Note: Short term predictions are relatively easy, it remains to be seen if this holds up over the long term. I have my doubts. – Anthony
Guest post by Frank Lemke
The Global Warming Prediction Project is an impartial, transparent, and independent project where no public, private or corporate funding is involved. It is about original concepts and results of inductive self-organizing modeling and prediction of global warming and related problems.
In September 2011, we presented a medium-term (79 months) quantitative prediction of monthly global mean temperatures based on an interdependent system model of the atmosphere developed by KnowledgeMiner, which was also discussed at Climate Etc. in October 2011. This model describes a non-linear dynamic system of the atmosphere consisting of 5 major climate drivers: Ozone concentration, aerosols, radiative cloud fraction, and global mean temperature as endogenous variables and sun activity (sunspot numbers) as exogenous variable of the system. This system model was obtained from monthly observation data of the past 33 years (6 variables in total: the 5 variables the system is actually composed of (see above) plus CO2, which, however, has not been identified as relevant system variable), exclusively, by unique self-organizing knowledge extraction technologies.
Now, more than a year has passed, and we can verify what has been predicted relative to the temperatures, which have really been measured (fig. 1).
Verifying the prediction skill of the system model from April 2011 to December 2012, the accuracy of the most likely forecast (solid red line) remains at a high level of 75%, and the accuracy relative to prediction uncertainty (pink area) is an exceptional 98%. Given the noise in the data (presumably incomplete set of system variables considered, noise added during measurement and preprocessing of raw observation data, or random events, for example), this clearly confirms the validity of the system model and its forecast.
In comparison, the IPCC AR4 A1B projection currently shows a prediction accuracy of 23% (September 2007 – December 2012, 64 months) and just 7% accuracy for the same forecast horizon as applied for the system model (April 2011 – December 2012, 21 months).
The two models, IPCC model and atmospheric system model, use two very different modeling approaches: theory-driven vs data-driven modeling. The IPCC model is based essentially on AGW theory by emission of greenhouse gases, namely CO2, the presented atmospheric system model on the other hand is a CO2-free prediction model. It is described by 5 other variables. The IPCC model shows a prediction accuracy of 7% and the atmospheric system model an accuracy of 75% for the same most recent 21 months of time…
The climate system is a complex system that consists of a number of variables, which are connected interdependently, nonlinearly and dynamically and where it is not clear, which are the causes and which are the effects. The simplistic linear cause-effect relationship “more atmospheric CO2 = higher temperatures” the IPCC model is based on is not an adequate tool to describe the complexity of the atmosphere sufficiently.
Read the complete post here:
http://climateprediction.eu/cc/Main/Entries/2013/1/21_What_Drives_Global_Warming_-_Update.html
DirkH, You are cherry picking. Look at the number of heat records broken in America last summer. Literally thousand of them. Record heat in Russia caused caused a drastically reduce crop and as a consequence they banned all grain exports out of Russia. What is being experienced is extreme heat in summer with extreme cold in winter, with the cold records falling at a third the rate of warm records.
Moe:
I am copying all of your post at January 26, 2013 at 12:39 am because it is so egregious that I don’t want my response to be thought ‘over the top’.
I know for certain fact that the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is an honourable and honest man whose shoes you are not worthy to lick clean.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2938
But I made no mention of him, so you asking if I called him a “lier” (sic) can only be a statement you have made about you.
I cited, referenced and explained my work which is published in the peer-reviewed literature. If it has any fault then I would like to learn of that, but I know you are plain wrong in your ignorant assertion that each molecule of anthropogenic CO2 “accumulates in the atmosphere”. Indeed, the increase in atmospheric CO2 is equivalent to less half of the anthropogenic emission (n.b. not all of it).
It is possible – but very unlikely – that the anthropogenic emission is the cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration: were you not a buffoon then you could have asked me to explain that. Instead, you chose to make a statement which is so wrong that a schoolboy could see your error (are you a schoolboy?).
Your knowledge of statistics is zero.
