# Uh oh, the Met Office has set the cat amongst the pigeons

Excerpt from Bishop Hill (plus a cartoon from Josh) showing that the claim of a statistically significant temperature rise can’t be supported, and the Met office is ducking parliamentary questions: (h/t Randy Hughes)

Met Office admits claims of significant temperature rise untenable

This is a guest post by Doug Keenan.

It has been widely claimed that the increase in global temperatures since the late 1800s is too large to be reasonably attributed to natural random variation. Moreover, that claim is arguably the biggest reason for concern about global warming. The basis for the claim has recently been discussed in the UK Parliament. It turns out that the claim has no basis, and scientists at the Met Office have been trying to cover that up.

The Parliamentary Question that started this was put by Lord Donoughue on 8 November 2012. The Question is as follows.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government … whether they consider a rise in global temperature of 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1880 to be significant. [HL3050]

The Answer claimed that “the temperature rise since about 1880 is statistically significant”. This means that the temperature rise could not be reasonably attributed to natural random variation — i.e. global warming is real.

The issue here is the claim that “the temperature rise since about 1880 is statistically significant”, which was made by the Met Office in response to the original Question (HL3050). The basis for that claim has now been effectively acknowledged to be untenable. Possibly there is some other basis for the claim, but that seems extremely implausible: the claim does not seem to have any valid basis.

Josh has a go at them:

Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
Jimmy Haigh.
May 27, 2013 6:54 am

The MET Office disappoints. – gavin

Colin Gartner
May 27, 2013 7:14 am

A terrific essay, understandable by laymen, such as myself. I encourage all to head over to Bishop Hill and read the full missive.

Green Sand
May 27, 2013 7:19 am

What really is significant is that this is the outcome of a question(s) raised in the UK Parliament.
At last we have legislators becoming aware of their responsibilities and carrying out due diligence, albeit belatedly.

Athelstan.
May 27, 2013 7:20 am

You can fool some of the people some of the time, contrary to what the civil servants at the Met Office thought – you can’t fool all of the people – all of the time Goddammit!
‘Bout time some real time employment expenditure retrenchment was made at the Met Office – with the UK CET showing a decline in average annual temperatures – the game is up.
The UK branch of the scientific warmist cabal and arguably ‘consensus central’ – is stuffed and judging by this article [see below] the same could be said of the German warmist klimatekrieg too:
http://notrickszone.com/2013/05/26/max-planck-institute-for-meteorology-prognoses-confirm-model-forecasts-warming-postponed-hundreds-of-years/
Alarmist Consensus – over and out.

onlyme
May 27, 2013 7:23 am

It only took 6 times asking substantively the same question to get an answer. Previously, the question was ducked, finally the math was done.

richard telford
May 27, 2013 7:26 am

“Met Office has set the cat amongst the pigeons”
More of a red herring than a cat. Only Keenan cannot tell the difference.
REPLY: Mr. Telford, who is on the government climate science payroll, would do well to embrace this:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”
– Upton Sinclair

-Anthony

Peter Stroud
May 27, 2013 7:31 am

Excellent work. This must be given maximum publicity. Also it must be pointed out that many other official bodies, worldwide, follow the same line. Including, of course the IPCC.

Jimmy Haigh.
May 27, 2013 7:31 am

Green Sand says:
May 27, 2013 at 7:19 am
Absolutely.
The chickens are well over the horizon…
But, as I have said many times, can we all have our money back please?

Jimmy Haigh.
May 27, 2013 7:38 am

Anthony’s reply to Richard Telford at 07:26…
Ouch…

Jim Ryan
May 27, 2013 7:41 am

From Athelstan’s link, a thing of beauty (for those of us who are fans of the absurd):
“…prognoses confirm forecasts…”
Deliciously unintelligible. Just like “…has correctly predicted that temperatures will…”, it has no semantic value. In the old days, a student would flunk a college essay for such locutions. These days they count as vindication of a scientific theory and bring millions in funding.

kim
May 27, 2013 7:43 am

Who is Lord Donahue and where has he been hiding?
================

Nick Milner
May 27, 2013 7:54 am

It’s an interesting essay but what are we to take away from it? That statistically speaking the planet isn’t actually warming after all? This seemed to be the sceptical argument from the early days but over the years hasn’t it moderated to be more along the lines of “we agree that the planet has warmed but we disagree as to the proportion that is man-made?” Is that now no longer the case? Are we, for example, to assume that the recently lauded low climate sensitivity studies are invalidated and the sensitivity should really be 0?
I ask because it looks like the “sceptical view” (if such a thing can be said to exist with any broad agreement) can’t make it’s mind up what it thinks, as long as it’s not what “the other guys” think, and you can bet that “they” will point this out.
Don’t take this the wrong way – I’m no believer in CAGW – but I don’t think this kind of flip-flopping helps anyone’s case. It’s reminds me of this scene from Galaxy Quest 🙂

May 27, 2013 7:54 am

From thefreedictionary.com:
pi·geon 1 (pjn)
n.

2. Slang One who is easily swindled; a dupe.

A brief, but substantially correct, description of many of the followers of CAGW by CO2.

May 27, 2013 7:55 am

The Met Office is the UK National Weather Service, founded in Aug of 1861. In recent years, forecasts based on the Carbon forcing model provided increasingly inaccurate long range predictions as barbie summers went cold and damp, as mandatory hose pipe bans were met with floods and the ‘warmest winter on record’ guesses were the coldest of the century. For decades the Met Office excuse was that with faster computers, long range accuracy would improve dramatically. Lavish Cray Super Computers have not improved Met guesses. With over 30,000 cold related deaths this winter due to energy poverty, the abject failure of their warmest winter bet could not be ignored, so on April 9, 2013 the Met announced that they would no longer provide ‘public’ long range forecasts, but would continue to provide that ‘service’ to the government….wink, wink. The government that pays Met operations and doesn’t mind exchanging tax money for worthless dribble….will continue to fund the charade….with no Met staff reductions. Unhappy with the official Met announcement of this change, i posted this version in comments at WUWT, now worth repeating:
The Met Office has admitted that predictions about weather and climate are beyond the ability of charlatans with super computers, and have therefore switched to the seance with poltergeist form of forecast. Future predictions will be made by the ghost of Marcel Marceau….”the mime who brought poetry to silence”….offering the public the same level of accuracy and entertainment of our recent long range forecasts.
Perhaps if the Met masters had not invested 30% of the Met pension fund in Carbon futures, there would be a more objective view of Earth’s non CO2 driven climate future.
Just saying.

slow to follow
May 27, 2013 7:57 am

onlyme says:
May 27, 2013 at 7:23 am
“…Previously, the question was ducked, finally the math was done.”
******************
The maths might have been done before the question was ducked.

Brian Johnson UK
May 27, 2013 8:01 am

What did we UK taxpayers get for buying the Met Office a shiny new number cruncher – nothing.
Will David Cameron finally realise that supporting Green Initiatives [Daddy in Law has wind farms] has to be dropped and huge subsidies for wind and solar contraptions has to stop.
A small part of the money saved could be spent on hiring a really competent Chief Scientific Officer.

May 27, 2013 8:08 am

So this will be the top headline on the BBC News this evening, won’t it?
No, didn’t think so.

Mycroft
May 27, 2013 8:15 am

i’ll try and Tweet Harribin and see what he says,no doubt the same rubbish “that its still a warming trend”
Would ask others to do the same if they are signed up to Twitter

Richard M
May 27, 2013 8:17 am

I believe this topic was brought up a few years in a blog by moderate warmist Bart Verhoven (sp?). An anonymous statistician (VC?) made the point that the warming since 1880 was not statistically significant. You should have seen the alarmists go through the roof. The thread went on and on with all the alarmists in total denial.
It’s good to see this revisited for the politicians. If anything the lack of recent warming has made this point even stronger.

