UPDATE: a response to this paper has been posted, see below.
From McGill University , who blows the credibility of their science by putting the word “deniers” in it.
Statistical analysis rules out natural-warming hypothesis with more than 99 percent certainty
An analysis of temperature data since 1500 all but rules out the possibility that global warming in the industrial era is just a natural fluctuation in the earth’s climate, according to a new study by McGill University physics professor Shaun Lovejoy.
The study, published online April 6 in the journal Climate Dynamics, represents a new approach to the question of whether global warming in the industrial era has been caused largely by man-made emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Rather than using complex computer models to estimate the effects of greenhouse-gas emissions, Lovejoy examines historical data to assess the competing hypothesis: that warming over the past century is due to natural long-term variations in temperature.
“This study will be a blow to any remaining climate-change deniers,” Lovejoy says. “Their two most convincing arguments – that the warming is natural in origin, and that the computer models are wrong – are either directly contradicted by this analysis, or simply do not apply to it.”
Lovejoy’s study applies statistical methodology to determine the probability that global warming since 1880 is due to natural variability. His conclusion: the natural-warming hypothesis may be ruled out “with confidence levels great than 99%, and most likely greater than 99.9%.”
To assess the natural variability before much human interference, the new study uses “multi-proxy climate reconstructions” developed by scientists in recent years to estimate historical temperatures, as well as fluctuation-analysis techniques from nonlinear geophysics. The climate reconstructions take into account a variety of gauges found in nature, such as tree rings, ice cores, and lake sediments. And the fluctuation-analysis techniques make it possible to understand the temperature variations over wide ranges of time scales.
For the industrial era, Lovejoy’s analysis uses carbon-dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels as a proxy for all man-made climate influences – a simplification justified by the tight relationship between global economic activity and the emission of greenhouse gases and particulate pollution, he says. “This allows the new approach to implicitly include the cooling effects of particulate pollution that are still poorly quantified in computer models,” he adds.
While his new study makes no use of the huge computer models commonly used by scientists to estimate the magnitude of future climate change, Lovejoy’s findings effectively complement those of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), he says. His study predicts, with 95% confidence, that a doubling of carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere would cause the climate to warm by between 2.5 and 4.2 degrees Celsius. That range is more precise than – but in line with — the IPCC’s prediction that temperatures would rise by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius if CO2 concentrations double.
“We’ve had a fluctuation in average temperature that’s just huge since 1880 – on the order of about 0.9 degrees Celsius,” Lovejoy says. “This study shows that the odds of that being caused by natural fluctuations are less than one in a hundred and are likely to be less than one in a thousand.
“While the statistical rejection of a hypothesis can’t generally be used to conclude the truth of any specific alternative, in many cases – including this one – the rejection of one greatly enhances the credibility of the other.”
“Scaling fluctuation analysis and statistical hypothesis testing of anthropogenic warming”, S. Lovejoy, Climate Change, published online April 6, 2014. http://link.springer.com/search?query=10.1007%2Fs00382-014-2128-2
=============================================================
Christopher Monckton has posted a rebuttal to this paper, see here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What should I expect at the end of the Little Ice Age? There are many ‘huge’ things.
I skimmed the paper and then went to the bibliography. I wanted to find what data set Lovejoy used as a foundation point for his paper. The only one I could find was MBH9x – ie the Hockey Stick. Keeping in mind the well documented problems of MBH9x, it is not difficult to say that Lovejoy’s paper should be taken with a grain of salt. What he has done is to take an incorrect picture of the past climate and say that humans are the cause of this false reconstruction. It would be like someone Photoshopping a beard on the Queen of England, and then another person coming along saying that they are 99% certain that the Queen’s beard is caused by her addiction to gin.
is anything so different in the Arctic.
2013- Earlier this month, the ice-strengthened bulk carrier Nordic Orion was loaded with coal at a Vancouver terminal. From there, it headed to Finland via the Northwest Passage, undertaking a voyage that could make it the first commercial bulk carrier to traverse the route since the SS MANHATTAN broke through in 1969.
SS MANHATTEN -115,000 deadweight -Tonne When the SS MANHATTAN was built in 1962 at Bethlehem Steel’s Fore River Shipyard in Quincy, Massachusetts, she was the largest ship in the United States merchant marine.
The higher you confidence Number on a paper the more $$$$ you get.
