Press release
London, 13 January: A climate bet proposed by the BBC’s radio programme “More or Less” four years ago has been won by Dr David Whitehouse, a former BBC Science Editor and a scientific adviser to the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
In 2008, the BBC programme-makers came up with the idea of a bet. It was for £100 that, using the Met Office’s data set (HadCrut3), there would be no new warming record set by 2011. It was made between Dr Whitehouse and climatologist Dr James Annan.
Later today, the BBC’s “More or Less” (16:30 on BBC Radio 4) will report about the outcome of the bet and announce the winner.
A full report of the scientific background to the bet is available here:
Winning A Climate Bet
by Dr. David Whitehouse, the Global Warming Policy Foundation
Predictions, Neils Bohr once said, are difficult, especially about the future. They are even more interesting however, when there is money at stake.
In December 2007 I wrote what I thought was quite a straightforward article for the New Statesman pointing out that it was curious that when so many voices were telling us that global warming was out of control, and that the global warming effect dwarfed natural fluctuations, the global annual average temperature hadn’t increased for many years. I wasn’t promoting any particular point of view just describing the data. The New Statesman jumped at it.
It caused quite a storm resulting in an Internet record number of comments that were complimentary by a large majority, although there were some less than supportive remarks. It evidently also caused quite a fuss in the offices of the New Statesman. Realclimate.com responded with, in my view, an unsatisfactory knock-down of my piece based on trend lines, which I had expected. Trend lines, especially of indeterminate length in the presence of noise, can tell you almost anything, and nothing.
The New Statesman environment correspondent Mark Lynas chipped in eventually with, “I’ll be blunt. Whitehouse got it wrong – completely wrong,” after saying he was initially reluctant to comment. He reproduced Realclimate.com’s trendlines argument and accused me of deliberately or otherwise setting out to deceive. It was a scientifically ignorant article which subsequent events, and peer-reviewed literature, emphasise. Moreover, when I asked New Statesman for redress against such an unnecessary, and in my view unprofessional insult, they declined, and stopped answering my emails. In doing so they missed out on an important, though perhaps inconvenient, scientific story.
More or Less
To my surprise interest in my article was worldwide, and eventually the BBC’s radio programme “More or Less” got in touch. The programme is about numbers and statistics and they set up a series of interviews. You can hear the programme here.
Almost at the last minute the programme-makers came up with the idea of a bet. It was for £100 that, using the HadCrut3 data set, there would be no new record set by 2011. It was made between climatologist James Annan and myself. His work involves analysing climatic data and validating climate models. He accepted enthusiastically as he has a perchant for taking on ‘sceptics.’ The presenter said that if the global temperature didn’t go up in the next few years, “there would be some explaining to do.”
Later today, January 13th, “More or Less” returns to the bet, which I am pleased to say I won, though I note that this bet, or its conclusion, is not yet mentioned on Annan’s Wikipedia entry despite his other climate bet being discussed.
Writing shortly after the wager was placed James Annan said he believed it was a fairly safe bet, though not certain, as the trend since the current warming spell began, around 1980, was upward (showing those same trendlines!) He drew a straight line from 1980 to 2007 and projected it forwards concluding that sometime over the next few years HadCrut3 would rise above its highest point which was in 1998 (a strong El Nino year.)
The problem with this approach is that it destroys all information in the dataset save the gradient of the straight line. In climate terms 30 years is usually held to be the shortest period to deduce trends (though shorter periods are used often if the trend deduced is deemed acceptable) but that is not to say there is not important information on shorter periods such as volcanic depressions, El Nino rises and La Nina dips. Then there are the so-called, poorly understood decadal variations.
My view was that the information in the dataset was important, especially if projecting it forward just a few years when natural variations were clearly dominant. Looking at HadCrut3 it is clear that there isn’t much of an increase in the 1980s, more of an increase in the 1990s, then there is the big 1998 El Nino, followed by no increase in the past decade or so. It therefore seemed far more likely that the temperature would continue what it had been doing in the recent past than revert to an upward trend, in the next few years at least.
My approach was to listen to the data. The approach taken by James Annan was flawed because he didn’t. He imposed a straight line on the data due to theoretical considerations. I always wonder about the wisdom of the approach that uses straight lines in climatic data. Why should such a complex system follow a straight line? Indeed, the rise of HadCrut3 is not a straight line, but the past ten years is, and that in my view is very curious, and highly significant.
Why, I wonder start the linear increase in 1980? Obviously the temperature starts rising then, but why not start the straight line in 1970? The answer is that the temperature is flat between 1970 and 1980. It seems illogical to take notice of flat data at the start of a dataset but totally ignore it at the end!
When a record is not a record
During the recent interview for “More or Less” James Annan said that had other temperature databases been used he would have won. This is a moot point that also strongly reaffirms my stance. In NasaGiss 2010 is the warmest year, with a temperature anomaly of 0.63 deg C, only one hundredth of a degree warmer than 2005, and within a whisker of 2007, 2006, 2002, 2001 and 1998. Given the 0.1 deg C errors even Nasa did not claim 2010 as a record. Technically speaking 2010 was slightly hotter because of a string El Nino. Otherwise, NasaGiss shows hardly any increase in the past decade.
During the “More or Less” interview the question arose of extending the bet to “double or quits” for the next five years. I was game for it with a proviso. Betting against a record for ten years raises a higher possibility that there might be a statistical fluctuation than betting for five years. Because of this I would like to see two annual datapoints, consecutively more than one sigma above the 2001 – date mean level. After all, that is the minimum statistical evidence one should accept as being an indication of warming. James Annan did not commit to such a bet during the programme.
It just has to start getting warmer soon.
Back in 2007 many commentators, activists and scientists, such as Lynas, said the halt in global temperatures wasn’t real. It is interesting that the Climategate emails showed that the certainty some scientists expressed about this issue in public was not mirrored in private. Indeed, one intemperate activist, determined to shoot my New Statesman article down but unable to muster the simple statistics required to tackle the statistical properties of only 30 data points, asked the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and the Met Office, to provide reasons why I was wrong, which they couldn’t.
What was true in 2007 is even more so in 2012. Since 2007 the reality of the temperature standstill has been accepted and many explanations offered for it, more than can possibly be true! We have seen predictions that half of the years between 2009 and 2014 would be HadCrut3 records (a prediction that now can’t possibly come to pass) which was later modified to half of the years between 2010 and 2015 (likewise.) The Met Office predict that 2012 -16 will be on average 0.54 deg C above the HadCrut3 baseline level, and 2017 -2021 some 0.76 deg C higher. Temperatures must go up, and quickly.
So how long must this standstill go on until bigger questions are asked about the rate of global warming? When asked if he would be worried if there was no increase in the next five years James Annan would only say it would only indicate a lower rate of warming! Some say that 15 years is the period for serious questions.
We are already there
In a now famous (though even at the time obvious) interview in 2010 Prof Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia confirmed that there was no statistically significant warming since 1995. There was an upward trend, but it was statistically insignificant, which in scientific parlance equates to no trend at all. In 2011 Prof Jones told the BBC that due to the inclusion of the warmish 2010 there was now a statistically significant increase between 1995 and 2010. Since 2011 was cool it doesn’t take complicated statistics to show that the post 1995 trend by that method of calculation is now back to insignificant, though I don’t expect the BBC to update its story.
The lesson is that for the recent warming spell, the one that begins about 1980, the years of standstill now exceed those with a year-on-year increase. It is the standstill, not the increase, that is now this warm period’s defining characteristic.
The nature of the anthropogenic global warming signal is that, unlike natural fluctuations, it is always additive. Sooner or later, it is argued, it will emerge unambiguously, perhaps at different times in different parts of the world, but it must emerge. Some argue that by the time it does it will already be too late, but that is another debate.
James Annan is keen on a “money markets” approach to forecasting global warming, and bemoans the reticence of so-called climate sceptics to put their money where their mouth is! I hope that his early-stage financial loss won’t be too much of a setback and a deterrence for potential investors, not that I will be among them.
Now that I am joining the ranks of those who have made money out of global warming (or rather the lack of it) I wonder where the smart money will be placed in the future.
Feedback: david.whitehouse@thegwpf.org
[snip. Off topic. ~ dbs, mod.]
“He drew a straight line from 1980 to 2007 and projected it forwards concluding that sometime over the next few years HadCrut3 would rise above its highest point…”
Therein lies the absurdity of the global warming science. We also see this naive approach with expected sea level rise, etc.
Let the warmist rationalizations begin.
Great article and Congrats on the Bet.
…was slightly hotter because of a string El Nino.
s/b
was slightly hotter because of a strong El Nino.
Using trends in a cyclic system is foolhardy. Realclimate should have got this by now.
That bet is just a dice roll. With the flat trend it was an even bet. Warming is real, it’s the cause that is in question. You can cite correlation till you are blue in the face but it doesn’t prove anything. We need real empirical studies to nail down the real causes of warming/ cooling. Blaming anything on one cause is a gross oversimplification. The climate system is chaotic and there are hundreds if not thousands of factors in a constant tug of war and a steady rise in C02 can not bias the whole system above the noise level in my opinion. AGW is a convenient myth used as political leverage over economic control.
Wow, that was not original at all and I bet everyone here is tired of hearing it. It’s so obvious, it hardly needs mentioning.
“Predictions, Neils Bohr once said, are difficult, especially about the future”
I think Yogi Berra said it.
Maybe if we keep making these bets, we can finally defund these fraudsters indirectly.
The Hadley-CRU data for december 2011 appears not to be available yet : http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
However – it looks like 2011 will be drum role…… the 11 th warmest year !
What a wonderful example of statistics abuse!
What did they do wrong this time? I would mainly put this in the camp of cherry-picking their data. That ain’t how honest sampling works, and skewed sampling is a prime data analysis fallacy.
@ p gosselin –
On the other hand, we can’t accuse the CAGW supporters of not being able to even draw a straight line!
🙂
Seriously, the travesty here is that the CAGW supporters refuse to look at the observational data while they prefer to live in their “model” world.
Whether we are cooling or warming on a global scale isn’t the important thing – what is important is whether anything we humans do can have a measureable effect on either that cooling or warming and whether that effect is or is not desireable.
“Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
David, you know they’ll howl about the 1995 to present as not showing warming. You’re right, of course, about statistical significance, but why bother with the wailing an gnashing of teeth?
