Guest essay by Douglas J. Keenan
Temperatures on Earth’s surface—i.e. where people live—are widely believed to provide evidence for global warming. Demonstrating that those temperatures actually provide evidence, though, requires doing statistical analysis.
All such statistical analyses of the temperatures that have been done so far are fatally flawed. Astoundingly, those flaws are effectively acknowledged in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5).
The flaws imply that there is no demonstrated observational evidence that global temperatures have significantly increased (i.e. increased more than would be expected from natural climatic variation alone).
Despite this, one of the main conclusions of AR5 is that global temperatures have increased very significantly. That conclusion is based on analysis that AR5 itself acknowledges is fatally flawed. The correct conclusion is that there is no demonstrated observational evidence for global warming.
Full critique at http://www.informath.org/AR5stat.pdf
===========================================================
He closes with these quotes:
The reason for so much bad science is not that talent is rare, not at all; what is rare is character. People are not honest, they don’t admit their ignorance, and that is why they write such nonsense. — Sigmund Freud
Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm — but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves. — T.S. Eliot
You should, in science, believe logic and arguments,carefully drawn, and not authorities.—Richard Feynman
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I see two major issues with climate analysis that are basic to all further considerations.
1) Temperature data is the result of chaotic processes and can not be accurately predicted. This results in the prohibition of parametric analysis. Assuming observations drawn from today’s “population of temperatures” will be drawn from the same population tomorrow are false. Temperature has guaranteed black swan events – essentially 1% chance for a new record each year for any 100 year period. There are no many sided dice that encompass all possible temperatures.
2) ALL of the currently available data stinks ! Any rational analysis of current data sets will conclude that the errors are larger than any “average” trend. ALL current analysis have laughable estimates of ALL error types. There are no random samples. There are generally no replicates or an inadequate number of replicates. Data discontinuities are glossed over. Bullsh*t adjustments are de rigeur.
SUGGESTIONS (from a non-scientist)
Dear Dr. Keenan,
Given that the above excellent analysis was largely written to educate non-scientists, I suggest:
1. Page 9 – re: “… the 90%-confidence interval for the global temperature in that year: [−0.10 °C, −0.36 °C]… ” — a brief explanation of anomalies would be helpful (otherwise, the figures are undecipherable and meaningless to a non-scientist). Chapter 2.1 of Bob Tisdale’s new book Climate Models Fail is one source to link for an explanation of anomalies.
2. To prevent misunderstanding, I suggest reconciling the following two clauses:
“The flaws imply that there is no demonstrated observational evidence that global temperatures have significantly increased (i.e. increased more than would be expected from natural climatic variation alone).” (Executive Summary, p. 1)
With:
“Simply put, no one has yet presented valid statistical analysis of any observational data to show global warming is real. Moreover, that applies to any warming—whether attributable to humans or to nature.” (Sec. 7, p. 11)
3. “Having the confidence interval so far away from including 0… .” (p. 11) — Need to re-word to prevent non-scientist confusion.
4.
“… SPM ignores what is said in Chapter 10. It does that even though responsibility for the statistical analysis lies with Chapter 10.”Suggest: “… SPM ignores Chapter 10 even though per Chapter 2 the only valid statistical analysis is done in Chapter 10.”
5. p. 12 — correct for capitals in title: “paper is entitled “Statistical Models and the Global Temperature Record”.
6. minor vocabulary clarification: “tabled” – Does that mean to pose a question? In the U.S., it would mean to set aside and, possibly forever, ignore it. (Can’t Lord Donohue simply issue a subpoena and force the witness to appear and testify? — never mind my queries here if this paper is completely aimed at a U.K. audience — not important, in any event, to the fine discussion you present in your paper.)
7. While your bending over backward (on p. 16) to portray the climastrologists as innocently mistaken does credit to your good nature, it is so implausible (not a justified assumption, ahem!) that I would suggest you delete it. It is obvious to a layperson that these Ph.D.’s know good and well that what they are doing is wrong. You need not say so explicitly, but to toss a high-necked, full-length, flannel nightgown on a prostitute in an attempt to portray her as naive is a little ridiculous and, thus, detracts a little bit from an otherwise well-written expose.
8. p. 17 — capitals in title: ““Global Temperature Trends”
9. Fascinating reporting of the religious-like attachment of those who believe in Neo-Darwinism to a mistaken radiocarbon dating regime. You were treading on hallowed ground, there!
