Statistical Significances – How Long Is "The Pause"? (Now Includes September Data)

WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source

Image Credit: WoodForTrees.org

Guest Post By Werner Brozek, Edited By Just The Facts, Update/Additional Explanatory Commentary from Nick Stokes

UPDATE: RSS for October has just come out and the value was 0.207. As a result, RSS has now reached the 204 month or 17 year mark. The slope over the last 17 years is -0.000122111 per year.

The graphic above shows 5 lines. The long horizontal line shows that RSS is flat since November 1996 to September 2013, which is a period of 16 years and 11 months or 203 months. All three programs are unanimous on this point. The two lines that are sloped up and down and which are closer together include the error bars based on Nick Stokes’ Temperature Trend Viewer page. The two lines that are sloped up and down and which are further apart include the error bars based on SkS’s Temperature Trend Calculator. Nick Stokes’ program provides much tighter error bars and therefore his times for a 95% significance are less than that of SkS. In my previous post on August 25, I said: On six different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 18 and 23 years. That statement was based on the trend from the SkS page. However based on the trend from Nick Stokes’ page, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 16 and 20 years on several different data sets. In this post, I have used Nick Stokes’ numbers in section 2 as well as row 8 of the table below. Please let us know what you think of this change. I have asked that Nick Stokes join this thread to answer any questions pertaining to the different methods of calculating 95% significance and defend his chosen method. Nick’s trend methodology/page offers the numbers for Hadsst3 so I have also switched from Hadsst2 to Hadsst3. WFT offers numbers for Hadcrut3 but I can no longer offer error bars for that set since Nick’s program only does Hadcrut4.

In the future, I am not interested in using the trend methodology/page that offers the longest times. I am not interested in using trend methodology/page that offers the shortest times. And I am not interested in using trend methodology/page that offers the highest consensus. What I am interested in is using the trend methodology/page that offers that is the most accurate representation of Earth’s temperature trend. I thought it was SkS, but I may have been wrong. Please let us know in comments if you think that SkS or Nick Stokes’s methodology/page is more accurate, and if you can offer a more accurate one, please let us know that too.

According to NOAA’s State of the Climate In 2008 report:

The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

In this 2011 paper “Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale” Santer et al. found that:

Because of the pronounced effect of interannual noise on decadal trends, a multi-model ensemble of anthropogenically-forced simulations displays many 10-year periods with little warming. A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.

In 2010 Phil Jones was asked by the BBC, “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?”, Phil Jones replied:

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

I’ll leave it to you to draw your own conclusions based upon the data below.

Note: If you read my recent article RSS Flat For 200 Months (Now Includes July Data) and just wish to know what is new with the August and September data, you will find the most important new information from lines 7 to the end of the table. And as mentioned above, all lines for Hadsst3 are new.

In the sections below, we will present you with the latest facts. The information will be presented in three sections and an appendix. The first section will show for how long there has been no warming on several data sets. The second section will show for how long there has been no statistically significant warming on several data sets. The third section will show how 2013 to date compares with 2012 and the warmest years and months on record so far. The appendix will illustrate sections 1 and 2 in a different way. Graphs and a table will be used to illustrate the data.

Section 1

This analysis uses the latest month for which data is available on WoodForTrees.com (WFT). All of the data on WFT is also available at the specific sources as outlined below. We start with the present date and go to the furthest month in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative. So if the slope from September is 4 x 10^-4 but it is – 4 x 10^-4 from October, we give the time from October so no one can accuse us of being less than honest if we say the slope is flat from a certain month.

On all data sets below, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 8 years and 9 months to 16 years and 11 months.

1. For GISS, the slope is flat since September 1, 2001 or 12 years, 1 month. (goes to September 30, 2013)

2. For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since May 1997 or 16 years, 5 months. (goes to September)

3. For a combination of GISS, Hadcrut3, UAH and RSS, the slope is flat since December 2000 or 12 years, 10 months. (goes to September)

4. For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since December 2000 or 12 years, 10 months. (goes to September)

5. For Hadsst3, the slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 11 months. (goes to September)

6. For UAH, the slope is flat since January 2005 or 8 years, 9 months. (goes to September using version 5.5)

7. For RSS, the slope is flat since November 1996 or 17 years (goes to October)

RSS is 203/204 or 99.5% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.

The next link shows just the lines to illustrate the above for what can be shown. Think of it as a sideways bar graph where the lengths of the lines indicate the relative times where the slope is 0. In addition, the sloped wiggly line shows how CO2 has increased over this period.

WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source

When two things are plotted as I have done, the left only shows a temperature anomaly.

The actual numbers are meaningless since all slopes are essentially zero and the position of each line is merely a reflection of the base period from which anomalies are taken for each set. No numbers are given for CO2. Some have asked that the log of the concentration of CO2 be plotted. However WFT does not give this option. The upward sloping CO2 line only shows that while CO2 has been going up over the last 17 years, the temperatures have been flat for varying periods on various data sets.

The next graph shows the above, but this time, the actual plotted points are shown along with the slope lines and the CO2 is omitted:

WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source

Section 2

For this analysis, data was retrieved from Nick Stokes moyhu.blogspot.com. This analysis indicates for how long there has not been statistically significant warming according to Nick’s criteria. Data go to their latest update for each set. In every case, note that the lower error bar is negative so a slope of 0 cannot be ruled out from the month indicated.

On several different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 16 and 20 years.

The details for several sets are below.

For UAH: Since November 1995: CI from -0.001 to 2.501

For RSS: Since December 1992: CI from -0.005 to 1.968

For Hadcrut4: Since August 1996: CI from -0.006 to 1.358

For Hadsst3: Since May 1993: CI from -0.002 to 1.768

For GISS: Since August 1997: CI from -0.030 to 1.326

Section 3

This section shows data about 2013 and other information in the form of a table. The table shows the six data sources along the top and other places so they should be visible at all times. The sources are UAH, RSS, Hadcrut4, Hadcrut3, Hadsst3, and GISS. Down the column, are the following:

1. 12ra: This is the final ranking for 2012 on each data set.

2. 12a: Here I give the average anomaly for 2012.

3. year: This indicates the warmest year on record so far for that particular data set. Note that two of the data sets have 2010 as the warmest year and four have 1998 as the warmest year.

4. ano: This is the average of the monthly anomalies of the warmest year just above.

5. mon: This is the month where that particular data set showed the highest anomaly. The months are identified by the first three letters of the month and the last two numbers of the year.

6. ano: This is the anomaly of the month just above.

7. y/m: This is the longest period of time where the slope is not positive given in years/months. So 16/2 means that for 16 years and 2 months the slope is essentially 0.

8. sig: This the first month for which warming is not statistically significant according to Nick’s criteria. The first three letters of the month is followed by the last two numbers of the year.

9. Jan: This is the January, 2013, anomaly for that particular data set.

10. Feb: This is the February, 2013, anomaly for that particular data set, etc.

21. ave: This is the average anomaly of all months to date taken by adding all numbers and dividing by the number of months. However if the data set itself gives that average, I may use their number. Sometimes the number in the third decimal place differs by one, presumably due to all months not having the same number of days.

22. rnk: This is the rank that each particular data set would have if the anomaly above were to remain that way for the rest of the year. It may not, but think of it as an update 45 minutes into a game. Due to different base periods, the rank is more meaningful than the average anomaly.

Source UAH RSS Had4 Had3 Sst3 GISS
1. 12ra 9th 11th 9th 10th 9th 9th
2. 12a 0.161 0.192 0.448 0.406 0.346 0.58
3. year 1998 1998 2010 1998 1998 2010
4. ano 0.419 0.55 0.547 0.548 0.416 0.67
5. mon Apr98 Apr98 Jan07 Feb98 Jul98 Jan07
6. ano 0.66 0.857 0.829 0.756 0.526 0.94
7. y/m 8/9 16/11 12/10 16/5 12/11 12/1
8. sig Nov95 Dec92 Aug96 May93 Aug97
Source UAH RSS Had4 Had3 Sst3 GISS
9. Jan 0.504 0.440 0.450 0.390 0.292 0.63
10.Feb 0.175 0.194 0.479 0.424 0.309 0.51
11.Mar 0.183 0.204 0.405 0.384 0.287 0.60
12.Apr 0.103 0.218 0.427 0.400 0.364 0.48
13.May 0.077 0.139 0.498 0.472 0.382 0.57
14.Jun 0.269 0.291 0.457 0.426 0.314 0.61
15.Jul 0.118 0.222 0.514 0.488 0.479 0.54
16.Aug 0.122 0.167 0.527 0.491 0.483 0.61
17.Sep 0.297 0.257 0.534 0.516 0.455 0.74
Source UAH RSS Had4 Had3 Sst3 GISS
21.ave 0.205 0.237 0.474 0.444 0.374 0.588
22.rnk 6th 8th 9th 7th 6th 9th

If you wish to verify all of the latest anomalies, go to the following links, For UAH, version 5.5 was used since that is what WFT used, RSS, Hadcrut4, Hadcrut3, Hadsst3,and GISS

To see all points since January 2013 in the form of a graph, see the WFT graph below:

WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source

Appendix

In this section, we summarize data for each set separately.