I wrote
You have replied
You really, really don’t have a clue what you are writing. Obviously you have done a ‘copy & paste’ from some warmunist web site. This is demonstrated by your silly comment
Work what out? The data set determines what is – and what is not – statistically significant over any time period.
The globe may have warmed or it may have cooled over the last 16 years, but any global temperature change is so small that it cannot be discerned as being different from zero (at 95% confidence). And 16 years is important because The NOAA’s State of the Climate report in 2008 said this:
There has been zero trend (at 95% confidence) in global temperature for 16+ years whether or not one includes all the data or removes the 1998 ENSO peak by extrapolating back across the peak or by interpolating across the peak. Thus, there is a “discrepancy” between reality and what the climate models “rule out”.
Putting that in plain English in hope that you can understand
The recent zero trend (at 95% confidence) in global temperature for 16+ years demonstrates that the climate models don’t work.
So, Moe, I am a true sceptic because I am a scientist. I am not as you claim a “PRETENT skeptic” (sic). Hence, I don’t accept model outputs as projections as truth unless they are shown to work. I have presented you with data which shows the models don’t work but you – being a gullible fool – have swallowed untrue propaganda which tells you to ignore the data.
Richard
RichardCourtney, you are a very curious scientist indeed that revert to name calling and be-littling of others to ‘prove’ a point. I too am a scientist, and that is why I find it curious that you will not look for a statistically significant time period to establish a temperature trend.
I suspect that you don’t want to do this because you know the answer. The Earth is warming.
Moe:
You add to your proclamations of your ignorance of statistics when you write at January 26, 2013 at 12:47 am
The weather monitoring started only about 150 years ago.
On its first day the first weather station recorded eight record values; i.e. max. and min. for temperature, precipitation, wind speed, and barometric pressure. On the following day some (possibly all) of those records would have been broken.
As time passed the period between obtaining a new record increased, but records inevitably continued to be broken. This is true for each weather monitoring site. And there are now hundreds of monitoring sites.
Therefore, a weather record is obtained somewhere on most days. This results from the short time of the monitoring (~150 years) and the large number of measurements (8 parameters measured at hundreds of monitoring sites on each of 365 days each year).
But the Earth has been warming from the Little Ice Age for centuries, so the globe warmed for most of the ~150 years that the measurements have been made. Clearly, when the measurements started there was equal probability of obtaining a record high or record low temperature. But 100 years later the globe was warmer, so there was more chance of setting high temperature records and less chance of breaking the low temperature records which were obtained when the Earth was cooler.
Discernible global warming continued until about 16 years ago. Clearly, there is now high probability of setting high temperature records because the globe has only been this hot for the last 16 years of the 150 year record. But there is little probability of setting low temperature records because the Earth was cooler for ~130 years of the monitored time.
But you say of the recent time “the cold records falling at a third the rate of warm records”.
A third! That is so high a proportion of “cold records” that it is extraordinary.
”The cold records falling at a third the rate of warm records” is strong evidence that the global warming over the last ~150 years has been trivial.
And you would have known that if you had any understanding of what you are talking about.
Richard
Moe says:
January 26, 2013 at 12:47 am
DirkH, You are cherry picking. Look at the number of heat records broken in America last summer. Literally thousand of them. Record heat in Russia caused caused a drastically reduce crop and as a consequence they banned all grain exports out of Russia. What is being experienced is extreme heat in summer with extreme cold in winter, with the cold records falling at a third the rate of warm records.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes and that means the Northern Hemisphere jet stream has gone from zonal to a meridional pattern creating ‘blocking highs’ and large swings in temperature. The shift in pattern started about the year 2000 and has become more obvious and stable.
This poleward / equatorward shift in the jets will effect albedo by causing a poleward / equatorward shift in the three main cloud bands, namely the ITCZ and the two mid latitude jets.
Throughout the late 20th century warming trend all those cloud bands were further away from the equator letting more solar shortwave in to the oceans causing a rise in Sea Surface Temperature (SST) because a poleward positioning of the cloud bands reflects less due to the lower angle of incidence of solar input and leaves more open sky in lower latitudes.
