Has the Met Office committed fraud?

Guest post by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The truth is out. No amount of hand-wringing or numerical prestidigitation on the part of the usual suspects can any longer conceal from the world the fact that global warming has been statistically indistinguishable from zero for at least 18 years. The wretched models did not predict that.

When I told the December 2012 UN climate summit in Doha that there had been no warming for at least 16 years, the furious delegates howled me down.

The UN later edited the videotape to remove the howling. The delegates were furious not because I was speaking out of turn (they did not know that at the time) but because the truth was inconvenient.

The Guardian carried a sneer-story about my intervention. When a reader sent in a politely-worded comment to the effect that, objectively speaking, it was true that over the relevant period the least-squares linear-regression trend on the Hadley/CRU global surface temperature data was as near flat as makes no statistical difference, within two minutes The Guardian deleted the comment from its misleadingly-titled “Comment Is Free” website.

The determined reader resubmitted the comment. This time it was gone in 45 seconds, and – what is more – the stub indicating that he had commented disappeared as well. Just 28 years after George Orwell’s 1984, the hard Left are still dumping the inconvenient truth down the memory-hole.

The Met Office, as WattsUpWithThat revealed recently, has noticeably downshifted its lurid warming prediction for the rest of this decade.

When it predicted a “barbecue summer” (wrong: that summer was exceptionally cold and wet), and then a record warm winter (wrong: that was the second-coldest December in central England since records began in 1659); and then, this spring, a record dry summer for the UK (wrong again: 2012 proved to be the second-wettest on record: not for nothing is it now known as the “Wet Office”), it trumpeted its predictions of impending global-warming-driven climate disaster from the rooftops.

And the scientifically-illiterate politicians threw money at it.

If the Met Office’s new prediction is right, by 2017 the global warming rate will have been statistically indistinguishable from zero for two full decades.

So, did the bureaucrats call a giant press conference to announce the good news? Er, no. They put up their new prediction on an obscure corner of their website, on Christmas Day, and hoped that everyone would be too full of Christmas cheer to notice.

That raises – again – a question that Britain can no longer afford to ignore. Has the Wet Office committed serious fraud against taxpayers?

Let us examine just one disfiguring episode. When David Rose of the Mail on Sunday wrote two pieces last year, several months apart, saying there had been no global warming for 15 years, the Met Office responded to each article with Met Office in the Media blog postings that, between them, made the following assertions:

1. “… [F]or Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.”

2. “What is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming …”.

3. “The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Niño) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Niña) is about 0.03 C°/decade …”.

4. “Each of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.”

5. “The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming … so … such a period [15 years without warming] is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely.”

Each of the assertions enumerated above was calculated to deceive. Each assertion is a lie. It is a lie told for financial advantage. M’lud, let me take each assertion in turn and briefly outline the evidence.

1. The assertion that Mr Rose was “entirely misleading” to say there had been no global warming for 15 years is not just entirely misleading: it is entirely false. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the global temperature data is statistically indistinguishable from zero for 18 years (HadCRUt4), or 19 years (HadCRUt3), or even 23 years (RSS).

2. What is absolutely clear is that the assertion that “it is absolutely clear that we have continued to see a trend of warming” is absolutely, clearly false. The assertion is timescale-dependent. The Met Office justified it by noting that each of the last n decades was warmer than the decade that preceded it. A simple heuristic will demonstrate the dishonesty of this argument. Take a two-decade period. In each of years 1-2, the world warms by 0.05 Cº. In each of years 3-20, the world does not warm at all. Sure, the second decade will be warmer than the first. But global warming will still have stopped for 18 years. By making comparisons on timescales longer than the 18 years without warming, what we are seeing is long-past warming, not a continuing “trend of warming”.

3. In August 1997 global temperatures were not “in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Niño”: they were in transition, about halfway between La Niña (cooler than normal) and El Niño (warmer than normal) conditions. Likewise, temperatures in August 2012 were not “at the tail-end of a double-dip La Niña”: they were plainly again in transition between the La Niña of 2011/12 and the El Niño due in a year or two.

4. The Met Office’s assertion that each of the past ten years has been in the top ten is dataset-dependent. On most datasets, 1998 was the warmest year on the global instrumental record (which only began 160-odd years ago). Therefore, on these datasets, it cannot have been possible for each of the last ten years to be among the warmest on record.

5. Finally, the Met Office shoots itself in the foot by implicitly admitting that there has been a 15-year period without warming, saying that such a period is “not unexpected”. Yet that period was not “expected” by any of the dozens of lavishly-funded computer models that have been enriching their operators – including the Met Office, whose new computer cost gazillions and has the carbon footprint of a small town every time it is switched on. The NOAA’s State of the Climate report in 2008 said this: “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

In short, the Met Office lied repeatedly to do down a journalist who had uttered the inconvenient truth that there had been no global warming for at least 15 years.

The Fraud Act 2000 defines the serious imprisonable offence of fraud as dishonestly making an express or implied representation that the offender knows is or may be untrue or misleading, intending to gain money or other property (here, grant funding) or to cause loss or risk of loss to another ($30 billion a year of unnecessary “green” taxes, fees and charges to the British public).

So I reported the Met Office to the Serious Fraud Office, which has a specific remit to deal with frauds that involve large sums (here, tens of billions) and organized crime (here, that appreciable fraction of the academic and scientific community that has been telling similar porkies.

Of course, there is one law for us (do the crime, do the time) and quite another for Them (do the crime, make a mint, have a Nobel Peace Prize). The Serious Fraud Office is not interested in investigating Serious Fraud – not if it might involve a publicly-funded body making up stuff to please the corrupt politicians who pay not only its own salaries but also those of the Serious Fraud Office.

The Met Office’s fraud will not be investigated. “Why not try your local police?” said the Serious Fraud Office.

So here is my question. In the specific instance I have sketched out above, where a journalist was publicly named and wrongly shamed by a powerful taxpayer-funded official body telling lies, has that body committed a serious fraud that forms part of a pattern of connected frauds right across the governing class worldwide?

Or am I going too far in calling a fraud a fraud?

About these ads

348 thoughts on “Has the Met Office committed fraud?

  1. Chris, two things, we know this get the MSM to print it. Second, such big words, I mean really? Focus on the general public, you know the ones, they can just about spell dole

  2. Another good one by our peerless peer!

    Will the Houses of Parliament pick up on this: –

    “Of course, there is one law for us (do the crime, do the time) and quite another for Them (do the crime, make a mint, have a Nobel Peace Prize). The Serious Fraud Office is not interested in investigating Serious Fraud – not if it might involve a publicly-funded body making up stuff to please the corrupt politicians who pay not only its own salaries but also those of the Serious Fraud Office.”

    They make the law – equal for all [Magna Carta 1215 [AD not pm] and all that].

  3. And will (past & present) MPs admit to being so gullible as to be taken-in by an organisation which is plainly not-fit-for-purpose?

  4. The cagw crowd and the met are taking a huge gamble that temperatures finally start going up soon. By not being [straight] forward and admitting problems they are setting themselves up for more and more criticism, bigger and bigger charges of fraud as the trend continues or temperatures turn down. They’ve now realized that lowering their predictions and hoping that real temperatures exceed them might give them some relief from the bashing but what if temperatures don’t cooperate and they continue to be above the trend? The clamor will simply grow and they will be more guilty. That may not seem like satisfaction to us that know already that they have lied but I believe that we must continue to push for full transparency and not let them get away with the slightest subterfuge and let them escape eventual justice for academic dishonesty, censure, laughingstock.

  5. We know that politicians do not lie.
    It would appear that sub-contracting the lie is equally blameless.

    /sarc

  6. It is more than fraud, it is theft. How many hundreds of billions of the people’s money have been picked from their pockets in countries around the world to “fight global warming”? This money simply lands in the pockets of political supporters. Every penny spent to “fight global warming” lands in someone’s pocket. This is one of the largest robberies in the history of the human race (The US Obama administration holding the record for the largest robbery of all time with “stimulus”, “green energy”, and automotive “bailout” cash being dumped into the pockets of political supporters).

    I should like to see many of these politicians and members of NGOs who consult with these politicians landed in prison.

  7. Fraud? Absolutely. Trouble is, we (well, at least I) have become desensitized. Heck, I ~expect~ government run taxpayer funded agencies to lie to me. Don’t rightly know how I’d react if they spoke the simple truth. My head might explode…

  8. No you are not! A fraud is a fraud, no matter who is behind the wheel. I really think that a worldwide NGO could be formed, based on the web, financed by individuals all over the world, chaired by trustworthy people like you, Donna, JoeNova just to name a few. And with a scientific body that could match IPCC.
    We have an enormous army but it is scattered.
    Just thinking out loud after a nice shoot of Kentucky Straight Bourbon

  9. What has not been generally noted is that the original forecast was based on Smith et al, Science, August 2007. Half of this report goes into great detail as to why hindcasting data produces a model that can be used for forecasting. This method is at the very heart of the debate as to whether climate models have been validated.

    Now the Mert. Office has specificly stated that the forecast by Smith et al is wrong. This means that the model they used was never validated by the hindcasting methodology. I can see absolutley no reason whatsoever to believe that their new model has been validated either, so that there is no reason to suppose that the new forecast is any better that the old one. And there is every indication that climate models have never been validated at all.

  10. While we are speaking of frauds… CFC harming the ozone layer has now been officially debunked. The cause… wait for it, wait for it… IODINE FROM THE OCEANS.

    New study reveals gas that triggers ozone destruction

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-01/uoy-nsr_1011113.php

    Scientists at the Universities of York and Leeds have made a significant discovery about the cause of the destruction of ozone over oceans.

    They have established that the majority of ozone-depleting iodine oxide observed over the remote ocean comes from a previously unknown marine source. The research team found that the principal source of iodine oxide can be explained by emissions of hypoiodous acid (HOI) – a gas not yet considered as being released from the ocean – along with a contribution from molecular iodine (I2).

    Since the 1970s when methyl iodide (CH3I) was discovered as ubiquitous in the ocean, the presence of iodine in the atmosphere has been understood to arise mainly from emissions of organic compounds from phytoplankton — microscopic marine plants.

    This new research, which is published in Nature Geoscience, builds on an earlier study which showed that reactive iodine, along with bromine, in the atmosphere is responsible for the destruction of vast amounts of ozone – around 50 per cent more than predicted by the world’s most advanced climate models – in the lower atmosphere over the tropical Atlantic Ocean.

    Imagine that, the world’s most advanced climate models failed to accurately predict the effects of iodine on the ozone layer. Would that be the same climate models that fail to accurately predict the effects of water vapor and clouds? So can we have our R-22 back and stop taxing it at greater and greater levels?

  11. Not being informed on British law but I would think that a good lawyer would have grounds to sue for a New York telephone number amount if a class action was filed, ( say 1,000 wattsupwiththat readers as a starter ) as nearly everyone on the globe has been affected it could bankrupt the British government, if nothing else the British Sunday press would have fun

  12. Thank you for your efforts – but please post links for all assertions. One of the joys of the internet is the ability to immediately point to proof of an assertion as opposed to tracking down a footnoted article.

  13. Mark Nutley says:
    January 14, 2013 at 12:10 pm

    … Second, such big words, I mean really? Focus on the general public, you know the ones, they can just about spell dole

    You mean the general public, the good folk that mean well but somehow can’t remember to put a period at the end of a sentence?

    Oh, no, wait, that was you …

    In fact, the Gunning Fog Index for Christopher’s post above is 11.9, meaning it is aimed at about the level of a high school senior … however, you seem to think it is overly full of “big words”.

    So let me review the bidding. You can’t remember to put a period at the end of a sentence, and you think prose written at the level of a high school senior contains too many “big words” …

    Anything else you want to reveal about yourself before we ignore you and move on?

    Christopher Monckton is one of the best wordsmiths on the current scene. I would recommend to him that he not change a single thing about how he writes. It is funny, literary, and full of interesting info. I’m just glad he’s on my side …

    w.

  14. Maybe what it needs is a turn around in government and the new (sic?) government to then call for a royal commission into the fraud, or some examination. It’s disgusting that “Serious Fraud” does not cover serious fraud. Who’s in charge there? Would multiple complaints to the top kick their a$$es into gear??? Just askin’.

  15. Met Office lied repeatedly to do down a journalist
    ************************************************
    is “to do down” an idiom I have not heard of?
    can you clarify that for me please?
    thanks.
    as far as the rest of it, I love reading your stuff :)
    It would sound to me like there is a real case of fraud but thats with NO working knowledge of the law over there.

  16. Christopher Monckton is one of the best wordsmiths on the current scene. I would recommend to him that he not change a single thing about how he writes. It is funny, literary, and full of interesting info. I’m just glad he’s on my side …

    w.

    Well said Willis. I am sure the Met Office would love to employ someone with the Lords writing skills in their turd polishing department.

  17. Mark Nutley @ 12:10: “Big words?” What? “Prestidigitation?” “Heuristic?”

    Cmon. If the half-wits who believe in global warming need to go to a dictionary once in a while, which is probably unlikely in this case since they will dismiss this report before even reading it, what’s the problem?

    Most excellent piece, Lord Monckton.

  18. 4. The Met Office’s assertion that each of the past ten years has been in the top ten is …

    An intentional conflation of “warm” with “warming”. If the temps dont change at all for the next 90 years, they will be able to say that each of the last 100 years has been in the top 100.

    They are using a metric indicative of “no change” to claim that it is warming.

    That’s yer fraud, right there.

  19. George Tetley says:
    January 14, 2013 at 12:37

    The British government is already bankrupt. Tony Blair did to us from 1997 what POTUS is going to do for you until 2016.

  20. @willis
    “Christopher Monckton is one of the best wordsmiths on the current scene. I would recommend to him that he not change a single thing about how he writes. It is funny, literary, and full of interesting info. I’m just glad he’s on my side …”.

    Agree!

    Consider a segment of a sinusoid curve. The segment starts at the bottom part of the curve and stops just slightly after the top. I think this describes current global temperatures over time (years) quite well. I find it astounding in how many misleading ways one can describe this same curve: “Temperatures have been rising relentlessly in the past 30 years”, “current temperatures are the highest they have ever been”, “the warming is linear”, “the rate of warming has increased”… Is it really this hard to see a sinusoid? 

  21. Monckton of Brenchley says:

    The least-squares linear-regression trend on the global temperature data is statistically indistinguishable from zero for 18 years (HadCRUt4), or 19 years (HadCRUt3), or even 23 years (RSS).

    The trends are also statistically-indistinguishable from the long-term trends (i.e., the trends calculated from ~1975 onwards, whether you stop at, say, 1997 or include all the data from 1975 onwards). This is just a statement that trends over such time periods still have quite a large uncertainty in them.

    This graph http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1997.5/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1997.5/trend makes it clear that the long term trend in HadCRUt4 since 1975 is essentially no different than the long term trend that one would have calculated 18 years ago (i.e., in 1997): As you can see, the slope of the linear trend from 1975 to 1997 is virtually identical to the trend from 1975 to the present. (In the case shown, where one stops in mid 1997, the trend using all the data is actually slightly steeper, although that detail is dependent on exactly when one chooses to stop in 1997.)

    The NOAA’s State of the Climate report in 2008 said this: “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

    Here is that report so that readers can see the full context: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf The relevant page is p. S23. Note in the context of the discussion, the authors are talking about looking at trends after removing ENSO as described in the 2008 paper by Thompson.

    Furthermore, the statement that “simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more” means exactly that: The simulations show that the 95% confidence cone for the climate model simulations does not include a trend of zero. However, the trend over the time periods that you note has not been zero; It is true that it is not statistically-significant from zero at the 95% confidence level, but that just means that its 95% confidence cone includes zero. It does not mean the trend is zero. People who understand statistics will understand that the statement that the 95% confidence cone includes the possibility of zero trend is very different than saying that the measured trend is actually zero.

    So, for both of these reasons, your statement about what the NOAA report says is wrong.

  22. “The Guardian carried a sneer-story about my intervention. When a reader sent in a politely-worded comment to the effect that, objectively speaking, it was true that over the relevant period the least-squares linear-regression trend on the Hadley/CRU global surface temperature data was as near flat as makes no statistical difference, within two minutes The Guardian deleted the comment from its misleadingly-titled “Comment Is Free” website. ”

    Though i am not so well versed in what goes on in the media in GB, here in the US the greatest threat to freedom, science, politics or truth is the domination of the media, printed and electronic, by the left. So the beat goes on.

  23. A good article except for the last bit. I think accusing the Met Office of fraud is over the top, and it doesn’t help your case. Fraud means an intention to deceive. It differs from just being mistaken. I agree that the Met Office is mistaken, but clearly they believe their own story. So it isn’t fraud–intent is not there.

    If I promise you a million dollars if you send me your bank account by return post, I’m likely committing fraud. But if I have an idea for a business scheme that will net us both money, and I really think the plan will work–all I need is your bank account to make it happen–then I’m not committing fraud.

  24. What we have here is a case of “Serious Spin Infraction” — and of course it was all done with the most noble of intentions.

    After all, the Met Office denizens are quite confident that the “earth’s energy balance continues to be thrown further and further out of dynamic equilibrium by that one species so intent on destroying Gaia” — so even if said excess energy doesn’t manifest itself NOW as increased global mean atmospheric surface temperatures, it most certainly WILL eventually.

    So, armed with the knowledge (of said impending warming), the Met Office has acted in the best interests of the lesser (unenlightened) representatives of that cancerous species, homo sapiens (2nd ref. to knowledge optional here).

    Rather than having Lord Monckton sue for the Wet Office for Serious Fraud, one could have much more fun with “Serious Spinning” even setting up a crowdsourced “Serious Spin Office” (opening a Pandora’s Box of Parody) — I can even see a Josh cartoon and a Delingpole article on the near horizon…

    Kurt in Switzerland

  25. I wouldn’t be happy seeing this go to court. The whole alarmist warming thing is waning anyway and the damage done to others who might speak their minds on other important topics for fear of being accused of fraud and dragged to court wouldn’t be worth it to me.

    Call them on their false statements loud and clear and long, but don’t take them to court.

  26. Lord M. I hope you are bending the suitable ears with your connections,the BBc and the Government should be making statements..yes i know the BBC will not shift ..yet, but the government should be questioning some of its energy policy advisors and questions asked about the METO record and its output and cost to the taxpayer.Good piece as ever

  27. What do you expect of the Met Office the so called worlds leading Climate group – – more of the same. They are the same group involved with the University of East Anglia Climategate crowd!!!!
    I wonder how the BBC green pension investment fund are doing thanks in large part to the influence and predictions of the Met Office – Last time I checked it 2.5 Billion pounds in the hole — LOL Suckers!

  28. I gave up on commenting on the Guardian after I had been banned at least 8 times. All I did was point them to peer reviewed contrary papers OR poured scorn (politely) using heavy sarcasm and wit. ;-)

  29. The Met Office, as WattsUpWithThat revealed recently, has noticeably downshifted its lurid warming prediction for the rest of this decade.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Given their track record of recent times, I am now concerned that they have it wrong yet again and we’re in for another bought of warming.

  30. Dave says: January 14, 2013 at 12:42 pm “prestidigitation”…

    Yes, hence prestigious which has completely changed its meaning from negative to positive. Quite appropriate for this discussion. Origin: mid 16th century (in the sense ‘practising conjuring tricks’): from late Latin praestigiosus, from praestigiae ‘conjuring tricks’. The current sense dates from the early 20th century

    To Lord Monckton, what about ‘Misconduct in Public Office’? The penalties are quite severe I think up to life imprisonment. ‘A public office holder is an officer who discharges any duty in the discharge of which the public are interested, more clearly so if he is paid out of a fund provided by the public.’

  31. The geyser wot rote this uses his tongue purdier than a $20 whorean full stops an pumtuation are, like, a free choice innit

    [Gunning Fog Index "UNDEFINED"]

    Seriously, this is a magnificent blog submission. Are there any UK lawyers or ‘silk’ on here? I was wondering if a civil damages claim might fly, with a suitable fighting fund, a modest contribution to which I would make.

    [Gunning Fog Index 11.35]

  32. As the Fraud Office is not interested…. how about the Consumer Dept
    They took the Banks to court for miss-selling Payment Protection Insurance
    So get them to pursue miss selling / implimentation of CO2 based taxation VED Road tax would be a good test case.

  33. Unfortunately it’s not only fraud, but it’s a huge “racket” that makes the classic organized crime mobs (e.g. Al Capone) look like rank amateurs.

  34. Let’s not forget the Met Office chief scientist Slingo who claimed that the ‘record 2012′ rain fall in England was due to increased ocean temperatures and melting Arctic ice but did not explain why the rain fall in adjacent Scotland was well below average.
    (Last week the Met Office produced the 2012 rain fall statistics which show that rain fall in 2000 was slightly higher than the much hyped pre=Christmas MET report that 2012 rain fall was the highest for a hundred years!)

  35. .
    Sir. Could you not take the case to the House of Lords? Surely, the House of Lords has seniority over and above the Serious Fraud Office.

    .

  36. Thank you once again, Christopher, for your informative and interesting observations on the recent shenanigans of the UK Met Office. They really are becoming a bit of a national embarrassment – but I fear they are now so far down the rabbit hole (you know, the one with the big, comical ‘CAGW Funding Here’ signpost above it) that what little still remains of their once excellent reputation for good, honest science is now on life support, gasping for credibility.

    Anyway, keep it up (they don’t like it up ‘em) and I look forward to your next YouTube video with enthusiasm.

  37. “Or am I going too far in calling a fraud a fraud?”
    “Modernity has replaced ethics with legalese, and the law can be gamed with a good lawyer. [¶] so I will expose the transfer of fragility, or rather the theft of antifragility, by people “arbitraging” the system. These people will be named by name. Poets and painters are free, liberi poetae et pictores, and there are severe moral imperatives that come with such freedom. First ethical rule: If you see fraud and do not say fraud, you are a fraud. [¶] Just as being nice to the arrogant is no better than being arrogant towards the nice, being accommodating toward anyone committing a nefarious action condones it.(Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder, Prologue, ‘If You See Something': p.15)

  38. Australia’s ABC does not wish to report correctly either.Thank heavens “The Australian” nespaper is trying to do something.

    For the latest on climate change, turn to your local real estate agent

    by: Graham Lloyd, Environment writer
    From:The Australian
    January 15, 201312:00AM

    THE ABC’s flagship news programs have favoured advice from a non climate scientist based on speculation from a Byron Bay real estate agent over less alarming research from one of the world’s leading scientific organisations.

    In the first of a week-long climate change special to coincide with a meeting of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientists in Hobart, the ABC did not mention the fact that Britain’s Met Office had reduced its forecasts for average global temperatures up to 2017. The ABC has not reported the issue despite widespread debate internationally.

    Instead, the ABC, which is running the series on its main radio and television news programs, yesterday focused on the threat to coastal living from possible sea level rises without discussing the great uncertainties that exist in future sea level projections. Australia’s pre-eminent sea level expert, John Church, highlighted concerns about the melting Greenland ice sheet. And the report did mention a Climate Commission report that a 1m sea-level rise could potentially expose 250,000 homes to inundation.

    But the ABC did not mention recent scientific findings that there was no firm link to sea-level rises and climate change in the 20th century.

    A key ABC source was Alan Stokes from the National Sea Change Taskforce, a body set up in 2004 to highlight the stresses on regional infrastructure from increased migration of coastal centres. Mr Stokes told The Australian he had based his sea level rise forecast of 80cm to 1.1m on differing advice to local governments from the commonwealth and state governments. The IPCC’s 2007 report forecast sea level rises of between 18cm to 59cm by 2100. The CSIRO has since published a medium scenario of 80cm and a “high-end scenario” of 1.1m by 2100.

    The current rate of global sea level increase is 3mm a year.

    Mr Stokes said climate change was already having an impact on coastal property. “I’ve heard cases of people wanting to sell up and even trying to sell up, but finding that you know the market suddenly isn’t working with them, that the values of their property have dropped,” he told the AM program. After the broadcast, Mr Stokes told The Australian he was referring to a report about Byron Bay property in The Sydney Morning Herald.

    Erosion problems at Belongil Beach have been blamed on engineering works further along the coast that had stopped the natural flow of sand.

    The ABC declined to answer questions specifically about its lack of reporting on the Met Office report, released on Christmas Eve, or sea-level rises.

  39. Here in the UK rather than rely on the predictions of the gazillion pound Met Office computer, it would have been more accurate, and less costly, if the Met Office had just looked out of the window in the morning.

  40. The determined reader resubmitted the comment. This time it was gone in 45 seconds,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    I can’t be bothered with the warmist sites anymore, but for those of you with the energy and determination, here’s a quick strategy to mess with their heads. Post something like this:

    I don’t know how anyone in this day and age can be stupid enough not to see that the world is warming, and dangerously so, all it takes is the briefest perusal of the data to see the obvious

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2012/mean:3/offset:-.25/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2012/trend/offset:-.25

    Not only will the comment stay up for much longer, you’ll get a lot of people clicking on the link and then scratching their heads in abject confusion.

  41. THEY are talking about prosecuting bank employees for manipulating the LIBOR interest rate – why is manipulating the temperature record, and the predictions upon which public policy is made, any different?

  42. The thing that gets me is the MET can’t tell us what the weather is going to do tomorrow yet they had no trouble forcasting sandy to take that left hand turn days in advance If the met and the weather modification people don’t communicate with each other then most if not all predictions made by the met are just a guess(look out the window and see) were has Autum and Spring gone? You know those mounths that were mild were we didn’t need air con’s or heaters turned on We apear to jump from winter to summer with no inbetween.This is great for the power supply industry but not so good for our pockets To me the polar jet stream seem to be working back to front to me it should expand in the summer and shrink in the winter I think this is responsible for the jet stream change to drive more money into the pockets of the bigest CO2 polluter the electrical supply industry. http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/31/64/49/PDF/angeo-16-1212-1998.pdf I suggest everyone read this before comming to any conclussions regarding climate change.

  43. Here’s some more detail on the fraud and general spin around this October reply to Rose on the Met Office blog. It is a cut and paste of a comment I made at the time so please skip past if you recognise it. I made it at the time so that I could present the most detailed and balanced overview possible (IMHO) of the claims and counter claims both by Rose and the Met. Rose comes in for some criticism (after all, it is the Daily Mail, guys and gals) but as Lord Monckton says, Rose was completely correct in his main arguments. I would say the Met gets 90% of my criticism, Rose, 10%. The comment was as follows:

    Thanks to Mr Bliss’s link to the Met Office reply on their blog I have now pieced together the claims and counter claims by toggling to and fro between article and blog as well as links given by the Met Office blog post.

    I’ve laid out my findings below. It wouldn’t be facetious to liken their claims and counter claims to a hackneyed Hollywood sword fight in a banqueting hall where, instead of a straight duel, they upend tables, grab candelabras and slash down curtains to thwart and deflect the thrusts of the other party. Except in this case it is very far from being chivalric.

    That said, the main thrust of the Mail article is correct. This is despite the mealy mouthed wording, stretching of the truth, no source cited for the graph and “smoke billowing” from cooling towers in the picture. It’s a shame that despite being on the high ground, David Rose resorts to these measures.

    Firstly, the first paragraph of Rose’s article implies right off the bat that there was a written report by the Met Office which stated that global warming stopped 16 years ago:

    ‘ Global warming stopped 16 years ago reveals Met Office report…’

    This is a typical ploy, putting what looks like a quote at the beginning of a sentence, followed by the word ‘reveals’ (not ‘says’). BTW the quote marks above are my quotes of Rose’s article. Therefore Rose is the one making the claim. Although this is correct, he is trying to imply that the Met Office are admitting to it and doing so by making it the central point in a special written report. Furthermore, he implies that this is embarrassing because it was “quietly released”.

    The Met Office blog post reply says there is no such report and that Rose must be referring to the HADcrut 4 update. This is probably the case. They say that they had reported that they were working on it six months before and that they had published it on their website. This was in order to counter the claim that it was not quietly revealed. However, Rose says later in his article “…with no media fanfare…”. That, along with the ‘quietly revealed’ earlier on clearly should be taken together and can only mean that it was not trumpeted to the media as it would be if the new data had shown a rise. Therefore, the Met Office were answering the bare bones of the first charge and not the full accusation in the round.

    The Met Office go on to say:

    “Mr Rose says the Met Office made no comment about its decadal climate predictions. This is because he did not ask us to make a comment about them.”

    However Rose did ask, during their email exchange:

    “Q.2 Second, tell me what this [new data] says about the models used by the IPCC and others which have predicted a rise of 0.2 degrees celsius per decade for the 21st century.”

    This question is really a two part question: firstly, what does the new data say about their models? Secondly, albeit implicitly, what does it therefore have to say about their decadal climate predictions. The Met Office chose to answer the first of the two in its email reply but not the second. The implicit nature of the second is hardly obscure and
    still less so for the Met Office because they are quick to link us to an earlier blog post “on the same theme” (their words) in Jan 2012, publishing an email exchange with Rose on the exact same subject of decadal projections where they answer at length, a question from Rose about the projections. In this earlier post they go onto complain that they were misrepresented because their rambling reply to Rose , citing projections as probabilistic and conflating temperature values with temperature trends, was cut for Rose’s (January) article.

    Returning to the October article, Rose says (of the Met Office email exchange spokesman)

    “Asked about a prediction that the Met Office made in 2009- that three of the the ensuing five years would set a new world temperature record- he made no comment.”

    There is no specific reference to this in the email exchange which is cited as being reproduced in full by the Met Office blog post writer. Neither does it appear in the January exchange. That ‘3 out of 5′ so-called prediction was almost certainly a ‘probabalistic projection’ and not a prediction. Nevertheless it may have constituted part of the decadal projections which the Met Office knew were being implicitly referred to. This is the only piece of speculation in my comment. I would like to know if this is the case. Still, David Rose could have made it a bit clearer instead of implying that he had asked a direct question and got no answer.

    In summary, there was no specific report, the Met Office didn’t declare that global warming had stopped. They didn’t bury anything. They did release new HadCRUT data that now ‘reveals’ that there has been either no warming or statistically insignificant warming in the last 16 years. They did not trumpet this as they have done for warming trends. They implied that they hadn’t been asked about decadal projections which they technically had but chose to ignore that technicality. Rose implied that his questions were direct and clear whereas they were implicit and thereby included a technical get-out if that implication was ignored. If this was a deliberate trap, the Met Office fell into it. However, it is impossible to know if it was deliberate but Rose definitely capitalised on their failure to acknowledge the obvious question of projections needing to be rethought, based on well-trodden ground in previous email exchanges.

    Scute

  44. Dan King says:
    January 14, 2013 at 1:00 pm
    A good article except for the last bit. I think accusing the Met Office of fraud is over the top, and it doesn’t help your case. Fraud means an intention to deceive. It differs from just being mistaken. I agree that the Met Office is mistaken, but clearly they believe their own story. So it isn’t fraud–intent is not there.

    If I promise you a million dollars if you send me your bank account by return post, I’m likely committing fraud. But if I have an idea for a business scheme that will net us both money, and I really think the plan will work–all I need is your bank account to make it happen–then I’m not committing fraud.

    Except for the part about the where they lie over and over again to convince you their ‘scheme’ is viable.

