Guest post by Steve Goddard
Archimedes had his eureka moment while sitting in the bathtub. Newton made a great discovery sitting under an apple tree. Szilárd discovered nuclear fission while sitting at a red light.
There was a time when observation was considered an important part of science. Climate science has gone the opposite direction, with key players rejecting observation when reality disagrees with computer models and statistics. Well known examples include making the MWP disappear, and claiming that temperatures continue to rise according to IPCC projections – in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
Here is a simple exercise to demonstrate how absurd this has become. Suppose you are in a geography class and are asked to measure the height of one of the hills in the Appalachian Plateau Cross Section below.
Image from Dr. Robert Whisonant, Department of Geology, Radford University
How would you go about doing it? You would visually identify the lowest point in the adjacent valley, the highest point on the hill, and subtract the difference. Dividing that by the horizontal distance between those two points would give you the average slope. However, some in the climate science community would argue that is “cherry picking” the data.
They might argue that the average slope across the plateau is zero, therefore there are no hills.
Or they might argue that the average slope across the entire graph is negative, so the cross section represents only a downwards slope. Both interpretations are ridiculous. One could just as easily say that there are no mountains on earth, because the average slope of the earth’s surface is flat.
Now lets apply the same logic to the graph of Northern Hemisphere snow cover.
It is abundantly clear that there are “peaks” on the left and right side of the graph, and that there is a “valley” in the middle. It is abundantly clear that there is a “hill” from 1989-2010. Can we infer that snow cover will continue to increase? Of course not. But it is ridiculous to claim that snow extent has not risen since 1989, based on the logic that the linear trend from 1967-2010 is neutral. It is an abuse of statistics, defies the scientific method, and is a perversion of what science is supposed to be.
Tamino objects to the graph below because it has “less than 90% confidence” using his self-concocted “cherry picking” analysis.
So what is wrong with his analysis? Firstly, 85% would be a pretty good number for betting. A good gambler would bet on 55%. Secondly, the confidence number is used for predicting future trends. There is 100% confidence that the trend from 1989-2010 is upwards. He is simply attempting to obfuscate the obvious fact that the climate models were wrong.
Science is for everyone, not just the elite who collect government grant money. I’m tired of my children’s science education being controlled by people with a political agenda.
Steve Goddard pointed out the failing ‘global warming’ forecast of snowline in the Northern Hemisphere in wintertime moving northward. There is even more snow forecast for Dallas this week.
Leif Svalgaard (12:02:45) :
Suppose you are in a geography class and are asked to measure the height of one of the hills
The question is meaningless unless you first have specified the height above what?.
————–
But isn’t that how the AGW questions are framed?
There is inaccurate teaching to children not just in the area of climate. Einstein’s gravity is more accurate than Newton’s. But Newton’s version is still what is taught to children.
Though I know Steve Goddard’s point is about politics being in the classroom; I detest it also! Children should be challenged to think and explore. There should not be getting indoctrinated and lead to not think. If there is freedom anywhere in public it must be in the classroom!
Leif Svalgaard (12:02:45) : Leif, you postulate: “The question is meaningless unless you first have specified the height above what?”. The answer is: above (relative to) a chosen reference point; in this case, relative to the other hills. All reference datums are relative, whatever the scale, throughout the universe. This includes dubious datums, such as the hyperthetical global average temperature, against which “anomolies” are plotted. Regards, Bob.
It seems to me that the graphs in this article are deliberately manipulated to make the slope more than obvious. The Y-axis doesn’t start at zero, but at 90% of the mean value of the points. It’s easy to see that the ‘slope’ might not be statistically significant. I wonder why Steven Goddard hasn’t done this calculation. Saying things are “abundantly clear” without doing the maths is an abuse of statistics.
It’s not beyond the wit of man to realise that rising temperatures could possibly cause more snowfall, with more water able to be carried in warmer air, but that would require the author to at least understand the physics of vapour pressure.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/09/co2-condensation-in-antarctica-at-113f/
The heading says ‘SKILLFULL’. English (UK) spelling is ‘skilful’, English (US) spelling is ‘skillful’ (according to WORD spellchecker).
Us folks in San Saba County have a saying for statisticians who use numbers to prove a lie: ” the average person in the San Saba County has one scrotum and one mammary gland.” Its statistically true but obviously false.
As to the Kansans, all they want is to provide fact-based science to let their kids know that there is another side to the narrative that organic life began from inorganic non-life and then advanced through fortuitous events to create humans. Deniers of atheism, like AGW denialists, simply want the facts on the table without Big Brother imposing its own brand of the truth. In the case of Creation vs purely Naturalistic “science”, the stakes are eternal and therefore far exceed the trillions of dollars in the wasted war against carbon.
“I’m tired of my children’s science education being controlled by people with a political agenda.”