EXCELLENT REPORT.
Thank you for sharing it with us for free.
Your grateful student (and humble proof reader),
Janice
Note: I apologize if I have duplicated suggestions above — I did not take the time to review the comments written while I was writing this.
Hi, Geran. Re: my redeeming myself — huh?
Keenan is entirely correct in pointing out that the critical question of assumed time-series model strongly prejudices all statistical conclusions about “trend” drawn from short measurement records Those assumptions are typically made ex cathedra–on both sides of the AGW debate. Based upon model-free spectral analyses of actual meaurements as well as proxy data, I have long argued that linear-trend plus AR(1) models are simply inappropriate. What is fitted to the data by linear regression or by nonlinear methods cannot be taken as a SECULAR trend, persisting far beyond the time-frame of the records.
I must quibble, however, with the claim that Koutsoyiannis, who resorts to Hurst-Kolmogoroff persistence models married to the unproven notion of self-similarity at all time scales, advances our insight very far. The power density spectra almost invariably show the presence of strong oscillations over a very wide range of frequencies that are incompatible with simplistic H-K “red noise” spectra. Sadly, virtually none of the statisticians whose voices are repeatedly heard in “climate science” are truly adept at geophysical time-series analysis and modeling.
Mosher
Instead of carping from the sidelines, perhaps you can answer Doug’s central point, and tell us what evidence you have that any warming recorded is “statistically significant”.
We know you are much cleverer than the rest of us, so that should not be terribly difficult.
Janice Moore says:
October 30, 2013 at 2:20 pm
Hi, Geran. Re: my redeeming myself — huh?
>>>>>>
You’re on the “come back trail” from calling me a screaming monkey….
Paul Homewood says:
October 30, 2013 at 2:30 pm
Mosher
Instead of carping from the sidelines, perhaps you can answer Doug’s central point, and tell us what evidence you have that any warming recorded is “statistically significant”.
We know you are much cleverer than the rest of us, so that should not be terribly difficult.
>>>>>>>>>>
Paul, Mosh will not be returning any calls tonight. He has no evidence, only his personal wishes. He wishes so much that mankind was ruining the planet. He is angry because CO2 has gone up but we are not yet “boiled”. To him, his computer models cannot be wrong….
My dear Geran,
I believe I said that you were acting “like” a screaming chimpanzee.
#(:))
Did I just make it three feet farther along the “come back trail?”
I hope so.
Your truth in science ally,
Janice
Janice Moore says:
October 30, 2013 at 3:20 pm
….
Did I just make it three feet farther along the “come back trail?”
>>>>>>>
We’re talking centimeters here, but stay with the program. Rehab will set you free….
As an example of the long-term natural variability manifested by paleo data, see the power density of GISP2 del18O-isotope data at:
http://i1188.photobucket.com/albums/z410/skygram/graph1.jpg
P.S. Some day, i’ll have time to organize my photobucket account.
– – – – – – –
Douglas J. Keenan,
Thank you for making it clear; inappropriate statistical models were chosen in AR5 and the authors of AR5 admit it.
The time is fast approaching for a formal independent statistical expert panel to do a comprehensive audit in full public view. An audit with full access to all internal docs, communications and archives of their non-open forums. N’est ce pas?
John
I do wonder about IPCC’s claimed accuracy of global average temperatures, especially as listed by CRU to 3 decimal places. They rely on Jones et al and the √n rule. The surface stations project shows that at least 6% of these measurements have errors greater than 5 degrees C. Now this isn’t much better than putting a finger in the air. If we could get all 2,400,000,000 internet users to put their fingers in the air to estimate their local temperature, we should be able to calculate an average global temperature and get an error in the average of 0.001 degrees C. I’m not a statistician – what’s wrong here ?
Dear Geran,
I did not realize how deeply I had offended you by my exaggerated description of your comments on that thread. I have learned a lesson (heh, well, I hope I have) about hyperbolic and carelessly (and poorly) executed repartee. I am sorry for the hurt I have caused you. I was wrong.
Please, forgive me.
Your wiser, humbler (we can only hope), friend,
Janice
Janice, no harm done here.
