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:
climatereason says:
May 28, 2013 at 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?
Indeed they were Tony, but the game between Lancashire and Derbyshire at Buxton on June 2nd 1975 was stopped by snow! I recall it well as I was planning to watch the game that afternoon. 🙁
http://www.espncricinfo.com/db/PICTURES/CMS/117900/117949.jpg
goldminor says: May 29, 2013 at 2:44 pm
“Significant does not mean statistically significant, or Lord Donoughue would have said statistically significant in the first place.”
That’s the confusion. the question was whether there was significant global warming since 1880. The Met said about 0.8°C, which with your interpretation is a direct and relevant answer. Yet Lord D says “It published their assumption”. That sounds statistical. Doug Keenan claimed
“A proper Answer to the above Parliamentary Question must not only state Yes or No, it must also specify what statistical model was used to determine significance.”
Sounds like that’s what he thinks it meant.
– – – – – –
Lord Donoughue,
For the Met Office to be held accountable for finally answering your question(s) in a clear and accountable way must have been traumatic for them. Traumatic since they have been used to being fawningly handled by the MSM and gov’t inquiries for decades. The need to give a straight forward and definitive answer to you must have caused confused disarray in their group think alarmist ideology.
I am American and thus cannot fully appreciate the political situation that you discuss, but it looks like a positive step for increasing the auditing and accountability of gov’t climate science related i situations. Thank you for your participation.
We Americans must press our NASA to make GISS show similar direct accountability as you have done with the Met Office.
John
Well done Lord Donoughue; it must have taken an extraordinary level of honest-bravery to doggedly persist when asking your series of questions. Thank you .
That you’re a Labour Peer came as a welcome surprise to me. I’d written off my, once, party of choice, as a bunch of Yes-Persons (I exempt MP Graham Stringer from this prejudice) who were able to suspend their higher faculties by the simple expedient of wagging their tails in time to the galley drum-roll while never questioning why those distant rocks kept getting closer!
You’ve restored part of my faith in the UK democratic process.
Sadly, it’s the role of the HOL rather than the HOC that seems to be best able to steer the SS UK away from the Climate-Charybdis that awaits us unless we cut the ropes that, successive X-factor driven governments, have lashed to the wheel.
As much as I applaud your actions and determination I’m saddened that scientific ‘peer-review’ should have been overtaken by ‘Peer-review’ as a mechanism for societal improvement.
Nonetheless, and once again, thank you Sir.
If the rise is not statistically significant there is then no basis for any action as the rise falls within natural variability that has happened for centuries. So it is every bit relevant to question the number and model used for calculating the significance. The fact that there have been 5 questions obfuscated, unaswered with evasive and politically weaselling tactics show that the Met Office do not have any basis to their claims. Based on their assertion of significance billions of dollars affecting millions of people are being spent in the name of climate change and laws have been enacted. So if that entire edifice is based upon sand and lies, it has to be exposed. Thanks for your efforts on this Lord Donoughue.
Nick Stokes says: May 29, 2013 at 2:16 pm
Could you possibly explain to me what it is that you do not understand (or perhaps “confuses” you) about the phrases I’ve bolded below:
I’ve watched you in action for quite some time, Nick; and I fully appreciate your superb mastery of the arts of obfuscation, misdirection and diversionary nit-pickery. But (IMHO) this does not warrant your chastising of a 28-year veteran of the British parliamentary system – and its longstanding traditions – simply because he asked his questions his way and not yours (or that of Doug McNeall, Julia Slingo or Richard Betts for that matter)!
Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001) says: May 29, 2013 at 9:18 pm
“Could you possibly explain to me what it is that you do not understand…”
Hilary, I said very clearly that it was his question in the HoL, not his post here, that was confused. I offer no judgment on the latter. His question asked:
“whether those [Hadcrut4] figures suggest there has been any significant global warming since (1) 1998, and (2) 1880;”
The follow-up asked:
“whether they consider a rise in global temperature of 0.8 degrees celsius since 1880 to be significant.”
The confusion is, what does “significant” mean. Your view?
Goldminor said above it doesn’t mean statistically significant, and if it did it would say so. Paul_K at Lucia’s likewise. The MO seems to have tried to cover both. But Doug K, who’s pulling the strings here, says firmly
“A proper Answer to the above Parliamentary Question must not only state Yes or No, it must also specify what statistical model was used to determine significance.”
Gold is right. If they meant that they should say it clearly.
In the second question
“how many years of non-warming they consider would constitute a long-term trend.”
Remember, MO scientists have to try to make sense of this.
A new discussion board has been set up at Bishop Hill. It is “Questions to suggest to Lord Donoughue“.
