Laughable new paper claims 99.999% certainty global warming over past 25 years is man-made

I was tipped off to this paper by a Tweet from SkS Reichfurher John Cook, and I started on writing a rebuttal, but discovered The Hockey Schtick had already done a complete job, so I’ve reposted it here.  -Anthony

The Hockey Schtick writes: A new paper published in a journal called “Climate Risk Management” claims a ridiculous degree of “certainty” of  99.999% that global warming over the past 25 years is man-made. The claim is made based upon climate models already falsified at confidence levels of 98%+.

According to the authors,

“there is less than a one in one hundred thousand chance of observing an unbroken sequence of 304 months [25.3 years] (our analysis extends to June 2010) with mean surface temperature exceeding the 20th century average.”

Fundamental problems with this claim [which is basically the falsified IPCC attribution claim of 95% certainty on steroids] include:

There is no statistical difference between the rate of warming over the 27 years from 1917-1944 and the 25 years from 1975/1976 to 2000:


Climate models fail to simulate the [natural with 99.999% certainty] observed warming between 1910 and 1940

    Not being able to address the attribution of change in the early 20th century to my mind precludes any highly confident attribution of change in the late 20th century.” – Judith Curry

The IPCC’s attribution statement [and likewise this new paper is not seem logically consistent with the uncertainty in climate sensitivity

Thus, this new paper is not even wrong with 99.999% certainty

Assumed climate model forcings for CO2, solar TSI, Southern Oscillation Index [SOI] and volcanic.

The paper:

A probabilistic analysis of human influence on recent record global mean temperature changes

Philip Kokic, Steven Crimp, Mark Howden DOI: 10.1016/j.crm.2014.03.002,


December 2013 was the 346th consecutive month where global land and ocean average surface temperature exceeded the 20th century monthly average, with February 1985 the last time mean temperature fell below this value. Even given these and other extraordinary statistics, public acceptance of human induced climate change and confidence in the supporting science has declined since 2007. The degree of uncertainty as to whether observed climate changes are due to human activity or are part of natural systems fluctuations remains a major stumbling block to effective adaptation action and risk management. Previous approaches to attribute change include qualitative expert-assessment approaches such as used in IPCC reports and use of ‘fingerprinting’ methods based on global climate models. Here we develop an alternative approach which provides a rigorous probabilistic statistical assessment of the link between observed climate changes and human activities in a way that can inform formal climate risk assessment. We construct and validate a time series model of anomalous global temperatures to June 2010, using rates of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as well as other causal factors including solar radiation, volcanic forcing and the El Niño Southern Oscillation. When the effect of GHGs is removed, bootstrap simulation of the model reveals that there is less than a one in one hundred thousand chance of observing an unbroken sequence of 304 months (our analysis extends to June 2010) with mean surface temperature exceeding the 20th century average. We also show that one would expect a far greater number of short periods of falling global temperatures (as observed since 1998) if climate change was not occurring. This approach to assessing probabilities of human influence on global temperature could be transferred to other climate variables and extremes allowing enhanced formal risk assessment of climate change.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 3, 2014 8:40 pm

99.999% certainty every environmental group, organization , NGO and UN member is an oil industry puppet

Reply to  dennisearlbaker
September 4, 2014 6:00 am

99.999% certainty every environmental group, organization , NGO and UN member is an oil industry puppet
/sarc off
Fixed it for ya

Reply to  Hysteria
September 4, 2014 8:14 am

No sarcasm needed. Given the empirically-demonstrated price inelasticity of demand for petroleum products, what price maximizes profits?

Reply to  dennisearlbaker
September 4, 2014 5:30 pm

I wonder if 97% of scientists agree with the report.

September 3, 2014 8:42 pm

Of course, their data is not adjusted for the enrichment in UHI and lower altitude sites that occurred due to site dropout starting in 1991 with the fall of the USSR. Also, they have never made an honest, downward adjustment for UHI, just a token at best and increased temperature at worst.
An honest adjustment would actually involve an annually increasing downward adjustment. So, for these two stretches to have the same warming slope, I think hides the fact that the most recent warming slope actually has a lower rate of climb.

September 3, 2014 8:51 pm

Going GIGO for grants.

September 3, 2014 8:55 pm

Temps go along level, there are some adjustments made to make it appear to have quickly rose 1/2 of a degree, it stays as such for 100 years… so all along the years you can say for X months the temperature has remained above the long term mean. Even on the 1200th month! So what?
Are these climate “scientists” that blind to not see what they are saying? It means nothing of any value.

Reply to  wayne
September 4, 2014 6:13 am

‘Are these climate “scientists” that blind to not see what they are saying? It means nothing of any value.’
Isn’t that the whole meme of this Global Warming / Climate Change nonsense. It means nothing and whatever they do amounts to nothing. The only big advances being done in so called ‘Climate Science’ is the record amount of money being pis*ed down the drain to accomplish absolutely nothing.
What a wonderful world we live in…Me thinks it is time for the culling of the herd in the name of common sense and rational thinking. I just wish there was a place we could send all the eco-loons to so that they could get on with their utopian dreams and live in their nirvana state and leave all the rest of us alone to get on with our lives.

dale f
Reply to  PeterK
September 6, 2014 6:10 am

we’re the ones suffering because of your stupidity. soon, there won’t be anywhere (except your doomsday bunker) to go because people like you are destroying it on your own.
I understand, FACTS are LIBERALLY biased.
[But who own the “your stupidity” you are addressing above? .mod]

September 3, 2014 8:58 pm

FYI Anthony, your link to “SkS Reichfurher John Cook” sends the reader to your WUWT article, but it also has a drop down that won’t allow access to see your WUWT page. The drop down says:
“To view this page, you must log in to this area on”
Don’t know what is causing the problem, but am guessing you don’t want your own WUWT articles that you link to, to be restricted from review.

Reply to  ben
September 4, 2014 1:49 am

Not sure this is an appropriate phrase, no matter what we might think of John Cook. Surely we have been asked not to use the letters ‘SS’ for Sks so why do we get into the ‘denier’ meme by calling him a reichfuhrer?

Reply to  climatereason
September 4, 2014 3:05 am

The guy photoshopped himself with a nazi uniform on. Have you not seen that? He gets called what he dresses himself up ass. (Spelling intended.)

John Endicott
Reply to  climatereason
September 4, 2014 4:48 am

tonyb, it’s a reference to Cook’s photo of himself in Nazi uniform. If he doesn’t want to be a reichfurure then why did he dress himself up as one?

Reply to  climatereason
September 4, 2014 7:05 am

I agree, the man is an incompetent alarmist, not a Nazi. No reason for us to take the low road, there’s a LOT of traffic down there, it’ll take us forever to get where we’re going…

John West
Reply to  climatereason
September 4, 2014 7:07 am

Step 1: Create a crisis that will be perceived as unsolvable by democratic processes/institutions with the right propaganda dissemination.
Step 2: Convince public that emergency powers need to be granted to an authority (i.e.: Chancellor, UN) in order to solve the problem.
Step 3: Expand emergency powers of the authority as the problem threatens to spiral out of control.
Step 4: Drop all pretense of solving the “problem”. Declare yourself The Emperor, or Fuhrer, or whatever you want since you’re in charge and there’s nothing anyone can do about it, except perhaps those pesky rebels … er, uh …Allies … um … skeptics.

Reply to  climatereason
September 4, 2014 9:38 am

If I am a climate denier, then Cook is a climate Nazi, pretty simple.
REPLY: A year ago I would have snipped this comment as being over the top, but when we find that the SkS kidz play Nazi uniform dress up on their secret forum, I’d say the if the uniform fits, the name fits too. – Anthony

Reply to  ben
September 4, 2014 8:04 am

Pardon the pedantry, but it’s “Reichsführer-SS”, not “Reichfurher”. If you can’t make an umlaut, then put an “e” after the “u”. As in English, the “s” makes the noun genitive in case, ie possessive.

