Guest post by William M. Briggs professional statistician
It is statistically appropriate to point to this year’s frigidity as evidence that the theory of man-made global warming is suspect.
Sure is cold out there, unusually so. By “unusual,” I mean the temperature is on the low end of the observed temperatures from previous winters.
Of course, we don’t have any more than about 100 years of reliable measurements, so it’s possible that the freeze we’re experiencing now isn’t as unusual as we suspect. But, anyway, it still sure is cold.
If you recall, a lot of global warming models predicted it would be hot and not cold, and to risk redundancy, it sure is cold. Does this dissonance between the models’ predictions and what is actually happening mean that those models are wrong?
No. But it sure as ice doesn’t mean that they are right.
Here’s the thing: No matter how cold the winter is, no matter how much snow falls, the global warming models will not be disproved. In technical language, they cannot be falsified by the observations.
Another way to say this is that the winter we’re seeing is consistent with what the models have been predicting. Again — does this consistency mean that the models are right and that the theories of man-made warming are true?
No.
Consistency is such a weak criterion that almost any imaginable theory of climate will produce predictions that are consistent with observations. The term is probabilistic: It means that what actually happens had to have some chance of occurring according to a model. If global warming climate models said, “It is impossible that this winter will see temperatures below X,” and temperatures did, in fact, drop below this threshold, then the models would be inconsistent with the observations. The model would be falsified.
But global warming climate models never make statements like that. They say that any temperature is possible, even if this possibility is low. Certain temperatures have probabilities as low as you like, but they are never precisely zero. (To anticipate an objection: “that number was practically zero” is logically equivalent to “she was practically a virgin.”)
Man-made global warming is just one of many possible theories of climate. Another is the Business-as-Usual Theory (BUT), which states that whatever happened last year will more or less happen this year, and so on into the future.
The winter we’re seeing is consistent with the BUT, which like the man-made global warming theory, never says any temperature is impossible. Further, BUT is corroborated more strongly by this winter than is the man-made warming theory. BUT’s predictions are closer to what we actually see.
“Stop right there, Briggs! You’re making the classical mistake of confusing weather with climate. The global warming models make predictions of climate and not weather. This winter doesn’t mean anything!”
I am not making that mistake, and it is you who are confused. Weather is climate. More specifically, aggregations of weather are climate. Means, averages, and distributions of daily weather comprise climate. That is, climate is a statistical phenomenon and depends for its existence on defining a reference time frame.
For instance, if “climate” is defined as the yearly mean temperature, then this year’s cold winter will produce a yearly mean temperature that is colder than average (as long as the coming summer isn’t abnormally hot: winter, of course, overlaps two calendar years and a hot summer can balance out a cold winter in the yearly mean).
So it is appropriate to point to this year’s frigidity as evidence that the theory of man-made global warming is suspect. If “climate” is defined as the decadal mean temperature, then this year’s cold winter will push the decadal mean lower. And it is still acceptable to point to this year’s winter as evidence against the man-made global warming theory.
Just as it was appropriate when the media trumpeted each and every “record setting high!” as evidence for that theory.
The difference is that one day’s temperature has little influence on a yearly mean — it is just one out of 365 other numbers that make up the average. One day’s temperature is thus weak evidence for or against any theory of climate.
But a slew of months with higher- or lower-than-average temperatures will push that yearly mean higher or lower. A season’s mean temperature is stronger evidence for or against any climate theory than is a day’s.
Back in the 1990s, when the yearly mean temperatures were increasing, this was touted as evidence for the man-made global warming — but those years’ temperatures also corroborated the Business-as-Usual theory. Which theory was better?
For the past decade, we have had a string of years with mostly decreasing temperatures. This is strong evidence against the man-made global warming theory, but pretty good testimony for the BUT. So far, the BUT theory is winning on points (there are other climate theories the BUT doesn’t beat). This doesn’t mean that BUT is true and that the man-made global warming theory is false, but it does suggest that this is so.
