By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
HadCRUT4, the last of the five monthly global datasets to report its February value, shows the same sharp drop in global temperature over the month as the other datasets.
Our dataset-of-datasets graph averages the monthly anomalies for the three terrestrial and two satellite temperature records. It shows there has still been no global warming this millennium. Over 13 years 2 months, the trend is zero.
Start any further back and the trend becomes one of warming – but not of rapid warming. The Archdruids of Thermageddon, therefore, can get away with declaring that there is no such thing as a Pause – but only just. Pause denial is now endemic among the acutely embarrassed governing class.
This month Railroad Engineer Pachauri denied the Pause: yet it was he who had proclaimed its existence only a year ago in Australia.
However, it is no longer plausible to suggest, as the preposterous Sir David King did in front of the House of Commons Environment Committee earlier this month, that there will be as much as 4.5 Cº global warming this century unless CO2 emissions are drastically reduced.
More than an eighth of the century has passed with no global warming at all. Therefore, from now to 2100 warming would have to occur at a rate equivalent to 5.2 Cº/century to bring global temperature up by 4.5 Cº in 2100.
How likely is that? Well, for comparison, HadCRUT4 shows that the fastest global warming rate that endured for more than a decade in the 20th century, during the 33 years 1974-2006, was equivalent to just 2 Cº/century.
Even if that record rate were now to commence, and were to continue for the rest of the century, the world would be only 1.75 Cº warmer in 2100 than it was in 2000.
The fastest supra-decadal warming rate ever recorded was during the 40 years 1694-1733, before the industrial revolution began. Then the Central England record, the world’s oldest and a demonstrably respectable proxy for global temperature change, showed warming at a rate equivalent to 4.3 K/century. Nothing like it has been seen since.
Even if that rapid post-Little-Ice-Age naturally-driven rate of naturally-occurring warming were to commence at once and persist till 2100, there would only be 3.75 Cº global warming this century.
Yet the ridiculous Sir David King said he expected 4.5 Cº global warming this century. Even the excitable IPCC, on its most extreme scenario, gives a central estimate of only 3.7 Cº warming this century. Not one of the puddings on the committee challenged him.
Meanwhile, the discrepancy between prediction and observation continues to grow. Here is the IPCC’s predicted global warming trend since January 2005, taken from Fig. 11.25 of the Fifth Assessment Report, compared with the trend on the dataset of datasets since then. At present, the overshoot is equivalent to 2 Cº/century.
It is this graph of the widening gap between the predicted and observed trends that will continue to demonstrate the absence of skill in the models that, until recently, the IPCC had relied upon.
Finally, it is noteworthy that the IPCC’s mid-range estimate of global warming from 1990 onward was 0.35 Cº/decade. The IPCC now predicts less than half that, at 0.17 Cº/decade. At that time, it was advocating a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions. It is now transparent that no such reduction is necessary: for the warming rate is already below what it would have been if any such reduction had been achieved or achievable, desired or desirable.
Within a few days, the RSS satellite record for March will be available. I shall report again then. So far, that record shows no global warming for 17 years 6 months.
Excellent: Will need to read more when I am not in work. I count this millennium as having “14” years and 2 months from Feb 2000 through Feb 2014.
Mario, The millennium started in 2001 because there was no year zero.
Would the “Good Lord” (almost an exclamation!) please do us one tiny, TINY, favor? Dear Monckton of Brenchley, you are SO SHARP! I’m sure you will immediately, when I say I’ve professionally done SPC (Statistical Process Control) understand my FRUSTRATION at not having the S.D. (as a minimum) along with several other statistical parameters on the data set.
EYEBALLING (bad, bad…BAAAAAAD way to do science) I’d say an S.D. of about 0.5 C. Which means, using 3 S.D. for significance, we’d be DECADES away from another “significant” move right now.
AFTER the GOOD LORD supplies this “proclamation from on high” …I would also appreciate if he’d make an effort to “educate the masses” in the nature of NOISE versus “significant signals” (information theory, SPC, you name it) and that would help BOLSTER OUR CASE that the “Climate Scientists”, do not work in a CLIMATE OF SCIENCE.
THANKS SO MUCH!
is the median the same as the average?
That railroad engineer is always good for a laugh. After the Tohoku tsunami he was quick to say that it was made worse by the IPCC’s claimed 17 cm sea level rise. The tsunami was measured with 40+ meters in some areas. On average it was a bloody high wall of water with a ridiculous amount of force behind it.
Apparently Pachauri, a man with an engineering degree, believes that being hit by a wall of water measuring up to 39.83 meters is a lot less bad than being hit by a wall of water measuring up to 40+ meters. Yeah. Somehow I doubt that 17 cm made any difference for the hundreds of thousands of people who were displaced by this disaster and the over 18,000 who died in it. And that guy is chairman of the IPCC. Lovely, just lovely.
He could probably work for the German government and their government controlled radio and TV, which still brings highly suggestive reports every year that hint towards that these people died because of Fukushima Daiichi. But Germany’s planned suicide in regards to energy production is a different book.
psion (@psion) says:
March 31, 2014 at 9:35 am
Mario, The millennium started in 2001 because there was no year zero.
++++++++++++
Thank you psion –for the answer and explanation!
There is no Pause.
Like other commenter said here in a previous post, pause implies that the warming will restart in a few years. We cannot be certain that temperatures will go up in a few years, they may well go down, and, if you remove the ad-hoc made HadCRUt4 temperatures from the dataset, the temperatures may have already started to go down. I see a -0.3 degrees per century in the last graph even with the HadCRUt4 temps on it.
And have pity please, I still haven’t found out how CO2 generated at ground level by the burning of (so called) fossil fuels makes its way to the upper atmosphere where it joins the other GG’s to commit the cardinal sin of CAGW.
And I can’t accept ‘it’s a miracle’
i am well over the absurdity of any ‘just have faith my son’ religion.
In the words of Joe Friday, ‘ just the facts m’am, just the facts’.
urederra: that’s why I prefer “stasis.” “Pause” presumes future warming as you correctly point out.
For some reason, the Met Office don’t want people to see the CET graph before 1772, in case they see the massive warming upto 1733!
But you can see it here.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/03/30/cet-and-the-bit-the-met-office-dont-want-you-to-see/
I think the way that the IPCC change their story, as you describe here with Pachauri and the pause, is the smoking gun which shows that the whole thing is a scam and they know it.
Reading the BBC’s website today would be a goldmine for any prosecuting counsel hired to take the BBC to court over breaches to its ‘impartiality’ charter, which is so far from reality in the field of climate change as to make Stalin’s kangaroo courts a model of judicial propriety.
Numpties blogging at the New Statesmen are calling for laws to criminalise ‘deniers’, which does leave the court open for the criminalisation of those who demand deniers be criminalised if they cannot prove the scientific case underpinning their assertions, doesn’t it??
His Royal Highness Steven Connor of the Russian Independent (broadly the only independence it displays is that between its own views and those of the Government of President Putin about most matters, due to the publisher and Putin hardly being the best of friends) waxes lyrical without attending too closely to scientific data.
We await the considered epistle of Geoffrey Lean in the Daily Telegraph, which we can fairly accurately predict to be another paid advertorial for the green climate crew.
The political deal appears clear: the EU debate and the ‘climate change’ debate appear to be joined at the hip. There is no logical reason why they should be, other than the fact that the UK Government has just bunged Siemens of Germany an enormous manufacturing order for an offshore wind array, which will generate piffling amounts of energy at rather an exorbitant price, no doubt as a way to ‘deepen the ties of friendship, mutual obligations and European brother/sisterhood through a fig-leaf of free market open-source tendering’.
Sorry Useles Nations. forming a Marxist World Gov will not ‘arrest climate change’. There is no globaloneyclimate to start with [varies by region]; nor is there a greenhouse [no life on earth if there was]. Grade 9 science used to teach that climate was a convection system of about 1 million interactions [therefore impossible to model the many:many relationships which exist]. Co2 is a trace chemical. Grade 9 chemistry used to teach that trace chemicals were derivatives. Not anymore I suppose. I guess modern Phds are as smart as say grade 8 children in times past.
they are able to weasel around this in the report by saying that 90% of the warming has gone into the oceans
the ipcc use these charts to convince people to bet money on them so lets look at them like financial traders would. They would see it as a range with no trend. no bet of any kind on them
The IPCC says there is no pause
–> the IPCC has a political agenda (no reputable scientist would rule out what is clearly a distinct possibility)
–> the IPCC can’t be trusted
Psion,
If pedantry is the order of the day, don’t forget about the lost days and years during the calendar re-organisations – meaning that 1/1/2001 was certainly NOT the start of a new millennium….
::: Max Hugoson says:
::: professionally done SPC (Statistical Process Control) understand my FRUSTRATION
::: at not having the S.D. (as a minimum) along with several other
I studied that in grad school many years ago. Can you even do a S.D. on a continuous process variable? What would it mean? For a time I made SPC graphs of my gas mileage. Very educational.
The more I think about it, the more I believe that average temperature is a meaningless metric anyway. If your low temperature drops below certain points you’ll get crop failures. If your high temperature goes too high you’ll have crop failures. If your lows are too low and your highs are too high, you’ll still have the same average temperature, as you starve.
It appears that the biggest skeptic is now mother earth. I wonder which jail the alarmists will try to put her in?
world averages are useless for any kind of regional forecasting. They like world averages because it hides the truth. Much easier to say world sea levels rising than explain why some are falling by 6mm which means its not co2
@psion, even worse, the year 1 bce and 1 ce were the same 365 days for that reason.
ObnoxiousJul (@ObnoxiousJul) says:
March 31, 2014 at 9:36 am
“is the median the same as the average?”
Mean = average, mode = most frequently occuring number, median = the datum half way between min and max.
The most pertinent observation, here, is that carbon dioxide continues to increase while temperature does not. Since the warmists claim that CO2 is causal to temperature, their thesis is falsified. End of story.
Data, data, is that the only word you have to oppose? /sarc
How is it even possible for this to be believed by some?
http://www.blueoregon.com/2014/03/climate-change-and-environment-oreogns-2014-election/
“In fact, not only has every forecast projection made since the term “global warming” was popularized thirty years ago come true, they are coming true much faster than originally projected.”