Joel O'Bryan
September 3, 2014 9:12 pm

CSIRO – down-under. Did they accidentally look at the temp charts upside down?
(apologies to the Aussie skeptics)

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 4, 2014 12:08 am

Just curious, what planet are you on.
Because the rest of us are on Planet Earth. You shoukld visit us some time.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 4, 2014 4:44 am

You probably wrote this amazing rebuttal on a wifi connection using CSIRO patented technology.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 5, 2014 2:07 am

The CSIRO is one of the worst organisations for perpetuating the AGW myth because they need to ensure the funds keep coming from the government,

John F. Hultquist
September 3, 2014 9:12 pm

In 1960 I reached the height of 6 feet and zero inches. Today, I am a tiny bit shorter but still above the average for the past 846 months. This is more than twice the count of the study’s monthly run. I don’t know how many 9s might be necessary to express the chance of this happening. Maybe one of the authors can figure this out. But really, who cares? They have yet to get anything right!

September 3, 2014 9:32 pm

I copied the following from the link provided for this piece of research:
‘To conform to the approximate physical relationship between greenhouse gas concentration and temperature, eCO2 was converted to a radiative forcing value using the approximation f(eCO2) = 5.35 loge(eCO2/278) (Myhre et al., 1998). These relationships also imply that temperature (in a closed system) increases linearly with the radiative forcing value of an input, suggesting that a multiple linear regression is a suitable approximation for modelling the global mean temperature anomaly.’
Please bear with me. I’m now going to copy several weak words of certainty from the paragraph above:
“suitable approximation for modelling”
Now, can someone please explain to me how the foregoing may “imply” or “suggest” a 99.999% certainty about something? Ok, how about implying a 99.99% certainty? Or, how zee ’bout suggesting a 99.9% certainty? 99.0% certainty? 95%? How about, maybe, even something better than a 50% certainty? Or, maybe we can turn it into a 99.999% suggestion?

Bill H
Reply to  Tom J
September 3, 2014 10:19 pm

They Lied? or are they just misleading? Or is it a concerted attempt to cloud up reality so that they can get more money to study it? OR they simply think that those who will read it are so ill equipped to render a reasonable judgment of their fantasy that they mixed low certainty words in with their fantasy high certainty numbers? So many logical possibilities.
A wise old Indian once told me to beware of men with forked tongues. They are evidenced by those who say one thing to one person while telling another by their actions. In this case it is clearly evident in their writings that they are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. That is the only thing 99.9999% certain in this paper other than it being a failure.
Sadly Climate Science has gone the way of Witch Doctoring..

Reply to  Tom J
September 4, 2014 1:03 am

High precision, low accuracy. For activists and politicians dressed-up as scientists and using statistics this outcome is a no-brainer. Add in powerful software/computers and gullible news media plus huge piles of money and it’s virtually guaranteed.

Reply to  Tom J
September 4, 2014 1:10 pm

and then there’s the “closed system”; the enormous ziplock bag enclosing the earth and its atmosphere, visible only to the authors, and 99.9999% impermeable to detection by any method available to others.

Matthew R Marler
September 3, 2014 9:34 pm

This is another successful attempt to show that if you assume that there would have been no background warming then you can conclude that there would have been no background warming — and with great confidence and a low p-value.

September 3, 2014 9:35 pm

Actually they have explained the warming on the early to mid 20th century. It was “natural variability”. See, there was some natural stuff that varied and it caused temperatures to rise. During the latter part of that century all of the natural stuff stayed exactly the same but we did things to mess it up. It’s just a coincidence that the two warming periods look identical because they couldn’t possibly have the same cause. The temperature was perfect back then, correct to 3 parts in a thousand. It was too cold before and too hot now, so we need to undo the unnatural variability and keep the natural part.
It’s hard to tell but I’m waving my hands around really hard while I explain this so that you’ll know that I’m right and I can do climate science. I wonder if NASA is hiring?

Reply to  Pachygrapsus
September 4, 2014 1:29 pm

Wave your hands around harder and ask Gavin Schmidt.
(you can’t wave your hands around as hard as Gavin Schmidt, though)

Michael D
September 3, 2014 9:36 pm

Maybe they’re saying that there was no actual warming over the past 25 years and that the reported warming is just due to man-made adjustments to temperature records?

September 3, 2014 9:49 pm

According to some politicians, there is no such occurrence as global warming. I personal believe that there is global warming and it is man-made. There is no getting around it. The world is slowly changing and it doesn’t matter how messed up the environment continues to be because people don’t believe in global warming. Goodness!

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  SouthernGal
September 3, 2014 10:05 pm

Science is not based on beliefs. Church, faith in a supreme creator, and monotheist religions are the realm of beliefs. Science is based on falsifiable hypothesis. Beliefs are what has caused all the problems we now face with the like of, Al Gore, et al.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 4, 2014 12:31 am

well thank you for your insight. (eye roll)

Reply to  SouthernGal
September 3, 2014 11:19 pm

Yes, the world is changing… just has it always has for the past 4 billion years. Climate has always changed as well. The world is not the static system that the warmists want you to believe it to be.

Reply to  Eric
September 4, 2014 12:31 am

ok. thanks

A C Osborn
Reply to  Eric
September 4, 2014 3:16 am

Gal, you forgot the Sarc tags in your posts..

Reply to  Eric
September 4, 2014 3:55 am

I thought the (eye roll) was sufficient? 🙂

Reply to  SouthernGal
September 4, 2014 2:19 am

What do politicians know about anything?
Yes, towards the latter part of the 20th Century the earth warmed and it is highly likely man caused some of the warming (concreting over large areas, deforestation etc must have some effect). The question is how much warming v natural, is CS high or low and will any warming be catastrophic, dangerous or benign?

Reply to  SouthernGal
September 4, 2014 3:14 am

September 3, 2014 at 9:49 pm
“According to some politicians, there is no such occurrence as global warming. I personal believe that there is global warming and it is man-made. There is no getting around it. The world is slowly changing and it doesn’t matter how messed up the environment continues to be because people don’t believe in global warming. Goodness!”
But SouthernGal. The world has stopped warming ca. 1998. Granted, the news don’t tell you this. But the RSS measurements do:
Indeed, if the world were warming, I would probably think that the climate modelers have created working models.
But, as their models show warming, while the satellite measurements show non-warming or even cooling, I now think that
a) the climate modelers have exaggerated their competence greatly
b) politicians were all too eager to use this pretense of knowledge to inflict all kinds of taxes on the populace
c) The journalists are too incompetent to understand but very eager to sell a future catastrophy.
You see, it is measurements that tell me that all this is the case; not beliefs. Of course, my personal experiences with the weather coincide with the measurements. It is not warming.

Man Bearpig
Reply to  SouthernGal
September 4, 2014 6:27 am

Well, everyone is entitled to hold their own beliefs. Some believe in this others believe in that, there is no problem. No one has, or should have a problem with that, but when others start imposing their beliefs on others it becomes very dangerous.
The Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory has a problem, there is no discernible evidence to say it is true because the ‘proof’ is based on predictions of the future (‘the temperature will be x degrees, sea level will rise, there will be more this and that and less other’ ) the vast majority of such predictions in AGW field have so far not been accurate, but have been very precise in being inaccurate (temperatures to 0.001 degrees, etc.).
Unless you can point us to factual measurable evidence of AGW it remains a theory, and I remain sceptic.