Ian W
May 27, 2013 8:18 am

From the Bishop Hill post:
A Parliamentary Question that has been tabled in the House of Lords is formally answered by HM Government as a whole. In practice, HM Government assigns the Question to a relevant ministry or department. In our case, the Questions have been assigned to the Department of Energy and Climate Change
So a Parliamentary Question requesting an answer that showed there was NO statistically significant temperature change was put to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC).
The PQ was effectively: “Is there a valid reason for half of your headcount and funding?”
I think we can all see why there was a reluctance to answer.
As they have been forced into answering: “No valid reason”. Where do things go from here? The UK DECC is currently subsidizing inefficient energy production at £18 Billion a year ($28 Billion) for no valid reason and in doing so hugely inflating the costs of energy. Just in the first two weeks of March 2013 2000 people died of cold in energy poverty and since 2003 more than 250,000 UK citizens have died of cold in energy poverty.. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/9959856/Its-the-cold-not-global-warming-that-we-should-be-worried-about.html This is NOT an academic argument more people died of cold in UK in the last 10 years than military and civilian deaths in the Iraq war! While I understand people wanting to protect their budgets, headcounts and tenure, they have to realize the lethal effects of the decisions made by politicians based on the reported figures. It is time for a VERY public inquiry with no attempts to hide data or obfuscate reasoning. onlyme May 27, 2013 8:19 am slow to follow says: May 27, 2013 at 7:57 am onlyme says: May 27, 2013 at 7:23 am “…Previously, the question was ducked, finally the math was done.” ****************** The maths might have been done before the question was ducked. ****************** Correct, I falsely made the assumption of integrity on part of the responders to the original question. It is more than possible that the dissembling in the responses was done with knowledge that the math would not support the Met office claim. Gary Hladik May 27, 2013 8:26 am Love the cartoon! Gary Pearse May 27, 2013 8:26 am Do we still go with the 95% confidence level? The Max Planck Institute seems to have slipped it to the 90% confidence and then states that this level is even fraught with uncertainty!: Athelstan. says: May 27, 2013 at 7:20 am provides this link: http://notrickszone.com/2013/05/26/max-planck-institute-for-meteorology-prognoses-confirm-model-forecasts-warming-postponed-hundreds-of-years/ The models are right but warming from the doubling may be postponed for hundreds of years. The words are from two of the authors of the recent Otto et al paper. The least that can be done is to relieve Max Planck from having his name attached to this institute. His family should picket the place – he deserves to have a scientific institute with his name. Halving the ECS and still lowering the confidence level says something. Read the article – at least the MPI press release stuff. Also, it will be interesting to see who the trolls are if any (Telford above probably won’t be back after Anthony’s response to him) to argue against the change of heart of the UK Met Office. ruvfs May 27, 2013 8:31 am From the post: “This means that the temperature rise could not be reasonably attributed to natural random variation — i.e. global warming is real.” The sentence is a little confusing and clumsy. Presumably it means that the rise is statistically significant, and therefore represent something other than statistical errors, errors in measurement, and so on. It represents a real rise. The term “natural random variation” could be taken to mean that natural causes are excluded as a reason for the rise, which, I suspect is not what is intended here. Statistical significance does not in itself exclude natural variation as the major factor. May 27, 2013 8:31 am Anthony, Very much and kindly glad for this! Good wishes, Doug Peter Miller May 27, 2013 8:42 am Those living comfortably on a gravy train, especially a government one, with nowhere else to go if the truth prevails and the train derails, will obfuscate and duck and dive and wriggle and do whatever it takes to avoid admitting there was never any point to the gravy train. Bureaucratic empire building is what global warming is all about, followed closely by goofy politicians trying to display their supposed green credentials. All this nonsense is paid for by those who pay taxes; the people held in utter contempt by our ruling liberal ‘elites’. Editor May 27, 2013 8:43 am Doug Bearing in mind the Met Office is British, gets money from the British taxpayer AND is a British Govt dept I think that British MPs need to also know what is going on in Britain.(I met up with mine several weeks ago) As you may know Central England temperature-the worlds oldest instrumental record- is said by many scientists to be a reasonable (but by no means perfect) proxy for Global temperatures The latest Met office figures to 1772 show only a 0.4C anomaly http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/ Here is the Met office extended data to 1659-please note it is my own reconstruction from then to 1538 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/the-curious-case-of-rising-co2-and-falling-temperatures/ Current Temperatures after the recent decade long dip in Britain are about 0.2 degrees higher than the 1830’s, indistinguishable to the 1730-‘s and currently lower than my reconstructed figure for 1500-1540 approx. Measuring from the 1880’s is somewhat devious as it was of course a noted period of temperature decline and measuring from the trough rather than an earlier peak is always going to skew data. I have always wondered why Giss decided to measure from that 1880 point tonyb Gary Pearse May 27, 2013 8:45 am Nick Milner says: May 27, 2013 at 7:54 am “…,.Are we, for example, to assume that the recently lauded low climate sensitivity studies are invalidated and the sensitivity should really be 0?” Nick, you missed the point of the “lauding”. We realize that the Otto paper is a first step in the way back for the CAGW hardliners of the past. What was being lauded was that IPCC mainliners were chopping the sensitivity in half – this is just a start. Most thinking skeptics believe the sensitivity is 1 or less – there have been a few papers on this from Lindzen et al, Roy Spencer, etc. Moreover, many have been embracing the idea put forward by Willis Eschenbach over the last several years that there is an over-riding governor that puts a series of processes in play to counteract the warming that theoretically could come from CO2, and even the cooling that can come from aerosols volcanic and otherwise. That the Met Office has been forced (with extreme reluctance) to admit that 0.8C since 1880 is not really significant, you will agree, is newsworthy here. We know that it has warmed since the Little Ice Age when it was possible for people to walk on 8 feet thick ice from Manhattan to Staten Island and that during the American Revolutionary War, heavy cannon were rolled over the ice from New Jersey to Manhattan and a third of Finn’s died of cold and starvation…. but this was all recent natural variation which historically appears large enough to overpower any warming of significance that otherwise might be possible. John West May 27, 2013 8:48 am @Nick Milner I think most skeptics would say there’s been statistically significant temperature rise since the peak of the Little Ice Age (~1600’s) but that there are plenty of non-random natural processes to explain [some/most/all] of that warming. richard telford May 27, 2013 8:52 am REPLY: Mr. Telford, who is on the government climate science payroll, would do well to embrace this: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” – Upton Sinclair -Anthony ################################ If you have to stoop to using ad hominem arguments, you could at least ensure that the ad hominem is correct. The salary of academics is not dependent on their opinions – a concept known as academic freedom. REPLY: A famous quote is an “ad hom” LOL!. Yes no dependency, sure, no ‘publish or perish’ until such time you get that cushy deal known as tenure, where you can be free to be as loony as Paul Ehrlich without fear of losing your job. It doesn’t work that way in the real world outside academia my friend. – Anthony May 27, 2013 8:52 am The problem for the Met modellers is that, apart from the egregious structural errors in their specific models, (assuming that CO2 is the main driver when it clearly follows temperature and adding water vapour as a feedback onto CO2 to increase the sensitivity) climate science is so complex that the modelling approach is inherently incapable of providing useful forecasts. All the IPCC model projections and the impact studies and government policies which depend on them are a total waste of time and money.The only useful approach is to perform power spectrum and wavelet analysis on the temperature and possible climate driver time series to find patterns of repeating periodicities and project them forward. When this is done it is apparent that the earth entered a cooling phase in 2003-4 which will likely last for 20 more years and perhaps for several hundred years beyond that. For the data and references supporting this conclusion check the posts “Open letter to Benny Peiser ” and “Climate Forecasting Basics for Britains Seven Alarmist Scientists” at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com Gary Hladik May 27, 2013 8:52 am Nick Milner says (May 27, 2013 at 7:54 am): “It’s an interesting essay but what are we to take away from it? That statistically speaking the planet isn’t actually warming after all?” Read the beginning of the article again: It has been widely claimed that the increase in global temperatures since the late 1800s is too large to be reasonably attributed to natural random variation. Moreover, that claim is arguably the biggest reason for concern about global warming. The MET has admitted that the measured warming is in fact not too large to be attributed to natural variation. That’s in agreement with one of the skeptics’ most consistent arguments, i.e. that in light of the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Roman Warm Period, Holocene Optimum, etc., we’re still well within natural variations of the Earth’s climate system. William Astley May 27, 2013 8:55 am The fact that the MET will not answer a simple scientific question appears to support the assertion that the MET is biased and is agenda driven, rather than a neutral scientific body whose purpose is to provide data and analysis for the public and policy makers. The MET will not answer a simple scientific question with a quantified standard scientific answer (probability the 20th century warming is significant based on past warming and cooling periods in the climate record) as the answer is the 20th century warming is not unusual, not statically significant. There is a reason the ‘warmists’ will not debate the observations concerning the most basic fundamental questions concerning validating the AGW theory, related to the position of Lukewarm AGW vs Dangerous AGW: They would lose that debate. 1) Warming is not statistically significant (i.e. There has been other periods of warming and cooling in the recent human history post 1850 that is similar to the 20th century.) MET will not answer this question as the answer does not support the warmist position. 2) The latitudinal pattern of warming does not match that predicted by the AGW theory. (There is too much observed warming in the Northern Hemisphere ex-tropics. There is hardly any warming in the tropics.) See paper link to below to back up that claim.) That fact indicates a significant portion of the 20th century warming has caused by something else than CO2. Hint solar modulation of clouds. No one is even discussing this observation. 3) Even if 100% of the warming was caused by CO2 (ignoring the fact that the regions of the planet that warm do not match theory), the amount of observed warming is significantly less than what is predicted by the IPCC used general circulation models (See link below). The most recent warmist response is the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. (No one has noticed that if there is mixing of surface water with deep water that will significant reduce/cap the rate of rise of atmospheric CO2. Is there no end to the problems for the warmists?) http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc-ar5draft-fig-1-4.gif http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth The global atmospheric temperature anomalies of Earth reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded during the subsequent 10 years (William: 16 years and counting). The global anomalies are calculated from the average of climate effects occurring in the tropical and the extratropical latitude bands. El Niño/La Niña effects in the tropical band are shown to explain the 1998 maximum while variations in the background of the global anomalies largely come from climate effects in the northern extratropics. These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. (William: This observation indicates something is fundamental incorrect with the IPCC models, likely negative feedback in the tropics due to increased or decreased planetary cloud cover to resist forcing). However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback. (This indicates a significant portion of the 20th century warming has due to something rather than CO2 forcing.) The recent atmospheric global temperature anomalies of the Earth have been shown to consist of independent effects in different latitude bands. The tropical latitude band variations are strongly correlated with ENSO effects. The maximum seen in 1998 is due to the El Niño of that year. The effects in the northern extratropics are not consistent with CO2 forcing alone. …. …. An underlying temperature trend of 0.062±0.010ºK/ decade was estimated from data in the tropical latitude band. Corrections to this trend value from solar and aerosols climate forcings are estimated to be a fraction of this value. The trend expected from CO2climate forcing is 0.070g ºC/decade, where g is the gain due to any feedback. If the underlying trend is due to CO2 then g ~1. Models giving values of greater than 1 would need a negative climate forcing to partially cancel that from CO2. This negative forcing cannot be from aerosols. … …These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: “[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” Theo Goodwin May 27, 2013 9:00 am ruvfs says: May 27, 2013 at 8:31 am Very well said and very important. Whether the rise is statistically significant tells us nothing about what might have caused a significant rise and nothing about the maximum range of our data (known natural variation). To show that natural variation is not the cause, one would have to show that recent data exceed the known range of the data and that the difference is statistically significant. In layman’s terms, you have to show that the Medieval Warm Period has been exceeded and that the difference is statistically significant. A switch from actual data to “rate of warming” makes no difference as one still must show that the rate in the 20th Century exceeds that in the Medieval Warm Period and that the difference is statistically significant. kim May 27, 2013 9:03 am It was always foolish to attribute all of the warming since the LIA to AnthroGHGs, as some do, because were it so, the earth would be very cold now without it. The higher the sensitivity, the colder it would be now without man’s input. Much better to hope for a low sensitivity to CO2 and dominance of natural cycles. ============== May 27, 2013 9:05 am Since 2008 I’ve been telling you all that I noticed the air circulation across the UK starting to change from around 2000. The data in this thread confirms that observation. That followed the change in the opposite direction that subsisted during the late 20th century warming spell. In the late 1970s climate shift the jets and climate zones shifted poleward. Since 2000 they have been shifting equatorward. All else follows from that. The only correlation that appears to be duplicated at both times is solar variation. In the late 70s solar activity increased after slightly less active cycle 20 and the atmospheric circulation shifted poleward. In the late 90s the decline from active cycle 23 to quiet cycle 24 moved the atmospheric circulation equatorward. May 27, 2013 9:07 am In 2009 in my submission to the UK Parliament after climategate I stated: “The Null Hypothesis (Natural Variation) is Consistent with Global Temperatures” Four years later the UK parliament says I was right. Robert of Ottawa May 27, 2013 9:08 am What persistance on behalf of the players – including the MET’s stonewalling. Had to ask the question 6 times Robert of Ottawa May 27, 2013 9:11 am Reply to Nick Milner May 27, 2013 at 7:54 am Nick, to clarify, many people like me argue that yes, the place has warmed slightly, but it is not statistically significant; just red noise and a recovery from the little ice age. Now the MET office is agreeing. AlecM May 27, 2013 9:14 am The key issue is that Climate Alchemy depends upon incorrect physics from Sagan and Houghton. Hansen codified it and in 2011 was forced to claim that aerosol cooling was exactly equal and opposite GHG-AGW, and still the lunatics believed in the religion. The fact is, any competent objective professional with proper training** can see that the modelling is wrong. it takes a rarer individual to work out that there is a mechanism by which CO2-AGW is kept at zero, on average, and compensates for solar change. **The Met. Office is staffed by people who do not know enough physics and/or have been poorly taught. Few scientists know the S-B equation and its progenitor, the Planck Irradiation Function. I have heard physicists claim bodies emit streams of photons and Climate Alchemists claim it’s streams of heat energy. The fact is, heat transfer rate per unit volume is the negative of the integral over all wavelengths of the divergence of the monochromatic radiative flux density. So, you do not get any energy transfer until the radiation fields interact destructively. The result of this is that ‘back radiation’ is an aborted foetus of science. How anyone can teach it is beyond my ken. And to believe pyrgeometers measure it is ludicrous. The manufacturers know the truth, which is that only the net signal is real. Sagan got the aerosol physics wrong. Houghton claimed the two stream approximation can be used at an optical discontinuity and assumed that atmospheres are grey bodies. Put these two errors right and add a few twists and there can be no CO2-AGW. Scott Basinger May 27, 2013 9:15 am Telford: “More of a red herring than a cat. Only Keenan cannot tell the difference.” If you’d actually make a point rather than using snark against the author, people like myself would probably listen to what you have to say. But since you didn’t, I have to conclude that you really don’t have a valid point and that you’re so wedded to your ‘side’ that not much you have to say is worth listening to. Good luck on that. Mr Green Genes May 27, 2013 9:23 am I find it interesting that the question was put to the Department for Energy and Climate Change since, on their own website, the Met. Office proclaim themselves to be “a Trading Fund within the Department for Business Innovation and Skills, operating on a commercial basis under set targets“, however odd that may sound. As someone who, over the years, has had to deal with government bureaucracy at its most crass and unhelpful, I sense that the set-up has given the civil servants an excuse to bounce the response around Whitehall in an effort to avoid having to give a politically embarrassing answer. Kudos to Lord Donoughue for not falling for it. Jimbo May 27, 2013 9:24 am What should people expect as we came out of the Little Ice Age? Then there’s the ‘significant(?)’ rise between 2910 to 1940 when co2 was well below the ‘safe’ level. May 27, 2013 9:27 am Gary Pearse said: “Moreover, many have been embracing the idea put forward by Willis Eschenbach over the last several years that there is an over-riding governor that puts a series of processes in play to counteract the warming that theoretically could come from CO2, and even the cooling that can come from aerosols volcanic and otherwise” Yes and I’ve told you what it is. Rather than simply being changes in thunderstorm activity in the tropics as suggested by Willis it is a bodily latitudinal shift of the entire atmospheric circulation in response to any forcing element other than atmospheric mass, the strength of the gravitational field or ToA insolation. Compared to such shifts induced by solar and oceanic variations the effect of our CO2 emissions could never be measured. May 27, 2013 9:35 am This is brilliant. Let’s see what Parliament does with it. I guess they’ve got some thinking to do. Excellent work, Doug – the world needs more like you. May 27, 2013 9:40 am Isn’t this part of the IPCC report the EPA relied on for it’s endangerment finding? If so this action by the MET should effect the validity of the finding. Jimbo May 27, 2013 9:43 am Meanwhile in Germany it looks like they are having the coldest Spring in 40 years. Notrickszone Nik Marshall-Blank May 27, 2013 9:56 am No problem, the warmists will produce a new paper excluding all other papers written by people who always leave a little tea remaining in their cup or do not eat the wafer cone of an ice cream and that will leave 97% agreeing with AGW. Doug Proctor May 27, 2013 9:59 am The CAGW counter to this is that just because the temp increase from 1850 COULD be an example of “normal” variation, and so is not statistically significant, i.e standing outside noise, it doesn’t mean the temp increase IS an example of normal variation. The warmist do employ circular reasoning. But they claim that other evidence leads them to say that the warming from 1850 ISN”T natural, that it is forced by the increase in CO2. We have a non-unique solution type problem. The warmists have reframed it as a unique solution problem, and since they have found “a” solution, i.e. A-CO2, they have found THE solution. The post’s statistical statement is that the rise global temps since 1850 is not a unique solution situation. That is important and signficant in terms of the debate, but that is all: CO2 is sufficient but not necessary. CO2 as in the IPCC narrative is a necessary and sufficient cause. In the skeptic view, CO2 is a sufficient but not necessary cause, and that other factors, also sufficient but not necessary are involved. In fact, the skeptics’ case is that several factors together are both sufficient (though not necessary) AND actually the reason. When the climatologists, politicians and ideologues are stuck in the “necessary”, Unique Solution Syndrome, they are like the man who thinks the entire world is just a collection of various types of nails. Whatever the situation, he only needs a hammer; he will resist all other tools to the end of his life. Nik Marshall-Blank May 27, 2013 9:59 am Oh… and Dana Nuttynelly will have to think hard about what to write after this. John West May 27, 2013 10:01 am Jimbo says: “Meanwhile in Germany it looks like they are having the coldest Spring in 40 years.” I can relate. In my 45 years in North Carolina I cannot remember a spring this cold. This morning felt more like Easter than late May. Even the real old-timers I’ve talked to can’t remember it being this cold this late, but we did have a warm winter (so there ya go, global warming … er … uh … climate change /sarc). Nik Marshall-Blank May 27, 2013 10:02 am @Doug Proctor – It should be noted that it’s much easier to make money out of a “single known cause than “many diffuse ones”. Did I say that,,, really??? YES! Nik Marshall-Blank May 27, 2013 10:09 am Is it true that the Met Office tried to buy Apple #1 as their next super computer? Chris Riley May 27, 2013 10:13 am Andrew, now might be the time to at least begin thinking about the future of WUWT after the impending collapse of CAGW. The first task that comes to mind is making arrangements for a complete and permanent archive of all activity on this site. The second that comes to mind is that it might be time to start examining other areas where pseudoscience in service of the social engineers is imposing significant social costs. RockyRoad May 27, 2013 10:14 am Weird that the Met Office would stick so tenaciously to a prediction when the accuracy of the easiest and most practiced thing they predict (weather, you know) is considered to be 80% today, 60% tomorrow, 40% the day after, and only 20% thereafter. And since climate = weather integrated over the next 30 years (more or less), wouldn’t they have to stick with a 20% confidence level when predicting climate, since the first 3 days of that 30-year period are completely insignificant compared to the rest? I won’t hold my breath for an answer. John West May 27, 2013 10:18 am Doug Proctor says: “We have a non-unique solution type problem. The warmists have reframed it as a unique solution problem, and since they have found “a” solution, i.e. A-CO2, they have found THE solution. The post’s statistical statement is that the rise global temps since 1850 is not a unique solution situation. That is important and signficant in terms of the debate, but that is all: CO2 is sufficient but not necessary.” I made the mistake of saying that @ RealClimate once. You can probably imagine the reaction. Of course you are right, there’s way more unknowns than equations with which to isolate and solve for the variables. I will admit I can kind of understand working on solving (let’s say) 25 equations with 100 unknowns and finally finding “a” solution how one might think of it as “the” solution. That’s why a real consensus (to me) is one in which those closest to the hypothesis or “proposed solution” have convinced the rest of the scientific community of its validity; this is what climate science has utterly failed at doing. RockyRoad May 27, 2013 10:20 am There won’t be much support for the Met Office from the other side of the Atlantic considering upstate New York just got 3 FEET of that “stuff we’re never supposed to see ever again”: http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2013/05/27/where-spring-upstate-new-york-gets-3-feet-snow-on-memorial-day-weekend/?test=latestnews Or was “summer” just a few weeks long? Auto May 27, 2013 10:29 am Lord Donoughue – kim says: May 27, 2013 at 7:43 am Who is he [and more]: A link [the peerless, perennially permanently pluperfect, Wikipedia, but a start] – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Donoughue,_Baron_Donoughue Paraphrasing, a lad who made good, ‘Economist’ journalist [when the E was a decent rag, I guess]; a senior adviser in the 1970s to Prime Minister Harold Wilson [the man with more faces than the Town Hall clock] and Jim Callaghan [1974-79], then back to the Economist, then ‘The Times’, whence he was apparently dismissed by Rupert Murdoch. [Is that a badge of honour in some circles?]