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:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Clarification would involve addressing the question asked.
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.
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
“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.
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?
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?
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.
“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.
This article is from a speech he delivered at an anti-carbon tax rally in Sydney, (Aust) on July 1, 2012.
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
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
This is terrible news because it means poor people will continue to die from the cold!
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.
@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.
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”.
Nicky,
I know by now that you are an attention seeking troll.
Please go away.
Go over to John Cook’s place.
They will adore you.
(and stay there)
“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.”
Already done here and elsewhere:
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.
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”?
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.
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).
Nick Stokes: Thanks! I understand a lot more clearly now.
” 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 ?
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.