Reply to  SouthernGal
September 4, 2014 8:52 am

Well, there used to be global warming but it stopped a few years back, which is too bad because global warming is a very good thing–it prevents global cooling. People like to live in the South because it’s warm. Northerners like to move to the South, but Southerners don’t like to move to the North because it’s cold. Detroit is full of empty houses that nobody wants to live in because it’s warmer down south.
But now global warming is making it colder which makes it even worse–no matter how much carbon we burn to keep warm global warming makes it colder. We’ll all have to move south to save ourselves from global warming. Move over, SouthernGal! –AGF

Reply to  agfosterjr
September 4, 2014 10:29 am

Alrighty then

Reply to  SouthernGal
September 4, 2014 11:19 am

At most time scales over the last half-billion years, the trend is cooling, not warming. You have to be pretty careful of endpoint selection in fact to get a warming trend. The planet has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, but cooled since the Medieval Warm Period. It has been cooling since the Roman warm period, and in fact has cooled over the last 8,000 years or so. It has warmed since the maximum of the Wisconsin glacial (about 19 thousand years ago), but cooled over the last 130,000 years or so (since the Sangamonian or Eemian interstadial). Push back to about 5-million years and the over all pattern is a continuous cooling. Cooling has dominated the 150 MY or so. The last time the planet averaged as cool as it is at present was around 250 to 300 million years ago (the Permian).
We commonly assume that humans “must be having an effect,” but until someone can really explain the workings of natural weather (climate is just weather over long time spans) we can’t sort out just what humans really are doing.

Reply to  Duster
September 4, 2014 11:28 am

Thank you for the book report! Its not that serious. lol

Uncle Gus
Reply to  SouthernGal
September 5, 2014 9:52 am

SouthernGal, you can believe in global warming. You can believe the Moon is made of green cheese. But there’s a temperature record, which everyone agrees on including all the climate scientists. It shows no warming for 17 years.
I hate to say this, but what you believe doesn’t matter.
(And there are guys who have walked on the Moon who can testify to a complete lack of Gorgonzola…)

Reply to  Uncle Gus
September 5, 2014 7:03 pm

Why do you people keep responding to my post. Like I get it, we have different views. I haven’t even returned to the website. Stop commenting so I can stop getting notifications. Thanks lol
[Do you not take it as a compliment that the readers and writers here believe that you are intelligent enough to understand the real science, and realistic enough to be persuaded by the actual evidence? Then again, you can always turn off notifications if you chose to close your mind. .mod]

George Turner
September 3, 2014 9:56 pm

When you get granular enough, anything that has happened is almost infinitely improbable, because there are an almost infinite number of other ways things could’ve gone. These studies are more a proof of the failure of US science education than anything else, or evidence of a basic inability to think.

John West
Reply to  George Turner
September 4, 2014 5:59 am

Just to illustrate your point, I’m playing solitair the other day and there was an ace face up on the deal and under that ace was another ace and under that ace was another ace and under that ace was another ace. So now I’m 99.999% sure the schwartz is with me.

Uncle Gus
Reply to  John West
September 5, 2014 9:54 am

Ah, Mel Brooks, where are you now that we need you?

Mike Bromley the Kurd
September 3, 2014 10:00 pm

For accuracy’s sake, that would be “Reichsführer” Or “Reichsfuehrer”….lest his krautness get his liederhosen in a knot.

Reply to  Mike Bromley the Kurd
September 3, 2014 10:14 pm

For accuracy’s sake, that would be “lederhosen” — or was it a joke, “singing pants”?

Reply to  Alexander Feht
September 3, 2014 11:02 pm

…that would be “lederhosen” — or was it a joke, “singing pants”?

Depends on how tight they are, nicht wahr?

Jeff Alberts
September 3, 2014 10:04 pm

December 2013 was the 346th consecutive month where global land and ocean average surface temperature exceeded the 20th century monthly average, with February 1985 the last time mean temperature fell below this value. Even given these and other extraordinary statistics

That’s all the global surface temperature metric is, a statistic. It has no physical meaning, and gives a completely false impression that all points on the planet warmed at the same rate, or that they warmed at all.

Uncle Gus
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
September 5, 2014 9:56 am

Been saying that for years. It’s a totally artificial variable, and not a very useful or illuminating one at that.

Bill H
September 3, 2014 10:04 pm

Can someone please explain how the Natural Variation of the 1900-1950 period was stopped in the 1951-2000 period? The paper some how fails to explain just how they stopped the natural stuff and then how man took over…
Silly me. I might have missed it… /sarc

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Bill H
September 3, 2014 10:21 pm

Seems to me that since their analysis ended in June 2010 and it is now more than 4 years later, they have probably been shopping this paper around at Journals for the better part of 3 years getting rejections. Climate Risk Management is a new journal, with an editor hungry for anything to start a track record that will take years to build to get an impact rating.
As for the 1985 date for their start of global warming, how do they reconcile with the fact GHG supposedly were affecting the climate by 1950? Who knows? Probably why even most other journals rejected the paper.

Bill H
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 3, 2014 10:37 pm

Maybe this will be their first retraction in shame.. One can hope this is a lesson learned in the school of hard knocks.. They missed some very basic Null Hypothesis things which makes me think that journal isn’t so scientific in its endeavor. Possibly a Propaganda front for the Administration.
Going to have to look closely at their board of directors and owners.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 4, 2014 2:33 am

When dealing with extremists like the climate obsessed it is always good to bet they are simply cherry picking. Stopping at 2010 is certainly a cherry picking effort since more data is easily available.

Reply to  Bill H
September 4, 2014 1:41 pm

Jan 1, 1951: the defeat of nature by the 1500 Nazi scientists imported to the US in Operation Paperclip?/sarc

September 3, 2014 10:31 pm

I’m not sure which is scarier – that this is an exercise in propaganda, or that these f*ckwits actually believe what they’re saying ?

Reply to  philincalifornia
September 3, 2014 10:51 pm

Ummm… HadCRUT temperatures. What is the level of temperature adjustment? HadCRUT2 level, HadCRUT3 level, HadCRUT4 level or are they preparing HadCRUT5 adjustments?
Just curious, but not curious enough to read the paper.

Reply to  philincalifornia
September 4, 2014 11:21 am

The latter without a doubt.

Uncle Gus
Reply to  philincalifornia
September 5, 2014 10:13 am

Scarier than that, and much more likely – they don’t care!
For years now, I’ve been tracking the rise of “controversy science” as a career choice. There are thousands of guys out there (with perfectly good PhDs), “proving” that cellphones cause cancer, that BSE is creating an epidemic of nvCJD, that vaccination causes autism… The list is endless.
It’s a guaranteed income, because failure doesn’t cut off the money stream. In fact, if you pick the right sponsor, failure is impossible; the most pitiful of nul results can be published as “evidence in favour”, and actual evidence against… well, it doesn’t have to be published at all.
These f*ckwits – they’ve got degrees, they’re published in a real journal, what more do you want? If it said nothing but “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy” one million times, they’d still think they were doing science.

September 3, 2014 10:46 pm

First Obvious thought. There has been “no warming” in the last 25-years!!

Peter Miller
September 3, 2014 10:49 pm

Just another example of why you should always write ‘climate science’ and not climate science.
Sadly, in our world today there is so little climate science and so much ‘climate science’.

Reply to  Peter Miller
September 3, 2014 11:00 pm

In much the same way one mentions “political science” with a wink.

September 3, 2014 10:59 pm

Kokic, Crimp, Howden (KCH 2014) is merely yet another shovelful of “science-y” stuff flung at the public in the continuing effort to provide cover for our almost-an-American simulacrum of a legitimate President as he undertakes to achieve by criminally unconstitutional executive fiat that malevolent crippling of the national economy which even the dwindling numbers of National Socialist Democrat American Party (NSDAP) politicians in the federal legislature refuse to undertake.
Would that essaying such actions against the common weal were more than just figurative suicide.