You can’t have it both ways. It is a mistake to extol evidence that supports the man-made global warming theory and to cry foul when presented with evidence which weakens that theory.
That so many do this says more about their desires than it does about any theory of climate.
Reposted from: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/actually-weather-is-climate/
with permission from the author. Visit his website: http://wmbriggs.com/blog/
{ Kevin Kilty (15:36:02) :} Thanks Kevin.
Any one of a number of obscure sources of earth’s heat could be latched onto by a group of “believers” to choose it as a scape goat and promote the idea for punitive legislation, as we see happening worldwide.
Shameful and foolish rules are coming out of formerly sacred halls of reason and freedom. “Settled Beliefs” will come to no good, only accurate science will correct it.
If they don’t listen, we must vote them out… think MA, “Let’s beam ’em out Scotty !”
“You can’t have it both ways. It is a mistake to extol evidence that supports the man-made global warming theory and to cry foul when presented with evidence which weakens that theory.”
Well, try it this way:
“You can’t have it both ways. It is a mistake to extol evidence that supports the BUT and to cry foul when presented with evidence which weakens that theory.”
Both ways? Must be a mistake. There’s plenty of extolling at WUWT. And crying foul.
From the text: [if “climate” is defined as the yearly mean temperature]
Historically, it has not been defined in this manner.
Type Köppen climate into your search box and look at a few of the reports and images that are returned. To me, these patterns that are defined would have to change noticeably before we start talking about climate change. Anything else is simple variability.
From the article “In technical language, [models] cannot be falsified by the observations”. From my understanding of the scientific method this makes the models – well – unscientific.
What struck me was that I had understood the SH to be warm recently and the NH cold. The diagram seems to show both South America and the part of Australia we can see as unseasonably cold. WUWT?
Sorry – my mistake – not Australia but the Tip of Borneo which is still technically NH
“Climate” is what? The average weather over an arbitrary period of 30 years?
Where does the 30 years come from? It doesn’t coincide with any observed natural cycle. Surely one would try to include a whole observable cycle for signal analysis.
Has 30 years been chosen to select noise?
Is it just a coincidence that it’s about half of a distinct cycle?
Bernd Felsche (17:03:38) :
This 30 year issue has been raised and commented on a number of times in the past year. Here is an example:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/20/antarctica-warming-ice-melting-not/#comment-191302
Ubique of Perth WA (17:55:26) :
Why is the NSIDC still making comparisons with a 1979-2000 average? Twenty one years is a pretty ordinary baseline – why aren’t we seeing a 1979 – 2008 average?
Climate normals are set by international treaty to be an average over 30 years with the last year ending with a zero. After 2010 there will be updates.
Has anyone ever wondered about the choice of years for averages or normals of climatic variables? In case you have but haven’t found the answer, here is one:
“Climatologists define a climatic normal as the arithmetic average of a climate element such as temperature over a prescribed 30-year interval. The 30 year interval was selected by international agreement, based on the recommendations of the International Meteorological Conference in Warsaw in 1933. The 30 year interval is sufficiently long to filter out many of the short-term interannual fluctuations and anomalies, but sufficiently short so as to be used to reflect longer term climatic trends. Currently, the 30-year interval for calculating normals extends from 1971 to 2000.”
http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~sco/normals.html
Also, here: http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/26747.pdf
ps: I re-post this about once a month.
“So far, the BUT theory is winning on points (there are other climate theories the BUT doesn’t beat).”
What are they Mr Briggs?
meanwhile, back at the UN ranch:
ww Jan: UN: Senior UN climate change official calls for united global action to forge rapid accord
The failure of last month’s United Nations summit in Copenhagen to agree on ambitious and immediate global action to combat climate change means that the task has become more, not less urgent, a senior UN official said in an opinion piece published today.