  45. Yes, beyond doubt. Furthermore it is clear that those responsible for the fraud plan to continue. The real problem is what to do about it. That is the big ugly elephant in the room… The government is not planning on policing the government, and our hapless citizens are circling the drain created by the unimaginable cost of this fraud.

  46. Clear, lucid presentation as always. What a team you and Willis make.
    It certainly seems like fraud to me. The Met Off responses are designed to mislead and confuse people who do not have a strong scientific background.
    Mark Lynas in the Sun. Times yesterday (changing his position with regard to GM farming) exposed the level of understanding exhibited by the environmental movement. Not only the M.O. but all the scare mongers could be accused of fraud costing us so much via the renewable energy scams.
    George Tetley (12.37) has a good suggestion. I would happily contribute but I suspect the chance of success would be slim.

  47. This just in from the UK Met Office:

    Forecast for UK – Tuesday 15 January 2013

    “Bright early, becoming dark later”.

  48. Item. Christopher Monckton has stepped up to the plate and publicly used the word fraud. If I am not mistaken, by doing this he is taking things to the next level. Go. Fight! Win!!!

  49. The Had/CRU surface temp record can not be verified. If the basic facts are in dispute, then anyone who claims historical warming is simply barking noise. The US temp data seem to have been corrupted by ongoing and unjustified “homogenization” and those stations were never maintained with any intention of scientific integrity. Why else would an entirely new and expensive “Climate Reference Network” be created if the old data were any good? Examination of a sampling of rural stations seems to produce temps with no significant warming, quite a few show cooling. Well maintained science stations (Amundsen-Scott, Vostok, Halley and Davis) spread around Antarctica all seem to show zero warming since 1957.
    Why would Antarctica be immune from Global Warming for over 50 years? Why do Antarctic ice cap photos show decades of slow expansion? Northern ice cap melting can be explained by soot and dust settling on the surface. The satellite record seems to show no substantial trends if known oceanic patterns are subtracted.
    It’s hard to see how computer models were ever given any credibility by anyone who is not a politician or media hack selling magazines.
    The answer to the AGW issue is a simple three step process.
    1 Pull the plug on the IPCC.
    2 Pull the plug on the IPCC.
    3 Pull the plug on the IPCC.
    Once the IPCC disappears, the AGW story disappears.
    Might as well delete the United Nations at the same time. The only downside to that is the paper shufflers will end up getting into mischief elsewhere.

  50. Lord Monckton is entirely correct about the misrepresentation by the Met Office – but of course that’s typical of what has allowed AGW theory to be so influential for so long; the ‘evidence’ is politically motivated, not scientific.

    He’s also entirely correct about the Guardian’s policies on ‘Comment is Free’. A week or so ago Suzanne Goldenberg had an article with a screaming headline about how 2012 was the ‘Hottest Year Ever in the US’.

    I obligingly posted the WUWT article on NOAS NCDC possibly having 2 sets of data and how Anthony had stumbled across a discrepancy between the raw data (cooler) and the public-facing data (hotter, obviously!)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/06/does-noaas-national-climatic-data-center-ncdc-keep-two-separate-sets-of-climate-books-for-the-usa/

    Firstly it provoked a small storm of sneering protests, then it was deleted altogether. How about that, deleted for posting the truth that La Goldenberg had conveniently omitted to include in her piece.

    One more thing: perhaps Lord Monckton could have some fun asking various warmist organisations how great the news is, that global warming has stopped and Mankind is saved! There could be some interesting mileage in that one.

  51. Silver Ralph:

    At January 14, 2013 at 1:39 pm you assert

    Surely, the House of Lords has seniority over and above the Serious Fraud Office.

    No, it does not.
    The House has no power to prosecute except in the case of misdemeanor in the House or by a Lord.

    Richard

  52. As amply compensated head of the Met Office, Mde. Julia Slingo has not only taken a standard public-servant’s (sic) Oath of Office, but functioned in a fiduciary capacity that precludes corrupt, self-serving actions to the detriment of her office’s constituents.

    Extenuate, excuse herself, prevaricate at length and in detail as she may, Mde. Slingo is prima facie guilty of willfully misrepresenting material facts for her explicit personal benefit. Call this what you will, official cheats and liars betraying public trust are far more serious than any mere embezzlement. One way to deal with this is to enjoin Slingo et al. from propagating any further counter-factual hypotheses, meaning any maliciously fictitious CAGW factoids whatsoever, on pain of barrel-head prosecution for due cause.

    Next up: Briffa, Jones, Hansen, Mann, Trenberth among others– the entire Green Gang of peculating Goodfellas dipping into public tills for nigh-on a quarter century. Faugh.

  53. I have the name for the class action, Equal justice for Bernie Madoff.
    Bernie got life plus for a fraud that is peanuts by comparison.
    Great Post Christopher M.
    Perhaps the real crime is in the failure of our institutions to prevent this cycle of promoting public hysteria for money.
    Awful expensive watchdogs that don’t watch.Won’t act. Why should I keep feeding them?
    Like the Just-us department, Environmental Protection, Major Crimes act…

  54. Dan King says:
    January 14, 2013 at 1:00 pm

    While it may be true that the nitwits at the Met actually do believe the twaddle they propagateregarding global warming, Lord Monckton gives a list of claims made by the Met that are quite clearly counter factual. Either they are frauds, or they are incompetant at their current positions.

  55. @bw totally agree, defund UN and they won’t cause us further aggro, if we send them somewhere they have been telling us is warming like never before.
    The high Arctic where they can hug polar bears to sooth their scamming hearts.

  56. I very much agree with Ingvar Engelbrecht (see above), who said this:
    “I really think that a worldwide NGO could be formed, based on the web, financed by individuals all over the world, chaired by trustworthy people like you, Donna, JoeNova just to name a few. And with a scientific body that could match IPCC.
    We have an enormous army but it is scattered.”
    We are BIG!
    We could even establish our own newspaper or T.V. station, since the MSM are all controlled by the Leftist/Warmistas.
    We just need better organisation and I think we could be very effective in getting the truth out there.
    (Great piece by Lord Monckton, as usual.)

  57. This helps to understand global warming organizations as just another set of social programs competing for budget space. All such special interests, especially the less stable funding lines will employ alarmist tactics to stay in the budget fray and not get lost in the stampede of programs. This is true for growth money as well as absolute funding levels. It is a little more uncommon for such budget interests to try to distort program statistics to this extreme. It takes incredibly stupid or incredibly distracted public officials to get it this wrong on a serial basis relative to the program metrics. Distracted is code for money and power.

  58. Clear and concise as always. What a great team willis and Chris. make.
    I love George Tetley’s suggestion but I would have no faith in our supreme court in Strasbourg!
    The M.O. statements certainly seem to be designed to mislead and confuse politicians with the consequence of them following economically suicidal energy policies.
    May not be legally ‘fraud’ but a more pertinent word escapes me.

  59. David Rose’s newspaper certainly has the ability publicize the Met Office’s distortions. David Rose can ask the Met Office to issue a retraction and/or threaten Met Office for libel. (That would at least force the Met Office to run future statements by a lawyer before issuing them.) If none of these things happens, the Met Office will continue to distort with impunity.

  60. Fraud is probably a little bit too strong, “overly cavalier with the facts” might be a bit better.

    Just as the Cold War ended, so will belief in CAGW alarmism. The top Met Office guys are not stupid – they may be greedy, but that is something totally different. They are preparing for the post-CAGW world, when unfounded alarmism will be as rare as a Marxist enthusiast today.

    This is a transition process, so sneaking in these new forecasts may have been aimed at deceiving alarmists rather than sceptics.

    It could be the start of a Brave New World, only time will tell.

  61. The real problem is the stupidity of those who have faith in the cause. Against all evidence, they believe in the product of the climate models, i.e., projected warming. When you point to the temperature record of the last sixteen-eighteen years, they say “cherry picking”.
    When you say observations refute the models, they point to the models and say “the models say that cannot be”. When you point out that that the models simply elaborate AGW theory, they say the models prove AGW. They commit fraud because they have a need to sustain their beliefs.

  62. 4. “Each of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.”

    What do they expect in an, although inflated, uptrend (and which has now stalled). It is such a simplistic statement. Nobody disputes warming since the 70’s so what’s their point anyway? Well, as long as they can say ‘warmest’ in a sentence it is for the sake of The Cause! Also when we will get in a downtrend, the first decade of that downtrend will still be in the region of warmest years. They have a big reservoir of warmest years ahead! Warming or cooling. They think they can not lose!

    So, dear Lord Monckton, PLEASE sue them for fraud, since it is the case, because the public needs to be informed about the real problem with their acts, predictions and presentations.
    CAGW will be fought and overturned in court. It will be a long and dirty road but we will prevail.
    Your relentless efforts to achieve that goal will long be remembered.

  63. Dscott,
    Re: CFCs and ozone, Susan Solomon (of later IPCC notoriety) made her name in that issue in the mid-80s:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Solomon

    If that science is re-assessed she will be most distressed. She was one who gave Steve McIntyre a very hard time in the IPCC review process for AR4, when he had the temerity to ask to examine data and codes. Solomon somehow ‘knew’ this was unnecessary, and came down hard on the side of Hockey Team obstructionists.

    Btw, what is that about her Wikipedia entry listing her as a winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize?? Surely Wikipedia could not be so inaccurate (/sarcasm).

  64. @joeldshore says:
    January 14, 2013 at 12:54 pm
    Note in the context of the discussion, the authors are talking about looking at trends after removing ENSO….

    ——————
    Why remove ENSO? Isn’t ENSO part of the global climate equation or is it an alien induced phenomenon? Isn’t this analogous to someone being told by his doctor that if his heart problems are not taken into consideration, then he is in perfect health?

  65. The comments by the MET appear to be disingenuous, deliberately misleading. (i.e. The person making the comment, appears to know that the current temperature observations supports the assertion planetary warming has stalled, stopped and appears to be attempting to hid that fact.) I would assume the person making the comments is also aware that there are multiple published papers supporting the assertion that the planet’s response to a change in forcing is to resist the change (negative feedback) rather than to amplify (positive) feedback, which means the warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will be around 1C with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes, as opposed to the IPCC predicted 3C and greater warming which requires amplification of the CO2 warming.

    P.S. I support Willis Eschenbach’s comment concerning Christopher Monckton of Brenchley’s clear presentation of the issues of dispute and enjoy reading Moncton and Willis’s comments and analysis.

    Sensitivity and Its Implications
    The extreme AGW movement has a significant logical problem and a media message problem. Unaltered data and unbiased analysis does not support the extreme AGW paradigm. Lindzen and others have unequivocally shown that the planet resists warming due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere by increasing cloud cover in the tropics thereby reflecting more sunlight off in to space, which is called negative feedback. If there is negative feedback as opposed to amplification (positive feedback) a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in roughly 1C warming. The IPCC have stated that there goal is to limit the planet’s warming due to atmospheric CO2 increases to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 to 2C. Mission accomplished. A doubling of at atmospheric CO2 will result in roughly 1C warming, with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes.

    http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/LindzenChoi2011.235213033.pdf

    On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
    Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi
    We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000- 2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various criticisms are taken into account. The present analysis accounts for the 72 day precession period for the ERBE satellite in a more appropriate manner than in the earlier paper. We develop a method to distinguish noise in the outgoing radiation as well as radiation changes that are forcing SST changes from those radiation changes that constitute feedbacks to changes in SST. We demonstrate that our new method does moderately well in distinguishing positive from negative feedbacks and in quantifying negative feedbacks. In contrast, we show that simple regression methods used by several existing papers generally exaggerate positive feedbacks and even show positive feedbacks when actual feedbacks are negative. We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. ….

    …The heart of the global warming issue is so-called greenhouse warming. This refers to the fact that the earth balances the heat received from the sun (mostly in the visible spectrum) by radiating in the infrared portion of the spectrum back to space. Gases that are relatively transparent to visible light but strongly absorbent in the infrared (greenhouse gases) interfere with the cooling of the planet, forcing it to become warmer in order to emit sufficient infrared radiation to balance the net incoming sunlight (Lindzen, 1999). By net incoming sunlight, we mean that portion of the sun’s radiation that is not reflected back to space by clouds, aerosols and the earth’s surface. CO2, a relatively minor greenhouse gas, has increased significantly since the beginning of the industrial age from about 280 ppmv to about 390 ppmv, presumably due mostly to man’s emissions. This is the focus of current concerns. However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of well mixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007). This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling. Clouds also change so that their visible reflectivity decreases, causing increased solar absorption and warming of the earth. Cloud feedbacks are still considered to be highly uncertain (IPCC, 2007), but the fact that these feedbacks are strongly positive in most models is considered to be an indication that the result is basically correct. Methodologically, this is unsatisfactory. Ideally, one would seek an observational test of the issue. Here we suggest that it may be possible to test the issue with existing data from satellites.

  66. Another great article from Lord Monckton. There is no even a question that Britain can no longer afford the present BOM Even a child or Blind Freddy could see that the BOM has committed and continues to commit daily fraud against taxpayers. In Australia the parallel organization and the one in NZ are running neck and neck with the British BOM by increasing forecast high temperatures each day 3 or more degrees over what transpires and what they had known to be true. It’s all about the headlines for the masses.

  67. I feel like I am dealing with a moderator who is 16 years old. Does Anthony Watts know how disgracefully you are carrying out your responsibilities as a moderator? I plan to tell him if he does not know.

    REPLY: I know, and if my moderator said you were making an ad hom that needed a snip, I’ll tend to believe him.

    For now, I’m going to put you in permanent moderation, because you are using a fake email ( grappa@xoxy.net) which checks out as bad here: http://verify-email.org/ Site rules require a real email address. Be as upset as you wish. – Anthony

  68. The MET Office appears to have committed fraud…the BBC has broken its charter to be even handed and balanced. The Guardian and the Independent have disgraced themselves.
    We the British taxpayers have been cheated out of billions and all because of a bunch of sanctimonious, over educated middle class pompous arrogant morons don’t know the difference between the planet’s favourite fertiliser and a pollutant.
    Not only that, they have never heard of Ice Ages and Holocenes…and appear blissfully unaware that the past has been considerably warmer than the present.
    Oh…..and that we are cooling and have been for 10,000 years.
    Go for it Lord Monckton.

  69. as with climategate skeptics harm themselves by overcharging the case. Reserve the word fraud for better cases than this.

  70. “REPLY: I know, and if my moderator said you were making an ad hom that needed a snip, I’ll tend to believe him. ”

    You better think about that. He is sticking a knife into your credibility.

    “For now, I’m going to put you in permanent moderation, because you are using a fake email ( grappa@xoxy.net) which checks out as bad here: http://verify-email.org/ Site rules require a real email address. Be as upset as you wish. – Anthony”

    I sent you an email via the contact form. I am not upset, just disappointed.

  71. Steven Mosher says:
    January 14, 2013 at 2:44 pm

    as with climategate skeptics harm themselves by overcharging the case. Reserve the word fraud for better cases than this.

    When did the Met Office release the ‘good’ news? What is the Met Office budget? How expensive is their latest super compurter? How many people died when they predicted milder winters in the past few years? This is fraud, pure and simple. And it comes at a terrible price.

  72. Sorry for this non-contributory response, but…the big words are FABULOUS – keep ‘em coming please. Perhaps we could publish “The Little Book of Monckton’s Big Words” when this whole mess is over.

  73. Dan King says:
    January 14, 2013 at 1:00 pm

    A good article except for the last bit. I think accusing the Met Office of fraud is over the top, and it doesn’t help your case. Fraud means an intention to deceive. It differs from just being mistaken. I agree that the Met Office is mistaken, but clearly they believe their own story. So it isn’t fraud–intent is not there.

    You are naive. Why the heck did they release their graph on Xmas eve, or was it Xmas day? They are milking the public purse. Fraud is too mild a word.

  74. alex the skeptic says:

    January 14, 2013 at 2:25 pm

    @joeldshore says:
    January 14, 2013 at 12:54 pm
    Note in the context of the discussion, the authors are talking about looking at trends after removing ENSO….

    ——————
    Why remove ENSO? Isn’t ENSO part of the global climate equation or is it an alien induced phenomenon? Isn’t this analogous to someone being told by his doctor that if his heart problems are not taken into consideration, then he is in perfect health?
    ===================================
    Joel Shore is one of those who thinks that data should be altered to fit the theory.

    He also maintains that the product of the GCM’s (projected warming) prove AGW.
    If you show him the temperature trend of the last eighteen years, he calls that “cherry picking”

    You get the picture, I’m sure.

  75. Christopher Monckton asks two questions:

    Q#1
    So here is my question. In the specific instance I have sketched out above, where a journalist was publicly named and wrongly shamed by a powerful taxpayer-funded official body telling lies, has that body committed a serious fraud that forms part of a pattern of connected frauds right across the governing class worldwide?

    Q#2
    Or am I going too far in calling a fraud a fraud?

    – – – – – – – –

    Christopher Monckton,

    Response to Q#1 – Here is just one of my many possible criminal theories. In one scenario I think the MET Office committed fraud but only secondarily as an accessory after-the-fact. The initial fraud rests with the scientists who intentionally manipulated areas of scientific research to meet the mandated ideological ‘a priori’ belief of the IPCC’s charter. The IPCC charter was not to find out the basis for climate behavior in the industrial era, the IPCC’s charter was to find support of the mandated ‘a priori’ belief that there is alarming AGW by CO2 from from burning fossil fuels in the industrial era. I lay the initial fraud at the feet of a non-selfcorrecting climate science group that formed an isolated, self-reviewing, non-transparent and closed community. A community who sought to and did accomplish the favorable corruption of the funding processes and the journal review process. Scientists committed the primary fraud and the MET Office took subsequent advantage knowing full well about scientists initial fraud. SO, I look forward to discussion of the merits and flaws in my one- of-many possible crime theories. Call it scenario #1 of ‘n’, where ‘n’ is not a small number.

    Response to Q#2 – you do not seem to me to be exaggerating in calling it a likely case of fraud.

    John

  76. “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability.

    The climate models do not model internal climate variability. The models have incorporated into them an amount of (psuedo) randomness that approximates to what the climate modellers think is the amount of natural variability in the climate.

    Therefore, if the models (simulations) show no warming for a decade, a century, or a millenia, this is evidence of absolutely nothing, except that the modellers have increased the amount of randomness in their model.

    It is thoroughly deceitful to pretend that any period of no warming in the model simulations actually means anything.

  77. of course it’s fraud….but it’s government fraud and that makes it ok
    Just look at all the new tax money that they made. < put that little dot there for Willis

  78. Steven Mosher says:
    January 14, 2013 at 2:44 pm

    as with climategate skeptics harm themselves by overcharging the case. Reserve the word fraud for better cases than this.

    While (gasp!) i generally agree with you here, mosh, we tried “mail fraud” with Gleick. But just as with the UK officials, the US officials declined to prosecute …

    And the UK folks couldn’t prosecute the fraud revealed by Climategate because of the statute of limitations …

    So while as I said I agree with you that this case seems to not rise to the level of fraud, reserving the word fraud for better cases than this hasn’t worked all that well either. And since it hasn’t, we are reduced to taking other actions against the fraudulent actions. I, for example, write open letters to Dr. Gundersen and discuss Gleick’s fraud, since it seems he won’t face any official censure for his actions.

    What I (and you, I assume) don’t like is the cheapening of what is in fact a serious offense, that of fraud. And for that, I would fault Christopher Monckton if I though he were making a serious charge. Having only a passing acquaintance with Lord Chris and his actions, however, I would tend to look at it as a bit of stage management, a way to indirectly highlight the poor outcomes of the Met folks.

    I think it was stage management because, for example, while Heartland (and I) expected that criminal charges had a good chance of being laid for wire fraud against Gleick, do you really think Lord Chris expected the UK authorities to bring criminal charges against the UK Meteorological Office? Sammy Jimmy the Greek is not giving good odds on that ever happening, it has what our UK cousins call “Buckley’s chance” of occurring, and Christopher knows that.

    That’s why I think he saw this as a way to highlight just how abysmally poor the performance of the Met Office has been. I see it as street theatre, in much the same way as his actions in Doha were street theatre.

    All the best, glad to see we agree on things at times,

    w.

  79. To their credit it is definitely not money they are stealing, just numbers on bank accounts, created out of thin air by commercial banks, by lending more than the amount of deposits they have, licensed to do so by corrupt political bodies, utterly failing the general electorate that was tricked to authorize them to set up the largest Ponzi scheme of history.

    The climate fraud is only a minor part of this dirty business, designed to let it go just for another while, as the bitter end is inevitable eventually anyway.

  80. Mosher says, ” as with climategate skeptics harm themselves by overcharging the case. Reserve the word fraud for better cases than this. No amount of evidence will be adequate for him to critizie his fellow warmers. Have we all had enough of the the “obsequious” one.

  81. Steven Mosher says:
    January 14, 2013 at 2:44 pm

    as with climategate skeptics harm themselves by overcharging the case. Reserve the word fraud for better cases than this.
    ==================
    or just take them to court in Italy

  82. Willis, old sage one, I’ve heard of Jimmy, but not Sammy the Greek. Where is Sammy located?

    [... hits himself on forehead ... "Jimmy! Of course! Sammy is his cousin, he was working out of Athens until the market collapsed ... fixed. w.]

  83. Guest post by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley: “The Fraud Act 2000 defines the serious imprisonable offence of fraud as dishonestly making an express or implied representation that the offender knows is or may be untrue or misleading, intending to gain money or other property (here, grant funding) or to cause loss or risk of loss to another ($30 billion a year of unnecessary “green” taxes, fees and charges to the British public).”
    =============================================================

    Although I am absolutely not an expert on the Fraud Act 2006, I doubt very seriously that grant funding can be considered to be a gain and unnecessary “green” taxes, fees and charges can be considered to be a loss.

    My guess is that loss or gain should be direct to qualify. Grant funding is not a gain actually, it is a payment for a work/scientific research. If some scientific research has been conducted and salaries paid, then it would hardly qualify for “gain”.

    Anyway, before writing such articles one should better consult a competent lawyer.

  84. In Canada, by itself the Met Office would have committed a “fraud” under your terms, been part of a “conspiracy” if it involved others within its jurisdiction, i.e. throughout Britain, and a “racket” if it involved crossing jurisdictions as to organizing with NASA/NOAA/the Australian BOM etc.

    A fraud, a conspiracy and a racket are each separate, criminal actions, with increasing severity.

    The Mafia understand this well.

  85. Dear Lord Moncton:

    Yes, this is clearly fraud on the public – and there is something you can do.

    If you can crash a climate conference, you can crash the House of Lords – after all, thepeerage still exists and law excluding you is not that clear. Since the house still has a post-judicial function: making your appeal there could force the judiciary to take note – and the government to support you. Underline “could”, of course.

    Good luck!
    Murph

  86. steven mosher, one last comment. Christopher is aware of your concern that this may not rise to the level of fraud, he closes by saying:

    So here is my question. In the specific instance I have sketched out above, where a journalist was publicly named and wrongly shamed by a powerful taxpayer-funded official body telling lies, has that body committed a serious fraud that forms part of a pattern of connected frauds right across the governing class worldwide?

    Or am I going too far in calling a fraud a fraud?

    Me, I don’t know the answer. I do know that the Met Office telling porkies to name and shame an opponent is a Very Bad Thing™, and it is clear that they knew (or should have known) that their attack on David Rose for having the infernal gall to discuss the ongoing hiatus in warming of 15+ years was scientific BS. The warming has indeed paused, for a while.

    Is that “fraud” or some other crime? I don’t know enough about the UK law to tell you. It definitely is a huge over-reach for a government institution. Lord Chris makes a good case that it might be, but we’ll never know without an official investigation. Me, I generally put down to ignorance what ignorance is sufficient to explain. Bad computer models and poor seasonal forecasts come under that heading.

    However, as Lord Chris points out, when there is big money (billions) at stake, it behooves us to lift the blanket and see just what the good old boys are up to. At that point, being ignorant is perhaps more deliberate than not. That is the point where they start to swing their weight against private citizens who make inconvenient claims.

    At that point, the next question to ask is, who is making the Met Office decisions, and where is their money coming from? If they or their friends were getting windmill money, for example, or if their fortune is invested in carbon futures, that would not reflect well. Be clear that that is illustrative and that I have no information that the Met folks are anything but honestly deluded when they make such scientifically laughable statements.

    However, with that much big bucks at stake, and with that level of denial of scientific reality, it would be interesting reading to know where their money comes from.

    Best regards to you, my friend,

    w.

  87. How much of society’s resources have been wasted on a hunch and a personal belief system?

    It wll be up to $ 1 trillion soon since the burn rate is up to $100 billion per year now.

    Somebody has to pay for causing that amount of waste/loss at some point.

  88. It took my wife to point this out – that in fact what the Met Office has done is merely to extend the window of opportunity. As I understand it they are now saying that variability can mean pauses of 20 years between warming episodes and then after 20 years it will re-commence warming. How convenient, since this will not now be measurable for a few more years.

  89. A foul odor emanates from the Met. Whether it be fraud or stupidity, someone needs to take the cover off and poke around. We have something more definite going on with the EPA , thanks to Chris Horner. I myself have no doubt that Horner is on the trail of crooks, i.e. favors bought and sold. Wonderful thing to be able to save humanity and make hay while doing so.

    Somebody needs to be poking a stick at the Met, like Chris Horner pokes the EPA.

  90. I have a touching faith in the English legal system – the courts that is, not the police.

    After all, it was an English judge who declared that there were multiple falsities in Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth – and who caused the UK Department of Education to require teachers to put some balancing information alongside any showing of the film to schoolchildren. Yes, the UK school curriculum is still full of AGW bilge, but at least that judge took his decision on the FACTS of the case put before him.

    And 30 years ago Tom Denning, a superb top judge said “You may be high and mighty in the land, but the law of England is above you” – when slapping down a Secretary of State for Trade He was upholding the Magna Carta idea that we should all be equal before the law.

    So I have hope that little by little, the AGW case will be challenged before courts of law. Only the judges are capable of stepping aside from the groupthink that has seized the bulk of the UK political class and most of the UK media for decades now. Especially the BBC, which has an overarching impact on public debate in the UK, and which marches in lockstep with the Guardian on most issues.

    Lord Monkton is correct to say that the Met Office has been defrauding us. Just as some of the ClimateGate enquiries in the UK were largely fraudulent – taking public money but blatantly failing to conduct proper enquiries. .But it won’t be a large and dramatic action for fraud that does the damage, because the Serious Fraud Office is traditionally supine. Private individuals and private bodies cannot bring a fraqud action. It is more likely that the AGW juggernaut can be slowed by smaller actions involving other aspects of the law, such as before the Freedom of Information Commissioner, or – as suggested by some commentators earlier in this thread – possible actions for libel by sceptical journalists traduced by the Met Office or other AGW zealots.

    In particular, some of the recent statements by Slingo and the Met Office have been personally aimed at individual journalists, and have been so misleading and aggressive that at the very least a couple of stiff letters from lawyers for the journalists or their newspapers ought to be shot across the bows of Sling and the Met Office.

    ……………………

    As regards the House of Lords, it has very limited powers. But Their Lordships also have more room for independent thought than the lobby-fodder politicians in the House of Commons. Lord Lawson and latterly Lord Donoughue are now asking more pertinant Parliamentary Questions than any we have seen in the Commons. Lawson was formerly a Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Donoghue was chief policy advisor to two Labour Prime Ministers. I am sure they will be weighing in with further questions about the Met Office.

  91. Monckton has earned a role as a folk hero, having simplified his arguments without dumbing them down, and he’s got war in him, properly.

  92. Willis Eschenbach on January 14, 2013 at 12:38 pm

    Christopher Monckton is one of the best wordsmiths on the current scene. I would recommend to him that he not change a single thing about how he writes. It is funny, literary, and full of interesting info. I’m just glad he’s on my side …

    w.

    {above bold emphasis mine – JW}

    – – – – – – –

    Willis,

    I understand and tend to agree with the thrust of your whole comment. But one part, quoted above, I would like to discuss further with you as I think I may not agree with it.

    If the context that you intend in your statement about ‘my side’ is strictly a scientific one, then I differ that ‘sides’ exist in the broad scope of the rigorous scientific process and its professional ethics. I think in science, per se, there are no ‘sides’.

    If you are talking about a non-scientific context then would you please specify what other context?

    Thanks. I find these kinds of discussions worthwhile.

    John

  93. leftturnandre says:
    “Do numbers count? What if everybody reported the Met Office to the Serious Fraud Office?”
    ——————
    I’d be willing to do my part! If an organized response by a group can impress the [self-snip] at the Serious Fraud Office, I say let’s do it.

    Side note: As time goes on I appreciate Monty Python’s portrayal of British bureaucracy ever more…

    Lord Monckton, we support you sir!

  94. Or am I going too far in calling a fraud a fraud?

    I would rate it at about seven “Pinochios” on a scale of 1 to 10.

  95. There are two kinds of fraud.

    Criminal fraud is where someone deliberately misleads or deceives for personal gain, and is prosecuted by the government. It is very hard to demonstrate that a public servant who gives wrong advice did it for personal gain, unless it involves something like trying to swing a government contract to them or their associates. In the case of an organisation, if it has deliberately lied to the government to obtain public funding, that is usually dealt with through a parliamentary process in the first instance, such as a parliamentary or Ministerial inquiry. Pinning responsibility on individuals is extremely difficult in such cases.

    Civil fraud is a different matter. That is where an individual sues an individual or entity because they can personally demonstrate loss or damage as a result of deception or misrepresentation. The standard of proof is lower. This type of action includes defamation suits.

    I agree that Monckton’s question is largely rhetorical, but the journalist could investigate the possibility of a defamation suit. Cases where people have tried to sue because they were damaged by a government policy which turned out to be wrong almost never succeed, because as long as the parliament approved the policy, it is allowed to be wrong. (This is a very generalised explanation of how it works under a Westminster system, but you get the idea.)

    Criminal fraud? Highly unlikely, unless you can prove that people lied or took kickbacks knowing that the information they were providing was wrong.

  96. John Whitman says:
    January 14, 2013 at 4:25 pm

    … If the context that you intend in your statement about ‘my side’ is strictly a scientific one, then I differ that ‘sides’ exist in the broad scope of the rigorous scientific process and its professional ethics. I think in science, per se, there are no ‘sides’.

    Heck, there are “sides” wherever there are disputes in science. Sometimes they even have names. For example, in biology there are “lumpers” and “splitters”, those that tend to lump a variety of animals into one species or other unit, and “splitters” who tend to split a variety of animals into different species or other unit. For years, there were sides in the discussion of plate tectonics, those who did and didn’t believe in it.

    Today, in climate science we have skeptics and AGW supporters. They are as much scientific “sides” as are the lumpers and the splitters in biology, although the dividing line is far less clear.

    Me, I’m neither a skeptic nor an AGW supporter. I’m a heretic. I think that the planet has a variety of homeostatic mechanisms that maintain the temperature within tight bounds, such as the ± 1/3°C of variability over the entire 20th century. I wish there were more folks on my side, but that’s my challenge.

    w.