Now that the cloud bands have moved more equatorward thanks to the meridional pattern more incoming solar is being reflected from the top of the atmosphere and less energy is getting into the oceans. This effect can be seen in the graph I linked to above, note how the SST has level off.
You can see this increase in solar radiation at the Earth’s surface as a decrease in albedo.
Albedo Graph 1985 – 2005 from: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/17/earths-albedo-tells-a-interesting-story/
More recent Albedo measurements graph from: http://www.bbso.njit.edu/
Note how the albedo has been INCREASING since around the year 2000.
Additional Information:
Solar Radiation, Top of the Atmosphere, Surface, 10m below ocean Graph
Solar wavelengths vs ocean depths Graph from link use google translate link
Graph of solar radiation and earth radiation
Ozone is what absorbs UV blocking it from reaching the surface. Stratospheric ozone has been depleted by 5 to 6 percent at middle latitudes since the mid 1970’s and peaked in the 2000s.
2012 Antarctic Ozone Hole Second Smallest in 20 Years
As a chemist I think H2O and O3 have a lot more impact on the earth’s climate when compared with CO2.
MiCro says:
January 25, 2013 at 8:39 am
“And it’s these inputs that might not be derive-able from the inputs used. What will be needed are enough cycles on ENSO, that cover all of it’s various cycles, and then various inputs that might be the source of the cycles that developed, then new inputs that might be the root cause of the cycles would then be added to the model and more adaption runs, to determine if the network “finds” the required inputs to enrich the equation. Once they are identified, they would be added to the required inputs list.”
I would suggest that one of these derived inputs would be the net tidal gravity vector at the surface, calculated from the ephemeris. The model would have to include the geography of the ocean bottoms and shorelines, as these may critically affect ocean circulation. Its not a simple problem we’re looking at.
Moe:
I replied to your fallacious, offensive and insulting post at January 26, 2013 at 12:39 am with the factual refutation of your nonsense which I provided at January 26, 2013 at 4:03 am.
You have replied to my factual rebuttal at January 26, 2013 at 5:02 am saying in total
Thankyou for the compliment which says I am “a very curious scientist indeed”. Yes, being a scientist I try to be as curious as possible because curiosity is a necessary basis of science.
But I called you no “names” and I “belittled” nobody. I merely pointed out your falsehoods and explained them.
I also noted that you had made a ‘schoolboy error’, and so I reasonably asked if you are a schoolboy. You have replied by claiming you are “a scientist”. Frankly, I doubt such a claim from an anonymous internet troll who proclaims ignorance of basic statistical principles and repeats them when they are pointed out.
You have again stated that one needs to “look for a statistically significant time period to establish a temperature trend”. I can do no better than to quote my words you purport to be answering but have failed to understand
The “length of time” is not something one needs to “look for”.
And you have completely ignored my explanation of the importance of the lack of discernible global warming (at 95% confidence) over the last 16+ years. It falsifies the climate models according to the NOAA falsification criterion.
Worst of all, you conclude by asserting
As any scientist would tell you, if that were true then it is not possible to know it because there has been no discernible global warming (at 95% confidence) over the last 16+ years.
You claim to be a scientist. Possibly true, but your posts indicate you are merely another anonymous ‘cut & paste’ troll who doesn’t understand anything he/she/it has copied.
Richard
Richard,
That was a marvelous slapping of Moe, “the scientist”.
And yet another demonstration of a running-on-empty alarmist trying to challenge a full tank skeptic.
Their defective selves have no sense of any measure of significance. They inflate the meaningless, deflate the germane, conclude the preposterous and decree the baseless.
Then get offended when they are perceived to be a school boy.
RichardCourtney, I see your justificaqtion of slurs proves my point, and Steve Organ fully agrees that you are not playing nice by ‘slapping me down’. Still if you can’t understand statistics how can you understand what good behaviour is?
But getting to the nub of the issue, you stated:
The data set determines what is – and what is not – statistically significant over any time period.