RSS

The slope is flat since November 1996 or 16 years and 11 months. (goes to September) RSS is 203/204 or 99.5% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.

For RSS: There is no statistically significant warming since December 1992: CI from -0.005 to 1.968

The RSS average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.237. This would rank 8th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.192 and it came in 11th.

UAH

The slope is flat since January 2005 or 8 years, 9 months. (goes to September using version 5.5)

For UAH: There is no statistically significant warming since November 1995: CI from -0.001 to 2.501

The UAH average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.205. This would rank 6th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.419. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.66. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.161 and it came in 9th.

Hadcrut4

The slope is flat since December 2000 or 12 years, 10 months. (goes to September)

For HadCRUT4: There is no statistically significant warming since August 1996: CI from -0.006 to 1.358

The Hadcrut4 average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.474. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.547. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.829. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.448 and it came in 9th.

Hadcrut3

The slope is flat since May 1997 or 16 years, 5 months (goes to September, 2013)

The Hadcrut3 average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.444. This would rank 7th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. One has to go back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.406 and it came in 10th.

Hadsst3

For Hadsst3, the slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 11 months. (goes to September, 2013).

For Hadsst3: There is no statistically significant warming since May 1993: CI from -0.002 to 1.768

The Hadsst3 average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.374. This would rank 6th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.416. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in July of 1998 when it reached 0.526. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.346 and it came in 9th.

GISS

The slope is flat since September 1, 2001 or 12 years, 1 month. (goes to September 30, 2013)

For GISS: There is no statistically significant warming since August 1997: CI from -0.030 to 1.326

The GISS average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.588. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.67. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.94. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.58 and it came in 9th.

Conclusion

It appears as if we can accurately say from what point in time the slope is zero or any other value. However the period where warming is statistically significant seems to be more of a challenge. Different programs give different results. However what I found really surprising was that according to Nick’s program, GISS shows significant warming at over 95% for the months of November 1996 to July 1997 inclusive. However during those nine months, the slope for RSS is not even positive! Can we trust both data sets?

———-

Update: Additional Explanatory Commentary from Nick Stokes

Trends and errors:

A trend coefficient is just a weighted average of a time series, which describes the rate of increase. You can calculate it without any particular statistical model in mind.

If you want to quantify the uncertainty you have about it, you need to be clear what kind of variations you have in mind. You might want to describe the uncertainty of actual measurement. You might want to quantify the spatial variability. Or you might want to say how typical that trend is given time variability. In other words, what if the weather had been different?

It’s that last variability that we’re talking about here, and we need a model for the variation. In all kinds of time series analysis, ARIMA models are a staple. No-one seriously believes that their data really is a linear trend with AR(1) fluctuations, or whatever, but you try to get the nearest fitting model to estimate the trend uncertainty.

In my trend viewer, I used AR(1). It’s conventional, because it allows for autocorrelating based on a single delay coefficient, and there is a widely used approximation (Quenouille). I’ve described here how you can plot the autocorrelation function to show what is being fitted. The uncertainty of the trend is proportional to the area under the fitted ACF. Foster and Rahmstorf argued, reasonably, that the AR(1) underfits, and a ARMA(1,1) approx does better. Here is an example from my post. SkS uses that approach, following F&R.

You can see from the ACF that it’s really more complicated, The real ACF does not taper exponentially – it oscillates, with a period of about 4 years – likely ENSO related. Some of that effect reaches back near zero, where the ARIMA fitting is done. If it is taken out, the peak would be more slender that AR(1). But there is uncertainty with ENSO too.

So the message is, trend uncertainty is complicated.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

“Well she was just seventeen,
Now we know flat’s the mean…”
Apologies to Paul McCartney…

Reblogged this on biting tea and commented:
“The long horizontal line shows that RSS is flat since November 1996 to September 2013. which is a period of 16 years and 11 months or 203 months. All three programs are unanimous on this point.”