“The window of opportunity to tackle the climate problem closes more rapidly the longer nations delay to act together,” UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer wrote in the Bangkok Post. “But Copenhagen has raised the challenge to the highest level of government policy, the level where it must ultimately be resolved.”…
“It will take time for countries to digest the implications,” he said. “This is well and good, for they must come to terms with the challenge ahead. Now, industrialized countries can resume discussions to raise their collective mid-term emission cuts into the minus 25 to 40 per cent range that science has indicated would avoid the worst climate impacts. Failure to achieve this can only mean the need for greater ambition later.
“Countries need to discuss how the long-term finance will be raised. Let us also not forget that in Copenhagen, nations pledged $28 billion in short-term finance for immediate action, and this money is sitting in national budgets. Countries need to find how this money can be used as soon as possible to launch immediate action.”
Mr. de Boer stressed that multilateral agreements are the only tool the world has to agree on laws, regulations, accounting norms and market mechanisms for global action in curbing climate change and keep it honest.
“It is increasingly impossible for nations to act confidently without these reference points, in a world where no one bloc calls the shots,” he said. “If countries follow up Copenhagen’s outcomes calmly and with their eye on the collective advantage, then they have every chance of completing this promise.”
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=33565&Cr=climate+change&Cr1=
“”” K. Bray (16:18:19) :
Overcast skies trap heat and keep temperatures warmer all night.
Clear skies let the ground heat quickly dissipate off earth at night allowing significant cooling.
This is observable and obvious, even by just sleeping “under the stars.”
Perhaps a solution to warming, (if that is a “problem”) would be dehumidifying atmospheric air. The drought issue however would be seriously problematic, but it would be cooler.
Water vapor appears to be the biggest obvious factor in temperature regulation. “””
Well K. here we are back to the “correlation is not causation” question.
You associate high clouds at night with warmer surface temperatures; and clear skies with cooler surface temperatures. Ergo the high clouds must cause the surface warming.
Say what happened to that prominent greenhouse gas CO2 which was present day and night, regardless of cloud cover. Howcome the CO2 isn’t keeping it warm at night.
Moreover, if you check out the height of those high clouds, and the strength of the surface warmth, you likely will find that the higher the clouds are, the warmer are those overnight surface temperatures. Don’t you find that a little weird ?
The higher those night clouds are, the lower is the local atmospheric pressure and density, and the cooler is the local temperature in the vicinity of those high clouds. So the number and temperature of the local GHG molecules, whether CO2 or H2O or anything else gets less and less as those clouds move higher. That means that the LWIR absorption spectra of those high GHG molecules lines, keeps getting narrower and narrower, due to the reduction in both pressure (collision) and Doppler (temperature) broadening. So those ever higher clouds and other GHG molecules absorb an ever narrowing width out of the surace emitted LWIR outgoing radiation.
Yet the higher those clouds go at night the warmer is the ground or lower air temperature at night; well you said it, you sleep out under the stars and you experience it. Of course if it is warmer at ground level during the day; and maybe also less humid too, the water vapor in the atmosphere, will have to rise higher in the atmosphere, before it finally cools down to the dew point and starts to form high clouds, of either water droplets or ice crystals. That too would associate higher clouds with warmer surface temperatures.
So how is it, that an ever diminishing mass of GHG materials, with ever narrowing absorption bands, keeps on blocking and re-radiating an increasing amount of LWIR energy to make the ground warmer. At what point does this process stop; presumably somehwere lower in altitude than the 17 billion light year height of the earth’s outermost atmospheric layers.
What if those ethereal high clouds with less and less moisture content, and ever lessening LWIR absorption, are actually the result of those warmer near ground conditions that persisted during the day, and remained over night.
One thing is for sure; absent the influx of a new warmer air mass from somewhere else; it never actually warms up over night; it continues to cool once the sun goes down; so whatever surface heating effect those high clouds are supposed to have; it isn’t very effective.
To me the surface warming effect of high clouds, is another myth of the standard climatology, which according to one Japanese climate scientist, is akin to “ancient astrology”.
Peronally, I think the gentleman is most unkind to “ancient astrology.”