Simple Math..
The problem is that they said that “THE warming” is not due to natural factors and due to human emissions. It’s not all or nothing, but that’s the way it’s stated. I think that some part of the warming is due to human emissions, but definitely not all of it. It’s hard to dispute that the globe is still on its warming path coming out of the little ice age. That’s the underlying warming trend. Human emissions have most likely enhanced this warming but it’s not the underlying cause for the warming that’s been observed over the last few centuries.
Could we have discovered a new scientific principle here? Any study using politically pejorative statements like ‘deniers’ is automatically invalidated? We could call it the ‘Lewandowsky effect’.
Any other suggestions?
Lovejoy – “Their two most convincing arguments – that the warming is natural in origin, and that the computer models are wrong – are either directly contradicted by this analysis, or simply do not apply to it.”
Now lets think about this from a basic earth cyclical pattern level. When did the earth stop cycling and man take over the driver of climate?
This paper would make birds in a cage go nuts just from the shear ridiculous position he takes.
Good grief, this is the most embarrassing case of climate GIGO science so far this year. And unfortunately, it shows that the hockey game is far from over 🙁
I read the paper at http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/neweprint/Anthro.climate.dynamics.13.3.14.pdf. Like the many similarly argued papers, this one assumes each change in the global temperature to be the sum of two components. One is the “natural variation.” The other is the “anthropogenic warming.” In the argument that is made by the paper, the natural variation plays a role that is similar to that of the noise in a communications channel whereas the anthropogenic warming plays a role that is similar to that of the signal.
For the purpose of regulating the climate through curbs on CO2 emissions, one needs an estimate of the strength of the signal contingent on the concentration of the CO2. In this paper and in others like it, this estimate is provided through the presumed existence of a climate sensitivity through which every change in the CO2 concentration is mapped to the corresponding change in the anthropogenic warming. This part of the argument falls flat, however, for the supposed signal would have to travel at superluminal speed to reach the present from the future but this speed is outlawed under Einsteinean relativity. Thus, this signal cannot exist under relativity.
While the propagation of a signal from the future to the present is prohibited by relativity, the propagation of information from the future to the present is not prohibited by it. Unfortunately, the propagation of information from the future to the present was prohibited through the actions of climatologists in structuring their inquiry into global warming. They did so by failing to identify the events underlying their climate models. It is the counts of observed events which are called “frequencies” that carry information to us from the future but for global warming climatology there are no such events.
milodonharlani says:
April 11, 2014 at 9:14 pm
___________________
Oh good. You’ve finally come clean. For a while there, it seemed like you were mimicking that late Nebraskan chap, Blancan Glosso.
Robert Bissett, 4-11-14@5:00 pm:
“only outlaws would have thermometers”
Yep. Got a drawer full of thermometers. If anybody wants to confiscate them, they’re going to have to pry them from my cold, dead hands. Except the rectal one which they will have to pry from somewhere else.
Sure, Americans feel strongly about their thermometers. But look what unrestricted use has led to…climate alarmism! Even the NTA (Nat’l Thermometer Asso.) is supporting reasonable regulation. Right now any untrained person can pocket carry in any country, any city, any building, even schools, taking random temps as they please. We need to start now by banning assault thermometers, the ones used by warmist. I could go on.
“Or perhaps Leif missed the /sarc tag … .” (J. Martin at 3:54am today)
I think….. that Dr. Svalgaard didn’t think he needed one.
#(:))
Dr. Svalgaard gave Lovejoy the only type of response his work deserves.
His conclusion: the natural-warming hypothesis may be ruled out “with confidence levels great than 99%, and most likely greater than 99.9%.”
This is the most non-mathematical, non-scientific statement I have read in my 50 years of study, research and writing. It is the classic sh1t that has been generated through and by the IPCC and UKMetOff wordology. It is disgusting rubbish and should be retracted immediately. It won’t of course. Like Nutticelli’s 97% crap this is usefull fodder for the religious leaders such as “Dave”.
***************************************************************
***************************************************************
MY — OH — MY!! What a SUPER performance by the WUWT heavy hitters above.
One — after — another, you stepped up to the plate and….
…. BAM! — CRACK! — BAAAAMMM!
HOME RUN AFTER HOME RUN HOME RUN AFTER HOME RUN HOME RUN AFTER HOME RUN HOME RUN AFTER HOME RUN HOME RUN AFTER HOME RUN.