. Later, various good works – Orchestras, Betting Commissions (the Starting Price Regulatory Commission (SPRC)), etc. then a junior minister under ‘Tony Blair’ as we call Tony B. Liar. A couple of other comments if I may: – In London – and most of the UK, I think, but certainly London – the ‘Met’ is the Metropolitan Police. The Met Office is the Met Office. Now that Parliament has been told there is no – ahhhhh, ummm, whatever the latest ‘in-phrase’ is – Non-Natural Hotness-Spread, say, can we get back to trying to cut the deficit [if eliminated by raising income tax n the UK it would need an increase of 26% in all income tax rates to eliminate], and defending our islands. Yes, I’m British, in London. And can we have our money back? Please? richard verney May 27, 2013 10:33 am AlecM says: May 27, 2013 at 9:14 am The key issue is that Climate Alchemy depends upon incorrect physics from Sagan and Houghton. Hansen codified it and in 2011 was forced to claim that aerosol cooling was exactly equal and opposite GHG-AGW, and still the lunatics believed in the religion. //////////////////////////////////////// Alec They had to argue that aerosol cooling was more than opposite GHG-AGW. Manmade CO2 emmissions only began to rapidly increase as from WW2. There was a very rapid increase in CO2 emissions between say 1940 and 1970 when compared to the rate of increase between say 1900 and 1930. However just as manmade CO2 emissions rapidly increased temperatures fell. To explain the fall in temperatures between 1940 to say mid 1970s required the ‘warmists’ to argue that increases in manmade aerosol emissions had a greater than equal and opposite effect to the rise in GHG-AGW and that is why instead of observing warming as from the 1940s, there was cooling post 1940s. It was only after steps were taken to combat manmade aerosol emissions (claimed to be in the late 1970s) that one began to see the effect of global warming brought about by manmade emissions of CO2. Ian H May 27, 2013 10:46 am I’d like clarification as to what is meant by the word significant. Because it seems to me that it is being used in two ways. On the one hand you could defend the claim that temperature has risen risen significantly when tested against the null hypothesis that it stayed the same or decreased. On the other hand it is certainly false that the temperature has risen significantly when tested against the null hypothesis that the climate is varying naturally. May 27, 2013 10:47 am William Astley says: May 27, 2013 at 8:55 am Hint solar modulation of clouds. there is no evidence for that, quite the contrary, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cloud-Cover-GCR-Disconnect.png John Tillman May 27, 2013 11:03 am lsvalgaard says: May 27, 2013 at 10:47 am ———————————– Correlation not too bad until about 2004. Statistically significant? Maybe. What does it look like on a centennial or millennial scale instead of decennial? Thanks. Latimer Alder May 27, 2013 11:04 am @richard telford ‘The salary of academics is not dependent on their opinions – a concept known as academic freedom’ H’mm But simple salary is not the sole component of the reward package that academia offers to its participants. If it were then few would choose to do the job…there are bigger pickings for tolerably bright kids elsewhere. Academia also values direct and indirect recognition among one’s peers and others. Just look at the CV of a moderately successful Professor and it will be littered with medals and prizes and other baubles and honours that a city trader would consider totally irrelevant – but matter a lot in that field. There are conference keynotes, books to write, appearances to make, and – for example – the invitation to become an IPCC Author. And of course, all academics aspire to promotion within their field. None of these are salary dependent, but you be assured that they come few and far between within climatology to those who hold differing views from ‘the consensus’ It is disingenuous to pretend that because the direct salary is not opinion dependent an academic is under no pressure to conform. It is a group like any other group ..and conformity is prized. Bart May 27, 2013 11:05 am Keenan’s analysis highlights something Richard Courtney and I have been saying for some time on these boards: to claim “statistical significance”, you must use a model of the stochastic process. And, if your model is no good, your estimation of statistical significance is bogus. Far too often, particularly in the climate sciences, I see statistics abused in the service of denying what can be seen with the naked eye. In private industry, where we have to be sure of our results or there may be catastrophic consequences, we would never use a process model which disagreed with what we could see with a cursory glance. It has been very frustrating to me, the challenges I have received along these lines. People assume that a painfully overwrought analysis carries more weight than simple inspection. That, if you can dress your argument up in terms of Hurst parameters, or ARIMA processes, or Fokker-Plank equations, or what have you, then it is perforce of greater validity than simply looking at the data and remarking upon what you see. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is painfully easy to devise sophisticated mathematical arguments that the emperor’s clothes are substantial, when a simple observation indicates that he is starkers. In-depth analysis with powerful mathematics has its place. But, in industry, we strive for what we call “sanity checks”, simple relationships which must be verified in order to proclaim the sophisticated models valid. Very much along the lines of Doug Proctor @ May 27, 2013 at 9:59 am: you must satisfy necessary conditions, not merely sufficient. Margaret Hardman May 27, 2013 11:07 am @Ian H A true null hypothesis is that there has been no change. The null does not make an assumption about cause and effect. Significance testing sets a definable measure of the chance that a phenomenon differs from that null hypothesis. I would expect everyone on this site to agree that there has been significant warming since 1850, the CET shows it clearly. The 0.05 significance level sets a comparable bar on chance. Many areas of science go well beyond this level, to 0.01 and even 0.001. I hope this clarifies matters. Richard M May 27, 2013 11:07 am AlecM So, you do not get any energy transfer until the radiation fields interact destructively. The result of this is that ‘back radiation’ is an aborted foetus of science. Along this line I have wondered how the famous 2-slit quantum experiment applies to this radiation. The experiment demonstrates that light travelling through 2 slits forms an interference pattern on a screen. In other words, radiation is carried via waves. So, when we have two sources of radiation heading towards each other what exactly happens? Does the energy just disappear? On the other side we have conservation of energy requirements. Or, is all this just phantom energy and not real. Maybe you could clear up how this all works out. Pine Fly May 27, 2013 11:08 am Richd. Telford: “If you have to stoop to using ad hominem arguments, …” Difficult to call Telford’s original comment “argument;” but, surely it is an ad hominem attack on Douglas Keenan. There’s no science, or maths, in it. Seemed like ‘stooping’ to me. Bart May 27, 2013 11:10 am John West says: May 27, 2013 at 10:18 am Thanks for trying. Still, it is good to point out from time to time that “we can’t think of any other way it could happen” is not a statement of proof, but a remarkably frank admission of personal limitations. Theo Goodwin May 27, 2013 11:10 am Douglas J. Keenan says: May 27, 2013 at 8:31 am Thank you, Mr. Keenan, for your brilliant and heroic efforts in behalf of science. May 27, 2013 11:11 am Terence Mills published an editorial review article in Climatic Change in 2010 using structural time series models to show that a driftless I(1) process beat the stationary trend model. Mills T. C. (2010) Skinning a cat: alternative models of representing temperature trends. Climatic Change 101: 415-426, DOI 10.1007/s10584-010-9801-1. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-010-9801-1?LI=true While he acknowledged that you could plausibly adopt a number of different statistical models that imply different things about the underlying GW trend, the model he finds has the most support treats the trend portion as a driftless random walk. He concludes: The trend component is generated as a random walk process with no drift, so that a pronounced warming trend cannot be forecast. Indeed, sensitivity analysis shows that, within this class of model, it is almost impossible to deliver an increase in trend temperatures over the twenty-first century that is consistent with that projected by conventional coupled atmospheric-ocean general circulation models: to do so would require choosing ill-fitting models statistically dominated by simpler specifications and then imposing a value on the slope parameter that, on statistical grounds, is highly unlikely. Although Terence won’t be at my conference next week, a number of the main players in the debate over persistence and nonstationarity in temperature data will be presenting their work and debating these very topics. http://econapps-in-climatology.webs.com/ The IPCC should have devoted a whole chapter to the stationarity question long ago, but unfortunately it’s way over the heads of the LA’s and they have remained mired in their naive linear trend+AR(1) model for years. Cho_cacao May 27, 2013 11:15 am I’m always a bit doubtful about scientific conclusions drawn in a politcal arena… May 27, 2013 11:16 am John Tillman says: May 27, 2013 at 11:03 am Correlation not too bad until about 2004. Statistically significant? Maybe. This is a typical example of a correlation that looked good when it was publicized by Svensmark and company. A mark of a real connection would be that the correlation continued when new data is added. A mark of a spurious connection is that the correlations fails when new data is added. What does it look like on a centennial or millennial scale instead of decennial? There is no data on cloud cover on longer time scales. Billy Liar May 27, 2013 11:22 am A.D. Everard says: May 27, 2013 at 9:35 am Let’s see what Parliament does with it. I guess they’ve got some thinking to do. They will, no doubt, look vacantly at lobbyists who will tell them what to do. John Tillman May 27, 2013 11:23 am Cloud cover for Northern Europe has been reconstructed back to AD 1000. Don’t know about other regions, nor how reliable data divined from the dreaded dendro might be. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/isotope/europe/norway/forfjorddalen2012.txt The correlation does certainly appear to have failed for the past decade. Thanks. milodonharlani May 27, 2013 11:40 am Dr. McKitrick: You might think that a test of statistical significance would be required before pursuing a policy of dismantling industrial civilization based upon the untested findings. But apparently too many salaries & grants depend on practicing voodoo “science” corrupted by government & foundation funding. IMO, the IPCC won’t run such a test until the governments funding it require this elementary exercise. Governments won’t do so until taxpayers & their representatives demand it. Maybe you can convince the Harper government to make Canada the leader in this movement toward scientific validity. Thanks for all you’ve done. May 27, 2013 11:48 am I wish posts like this would simply state their argument. There’s a big bold heading saying: “Met Office admits claims of significant temperature rise untenable” But all it actually reports is a Met statement that “the temperature rise since about 1880 is statistically significant”. And if you follow the link to BH, there’s a long ramble from Doug Keenan on his opinions about the meaning of statistical significance, and confused discussion in the House of Lords. So did “Met Office admits claims of significant temperature rise untenable”? Where? How? Louis May 27, 2013 11:48 am “Lord Donoughue then tabled a Parliamentary Question…” I had to look up the word “tabled” to find out why its usage here appears to be the opposite of what “tabled” normally means. Sure enough, it can have opposite meanings depending on how and where it is used. It appears that the Queen’s English lends itself well to double-speak. I suspect that politicians have evolved it that way on purpose. tabled (Verb) 1) Postpone consideration of: “I’d like the issue to be tabled for the next few months”. 2) Present formally for discussion or consideration at a meeting: “an MP tabled an amendment to the bill”. May 27, 2013 11:53 am John Tillman says: May 27, 2013 at 11:23 am Cloud cover for Northern Europe has been reconstructed back to AD 1000. Hard to say how reliable or representative that is [and it is not ‘data’]. There does not seem to a solar signal there either: http://www.leif.org/research/Norway-Cloud-cover-Reconstr.png In particular, the Maunder Minimum had low cloud cover [should be high temps] May 27, 2013 11:56 am Soon ‘climate science’ is going to run out of options. There are two natural variables which partially correlate with the CET for whole of instrumental records: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/FromSunToCET.htm As a British taxpayer for number of decades since age of 22, I demand that my member of parliament, currently a minister, considers the above seriously, stop misusing my money, and most importantly ignore any objections from Dr. Svalgaard, who to best of my knowledge, never contributed a penny to the British exchequer, so there doc! 🙂 There is a ‘statistically significant’ degree of panic among the AGWs, also I noticed among some of their more covert supporters. Editor May 27, 2013 11:59 am Vuk I gave this chart to my MP a couple of weeks ago who has shown it to the climate minister at DECC and asked for his comments concerning the sharp increase in prices at a time of a sharp fall in temperatures http://climatereason.com/Graphs/Graph11.png tonyb SandyInLimousin May 27, 2013 11:59 am Margaret Hardman May 27, 2013 12:00 pm Nick Stokes “So did “Met Office admits claims of significant temperature rise untenable”? Where? How?” I wondered the same question. I wish the answer had been in plain speak but basically it says the Earth has been significantly warming since 1880 but with varying trends depending on what time frame you choose. Not difficult. Robert C Taylor May 27, 2013 12:09 pm Heads should roll. Trillions of dollars have been misspent on green fantasies due to this falsehood. This money could and should have been spent on resolving real problems not fabricated ones. John Tillman May 27, 2013 12:10 pm lsvalgaard says: May 27, 2013 at 11:53 am John Tillman says: May 27, 2013 at 11:23 am Cloud cover for Northern Europe has been reconstructed back to AD 1000. Hard to say how reliable or representative that is [and it is not ‘data’]. There does not seem to a solar signal there either: http://www.leif.org/research/Norway-Cloud-cover-Reconstr.png In particular, the Maunder Minimum had low cloud cover [should be high temps] ————————————- Agree of course that reconstructions aren’t data, while tree ring widths are, which is to what I assume your graph title refers. Maybe low cloud cover led to freezing nights in the Maunder. But your work does appear not to support Dr. Svensmark’s hypothesis regarding cosmic rays, clouds & climate. Editor May 27, 2013 12:17 pm @ Nick Milner: There isn’t “one skeptical consensus”. We leave “the foolish consistency hobgoblin of little minds” to the warmers. It’s an interesting essay but what are we to take away from it? That statistically speaking the planet isn’t actually warming after all? This seemed to be the sceptical argument from the early days but over the years hasn’t it moderated to be more along the lines of “we agree that the planet has warmed but we disagree as to the proportion that is man-made?” So some think “we agree the planet has warmed” while others of us do not. I, for example, take the position that it has warmed, cooled, stayed the same, and done “all of the above”. It depends 100% on where you set your start and end points and what span of time you consider. (And there is data to back this up…) So the last 8000 to 9000 years we have been in a long term cooling trend. The MWP was a touch warmer than now, too. But it was colder than now prior to the MWP, so we warmed from before. We’ve also warmed fairly dramatically out of the bottom of the Little Ice Age (when ice flows banged into the walls of Constantinople… haven’t seen that in a while). Yet it is colder now than it was in 1998 (snow in New York this holiday… ) And so it goes… There’s a “lower bound” of a glacial state, and an upper bound of a peak “interglacial state” of about 2 C more than now (only reached in the first “rush” out of a glacial as an overshoot, so no longer available to us as our sunshine 65 N is too low now, and dropping…) Between those bounds, we oscillate, on several different time scales from several different absolutely natural drivers not one of which is CO2. So depending on what cycle you pick (consciously, or accidentally by setting a length of time…) you will find warming, cooling, or oscillating sideways. What make me a skeptic is NOT the question of warming or cooling (as it is only answerable with “yes”…) but the question of “caused by people” where the answer is clearly “No!”. (Sub question of “CO2 has any significant effect?” is “substantially no, but a slight cooling in the stratosphere. Troposphere it does nothing and at the tropopause it does nearly nothing. http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/tropopause-rules/ ) So, with all that said: Always nice to see someone feeding at the public trough have to admit to being self serving and trying to scare the children to get their candy… If we are really lucky, the Parents will figure out that they need a different babysitter… William Astley May 27, 2013 12:20 pm In reply to: lsvalgaard says: May 27, 2013 at 10:47 am William Astley says: May 27, 2013 at 8:55 am Hint solar modulation of clouds. there is no evidence for that, quite the contrary, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cloud-Cover-GCR-Disconnect.png What is the point of showing a graph of GCR Vs Low level cloud for a period in which the solar magnetic cycle is inhibiting that mechanism? The inhibiting mechanism is connected with the linear reduction in the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots. Did you read Svensmark’s paper on the polar see-saw which proves the mechanism that solar modulation of planetary cloud cover causes the D-O cycle and the polar see-saw? Very interesting I would recommend it. We have just finished experience the warming phase of Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle. I guess no one noticed the Antarctic Ice sheet cooled when the Southern hemisphere and particularly the Northern hemisphere warmed. That is one of the characteristic signatures of a D-O cycle. The cooling phase is next. There is observational evidence of cooling. You should be interested in the solar implications of how magnetic cycle 24 unfolds. Have you noticed pores form rather than sunspots? That is an intermediate stage. The next stage is no pores, no sunspots and falling large scale magnetic field. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612145v1 The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays Borehole temperatures in the ice sheets spanning the past 6000 years show Antarctica repeatedly warming when Greenland cooled, and vice versa (Fig. 1) [13, 14]. North-south oscillations of greater amplitude associated with Dansgaard-Oeschger events are evident in oxygenisotope data from the Wurm-Wisconsin glaciation[15]. The phenomenon has been called the polar see-saw[15, 16], but that implies a north-south symmetry that is absent. Greenland is better coupled to global temperatures than Antarctica is, and the fulcrum of the temperature swings is near the Antarctic Circle. A more apt term for the effect is the Antarctic climate anomaly. …. ….Attempts to account for it have included the hypothesis of a south-flowing warm ocean current crossing the Equator[17] with a built-in time lag supposedly intended to match paleoclimatic data. That there is no significant delay in the Antarctic climate anomaly is already apparent at the high-frequency end of Fig. (1). While mechanisms involving ocean currents might help to intensify or reverse the effects of climate changes, they are too slow to explain the almost instantaneous operation of the Antarctic climate anomaly. … …..Figure (2a) also shows that the polar warming effect of clouds is not symmetrical, being most pronounced beyond 75◦S. In the Arctic it does no more than offset the cooling effect, despite the fact that the Arctic is much cloudier than the Antarctic (Fig. (2b)). The main reason for the difference seems to be the exceptionally high albedo of Antarctica in the absence of clouds. Gary Pearse May 27, 2013 12:26 pm Margaret Hardman says: May 27, 2013 at 11:07 am “I would expect everyone on this site to agree that there has been significant warming since 1850, the CET shows it clearly.” Margaret, you are correct. Also, few here disagree that CO2 absorbs LWIR radiation and back radiates some to the surface. However, an examination of the CET also shows that the beginning of the series doesn’t look much different than the end and that natural variability is 2 degrees or more (the mainstream CAGW proponents advise that the brunt of anthropo CO2 has been emitted since 1950 and before that it was insignificant – their main “proof” for CAGW is: What else could it be?”). So, how significant is the 0.8C rise since 1880 in terms of anthropogenic’s proprortion of it – we can’t rule out natural variability. The significance is therefore in question. The IPCC’s projections are falling outside the 5%-95% confidence limits after only a few years. This has caused a flurry of rethinking that has recently chopped the climate sensitivity to half what it was and much agonizing over a 15yr+ hiatus in warming that some warming proponents have come to think may last to 2030 or longer. To add more ice to the warming scheme, it would appear that warming at a certain stage gives birth to a number of phenomena to counteract the warming (or the cooling for that matter) – evaporation, convection, clouds, thunderstorms, organic aerosols emitted by plants under excessive heating that form nuclei for cloud formation, melting of ice, (cooling: the disappearance of these phenomena permitting more solar to reach the surface and freezing of water which emits latent heat into the atmosphere). It is a wondrous piece of engineering (I’m an engineer so it is especially pleasing to me) that is gradually getting to be more widely appreciated because of sites like WUWT. alleagra May 27, 2013 12:27 pm Will Richard Telford please explain to me and others too if they are mystified, the subtext of his remark “More of a red herring than a cat. Only Keenan cannot tell the difference.” Am I the only one in the dark? Is it not the case that :- a demonstration that there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1880 is either wrong in which case the mistake should be exposed or if right, has profound significance in terms of the billions of dollars expended in the wake of those government policies (across the globe) drawn up in response specifically to the assertion that there has been a statistically significant shift in global temperature. I am ignoring those measures aimed at restricting CO2 levels since they are always related to the putative AGW hypothesis and a balanced debate as to the results of an increased CO2 atmosphere appears to be totally lacking in government circles – trumped as it is always by the AGW thesis. Louis May 27, 2013 12:28 pm To Nick Stokes and Margaret Hardman, Re “Met Office admits claims of significant temperature rise untenable” I am not a statistician, but I was able to follow the argument presented. I think the two paragraphs below are key to answer your question if you read them carefully. I present them in reverse order because the last one clarifies the first and explains in plain English why the Met Office claim of significant temperature rise is untenable, or in other words, why their argument cannot be reasonably defended. “The second paragraph [of the Met Office answer to question 6] gives the relative likelihood of the trending autoregressive model with respect to the driftless model. The relative likelihood is 0.08, if we analyze years 1900–2012 , and it is 0.001, if we analyze years 1850–2012 (using Met Office data). In either case, then, the trending autoregressive model is much less likely than the driftless model to be the better model of the data. Hence, the statistical model that was relied upon in the Answer to the original Question (HL3050) is untenable.” “The supplement demonstrates that the likelihood of the driftless model is about 1000 times that of the trending autoregressive model. Thus the model used by HM Government should be rejected, in favor of the driftless model. With the driftless model, however, the rise in temperatures since 1880 is not significant. In other words, the correct Answer to the Question (HL3050) might be No.” May 27, 2013 12:28 pm William Astley says: May 27, 2013 at 12:20 pm What is the point of showing a graph of GCR Vs Low level cloud for a period in which the solar magnetic cycle is inhibiting that mechanism? The inhibiting mechanism is connected with the linear reduction in the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots. So, during the Maunder Minimum you would not expect GCRs to form Low Level Clouds and produce cooling, right? DirkH May 27, 2013 12:32 pm Jimbo says: May 27, 2013 at 9:43 am “Meanwhile in Germany it looks like they are having the coldest Spring in 40 years. Notrickszone” Oh yes we do. This does not shake the belief system of my warmist colleagues, though – trusting your own memory and your own senses is unscientific. “Those who are unaware they are walking in darkness, will never seek the light.”–Bruce Lee Snotrocket May 27, 2013 12:34 pm @Nick Stokes: You say: “And if you follow the link to BH, there’s a long ramble from Doug Keenan on his opinions about the meaning of statistical significance, and confused discussion in the House of Lords.” Well, as I see it, the ‘long ramble’ is as nothing compared to the way the Met Office stone-walled SIX questions about the significance of the MO’s stats. As for a ‘confused discussion in the HoL’: perhaps you could cite the item in Hansard that shows this. As far as I can see, the only confusion was within the MO and the DECC as to how they could possibly evade the question without actually lying (not the done thing in the Mother of Parliaments). That the planet has warmed is not at issue. The fact that the correlation of that warming to CO2 levels has been shown to be insignificant has put the lie to warmist dogma. And on that lie you and the Green Reich would have the West commit trillions of dollars on a wet dream, while, along the way, impoverishing millions of people, not to mention causing the deaths of many, many more. I would have had more tolerance for your views if you had responded from the point of view of the statistician that you appear to be – and challenged DK on the stats, and not the length of his article. Snotrocket May 27, 2013 12:38 pm @DirkH: Love your comments. If I may: “Those who are unaware they are walking in darkness, will never seek the light.”–Bruce Lee is surely the same as: There are none so blind as they who will not see. Nick Stokes comes to mind….. May 27, 2013 12:40 pm Louis says: May 27, 2013 at 12:28 pm Louis, it does not answer the question. This is not the Met Office “admits claims of significant temperature rise untenable”. It is still only the case that Douglas Keenan thinks they are untenable. The Met Office didn’t say so. And as Richard Telford says, his opinions are not widely shared. Here’s Lucia: “Doug is going on about the fact that a statistical model treating the of trendless data with ARIMA noise with d=1 appears to fit the data better linear trend+ ARIMA with d=0. It probably does so but that means very little becausse: 1) Physically no one expects the AGW forcings would have caused the trend to look like “straight line + noise” since whatever. 