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.

Go read the entire essay here: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/27/met-office-admits-claims-of-significant-temperature-rise-unt.html

Josh has a go at them:

met_office_apology

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
331 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Nick Stokes
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.

climatereason
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.
Nick Stokes your turn.

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.

Nick Stokes
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”
Here, here. We (and Christopher Booker) have been banging on about this for years.
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.

Nick Stokes
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. 🙂

climatereason
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!

climatereason
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

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.
___________________________________
Academic freedom my *rse.
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.
.

climatereason
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.”
Exactly. In this case, along with his helpful links to a discussion at Lucia’s Blackboard, he’s changed the way that I think about this.

1 8 9 10 11 12 14