Yes the science is settled, and academic institutions will continue to teach it, so long as the grant money continues to pour into their establishments.
You have to follow the money, to see what the current state of the science is.
Anonymouse, thanks fore the link to PHDCOMICS; a great find; Very nice.
BTW Do you post eslewhere as AnonEUmouse?
Kevin Kilty
‘In engineering we run “factorial” experiments. Once our “table of contrasts” is filled and sufficiently replicated, we ought to be able to say what factors and interactions are significant and which are not. No one has tried this yet with regard to AGW, although I think it may be possible to look at instances of past climate change and do such a thing. However, as the outcome of temperature increase/decrease seems to not have a clear connection with historical changes in CO2, analysis of my hypothetical table of contrasts would probably throw it away as a factor.’
As an experimental psychologist I taught statistics for around 20 years and what you have described closely resembles what we taught our more advanced students: Factor Analysis. In this we would gather together the variables we were interested in (in this case, those likely to affect climate). Given at least 100 data points for each variable the FA would look for all possible interrelations between variables and our trusty SPSS would churn out the answer. What is called ‘the first principal component’ would be the variable which has the greatest variance (in this case, contribute the most to imputed climate change). The other variables would then be tabled in order of diminishing contribution of variance (and, as has been suggested by Kevin Kilty, CO2 would be likely to be the variable with the least variance to contribute). A closely related test we teach psychology students is Multiple Regression, where a number of variables can be assigned that may provide greater or lesser contributions to a target variable (in this case, global temperature). Unlike the Factor Analysis, this is a significance test which would generate a p value of confidence in our findings.
I have read most of what has been published here and until Kevin Kilty mentioned testing that resonated with my own knowledge I have been puzzled why such tests haven’t been used to try to clarify matters.
Turns out forgetting to close the lid on a really great old deep freeze in my garage was the tipping point. Sorry all.
This guy is arguing the point that I attempted to make a while back, being that weather is climate. “Weather” is a compilation of temperature datasets/events/cycles that comprise climate and the absence of heat that the globe has been experiencing in the last 12 years (with CO2 increasing all the while) disproves the global warming theory.
The “weather is not climate” sophistry that the disciples of global warming propound is another prevarication the Alarmists use to explain the failure of their apocalyptic prophecies (case in point……“climate change”).
I am a layman and may be I have lost the plot but isn’t it a central issue of the AGW theory that CO2 is a ‘greenhouse’ gas such that with ever increasing concentrations/quantities, the global temperature WILL increase? Warmists continually assert that the physics that this is based on dates back 150 years and is certain and sound. That physics does allude to the possibility that with increasing concentrations/quantities of CO2, the global temperature will cool. If that is the fundamentals of the physics, it follows that if there are any periods (even of just a year) when global temperatures have not increased even though CO2 concentrations/quantities have increased, then there MUST be other factors at work which factors have cancelled out the predicted increase. This is important since unless the Warmist can (i) identify what those other factors are; and (ii) explain how those other factors have cancelled out the predicted increase (during the relevant time frame), all one is left with is unexplained natural variation in the climate system. In these circumstances, one is forced to conclude that one does not fully understand the climate system which system contains unexplained natural variation affecting global temperatures. Once one accepts that summary of present day knowledge, it is impossible to assert that the ONLY explanation for the observed warming since the mid 1800s/early 1900s is the introduction of man made CO2 and the whole case behind the AGW theory does not pass even a balance of probabilities test, ie., an equally plausible explanation for the observed increase in global temperatures since the mid 1800s.early 1900s could be the unexplained natural variation in the system.
I fully concur that when testing the AGW theory, colder than average (predicted) years are more significant than warmer years since colder years runs counter to the theory and therefore these years require some explanation which explanation is still consistent with the underlying premise that increasing levels of CO2 will increase global temperatures. It is not sufficient for proposers of the theory to say we do not know what went on, it is just natural variation. When the cold years extend to more than 1 year, it causes ever more problems for the theory since the odds against this happening increase dramatically. In the UK we have had two cold winters in succession notwithstanding the MET office advising us that cold winters will become a distant thing of the past.
