting and Prediction Models; Simulation Methods
- O2 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy
- Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-AGR-2008-12-21 (Agricultural Economics)
- NEP-ALL-2008-12-21 (All new papers)
- NEP-ENE-2008-12-21 (Energy Economics)
- NEP-ENV-2008-12-21 (Environmental Economics)
- NEP-FOR-2008-12-21 (Forecasting)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Green, Kesten C. & Armstrong, J. Scott, 2007. "Global warming: Forecasts by scientists versus scientific forecasts," MPRA Paper 4361, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Armstrong, J. Scott & Green, Kesten C. & Soon, Willie, 2007. "Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit," MPRA Paper 6317, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Fildes, Robert & Kourentzes, Nikolaos, 2011. "Validation and forecasting accuracy in models of climate change," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 968-995, October.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ekkehart Schlicht).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.