2) ARIMA with d=1 alone would violate the first law of thermo. (i.e. violates the 1st law of thermo. We don’t even need to get fancy and go to the 2nd.) 2)” Gary Pearse May 27, 2013 12:44 pm Margaret Hardman says: May 27, 2013 at 12:00 pm Nick Stokes “So did “Met Office admits claims of significant temperature rise untenable”? Where? How?” “I wondered the same question. I wish the answer had been in plain speak but basically it says the Earth has been significantly warming since 1880 but with varying trends depending on what time frame you choose. Not difficult.” You had to go to Bishop Hill for the whole story: Doug Neal is a statistician at the Met Office and after the Met Office had stonewalled for weeks on answering the MP’s question posed about 10 times, Bishop Hill contacted Doug Neal and asked him directly: “Doug McNeall is a statistician. He and I have had cordial e-mail discussions in the past. In particular, after my op-ed piece in WSJ appeared, on 12 August 2011, McNeall sent me an e-mail stating that the trending autoregressive model (used by the Met Office) is “simply inadequate”.” May 27, 2013 12:47 pm Snotrocket says: May 27, 2013 at 12:34 pm Well, the confused discussion started in the first question, which simply asked if the rise was significant. Someone had do work out what that meant. It went downhill from there. But as for statistics, I’ll pass that toLucia: “Doug is going on about the fact that a statistical model treating the of trendless data with ARIMA noise with d=1 appears to fit the data better linear trend+ ARIMA with d=0. It probably does so but that means very little becausse: 1) Physically no one expects the AGW forcings would have caused the trend to look like “straight line + noise” since whatever. 2) ARIMA with d=1 alone would violate the first law of thermo. (i.e. violates the 1st law of thermo. We don’t even need to get fancy and go to the 2nd.)” May 27, 2013 12:54 pm The truth is Global Warming/Climate Change is the excuse for politicos and bureaucrats and their cronies to reorganize the economy and society for their benefit. The sequel to Limits to Growth from the Club of Rome put out another piece of propaganda in 1992 called Beyond the Limits. Like most good propaganda it had a kernel of truth–namely this quote that ended the book that :the answers to the world’s problems begin with a ‘new humanism.” Funded of course at our expense by people who think we all exist to provide funding for them so they can administer us. Then it quotes Aurelio Peccei as follows: “The humanism consonant with our epoch must replace and reverse principles and norms that have heretofore regarded as untouchable, but that have become inapplicable,or discordant with our purpose [as Tonto would say who is ‘we’?]; it must encourage the rise of new value systems to redress our inner balance [Guess whose values?], and of new spiritual, ethical, philosophical, social, political, esthetic, and artistic motivations to fill the emptiness of our life; it must be capable of restoring within us …love, friendship, understanding, solidarity, a spirit of sacrifice, conviviality; and it must make us understand that the more closely these qualities link us to other forms of life and to our brothers and sisters everywhere in the world, the more we shall gain.” Well, since all that self-interested malarkey would be a difficult sell, we get the “sky is falling!the globe is heating up! there’s no time to spare! the UN needs to be in charge to save us all.” Hard to sell when there is demonstrably no crisis. And that new altered consciousness via education for sustainable development is just not widespread enough yet. And the UK is much further along in building its education and economy around this Statist fantasy for permanent power. richard telford May 27, 2013 12:57 pm Scott Basinger says: May 27, 2013 at 9:15 am ———————– The problem with Keenan’s analysis should be obvious. The 1 in the ARIMA(3,1,0) is needed because the data are non-stationary – the mean is not constant – the temperature is increasing. Whether this temperature increase is removed by differencing as Keenan has done, or fitted with a linear trend, depends on the aims of the analysis. Both agree that there is significant warming, and neither model can determine the cause of the warming. As the climate forcings have not increased in a linear fashion, it is not surprising that a linear trend is not a very good fit to the instrumental data. Luther Wu May 27, 2013 1:05 pm richard telford says: May 27, 2013 at 12:57 pm “…As the climate forcings have not increased in a linear fashion, it is not surprising that a linear trend is not a very good fit to the instrumental data.” ____________________ Oh, please! The instrumental data doesn’t show any trend, except no warming for quite some time while CO2 has… well, you know. Still, you make statements like that! Snotrocket May 27, 2013 1:05 pm Nick Stokes says: May 27, 2013 at 12:47 pm “Well, the confused discussion started in the first question, which simply asked if the rise was significant.” Nick: You said that the ‘confused discussion’ was in the HoL. That didn’t happen, did it? Only in your mind. Lord Donoughue’s was a written question; there is no discussion about it in the HoL – not that it didn’t take place between DECC and MO. So you ducked that one. Then you ducked the other one about commenting as a statistician. You did the classic politician’s trick of invoking ‘plausible deniability’: you didn’t answer the question directly, you quoted Lucia – and then, didn’t say whether you agree with her or not. That leaves you an out if it turns out that Lucia’s argument falls, you can claim that you only pointed to it, you didn’t endorse it. In all the years I’ve been on sceptic (or otherwise) blogs I’ve never found a warmist answer a direct question with a direct answer. Stephen Richards May 27, 2013 1:10 pm The likes of Mr Telford are increasingly, or should be increasingly, reviewing their positions. Why? well the problem for Gavin et al is that ever so gradually the big institutions appear to be “coming out”. This leaves the problem of judging the right moment for the individuals because if they leave it too late criminal procedings could be brought against them to save the rear ends of the directors of the larger instutions and the politicians. A politician in a tight scam is worse than a cornered rat. Admad May 27, 2013 1:14 pm Wet Orifice. Name says it all, really May 27, 2013 1:22 pm I submitted the following comment on the Bishop Hill site this morning: [Note: Doug Keenan’s article commented on the official UK government’s response to the repeated question both he and Lord Donoghue wanted the answer to, and included at one point the observation, “Most of the third paragraph is verbiage.” The reader should read that paragraph of the government response, to understand what the following comment, by me, is proceeding from.] It is easy to cut through that verbiage: That third paragraph is saying, “the science is settled”. I have shown, 2 1/2 years ago now, that the science is NOT settled, but wrong and indeed incompetent. As I have said over and over, climate science will not advance until my definitive evidence is properly confronted, and accepted by all. The finding presented here, that there is no statistically “significant temperature rise”, is tacit endorsement of my position, which first and foremost affirms that the Standard Atmosphere model is the stable, UNCHANGING (except to changes in the incident solar power), governing equilibrium state of the troposphere. It is that simple, and it is a revolutionary disproof of consensus climate science. In my Venus/Earth comparison, I found that the Standard Atmosphere for Earth differs from the actual temperature vs pressure profile of Venus (over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures) only due to the difference in solar distance of the two planets (simply put, and for the 1,000 mb pressure level in particular: The Venus temperature at 1000 mb is exactly what the surface temperature of Earth–also at 1000 mb–would be, if Earth were as close to the Sun as Venus–even though Venus has over 2400 times the CO2 level as Earth, 96.5% vs. .04%.) There is NO CO2 “greenhouse effect”, of increasing temperature with increasing CO2–and thus there are NO competent climate scientists, who all promulgate that false and incompetent theory. Editor May 27, 2013 1:23 pm @Robin: Per: it must encourage the rise of new value systems to redress our inner balance [Guess whose values?], and of new spiritual, ethical, philosophical, social, political, esthetic, and artistic motivations to fill the emptiness of our life; it must be capable of restoring within us …love, friendship, understanding, solidarity, a spirit of sacrifice, conviviality; Well, that explains a great deal… “The Limits to Growth” was complete and utter trash that started the “project log problems with computers” bunk in the first place. Now we see why they are so negative. For me, and most other of the Skeptics I’ve met, we’re perfectly fine at present. Not feeling at all out of balance, nor needing any new “spiritual, ethical, …” whatever “emptiness” in our lives. So don’t need anyone “restoring within us” their POV… But at least now we know why the Warmers are such Grumpy Gusses and pushing for all that “social, political” etc. force fed change. They are morally bankrupt and philosophically empty (per that quote) and desperately seeking a “fill up”… Perhaps they ought to be delivered to hospital for an enema… at least then they would be feeling “restored within”… Theo Goodwin May 27, 2013 1:26 pm Nick Stokes says: May 27, 2013 at 11:48 am The matter is very simple. Keenan’s statistic assumes no trend. As always with Alarmists, the Met Office’s statistic assumes a trend. Keenan’s gives a thousand times better fit to the data. The Bishop has created his own short version for laymen. Take a look. F. Ross May 27, 2013 1:27 pm Colin Gartner says: May 27, 2013 at 7:14 am A terrific essay, understandable by laymen, such as myself. I encourage all to head over to Bishop Hill and read the full missive. Second that! The BH post is well worth the read. May 27, 2013 1:27 pm Gary Pearse says: May 27, 2013 at 12:44 pm Gary, you quoted as the supposed Met Office admission, this from Keenan: ““Doug McNeall is a statistician. He and I have had cordial e-mail discussions in the past. In particular, after my op-ed piece in WSJ appeared, on 12 August 2011, McNeall sent me an e-mail stating that the trending autoregressive model (used by the Met Office) is “simply inadequate”” If you go to the email which DK linked, what McNeall actually said was: “A linear trend, while conveniently easy to understand and apply, is simply inadequate to capture all of the timescales that are apparent in the Earth system.” And that isn’t news to anyone. Snotrocket says: May 27, 2013 at 1:05 pm “you quoted Lucia – and then, didn’t say whether you agree with her or not.” I referred you to her statement – of course I agree with it. And yes, the confused question from a Lord was written, not verbal. Hot under the collar May 27, 2013 1:28 pm Does this mean our children will know what snow is after all? : ) Ulric Lyons May 27, 2013 1:31 pm lsvalgaard says: (Cloud cover for Northern Europe has been reconstructed back to AD 1000.) http://www.leif.org/research/Norway-Cloud-cover-Reconstr.png “In particular, the Maunder Minimum had low cloud cover [should be high temps]” With winter temp’s up there being far more variable than in summer, surely less cloud in winter means colder? Kon Dealer May 27, 2013 1:44 pm The UK Met Office would be better off with some seaweed and a old pine cone to make their long range “Predictions” May 27, 2013 1:46 pm Nick Stokes says: May 27, 2013 at 1:27 pm ……. I don’t know where you live, but most of ‘normal and sane’ people who live in UK, don’t really care what Met Office admits or doesn’t; people have realised for some time now that their projections of so called ‘global warming’ now transmuted into climate change, and consequently long term forecasts have become a national joke. Snotrocket May 27, 2013 1:47 pm Hey Nick! You must have heard: ‘When you’re in a hole, stop digging’? So, what is it? A ‘confused discussion’ (your earlier comment) or a ‘confused question’ (your latest post). And why did you need to be pushed into agreeing with Lucia’s quote? ‘Cos I could argue you took her out of context. She was discussing Mark Bofill’s earlier comment – my bold (‘I understand Lucia has argued that it isn’t possible that weather noise obeys this statistical model?’) So perhaps it was not so much an argument about ARIMA being wrong for use in climate stats as being wrong in weather stats. (I guess you would argue that weather is climate/climate is weather – delete what does not apply) F. Ross May 27, 2013 1:56 pm Louis says: May 27, 2013 at 12:28 pm To Nick Stokes and Margaret Hardman, Good post. Unfortunately those to whom you addressed will not see that. None so blind as he who will not see. Tez May 27, 2013 1:58 pm Bishop Hill writes “the Met Office should now publicly withdraw the claim. That is, the Met Office should admit that the warming shown by the global-temperature record since 1880 (or indeed 1850) might be reasonably attributed to natural random variation.” Maybe they should, but until they do it can hardly be claimed that “Met Office admits claims of significant temperature rise untenable” Seems to me that we are still at the stage of Met Office SHOULD admit claim of significant temperature rise untenable. Until they do this analyses will be looked at by many as just another denier rant. Latitude May 27, 2013 1:59 pm 0.8 degree….in 133 years I’m no longer amazed that there are people out there that stupid May 27, 2013 2:02 pm Theo Goodwin says: May 27, 2013 at 1:26 pm “The matter is very simple. Keenan’s statistic assumes no trend. As always with Alarmists, the Met Office’s statistic assumes a trend. Keenan’s gives a thousand times better fit to the data.” I think the matter is very simple. This post makes a very bold claim. “Met Office admits claims of significant temperature rise untenable”. And there is no basis for it, none even offerred. The Met office made no such admission. So now it comes down to, well, maybe Keenan has a better trendless model. But no, the comparison cited is between a first order autoregressive model with trend, and a third order (“driftless”) model. That’s no fair comparison – the third order model has more parameters to play with. And as Lucia said, no-one expects that linear rise since 1850 is the expected result of AGW. See - owe to Rich May 27, 2013 2:06 pm I’m with Richard Telford here, and I must say I have found it extremely disappointing that no-one here nor at Bishop Hill have explained what the ARIMA(3,1,0) thing is about. Just because there is a statistical model which fits the data better doesn’t mean that it is right, and even if it is right then what are its physical implications and future implications? It seems that I shall have to go to Lucia’s blackboard to find the answers, because no-one is able to elucidate here. I agree that this result undermines some of the science behind AGW, but not all of it I think. After all, neither of the 2 models under consideration include solar forcings. Models with which to test statistical significance are just models, a decent but not perfect representation of the real world. (Richard Telford wrote: The problem with Keenan’s analysis should be obvious. The 1 in the ARIMA(3,1,0) is needed because the data are non-stationary – the mean is not constant – the temperature is increasing. Whether this temperature increase is removed by differencing as Keenan has done, or fitted with a linear trend, depends on the aims of the analysis. Both agree that there is significant warming, and neither model can determine the cause of the warming. As the climate forcings have not increased in a linear fashion, it is not surprising that a linear trend is not a very good fit to the instrumental data.) Rich. May 27, 2013 2:09 pm climatereason says: May 27, 2013 at 8:43 am I looked at that reconstruction of the CET to 1538 last week on an earlier thread here. What a tremendous store of information it holds within its records. I thought it interesting that the very beginning of your reconstruction, at 1538, shows a tailing off from a warm period with a strong warming. That made me wonder what the previous years looked like, although I suspect that the warm trend would go back to early 1500s, perhaps to 1510. That would make the length of the warming approximately equal to the current warm trend from the late70s till around the late 2000s. Which could mean that you don’t have to go all the way back to the MWP to find a period that matches recent years for warming. May 27, 2013 2:12 pm climatereason says: May 27, 2013 at 8:43 am I would also like to say thanks for sharing your work where others can appreciate it. Brian H May 27, 2013 2:17 pm At the 95% ‘confidence’ level, green jelly beans cause acne. (Not the other 19 colors checked.) xkcd proved it. rogerknights May 27, 2013 2:28 pm during the American Revolutionary War, heavy cannon were rolled over the ice from New Jersey to Manhattan Make that Manhattan ==> New Jersey. Simon May 27, 2013 2:29 pm ARIMA(3,1,0) means that the time series is non-stationary which means there is a trend. An upward trend, caused probably be greenhouse gases. Louis May 27, 2013 2:43 pm Nick Stokes says: May 27, 2013 at 12:40 pm Louis says: May 27, 2013 at 12:28 pm Louis, it does not answer the question. This is not the Met Office “admits claims of significant temperature rise untenable”. It is still only the case that Douglas Keenan thinks they are untenable. The Met Office didn’t say so. The Met Office finally admitted (after 6 attempts to get them to answer) that the driftless model is 1000 times more likely to fit the data than the statistical model they use. The driftless model says that the .8 C of warming since 1850 is well within what could be expected from natural variations in temperature, thus it is not significant. So to any honest person, this is an indirect admission from the Met Office that their claim of significant temperature rise cannot be defended using current data and is thus “untenable.” Now, if you want to argue that given more time the data will change, that’s your prerogative. But then it becomes a matter of faith rather than science. The facts are, current data do not show significant warming, the small warming trend we recently experienced has stopped for over a decade while CO2 continues to increase, and there is no evidence for climate doom or other predicted ill-effects of warming beyond natural variability. For now, Occam’s razor requires us to lead with the simplest explanation that explains the current facts. When and if the data change, then we can revisit the conclusion. Until then, the simplest explanation stands. May 27, 2013 2:48 pm Ulric Lyons says: May 27, 2013 at 1:31 pm “In particular, the Maunder Minimum had low cloud cover [should be high temps]” With winter temp’s up there being far more variable than in summer, surely less cloud in winter means colder? So, you admit that cloud cover was low during the MM. Mark Bofill May 27, 2013 2:49 pm Snotrocket says: May 27, 2013 at 1:47 pm Hey Nick! You must have heard: ‘When you’re in a hole, stop digging’? So, what is it? A ‘confused discussion’ (your earlier comment) or a ‘confused question’ (your latest post). And why did you need to be pushed into agreeing with Lucia’s quote? ‘Cos I could argue you took her out of context. She was discussing Mark Bofill’s earlier comment – my bold (‘I understand Lucia has argued that it isn’t possible that weather noise obeys this statistical model?’) So perhaps it was not so much an argument about ARIMA being wrong for use in climate stats as being wrong in weather stats. (I guess you would argue that weather is climate/climate is weather – delete what does not apply) ——— Yikes! Don’t quote me as if I know what I’m talking about. I was mostly talking about the fact that I don’t understand ARIMA at all. Well, not much anyway. But particularly don’t attach significance to the weather / climate difference there; I glanced at an old blog post at the Blackboard and without a whole lot of thought or concern I came out with ‘weather noise’. So far regarding the application here, I gather that: 1. It’s a better model as far as matching the data is concerned. 2. There’s an argument against it’s use pertaining to what it means physically, in reality, having to do with random walks. That and the fact that forcings shouldn’t cause a linear trend in temps. I don’t understand why yet, still trying to figure ARIMA out. May 27, 2013 2:58 pm Stephen Wilde says: May 27, 2013 at 9:27 am Rather than simply being changes in thunderstorm activity in the tropics as suggested by Willis it is a bodily latitudinal shift of the entire atmospheric circulation in response to any forcing element other than atmospheric mass, the strength of the gravitational field or ToA insolation. What you suggest reminds me of a thought that was generated by reading how the Magnetic North had been found to be moving in the early 1900s and over the last several decades that movement has accelerated. That led me to wonder if the shifting magnetic streams could potentially pull/shift the weather systems, and effect regional changes in weather patterns? I made a comment/question regarding that idea several years ago, elsewhere. The responses were negative to the thought, but since then I have read bits and pieces from other articles that suggested correlated with the idea of magnetic streams having a tie-in with weather. Bits and pieces such as your comment. DirkH May 27, 2013 2:59 pm Nick Stokes says: May 27, 2013 at 2:02 pm “So now it comes down to, well, maybe Keenan has a better trendless model. But no, the comparison cited is between a first order autoregressive model with trend, and a third order (“driftless”) model. That’s no fair comparison – the third order model has more parameters to play with. And as Lucia said, no-one expects that linear rise since 1850 is the expected result of AGW.” Usermanual of model MAGICC… http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/wigley/magicc/UserMan5.3.v2.pdf …I count 20+ parameters… …so … what’s fair for the IPCC should be fair for skeptics, don’t you think so. Ulric Lyons May 27, 2013 3:01 pm lsvalgaard says: “So, you admit that cloud cover was low during the MM.” For Norway as the jet stream was often more southerly yes, globally no. More cloud low clouds there in winter will raise the average temp’ more than less clouds in summer will. May 27, 2013 3:15 pm Ulric Lyons says: May 27, 2013 at 3:01 pm For Norway as the jet stream was often more southerly yes, globally no. Why globally no? Bruce of Newcastle May 27, 2013 3:18 pm The UK Met Office recently mentioned the effect of the PDO and AMO on global temperature in context with their much reduced global temperature prediction out to 2017. This is encouraging since it suggests they are somewhat willing to consider the actual data. The trouble for them is that an objective examination of this combined long phase ocean cycle is it is responsible for nearly half the temperature ‘rise’ last century, due to the cycle being at bottom in 1906 and at peak in 2005, which coincidentally are the endpoints of the IPCC’s preferred period. Immediately when you backcast a GCM to the temperature record with the cycles included (presumably implemented through more accurate thermohaline cycle modelling) then derived climate sensitivity drops by that much, ie nearly half. Alone this is probably enough to falsify the CAGW hypothesis. Add the apparent effects of the Sun through the solar dynamo and you come down to a long term net equilibrium climate sensitivity similar to the short term response measured by Ray Spencer and Dick Lindzen, or about 0.7 C/doubling of pCO2, ie. harmless. NASA GSFC has acknowledged the likely effect of the solar dynamo. The UK Met Office appears not to have. If, or when, they do they will have themselves a much more accurate (and precise) climate model. But I do not think they, as CAGW supporters, will like what it will say. May 27, 2013 3:22 pm May 27, 2013 3:25 pm vukcevic says: May 27, 2013 at 3:22 pm NAO doc As its name implies is not global. Plain Richard May 27, 2013 3:26 pm Reminds me of the discussion on Long-Term Persistence (LTP) at climate dialogue: http://www.climatedialogue.org/long-term-persistence-and-trend-significance/ If one looks at variation in the surface temperature without considering known physical processes on this temperature, the LTP may be a better null hypothesis than AR1. Koutsoyiannis appears to use LTP this way and finds no significant trend. Bunde uses LTP as well but seems to control for known physical forcings and argues there is a statistical significant trend (not surprisingly smaller than using AR1). Benestad seems to argue from the global climate modeling perspective and appears to argue that a lot of the LTP is the result of known forcings, and that the models cannot explain the trend without the rise of CO2. (Sorry for the many “seems” and “appears” above. The opening pieces of each of the authors seem ok as such, but the discussion afterwards is IMO very muddled somehow.) Regarding Keenan’s piece, an argumentation is missing why the ARIMA(3,1,0) would be a valid assumption for the climate system against which the trend is tested. As others already remarked, it has more parameters than the AR1 (I think about everybody thinks AR1 is an oversimplification) and therefore likely to fit the data better, but also that the 1 in 3,1,0 actually signifies smth like a trend in itself. The point being that it should always be possible to find some manner of modelling interdependencies in time-series data such that there is no significant trend left on top of the data structure assumptions. The question is therefore which assumptions about the data is plausible, not which gives the most or least significant trend. Note the MET office referring to global climate models which are made to simulate known forcings. They say that when known forcings are accounted for that the trend is clear and significant. (And again, using AR1 to calculate significance of the trend against surface temperatures (without accounting for known forcings) is an oversimplification and significance of the trend is reached too easily.) Margaret Hardman May 27, 2013 3:33 pm @Louis This might sound Alice in Wonderland but significant has a technical definition in this context which does not mean what it does to the man in the street. Part of the problem that scientists need to overcome is in ensuring the public understand what they are saying since it is all too easy to cherry pick quotes to get one scientist agreeing that black is white, white is black and getting run over on the next zebra crossing. Furthermore, amongst the many formulations of Occam’s Razor, I think the most accepted is the one that says we accept the explanation with the fewest and simplest assumptions. This is one of the reasons why I agree with the AGW hypothesis and not those that stack untenable assumptions upon untenable assumptions. There are sometimes good reasons to choose a more complicated explanation for a phenomenon but there must always be a physical reason for accepting it. One cannot, for instance, suggest that the oceans store heat in an El Niño event when such an event is giving energy up. Hope this clears up any misconceptions you might have. AlexS May 27, 2013 3:47 pm “…amongst the many formulations of Occam’s Razor, I think the most accepted is the one that says we accept the explanation with the fewest and simplest assumptions. This is one of the reasons why I agree with the AGW hypothesis…” That is just false. The explanation “with fewest and simplest assumption” is that any change is natural variation. We can’t even measure temperature reliably and you jump already to “explanations”. William Astley May 27, 2013 3:51 pm In reply to: lsvalgaard says: May 27, 2013 at 12:28 pm William Astley says: May 27, 2013 at 12:20 pm What is the point of showing a graph of GCR Vs Low level cloud for a period in which the solar magnetic cycle is inhibiting that mechanism? The inhibiting mechanism is connected with the linear reduction in the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots. So, during the Maunder Minimum you would not expect GCRs to form Low Level Clouds and produce cooling, right? The inhibiting mechanism is transient. When the inhibiting mechanism ceases the planet will cool relatively quickly. The inhibiting mechanism causes there to be an increase in high level clouds which offsets the increase in low level clouds. As I said the high Northern regions are now starting to cool. (Do your remember the paper that notes there is a 10 to 12 year delay in cooling when there is a change in the solar cycle length?) The Arctic sea ice will recover. There will be a drop in temperature on the Greenland Ice sheet. What we are observing has happened before. Plain Richard May 27, 2013 3:51 pm @AlexS “natural variation” isn’t even wrong! 