Just go here…..http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend
That’s 15 years of no warming!!!! The wailing and gnashing of the teeth will be much improved this way! 😀
John, Thanks for the clarification. I was about to start researching what a string El Nino was! Looking for the Nexus of course. 😉
Congratulations to Dr. Whitehouse (have fun spending your winnings :).
I was struck, however, by the following statement from the article:
“I note that this bet, or its conclusion, is not yet mentioned on Annan’s Wikipedia entry despite his other climate bet being discussed.”
Annan’s Wikipedia entry?? Really?
To say that these climate elites have egos is an understatement! It fits in with my belief that these CAGW scientists have a “rock star” mentality about what they do, and part of their motivation is cultivating the fame and notoriety that comes with their “job”…
Weather Genius, Piers Corbyn has made a small fortune
betting against those BBC & Met Office forecasts in the UK.
“Piers Corbyn wins Xmas UK snow bets despite all other forecasters”
http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=288&c=5
Wikipedia entry ….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn
There is a special webpage dedicated to the pronouncements and work of Piers Corbyn, where many talks and videos are included featuring the pre-eminent meteorologist / astrophysicist. Of interest is the new science that he is developing; Volcano & Earthquake prediction, using analysis of Solar/Lunar Magnetic fluxions. So far this looks very promising. No-one so far has been able to accurately predict when and where Earthquakes will occur. Should he prove reliable in this latest endeavour, then he should be nominated for a Nobel Prize !
See also the website of the ! Fraudulent Climate of Hokum Science !
Click the name “Axel” above and then select Corbyn Vs Met Office
from the Quick Page Menu Droplist at the top left of the page.
There is something else truly remarkable and already noticed by Whitehouse in the past…the fact that in the face of increasing GHG concentrations, the temperatures have managed to go nowhere, as if by magic something happened in 1999 and exactly counterbalanced the effect of CO2.
IT’S A MIRACLE! /sarc
Also look how David Whitehouse is described by “More or Less” as an “astrophysicist”.
I guess journalists are too smart to trust the word of other journalists 😎
Scott Covert says: “Warming is real, it’s the cause that is in question.”
Actually, I think you meant to say that temperatures HAVE warmed. The future warming is still in question.
[snip -off topic]
As to where things go from now?
Influences:
1. Solar – still unclear whether the two solar cycle decrease in output will really happen – if it does, contributes to cooling to 2035.
2. Oceanic – PDO now in cool mode with AMO going that way soon. Predict cooling contribution until 2025/2030.
Overall, I’d say likelihood is for further stasis or, more likely, cooling until 2030. After that, it will depend significantly on what the sun decides to do……
The stupidity of linear extrapolation has been known for a long time. 300 years ago Swift expertly sliced up linearists in the Laputa chapter of Gulliver. You’d think someone would have learned something by now.
Great article, thank you! Somehow and don’t ask me why but it reminds me of a remark of a Swedish trade union chieftain when commenting on salary differences. He said: “We are not satisfied until people in the low income brackets earn more than those in the high income brackets”.
Take the CET daily maximum temperatures for December 1900. Add them up.
Take the CET daily maximum temperatures for December 2011. Add them up.
December 2011 has been very mild here in the UK. The total for 2011 is only 90% of that for 1900.
Do the same with the minimums. The total for 2011 is only 67% of that for 1900!
And thats with lots more CO2!
It does not matter how data is “massaged” or “conveniently” treated, there is a cooling which began after the 1997-98 “El Niño”, and a bit tempered after the new cycle 24 began reaching higher peaks, just because, no matter how ACRIM, etc. satellites were “fixed”, temperatures follow the Sun (that round and shining thing above us), of course delayed, as right now happens, because of that temperamental girl called “La Niña”, who is still cold and in need of some warm.
Of course the BBC is in its daily endeavor of promoting “anthropogenic global warming/ climate change” and the establishment of “Green policies” to avoid “catastrophe”. But, in these times other catastrophes are looming, one of these the economical viability of such a big government owned media; that is a real and hotter issue. It should be privatized just for the sake of cooling down the, more than probable, accumulated “red” heat in its accountability, and some “green” measures should be taken before an armageddon happens.
I’ve made so many offers of bets to alarmists. 50-50% bets.
ie. I win if its under their prediction. They win if its over.
None, not a single one has take any off the bets.
@John Marshall says: January 13, 2012 at 6:41 am
“Using trends in a cyclic system is foolhardy. Realclimate should have got this by now.”
and @ Scott Covert says: January 13, 2012 at 6:41 am
My gawd yes!!!! These Climate idiots constantly plotting lines. Can’t they find another function? Logarithmic, sigmoidal, even qudratic or cubic (or a Taylor expansion). What is the problem with these guys? Is it they can’t understand anything other than y=mx+b or they can’t use the appropriate software to do proper nonlinear least squares routines?
Also, as Scott relates, the complex and chaotic climate system is far too complex to boil down to summary statistics (average temperatures) and fit them to lines to extrapolate the future temperatures to within 0.1C precision. This is so obvious I can’t believe anyone believes otherwise at this point.
Oh wait, Phil Jones doesn’t even know how to use excel. I guess I got my answer
Roger Andrews says:
January 13, 2012 at 6:44 am
“Predictions, Neils Bohr once said, are difficult, especially about the future”
I think Yogi Berra said it.
They both said essentially the same thing. I don’t know who said it first. GIYF
Can’t believe my ears. The BBC in 2008 (after the futerra re-education) allows such a bet AND mentions FACTS about the global temperature?
They don’t have their house in order.
An object will continue in a straight line unless operated on by an external force.
External forces are not relevant to AGW alarmists.
This is the same incident as the one in which Phil Jones was asked by Bob Ward to calculate a trend in order to respond to Whitehouse and Jones confessed that he was unable to calculate a trend on his own and that there was no one in the office at that time who could help him with this onerous task. See http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/11/23/the-scientific-firmament.html.
The reason temperatures have flat-lined is simple. The upward trend in the 90’s was a result of the large reduction (90% in some areas) in weather stations worldwide. This introduced a bias in the signal that was not accounted for in the trend analysis. Now that the number of weather stations has stabilized, so has temperature.
If temperatures today were anything like as warm as the 1930’s the US would again be a giant dust bowl. Common sense has flown out the window. Scientists are crowding around thermometers, ignoring what is happening outside their windows.
You may as well bet on the Dow Jones: In a year’s time, will it be up? or down?
Why cite a wholly discredited Phil Jones or anyone else as a statistical authority for anything? Perfectly standard measures of frequency and distribution, regression analyses deriving non-linear and other trends with margins-of-error aka uncertainty, are available to anyone. Resorting to “argumentum ad verecundiam” is not only a mug’s game in itself, but revealing of a profoundly anti-scientific mindset akin to Wonderland’s “sentence first, verdict afterward.”
Expertise in technical matters is always desirable, but inflated credentials can never substitute for independent third-party verification. Integrity requires examining not only input-data, but scrutinizing conclusions’ analytical principles and procedures as amenable to not-so-subtle bias on any number of substantive levels.
I don’t think we will get any less “Ananism” [sp?] in the future. The “climate scientists” are really Masters of such Perturbations of computer climate science.
“I note that this bet, or its conclusion, is not yet mentioned on Annan’s Wikipedia entry despite his other climate bet being discussed.”
It is interesting that Annan has been editing his own Wikipedia entry. He’s been doing it carefully and properly — only removing erroneous information. But he could have pointed out in the Talk page that some information was missing from the entry, and if the show talked to him recently then he’s been reminded of it.
On the UEA website: http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2011/November/bodyofwork
“Body of Work: 40 years of creative writing at the University of East Anglia”. This is a new book about Malcolm Bradbury and other writers of fiction at UEA.
Curiously there is no mention of Phil Jones et al, who I thought would be eminently qualified for inclusion. 🙂
Annan is an intellectually lazy media hack, and not the first one or the last one. Praise be to the Internet (which ironically Al Gore invented) for breaking the media’s grip on the masses.
Truly wonderful article, couldn’t stop reading. Now about the question:
“Now that I am joining the ranks of those who have made money out of global warming (or rather the lack of it) I wonder where the smart money will be placed in the future.”
This is quite simple. Ignore the facts and impose mandates. You force people to buy electicity from solar and wind and you force them to buy the cars you specify, using legislation in the form of carbon tax or emissions reductions standards.
The Obama Administration has always been keen on putting federal Smart Meters on people’s homes, using tax payer money to purchase and install them. The Smart Meter helps “suppliers” remotely gather info from each home to determine it’s electricity consumption and it’s co2 emissions footprint.
One producer of Smart Meters is the Styron Division. ref: http://www.styron.com/company/sustainability/sustainability_in_action_g.htm
Styron was purchased from Dow by Bain Capital in 2010. ref: http://www.dow.com/news/corporate/2010/20100302a.htm
One of our candidates is a direct beneficiary of Bain Capital. (NYT “Retirement Money…Romney”)
Pish posh, you say. How does he know what the venture firm he retired from does after he leaves? I cannot answer this in full except to say that an important pattern in Romney’s past and present political positions is that he clearly believes it is “good business” to force people to buy products. Romneycare forced residents of Ma to buy health insurance. When he was gov of Ma, a major cornerstone of his economic policy involved the switch to renewables in the region, forcing people to buy electricity from wind turbines. He now proposes 20bn in federal spending on research in “car technology.” He supports world wide emissions reductions agreements and a carbon tax. So there is clearly a pattern of mandating what people buy and claiming that that is “good business.” Now, his company happens to have reps on solar and wind suppliers, and happens to own a Smart Meter** manufacturer. These energy policies have done nothing but destroy the economies of those who adopt them. You cannot point to any country in which global warming policies have been a success.
**”More than 250 million smart meters will be installed worldwide by 2015, representing a penetration rate of 18 percent of all electrical meters by that time (up from 46 million in 2008).(20)
This is being driven by a goal of reaching 55 percent penetration of all electric meters in North America by 2015 and a 20/20/20 goal in Europe to achieve a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, a 20 percent increase in renewable energy and a 20 percent reduction in energy consumption, all by 2020. This Directive in Europe also includes a goal to replace 80 percent of electric meters with smart meters by 2020.” Styron
clivehbest says: However – it looks like 2011 will be drum role…… the 11 th warmest year !
Given the source, you can safely bet 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, …; will be whatever they need the years to be – to justify more Taxpayer funding.
If only there was a way to snag Al Gore into making a losing climate bet; for say around $80 billion that’s been wasted on this nonsense?