Leonard Weinstein

Due to the chaotic underlying nature of climate, and due to the fact that we are likely nearing the end of the Holocene, any variation up, down, or flat for even several decades demonstrates nothing useful. The flat or even downward trend could be a large natural downward trend that has been significantly temporarily overcome by the large human warming effect, or the variation could be totally natural dominated variation. Playing statistics games on such processes is truly just a game, with no meaning. At this point we do not know what is going on or which way the trend will go from here, and to say otherwise is hubris.

cnxtim

With respect Leonard, the IPCC is ONLY about statistics – it drives their funding and is crucial to their future financial support.

DR

It’s an upside down greenhouse effect.

Stephen Richards

Leonard Weinstein says:
November 3, 2013 at 2:29 pm
Yours are the key points. No one can prove that variations in climate are human driven or natural and yet the ÜNIPCC along with every numpty leader in the western world is trying to force us to give up are current civilisation to ameliorate the perpetual changes in climate.

Stephen Richards

No-one seriously believes that their data really is a linear trend with AR(1) fluctuations
I’m not sure that I believe this staement, Nick.

What should we expect if the data are actually going through a max of a long term cycle and the CO2 long term cycle max follows some years later? It isn’t a straight line trend.

michael hart

Unprecedentedly non-alarming?

Richard M

I think it’s now pretty obvious that we will pass the 17 year mark when RSS comes out with their October numbers. Over the past few years the global anomaly has dropped over the winter months. There does not appear to be anything unusual going on that would change that pattern. We might even see the length go to 17 years and 1 month. If we do see the cooling winter cycle the length could be 17 years and 6 months by January.

CodeTech

“The Pause”.
Sounds like a Stephen King novel. But I guarantee it’s keeping some people awake at night filled with fear. They wonder if their gravy train has finally gone off the rails.
It’s a travesty, really.
(Pause, cyclical Peak, tomato, toMAHto)

Stephen Richards says: November 3, 2013 at 2:39 pm
“I’m not sure that I believe this staement, Nick.”

Well, it’s 97% certain :). But anyway, the IPCC etc don’t claim that. You won’t see major claims about stat significance of linear trends based on time series there, and the Met Office famously needed considerable prodding to embark on such an exercise. Temperature is reckoned to respond to forcings, which aren’t linear with time.

rgbatduke

Well, and then there is what happens if you add in the error bars in the underlying data. Let’s take HADCRUT4, for example, which has a claimed sigma of around 0.15 C for the period(s) graphed above. RSS is trickier — they estimate error with Monte Carlo, and the result varies with latitude, but sigma errors appear to be in the range 0.03C to 0.05 C (it is reasonable that satellite observations would be more systematic and would have smaller error bars than any of the mostly-land based estimates of e.g. GASTA. And let us not forget — we’re still dealing with the claim that GASTA is known to order of a few tenths of a degree at the same time NASA openly acknowledges that GAST is unknown more accurately than order of a full degree C even in the modern era, a proposition that I find rather dubious (but more dubious when supposedly connected back over 100+ years than over the satellite era).
With admitted uncertainty in the actual data the trend is a lot more difficult to compute, not just from persistence of supposedly irrelevant autocorrelation but from the fact that we cannot possibly know measured quantities precisely and the quantities in question are globally extrapolated averages from (usually remarkably sparse and imprecise) measure quantities sampled irregularly in space and time. The most correct statement one can make about the pitifully short data intervals pictured above is that a) they are nearly trendless; b) the uncertainty in the data, and hence the trend, is great. Since historically climate data has repeatedly exhibited trended stretches of fifty years or more with gains in GASTA (according to e.g. HADCRUT4) that almost precisely match the warming observed in the late 20th century — for example in the early 20th century — talking about “95% confidence intervals” for any purpose but falsifying the GCMs used to predict catastrophic CO_2-linked warming is rather pointless. With regard to the GCMs, a significant fraction of the models contributing to CIMP5 are manifestly inconsistent with all of the anomaly predictions. This doesn’t disprove CAGW, but it does prove that most if not all of the GCMs are unreliable and that to the extent that predictions of CAGW rely on them, the correct answer is that we currently have no idea if CAGW is a correct hypothesis, but it is rather LESS likely to be true as opposed to more likely.
rgb

KNR

It does not matter how long it is , the magic of AGW means that no matter how long it will never before enough to disprove ‘the cause ‘ . And its the same ‘magic’ that means any time period can be used to ‘prove ‘ the cause .
Drop the idea its science, think politics or religion and you will how this game works.

“So the message is, trend uncertainty is complicated.”
that’s an understatement, Nick.

geran

DR says:
November 3, 2013 at 2:34 pm
It’s an upside down greenhouse effect.
>>>>>>
I got to go with DR on this one!