PS. I have been reading the posts for many months on many of the relevant sites but I have never seen anyone suggest that since CO2 concentrations appear to lag warming by about 800/1000 years, may be the observed increase in measured CO2 during the last 100 years is nothing more than the signature of the MWP or Roman warm period, ie., it has nothing to do with burning of fossil fuels during the last 100 years. Does anyone have a view on this?
“”” DirkH (16:35:48) :
“George E. Smith (16:02:09) :
[…]
The trouble is that the extreme range of earth surface temperatures, most of which can be present simultaneously, covers the range from about -90 deg C, to about +60 deg C or more.
Over that range, the emittance of LWIR from the surface will vary by more than an order of magnitude; closer to a range of about 11:1.”
Very good, i didn’t think of that.
George, when you say that nobody has observed the logarithmic relationship: My guess is that it exists but is obfuscated by the water vapour content. “””
Well Dirk, let me assure you that I HAVE thought about it; long and hard.
But remember that the assertion IS that the logarithm of the CO2 atmospheric abundance matches the rise in mean global surface temperature; so please don’t invoke some other process that is not CO2 even though that might in fact be a more logical cause of any warming.
My assertion was that there is no data for any period, which shows a logartihmic CO2/mean surface temperature mathematical observed relationship. And I further opined that not only is there no such observational data, but there also is no theoretical physics mechanism that would even follow such a logarithmic function.
Mathematics is basically pretty simple; either a relationship is logarithmic or it isn’t; there isn’t any almost logarithmic; just as there is no such thing as almost pregnant.
Also you talk of LWIR being “reflected back closer to the surface”. There really isn’t any such reflection process at all; neither water vapor, nor CO2 is reflective, at virtually any wavelength. The process is one of selective absorption, in the 13.5 to about 16.5 micron range for CO2. and plenty of other regions for H2O. The rest of the entire surface LWIR spectrum simply escapes to space; well unless it runs into something else namely a cloud; which is not a green house gas. The absorption process which requires the passage of a suitable wavelength LWIR photon within the capture crossection of the CO2 or other GHG molecule, at lower altitudes, such as your bottom 10 metres then results in general warming of the lower atmosphere by collision of the CO2 or other GHG molecule with the normal N2 and O2 and Ar molecules of the ordinary atmosphere.
FDor today’s CO2 abundance, CO2 molecules are one in every 2576.7 molecules of the atmosphere. That averages out to about 13.7 layers of atmospheric gas molecules between any two CO2 molecules, in any direction. So the CO2 pirates, are not even aware of each other’s presence; they interract only with the ordinary atmosphere gases.
Only at much higher altitudes with long enough mean free paths or excited state lifetimes can it be said that the GHG molecule re-radiates the capture LWIR photon.
In any case, such re-emission where it occurs; or thermal emission from the ordinary atmosphere at lower altitudes; must inherently be isotropic; there is no mechanism for focussing such emission in a downward or any other direction. So the transmission has to be ruled by something like the gauntlet run I described; and that favors escape over return to the surface.
As for Miskolczi : I am not aware of either him or his researches, so I will look into that. I am always ready to learn of the existence of any new physics that describes a focussed downwards atmospheric thermal emission.
We may see AGW fade away as a UN concern – Fox is reporting that the UN wants to get involved with controlling health care world wide. Frankly, that sounds like a more promising avenue to one world government than the climate.
Weather is like a daily data graph? Climate is like a trend line?
Well I just checked out your Miskolczi reference Dirk, and it looks like a nice dissertation; whcih I will have to digest.
But nowhere in it did I find any assertion that most of the atmospheric emission goes downwards.
In several places, the author asserts that the atmospheric upward emission is always half of the surface upward emission. That would make the upward and downward each half ot the total surface emission; which is about what a simple isotropic atmospheric emission would suggest.