Is there something going wrong with homo sapiens?
I do wish someone at the BBC would listen to Lord M – they were blathering on at great length about how we’re all doomed earlier today! It sounds very much like the last squealing of the pigs at the AGW trough – so many lies! Is this the biggest Ponzi scheme in history do we think?
Sooner or later, due to the overwhelming body of real evidence that there is no such thing as CAGW or, if AGW exists at all, it is absolutely infinitesimal. and a champion like Lord Monckton will be allowed to speak.
Then the liars will be denounced.to all and sundry.
Until then, the politicians will continue to dream of their control ambitions for this ‘bogeyman’ that only they can fix with new taxes.
Until the tide turns, the lost media like the BBC will continue to allow overfed academics to spout their nonsense
angela
the bbc have issued an edict saying no platform is to be given to any scientist who challenges the ‘settled science’ because they call that ‘false balance’. They say scientists do not debate with creationists so no need to debate with those they call d eniers.
So the BBC have confused a debate BETWEEN scientists as identical as one between science and religion. So there will be NO balance, No scrutiny and NO debate. Which makes the BBC merely a relay station for social ecology propaganda.
the bbc ban at the bottom of the article
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2587072/Eureka-How-magic-doughnut-fakes-sun-save-planet-But-Chinese-thanks-billions-spend-eco-power-gravy-train.html
Angela says:
March 31, 2014 at 10:40 am
“Is this the biggest Ponzi scheme in history do we think?”
Not in the USA, social security is.
Sorry, I am not familiar with the word “achievalke”. Sounds a bit Wagnerian… Perhaps a typo meant to be “achievable”?
ShrNfr says: March 31, 2014 at 10:15 am
“@psion, even worse, the year 1 bce and 1 ce were the same 365 days for that reason.”
Not sure what it all means but the Julian Calendar was created in 45BC, the Gregorian in 1582, and in 1752 and act of Parliament moved the English legal New Years and dropped 11 days, and I believe BCE refers to the Gregorian calendar.
The British media has been apoplectic today. For once “global warming” is the watch word/phrase.
The warming is “IRREVERSIBLE”
Digging your own grave comes to mind.
psion (@psion) says:
March 31, 2014 at 9:35 am
Mario, The millennium started in 2001 because there was no year zero.
Yes there was. It was 1 BC..
Keeping the high-ground, February is only one month. A large decline signifies little, and is no cause for gloating.
The world getting generally colder from today’s temperatures is not a good prospect for carbon-based life-forms, which currently comprise all recorded life-forms on this planet.
Planet IPCC is purely silicon-based.
“Professor Richard Fortey investigates the remains of ancient volcanic lake in Germany where stunningly well-preserved fossils of early mammals, giant insects and even perhaps our oldest known ancestor have been found.
Among the amazing finds are bats as advanced and sophisticated as anything living today, more than 50-million-years-later; dog-sized ‘Dawn’ horses, the ancestor of the modern horse; and giant ants as large as a hummingbird”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03z05zz
A three part series from the BBC. The last episode concerned the Messel pit, a 50 million year old fossil wonderland, then a TROPICAL RAINFOREST!!!
Seems real global warming does’t mean the end of the world.
psion
“Mario, The millennium started in 2001 because there was no year zero.”
Nonsense. The calendar was not even invented until the 4th century and the entire thing was an estimate at best in long hindsight at a time when records and reckoning were abysmal. The people who ostensibly lived in the non-existent year ZERO, as you put it, had no clue that some day they would be the center of some of the most idiotic nit-picking. It doesn’t matter whether St. Paul did or did not account for a year zero – when you stop counting in the teen numbers, you enter into the next grouping of ten in our decimal system.
According to your interpretation a 20 year old would still be considered a teen-ager. According to my reckoning someone who is 20 is in their twenties and is no longer a teen. Ditto the calendar. When you stop counting 19XY you are no longer in the teen centuries.
psion
“Mario, The millennium started in 2001 because there was no year zero.”
Nonsense. The calendar was not even invented until the 4th century and the entire thing was an estimate at best in long hindsight at a time when records and reckoning were abysmal. The people who ostensibly lived in the non-existent year ZERO, as you put it, had no clue that some day they would be the center of some of the most idiotic nit-picking. It doesn’t matter whether St. Paul did or did not account for a year zero – when you stop counting in the teen numbers, you enter into the next grouping of ten in our decimal system.
According to your interpretation a 20 year old would still be considered a teen-ager. According to my reckoning someone who is 20 is in their twenties and is no longer a teen. Ditto the calendar. When you stop counting 19XY you are no longer in the teen centuries.
It would be a huge mistake to underestimate the magical properties of manmade CO2. To wit: its’ apparent ability to switch from heating the atmosphere to heating the depths of the oceans (where it can’t be measured, of course), and its’ ability to switch from heating the atmosphere to causing all manner of violent or strange weather events, or frankenstorms, and then to switch back to heating the atmosphere again some time in the future, with renewed vigor and intensity. These magical properties of manmade CO2, and more are truly amazing and worthy of further study. See, there is much we can learn from the Warmists, if we just listen.
I’ve said this before. The in-crowd have moved on from global temperatures, totally uncoupling it from ‘climate change’. Man made climate change happens because of man made emissions and trying to talk them out of this is akin to trying to talk a devout person out of believing in The Almighty. You are wasting your breath. Of course, this latest leap of faith allows them to completely disregard real science, all the while attempting to co-opt and trademark the term Science just as they have Climate Change. That’s getting close to evil in my books.
Given that the atmosphere has increased in CO2 over the last 16 years, and yet temperatures have remained relatively the same, we should find ways to continue putting even more CO2 into the atmosphere – hey! This might even bring global temperatures down.
If global warming is this pausible, aren’t the predictions implausible?
is the median the same as the average?
No. It means half the results are higher and half are lower. Nothing more.
“Mean” is the average.
“the report was based on more than 12,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26810559
how many climate experts are there with free time from their day jobs to do all that reviewing?
12 000 scientific studies on climate physics? And they still can’t nail the sucker down? Or are most of them nothing to do with climate but more to do with sustainability and the social ecology agenda?
how many experts would u need to review 12,000 papers and how much time? if peer review is so important why was there late night negotiations with non scientists for the final draft?
How can the “fastest 33 years”:
… HadCRUT4 shows that the fastest global warming rate that endured for more than a decade in the 20th century, during the 33 years 1974-2006, was equivalent to just 2 Cº/century.
Include 10 years or so of “no warming”.
Have been between 1974 and 2006?
If warming stopped sometime around 1998, then wouldn’t the fastest rate be found between 1974 and 1998. Especially considering that according to the graph, 2006 wasn’t particularly warm…
Did he mean 2007? because that looks to me like the year that temps really turned around…
@Tom G(ologist).
What you say is true, and yet, at the actual time, there was indeed nothing that COULD have been known as “year zero”. You see, back then, they had no concept of zero itself.
Hence, according to the Christian Scriptures, Christ rose from the dead on THE THIRD DAY even though he supposedly died on a Friday afternoon, and rose from the dead on Sunday morning, a mere 39 hours or so later (not anywhere near 72 hours certainly).
You see, there being no concept of zero, Friday was day ONE, which made Saturday day two, and Sunday day three (or the third day).
So regardless of the calendar system (or even regardless of whether on not one was even in use at the time), the first year of the “Christian Era” or what we used to call A.D. in calendar years, would have indeed been year 1, and not year zero.
@Tom G(ologist) (again)
Of course we don’t call 20 year old people teenagers, mainly because we don’t say that they are 1 year old on the day they are born…. However, if we had no concept of zero as they did not 2000 years ago, we might!
Charlie @ 10:06 am:
It’s hardly pedantry if one’s essentially answering a question. Mario was legitimately confused about Lord Monckton’s counting and challenged it. I simply pointed out why His Lordship (gosh I love writing that!) counted the way he did.
Kelvin Vaughan @ 11:12 am:
I believe astronomers use that convention to tidy up their calculations. However the Anno Domini callendar, created by Dionysius Exiguus before westerners had a grasp of the concept of a numerical zero, goes from 1 BC to 1 AD. Thus, the first century ran for 100 years from 1 to 100, with 101AD marking the start of the second century. The same with each millennium.
Tom G(ologist) @ 11:22:
Sorry, Tom, not nonsense: history. As I point out to Kelvin, the lack of a numerical zero at the time of the creation of the calendar meant that the first century was recorded as having started with the year 1, not the year 0. If, by your understanding, we counted the first century as lasting from 1 to 99, that would only leave 99 years in the first century. Using your analogy, a child is born at the age of zero. A year later, they are one, and so on. But they are, even only an hour after birth, considered to be living in their first year, and, upon reaching the age of 1, are now considered to be living in their second year. So … contrary to your expectations about my beliefs, a 20 year old would be living in their 21st year.
Anyway, to simplify it, just remember, a millinnium is 1000 years long, not 999. Since our calendar does not have a zero, but positive numbers start at 1, 1 plus 1000 equals 1001. And thus, the year 2000 was the very end of the 20th century. The 21st century and the current millennium started on January 1st, 2001.
If nothing else, consider that Lord Monckton also seems to be counting this way … do you really want to get into a verbal sparring match with *him*?!
And yet the folks over at the Puff Host deny that the world has not warmed for 17+ years….
cnxtim says:
March 31, 2014 at 9:51 am
And have pity please, I still haven’t found out how CO2 generated at ground level by the burning of (so called) fossil fuels makes its way to the upper atmosphere where it joins the other GG’s to commit the cardinal sin of CAGW.
And I can’t accept ‘it’s a miracle’
i am well over the absurdity of any ‘just have faith my son’ religion.
In the words of Joe Friday, ‘ just the facts m’am, just the facts’.
Condiser that with over 93,000 daily flights cruising at altitudes of between 5-7 miles and exhausting between 150 & 350kg of co2 per hour, there is a fair ammount of this trace gas Carbon Dioxide being produced at relatively high altitudes. That produced at ground level doesn’t need to become mixed or convected to higher altitudes.