😀 May 27, 2013 3:55 pm William Astley says: May 27, 2013 at 3:51 pm “So, during the Maunder Minimum you would not expect GCRs to form Low Level Clouds and produce cooling, right?” The inhibiting mechanism is transient. When the inhibiting mechanism ceases the planet will cool relatively quickly. So, how long does the transient mechanism last? [in particular during the Maunder Minimum] Presumably when it stops sunspots rapidly form again, right? John F. Hultquist May 27, 2013 3:59 pm The post prompted me to look at HadCET http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/ I note the chart is plotted based on “ the 1961-1990 average” and the red line (10-year running mean” is less than 0.5 at its right-side end; meaning it would be lower if the base used the 1981-2010 period. The page seems not to mention the green line of the far right-side. That’s the line that sinks to -1.0, a negative anomaly. Those with challenged vision may want to use the magnifier to view this green line. philincalifornia May 27, 2013 4:01 pm Margaret Hardman says: May 27, 2013 at 3:33 pm This is one of the reasons why I agree with the AGW hypothesis ——————————————————————– Doesn’t pass the smell test Margaret, sorry. Like the good little warmist you are, you have your conclusion in place first, and then seek to redefine Occam’s razor with an incorrect assumption count, bolstered by a strawman. FAIL Are you Kevin Trenberth’s Mom ?? May 27, 2013 4:03 pm Louis says: May 27, 2013 at 2:43 pm “So to any honest person, this is an indirect admission from the Met Office…” The headline said nothing about an indirect admission. It said, in bold, “Met Office admits claims of significant temperature rise untenable” And to any honest person, that just isn’t true. But beyond that, what are the alleged claims? No-one claims that temperatures have been rising linearly since 1850, and this is in no way a claim of AGW. But that is what this test tests. And it is meaningless, because it pits a third order AR driftless against a first order with trend. All that says is that you can get more improvement with a higher order analysis of the noise than trying to fit a line. Since no-one expected a line to fit well, no surprise there. The test in that answer does not mean that “The driftless model says that the .8 C of warming since 1850 is well within what could be expected from natural variations in temperature, thus it is not significant.” It is a comparison test, saying only that third order driftless does better than first order with trend. It does not say what you claim. Editor May 27, 2013 4:08 pm Gold minor said “What a tremendous store of information it holds within its records. I thought it interesting that the very beginning of your reconstruction, at 1538, shows a tailing off from a warm period with a strong warming. That made me wonder what the previous years looked like, although I suspect that the warm trend would go back to early 1500s, perhaps to 1510. ” Thanks for your kind comments. Ironically I use the Met Office library and archives in my research. I am currently back to 1500 and yes it is around as warm as today during the period from then to 1538 I am currently seeking the transition decades between MWP and LIA as that will fill in the gap between around 1300 to the current start date of my reconstruction in 1538. It takes about a year to research all the material I need then months to put it all together, so hopefully look out for part 2 of ‘The long slow thaw’ in early winter. tonyb Kev-in-Uk May 27, 2013 4:28 pm Margaret Hardman says: May 27, 2013 at 3:33 pm quote/ Furthermore, amongst the many formulations of Occam’s Razor, I think the most accepted is the one that says we accept the explanation with the fewest and simplest assumptions. This is one of the reasons why I agree with the AGW hypothesis and not those that stack untenable assumptions upon untenable assumptions. There are sometimes good reasons to choose a more complicated explanation for a phenomenon but there must always be a physical reason for accepting it. One cannot, for instance, suggest that the oceans store heat in an El Niño event when such an event is giving energy up. /quote ”..and not those that stack untenable assumptions upon untenable assumptions”.??? As far as I can tell the AGW hypothesis relies entirely upon these stacked untenable assumptions of which you speak! Things like, the sun has no real effect, feedbacks are mostly positive, the data we have collected is ‘correct’ (no UHI, or it’s been ‘taken care’ of! LOL), palaeo proxy data is ‘correct’ (Yamal anybody?), etc, etc – and of course the absolute corker – that 100 years or so of crappy (so really good, homogenised and gridded data from inumerous different stations and thermometers, etc) data can accurately reflect and predict the changes in a climate that has been going up and down like a brides nightie for the last 4.6 billion years! As others have noted, the basic hypothesis that increased CO2 can cause warming is indeed relatively ‘valid’ – but the AGW hypothesis that the ‘alleged’ observed warming is mostly anthropogenic is based on many many assumptions (mostly that ‘other’ things are not affecting temperature!) and based on inumerable assumptions/estimations/etc in order to derive the supposed sensitivity to CO2 doubling which is the crux of the AGW hypothesis. In short, I think you just shot your own beliefs down in one paragraph – if you care to think about it? D.I. May 27, 2013 4:28 pm Wet Office at It again,Slingo should read Slygo. Kev-in-Uk May 27, 2013 4:34 pm D.I. says: May 27, 2013 at 4:28 pm I don’t care if she goes on the sly or with a frickin’ fanfare – I just wish she would go! and preferably for someone with some scientific integrity to take her place! May 27, 2013 4:35 pm Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented: Well, well, well. Follow the link from WUWT back to Bishop Hill; it seems the Met Office, the UK’s official weather and climate forecaster and a temple in the cult of global warming, has just admitted that its claim of statistically significant temperature increase (i.e., that which can only be explained by anthropogenic causes) cannot be supported. That’s like knocking the foundation stone out from under the entire edifice. Matt G May 27, 2013 4:46 pm Using 0.8c is still cherry picking since the data began, the recent temperatures really are only about 0.4c – 0.5c warmer than the 1880’s. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl That temperature range is nothing in the scale of natural variance. u.k.(us) May 27, 2013 4:53 pm lsvalgaard says: May 27, 2013 at 2:48 pm “So, you admit that cloud cover was low during the MM.” ================ Come on Leif, you can tell us !! What was the cloud cover ? The truth will never leave this blog 🙂 Editor May 27, 2013 4:58 pm Stephen Wilde – I think the time has come for you to submit your theory as a post to WUWT. It seems to me to make sense, and in particular it allows the global temperature (as measured) to change without any external forcing. But I would like to see it put in a single comprehensive post. milodonharlani May 27, 2013 5:01 pm u.k.(us) says: May 27, 2013 at 4:53 pm ———————————– I’m entered in the senior division of the Y1.7K running of the annual Dover Strait Cross-Channel Ice-Skating Marathon & will let you know about MM cloudiness when I get back from the Little Ice Age. Unfortunately my green time machine is solar-powered, so a little wonky at the moment. rogerknights May 27, 2013 5:07 pm Chris Riley says: May 27, 2013 at 10:13 am Andrew, now might be the time to at least begin thinking about the future of WUWT after the impending collapse of CAGW. The first task that comes to mind is making arrangements for a complete and permanent archive of all activity on this site. The second that comes to mind is that it might be time to start examining other areas where pseudoscience in service of the social engineers is imposing significant social costs. Third: Compile a complete and permanent archive of all activity on every warmist site. Then, every day thereafter, pluck from it a quote of the day for use as a sticky-post at the head of every site that subscribes to it, and for RSS feeds, for the sake of laughs. There’ll be comedy gold there for the next ten million years. Alan D McIntire May 27, 2013 5:09 pm Regarding temperature as a random walk, William Briggs had a fun post regarding “Arcsine Climate” using R programming here: http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=257 May 27, 2013 5:10 pm Margaret Hardman says: May 27, 2013 at 3:33 pm “This is one of the reasons why I agree with the AGW hypothesis and not those that stack untenable assumptions upon untenable assumptions.” Did you just write that for fun? If you wanted to give an example of ‘untenable assumptions stacked on untenable assumptions’ you need look no further than the useless models that the Met Office have persistently clung to. Oh, and Nick: I’d stop digging while you can still climb out of the hole. I’ve read all your comments on this thread and they are just pure hand-waving. I have to ask you, if the Met Office really didn’t have a problem with their CAGW claims, why did they avoid the question six times over? Niff May 27, 2013 5:12 pm Congratulations to Doug and Lord Donahue for persisting and wrenching this admission out of the Met Office. BUT, as expected, NOT A SINGLE WORD OF IT HAS LEAKED OUT INTO THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA. SHAME ON THEM. Alan D McIntire May 27, 2013 5:14 pm “richard telford says: May 27, 2013 at 8:52 am …. ################################ ‘If you have to stoop to using ad hominem arguments, you could at least ensure that the ad hominem is correct. The salary of academics is not dependent on their opinions – a concept known as academic freedom.’ “REPLY: A famous quote is an “ad hom” LOL!. Yes no dependency, sure, no ‘publish or perish’ until such time you get that cushy deal known as tenure, where you can be free to be as loony as Paul Ehrlich without fear of losing your job. It doesn’t work that way in the real world outside academia my friend.” – Anthony An alternate reply might have been , “Maybe immediate salary is not dependent on opinion, but government GRANT money certainly is.” u.k.(us) May 27, 2013 5:17 pm milodonharlani says: May 27, 2013 at 5:01 pm ============ Thanks, it is nice when someone catches the drift. You don’t feel so lonely 🙂 Latitude May 27, 2013 5:28 pm Matt G says: May 27, 2013 at 4:46 pm Using 0.8c is still cherry picking since the data began, the recent temperatures really are only about 0.4c – 0.5c warmer than the 1880′s. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl That temperature range is nothing in the scale of natural variance. ======================================= exactly…….the explanation with the fewest and simplest assumption…is that it’s no big deal You can’t argue that the science has improved…and use thermometer readings from 130 years ago… the rest of the proxies are nothing more than tea leaves and bones a 1/2 of one degree in 130 years…and that’s fudged milodonharlani May 27, 2013 5:31 pm @u.k. ——————— “Rainy Day Women “Well, they’ll stone ya when you’re trying to be so good, They’ll stone ya just a-like they said they would. They’ll stone ya when you’re tryin’ to go home. Then they’ll stone ya when you’re there all alone. But I would not feel so all alone, Everybody must get stoned.” Make that cloudy day woman. I surely hope I don’t catch a drift during the grueling Calais to Dover & back ice skating marathon, but if it has been cloudy, there are liable to be lots of snow drifts en route. Will collect careful WX data for a complete “clouds & rain” (with apologies to 17th & 20th century Japan) report upon my return to this century. May 27, 2013 5:32 pm joerommiswrong says: May 27, 2013 at 5:10 pm “I have to ask you, if the Met Office really didn’t have a problem with their CAGW claims, why did they avoid the question six times over?” With a post that begins with a blatantly false headline, you have to look carefully at everything that follows. Doug Keenan says “HM Government did not answer. Lord Donoughue asked a second time. They did not answer. He asked a third time. Again they did not answer. He then asked a fourth time.” But Hirst, Met director, says “I would like to assure you that the Met Office has not refused to answer any questions. The questions you refer to were answered by Baroness Verma, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Energy and Climate Change.” I believe Hirst. DK seems upset because the Met was slow to stop what they were doing to carry out his nutty calculation. I think that is very understandable. May 27, 2013 5:34 pm u.k.(us) says: May 27, 2013 at 4:53 pm Come on Leif, you can tell us !! The truth will never leave this blog “One cannot empty the well of truth with a leaky bucket”. Dodgy Geezer May 27, 2013 5:45 pm …It has been widely claimed that the increase in global temperatures since the late 1800s is too large to be reasonably attributed to natural random variation. Moreover, that claim is arguably the biggest reason for concern about global warming. … Actually, I’m not sure that that’s true. My recollection is that it had always been accepted that the 1900s were a little cold, and that there was a warm spell in the 1940s, and a cold spell in the 1970s, and that these were within normal limits, and nothing to do with AGW. The big idea that Mann pushed was that these variations were all minor, and that AGW really started to take off in the 1980s. The 20 years 1980-2000 were the heyday of Global Warming – continuing up without a break. The models all showed amazing temperatures due in 2030, and most of the AGW crowd were behaving as if these temperatures had actually happened. That’s where you get your ‘statistical significance’ from – the assumption that we would have 50 years with a graph going up at accelerating speeds. In 2000 it seemed quite safe to say that, and no one would contradict you. Now, of course, we can see that it’s just a glitch – augmented by data falsification… AndyL May 27, 2013 5:50 pm The pressure is on. Common sense is beginning to break out across the UK. Hallelujah! May 27, 2013 6:01 pm With the footnote I am reading WUWT on and off, so I do miss a lot of info presented here, it is my general impression climate related discussions on WUWT about phenomena, trends, data, models etc. in most cases focus on the planet as a whole. Differentiation does play a role, say oceans vs. land vs atmosphere, northern hemisphere vs. southern, Arctic region vs. Antarctic, but these are broad differentiations and stay close to the global scale. This makes sense, as “global warming” or “climate change” are central topics on WUWT, and these are global phenomena. On the other hand, there is more between local weather on the one hand, and global phenomena on the other. I feel there is a big gap between the two, something is missing. Maybe I should call “local climate” or “area-specific climate”. It feels to me like for understanding climate phenomena by people who study this, a big leap is made from localized weather phenomena to global trends. Is this big leap realistic? You would expect some steps in-between, say from local or regional weather patterns to regional or area-specific climate phenomena, say coastal regions vs. tundra’s vs. mountains vs. high plateau’s etc. Also more specification by continents and part of continents. Kind of saying here my feeling is “global climate science” is over-reaching at this point. Wouldn’t it be better to focus some more on regional-specific climate phenomena? One of the reasons also being the data or proxies used, in my understanding, have a regional origin, like Vostok or Greenland or Yamal. The UHI-effect also points in this direction. Just an observation from the sideline. Master_Of_Puppets May 27, 2013 6:25 pm Time to un fund the UN, UN IPCC and UN FCCC. I by supposition assume the clause that the U.S.A. cannot re-claim the Trillions of U.S.A. dollars the U.S.A. Governments (G.H.W. Buch, Clinton, G.W. Bush, Obama) funneled to the UN, UN IPCC and UN FCCC. I would posit that such moneys found their way to the narcotics cartels in the Middle East and South America, at the behest of the U.S.A. President. That, by design. Ah The Hand of Man. (not Mann; M.E.Mann is an idiot ! nothing more needs to be said on Mann.). A very sad day of the ‘taxpaying peoples’ of the U.S.A. Perhaps a way out of this ‘WWI quagmire’ is to un fund the UN in all respects. That means in particular and on Front Burner the un funding of the salary+benefits+healthcare+retirement of the ‘U.S.A. Ambassador’ to the UN, MS. Susan Rice. I would advise the U.S.A. ‘Judiciary’ to investigate MS. Rice ! Much to the found there ! I would also advise the C3I Directorate and National Security Council to revoke Mr. Kerry’s access and clearances to All National Security Data & Intelligence ASAP. That is the most important move in the last 24 hrs and needs to be done with rapid speed. Many years ago, I agreed and signed to continuous ‘wiretapping’ and ‘postage inspection’ and ‘ongoing physical surveillance.’ In this way on this blog, they will read my recommendation even if they are not administratively posted on WUWT and with that I can pay back the ‘loan’ given me many years ago by the DoD. 🙂 Mac the Knife May 27, 2013 6:35 pm Hurrah for the persistent Lord Donoughue! It seems the 6th time is the charm! Let’s encourage Lord Donoughue to continue, until the MET office (Slingo, et.al.) publicly recants their false “statistically significant’ bollocks and removes all such references on their web sites, blogs, and literature. Eric Barnes May 27, 2013 6:52 pm vukcevic says: May 27, 2013 at 1:46 pm I don’t know where you live, but most of ‘normal and sane’ people who live in UK, don’t really care what Met Office admits or doesn’t; people have realised for some time now that their projections of so called ‘global warming’ now transmuted into climate change, and consequently long term forecasts have become a national joke. I’ve had the same thoughts about Nick’s comments for some time. If I ever need a laugh, he’s always there. Luther Wu May 27, 2013 7:12 pm Master_Of_Puppets says: May 27, 2013 at 6:25 pm _________________ good job Rob MW May 27, 2013 7:19 pm @ Nick Stokes: If you are that dogmatic about headlines perhaps you could start with this one and work your way up, or down as the case requires: “It’s true: 97% of research papers say climate change is happening” http://theconversation.com/its-true-97-of-research-papers-say-climate-change-is-happening-14051 Knock yourself out !! Dan Hughes May 27, 2013 7:28 pm Temporal chaotic response, which represents the basis of fundamental understanding of chaotic response, cannot exhibit a trend with time. Averages of chaotic responses are themselves chaotic. Thus these averages cannot exhibit a trend with time. The original 1963 system of three simple, non-linear ODEs devised by Lorenz can be used to demonstrate the above. Imposing a time-varying effective Rayleigh number during the calculations of the numerical solutions of the equations will not give a response showing a trend with time. The effective Rayleigh number measures the energy addition into the fluid from the boundaries of the flow. I do not know if the results for low-dimension temporal chaotic response carry over un-changed to the spatial-temporal chaotic case. If the temperature in the ( spatial-temporal ) physical domain is chaotic, averages of the temperature will be chaotic, and neither of these can exhibit a response that has a trend with time. AndyG55 May 27, 2013 7:30 pm harrydhuffman (@harrydhuffman) says: There is NO CO2 “greenhouse effect”, of increasing temperature with increasing CO2 It will, unfortunately, be a long time before people actually accept this fact. Oh well ! 🙁 DR May 27, 2013 8:00 pm “Here in Britain, where we had our fifth freezing winter in a row, the Central England Temperature record – according to an expert analysis on the US science blog Watts Up With That – shows that in this century, average winter temperatures have dropped by 1.45C, more than twice as much as their rise between 1850 and 1999, and twice as much as the entire net rise in global temperatures recorded in the 20th century.” MichaelS May 27, 2013 8:04 pm Rob MW says: May 27, 2013 at 7:19 pm @ Nick Stokes: If you are that dogmatic about headlines perhaps you could start with this one and work your way up, or down as the case requires: “It’s true: 97% of research papers say climate change is happening” ____________________________________________________________________________ But of course that’s for a noble cause. William Astley May 27, 2013 8:06 pm In reply to: lsvalgaard says: May 27, 2013 at 3:55 pm William Astley says: May 27, 2013 at 3:51 pm “So, during the Maunder Minimum you would not expect GCRs to form Low Level Clouds and produce cooling, right?” The inhibiting mechanism is transient. When the inhibiting mechanism ceases the planet will cool relatively quickly. So, how long does the transient mechanism last? [in particular during the Maunder Minimum] Presumably when it stops sunspots rapidly form again, right? William: No. The sunspots will not reform. The solar magnetic state during a Maunder minimum is different than the solar magnetic state that causes a Heinrich event. The current solar observations (how the sun has changed over the last 100 years and in particular in the last 10 years) appear to indicate that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted which will lead to Heinrich event as opposed to a Maunder minimum which is a very weak solar magnetic cycle. I have worked back from the earth observations (Assuming what has happened on the earth cyclically has a physical cause then each of the earth observations in the different time periods can be used to determine how the sun changes over 8000 to 10000 years). Everything that has happened in the past and that will happen in the future has a physical explanation. The paleo climatic analysis over the last 10 years has gradually eliminated other hypothesized mechanisms, ocean current changes was the primary alternative and an assumed super high sensitivity to forcing change that could amplify small changes. How the planet is currently reacting to an increase in atmospheric CO2 indicates the planet resists forcing changes. If the planet resists forcing changes, then the past cyclic abrupt climate changes were caused by a very strong forcing function. For both of those reasons, I believe what I am proposing (In fact, what I am proposing is basically taken from other peer reviewed papers. What is new is looking into multiple specialties in different fields following and looking for related anomalies.) is the only physically viable solution. DR May 27, 2013 8:07 pm Oh, and be sure to read the comments. Rob Honeycutt tosses in for SkS with the usual talking points along with what appears other drones from SkS. milodonharlani May 27, 2013 8:08 pm William Astley says: May 27, 2013 at 8:06 pm —————————- What he said. Theo Goodwin May 27, 2013 8:09 pm Nick Stokes says: May 27, 2013 at 2:02 pm Why are you not at the Bishop’s posing a direct challenge to Keenan’s post? Why are you addressing only a part of Keenan’s post? What about the part that makes clear that Parliament is going to write the headline in this matter of the Met Office’s conduct? milodonharlani May 27, 2013 8:11 pm DR says: May 27, 2013 at 8:00 pm ———————————– Anthony has well & truly arrived when his site is cited in Forbes. A most satisfying sight, since I’m sure that WUWT has already cited Forbes. milodonharlani May 27, 2013 8:15 pm Nick Stokes says: May 27, 2013 at 2:02 pm ———————————- Boooooooooooooooring. Sorry, but boring. With extra os. Please let me know when you have something trenchant & original to say. Thanks. SAMURAI May 27, 2013 8:21 pm So what Bill is saying is that NOAA’s statistical analysis shows a 1 in 3 probability that natural temperature variation can explain ALL the warming from 1880 to the present…. If one factors in a small portion of the total warming attributable to AGW (say 0.2C out of 0.8C) then the combination of the two would mean there IS no significant probability of catastrophic anthropogenic GW and that the world has wasted$TRILLIONS on a “catastrophe” that doesn’t exist….
It’s high time to disband the IPCC, implement a moratorium on further CAGW government funding and take a wait and see attitude on what happens climatically over the next 10 years.
A number of climactic cooling phenomenon are all converging between now and 2022: (30-yr PDO started 2008, current solar cycle lowest since 1906, AMO also starts its 30-yr cooling around 2020, Umbral Magnetic Field likely to fall below 1,500 gauss around 2020 preventing sunspots to form and ushering in a potential Grand Solar Minimum, solar cycle #25 starts around 2020 and is expected to be the lowest since 1645, Antarctic ice extent is setting record sizes and increasing Earth’s Albedo, Arctic Ice in the Pacific is setting record extents since the PDO entered its 30-yr cooling cycle in 2008 and the same may happen in the Atlantic when the AMO enters its 30-yr cooling cycle around 2020, ARGO data showing stagnant SST’s, etc.)
There are also economic realities supporting a moratorium on CAGW as there is a high probability of a major global sovereign debt crisis occurring between now and 2020, as Japan, USA and most of Europe have national debts far exceeding their annual GDPs (this debt crisis can be partially attributed to \$TRILLIONS squandered on Carbon taxes, wind/solar projects, ethanol subsidies, CO2 EPA compliance costs, etc.).
There are also new technological developments, which will greatly reduce CO2 emissions in the future and will make future wind/solar projects obsolete and wasteful, namely China’s development of LFTRs and next generation batteries, which will make electric cars viable.
One can call CAGW a scam, a hoax or a misunderstanding, but it’s simply time to call a moratorium on the whole fiasco.