Andrew N
September 3, 2014 11:02 pm

“there is less than a one in one hundred thousand chance of observing an unbroken sequence of 304 months [25.3 years] (our analysis extends to June 2010) with mean surface temperature exceeding the 20th century average.”
Show these learned scholars a sine curve. Every value in the positive phase is above the average.

September 3, 2014 11:08 pm

a third of the world doesn’t care!
4 Sept: Bloomberg: Sangwon Yoon/Mark Drajem: China and Indian Leaders Said to Skip UN Climate Summit
The top leaders of China and India aren’t planning to attend this month’s United Nations summit on climate change, signaling tepid support for a global pact to cut greenhouse gases among two of the largest emitters…
“I was completely shocked and very disappointed to read today that Chinese President Xi and Indian Prime Minister Modi may not make it to Ban Ki-moon’s Climate Summit,” said Tony deBrum, the foreign minister of the Marshall Islands, in the northern Pacific Ocean, in a statement. “For the small island states of the world, the science says we might be forced to pay the biggest price of all — the loss of our countries. We expect solidarity from our developing country compatriots, not excuses.” …
“The issue for us is really on the commitments that countries will bring and the secretary general expects member states to come with strong and bold commitments on climate change,” Ban’s spokesman, Stephane Dujarric, said yesterday in New York. He said he has nothing to add when asked about the leaders’ attendance…
The summit comes as scientists are increasingly warning of the risks of climate change…

September 3, 2014 11:17 pm

I think this is all above board and we are clearly responsible for 99999.999999% of warming except when it’s cold, in which case it’s weather.
After all, how else could a brand new journal publish a brilliant paper by 3 authors based at CSIRO, when the editor in chief is also from CSIRO and James Hansen as an associate editor?
Very clever of the authors to avoid the £1500 fees by submitting during the special offer period. Of course if they’d waited until next year they could have taken advantage of the BOGOF promotion.

Reply to  MangoChutney
September 4, 2014 7:31 am

I went looking for the masthead, editor, or editorial board of the Journal. I could not find one that wasn’t behind a paywall.
I did find the authors of Vol 1, No. 1, page 1-4, “What is climate risk management?” So I make the assumption that these two authors have something to do with the management of the journal.
William R. Travis
Department of Geography, University of Colorado, 260 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309-0260, USA
Bryson Bates
CSIRO Climate Adaptation Flagship, Private Bag No. 5, Wembley Western Australia 6913, Australia

September 4, 2014 12:12 am

For anyone insisting that the only credible authorities on global warming are peer reviewed authors, this nonsense should put things in perspective.
In the climate pal review system, being a published author is almost a red flag.

Steve P
Reply to  dbstealey
September 4, 2014 4:39 pm

We might even call it a maroon flag.

September 4, 2014 12:20 am

“There is less than a one in one hundred thousand chance of observing …”
But the prosecutors fallacy is much more common.

September 4, 2014 12:39 am

In reality, there is less than one in one hundred thousand chance that THEIR BOOTSTRAP SIMULATION would produce the observed data. From this, we have two alternative conclusions:
Conclusion A: (the authors’ claim) “This method provides a rigorous probabilistic statistical assessment of the link between observed climate changes and human activities”
Conclusion B: “This method provides a rigorous probabilistic statistical assessment of the relationship between climate and CO2 in the model, and model validation to the same 1-in-100,000 standard is now demanded to support a link between real-world observed climate changes and human activities”
They cannot have “A” without “B”. Their claim is groundless until they produce the validation to the above standard.

Keith Willshaw
September 4, 2014 12:52 am

How long before Cook et al announce a certainty rating of 150% ?

Reply to  Keith Willshaw
September 4, 2014 5:07 am

It’s Worse Than We Thought!™

Reply to  Keith Willshaw
September 4, 2014 5:07 am

To mimic an athlete, they’re giving it their 200%!

September 4, 2014 12:53 am

The officially declared uncertainty in the data far greater then that so the certainty of the result is pure fiction.
It is interesting that they have now abandoned any attempt at producing credible scientific results. They have lost the scientific argument. They know they have lost it, so they have abandoned even trying to find scientific evidence.
What is the wacko “risk management” journal that prints think kind of blatant garbage?
It’s not a science title. How long has it been running?

Stephen Richards
September 4, 2014 12:58 am

Cook = lies

Adrian O
September 4, 2014 1:02 am

The practical question is the following.
They say that you have to look for other causes, like humans, when their models don’t work.
Their models, when they work, fail with 98% confidence,
HOW exactly, then, do they figure out when their models DON’T work?
Is it that they make their computers put out smoke, like in the 60’s B-movies?

September 4, 2014 1:17 am

Climate (everything)
risk (fear)
management (to take control).
Opportunity: to take control of fear and everything. Wonderful 99.999%.

September 4, 2014 1:22 am

I am 99.999% certain that there is more money than what I earn involved in this study.

September 4, 2014 1:38 am

A slight typo in Cook’s title – it should be Reichsführer-SS Cook. Only he could tip everyone off about such a miserable effort at a science paper.

September 4, 2014 1:44 am

Even the civilian warmists are letting this one go…

September 4, 2014 2:02 am

99999999999999999999% they are wrong

September 4, 2014 2:10 am

Watch how the climate obsessed like Trenberth and the authors of this paper, have turned from telling us the “IPCC is the gold standard” to telling us now that it is not extreme enough. They flail away with excuses looking for heat that is not there and desperately seek to distract policymakers from the failure of their models.

Reply to  hunter
September 4, 2014 1:54 pm

Or they desparately seek to distract scientists from perceiving that the failure of their models is unrelated to the goals of policymakers.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
September 4, 2014 2:21 am

Is Peter G a concern troll?

A C Osborn
Reply to  Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
September 4, 2014 3:15 am


Scottish Sceptic
September 4, 2014 2:26 am

Reblogged this on ScottishSceptic and commented:
The claim of 99.999% is so utterly ridiculous that I can’t believe anyone seriously wrote it.
However, Anthony’s put together a very concise summary debunking this whole “it must be man-made” claim. The 1910-1940 warming is key – because that warming must be largely natural, and by inference whatever caused that could easily be responsible for the 1970-2000 warming. How unlikely that is depends on the noise model you assume, however based on my assessment I’ve always (since at least 2009) said that “the 1970-2000 warming is entirely consistent with natural variation and cannot be distinguished from noise”.

September 4, 2014 2:36 am

This is surely intended for roll-out alongside the ‘97% consensus’.
Simply a PR line to be parroted by activists and useful idiots. That it’s plainly nonsense doesn’t concern them. 99.9% Propaganda.

September 4, 2014 3:14 am

There’s no science left in this debate any more, it’s all politics. And half-witted nincompoops pushing propaganda.

Alberta Slim
Reply to  Admad
September 4, 2014 5:43 am

Nocanpoop or shurcanpoop. ;^D

Solomon Green
September 4, 2014 3:36 am

“We construct and validate a time series model of anomalous global temperatures to June 2010, using rates of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as well as other causal factors including solar radiation, volcanic forcing and the El Niño Southern Oscillation. When the effect of GHGs is removed, bootstrap simulation of the model reveals that there is less than a one in one hundred thousand chance of observing an unbroken sequence of 304 months…”
Wikipedia defines:
“Time series data have a natural temporal ordering. This makes time series analysis distinct from other common data analysis problems, in which there is no natural ordering of the observations …. A stochastic model for a time series will generally reflect the fact that observations close together in time will be more closely related than observations further apart. In addition, time series models will often make use of the natural one-way ordering of time so that values for a given period will be expressed as deriving in some way from past values, rather than from future values.”
As a tool “bootstrapping” is only valid mathematically (and logically) if each observation is independent of its neighbours.
The authors are children playing with toys that they do not understand.