  97. My layman’s interpretation of things is that the Met Office is part of a government department which is mostly funded by government (at the expense of the taxpayer, obviously), so even if there is fraud, the police and CPS will not act unless a charge is to be brought at the behest of government (which would have to be against individuals in the Met Office, not the Met Office as an institution). However, it might be possible for a company or individual to make a case if monies were paid for services from the Met Office which were sold on terms that were deliberately misleading. In this regard, it is clearly not the case that the reply given to David Rose — even if it is misleading — could be said to have been material to the decision of anyone to buy services from the Met Office at this point: it could only be considered as such if it formed the basis for future sales by the Met Office, which seems highly unlikely.

    Moreover the field of “climate science” is so contested that it would obviously be possible for staff of the Met Office to argue that legitimate scientific considerations — rather than malfeasance — gave rise to any potentially misleading statements, and that consequently they were not deliberately misleading. There is a great deal of leg-room in respect of the interpretation of the various points they have made in their reply to David Rose.

    Whilst Lord Monckton of Brenchley has done far more than me to combat this silly climate change nonsense, nevertheless I wonder why he comes out with this sort of stuff. It’s one thing to argue that the staff of the Met Office have behaved in a deceptive manner (hardly unusual for government offices), but quite another to try to interest the police in such a trumped up charge. One may as well ask them to arrest the Secretary of State for Energy. Oh wait… what was that thing about the £17bn for wind farms?

  98. So what do the other climate prophets say where the global climate is heading after 5 years ?
    This is from the various articles that they have posted . The figures are either eyeballed or calculated from their data.
    Forecasts of global temperature anomaly [hadcrut3] at the end of 2017 [after next 5 years]

    JAMES HANSEN 1.4 C for A, 1.2 C for B and 0.6 C for C
    IPCC 0 .750 C [A2, A1B, B1]
    CLIVE BEST 0. 55 to 0 .7 C BASED ON AIB and B1 SCENARIOS]
    N.SCAFETTA 0.450 C HARMONIC MODEL [RANGE 0.3 C to 0.55 C]
    MET OFFICE 0.430 C [ RANGE 0.28 C to 0.59 C] WAS 0.76 C last month
    G.ORSSENGO 0.226 C[ Calculated from GMTA statistical model]
    D. EASTERBROOK -0.1C, 0 C and 0.4 C [made three predictions based on 1790-1820, 1880-1915, 1945-1977 past trends]

    LAST 12 MONTH TREND OF HADCRUT3 EXTENDED TO THE END OF 2017 0.350 C

  99. Joeldshor at 12.54pm offers a reasoned explanation of the NOAA’s State of the Climate Report 2008, as well as a link to that report. He explains the statement that “simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more” as saying nothing about non-zero trends – and says the actual trend has not been zero.

    I take this to mean that there has been no statistically significant trend since 1997 and therefore there has not been a zero trend.

    However, the NOAA report goes on to add: “an observed absence of warming of this duration [15 years] is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate”.

    That seems to be quite unequivocal: if there is no observed warming for 15 years, then the “expected .. warming rate” must be wrong. How else can it be interpreted?

  100. I suppose that some will get away with this fraud by simply arguing, “It wasn’t me that lied; it was my computer model. All I did was report what the model told me. I am, after all, obligated to report these things, since I have been paid all of this public money to do this research. The public has a right to know what it shows.”

    If it was my tail caught in this ringer, that’s what I would say. They’ve got a pretty good gig going.

  101. Joe Public says:
    January 14, 2013 at 12:17 pm

    And will (past & present) MPs admit to being so gullible as to be taken-in by an organisation which is plainly not-fit-for-purpose?

    Let’s call the House of Commons the House of Lards from now on!

  102. joeldshore:

    The point with my graphs was to show that, in 30 years time, I may be able to make exactly the same point as you have made about the trend starting from 1975, as with any of the three alternate trends I plotted (i.e. for trends beginning in 1994, 1997, or 2002). The point may also still be valid for the trend beginning in 1975, of course.

    The fact is that no-one knows what the future will bring. Being as how science is attempting to predict future outcomes of a chaotic system, and since what we do know about such a system is always likely to be outweighed by what we don’t to an infinite degree, I would not be at all surprised if the extrapolation of any of these four trends came to closely resemble the future 30 years of climate change or stability…or none of them at all.

    With this point in mind, I think it more constructive to evaluate the data which does exist rather than the data which doesn’t yet. In so doing you will note that the rate of global warming appears to have decelerated in recent years.

  103. crosspatch,

    Has it – by way of a withering exactitude:

    It is more than fraud, it is theft.

    Well said crosspatch, entirely you’ve encapsulated my thoughts.

  104. Scute says: January 14, 2013 at 1:51 pm

    I would say the Met gets 90% of my criticism, Rose, 10%.
    ========================================
    Rose deserves no criticism whatsoever. In fact he deserves plaudits for forcing the Met into a public posture of defending their “frauds”. This was an important contribution and we owe unreserved thanks to David Rose.

  105. Willis Eschenbach on January 14, 2013 at 4:40 pm

    [ . . . ]

    Heck, there are “sides” wherever there are disputes in science. [ . . . ]

    [ . . . ]

    – – – – – – – –

    Willis,

    Thanks for corresponding.

    With respect to things that are man-made (not the primary of preexisting nature) like governments, economic structures and moral systems then I can see ‘sides’.

    On the other hand, if hard reality (nature) is the test of a scientist’s physical science position (theory and prediction) then I do not see that scientists who differ are on ‘sides’. They all, in a nature focused scientific process, want to find the necessary identity of nature and the principles of behavior of the identity. The think the inherent benefit of multiple totally independent scientists researching in parallel on nature is the multiplying of the wealth and corroborating input / review; not taking ‘sides’. I can only see scientists striving to take a side; taking reality’s ‘side’ not its ‘sides’.

    John

  106. The Wet Office seems to be trying to soften up the world community to a new element of the CAGW doctrine – Weather of Mass Destruction. WMD has got its own poison gasses viz CO2 & CH4. Ordinary people can’t see them, but Govt. experts know they are there – hidden in the atmosphere and burried beneath the permafrost. Its worse than the experts thought – WMD.

  107. alex the skeptic says:

    Why remove ENSO? Isn’t ENSO part of the global climate equation or is it an alien induced phenomenon? Isn’t this analogous to someone being told by his doctor that if his heart problems are not taken into consideration, then he is in perfect health?

    The reason to do this is because you have a climatic “signal” and weather “noise”. If you can reduce the noise, you can more clearly see the signal. That means that you will get a more accurate estimate of the underlying trend.

    And no, your analogy is not a good one. Note that the method of correcting for ENSO does not significantly change the trend when applied to a large enough time series of temperature. But, for a short series, it can correct the trend for the bias due to the fact that you started your measurement during an El Nino and stopped during it during a La Nina or vice versa. It can also produce a less noisy data set and thus allow you to obtained statistically-significant measurements over shorter periods than you could otherwise (or, in other words, less uncertainty in the trend).

    At any rate, whether or not you think it is useful to do this, the point is that the statement made by the NOAA climate report assumed that the data was handled in this way. You can’t just take their statement about 15 years and apply it to data that is handled in a different way.

  108. 5. “The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming … so … such a period [15 years without warming] is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely.”

    The Met Office used to say
    “We found about one in every eight decades has near or negative global temperature trends.”

    It would appear that they adjust their possible period “without warming” as the errors of their model get exposed more and more. This period of “without warming” will eventually become another embarrassment as the actual or observed period extends into decades as it did in the past.These past periods of no net rise in tempertaures lasted 3-4 decades[see 1880-1930 and again 1940-1940

  109. Looks like our federal government has instructed the ABC and the CSIRO to ramp up publicity on man made climate change to gain support for their new carbon tax and of course the elections in October. Plenty of propaganda going on via ABC news in the last couple of days featuring IPCC reports.

  110. mpainter says:

    Joel Shore is one of those who thinks that data should be altered to fit the theory.

    Please don’t put words into my mouth. What I believe is that it is sometimes useful to reduce the noise in a data set if you can easily do so and if tests of the method show that it does indeed reduce the noise without producing a series bias.

    And furthermore, I believe that if someone says, “If you do process X to a data set and observe Y then Z is true,” then it is not logically correct to conclude that Z is true if you observe Y in a data set without having done process X on it. I am surprised that anybody, let alone someone like Monckton who prides himself on logic, would contest this point.

    He also maintains that the product of the GCM’s (projected warming) prove AGW.

    Again, please don’t put words in my mouth. You are doing a very poor job of it. I don’t even believe it is possible to prove anything in science, since science is inductive. Just because you don’t understand how science operates, don’t foist on us your incorrect interpretations of what people who do are saying.

  111. Hmmmm …

    A fun read but, and even on Mockton’s own characterization of the MET office’s statements in response to Rose, the MET is guilty of spin rather than lies.

    The MET is perfectly entitled to say, `this is our opinion expressed in the context we see as relevant, blah, blah, blah and a lot more of the blah’, until everyone gets too bored to argue back or almost loses the will to live.

    It’s called `public relations.’

    On this occasion, the Bear thinks the good Mockton has over-egged his pudding, drawn too long his bow, jumped his shark and, generally, veered off his reservation.

    Still, the MET office is full of #%*&, as we all well know …

  112. How is the employee retirement fund for the Met Office set up? Have they signed the priniciples of responsible investing? If so, they have a vested interest in people believing in the global warming idea to the point that the population generally does not gt upset about the govt devoting lots of money to green and combat-global warming activities. These data should not be that difficult to find.

  113. mpainter,

    joelshore says:

    “Just because you don’t understand how science operates, don’t foist on us your incorrect interpretations of what people who do are saying.”

    See, you just don’t understand science, so you had better listen to someone who does. [/sarc]

    The problem with joelshore’s arrogant attitude is the fact that the planet is not agreeing with his beliefs.

    I’m a ‘show me’ kinda guy. If the Met Office and joelshore argue one way, but the planet shows us they’re wrong, then the planet gets my vote. And because the planet clearly does not agree with the alarmist crowd, I know which one to believe: Planet Earth, and my lyin’ eyes.

  114. http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2012/05/06/met-office-forecasting-produces-another-epic-failure/

    It’s always helpful to connect the dots. The Chairman of the Met Office is Robert Napier. Not only is he a Non-Executive Director of Anglian Water, which has a drought order in place, he is also the former Chief Executive of WWF-UK, the UK arm of the World Wide Fund for Nature. That is the same WWF exposed as being engaged in systematic fraud in the developing world and which supplies the International Panel on Climate Change with material to prop up the climate change industry.

  115. Dan King says:
    January 14, 2013 at 1:00 pm
    If I promise you a million dollars if you send me your bank account by return post, I’m likely committing fraud. But if I have an idea for a business scheme that will net us both money, and I really think the plan will work–all I need is your bank account to make it happen–then I’m not committing fraud.
    =============
    So, the difference between fraud and bad business is belief? How can one ever be sure what the other person actually believes versus what they say they believe? For example, does Gore believe in global warming, or does he just see it as an easy way to make money? If he takes money without checking the facts it is OK, but if he checks the facts and takes the money anyways he had committed fraud? So, on this basis it is better to never check the facts and take the money, because ignorance is not fraud, it is bliss. Only someone that knows what they are talking about can commit fraud, because only they can separate fact from fiction.

  116. john robertson says:
    January 14, 2013 at 2:02 pm

    I have the name for the class action, Equal justice for Bernie Madoff.
    Bernie got life plus for a fraud that is peanuts by comparison…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Oh what a great bumper sticker/bulletin board that would make.

    Equal justice for Bernie Madoff, Convict the CAGW fraudsters!
    Bernie got life plus for a fraud that is peanuts by comparison

    Add one of the Al Gore cartoons for the bulletin board. (No names)

  117. The threat of legal action is a great tool to shut people up. If he was still alive you could ask Jimmy Saville. You definitely could ask Lance Armstrong.

    So if you don’t want a robust discussion of global warming, then threaten your opponents with legal action.

  118. Scute
    Good analysis. I personally also think that the Met Office should have released their latest decadal update in the Met Office News category because the information was significant and deviated from their previous constant claim of warming only. It just makes good PR sense and they badly need better PR.. This decadal update was long over due as their projections and the observed data were so different that their credibilty in the eyes of the public was clearly erroding even more with such a wrong decadal projection.

  119. All the world’s a stage, as the Shaking Speare team declared.

    We simply watch the actors and the fake events, and chatter nervously.

    In this video you can see another prominent fake, a Greenberg acting the part of warmist agitator “Max Keiser”. And of course the rest of the crew would be mere actors as well. “Nothing is real” as Theodor Adorno’s lyrics inform us.

  120. Athelstan. says:
    January 14, 2013 at 5:12 pm

    crosspatch,

    Has it – by way of a withering exactitude:

    It is more than fraud, it is theft.

    Well said crosspatch, entirely you’ve encapsulated my thoughts.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Actually I consider it murder…

    Fuel poverty deaths three times higher than government estimates

    The number of people dying as a result of fuel poverty is three times higher than government estimates suggest, according to new academic research.

    Some 7,800 people die during winter because they can’t afford to heat their homes properly, says fuel poverty expert Professor Christine Liddell of the University of Ulster. That works out at 65 deaths a day.…..

  121. There is another Met Office matter that has received relativey little attention. It is my understanding that the Met Office has been selling forecasts to private parties. For those forecasts to have value, they should obviously contain better information. For this to be so, the Met Office would have to withhold knowledge that they posess from the public, who paid for it. Is this not a conflict of interests?

  122. Lord Monckton

    Note that the ocean (SST) has faithfully not warmed since 1997 either and this is a Norwegian graph. Ignore the 37 month running average.

  123. If anyone is interested in evaluating Joel Shore, I refer them to this thread: “Wrong Prediction, Wrong Science; Unless It’s Government Climate Science” posted by Dr. Tim Ball on Jan. 8.

    On that thread I engaged Joel Shore in an attempt to show that the GCM’s are simply an elaboration of AGW theory. Now, this might seem obvious to most of those who read this, but not to Joel Shore. First he denied that there was any such thing as AGW theory:

    January 11, 2013 at 12:01 pm Joel Shore says:
    “There is no special “AGW theory” to incorporate into the climate models.”

    Then, he contradicts this statement at 8:37 am: “I did not say that there is no theory of AGW… but that this theory is formulated / supported on… evidence from climate models.

    I tried to point out that climate models elaborated AGW theory and hence to refer to GCM’s as confirmation (or proof) of AGW theory was simply circular.

    Joel Shore would have none of that. He finally went back to denying that GCM’s incorporate AGW theory. Thus Joel Shore.

    And yes, Joel Shore would remove the effect of ENSO because he does not understand that to do so is to adjust data. Thus Joel Shore.

    And, yes, Joel Shore has characterized references to the temperature record of the last sixteen years as “cherry-picking”.

    And yes, Joel Shore, refers to the models as confirmation of AGW, and ignores observations which refute the models.

    In addition, Joel Shore made claims that the GCM’s were in agreement on “climate sensitivity”, except for clouds, showing his unfamiliarity with the discrepancies of the GCM’s.

    And yes, the GCM’s project indefinite warming because they are devised to, and in fact, can project nothing else. But Joel Shore would dispute this, too.

  124. John Brookes says:

    “So if you don’t want a robust discussion of global warming…”

    Who are you trying to fool? The fact is that the alarmist crowd runs and hides out from any real debate. So much for your “robust discussion.”

    Any time Michael Mann wants to debate, he will get plenty of skeptics competing for the opportunity.

  125. Willis Eschenbach;
    Today, in climate science we have skeptics and AGW supporters.
    >>>>>>>>>

    Hmmm, in my humble opinion, no. When I call myself a skeptic I mean I am skeptical of CAGW. As soon as you take the “C” out of the acronym, I don’t know what I’d call me. (Lot’s of people call me lot’s of things but let’s restrict this to climate, shall we?). I think the first order effects of CO2 increases are positive in regard to surface temps. I think magnitude is unknown. I think sign and magnitude of feed backs is unknown. I think there is no evidence of “C”.

  126. I don’t understand how anyone thinks this is not fraud. In fact, it is fraud AND theft (as Crosspatch said) AND murder (as Gail Combs said). Anyone can make a mistake, but over and over and over, and ALWAYS in the same direction – warmer – I’m sorry, but that’s deliberate intent to mislead and to harm the public. This has been going on for years now, so they know exactly what the consequences have been and continue to be – taxes, fuel poverty, and death. Has that stopped them? No. Has it made them think? No. They keep right on at it, and yes, money does change hands, of course it does. They’re rewarded for giving the government what the government asks for – there’s huge money in this scam for everyone involved in it. These people are not mistaken or deluded, they are criminals. All of them.

  127. Between April 08 and March 09, 1,325 cases of fraud and theft were identified within UK Government bodies amounting to £4,219,500.

    The types of fraud were such things as theft of physical assets, including cash; frauds that involve falsely creating or diverting payments; theft of incoming cash or cheques; fraudulent claims for payment of expenses or the creation of false payroll records; using the assets of the organisation for other than official purposes and/or supplying information to outsiders for personal gain; fraud involving contractors, sub-contractors, crown servants or any combination of these.

    One particular incident involved a member of staff in a Government department creating false records and authorising fraudulent repayment claims totaling £357,100.

    The Home Office has an executive agency called the National Fraud Authority which sits “at the heart of government with access to key decision-makers and ministers across a range of key departments.” The City of London Police was recognised as the National lead force for fraud under the Fraud Review in April 2008. The UK’s national fraud reporting centre is Action Fraud which is run by the NFA.

    In the EU, €67.9 million was recovered as a result of the European Anti-Fraud Office’s (OLAF) cases. €351.2 million was also recovered in respect of financial follow-up cases. National courts sentenced fraudsters to a cumulative 125 years’ imprisonment during 2010 and imposed financial penalties amounting to nearly € 1.47 billion as a result of the Anti-Fraud Office’s cases.

    However I think Monckton of Brenchley was simply using fraud as a way of drawing attention to the Met Office’s perverse climate prediction activities. No complaint against the Met Office will be followed up by the authorities unless it was for specific fraudulent actions such as those mentioned above by known individuals.

    I would echo Willis’s comment that I believe the post by the Viscount is ‘stage management’ and can delight in how it eloquently draws attention to the way taxpayers money has been swallowed up in pursuit of a gargantuan red herring.

  128. A little off topic perhaps but I wanted to follow one point in my previous post (where I mentioned infinity) to its logical conclusion.

    There exists an infinite number of fractions between zero and one. Taken in this context, zero and one can never be said to truly exist. Integers and decimal places are thus a human invention for our convenience and sanity. This is the basis of all mathematics and science, and the concept of infinity the basis of (and that which necessitates) “God”.

    This is also the reason for the existence of everything. Since infinity exists, “zero” and “one” cannot exist. Since “zero” and “one”cannot exist, infinity must exist in their place. The human brain cannot conceive of infinity, for to do so it would need to be of infinite size itself. So we’ll never understand it.

    Therefore we are what we are, and where we are, and why we are.

  129. Jimbo

    “When did the Met Office release the ‘good’ news? What is the Met Office budget? How expensive is their latest super compurter? How many people died when they predicted milder winters in the past few years? This is fraud, pure and simple. And it comes at a terrible price.”

    ##############

    saying it is so doesnt make it so.

  130. Bob says:
    January 14, 2013 at 3:40 pm (Edit)
    Mosher says, ” as with climategate skeptics harm themselves by overcharging the case. Reserve the word fraud for better cases than this. No amount of evidence will be adequate for him to critizie his fellow warmers. Have we all had enough of the the “obsequious” one.

    ###############################

    Actually I criticize anyone I choose to. It is very simple. Let is suppose that their model output predicted .1C per decade of warming and we had a email from one fellow to another saying..

    “.1C is not high enough, just double it, no body will catch it ” Simple evidence, easy case.
    Saying something that you know to be false. Personally I like to reseverve the word fraud for cases like that, where you have clear evidence ( not un scientific mind reading) that the person knew what they were writing was false and they wrote it to mislead.

    You see, the mistake you made when you tried to read my mind. ( i know the print is small)

  131. The MET has certainly committed fraud.

    MET’s numerous false and misleading statements clearly meet the legal criteria of both mens rea (intent) and actus reus (criminal acts: malfeasance of taxpayer money based on the deception).

    If Lord Monckton’s lawsuit was allowed to be shown in the light of justice, the MET would clearly lose the case.

    The CAGW scoundrels are now at a very interesting juncture in their fraud. Since the strong solar forcing (which caused almost all the 20th century warming) ended in 1996 (when the strongest 73-year string of solar cycles in 11,400 years ended), the warming trend has stopped dead in its tracks. Now we’re in the weakest solar cycle since 1906 and the next solar cycle starting 2020 will be the Eddy Grand Solar Minimum. If you also pile on: a rare double-dip La Nina just starting, the 30-yr PDO cooling phase starting in 2008, the growing Antarctic Ice Extent, The AMO entering its 30-yr cooling cycle around 2020 (same year the Eddy Grand Solar Minimum starts) and tie it all up with a beautiful ribbon that annual CO2 emissions have increased 60% since January 1997, the fraudsters have painted themselves into a very tight corner with nowhere to escape.

    If the fraudsters continue unabated in light of the above, then, most certainly, they will lose their jobs and perhaps be brought up on criminal charges. If the fraudsters are honest (heaven forbid) most will still eventually lose their jobs (no more taxpayer funding), but can avoid criminal charges. Right now, the charlatans have basically selected a third option, which lies somewhere in the middle, i.e. they still claim CAGW is still a valid theory, BUT perhaps not quite as scary as once believed and “perhaps” solar forces are stronger than once believed….

    At some point of singularity, it’ll dawn on a number of scientists that the best way to secure one’s tenure is to become a whistleblower on the CAGW scam and then the whole house of cards will come crashing down.

    Time, people, time…. Just be patient, empirical evidence and the truth eventually prevail… usually, anyway… usually….

  132. “prestidigitation”… I had to look that one up.

    My grandfather was a prestidigitator from Tonbridge so I was at an advantage!

  133. davidmhoffer says:
    January 14, 2013 at 7:16 pm

    Willis Eschenbach;

    Today, in climate science we have skeptics and AGW supporters.

    Only self-deluding BAU boosting arrogants have the temerity to arrogate the term ‘skeptical’.

  134. dscott says: (January 14, 2013 at 12:36 pm) “While we are speaking of frauds… CFC harming the ozone layer has now been officially debunked. …”

    Thank you, dscott. I believe to debunk The Ozone Hole hysteria is as important as blowing the C02 mania, and you have taken us one more small step forward in this vital imperative.

  135. …..and then you would have to sue 98% of the world’s Universities, and then “climate change” government departments, and then scientific societies and journals and newspapers, and the UN, the Nobel Committee… I think we are going to have to wait until hell freezes over in the next few decades or the diehards retire and/or die. That’s what must have happened to the flat earthers and the like. At least the record according to the Mets is no longer a hockey stick – it’s more like a crank handle.

  136. As a strategic planner and marketer I would counsel against going into headfirst battle with the MET.Far better to pick a smaller target where you know you will get support from business and the general public. Engage a strategic manager to plan your approach including an overall plan, PR support, legal and financial advice and professional /scientific evidence..Cover every loophole and plan to win.My suggestion is to take on a seaside local government where real estate values have dropped due to the supposed sea level rises.If you win it will make a huge ripple as it will impact on all local governments. If you lose you will learn and getter better at it and can strike again. Scientists, in my experience,are not good at representing themselves or their work.If you need help I am more than happy to donate my professional time.Cheers and keep fighting.

  137. Climate Ace;
    Only self-deluding BAU boosting arrogants have the temerity to arrogate the term ‘skeptical’.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I think we should start the running for the WUWT Troll of the Year starting the first of this year and to be awarded this time next year. We could even have categories. Here’s how I would score it thus far:

    Most determined to remain ignorant: Pat Ravasio for jumping into one thread after another and asking the exact same question, “what’s wrong with cleaning up the environment?”

    Most irrelevant: whatsis name van Etten for posting the video of the pig suffocating to death in a gas chamber filled with CO2

    Most ignorant: Joe (?) who proposed reducing the world’s population by releasing a virus that would render most people sterile.

    Sorry Climate Ace, you aren’t leading in any category, but I will suggest that you are running a close second in all three.

  138. davidmhoffer says:
    January 14, 2013 at 8:19 pm

    Climate Ace;
    Only self-deluding BAU boosting arrogants have the temerity to arrogate the term ‘skeptical’.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I think we should start the running for the WUWT Troll of the Year starting the first of this year and to be awarded this time next year. We could even have categories. Here’s how I would score it thus far:

    Most determined to remain ignorant: Pat Ravasio for jumping into one thread after another and asking the exact same question, “what’s wrong with cleaning up the environment?”

    Most irrelevant: whatsis name van Etten for posting the video of the pig suffocating to death in a gas chamber filled with CO2

    Most ignorant: Joe (?) who proposed reducing the world’s population by releasing a virus that would render most people sterile.

    Sorry Climate Ace, you aren’t leading in any category, but I will suggest that you are running a close second in all three.

    I am skeptical of your ability to make this sort of judgement in a balanced way.

  139. I would like to point out to those who still rely upon the myth of “democratic institutions,” a.k.a the “rule of law,” that Lord Monckton’s very instructive exercise in civil obedience clearly shows how all those wonderful things — laws, institutions, justice, accountability — simply do not exist any more for us mere mortals.

    Call it whatever you want — oligarchy, dictatorship, plutocracy — but elimination of so called “democracy” (a.k.a the “rule of law”) from our language and from our thoughts is long overdue. These words don’t mean anything any more. The very idea of democracy has failed tremendously — culturally, socially and economically — and if you pretend that it still continues and works, you merely support the myth exploited by our unconscionable rulers.

  140. @Climate Ace,
    you still wasting space here from your govt desk?
    Don’t choke on your nosebag ,oh troll and thread-jacker.
    When are you going to post a coherent comment?
    Do you have anything you wish to contribute to this discussion?
    Or will it be more Climate Zero bleating until you get snipped?

  141. Mosher says “You see, the mistake you made when you tried to read my mind. ( i know the print is small)”. Nah, Steve, I don’t try to read your mind – I read what you write. As months and years pass, evidence for CAGW wanes, yet you seem to wax eloquently for it. Could be wrong, but probably not. So you don’t distrust published scientists, eh Mosher. Not even Mann. Wow.

  142. Lord Monckton says: “Likewise, temperatures in August 2012 were not “at the tail-end of a double-dip La Niña”: they were plainly again in transition between the La Niña of 2011/12 and the El Niño due in a year or two”.

    Actually, from May until December 2012 we have been in either el niño or transitional conditions. OK so a mild and short-lived el niño, but even more strongly showing that the Wet Office is telling porkies with their statement “coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Niña”

  143. @ Alexander Feht 8:38
    Sadly sir you are correct.
    Every institution is corrupted, rule of law is blatantly selective and deceit from our staff is the norm.
    On the bright side, competent people do not need the regulatory class,common law is still salvageable and as the economies crash, we can’t carry the weight of our current helpers much longer.
    It is worth reminding ourselves that our government authorities have all the power we grant them.
    Our cooperation is necessary.
    And authority abused is soon lost.

  144. “The Met Office’s fraud will not be investigated. “Why not try your local police?” said the Serious Fraud Office.”

    Private prosecution, maybe?

  145. Alexander Feht;
    The very idea of democracy has failed tremendously — culturally, socially and economically
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Absolutely, could not agree more. For example, if you make a list of the top 25 countries in the world by per capita income….OK, bad example. But look at disparity between rich and poor….OK, another bad example. But take middle class wealth, if you ranked countries by that….OK, never mind that, it isn’t about money it is about quality of life….darn, bad example again. Education levels….no, something else….I know, human rights, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, on measures like that the top 25 countries in the world would mostly be…. OK, let’s talk longevity, who lives the longest, that list of countries would be….

    GOT IT! If you list the top 25 countries in the world based on over weight problems, they are almost ALL democracies! There, that proves it. Democracy is a failure.

  146. Lord Monckton:

    The Met Office is guilty of something but it is not what you think it is. The Met Office is guilty of misrepresenting an illogical pseudoscience as a science and covering up the offense by the fallacy of drawing improper inferences from equivocations.

  147. The banter about so-many-years-without warming is now expanding from
    16 or 17 to 18?

    Have a look at smoothed HadCRUT3:

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

    I would say based on that 11 years – 2012 was negligibly warmer than 2001.

    Have a look at UAH:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

    I would say, based on that, 11-12 years.

    If you want to include the late-1977-&-1998 century-class El Nino spike
    for cherrypicking, then from that NH winter to now is 15 years.

    18 years ago was early 1995. 13-month-averaged UAH had its 1995
    peak at about +.02 degree C/K. That peak was a peak big enough to
    take 2 years to exceed. The most recent *dip* of that so low was in
    early 2008, at about -.01 degree C/K.

    My conclusion: Even according to UAH, with smoothing as little as
    13 months, the world warmed over the past 18 years.

    Furthermore, 13-month-averaged UAH did not peak in 1998, but in
    2010. More severe smoothing (even a decade) says that global
    temperature by any index had its recent peak in 2005.

    ===================

    Not that I disagree that global warming slowed since 1998, or that the
    “warmingist camp” has “camped onto” twice to 2.5x as much warming by
    CO2-increase as reality is/will-be. However, statement of 18 years with
    no warming appears to me to be an opposite extreme, similarly
    vulnerable to being discredited.

  148. Look at the longer term to assess climate change.

    Never forget that the last millennium 1000 – 2000 AD, according to ice core data, was the coolest of the current benign Holocene epoch, since the last real ice age. At ~12,000 years our happy Holocene, the period responsible for the development of all human civilizations is getting long in the tooth. Overall it has been cooler than the previous Eemian epoch and its end is now overdue when compared with earlier shorter more intense warmer interglacials.

    So whether the diminishing sunspot cycle and changing ocean circulation patterns lead to another Little Ice Age or perhaps to the impending real end of the Holocene epoch during this millennium, the one thing that the world should not be concerned about is a little Global Warming, well within the level of natural variations that have been seen in the past 12,000 years.

    A cooling, rather than a warming, world leads to both a reduction in agricultural productivity with huge deprivation for Mankind and natural life worldwide. It also probably leads to more extreme weather events, (possibly even like hurricane Sandy). There is very good reason to expect worsening weather events in a cooling, rather than a worming world because the temperature differential between the tropics and the poles is enhanced.

    But now the Western world is continually being pressured by propaganda and has widely enacted legislation about “Global Warming / Climate Change / Global Climate Disruption”. These definitions have meant that any adverse weather event can be ascribed to “Climate Change” and thus be blamed on the destructive actions of Mankind.

    The Catastrophic Climate Change Alarmists back every horse whichever way it runs. Nonetheless all Alarmist policy recommendations are only intended to control excessive Global Overheating by the reduction of Man-made CO2 emissions.

    It is not clear how reducing CO2 emissions would help save the world from a climate change towards a cooling world which now seems to be occurring nor how it could ameliorate severe weather events.

    It may be that the climate establishment is gradually coming to its senses. Not only has the Met Office admitted that warming has stopped but also NASA, no doubt much to the chagrin of James Hansen, has now released information that it believes that the sun, rather than CO2 influences climate.

