That letter signed by 16 scientists saying there’s “No Need to Panic About Global Warming” to the Wall Street Journal has caused a great disturbance in the farce. At last count there were no less than 19 blog rebuttals plus one new WSJ op ed piece trying to convince the alliance that all is well. It didn’t work.
But, they know the AGW Alliance Death Star has been compromised before its mission can be completed, the Rebellion has seen the plans and the Alliance knows it is only a matter of time before “the consensus” blows apart. Reports are that “Michael Mann has been tweeting furiously“, but the reinforcements he’s bringing in may not be able to stop the Rebellion as its ranks swell with ordinary people.
Here at WUWT, we had our best day ever on January 31st with 229,000 views from ordinary people, exceeding the heady days just after Climategate 1 and Copenhagen. People are coming in out of the cold to embrace the warmth and declare it good, while laughing at the folly of the alliance.
Meanwhile, the Bad Astronomer (Phil Plait er, not Jim Hansen) has been spinning in low orbit trying tell alliance forces that the past 10-15 years of stalled temperature rise are just a statistical illusion.
William Briggs, Statistician to the Stars, schools Plait on what statistics really is and writes:
Remember when I said how you shouldn’t draw straight lines in time series and then speak of the line as if the line was the data itself? About how the starting point made a big difference in the slope of the line, and how not accounting for uncertainty in the starting date translates into over-certainty in the results?
If you can’t recall, refresh your memory: How To Cheat, Or Fool Yourself, With Time Series: Climate Example.
Well, not everybody read those warnings. As an example of somebody who didn’t do his homework, I give you Phil Plait, a fellow who prides himself on exposing bad astronomy and blogs at Discover magazine. Well, Phil, old boy, I am the Statistician to the Stars—get it? get it?1—and I’m here to set you right.
The Wall Street Journal on 27 January 2012 published a letter from sixteen scientists entitled, No Need to Panic About Global Warming, the punchline of which was:
Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of “incontrovertible” evidence.
Plait in response to these seemingly ho-hum words took the approach apoplectic, and fretted that “denialists” were reaching lower. Reaching where he never said. He never did say what a “denialist” was, either; but we can guess it is defined as “Whoever disagrees with Phil Plait.”
The WSJ‘s crew said, “Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now.” This allowed Plait to break out the italics and respond, “What the what?” I would’ve guessed that the scientists’ statement was fairly clear and even true. But Plait said, “That statement, to put it bluntly, is dead wrong.” Was it?
Plait then slipped in a picture, one which he thought was a devastating touché. He was so exercised by his effort that he broke out into triumphal clichés like “crushed to dust” and “scraping the bottom of the barrel.” You know what they say about astronomers. Anyway, here’s the picture:
See that red line? It’s drawn on a time series—wait! No it isn’t. Those dots are not what Plait thinks they are. They are not—they most certainly are not—global temperatures.
Read the whole rebuttal here, well worth your time.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Kevin Trenberth, leader of “Kevin and the Thirty-Seven”, responded to the recent WSJ message by “The Cool Sixteen” who said “humanmade global warming was just not all that hot”, with this crock:
Excerpt:
“Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record. Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter.”
Now honestly Kevin+37 – do you really want your names to appear below such obvious NONSENSE? Let’s examine your statements:
1. Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. NONSENSE: Provably False, from the temperature records.
2. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record. NONSENSE: Immaterial, since it appears to be a plateau, Also, what record says it was “the warmest decade” – the past ~33 years of satellite data? The past few hundred years of thermometric data, with its warming bias? It was possibly warmer in the 1930’s, and certainly warmer during the Medieval Warm Period and Roman Warm Period.
3. Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter.” NONSENSE: Provably false, records indicate that temperatures this century are flat or declining slightly.
Finally Kevin+37, you have demonstrated a near-perfect track record of negative predictive skill – not one of your scary predictions has materialized! Should we then, statistically, disbelieve everything you predict? It appears we should.
Phil Plait is a bad man. Did you see his latest post on Bad Astronomy? He’s using facts and logic to make us deniers look incompetent! Really is this what science has come to?
Phil. the groundhog ewok contradicts Hansen.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/02/02/groundhog-day-2012-punxsutawney-phil-predicts-six-more-weeks-of-winter/
He cannot even predict what was going to happen the next day. Pathetic.
John Brookes says:
February 2, 2012 at 2:27 am
Come on! The “skeptical” position is to argue about everything, and never concede anything.
