Your Letters RSS Feed


Model information curses our society


OUR society is presently cursed by the misuse of models.

Sainsbury’s who are proposing to build a new store on the old Waitrose site in Marlow have been required to provide a traffic impact junction analysis presumably to show that the modest proposed increase in size of the store will not cause unacceptable traffic congestion.

Sainsbury’s use a transport consultant, Mayer Brown, who arranged for simple traffic counts to be made in Marlow during peak periods on 20th and 21st March this year.

Mayer Brown fed the information from the traffic count into two well-reputed computer models Arcady and Picady which are widely used in traffic junction analysis.

Mayer Brown came to the interesting, nay, absolutely startling conclusion that current maximum peak-hour queue lengths at the junctions of Oxford Road and West Street and at West Street/High Street/Spittal Street are only 2.65 vehicles long.

After development, the models predict that the maximum peak-hour queue lengths would increase to 2.83 vehicles.

I pointed out to Bucks County Council that, as every Marlow resident knows, the model output is pure nonsense.

Two years ago, I submitted a DVD to the withdrawn Waitrose appeal, filmed during rush hour, which showed queue lengths frequently extending to 60, 70 or 80 vehicles along Spittal Street, Chapel Street and Dean Street.

Actual queue lengths are several thousand per cent higher than the Mayer Brown models calculate. I received a response from the county council which said: “It must be remembered that Arcady is only a tool and cannot model how people actually drive. Therefore the figures [that] are produced are theoretical and show delays and queue lengths that would occur if all available road space was used.

“The important point is that the increase in queue lengths, no matter how they are derived, is minimal. I accept Mr Post’s comments on the existing queue lengths but I would suggest that this is the way people drive rather than a lack of capacity.”

A more plausible reason for the catastrophic failure of the modelling in this case is not the strange belief that Marlow drivers drive differently but that the consultants who used the model completely failed to take into account all the real obstructions to the free flow of traffic adjacent to the junctions.

These include the numerous light-controlled and simple pedestrian crossings and also the delays caused by vehicles manoeuvring to park legally. Marlow drivers do not in fact drive differently, they merely obey the law!

Perhaps adherents to the Anthropogenic Global Warming religion may reflect that the absurd scenarios propagandised by the likes of Al Gore are not based on science but on bad modelling of a climate system that is infinitely harder to model than two modest traffic junctions in the middle of a small Thames Valley town.

Mike Post, Bisham Road, Marlow.


Your Say YourBucks

Bill Williams, says...
8:32am Mon 13 Jul 09

There was a a very interesting paper on this quite recently

Reifen, C., and R. Toumi (2009), Climate projections: Past performance no guarantee of future skill?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L13704, doi:10.1029/2009GL03
8082.

http://www.leif.org/
EOS/2009GL038082.pdf


Discussion reads:

"In our analysis there is no evidence of future prediction
skill delivered by past performance-based model
selection. There seems to be little persistence in relative
model skill...."

"...We speculate that the cause of this behavior is the
non-stationarity of climate feedback strengths. Models that
respond accurately in one period are likely to have the
correct feedback strength at that time. However, the feedback
strength and forcing is not stationary, favoring no
particular model or groups of models consistently."

Bill Williams, says...
9:58am Thu 16 Jul 09

Mr Post has, it seems, picked the perfect time to bring this subject up for discussion.

Another paper just published in science proposes that the modeled aerosol cooling is hugely overestimated, thus the assumed climate sensitivity of the models is also flawed.

http://www.sciencema
g.org/cgi/content/ab
stract/325/5937/187

Abstract reads:

In the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, the direct aerosol effect is reported to have a radiative forcing estimate of –0.5 Watt per square meter (W m–2), offsetting the warming from CO2 by almost one-third. The uncertainty, however, ranges from –0.9 to –0.1 W m–2, which is largely due to differences between estimates from global aerosol models and observation-based estimates, with the latter tending to have stronger (more negative) radiative forcing. This study demonstrates consistency between a global aerosol model and adjustment to an observation-based method, producing a global and annual mean radiative forcing that is weaker than –0.5 W m–2, with a best estimate of –0.3 W m–2. The physical explanation for the earlier discrepancy is that the relative increase in anthropogenic black carbon (absorbing aerosols) is much larger than the overall increase in the anthropogenic abundance of aerosols.

dave hampton, Marlow says...
9:27pm Thu 16 Jul 09

Then again reader, if you prefer truth to fiction, this is quite a good summary of all the mischief:

I wonder if Mike Post has read this.

The silly dig at proven climate science spoilt an otherwise excellent letter.

http://www.huffingto
npost.com/alex-higgi
ns/the-ispectatori-i
s-hot-fo_b_230873.ht
ml

dave hampton, Marlow says...
9:32pm Thu 16 Jul 09

A taster:
"Too many people, really, really do not want to believe that life on Earth is changing and that drastic changes in our economy and society will be necessary, possibly costing industry a lot of money. That's why the (untrue) story of the volcanoes that produce more CO2 than burned fossil fuels lives on and are destined to be repeated over and over.

Expect too, to hear about wine in Northern England again, how CO2 is only a small part of the atmosphere, that climate change is cyclical and unthreatening but also world-changing, that CO2 is good for plants so we can put it in the atmosphere without consequences, that global warming stopped in 1998. I'm only surprised they left out the one about the time when all scientists in the 70s in the world thought there was going to be an ice age except for the majority who didn't.

And when every one of those is knocked down again by the facts, you'll hear deniers proudly boast that they are bold truth-tellers who refuse to tow the party line (watch out for that one in the comments below!), wrongly persecuted for their courageous stance by the mindless sheep who accept the overwhelming weight of the evidence. When this appears in the national press, it merits a stern, clear response.

Meanwhile, global average temperatures and man-made greenhouse gases both rise inexorably.

Bill Williams, says...
8:36am Fri 17 Jul 09

There is no mention of climate models in that article, which is what the original letter (and my comments) were regarding.

Do you have any opinons on the papers I linked to above?

dave hampton, Marlow says...
9:45pm Sat 18 Jul 09

Yes Mr W. I have an opinion on them.

They were bogus. They are (deliberately) highly misleading. (Like yourself.)

I would compare them with 'scientific papers' that 'prove' that tobacco is good for us after all.

i.e. Handy for the tobacco industry. Bad for people taken in by the shabby false 'science'

But you knew that Mr W.

Bill Williams, says...
11:06am Sun 19 Jul 09

Since you've obviously read both peer reviewed papers, Dave, would you be good enough to tell me exactly what parts of the papers are fraudulent?

Even if you are not willing to discuss it here, can I ask you to pass on your analysis and comments to the American Geophysical Union and the AAAS please? I think it would be important for them to know they have been "taken in by the shabby 'science'".

Bill Williams, says...
2:11pm Wed 22 Jul 09

Hmmm, a request for details brings a deafening silence. Another arm waving 'hit 'n run' from Mr Hampton.

Great stuff, as always.


Bill Williams, says...
7:06pm Wed 29 Jul 09

Another paper out recently looking at the shortcomings of climate models:

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD01
1637, 2009

Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature
http://climatedebate
daily.com/southern_o
scillation.pdf

Conclusion reads:

"...Finally, this study has shown that natural
climate forcing associated with ENSO is a major contributor
to variability and perhaps recent trends in global temperature,
a relationship that is not included in current global
climate models."

Comments are closed on this article.


Local Links

Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »