There is a clear example to appear in the AGU publication Geophysical Research Letters of the use of the scientific publication process to present multi-decadal regional model forecasts as skillful results to give to policymakers [thanks to Hans Erren for alerting us to this paper!]. This presentation of a forecast, which is just a hypothesis (e.g., see) illustrates the abuse of the scientific method. They do not even include all of the human climate forcings (e.g., see).
The paper is
Sterl, A., C. Severijns, H. Dijkstra, W. Hazeleger, G. J. van Oldenborgh, M. van den Broeke, G. Burgers, B. van den Hurk, P. J. van Leeuwen, and P. Van Velthoven (2008), When can we expect extremely high surface temperatures?, Geophys. Res. Lett., doi:10.1029/2008GL034071, in press.
The abstract reads
“Here we focus on the annual-maximum 2m-temperature and fit a Generalized Extreme Value (GEV) distribution to the simulated values and investigate the development of the parameters of this distribution. Over most land areas both the location and the scale parameter increase. Consequently the 100-year return values increase faster than the average temperatures. A comparison of simulated 100-year return values for the present climate with observations (station data and reanalysis) shows that the ECHAM5/MPI-OM model, as well as other models, overestimates extreme temperature values. After correcting for this bias, it still shows values in excess of 50±C in Australia, India, the Middle East, North Africa, the Sahel and equatorial and subtropical South America at the end of the century.”
The conclusion of the paper even recognizes the serious limitation of this paper.
“There are worryingly large biases in the simulation of present-day extremes, which imply that the modeled future values may be biased. To improve estimates of the probability of extremely high temperatures in the coming decades, good observational data sets and investigations into the reasons for model biases affecting extreme temperatures are needed. However, even with these uncertainties, a 10% chance of exceeding 48±C every decade at any point in the red regions of Fig. 3b is a risk that should be taken seriously.”
Yet the article was still accepted by the journal! Having served as Chief Editor of two major professional journals (the Monthly Weather Review and the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences), I am aware of what constitutes a valid scientific contribution. This paper, however, is an embarrassment to the science community. There is no way to test their conclusions, yet it will be used by some policymakers to promote their particular perspective on the climate change subject.
NOTE: For Further Discussion between Dr. Pielke and Dr. Sterl see the August 16, 2008 Weblog and Dr. Sterl’s August 15, 2008 Guest Weblog.