I agree and asked you to be a REAL skeptic and tell me what a statistically significant time period would be. You dodged answering, because you know what that would be and the results would show the Earth is warming. Something that would undermine all your arguments.
Richard, you must be getting frustrated with climate not agreeing with you. You can can’t believe the rules of physics are wrong but are continually confronted with the results you don’t expect (but still agree with the rules of physics) without your head exploding. Be a REAL skeptic and look to see why your expectations are wrong (that is the Earth is warming), your mental health depends on it.
Steve, whose running on empty? You do a good line in school boy bullying, but once again, you resort to this because you know Earth is warming (when you care to use a significance test).
When the data and evidence is against you, you may as well slag off as you have nothing else to justify your position.
Hope you are planning for more hot and unpredictable weather (like putting aside a few more bucks for insurance premiums for instance), because what you are experiencing is only going to continue.
Please, validating the model with only the most recent 21 months? That is completely meaningless. And I say this as somebody with a ton of experience with neural nets (or whatever else this “self-organizing model” might be).
Come back and talk to me in 33 years.
rgb
@rgbatduke says:
January 26, 2013 at 2:18 pm
“Please, validating the model with only the most recent 21 months? That is completely meaningless. And I say this as somebody with a ton of experience with neural nets (or whatever else this “self-organizing model” might be).
Come back and talk to me in 33 years.”
This is true out-of-sample (ex-ante) forecast. The system model was developed in May 2011 algorithmically by software on data of 6 variables (ozone, aerosols, reflectivity, SSN, CO2, HADCRUT3) from Nov 1978 – Apr 2011 (378 months). The time constraint is simply given by the availability of satellite data (TOMS) used for the first three variables. This model (actually it is a set of nonlinear dynamic models that are interconnected) has been predicted then (in May 2011) until Nov 2017 (79 months). This prediction has been published in my original post in Sep 2011 and on Climate Etc. in Oct 2011. Neither this initial prediction nor the models have been modified since then. So the model has proven that it worked for 21 months so far.
You find further information about the system model in my original post:
http://www.climateprediction.eu/cc/Main/Entries/2011/9/13_What_Drives_Global_Warming.html
So this is NOT model validation on most recent 21 months, it is validation of the true prediction skill of that model on observed data of the past 21 months, which were not known at the time the model and the prediction was done (May 2011).
The system model was developed by inductive self-organizing modeling, which is knowledge extraction from data. It shares some concepts of Neural Networks but it goes beyond them. It is not a Neural Network. Self-organizing modeling means that the model is completely undefined at start, nothing else is given than observational data (and a learning algorithm). During self-organization an optimal complex model is evolved, autonomously, i.e., the composition of the model structure, the parameters, the relevant inputs, the individual transfer functions. Self-organization performs structure identification and parameter estimation, Neural Networks and traditional statistics only perform parameter estimation.
More on this here:
http://www.knowledgeminer.eu/about.html#som
pochas commented on Finally, a climate forecast model that works?.
“I would suggest that one of these derived inputs would be the net tidal gravity vector at the surface, calculated from the ephemeris. The model would have to include the geography of the ocean bottoms and shorelines, as these may critically affect ocean circulation. Its not a simple problem we’re looking at.”
I agree, but remember anything that effects temp, is in the temp record already, what we don’t know is if the cause of everything in the temp record is in the input records, or if we have enough of the inputs time series to recreate all of the variations of the output time series.
Consider you can construct a annual time series from hourly data, but you can’t construct an hourly series from annual data.
Also when looking at a annual world average, your change in current while creating a local hot spot, might also create a cold spot somewhere else of equal but opposite magnitude.
Moe says:
“…tell me what a statistically significant time period would be.”
Get with the program! Do we have to educate every noob who comes along??
‘Statistically significant’ = 17 years. That explains the desperate consternation among the alarmist crowd; the planet is making fools of them for their CO2=CAGW conjecture.
Moe:
I read your post addressed to me at January 26, 2013 at 1:55 pm.