Marcos: March 31, 2014 at 10:02 am
“they are able to weasel around this in the report by saying that 90% of the warming has gone into the oceans”
90% is close:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WhereIsTheHeatOfGlobalWarming.svg
Of course, all that heat would make the sea level rise:
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#seaLevel
But don’t mention this to the irascible Sir Christopher, or he might kick off.
@Village Idiot – William Connolley.
Tom G.
Try this. Count to Ten using your fingers. What number did you start at?
Now try it again, this time when you pop up your first finger start with ZERO.
People don’t count ZERO.
The first year was 1.
The first century ends with 100
The first millennium ends with 1000
the second year was 2
The second century ends with 200
the second millennium ends with 2000
I like how usatoday stuck them:
There is no new science in this report, which assesses recent science since the previous IPCC report in 2007.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/03/30/climate-change-report-ipcc/7085937/
Hmm, no new science since 2007??
“””””…..ObnoxiousJul (@ObnoxiousJul) says:
March 31, 2014 at 9:36 am
is the median the same as the average?…..”””””
No, The median is the center number, in an ordered list of the numbers. The average is the sum of all the numbers, divided by the number of numbers in the dataset.
Statistics is a branch of mathematics; it has nothing to do with science. You can do statistics on ANY set of numbers, even sets of numbers, in which no two numbers, have any connection with each other. It is done mostly for amusement. It tells you nothing about anything, except about that set of numbers, which you already know the values of.
You can use statistics, to guess how surprised people will be, at the results of your statistics.
“””””…..Village Idiot says:
March 31, 2014 at 12:58 pm
Marcos: March 31, 2014 at 10:02 am
“they are able to weasel around this in the report by saying that 90% of the warming has gone into the oceans”
90% is close:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WhereIsTheHeatOfGlobalWarming.svg……””””””
So here’s question for you:
Dr. Kevin Trenberth in his (in)famous “Earth Energy Budget” cartoon, includes several different kinds of energies.
He has electro-magnetic radiation energy items, “heat” energy items, in the form of thermal conduction from surface to atmosphere, thermal convection, of rising warmed air, phase change thermal energy in the form of latent heat of evaporation.
The bottom edge of the chart is presumably the non gaseous earth; and the top edge is the atmosphere-outer space interface, with the atmosphere occupying the majority of the drawing.
Now Trenberth famously wailed about the travesty of the vast quantity of “missing heat” that they could not account for.
Now the atmosphere-outer space interface is unique, in that only EM radiative energy crosses that boundary; in either direction.
Excepting trivial freak events, NO “heat” energy either enters, or leaves the earth; only EM radiation can.
So all of Trenberth’s thermal energy items, are entirely internal to the system, so they should not even be present on an energy budget.
Despite this, and Trenberth’s travesty, he doesn’t even mention the astronomical amounts of thermal (heat) energy that is circulating in the earth’s oceans, transporting vast amounts of energy from the tropics, to the polar regions.
Why mention the miniscule atmospheric totally internal, energy circulations, and totally ignore the several orders of magnitude larger energy circulating (internally) in the oceans ??
His travesty, is right in front of his face. But why include internal energy, in a budget of earth’s energies, when there can be no arrival, or exit of heat energy across the atmosphere-space boundary. ??
Yes, “irreversible” is a word that keeps cropping up. If it is so, then we can stop worrying because there’s no longer anything we can do about it. And we don’t need the climate scientists any more either, since the science is finally settled.
But something tells me the scientists won’t stop working, since governments need their independent and highly scientific scares to keep us willing to pay the green taxes….
As previously conjectured, in a thesis written by moi, Lord Monckton does NOT cherry pick his data sets; as evidenced by his launching of a new month, with that holiest of holy data sets; in HADCRUd-4; rather than waiting for his supposed “pet” set, the RSS dataset.
So HC-4 duly demonstrates the Monckton “level headed” game of flatness; exactly as predicted; excuse me; that’s projected, in my award winning thesis.
Good show Christopher; let them twist in the wind now !
Bryan A says:
March 31, 2014 at 12:58 pm
…
People don’t count ZERO.
The first year was 1.
The first century ends with 100
The first millennium ends with 1000
the second year was 2
The second century ends with 200
the second millennium ends with 2000
*
Zero might not be counted by the word zero, but it is taken into account.
The first year ENDS on 1, it begins on 0.
A child is 1 year old at the END of their first year, not the beginning of it, anything earlier is a partial year (from 1 month until the 12th month is finished they are 0 years old). By the beginning of their “year 1” they have already lived a year and were alive during “year 0”. They remain 1, then, until the second year is done, when they become 2.
The first century is ended at the moment the clock ticks over and 99 becomes 100. The new count begins immediately. Same for millennium.
In the same manner a new day starts immediately after midnight. We don’t give 2400 hours another 60 minutes before we start the count for the new day. One day ends at the beginning of 2400 and a new one starts there.
Unfortunately this message “there is no AGW” is not getting to MSM at all. ALL MSM today reported on the disastrous consequences on unhinged AGW.
“Plateau” is also a neutral word–and is catching on.
Here’s what’s needed. (Excuse me for repeating myself.) Josh could help things along if he were to translate my idea into an image.
Here is a subtly subversive logo-idea of mine that should be used at Heartland’s upcoming Conference on Climate Change:
Image—A hockey stick with its shaft slanting upwards & to the right and with its blade flat and pointing to the right. It’s transparently overlaid on a graph of the running mean of GASTA (Global Average Surface Temperature Anomaly), averaged from five sources.
Caption—”Who’s in Denial Now?”
In order for it to be included in photos used in the MSM, it should be positioned in one of these locations:
In a banner over the lectern;
In a background placard behind or alongside the lectern. (Similar to the image of the White House used at presidential press conferences.)
In a foreground placard attached to the lectern.
The audience of CAGW religious zealots will not be swayed by any amount of logic or humour., they will simply go into a trance and start their mantras.
It is the softer edges of teetering AGW believers that need to come over to reason in increasing numbers and then only by solid reason will they make the switch,
First a trickle, then a flood.
The nutters will always be there..
@A.D. Everard says:
March 31, 2014 at 1:53 pm
You are correct in your statement that
“A child is 1 year old at the END of their first year, not the beginning of it”
So the first year isn’t counted as complete until the END of the year and so the First Millennium isn’t counted as completed until the END of the 1000th year. And the second Mellinnium isn’t counted until the end of the 2000th year.
But the forst year IS year 1 because there is no Year Zero just like you don’t count from 1 to 10 starting with Zero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_%28year%29
Quote= WIKI “Year zero does not exist in the Anno Domini system usually used to number years in the Gregorian calendar and in its predecessor, the Julian calendar. In this system, the year 1 BC is followed by AD 1. However, there is a year zero in astronomical year numbering (where it coincides with the Julian year 1 BC) and in ISO 8601:2004 (where it coincides with the Gregorian year 1 BC) as well as in all Buddhist and Hindu calendars.”
Year ZERO is only referenced as the last year before 1AD and refers to 1BC in most prior calendars
1AD (Anno Domini) The term Anno Domini is Medieval Latin, translated as In the year of the Lord.
It refers to the First year of Dominance of the Lord or the first year of the life of Jesus
And why is doom associated with high temperatures? That is the other leg of the global warming fantasy I would suggest that periods drought and of human misery, death, famine are associated with temperaturesa lower than todays and periods of larger precitipation, greater vegetation, bounty, population increase have been associated with temperatures higher than todays. We should strive (if in a fantasy world we had control of it) to increase world temperatures, not to decrease them, and if the correlation between CO2 and temperatures was stronger than they lead us to believe, to correspondingly increase the amount of CO2 in teh atmosphere, not to decrease it. We should strive to do that just merely due to the increase in agricultural yields.
George E. Smith is very kind to notice that, as often before, I have used all five principal global temperature datasets, giving equal weighting to each. Now, if I were one M. Mann, I’d give 390 times as much weighting to RSS as to any of the others, and then I’d sue anyone who said I’d bent the results.
Roger Knights asks if a hockey stick can be superimposed on the temperature data since 1979. I’ll see what my large and able staff can do in that direction and will put it up as a postcard here if it looks good.
Not sure what point the aptly pseudonymous Village Idiot is making: but, on past form, it will live up to its name.
I’ll go you one better than that.
I told him that I was sorry he lost the vote here at WUWT for “Climate Duplicitist of the Year”, but that I voted for him and supported him. 🙂
He says “we are done”. And I thought I had made another friend!
– Mark
Anyone notice the IPCC released their latest scarefest the day before April Fool’s Day? Surely they’re taking the mickey with a large dose of the middle finger thrown in. Playing everyone for fools and not even having the decency of trying to hide it anymore – they need to be disbanded asap.
ObnoxiousJul (@ObnoxiousJul) asks @ March 31, 2014 at 9:36 am
is the median the same as the average?
No. The median is half way between the maximum and minimum value in a statistical sample. The mean is the average of all samples. However, in a perfect Gaussian distribution, they are the same. However, perfection does not exist in reality. The most commonly noticeable example of this is mean versus average annual income stats.
Andrejs Vanags @ March 31, 2014 at 2:35 pm
And why is doom associated with high temperatures?
CO2 is a plant’s best friend.
A warm planet is a happy planet.
There is a consensus about no consensus concerning equilibrium climate sensitivity.
So basically we are either going to see a net benefit from global warming or we are going to fry. What use is the IPCC if this is all they can say? It’s like saying the boat I am in will float across the river OR sink. LOL. We must not act now!
Be fun to see the IPCC try to put their stunt over Putin, har bloody har.
Hadcrut3 joins the 200 month club having a slope of 0 from June 1997 to February 2014. (Actually 201 months.)
Max Hugoson says:
March 31, 2014 at 9:35 am
“Would the “Good Lord” (almost an exclamation!) please do us one tiny, TINY, favor?”
Surprised? … the “good lord” has no scientific credentials lol
You mean umm … “credentials” like Al Gore has?
The median is half way between the maximum and minimum value in a statistical sample.
No less than two people claimed this. Don’t make me come up there.
@11:12
Planet IPCC is purely silicon based.
Would that be ‘Silly Con’ perchance?