NIck,
Me too. My warmist friends refuse to bet. And yet how certain they are. Guess they’re just not wanting to take my money.( Not.)
A few years back I looked into betting on the temperature trend being less than predicted but the only market I found was based on Hansen’s “data”. No way was I going to bet on that shell game. If there is a market based on the satellite record then I am a player.
Just listened to programme and the warmists came off worst in the discussion.
@Jason
“Maybe if we keep making these bets, we can finally defund these fraudsters indirectly.”
They are smart enough not to bet on what they suspect is a lie but are too worried to oppose directly. There are still terrible and very public consequences for a warmist who starts talking about reality. Reality bites, hard.
Morally, is it really fair to have a battle of wits against the unarmed? Taking candy (something real and beneficial) from a baby is frowned upon socially. Betting against a warmist might end up in court because the warmist will claim they were scammed by a lose-lose bet.
You think not?? The skeptic will be blamed for not providing ‘full disclosure’ about the fact that the warmist propaganda was manipulations and lies in service of the gas industry (lower CO2/MJ). The skeptic will reply that they tried and the warmist refused the knowledge. That will in turn serve as proof that the skeptic was knowingly taking ‘candy’ from someone not possessed of their full mental faculties, i.e. analytically incompetent or restricted, by indoctrination, to the state of being for legal purposes, a perpetual minor. That will, in consequence, give rise to a court-ordered refund plus punitive damages. It’s the American way.
Is HadCrut3 subject to influence by ego-driven activists, the way GISS is?
Dr. Whitehouse,
Congratulations on your winnings!
In retrospect James Annan must feel a bit silly for making the bet – I mean really; we certainly need to admit that we humans scarcely know enough about weather and climate to be able to confidently bet on GATA outcomes some years in advance. But though (IMHO) the bet was done we a certain levity and not for too much money, it is worthwhile to consider for a moment that activist/scientists of the alarmed variety and politicians of all stripes are more than willing to make these silly climate bets in our interest, and using public (our) money.
And the sums are not trivial. Suddenly this whole idea of betting on the climate isn’t fun or funny.
David L. says (in response to several people)
“…My gawd yes!!!! These Climate idiots constantly plotting lines. Can’t they find another function? Logarithmic, sigmoidal, even qudratic or cubic (or a Taylor expansion). What is the problem with these guys? ”
The reason is simple. They assume that the general public is too stupid to understand anything but a straight line. When you get into the vagaries of how a coefficient affects a curve, the eyes gloss over and people loose interest. If they can’t shoe-horn it into a straight line, they have no chance to convince the populace of their claim(s).
I note that this bet, or its conclusion, is not yet mentioned on Annan’s Wikipedia entry despite his other climate bet being discussed.
Don’t forget, anybody can edit Wikipedia! Change it!
rgb
Just listened to the program. No mention of CO2 or carbon dioxide. Just disultery talk about global warming occuring or not. Anyway, the bet still seems to be on for double or quits.
And another four years before the BBC has to pronounce on global cooling. 🙁
Listened to this on Radio 4 just now, still arguing the toss. Now they’re are extending the bet (double or quits) over the next four years
I can speak from some experience in the tropics. Older Hawaiian homes have fire places. From about 1994 – 2009, we had about 5 fires total, Previous to 1994 we had about a dozen a year to stave off cold. In 2010, formerly the warmest year on record, we needed about a dozen and that has continued into 2011. We have already had a few in 2012. My fire place usage indicator says it is getting colder.
I’ve done well betting against the warmists in 2011 on Intrade, here, despite its using GISS data:
https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventGroupId=7620
I wish there were more warmists over there. They’re the ones that seem reticent to me.
Rather than “double of quits”, take your winnings now and graciously offer to take Dr. Annan’s money again with a similar bet on the next 4 years.
You can place bets on temps, arctic ice extent, hurricanes, etc at spread betting sites
(eg: https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventClassId=20 ). $80 billion may be a bit much!
If you don’t want to risk real money, use quatloos at Lucia.
Still haven’t had a satisfactory answer to this question, scientifically or not: What “anthropogenic global warming signal”.
Scott Covert says:
January 13, 2012 at 6:41 am
…The climate system is chaotic and there are hundreds if not thousands of factors in a constant tug of war and a steady rise in C02 can not bias the whole system above the noise level in my opinion. AGW is a convenient myth used as political leverage over economic control.
Wow, that was not original at all and I bet everyone here is tired of hearing it. It’s so obvious, it hardly needs mentioning.
No, it needs mentioning because one of the essential Propaganda Tactics employed by Climate Science’s “method”, and by Warmists commenting right here at WUWT, is to simply repeat their unscientific tactics and memes in the hope that their method will “win” by affecting people reading or viewing anywhere who don’t know what “mainstream” Climate Science’s CO2 = CAGW really is – a gigantic Propaganda Op. which intentionally avoids the principles and practice of real science. [That’s why they all here at WUWT, and many at large, don’t seem bothered by Climate Science’s abject failures qua real science.]
Therefore, the fact that Climate Science’s CO2 = CAGW alleged hypotheses have not produced even one relevant correct empirical prediction yet should be hammered home to everyone everywhere.
And now also the fact that Climate Science’s “hypotheses” cannot even explain the most recent past, for example according to Jones’ own 15 year standard of no increase in Temp. for seriously doubting AGW, whereby Dr. Whitehouse concludes that “we’re already there”:
“The lesson is that for the recent warming spell, the one that begins about 1980, the years of standstill now exceed those with a year-on-year increase. It is the standstill, not the increase, that is now this warm period’s defining characteristic.”
Richard111 says:
January 13, 2012 at 9:03 am
“Just listened to the program. No mention of CO2 or carbon dioxide. Just disultery talk about global warming occuring or not. Anyway, the bet still seems to be on for double or quits.
And another four years before the BBC has to pronounce on global cooling. :-(”
Do you mean that they have agreed that the first bet is undecided? A “double or nothing” bet is considered a new bet, not a continuation of a bet.
Kelvin Vaughan says:
January 13, 2012 at 7:48 am
Take the CET daily maximum temperatures for December 1900. Add them up.
Take the CET daily maximum temperatures for December 2011. Add them up.
December 2011 has been very mild here in the UK. The total for 2011 is only 90% of that for 1900.
Do the same with the minimums. The total for 2011 is only 67% of that for 1900!
Now draw a straight line from 1900 to 2011.
Holy crap! We’re doomed! Where’s my snowblower?
David, congratulations on winning your bet, but I think you are overstating the case against linear trends. Here’s a modified version of from a comment I’ve made recently on Jeff ID’s blog, slightly edited here:
You can look at the effect of short-period weather fluctuations on the uncertainty in the trend estimations as I did here. As the trend interval shortens, the uncertainty becomes large enough to essentially make any predictive power of the linear trend meaningless.
Of course using four years and a linear trend to extrapolate future temperature is just….dumb. So is using any linear trend, regardless of the start and stop intervals, to predict future climate change. All the trend is telling you is something about the rate at which temperature changed over a specified interval, and using ordinary least squares to do this (instead of e.g. eyeballing the trend) is you get some rejection of short-period climate fluctuations (and as the period is increased, the amount of rejection is improved).
But because this was the historical rate of temperature change (which we would assume has something to do with the historical forcings present at that time) tells you absolutely nothing about expected future changes in temperature, not without knowing the key anthropogenic and natural forcings. Everybody is conscious of the importance of CO2 as a forcing that tends to includes global mean temperature. Many are not as cognizant of the influence of man-made pollutants (especially sulfate) which tend to cool climate. To give an idea of how important these are just look at what GISS Model E now assumes. What you see is prior to 1970, there was essentially zero net anthropogenic forcings assumed in the model.
Given that much of the new CO2 production over the next several decades are coming from industrializing nations (which produce a lot more pollutants than fully industrialized nations of course, mainly through coal-fired plants), we really don’t know what the future course of anthropogenic aerosol emissions will look like. NASA recently addressed this question ,
Figure
Practically what they’ve found is given current levels of pollution controls, even assuming a high-sensitivitivy climate model, that we could be in for another 30+ years of more or less constant temperature. (Think 1950-1980 repeating itself). Whether there is a “rebound” once pollution controls are eventually set in place, is something that only time will tell.
Neo says:
January 13, 2012 at 8:13 am
It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future. — Yogi Berra
————————————————————-
The quote attributed to Neils Bohr dates back to 1918, about 7 years before Yogi was born. Seems as though Bohr may have borrowed the quote from someone before him.
My bet is that the next 10 years 2011-2020 will show warming. Statistically insignificant warming – just like the past 30 years. Congrats on winning the bet and did you collect Dr. Whitehouse?
cui bono says:
January 13, 2012 at 9:14 am
You can place bets on temps, arctic ice extent, hurricanes, etc at spread betting sites
(eg: https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventClassId=20 ). $80 billion may be a bit much!
If you don’t want to risk real money, use quatloos at Lucia.
——————————————–
Better yet, bet Carbon Credits.
Fantastic! Echos of the famous Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich bet back in the 80’s.
Re the Yogi/Bohr comments. I’ve always thought Yogi was a student of Bohr. Yogi’s comments have a quantum feel to them. http://www.workinghumor.com/quotes/yogi_berra.shtml
@Zeke: Do not worry about it, you will uselessly spend the energy we all need for living a healthy life. Just wait and see…as the chinese proverb says: “Wait seated at your front door and you´ll see the corpse of your enemy passing by”…though most of them do not qualify as “enemies”, this is a word reserved for real warriors, instead… just watch the circus and enjoy the clowns or, if you have a compassionate heart, be sympathetic toward them: they suffer, you don´t, because the least you need the richest you are. Peace and love!
Congratulations to David Whitehouse on winning the bet. It seems it was not luck that swung it, but superior data analysis. The mark of good science is not in predicting the obvious, but to predicting the unlikely. Dr Annan, RealClimate and Mark Lynas all stepped in the demonstrate the obvious view. On predictive ability Dr Whitehouse most likely has the superior science.
Only $100 eh?
How about this, then?
“Two climate change sceptics, who believe the dangers of global warming are overstated, have put their money where their mouth is and bet $10,000 that the planet will cool over the next decade.
The Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev have agreed the wager with a British climate expert, James Annan.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/aug/19/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment
A relevant issue is a prediction that the Met Office made in 2007. But I am unable to get the Wayback Machine to help find the following:
http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070810.html
Can anyone help?
Rich.