Reply to  Solomon Green
September 4, 2014 7:13 am

Let me see if I understood their model: the model explains temperature change as a function of various inputs. One of these inputs happens to be greenhouse gases. The model is calibrated to have temperature respond to the input values
As far as i can see CO2 and other greenhouse gases do influence the climate. The question in my mind is how much influence do they actually have?
A model like theirs can be calibrated to give CO2 a strong influence (they just have to emphasize achieving a match to a relatively short history with emphasis on the mid 70’s to 1999 period, when temperature rose rather fast).
Then they jog the model by changing CO2 concentration. As far as I can see their results were preordained because their watch overweighted CO2 and other gases by ignoring the long term climate cycles.
By coincidence I was looking over USA oil production history over the last few days after reading about Daniel Yergin’s oil production forecast (Yergin is a famous oil industry wonk). Because I do happen to have some expertise in the field I decided to research existing forecasts as well as prepare my own. As I did I realize there were some similarities between the way we prepare oil production and climate models.
So I decided to write a short memo about this issue in a non serious way (it’s called “Forecasting the Future”). I stuck it here
Please note I aimed at showing both the problems one faces when using a history match to predict the future (I used a simple excel example, it’s not supposed to be rocket science).
But I also wanted to remind you I’m worried because we ARE running out of oil. And this is the reason why sometimes you’ll see I’ve written positively about things such as a carbon tax. Personally I see a carbon tax as a positive AS LONG AS THEY DROP MY TAXES ELSEWHERE (income tax reductions to offset the carbon tax income would be just fine with me).

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
September 4, 2014 2:12 pm

“we ARE running out of oil” You don’t acknowledge the evidence that oil is an abiotic, renewable resource rather than a fossil fuel? How do you explain its presence at a depth of 40,000 feet below the earth’s surface?×3276506

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
September 5, 2014 1:15 am

Cassidy421, I don´t accept that oil is abiotic. I assume posting links to the anticorruptionsociety and democraticunderground sites is a joke?
I assume you do know a normal land geothermal gradient would yield about 500 to 600 degrees Farenheit at 40 thousand feet? That´s 260 to 310 degrees C. Oil molecules don´t hold themselves together at those temperatures. They break up and gradually change to natural gas molecules. Given enough time they turn into CO2.

High Treason
September 4, 2014 3:46 am

99.999% certainty there is something very fishy about this claim, especially with the growing disparity between the cold, hard observational data and the models. Perhaps they are 99.999% certainty the models say what the models say. Why needs observational science when models will say what you want to hear.

Gary in Erko
September 4, 2014 3:51 am

99.999% is better odds than the almost 90% vote at the election of the president of Syria a couple of months ago, and that was a big drop from Assad’s 97.6% in 2007.

Chuck L
Reply to  Gary in Erko
September 4, 2014 5:06 am

Maybe they are actually talking about Ivory Soap, and made a typo.

September 4, 2014 3:54 am

Definition of Insanity – no one believed the 97%, so they are trying a new tactic.

September 4, 2014 4:02 am

More coin-operated science.
Paper done and published – Ka Ching
Next paper in the works…get the quarter ready.

September 4, 2014 4:16 am

Assuming these authors are Australian Climate scientists like SKS people who are about to lose their jobs or have been advised that there will be no more gov funding as of 1st Jan 2015-2016? They are really stupid …no one will want to employ them for anything in the future (maybe floor cleaning)?

Man Bearpig
Reply to  Eliza
September 4, 2014 6:49 am

No, not even floor cleaning, the people are nothing to do with science, they are activists pretenders. Would you employ them? Perhaps they may get a job in big oil? I think Dana has some contacts there.

September 4, 2014 4:45 am

This makes for a simple, quick statement on any of the news outlets, NBC, CBS and ABC. Can’t you just see the evening news anchors……”A new study shows man is responsible for all the warming over the last decade and a half”.
No debate….no rebuttal….just a false statement thrown out there for people to hear and claim it to be the gospel truth.

September 4, 2014 5:04 am

I am 100.00000% certain that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming might turn out to be a load of hot air.

September 4, 2014 5:14 am

I know you guys don’t really do science or maths…
But read this article by Nassim Nicholas Taleb (Black Swan Theory). It explains that “The more uncertain or skeptical one is of models, the higher the risk of ruin, which flies in the face of the argument of the style “skeptical of climate models”. No matter how increased the probability of benefits, ruin as an absorbing barrier, i.e. causing extinction without further recovery, more than cancels them out.”

Reply to  Lamby
September 4, 2014 5:20 am

I know anonymous trolls don’t really do thinking or provide real information …
But what article by Taleb?
And why should anyone accept your ambiguous assertion of its content?

Reply to  richardscourtney
September 4, 2014 5:36 am
Reply to  richardscourtney
September 4, 2014 5:45 am

Your link is to 8 pages.
Please quote the part of that document which you claim says what you assert.
Alternatively, define the pertinent paragraph(s).
You are making assertions. Nobody needs to do ‘homework’ to find justification for your assertions you have not justified. In truth, your behaviour is providing evidence for my statement that said

I know anonymous trolls don’t really do thinking or provide real information …


Reply to  richardscourtney
September 4, 2014 6:05 am

Just the graph is enough to show what Taleb is trying to assert – that (if you have a standard distribution model of probability – i.e. not a ‘certain event’) the more uncertain the models are the higher risk of a catastrophic outcome.
Are you guys are so certain that there is no human induced global warming that you will not take any mitigating steps? When there is enough good evidence that it would be prudent to take some ‘insurance’ – . If you look at the consequences, you only need something like a 5% chance of humans causing global warming for it make sense to take some mitigating actions.
The analogy is you living in a bush fire prone area, and all the ‘experts’ are telling you that you need to take out fire insurance and have some exit strategies in place to get your family out in the event of a fire. Are you going to ignore the experts and bet your family?

Reply to  Lamby
September 8, 2014 4:59 am

Are you guys are so certain that there is no human induced global warming that you will not take any mitigating steps?

Part of the art of dialogue is “listening” (in this case reading) to what others say and then responding. The statement quoted above is a clear indication you either lack the skills, or are totally ignorant of what a forum is all about.
So your challenge, should you wish to remain the least bit credible, is to show where anyone is stating your straw man. If you want to save some time, just admit you have no clue what you are talking about.

Owen in GA
Reply to  richardscourtney
September 4, 2014 7:51 am

It is nothing like a bush fire prone area. There you can see the tinder dry vegetation all around you so the probability of a fire is high by direct observation.
In climate science, we see around us lush green vegetation with an inch of rain per week falling, but some grant monger is yelling in our ears that just beneath the surface is an inferno that will engulf us all and it is worse than we thought. Their models show that we are “ALL GOING TO DIE”. Meanwhile we continue to see lush green growth and an inch a week of rain.
So your set up is a classic strawman with all the trimmings.

Reply to  richardscourtney
September 4, 2014 9:30 am

You incorrectly assert

Just the graph is enough to show what Taleb is trying to assert – that (if you have a standard distribution model of probability – i.e. not a ‘certain event’) the more uncertain the models are the higher risk of a catastrophic outcome.

Clearly, you failed to read the paper you have cited.
That graph applies to a normal distribution. In other words, it is not an applicable model for climate which – of course – their performance demonstrates is also the case with the numerical climate models.
The remainder of your post is paranoid idiocy.
You would never get out of bed in the morning if you believed “the more uncertain the models are the higher risk of a catastrophic outcome” because there are very many potential “catastrophic outcomes” from very many poorly modeled situations throughout each day.

Alberta Slim
Reply to  Lamby
September 4, 2014 5:53 am

Lamby….. I doubt that people are skeptical of climate models. They are skeptical of the Alarmist’s gigo climate models.

Reply to  Lamby
September 4, 2014 6:39 am

“I know you guys don’t really do science or maths…”
Of course, that’s as far as I got, and I’m damn sure I’m not the only one.