The bottom line is that there has been no warming for several years. This may be down to natural variability, but please wake me up when we find out one way or the other.
I do find it astonishing that, having been told over and again that we have x-months to save the planet from climageddon, alarmists now admit that any man made warming is so small as to be made invisible by a bit of “natural variation”.

Sun Spot

It’s clear CO2 is NOT a major climate driver !!!

Does anyone know what is the legal status of land claimed by glacial advance, during the glaciation and after the retreat?

geran

Is their any truth to the rumor that Stokes and Mosher are identical twins, separated at birth?
Seriously, their comments are almost identical, except Stokes knows how to write, so obviously raised in an educated household.

Joe

No-one seriously believes that their data really is a linear trend with AR(1) fluctuations, [but we all use that anyway]
—————————————————————————————————————
Forgive me, Nick, but isn’t that rather like me saying “I know I can’t really drive through rush houor at the speed limit, but, for convenience, I’m going to model my commute as if I can” and then telling the boss it’s him in the wrong when I’m consistently late for work?

fhhaynie says:
November 3, 2013 at 3:23 pm
What should we expect if the data are actually going through a max of a long term cycle and the CO2 long term cycle max follows some years later? It isn’t a straight line trend.
I believe we are actually going in a sort of sine wave as illustrated here as far as temperatures are concerned.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/akasofu_ipcc.jpg
I believe we have peaked the top of the cycle and are headed down. The result is that the straight line will get longer and longer over the next 10 or 20 years.
But as far as CO2 is concerned, it will take the same path steadily upwards but it will have only a minimal impact on temperatures.

Richard M says:
November 3, 2013 at 3:39 pm
I think it’s now pretty obvious that we will pass the 17 year mark when RSS comes out with their October numbers.
The anomaly was 0.257 in September. It only needs to be 0.265 or less in October so the chances are over 50% that it will happen when October’s numbers are out.

Nick Stokes

Joe says: November 3, 2013 at 4:15 pm
“I know I can’t really drive through rush houor at the speed limit, but, for convenience, I’m going to model my commute as if I can”

Oddly, I was going to use that analogy too. Not speed limit, but suppose you work out an average speed for your daily commute. That doesn’t mean that you expect to drive at that speed uniformly; in fact it doesn’t imply any speed model at all. But suppose you then plan to arrive at work reliably on time. You need a model of variability. It doesn’t need to perfectly predict how your journey will go, but it needs to give average variation.
Most people in that situation do do something like that. And it mostly works.

Thanks, Werner, JustTheFacts, Nick. Very good article.
Yes, it is a long time now, too long to dismiss anyway. But the future will be as nature pleases.

pat

3 Nov: UK Daily Mail: David Rose: Global warming ‘pause’ may last for 20 more years and Arctic sea ice has already started to recover
Study says warmer temperatures are largely due to natural 300-year cycles
Actual increase in last 17 years lower than almost every prediction
Scientists likened continuing pause to a Mexican wave in a stadium
Even IPCC report co-authors such as Dr Hawkins admit some of the models are ‘too hot’.
He said: ‘The upper end of the latest climate model projections is inconsistent’ with observed temperatures, though he added even the lower predictions could have ‘negative impacts’ if true.
But if the pause lasted another ten years, and there were no large volcanic eruptions, ‘then global surface temperatures would be outside the IPCC’s indicative likely range’.
Professor Curry went much further. ‘The growing divergence between climate model simulations and observations raises the prospect that climate models are inadequate in fundamental ways,’ she said.
If the pause continued, this would suggest that the models were not ‘fit for purpose’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2485772/Global-warming-pause-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html

Geoff Sherrington

Leonard Weinstein writes “….the large human warming effect, or the variation could be totally natural dominated variation. Playing statistics games on such processes is truly just a game, with no meaning. At this point we do not know what is going on or which way the trend will go from here, and to say otherwise is hubris.”
Leonard, given your unquestioned adoption of “the large human warming effect” an effect that is derived from a statistical treatment of data, what does this say about your own hubris?
Why do people assume that there has been a large human warming effect when, despite billions of dollars of research, nobody has been able to definitively show that “human” has anything to do with the subject; or that GHG are linked, by an accepted mathematical equation, to deltaT in the atmosphere, however computed.
Two of the pillars of AGW have crumbled, but people are too ready to look the other way.