David is courageous and spotted the “standstill trend”, already back in 2007, against
the arrogant Warmist front (IPCC AR3 and AR4)……predicting alarming temp increases…
….. interesting enough: No Warmist nowadays steps foreward and makes predictions,
out of fear, understandably….. (except for periods after 2050…after our lifetimes….)
One exception: Warmist Mrs Judith Lean, with 0.14 C global increase until 2014….
…… the next one, to be wrong….
One more exception: Mr. S. Rahmstorf, PIK Potsdam, Germany, proposed a climate bet
for 2010 to 2020 (blog Climate Lounge, post: Neue Klimawette), as soon as took the
offer, the post was halted)….. he took the bet off himself, I offered 2,000 EU……
To add is the following: There were decadal temp increases in the past 20 Cty,
but this time we reached a top flat TEMP PLATEAU, where temps cannot rise any further.
A further increase is absolutely impossible….this can clearly be demonstrated with
convincing Earth’s orbit calculations on decadal time spans….
JS
Seems as if climatists are happy if their statistical GCMs (they are Global Circulation Models; not Climate models) predict; excuse me, that’s project, the future trend of the global mean Temperature (izzat global mean surface, ground,hardstuff,wetstuff, or lower troposphere, air/GHGs/aerosols/cigar smoke) to better than tossing a coin statistics.
So far, it doesn’t seem as if they can even predict the past that was used to fudge fit the models (seems there are at least 13 of these “models”). It would be nice if they all would confer, and decide which of the 13 models we should believe.
For me, I’ll start paying attention to the models, if and when they can PREDICT to say better than the coin toss three sigma probability, the DIRECTION of the very next experimental observation of that Temperature. Don’t care how far it will move; just will it move up or move down from the last experimentally observed value.
Everyone (warmists and their antagonists) seem to be fixated on first order linear models as a representation of “climate”. However, many – generally sceptics – have pointed out that “climate” does not fit readily into this simple framework, whose merits are chiefly associated with its very amenable underlying “maths”.
What always surprises me is that I have /never/ seen anyone publishing, in climate science, a fitted “trend line” together with its confidence intervals. The famous Excel, beloved of Phil Jones, does not seem to do it – unless you set to with some fairly fancy spreadsheet calculations.
I compute many trend lines, often just for the hell of it, knowing that they have only a somewhat fleeting intersection with the real world of climate. I /always/ generate the confidence intervals (usually at the 95% level, since this for some strange reason, seems to be the default probability level in most people’s minds) for a further single observation, and for the fitted line. These curves are pairs of hyperbolae in the case of simple regression, or much more complicated (and interesting) shapes if you choose to fit a second or third order linear model. How do I do it? By using software that I wrote about thirty years ago. Why doesn’t someone else do this?
I don’t know how to put these diagrams onto a blog, I’m afraid. Any advice or hand-holding, please?
What is blatantly evident is that HadCrut3 is nowhere near displaying a significant slope (in either direction) for the last 15 or more years. How do the warmistas manage to find the gall to put forward their fanciful interpretations of what are, after all, fairly straightforward time series data?
Over to you.
Robin
To Clive Best at 6:52 am:
I’m not used to reading the raw HADCru data, but if I didn’t make a mistake, is 2011 the 12th, not 11th warmest year? 1997 also looks warmer than 2011?
Not that it makes much difference….
To Joachim Seivfert at 11:29 AM:
Judith Lean is a solar scientist. She has made an online prediction. She may well turn out to be wrong, but I give her kudos for doing what the hard line warmists won’t do. And if she turns out to be wrong, I think that unlike Schmidt or Trenberth or Wigley or Jones or Mann, she has the integrity — as in scientific integrity — to ask herself what happened. You might not like her prediction, or her current positions, but don’t put Judith Lean in the same camp as Schmidt and Jones and Mann and the others.
John, her prediction is 1. solar cycle (going down in strength for some years), but no
significant temp increase will come from the solar side, leaving 2. the temp increase to AGW!
…… ok, she may not be a front liner, keeping in the 2. or 3. row….. she dared to step
foreward with a prediction and the wind will blow her over in 2014, in the year of reckoning…
… we are still around this year…..
If she had the courage to switch the “camp”…this would make things different…
Her prediction in 2011 served the Warmists as they were hard pressed last year. (and this
will be stronger this year due to the temp plateau of the 21 Cty and the “hiding heat problem”..)
………a solar expert’s opinion puts weights into the wrong scales…
JS
In case no one has posted it yet, here’s a link to the programme:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/moreorless/moreorless_20120113-1645a.mp3
I propose Climate Science funding should be calculated from how much the 5y smoothed global temperature deviates from their predictions. On prediction=100%, -1s.d.=85%, -2s.d.=35% -3s.d.=5%.
Well done David, though I think you stuck your neck out a bit on double or quits. People should also remember that, in 2009, before ‘climategate’ and at a time when all silly predictions of doom were repeated in the press without scrutiny “The Met Office said that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly. It predicted that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998)”. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8299079.stm
Reuters sent this message worldwide saying, “Global warming is forecast to set in with a vengeance after 2009, with at least half of the five following years expected to be hotter than 1998”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/09/us-climate-warming-idUSN0837368420070809
Well, how is that forecast shaping up? The beauty of the internet is that these claims are not so easily forgotten.
It was 100 pounds – which is about $175. Still a lot less than $10k.
You Deniers have got it all wrong. Global warming is continuing all the time but for last decade or so it has been masked by the Gore Effect. If Al Gore had not been jetting around the world to inform everyone of the perils we face then our instruments would have recorded higher readings. We will soon know how to incorporate the Gore Effect in our climate models and when we have done that the data will have to be revised upwards and it will be obvious then that Dr Annan was the real winner of the bet.
Rather than being quoted as the 11th warmest year, it is more likely to be the 9th warmest year this century. Same data, just a different spin.
@chris M – or the 3rd coldest of this century. 😉
INFLUENCE OF CHOICE OF TIME PERIOD ON GLOBAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE TREND ESTIMATES http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/brant.liebmann/papers/global_change/global.change-final.pdf is a useful paper in this regard
If you look at Fig 5c (adjust to one sided because we’re testing for warming) it suggests periods of less than 20 years haven’t really had significant warming trends in them. Overlaid on Fig 1 it gives an idea of what the corresponding values of the trends are.
Pointless. William Connolley will change it back before the bits are dry.
Robin says:
January 13, 2012 at 11:43 am
“I don’t know how to put these diagrams onto a blog, I’m afraid. Any advice or hand-holding, please? ”
If you want to publish some snippets, try this:
http://www.pen.io
Edit note:
I think you got that wackbards. Or SLT.
The shorter the period the more likelihood of a “noisy” deviation from actual “trend lines”.
“Predictions, Neils Bohr once said, are difficult, especially about the future”
“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” — Yogi Berra
Maybe Yogi Berra was a better physicist than people give him credit for.
Don’t mind betting I ain’t gunna fry before I die but The Thames To Be Frozen Solid Between Tower Bridge & London Bridge before 30 Apr 2012!
Fair suck of the sauce bottle! We might be sceptics but we are not skeptoholics.
http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/t/432/Weather-Specials.html
>> It predicted that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter
>> than the current hottest year on record. Reuters sent this message world-
>> wide saying, “Global warming is forecast to set in with a vengeance after 2009,
>> with at least half of the five following years expected to be hotter than 1998″
Reuters can’t count. 2010 to 2015 is six years.
Carrick says:
January 13, 2012 at 10:32 am
“Practically what they’ve found is given current levels of pollution controls, even assuming a high-sensitivitivy climate model, that we could be in for another 30+ years of more or less constant temperature. (Think 1950-1980 repeating itself). ”
To this day, the net influence of aerosols is defined by “as the model requires”.
Thank you agiurfa for your well wishes. It still seems worth resisting those who think that global warming is “one more reason to go on an energy diet.” (Romney, p227) And it’s really no trouble at all 🙂
The sale of hundreds of millions of Styron Smart Meters worldwide would certainly help to keep people on their “energy diet.” Romney does currently receive an income from Bain/Styron, and Romney does support worldwide emissions reductions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney
A silly bet to make over such a short time frame, accentuated by the fact that although the bet was made in 2008 Anthony chose Jan 2007 to start the graph that goes with the story, being one of the highest anomalies on record. Anthony would this be to create a much prettier little picture for your site? Why not start the graph Jan 2008, closer to when the bet was made? Trend line from that graph a bit too steep for WUWT? Anyway which ever way you look at it the line points up even despite a very strong La Nina phase 2010/11. But Anthony you should well know that both graphs are unhelpful and tell us very little anyway. More interesting is this:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
Besides all the evidence, it just seems an impossible coincidence that so many scientists could have predicted in the late seventies and eighties that global temperatures will rise sharply due to greenhouse gas emissions but then they started to rise from totally unrelated natural causes at exactly the same time. I am not into statistics or probablity but I wouldn’t mind seeing someone have a go at quantifying that possibility.
Anyway well done to Mr Whitehouse on his (irrelevant) pyrrhic victory.
[REPLY: Talk about sore losers…. and I don’t think the term “pyrrhic victory” means what you seem to think it means. -REP]
Nick, no bet is silly when you are able to see the outcome in our lifetime and
declare: “The winner …..is…..” Each party has the same go and can do its best….
Concerning predictions: The great Millenium predictions of the IPCC Warmists,
the AR3 (2001), fluctuate between 1 and 5 degrees for 2100, but are
all identical in the warming rate for 2000-2030 with 0.2 C/decade.
…….But since 2001, however, the temp plateau started to emerge, the predicted heat
is now stuck in a “pipeline”, as Hansen says, but Millenium AR3 predictions
showed nothing like hiding heat …… A real Warmist nowadays is scared of bets for
time spans for which we can declare a winner….
JS
Hahaha – I went to the RC link, and the wanker Gavin had a graph on it showing the trend with a bunch of little 8-year trend lines lying over it like pick-up sticks. It only went up to 2007.
First of all, I am sure that the latest 8-year trend ‘sticks’ will show trending level or downward.
Secondly, I have never understood this penchant in climate for using straight-line linear analysis. There ARE no straight-line trends in nature. So why pretend that there are? (just as there is no such useful thing as a “global average temperature” – especially in the distant past and even more specially a trend in the tenths of degrees.)