Reply to  Lamby
September 4, 2014 6:41 am

I believe the not stated assumption by Taleb would be that the models are reasonable, relatively science based.
The CAGW models arguably are not since they do not match up to reality.
Therefore, the further assumptions you make are not valid for CAGW models.

Reply to  Lamby
September 4, 2014 7:30 am

Lamby, I’m pretty sure there’s some influence by GHG on the climate. I assume by now most people realize the debate centers around climate sensitivity and the nature of the forecasts being prepared by some parties (such as the IPCC’s CMIP5 ensembles using RCP8.5).
I see this as a multiple set of points of contention. I’m not a “denier” nor I’m I scientifically illiterate. I also happen to know more about complex model work flows than the majority of the scientists in the fake 97% quoted by President Obama (who by the way got my vote in 2008 because I hated McCain after he picked Palin and sang that stupid “bomb Iran” ditty).
The problem I see with your comment is that we read a lot of material written by watermelons and other suspect characters, we get told certain nations expect “reparations” because they got to hide from sea level rise, and to top it off we see idiocies like the solar power plants installed in Spain and Germany. So you see as far as I’m concerned the fundamental problem is caused by yahoos trying to take over the political system to impose their pet solutions, most of which happen to be impractical, sometimes they are even worse, they are absolute garbage.

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
September 4, 2014 9:49 am

What about 2012?

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
September 4, 2014 1:51 pm

Sturgis, I didn´t vote in 2012. By the time November rolled around I had forgotten to ask the US consulate for my expat voter envelope, and I was too wasted to fly to Texas. Besides, I don´t think it would have made much difference. I focus a lot on US foreign policy ( I usually live outside the USA). Both parties are terrible in that area.

Reply to  Lamby
September 4, 2014 11:36 am

The key to a useful model is that it replicates with confidence, the workings of the process being modeled. No one has so far produced a climate model for which that is true, except when expressed as a matter of faith by the modeler. When a model is known not to function as expected, then using that model results in the blind-blind-ditch scenario if you persist in employing it. You want to consider Taleb’s argument in the light of existing knowledge – that is, apply some Bayesian reasoning.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Lamby
September 4, 2014 12:51 pm

Societies throughout history can and do choose to follow courses of action based on the emotions of fear and ignorance. That is what is happening now. That is what the IPCC, Al Gore, Bill McKibben and all their ilk are betting on. The gullible masses have been preyed upon by charlatans since the dawn of mankind.
So you are entitled to a personal opinion and belief.
Just don’t call it Science, when those ringing the alarm bells are trying to stifle scientific debate with statements like “settled science” and the “debate is over.” At that point, history would advise that one should put a tight hold on your wallet, as the sticky-fingered charlatans are coming for what’s inside.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 4, 2014 9:21 pm

You’re 180.000004% correct, of course. The real insanity is that this was explicitly stated in the Club of Rome’s PUBLISHED report in 1972 and here we are in 2014, after 22 years of IPCC fraud, still trying to pretend it’s real, and ignoring REAL environmental problems. AGW was fabricated as an excuse to murder 95% of the world’s population, and the need to do that was justified by computer modeling by the Club of Rome that’s as absurd as IPCC’s modeling. The Club of Rome was founded by oil billionaire David Rockefeller in 1969 from members of the Committee of 300 to develop a plan to achieve a global fascist totalitarian takeover, and AGW is the plan, implemented by Agenda 21. They stated that a fabricated environmental crisis was a way to hide their agenda and formed the IPCC to hide their involvement. (CoR is a UN advisory group).
““The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
“The real enemy then, is humanity itself.“
Club of Rome
Quote from CoR member John Holdren ‘s book, Ecoscience “Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.”
These people are the most insane, destructive psychopaths in the history of the planet, people who have repeatedly used false flag events to start wars, funded both sides of wars and benefited from arms sales and debt service, created famines by manipulating prices, created bioengineered pathogens to cause pandemics, manipulated interest rates to cause housing foreclosures, engineered the 1929 stock market crash, and they control all international markets. Their current plan is confiscating all assets and creating a global serf state with only a sufficient number of people to serve their needs. They didn’t acquire their money and power through superior intelligence or knowledge or skills, but by being psychopathic predators with no conscience; “not quite human”, according to Robert Hare, who developed the checklist used in diagnosis: psychopaths process emotional input differently from normal humans, and have structural differences in their emotional processing centers (limbic system, amygdala).
Environmentalists “know” that anyone who doesn’t support AGW is owned by an oil company, and scientists concerned about the environment (including me) are focused on scientific fraud and deception, and these are both diversions; perception manipulation The goal of AGW is global domination and control of all assets, no rules, no truth, no ethics, no science. Who’se left? The segment of the population with no means to detect the fraudulent science and who unquestionably support authority. Scientists who are able to understand that climate science is misrepresented are the only segment of the population with any power to attack the politcal cabal that’s promoting AGW solely for its own agenda.

September 4, 2014 5:22 am

How does this $#! T get published?

Tom in Florida
September 4, 2014 5:25 am

“mean surface temperature “…. doesn’t that mean there are the same number of temperatures higher and lower than this number ? But since that doesn’t say how much each temperature varies from the mean what does that really tell us?

Owen in GA
Reply to  Tom in Florida
September 4, 2014 7:55 am

The mean is the traditional average (add them all up, divide by the number), median is the one where there are as many points above as below, and for giggles, mode is the most frequently observed value.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Owen in GA
September 4, 2014 10:28 am

Thanks, brain must have been on the upcoming football season.

Bill Illis
September 4, 2014 5:38 am

One would have to be certain that the AMO is not a natural climate cycle.
But it is increasingly being recognized as such. The authors just decided to ignore it so they could pretend to themselves they are right and to get into the good books of the cook-the-books-types like John Cook.

Pamela Gray
September 4, 2014 5:42 am

Lamby, in that case, you should not venture anywhere near a road. But even more important, your bathroom and kitchen are deadlier by many percentage points than weather and climate. Yet, if you stay in bed, you are sure to fall so ill with contractures and weakened constitution you will become bedridden and die an early death. To be that afraid of life on Earth must be a difficult phobia burden to bare. How do you cope?

Alberta Slim
Reply to  Pamela Gray
September 4, 2014 6:01 am

Bravo Pamela..
Now Lamby, you listen to Pamela. Because I am 99.999% sure that she knows a helluva lot more than you do.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
September 4, 2014 6:20 am

@Pamela “To be that afraid of life on Earth must be a difficult phobia burden to bare. How do you cope?”
What? Perfect denier logic. How would you conclude that from my statements?
Scientists tell us smoking causes cancer – so most of us stop (in the face of big PR campaigns from big tobacco).
Scientists tell us CFCs caused the hole in the ozone layer – so stop using CFCs (in the face of big PR campaigns from CFC producers).
Scientists tell us that emitting greenhouse gases causes the earth to warm – so most of us want to do something (in the face of big PR campaigns from the fossil fuel industry).
I am not afraid of life – I am just not dumb enough to ignore Science. Why does the Scientific Method work for every branch of science (which has doubled our life expectancy and allowed me to write this post) but does not work for Climate Science?

Richard M
Reply to  Lamby
September 4, 2014 7:56 am

Scientists told us blood letting was a great cure for many diseases.
Scientists told us continents were stationary.
Scientists told us stress caused ulcers.
Scientists told us many foods caused cancer.
Scientists told us the Earth was flat.
Scientists told us the Earth was the center of the universe.
Scientists told us a low fat diet was healthy.
Do I really need to go on?
BTW, the ozone hole is still there and hasn’t seen any statistically significant changes in the past 25 years.

Reply to  Lamby
September 4, 2014 7:57 am

Blaming opposition to “campaigns by fossil fuel companies” sure makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist. How can we be sure you aren’t in China working for a solar panel maker?