    See http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

  149. joeldshore says:
    January 14, 2013 at 12:54 pm
    It does not mean the trend is zero. People who understand statistics will understand that the statement that the 95% confidence cone includes the possibility of zero trend is very different than saying that the measured trend is actually zero.
    However the average of the satellite data does in fact show that the trend is 0 over 15 years. WFT does not enable us to just combine UAH and RSS, so I did things differently. See the result that the average slope is 0 since December 1997:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/uah/from:1997.9/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/detrend:-0.0735/offset:-0.080/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/trend

  150. davidmhoffer,
    I understand your irritation, the more so because the evidence of failure in question is all around you. Yes, there is always Zimbabwe, if you want to feel good about your special backyard. Please note that I was talking about democracy, not about a Republic where the right to vote must be earned.

    Per capita income? Excellent example: it stopped growing among working people a generation ago. Middle class wealth? Depends on what you call “middle class” but in any case most of it goes to taxes, which are wasted in so many ways, and in such amounts, that Robert Mugabe won’t dream about it in his happiest hour… Quality of life? Darn, what an excellent example again! I’ve seen people in rural Turkmenistan enjoying a quality of life American suburbanites have no clue about. Education levels??? You must be kidding. There ain’t no such thing as education any more, while something they call “higher education” is so expensive, while useless, that it indentures people for life. Human rights? Ignored whenever the ruling elite needs to ignore them. Freedom of religion? As long as you believe in some BS that makes you a safe mooing milking cow, yeah, sure, go ahead and build your mosque. Freedom of speech? Only for retired professors, as Milton Fridman gracefully remarked. OK, let’s talk longevity, who lives the longest? Georgians, Bolivians, and Lebanese.

    Enough?

  151. P.S. Obesity is a sign of poverty (poor quality of food leads to overeating). People born in rich families are usually lean. Many obese people (including me) are obese not because they eat to much but because their metabolism was disrupted by hunger and terrible food in their childhood.

  152. The UK taxpayer has paid 30 million UK pounds for the computer and goodness knows how much CO2 to keep it running for forecasts as useful as these. Note the north of England is almost always colder than the rest of England probably because it is in the north and when the cold blasts from Europe come they hit the east of the country first.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/forecast/?tab=regionalForecast

    UK Outlook for Monday 28 Jan 2013 to Monday 11 Feb 2013:
    There is greater than average uncertainty through this period, with no strong signal for any one weather type to dominate. However, on balance colder conditions are more favoured rather than the milder weather experienced so far this winter.
    Issued at: 0400 on Mon 14 Jan 2013″

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/uk/wm/wm_forecast_weather_noscript.html

    UK Outlook for Tuesday 29 Jan 2013 to Tuesday 12 Feb 2013:
    Colder than average conditions are favoured across many parts of the UK, especially in the north and east. Whilst there is no strong signal for rainfall patterns through this period, drier than average conditions are more likely in the north, whereas the south may have near or even slightly above average rainfall. The frequency of snow events through this period may be more than experienced so far this winter.
    Updated: 1139 on Mon 14 Jan 2013

  153. The Fraud Act 2000 defines the serious imprisonable offence of fraud as dishonestly making an express or implied representation that the offender knows is or may be untrue or misleading, intending to gain money or other property (here, grant funding) or to cause loss or risk of loss to another ($30 billion a year of unnecessary “green” taxes, fees and charges to the British public).

    =================

    The Fraud Act 2000 has been replaced by the 2006 Act. The offence you are looking for is Section 2, Fraud by misrepresentation

  154. I feel sorry for the many decent people in the Met. Office who came under the control of IPCC co-founder Sir John Houghton, more recently the WWF carbon traders.

    Houghton’s treatise has three key mistakes. The main one is to claim the 1906 Schuster-Schwarzchild two-stream approximation applies at atmospheric boundaries. It only works in the bulk where the phenomena are scalars. To apply it at boundaries fails to take into account that temperature radiation fields interact by forming their vector sum and only net IR can do thermodynamic work.

    So the models assume wrongly the Earth’s surface radiates real energy as if an isolated black body in a vacuum. They justify this by assuming the temperature signal of a single pyrometer looking UP at the lower atmosphere is the energy flux they call ‘back radiation’. This is a 50 year old mistake from Meteorology; it’s NOT an energy flow.

    The side effect of applying standard radiative thermal equilibrium physics is there is virtually no net surface IR emission in the main GHG bands, e.g. CO2 15 micron.

    At TOA they make a similar error, to assume a flux equivalent to OLR radiates downwards to make 360° emission. They argue this is needed because Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation applies at TOA, forgetting this only applies at radiative thermal equilibrium. The switch from mainly convective heat transfer to radiative, just above the lower cloud level, is not equilibrium. There can be no direct IR thermalisation, standard IR physics.

    The third mistake is to assume the atmosphere radiates as a grey body. This is wrong; the atmospheric window is a very powerful part of the Earth’s real GHE. There are other errors but not from Houghton.

    It’ll take some time to convince the climate science establishment they have been part of the biggest mass scientific delusion in history and ‘positive feedback’ is because they create a perpetual motion machine!

  155. When I plot the SST figures from HadSST2 for 1998 to 2012, the linear trendlines give:

    NH SST y = 0.0044x + 0.3421

    SH SST y = -0.005x + 0.3299

    Global SST y = -0.0003x + 0.3359

  156. joeldshore says: January 14, 2013 at 12:54 pm

    Joel,
    This is a very interesting graph that you present. The trend line from 1975 to present does indeed show a greater rate of warming than the trend line from 1975 to 1997. However, this should be a warning not to use straight line fits unless the underlying trend is known to be a straight line. The clue is that the end point of the 1975-2013 trend ends up way above any of the temperatures at the end of the series. This is a sort of statistical ‘trick’ isn’t it? Nevertheless it does illustrate an important statistical danger.
    Rather more interesting trend lines are obtained if adjust your graph to separate the warming at the end of the 20th century from the cooling that has occurred in the 21st century. Here is your graph modified to show this.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/trend:2013

    Yep. It shows absolutely that rather than warming just having just stopped, temperatures have actually fallen steadily throughout this century…. And that isn’t a statistical trick!
    If you want to see what happens to temperatures over the last few years then , of course, you look at the temperatures for those years. There is no point at looking at temperatures outside those years, because they are not relevant. No one denies that temperatures rose by a fraction of a degree at the end of the 20th century. The important fact today is that temperatures are now falling (as the plot from Hadcrut4 clearly shows).
    This is a serious problem for any theory that deems CO2 to be the main driver of climate. Remember that James Hansen testified to the senate that temperatures would rise between 2 and 4 degrees during the first decade of this century. Instead they have fallen.

  157. Graham W,

    Infinity does NOT exist. Not in any physical reality. Infinity is a mathematical construct. It is so unreal, that when infinities start appearing in equations governing physics, it sets alarm bells ringing.

    Solutions to general relativity, for example, give rise to black holes having infinite gravity at their centres. Although the black holes are plausible enough, nobody believes that gravity becomes infinite at the singularity, and for that reason simply say “Einsteins equations break down at the singularity.” Some conjectures propose ring like structures instead of a singularity, but unfortunately we can’t observe whats inside the event horizon.

    Infinity is not real.

  158. Au contraire Vince, infinity does exist.

    It is the capability, unchecked, of a demagogic politician like Gore, Obama or Blair to tax the population to create the change to society they know will convert their Earthly Reputation to that of a God on Earth.

    The IPCC climate fraud is their excuse………………..

  159. david m hoffer, thanks for putting alex straight on the ‘death of democracy’ meme. His subsequent post, about how he is obese because of things out of his control when he was a child, kinda says it all.

    We are all aware of the shortcomings of democracy, in its various forms, and they are discussed here and elsewhere every day. But, the sirens who promise us Nirvana if only we would give up our individual rights are truly to be feared.

  160. joeldshore:

    re your post at January 14, 2013 at 5:24 pm.

    When addressing the issue of how long there has been no discernible change (at 95% confidence) in global temperature one starts from now and assesses past periods of time until one discerns a statistically significant difference from zero trend.

    All data sets show more than 15 years of recent no discernible trend (at 95% confidence) in global temperature.

    But you claim one has to remove the 1998 ENSO peak from the data to compare the result to climate model ‘projections’. Your claim is wrong, and you know it is wrong because I explained the matter to you on a previous WUWT thread.
    I repeat the explanation now for the sake of others who may not know you are repeating what you know to be a falsehood.

    Firstly, the models do not emulate ENSO which is an emergent property of the climate system. Therefore, if ENSO is a significant climatic effect then the failure of the models to emulate it demonstrates the models do not emulate the climate system of the real Earth. In other words, the models are useless for ‘projecting’ the climate of the real Earth.

    Secondly, and importantly, if one were to assume the models can emulate the climate system of the real Earth then your point has no validity. If one extrapolates back through the 1998 ENSO peak, or if one interpolates across the peak, then the data still indicates more than 15 years of no discernible trend (at 95% confidence) in global temperature. Hence, whether or not your ‘ENSO claim’ is right the models are falsified by the NOAA falsification criterion of more than 15 years of of no discernible trend (at 95% confidence).

    You are spouting disinformation, and you know your are spouting disinformation.

    Richard

  161. In case you did not get the information I sent via the contact form, here it is again.

    one of your moderators plays fast and loose with the messages he moderates, mis-representing what the sender tried to post.

    I tried to post in the ‘has the met office committed fraud’ thread.

    My first try said, close to verbatim:
    Maybe Lord Monckton should make a speech in the House of Lords on the rascality of the Met office.

    This was blocked by your moderator with the comment:
    [snip. Take your ad-hominem comments elsewhere. They are not welcome here. — mod.]

    I tried again with:
    All I did was suggest that Lord Monckton should make a speech in the House of Lords.

    Blocked again with the comment:

    [snip. Nice try. However, any further such replies will be deleted without comment. — mod.]

    Your moderator, who sounds like he is about 16 years old, is acting disgracefully and scarring an otherwise sensible site.

    [Reply: Your original comment – which was not as portrayed above – was clearly an ad hominem attack against LM regarding his standing in the House of Lords. It was snipped based on that. The decision has been made, and any further discussion of the matter will be deleted. — mod.]

  162. Lord Monckton,

    There is an interesting law in the USA. It is the RICO statute. It says that acting as a “corrupt organization” brings special penalties and has somewhat looser standards for evidence of some types of crimes. One only needs to show things like “corrupt influence”. (It is “RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) Act”) As we are clearly seeing corrupted organizations, and there’s no doubt about the racket… looks like an easy fit.

    Originally drafted for Mafia and Drug gangs, the law was so loosely worded that all manner of things have been shoved through it. (In one case, a private jet airplane was found guilty of a crime, impounded etc. even though the owners and no other person were found guilty…)

    http://www.thirdamendment.com/rico.html

    Has an interesting story in it. But more interesting is what the Supreme Court said:

    West Hartford ultimately lost its case, but on January 24 the the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that, by the letter of the RICO law, anti-abortion protests may qualify as “racketeer influenced and corrupt.” Whether such protests are protected by the First Amendment will be decided in another case later this term. Given the Court’s close attention to this issue, one must wonder what is at stake in this conflict.

    If expressing ones opinion in a protest can come under RICO, surely a coordinated action by folks across many national bounds to extract $Billions (Or pounds / Billions) via false pretenses can also qualify? Heck, if finding a bit of marijuana on an airplane can get the airplane arrested, well, surely the standard of evidence is low..

    So, if I might suggest, while the UK courts are entertaining to watch, the US laws have lots of teeth, and use them with indiscriminant abandon… Perhaps our rather over ambitious and ill controlled pit-bull law would be more, um, “useful”… I do believe some US Funds ended up at the various NGO Funding Fests… and there’s clearly email showing collusion with folks at NASA and NCDC…

  163. Burch says:
    January 14, 2013 at 2:16 pm

    do down
    vb (tr, adverb)
    1. to belittle or humiliate
    2. to deceive or cheat
    ******************

    Thank you, had never heard that before and only did a quick search due to time limitations.

  164. As Monckton says, the Met claimed that August 2012 (which David Rose based his article on) was the “tail end of a double dip La Nina”.

    I challenged them on this as in their 3-month outlook in October stated

    In recent weeks El Niño conditions in the tropical Pacific have weakened further and predictions are now equally balanced between neutral and El Niño over the next three months

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/uk-met-office-caught-lying/

    Between the end of La Nina in February, and August, UAH shows a rise of 0.33C, which clearly shows that El Nino conditions had taken over.

    When I pointed this inconvenient fact out to them, the Met replied

    Please also note also that there are many factors which impact global temperature, in addition to the state of the ENSO cycle. The natural climate variability dominates any changes in global temperature values over timescales of a few months or years.”

    Bear in mind that HADCRUT shows an increase in temperature of 0.31C since 1980!

  165. Vince Causey: Thanks for your reply. You are correct in so far as science must not accept the existence of infinity, as demonstrated by the fact “zero” and “one” cannot exist so long as infinity does. So as I implied, for the basis of mathematics and science, we must assume that “zero” and “one” does exist, and that infinity doesn’t, to make any sort of attempt to understand our world for ourselves. With that in mind, I would like to revise part of the comment I made at January 14, 2013 at 5:07 pm to read as follows: “Being as how science is attempting to predict future outcomes of a chaotic system, and since what we do know about such a system is likely to be outweighed by what we don’t to a very large extent, I would not be at all surprised if the extrapolation of any of these four trends came to closely resemble the future 30 years of climate change or stability…or none of them at all.”

    From a philosophical perspective however, you are on shakier ground. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of infinity since our brains are not infinite in size to enable us to even conceive of the idea, let alone follow through the implications of it’s existence or non-existence.

    Regardless, my post of January 14, 2013 at 5:07pm still stands (now revised). My last post was more just something that was on my mind and I felt the need to get it out there.

  166. In another, not entirely unconnected issue, Lord Deben (ex John Gummer) has been discovered to be a Council Member of the shadowy, extremist organisation, the World Future Council.

    (You may recall this was one of Parncutt’s favourite organisations!)

    WFC policies clearly conflict with his role as Chairman of the Committee on Climate Change, as well as other business in the House of Lords. And yet he has NOT declared his membership of the WFC (which is a policy making position) in his Register of Interests at the House of Lords.

    At my request, the Commissioner for Standards at the House of Lords has initiated an investigation.

    Full details on the WFC here.

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/12/26/john-gummer-and-the-world-future-council/

  167. I would be very interested to know, that in view of the cherry picked data to “prove” that AGW was occurring, whether in fact the global temperature had actually remained the same or had in fact fallen. The premise of AGW is wrong at the percentages of CO2 we have at present but so is the data, making the Met Office’s predictions doubly fraudulent. The Met Offices forecasts are so wrong that something very basic must be causing these errors; my guess would be their baseline temperatures, which are too high.

  168. andrewharding: my post above explains why the Met. office modelling is wrong. They exaggerate IR absorption by a lower bound of 6.8 times and offset this extra warming by double real low level cloud optical depth in hind casting. This is what creates the imaginary positive feedback needed to prove that the GHE is the same as lapse rate warming. It’s a real mess and they have to go through mental hoops to get it to sound plausible. Go deeply into the physics and it is implausible.

    These models have the predictive capability of spilling the entrails of cattle and seeing how it displays on the ground. This is not to criticise the GCMs but they need about a million times more cells to be useful. This gets the 100 km UK lateral features down to 100 m when they can model stuff like wind shear and tornadoes, the latter being the equivalent in the atmosphere of a Dyson vortex, sucking global warming to the stratosphere!

    • AlecM:

      Contrary to your understanding, modern climatic GCMs do not predict. They “project” ( http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/future/projections )

      Often, “predictions” are conflated with “projections” but the two words have differing meanings. A prediction is an extrapolation from an observed state of a system to an unobserved but observable state of the same system. The latter state is the outcome of an event in a statistical population. For global warming climatology there is no such population and thus there is not the possibility of making predictions.

  169. Silver Ralph:

    re the question to me in your post at January 15, 2013 at 6:51 am.

    If you had bothered to read the link you provided in your post then you would have seen that it begins saying

    This page lists legal decisions of the House of Lords. Until 30 September 2009, the House of Lords was the highest appellate court for the United Kingdom. Cases were determined not by the House of Lords itself, but by its Judicial Committee, consisting of up to nine legally qualified peers, generally referred to as “Law Lords”. On 1 October 2009 its functions were transferred to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

    i.e. the answer to your question is
    “On 1 October 2009 its functions were transferred to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.”

    We really do need a higher standard of troll on WUWT. (Sigh)

    Richard

  170. Of course they have committed fraud. The real problem is like Saville …. the establishment just don’t see what is wrong with their behaviour.

    However I notice the post above refers to the charge which I think is more apt “misconduct in a public office”. I don’t think you’d have any problem getting any jury in the land to convict … but there’s no chance at all the establishment can allow the public to hold them to account in this manner.

    As you said – the law only applies to us not them.

  171. Let’s do a simple calculation. It was about 20 years ago that the first numerical models for forecasting started being used. There have been about 1000 weekly forecasts.

    Because the long term weather/climate uses THE SAME physical laws only applied at a DIFFERENT SCALE, we would expect the learning curve for the long term forecast to take teh save time to reach the same level of skill.

    So, from what we know, how long will it take to produce a century forecast as good as the current weekly forecast?

    100years x 1000 trial runs = 100,000 years

    OK, perhaps that sounds harsh? So let’s say we want a forecast as good as their current seasonal forecast? 20 years x 4 = 80 trials. So, it will only take 8000 years to get a century forecast as good as the current seasonal forecast!

    This isn’t rocket science … all this is saying is that if you are dealing with similar systems and applying very similar models and all that is different is the scale of the events you are dealing with (not the underlying laws) … then it ought to take roughly the same number of runs through the prediction-measurement-evaluation cycle to improve the model for any time period.

    • Mike Haseler:

      In other words, in 100,000 years climatologists will have 1000 statistically independent observed events of 100 years duration each. At this point in time, if they are lucky climatologists will be in a position to build and validate a predictive model with a forecasting horizon of 100 years. Such a model would provide policy makers on CO2 emissions with information about the outcomes from their policy decisions.

      Currently, the temperature time series since the year 1850 provides climatologists with only 1 such event but at least 150 events are required for one to build and validate a predictive model. From this and other evidence it can be concluded that modern climatological models provide policy makers with no information about the outcomes from their policy makers. All of the information that gullible policy makers think they have was fabricated by equivocating climatologists.

  172. Terry Oldberg says:
    January 15, 2013 at 7:39 am

    Contrary to your understanding, modern climatic GCMs do not predict. They “project” ( http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/future/projections )

    You might want to tell the Met Office – I tried; they responded with the IPCC definitions.

    Lo and behold, the video where Dr Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice at the Met Office, talks about the UK Climate Projections 2009 is still up and still confuses projections and predictions (At 3:39 into the video she starts talking about predictions; this is repeated in the titling at 4:03 and the subsequent titling).

    • Billy Liar:

      Dr. Pope is employing the climatologist’s trick of drawing an improper inference from an equivocation. Logicians call this trick the “equivocation fallacy.”

      An “equivocation” is an argument in which a polysemic term (term with multiple meanings) changes meanings in the middle of the argument. That a term changes meaning renders an inference that is drawn from the associated equivocation improper.

      In the literature of climatology, the word pair prediction/projection is a polysemic term provided that the terms in it are used as synonyms. Climatologists use this and other polysemic terms with a high degree of success in gulling the public.

  173. Donald L. Klipstein says:
    January 14, 2013 at 10:01 pm
    The banter about so-many-years-without warming is now expanding from 16 or 17 to 18?
    In this post we are often talking about two different things and it is too easy to get confused between the two. I will use RSS as an example. There has been no warming for 16 years and a month. However there has been no 95% statistically significant warming for 23 years. That is because there is a greater than 5% chance that there has been no warming for 23 years. To see an illustration of the above points, see the following:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1990/plot/rss/from:1990/trend/plot/rss/from:1990/detrend:0.3128/trend/plot/rss/from:1990/detrend:-0.3128/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend

  174. dmacleo says:
    January 15, 2013 at 4:39 am
    Burch says:
    January 14, 2013 at 2:16 pm

    do down
    vb (tr, adverb)
    1. to belittle or humiliate
    2. to deceive or cheat
    ******************

    Thank you, had never heard that before and only did a quick search due to time limitations.

    It’s a Britishism. It’s never used in America, except maybe archly.

  175. Terry Oldberg says:

    January 15, 2013 at 10:04 am

    Correct!!!!

    It’s all about money. Your government just wants an excuse to raise taxes and happy to fund anyone that supports “man made global warming”. They don’t care if it’s true or not. On the other hand, if the government came out and said “we would like to improve the air quaility in larger cities” there would be little argument from the voters.

  176. richardscourtney says:

    But you claim one has to remove the 1998 ENSO peak from the data to compare the result to climate model ‘projections’. Your claim is wrong, and you know it is wrong because I explained the matter to you on a previous WUWT thread.
    I repeat the explanation now for the sake of others who may not know you are repeating what you know to be a falsehood.

    ….

    Your argument here is wrong for several reasons:

    (1) The reason that ENSO is removed from both the data and the model runs is so that one can increase the signal-to-noise ratio and hence get a better estimate of the trend, which means it takes fewer years to detect whether or not the observed trend differs from the range of trends that the models as possible. Hence, by skipping this step, you are ensuring that it will take more years to determine whether or not there is a discrepancy. It is as simple as that.

    (2) The authors of that NOAA report did not report how many years of a trend that is not different than zero with 95% statistically-significance are necessary for there to be a discrepancy. They reported how many years for which the trend would have to actually be ZERO when you measure it one needs so that the trend lies outside the 95% confidence cone for trends as predicted by the models. Saying a measured trend is actually zero and saying that the uncertainty in the measured trend does not exclude zero with 95% confidence are two different things.

    Either of these points mean that you (and Monckton) are misapplying the NOAA falsification criterion. You can’t just take someone’s criterion and change it because you don’t like it and then use the changed criterion to justify the conclusion that you want to reach.

  177. Read the AlecM post again regarding Houghton. He and Hansen are at the root of “IPCC science” Their version of physics is then used by the modelers, becoming embeded with each iteration.
    Atmospheric IR thermodynamics described by AlecM is basic training. Simple IR thermo as taught in engineering has a long history of successful application. Engineers from the 1930s knew the IR properties of CO2 and water vapor from boiler combustion gas.
    There are more huge lies, such as the claim that CO2 “accumulates” in the atmosphere for “centuries”
    That bizarre claim is so outrageous it defies a sanity check. Ask anyone with any understanding of the global carbon cycle. Real atmospheric CO2 flux rates are at least 20 percent annually. That means ALL CO2 in the atmosphere recycles within a few years to the oceans and surface biology. If you stopped all biological respiration, atmospheric CO2 would vanish rapidly and be gone entirely within 10 years. (Excepting the abiotic exchange with the ocean). But by then all photosynthesis would be totally dead.
    Except for Argon, the entire atmosphere is entirely of biological origin.

  178. joeldshore:

    I take severe objection to your offensive and untrue post at January 15, 2013 at 12:26 pm.

    My post January 15, 2013 at 4:11 am explained that you had knowingly presented disinformation. Your response (that I am answering) does not address either of my two explanations but iterates your disinformation then says to me

    Either of these points mean that you (and Monckton) are misapplying the NOAA falsification criterion. You can’t just take someone’s criterion and change it because you don’t like it and then use the changed criterion to justify the conclusion that you want to reach.

    NO! I DID NOT!
    If you can find fault with either of my explanations then say where I am wrong: I like to learn. But do NOT iterate your disinformation then accuse me of doing something I did not.

    Richard

  179. Climate Ace says:
    January 14, 2013 at 7:58 p

    Willis Eschenbach;

    Today, in climate science we have skeptics and AGW supporters.

    Only self-deluding BAU boosting arrogants have the temerity to arrogate the term ‘skeptical’.

    Well, if I chance to see a self-deluding BAU boosting arrogant, I’ll be sure to let him know you feel that way …

    Seriously, my friend, is that your best shot? You’re approaching incoherence. This is a thread about the Met Office and fraud.

    Y’know, Ace, this thing of you popping up on various threads where I have commented, just to make yet another ridiculous attempt to bust my chops regardless of the subject of the thread, that all would be just kind of boring if it were not for the creepy stalker aspect of it.

    Seriously, bro’, you’re losing it, this thing of following me around just to attack me is turning into an obsession on your part. You should turn your mind to something productive. Endless carping and nit-picking and destructive behavior aren’t good for a man’s spirit.

    w.

  180. “In a closed society where everybody’s guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity.” Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

    WIRGO

  181. Willis Eschenbach:

    re your post at January 15, 2013 at 1:19 pm.

    You have no need to be personally upset at the troll posting as ‘Climate Ace’. It may seem to you that he/she/it is stalking you but that is probably an impression gained from taking most interest in threads which you have headed. However, ‘Climate Ace’ has also been snowing several other WUWT threads with his/her/its drivel.

    I hope that helps.

    Richard

  182. johanna says:
    January 15, 2013 at 4:07 am
    david m hoffer, thanks for putting alex straight on the ‘death of democracy’ meme. His subsequent post, about how he is obese because of things out of his control when he was a child, kinda says it all.

    We are all aware of the shortcomings of democracy, in its various forms, and they are discussed here and elsewhere every day. But, the sirens who promise us Nirvana if only we would give up our individual rights are truly to be feared.
    ================================================================
    People rightly want the freedom to choose. They will gladly accept that freedom. What they don’t want is the personal responsibilty and consequences of an errant choice.
    Those who appear to promise freedom with no consequences are true threats to any democratic government.

  183. Werner Brozek says:

    However the average of the satellite data does in fact show that the trend is 0 over 15 years. WFT does not enable us to just combine UAH and RSS, so I did things differently. See the result that the average slope is 0 since December 1997:

    In the satellite data, the effect of ENSO is even more pronounced than it is at the surface. So, the statement about having to remove the effects of ENSO is even more important for them. And, in fact, if you look at your plot, it is clear that your trend is being strongly influenced by starting right at the beginning of the big El Nino.

    It is also important to note that if you cherrypick exact intervals, which temperature data set you use, etc. enough then it is not too surprising that you can come up with something that falls outside the 95% confidence range. After all, if I do an experiment, say, 20 times, then it is more likely than not that at least one of the values that I get for that experiment will fall outside the 95% confidence range. This is why statistics can get so slippery, particularly when people try to mine the data to get a particular result.

    MikeB says:

    The clue is that the end point of the 1975-2013 trend ends up way above any of the temperatures at the end of the series. This is a sort of statistical ‘trick’ isn’t it?

    (1) The departure is one that could easily be due to weather fluctuations, such as those from La Nina (having two significant La Ninas and no strong El Nino in the last few years) and/or the solar mininum.

    (2) Yes, it is a “statistical trick”. It is a trick called fitting over a large enough interval that you are not fitting to noise or, in other words, so that the uncertainty in your trend estimate is not too large.

    Here is your graph modified to show this.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/trend:2013

    Yep. It shows absolutely that rather than warming just having just stopped, temperatures have actually fallen steadily throughout this century…. And that isn’t a statistical trick!

    What it is is simply fitting to noise. The error bars on your trend estimate, if you bothered to compute them, would be so large as to be compatible with a large range of trends. So, in fact you cannot conclude what you claim. This graph illustrates the point nicely: http://climateandrisk.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/skeptics-view-of-global-warming.jpg Global warming has now stopped several times since the current trend started in the mid-1970s according to your sort of fitting technique, except that each other time before it has turned out that it hasn’t.

  184. mpainter says:

    If anyone is interested in evaluating Joel Shore, I refer them to this thread: “Wrong Prediction, Wrong Science; Unless It’s Government Climate Science” posted by Dr. Tim Ball on Jan. 8.

    In fact, let’s give them links into the discussion:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/08/wrong-prediction-wrong-science-unless-its-government-climate-science/#comment-1196353

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/08/wrong-prediction-wrong-science-unless-its-government-climate-science/#comment-1197195

    Then they can read what I actually said rather than how you simplistically summarize what I said.

  185. richardscourtney says:

    If you can find fault with either of my explanations then say where I am wrong: I like to learn.

    I thought I explained it to you pretty clearly http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/14/has-the-met-office-committed-fraud/#comment-1199226 but let’s try a direct response to your two points.

    You said:

    Firstly, the models do not emulate ENSO which is an emergent property of the climate system. Therefore, if ENSO is a significant climatic effect then the failure of the models to emulate it demonstrates the models do not emulate the climate system of the real Earth. In other words, the models are useless for ‘projecting’ the climate of the real Earth.

    If by “emulate ENSO”, you mean that the models can’t, say, predict the specific pattern of ENSO, e.g., like the fact that there was a large El Nino in 1998, that is because that is something that is very sensitive to initial conditions. And, your statement, “the models do not emulate the climate system of the real Earth” is a classic all-or-nothing fallacy. In science, our models / theories are never perfect but that doesn’t mean we can never use models / theories to predict things. There is always some finite probability that the model / prediction will be wrong in a prediction…but that is a necessary consequence of the fact that science is inductive.

    If by “emulate ENSO”, you just mean that the models have ENSO-like fluctuations, then the problem is not that the models don’t have these (to greater or lesser degrees of fidelity) but rather that they can’t predict the exact time evolution of ENSO because of the sensitivity to initial conditions.

    Secondly, and importantly, if one were to assume the models can emulate the climate system of the real Earth then your point has no validity. If one extrapolates back through the 1998 ENSO peak, or if one interpolates across the peak, then the data still indicates more than 15 years of no discernible trend (at 95% confidence) in global temperature. Hence, whether or not your ‘ENSO claim’ is right the models are falsified by the NOAA falsification criterion of more than 15 years of of no discernible trend (at 95% confidence).

    This point suffers from the same issues as the ones above. It confounds this by failing to understand the difference between saying that an observed trend falls outside the 95% confidence cone of the models and that an observed trend has a 95% confidence cone that includes trends (in this case, in particular, a zero trend) that fall outside the 95% confidence cone of the models . If you don’t understand this important distinction, then there is little that I can do to help you.

  186. Planet Earth is contradicting joelshore. If he doesn’t understand this important distinction, then there is little that we can do to help him.

  187. D Böehm Stealey says:
    January 15, 2013 at 2:31 pm

    Planet Earth is contradicting joelshore. If he doesn’t understand this important distinction, then there is little that we can do to help him.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    He doesn’t want help he wants to advance The Cause. ‘Science’ is to be manipulated to support the Cause and that is exactly what he is doing.

    You are working from the point of view of an objective reality. I suggest you read Economic Theory: The Philosophy Of Karl Marx to understand the point of view of these ‘scientists’ who do not believe there is an objective reality.

    The essay explains all the twisting and turning that we find so bewildering.

  188. Everything contradicts Joel Shore; he contradicts himself:

    January 11, 2013 at 12:01 pm Joel Shore says:
    “There is no special “AGW theory” to incorporate into the climate models.”

    Then, he contradicts this statement at 8:37 am: “I did not say that there is no theory of AGW… but that this theory is formulated / supported on… evidence from climate models.

  189. joeldshore:

    I am replying to your post at January 15, 2013 at 2:15 pm.

    I pointed out that climate models fail to emulate the emergent property of ENSO and, therefore, they don’t emulate the climate system of the real Earth. You have replied

    If by “emulate ENSO”, you mean that the models can’t, say, predict the specific pattern of ENSO, e.g., like the fact that there was a large El Nino in 1998, that is because that is something that is very sensitive to initial conditions. And, your statement, “the models do not emulate the climate system of the real Earth” is a classic all-or-nothing fallacy. In science, our models / theories are never perfect but that doesn’t mean we can never use models / theories to predict things. There is always some finite probability that the model / prediction will be wrong in a prediction…but that is a necessary consequence of the fact that science is inductive.