Jimbo

We have already passed the 15 year mark and looks like we will pass the 17 year mark. Do you think the IPCC is paying attention?
15 to 17 years

NOAA
The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

————————————————–

Santer et. al. – June 22, 2012
The multimodel average tropospheric temperature trends are outside the 5–95 percentile range of RSS results at most latitudes. The likely causes of these biases include forcing errors in the historical simulations (40–42), model response errors (43), remaining errors in satellite temperature estimates (26, 44), and an unusual manifestation of internal variability in the observations (35, 45). These explanations are not mutually exclusive. Our results suggest that forcing errors are a serious concern.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/28/1210514109.full.pdf

When is the referee going to blow the full time whistle? When is the fat lady going to sing her lungs out? The climate models have failed.

Green Sand

Nick Stokes says:
November 3, 2013 at 4:30 pm
“It doesn’t need to perfectly predict how your journey will go, but it needs to give average variation.”

Then after 6 months of commute and not getting to work reliably the responsible employee ditches the model and starts using actual observational data.

geran

Geoff Sherrington says:
November 3, 2013 at 4:52 pm
“Why do people assume that there has been a large human warming effect when, despite billions of dollars of research, nobody has been able to definitively show that “human” has anything to do with the subject; or that GHG are linked, by an accepted mathematical equation, to deltaT in the atmosphere, however computed.
Two of the pillars of AGW have crumbled, but people are too ready to look the other way.”
>>>>>>>>>>
Why can’t I state the facts so succinctly?

Jimbo

Is Dr. Phil Jones getting worried now. It’s all happening right now for ya.

Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

Jeff

“jeanparisot says:
November 3, 2013 at 4:12 pm
Does anyone know what is the legal status of land claimed by glacial advance, during the
glaciation and after the retreat?”
I suspect they freeze all the assets of everyone involved in the transaction….

“Green Sand says: November 3, 2013 at 4:58 pm
“the responsible employee ditches the model and starts using actual observational data.”

No, there’s always a model based on observations – AR(1) etc is just fancier. But when you say – 20 mins average but allow an extra 10 for traffic – that’s a model based on observation. 10 mins will get you there with 95% probability or whatever. It’s never certain. But you need some plan.

I have a visceral problem with the first graph.
How can you show uncertainty of slope (dy/dx) all eminateing from a certain point (1997, 0.235)?
Uncertainty of slope comes with uncerainty of intercept.
So the 5 lines ought to look more like a horizontal hour glass than a fan.

wayne

I see. So that “alow 10 extra minutes”, just in case, so you will be 95% sure to never understate the time and be late is like the positive adjustments to the temperature records when they are homogenized, the stations sliced, diced and excluded to produce “the product”. 😉

Camburn

We all know that CO2, other items being constant, will reflect a certain band of radiation back to earth. The results should be an increase in temperature.
However, climate is chaotic. And it most certainly appears that temperatures want to remain within certain parameters, even in that chaotic existense.
What the “pause” is trying to show us is that we don’t understand the complexity of climate. A slight change in AH can do more in regards to temperatures than a large change in CO2.
In the past, CO2 has been a lagging indicator. The behavior of temperatures during the Holocene seems to confirm that CO2 will continue to be a lagging indicator, not a driver in any shape, fashion or form.

geran

wayne says:
November 3, 2013 at 5:28 pm
I see. So that “alow 10 extra minutes”, just in case, so you will be 95% sure to never understate the time and be late is like the positive adjustments to the temperature records when they are homogenized, the stations sliced, diced and excluded to produce “the product”. 😉
With a gallon of tequila, wayne and I would be the life of the party….
(Or, translating for wayne, wihteoh thgall on tesyksia wanisn and i oule be the lifffr of the preth)

Werner Brozek

Stephen Rasey says:
November 3, 2013 at 5:16 pm
I have a visceral problem with the first graph.
How can you show uncertainty of slope (dy/dx) all eminateing from a certain point (1997, 0.235)?

It is from 1996.83 that the slope is 0, so that explains the flat line. According to Nick’s program, the error bars from November 1996 for RSS are “CI from -1.274 to 1.264”. This is per century, so it would be from -0.01274 to +0.01264 per year. So over a period of 16.92 years, the error bar goes to about +/- 16.9 x 0.01274 = 0.215. So I plotted the straight line from November 1996 and then detrended it +0.215 one time and -0.215 the next time. Then I did something similar with the SkS numbers except the numbers there were 0.345 instead of 0.215.
If I did this wrong, please correct me Nick. Thanks!