Matt Bergin
Reply to  Lamby
September 4, 2014 8:06 am

The only problem is that the Climate scientists don’t use the scientific method. If they did they would have scrapped the CAGW theory. By the way smoking doesn’t cause cancer it just increases your chance of getting it. Can you understand the difference? I haven’t seen any proof that one of the heaviest molecules we manufacture can float up to the stratosphere to effect the ozone. A more plausible explanation is that the winds around Antarctica isolate the atmosphere over Antarctica and the 6 months of darkness interrupt the production of O3 and the level falls as the O3 molecules decay.

Owen in GA
Reply to  Lamby
September 4, 2014 8:13 am

But you give credence to climate science despite it not following the scientific method. This indicates a “BELIEF” not a study. HINT- if it has no falsifiable hypothesis, it is not SCIENCE. If there is no test I can perform, even with technology that does not currently exist, that will say “no this theory is not true”, it is religion not science. General Relativity is a theory that has passed several attempts at falsification and more are devised all the time, thus it is science. CAGW or CACC are “POLITICAL SCIENCE” not “Science” because of this lack.
Now has the climate changed?: YES
Will the climate change in the future?: YES
Has man caused a change in climate?: YES, (Anthropologists have shown this – we plant fields, we build buildings, we cut trees, we dam rivers – all of which causes local climate change)
Has the burning of “fossil fuels” caused an increase in atmospheric CO2?: YES (though the jury is still out on how much is from burning fuel and how much is outgassing of CO2 from warming oceans and other natural causes)
Has the increase in CO2 led to warming? Possibly, but probably not nearly as much as the IPCC political scientists have predicted.
Is warming bad? Probably NOT, the greatest diversity of life on the planet occurred when both temperature and CO2 were much higher than now.
Is increased CO2 bad? probably not, the decrease in water needs in plants during photosynthesis allows plant life to proliferate in currently uninhabitable areas of the world, leading to a greening of the planet.
The above summary is why I am a skeptic of the Catastrophic portions of the theory.

September 4, 2014 6:00 am

For this claim to be true, they would first have to prove that never before, in the entire history of the world, has it warmed up and then stayed warm for 25 years or more.

John Leggett
September 4, 2014 6:04 am

Does anyone else notice the same long term trend that I do. The Earth has been on a 8,000 year cooling trend ever since the Holocene Climate Optimum. There have been pauses where the earth grew warmer between Bond events about every 1400 years, also known as the Minoan Warm Period, Roman Warm Period and Medieval warm period.
What surprises me is that anyone did not expect it to grow warmer at the end of the Little Ice Age about 1850.

Reply to  John Leggett
September 4, 2014 8:12 am

Not 8000. More like 6000 if you think that the height of Holocene Climatic Optimum warmth was greater than the Minoan Warm Period, c. 3000 years ago, as it probably was. But in any case, the long term trend is cooling, whether for 5-6K or 3K years.
There was a sharp cooling event ~8200 years ago, which interrupted the HCO, probably caused by glacial meltwater, like the Younger Dryas.

September 4, 2014 6:17 am

Soooooooooooooooooooooo, statistically what’s the probability of hundreds of thousands of consecutive months with negative temp anomalies so deep that Manhattan (40N) is under a mile of ice occurring randomly? Anyone with a computer able to help me out with that one?

September 4, 2014 6:26 am

There is a lot off-track abt this statistically. The time-series comment is very damning. Additionally, I had this thought when reading this post: the analysis focuses on whether the temp in a time period is in one category – not above normal – or in another category – above normal.
Some type of stochastic model would be a fitting analysis.
Also, imagine the histogram of seasonally-adjusted daily temps for the recent 100, or 1000, years. The values for the recent decade are going to be somewhere in the range of long-term natural variability.
If they are all on the high side, then that supports the idea that there is a new normal.
Now, the task is to look across time even father back, and figure out how long a “normal,” prevailing period of normalcy is, then develop a distribution for changes in normal: normal is here, then it steps to there, either higher or lower.
The conclusion will be that the recent new normal – going back 50 years if you like, to cherry-pick, will not be that unusual or unprecedented.
Also, the weakness I noted in a comment in a recent WUWT post again applies: for all variable but one, you have values going both up and down – all have been free to vary, and those that covary are more likely to be causally related. CO2 has not been able to covary; it has only had one type of variance in recent history: directly up. The analysis is by default built to find CO2 as a predictor of ANY OTHER value that has been in a general increase across the time span of the analysis.
In this situation, you need to triangulate this theory-matching evidence with other types of evidence, such as Al Gore’s on-video demonstration of CO2-induced global warming, or a lack of a similar planetary temp ternd on other planets, etc.
There are just too many ways to look at genuine data and then scoff at this paper’s conclusion.
I have not read the paper yet, but am just familiar with the profile of planetary avg temps, as they have been estimated, over the recent several thousand years.

David in Cal
September 4, 2014 6:32 am

No doubt the statistical analysis assumed, without evidence, independent changes in annual temperature and no autocorrelation. There’s no evidence that these assumptions are valid. In fact, past patterns shows that these assumption do not hold for global temperature.
BTW note how weak their claim is: “There is less than 1 chance in 100,000 that global average temperature over the past 60 years would have been as high without human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.” In other words, they are claiming only that human activity caused an temperature increase greater than zero. This statement makes no claim that human activity caused a significant portion of the warming during the last 60 years.

September 4, 2014 6:41 am

I’m 99.9999% certain that the aforesaid publication is a pile of putrescent dingo’s kidneys.

September 4, 2014 6:43 am

The climate models are 99.999% certain that temperatures continued to rise after 2000. It is the thermometers that have it wrong.
Reading assorted newspapers over the past weeks it is amazing how many people have started to call climate science a fraud. What people are noticing is that every time a prediction of climate disaster fails to materialize, there is a new excuse given.
The average Joe and Jane on the street may not be a scientist, but they sure know that continued excuses signal BS. They will accept it the first or second time, but if it happens over and over again, they know they are being lied to.

September 4, 2014 6:46 am

Translation: “According to models, the stock market would not have gone up without cheap energy correlated with carbon dioxide emissions. And since a healthy stock market rejects our Marxist spiritualist agenda, we must now ration energy. It’s a matter of life and death, of our careers.”

September 4, 2014 6:49 am

So as Anthony says, if it can be shown there was a period in our history where anthropogenic factors couldn’t have impacted on the climate but there was 25 years of increasing temperatures then this paper confirms that there is a 99.999% certainty that the models cant simulate our climate.
Good work guys for giving us a measure by which the models can be falsified that you’ll agree with.

September 4, 2014 6:50 am

Why am I reminded of the Spinal Tap quote, “The numbers all go to eleven” when reading this? I guess I’m waiting for the first believer to ascribe >100% certainty it’s man-made GW (or has that already happened?)

Reply to  ezeerfrm
September 4, 2014 7:16 am

They have by assuming that anthropogenic emissions is 100% of the cause in the long term rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

September 4, 2014 7:02 am

They don’t have a clue why they are getting such “statistical significance”. They could have gotten similar results using population or even the rising price of a particular stock.

Chuck L
September 4, 2014 7:12 am

Steely Dan made the timeless lyric in 1972 with “Reelin’ the Years:” “The things that pass for knowledge, I can’t understand.”

Matt Bergin
Reply to  Chuck L
September 4, 2014 8:10 am

Thanks for mentioning my favorite group.