Sorry Michael Hart 31st March 2014 @11:12am:
To give proper credit…
“Planet IPCC is purely silicon-based”
I didn’t quote properly as I’m on my ‘phone and it’s harder to look back .
The IPCC is purely”Silly-Con” based.
I can’t cope with reading all that just now. I still feel nauseous after watching Sycophantic Sarah on the ABC 7:30 report interviewing Chris Field last night. Pass the sick bag.
Lord Monckton
I don’t think Central England is a good proxy for global temperature. 4.3 C/century warming is easier to attain in a small area like Central England. Urban heat island effect can accelerate warming in cities and towns. Oceans have much greater heat capacity. You need more energy to increase their temperature by 1 C.
The 2 C/century warming in 1974-2006 is taken from the minimum temperature during a cool period and the maximum temperature during a warm period. It cannot be extended for 100-year period. Global temperature cycles every 20-30 years. Indicates that it is driven by natural cycles.
You have to explain why the temperature trend is flat since 1998 when humans added 100 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere in 2000-2010. This is equal to the carbon added in 1970-2000. So the 1978-1998 warming is not caused by CO2?
psion (@psion) says:
March 31, 2014 at 12:15 pm
Charlie @ 10:06 am:
It’s hardly pedantry if one’s essentially answering a question. Mario was legitimately confused about Lord Monckton’s counting and challenged it.
++++++++++
I find there to be confusion here.
psion corrected me, as he explained. In that context, he is correct.
However, it’s rather less precise to use that metric to attribute time. That’s why I appreciated the clarification to my statement.
But – I have to admit, it was nice to be validated by some other smart folk.
Can someone pls explain to a layman like me how the CAGW activists can keep saying that the world continues to warm and we have experienced “hottest years on record recently and there’s no pause ” etc etc. Maybe it’s to do with them ignoring the error allowances / bars or whatever they are called.So I’m guessing that the temps have risen, albeit slightly, and that’s how they get away with it.. Is that so?
The CBC, on cue, made this the top story today. Gag me with a spoon.
So Bryan A we don’t need to worry about any CO2 generated at ground level, it is only about jet engines eh?
That will allow us to generate as much electricity as we like on the ground with coal, oil and gas and get the Tesla car company of California to build the engines for aircraft – whew time to breath easy!
and if that doesn’t work out, we can switch to airships. Whatever as long as we can keep using our abundant natural resources or any other form of energy production that has an acceptable ROI.
The cinematically pseudonymous “Dr Strangelove” says he does not think central England is a good proxy for global temperature change, and worries about the urban heat-island effect. However, “central England” covers most of England, which was largely rural during the early 18th century, when for 40 years the temperature rose at a rate equivalent to 4.33 Cº/century. The urban heat island effect could not have made any discernible difference.
I calibrated the Central England temperature series against the mean of the three global terrestrial temperature series during the two full 60-year cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation that are covered by the global record – the 120 years 1894-2013. Over that period, the two trends diverged by only 0.01 Cº.
So I don’t “think” central England is a good proxy for global temperature. I have demonstrated that it is. The reason for the rapid, naturally-occurring warming of 1964-1733 – a rate of warming not seen in the industrial era – is the recovery of solar activity after the Maunder Minimum, during which the Thames in London and the Hudson in New York used to freeze over every winter. They do not do that now.
Next, “Dr Strangelove” says oceans have a much greater heat capacity than the atmosphere. So they do: but that does not prevent the atmosphere from warming and cooling, though it certainly has a damping effect that renders the IPCC’s exaggerated estimates of feedback amplification and consequently of climate sensitivity implausible in the extreme. For the past 420,000 years, absolute mean global surface temperature has varied by little more than 1% either side of the long-run average.
“Dr Strangelove” then says the 2 Cº/century warming over the 33 years 1974-2006 “cannot be extended for 100-year period”.
No, but it can be extrapolated. I had merely pointed out that even if 2 Cº/century, the highest rate of warming that endured for more than a decade since the industrial revolution, were to commence now and continue for 100 years, the world would be only 1.75 Cº warmer in 2100 than it was in 2000.
However, “Dr Strangelove” ends with three good points:
“Global temperature cycles every 20-30 years. Indicates that it is driven by natural cycles.” Actually, it cycles every 60 years, following the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, showing about 30 years’ warming followed by 30 years’ cooling. We are currently about halfway through the negative phase of the PDO, yet no cooling is evident, suggesting the possibility that manmade warming may be having a sufficient warming effect to negate the expected small cooling.
The usual suspects “have to explain why the temperature trend is flat since 1998 when humans added 100 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere in 2000-2010”. Yes, they do indeed have some explaining to do: and they have advanced a dozen mutually contradictory explanations, which, if they were all true, would have flung us into a new Ice Age, CO2 or no CO2.
“So the 1978-1998 warming is not caused by CO2?” Well, theory would lead us to suspect that CO2 caused some of the warming, which actually began in 1976 when there was an unusually abrupt transition from the negative to the positive phase of the PDO, which transiently contributed around 1.1 Watts per square meter of warming to 2001. On top of that, during 18 years from 1983-2001 some 2.9 Watts per square meter of radiative forcing was caused by a naturally-occurring reduction in cloud cover. Contrast that with the fact that, according to the IPCC, in the entire industrial era since 1960 Man’s total radiative forcing – the driver of anthropogenic warming – was just 2.3 Watts per square meter, of which only 0.8 Watt per square meter occurred from 1983-2001. So natural variability accounted for about 4 Watts per square meter of the 4.8 Watts per square meter combined forcing from 1983-2001, and Man accounted for only one-sixth of that. Yet the IPCC tries to tell us it is 95-99% certain that most of the warming since 1750 was manmade. O, pur-leaze!
Alleluia! I hope you use it as a placard on your lectern at the Heartland conference, too. Ideally, I hope Heartland adopts it as its own logo on this topic, and then uses it in a billboard campaign.
One detail I didn’t mention is the location of the phrase, “Who’s in Denial Now?” I envisage it in the lower right corner, split into two lines, both right aligned, with only “Now?” on the second line.
Perhaps “Now?” might be boldfaced and/or italicized and/or in all-caps to hammer home the point that Time has turned the tables (or flipped the hockey-stick) on the alarmists, who used the upward-slanting blade of up to a dozen or so years ago as proof that anyone who didn’t agree that the temperature was heading skyward was “in denial.” Now the warm has turned.
Maybe the warming isn’t hiding in the oceans but going out into space. Oops, wait a minute,……
We are right on schedule for another 30 years until temperatures ever break the peak of 1998 just as they took four decades to break the former peak around 1945, so certainly oscillations of 30/60 years take an extra decade to not only just cycle back but to start breaking new records due to the underlying linear trend to reassert itself even with a bit of greenhouse effect added to it:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1955/to:2012/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1895/to:1954
Quote ” Mario, The millennium started in 2001 because there was no year zero.”
The real reason Monckton starts at 2001 is that if you include 2000, the slope is positive.
Lord Monckton
Prior to 1723 CET were taken from outside measurements. From 1723-1760s the temperatures were taken indoors. This can produce UHI effect as there are more radiating surfaces inside a room.
If your calibration is not due to chance, we need a theory why a small land area in the northern hemisphere represents the heat exchanges in the southern hemisphere and the five great oceans. I don’t doubt your data. But it seems too good to be true that we don’t need thousands of stations around the world to determine global temperature.
The warming and cooling of the atmosphere is not uniform across the globe. If it were, we only need one weather station located anywhere in the world.
I believe you but can you kindly provide peer-reviewed scientific papers that measure the radiative forcing of PDO and cloud cover from 1980-present and debunk AGW.
Looks like another severe dose of “global warming” is heading our way in the UK. Headlines in this mornings Daily Express… http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/276202
Sorry, please ignore last, try this
Paul Homewood says:
March 31, 2014 at 9:53 am
For some reason, the Met Office don’t want people to see the CET graph before 1772, in case they see the massive warming upto 1733!
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/03/30/cet-and-the-bit-the-met-office-dont-want-you-to-see/
Interesting link which led me to this link….
http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/
which attempts to reconstruct CET from its current start point, through the use of diverse historical records, to 1538, in order to see if the commencement of this centuries long warming trend can be identified from within this time frame.
According to the Met office page for CET data, it is already ‘adjusted’ to compensate for Urban Heat Island effect!
IPCC, IPCC… That is UN WORLD CLIMATE COUNCIL to you Christopher Monckton of Brenchley.
Don’t bother us with such trivial real world statistics.
We’re living in the age of virtual reality, don’t you know.
“Looks like another severe dose of “global warming” is heading our way in the UK. Headlines in this mornings Daily Express… http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/276202” er, the article is dated 2011!!
The point about the ‘first millenium’ is that it was NOT exactly a thousand years. So the second one didn’t ‘start’ on 1/1/2000 or 1/1/2001. No-one knows for sure when a thousand years had passed after JC’s birth.
FRUSTRATION at not having the S.D.
==============
the problem is that the IPCC and climate science ignores elementary statistics::
Unbiased sample standard deviation
For unbiased estimation of standard deviation, there is no formula that works across all distributions, unlike for mean and variance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation
The 17-year pause, translated into Michael E. Mann’s metaphor, changes the angle between the shaft of the hockey stick and the blade: it rises less sharply. In hockey terminology, the angle between the shaft and the blade is known as the “lie”.
So you could say, without fear of a defamation suit, that Mann got his lie wrong. Hahahaha.
thingadonta says: “Maybe the warming isn’t hiding in the oceans but going out into space. Oops, wait a minute,……”
Well, sure, all the heat is going into space for now, but just you wait! Space has a very high thermal capacity, but once the Earth’s excess heat has raised the cosmic background radiation from three degrees Kelvin up to sixteen degrees Celsius, Global Warming will resume with a vengeance! We need to tax carbon NOW! 🙂
@ Grant A. Brown “In hockey terminology, the angle between the shaft and the blade is known as the “lie”. ”
LOL! That is almost too appropriate to believe. I think that the Muse of Linguistics must have a wicked sense of humor!
To dispel some inaccuracies that have sprung up in this thread, let us be clear what the median is. In an ordered set of n quantities, it is the central member of the set where n is odd, and the mean of the two central members where n is even.