Please tell me what it said other than that you are ignorant of statistics and don’t have a clue what you are talking about.
I feel sure that you intended to say something more than, that but several readings of your post fail to reveal whatever it is. So, please tell me if your post did say – or was intended to say – anything more than you are ignorant, arrogant and have an unsubstantiated belief in “it is warming”.
Richard
rgb, an observation, since it doesn’t contain a co2 input, it doesn’t necessarily have to be “right”, it just has to be more accurate than gcm’s based on raising co2.
RichardCourtney, I will explain it again, but this time so a non scientist can understand someone like D. D. Stealey for instance.
When analysing the data to see underlying trends, you must analyse sufficient data to come to a conclusion that you are confident of.
If you have insufficient data, you cannot have confidence in your conclusion.
You select a period of time whereby you are not confident of your conclusion. I suggested that you analyse more data, that will produce a statistically significant result and then tell,us all what the trend it.
Simple.
Because you profess to be a scientist, this would be second nature to you, but you refuse to do it. The only reason I can think of for you refusing to do this is because you are a pretend skeptic and do not like the answer you will get. That is, the Earth is warming. It will probably cause you a mental breakdown to accept this fact.
Well you better get your head around it because the mechanism that is in place to warm the Earth is still in place, and, as we emerge out of a solar minimum the rate of change will increase.
And please, can you come up with something better than your repetitive put downs, they are showing that you have nothing left in your tank to support your point of view.
Moe says:
“Because you profess to be a scientist,…”
Get up to speed, noob. Richard Courtney is a published, peer reviewed scientist. What are you? Just a refugee from an alarmist blog, no?
You also have no clue about my background. You are just a know-nothing peddling your alarmist nonsense here. Contrary to your assertion, scientific skeptics [of which I am one] do not assert that there is no global warming. What we know is that a natural warming trend has been in place since the end of the LIA. Further, global warming has not accelerated, despite the large infusion of [harmless, beneficial] CO2 into the atmosphere.
The lack of any acceleration in global warming solidly deconstructs your misguided belief in catastrophic AGW. Because if CO2 caused any measurable global warming, then we would be able to measure the increase. But there are no such measurements. The fact is that the alarmist crowd has no testable, verifiable scientific evidence showing that CO2 causes any measurable warming. None.
Now run along back to Shemp and Curly, they might have some new talking points for you. Because the ones you’re using don’t work here.
Hey DBStealey, I was giving you credit for realising the error that Richardscourtney was making. Ie the time period he was using was to short. As a peer reviewed scientist (could you direct me to some of his research to se how he tackled statistical significance), Richard should also be aware of his shortcomings.
The rest of your posting is a red herring, until Richard will accept his error (and you should let him fight his own battles as he should take the consequences of his own mistakes), there is nothing further to discuss. He knows He should sample a sufficient time period of data so he can get a statistically significant result. Yet he doesn’t even after several requests.
Because he repeatedly refuses to acknowledge this, he is misleading the readers. (I can tell when my point is hitting home as he tries to get the high ground by belittling me. Pity that he has to resort to those tactics to deflect the obvious critercism he is facing).
He can’t get away from it, the Earth is getting warmer.
Moe says:
“He can’t get away from it, the Earth is getting warmer.”
And you can’t get away from your belief that human activity is the reason.
It is not, at least not to any measurable degree.
Global warming has been naturally rising for hundreds of years — along the same trend line. There has been no acceleration of that warming despite the increase in CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution.
If you cannot understand what that means, let me help: it means that CO2 is getting the blame for something it isn’t causing. Can you not understand that??
Moe commented
“When analysing the data to see underlying trends, you must analyse sufficient data to come to a conclusion that you are confident of.
If you have insufficient data, you cannot have confidence in your conclusion.
You select a period of time whereby you are not confident of your conclusion. I suggested that you analyse more data, that will produce a statistically significant result and then tell,us all what the trend it.
Simple.”
Absolutely!