Wrong! [Tee-hee…]
Scepticism is at the heart of the practice of real science, which mainstream Climate “Science” is not!
Right, John?
Phils reply – http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/02/02/a-case-study-of-the-tactics-of-climate-change-denial-in-which-i-am-the-target/
Forbes Editorial – http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/27/remarkable-editorial-bias-on-climate-science-at-the-wall-street-journal/
Berkeley Earth on it’s statistical method – http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/#stopped
Science Blogs – http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/william_m_briggs_has_misunders.php
Open Mind – http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/william-m-briggs-numerologist-to-the-stars/
Dirk H writes,
“If people do use averages because they think it helps against the measurement error, they are right only insofar as the amplitude of the error is reduced by the root of the number of measurements; assuming a normal distribution of the error.”
Not so, look up the Central Limit Theorem. It doe not assume errors have a normal distribution, but rather proves that the under certain conditions they (approximately) will. For example, the sampling distribution of a mean becomes approximately normal as the size of random samples grows larger, regardless of whether the measurements themselves are normally distributed.
“BUT one would expect that they know that, mention it, mention the original error and the reduced error after the averaging, and I don’t recall ever having seen that.”
Where have you looked? It’s not hard to find error discussions in papers and data sites by scientists. For example, here are a few remarks regarding HadCRU:
Annual values are approximately accurate to +/- 0.05°C (two standard errors) for the period since 1951. They are about four times as uncertain during the 1850s, with the accuracy improving gradually between 1860 and 1950 except for temporary deteriorations during data-sparse, wartime intervals. Estimating accuracy is a far from a trivial task as the individual grid-boxes are not independent of each other and the accuracy of each grid-box time series varies through time (although the variance adjustment has reduced this influence to a large extent). The issue is discussed extensively by Folland et al. (2001a,b) and Jones et al. (1997). Both Folland et al. (2001a,b) references extend discussion to the estimate of accuracy of trends in the global and hemispheric series, including the additional uncertainties related to homogeneity corrections.
In the hemispheric files averages are now given to a precision of three decimal places to enable seasonal values to be calculated to ±0.01°C. The extra precision implies no greater accuracy than two decimal places.
John Brookes says:
“The ‘skeptical’ position is to argue about everything, and never concede anything.”
Wrong, John.
About a year ago I argued that the increase in CO2 was not due to human emissions. But Ferdinand Engelbeen convinced me with patience and facts, in a discussion that lasted several weeks, that much of the rise in CO2 was due to human emissions. I finally conceded that I had been wrong.
I am a skeptic, John, therefore your assertion is wrong. It is not only wrong, but it is psychological projection on your part: attributing your faults onto others. As a matter of fact, it is the alarmist crowd that will never concede that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial. If they admitted that, they would have lost their entire argument. So they refuse to concede those two verifiable facts.
Ferdinand Engelbeen has also stated that CO2 is not a problem. So concede here and now, John, that CO2 is harmless, and therefore not a problem. Admit that the rise in CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere, and that more is better. Admit it, because I don’t want you to be a hypocrite, John. Now is your chance to show that you’re a stand-up guy and a straight shooter.
Robert E. Phelan writes,
“Doesn’t look like NCDC agrees.”
Robert, you could look closer at the graph you linked, or you could look up the data and calculate for yourself. Either way, you’ll find that what I said is true: NCDC agrees with GISS that 1998 was not the hottest. And so will CRU, I’m guessing, once they too include the arctic. Then there’s BEST, which puts 1998 well down on its land-only list.
With Plait joined by Greg “bin” Laden and Kim Jong-Foster, it seems we’re down to the definition of model, the meaning of error and the pause in global warming that can’t be named. A farce indeed.
Laden’s post is hilarious.
There’s more, but that should give you an idea of what we see here. Briggs is trying to make you think that this is a horrid data set that can’t be trusted with huge internal error, but in fact, this is one of the best data sets ever put together for anything.
That has to be the stupidest statement ever displayed on the Internet. I mean, just wow — the ignorance implied therein is staggering. Yes, BEST did a marginally better job than GISS, but the raw data is absolutely horrible, as anyone who is remotely familiar with surfacestations, TOD, UHI and other issues already knows, and not remotely comparable to even some of the worst datasets gathered in respectable sciences.
Wow, again. I tip my hat, sir.