Thirdly, nature goes in cycles. It not only doesn’t go in straight lines, it doesn’t even go in upward curved lines for very long. What goes up must come down. One would have thought the CRU/HS Team and Gavin and the rest of the Sky Is Falling! crowd would have learned that in 2nd grade with the rest of us.
I commend Whitehouse for taking what was basically a 50-50 bet. He was betting that what went up WAS coming down. He and everyone else here in SkepticLand. A lot of us would have liked to take that bet, too.
Hmmm … one skeptical predictor beat one nonskeptical predictor “by a nose”.
One the other hand, it appears that a whole pack of Arctic scientists each beat a WattsUpWithThat consensus prediction (second column from the right) by a country mile!
WUWT, indeed? 🙂
[REPLY: You’re not real good at reading graphs, are you? -REP]
I seem to recall that some years ago Mcintrick (I think) proposed a tax on carbon fuels based on global temperatures.
If temperatures go up, so does the tax, if it goes down, so does the tax.
I thought it was brilliant.
@Nick Kermode
Get a life mate
“Richard G says:
January 13, 2012 at 1:15 pm
“Predictions, Neils Bohr once said, are difficult, especially about the future”
“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” — Yogi Berra
Maybe Yogi Berra was a better physicist than people give him credit for.”
He was.
My favorite Yogiism : “You can observe a lot by watching “
Post-1995 (that is, from 1/1996 to 11/2011, inclusive), the linear trend for HadCRUT3 is 0.074 +/- 0.019 C/decade. That’s statistically significant.
“Rather than being quoted as the 11th warmest year, it is more likely to be the 9th warmest year this century. Same data, just a different spin.”
Nope, it will be quoted as the 9th warmest year this ‘millenium’. Same data, even better spin.
Nick Kermode says:
January 13, 2012 at 1:49 pm
“Besides all the evidence, it just seems an impossible coincidence that so many scientists could have predicted in the late seventies and eighties that global temperatures will rise sharply due to greenhouse gas emissions but then they started to rise from totally unrelated natural causes at exactly the same time.”
Okay, let’s just assume that they switched from predicting an Ice Age to predicting Global Warming in 1976, a year after the “Our Endangered Atmosphere” conference with Ehrlich, Mead, Schneider and Lovelock.
All of them.
All of them?
No, it turns out Schneider and Hansen were early adopters, but the rest jumped onboard later.
http://www.real-science.com/1988-trenberth-was-a-denier
Maybe you’re confusing cause and effect. Most of those “many scientists” only switched to predicting catastrophic warming when it became clear that it would be the next fashion – in fact, as late as after Hansen’s 1988 congress presentation.
Here’s a longer timeline of the fashion cycles.
http://butnowyouknow.wordpress.com/those-who-fail-to-learn-from-history/climate-change-timeline/
I didn’t check for correlation with the PDO or AMO or LOD or sunspots, but wouldn’t be surprised to find a good one.
feet2thefire says: January 13, 2012 at 1:49 pm
… It only went up to 2007.
That is odd!
I thought that the rules were:
1. When graphing Ice you stop at Oct 2007
2. Only graph Arctic Ice
3. When graphing Temperature you stop at 1998
4. If 1930 must appear in a temperature graph then you must start at lowest point of the Little Ice Age
It appears that Gavin may have confused Ice and Temperature.
feet2thefire says:
just as there is no such useful thing as a “global average temperature”
Of course there is. Any smooth function has an average. For temperature it’s
= (1/area_of_globe) integral_over_globe T(r,theta,t)
where r and theta are the polar coordinates of the Earth’s surface, and t is time. In practice, the integral is determined by a sum over a finite number of points.
Why a linear trend? Because to first-order all functions are linear; that is, for small time intervals any function of time can be approximate by
T(t) = a+b*(t-t0)
where a=T(t0) and b=(dT/dt)(t0) are constants and t0 is some reference time. This is a good approximation if If t-t0 is “small,” i.e. T(t) does not change “much” over that interval.
Nick Kermode says:
January 13, 2012 at 1:49 pm
… Anthony chose Jan 2007 to start the graph that goes with the story, being one of the highest anomalies on record…
There’s a bit of a joke in that graph. If it weren’t for the extremely cool anomaly of 2008, the trend line on that chart would be downward rather than upward.
BTW, “Pyrrhic” refers to a victory achieved at excessive cost. The word has nothing to do with “irrelevance.”
@Steve Garcia
” There ARE no straight-line trends in nature. ”
My thoughts exactly!!!
I am an engineer by profession and I find the use of “trend lines” for any predictive purpose the height of absurdity. I have no problem with using a trend line or a pair on lines to illustrate a bandwidth as a shorthand way of characterising historical data. That is a proper used of statistics. But once you get into the predictive business you are into what engineers call modelling and the mathematics of modelling is far better done using mathematics based in the maths of whatever mechanism is in play. With global climate they is very, very difficult due to the complexity of the multiple systems in action. The notion that the mathematics of global temperature could be in any way modelled using linear mathematics is utterly laughable.
this is why Paul Hudson’s October 2009 article at the Beeb was – for the layperson – the real “HIDE THE DECLINE” issue. the MSM and the CAGW scientists had not informed the public that their PREDICTIONS were not panning out. once former CAGW believers like myself read the Climategate emails six weeks later and realised how frantic the CAGW Team (which we didn’t know were so tight with each other) were over Hudson’s article, the blinkers were removed from our eyes:
9 Oct 2009: BBC: Paul Hudson: What happened to global warming?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm
decoupling CAGW and CO2 remedies is another matter. from my experience, a huge number of CAGW Believers are with the sceptics in wanting to prevent a CO2 financial bubble. let’s join forces:
13 Jan: Guardian: Damian Carrington: How to tackle the climate, health and food crises, all at the same time
Reducing the soot pumped out by cars and cooking fires and the methane from coal mines and oil wells would rapidly curb global warming, prevent air pollution deaths and boost crop yields…
Drew Shindell, at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who led the research is clear that this is not an either/or situation: “It is not at all a substitution. It would be a big mistake to focus on dealing with the near-term problems of methane and black carbon without also focusing on the problem of carbon dioxide as well.”
Nonetheless, his team’s work shows action on methane and black carbon is hugely worthwhile and, for the first time, the study shows reveals the regional benefits, from a more stable monsoon in India to better growing plants in Mexico…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2012/jan/13/methane-black-carbon-emission-climate-change-warming?newsfeed=true
It occurs to me that a stock market analyst would make a much more interesting analysis of the trends in the trends than a scientist. They are quick as buggery at noting when the data has popped out of a predicted trading range. I wonder why the same techniques aren’t applied here?
I see the wikipedia entry has been updated today. We will see how long that lasts.
[REPLY: You’re not real good at reading graphs, are you? -REP]REP, I can read the graph well enough to appreciate that, compared to the actual ice minimum of 4.4 million km^2, the two worst forecasts (both high) were those of WattsUpWithThat and of Egan (evidently a WUWT poster?).
Now, anyone who checks Anthony’s WUWT post for May 31, 2011, titled Sea Ice News – June ARCUS forecast from readers submitted—will appreciate that the scientists’ report, their graph, and my understanding of that graph, all are correct.
Looking back further, I find other WUWT predictions by Anthony, made in late 2009 and 2010, that the Arctic ice would recover … predictions that were not born out.
However (like most folks here on WUWT) I would be pleased to be corrected in the above understanding, if it is mistaken.
The prediction business is a tough business, eh?
[REPLY: You will note that 10 of the 19 projections had ranges attached. The WUWT projection was off by 1.1 million Sq. Kilometers. Two of the projections had ranges very much in excess of that. Both the Wang and Kauker model-based projections had upper limits exceeding the WUWT projection and the Peterson model projection had a lower limit that was 1.6 million Sq. K too low. I’d say the amateurs at WUWT didn’t do too badly. -REP]
Ursus Augustus says:
The notion that the mathematics of global temperature could be in any way modelled using linear mathematics is utterly laughable.
No it isn’t, because experience has shown that average temperature is a smooth function that almost never varies by much over a few decades (and even centuries). So a linear approximate is a relatively good one. There is room to debate the fine details (for example, the Younger Dryas, and maybe even 1998 was a abrupt jump to a “new regime.” But these are rare (and no less comforting).
A linear approximation to the time-dependence of temperature is a good one.
@Erinome
“A linear approximation to the time-dependence of temperature is a good one.”
Actually it’s not. At no point in the historical record of average temperatures is any trend of meaningful length linear. It fluctuates up and down constantly with varying magnitudes and frequencies.
One has to go back to the 1940s to find a time when a previous high temperature mark was not beaten for 10 years according to the HadCrut3 data. See:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
The 1953 mark was beaten in 1963, which was beaten in 1973, etc. So in ten years or less, a new modern day record was set. However their mark of 1998 has not been beaten yet. Every year that goes by without the 1998 record being beaten is another nail in the coffin for CAGW.
Jonathon Jones updated the wikipedia entry to show the results of the bet. It is now on r3cord at WUWT…awaiting the usual dishonest Connelley re-edit
One good indication of how much the climate science is ‘settled’ is in the way they constantly have to move the goal posts to try to cover up for the fact they been proved dead wrong . Oddly you would have thought that if they known as much as they claim and that knowledge was as perfect as they say , that is the type of thing they never have to do .
Strange how the world of climate ‘science’ works .
Jimash says:
January 13, 2012 at 2:23 pm
“Richard G says:
January 13, 2012 at 1:15 pm
“Predictions, Neils Bohr once said, are difficult, especially about the future”
“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” — Yogi Berra
Maybe Yogi Berra was a better physicist than people give him credit for.”
He was.
My favorite Yogiism : “You can observe a lot by watching “
Yogi (and most big leaguers who fail 2 out of every 3 times they face a pitcher) had to have been an amazing physicist, hitting squarely a round ball with a round bat. A ball, I might add, that is either coming in at 90+ mph from from about 55 ft away (think about where the pitcher is when he releases the ball), or coming in at 87 aimed at your ear, then curving at the last instant to finish in the catcher’s mitt hovering over the outside corner.
Ted Williams was an even better physicist – he could tell you on what part of the ball his bat had made contact.
As Casey Stengel said, “you could look it up.”
Erinome,
Not one of the ≈two dozen GCMs predicted the flat to declining temperatures over the past fourteen years. Conclusion: computer climate models can’t predict their way out of a wet paper bag.