Move to Kansas…
I can’t stop laughing.
Robert,
I take it you would reject any claim that falls below 95% as being not statistically significant?
Be careful, you might lose considerable portions of Ar4.
a minor quibble but paraphrasing Asimov, the sound of scientific discovery is not ‘Eureka’, but more like “Gee, that’s funny…..”
My skilful observation is that it is Isaac with two ‘a’s not two ‘s’s
Anthony
I have followed your work and website for a while. Impressive! You point out the errors and the deviousness of the more unscrupulous players in the AGW camp, and back your statements with meticulous research. It is also very much to your credit that you also point out errors in the thinking of some of the less rigorous skeptics – that is, you apply the same standards to climate-skeptical arguments that you insist should apply to AGW promoters. That’s good, because I have a skeptical argument in need of assessment.
You have highlighted the inaccuracy of the predictions of the climate models that are central to the arguments of the warmists, and you are spot-on in your analyses. However, I think there is another fundamental issue about these models. It is this:
The IPCC and most of the advocates of AGW cite the hockey stick and their model predictions as “proof” of the AGW hypothesis. I have a big problem with that. Not because of the inaccuracy of the predictions (and they are certainly inaccurate), but because they would prove nothing about the real drivers of temperature changes even if they were accurate. Ptolemy’s geocentric model of the universe, with its epicycles, deferents and equants, made astronomical predictions that were far more accurate than the climate models’ predictions of the earth’s temperature. Yet we do not live in a geocentric universe. Refer:
http://www.herkinderkin.com/2010/01/climate-models-and-scientific-consensus-why-they-prove-nothing/
So far, no AGW suporter has attempted to refute this argument. they simply bang on about their models being accurate in spite of Anthony Watts, Richard Spencer et al. So I have to ask a scientific skeptic. Am I on the right track, or am I in error?
Leif Svalgaard (12:02:45) :
Suppose you are in a geography class and are asked to measure the height of one of the hills
The question is meaningless unless you first have specified the height above what?.
———————————————————————–
I beg to differ. The question stands, it is the answer that is meaningless without a reference frame.
42?
Hence the need for full and open disclosure of all data and assumptions used during the calculation process.
Surely confidence intervals are designed to show that a particular pattern, or trend is not the result of just noise, and is not necessarily to do with whether or not the future can be predicted.
It is possible for the “trend” to be rejected at the 95% confidence interval, or even 90% or 80%, but yet still continue into the future. Similarly, a trend could show a very high >95% confidence level, but attempts to predict the future may be totally confounded when the “trend” reverses.
In other words, confidence levels and trends don’t really help except in one way – in order to compare predictions against observations. In the case of the graph of snow cover, it may be the case that snow cover has increased in the period shown, but what does that tell us about theories of climate change? Not a lot. No more than a similar period of decreasing snow cover or decreasing arctic ice.
So, if the publisher shows increasing snow cover and uses that to falsify global warming, then someone like Tamino is correct to object on the grounds of confidence levels. But if the publisher is merely saying, look, snow cover has increased, then that is a fact of observation and as long as it is within the error bars of measurement (I assume that it is), then Tamino must accept that as a fact. But then he may ask, What’s your point?
And I find myself asking the same question. What is the point of this article. It’s like saying “the sun is hot” or “the sea is wet.”
Here in Calgary the airport is at 3,557 ft. However, the airport is on a slightly elevated plain several miles from downtown. For the most part, Calgary is at 3500 feet.
I lived on a hill that was about 60 feet above its surroundings. Thus, the hill I lived on was 3560 feet high.
Obviously that makes the hill sound a lot bigger than it actually is, in reality it’s about 60 feet high since the surroundings are all that really count from the perspective of driving there, walking there, providing power there, providing water and sewer service, etc.
And if you want to get down to it, the 3557′ number is meaningless too, since that is above sea level. But sea level where? Under what conditions? At low or high tide? If all the ice were to melt and sea levels rise, would they change the official measure of my elevation?
Dang, sorry Steve Goddard. I did not read the by-line. Please forgive me for ddressing Anthony.
I’m wondering about the correcting stickers that school science textbooks will need in a few years:
“This chapter is now considered to be totally incorrect…”
A little snarky Dr. Svalgaard. Kansans have more at stake in the science of
climate and its integrity then most. You might want to get out more.
Ref – NickB. (12:54:19) :
mkurbo,
“Public sentiment is a fickle thing. The CAGW crowd experienced the perfect storm over the last few months with Climategate, Copenhagen, and the winter storms.
“A freakishly hot summer and the public opinion could swing back the other way.”
_____________________________
So true! Not kidding! The public believes whatever it feels; if it’s “Cold” it’s COLD; if it’s “Hot” it’s HOT. And they hate liers.