My Summary – The “Mainstream” Catastrophic Humanmade Global Warming Debate:
Conventional climate theory, assuming zero feedback, suggests that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would result in ~1 degree C of global warming. Warming alarmists say there are positive feedbacks (and build this assumption aggressively into their climate models) and climate skeptics say there are negative feedbacks.
The skeptics easily win this mainstream debate, because there is no evidence of net positive feedbacks to increased CO2 in the climate system, and ample evidence of negative feedbacks.
The probability therefore is that “climate sensitivity” to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2 is less that 1 degree C.
Furthermore, I suspect that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is unlikely to happen due to human activity – so we can expect much less than 1 degree C of global warming.
The above ASSUMES that one accepts the premises of the mainstream debate.
BUT there is perhaps a bigger problem with the mainstream debate:
Atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature at all measured time scales, from hundreds of years on a long cycle, to 9 months on a short cycle;
SO
the hypothesis that CO2 is a significant driver of global temperature, core to the mainstream debate, apparently assumes that the future is causing the past.
The popular counterarguments are:
a) The lag of CO2 after temperature is a “feedback effect”,
OR
b) It is clear evidence that time machines really do exist.
Both counterarguments a) and b) are supported by equal amounts of compelling evidence. 🙂
This thorny point may not be resolved in my lifetime, but I’ll just remind you of some of the assumptions that are near and dear to the hearts and “logic” of the global warming alarmists:
1. They apparently assume that the Uniformitarian Principle has been especially exempted for their particular brand of “science”.
2. The also assume that Occam’s Razor can similarly be ignored, apparently again, just for them.
The increasing desperation of the warming alarmists is evidenced by their evermore Byzantine explanations of the observed flat or cooling global temperatures in this century. What is it this week – aerosols, dust, volcanoes. the appalling scarcity of buffalo farts… the list of farfetched apologia is endless and increasingly pathetic.
Earlier, there was Mann-made global warming, the “Divergence Problem” and “Hide the Decline”. The list of global warmist chicanery is increasingly long and unprincipled.
Give it up, you warming dervishes, while you still can. None of your scary global warming predictions have materialized. You have demonstrated negative predictive skill. All your scary predictions have proven false. Why should anyone believe you now? I never did.
“By the way, the plotted data are from the Berkeley project, and they included error estimates in their computation. They look like this:”
Um, draw a straight line across the error estimates (which are NOT predictive anyway) at .7 or so. Now tell again me how we know for certain it’s gotten warmer.
So, he took the wrong kind of error estimates and still drew the wrong conclusion anyway. Sigh.
Even for Tamino, this is an uber-fail.
TallDave writes,
“Um, draw a straight line across the error estimates (which are NOT predictive anyway) at .7 or so. Now tell again me how we know for certain it’s gotten warmer.”
Tamino uses a method called “regression analysis” which is a reasonable choice for describing the trend in these data. The trend happens to go up. Regression doesn’t say that “for certain” but shows that the alternative hypothesis of no change is highly unlikely.
Your idea of “draw a straight line at .7 and tell me” is not a statistical technique and produces nothing that even vaguely fits the data. A flat line at .5 would be a better guess because .5 is the mean temp anomaly for this period; but regression fits 39% better than that (p < .001).
If someone fit a flat model anyway and showed a competent analyst the results (mostly negative errors through the first part of the data, mostly positive errors through the last) they'd know right away what you'd done wrong.
"Even for Tamino, this is an uber-fail."
Not.
John Brookes says:
Come on! The “skeptical” position is to argue about everything, and never concede anything.
=======================
Skeptics can be annoying, but, it is still preferable to those who believe everything and question nothing.
The BEST data set can be the best there is and quite horrid at the same time. Likewise my best rendition of Layla isn’t good at all.
Will Nitschke writes,
“it is still preferable to those who believe everything and question nothing.”
I know many scientists, but zero of them are like that. They tend to be far more skeptical, and skillfully so, than most of the posters above praising Briggs’ fuzzy note.
TedK, regarding your distaste for my reference to pink unicorns and astronomy:
I referred to astronomy looking for “pink unicorns” because astronomy has been captured by an over reliance on reifying mathematical assumptions into physical objects that have never been empirically observed.
So-called “neutron stars” have never been observed, rather, it is an assumption based on a supposed density of material that has no empirical basis in actual observation. What science does know from empirical observation is limited to various pulse rates of electromagnetic energy (which have real world laboratory empirical analogs that don’t require “super densities” of material (by the way, neutrons fly apart if packed together due to the ‘island of instability’ principle and that has been confirmed in the laboratory by empirical observation & measurement).