    If by “emulate ENSO”, you just mean that the models have ENSO-like fluctuations, then the problem is not that the models don’t have these (to greater or lesser degrees of fidelity) but rather that they can’t predict the exact time evolution of ENSO because of the sensitivity to initial conditions.

    NO!
    ENSO is a variation to Pacific Ocean surface water temperature distributions which seem to be induced by winds. NO CLIMATE MODEL IS REPORTED TO EXHIBIT THIS BEHAVIOUR. So, as I said, the models do NOT emulate ENSO.

    Importantly, as I said, ENSO is an emergent property of the global climate system. If a model of a system exhibits emergent properties of the system then there is reason to suppose the model may predict system behaviour. If it fails to emulate an important emergent property then there is no a priori reason to suppose the model will emulate other system behaviour.

    Think of it this way.
    Someone models the central nervous system of a gazelle from first principles (n.b. the central nervous system of a gazelle has similar – probably less – complexity to that of the Earth’s climate system). Gazelles leap away when lions approach. This leaping at the sight of approaching lions is an emergent property of a gazelle’s central nervous system. This behaviour is not learned: evolution has built-in this response of the gazelle’s central nervous system. But the model does not exhibit this behaviour of a gazelle. Clearly, the model is inadequate for predicting behaviour of the gazelle’s central nervous system.
    Nobody would claim that model has useful predictive capability because it is not emulating an important emergent property of the modelled system.

    Similarly, the failure of climate models to emulate the important emergent property of ENSO indicates they are not emulating the modelled system sufficiently for it to be assumed the models have any useful predictive ability.

    I wrote

    Secondly, and importantly, if one were to assume the models can emulate the climate system of the real Earth then your point has no validity. If one extrapolates back through the 1998 ENSO peak, or if one interpolates across the peak, then the data still indicates more than 15 years of no discernible trend (at 95% confidence) in global temperature. Hence, whether or not your ‘ENSO claim’ is right the models are falsified by the NOAA falsification criterion of more than 15 years of of no discernible trend (at 95% confidence).

    You have replied saying

    This point suffers from the same issues as the ones above. It confounds this by failing to understand the difference between saying that an observed trend falls outside the 95% confidence cone of the models and that an observed trend has a 95% confidence cone that includes trends (in this case, in particular, a zero trend) that fall outside the 95% confidence cone of the models . If you don’t understand this important distinction, then there is little that I can do to help you.

    You “help” me!? Don’t be an idiot!
    You are plain wrong. The NOAA 2008 Report on ‘State of the Climate’ said

    The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

    The global temperature trend has been indistinguishable from zero at 95% confidence for more than 15 years whether or not one removes the 1998 ENSO peak.

    Richard

  190. “Or am I going too far in calling a fraud a fraud?”

    Not so sir.
    You are not going far enough to instead call the fraud a grand larceny of tax monies in all of the UK, Australia, New Zealand and the USA if other countries should not also be included in that list. This is a global grand larceny without a doubt.

  191. joeldshore (Jan. 15, 2013 at 2:15 PM):

    In saying “…that doesn’t mean that we can never use models/theories to predict things” and “There is always some finite probability that the model/prediction will be wrong in a prediction” you imply that the models make predictions. I am under the impression that while the climate models of AR4 project, they do not predict. A prediction differs from a projection in the respect that an independent event in a statistical population underlies a prediction but not a projection. That the events are missing for the AR4 models has a number of important consequences. One is that the claims of these models are insusceptible to validation thus lying outside science. Please comment.

  192. joeldshore says:
    January 15, 2013 at 1:59 pm
    In the satellite data, the effect of ENSO is even more pronounced than it is at the surface. So, the statement about having to remove the effects of ENSO is even more important for them.
    You have a point, but the following La Ninas nullified the effect of the 1998 El Nino. So if we make a plot that follows both the El Nino and La Ninas, we get a 0 slope since December 2000. So even this shows there has been no warming for 12 years. However this not long enough for NOAA. But if I do go long enough for NOAA, I could be accused of cherry picking. See

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996/plot/uah/from:1996/plot/rss/from:2000.9/trend/plot/uah/from:2000.9/trend

  193. @joeldshore:

    “This point suffers from the same issues as the ones above. It confounds this by failing to understand the difference between saying that an observed trend falls outside the 95% confidence cone of the models and that an observed trend has a 95% confidence cone that includes trends (in this case, in particular, a zero trend) that fall outside the 95% confidence cone of the models . If you don’t understand this important distinction, then there is little that I can do to help you.”

    So what you’re saying is, really, that your interpretation of the NOAA’s statement is that they proposed a period of time over which it is actually impossible to show statistically that there was no trend (due to the noise in the data). By saying 15 years, a time period over which the 95% confidence cone of an observed trend would more than likely include a positive, negative and zero trend due to the noise in the data over that time, they were knowingly making a statement that it would be statistically impossible for anyone to refute. Seems like a strange and somewhat dishonest thing for them to do.

  194. richardscourtney says:

    NO!
    ENSO is a variation to Pacific Ocean surface water temperature distributions which seem to be induced by winds. NO CLIMATE MODEL IS REPORTED TO EXHIBIT THIS BEHAVIOUR. So, as I said, the models do NOT emulate ENSO.

    Well, this is not an area that I have studied in any detail but a 1 minute google search turned up this paper from 2006 that thought the coupled models were doing a reasonably good job with ENSO: ftp://cola.gmu.edu/pub/ctr/ctr_210.pdf I imagine things have improved since then.

    At any rate, this is totally irrelevant to the question of whether you can simply apply NOAA’s criterion to the data without doing what they say you MUST do to the data before applying the criterion. Making excuses about whether you think the models are doing a good enough job simulating ENSO is just throwing up hay to hide the fact that you are falsely claiming to be applying their criterion when you are in fact not doing it the way they say you have to.

    As for your continuing confusion on what the NOAA report said, they said:

    The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

    I can understand how if they had instead written “The simulations rule out zero trends (at the 95% level) for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.” then one could make the argument that they meant it in the way that you are interpreting it (although it would actually be pretty ambiguous). However, the way they have written it makes it clear that “(at the 95% level)” modifies “rules out” not “zero trends”.

    Graham W says:

    By saying 15 years, a time period over which the 95% confidence cone of an observed trend would more than likely include a positive, negative and zero trend due to the noise in the data over that time, they were knowingly making a statement that it would be statistically impossible for anyone to refute. Seems like a strange and somewhat dishonest thing for them to do.

    I don’t follow your logic at all. (You may not even be understanding what I am trying to say.) In fact, thinking about what is a reasonable statement makes it quite clear that my interpretation is the more reasonable one: If they really meant to say that a 15-year period in which the 95% confidence cone of the observed trend includes zero meant there is inconsistency between the model and data, then that would imply that such an inconsistency would occur even if the best-fit trend over that time period were almost as large as the average trend that the models predict: After all, over a 15-year period, the uncertainty in the trend is somewhere around 0.14 C per decade by one estimate! ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php ) Worse yet, since the calculation of uncertainties for correlated data is not an exact science, they would really need to specify more detail about how one should calculate this 95% confidence interval.

    My interpretation (the one that follows from actually reading what they wrote and assuming they wrote it in the way that they meant it) is that you compute the trend over 15 years (after correcting for ENSO), take that value (without regard to what its uncertainty is) and if that value is zero or less, then that trend lies outside the 95% confidence interval for what the models predict. I don’t see anything at all that is statistically impossible to refute. And, the other thing that makes my interpretation more reasonable is that it doesn’t rely on ill-defined discussions of how one calculates the 95% confidence interval for the trend in the empirical data. You take data for a 15-year period, remove ENSO from the data in the way documented in the paper that they reference, fit a linear trend line by standard regression methods and you get something unambiguous that you can check: Is that trend greater than 0 or less than 0? If it is less than 0 then, you can conclude that there is a statistically-significant deviation from the model predictions with 95% confidence.

  195. I said:

    I can understand how if they had instead written “The simulations rule out zero trends (at the 95% level) for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.” then one could make the argument that they meant it in the way that you are interpreting it (although it would actually be pretty ambiguous).

    Actually, a little further thought while I was in the shower (always the best time to get your thinking straight) made me realize that even this wording would not really support the interpretation of Richard and Monckton because it still talks about the simulations ruling out zero trends at the 95% confidence level. It doesn’t talk about data not ruling out zero trends at the 95% confidence level.

    There is really no support for Monckton and Richard’s interpretation even if we assume that the authors put the parenthetical expression at the wrong point in that phrase. Simply put, your interpretation cannot be justified from what was written in the NOAA report.

  196. richardscourtney says:
    January 15, 2013 at 1:31 pm

    Willis Eschenbach:

    re your post at January 15, 2013 at 1:19 pm.

    You have no need to be personally upset at the troll posting as ‘Climate Ace’.

    … [good stuff snipped] …

    Richard, thank you for your kind thoughts.

    However, let me assure you that I’m not upset by Ace. I find him and his fellows kind of humorous in their own bizarre manner, in part because they tend to be so predictable.

    I don’t have the time or the interest to get “personally upset” with voices on the internet, so please set your mind at ease in that regard. Oh, I may write at times with an upset tone, or an angry tone, or any one of a host of tones, dramatic, sad, reflective, instructive, dispassionate, happy, the list is long … but I do so deliberately and with forethought.

    It’s hard to explain. It’s not fake, my emotions about the world I live in are real, I’m a passionate man. But I don’t let my passions and my emotions run me. Instead, I use them when required, I release them as needed, I parse them to fit the situation, I conjure them up with my words. I’m not caught in my reaction to Ace. I picked that tone from a selection of possibilities, for reasons which are never entirely clear to me, but which seem to work somehow. Or at least folks are kind enough to say so.

    My best to you, and thanks for your thoughts and contributions,

    w.

  197. Joel,

    Noise is signal we don’t comprehend, or wish to deny. The atmosphere recieves most of its energy from the oceans. The oceans recieve massive amounts of energy from UV, particularly in the crystal clear “dead zones” and their efforts to expunge this energy are frustrated by that superheated skin.

    To continue the heart analogy begun earlier, ENSO is a palpitation, a fibrillation, a resonance of Rossby and Kelvin waves. But it is not noise, it is signal that indicates how the system works. Enso always overshoots the trend, but the 1997 El Nino was not exceptional, it was just a hinge.

  198. ” You take data for a 15-year period, remove ENSO from the data”

    This suggests ENSO is not a function included in the models. Why not include it?

    If you tell me that the reason is because ENSO can’t be accurately predicted…… Well what does that say about the rest of the model? I believe an agent of Chaos is at work here confounding the predictors. (H/T Maxwell Smart and Edward Lorenz).

  199. The determined reader resubmitted the comment. This time it was gone in 45 seconds,

    Would [not] make a habit of doing that as they will ban you from the site as they did to me. Comment is only free if you are a leftists state sector worker with communist leanings as I discovered. To AGW disbelievers the site is a no go area.

  200. Joeldshore: I did understand what you were saying. Your response to me indicates that you did not comprehend the point I was making. You make the point that by your calculation the noise in the data is 0.14C over the 15 years. So I ask again, why would they make the statement that the models rule out zero trends for 15 years when over such a period of time it will not be possible to easy abolish whether or not there has been a zero trend due to the noise in the data?

  201. Joel Shore:

    I am replying to your posts addressed to me at January 15, 2013 at 7:26 pm and January 15, 2013 at 7:43 pm.

    Please read the responses to those posts from M Simon and Graham W. They provide complete answers to your nonsense.

    Your arguments are ridiculous and, therefore, anything I were to add to the points from M Simon and Graham W would be ridicule. I choose not to do that unless, of course, you invite me to.

    Richard

  202. Fraud or simply bad science? There is obviously a difference between fraud and an honest mistake.

    There’s a good example from 1998: Mann’s original hockey stick paper, MBH98.
    He used an auto calibration period in the 20th century. The weighting of each proxy was determined by how well it matched the thermometer record. A good match could give a proxy hundreds of times more weighting than for poor matches.

    On the face of it, this seems perfectly acceptable. But it has a fatal flaw. Suppose you feed in red noise (the drunkard’s walk). The method will pick out any drunkard’s walks that randomly happen to match the calibration. In other words, it will pick out drunkard’s walks that have a hockey blade. But, because the data is random, the earlier parts will average out to zero trend. Now you have a complete hockey stick: a flat blade and a sharp upwards blade. And yet the data is completely random. Mann’s method was certain to produce hockey sticks, whatever the data.

    At this point it could be an honest mistake: the method seems to make sense.
    However, it seems clear that Mann knew about this and he hid the results in a directory named Censored. In the following years many people, including Steve McIntyre, demonstrated that Mann’s method would indeed generate perfect hockey sticks from red noise. In a ClimateGate 2 email, a climate scientist relates how he too showed that Mann’s method generated hockey sticks from red noise.
    And yet Mann insists there is nothing wrong with his method.
    Yes, scientists often make mistakes. But if the mistake can be proven and the scientist simply ignores that, then he is a fraud.

    Mann repeated this in 2008 with the Tiljander data. His method converted a cooling trend to a warming trend (upside-down Mann, as McIntyre described it). Mann is well aware of this, but again he refuses to do anything about it.

    The sad, sad thing is that the people who should be protecting science against fraud have been steadfastly looking the other way.

    No climate scientists or institutions such as the Met Office can claim they haven’t been warned about fraudulent behaviour. So, in my opinion, they are all a part of the fraud. And we are forced to pay for this fraud every time we receive an energy bill. This fraud will cost the world trillions of dollars. It is a crime against humanity.
    Chris

  203. Graham W says:

    So I ask again, why would they make the statement that the models rule out zero trends for 15 years when over such a period of time it will not be possible to easy [establish] whether or not there has been a zero trend due to the noise in the data?

    I am not sure why you are addressing this question to me since your argument, when you follow it through, provides support for my interpretation and shows how wrong Richard’s and Monckton’s is. Here’s the answer: It is not hard at all to establish what the trend has been by my interpretation of what they have written. You [after removing ENSO in the way described in the paper that they reference] just compute the trend by linear regression and that is the trend.

    Now, you would say: “But, wait, because of noise the ‘real’ underlying trend could be greater or less than this.” And, my answer would be, “Yes. That is why a trend of 0 in the data is still compatible with the idea that warming is continuing.” But, you don’t have to worry about this: They have already taken it into account by running the climate models many times with perturbed initial conditions and looking at the distributions of trends that they get over 15 year periods [after removing the effect of ENSO] and they have apparently found that 95% of the time, the models give trends greater than 0 over such a 15 year period.

    Now, let’s take a critical look at what Monckton and Richard are telling us to do: They want us to measure the trend, compute the uncertainty (at 95% confidence level) in that trend and if the 95% confidence cone includes zero, they want to conclude that there is a statistically-significant deviation with the model predictions. Let’s give an example that illustrates how perverse that is: Let’s say we measured a trend of 0.12 +/- 0.14 C per decade. Then by Richard and Monckton’s prescription, we would conclude that since we can’t rule out a zero trend with 95% confidence, then there is a statistically-significant deviation with the model predictions. Yet, the top of our 95% confidence boundary is a trend of 0.26 C per decade, which is easily above the average trend in the models (which is a bit less than 0.2 C per decade, basically between 0.15 and 0.2 C). Does it make any sense that a trend that is compatible with an underlying trend as high as 0.26 C per decade at the 95% confidence level would be so low that it shows a statistically-significant deviation from the models?!?! [In reality, the +/- 0.14 C per decade of uncertainty over 15 years may be a little high for data with ENSO removed since that removal process will reduce the uncertainty in the trend somewhat, but since Richard and Monckton insist on doing this exercise without removing ENSO then it is reasonable to use this estimate.]

  204. M Simon says:

    This suggests ENSO is not a function included in the models. Why not include it?

    No…You remove the ENSO signal from both the models and the data. So, the models do have an ENSO signal in them. The reason to remove it is to reduce noise because the actual pattern of El Ninos and La Ninas that you get is very sensitive to the initial conditions.

    If you tell me that the reason is because ENSO can’t be accurately predicted…… Well what does that say about the rest of the model? I believe an agent of Chaos is at work here confounding the predictors. (H/T Maxwell Smart and Edward Lorenz).

    Chaos does not say that NOTHING can be predicted about the future. It says that things that are very sensitive to the initial conditions cannot be predicted. Certain things involving average behavior can be predicted. And, the extent to which you can or can’t predict things is best determined by experimenting with the models (and how it is done for both modern numerical weather prediction and for climate prediction): If you run the models with perturbed initial conditions, then you will find that some things are very sensitive to initial conditions and others are not.

    For example, if you run one of the weather models to predict the weather in Rochester on July 4th of this year, you will get a fine weather map…but if you perturb the initial conditions even a tiny bit, you will get a completely different weather map.

    However, if you run the model to predict the average temperature in the month of July as compared to the month of January in Rochester, you will find a temperature some 20 C warmer in July than January. And, if you perturb the initial conditions and run the model again, you will get this same result (within some variability, say, 20%).

    Similarly, if you run a climate model 100 years in the future under some scenario of increasing greenhouse gases, then you will get a certain prediction of how the global temperature changes…and, if you then perturb the initial conditions and run it again, you will get a prediction for the global temperature change that is similar to the one that you got before. The particular ups-and-downs from year to year (due to ENSO and other things) will be different, but the basic trend will be the same.

  205. gymnosperm says:

    Noise is signal we don’t comprehend, or wish to deny. The atmosphere recieves most of its energy from the oceans. The oceans recieve massive amounts of energy from UV, particularly in the crystal clear “dead zones” and their efforts to expunge this energy are frustrated by that superheated skin.

    Even if you subscribe to some notion about a long-term effects due to El Nino and La Ninas, the process by which the ENSO signal is removed from the data does not affect the long-term trends, i.e., it removes only the short-term effects of ENSO. So, it should not be a problem.

    However, even if you object to this whole process of removing ENSO, the solution is not to takes someone’s criterion that involves putting the data through this process, not go through the process, and then still apply their criterion based on data that has been put through this process. What you would have to do in this case is simply say, “Oh well…I don’t like what they say you have to do to the data so I can’t use their criterion.” To use their criterion on data that has not been analyzed in the way they say it has to be to reduce the noise sufficiently is simply misusing it.

  206. richardscourtney says:

    Your arguments are ridiculous and, therefore, anything I were to add to the points from M Simon and Graham W would be ridicule.

    I have now clearly answered the points made by M Simon and Graham W, which were both based on very basic misunderstandings, the former of what chaos theory says and the latter (presumably) of what I was saying.

  207. joeldshore:

    Your entire post at January 16, 2013 at 5:54 am says

    richardscourtney says:

    Your arguments are ridiculous and, therefore, anything I were to add to the points from M Simon and Graham W would be ridicule.

    I have now clearly answered the points made by M Simon and Graham W, which were both based on very basic misunderstandings, the former of what chaos theory says and the latter (presumably) of what I was saying.

    Clearly answered!? Clearly? Answered?
    Joel, surely even you can see your claim is risible.
    You have obviously evaded – not answered – their points.

    Please note that at January 16, 2013 at 5:28 am John Brookes applauds you!
    Think how wrong you have to be to get acclaim from John Brookes: your responses are that bad.

    Let us review the issues.

    Do the models emulate ENSO? No, but you claim they do.
    Can the models project the future including ENSO? No, and you admit they don’t.

    In 2008 did NOAA say of climate model simulations?

    The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

    YES! But you don’t like it and assert they should have said something else. And you then pretend that ‘something else’ is what they did say when you write this lie.

    But, you don’t have to worry about this: They have already taken it into account by running the climate models many times with perturbed initial conditions and looking at the distributions of trends that they get over 15 year periods [after removing the effect of ENSO] and they have apparently found that 95% of the time, the models give trends greater than 0 over such a 15 year period.

    NO! They did NOT do that.
    NOAA said “simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more”.

    The “95% confidence” applies to whether a trend differs from zero: it does NOT apply to the proportion of model runs.
    If the models showed such 15 year periods for 5% of the model runs then they would not “rule out” such 15 year periods. The simulations would indicate that 1 in 20 runs provided such periods. Even you should be able to understand that if you try.
    Try saying this to yourself 100 times, “RULE OUT, RULE OUT, RULE OUT”, and then reality may manage to penetrate your skull.

    And we have had a zero trend (at 95% confidence) for more than 15 years whether or not you include the 1998 ENSO peak. This shows the models are wrong.

    Also, you have confused chaos with emergent properties, but since you say you are incapable of understanding what “rule out” means I will not attempt to explain chaos theory to you (such an attempt would require much more ambition than I possess).

    Richard

  208. Joel Shore:

    The temperature record of the last sixteen years refutes the projections of the GCM’s.
    In fact, the last ten years have shown a cooling trend and it appears that this will continue indefinitely.From the first AGW theory has been shown to be faulty, and now the climate record provides observations which refute AGW theory, your convoluted arguments to justify data tampering notwithstanding.

  209. Chris Wright: Your post is sort of a hijack from the original discussion, but since you repeat several untrue statements that you may have heard from others, I would like to correct the record.

    In a ClimateGate 2 email, a climate scientist relates how he too showed that Mann’s method generated hockey sticks from red noise.
    And yet Mann insists there is nothing wrong with his method.

    If you read Mann’s book, you will find that there are two reasons why Mann says this is not relevant:
    (1) They used a particular type of red noise that he says is not realistic.
    (2) They did not use the correct statistical methods to check that the reconstructions they got passed statistical verification tests. If they had, they would have seen their reconstructions did not pass these verification tests.

    And, the National Academy of Sciences report on temperature reconstructions weighed in on this general issue and said the following ( http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=113 ):

    As part of their statistical methods, Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions. A description of this effect is given in Chapter 9. In practice, this method, though not recommended, does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of hemispheric mean temperature; reconstructions performed without using principal component analysis are qualitatively similar to the original curves presented by Mann et al. (Crowley and Lowery 2000, Huybers 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Hegerl et al. 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press).

    You say:

    However, it seems clear that Mann knew about this and he hid the results in a directory named Censored.

    No…The “Censored” directory contains tests of the sensitivity of the result to leaving out various proxies (“censoring” certain proxies). And, what those tests show is that getting a reconstruction back to 1000 AD that passes verification tests does depend strongly on the proxy that is produced using tree ring data from the Western U.S. Did Mann hide this fact? Not unless you consider publishing this fact in Geophysical Research Letters to be hiding it: http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/webhome/aprilc/data/my%20stuff/MBH1999.pdf (The relevant discussion is in the lefthand column on p. 761.)

    The only real point of dispute as I understand it is that McIntyre claims that this sensitivity was already present for the reconstruction back to 1400, whereas Mann claims it is only an issue for reconstructions back to 1000. This whole argument rests on which verification statistic to compute and other such things, but it is basically irrelevant since you need the reconstruction back to 1000 to see the Medieval Warm Period.

    You say:

    Mann repeated this in 2008 with the Tiljander data. His method converted a cooling trend to a warming trend (upside-down Mann, as McIntyre described it). Mann is well aware of this, but again he refuses to do anything about it.

    This is also false. Because Tiljander noted that they believed their proxies to be corrupted in the 20th century, in the supplementary materials of the paper, Mann noted this potential issue with the proxies and repeated the analysis leaving out these proxies.

    Your post indicates that you have just uncritically bought into claims you have read that are half-truths at best and complete falsehoods at worst.

  210. Regarding the notion that the ENSO can be removed, an ability to remove it is a consequence from the non-existence of the statistical population that underlies modern climatological models. In divorcing themselves from this population, climatologists have divorced themselves from logic and the scientific method of inquiry.

  211. Joeldshore: I have understood perfectly well everything you have said all along. What you would do well to consider is that if someone disagrees with you, it does not necessarily mean that they don’t understand what you are saying. You make the arrogant assumption that since I am in diagreement with you, it’s just because I’ve got your argument wrong – it can’t possibly be (to your mind) that I have understood everything you have said and still disagree with it. You’re so deeply convinced that your own way of thinking is correct, you are not even open to the possibility of considering other points of view or following them to their logical conclusions (in fact what you did was take part of my argument and twist it around to fit in with your own point of view, then conclude that not only does your twisted representation of my argument represent my argument, you claim that it was your argument all along!)

    Not only this, but you have even so far implied that you know what I’m thinking, that you know what I’m going to say to you next, and that you (and you alone, in this particular argument) know exactly what the NOAA means by its statement. You assume your interpretation of the NOAA’s statement MUST be correct, since you have said it. You are essentially arguing from your own authority! Lol.

    At least you admit that it is only an interpretation. To clarify, here is what I think is wrong with your interpretation:

    1) It is extremely unlikely that you will “just compute the trend by linear regression” and get a result of exactly zero. Trends are always far more likely to be slightly positive or slightly negative. We are dealing with very small trends generally, i.e. relatively close to zero…start to see the problem? So in an earlier comment you allow that the trend could be negative as well as zero. So kind of you. So a negative observed trend is “allowed” to prove the existence of a zero trend. You’re really too kind.

    2) More to the point, what exactly is anyone supposed to do with this “exactly zero” or negative trend? What should be said to the NOAA? “We’ve found this exact zero trend, but ignore the whole 95% confidence thing – that’s not important according to Sir Joel D Shore’s interpretation of your statement…yeah, yeah I know that it’s standard scientific practice to include it, but don’t…because Joel said so”. Of course they are going to laugh you out of town. What you are proposing is just absurd; it’s not scientifically acceptable, or even practical, for their own purposes, let alone anything else.

    Both of these points lead me neatly on to my original question, the one you’re so keen on ignoring. I’m not going to repeat it, this time I’m going to suggest some answers to it, since you refuse to:

    a) It could simply be that they were too arrogant, like yourself; too convinced that the warming signal would always be greater than the noise, so there was no way anyone would ever be able to say the trend was statistically indistinguishable from zero even over a 15 year period. They were short-sighted.

    b) If a) seems too implausible, perhaps they simply made a statement that they knew would be impossible to validate or falsify. They intentionally misled.

    c) If a) and b) are still both unacceptable to you, and you still prefer your interpretation, then you’ll need to counter 1) and 2) above. Thanks.

  212. Chris Wright:

    If you read the post by joeldshore at January 16, 2013 at 8:06 am then you will see he explains that Michael Mann’s book explains ‘black is white’ and ‘white is black’.

    sarc on/ Clearly, that is all the evidence you need for you to understand you should not have read the climategate emails? /sarc off

    Richard

  213. joel shore says @ 8:06am

    This is also false. Because Tiljander noted that they believed their proxies to be corrupted in the 20th century, in the supplementary materials of the paper, Mann noted this potential issue with the proxies and repeated the analysis leaving out these proxies.
    =============================

    Mann published with the corrupted data. He has not retracted his paper.

    Joel Shore, James Hansen needs you. He’s starting to backslide.

  214. Graham W: Most of your comment is simply a tirade. (E.g., you are unhappy because I try to anticipate objections that you might have and address them proactively.)

    I’ll try to comment on what little substance I can find.

    You assume your interpretation of the NOAA’s statement MUST be correct, since you have said it. You are essentially arguing from your own authority! Lol.

    No…I have explained why I think it is correct. I have also explained how there is no possible way to interpret the words that they wrote to mean what Richard Courtney and Monckton are interpreting them to mean. I have also noted that interpreting them in this way leads to a ridiculous conclusion regarding empirical trends that would be in contradiction to the models.

    1) It is extremely unlikely that you will “just compute the trend by linear regression” and get a result of exactly zero.

    I think it is pretty obvious that if a trend of zero lies outside the 95% confidence window for the models then a negative trend does too. Perhaps they could have said “trends of zero or less” instead of “zero trends” to be most clear but I think this is really picking nits.

    “We’ve found this exact zero trend, but ignore the whole 95% confidence thing – that’s not important according to Sir Joel D Shore’s interpretation of your statement…yeah, yeah I know that it’s standard scientific practice to include it, but don’t…because Joel said so”.

    They tell you to look at one number: the trend. They don’t talk about the uncertainty in the trend. You are not justified in replacing the one number you get when you calculate a trend with the value zero just because the trend observed does not rule out an underlying trend of zero (plus weather noise) with 95% confidence. There are lots of underlying trends that are not ruled out with 95% confidence. I could say the trend is 0.15 C per decade because that is not ruled out with 95% confidence either, but that would not be correct. The least squares trend is what you compute it to be…and the uncertainty in the trend is a different issue.

    Let me explain to you the reason why they chose to define their criterion in this way: Getting the uncertainty in the trend line for the actual temperature data is not trivial. You have to assume some model for the correlations in the data and will get different uncertainties with different models. There is still some argument about what is the best model. However, getting the uncertainty (or even the whole distribution of trends) that the models produce is easy: You just run the model many times with slightly different initial conditions and you see the distribution of different trends that you get over a 15-year period. That is why they chose to compare the actual trend one gets from the empirical data to the distribution of trends one gets from the models: If 19 out of 20 of the model runs get a trend over 15-years that is greater than zero, then an observed empirical trend of zero or less falls outside of the 95% confidence range of the models.

    And, of course, as they explain, all of this (both the empirical trend and the trend in the models) is measured AFTER one corrects for ENSO in the way discussed in the paper referenced.

  215. mpainter says:

    Mann published with the corrupted data. He has not retracted his paper.

    He did what one does when there is controversy over a particular piece of data: He showed the results both ways, including and excluding that piece of data.

  216. joeldshore says: January 16, 2013 at 11:25 am

    mpainter says:
    Mann published with the corrupted data. He has not retracted his paper.

    He did what one does when there is controversy over a particular piece of data: He showed the results both ways, including and excluding that piece of data.
    ============================
    Wrong again. For those who wish to learn more about “Upside-down Tiljander”, the whole episode is chronicled at Climate Audit. Steve McIntyre and others strip Mann’s pretentions to science down to the bare bones of fabrication.

    Michael Mann’s “Upside-down Tiljander” is one reason why the hockey stick has disappeared as an icon of the global warners.

  217. joeldshore says:
    January 16, 2013 at 11:25 am

    mpainter says:

    Mann published with the corrupted data. He has not retracted his paper.

    He did what one does when there is controversy over a particular piece of data: He showed the results both ways, including and excluding that piece of data.

    Joel, thanks as always for your thoughts. Actually, what Mann did was a bit more subtle. You’ve got to watch the pea under the shell very carefully. I’ve analyzed his proxies using cluster analysis. This clearly shows from whence his hockeystick ariseth. I repeat my Figure 2 here:

    Figure 2. Left column shows average signals of the clusters of proxies shown in Figure 1, from the year 1001 to 1980. Averages are of the cluster to which each is connected by a short black line.

    This is much more valuable than Mann’s “leave one out” kind of analysis. The hockeystick is contained in three groups of proxies. The first and by far the largest group of proxies is the bristlecone and closely related “strip bark” pines from the western US. As you can see, they are wildly overweighted already in the proxy selection. Mann’s work features these bristlecones heavily, despite numerous authors and authorities having warned against their use.

    In addition, the fact that the main bristlecone group is at the top of the correlogram means that it is the most dissimilar of all the groups.