The eerily pseudonymous “Dr Strangelove” asks an interesting question: why does the Central England Temperature Record stand as a reasonable proxy for global temperature change?
The answer is that over a sufficiently long period, at least on the half-century scale, regional changes at mid-latitudes will tend to be near-identical, for in the long run regional change does not indefinitely or significantly depart from global change at those latitudes.
cnxtim says:
March 31, 2014 at 9:21 pm
So Bryan A we don’t need to worry about any CO2 generated at ground level, it is only about jet engines eh?
(snip)
Your original question was
How Ground produced CO2 makes it into the upper atmosphere?
“Quote” cnxtim says:
March 31, 2014 at 9:51 am
And have pity please, I still haven’t found out how CO2 generated at ground level by the burning of (so called) fossil fuels makes its way to the upper atmosphere where it joins the other GG’s to commit the cardinal sin of CAGW.
And I can’t accept ‘it’s a miracle’
i am well over the absurdity of any ‘just have faith my son’ religion.
In the words of Joe Friday, ‘ just the facts m’am, just the facts’.”
My point was, Ground produced CO2 doesn’t need to be “Magically” relocated to the upper atmosphere as it is also poduced at atitude VIA the Air Travel Industry. Where it can be convectively lifted to higher altitudes and well mixed VIA the “jet Stream”
ferdberple says:April 1, 2014 at 5:55 am
Boy, Wiki’s description of SD doesn’t look anything like what I remember from SQCS implementation in the 70s and early 80s. I thought it was the sum of the difference of each member of n population from the average, the total divided by (n-1). I do know what we did worked very well at identifying and removing process variation.
In answer to those who wonder how the CO2 we emit gets into the upper atmosphere, it is what is known as a “well-mixed” greenhouse gas. Its concentration is near-uniform throughout all altitudes and latitudes, varying only by a few percentage points from place to place. There are many mixing processes in the atmosphere, not the least of which are the afternoon convection via thunderstorms in the tropics and the baroclinic eddies in the extratropics.
Water vapor, by contrast, is not a well-mixed greenhouse gas, either latitudinally or altitudinally.
Yawn.
For nearly ALL of the time during the last several decades of global warming one could claim to have been in a period of more or less stable or declining temperatures, see:
http://tinyurl.com/oq4gbbx
Christopher
The flat temperature curve that shows no global warming for some 17 years plus will get no upward swing due to what may happen in North America at least based on the pattern of the temperatures of the last 16 years here and posssibly the next 25 years as well.
THE TREND OF US TEMPERATURES
The following are monthly temperature trends for Contiguous US or 48 states as calculated by the NCDC/NOAA Climate at a Glance web page for the last 16 years [1998-2014]. The figure reflect the linear trend in Fahrenheit degrees per decade per NCDC/NOAA web page data to March 20,2014 using base period of 1998-2013
WINTER (-1.78 F/DECADE) – DECLINING
DEC -1.21 F/decade (declining)
JAN -1.52 F (declining)
FEB -2.77 F (declining)
SPRING (+0.21 F/DECADE)- RISING
MAR +1.4 F (rising)
APR -0, 21 F (declining)
MAY -0.56 F (declining)
SUMMER (+0.48 F/ DECADE-RISING
JUN +1.19 F (rising)
JUL +0.25 F (rising)
AUG -0.01 F (declining)
FALL( -0.44 F/DECADE-DECLINING
SEPT +0.06 F (flat)
OCT -0.61 F (declining)
NOV -0.76 F (declining)
ANNUAL(-0.38 F/DECADE-DECLINING
Summary
8 months are declining, 1 month is flat, and 3 months are rising
WINTER AND FALL have DECLINING TEMPERATURES
SPRING AND SUMMER have RISING TEMPERATURES [Spring is almost declining with 2months out of three declining]
These declines are similar to past temperature declines in United States during 1895-1920 and again 1954 -1979. A similar cool period seems to have started again . Hence it looks like cooler weather for the next 25 years at least due to cooling ocean SST cycles
@george E.Smith
You seem to mis-understand the nature of EM radiation. EM radiation carries energy. EM radiation at higher energy (short wavelength) can be converted into heat or lower-energy (infrared) EM radiation. So the earth is most definitely NOT a closed system!
PS just for fun:
http://globalclimate.ucr.edu/resources.html#q3
The standard test for the biasedness of a coin says that if you flip a coin five times and get five heads in a row, the p-value (the probability of observing a result at least as extreme under the null hypothesis that the coin is unbiased) is 0.03125, which is less than the usual threshold of 0.05, so we say that the null hypothesis is rejected and can claim we have reasonable evidence that the coin is biased.
Now if I take a fair coin and flip keep flipping it until I get five heads in a row, do I have statistical justification for claiming the coin is biased? No, because instead of the flips being a random sample, I have cherry picked the five flips that suited my argument.
Does it make a difference whether I use a computer algorithm to do the cherry picking for me? No, of course not.
Occasional periods of little or no warming can be found in the observations and in GCM output, to show how unsurprising this result is, there was a flat trend in the RSS dataset from 1980 to 1994:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1994/trend
So if there was no warming from 1980-1994 and none from 2000 to present, there was a rather busy 6 years in the middle! ;o)
The difference is that *I* know this is cherry picking and wouldn’t even consider making a serious argument based on a cherry picked trend.
Dr Cawley,
How many flips of the coin will satisfy you? Can you offer a figure in years after which, if we have not seen the projected atmospheric temperature trends, you will accept that the coin is biased? If not, it would seem to me that there is ~no~ statistical argument that you’d find persuasive.
Mark Bofill, it is not a matter of the number of coin flips, the point is that cherry picking the interval to maximise the strength of the evidence in favour of your argument is bad statistics. As the old quote goes “he uses statistics as a drunk uses a lamp-post – more for support than illumination”. In the coin flipping example it is simple enough to come up with an alternative test that takes into account the scope for cherry picking.
In the case of the “pause”, the statistical test is straightforward, you just need to show that the observed trend is statistically inconsistent with a continuation of the trend in the preceding decades (taking the autocorrelation of the montly observations properly into account). This is not a particularly difficult test to perform, but skeptics never seem to want to talk about that test, for some reason! ;o)
I am amenable to solid statistical arguments, but I am not too impressed by cherry picking.
By the way, you can call me “Gavin” if you like, I am not that formal.
dikranmarsupial says at April 1, 2014 at 11:17 am
You make a very good point about cherry picking part of a series of coin tosses. If you don’t mind, let me modify your example so that it more closely reflects the situation regarding AGW. Suppose an AGW model maker gives you a coin and tells you this: “This coin is a fair unbiased coin right now, but I have modified it so that with every passing throw, it becomes more and more biased towards landing heads up. How much more biased? An increasing bias so large that no matter how many times you throw it, the chance of getting a run of fifteen throws with equal heads and tails is extremely unlikely.”
The AGW theorists have told us that each year that CO2 increases, the chances of a hotter world increase. How much do the chances increase? So much that the chance of getting 15 years in a row (even with a long series of years) without overall warming is statistically insignificant
Your analogy, while correct for unbiased coins, is NOT correct for biased coins.
Jason Calley, GCMs are not that tunable, the fact that no skeptic has made a GCM that can explain the observed climate using only natural forcings demonstrates this is the case. The attempt to deflect the criticism of cherry picking, without addressing it, onto a discussion of models is noted however. ;o)
Gavin,
Thank you Gavin. My maths aren’t as strong as I’d like, so it’s entirely possible I’m making a mistake, but my impression was that the longer we go with observations failing to match a predicted trend, the less probable the idea that the trend is valid becomes, much like your coin example.
I’ve read on Lucia’s Blackboard that between 15 and 17 of the GCMs used for AR4 projections are outside of their 95% confidence intervals, depending on the temperature set used to evaluate them (here. Why shouldn’t I find her argument to reject the hypothesis compelling?
@dikranmarsupial “The attempt to deflect the criticism of cherry picking, without addressing it, onto a discussion of models is noted however. ;o)”
You failure to acknowledge the role of increasing bias in negating your charge of cherry picking, without addressing it is noted however. :o)
Oh. We’re considerably sloppier over here than it looks like the folks at SkS are, we wander off topic all the time. So my position is plain, I’ve got reservations about the cherry picking argument but the topic doesn’t interest me all that much. Recognizing the criteria by which we can statistically accept or reject the hypothesis that the GCM’s project realistic atmospheric temperature trends is what I care about.
Mark, whether there is a pause in warming or not is independent of the models, if there is a pause it means that there is a statistically significant difference between the trend in the period before the start of the pause and the trend in the period after. If you account for the autocorrelation in montly data, the difference isn’t even close to being statistically significant even if you do cherry pick the cut off date to maximise the strength of the argument.
Asking whether there is a model-data inconsistency is a separate question altogether. The evidence for a model-data inconsistency is stronger than that for the existence of a pause, but it isn’t (yet) statistically significant either. However, one of the problems with a test for model-observation inconsistency is that the inconsistency can be caused either by the models running too warm, or because they underestimate the effects of internal climate variability (which is used as part of the test) or a bit of both. For this reason the tests commonly discussed on blogs (e.g. Fyfe) are not nearly as conclusive as they are often made out to be.
If you want to look at something where the models are very clearly wrong, look at Arctic sea ice, the models have massively underestimated the rate of loss.
The pause and the model-data difference are both interesting and science is learning a great deal about internal variability by research that has been the result of efforts to understand the likely causes.
Uhm oops, should have said AR5 models or I should have linked a different post. Regardless, question remains.
BTW, I appreciate the opportunity for a brief civilized exchange Gavin. I doubt it will last long here, but I’d be delighted to be mistaken about that.
I understand what you’re saying. It’s not the way I’m used to thinking about it, but it makes sense. So you’re saying forget the models, look at the actual measurements as a random variable, and use statistics to figure out if there’s a pause or anything unusual going on.
Gotcha.
I’ll go kick that around for awhile. Obviously it’s OK to do that, but I’m not 100% sure what I think that demonstrates.
At any rate, appreciate your time sir, thanks.
Mark
Mark, yes, I suspect you are right, but I would also be delighted to be mistaken about that!