• • •
Nick Kermode says:
“More interesting is this:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif ”
Nick, they’re fooling you. What you’re seeing there is a perfect example of “How To Lie With Charts“. They deliberately used an arbitrary zero baseline, which creates a scary looking chart [and of course the bright red doesn’t hurt their narrative, either].
Computers cannot predict trends, but the historical temperature record shows a clear rising temperature trend from the LIA. Despite natural fits and starts, we are still in that upward trend. Look what happens when you replace their arbitrary zero baseline [or any arbitrary temperature baseline] with the actual long term trend line.
The planet has been warming along the same trend since well before CO2 became an issue. That one fact proves that any warming due to CO2 is minuscule, and can be disregarded for all practical purposes.
David L says:
@Erinome
> “A linear approximation to the time-dependence of temperature is a good one.”
Actually it’s not. At no point in the historical record of average temperatures is any trend of meaningful length linear.
Prove it.
Show me your time series for globally average temperature.
Then tell me where it cannot be linearly approximated.
Smokey wrote:
Not one of the ≈two dozen GCMs predicted the flat to declining temperatures over the past fourteen years.
1. Climate models don’t predict, they project. Which of the 36 IPCC scenarios are you invoking, and which model’s assumptions are you using?
2. Surface or lower tropospheric temperatures have not been “flat to declining” over the past 14 years. The UAH LT linear trend for the past 168 months is 0.055 +/- 0.035 C/decade. In whose universe is that a flattening or a decline?
Baa Humbug says:
January 13, 2012 at 2:21 pm
I seem to recall that some years ago Mcintrick (I think) proposed a tax on carbon fuels based on global temperatures.
If temperatures go up, so does the tax, if it goes down, so does the tax.
I thought it was brilliant.
===============================
McKitrick is very brilliant, and a genuis at explaining issues to layman, however this idea I never liked.
No tax period, wasted money, wasted buracracy. Beyond that, the known facts are that CO2 is a benefit to the world, the predictions of disaster are failed.
A C of Adelaide says:
“…It occurs to me that a stock market analyst would make a much more interesting analysis of the trends… I wonder why the same techniques aren’t applied here?”
Well, stock markets have a lot to do with emotion. Pattern recognition has to do with predicting how buyers and sellers will respond to how the market is trading. Real weather / climate data has to do with empirical data.
Given the tinkering with the real data and interpretations that some “researchers” do, maybe market techniques could make it more understandable…
It seems the “mirror neurons” have a lot to do with it. Experienced players can tell from the pitcher’s grip on the ball, the arm, hand, and body motion, and the release point what the ball is likely to do. A kind of internal emulation by a mental pitcher. Hence the success of pitchers who conceal grip, or use a single arm motion, etc. No data → lousy prediction.
More stock analysts make money by selling their opinions than by actually risking their own cash.
Dr. Whitehouse;
See my comment above. Do you seriously mean that the “average” of a 10-yr period is more volatile (= unpredictable) than that of a 5-yr period? Just askin’; it seems it would be more subject to random fluctuation.
Edit prev: “it seems a shorter period’s average would be more subject to random fluctuation.” If you look at a rolling 5-yr average on any stock chart, it’s much more volatile than a 10-yr rolling average, e.g.
Baa Humbug says:
I seem to recall that some years ago Mcintrick (I think) proposed a tax on carbon fuels based on global temperatures.
If temperatures go up, so does the tax, if it goes down, so does the tax.
I thought it was brilliant.
So please tell us what is the relationship between last year’s temperature and last carbon emissions?
Be specific. Imagine you are a tax collector.
I expect you cannot to this.
Regarding predictions… Oh sorry projections… The basic problem here is understanding the difference between interpolation and extrapolation. A could use a linear trend (one degree of freedom) to fit your data. You could use a polynomial with many orders (degrees of freedom). You will get something that fits, that is, something that interpolates your data. Extrapolation is a whole other thing. Here is an exercise for anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of excel. Get some random data and fit a curve to it using the trend line functions on the charts. Now see if it can predict what the next set of random numbers will be. Unless you understand the process that is generating your data you you are just playing games.
George E. Smith; said @ January 13, 2012 at 11:39 am
Actually General Circulation Models. And I rather think that “statistical” is somewhat of an overstatement. Statistics is the science that deals with the collection, classification, analysis, and interpretation of numerical facts.
Baa Humbug said @ January 13, 2012 at 2:21 pm
I still think it’s brilliant!
He repeated the idea in the Canadian Senate hearing. The pols liked the idea that it would look good on them whatever way things went.
Smokey, you are saying the trend line in the bottom graph is the trend from the LIA, correct? Looking for clarification as the overlaying data plot is from 1880.
That’s kind of the point. It’s actually a sort of meta-wager. The collectors are betting CO2 drives temperature. The payers/suckers/voters are betting it doesn’t. You are also betting on whether the “natural variation trend” is set for 20-30 yrs of cooling.
Carrick (Jan 13, 2012 at 10:32 am):
Before betting money on the continuation of a trend, study up on the base rate fallacy. It is the fallacy that leads people to think the best estimator of Babe Ruth’s future batting average is Ruth’s past average. Actually, the best estimator lies between Ruth’s past average and the league average. People who think the best estimator is Ruth’s past average overestimate the information about a player’s future average that lies in this player’s past average.
Erinome says:
“Climate models don’t predict, they project.” That’s because they can’t predict.
And: “In whose universe is that a flattening or a decline?” In Phil Jones’ universe, for one. Jones admitted that there was no statistically significant warming over the past decade. Who are we to argue with the King of the Warmists?
The real question, of course, is: how is the minuscule fraction of a degree warming over the past century and a half a problem? It is a net benefit – as is the beneficial increase in CO2. The biosphere needs more CO2, not less. And more global warming would also be a plus. Here are a few charts to help you get the picture [more available on request] :
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
click6
click7
click8
click9
click10
click11
click12
click13
click14
click15
click16
click17
click18
click19
click20
So relax. The whole AGW scare is just a pretext to get more grant money. There is nothing to worry about – unless you’re a worry-wart. Then I can’t help you. But I think the charts above will help the undecided readers see the false alarm. Here’s a chart with a normal y-axis. No need to panic, is there?
And that STILL misses the point. Even if there had been “statistically significant warming”, there is an underlying “bounce-back” from the LIA to be accounted for first; only a further warming on top of that which could be reasonably/unambiguously attributed to CO2 increases is there any “importance” to said warming.
Smokey says:
The real question, of course, is: how is the minuscule fraction of a degree warming over the past century and a half a problem? It is a net benefit – as is the beneficial increase in CO2. The biosphere needs more CO2, not less. And more global warming would also be a plus.
Yes, you have your answers all figured out, and all your links saved.
But you strike me, Smokey, as one of the least-thinking commenters here. You see no subtleties, not colors, no degrees of distinction. You see nothing besides your claim that all CO2 is good.
You won’t engage on anything that challenges your world view. For example, you claimed that the temperature of the last 14 years was “flat or decreasing,” but when challenged on this point with actual data and calculations you avoided responding. You presented no rebuttal, and nothing to support your claim, or even to engage on the issue.
You’re reading off a script. You’re not challenging me. I’m not learning anything from you. No one is. Why should we continue?
Steve says:
“Smokey, you are saying the trend line in the bottom graph is the trend from the LIA, correct? Looking for clarification as the overlaying data plot is from 1880.”
OK, we can go back to the mid-1600’s. The long term trend from the LIA is still on track. CO2 clearly has nothing measurable to do with the trend. Despite numerous [failed] predictions to the contrary, the mild upward trend has not accelerated.
• • •
Brian H,
That is the point I’m always making: there is no way we have been able to measure any ‘human fingerprint’ in the natural warming trend since the LIA.
Brian H says:
Even if there had been “statistically significant warming”, there is an underlying “bounce-back” from the LIA to be accounted for first
What is a “bounce-back?” You make it sound like climate is a rubber ball. It isn’t. It doesn’t bounce.
When climate changes it changes for a reason. I thought this was obvious, but maybe not….
Smokey says:
there is no way we have been able to measure any ‘human fingerprint’ in the natural warming trend since the LIA.
You are wrong.
Please explain, without man-made factors, why the climate has warmed so much in the last 60 years.
Tell us
(1) how much it has warmed,
(2) how much extra heat has therefore been added to the earth system,
(3) where this heat has come from.
Erinome says:
“…you strike me, Smokey, as one of the least-thinking commenters here. You see no subtleties, not colors, no degrees of distinction. You see nothing besides your claim that all CO2 is good.”
CO2 is good. More is better. Refute that, if you can, using the scientific method. And what I ‘see’ is a lot of pseudo-scientific grant trolling motivated by money and flogging a fake “carbon” scare. If you’re one of the gullible mouth breathing True Believers, you have my sympathies. And…
“You won’t engage on anything that challenges your world view. For example, you claimed that the temperature of the last 14 years was “flat or decreasing,” but when challenged on this point with actual data and calculations you avoided responding. You presented no rebuttal, and nothing to support your claim, or even to engage on the issue.”
What planet are you living on? I’m on Earth, and I’ve just provided twenty links supporting my position and debunking yours, plus a reminder that Phil Jones admitted there has been no statistically significant warming. How is that not responding?? How is that not a major rebuttal?? How is that not engaging on the issue?? What color is the sky on your world? Green? And…
“You’re reading off a script.”
I’ve never read off a script. Is that what you say because you have no adequate response to the charts and graphs I posted debunking your belief system? And…
“You’re not challenging me. I’m not learning anything from you. No one is.”
Translation: “I can’t refute your sources, and I’m frightened by your challenge. And I pretend to speak for everyone when I say that “no one” is learning. And…
“Why should we continue?”
No one is forcing you to take an intellectual beating.
Brian H @ January 13, 2012 at 1:09 pm
“The shorter the period the more likelihood of a ‘noisy’ deviation from actual ‘trend lines’.”
Correct, and the greater likelihood it isn’t significant.
Erinome @ January 13, 2012 at 2:26 pm
“Post-1995 (that is, from 1/1996 to 11/2011, inclusive), the linear trend for HadCRUT3 is 0.074 +/- 0.019 C/decade. That’s statistically significant.”
Your error terms are incorrect because the series isn’t well behaved. See the link off my earlier post. The linear trend in the 15 year series to 2010 isn’t significant and I see no reason why moving the 15 period along a year would make any difference.
Erinome @ January 13, 2012 at 2:41 pm
“…for small time intervals any function of time can be approximate by T(t) = a+b*(t-t0)”
This time series over this time frame is strongly autocorrelated.