Ian H
May 27, 2013 8:23 pm

Margaret Hardman says:
@Ian H
A true null hypothesis is that there has been no change. The null does not make an assumption about cause and effect. Significance testing sets a definable measure of the chance that a phenomenon differs from that null hypothesis. I would expect everyone on this site to agree that there has been significant warming since 1850, the CET shows it clearly.

Don’t lecture me about the null hypothesis. I’ve taught statistics at university level. I think you’ll get on better here if you don’t start by presuming we are all ignorant.
It isn’t a question of presuming cause and effect. It is a question of defining your hypothesis (and therefore your null hypothesis) in a completely unambiguous way and having the intellectual integrity not to blur the meaning of words and thereby infer things that are not present in the data.
This is a naturally varying system we are talking about. If we are attempting to measure a possible impact of mankind on climate the null hypothesis should be that there is no impact and that the climate is continuing to vary naturally.
If your null hypothesis is that temperatures have on average increased since 1880 (a very narrow statement) you can pass the test of significance but you CANNOT use this to imply that you have detected a significant impact of man on the climate. There is a serious case of bait and switch going on here.
What outrages me (as one who has taught statistics) is that global warming has been touted as settled science – beyond doubt – anyone who questions it is a filthy denier and deserves to be reeducated in a mental hospital – and yet the hypothesis that man has had a measurable impact on the climate has NOT even passed a statistical validity test, even at the 2 \sigma level, against the correct null hypothesis which is that the climate is varying normally.

The 0.05 significance level sets a comparable bar on chance. Many areas of science go well beyond this level, to 0.01 and even 0.001. I hope this clarifies matters.

MrX
May 27, 2013 9:18 pm

I don’t know how they (MET and warmists) can get around this. I was thinking they would attack the second model and that’s being tried in some of the comments, but that too is not going to go very far. To anyone who knows a little statistics, they know that AGW is bogus. They’re knowingly continuing the charade if they continue to be proponents of AGW.

R. de Haan
May 27, 2013 9:20 pm

You better have a read at this: Climate change: the juggernaut rolls on: http://eureferendum.blogspot.de/2013/04/climate-change-juggernaut-rolls-on.html

Patrick
May 27, 2013 9:24 pm

“Stephen Wilde says:
May 27, 2013 at 9:05 am”
Indeed. There is a very good, incidentally BBC, documentary called “Orbit: Earths Extraordinary Journey” which explains exactly what you are discussing.

SAMURAI
May 27, 2013 9:34 pm

It’s my understanding that from Ice-core analysis, the natural centennial temperature variance has been around +-1.0C.
If my understanding is correct, the 0.8C of warming over the past 133 years certainly falls within this natural range, so the 20th century warming is not unprecedented.
Moreover, the fact that the solar cycles between 1933 and 1996 were the strongest uninterrupted string of solar cycles in 11,400 years.
It certainly seems a valid argument could be made that most of the 19th century warming could be a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age (which ended when the Dalton Minimum ended, which supports the Svensmark Effect Theory) and that 20th century warming can be attributed to the strong solar cycles from 1933-1996.
The fact that 17 years of no statistically significant warming corresponds to weakening solar cycles and the PDO entering is 30-yr cooling cycle neatly explains the total lack of a warming trend. It’s also interesting to note that over the past 17 years, roughly 40% of ALL manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 have been emitted into the atmosphere, with absolutely no effect on the global warming trend.
The case for CAGW seems to be completely untenable, especially in light of the 15% increase of C3 crop yields (wheat, barley, oats, soybeans, potatoes, rice, etc) the added CO2 had contributed.
So the salient questions are now: 1) what catastrophic CO2 warming? 2) why is CAGW still taken seriously? 3) what criteria needs to be met to invalidate the CAGW theory once and for all?

May 27, 2013 9:50 pm

William Astley says:
May 27, 2013 at 8:06 pm
No. The sunspots will not reform. The solar magnetic state during a Maunder minimum is different than the solar magnetic state that causes a Heinrich event.
The current solar observations (how the sun has changed over the last 100 years and in particular in the last 10 years) appear to indicate that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted which will lead to Heinrich event as opposed to a Maunder minimum which is a very weak solar magnetic cycle.

Makes no sense at all. ‘solar magnetic cycle interrupted’ means what?

Scott Basinger
May 27, 2013 10:03 pm

Telford writes: “The problem with Keenan’s analysis should be obvious. The 1 in the ARIMA(3,1,0) is needed because the data are non-stationary – the mean is not constant – the temperature is increasing. Whether this temperature increase is removed by differencing as Keenan has done, or fitted with a linear trend, depends on the aims of the analysis. Both agree that there is significant warming, and neither model can determine the cause of the warming.
As the climate forcings have not increased in a linear fashion, it is not surprising that a linear trend is not a very good fit to the instrumental data.”

Thanks for responding. I’m a little confused by your point, isn’t Keenan arguing that “The supplement demonstrates that the likelihood of the driftless model is about 1000 times that of the trending autoregressive model. Thus the model used by HM Government should be rejected, in favor of the driftless model. With the driftless model, however, the rise in temperatures since 1880 is not significant. ”
I don’t understand your point, since both do not agree there is significant warming and I don’t see where he’s suggested that the ‘1’ in ARI(3,1) isn’t needed.

handjive
May 27, 2013 10:10 pm

“As for any politicians who have ever believed in global warming, or supported the carbon tax, or a carbon-constrained economy, there is no hope for them.
They are either too stupid or incompetent to be taken seriously.
Merely recanting, at this late stage, won’t be enough.
Make their lives hell too, just as they wished a diminished life on you.”
David Archibald is a Perth-based climate scientist and energy analyst.
He is a visiting fellow of the Institute of World Politics in Washington DC, where he teaches a course in strategic energy policy.
Remember this line:
“Make their lives hell too, just as they wished a diminished life on you.”
Repeat when necessary.
http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=5257

Eliza
May 27, 2013 10:24 pm

I think this news will slowly but surely drift into MSM. This. plus the fact that NH ice is NOT melting anomausly (spelling!), this year so far (completely irrelevant anyway. although warmists like to think only ONE ice cap represents global), is putting an end to AGW. The signs are everywhere but not obvious even in MSM stories. The first admission it ain’t so bad after all, the second will be it ain’t bad at all! But NEVER we were completely wrong! Climate sciencist can never admit it. and won’t. It will simply fade away probably for years. so don’t expect a major admission soon anywhere guys! I am personally tending to think after all the millenial and current evidence that C02 has no bearing whatsoever on climate on Earth. BTW It seems to me that this is the most significant news re AGW to date. I’m surprised the other “skeptical sites have not read this apparently yet anyway.LOL

shocked
May 27, 2013 10:35 pm

This is terrible news because it means poor people will continue to die from the cold!

May 27, 2013 10:37 pm

Scott Basinger says: May 27, 2013 at 10:03 pm
“I don’t understand your point, since both do not agree there is significant warming and I don’t see where he’s suggested that the ’1′ in ARI(3,1) isn’t needed.”

Richard Telford has a post here expanding on this. The reason for going to a differenced model (the ‘1’) is to achieve stationarity. And doing so takes out the trend anyway. So it isn’t even true that Keenan shows there is no trend with his model.
Besides, as Lucia says, it’s unphysical, breaching energy conservation. Here is her latest observation:
“Also: We went through this at blogs before. Bach in.. oh…2010? Anyway, way back then, Arima (0,1,4) with drift beat ARIMA(3,1,0) for gistemp. Now, both of these are unphysical. But the former–which was statistically more likely, meant “AGW true”.
I don’t know how things might change with more data. But it’s a bit silly to ignore that if you expand to including unphysical models, the best one still says there is warming!”

Theo Goodwin says: May 27, 2013 at 8:09 pm
“Why are you not at the Bishop’s posing a direct challenge to Keenan’s post?”

Why? This post is headed “This is a guest post by Doug Keenan.”. It seems an appropriate place to respond. One could ask, why isn’t DK defending it here?
“Why are you addressing only a part of Keenan’s post? What about the part that makes clear that Parliament is going to write the headline in this matter of the Met Office’s conduct?”
It seems to be the part covered at WUWT. Deciding whether Parliamentary questions are answered properly is a matter for Parliament to decide, not Doug Keenan (or me). And I see no condemnation of MO there.

Margaret Hardman
May 27, 2013 11:23 pm

@Ian H
I shall accept that you have taught statistics and then point to your error when you propose a null hypothesis that warming has occurred since 1880. The null part, as you know, indicates no change, no correlation, no link. I am surprised that you made that error.

May 27, 2013 11:43 pm

Nick says:
” I believe Hirst.
DK seems upset because the Met was slow to stop what they were doing to carry out his nutty calculation. I think that is very understandable.”
Guess you also believe John Cook and his 97% of scientists agree that CAGW is real; that climate science is “settled” science; and that Mann’s Hockey stick is an accurate representation of earth temperature over the last 1000+ years. Good to know that the supposedly the world’s leading climate scientists are so smart they didnt even bother to determine whether global warming is statistically significant beyond natural variation, that doing so is just a “nutty calculation”.

LDLAS
May 27, 2013 11:50 pm

Nicky,
I know by now that you are an attention seeking troll.
Go over to John Cook’s place.
(and stay there)

May 28, 2013 12:01 am

“Mike Jonas says:
May 27, 2013 at 4:58 pm
Stephen Wilde – I think the time has come for you to submit your theory as a post to WUWT. It seems to me to make sense, and in particular it allows the global temperature (as measured) to change without any external forcing. But I would like to see it put in a single comprehensive post.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/06/a-new-and-effective-climate-model/
though it could do with a little refinement now and note that the basis of it is the provision of a negative system response against ANY forcing element.
The harshest criticism came from Leif but I take him less seriously these days.

May 28, 2013 12:04 am

Alcheson says: May 27, 2013 at 11:43 pm
“Good to know that the supposedly the world’s leading climate scientists are so smart they didnt even bother to determine whether global warming is statistically significant beyond natural variation, that doing so is just a “nutty calculation”.”

Would you like to explain why a demonstration that a AR(3,1,0) statistical model fits better than a AR(1,0,0) model with trend from 1850-now says anything about “whether global warming is statistically significant beyond natural variation”?

richard verney
May 28, 2013 12:07 am

I personally consider that there has been some warming since the 1850s. However, that siad, one rarely ever sees realistic error bars surrounding the various temperature.data sets, which error bars are quite large.
When appropriate error bars are taken into account, it probably is not possible with certainty too say whether in 2013, it is warmer today than it was in the early 1880s, or the 1930s/40s.
All we know is that there have been periodas of warming and periods of cooling and the late 20th century warming does not look extraordinary when compared with other warming periods in the data set. Further, much of the late 20th century warming may be nothing more than an artefact of polluted data (station drop outs, poor siting, UHI etc) given that the satellite data set shows no warming between 1979 and say 1997.