The key problem with the analysis at the BlackBoard is the bit about ” It possible to estimate the ±95% range spread of trend due to “weather” based on that model by computing the standard deviation and assuming trends are normally distributed.”, If the models underestimate the magnitude of the “weather”, it falsely inflates the significance of the difference between the model mean and the observations. My intuition was that the models would be more reliable in estimating the forced response (the ensemble mean) than they would be in estimating the variability die to the “weather” (the standatd deviation), however having spoken to some climatologists I now think it is more likely to be a bit of both being wrong. The important question to ask is “why is it that the discussion focuses on whether the models overestimate the trend rather than whether they underestimate climate variability”?
Essentially the Blackboard test is only unbiased if the models accurately estimate the effects of climate variability. Why should we expect them to be able to do that if they can’t get the forced response correct?
Gavin,
As far as I understand it, that’s correct. It’s also possible that the ‘bounds’ are set too tight and underestimate variability. We can state more generally that what is demonstrated is that one of the assumptions are incorrect, where the set of assumptions include (model trend is correct, model variability is correct,) and possibly other elements. Any way we slice it though, we’re making a mistake someplace.
Oh. I never really answered you question.
‘Cause the trend is more relevant to the eventual state of the variable we care about, would be my guess. But point taken that model rejection doesn’t necessarily demonstrate that the trend was the problem.
Mark, the trouble is that they are both linked, and you can’t obtain a clear answer about one without getting a clear answer to the other. The point is that it is better to focus on understanding the science rather than simply trying to reject the models. As I pointed out, it is easy to find things that the models get wrong (e.g. sea ice extent), but that does not mean that the models are not the best method we currently have for reasoning about the effects of our (in)actions on future climate. Understanding the science will help us make better models in the future, simply trying to reject models is not in itself a highly productive activity.
Certainly. But when you say ‘reject the models’, it’s important (in my view) to identify what use to reject the models for. This becomes a matter of personal opinion of course, but I don’t want policymakers making decisions on the basis of these models with the mistaken idea that we have confidence that the models accurately project variables we’re interested in. Some disagree with me on that. I don’t think politicians understand the distinctions though. I worry that they hear ‘computer model’ and they think they’ve got an oracle.
Steven Mosher used to talk about this some now and then. The models are basically just our understanding of the physics programmed conveniently so we don’t have to do the math by hand. Obviously there’s value in automation; no advantage to doing the computations with pencil and paper. I just worry that people aren’t aware of the pitfalls. Also – maybe we’d disagree on this, but I suspect the fact that our GCM projections do not appear to match observations in statistical tests means that we don’t really understand the Earth’s climate half as well as some would like us to believe.
Fitting decade-long linear “trends” to climate data is a fool’s errand; the values obtained are demonstrably much too volatile to provide any indication of truly secular trend. Only records longer than a century can begin to distinguish between the latter and various phases of multidecadal cycles.
dikranmarsupial
You say “Jason Calley, GCMs are not that tunable, the fact that no skeptic has made a GCM that can explain the observed climate using only natural forcings demonstrates this is the case”.
Does this not count?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/
You may not agree with it, but it does exist :).
I for one love these updates. It is a constant stream of blows to the CO2 controls the climate crowd. If Dr Easterbrook and Dr Libby are correct we could be in for a lot more. I wonder at what point they finally give up? 20 years? 30? 50? Never? Sadly my guess is the last one.
Oh well I’m taking matters into my own hands. This summer I’m doing more insulating and other practical stuff to stay warm in the winters to come. Already got some done over the last few years but always lots more to do.
Cheers and stay warm everyone.
dikranmarsupial
You say “Jason Calley, GCMs are not that tunable, the fact that no skeptic has made a GCM that can explain the observed climate using only natural forcings demonstrates this is the case”.
Well, your statement is overly restrictive: the fact is that no scientist has made a GCM that explains the observed climate. Period.
Only CAGW Alarmists use the existing GCMs to forecast the future and make recommendations regarding our actions.
Skeptics remain, uh, skeptical of their usefulness. (“their” meaning both the GCMs and the Alarmists). 🙂
TomP says:
April 1, 2014 at 12:21 am
Quote ” Mario, The millennium started in 2001 because there was no year zero.”
The real reason Monckton starts at 2001 is that if you include 2000, the slope is positive.
+++++++++
Then why not since 1998? Where from there through today it’s negative still?? The convention is correct at Lord Monckton presented
dikran
You cannot have it both ways. You say the “pause” is a statistical noise due to chance. Then I say the warming in 1978-1998 is also a statistical noise. But warmists say that’s due to humans. So the cool periods are statistical noise but warm periods are due to humans? Earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age. Is that also man-made?
Atmospheric CO2 is steadily increasing but temperature is cyclical showing warming and cooling. Is the discrepancy due to chance? None of the models predicted the pause. Is that also due to chance? Even random guesses have a chance of being correct. But contrived predictions are likely wrong when they contradict observations.
BTW none of the global temperature anomalies from 1950-2013 exceeds 2-sigma deviation in warming and cooling. None is statistically significant by the standard of empirical sciences. They are all statistical noise.
Query: are there larger size images of the two charts accompanying this post available somewhere? I’d like to use them as wallpaper on my computer monitors.
Lord Monckton
“The answer is that over a sufficiently long period, at least on the half-century scale, regional changes at mid-latitudes will tend to be near-identical, for in the long run regional change does not indefinitely or significantly depart from global change at those latitudes.”
Granting that is true. There are problems with your estimate. The period is 40 years, less than half a century. The data are not good. Initially outdoor measurements then became indoor measurements. Mid-latitude temperature is near-identical to global change at those latitudes. What about the polar region and the tropics? They are not represented.
Global temperature during ice ages was about 12 C and London was covered by a kilometer-thick ice sheet. Today’s global temperature is about 14.5 C. In 1733 it was probably 13.5 C. If you believe CET is a good proxy for global temperature and 4.3 C/century warming is accurate, then the global temperature in 1694 must be 11.8 C. This is probably wrong. We’re pretty sure there was no kilometer-thick ice sheet in 17th century London.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
April 1, 2014 at 8:34 am
———————————————————-
According to NASA’s Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) aboard Aqua, the “well-mixed” theory is a myth!
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/AIRS_CO2_Data/About_AIRS_CO2_Data/
Nice image here of un-mixed C02 in the middle troposphere:
https://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/AIRS_CO2_Data/
Ian Dr Spencer’s model is not a GCM.
Dr Strangelove wrote “You say the “pause” is a statistical noise due to chance. ” actually no, I did not say that, the observations do not provide evidence that rules out the pause being “statistical noise”, but that is not the same thing. There may have been a change in the underlying rate of warming, or there may not, the observations are not conclusive either way.
If you want to determine the cause of the warming (i.e. attribution) you need to look at physics rather than statistics. Saying that there are cycles in the observations is (often) not even statistics, and it certainly isn’t physics.
Those R^2 values, thought oh you think the data doesn’t match the model. Well,R squared value of 0.002,so there! *heavy sarcasm*
dikran
Statistics apply to temperature data regardless whether they are cyclical or not. It tells you if deviations from a central value is random (internal variability) or non-random (externally forced) PDO is a physical phenomenon and a natural cycle. Was it Trenberth who claim the pause is caused by PDO? Being a physical phenomenon, certainly it is governed by the laws of physics.
Dr Strangelove, internal variability is not random, it is chaotic. The point I was making is that generally cyclic models fitted to data are not performed using statistics, but merely curve-fitting, there is a difference. Cyclic models do not tell you if the deviations from a central value is random or not because the cycles may be the result of internal variability or they might be the net result of changes in individual forcings (so they may also be the result of external forcing) or a bit of both (for example there was a clear lull in volcanic forcing during the middle of the 20th century, which all things being otherwise equal would be expected to result in warming and then cooling during the 20th century, which could easily be attributed to a cycle that isn’t actually there). As I said, for attribution, you require physics. I suspect the cause of the “hiatus” is probably a mix of things, ENSO is undoubtedly a component.
If “Chris” emails me, I’ll send him the data as a .pptx, which preserves the original detail quite well. A shame that WorDepress doesn’t do graphics better and a lot larger than it does.
Dr Cawley suspects the cause of the pause is a mix of things, including ENSO. In the chaotic climate object, where even the noise is prone to heteroskedasticity, modeling to try to distribute global warming quantitatively between natural and anthropogenic causes is unlikely to be successful. The Lorenz constraint, among others, makes the climate inherently unpredictable. We can say we expect some warming on the basis of theory and experiment, but trying to identify how much we can expect is quite another matter, which is one reason why the models have been so relentlessly wrong.
Perhaps the underlying reason for the Pause is that the models that near-universally failed to predict it are imagining that CO2 and other greenhouse gases have a much greater warming effect than is physically realistic, so that even modest negative forcings from, say, the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or the decline in the Nino/Nina ratio, or the recovery in cloud cover since late 2001, are enough between them to extinguish the rather weak warming signal from CO2.
Mr Bennett says CO2 is not a well-mixed greenhouse gas. Well, let us at least agree that it is a great deal more evenly distributed than water vapor. In the lower troposphere, detailed measurements from the south pole to the Arctic Circle show CO2 concentration to vary by little more than 5% from place to place. For some reason, the Taklamakan Desert in western China has one of the highest CO2 concentrations on Earth.
“Dr Strangelove” is under the impression that today’s temperatures are only a couple of Celsius degrees above those that prevail during ice ages. No: 5-6 Celsius, more like.
@Monckton
It can, if you provide the high resolution originals in addition to the column formatted size.
Monckton of Brenchley writes “Dr Cawley suspects the cause of the pause is a mix of things, including ENSO. In the chaotic climate object, where even the noise is prone to heteroskedasticity, modeling to try to distribute global warming quantitatively between natural and anthropogenic causes is unlikely to be successful. ”
Any attribution of changes in climate between internal variability and a forced response will inevitably involve assumptions about physics, the models are merely a way of encoding those assumptions so that the assumptions can be tested against the observations. An attempt to perform attribution without having some form of model would be merely physics-free curve fitting (c.f. Scafetta).