pat

no pause in Hansen’s nuclear advocacy:
3 Nov: CNN: Top climate change scientists’ letter to policy influencers
Editor’s note: Climate and energy scientists James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel and Tom Wigley released an open letter Sunday calling on world leaders to support development of safer nuclear power systems. For more on the future of nuclear power as a possible solution for global climate change, watch CNN Films’ presentation of “Pandora’s Promise,” Thursday, November 7, at 9 p.m. ET/PT…
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists-letter/
***LOL:
3 Nov: CNN: Thom Patterson: Climate change warriors: It’s time to go nuclear
Cavanagh (Ralph Cavanagh of the Natural Resources Defense Council) said the “movie (Pandora’s Promise) attempts to establish the proposition that mainstream environmentalists are pouring into nuclear advocacy today. They aren’t. I’ve been in the NRDC since 1979. I have a pretty good idea of where the mainstream environmental groups are and have been. I’ve seen no movement.”
***Selling nuclear energy to environmentalists is a tough pitch. Hansen acknowledged that many of them won’t easily buy into it. Parts of the community operate like “a religion of sorts, which makes it very difficult,” Hansen said. “They’re not all objectively looking at the pros and cons.”…
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists/index.html
no doubt some will welcome this…but not me.

pat

3 Nov: NYT Dot Earth: Andrew C. Revkin: ‘To Those Influencing Environmental Policy But Opposed to Nuclear Power’
Four climate scientists, three of whom have published in peer-reviewed literature on energy issues (a sampler from Wigley, Hansen and Caldeira), are pressing the case for environmental groups to embrace the need for a new generation of nuclear power plants in a letter they distributed overnight to a variety of organizations and journalists.
Amory Lovins, Joe Romm and Mark Jacobson would disagree, I’d bet. I certainly know many other energy and climate analysts who would sign on in a heartbeat, including the physics Nobel laureate Burt Richter and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz…
There’s more from Caldeira in a recorded video chat we had awhile back…VIDEO
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/to-those-influencing-environmental-policy-but-opposed-to-nuclear-power/?_r=0

Camburn says:
“We all know that CO2, other items being constant, will reflect a certain band of radiation back to earth. The results should be an increase in temperature.”
Let’s combine the charts in this excellent article, and see if your conjecture pans out.
As we see, there is something wrong. Werner Brozek says:
“I believe we have peaked the top of the cycle and are headed down.”
That does seem to be the case, as we see here.
Kudos to Werner for inviting Nick Stokes to be part of the discussion. That is something we don’t see in the alarmist blogosphere.

pat

1 Nov: UK Daily Mail: Hannah Roberts in Rome: Toxic nuclear waste dumped illegally by the Mafia is blamed for surge in cancers in southern Italy
Italian Senate investigating link between pollutants and 50 per cent rise
Classified documents from 1997 reveal poison would kill everyone
Nuclear sludge, brought from Germany, was dumped in landfills
The Italian Senate is investigating a link between buried pollutants and a rise of almost 50 per cent in tumours found in the inhabitants of several towns around Naples.
In classified documents from 1997, only now released to the public, a mafia kingpin warned authorities that the poison in the ground would kill everyone ‘within two decades’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2483484/Toxic-nuclear-waste-dumped-illegally-Mafia-blamed-surge-cancers-southern-Italy.html#ixzz2jQTNprrW

Latitude

Nick: “And it mostly works.”
==
and you mostly know why…
In this case…if the temps go down….no one has a clue why
..and if temps go up….no one has a clue why
Face it people, they’ve been flat out lying for 15 years…and they are lying now

pat

1 Nov: A Statement from U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz Regarding Fukushima
“On Friday, I made my first visit to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. It is stunning that one can see firsthand the destructive force of the tsunami even more than two and a half years after the tragic events”…
“They (TEPCO) face a daunting task in the cleanup and decommissioning of Fukushima Daiichi, one that will take decades and is being carried out under very challenging conditions.”…
http://energy.gov/articles/statement-us-secretary-energy-ernest-moniz-regarding-fukushima

Werner Brozek says: November 3, 2013 at 5:51 pm
“Then I did something similar with the SkS numbers except the numbers there were 0.345 instead of 0.215.
If I did this wrong, please correct me Nick. Thanks!”