Nick Stokes, the Questions are asked by Lord Donoughue (not me). Moreover, I first contacted Lord Donoughue, to offer my services as a statistical advisor, after Question HL3050 was answered. This is stated in my post.
RoyFOMR, that is a great comment about “peer review” being overtaken by “Peer review”!
Nick Stokes says: May 29, 2013 at 10:06 pm
Sorry, Nick, but one thing I’ve never seen you do is “say [anything] very clearly”. Your series of posts in this thread is no exception.
FYI, a “question” cannot be “confused” – regardless of where it is asked or by whom.
I certainly do hope that their powers of comprehension of the English language are not as limited as you seem to think they must be!
Douglas J. Keenan says: May 29, 2013 at 10:35 pm
“Nick Stokes, the Questions are asked by Lord Donoughue (not me).”
Are you telling me that:
“further to the Written Answer by Baroness Verma on 8 November 2012 (WA 224-5) stating that the statistical model used for global temperatures was a linear trend with an autoregressive process, what is their assessment of the likelihood of this model having superiority to a driftless third-order autoregressive integrated model in measuring and forecasting global temperatures.[HL4414]”
is just something he phrased himself?
Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001) says: May 29, 2013 at 10:41 pm
“Sorry, Nick, but one thing I’ve never seen you do is “say [anything] very clearly”. “
Hilary, I said:
“But it was confused, starting with your first question:”
and I quoted the question, including HL number. How is it not clear that I was referring to that question?
As to confused question, I asked you if you thought its use of “significant” meant “statistically significant”. People answering need to know. Your English skills may help. Any suggestion?
@Nick stokes
Nick
This was what we call in UK a ‘scholarship level’ question.Nothing ‘confused’ about it at all – but very deliberately phrased. Think of it like the opening move in a game of chess. It is designed to get the Met Office to lay their cards about ‘significance’ on the table.
Possible answers: MO: No, it is not significant. BD: Under which model of significance?
MO: Yes: It is significant. BD: Under which model of significance?
MO; It is (or isn’t) significant under model abc. BD: Why that model and not xyz……?
..and we’re up and running.
A lot of Parliamentary stuff is played as a game. Donoughue, as an ex-Minister and adviser to a much-loved TV show knows how to play it as well as anybody.
Here’s a snatch of his work
Some believed it was a comedy show, but I have a sneaking suspicion it was really an early version of Reality TV…..
@Nick
Dude, the question didn’t ask for statistical significance, but the answer was that the warming was “statistically significant”. DK’s point is that once you say that you should also give the justification, and none was given.
@ur momisugly Agnostic
It’s not that Nick does not know it. He is here to deliberately obfuscate, lie and defend anything done by the CAGW crowd. The mistake is in thinking that his intentions are genuine or honourable. Nothing can be far from the truth.
Latimer Alder says: May 30, 2013 at 12:57 am
“Nothing ‘confused’ about it at all – but very deliberately phrased. Think of it like the opening move in a game of chess. It is designed to get the Met Office to lay their cards about ‘significance’ on the table.”
Well, I’d prefer to think of it as confused. The game you describe is called gotcha.
@Nick stokes
Exactly right.
Carefully worded so that the Met Office were stuck between a rock and a hard place. And their serial obfuscation they tried to carry off shows that they knew they were caught and were just hoping he’d just go away.
Bad strategy. A seasoned campaigner doesn’t give up at the first hurdle. It just prolonged their agony and made the their torment more public.
And I guess they are now soiling their underwear waiting to see what his next salvo will be. If I were them I’d be very scared …wily Parliamentary fox Donoughue together with the sharp intellect of Keenan (think McSteve without the geniality) could be a very powerful combination.
Donoughue leads Met Office by One Set to Love.
PS – sorry if this is all more subtle than you are used to. But in our Parliament, these are the rules we play by. Yours may differ, but at least try to understand our game before criticising the players for not playing by rules that you are more familiar with.
Next week : Cricket!
@Venter
Be that as it may, his “devils advocacy” is most welcome. I agree with tonyb, he is not a troll, he is simply pedantic. He is knowledgable and technically astute, and he sometimes makes good points. He also normally avoids ad hom, although his characterisation of Doug Keenan’s emails and questions as being “confused” was unnecessarily condescending. Ensuring your argument is solid enough to “out-fox” his counters is important to ensure that you are certain of your facts and you aren’t fooling yourself.
I have learnt more from reasoned responses to Nick and those like him than I have from outraged proclamations of disdain for climate science and energy policy. I started out as firmly believing in CAGW and was converted by responses to those like Nick. You really need him to make the case to be sure of your own.
It might be exasperating at times, but his is as a reasonable voice in support of (C)AGW or the science advocating it as there is, and we should be hearing it.