By the way, modelling data with heteroscedastic noise is not that difficult, Ive even developed statistical methods for that particular problem; the heteroscedasticity of the noise in GMSTs is not really a problem, for example the autocorrelation is more problematic. The Lorenz constraint does not make climate inherently unpredictable, it makes weather unpredictable, that is not the same thing. “Perhaps the underlying reason for the Pause is that the models that near-universally failed to predict it are imagining that CO2 and other greenhouse gases have a much greater warming effect than is physically realistic…”, no the pause is a feature of the observations that does not depend in any way on what the models say. “so that even modest negative forcings from, say, the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation,” the PDO is not a forcing, it is a mode of internal variability.
However, there are some correct statements in your post, such as “are enough between them to extinguish the rather weak warming signal from CO2.” It is true that the expected trend due to anthropogenic forcing is small compared with the effects of internal variability; it is *exactly* that that makes cherry picking so easy as e.g. ENSO will occasionally mask the warming trend and occasionally amplify it. If the effects of ENSO are taken into account (e.g. via regression), the pause largely disapears, which is a reasonable basis for suggetsing that ENSO is a cause of the pause. That is why climatologists tend to use 30 year+ trends because they are less susceptible to this sort of statistical legerdemain. The comments on CO2 and temperature difference since the ice age. We have known for a very long time that there is a hemispheric difference in CO2, but it is still effectively well mixed for the purpose of modeling climate.
I missed out an important point, it should be “It is true that the expected trend due to anthropogenic forcing is small compared with the effects of internal variability *over short timescales (e.g. a decade or two)*;”
dikran
That’s correct. Internal variability is chaotic. This is the subtle point I want to make. A chaotic event can appear to be random that we can assume it to be random without making a big error. Example, coin tossing is chaotic but we assume it is random. It is actually described by Lagrangian mechanics which is deterministic. Why assume it to be random when we know it’s chaotic? Because it is mathematically easier to deal with random functions. Chaos is often described by non-linear polynomial equations that are generally unsolvable.
I don’t want to lecture on statistics and probability theory so I will be brief. Deterministic functions have underlying deterministic (non-random) causes. A common misconception is the presence of a trend line is proof that the function is deterministic. In fact a random walk function can produce trend lines. Is climate change deterministic or random? I subjected the global temperature data to two tests of the null hypothesis. First, random events can be described by a random function. Second, the histogram of random variables follows the normal distribution curve. The data passed both tests. The null hypothesis is accepted. Chance alone is enough to explain the data.
What I did was to deduce the cause by studying the effect. I did not actually identify the cause. I agree you need physics for that. This much I can say. The cause appears to be random but is probably chaotic. It is probably described by non-linear equations of physics such as the Navier-Stokes equations in combination with the radiative heat transfer equations and thermodynamic equations of ideal gas.
Lord Monckton
It is not just my impression that today’s temperatures are only a couple of Celsius degrees above those that prevail during ice ages. I actually got it from your article “Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered” published in July 2008 by Physics & Society (Vol. 37, No. 3) Remember your Figure 7? It’s a temperature reconstruction by C. R. Scotese.
dikranmarsupial says:
April 2, 2014 at 10:21 am
the PDO is not a forcing, it is a mode of internal variability.
It could be either. However, I suspect it is a mechanism for the release of solar energy and does force a climate response.
If the effects of ENSO are taken into account (e.g. via regression), the pause largely disapears, which is a reasonable basis for suggetsing that ENSO is a cause of the pause. That is why climatologists tend to use 30 year+ trends because they are less susceptible to this sort of statistical legerdemain.
If climate is strongly forced than 30 years should not be necessary. If it is weakly forced then 30 years is not enough. It all depends on the size of the forcing. Making general statements without understanding the actual mechanisms is a good recipe for making big mistakes.
dikran
“the PDO is not a forcing, it is a mode of internal variability.”
How do you define forcing? A cause that is external to the climate system? Not a very useful definition because the climate can change by itself.
“If the effects of ENSO are taken into account (e.g. via regression), the pause largely disappears, which is a reasonable basis for suggesting that ENSO is a cause of the pause.”
You mean exclude ENSO as a cause of climate change? What if ENSO or other natural cycles are the cause of climate change? The implicit assumption is they are not. That needs to be empirically demonstrated, not merely assumed. Otherwise it is circular reasoning. Natural cycles are not the cause because we excluded them as a possible cause.
What should be obvious, but often doesn’t seem to appreciated on either side in this issue, is that one cannot predict the future. When planning in the face of uncertainty, one of the best approaches is therefore that of scenario planning. The concept is a bit like writing plays with alternative endings. One then looks at the consequences of plausible outcomes and what one can do to mitigate things in the scenarios where the outcomes are undesirable. The new report in essence adopts this rational approach.
Despite IPCC doom report, this dataset of datasets shows no warming this millennium neither any other moment:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/from:1996.6/trend/plot/rss/from:1986.9/to:1996.6/trend/plot/rss/to:1989.4/trend/plot/rss/from:1994.2/to:1997.8/trend
unless for instance XX century trend (1970-2001) compared with XX + XXI century trend (1970-2014 trend) – no change in the trend observed then:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/to:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/to/plot/gistemp/from:1970/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1970/to:2001/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1970
Dr Strangelove, I define forcing as something external to the climate system that causes a change in that system, which excludes modes of internal variability and feedback mechansims, which are both part of the climate system itself.
Also I know that things like ENSO and (potentially) PDO are chaotic, however neither of those things can cause a long term change in climate as neither significantly affects the planetary energy budget, but merely redistribute energy from one part of the climate system to another. Thus in the (sufficiently) long term, their effects average out. Climate is long term statistical behaviour of the weather, thus the Lorenz limit does not mean that climate cannot be predicted.
@dirkranmarsupial
I know you know that, but the main porblem of almost everyone here is they are unable to understand how trend stops should be proved. Let’s say we want to prove (or disprove) that “Warming stopped in 1998”. What should be done to prove that hypothesis? Something like this should be generated with data ending at 1998.0:
http://naukaoklimacie.pl/cdn/upload/53207c633f4cb_hadcrut4.png
and then it should be checked if later data fits “blue channel” (warming stopped) or “red channel” (warming continues). After adding later data to the above we see something like that:
http://naukaoklimacie.pl/cdn/upload/53207c658e8f4_hadcrut4v2.png
No one here ever did something like that do try to prove warming stopped in some specific date. And will never do it in the future. That’s why I’m always saying it’s pathological science blog.
Hi,
This sentence reads:
No one here ever did something like that do try to prove warming stopped in some specific date. And will never do it in the future. That’s why I’m always saying it’s pathological science blog.
I must say I believe you will need to improve your English grammar skills before posting, for me. That sentence is indecipherable.
dikranmarsupial says:
April 3, 2014 at 3:57 am Also I know that things like ENSO and (potentially) PDO are chaotic, however neither of those things can cause a long term change in climate as neither significantly affects the planetary energy budget, but merely redistribute energy from one part of the climate system to another.
A perfect example of biased thinking that pervades the climate establishment and why they will never get the correct answer. The ENSO/PDO processes could very well be a mechanism for releasing stored solar energy on variable time scales.
Splice says:
April 3, 2014 at 5:23 am
Let’s say we want to prove (or disprove) that “Warming stopped in 1998″. What should be done to prove that hypothesis? Something like this should be generated with data ending at 1998.0:
http://naukaoklimacie.pl/cdn/upload/53207c633f4cb_hadcrut4.png
and then it should be checked if later data fits “blue channel” (warming stopped) or “red channel” (warming continues). After adding later data to the above we see something like that:
http://naukaoklimacie.pl/cdn/upload/53207c658e8f4_hadcrut4v2.png
No one here ever did something like that do try to prove warming stopped in some specific date. And will never do it in the future. That’s why I’m always saying it’s pathological science blog.
The problem with your analysis is the warming did not stop in 1998 …. it stopped around 2005. It only appears to stop around 1998 because the warming from 1998-2005 has been cancelled by cooling from 2005 onward which creates a flat trend line across a peak of cyclic variation.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.66/plot/rss/from:1996.66/to:2005/trend/plot/rss/from:2005/to/trend
However, this is just as bad for cAGW as it still creates a period longer than acceptable (15 years) without any warming.
Dr Strangelove says the famous graph by Scotese, reproduced in my 2008 paper in Physics and Society, shows only 2 K between interglacial and glacial periods. No, it shows 10 K. And the graph of temperatures over the past 420,000 years, reproduced in the head posting, shows the current glacial-interglacial range to be 12 K.
@richard M
1998 was an example (as few years ago most entries on WUWT claimed that warming stopped in 1998). I realize that the “the date of stop” moves ahead as times passes – and currently is in range form 2001 to 2005 depending on entry on this blog. In the year 2019 most entries on WUWT will be claiming that the warming stopped about the the year 2010.
The problem is no one here ever tried to prove stop this way:
http://naukaoklimacie.pl/cdn/upload/53207c633f4cb_hadcrut4.png
http://naukaoklimacie.pl/cdn/upload/53207c658e8f4_hadcrut4v2.png
for any year – 1998, 2001, 2005 and never will, as this is pathological science blog and only pathological methods of “proving” are presented here.
Splice says:
April 3, 2014 at 7:40 am
@richard M
1998 was an example (as few years ago most entries on WUWT claimed that warming stopped in 1998). I realize that the “the date of stop” moves ahead as times passes – and currently is in range form 2001 to 2005 depending on entry on this blog.
Pure nonsense. Most people around here still use 1998 as the end of the warming. I’m one of the few that argues for 2005. If you can’t even get a simple thing like this correct then what are the chances you will get anything else right? You are simply in denial that the warming has stopped and cooling has begun. It’s pretty obvious when you ignore the very best data we have, satellite data, and reference the highly contaminated and adjusted surface data. All you are doing is fooling yourself.
Lord Monckton
You must be referring to a different chart. Here is the chart
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/monckton1.png
The timescale is in million years. The coldest global temperatures are about 12 C in the last 600 million years.
dikran
“Also I know that things like ENSO and (potentially) PDO are chaotic, however neither of those things can cause a long term change in climate as neither significantly affects the planetary energy budget, but merely redistribute energy from one part of the climate system to another.”