So-called “black holes” also have never been empirically observed, instead it is a mathematical assumption: Near infinite density (whatever that means) in a near infinitely small “point” (again, whatever that means). Even by astronomers own theorethical description “black holes” can not be directly observed (nothing escapes, not even light). The best evidence based on empirical observation is that what is actually being empirically observed is a plasmoid, which is a concentration of material, ionized elements in rapid motion, confined by magnetic fields.
So that is why I refer to astronomy looking for pink unicorns.
As an aside, I’m curious to know if most of the warmists here are not bothered by the fact that an astronomer has picked a fight with a professional statistician over the interpretation of statistics, that their main reference sources seem to consist of an amateur global warming website and an anonymous blogger who doesn’t put his real name to his work, and another gentleman who’s main expertise seems to be in archaeology? (However, please correct me if I am wrong on this last point.)
I raise this question because my observation is that most warmists tend to put enormous stock in arguments from authority, yet seem happy enough with dubious citation sources. (Phil Plait is perhaps the most guilty of this, and I suspect he has become a major embarrassment to some quarters of the sceptical community.)
I too have often wondered about this use of ‘natural variability’ as if it were some kind of causative agent. In casual use it seems to mean ‘not-CO2’, or maybe ‘anything-but-anthropogenic-CO2’. But of course it has little or no explanatory power; basically it is shorthand for ‘Let’s not jump to the conclusion that CO2 controls the Earth’s thermostat’. Which is fine, but one has to wonder what is being claimed when hearing that X is caused by ‘natural variability’. As GregO says, better to be honest and ascribe X to ‘unknown’ factors—which is the proper answer anyway, unless we do know.
/Mr Lynn
Jame Evans: actually, the BH in the center of the Milky Way has been “seen” by way of observing the stars in orbit around it. Not only do they know its mass (Kepler’s laws), they know precisely where it is.
Mark
Smokey says:
February 2, 2012 at 10:10 am
“But Ferdinand Engelbeen convinced me with patience and facts, in a discussion that lasted several weeks, that much of the rise in CO2 was due to human emissions.”
Say it ain’t so, Smokey!
I still maintain that we do not yet know. It depends on too many poorly characterized quantities having to do with the extent and behavior of natural sources and sinks, and resulting residence times.
*****
Smokey says:
February 2, 2012 at 10:10 am
About a year ago I argued that the increase in CO2 was not due to human emissions. But Ferdinand Engelbeen convinced me with patience and facts, in a discussion that lasted several weeks, that much of the rise in CO2 was due to human emissions. I finally conceded that I had been wrong.
*****
It’s a dang GOOD thing that we puny humans have been able to raise the CO2 level. It takes a global ICE-AGE to change CO2 levels by a similar amount (100 ppm). Only by increasing the CO2 level significantly does its partial-pressure rise enough to cause an increase in plant CO2/water use efficiency. 1000-1500 ppm CO2 would be ideal.
The total land area of the world is about 29% (according to Wikipedia) then 71% of the globe is unaccounted for in that excel plot, the idea of adding one average temperature measurement to another average temperature measurement from different geographical locations to require anomalous data and then suggest that this anomalous data is an accurate representation of earths temperature is silly and embarrassing, that’s without even factoring in any anomalous data from the other 71% of the planet or an anomalous representation for other factors such as heat loss etc… and then to go further and suggest mans production of a trace atmospheric gas is the cause of any Chery picked trends within the anomaly is a bit dishonest, especially when major drivers of the actual temperature readings for the anomalous data aren’t even considered and are removed for any conclusions of having any effect on the data, yet minor factors like a trace gas are considered to be major drivers of the anomaly.
Maybe I should publish hundreds of excel plots with various conclusions that do not include a trace gas as a major driver for any anomalous trend, if all it takes is an excel plot to make people like the “bad astronomer” believe something.
Sparks says:
February 4, 2012 at 10:06 am
Yes, that really is the bottom line. What has been done here is that, since the global temperature metric clearly shows a stall, they dug down and cherry picked some data which doesn’t. IOW, they are flailing.
Nice!! Way to show that cowardly Lib whos the boss. im sick of all this socialist global warming claptrap and people trying to act scientific when they dont know science.