Latimer Alder says: May 30, 2013 at 2:38 am
“PS – sorry if this is all more subtle than you are used to. But in our Parliament, these are the rules we play by. Yours may differ, but at least try to understand our game before criticising the players for not playing by rules that you are more familiar with.”
OK maybe for aficionados Keenan has played a blinder. Very clever, I guess. But why should I care about the result.
@agnostic,
Thanks for your response. I agree with your points but where I differ is ” reasonable “. When someone goes through every contortion in the book to justify every bad deed and every fraudulent act done by the CAGW believers, in my book I don’t classify it as reasonable. I call it as being wilful accessory to farudulent behaviour. For such people I have nothing but contempt.
Even Steve McIntyre, one of the calmest, sanest and most reasonable voices in the climate debate who strictly avoids calling anybody anything termed him as ” racehorse ” after the famous lawyer who would defend any bad deed. That tells a lot.
@Nick stokes
There are about 65 million Brits for whom the performance of our Met Office is quite important. First we pay for them so we’d like to know they are doing a good job. But second they are major advisers to our Government in their policies about ‘climate change’ – which is coming increasingly to the fore in our politics. So their performance (or not) here has big implications for us.
And you should care since the UK Met office is a big contributor to the IPCC stuff that our government will take some notice of. And to the HADCRUx datasets. Seems like they may not have as much firm ground to stand on as they have led us to believe. And that clearly has global implications.
Three other points.
1. I think the credit lies mostly with Donoughue for this round. As he said in his piece above, he hadn’t even heard of Keenan before asking his first question. But a new Donoughue/Keenan axis would be very powerful.
2. It may be played as a ‘game’, but misleading Parliament is a career-ending crime for a politician or ‘civil servant’. The mandarins at the Met Office have a great deal to lose both personally, politically and professionally. So far their inept performance (the CRU defence of ‘shan’t tell you – ya boo!’) does not bode well for them.
3. But it ain’t over till it’s over. I scored it One Set to Love so far. And tennis can be up to 5 sets.
Stay tuned and see what happens next. It may take a while but there’s plenty of life left in this one.
Latimer,
“There are about 65 million Brits for whom the performance of our Met Office is quite important. First we pay for them so we’d like to know they are doing a good job.”
Fine. And if you ask questions designed to elicit information, in good faith, to get an informed response, I’m interested in the results too. But if questions are asked to achieve a gotcha – something a scientist said in response to a question designed to give limited information so the answer can be presented as something else, then I’m not interested, and I think you’ll find most of those 65 mil aren’t either. Even if it’s cleverly done.
I hasten to add that personally I don’t believe that was what Lord D was doing, at least in the early part. That’s your description. I think they were just poorly posed questions.
Misleading parliament might have been a career ending event some time ago (see the Profumo Affair) but it is a charge bandied around ten a penny these days and it rarely seems to stick. I suspect there is barely a minister from the last twenty years who hasn’t, in some way, subtly or obviously, misled parliament. There’s always a get out – often plausible deniability. Donoughue is playing a politician’s game and the Met Office is trying to answer with science. As we’ve seen time and time again, when politics and science meet, the science suffers, gets ignored (see BSE, salmonella in eggs, foot and mouth, GMOs and, yes, climate change).
@Nick stokes
‘
Parliament is about politics. Parliamentary questions are about politics.
‘Climate change’ and our response to it is about politics. Our Climate Change Act is about politics. Kyoto is about politics, Copenhagen and its failure is about politics.
You really must be living on another planet if you expect something else.
BTW – the Met Office is a publicly funded institution. It is responsible and accountable to Parliament for what it does and how it spends our money. That is how democracy (sort of) works in our country. We do not (in theory at least) hand over loads of cash to unaccountable agencies and leave them to get on with it.
@Margaret hardman
‘
Umm – not sure that those are a list of things where ‘the science has been ignored’ at all. In many cases they are ones where the ‘science’ has been taken far too seriously and vast over-reactions have ensued.
I seem to remember scientific predictions IN 1996 of over 500,000 CJD deaths already in the pipeline from eating BSE infected beef. There have been 147. Less than 1/3000th as many.
For Climate Change, we have the disastrous self-harming CCA..passed in 2008 with scientific advice. And yet even then there had been no GAT increase for 10 years,. We had the IPCC in 2007 telling us to expect 0.2C rise per decade. And nothing at all has happened.
Sometimes, it seems, that ignoring ‘scientific advice’ is the best thing that we can do, Especially when it is all whizzed around in the melting pot of politics and grants and alarmism and saving the world and subsidies and careers and NGOs and The Team and…..
And honest brokers are hard to identify.
Juts keep on relying on the data, not the scientist’s theories would be my best advice to the pollies.
@Latimer Alder
The Met Office works on a commercial basis
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/1538/1538we03.htm