I’ve analyzed 240 million temp samples (daily min/max) to see how much temps drop compared to how much they went up during the preceding day, and there’s no trend.
And at ~3.5 million mean temps/day there’s some 47 million samples for the last 17 years, is that enough?
Now I also find it interesting that most of the records getting set, were previously set 50-70 years ago, you know in the 30’s and 50’s. Which had BTW ~ 50k samples/year in the 30’s, and ~500k samples/year in the 50’s. So all of your record setting temps are being compared against 1/7 to 1/70 as many samples.
“I suggest you analyze more data” too.
MiCro, your statement: I’ve analyzed 240 million temp samples (daily min/max) to see how much temps drop compared to how much they went up during the preceding day, and there’s no trend. Shows you haven’t grasped the concept either. Think about length of time, greater than 1day. In fact think.greater than 16 years as Richard has repeatedly mentioned that that will not give a statistically significant answer either.
There is no need to go back to the thirties, there is sufficient satellite data to get an answer that you will have confidence in. And the answer is you get is the Earth is warming (did you read that Richard, the answer you get is the Earth is getting warmer!).
Moe,
I didn’t say that since the 30’s there was no warming, only that there is no evidence that co2 has reduced the ability for the earth to cool at night, which is the only way that co2 can be the cause of the warming.
The 240 million samples invalidate the agw hypothesis.
Moe:
It is a new day. I have fulfilled some duties. And I come here to find you still promoting your ignorant drivel.
You have not answered my request to you at January 26, 2013 at 3:14 pm which concerned your post addressed to me at January 26, 2013 at 1:55 pm and asked you
Instead, you have published a series of posts which seem to say exactly what I understood you to have said, and they say nothing more. For example, this at January 26, 2013 at 10:12 pm
Yes, I “get it”. You understand nothing that is said to you and you understand nothing you say.
Let me refresh your memory of what has happened here. I list what you claim and others have said to you.
1.
I repeatedly explained to you that statistical significance is a function of the analysed data set. But you failed to understand that and so you have repeatedly asked for a longer time to be analysed.
2.
MiCro presented data which showed no warming since the 1930s. But your reply – in effect – says “since the 1930s” is too long because “There is no need to go back to the thirties”. And, of course, that poses the question as to what you think is long enough but not too long.
4.
You claim there is warming over the entire satellite record since 1979. But nobody disputes that: D B Stealey and I have repeatedly told you that there has been global warming over the last 150 years as recovery from the LIA. It seems you want the ‘Goldilocks option’: i.e. not to short and not too long but ‘just right’ to suite your assertion.
5.
The global temperature assessments (including both the RSS and UAH satellite determinations) EACH and ALL show there has been no discernible global warming at (95% confidence) for the last 16 years. In other words, there was global warming but there is no evidence of global warming over the most recent 16 years.
6.
The zero trend (at 95% confidence) in global warming over the last 16 falsifies the climate models according to the NOAA falsification criterion. You have studiously ignored this fact despite my repeatedly pointing it out to you.
7.
Your excuses for your refusal to accept reality have become progressively more desperate
I have repeatedly told you
But you have replied by repeatedly asserted that statistical significance is a function of the time period. IT IS NOT. It is a function of the variance of the data within any time period.
8.
Despite all evidence and argument, you persist in asserting “it is warming”. As I have repeatedly explained to you, if there is any warming or cooling at present then that cannot be known because there has been zero trend in global temperature (at 95% confidence) for the last 16+ years.
You are wrong. You know you are wrong. Everybody can see you are wrong.
But that does not matter to you because the purpose of any troll is to be a disruptive pest, and you are fulfilling your purpose.
Richard
pochas says: @ur momisugly January 26, 2013 at 8:16 am
….I would suggest that one of these derived inputs would be the net tidal gravity vector at the surface, calculated from the ephemeris. The model would have to include the geography of the ocean bottoms and shorelines, as these may critically affect ocean circulation. Its not a simple problem we’re looking at.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You might want to meander over to E.M. Smith’s blog and look at Lunar Resonance and Taurid Storms and Lunar Cycles, more than one… and Why Weather has a 60 year Lunar beat
Richard, for a PR guy, I would expect that you would know a little more about being polite. I suppose you are as good a PR guy as you are a scientist. I figured you were not a scientist when you came up with your lame excuse about statistical significance. You obviously know nothing about statistics. What area of science do you work in again? Still that doesn’t matter, your job is to confuse the uncertain.