    The second group is a few Asian tree rings, particularly the problematic “Tornetrask” series.

    The third group is the upside-down Tiljander series. Garbage.

    Finally, the method Mann uses mines for hockeystick shapes. So as long as upside-down Tiljander or any of these are in the mix, they will be overweighted.

    What Mann has done is to establish (as you point out) that his hockeystick mining algorithm works whether or not the upside-down Tiljander data is included … yawn. That means nothing. That’s why you have to watch the pea. As long as any hockystick shaped clusters of data are present, Mann’s mining method will find them and produce a hockeystick.

    Joel, you’re a good scientist who does good work. But in this case, you are supporting the very poor work of a very bad scientist. Look at the results of the cluster analysis above. The majority of the proxy clusters show no hockeystick shape. Some, like the speleothems and lake sediments, actually go down.

    And despite that, Mann’s patented hockeystick mining algorithm successfully comes up with a hockeystick. Can you truly tell me with a straight face that bristlecones (known bad) and Tornetrask (known unrepresentative) and Tiljander (known upside-down) plus a hockeystick-mining algorithm creates a valid historical temperature reconstruction?

    Mann is such a bad scientist that when people pointed out that he had used the Tiljander series upside-down, his response was “it doesn’t matter” … but that wasn’t the capper. The capper was that he used it upside-down a second time.

    So no, Joel. As you know, I’ve supported you often, so this is not a knee-jerk reaction. I’m saying, you’re betting on the wrong horse. Mann is not only a bad scientist, he is a crooked scientist, a man who knowingly destroyed evidence under an FOI request and advised his co-conspirators to do likewise. As his re-use of the upside-down Tiljander data demonstrates, he is monomaniacally focused on showing that his fatally flawed and long discredited original Hockeystick paper is only “pining for the fjords”.

    So in addition to his proxy reconstructions being laughable, I warn you in friendship, you soil yourself by any association with him.

    w.

  218. joeldshore says:
    January 16, 2013 at 11:23 am

    If 19 out of 20 of the model runs get a trend over 15-years that is greater than zero, then an observed empirical trend of zero or less falls outside of the 95% confidence range of the models.
    And, of course, as they explain, all of this (both the empirical trend and the trend in the models) is measured AFTER one corrects for ENSO in the way discussed in the paper referenced.

    And what if there is a 50% chance of warming and a 50% chance of cooling over more than 15 years? See the details on the graph below. A combination of the two satellite data sets shows a slope of 0 for over 15 years.
    As for your objection about ENSO, the 1998 El Nino was cancelled out by the La Ninas that followed since the slope is also 0 for more than 12 years after the ENSO events, as shown below.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/uah/from:1997.9/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/detrend:-0.0735/offset:-0.080/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/trend/plot/rss/from:2000.9/trend/plot/uah/from:2000.9/trend

  219. joeldshore:

    I write to thank you for the laugh you gave me when you wrote at January 16, 2013 at 11:23 am to Graham W saying

    I have also explained how there is no possible way to interpret the words that they wrote to mean what Richard Courtney and Monckton are interpreting them to mean.

    The words of NOAA are clear. The only person “interpreting” them is you!

    Clearly, you have not done as I suggested in my post at January 16, 2013 at 7:13 am where I wrote
    Try saying this to yourself 100 times, “RULE OUT, RULE OUT, RULE OUT”, and then reality may manage to penetrate your skull.

    It may help if you read the NOAA statement as you do it. I remind that it says
    The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

    The “95% confidence” applies to whether a trend differs from zero: it does NOT apply to the proportion of model runs as you have managed to delude yourself.

    I repeat
    If the models showed such 15 year periods for 5% of the model runs then they would not “rule out” such 15 year periods. The simulations would indicate that 1 in 20 runs provided such periods. Even you should be able to understand that if you try.

    So, I again advise you to try. Give it a go. Let me help you get started.
    Say with me, ““RULE OUT, RULE OUT, RULE OUT”.
    OK, now keep going.

    Richard

  220. Joel: OK let’s examine what we have here.

    “Graham W: Most of your comment is simply a tirade. (E.g., you are unhappy because I try to anticipate objections that you might have and address them proactively.)”

    Not true. In fact you addressed me, and continue to address me, as though I’m a simpleton and you are my superior. I found and still find this offensive. OK I don’t put across my ideas as accurately as you do. I’m not a scientist so don’t have that continued requirement to be precise with my words. I think I get my points across OK though. I think it was acceptable to me to note the things you were doing that were offensive, and that was the first two paragraphs.

    “I’ll try to comment on what little substance I can find.”

    Thanks. Super-condescending as ever.

    “No…I have explained why I think it is correct. I have also explained how there is no possible way to interpret the words that they wrote to mean what Richard Courtney and Monckton are interpreting them to mean. I have also noted that interpreting them in this way leads to a ridiculous conclusion regarding empirical trends that would be in contradiction to the models.”

    In your opinion. In Richard Courtney’s and Monckton’s view, there is clearly a possible way to interpret the words as they have done. If not, they would not have done so. If you disagree, take it up with them. I note that you haven’t yet responded to Richard Courtney’s last comment.

    I think we can both agree that the statement is ambiguous; if not why would so many people be discussing different interpretations of the meaning? Actually, you will disagree with me here, the statement is not ambiguous at all in your opinion. It can only mean what you want it to mean and nothing else.

    “I think it is pretty obvious [there's that condescension again] that if a trend of zero lies outside the 95% confidence window for the models then a negative trend does too. Perhaps they could have said “trends of zero or less” instead of “zero trends” to be most clear but I think this is really picking nits.”

    I don’t think it is nit-picking at all. It’s fundamental to your interpretation of their statement. Instead of thinking that perhaps the fact they have specified a “zero trend” instead of “zero trends and trends less that zero” might indicate that your interpretation may be incorrect, you have simply assumed again that you must be right, so they “must have meant” zero trends and trends less than zero. But it is not what was said. Why didn’t they specify? Perhaps it is because they are not saying that at all, and what they are actually saying is that a trend that is statistically indistinguishable from zero, a zero trend, is required to create a discrepancy. NOT a trend that just happens to be absolutely perfectly at zero, meanwhile let’s just completely ignore the margin of error.

    “They tell you to look at one number: the trend. They don’t talk about the uncertainty in the trend. You are not justified in replacing the one number you get when you calculate a trend with the value zero just because the trend observed does not rule out an underlying trend of zero (plus weather noise) with 95% confidence. There are lots of underlying trends that are not ruled out with 95% confidence. I could say the trend is 0.15 C per decade because that is not ruled out with 95% confidence either, but that would not be correct. The least squares trend is what you compute it to be…and the uncertainty in the trend is a different issue.”

    Once more you are explaining yourself again as if I don’t understand what your point is. You are only correct if your interpretation of their statement is the right one. They do talk about 95% confidence in the brackets preceding the words “zero trends”. Your understanding of how the sentences “ought” to be constructed is that the bracketed words should apply to the words prior to the brackets and not after. However, others disagree. Your justification for choosing your interpretation is full of implied “it has to be this”, “it’s obvious that they must mean this” etc etc. In other words you think you’re right and that’s it.

    “Let me explain to you the reason why they chose to define their criterion in this way: Getting the uncertainty in the trend line for the actual temperature data is not trivial. You have to assume some model for the correlations in the data and will get different uncertainties with different models. There is still some argument about what is the best model. However, getting the uncertainty (or even the whole distribution of trends) that the models produce is easy: You just run the model many times with slightly different initial conditions and you see the distribution of different trends that you get over a 15-year period. That is why they chose to compare the actual trend one gets from the empirical data to the distribution of trends one gets from the models: If 19 out of 20 of the model runs get a trend over 15-years that is greater than zero, then an observed empirical trend of zero or less falls outside of the 95% confidence range of the models.

    And, of course, as they explain, all of this (both the empirical trend and the trend in the models) is measured AFTER one corrects for ENSO in the way discussed in the paper referenced”.

    FIne, if you say so. If you say so it must be true. Is there something I’m missing here? Do you KNOW why they define their criterion this way or that way? Do you represent the NOAA? If so I’ll believe what you’re saying. Now if you’re going to respond, please can you do it in some way that does not imply you are talking to a lesser human being. Thanks.

  221. Graham W:

    re the final paragraph in your post at January 16, 2013 at 2:48 pm

    Please be assured that your posts demonstrate you are both a better man and the intellectual superior of Joel.

    Richard

  222. Well, Joel, looks like you have a lot on your plate. If you wish to take a recess, you will be excused, I’m sure.

  223. How can Joel interpret this as other than stated?

    The NOAA’s State of the Climate report in 2008 said this:

    “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

    “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability.

    That seems easy to understand. The models will produce near zero or even negative trends for ten years or for a run of years that are less than ten years. This is due to “the model’s internal climate variability.”

    So they are saying they have climate variability built in to the model (negative and positive forcings) that will cause near zero or negative trends.

    The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more,

    Since the first sentence goes to the trouble of using the words ‘near zero’ and then ‘even negative’ trends one must conclude
    near zero trends = zero trends at the 95% level
    ‘even negative’ does not need such a qualifier because it is not implying some exact number where as a trend of zero does.

    suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

    So that would be zero trends at the 95% level, or even negative trends = an observed absence of warming.

    The other method of looking at it is from the statistical point of view. If we make measurements (observations) we are taking ESTIMATES of the true value. There is an error associated with those measurements so a true scientist, knowing this always includes that estimate of error in his thinking about measurements if he has been educated properly. (NOT using/thinking with error bars is a sure sign the person is not a scientist.)

    This NOAA graph shows with bars their estimate of error in the global mean temperature. Graph

    This graph indicates the CRU computed sampling (measurement) error in C graph That graph indicates the error starts at 0.5°C, and for most of the data is in the +/- 1°C range.

    To put it bluntly ALL and I do mean ALL measurement data has error bars. The fact those error bars are not usually conveyed to the public by reporters (most of whom are not scientists) does not mean those error bars are not there.

    All Monckton is doing is using the error estimate @ 95% confidence as he should since that is the convention in Climate Science.

  224. Gail Combs:

    re your post at January 17, 2013 at 3:20 am.

    Yes, you are right in all you say.

    As I said to joeldshore at January 16, 2013 at 2:14 pm
    The words of NOAA are clear. The only person “interpreting” them is you!

    But in this case – as he always does – Joel is pretending the facts are what he wants them to be instead of what they are.

    Richard

  225. Graham W says:

    I think we can both agree that the statement is ambiguous; if not why would so many people be discussing different interpretations of the meaning? Actually, you will disagree with me here, the statement is not ambiguous at all in your opinion. It can only mean what you want it to mean and nothing else.

    richardscourtney says:

    The words of NOAA are clear. The only person “interpreting” them is you!

    So, Graham, if you think that there are multiple interpretations and one actually has to use coherent arguments to support which interpretation makes sense, you should be on my side, not Richard’s. Richard doesn’t even think his interpretation is an interpretation…and hence he doesn’t even justify it. He just claims the words are clear and that is the only way one could possibly interpret it.

    Let me summarize the reasons why I believe my interpretation has much more support:

    (1) The authors chose to put the parenthetical expression after “rule out” rather than after “zero trends”. Why would they do this if they wanted it to modify “zero trends”? I could actually see the reverse happening, i.e., I could see them writing “The simulations rule out zero trends (at the 95% level)” when they really meant it to modify “rule out”…This would be a little sloppy, but certaintly reads more naturally than sticking the parenthetical expression in the middle. The fact that the authors explicitly avoided that more natural-sounding construction suggests they wanted to make it clear that the parenthetical expression modifies “rule out” and not “zero trends”.

    (2) If you adopt my interpretation, there is no real ambiguity in the statement. We know what is meant by “rule out” and we don’t have to worry about questions of how one determines the uncertainty in the trend estimate on the empirical data because no such estimate is required. With Richard and Monckton’s interpretation, we don’t know what “ruled out” means (to what level of certainty?) and we don’t know what sort of model to use for the correlations in the empirical data in order to arrive at an uncertainty estimate for the trend.

    (3) With my interpretation, there is a straightforward way to explain how they came to the conclusion that they did based on what they discuss regarding the simulations that they performed using the climate models: They looked at all the independent periods of a certain length in these multiple simulations and found that one had to make the length 15 years long in order that fewer than 5% of the simulations had trends less than zero. That is what it means to rule out at the 95% confidence level a zero trend. With Richard and Monckton’s interpretation, it is not clear what they did. How did they get from their simulations to their conclusion?

    (4) As I noted previously, the SkepticalScience trend calculator (the only one that I know of that is available online) shows 15-year trends of temperature data to have an uncertainty of about 0.14 C per decade. (As I have noted, this is using some model for the correlations in the data, as this is necessary to get such an estimate.) That means that the “borderline” case of a trend that would not rule out a zero trend at 95% confidence is a trend of 0.14 C per decade, which would be compatible with the underlying trend lying anywhere between 0 and 0.28 C per decade with 95% confidence. Does it really make sense whatsoever that the models, which predict trends on average of about 0.20 C per decade would rule out an empirical trend whose 95% confidence interval goes from 0 and 0.28 C per decade?

  226. Graham W says:

    In your opinion. In Richard Courtney’s and Monckton’s view, there is clearly a possible way to interpret the words as they have done. If not, they would not have done so.

    Yes…That is what Monckton is truly gifted in…and I mean that seriously and sincerely. The man has a gift for creatively misinterpreting statements, graphs (such as the IPCC graph showing the temperature structure of the warming due to various forcings), and other such things. And, interestingly, that interpretation always seems to allow him to reach conclusions that scientists in the field have not reached and that just happen to correspond to what he wants to believe.

    Don’t even get me started on Richard. The man is agnostic on the question of whether the rise ***in CO2*** is due to humans. That is sort of like being agnostic on whether the Earth is more like 6000 or 4.6 billion years old.

  227. Willis: Thanks for your comment. I always wade into any discussion of the proxy temperature reconstructions with trepidation because it is not something I have been particularly interested in (not much physics in it), not what I believe to be one of the more compelling pieces of evidence in support of AGW (partly because of the issues regarding the proxies and partly because at the end of the day, even if the the temperatures are unusual over the past one or two millenia, that is only circumstantial evidence in support of AGW), and hence something that I have not studied in much detail.

    However, my point is that it is not right to throw around accusations of fraud on the basis of “facts” that one has read elsewhere and clearly has heard only one side of (as Chris Wright did). So, the tree rings from the Western U.S. play an uncomfortably large role in the reconstructions? Who might have thunk this? Perhaps the scientists who said: “Positive calibration / variance scores for the NH series cannot be obtained if this indicator is removed from the network (in contrast to post-AD 1400 reconstructions for which a variety of indicators are available which correlate against the instrumental record). Though, as discussed earlier, ITRDB PC#1 represents a vital region for resolving hemispheric temperature trends, the assumption that this relationship hold up over time nonetheless demand circumspection. Clearly, a more widespread network of quality millenial proxy indicators will be required for more confident inferences.” ( http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/webhome/aprilc/data/my%20stuff/MBH1999.pdf )

    Since you warn me of something in friendship, let me return the favor: If you think that Mann’s work is bad then criticize it; that is fine. Have a spirited disagreement with him. However, when you call a scientist who is respected in the field (and has won multiple honors from his peers) and has been investigated by fellow scientists / academics and found innocent of accusations made against him, your probably don’t want to go around calling him a fraud and crooked if you want to gain any sort of foothold for your points of view within the scientific community. When I see things like this, it just makes me believe that the AGW movement has no real desire to earn the respect of the scientific community at large…that they are rather out there just to win over the non-science public. And, it is sad because I respect you for actually taking on some of the nonsense one sees in the movement (there’s no greenhouse effect, Nikolov and Zeller have a reasonable alternative theory of climate, the observed rise in CO2 is not anthropogenic, …) that is preventing the AGW community from being taken seriously by the broader scientific community.

  228. joeldshore says:
    January 17, 2013 at 7:30 am

    … Since you warn me of something in friendship, let me return the favor: If you think that Mann’s work is bad then criticize it; that is fine. Have a spirited disagreement with him. However, when you call a scientist who is respected in the field (and has won multiple honors from his peers) and has been investigated by fellow scientists / academics and found innocent of accusations made against him, your probably don’t want to go around calling him a fraud and crooked if you want to gain any sort of foothold for your points of view within the scientific community.

    Truly, Joel, I had expected better of you. If you think that Mann has been investigated, then I officially take away your scientists badge. He has not been investigated in any sense of the word, except by the same people and with the same thoroughness as when they investigated Jerry Sandusky and found nothing … and if you think Penn State actually investigated either of them, I will describe you as naive beyond belief and credulous beyond measure.

    Mann also flat out admitted that he asked his friends to destroy emails subject to an FOI request. So your claim that he is somehow lily-white and pure fails from his own testimony. Now, on my planet, when someone does that, I call them crooked and a fraud. He has to hide his actions, just as he hid the fact that he knew the pre-1400 data would throw his original claims in the trash. Oh, yes, he later admitted it, as you point out … you obviously think that means something.

    And did Mann himself also destroy emails, the ones he recommended that his fellow conspirators destroy? Hey, the Joel D. Shore Memorial Investigation didn’t get an answer to that question. Care to guess why? Well … they never asked him, because they were friends of his.

    Never even asked him one of the central questions regarding his actions … and you call that an investigation? That is pathetic. My grandma could have done a better investigation, and she’s been dead for decades.

    Hell, Joel, Mann flat-out lied to the Senate Committee when he said he had not calculated the R^2 of the reconstruction, which was a major point. Flat. Out. Lied. Right there in print.And you think that he is not a fraud and a cheat? What rock are you living under?

    Finally, Joel, you threaten, and I believe you are correct, that if I don’t stop calling Mann a fraud, that my ideas will not gain credence among you and fellow AGW supporters, which you mistake for a scientific community. And I agree with you.

    Now consider for a minute about what that says about how your vaunted “scientific” community, Joel. Your community is deciding the worth of my scientific ideas … on the basis of whether I think that Mann is a cheat and fraud.

    Is that scientific? I think not … Joel, the one losing support for their scientific ideas here is the community of AGW supporting scientists. They’ve seen a huge drop in their poll numbers, to the point where some 60% of Americans think they are just making up the data. (I don’t so, I’m just pointing out who is losing support.)

    In fact, the failure of the AGW supporters to do even the most simple of investigations, instead conducting pal-reviews, is well documented, and is one of the reasons for the precipitous drop in the credibility of you and your fellows, Joel. I could provide cites to the investigations, but the fact that you actually believe that Jerry Sandusky and Michael Mann were significantly investigated by Penn State kinda makes that a waste of time … if you believe that, you’re beyond hope.

    I’m truly sorry to see this, Joel. I had actually thought of you as one of the few AGW supporters who was actually willing to look under the rocks and honestly report what you found. Foolish me. Instead, you’re babbling about how Mann was a good guy who was seriously investigated and cleared, and all of those claims are demonstrably false. Mann is a bad actor who has never been investigated, and sorry to say, he is dragging good men like yourself down with him. There’s not many clear things in climate science, but Michael Mann’s lack of ethics and morals is one of them. He’s demonstrated that lack publicly, both in his words, his science, and his actions, and he is self-confessed in his own words in the Climategate emails.

    Curiously, Joel, if you read the Climategate emails, the other conspirators thought he’d gone off of the rails. I didn’t have to say anything, they already consider his science a joke. It’s hilarious to read the stuff that they say about him … so if you think that the “scientific community” thinks Mann is a good decent honest scientist, think again, because at this rate you are one of the few people left who thinks so.. According to the climategate emails, the position of the AGW movers and shakers about Mann is a hell of a lot closer to mine than to yours, they don’t like him one bit more than I do. So I doubt I’ll lose much cred by pointing out the obvious, that Mann is a charlatan … but you, they could exhibit as the last living man fooled by the Mann.

    So I’m surprised, and not pleasantly. I had thought better of you. Jeez, Joel, he’s got you defending using data upside down, not just once, but a second time after he was notified of the error. You sure you want to go down that path? Because you’ve just started traversing it, and you already look like an idiot.

    Look, you are smart enough to start your most recent post by saying you deal with paleoclimate reconstructions carefully, because it is something that you haven’t studied in detail. Obviously, the same is true in spades about your knowledge of Micael Mann, and it is costing you dearly. I call Mann a charlatan and a crook because he is one, and as climategate showed, his fellow scientists (present company excepted) are well aware of that fact. It’s not news to anyone save apparently you, so clearly you haven’t studied it in detail.

    Quit while you are behind, my friend. You support Mann as you are doing and you will end up covered in mud, and sadly, it’s already happening to you. Quit while you are behind.

    w.

  229. Joel: Genuine thanks for the polite response. Now we are talking. Unfortunately I think I’ve already said most of what I have to say on the matter, and that was mostly when I was kind of ticked off, so apologies for the tone. I have a tendency to over-react if I feel I am being talked down to. Well there you go.

    Anyway, I hear all that you are saying and you make a good argument, I just think the bottom line is they made a bit of a sloppy statement. As such all interpretations are just that, interpretations. They should have been more precise with what they said. I get the feeling if you or Richard or Gail or many others who post here had written the statement we wouldn’t be having this debate, since you would have done a better job! But there it is. And though you make a good argument, I think your interpretation is stretching things a bit and I personally find what Gail and Richard have said more compelling, but that’s just my opinion. I think the meaning of “rule out” is perfectly clear, it can only mean 100% just that – ruling something out. It is certainly not a term you would expect to see in such an important statement (is it even very scientific to RULE OUT things?) and that’s part of what makes me think the writing is sloppy.

    My point really is that they have made the statement and now they have to live with it, basically. You can’t really argue on their behalf after the event, the statement is the statement. It’s all there in black and white. As you will know only too well I’m sure, this is the reason for the need for absolute precision in scientific statements.

  230. Graham W says:

    They should have been more precise with what they said. I get the feeling if you or Richard or Gail or many others who post here had written the statement we wouldn’t be having this debate, since you would have done a better job!

    I certainly appreciate your vote of confidence, but I am not sure I could have done a much better job than they did. If one accepts my interpretation, they were actually pretty careful in their writing: They were sure to put the parenthetical phrase right after what it modified, they explained the simulations, … It is only if you don’t accept my interpretation and accept Richard and Monckton’s instead that one ends up with the interpretation that they were sloppy because then you conclude that they didn’t define what they meant by “ruled out” (even though they had a parenthetical phrase immediately after it!) and they didn’t define how the determined the error bars on the trend in the empirical data.

    I really think it is difficult to write (or speak) in a way in which you can’t possibly be misinterpreted. I am always impressed at how well my students can misinterpret what I have said or what their lab manual says…and this is a case where the students really want to interpret it correctly. Now, you add in the fact that Monckton and Richard want to interpret it not necessarily in the way it was meant, but rather in the way that is most favorable to their argument, and I think you have a pretty tall order to try to write so that no such interpretation is possible! Scientific articles are not legal documents…and I think they would suffer if we had to write them all as if they were.

    In particular, I don’t agree that “rule out (at the 95% level)” is a particularly sloppy statement. Here is a challenge for you: If you think they expressed things sloppily, could you provide me with alternate wording, i.e., what they could have said if they wanted to say what I interpret them as saying, that you would find to be more clear? I would honestly be curious to see it.

    [By the way, writing scientific papers in a way that is clear and complete is unfortunately not as common as you might expect. I have a colleague who recently gave a talk and was emphasizing how great another physicist's papers were (in the field of modeling of fluids on surfaces and other such things) because he said (roughly), "You do exactly what she says she did and you get the result that she got, which is really not something that can be said for many papers."]

  231. I’ll just say one more thing, though it’s been said already: strictly speaking “..rules out (at the 95% level)” is an oxymoron. Whereas “…rules out (at the 95% level) zero trends…” is not an oxymoron so long as you take it to mean that the bracketed phrase applies to “zero trends”. Now I said that they were sloppy in their statement, but not so sloppy as to write an oxymoron into it.

    On a side note I’m not even sure why brackets were even necessary – there were much clearer ways to write it, full stop.

  232. Graham: I don’t think the usage of “rules out” and a 95% confidence level is all that unusual. Here is a blog post on CERN’s announcement of the Higg’s boson ( http://blog.vixra.org/2011/12/13/the-higgs-boson-live-from-cern/ ):

    When the black line descends below the red horizontal line at 1.0 on the vertical axis, people sometimes say that the Higgs Boson has been ruled out at 95% confidence level at this mass.

    (He goes on to say that this statement is not strictly true, but the problem that he discusses is not with using such a statement in principle but rather technical issues with determining the confidence level.)

  233. Joel: Didn’t see your response there, I think I must have been writing my “one last point”. So OK actually it will be one more one last point! Sorry a bit pushed for time so I will have to be brief. Re your point at the end of your first paragraph, I assumed that the way the error bars for a trend in empirical data were calculated was a standard procedure, so wouldn’t need to be explicitly stated. That’s what I assumed, I’ll be honest I don’t really know because I’m not a scientist! But for the models it might require explanation, but then if you take Richard’s and Monckton’s and Gail’s interpretation, then it is implied that the 95% level does not apply to the models anyway, so no explanation required.

    Sorry again got to go, I will certainly give your challenge some thought, but right now I must dash. Thanks for your time and thoughts everybody.

  234. joeldshore:

    You have sunk to the level of being silly.

    The NOAA statement is clear and makes sense.
    Your misinterpretation of it makes no sense and disagrees with what was written.

    Please try to think about it. The NOAA statement says,
    “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

    How could
    “observed absence of warming of this duration”
    create
    “a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate”
    if the simulations show “observed absence of warming of this duration” during 1 in 20 simulations?

    But there is no problem understanding that if you accept the statement literally;
    i.e. the 95% confidence applies to “zero trends” and not “intervals of 15 years or more”.

    If they had meant (at the 95% level) to apply to the “intervals” then they would have applied it to the “intervals”: they did not, they put “(at the 95% level)” adjacent to “zero trends”.

    And that is all I will say on the matter because I agree with what the statement says and you choose to “interpret” it in a manner which makes no sense and disagrees with what was written.

    Richard

  235. richardscourtney says:

    How could
    “observed absence of warming of this duration”
    create
    “a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate”
    if the simulations show “observed absence of warming of this duration” during 1 in 20 simulations?

    Ah…Because that is what the 95% confidence level means. It means that the observed thing happens infrequently enough that it is unlikely to occur by chance. You could make the same argument about your interpretation…If the 95% confidence interval does not include a trend of zero, that does not strictly mean that it is impossible that the underlying trend is zero. It just means it is unlikely…That there is less than 5% chance that the underlying trend is zero when the observed trend is what it is.

    But there is no problem understanding that if you accept the statement literally;
    i.e. the 95% confidence applies to “zero trends” and not “intervals of 15 years or more”.

    If they had meant (at the 95% level) to apply to the “intervals” then they would have applied it to the “intervals”: they did not, they put “(at the 95% level)” adjacent to “zero trends”.

    You’ve created and then demolished a strawman. Nobody is arguing that their parenthetical statement modifies “intervals”. It modifies “rule out”, which just happens to be the words right before the parenthetical expression. It’s use is exactly the same as in this sentence, “When the black line descends below the red horizontal line at 1.0 on the vertical axis, people sometimes say that the Higgs Boson has been ruled out at 95% confidence level at this mass” in this blog post: http://blog.vixra.org/2011/12/13/the-higgs-boson-live-from-cern/

  236. Graham W says:

    Re your point at the end of your first paragraph, I assumed that the way the error bars for a trend in empirical data were calculated was a standard procedure, so wouldn’t need to be explicitly stated.

    If the data are uncorrelated, so each data point can be considered an observation that is completely independent of the previous one, then the procedure is standard. However, temperature data is strongly correlated…If last month was unusually warm (due, e.g., to an El Nino) then this month is likely to be so too. In that case the number of “degrees of freedom” is less than what you calculate based on the number of data points and that affects (increases) the uncertainty in the trend over what you would expect if you assume the data to be uncorrelated. Without knowing exactly how the data is correlated, one doesn’t know exactly how the uncertainty is affected…So, you have to use some model for the correlations that hopefully represent how the correlations actually behave. I am not exactly sure how much uncertainty this introduces into the uncertainty of the trend estimate, but my impression is that it is at least enough that people argue about which model best represents the correlations.

    But for the models it might require explanation, but then if you take Richard’s and Monckton’s and Gail’s interpretation, then it is implied that the 95% level does not apply to the models anyway, so no explanation required.

    No…You have it backwards. For the climate models, one can figure out the distribution of trends just by running the models again and again (a technique called “Monte Carlo” in many contexts) and seeing what distribution of trends you get. For the empirical data you can’t do that. So, it is actually more difficult to get the uncertainty in trends for the data than for the climate models.

    Note that I have used the “term” model in two contexts. In answering your previous point, when I used “model”, I was talking not about climate models but of having to have a model of the correlations in the actual data. If you don’t understand how the data is correlated, then you can’t get the uncertainty in the trend line. So, in other words, it is impossible to get the uncertainty in the trend of empirical data without a model (of the correlations). Whereas, for the climate models themselves, you don’t need a model of the correlations because you can always do the “brute force” technique of just running the model many times (or running many different models or some combination of these), as they did. Or, in other words, there is only one Earth to experiment on in the real world but there are infinitely-many to experiment on in the climate model world.

  237. Joel: Thanks for the detailed explanation. However there are many temperature trends reported in the 2008 NOAA state of the climate report as far as I can see, with their error bars reported (just look at the pages preceding the statement we’re discussing) and there is no reference accompanying them to explain which model was used to calculate them in any instance. Where would you normally find a statement describing the model used to calculate the confidence cone for a trend?

  238. Graham: I don’t know if there is anywhere in that report where they say how those uncertainties in the trends were calculated (and even if they are 1 sigma or 2 sigma uncertainties). One would hope…But, on the other hand, it was not as important to be specific in that case as it was for specifying their criterion for when the trend could be considered to have a statistically-significant deviation from what the models predict.

    A discussion of the issues of calculating the uncertainties in the trends of the empirical temperature record is given in the Appendix of this paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf

  239. Everyone: From Monckton’s post, quoting the Met:

    1. “… [F]or Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.”

    2. “What is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming …”.
    =============================
    These statements are unequivocal, and they are unequivocally wrong. No amount of argument can reverse the cooling trend of the last ten years. No amount of argument can turn the flat trend of the past sixteen years into a warming trend.

  240. Joel, it will take me a while to read through that link and digest everything written. Thanks for the info! All I can say is, regarding this ongoing debate – like it or not, the NOAA report doesn’t seem to define how the uncertainty in the trends in empirical data is calculated, nor does it specifically state how they get the uncertainty that the models produce. You may think that you can infer how it must be done (with the models – predictive computer models that is) but they have not stated it directly in the text. Therefore all that is left for anyone to do is to take the statement as written. In doing so I can only conclude that the most logical interpretation is the one that excludes the oxymoron, and the one which doesn’t imply the requirement to observe a trend without its error bars (the zero or negative trend as discussed in previous comments). There doesn’t appear to be any direct evidence within the report to support your interpretation.

    I conclude, with all due respect, that since the interpretation of Richard and Monckton et al requires no additional evidence (they are arguing only from what is directly expressed in the report), and since yours requires additional evidence that is lacking, that their argument is the more compelling.