I think it’s right if you just focus on the slope – it’s not attempting different line fits. And it shows just how such a slope extreme would look on the graph.
I have said in the past, though, that this testing of zero slope for significance is the wrong way around. That applies to the general narrative of x years of no significant warming. I’ve posted about it here. A stat test succeeds if it rejects the null hypothesis. If it doesn’t, there’s not much to be concluded. It could be noise, just a weak test, or the null could be true. So the logical thing is to do as Lucia does – test a predicted non-zero trend as null.
It’s likely symmetric, so there this diagram says 0.344 slope is the limit for the zero-slope null, so zero is likely to be about the limit for a 0.345 null. So you could say that a trend of 0.345 °C/dec was rejected, FWIW. But it would be better to do that test directly.

Jquip

Nick Stokes: “10 mins will get you there with 95% probability or whatever. It’s never certain. But you need some plan.”
This was an almost reasonable statement. But if 20 min, is your average, then it would be ‘plus or minus’ 10 minutes would be the estimate of 95%. Which is what you do when you’re interested in modelling a problem. When you’re interested in betting on a problem then you take only the one of +10 or -10, just to see what you should set your betting odds at.
Which is all terribly misplaced, since it presumes that: a) We are using the historical data. b) That the choice of which tail to bet off of, for safety/policy reasons is obvious or well settled.
But then we are quite strictly not using historical averages. Just short term and recent trends. And, of course, while we’re all interested in avoiding ice ages — tend to be terribly for biodiversty — we’re betting the other tail in that we might be greater biodiversity. So we’re not doing it right, and we’re betting in against the bet that is a net ‘win’ in terms of human and environmental interests.

Barclay E MacDonald

Nick Stokes says: “Well, it’s 97% certain :). ”
Nice:))

Mike Bromley the Kurd

CNXTim says:
November 3, 2013 at 2:23 pm
Apologies to Paul McCartney…
Sir Paul has imbibed the Warmista Elixir, unfortunately. You won’t catch him modifying his lyrics, I’m afraid. Yet another in the long line of genuinely talented people who, because of their popularity, embrace the religion.

pat

for James Hansen & Co:
4 Nov: Bloomberg: Pankaj Mishra: India Shouldn’t Buy What Japan Is Selling
Last week in the south Indian city of Pondicherry, I met a friend who had managed to penetrate the security lockdown around Kudankulam, the Russian-built nuclear power station in Tamil Nadu that began partial operations late last month despite strong protests from local villagers.
Kudankulum lies only a few miles away from a coastline that was ravaged by a tsunami in 2004. Opposition to the plant intensified after another intense earthquake and tsunami in March 2011 caused meltdowns at three nuclear reactors at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan. Since then, Indian police have deported the few journalists who have tried to report on the protests, sequestered entire villages and levied criminal charges against tens of thousands of locals, some of whom have been accused of sedition and “waging war on the state.” …
It is also true that, as Japan scholar Jeff Kingston points out, the export of technology by Japanese companies is key to Abenomics. Japan is at the center of the global nuclear-industrial complex, which stands to benefit greatly from the continued sale of an outdated and demonstrably dangerous technology to wannabe nuclear powers such as India and Turkey.
Toshiba Corp. owns 87 percent of Westinghouse Electric Co. LLC, which is helping to build a nuclear plant — again, against intense local protests — in the Indian state of Rajasthan; Hitachi Ltd. and Mitsubishi Group are in collaborations with General Electric Co. and the French company Areva SA, whose multiple deals with India make it the real beneficiary of the country’s U.S.-assisted admission to the nuclear club in 2008.
In this scramble for large profits, democratic values such as oversight, accountability and transparency are likely to be trampled into the dust. The case of Tepco shows how a large and networked company can buy the silence of the media as well as of politicians and regulators. Thus, while Fukushima remains volatile, another nuclear catastrophe seems to be developing in India. As in Japan, the full-throated advocacy of nuclear energy by its leaders, and the absence of debate within the Parliament or the mainstream media, reinforces the bitter truth of a line from Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek that Ramana quotes in his book: “It is indeed true that we live in a society of risky choices, but it is one in which only some do the choosing, while others do the risking.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-03/india-shouldn-t-buy-what-japan-is-selling.html

Mike Bromley the Kurd says:
November 3, 2013 at 7:45 pm
… “Sir Paul has imbibed the Warmista Elixir, unfortunately. You won’t catch him modifying his lyrics, I’m afraid. Yet another in the long line of genuinely talented people who, because of their popularity, embrace the religion.”
*
I sometimes wonder if such stars turn to this particular religion because they fear they are losing popularity. If they felt on top of their game, they wouldn’t need propping up by “being seen to be green”. They embrace it like it’s another badge which might improve their image, as though being seen in the ranks of eco-warriors they will be looked up to.
I guess that goes to show how out of touch with reality they can get.