Nigel S
May 28, 2013 12:43 am

This from ‘The Stone Skeleton’ by Professor Jacques Heyman seems relevant (it’s about structural analysis of Gothic cathedrals but they are warm period artefacts so it’s not totally irrelevant).
‘The safe theorem states that if any one such position can be found for the line of thrust [within the masonry] then this is an absolute proof that the structure is stable, and indeed that collapse can never occur under the given loading.’
What seems to have happened is that the Met Office’s analysis showed that the sky was falling (‘this most excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave o’erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted with golden fire’) but that a more careful analysis shows that it hasn’t been falling (since at least 1850).

Scott Basinger
May 28, 2013 1:04 am

Nick Stokes: Thanks! I understand a lot more clearly now.

Man Bearpig
May 28, 2013 1:23 am

” Simon says:
May 27, 2013 at 2:29 pm
ARIMA(3,1,0) means that the time series is non-stationary which means there is a trend. An upward trend, caused probably be greenhouse gases.

Ok, so what is causing the hiatus in global temperatures ? GHG recently allegedly broke the unprecedented level of 400ppm ?

Margaret Hardman
May 28, 2013 1:41 am

Current slowing in the warming trend explained by La Niña events in 1999-2000, 2005, 2007, 2010 and 2011. Biggest El Niño was in 1997-8, coinciding with that peak in temperature anomalies in 1998 so beloved of those that tell me incessantly that warming has stopped. El Niño events since 1998 occurred in 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2009. An El Niño event puts heat back into the atmosphere, simply put. La Niña removes heat and absorbs it into the ocean.

Eric Barnes
May 28, 2013 1:49 am

Stephen Wilde says:
May 28, 2013 at 12:01 am
“Mike Jonas says:
May 27, 2013 at 4:58 pm
Stephen Wilde – I think the time has come for you to submit your theory as a post to WUWT.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/06/a-new-and-effective-climate-model/
though it could do with a little refinement now and note that the basis of it is the provision of a negative system response against ANY forcing element.
The harshest criticism came from Leif but I take him less seriously these days.
Good Policy Stephen. Insomnia caused me to read from the link above where Leif left this gem…
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 8, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Stephen Wilde (13:24:30) :
You clearly cannot seperate the solar effects from the other (supposed) effects so your own position is weaker than you admit. You don’t even know what those other supposed effects might be.
By the same token neither can you, and that’s why they cannot be part of a serious model, that is all.
Practical people of good taste can only laugh when considering the effectiveness of CAGW modeling vs. your model and Lief’s statement.
The weakness of being an academic in all its glory.

May 28, 2013 2:06 am

Latest
Energy and Climate Change UK budget to get 10% chop ?

May 28, 2013 2:07 am

Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
This is a big story which will be ignored by the BBC

Clovis Man
May 28, 2013 2:12 am

I think we are in danger of missing the point here by having the same old arguments about the contribution of emissions on the climate.
The question here is not whether there is warming or not since 1850. Taking a starting temperature and and end temperature there clearly is. The question is, that if one statistical methodology says it is within natural variation and another does not is why a categorical parliamentary answer was given based on the one least likely to be correct. And why it took a further 5 questions to get better answer.
Someone over at BH has suggested a FOI request for correspondence to elicit how the methodology was chosen. That could be telling.
Kudos to Lord Donahoughue for his tenacity.

Editor
May 28, 2013 2:26 am

Margaret Hardman
You said
‘I would expect everyone on this site to agree that there has been significant warming since 1850, the CET shows it clearly.’
That is quite correct, but if we step back in time we can put CET in better context;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/the-curious-case-of-rising-co2-and-falling-temperatures/
That graph is an update from my article that is reconstructing CET from its instrumental limits of 1659 and compares the reconstructions of Dr Mann and Hubert Lamb
http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/
We can observe a number of things. Firstly that temperatures have been rising since the start of the instrumental record. GISS from 1880 can therefore be seen to merely a staging post and not the starting post. This steady increase is confirmed by BEST.
We can also observe that at a current 0.4 anomaly CET is only fractionally warmer than the 1830 period, the same as the 1730 period and currently cooler than the start of the record in 1538 which I have now extended to 1500AD. I can not comment on its progress to the MWP as looking for the transition point between the MWP and LIA is my current area of research, ironically using some of the extensive records in the Met office library and archives.
BTW I do not think that either you or Nick Stokes are trolls and am glad you weathered the earlier storm on the other thread as we need alternative views if we are not to become the echo chamber that so many alarmist sites have become
tonyb

TomVonk
May 28, 2013 2:32 am

Meanwhile in Germany it looks like they are having the coldest Spring in 40 years.
In France it is worse. France is experiencing one of the coldest Mays in last 60 years. The 24 May was the coldest one in the whole temperature record. Many days were more than 10°C below 30 year average.
Weather is not yet climate on monthly average scales.
However the probability to break cold records even on monthly scales IS supposed to be dependent on a climatic trend if a trend is there.
Of course as nobody knows the PDF, it is not possible to tell how probable such a phenomenon is but clearly the natural variability seems to be much greater than what we previously thought.
N.Stokes
The Arimas don’t violate any energy conservation laws because the exercice done here is applied to arithmetical spatial averages on a surface.
I leave you as exercice to show why a weighted surface average of temperatures can follow any probability distribution without contradicting energy conservation.
One may suppose a function T(x,y,z,t) continuous in time but not necessarily in the space variables which is then spatially averaged on an arbitrary closed surface of a body.

cd
May 28, 2013 2:39 am

Again, there seems to be grate deal of fanfare surrounding the discussion. And whilst, in a world where honesty is essential to debate then it would be. But if such a world did exist then there would be no climate scare either. In short, while WUWT might consider this significant it will not make much of an impact in the UK press (if it even registers at all) and will sway no one in the mainstream world of politics or in the general public.

May 28, 2013 2:40 am

TomV,
How can a process with constrained temperature-dependent fluxes have no fixed long term mean? How can an unconstrained random walk not, over time, reach temperatures that would kill all life?

Rob MW
May 28, 2013 2:43 am

Margaret Hardman says @ May 27, 2013 at 11:23 pm
“The null part, as you know, indicates no change, no correlation, no link. I am surprised that you made that error.”
Err….excuse me. So you are trying to foolishly claim that the Earth’s climate should still be stuck at the last little ice age ?
Given that the ‘Null Hypothsis’ means that there must be some warming therefore it is indeed you who is in error.

morgo
May 28, 2013 2:58 am
Bruce of Newcastle
May 28, 2013 3:01 am

Margaret Hardman says:
May 27, 2013 at 11:07 am
I would expect everyone on this site to agree that there has been significant warming since 1850, the CET shows it clearly.

Margaret – The fact that temperature has risen is one issue. The explanation ‘why’ is another.
You can see a number of links in my post up-thread which give the reasons why. CO2 is only a minor component of the rise.
But since you mention the CET specifically, you may be interested that my own small model very successfully fits the CET. And has successfully modelled the CET since I built it. I built it just after Climategate and the Copenhagen meeting when I wanted to independently test for myself whether climate sensitivity was low or high. The finding: low.
I should mention my professional experience includes building of such models for corporate customers. I was just doing what I know. There is sufficient detail at the first link for you to replicate it should you wish.

GeeJam
May 28, 2013 3:21 am

Having read all the posts on this thread, and ignoring (for the time being) the ongoing agitation being generated by Mssrs. Stokes, Hardman, et al, many replies have simply remarked ‘just how cold it is right now’. Germany, UK, Cleveland, New York, Brisbane and now France.
Ok, this to all those out there who remain resilient in their belief of CAGW. This is a golden opportunity to finally set the record straight once and for all. We’re throwing down the gauntlet.
Please can you tell me (and every other regular WUWT reader like me who is in total disagreement with AGW);
WHAT COUNTRY, RIGHT NOW, IN THE WORLD, IS SIGNIFICANTLY WARMER THAN IT NORMALLY IS FOR THIS TIME OF YEAR?

TomVonk
May 28, 2013 3:29 am

N.Stokes
How can a process with constrained temperature-dependent fluxes have no fixed long term mean? How can an unconstrained random walk not, over time, reach temperatures that would kill all life?
Don’t forget that we are just talking about models here and that the time scales considered are only hundreds of years.
In other terms don’t forget that fluid mechanics and spatio-temporal chaos (which what the system really is) have really nothing to do with Arimas or surface averages.
Of course that all these statistical models (regardless of the number of parameters) have nothing to do with the reality. I hope you don’t take them seriously 🙂
They just fit somme better and some worse over the extremely short data period we have.
Over much longer periods (multi kyears) we already know that there are pseudo periodical cycles e.g deterministic chaos.
So because what we are actually only talking about is what statistical model fits better over, say 100 or 200 years, I wanted to strongly state that no statistical distribution of spatial averages violated any conservation laws. They are all equally valid.
And if one wants to take the road of stochastical modelling (which doesn’t make much sense for me for physical fields like temperatures and velocities that obey determinstic field equations) then any model is good and those that fit better are better.
And of course none can be extrapolated very far.

May 28, 2013 3:36 am

GeeJam says: May 28, 2013 at 3:21 am

Well, here is the GISS map for April. Yes, cold in N America. But very warm in Russia, and fairly warm in S Am and Australia. Here you can see the last week summarised. East Europe stood out, but also quite warm in E US, N China, India.
I can tell you that in Melbourne, where I am, it has been an unusually warm autumn overall (even a very good day today). I think it was our fourth warmest April ever.

May 28, 2013 3:44 am

Margaret Hardman (May 28, 2013 at 1:41 am) “Current slowing in the warming trend explained by La Niña events in 1999-2000, 2005, 2007, 2010 and 2011. Biggest El Niño was in 1997-8, coinciding with that peak in temperature anomalies in 1998 so beloved of those that tell me incessantly that warming has stopped. ”
I assume you are talking about this? http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ts.gif It’s hard to quantify the effects of ENSO without getting handwavy or over-simplistically assuming that La Nina “stores” heat that El Nino releases. For one thing you need to factor in changes in outgoing long wave due to changes in cloudiness, precipitation patterns, etc. That heat is gone, not “absorbed” in the ocean. Another is that if La Nina “absorbs” or “stores” heat in the deep ocean it is gone for time scales that we care about. There is very little support for an argument that La Nina is suppressing warming.
OTOH, you are correct warming has not stopped. I realize lots of people say that, but often that is shorthand for an insignificant rise. Here’s a plot starting in 1997 rather than 1998 which I agree is an outlier: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2013/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2013/trend which shows a linear trend of 0.09C per decade which is consistent with benign warming. Starting from 1996 I get about 0.12C per decade, still benign.
The main point you are missing in all your posts above is that there are some explanations for a natural rise in temperature, one prominent one is that the late 20th century had TSI about 1 W/m2 higher than the early 20th century. That’s 0.25 W/m2 of rise when hitting the earth as a sphere or roughly 1/15th of the warming from a doubling of CO2 or the same as the warming from about 13 or 14 years rise in CO2 at current rates close to 2ppm / year. That’s nontrivial amount of warming just from TSI, not counting other warming effects from high solar activity.

Editor
May 28, 2013 4:18 am

It looks as if SkS has got its fingers in its ears and is singing la-la-la-la as when I try to bring their attention to this I just get cut.
Presumably this will get to the MSM and we will then see the “rebuttal” phase but I have to say that having to ask 6 times is kind of a clue in and of itself.

Agnostic
May 28, 2013 4:24 am

@Nick Stokes:
“So did “Met Office admits claims of significant temperature rise untenable”? Where? How?”
Yes they did, in the second paragraph in their response to Lord Donaghue. The two numbers you should look at are 0.08 and 0.001. DK explained further:
“The relative likelihood is 0.08, if we analyze years 1900–2012 , and it is 0.001, if we analyze years 1850–2012 (using Met Office data). In either case, then, the trending autoregressive model is much less likely than the driftless model to be the better model of the data. Hence, the statistical model that was relied upon in the Answer to the original Question (HL3050) is untenable.”
They may not have said it explicitly, but that is the conclusion that can be drawn from the reply. It’s not opinion, those are the numbers.
“And if you follow the link to BH, there’s a long ramble from Doug Keenan on his opinions about the meaning of statistical significance, and confused discussion in the House of Lords.”
So are you suggesting that his “opinions” are wrong? Why do you characterise it as a “ramble” rather than putting the inquiry into context? And the discussion “confused” – what was confused about it?
More to the point, you characterise DK as merely giving his opinion on this matter, where what he is stating was an assertion of fact that he justified. Are you saying that his choice of statistical model does not give a better fit to the data than the one chosen by the MetOffice or the IPCC? Are you saying that the IPCC did – in complete contradiction to what he stated – give justification for their choice of statistical model in their report? If you agree that they didn’t, do you disagree with his assertion it was unscientific not to?
It’s a fairly straightforward issue: The MetOffice issued a statement on statistical significance which can be shown to be untenable, so they should therefore withdraw it.
You can say that the lack of statistical significance is not all we know about potential AGW, that the climate is extremely complex, that the physics of radiative transfer is solid and implies AGW, that we know more about various forcings (de-forestation, land use changes, CO2 emissions) that make a case beyond the issue of significance, but my understanding of the framing of this question and the answer is that its pretty cut and dried. You can’t claim statistically significant warming beyond natural variability based on the 1880 to present near-surface data sets if you follow proper time-series analysis procedure.

Editor
May 28, 2013 4:33 am

Nick Stokes
said
“I can tell you that in Melbourne, where I am, it has been an unusually warm autumn overall (even a very good day today). I think it was our fourth warmest April ever.”
Its ok, you can relax. It seems that Melbourne did not experience its 4th warmest April ever (in its very short record)
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/vic/melbourne.shtml
More interestingly your own Met office seems to attribute much of the observed warmth to UHI
tonyb

Editor
May 28, 2013 4:38 am

Nick Stokes
Just been looking up the Melbourne history. It seems you have incredibly short records and for something to be the 7th or 12th warmest is not really saying much. I see that Scoresby is near you. He is buried not 7 miles from my home and was of course the first Arctic scientist who went there tin 1818 to discover why it was melting
tonyb

May 28, 2013 4:41 am

Nick Stokes says:
May 28, 2013 at 3:36 am
Well, here is the GISS map for April.
http://www.moyhu.org.s3.amazonaws.com/TempLS/Apr13/GISSApr13.gif
Yes, cold in N America. But very warm in Russia, and fairly warm in S Am and Australia. Here you can see the last week summarised. East Europe stood out, but also quite warm in E US, N China, India.
………………
And here is population map of the world. It is ‘warmest’ anomaly in the coldest areas and in areas very few people live.
Well, here is population map for 2012
So get all this nonsense in perspective.

Venter
May 28, 2013 4:55 am

Tony / Vukevic,
Not a word of what Nick Stokes says is to be believed without your independent corroboration as you know by now. He’s part of the AGW cabal and his job is to obfuscate, lie, distort and generally do anything to try and defend the indefensible.

John Law
May 28, 2013 5:06 am

The man from Whitehall is always right and the taxpayer a buffoon.
It is something of a British tradition that we lions are fated to be forever led by donkeys!

John Law
May 28, 2013 5:10 am

PS it was quite warm in my greenhouse yesteday in North Wales where I was sheltering from the real late spring weather outside. Can I take the Met Office to court?

GeeJam
May 28, 2013 5:13 am

Nick Stokes says:
May 28, 2013 at 3:36 am
“Well, here is the GISS map for April.”
Thank you Nick. Yes, I’ve already seen last month’s GISS anomalies (April). I was intrigued to find out where it was warmer right now (late May) considering the amount of regular WUWT readers who were complaining of the cold. As you know, your link to last weeks summary is for mean temperature – so does not indicate how much warmer it is than normal.
Here in central UK (where it’s been depressingly cold and unsettled for 6-months except for 11 x ‘nice’ days), I am pleased that you’re enjoying (quote) “a very good day today” at Melbourne following an unusually warm autumn overall. By this, I gather that, like most others, you also prefer it when it’s warmer – so you’ve answered another argument – why the global fixation and costly obsession to prevent our planet warming up a little? My wife and I would love it to be warmer – we only planted our tomatoes outside yesterday (which is about 3-weeks later than normal) and our salad crops will only be ‘set’ next weekend (June). This time last year, I had already mowed our lawn on six occasions. This year, I cut it for the third time yesterday. And as for traditional ‘May Blossom’ (Hawthorn), it’s only just coming out – which is unusually late.

May 28, 2013 5:13 am

Lord Donoughue sure is tenacious. There’s a man that doesn’t like being stonewalled…

May 28, 2013 5:26 am

GeeJam says: May 28, 2013 at 5:13 am
“As you know, your link to last weeks summary is for mean temperature – so does not indicate how much warmer it is than normal.”

It does anomalies, which is what I was looking at. There is a selection box.

Editor
May 28, 2013 5:27 am

GeeJam
Here is my graph for CET against fuel costs.
http://climatereason.com/Graphs/Graph11.png
Sharply Falling temperatures married to sharply rising fuel costs is a good enough reason to stop our obsession with expensive green renewables and get on and build some grown up power stations that can deliver reliable amounts of energy at a sensible price
I gave the chart to my MP who was quite shocked and sent it to DECC. The more of us do the same the more the powers that be might identify there is a concern
tonyb

May 28, 2013 5:35 am

If you live in SE United states and see your forests being cut down, I would like you to know that wood is turned into wood chips and is dried by special driers, then exported 6,500 km away to England to be burned to produce electricity (BBC report 13.30 pm, Tuesday 28 of May, 2013)
So called ‘environmentalist’ and the governments who are guided by their advice are absolute raving lunatics.