“Words” don’t hurt me. I am not harmed, and you owned up to your loss of control. So, all is level. We skeptics fight amongst ourselves, but it only makes us stronger to fight the REAL enemies.
Now go get the Warmists, and take no prisoners! (They FEAR the TRUTH.)
Thanks, Geran.
Douglas, you have already been labelled as a “denier”, therefore your entire analysis is invalid; at least to the warmists and the great unwashed masses. Too bad too, because everybody needs to understand this issue.
Is anyone able to explain why Mosh isn’t happy that we’re not boiling ourselves to death?
I garnered from Met Office’s replies to Parliament that they chose the AR(1) model because everyone else was using it. In other words, they had no theoretical basis to their choice. Maybe I shouldn’t be, but I am somewhat surprised that the IPCC is clinging to first order autoregression for determining significance, especially after Met’s admitting it was unsuitable. Don’t they not learn from those behind the woodshed experiences?
Ugh… I meant “Don’t they learn from those behind the woodshed experiences?”
Steven Mosher: “The correct conclusion is that there is no demonstrated observational evidence for global warming.”
Yes, that was a mistake. Touche’
His other punchline is correct: The flaws imply that there is no demonstrated observational evidence that global temperatures have significantly increased (i.e. increased more than would be expected from natural climatic variation alone).
@ur momisugly Janice Moore, October 30 at 2:15 pm
Thank you much and very kindly. About your first three points….
1. Good point—will amend.
2. The Executive Summary is intended to be a true executive summary; in particular, it is not an abstract. I am unskilled at writing something like this; so the Summary will be written jointly with someone else (Lord Donoughue). For now, I decided to include a rough version. That was perhaps a mistake, though, because you, and others, have found valid problems with it.
3. Thanks—will do.
@ur momisugly 1sky1, October 30 at 2:26 pm
About the work of Koutsoyiannis, I agree that the model that he has found does not fit the data well; indeed, I had a brief conversation with Koutsoyiannis about that last year. The critique, though, does state that he has not found a viable model.
What makes the work of Koutsoyiannis especially important is that it provides the only example of attempting to use physics to constrain the set of candidate statistical models. Using physics to constrain the candidate models is an obvious strategy, but implementing that strategy is difficult. Virtually all other researchers who attempt to statistically model climatic time series constrain the candidate models by assuming that the models are analytically simple, e.g. by assuming linearity. That is wrong, but it allows those researchers to claim “results”. Koutsoyiannis has taken the correct, but much more difficult, path.
Dear Mr. Keenan,
You are so very welcome. And, thanks, for letting me know that I could be of some little help. Re: Koutsoyiannis, his work IS a good example for the point you were making; I guess you just need to make the purpose of citing K. a bit more clear for readers like 1sky. Of course, you can’t write a paper carefully enough for those who read it in haste. Just have to ignore the criticisms of such readers.
Best wishes for success with this, your latest endeavor on behalf of truth.
Yours,
Janice
Doug, what you write for me, both in your essay and in comments, is extremely flattering. Thank you very much.
Also, thank you Janice for your kind comment.
1sky1, I appreciate your criticism. Indeed, self-similarity at all time scales (using just one parameter) may be too simplifying. However, I find it extremely useful to derive simple and parsimonious models by using the simplest possible constraints. Then by adding more constraints, one may approximate reality better. Of course, there is much more to do than what is reported in a single paper to which Doug mostly refers. We are continuing our studies in this direction (in very tough conditions though—note, our university has been closed for the last couple of months due to substantial cuttings and firing of half of the personnel, and its future is uncertain). Anyhow, you may find additional stuff and replies to many comments in a recent discussion in http://www.climatedialogue.org/long-term-persistence-and-trend-significance/
Dear Professor Koutsoyannis,
I’m so sorry to hear that you are working under such tough conditions. A world-class scientist like you should have the finest that academia has to offer. You come from a land of heroes, who gave to the world great science, art, and literature…….. who fought for democracy………. who ran 14 kilometers in bare feet and cried,
“We have won!”
Just a little encouragement from an American admirer. An American man singing in a rather ordinary way, but with that optimism which has been and always will be the gift of America to the world. You — can — do — it!
Truth will win.
Take care,
Janice
Dear Janice, it’s a great feeling to hear from so far away that “You’ll never walk alone”; thank you indeed for this friendly encouragement.
Demetris