A lot of good stuff in there to think about, and some stuff I have no confidence in, such as the Trenberth earth energy budget. Anybody knows that the incoming solar TSI is more like 1366 Watts per m^2 and not any 342 number which Trenberth asserts.
And no 1366 W/m^2 time shared over the surface does not produce the same effect as 342 received 24/7 by each square metre of the earth from pole to pole.
It’s sort of a battle against the subtle innuendos concerning man-made climate change. Man has nothing to do with climate change. The Chevron commercials on FOX are constantly pushing the climate change subtle innuendo that it is man’s fault.
Man has nothing to do with climate change. The climate changes all by itself due to the cycles of the Sun, the changing wobble of the earth on it’s axis while it travels through space, the changing eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun, and a few lesser influential things that happen over millions of years.
http://hosting11.imagecross.com/image-hosting-26/1079God-Invented-Climate-Change-1.JPG
But remember that the assertion IS that the logarithm of the CO2 atmospheric abundance matches the rise in mean global surface temperature
I thought that the assertion was that CO2 causes small rise in temp that results in exponential rise in water vapor as max water vapour in atmosphere about doubles for every 10 degree rise in temp, approximately tripling CO2 direct effect?
That said my understanding is that the energy emitted by an ideal black body is determined by Stefan’s Law which is
P(w/m2)=5.76*10^-8*K^4
If we use temp of earth average at 300K, and get a 3 degree rise, earth radiance would go up by 18 w/m2? But IPCC estimate is CO2 doubling = 3.7 watts, tripled by H2O = 11.1 watts. so unless they are claiming another 7 watts from somewhere else? Or I am missing something else?
…….. “(To anticipate an objection: “that number was practically zero” is logically equivalent to “she was practically a virgin.”)”
…. Perhaps even. A little bit pregnant also?……… LoL.
Statistic speak… So illogically imprecise in it’s exactitude….;-)
According to the Danes (DMI Polar Temperature on the sidebar), mean temperature and climate north of the 80th northern parallel is now lower than at any time since 2004, meaning this winter still has plenty of punch left in it. Nice weather for young polar bears!
REPLY: I have a story coming up on this – Anthony
OT But Important!
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/keeping-it-in-family.html
possible? link pachauri and NZ weather chappy..
“Weather is not Climate”
Okay, let’s see:
The Northern Hemisphere Summer 2008 was cooler.
The Southern Hemisphere Summer 2008 was cooler.
The Northern Hemisphere Winter 2008 was cooler.
The Southern Hemisphere Winter 2008 was cooler.
The Northern Hemisphere Summer 2009 was the “Summer that never was.”
The Northern Hemisphere Winter 2009/2010 is the coldest in 100 years.
The Southern Hemisphere Summer 2009/2010 has twice had snow, even down to the 3,000 foot level In Australia, which is uncommon. even in their winter.
Umm, how long does a “weather” pattern have to exist before it becomes “climate” ? ? ? ?
How many kilometers of species treelines have to move {south in the northern hemisphere, or north in the southern hemisphere} before the Climate Scientologists realize that the Climate Zones have shifted?
Perhaps when Michael Mann and Phil Jones are in police custody and making plea-bargain deals for leniency, we will see a modicum of reality hitting the politicians who would believe tea entrails instead of actual science.
BTW, where are the peer-reviewed studies listing the names of the “30% of the species will become extinct” mentioned in the last IPCC report? Where are the peer reviewed studies on the drought-driven crop failures that are in the last IPCC report? Which crops are going to fail? Publish them so Farmers can avoid failures of those crops! The IPCC were “spot-on” about the peer-reviewed science journal papers on glacial melting the Himalayan glaciers by 2035. Wait, they lied about that. Never mind, they said we could belive them on everything! “Trust Me!”
LAUGH OUT LOUD!
Newt Love (my real name) newtlove.com
Aerospace Technical Fellow: Modeling, Simulation & Analysis
“The most famous person nobody has heard of!”