Ursus Augustus @ January 13, 2012 at 2:55 pm
“The notion that the mathematics of global temperature could be in any way modelled using linear mathematics is utterly laughable.”
If you mean “Linear models” and in the linear regression sense then you are absolutely correct. Perhaps not in the time series sense – a number people have suggested that over this time frame the series can be adequately modelled by various (linear) ARIMA models.
A C of Adelaide @ January 13, 2012 at 3:04 pm
“ … a stock market analyst would make a much more interesting analysis of the trends in the trends than a scientist. …. I wonder why the same techniques aren’t applied here?”
Time series analysis from economics and financial analysis do get applied to these time series, but not by mainstream climate scientists in the main.
Erinome @ January 13, 2012 at 4:14 pm
“David L says … At no point in the historical record of average temperatures is any trend of meaningful length linear.
“Prove it. Show me your time series for globally average temperature. Then tell me where it cannot be linearly approximated.”
You can linearly approximate anything, the question is is it useful? Not in this case either as a model of how temp behaves over this time period, or as a means to test the significance of any “trends” in it (assuming the formulation of a linear approximation you used @ 2:41 pm.
Erinome says @ January 13, 2012 at 4:21 pm
“Climate models don’t predict, they project.”
It is a funny thing but if you google [prediction projection model difference] the first page at least is to do with climate model. This perhaps suggests there are special distinctions made wrt climate models not shared by the rest of the community.
A prediction or a forecast based on a model gives you a prediction conditional on the assumptions of that model (cf SOED projection “11 An economic forecast or estimate based on present trends”). I can only assume you are making some special pleading for the case when predictions based on climate models come unstuck – “the assumptions were wrong”?
On how well they do at projection don’t bother about the future – how good are they at modelling the global absolute surface temperatures over the 20th century?
“Prove it. Show me your time series for globally average temperature. Then tell me where it cannot be linearly approximated.”
My goodness, an intellecual minnow !!
The fact that chosing different endpoints for your linear approximation can make a HUGE difference to the actual slope and equations proves that any linear approximation wrt climate is totally meaningless for any sort of extrapolation, and even interpolation would only be of use over very short time periods.
AndyG55 says:
The fact that chosing different endpoints for your linear approximation can make a HUGE difference to the actual slope and equations proves that any linear approximation wrt climate is totally meaningless for any sort of extrapolation, and even interpolation would only be of use over very short time periods.
Easy to say. Show me your math. What different endpoints do you mean? What is their huge difference?
Show me a period where a linear approximation is not a good one. Any period at all. Show your work.
Smokey.
Links. Yes, you have links.
Let’s go back to your first claim, that the temperature over the last 14 years is “flat or declining.”
Prove it.
To Brian H:
As a stock market modeler (and one who risks his own cash on his models) I can say with certainty that the shorter the time span of one’s prediction, the more accurate it will likely be. It is true that volatility will increase with time. Hence, betting on 5 years out is smarter than betting on 10 years.
OMG, you seriously are THICK !!!!!!
look at the record sometime.
1940-1970.. negative slope cannot extrapolate out to even +10 years
1975- 1995.. poistive slope, again extrapolated to 2010.. way off.
1940 – 1995, try to interpolate to get 1976.. way out
yes, you can approximate short term bits and pieces by short term linear approximations, but they contain NO predictive validity.
Terry:
Agreed… but there are a few places where extrapolation makes sense:
If you have a physical model like y = 1/2 g t^2 (let’s assume we’re dropping a rock towards the moon and can neglect the change in acceleration of gravity), you can do it. Band width limited periodic signals would be another example (assuming you’ve sampled at or above twice the Nyquist frequency).
In general extrapolation only works out (for more than few years) if you have an underlying physical basis for the model you are using to extrapolate from. I won’t beat a dead wookie here, but if the future forcings are intrinsically unknowable (and they are… we can’t say with any certainty when the next major eruption will occur for example), then true forecasting is impossible.
Erinome says:
You are wrong. Please explain, without man-made factors, why the climate has warmed so much in the last 60 years.
Wouldn’t it be nice if you could just say, “You were wrong”, without any citations, links or logic, and magically make that an accurate statement? Alas, the world doesn’t work like that. But since you asked, I’ll explain it for you: the planet has not warmed “so much.” That is unscientific hyperbole.
The recent warming follows the same trend line from the LIA. And as über-warmist Phil Jones admits, the same cycles have occurred regularly in the past, well before any big increase in CO2.
Next:
Tell us
(1) how much it has warmed,
(2) how much extra heat has therefore been added to the earth system,
(3) where this heat has come from.
There’s Erinome with his pocket mouse again, saying “tell us…” But since Erinome needs an education, I’m here to help. First: ‘How much has it warmed?’
Since yesterday? Since the LIA? Since the Minoan Optimum? During the Holocene? Here are 150 world temperature records. Take your pick. The globe has [naturally] warmed by a very minor ≈0.7°C – ≈0.8°C over the past century and a half. Compared to past warming and cooling events, that is extremely mild, almost static, and nothing to be worried about. Around 11,000 years ago the temperature changed by over 20°F in only a few decades. Naturally. And with very low CO2.
Next: ‘How much extra heat has been added?’ That’s not even wrong. I’ll let Prof Richard Lindzen explain. Pay attention now, because he also answers your third question:
To get up to speed I recommend reading the WUWT archives. Use the keywords that pertain to your questions. It’s tedious rehashing basic Climate For Beginners, when the archives have the answers.
The HADCRUT3 – Global Temperature Record time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1850 to 2010. It shows no additional warming since 2003. See http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
The NCDC – Global Surface Temperature Anomalies database shows a similar flat trend from 2003 to 2010 (16-May-2011, NOAA, National Climatic Data Center).
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201001-201012.gif
The annual mean anomalies Hadley Centre Central England Temperature (HadCET) dataset shows a decline of 0.5°C from 2001 to 2011. See http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
DirkH:
Maybe not quite that bad. 😛
But they are very poorly constrained (especially indirect aerosol effect), and the huge spatial variability seems to be typically ignored in the aerosol forcings models. I’m not saying Hansen’s group is the “gold standard” here…just the effect from them is admitted to be huge, and we certainly have little idea about the future time-course of their forcings.
(Put another way, just because they are poorly constrained doesn’t mean they should be ignored.)
@Smokey
“But since Erinome needs an education, I’m here to help.”
Hope you have lots of patience. You are probably going to have to go back to primary school level.
I’m sure you’re not getting paid enough !!!
Good Luck !! :-)))
“Erinome says:
January 13, 2012 at 2:26 pm
Post-1995 (that is, from 1/1996 to 11/2011, inclusive), the linear trend for HadCRUT3 is 0.074 +/- 0.019 C/decade. That’s statistically significant.”
Phil Jones was asked about the trend from 1995 on. When the figures are in for all of 2011, we will have 17 years of warming that is NOT significant at the 95% level. If you do not believe me, see the graphics at:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
Focus on the top 95% error bar for 1995 and note that it is way above the bottom error bar for the presently green 2011 line. It is so much higher that the green line cannot catch up any more for the remainder of the year.
“Erinome says:
January 13, 2012 at 8:27 pm
Let’s go back to your first claim, that the temperature over the last 14 years is “flat or declining.”
Prove it.”
The trend is very slightly negative on RSS for 14 years and 11 months and on Hadcrut3 for 14 years and 7 months. However I admit the numbers are NOT significant. So I would say you could call that “flat”. However in another 18 days, I am sure you can add another month to each of these numbers.
To prove it, for RSS:
#Selected data from 1997.08
#Least squares trend line; slope = -5.60668e-05 per year
To prove it, for HadCrut3:
#Selected data from 1997.43
#Least squares trend line; slope = -0.000793516 per year
See – owe to Rich:
A relevant issue is a prediction that the Met Office made in 2007. But I am unable to get the Wayback Machine to help find the following:
http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070810.html
================
Click on the first snapshot, July, 8, 2008:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080708230357/http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070810.html
“At least half of the years after 2009 are predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record.“
Khwarizmi – excellent, thanks, I did try that yesterday but got an error; today it works!
They talk of a 10-year period, so I suppose that’s 2010-2019 inclusive, but it’s not clear. Their latest forecast for 2012 is for 0.48+/-0.14, so 2010-2012 inclusive are unlikely to beat 1998 (see
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/2012-global-temperature-forecast ). I recall them being proud that their mean error for these predictions has only been about 0.06, but they never explain that their errors are very lopsided – nearly always overestimated, and 2011 was another case in point.
For 2012 they expect it warmer than 2011 because La Nina isn’t so strong. Well, that may be, but there is a lag between Nina and global temps, so personally I’d shoot for 2012 to be very similar to 2011, around 0.37.
In the older article they also forecast 2014 to be 0.3K higher than 2004, which would put HadCRUT3 around +0.75K. Could an El Nino year push it that high?
Rich.
Erinome says:
January 13, 2012 at 7:09 pm
You’re reading off a script. You’re not challenging me. I’m not learning anything from you. No one is. Why should we continue?
Sorry to p*ss in your porridge but I, for one, do learn things from Smokey. I’m willing to learn from anyone who has something interesting to say. Maybe you’d like to start sometime.
“Predictions, Neils Bohr once said, are difficult, especially about the future” – Niels Bohr is not the originator of that (true) statement! In Denmark it was traditionally ascribed to Robert Storm Petersen, a famous (in Denmark, at least) humourist and ‘multi artist’, but that has been proven incorrect, as well.
As far as I can tell the origin is unknown, perhaps not even Danish (sorry!).
Erinome says:
January 13, 2012 at 2:41 pm
You then go on to prove that you can calculate a Global Average temperature.
Does that make it useful?
Where is your calculation for enthalpy? Is the mean, (Tmax +Tmin)/2 actually meaningful?
DaveE.
More Or less (BBC R4) is a rare gem amongst a sea of crap.
I have 3 comments on previous subjects within this thread.
1. Re my (eventually successful) attempt to find http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070810.html , why should it be so hard? Should the Met Office not be archiving all their press releases? On their site there are links to 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009. And if you type 2008 into the URL you can see those too, though sorted in alphabetical rather than date order. But 2007 draws a blank. Are they ashamed of their old news releases, or what?
2. Though McKitrick’s proposal to link carbon taxes (if there were ever any justification for such) with global temperature, the problem is that while at the moment we have concerns about the objectivity of the data presented, by say HadCRUT3, how much more worried would we be if specific big money was related to the last 1000th of a degree of the Met Office’s wonderfully impartial assessment?