  241. Has anyone here actually though to check the claim that the met said “Each of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade”? Could I really be the only person who’s thought to check, in the week that this post has been up?

    Because that’s not what the Met’s blog site says. It says “EIGHT of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade”.

    So … did CM just misread it? Or did the met change the text? It’s been up a while, since October. The claim of 8 years (previously 7) is a fairly common one, but nobody that I can find (online) has ever claimed that all 10 of the last years are in the top 10. If the Met DID post that, I’d be inclined to think it was a typo. But right now, that’s not what the blog site says at all.

    Sheesh. Awkward.

  242. According to the google cache, the met’s blog was saying “eight of the top ten …” on the 10th of January.

  243. Graham: Thanks for the message. But, with all due respect, your statements for why you have concluded whaty you have might be more rationalizations on your part to believe what you want to believe. Let’s look at what you say in a little more detail:

    You may think that you can infer how it must be done (with the models – predictive computer models that is) but they have not stated it directly in the text. Therefore all that is left for anyone to do is to take the statement as written.

    I am the only one who has at least tried to infer how they concluded what they did. Monckton and Richard haven’t, because frankly it is unlikely that they would be able to provide any such explanation.

    In doing so I can only conclude that the most logical interpretation is the one that excludes the oxymoron,

    As I showed you, it is not an oxymoron. The idea of ruling out something at some level of confidence is a statement made about lots of things relying on statistical testing, including the Higgs Boson as the quote I gave you showed. Ruling out something of a statistical nature with 100% confidence is impossible, which is why Richard and Monckton’s interpretation does not any sense whatsoever.

    and the one which doesn’t imply the requirement to observe a trend without its error bars (the zero or negative trend as discussed in previous comments).

    The error bars issue is a red herring. It is common practice to compare an observed trend with the distribution of trends observed by the models since it is easier to determine the distribution for the models than the real world. What is absolutely not common practice because it is ridiculous is to say that something is completely ruled out rather than saying it is ruled out with some degree of confidence. (Not to say that people will not be sloppy sometimes…but even if they are, that does not mean that when they said “ruled out” that they meant with 100% certainty because that is impossible except I suppose for very special cases like rolling a “7” on a 6-sided die.)

    I conclude, with all due respect, that since the interpretation of Richard and Monckton et al requires no additional evidence (they are arguing only from what is directly expressed in the report)

    No they aren’t. They are ignoring all of the surrounding discussion about models and correcting for ENSO. They are assuming that a parenthetical statement modifies what comes after it rather than before it even though it is unlikely anybody would write it that way if they meant to modify the word “trend”. And, they can’t even explain how the authors could have possibly made that statement on the basis of the work that they did that they describe. Their interpretation is utterly without foundation…and Richard hasn’t even made any serious attempt to logically defend it, preferring instead to attack strawman arguments or ad hominem attacks on me. Can you honestly look at the last couple of posts that Richard has written and take anything he says seriously?

  244. Hi Joel. In the section of the report we’re discussing, in the paragraphs before the infamous statement of controversy, they are mentioning that the models project a rate of continued temp increase of 0.2C per decade, which is also clarified further on when they state that the models show on average 2C warming for the 21st century. This leads directly into the debated quote.

    Using the Skeptical Science trend calculator, you get (at 2008) a trend for the preceding 15 years (so 1993 – 2008) of 0.231 + or – 0.143 (HADCRUT 4). Compare that to the trend you get now, in the last fifteen years: 0.043 + or – 0.140. My point is, a lot has changed in the last five years, since this report came out. In 2008 the data for the preceding 15 years showed a trend over and above the models projections (0.2C per decade) at the 95% level. Now, only five years later, the trend is only 0.043, and due to the error bars, statistically indistinguishable from zero.

    What I’m suggesting is, at the time it may not have seemed so ridiculous as you find it now to make their “falsification criterion”, or whatever you want to call it, be a trend that was statistically indistinguishable from zero. If you put it into that context and include those previous paragraphs when reading through to the end of the quote we’ve been discussing it does seem a lot clearer in my opinion.

  245. Graham: Yes, it would have been ridiculous. Because the notion that a trend of 0.13 +/- 0.14 C per decade would somehow completely incompatible with the model predictions of 0.2 C per decade is patently ridiculous. I don’t care what five more years of data shows…It does not change the ridiculousness of such a claim, which is independent of the data.

    Furthermore, five more years of data does not change the fact that the authors inserted the parenthetical phrase after “rule out”, not after “zero trends”. And, it does not change the fact that Richard and Monckton have yet to come up with a credible picture of how their interpretation of the claim made in that report could plausibly follow from any of the discussion in the report.

    [And, by the way, the fact that 5 years of data has changed the entire storyline of the 15 year trend from being on the high side of the predictions of the models to the models supposedly absolutely ruling out the result ought to set off alarm bells for anybody familiar enough with data analysis to know that 5 years of data in a system with considerable variability is never going to be enough to make that dramatic a change in the storyline. It just ain't going to happen.]

  246. I’m not suggesting that the trend for the last five years has anything to do with anything. Yes of course there is too much noise in the data for a five year period to be meaningful. What I’m saying is that within the last five years the trends for preceding 15 year periods have utterly changed from significantly as projected to less than expected.

    At the time of the report they were acknowledging that the rate of warming has decreased over the preceding ten years. This is acknowledged in the opening paragraphs of the section we’re discussing. Hence the need to define the criterion for falsification. It reads like they were confident enough in the projection of a steady increase of 0.2C per decade and hence an overall increase of 2C over the whole 21st century that a fifteen year period where the trend dropped below the level of noise for that period was a significant deviation from their projection.

    It was an over-confident and short-sighted statement but it appears to be what they were saying, nonetheless. If the trend drops below the noise over 15 years (and in fact now 18 years in the same data set) then it has a long way to go to “catch up” with where it should be to get back to the projected 2C warming for the decade. When you look at it like that its not really so silly as you claim. 15 years is 15% of a century after all.

  247. P.S: With this quote here:

    “Because the notion that a trend of 0.13 +/- 0.14 C per decade would somehow completely incompatible with the model predictions of 0.2 C per decade is patently ridiculous.”

    I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that the trend could be 0.13 + 0.14 i.e. 0.27C per decade and still be statistically indistinguishable from zero. I think this is the nail in the head moment of where you may be going wrong. The fact that you can make the statement “the trend is statistically indistinguishable from zero” means that it cannot be distinguished from the underlying noise in the data. Since earlier on in our discussion you yourself said:

    “15-year trends of temperature data [tend] to have an uncertainty of about 0.14 C per decade”

    Then it follows that when the trend is said to be statistically indistinguishable from zero it cannot possibly be greater than this 0.14C per decade (or whatever the exact figure is for the uncertainty over the time period you’re analysing); since if it were then the trend would be “visible” from the noise and you would in fact register there is a positive trend.

    With this understood then my and everybody else’s argument becomes clearer still.

  248. Graham W says:

    If the trend drops below the noise over 15 years (and in fact now 18 years in the same data set) then it has a long way to go to “catch up” with where it should be to get back to the projected 2C warming for the decade.

    It does not have a long way to go to catch up. The trend over the last 28 years (from 1975) follows almost exactly the same line as the trend from 1975 to 1997): http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1997.5/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1997.5/trend [And, note that now that we have been around ENSO-neutral-conditions, the temperatures are back very close to the trendline.]

    I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that the trend could be 0.13 + 0.14 i.e. 0.27C per decade and still be statistically indistinguishable from zero.

    A trend of 0.13 +/- 0.14 C per decade is statistically-indistinguishable from a zero trend at the 95% confidence level since 0.13 – 0.14 = -0.01: The 95% confidence interval includes zero. It is also statistically-indistinguishable from a trend of, say, 0.26 C per decade.

    Hence my point: A 15-year trend that is statistically-indistinguishable from zero (at the 95% confidence level) can also be statistically-indistinguishable from trends that are even larger than what the models on average predict. Hence, it is preposterous to suggest that a trend that is statistically-indistinguishable from zero over 15 years is ruled out by the models.

    With this understood then my and everybody else’s argument becomes clearer still.

    No…You have just managed to run yourself in circles.

  249. No Joel I think you’re missing the point of what I’m saying. OK let’s take your example of 0.13 +/- 0.14. Yes it is statistically indistinguishable from zero and yes that means exactly what I said it means. You can’t consider the trends above the level of noise over the 15 years, 0.14 C per decade, as being part of the 95% confidence cone. Since if it was any one of the trends greater than 0.14 and up to 0.27 C per decade then it would no longer be statistically indistinguishable from zero, it would be a positive trend with 95% confidence.

    This is why for example with the trend I pointed out that existed in 2008 for the preceding 15 years, it is clearly a positive trend since even deducting the full amount of the negative error bar this potential trend is still above zero.

    It is you that has been arguing in circles and you have been from the very beginning.

  250. Graham W:

    With genuine respect to you, I think you are wasting your time.

    Joel is clearly spouting nonsense. He often does. But he has convinced himself that the nonsense is reality. He often does that, too.

    Many, many past examples show there is nothing anybody can do to correct his misunderstanding when – as in this case – he convinces himself of something which is obviously plain wrong. He builds a shield in his mind which protects his mistaken notion from reason, logic and evidence. And when he has done that then all one can do is to benefit onlookers by explaining the truth – as you have repeatedly in this case – and to leave him the ‘last word’. Others will assess his nonsense for themselves.

    Richard

  251. Richard, thanks for the advice. Given that you have been contributing to this blog far longer than I have, and from what I’ve seen just from this relatively short debate with Joel, I’m inclined to agree with you. With respect to Joel, who is clearly an intelligent man and educated to a much higher level than myself, the only possible reason I can suggest for his continued ignorance of reason and logic is that he has been brainwashed in some way. I’m being genuine here, I’m not suggesting any “crazy conspiracy” but there is literally no other explanation that I can think of that makes any sense.

    Anyway, there is little point taking this any further as I don’t think I can explain anything clearer than I have done, and others will decide for themselves, like you say, so that’s that for me on this issue…and I really do mean it this time!

  252. Graham W says:

    You can’t consider the trends above the level of noise over the 15 years, 0.14 C per decade, as being part of the 95% confidence cone. Since if it was any one of the trends greater than 0.14 and up to 0.27 C per decade then it would no longer be statistically indistinguishable from zero, it would be a positive trend with 95% confidence.

    That makes no sense. If I measure an empirical trend of 0.14 C +/- 0.13 per decade where the error bars are the the 95% confidence (2-sigma) error bars, then this measurement tells me that with 95% confidence, the underlying trend in the data is somewhere between -0.01 and +0.27 C per decade. By your, Richard, and Monckton’s bogus interpretation of the NOAA report, this means that this result has been “ruled out” by the models because it is statistically-indistinguishable from zero at the 95% confidence level.

    However, it is also statistically-indistinguishable from a trend of, say, 0.25 C per decade, which is larger than the models predict. Hence, you are telling me that a result that is compatible with such a trend is nonetheless ruled out by the models.

    As for the comments from the peanut gallery that you have echoed, you should realize that this is a very insular place. Richard Courtney and D B Stealey may represent a widespread opinion here and myself a minority opinion…but if we had this discussion in the scientific community, the situation would be entirely reversed. Basically, Courtney and Monckton and Stealey have either consciously or unconsciously decided that they don’t care what scientists think about what they say and are focusing their attention (either consciously or unconsciously) on confusing a wider audience. As such, they are as much as admitting that they are never going to win over the scientific community…which indeed they won’t with such sophistry as presented by them here.

    Basically, the fact that the “skeptic community” is unwilling to listen to scientific critiques of their nonsense and just keeps repeating the same tired arguments shows how little it has to do with real science.

  253. Graham W:

    Following my post addressed to you at January 21, 2013 at 10:57 am, joeldshore provided his post at January 21, 2013 at 11:30 am.

    Darn! I’m now in the position of ‘I told you so’ and nobody gets forgiven for that.

    Richard

  254. Actually I will just say this, though it’s not in response to anyone in particular, it’s just because I think it’s an important point generally:

    Joel D Shore states that with an observed result of 0.13 C per decade and an upper and lower limit to the 95% confidence interval of 0.14 C per decade, the total range of potential “trends” is -0.01 to 0.27 C per decade. He then states that since the range of potential “trends” includes zero the result is statistically indistinguishable from zero (N.B: nothing below the level of noise over the period is actually a trend, it is in fact the statistical absence of a trend, hence all the quotation marks I’m using). However, by stating that the range of potential “trends” includes trends from 0.14 – 0.27 C per decade, the observed result of 0.13 C per decade is also statistically significant under this (false) interpretation; since any potential trend above 0.14 C per decade would be discernible from the noise in the data. So he is actually stating that the observed result of 0.13 C per decade is both statistically indistinguishable from zero and statistically distinguishable from zero simultaneously, which is clearly impossible. In fact it is far simpler (and correct) to say that since the observed result of 0.13 C per decade is less than the noise in the data it is not a trend at all and therefore has no accompanying error bars.

    The above describes the mistake that Joel and everyone who proposes similar ideas to him appear to be making in their analysis of trends. Whereas, in fact, the entire purpose of analysis of this kind is to determine whether or not there is a statistical trend in the data examined in the first place. If the result of the analysis is above the level of noise, i.e. greater than 0.14 C per decade, then you can say that there is a trend. If the observed trend is a positive value greater than 0.14 C per decade then it is a positive trend and if it is of an equivalent negative value then it is a negative trend. For example, if the observed trend is -0.15 C per decade then the total range of potential trends is from -0.01 to -0.28 C per decade, none of the potential trends include zero, and hence the trend is statistically distinguishable from zero (statistically significant).

    One possible source for this confusion that I can think of which might apply to Joel is the Skeptical Science Trend Calculator (and those who were wondering why I’m posting after saying that I would not post again may now realise the point of this comment). This tool always shows error bars even if the result is statistically indistinguishable from zero. Is this the mechanism by which Joel and others are being “brainwashed” as I suggested earlier?

  255. Graham,

    I appreciate the parody in your last post. It is indeed amusing to contemplate how “AGW skeptics” might create a whole new way of doing statistical analysis solely to get the result that they desire! But frankly, I think it is a little over the top…Surely even such folks would not go that far into nonsense just because they want a certain answer.

    [Hint: If you try to write up your novel ideas on statistical analysis for publication, you may find a few statisticians who balk at the idea that a trend of 0.139 +/- 0.140 is simply zero while a trend of 0.141 +/- 0.140 is compatible with any trend from 0.001 to 0.281.]

  256. No Joel the “trend” is not zero, it is never and can never be exactly zero. The “trend” could be anything up to the level of the noise in the data but never beyond it. That’s all you can say when the “trend” (result) is statistically indistinguishable from zero.

    Let’s try again: The existence of a trend is entirely dependent on it being discernible from the noise in the data.

    This is not a novel interpretation of statistical analysis it is the correct one. Thanks for mocking what you seem incapable of comprehending.

  257. Okay, I stand corrected…And will amend my statement: If you try to write up your novel ideas on statistical analysis for publication, you may find a few statisticians who balk at the idea that a trend of 0.139 +/- 0.140 is simply really just 0 +/- 0.140 while a trend of 0.141 +/- 0.140 is compatible with any trend from 0.001 to 0.281. So, basically, there is this bizarre jump that occurs in the upper bound as you pass through a trend of 0.140.

    And, there is this bizarre special significance attached to a trend of zero, whereby trends within the noise of it jump to being zero plus or minus the noise. And, why this special case? Why not say that a trend whose uncertainty includes the long term trend that one has seen can be considered to simply be at that long term trend to within noise? Oh, I know why not…Because that doesn’t lead to the desired answer!

    Science is not built-up by affording some special privilege to the answer that you want to get.

  258. Oh Joel you are a funny one. Why would that be the desired answer?. Surely if I was arguing as an “AGW skeptic” I would say “a result that is statistically indistinguishable from zero is exactly that – zero”…but I’m not saying that. So get over your preconceptions of what you think my argument is and try reading what I’m writing.

    With your example you believe you have observed a “trend” of 0.139 +/- 0.140 but are still missing the crucial point of what I’m saying. Your observed “trend” is simply not a trend because it is below the level of noise in the data you are analysing. Therefore it cannot be discerned as a trend from the background noise in the data, statistically speaking.

    There can only be said to be “a trend” once the observed trend is greater than the noise in the data. At this point you can recognise the trend as a trend, ie a trend with confidence intervals! Which is the same thing. Below the noise in the data it is NOT a trend.

    Whereas with the way you look at it a “trend” which is actually not discernible from the background noise has error bars which include the possibility of the trend being statistically significant! So a trend that is statistically indistinguishable from zero suddenly has this amazing potential to be as high as 0.27 C per decade. So in your opinion there is no difference between zero and 0.27 C per decade. Great – then statistical analysis is fundamentally useless.

  259. Joeldshore and Graham W:

    It seems you may be talking past each other and, therefore, I am writing in hope of breaking the impasse. It seems the confusion arises from the phrase “indistinguishable from zero”.

    I offer the following.

    A measured datum can have a determined statistical significance.
    95% confidence limits indicate that there is a 20:1 probability that a determined value will lie within the stated range of the limits. This true for any statistically determined datum; e.g. a sample mean, or a trend, or …

    For example, a random sample of pebbles may be collected from a beach, each weighed and their total weight divided by the number of weighed samples. The resulting datum is the sample mean for the pebbles. But it is very unlikely that any individual pebble has a weight equal to the sample mean. However, the sample standard deviation at a given confidence will provide a range of weight values within which (at the given confidence) any one of the pebbles will probably be.

    So, if a trend is measured to be [X +a -b] at 95% confidence then there is a 20:1 probability that the trend lies somewhere between (X+a) and (X-b). And there is equal probability that the trend is any value within that range. In other words, any value within that range cannot be distinguished from any other value within that range – including X – but a value outside that range differs from X (at 95% confidence). This is true whether or not X is equal to zero.

    Hence, if the error bars include zero then the observed trend is not distinguishable from zero with the stated confidence.. This is because the trend is too near to zero for it to be discerned as being different from zero at the stated confidence level.

    This is important to the present discussion because as Gail Combs says at January 17, 2013 at 3:20 am

    The NOAA’s State of the Climate report in 2008 said this:

    Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

    “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability.”

    That seems easy to understand. The models will produce near zero or even negative trends for ten years or for a run of years that are less than ten years. This is due to “the model’s internal climate variability.”

    But (at 95% confidence) over the last 16 years there has been a global temperature trend so near to zero that it cannot be distinguished from zero. This creates a “discrepancy” which shows reality has done what the models “rule out”: i.e. the models are falsified.

    Richard

  260. Thanks Richard. So regarding your quote:

    “A trend is measured to be [X + a - b] at 95% confidence”.

    1) So your result will be a 95% confidence that a trend lies between (X + a) and (X – b)
    .
    [The problem for me is not here, nor is it in any part of the statistical process. Statisticians need not balk at any ideas, as Joel would have it. The problem, in my view, is in the interpretation of the result, which is of course down to the scientist interpreting the result; whether they have found it for themselves, or they are reading it in another's paper, or they are checking the output from the Skeptical Science Trend Calculator, etc]

    2) If the existence of a trend (X) is determined by whether or not it is above the value of a or b then:

    3) When the result of the statistical analysis is such that X < a or b, X cannot be said to exist at all.

    4) Without X, you have only (+ a) or (- b) – the noise in the data.

    Still, you know more than you would know interpreting this result (a result where X < a or b) any other way. You know that there is not a positive or negative trend greater than a or b over the specific period of time analysed.

  261. Graham W:

    I am only responding to your post at January 24, 2013 at 5:38 am for clarity because I agree.

    You say

    4) Without X, you have only (+ a) or (- b) – the noise in the data.

    Still, you know more than you would know interpreting this result (a result where X < a or b) any other way. You know that there is not a positive or negative trend greater than a or b over the specific period of time analysed.

    Yes. That is what I meant when I wrote

    Hence, if the error bars include zero then the observed trend is not distinguishable from zero with the stated confidence.. This is because the trend is too near to zero for it to be discerned as being different from zero at the stated confidence level.

    And, as you say

    The problem, in my view, is in the interpretation of the result, which is of course down to the scientist interpreting the result; whether they have found it for themselves, or they are reading it in another’s paper, or they are checking the output from the Skeptical Science Trend Calculator, etc

    Indeed so. That is why in my post I returned the discussion to understanding of the NOAA falsification criterion. An isolated and esoteric debate about “noise”, trend analysis, probabilities and statistics has no value: it would be better to refresh one’s memory by re-reading a statistics text book.

    The purpose of this discussion was to evaluate Joel’s mistaken claim that the NOA falsification criterion was not applicable.

    I hope my interruption of your discussion with Joel has been helpful to him, or to you, or to onlookers.

    Richard

  262. richardscourtney: Most of your post ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/14/has-the-met-office-committed-fraud/#comment-1207095 ) is not wrong until you get to the last paragraph, which does not follow from anything that has come before. The models do not rule out the possibility of a trend over 15 years or more whose 95% confidence cone includes zero. That claim comes by a clear misreading of what they have said. Rather, the models rule out a trend that is actually MEASURED to be zero over 15 years (and that is only after correcting for El Nino in the way referenced in that report).

    Yes, the trend cannot be distinguished from zero at the 95% confidence level. It also can’t be distinguished from the post-1975 long term trend of ~0.17 C per decade. That does not mean that I can simply say that the trend is 0.17 C per decade any more than I can simply say that the trend is zero.

    [There is another error in your post when you say, "And there is equal probability that the trend is any value within that range." There is no reason that I can see why the distribution of probable values has to be perfectly flat...and, in fact, we know it can't be flat forever. It just has SOME probability distribution where 95% of the probability distribution lies within the range.]

  263. Yes sorry Richard, I could see you were trying to get the conversation back on track, but I couldn’t resist. I’m guilty of over-explaining a point there and overall have just generally gone off on one a bit. Whereas I think a while back we were getting somewhere.

    Now, anyway…the NOAA. So for the sake of argument let’s use Joel’s interpretation of their statement, even though it’s quite specific and none of the specifics are mentioned in the report; we have this trend here from the RSS dataset (the result is statistically indistinguishable from zero but I did say “for the sake of argument” so let’s ignore all that for now) which is over 16 years (1 extra year for luck) and is negative:

    -0.003 +/- 0.229 C per decade (source: Skeptical Science Trend Calculator)

    So there you go. By his own interpretation of their criterion
    , Joel must admit that something has happened which the models didn’t project. If Joel says “look at the size of the error bars, the trend could be as high as x” well that goes against what he specified in earlier posts where he said that in his opinion they must have meant a zero or negative trend without its error bars. If Joel accuses me of “cherry-picking” a dataset, well, the NOAA never specified which dataset had to be used in their criterion.

    If Joel says “but you have to correct for ENSO first” then…well, I’ll leave that to people who know more about ENSO (which to be frank is most people on here other than me). Many people have already made arguments relating to that issue though, throughout the whole thread.

    Plus this is all just pandering to a fairly selective and specific interpretation of the statement which as I pointed out before requires additional evidence from within the report to back it up (and the evidence is lacking).

    I don’t think most rational-minded people on either side of the argument doubt that something has changed in the rate of warming, yet you still get some people (deniers?) claiming that it’s business as usual and the gradual descent of the Earth into a hellish inferno with fire-breathing dragons and demons poking at only the “AGW skeptics” with their tridents, is continuing. There are even some contesting that the rate of warming is increasing…and at such a rate that you can only conclude the Earth will eventually simply explode from heat. The amount going into the oceans is clearly unparalleled, and even though there’s no reason why the heat would be going into the oceans now any more than before (as opposed to raising surface temperatures), and even though the technology to record this deep ocean-bound hell-heat hasn’t been around for very long in the grand scheme of things, the IPCC can still claim with 1000% certainty that everything is worse than everyone could have ever imagined before in the history of mankind – squared.
    Which they can say with 100,000% scientific certainty. So listen up Barack Obama. If you don’t change the fate of the world by influencing your own personal 1% of its surface to crucify this satanic CO2 molecule, everyone on Earth and the surrounding solar system’s grandchildren will die – and it’s all the deniers fault. China? Shh, don’t be so racist. How dare you mention the Chinese? 20 billion climate scientists’ personal beliefs can’t be wrong. We proved it with a questionnaire.

  264. joeldshore:

    In your post to me at January 24, 2013 at 7:55 am you say

    The models do not rule out the possibility of a trend over 15 years or more whose 95% confidence cone includes zero. That claim comes by a clear misreading of what they have said. Rather, the models rule out a trend that is actually MEASURED to be zero over 15 years (and that is only after correcting for El Nino in the way referenced in that report).

    Ummmm. No.
    Let me remind you of what NOAA wrote.

    Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

    The first quoted sentence mentions “Near-zero and even negative trends”.
    That is what they are talking about; i.e. “Near-zero and even negative trends”.

    The next sentence mentions “(at the 95% level) zero trends”; i.e.
    trends so near to zero that they cannot be discerned as differing from zero at 95% confidence.

    NOAA does NOT talk about “a trend that is actually MEASURED to be zero”. Indeed, it would be ridiculous to do that because when the inherent measurement error is +/+ 0.01 then a trend of zero has only a one in two hundred chance of being “actually MEASURED to be zero”.

    In other words, what NOAA wrote makes sense, and what you claim they intended to write is preposterous.

    Then there is the issue of “and that is only after correcting for El Nino in the way referenced in that report”.

    There is no agreed method to correct for El Nino but if one extrapolates back across or interpolates across the 1998 peak then the trend is still indiscernibly different from zero at 95% confidence.

    Please provide the trend value you think exists “after correcting for El Nino in the way referenced in that report”.

    Richard

  265. Graham:

    Let’s consider something more neutral than temperature trends. Suppose that I give you a cube (die) and tell you to write H or T on each face (for heads or tails) and that you can choose to make the number of faces with H and T equal (3 each) or unequal as you want.

    We then roll this die several times and my goal is to determine if there is a “trend” or bias in the die (number of faces with H and T unequal) or whether there is none (i.e., you put H and T on 3 faces each). Let’s say that after a certain number of rolls, the results are that heads has come up 60% of the time…But given the number of rolls I have done, I can also compute an uncertainty associated with this. Let’s say that the 2-sigma uncertainty is 12%. So, my result is that the die comes up heads 60% +/- 12% of the time.

    Conventional statistics would say that the result is compatible (at the 95% confidence) with both the possibility that there is no bias or trend (i.e., the die has H on 3 sides and T on 3 sides) AND also with the possibility that there is a bias…namely that the die has H on 4 sides and T on 2 sides (which means heads should come up about 67% of the time)..

    However, it seems to me that your novel way of doing statistical analysis would say that, since there is no statistically-significant bias, we are forced to conclude that the die is unbiased and since the level of uncertainty of 12% when taken about the zero bias of 50% does not include the possibility that heads comes up 67% of the time, these experiments rule out the possibility (at least at the 95% confidence level) that the die has H on 4 sides and T on 2 sides.

    Is this a correct interpretation of the your statistical analysis? If not, why not? If yes, does that really seem sensible to you…particularly given that the experimental result of 60% heads is somewhat closer to the what would be expected if the die has an H on 4 sides than it is to what would be expected if the die has an H on 3 sides?

  266. Given that you will probably want more of an explanation due to not once understanding the point I’ve been making, if I have written 6 Hs and 0 Ts then there will be a 100% chance of rolling an H (barring some unfortunate incident where the die flies out of an open window or something). If I have written 6 Ts and 0 Hs then there will be 0% chance of getting an H. Then there’s everything inbetween, for 1 H and 5 Ts and 2 Hs and 4 Ts, 3 of each, etc etc.

    So the trend (X, see my comment to Richard a few comments up from this one) is greater than the noise (a or b, see same comment). So of course this means that the trend can be anywhere between 48% and 72% as you would know I accept if you had understood a word I’ve been saying. If we had observed a trend of 10% then I would (rightly) rule out the possibility of there being 0 Hs. Understand now?

  267. And if you’re not sure why I would rule out 0 Hs then it’s because, exactly according to what I’ve been saying all along, if the trend is less than the noise as it is in my example of this 10% +/- 12%, by my understanding the trend of 10% cannot exist since it is below the level of noise in the data. This means the result you are left with is simply the noise in the data, in this example 12% (and not -12% since in the example you have chosen negative trends are impossible). A result of 12% rules out the possibility of there being 0 Hs.

  268. Then if this result is not satisfactory and you want a statistically significant result (trend greater than uncertainty) then simply roll the die more.

    Right, now that’s out of the way, can we focus on the actual discussion, there are many points raised by many people still to address. Richard, Gail, Terry Oldberg, Werner Brozek…I’m sure there’s people I’ve forgotten. Loads of questions unanswered. Or just accept you’re wrong (about this NOAA thing, please no more arguing about statistics).

  269. People will vote for candied poop if they get a free cell phone with it. Banks figured this out years ago with toasters, and flour companies 50 years ago with a pretty goblet in each sack of brand name flour. The trouble now is that the very same people buying the trip down the river to get the freebie are being sold up the creek without a paddle.

  270. Graham: Your claim that the trend exceeds the uncertainty for my example depends on how you define the trend. As I tried to imply in the discussion, a zero trend corresponds to an equal number of heads or tails. In particular, imagine that each time you roll a heads, you move 1 meter up and each time you roll a tail, you move one meter down. Then, if there are 3 H and 3 T on the die, the expected trend will be zero. (You move down as often as up.) And, the uncertainty in the trend will be greater than trend itself. (The trend when you roll 60% H and 40% T will be 0.2 meters per roll…And, the uncertainty of +/- 12% will correspond to 0.24 meters per roll.)

    The point is that your statistical reasoning is nonsensical and leads to all sorts of contradictions, which is why statistics is done the way it is and not the way you want it to be.

    As regards the RSS data set trend, there are at least two problems with that:

    (1) The temperature fluctuations due to ENSO are even more pronounced in the satellite temperature record of the lower troposphere than they are in the surface record. So, it is even more important to correct for El Nino.

    (2) You have cherrypicked the one analysis of the satellite temperature record that shows this. If one cherrypicks enough, something that is ruled out at a 95% confidence level in one record is going to be more common once you have more records to choose from. Something that has a 1 in 20 chance of occurring becomes more and more likely to occur, the more trials I try. It is also amusing to see the “skeptics” flock to the RSS analysis now that it shows something that they like when they spent many years deriding it when the UAH analysis was more to their liking.

  271. The next sentence mentions “(at the 95% level) zero trends”; i.e.
    trends so near to zero that they cannot be discerned as differing from zero at 95% confidence.

    No…The sentence says “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends…” What would be the purpose of putting the modifier “at the 95% level” before what it was modifying rather than after? It is a more awkward construction, but a construction that they chose exactly so people could not possibly interpret “at the 95% level” to modify the wrong thing. (They apparently underestimated the ability and will of people to misinterpret!)

    NOAA does NOT talk about “a trend that is actually MEASURED to be zero”. Indeed, it would be ridiculous to do that because when the inherent measurement error is +/+ 0.01 then a trend of zero has only a one in two hundred chance of being “actually MEASURED to be zero”.

    In other words, what NOAA wrote makes sense, and what you claim they intended to write is preposterous.

