Whence, the Arctic is freezing back up, because the globe is cooling. For how long, even kim doesn’t know.
====================================

In my opinion, the natural warming of the last quarter of the last century co-incided with the rise in CO2. That the warming has been blamed on CO2 is simply the grandest example ever of the Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc logical fallacy ever. Note that temperature is dropping while the CO2 keeps rising. Watt’s Up With That?
=======================================

Apart from NASA, the organisations who employ these ‘usual suspects’ are:

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Hadley Centre,
the University of Vienna, the NOAA, The CRU at University of East Anglia,
RSS and Yale.

I guess there’s going to be a lot of egg on a lot of faces when Steve McIntyre publishes his riposte in the International Journal of Climatology!

Puzzled. Of the global mean temperature datasets produced by various agencies UAH shows the lowest rate of warming. However even the linear trends in this data for 120, 240 and 360 months are +0.11, +0.18 and +0.13C / decade respectively (in line with IPCC projections). So on what evidence do you conclude that the globe is cooling?

JP

“”The bottom line is that we obtained results strikingly different from those of Douglass et al. The “robust statistical test” that they used to compare models and observations had at least one serious flaw – its failure to account for any uncertainty in the “signal component” of observed temperature trends (see QUESTION 7). This flaw led them to reach incorrect conclusions. We showed this by applying their test to randomly generated data with the same statistical properties as the observed temperature data, but without any underlying “signal trend”. In this “synthetic data” case, we knew that significant differences in temperature trends could occur by chance only, and thus would happen infrequently. When we applied the Douglass et al. test, however, we found that even randomly generated data showed statistically significant trend differences much more frequently than we would expect on the basis of chance alone.”"

Well SMcI has shown this for MBH9X and yet Climate science still considers these works of Mann to be great science, and MM worthy of your snide remark. Obviously, the problem is that Douglass et al are not part of the team. Different teams … different rules. Perhaps, you, John Philip, can help with this, or even explain this since you posted it. And please note that Wegman agreed with the criticisms directed at MBH.

I have in my recent post demonstrated a high statistical significance to Mann’s own temperature proxies and a negative slope. In fact higher than his own correlation to ground measured temperature. (maybe he needs better thermometers)

I am not a statistician but the smoothing of proxy data ‘dramatically’ changes the significance criterion through auto correlation. There are probably a bunch of readers with more experience that could expound on that point.

The p level is entirely arbitrary and its meaning often leads to incorrect conclusions. I believe it also is used as a convenient way to make a false claim with the auto correlation difficult to quantify and disprove. It sounds nitpicky on Climate Audit when the posters discuss the difference but it goes right to the heart of the matter at times.

The ‘amateurs’ at climate audit are already licking their chops, see the recent ‘moving team’ thread.
==============================

Also, the globe is cooling, for how long, even kim doesn’t know. The horse this study wants to ride is out of the barn already.
==========================================

Seems not. A team of 17 researchers from 12 institutions have produced a study that is, among other things, a comprehensive rebuttal of the “data manipulation and inappropriate statistics” of Douglass, Singer, Christy et al. Apparently this was

‘based on use of older radiosonde and satellite datasets, and on two methodological errors: the neglect of observational trend uncertainties introduced by interannual climate variability, and application of an inappropriate statistical consistency test.’

Apparently the Climate ‘Auditors’ missed that one….

REPLY: Nope nobody missed it, but we know not to trust anything with Gavin Schmidt’s name on it. As you’ll note, the author list is the same crowd of usual suspects.

For example, Gavin won’t post anything I have (and many others) with links back to this website, or to Climate Audit. He doesn’t play fair, he’s not a gentleman, and his regular censoring actions excluding other ideas are not trustworthy of a scientist, IMHO.

BTW your first link does not work, it is temporary.

Professor John Brignell at Numberwatch doesn’t think 95% is rigorous enough and explains why:

Statistical significance:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/significance.htm

It is difficult to generalise, but on the whole P<0.01 would normally be considered significant and P<0.001 highly significant.

The provenance of the P<0.05 criterion goes back to the great pioneer of significance testing, R A Fisher, who is deemed to have given it his imprimatur. He did not in fact do this and late in his life stated that he had just used this level in his calculations as a “mathematical convenience”. Furthermore, he also stated that “without randomisation there is no significance”.

Many leading scientists and mathematicians today believe that the emphasis on significance testing is grossly overdone. P<0.05 had become an end in itself and the determinant of a successful outcome to an experiment, much to the detriment of the fundamental objective of science, which is to understand.”

My experience mirrors yours. The 12-year-old CFL in our kitchen has been glowing away reliably despite frequent on / off switching and thousands of hours of use. All the rest of our bulbs are newer ones, installed in the last year, many of which are flood-style, and thus very expensive. Their failure rate seems extraordinary, compared to the older bulb, or even to incandescents. In the last year, one of our CFLs broke during installation, and three others burnt out (one, in my daughter’s bedroom, went with a visible puff of spoke).

I’ve started marking the ceramic base of all new bulbs with install dates and place of purchase. And of course, we keep receipts.

I agree this is quite OT for this thread. Still, it’s a terrible thing to have to keep one’s righteous indignation all pent up.

I am a pragmatic environmentalist (I even used to donate to NRDC) and what amazes about environmental extremists is that they bought so quickly into the “energy saving benefit is greater than the environmental and human health risk” cost/benefit/risk trade off for fluorescent bulbs. Actually, I have a sneaking suspicion that they didn’t even think about such a trade off, and this may be a good illustration of how rational thought does not apply. Environmentalism is a religion.

I just did a quick google search on “fluorescent MSDS” and low and behold, phosphor dust, mercury vapor, safe handling for broken bulbs and procedures for disposal as a hazardous material. One advised that in large quantities the concerns were greater. What happens now when no individual disposes of in large quantities, but collectively, the land fills and any municipal incinerators start getting many small ‘deposits’ that end up turning into the need for an Environmental Street bailout.

Also, I’m not saying that fluorescent bulbs are not a reasonable trade off, and, yes, some of the new ones are getting better but I’d like to see an objective analysis done to support their use. In a similar manner, I think it would be interesting to develop the carbon cap and trade (tax) need with an objective cost/benefit/risk assessment.