3. The moderator here pushed back on claims that WUWT did badly in the 2011 sea ice stakes. I’m afraid I don’t think there’s a leg to stand on. WUWT did very well in 2010 when the “consensus” seriously underestimated. But in 2011 WUWT did badly, no two ways about it. There are two reasons for this. The first is that it was decided to quote the mode of the WUWT votes, whereas the mean was I believe quite a bit lower, and whilst still high would not have been such an outlier. The second is that not enough people (apparently) listened to me 🙂 In predicting 4.6-4.7 (I lucked out and was close to the money), I reasoned that the lag from the 2010 El Nino would be well timed to warm the Arctic seas.
Rich.
A minor quibble:
I noticed Dr. Whitehouse made a typo, referring to RealClimate.
It’s realclimate.ORG, not .com
If it’s on purpose (which I doubt), I don’t know why he would do that. I think there’s nothing wrong with blogs that end in .com, like this one, for example.
A major quibble:
Whitehouse: “There was an upward trend, but it was statistically insignificant, which in scientific parlance equates to no trend at all.”
Jones (the famously distorted quote from the BBC interview): “Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.”
Erinome says:… etc etc
How does it feel to be schooled by Smokey? I can verify that there is life after AGW, especially CAGW, as I went through the learning process my self. It came as a great shock to me to find that
AGW “scientists” have been ignoring the contrary evidence, such as the ice core evidence that CO2 follows temps. That was 15 years ago, and ever since they have been “promoting” a belief, ie, pushing politics and religion, not science.
Now I doubt that we will ever be able to measure the warming due to CO2, as it is likely to be a fraction of a degree. The atmosphere is simply too turbulent and it is too efficient at dumping heat vertically to radiate into space. The models are fundamantally wrong, as they will never model/measure the fluid dynamics and heat transfer accurately. Thus a measurable greenhouse effect is wishful thinking. (speculating on how many fairies there could be on the head of a pin)
Erinome says:
January 13, 2012 at 4:21 pm
“1. Climate models don’t predict, they project. Which of the 36 IPCC scenarios are you invoking, and which model’s assumptions are you using?
”
You used your EU Research Framework money well and grew a monster with 36 heads; falsify one and it grows two new. Erinome, that is not science, google for “unfalsifiability” and how it relates to scientific theories.
The difference between a projection and a prediction is that a prediction can be validated, a projection not. Again; this is not how scientific theories are handled; and the CAGW models thus do not deserve to be called scientific theories.
Maybe “numerical wankery” is an appropriate term. Or “make-work projects for redundant scientists”. But the best name for it is in my opinion “Dialectic Materialism”.
erinome…. wasn’t there a dragon movie by that name? Or something like that… I recall it wasn’t very good, wasn’t very memorable, and fell flat on its’ face. Repeatedly.
Or perhaps that was Error Gnome…. he was the wizard’s assistant, but he could never quite keep people from looking at the guy behind the curtain.
A projection is an illustration of what would happen if (long list of assumptions). Its utility, if any, depends on the clarity and relevance of the assumptions.
Hence the valuelessness of the AGW speculative projections.
REP, I agree entirely with your well-written summary.
But although Anthony and the WUWT posters didn’t do badly in their predictions, the evident fact is, the scientists did considerably better.
Now climatologists are on-record predicting that numerous key “hockey stick” changes are going to accelerate in coming years. Among the “hockey sticks” are these seven: warming global temperatures, increased Arctic sea-ice melting, accelerating Greenland ice mass loss, similar mass-loss in Antarctica, accompanied by steady increases in the rate of sea-level rise, extreme land temperature records, and the incidence extreme drought conditions.
Are these seven key “hockey stick” predictions right? To assert: “There is zero chance that climate “hockey stick” changes will accelerate” is a kind of skepticism to be sure …
… but zero-chance skepticism is not rational skepticism, eh?
It seems (to me) that rational skepticism needs to develop a “Plan B” to encompass the (sobering yet plausible) possibility that the scientists are right (again), such that the seven key climate “hockey sticks” do accelerate.
A key question therefore is: What will be rational skepticism’ “Plan B”?
And one more very important prediction is at-issue today … please let me go on-record as confidently predicting for tonight … yet another thrilling Tebow/Broncos victory over Brady/New England! 🙂 🙂 🙂
A Fizz said~warming global temperatures, increased Arctic sea-ice melting, accelerating Greenland ice mass loss, similar mass-loss in Antarctica, accompanied by steady increases in the rate of sea-level rise, extreme land temperature records, and the incidence extreme drought conditions.
1. That’s what’s been happening, up until 15 years ago.
2. We’re seeing cycles in the Arctic ice, so not sure what you are saying there.
3. Recent work has shown that the central mass of the Greenland ice sheet is accumulating almost as much as is melting, and that is due to go the other way.
4. New research has shown that Antarctica isn’t going anywhere, anytime, anyhow.
5. Sea levels have been falling.
6. Only if one lives in Death Valley.
7. Australia is living proof that that assumption is a Crock. Oh, and droughts are also cyclic. And happen in cooling periods, also.
They’ve been yakking about ‘acceleration’ for 30 years, NO SIGN of it yet.
Some European @ January 14, 2012 at 4:37 am
Quoting Jones on statistical significance “Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.”
If you refer to my first comment on this thread you will see the warming over this period was not even significant at the 60% level. You need to around another 10 years to the period (1985 to 2009) to get 95% significance.
Jones doesn’t understand the statistical nature of the temperature time series and tests of statistical significance on it.
Rhys Jaggar says:
January 13, 2012 at 7:35 am
As to where things go from now?
Influences:
1. Solar – still unclear whether the two solar cycle decrease in output will really happen – if it does, contributes to cooling to 2035.
2. Oceanic – PDO now in cool mode with AMO going that way soon. Predict cooling contribution until 2025/2030.
Overall, I’d say likelihood is for further stasis or, more likely, cooling until 2030. After that, it will depend significantly on what the sun decides to do……
_____________________________________________________________
AH the ultimate warmer…. THE SUN….
Funny that just prior to all previous cooling trends there is a spike and then a time of equilibrium (flat line). Except for volcanic or meteorite causes its pretty standard cyclical response. Why is it this is ignored by the alarmists? ( I know, rhetorical question as its a power grab. The people allow it because its the “only way ” to stop some false flag calamity)..
AND NOW WE GOT US A COOLING PARTICLE EMITTED BY BURNING FOSSIL Fuels and allowing plants to live…
these alarmists are so wound up that dont know if they are coming or going… and they make NO SENSE.. at all..
Otter, the consensus among professional oceanographers (public, private, and naval alike) is the opposite: Climate and Sea Level: An Emerging Hockey Stick. James Hansen (and many other scientists) are on-record as predicting that this rise will accelerate, reaching levels later in this century that will impact billions of people.
The larger point is, all seven of the climate “hockey sticks” are coupled: if any one hockey stick accelerates, then it is likely that all seven hockey sticks will accelerate.
That is why rational skepticism needs a “Plan B”, in the event that climate change hockey-stick acceleration really happens.
A Physicist who isn’t of course. Still up to your usual tricks, eh? Seen Hansens latest video? That’s sanity?
That is why rational skepticism needs a “Plan B”, in the event that climate change hockey-stick acceleration really happens.
According to your rather unbalanced team member the acceleration is already in place but only he can see it.
A physicist says:
January 14, 2012 at 10:22 am
“the consensus among professional oceanographers ”
“The larger point is, all seven of the climate “hockey sticks” are coupled: if any one hockey stick accelerates, then it is likely that all seven hockey sticks will accelerate.”
______________________________________________________________
Hansen ET Al HOKEY TEAM!!!
taking one to many to the head renders one susceptible to illusions that only they can see….
For anyone wondering why gistemp is taking so long, I suspect the 2011 annual average is lower than what they expected.
The temperature drop could be as much as 0.16 C. I suspect part of the reason is the love /hate relationship between gistemp and its scorching love child, Australia.
Australia has just recorded its 50th warmest year on record. Although the results are preliminary:
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20120104.shtml
Its unlikely it will change much now they have released the numbers. Gistemp and Australia have a robust relationship, and as much as 56 % of the variance in gistemp can be explained by Australian anomalies.
That’s why gistemp is late in my opinion, the once reliable warmist relationship between Australia and Hanson just turned sour.
I don’t see much in the news about this. Annan should have his nose rubbed in the steaming pile of crap which is AGW alarmism.
Duster says:
January 13, 2012 at 2:46 pm
“If it weren’t for the extremely cool anomaly of 2008, the trend line on that chart would be downward rather than upward.”
Sure about that? That’s like saying if you take the ice out of your drink it will get cooler.
[snip -nice try Dave]
Just to show how open-minded and sporting I am, “Larry the Greek” volunteer to make a slightly modified wager with Dr Annan. Cooling trend, I win. Warming trend, you lose. No trend, BBC pays us both.
It seems that the additiona of data from Russia and Arctic stations to HadCRUT to make this v4 shows that David Whitehouse may not have won the bet afterall.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/1/e/PresentationMOSAC_16.4_Gordon.pdf
Louise says:
January 15, 2012 at 4:11 am
“It seems that the additiona of data from Russia and Arctic stations to HadCRUT to make this v4 shows that David Whitehouse may not have won the bet afterall.”
Ah, making the past cooler again; gives a better impression of warming. The Winston Smith’s at work. All the history rewriting you can wish for.
GISS: Making the past cooler in the Arctic.
http://www.real-science.com/new-giss-data-set-heating-arctic
CAGW science at its best.
Soviet-era quip:
“The future is certain; only the past is subject to change.”
Land and Atmosphere warming is minuscule compared to ocean warming. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL048794.shtml
I thought Connolley had his wings clipped? Can you bring us up to date on the matter? THX GK
Major9985,
Thanx for that link showing that over the past 50 years, the sea level has risen only 80mm. That is well under 2 mm per year. Since the planet is still emerging from the LIA, what else would you expect?
Furthermore, the natural rise in the sea level is not accelerating – yet another failed prediction of the alarmist contingent. How many times do you have to be proven wrong before you stop digging the hole you’re in?
He had a temporary suspension from the Editorial Board, and was banned from personally editing climate-related subjects. So he had some of his good friends carry on. Now he’s back on the board, and making up for lost time.
That is depressing news! Thanks for the skinny. GK