I googled your name to see some of your scientific papers. What an eye opener. I would suggest other readers do the same. You are worse than a pest or troll, you are someone who deliberately tries to mislead people.
I am disappointed because I thought I was discussing a serious issue with you, but you are nothing but a paid fibber – not that they are getting their monies worth, you are very bad at it (at least to a REAL skeptic).
But still you have a chance to redeem yourself, just come up with a statistical significant time frame to see what is happening with the temperature trend, and let us know what it is and I will reconsider my very low opinion of you.
BTW, you very aggressive attitude and bullying behaviour I have pointed out previously has been noted by others. The only change is that you seem to be more desperate lately. I guess the pressure to perform when everything is going against you is starting to tell.
Moe says: @ur momisugly January 26, 2013 at 1:55 pm
….I agree and asked you to be a REAL skeptic and tell me what a statistically significant time period would be. You dodged answering, because you know what that would be and the results would show the Earth is warming….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard Courtney, does not have to tell you that because it has been clearly stated by Climatologists a number of times. The time period would then be counted backwards from the present as has been done by numerous people.
I also took a close look at the interpretation of the NOAA State of the Climate report in 2008 excerpt Courtney and others presented in this comment.
The fact that there is not rejoicing going on that we have no disaster pending but instead weaseling and squirming shows that CAGW was never about science but about coming up with a crisis that could be used to beat the human population into submitting to global totalitarian rule.
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing
them on the climate models.” ~ Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” ~ Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” ~ Daniel Botkin emeritus professor Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara.
The IPCC mandate states:
Humans were tried and found guilty BEFORE the IPCC ever looked at a scientific fact. The only mistake that was made was actually putting a quantified number of years (15 to 17) on what would prove the CAGW conjecture incorrect and then running out of tricks used to artificially increase the temperature. Having the satellite temperatures in the hands of honest scientists must really sting and of course a smear campaign has ensued. Actual temperature graph.
But skeptics are willing to go along with the mutilated surface temperature records and even with them you get 16 or more years of zero to negative trend at 95% confidence.
…………….
The NOAA’s State of the Climate report in 2008 said this:
“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
Dr. Phil Jones – 5 July 2005
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”
Dr. Phil Jones – 2009
“Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.”
“The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
“A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature. ”
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016263.shtml
“The LLNL-led research shows that climate models can and do simulate short, 10- to 12-year “hiatus periods” with minimal warming, even when the models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol particles. They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.”
https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html
“The multimodel average tropospheric temperature trends are outside the 5–95 percentile range of RSS results at most latitudes. The likely causes of these biases include forcing errors in the historical simulations (40–42), model response errors (43), remaining errors in satellite temperature estimates (26, 44), and an unusual manifestation of internal variability in the observations (35, 45). These explanations are not mutually exclusive. Our results suggest that forcing errors are a serious concern.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/28/1210514109.full.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/28/1210514109
In comments at Realclimate in 2007 where the latest plateau in temperatures was discussed Gavin Schmidt confirmed that he would be “worried about state of understandig” if 1998 was not dethroned as the record holder in _all_ temperature indices within 5 years. 1998 had already been dethroned by 2005 and 2007 in the GISS and NOAA indices at the time but 1998 was still the record holder in the RSS index as it is now. 5 years has gone by since then and no new record has been reached in the RSS index.
In comments Gavin confirmed this statement from a Daniel Klein: “If 1998 is not exceeded in all global temperature indices by 2013, you’ll be worried about state of understanding”
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=497#comment-78146x.
Well it hasn’t been exceeded in the latest satellite graph.
……………………
These were all given more than once by others.