If the AGW faithful and their “scientist” high priests have a better and more accurate weather report for the next and succeeding 72 hours, etc., etc., they gain converts. If the “Scientists” and the “Show-Me” crowd have better weather reports, they’ll gain followers.
The moral or Climategate and Copenhagen: “Always tell the truth, as often and loud as you can, and Dick & Jane Q. Public will believe in you.”
“Science is for everyone, not just the elite who collect government grant money. I’m tired of my children’s science education being controlled by people with a political agenda.”
So Homeschool them. (Don’t expect them all to go on and get PhD’s – only one of ours did!)
I hate to agree with Tamino, because like Gavin he is spiteful and hostile to free speech and fair comment, but for once he has half a point. While he should not object to the graph, as it is far more legitimate than (say) anything Mann has produced with his tree ring proxies, he is right that it is not concrete evidence of an underlying upward trend in snow levels. However it is an interesting start, and it will not take many more years like this one before his beloved 95% confidence level is reached, and fewer still to discredit the GCMs’ projections.
I do hope Tamino remembers that 95% is a purely arbitrary number, and depending on the purpose of the statistic, for instance spend $1 trillion and close down swathes of industry on the one hand, or make a general observation for conversational purposes on the other, higher or lower figures might be appropriate.
Leif Svalgaard (12:34:51): “I’m tired of my children’s science education being controlled by people with a political agenda.” … Move to Kansas.
Dear Leif, No offense intended, and this is not personal so don’t take it that way, but…
Modern “science” is a big welfare game. Too much science is taxpayer supported, with no benefit to taxpayers or society. It’s much worse than taxpayer-supported “arts”. Armies of pseudo-scientists and even real scientists are living high on the hog on handouts from the rest of us, justified by false dire reports and false claims that the “science” being performed has any pragmatic value whatsoever.
You don’t pay my salary; I pay yours. And I am getting zip for my money, or worse than zip. That offends me, and hurts me, and harms my family and community.
I want every “scientist” on the public dole to provide the taxpayer with a valid reason for funding him or her. And “the furtherance of human knowledge” doesn’t cut it with me. I want practical results, not phony claims, not Chicken Little bull crap. And if they cannot justify their expense, then off with their funding.
Get a real job, one the free market values and is willing to pay you for. Do “science” in your garage in your spare time. I’m tired of footing the bill and getting BS in return. Will society collapse if taxpayers stop funding “science”? I doubt it sincerely.
I’m not a statistician, so let’s ask one.
“Anyway, that’s what Mr Jones has said. Reader Francisco González has asked what that “statistically significant” means. It is an excellent question.
Answer: not much. ”
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=1958
“But forget all that, too. Let’s ignore statistics and turn to plain English.
Suppose, fifteen years ago the temperature (of whatever kind of series you like: global mean, Topeka airport maximums, etc.) was 10o C. And now it is 11o C. Has warming occurred?
Yes! There is no other answer. It has increased. But now suppose that last year, it was 9o C (this year it is still 11o C). Has warming occurred?
Yes! And No! Yes, if by “has warming occurred?” we really mean “Is the temperature now higher than it was 15 years ago?” No, if by “has warming occurred?” we really mean “Has the temperature increased each year since 15 years ago?”
Also Yes, if by “has warming occurred?” we really mean “Has the temperature increased so that is higher now than it was fifteen years ago, but I also allow that it might have bounced around during that fifteen years?”
Each of these qualifiers corresponds to a different model of the data. Each of them has, that is, a different probabilistic quantification. And so do myriads of other model/statements which we don’t have time to name, each equally plausible for data of this type.
Which is the correct model? I don’t know, and neither do you. The only way we can tell is when one of these models begins to make skillful predictions of data that was not used in any way to create the model. And this, no climate model (statistical or physical or some combination) has done. “
Before we can even attempt to try and get back on the right track (namely the truth) with climate research, we have to get rid of many of the leading “scientists” that corrupt, twist, hide and/or distort the data and findings. If this doesn’t happen then there is no hope getting back on the right track. That should be pretty obvious if one thinks about it. Now, the only way to get rid of those people is to charge with fraud, and if found guilty put behind bars. If this doesn’t happen then the previous goal will never happen. This is clear from the avalanche of revelations showing that AGW in its present form is a hoax and a fraud. This too should be pretty obvious if one really thinks about it.
Gino (13:30:44) and others:
I beg to differ. The question stands, it is the answer that is meaningless without a reference frame.
If the question is something that is arguing against AGW, then a reasonable reference frame would be the time at which AGW proponents claim their effect ‘takes off’, no?
A common device [‘outlier suppression’] to check if a trend is ‘robust’ is to omit the n lowest and n highest points and see if the trend persists, where n can then vary from 0 and up to a reasonable number, e.g. 10% of the total number of points. This gives you an idea about how much is ‘weather’ vs. how much is ‘climate’.