If this is true, then ENSO cannot be the cause of the “pause” since cooling in one part of the globe is offset by warming in another part. But this is contrary to observations. The ocean’s sensible heat capacity is 1,000 times greater than the atmosphere. The ocean can easily influence the atmosphere and climate. A 10% change in cloud cover induces a forcing as large as the CO2 forcing. Clouds moving from the tropics to mid-latitudes have warming effect even without change in cloud cover. This is not merely a redistribution of energy. It changes the incoming solar radiation.
“Thus in the (sufficiently) long term, their effects average out. Climate is long term statistical behaviour of the weather, thus the Lorenz limit does not mean that climate cannot be predicted.”
Yes the ice ages, glacial and interglacial periods are somewhat predictable. But their timescale is 20,000-100,000 years. The thermohaline circulation has a cycle of 1,000 years. So our observations of 30-year or 100-year climate are well within the influence of natural cycles. “Sufficiently long term” must be interpreted as 1,000 years or more.
Not seeing the forrest for the trees.
I would note the following analogy: An interesting concepts of theories is one suggested by the physicist, N. David Mermin, in which theories are viewed as tapestries, woven from an large number of experimental and analytical threads. With well established theories you can always unpick some of the threads, but that does not destroy the integrity of the overall tapestry. This tapestry metaphor seems to be ideally suited for illustrating the coherence of “theories” like evolution and and increasingly also for anthropogenic global warming.
To expand a little on this, following Darwin’s amazing observations and postulates on evolution, the various “threads” of ongoing research and analysis in various branches of science, all started to intertwine to validate the underlying concept, and have continued to do so to weave a solid tapestry. Various faulty threads along the way broke, or needed to be unpicked, but overall the integrity of the tapestry remained and it has becomes more and more solid as more threads are woven into it.
I find similarities to that in considering global climate change. The basic science is quite well understood and the postulate that we are pouring enough CO2 into the atmosphere to increase global warming has become established by ongoing mainstream scientific research and analysis in various branches of science: There are enough solid strings to form a coherent tapestry to back up the concept. Some of the threads break or are faulty and need to be unpicked, but that does not destroy the integrity of the tapestry. Some of the fringe science here provides a useful service in helping to identify the poorer quality threads that need to be unpicked to eventually produce a stronger product.
A simple analogy to illustrate the mathematical principle behind my previous post (April 2, 2014 at 6:59 pm)
Let a coin represent the climate. Head = warming; Tail = cooling; N = no. of heads in a series of tosses; P = the probability of head outcome (warming). Under natural influence P = 0.5 and under anthropogenic influence P > 0.5 hence the latter increases the probability of warming. In other words, fair coin = natural influence; loaded coin = anthropogenic influence
Suppose we toss the coin 100 times representing 100 years of climate observation. If N > 50 we get a warming trend. If N 0.5 when N > 70. If we accept the loaded-coin hypothesis without stronger empirical evidence, then we are just guessing because two-sigma (or greater) deviation is the standard of evidence in all empirical sciences. This is the same story as AGW theory. We see N = 55 and proclaim the coin is loaded.
A simple analogy to illustrate the mathematical principle behind my previous post (April 2, 2014 at 6:59 pm)
Let a coin represent the climate. Head = warming; Tail = cooling; N = no. of heads in a series of tosses; P = the probability of head outcome (warming). Under natural influence P = 0.5 and under anthropogenic influence P > 0.5 hence the latter increases the probability of warming. In other words, fair coin = natural influence; loaded coin = anthropogenic influence
Suppose we toss the coin 100 times representing 100 years of climate observation. If N > 50 we get a warming trend. If N 0.5 when N > 70. If we accept the loaded-coin hypothesis without stronger empirical evidence, then we are just guessing because two-sigma (or greater) deviation is the required standard of evidence in empirical science. This is the same story as AGW theory. We see N = 55 and proclaim the coin is loaded.
Sorry the paragraphs are getting cut. First two paragraphs above are ok. Below are the two last paragraphs.
Suppose we toss the coin 100 times representing 100 years of climate observation. If N > 50 we get a warming trend. If N 0.5 when N > 70. If we accept the loaded-coin hypothesis without stronger empirical evidence, then we are just guessing because two-sigma (or greater) deviation is the required standard of evidence in empirical science. This is the same story as AGW theory. We see N = 55 and proclaim the coin is loaded.
something wrong. paragraphs getting cut. try again
Let a coin represent the climate. Head = warming; Tail = cooling; N = no. of heads in a series of tosses; P = the probability of head outcome (warming). Under natural influence P = 0.5 and under anthropogenic influence P > 0.5 hence the latter increases the probability of warming. In other words, fair coin = natural influence; loaded coin = anthropogenic influence.
Suppose we toss the coin 100 times representing 100 years of climate observation. If N > 50 we get a warming trend. If N 0.5 when N > 70. If we accept the loaded-coin hypothesis without stronger empirical evidence, then we are just guessing because two-sigma (or greater) deviation is the required standard of evidence in empirical science. This is the same story as AGW theory. We see N = 55 and proclaim the coin is loaded.
Let a coin represent the climate. Head = warming; Tail = cooling; N = no. of heads in a series of tosses; P = the probability of head outcome (warming). Under natural influence P = 0.5 and under anthropogenic influence P > 0.5 hence the latter increases the probability of warming. In other words, fair coin = natural influence; loaded coin = anthropogenic influence
Suppose we toss the coin 100 times representing 100 years of climate observation. If N > 50 we get a warming trend. If N 0.5 when N > 70. If we accept the loaded-coin hypothesis without stronger empirical evidence, then we are just guessing because two-sigma (or greater) deviation is the required standard of evidence in empirical science. This is the same story as AGW theory. We see N = 55 and proclaim the coin is loaded.
Suppose we toss the coin 100 times representing 100 years of climate observation. If N > 50 we get a warming trend. If N < 50 we get a cooling trend. We actually got N = 55 a warming trend. We conclude P = 0.55 therefore the coin is loaded = anthropogenic influence. Is it correct? Wrong! In fact a fair coin can produce the same result N = 55. Moreover, the probability of getting N = 50 is P = 0.08 hence the probability of N being greater than or less than 50 is P = 0.92. So we should expect a warming or a cooling trend even with a fair coin.
With the given data, a fair coin and a loaded coin are indistinguishable. We need a stronger signal to establish statistical significance. At two-sigma deviation, we can conclude the coin is loaded P > 0.5 when N > 70. If we accept the loaded-coin hypothesis without stronger empirical evidence, then we are just guessing because two-sigma (or greater) deviation is the required standard of evidence in empirical science. This is the same story as AGW theory. We see N = 55 and proclaim the coin is loaded.
Finally the last two paragraphs came in right (see above). There are only 3 main paragraphs in all these posts
@richard
Pure nonsense. Most people around here still use 1998 as the end of the warming.
You are ridicuous. In the year 2014 there was no entries on WUWT claiming that warming stopped in 1997 or 1998. Meanwhile there was more than 10 entries claiming this was 2001 or 2002.
Already in the year 2013 there was much more entries with stop in 2001 or 2002 than entries with stop in 1997 or 1998
At least google says so. Check yourself if you want.
You are simply in denial that the warming has stopped and cooling has begun.
As such claims here are based on pathological science’s methods, so I see no reason even to discuss about them. When someone presents here graphs similar to mine with “blue channel” and “red channel” splitting in 2005 (or 2001, or 2002) i could discuss about this. But I’m sure no one will ever to that here, so I’m safe.
It’s pretty obvious when you ignore the very best data we have
I’m ingoring pathological methods of “pause proving”.
But let’s see what about (most popular in your opinion) claim warming stopped in 1998 base on satelite data:
http://naukaoklimacie.pl/cdn/upload/53207c72990aa_rss.png
http://naukaoklimacie.pl/cdn/upload/53207c74c1170_uah.png
Splice says:
April 4, 2014 at 1:19 am
In the year 2014 there was no entries on WUWT claiming that warming stopped in 1997 or 1998.
How about 1996 for RSS? There are at least four. Lord Monckton had at least two and I had two.
As well, if some one stopped growing on their 20th birthday, you can prove it by plotting height versus year from age 20. You do NOT prove it by plotting height versus year from ages 1 to 100 and see a rising slope and conclude the person was still growing between the ages of 90 and 100.
@Werner Brozek
How about 1996 for RSS?
I really see no reason to check exact numbers of each year of stop. Currenty most entries on WUWT claims warming stopped in 2001 or 2002 as four years ago most of them claimed warming stopped in 1997 or 1998. The date of stop will be moving forward as time passes in the future too, because EVERYONE HERE USES PATHOLOGICAL METHODS TO DETERMINE THIS DATE.
As well, if some one stopped growing on their 20th birthday, you can prove it by plotting height versus year from age 20
Yes, you could prove that by plotting graphs of this type
http://naukaoklimacie.pl/cdn/upload/53207c633f4cb_hadcrut4.png
http://naukaoklimacie.pl/cdn/upload/53207c658e8f4_hadcrut4v2.png
with splitting at age 20.
…but no one here ever did that for ANY AGE. Everyone here is using different methods of proving, but each of those methods is pathological one – that is the reason why point of stop differs from 1994 to 2005 and moves forward as time passes.
Splice,
Apparently you are the type to stick your fingers in your ears and yell,
“LA-LA-LA-LA!! I CAN’T HEE-E-E-AR YOU-U-U!!”
There is nothing “pathological” about the data. Global warming stopped more than 17 years ago.
Deal with it.
@dbstealey
Global warming stopped more than 17 years ago.
… and this 1997/1998 warming stop is clearly visible:
in the HadCRU data:
http://naukaoklimacie.pl/cdn/upload/53207c658e8f4_hadcrut4v2.png
in NASA GISS data:
http://naukaoklimacie.pl/cdn/upload/53208d96c2165_giss.png
in RSS data:
http://naukaoklimacie.pl/cdn/upload/53207c72990aa_rss.png
and in UAH data:
http://naukaoklimacie.pl/cdn/upload/53207c74c1170_uah.png
Almost everyone here see clearly that 1998 and later data follow blue channels on the above graphs not red ones. I realize that you see blue channels are followed, and that’s why I’m using word “pathological” very often here.