    The point that they are making is that for 15-year trends, a trend of zero is on or slightly outside the 95% confidence interval of trends seen in the models. This is a perfectly reasonable thing for them to say. What would not be reasonable is for them to say something is “ruled out” and not define what they mean by “ruled out”, which can’t be done with 100% confidence in a system where things are inherently statistical.

    There is no agreed method to correct for El Nino but if one extrapolates back across or interpolates across the 1998 peak then the trend is still indiscernibly different from zero at 95% confidence.

    …Which is irrelevant because that is not the correct criterion to use. And, the agreed upon method for correcting for El Nino is the one that they define (with reference to a paper in the literature) in their discussion. While it may not be perfect, it was the one that they used in formulating their criterion so, like it or not, it is the one that you have to use if you want to use their criterion.

    Please provide the trend value you think exists “after correcting for El Nino in the way referenced in that report”.

    I have no idea. I am not the one seeking to apply their criterion to see if it has been violated or not…You are. You are the one who has to do the work to apply it.

  272. Nope Joel I disagree…we’re looking at the number of times you roll an H and trying to determine the bias in the die. So if you roll the die 1000 times and never get an H, you know there is 6 Ts and 0 Hs. This is the “zero trend”. If you roll the die 1000 times and always get an H, you know there is 6 Hs and 0 Ts. This is a trend of 100%. Every other permutation of Hs and Ts inbetween you can attempt to work out using statistical analysis and the 12% 2-sigma confidence (or whatever it would be for 1000 rolls). There are no contradictions in what I’m saying because I’m not talking about “doing statistics” in any remotely different way to how it’s always been done. All I’m talking about is *how you interpret the result of the analysis*. Now please stop going on about it.

    As for the comments on the actual subject at hand…I’ve never personally gone on about how RSS was “bad” before and UAH was “good” but now the reverse is true, or whatever it is you’re trying to imply. I’ve literally never been aware of this discussion. I’m not representative of every “denier” Joel I have my own mind, and I’ve come to this discussion relatively late so others may remember this debate about RSS but personally I don’t. I don’t know what you are talking about. Didn’t I say I would be accused of cherry-picking!? And didn’t I say, that nowhere in the report do they actually specify which data set must be used!? And didn’t I say all the stuff about not knowing enough about ENSO to argue the point but that many others here do?

  273. joeldshore:

    Your post at January 24, 2013 at 6:21 pm evades my reasonable request to you; viz.

    Please provide the trend value you think exists “after correcting for El Nino in the way referenced in that report”.

    by replying

    I have no idea. I am not the one seeking to apply their criterion to see if it has been violated or not…You are. You are the one who has to do the work to apply it.

    No! Absolutely not! How dare you!?
    I have clearly and repeatedly stated that

    There is no agreed method to correct for El Nino but if one extrapolates back across or interpolates across the 1998 peak then the trend is still indiscernibly different from zero at 95% confidence.

    You – ONLY YOU – is claiming there is some unspecified method which you – ONLY YOU – say must be applied. And you are making your claim in support of your preposterous assertions that the NOAA falsification is other than NOAA says it does.

    If you think the application of the unspecified method would result in the models not being falsified then provide the result of the correction method which you – ONLY YOU – says needs to be applied.

    In other words, put up or shut up.

    Richard

  274. Joel: Actually it’s not fair to ask you to stop mentioning it. I brought it up in the first place and then kept on about it myself. I apologise. I’m not going to carry on talking about that side of things though because ultimately it’s not getting us anywhere.

    About this:

    Richard: The next sentence mentions “(at the 95% level) zero trends”; i.e.
    trends so near to zero that they cannot be discerned as differing from zero at 95% confidence.

    Joel: No…The sentence says “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends…” What would be the purpose of putting the modifier “at the 95% level” before what it was modifying rather than after? It is a more awkward construction, but a construction that they chose exactly so people could not possibly interpret “at the 95% level” to modify the wrong thing. (They apparently underestimated the ability and will of people to misinterpret!)

    I will offer this: They would not have written “The simulations rule out zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more (at the 95% level) because then the “at the 95% level” could apply to the simulations, the zero trends, or the intervals of 15 years or more. Far too vague. They would not have written “The simulations rule out zero trends (at the 95% level) for intervals of 15 years of more” because then it could still apply to zero trends or to the simulations – still not clear enough. If they had written “The simulations (at the 95% level) rule out zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more” then we’d all be as sure as Joel that they were talking about the simulations and not the zero trends. But instead they wrote “the simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more”. So what else is left for that to apply to but the zero trends, in light of everything I’ve just said?

  275. Graham W:

    Your post at January 25, 2013 at 5:50 am concludes asking

    So what else is left for that to apply to but the zero trends, in light of everything I’ve just said?

    The answer, of course, is nothing.

    Importantly, in his attempt to obfuscate, Joel also disputes the meaning of that sentence by ignoring its context. As I said to him at January 24, 2013 at 10:41 am

    Let me remind you of what NOAA wrote.

    Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

    The first quoted sentence mentions “Near-zero and even negative trends”.
    That is what they are talking about; i.e. “Near-zero and even negative trends”.

    The next sentence mentions “(at the 95% level) zero trends”; i.e.
    trends so near to zero that they cannot be discerned as differing from zero at 95% confidence.

    Frankly, in this thread Joel is (again) making an utter fool of himself.

    Richard

  276. richardscourtney says:

    If you think the application of the unspecified method would result in the models not being falsified then provide the result of the correction method which you – ONLY YOU – says needs to be applied.

    No…It is not only me. It is right there in the NOAA report:

    El Niño–Southern Oscillation is a strong driver of interannual global mean temperature variations. ENSO and non-ENSO contributions can be separated by the method of Thompson et al. (2008) (Fig. 2.8a).

    and then in the part where they spell out the criterion you are so interested in:

    ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

    They are talking only about ENSO-adjusted data sets. See that phrase “ENSO-adjusted” modifying both the data sets and the temperature record from the simulations? If you don’t like how ENSO is adjusted for, then fine, go and find some other criterion to falsify the models because you can’t use this one. You can’t just pick and choose what parts of the spelled-out criterion you are going to incorporate and what parts you are going to ignore and then make the claim that the models are falsified by the NOAA folks criterion. I would have thought you would understand such basic issues of scientific integrity.

  277. Graham W says:

    If they had written “The simulations (at the 95% level) rule out zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more” then we’d all be as sure as Joel that they were talking about the simulations and not the zero trends.

    But…You are creating a “strawman”. I am not saying that the parenthetical phrase modifies “The simulations”. I am saying it modifies “rule out”. Your phrasing is definitely not optimal because I don’t know what “The simulations (at the 95% level)” means by itself. It is a meaningless statement. I suppose people could probably manage to figure out what they are saying, but it would be by reading it and saying, “What does that mean? Oh, I guess, they must mean ‘at the 95% level’ to apply to ‘rule out’.”

    But instead they wrote “the simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more”. So what else is left for that to apply to but the zero trends, in light of everything I’ve just said?

    Ah…The words immediately before the parenthetical phrase, namely “rule out”! In fact, as I have noted before, without a qualifier, the phrase “rule out” is nonsense when discussing something that is statistical in nature.

  278. Graham W says:

    Nope Joel I disagree…we’re looking at the number of times you roll an H and trying to determine the bias in the die. So if you roll the die 1000 times and never get an H, you know there is 6 Ts and 0 Hs. This is the “zero trend”.

    I have explained to you a process by which those die rolls are used to drive a random walk. And, the trend in that random walk will be zero if the die has 3 H’s and 3 T’s on it and non-zero otherwise. Are you saying that the result depends on the nature of what you are talking about related to this experiment: If you are talking about just the die rolls, then you agree that the 4 H’s and 2 T’s is not ruled out at a 95% confidence level but if you are talking about a random walk based on that process, then the result of the trend that would occur if there were 4 H’s and 2 T’s would be ruled out?

    There are no contradictions in what I’m saying because I’m not talking about “doing statistics” in any remotely different way to how it’s always been done. All I’m talking about is *how you interpret the result of the analysis*. Now please stop going on about it.

    Fine. Then it is your interpretation of statistics that is wrong.

    Didn’t I say I would be accused of cherry-picking!? And didn’t I say, that nowhere in the report do they actually specify which data set must be used!? And didn’t I say all the stuff about not knowing enough about ENSO to argue the point but that many others here do?

    Anticipating objections to your argument is great…but if you don’t actually explain why those objections are incorrect, then we are still left with the objections. It is not like anticipating them makes them null and void.

  279. Ha! joelshore says: “I would have thought you would understand such basic issues of scientific integrity.” And the Devil quotes Scripture.

  280. joeldshore:

    re your post at January 25, 2013 at 4:55 pm.

    Congratulations!
    You have managed to find a reference to the method you say is the only method applicable for removing effect of ENSO.
    We are getting somewhere!

    Unfortunately, the quotation you provide – as seems to be usual with you – doesn’t say what you claim. It does NOT say that trends can ONLY have ENSO contributions deleted by the method of Thompson et al. (2008) (Fig. 2.8a). It says ENSO and non-ENSO contributions can be separated by that method. It is the only method mentioned in the report and you are claiming it is the only acceptable method.

    I choose to use extrapolation and interpolation to remove the 1998 peak. And my method is as good as any other when effects of ENSO are not understood. I stand by that point.

    However, for the sake of argument, let us decide if you have a point at all.

    You claim to have a point so to make it now all you need to do is apply the method of Thompson et al. You will then have shown that either
    (a) applying that method increases the global temperature trend to be different from zero (at 95% confidence) over the last 16 years
    or
    (b) it doesn’t.

    You claim the recent stasis does not “rule out” the models as being valid.
    OK. Do the compensation you say is the only acceptable compensation and see if you are ‘blowing smoke’ according to your claim.

    If (a) then we can discuss the method you applied. If (b) then you never had a point.

    I await your chagrin with eager anticipation.

    Richard

  281. You will then have shown that either
    (a) applying that method increases the global temperature trend to be different from zero (at 95% confidence) over the last 16 years
    or
    (b) it doesn’t.

    I’m not trying to demonstrate that the “method increases the global temperature trend to be different from zero (at 95% confidence) over the last 16 years” because that is not the correct criterion.

    Let me help you with the thread of the logic here:

    Joel: The clear statement of the NOAA folks is that the one has to adjusted for ENSO and then if the resulting trend is zero or less for 15 years then you are outside of the 95% confidence window of the models.

    Graham: But, the RSS data shows a very slightly negative trend [over a carefully cherrypicked] interval of about 16 years, so even under this interpretation, it would be outside what the models predict.

    Joel: But (among other issues), that is not ENSO-adjusted and ENSO is even a bigger factor in the satellite temperatures of the lower troposphere than it is for the surface temperature record.

    Richard: Even if you corrected for ENSO, the empirical trend would still have a 95% confidence window that included zero.

    Do you see the problem with your logic or do I have to spell it out for you?

  282. Joel: If I was still going to talk about the statistics I would probably mention that first you would need to prove to me that a result of 60% +/- 12% or 0.2m per roll +/- 0.24m per roll (if we do choose to look at it in this unnecessary way) is mathematically possible given the laws of probability and the fact that we are discussing determining which of six discrete probabilities it is over a number of rolls. You would need to state the number of rolls, show how you calculated the 12%/0.24m per roll 2-sigma confidence interval and show the raw data where the trend line of 60% or 0.2 per roll comes from. Instead of arbitrarily just picking results out of thin air and saying “lets say the 2 sigma confidence interval is 12%”. But I’m not going to talk about that any more, so I won’t.

    The sentence fragment “the simulations (at the 95@ level)” doesn’t make sense on its own because its a sentence fragment. You have to look at entire sentences to determine their meaning. For instance if I say “Joel is being” you have no idea what is meant until I conclude with “completely ridiculous”.

    I anticipated the arguments you may have against the RSS trend I offered and in doing so also explained why your arguments (other than the ENSO objection which I said I don’t know enough about to argue) were not valid, but you just refused to process that information in your brain. That’s not my problem. Are we done here, because I would like to get on with my life? Thanks.

  283. P.S: Joel, you will need to successfully rebut (you haven’t so far) the points made at the end of my comment of January 25th 5:50 am before we even need to look at whether you “have to have an exact zero or negative trend”. The fact is that as my comment clearly shows, the 95% qualifier can only apply to the zero trends. If you disagree, please show me where in the sentence you would put the bracketed phrase for it to clearly apply to zero trends AND ONLY zero trends as I had the courtesy to do for you (answering an earlier challenge you put to me, by the way); showing you where it would need to go to suggest what you have been implying. Instead of thanking me for completing your challenge you instead insulted me by suggesting I had created a straw man argument. I await your apology for this and many other things.

    It’s just that in your last reply to Richard you seem to be implying that I am agreeing with your absurd interpretation of the NOAA’s statement when in fact I only offered the RSS trend *for the sake of argument* as I made perfectly clear at the time. I do NOT think it is even necessary for this exactly zero or negative trend to exist.

  284. joeldshore:

    I am replying to your nonsensical post addressed to me at January 25, 2013 at 7:23 pm.

    You ask me

    Do you see the problem with your logic or do I have to spell it out for you?

    Please be assured that if I desired advice on logic then you would be the very last person on Earth whom I would ask to provide it especially if my life depended on it.

    You say

    I’m not trying to demonstrate that the “method increases the global temperature trend to be different from zero (at 95% confidence) over the last 16 years” because that is not the correct criterion.

    That is outrageous even by your standards of evasion!
    Perhaps you would care to wriggle a bit more by explaining why YOU – and nobody else – has been pressing the issue of ENSO correction?

    In reality, the reason YOU – and nobody else – has been pressing the issue of ENSO correction is because everybody – including YOU – knows that is precisely the “correct criterion”.

    An honourable man would admit that the recent lack of discernible warming (at 95% confidence) falsifies the models according to NOAA correction criterion.

    Richard

  285. Graham says:

    …You would need to state the number of rolls, show how you calculated the 12%/0.24m per roll 2-sigma confidence interval and show the raw data where the trend line of 60% or 0.2 per roll comes from….

    How will the number of rolls it takes to get that confidence interval, or whether you can even get the exact numbers I quoted given the discreteness of this, make a difference to the argument? Does your whole argument for how one uses statistics to interpret data hinge on this or are you just creating objections to avoid dealing with the fundamental problem with the way you want to interpret statistical results?

    The sentence fragment “the simulations (at the 95@ level)” doesn’t make sense on its own because its a sentence fragment.

    My point is that they put the parenthetical expression after what it modified. If they had put it where you suggest then, no, I don’t for a second believe your claim that Monckton and Richard would not be misinterpreting it. I am quite sure that they would still be arguing that it modifies “zero trends” and they would have an even stronger argument since they would say, “It can’t possibly modify ‘simulations’ since that doesn’t even make sense and if it modifies ‘rule out’ then they should have put it after ‘rule out’, not before, so it must modify ‘zero trend’.”

    I anticipated the arguments you may have against the RSS trend I offered and in doing so also explained why your arguments (other than the ENSO objection which I said I don’t know enough about to argue) were not valid, but you just refused to process that information in your brain.

    What I did is explained to you in response why these arguments were indeed valid objections.

    The fact is that as my comment clearly shows, the 95% qualifier can only apply to the zero trends. If you disagree, please show me where in the sentence you would put the bracketed phrase for it to clearly apply to zero trends AND ONLY zero trends as I had the courtesy to do for you (answering an earlier challenge you put to me, by the way)

    Well, putting it after “zero trends” would be much better. Would it be totally unambiguous? I suppose not, but it could be made so by choosing another construction like, “The simulations rule out trends that are statistically-indistinguishable from zero at the 95% confidence level for 15 years or more.” [Of course, this would still beg the question of what they mean by "rule out"...but that is an inherent problem with your interpretation. You guys have never been able to explain how your interpretation even makes sense.]

    Instead of thanking me for completing your challenge you instead insulted me by suggesting I had created a straw man argument.

    My challenge was for you to come up with a phrasing that better conveyed my interpretation of what they said. You came up with one that conveyed it less clearly by creating the “straw man” argument that my interpretation was that the parenthetical phrase modifies “simulations” when I have actually made it very clear that it modifies “rule out”, you know, the words directly proceeding it. Hence, my statement that you created a straw man.

  286. Graham W says:

    It’s just that in your last reply to Richard you seem to be implying that I am agreeing with your absurd interpretation of the NOAA’s statement when in fact I only offered the RSS trend *for the sake of argument* as I made perfectly clear at the time.

    I represented your position as: “Graham: But, the RSS data shows a very slightly negative trend [over a carefully cherrypicked] interval of about 16 years, so even under this interpretation, it would be outside what the models predict.”

    Note the statement “so even under this interpretation”. So, therefore, your claim that i misrepresented you is completely without foundation. However, I will note that Richard S Courtney completely misrepresented me saying:

    You claim to have a point so to make it now all you need to do is apply the method of Thompson et al. You will then have shown that either
    (a) applying that method increases the global temperature trend to be different from zero (at 95% confidence) over the last 16 years
    or
    (b) it doesn’t.

    He made this statement even though he has ample reason to know that I don’t agree with his unsupported interpretation of what the NOAA folks meant by their statement. So, again, you seem to be faulting me for things I didn’t do and then not even acknowledging the fact that Richard is guilty of these very things.

  287. joeldshore:

    In your post to Graham W at January 26, 2013 at 6:25 am you assert

    My challenge was for you to come up with a phrasing that better conveyed my interpretation of what they said. You came up with one that conveyed it less clearly by creating the “straw man” argument that my interpretation was that the parenthetical phrase modifies “simulations” when I have actually made it very clear that it modifies “rule out”, you know, the words directly proceeding it. Hence, my statement that you created a straw man.

    Bolllocks!
    The only ‘straw men’ have been presented by you.

    In this debate the first of your erroneous assertions was that that “(95% confidence)” applies to “rule out”.

    I, Graham W and others (e.g. Australis at January 14, 2013 at 5:03 pm) each repeatedly refuted your ludicrous assertion that “(95% confidence)” applies to “rule out”. So, you launched into a series of similarly bizarre and illogical assertions which have each been refuted in turn.

    As example of a refutation of your first daft assertion I cite my post at where I wrote

    The “95% confidence” applies to whether a trend differs from zero: it does NOT apply to the proportion of model runs.
    If the models showed such 15 year periods for 5% of the model runs then they would not “rule out” such 15 year periods. The simulations would indicate that 1 in 20 runs provided such periods. Even you should be able to understand that if you try.

    “Rule out” means zero in 20 times. 95% confidence means one in 20 times.

    There is no reason in reality – or that you have suggested – why NOAA would have said “rule out (at 95% confidence) zero trends” if they intended to say “zero trends only occur in 5% of simulations”.

    They wrote and intended that the 95% confidence applies to the “zero trends”. That is the ONLY reading of NOAA’s words which makes sense. This has been explained to you by several people in several ways but – having had all your later assertions refuted – you have returned to the first of your patently erroneous assertions.

    You have now returned to your first demolished – and daft – assertion because you are wrong, you know you are wrong, and you are desperately trying to pretend you are not wrong.

    Richard

  288. Joel: Read my post at 25th January 5:50 am enough times that you understand it. I have shown the result of putting the bracketed phrase everywhere in every grammatically correct place in the sentence. Including after “zero trends”. There is no other place to put the bracketed phrase to apply to zero trends and only zero trends other than where they put it. You need to locate the part of your mind that is refusing to accept that the sentence means what it says it means and destroy it. Destroy this mental block which is preventing you from rational thinking. There is nothing else left to say to you since everything else you are now arguing is pure nonsense.

  289. joeldshore:

    re your post to me at January 26, 2013 at 7:02 am

    Please see my post addressed to you at January 26, 2013 at 7:42 am. It says all that needs to be said in response to your fallacious assertion that I have “misrepresented” you.

    Admit you were and are wrong so we can move on.

    Richard

  290. Graham: There is nothing else left to say to you other than that I gave you a much better way that they could have said what you believe they were trying to say here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/14/has-the-met-office-committed-fraud/#comment-1209452 I’ll repeat it again for your benefit: “The simulations rule out trends that are statistically-indistinguishable from zero at the 95% confidence level for 15 years or more.”

    You, on the other hand, failed to provide a better way that they could have made it clear that “at the 95% level” applies to “rule out” and instead completely invented the notion that I was claiming it should apply to “simulations”.

    Richard says:

    “Rule out” means zero in 20 times. 95% confidence means one in 20 times.

    There is no reason in reality – or that you have suggested – why NOAA would have said “rule out (at 95% confidence) zero trends” if they intended to say “zero trends only occur in 5% of simulations”.

    There is no reason other than this is a standard way of discussing such issues in scientific literature even in other fields such as high-energy physics: http://blog.vixra.org/2011/12/13/the-higgs-boson-live-from-cern/

    When the black line descends below the red horizontal line at 1.0 on the vertical axis, people sometimes say that the Higgs Boson has been ruled out at 95% confidence level at this mass.

    Since it is impossible to rule out something statistical with 100% confidence, saying “rule out” without a confidence level is nonsense (or, at least, it is ambiguous). I can’t say that my model of flipping a fair coin rules out the possibility that when I do 10 flips in a row they all come up heads or all come up tails; All that I can say is that my model rules it out at a 99.8% confidence level. I can’t even say that it rules out the possibility of 100 flips in a row coming up all heads or all tails. All that I can say is that my model rules it out at a 99.9999999999999999999999999998% confidence level. (I think I got the right number of 9’s there! The point is the probability of such an occurrence is less than 2×10^-30.)

  291. Joel, I would just like to say that the point of existence is not to be “right” or “wrong”. Throughout this conversation I have made some absurd claims such as “the skeptical science trend calculator is brain-washing people”. This is a patently ridiculous claim now I look back on it. I was totally wrong. Do I regret that? Not one bit. We live and learn. Perhaps my interpretation of statistical analysis is indeed nonsensical. Perhaps you can provide the proof I requested or perhaps proof from the temperature records of why I’m wrong and if so, I’ll happily admit I was wrong about that element of this discussion. It wouldn’t surprise me.

    No-one will look down on you for admitting a mistake it is only when you continuously avoid this at all costs that you incur ridicule from others. I truly wish you peace of mind and happiness. That’s all I have to say.

  292. richardscourtney says: @ January 26, 2013 at 7:42 am

    …They wrote and intended that the 95% confidence applies to the “zero trends”. That is the ONLY reading of NOAA’s words which makes sense. This has been explained to you by several people in several ways but – having had all your later assertions refuted – you have returned to the first of your patently erroneous assertions….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Joel is just another warmist ( Donald L. Klipstein, Philip Shehan, Nick Stokes, Eric Grimsrud, Chris Schoneveld, barry… link ) having a go at trying to rewrite that sentence. They really hate getting held to that statement do they not?

    Just more Classic Groupthink Behavior [as] Exposed in Leaked CRU Emails

  293. joeldshore:

    I am replying to your nonsense at January 26, 2013 at 8:19 am.

    You have managed to delude yourself but nobody else. If you are happy in your delusion then there is nothing I can offer you to help you to see reality.

    Indeed, if you read your own post you will see that you are stating your delusion when you write

    Since it is impossible to rule out something statistical with 100% confidence, saying “rule out” without a confidence level is nonsense (or, at least, it is ambiguous).

    “Rule out” is an absolute certainty. It has NO “ambiguity”: it expresses 100% confidence.

    No rational person would ascribe any confidence less than 100% to “rule out”, and you have given no reason to suppose NOAA was being irrational when they said “The simulations rule out”.

    But a trend is a statistical construct which only has meaning when given a confidence. The statement “(at 95% confidence) zero trends” has meaning. No rational person would assert a statistical construct such as a trend without stating the confidence of the construct, and you have given no reason to suppose NOAA was being irrational when they said “(at 95% confidence) zero trends”.

    You are expressing a delusion when you assert your certainty that NOAA was being irrational so meant other than they wrote.

    Clearly, your delusion is important to you. But reality is important to me.

    And reality has falsified the climate models according to the NOAA falsification criterion:
    your delusion does not alter that or affect that in any way.

    I will not waste further time on your delusion.

    Richard

  294. Joel you are infuriating! Sorry, but you are. Every time I feel like I’ve said my bit, you post something which is so simple to correct I feel as though I’m utterly compelled to reply to correct you. I just want to get on with my life. You say you have found a better way to state it, and then show me your example that still wouldn’t clarify that they were talking about the zero trends or the simulations. Then you continuously claim that the bracketed phrase modifies only “rule out” even though my example of how they should have written it to express your point of view DOES still modify “rule out” IN RELATION TO the simulations. That’s the only way you could read my example. So it’s not a straw man it says exactly what you would want it to say, the only problem is THEY DIDN’T WRITE THAT. They wrote it in the only way which could apply the 95% level to zero trends and nothing else. The phrase “rule out” then implies that the models are flawed since this 15 year zero trend at the 95% level was absolutely not on the cards from their projections, WITH CERTAINTY. This you can also infer from the previous sentences as well where they discuss how the models DO project zero or near-zero trends happening for periods of ten years. So it follows that they are saying “it can be this, but it DEFINITELY can’t be this, unless our models are wrong”.

    Pleeeeeeeeeeeeease just accept that you are wrong. Still wish you health and happiness etc but just for God sake actually accept an error that you’ve made!

  295. Graham W:

    re your post at January 26, 2013 at 10:28 am

    Welcome to the wild and wacky world of Joel Shore.

    You are the latest in a long line of people who have been drawn in to his strange world, and – as you have discovered – his world is like a lobster pot: it is easy to get in but hard to get out. This is why I wrote what I did in my post to you at January 21, 2013 at 10:14 am.

    My post at January 26, 2013 at 9:59 am is my final reply to him. Clearly, he will have the last word because history shows he will go on and on until he does. But he has now made such a complete fool of himself in this thread that onlookers will only gasp in wonder that anybody could choose to be so deliberately stupid in public.

    Give him his last word or this thread will ramble on for ever.

    Richard

  296. I should have listened to Richard! Instead I carried on arguing. Why, why, why was I so stupid? The horror…the horror.

  297. Graham W:

    Take care…I wish you well. I have bookmarked this page so any of my scientific colleagues who ask if the “AGW skeptic” movements have serious arguments can see the level of discussion that some of the leaders of this movement like Monckton and Courtney engage in.

    Cheers,
    Joel

  298. joeldshore:

    At January 28, 2013 at 4:45 am you say

    I have bookmarked this page so any of my scientific colleagues who ask if the “AGW skeptic” movements have serious arguments can see the level of discussion that some of the leaders of this movement like Monckton and Courtney engage in.

    Thankyou. I am flattered, and I would welcome as much publicity as possible about the fact that the NOAA climate model falsification criterion has falsified the models.

    My gratitude for your generosity is especially profound when showing this discussion to your “scientific colleagues” would reveal your idiocy in the debate.

    Sincere thanks. And I look forward to your publicising this discussion.

    Richard

  299. Let me make an analogy. Suppose I claim “95% of the time you would have made money in the stock market if you invest for a 15 year period. So 5% of the time you will come out behind (or break even, but the odds of that are very slim and can be pretty much ignored).”

    To test this, you would look at actual 15 year periods and look how often you come out ahead vs how often you come out behind. You can’t look at a 15 year period and say “the stock market was up and down a lot in the last 15 years, and I came awfully close to losing money, so your claim is wrong.”

    There are two very different claims that could be made about 15 year temperature trends.
    A) that the trend actually was zero (or smaller) for a 15 year period.
    B) that the trend is not greater than zero for a 15 year period based on a test of statistical significance.

    The two are very different. It would be easy to create a set of data where (A) was never true and (B) is always true.

    My analogy above about the stock markets is an example Version (A). I read the original claim as meaning Version (A) as well (in agreement with Joel), but it would be worthwhile actually *ASKING* the authors of the report which claim they were making. Simply repeating an assertion that one or the other is true does not further anyone’s understanding.

  300. Tim Folkerts:

    re your post at January 28, 2013 at 11:08 am.

    I strongly suggest that you read the discussion in this thread.

    NOAA wrote plain English and not irrational gobbledygook as Joel claims.
    The meaning is clear. It is as Gail Combs states at January 17, 2013 at 3:20 am and any other interpretation turns the NOAA statement into illogical nonsense.

    Richard

  301. Richard, I prefer going to the original sources. So for example …

    CLAIM: 1. “… [F]or Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.”
    MONCKTON: “1. The assertion that Mr Rose was “entirely misleading” to say there had been no global warming for 15 years is not just entirely misleading: it is entirely false. ”

    No. The trend may not have been statistically significant, but that is very different from saying it is false. Again, using the stock market analogy, if you come out ahead, you made money. No one says “oh, you could have done that well gambling on the flip of a coin, so you didn’t make any money, even though your account is 0.1% up in value.”

    There has been no 15 year slope in the HADCRUT4 annual data that has been downward since the period ending 1977.
    There has been no 15 year difference in the HADCRUT4 annual data that has been downward since the period ending 1985.
    The year ending 2012 is the only year in the past decade where the 15 year slope has not been statistically significantly from 0.

    CONCLUSION: This is an apples-to-oranges comparison. BOTH claims are correct for what they actually claim.

    CLAIM: “2. “What is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming …”.”
    MONCKTON: “2. What is absolutely clear is that the assertion that “it is absolutely clear that we have continued to see a trend of warming” is absolutely, clearly false. The assertion is timescale-dependent.”

    It is almost humorous that he calls this statement “absolutely false”, yet then says that the claim is “timescale-dependent” — in other words, its correctness is not absolute, but depends on the time scale.

    CONCLUSION: BOTH are correct on the timescales they discuss.

    CLAIM: 3. “The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Niño) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Niña) is about 0.03 C°/decade …”.
    MONCKTON: 3. In August 1997 global temperatures were not “in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Niño”: they were in transition, about halfway between La Niña (cooler than normal) and El Niño (warmer than normal) conditions.

    The data shows (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/catalog/climind/nino334_data.html) …
    A brief La Nina ( +0.5C) started Apr 1997 and lasted ~ 14 months.

    SUMMARY. The objection seems to be that “5” is not the middle of “14”. Well … I suppose that is true, but
    * August is only 2 months from the middle of the El Nino.
    * August is 5 months from the “transition”.
    So Monckton’s statement is “farther from the truth” than the original.

    *******************************************************

    That’s all I have time for on this atm. Overall, Monckton seems to be changing the target, acting as if his new target was the target all along.

    ********************************************************

    As for the “95% confidence” statement, a perusal of the original statement in context still have not made it 100% clear to me exactly what they were claiming.

  302. tjfolkerts:

    re your post at January 28, 2013 at 6:20 pm.

    You are attempting to pick up the baton of lunacy from Joel Shore.
    All your so-called arguments have been refuted in this thread where Joel Shore has tried to use them to misrepresent the clear and unambiguous statement by NOAA.

    Read the thread because I have no intention of doing your homework for you.

    The facts are clear.
    According to the falsification criterion set by NOAA in 2008, the climate models are falsified by the recent period of 16+ years of (at 95% confidence) zero global temperature trend. This is because NOAA says the climate models simulations often show periods of 10 years when global temperature trends are zero or negative but the simulations rule out near zero trends in global temperature for periods of 15 years. What the models “rule out” nature has done.

    The climate models are falsified: this contradicts your superstitious belief in AGW, and you need to come to terms with it.

    Richard

Comments are closed.