Patrick
May 28, 2013 5:37 am

I wonder if Nick Stokes knows how cold it was in the UK (And that *IS* the whole UK) during the 70’s, bar 1976? Must have been just weather…

CodeTech
May 28, 2013 5:47 am

GeeJam – you’ve already mowed your lawn 3 times this year? Yesterday (May 27) I mowed mine for only the FIRST time. In fact, I dug out the mower, got halfway through the back, and the mower seized up, taking with it the outside electrical outlet and the GFI upstairs that I didn’t know it was connected to. After replacing the two outlets and buying a new mower, I was amazed at how far lawnmower technology has progressed in the years since I got the old one. Instead of that harsh lawnmower sound it’s like a soft “whir”, like I’m vacuuming the lawn instead of cutting it.
This week also the Nanking cherry bushes all around the lake were in full bloom. The last few seasons they haven’t even produced any fruit, so it should be interesting to see what happens this year. Virtually all of the normal benchmarks for ‘climate’ are late this year, heck the lake was still frozen until a month ago. The tulips are just starting to bloom, and the Irises are only a few inches high. There aren’t even any visible flower buds on the Peony bushes yet.
I don’t see it as “unusual”, just later than it has been for the last 15 years or so. I’m sure we’ll forget all of this during the inevitable hot few days in July and August, when we’ll be hiding out from thunderstorms and hail. Yeah, it does seem like the later the season begins, the more intense the crop-destroying hail is, as if there is more energy in the system and the whole experience gets packed into a shorter time frame.
Oh, and LDLAS, we don’t want Nick Stokes (or the other non-aggressive trolls) to stop posting. He serves as stark contrast from the usual comments, and although I know he doesn’t intend it, does provide some great comic relief from time to time. Any normal person reading through a typical comment threat at WUWT will nod, agree, nod, agree, then laugh as an alarmist demonstrates their legendary tolerance and willingness to learn.

May 28, 2013 5:48 am

climatereason says: May 28, 2013 at 4:38 am
“Just been looking up the Melbourne history. It seems you have incredibly short records and for something to be the 7th or 12th warmest is not really saying much.”

Tony, not at all, it goes back to 1880. BTW, May is currently averaging 18.1C max, relative to average 16.7.
“I see that Scoresby is near you.”
Yes, it was named for him just after he died.
Patrick says: May 28, 2013 at 5:37 am
“I wonder if Nick Stokes knows how cold it was in the UK(And that *IS* the whole UK) during the 70’s, bar 1976?”

Oddly enough, I was there through the summer of 1975. A beautiful warm summer. I even remember a hot night in Inverness. I was at Lords in the day of the streaker – 34C. But I don’t see your point.

GeeJam
May 28, 2013 6:06 am

climatereason says:
May 28, 2013 at 5:27 am
“build some grown up power stations that can deliver reliable amounts of energy at a sensible price”
We also need to reintroduce a fair system of calculating annual UK vehicle road tax based on engine size – not based on an insignificant quantity of atmospheric gas ‘belching’ out of our exhausts that appears to have had hardly any influence on all those unprecedented catastrophic temperatures we’ve been witnessing for the last 16 years.
Don’t get me started.

May 28, 2013 6:07 am

climatereason says: May 28, 2013 at 4:33 am
“Its ok, you can relax. It seems that Melbourne did not experience its 4th warmest April ever (in its very short record)”

Tony, I believe it did. I think you are looking at the list of which days were warmest in the month. Anyway, max temps were 1C above normal, min 1.5 above. Australia had its 5th warmest April.

Ian H
May 28, 2013 6:11 am

@ Margaret Hardman

I shall accept that you have taught statistics and then point to your error when you propose a null hypothesis that warming has occurred since 1880. The null part, as you know, indicates no change, no correlation, no link. I am surprised that you made that error.

Nonsense. The null hypothesis is always simply “the hypothesis is false”. It has nothing to do with correlation link cause or even change. It is simply the negation of the hypothesis.
I have no problem with people who pick a hypothesis and stick to it. If your hypothesis is that “the world has warmed since 1880” (why 1880 in particular?) then you might indeed be able to show this is true at the 2 \sigma level. However you cannot then go around pretending that you’ve proved that “mankind is having a significant impact on the climate” which is what I see people doing all the time. That is a completely different hypothesis that requires its own test.

May 28, 2013 6:15 am

climatereason says:
May 28, 2013 at 5:27 am
…………………….
Good graph Tony
Happiness index of an average Brit can be calculated by adding two trends
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TB.gif

Pamela Gray
May 28, 2013 6:25 am

Two thoughts.
One, any single temperature, be it colder or warmer, than any other single temperature, which includes record temperatures, can be very reasonably attributed to the weather pattern variation in force at that time. No need to use CO2 or the Sun to explain it. It isn’t oddly warmer or colder today. Or yesterday, or compared to 1970-whatever.
Two, anyone can see it clearly in whatever observation record you want to look at, theirs or ours. The linear trend statistically calculated from actual modern data, not “scenarios”, is still well within historical natural variations. If the absolute value of single points on a current linear trend-line can be comparitively buried in the noise from the past it cannot be called “significant” nor attributed to anything other than natural variation. Geez, you don’t even need a graduate course in statistics to figure that one out.
There is good reason for holding onto the null hypothesis. New science paradigms must be conservatively determined or else we become susceptible to wild and unsubstantiated science fads.

Latitude
May 28, 2013 6:53 am

getting funnier….. 🙂
Now you guys are arguing about what is normal….
….when you let the crooks define normal

Plain Richard
May 28, 2013 7:17 am

Richard Betts did weigh in over at Bishop Hill by quoting an email from Doug to Doug (comment nr 110 or so).

Jenn Oates
May 28, 2013 7:55 am

I show a BBC vid to my students and it has a Met prognosticator saying that they’re right six days out of seven. Mebbe. But when they’re wrong, they’re really REALLY wrong. 🙂

Editor
May 28, 2013 8:15 am

Vuk
Good refinement to my graph. Perhaps it should now be relabelled the ‘fantasy’ graph because it ain’t going to happen!
tonyb

Carrick
May 28, 2013 8:18 am

There’s a bit of a discussion of Keenan’s post here.

Beta Blocker
May 28, 2013 8:21 am

Pamela Gray says: May 28, 2013 at 6:25 am “Two thoughts ….. ….. There is good reason for holding onto the null hypothesis. New science paradigms must be conservatively determined or else we become susceptible to wild and unsubstantiated science fads.”

Pamela, the two points you have made concerning natural variability, and your final conclusion, are crucial.
The two points explain why, if someone is an acolyte of the AGW industrial complex, these are the two most important counter-arguments which must be overcome — hence the overriding need on the part of alarmists to expunge the Medievel Warm Period from the historical climate record.

John Bills
May 28, 2013 8:23 am

Don’t feed troll Stokes!

Editor
May 28, 2013 8:26 am

Nick Stokes.
1880? As I say that’s incredibly short. Why does it stop around 1990?
A hot night in Inverness? you are obviously a fantasist
Incidentally 1975 and 1976 were probably our two finest summers so you were very lucky to have been here in 75. Are you coming over to watch the Aussies getting Walloped?
tonyb

Slacko
May 28, 2013 8:53 am

Nick Stokes says:
May 28, 2013 at 3:36 am
“…fairly warm in … Australia.”
“I think it was (Melbourne’s) fourth warmest April ever.”

May 28, 2013 at 6:07 am
“Australia had its 5th warmest April.”
You have got to be kidding! What about the record lows that I recall were reported? You didn’t mention those.
Just from memory, I would say spring was about two months late, last winter not ending until at least November. It was cool all the way up to Christmas leaving us a very short summer, and the heat which normally remains oppressive till the third week of June was already breaking in April. But that was Sydney. YMMV.

ralfellis
May 28, 2013 8:57 am

richard telford says: May 27, 2013 at 8:52 am
The salary of academics is not dependent on their opinions – a concept known as academic freedom.
___________________________________
I have debated with academics on many occasions, and not one will go more than a gnat’s cock away from established concepts and structures. Academics are afraid of peer ridicule and of losing their grants, and thus scientific and historical change is always glacially incremental and extremely cautious.
You might say that caution is a good thing, because we have all been ‘taught to be cautious’, but it also produces group-think, cabal-belligerence and a bunker-mentality. And there is no academic freedom in a group-think cabal that launches vicious attacks on anyone who puts their head above the scientific parapet.
.

Editor
May 28, 2013 8:59 am

John Bills
Nick Stokes is not a troll. He is brave enough to come here to the lions den and post competent data and argue his case. We may not agree with him but we are in danger of all singing from the same hymn sheet like at SKS and Real Climate if we can not deal with him.
tonyb

Jimbo
May 28, 2013 9:04 am

Jimbo says:
May 27, 2013 at 9:24 am
What should people expect as we came out of the Little Ice Age? Then there’s the ‘significant(?)’ rise between 2910 to 1940 when co2 was well below the ‘safe’ level.

I meant:
“…..rise between 1910 to 1940 when co2 was well below the ‘safe’ level.”

philincalifornia
May 28, 2013 9:05 am

Well there you go Margaret “I can’t even comprehend the null hypothesis” Hardman.
She entered this blog with stridency and pomposity and a supercilious lauding over its country bumpkin inhabitants …..
….. and then found she didn’t qualify.
Please don’t be so noisy on your way out love. People are thinking in here.

Scott Basinger
May 28, 2013 9:20 am

“Nick Stokes is not a troll. He is brave enough to come here to the lions den and post competent data and argue his case. We may not agree with him but we are in danger of all singing from the same hymn sheet like at SKS and Real Climate if we can not deal with him.”

Scott Scarborough
May 28, 2013 10:35 am

Does this mean when someone asks us “has the earth warmed over the last century” we can say “NO!”

Theo Goodwin
May 28, 2013 10:45 am

Scott Basinger says:
May 28, 2013 at 9:20 am
Nick Stokes says:
May 27, 2013 at 11:48 am
“I wish posts like this would simply state their argument. There’s a big bold heading saying:
“Met Office admits claims of significant temperature rise untenable”

And if you follow the link to BH, there’s a long ramble from Doug Keenan on his opinions about the meaning of statistical significance, and confused discussion in the House of Lords.”
He is a smart guy and he does have things to contribute. But at times he cannot help himself.

John Bills
May 28, 2013 10:50 am

You are right, NickStokes isn’t a troll, he is a racehorse.

Latitude
May 28, 2013 10:54 am

Scott Scarborough says:
May 28, 2013 at 10:35 am
Does this mean when someone asks us “has the earth warmed over the last century” we can say “NO!”
====================
pretty much
The claim is that the earth has warmed 1/2 a degree…
…when there was a 2 degree spread on what normal is
If you move the normal line up…just 1/2 degree….etc

Dave Wendt
May 28, 2013 11:12 am

Nick Stokes says:
May 28, 2013 at 6:07 am
climatereason says: May 28, 2013 at 4:33 am
“Its ok, you can relax. It seems that Melbourne did not experience its 4th warmest April ever (in its very short record)”
Tony, I believe it did. I think you are looking at the list of which days were warmest in the month. Anyway, max temps were 1C above normal, min 1.5 above. Australia had its 5th warmest April.”
According to this
http://www.accuweather.com/en/au/melbourne/26216/april-weather/26216?monyr=4/1/2013
Melbourne exceeded the historical avg high by 1F on the 8th and 27th, 2F on the 28th. For the rest of the month daily highs were mostly in the 10F to 20+F below hist. avg. Daily lows exceeded HA by 4F on the 13th, 3F on the 26th, 1F on the 27th and 28th. The rest of the month was at or below HA, although not as dramatically as the daily highs. I would never claim Accuweather as a most authoritative source but something seems to be wrong with this picture.

DavidG
May 28, 2013 11:14 am

It’s ‘cat amongst the canaries’, Anthony, not pigeons!:] Here’s an amusing bit of hysteria.
[snip – reposting entire news articles from the Guardian is a copyright violation, use an excerpt combined with a link – Anthony]

Sun Spot
May 28, 2013 11:32 am
Brendan H
May 28, 2013 12:08 pm

GeeJam: ‘WHAT COUNTRY, RIGHT NOW, IN THE WORLD, IS SIGNIFICANTLY WARMER THAN IT NORMALLY IS FOR THIS TIME OF YEAR?’
Well, right now the weather where I live is pretty Arctic, or in our case Antarctic, but New Zealand has been experiencing an anomalously warm Autumn this year.
Everybody says so, and the official figures agree: parts of the country have been more than 1.2 deg C above the April average, and across the country as a whole, temperatures were 0.7 deg C above the 1971-2010 April average.
http://www.niwa.co.nz/sites/default/files/nzcu_may_2013.pdf
I don’t think it’s very surprising, though, that if some parts of the world are colder than normal, other parts will be warmer than normal.

Nigel S
May 28, 2013 12:13 pm

DavidG says: May 28, 2013 at 11:14 am It’s ‘cat amongst the canaries’,
Anthony Watts, being the cat’s wiskers, has it right of course. This post may be the canary in the coal mine for the Met Office though.

Stephen Richards
May 28, 2013 12:19 pm

DavidG says:
May 28, 2013 at 11:14 am
It’s ‘cat amongst the canaries’, Anthony, not pigeons!:
Among pigeons where I was born.

May 28, 2013 12:28 pm

Dave Wendt says: May 28, 2013 at 11:12 am
“I would never claim Accuweather as a most authoritative source but something seems to be wrong with this picture.”

You’re right. The daily temperatures look right, but the averages are crazy. 84F in early April??? Maybe they are looking ahead.
Here is the correct version. Ave max for April is 20.3C – about 68.5F. And here’s the daily story.

May 28, 2013 12:29 pm
Editor
May 28, 2013 1:10 pm

Stephen Wilde – Thanks for the link. I had missed it at the time. I’ve read it and will think about it. Some parts seem to have merit, some seem dubious, but this thread isn’t the place to discuss it. The subject will come up again many times, no doubt.

M Courtney
May 28, 2013 1:12 pm

Agnostic says at May 28, 2013 at 4:24 am…
Spot on. Absolutely correct.
The confusion amongst some (and some who should know better) arises from the false idea that the MET office has admitted that there is now no warming trend. They have not said that. It would be obviously untrue.
They have found that the warming trend is better explained by Keenan’s model than the model they had been using. The model they had been using could not explain the warming without some factor that is outside the known natural variation.
Keenan’s model needs nothing but natural variation to explain the observed warming.
And the MET office admits that Keenan’s model is a better fit.
So if you want to believe that something other than natural variation has occurred and is occurring, well, you may so believe.
But that is a faith position. That is not a scientific viewpoint.
You no longer need to imagine extra factors; CO2 overwhelming the historical feedbacks, the aliens from the Kraken Awakes or anything else that you can sell to Hollywood. It is no longer required.
AGW may be right but it is no longer realistic.
Unless you can show that Keenan’s model does not explain the observed warming by natural variation alone.

May 28, 2013 1:30 pm

William Astley says:
May 27, 2013 at 12:20 pm
I recently noticed the cooling in Antarctica. Earlier I made this comment elsewhere….
goldminor says:
28 May 2013 at 6:32 pm
Yes, but it is a warm cold. The other day I was looking at the NSDIC graph of Antarctica sea ice extent. The graph started from 1979 to the present. This last summers sea ice melt shows close to being a record since 1979 for the least melting in the time frame of the graph. I do not see this being talked about. Plus, in looking at those 34 years, there is a distinct cooling trend that has been building through the entire series, less summer loss with more winter gain. I was arguing with a warmist about the poles and that led me to take a longer look at current info. This also made me wonder ‘Does the South Pole lead the way by cooling first, which is then followed by cooling in the NH years later?’.

May 28, 2013 1:37 pm

“Uh oh, the Met Office has set the cat amongst the pigeons.”
We’ll see. I’m kind of with Tallbloke on this one, almost certain to be ignored by the mainstream news media. Mr. Keenan’s article suggests that at least three people should already have been forced to tender their resignations: Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Baroness Verma; Met Office Chief Executive Officer, John Hirst; and Met Office Chief Scientist, Julia Slingo. It doesn’t take much to predict that nothing will happen and that these three will continue to do what ever they want regardless of legality for as long as they wish. There doesn’t seem to be any force of accountability with the Met Office at all, too bad for us all, not just in the UK. Crooks far and wide are emboldened by these types of outcomes.
W^3

May 28, 2013 1:38 pm

Nick Stokes:
“Oddly enough, I was there through the summer of 1975. A beautiful warm summer.”
So you admit you like it warm Nick. Glad to hear it – that means you must be rather happy with the tiny amount of warming we’ve had since the end of the 19th century.
BTW I’d like to say that I don’t think Nick is a troll. He’s just polite and persistent. I hate the way any blog, be it alarmist or sceptic, describes anyone they don’t agree with as a ‘troll’. Debate with people from the ‘other side’ is what keeps us constantly enquiring and constantly unearthing the fallacies behind CAGW. Genuine scientific discovery is all about disagreement and debate with those in Camp Consensus.

John Whitman
May 28, 2013 3:08 pm

Nick Milner on May 27, 2013 at 7:54 am
It’s an interesting essay but what are we to take away from it? That statistically speaking the planet isn’t actually warming after all? This seemed to be the sceptical argument from the early days but over the years hasn’t it moderated to be more along the lines of “we agree that the planet has warmed but we disagree as to the proportion that is man-made?” Is that now no longer the case? Are we, for example, to assume that the recently lauded low climate sensitivity studies are invalidated and the sensitivity should really be 0?
I ask because it looks like the “sceptical view” (if such a thing can be said to exist with any broad agreement) can’t make it’s mind up what it thinks, as long as it’s not what “the other guys” think, and you can bet that “they” will point this out.
[. . .]

– – – – – – –
Nick Milner,
Your comment stimulates an overview of what skepticism can be viewed as wrt climate science.
There are skeptics (call them skeptic type #1) who claim certainty in the theory that when CO2 from burning fossil fuels is added to the Earth’s atmosphere then there must be some surface temperature warming on a transient and / or a steady state basis; with these type #1 skeptics there are some who maintain the caveat that all other climate dynamics/factors must remain equal and also there are some others of these type #1 skeptics who do not use that caveat in their position. What makes type #1 skeptics be skeptics is their finding of minor warming from CO2 from burning fossil fuels and / or any warming is beneficial to life (not bad like CAGWists claim).
There are also skeptics (call them skeptic type #2) who maintain there are not to date any statistically determinable climate signal variations of significance on any timescale that preclude a natural explanation of observed climate data.
There are other skeptical positions, of course. Just considering type #1 & #2 skeptics, I think they are not fundamentally inconsistent with each other. One could hold both rationally.
I tend to find the skeptic position #2 reasonably established. However, I do not find skeptic position # 1 reasonably established because it merely presumes without unequivical observational verification that actual warming has been caused on any timescale by CO2 from natural sources or from fossil fuel sources. Therefore I conclude that skeptic #1 position is still untested in reality .
John

Elizabeth
May 28,