Scientists for truth, you guys ROCK!
#(:))
Way — to — take — those — AGWers — to school…
One of the best comment threads EVAH!
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
That calls for a song!
All you men and women scientists-for-TRUTH,
dominators like YOU should walk with a little swagger…
like this…
Strut your super-brain stuff!
yeeeeeoooowwww!!!
#(:))
“St. Louis Blues” — Glenn Miller orchestra
Bottom line:
TRUTH WINS — EVERY TIME.
Thanks, Janice
Those of us who labor in the scientific trenches need and appreciate having a cheerleader.
“””””””…….To assess the natural variability before much human interference, the new study uses “multi-proxy climate reconstructions” developed by scientists in recent years to estimate historical temperatures, as well as fluctuation-analysis techniques from nonlinear geophysics. The climate reconstructions take into account a variety of gauges found in nature, such as tree rings, ice cores, and lake sediments. And the fluctuation-analysis techniques make it possible to understand the temperature variations over wide ranges of time scales…….””””””
OK Professor Lovejoy.
I’ll settle for your demonstration of your assertion as applied to just the most recent 17 years and 8 months of experimentally observed data.
I don’t need you to prove it for times scales of nano-seconds, or time scales of hundreds of millions of years.
Just give me, the last 17 years and 8 months, and then I will buy you a pint of ale at your favorite pub.
“””””…..David L. says:
April 11, 2014 at 6:09 pm
“If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.”
Ernest Rutherford
(Baron Rutherford of Nelson. New Zealander born British Chemist who laid the groundwork for the development of nuclear physics by investigating radioactivity. Nobel Prize in 1908. 1871-1937)…..”””””
Slight correction there David.
Lord Rutherford, was a New Zealand Born, New Zealand Scientist. Working in England does NOT render anyone “British.”
Lord Rutherford also said:
“We haven’t the money, so we have to think. ” or words to that effect.
We don’t have a lot of Nobel Prize winners, so we don’t rent them out to others.
And for the legal disclaimer; NO ! I am NOT the 2009 Nobel Prize in Physics, winner.
And for the record, Rutherford’s contribution to science was simply to show that atoms must be nuclear, rather than plum puddings; which he did by studying the wide angle scattering of alpha particles by thin gold foils. A plum pudding atom would not be able to scatter energetic alpha particles over virtually a 4pi pattern.
And in the interest of credit where it is due, Rutherford had a “lab technician” who made the experimental observations. I don’t remember his name, but it is well documented in history, and he deserves credit for HIS excellent experimental prowess. Google experts, can easily look him up for themselves. Yes I have it in books, but first I would have to find those books. I don’t know if it is in George Gamow’s book or not.
Why, Terry Oldberg, thank you for saying so! My pleasure. Glad to see you again.
And
HURRAH FOR NEW ZEALAND, Mr. Smith! #(:))
Good for you to correct the record on behalf of your fine country. Hope all is well.
Mr. Smith,
Re: yours of 2:41pm today, there are several “assistants” of Rutherford mentioned in this biographical article: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1908/rutherford-bio.html
Perhaps your “lab technician” is named.
Thanks for sharing,
Janice
Rope-A-Dope !
Ah Ha !
From Wikipedia:
The rope-a-dope is performed by a boxer assuming a protected stance (in Ali’s classic pose, lying against the ropes, which allows much of the punch’s energy to be absorbed by the ropes’ elasticity rather than the boxer’s body) while allowing his opponent to hit him, providing only enough counter-attack to avoid the referee thinking the boxer is no longer able to continue and thus ending the match via technical knockout. The plan is to cause the opponent to “punch himself out” and make mistakes which the boxer can then exploit in a counter-attack.
“cause the opponent to make mistakes” !
An army’s marching orders I’d say. 🙂
Ha Ha.
No wonder this paper void of any scientific method (no probability analysis and no experimental modeling involved, just secondary-school formulas) was published on Climate Dynamics, a strenuous supporter of CAGW. The peering was done by A.K. Schneider, the one and only peer reviewer of that journal.
From the head lines of November 2014 New York Times
El Nino 2014, THIS TIME IT IS PERSONAl
Dee Deeniers are all shook up! So FUNNY!
“99% certainty”
That seems like a Communist “election” result.