September 4, 2014 7:42 am

Shall we start an office pool to predict how long it is before Obama picks this up and uses 99.999% as the new 97%?
While there are plenty of reasons to ignore this paper, since this is based on a “statistical analysis”, I’m optimistic that McIntyre will weigh in soon and shred it ala the Hockey Stick.
Popcorn waiting…

September 4, 2014 7:52 am

From the hilarious “99.9999999%” abstract:
“Previous approaches to attribute change include qualitative expert-assessment approaches such as used in IPCC reports and use of ‘fingerprinting’ methods based on global climate models.”
In about 5~10 years, the only “fingerprinting” will be strictly procedural being done on climate modelers being booked for criminal malfeasance of public funds….

bit chilly
September 4, 2014 7:55 am

i see a correlation between the end of the warming trend,increase in arctic summer sea ice and visits to this blog from warmists .

September 4, 2014 7:59 am

I am 100% certain that global warming climate alarmists are getting very desperate, and it is worse than I thought.

Richard M
September 4, 2014 8:08 am

You can see this is nothing but a propaganda paper.
– 1985 was a La Nina year
– 2010 was an El Nino year
– they ignore all historic data
– they misuse the mathematics
– they use falsified models
You’d think the authors would be to embarrassed to have produced pure drivel such as this. It will follow them wherever they go. If they were smart they would retract the paper and apologize.

Reply to  Richard M
September 4, 2014 10:01 am

You’d think the editors of the journal would be embarrassed.
But maybe they would be more embarrassed to have nothing to publish at all.

george e. smith
September 4, 2014 8:21 am

Well, I am 99.999% certain, that prior to circa 1980, when ocean buoys commenced simultaneously measuring ocean surface water temperatures, at -1.0 m AMSL, as well as lower troposphere air temperatures, at +3.0 m AMSL, at the same oceanic spot, that the entire global temperature data record, dating back to circa 1850, became, virtual junk numbers.
About Jan 2001, Prof John Christy, UAH reported on about 20 years of data from those buoys, and found that air and water temperatures are not the same, and moreover are not correlated.
So all of the previous recorded oceanic temperatures, from about 71% of earth’s surface, that measured temperatures from random depths in the water, on ships, is totally worthless as part of the lower troposphere total global temperature record.
Because they are not correlated, the earlier water temperature data cannot be corrected, so it is just noisy rubbish.
Also there are things called “Currents” in ocean waters, so you can go back to the identical GPS co-ordinates of a previous measurement, and be in totally different water from that which you last measured.
So nyet, on using ANY oceanic water temperatures, as proxies for oceanic lower tropospheric air temperatures.

September 4, 2014 8:38 am

@Lamby 9/4 6:05 am,
you have it backward.
The size of the standard deviation is less important to the probability of catastrophe than is the difference between our models’ means and standard deviations and what nature really has in store for us.
Taleb’s “Black Swan” isn’t a warning about wide deviation. It is a warning about models that have coded in them rules that “all swans are white” and then acting as if that were true. The “Black Swan” says less about nature and more about hubris.
Speaking of backward, the CAGW climate argument has it that there is a big monstrous Black Swan under every bed. “We are 99.999% certain that a Black Swan event will end human civilization if WE DON”T ACT NOW!!!!!”
First, if we can predict Black Swans with such certainty…. they aren’t Black Swans, at least not the kind Taleb is talking about.
Second, what is at issue here is trust in models that tell us Black Swans are everywhere. Black Swans are responsible for droughts, floods, heat waves, polar vortexes, if it is cloudier, if there are no clouds. Black Swans are going to cause a tipping point. Yet when we take our eyes away from the computer models and observe the real world, we don’t see many signs of those Big Bad Black Swans. For the past 17 years, there have been no increase in the number of black feathers. That is what puts models in disrepute.
Third, even if Black Swans should become more common, I can think of many people who would like to have some for pets. Canada, Siberia, Minnesota, North Dakota, for instance. Where did we get the idea they were harbingers of doom?
I know you guys don’t really do science or maths…
Run along now, Bambi.
I’m going back to my geophysics, statistics, economics, and database computer model making.

george e. smith
Reply to  Stephen Rasey
September 4, 2014 12:37 pm

Dunno, why you referred to “Black Swans” as if they are scarce as hen’s teeth for example.
Black Swans are very common. In the USA, I have seen at least as many black swans as white swans. Used to have a mated pair in the pond, at an apartment complex I once lived in, in Silicon Valley.
Australia too is full of black swans. They are a very normal occurrence. Maybe only Europe doesn’t know about black swans.

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
September 4, 2014 2:23 pm

Could we dealing with a black swan in sheep’s clothing, or is it a wolf?

September 4, 2014 8:54 am

The sustained warm interval in the early 18th century, c. 1710-39, following the depths of the Little Ice Age, c. 1680-1709, exceeded the late 20th century warming in both duration and magnitude:
There is no basis for imagining the recent warming as due to any but natural causes. The Null Hypothesis has not been shown false.

September 4, 2014 9:19 am

I have not read all comments here, but I think you guys are getting this the wrong way.
As far as I can tell the paper does not claim anything about man-made global warming or AGW.
Read carefully……. is about influence and connection of ARF (ANTHROPOGENIC Radiative Forcing) to the observed warming. Is just trying to show in a meassured way the fingerprint of humanity on the climate.
No where I think it shows or claims that the ARF is the cause of the warming, only that it has had an influence on top of every thing else. It does not consider causality and it does not imply that the 99,999% certanty is about causality.
From the little I have seen about the paper, it is no any near to what IPCC claims with its 95% certainty of man-made warming.
IPCC is claiming a 95% of ACC-AGW while the 99.999% is about humanity influencing the CC-gw by making it more stable, less variable.
In a way it works against ACC-AGW. Is a paper that in the end of the day claims a little influence of ARF on climate by considering actually the ARF as a driver and not a climate changer an amplifier of the warming not a cause . Besides is a claim with even a higher certanty lvl than the IPCC claim of – 95% certanty of AGW-.
Is a paper with the highes certanty and is about ARF acting as it suppose to, a driver or an amplifier of warming not a causality.
In a very layman it could be put as:
While the IPCC claims a 95% of a certainty that human diggin is causing the montain to colapse on top of, in the other hand the 99.999% paper claims with a much higher certanty that the human diggin seems to consist with some dirt thrown in the air and the montain actually seeming to have shaked less during the same time.
I am sure that many ppl don’t consider or do not even want to that the ARF can or could have any influence at all in climate, or probably there still some who consider that anthropogenic emissions do not even exist.
Anyway, I maybe got it wrong, and stand to be corrected if that’s the case, but as it stand I will advice for more care and less rush with the conclusions on this one……
Please don’t be shy, I stand to be corrected also in spelling and grammar too.. 🙂

Berényi Péter
September 4, 2014 9:25 am

The results of our statistical analysis would suggest that it is highly likely (99.999 percent) that […]

They do not claim 99.999% certainty. They do not even claim it followed from their statistical analysis. The analysis does not even suggest it.
It only would suggest such a high likelihood, provided… oh, I’m getting dizzy.

September 4, 2014 9:57 am

“The claim is made based upon climate models already falsified at confidence levels of 98%+.”
No the claim is not based on GCMs. reread the paper
First an example: Look at what david evans does. He creates a model of temperature based on
the data and solar. Look what Scafetta does. he creates a model based on solar and other factors.
Very simply the authors took the data and created a model based on.
1. solar
2. Ghg
3. SOI
4. Volcanos
This is not a Physical model like a GCM,!! but rather an empirical model based on forcings and temperature. structurally its no different than what scafetta or Evans have done, or callendar in 1938
Then, they set GHG to zero and ran a bootstrap.
It has nothing to do with GCMs.
it is unconvincing for other reasons.!!!
Look, if you build a model using GHG to model the temperature and then set GHG to zero
and run a bootstrap YOU BETTER FIND that the model cant predict temperature.
To see how empty it is Scaffetta could do the same thing and run his model without the sun and prove
that it was the sun that dunnit
In other words once you build the model T = f(sun, GHG, SOI, Volcano) you’ve already shown what you
need to show: the temperature can be explained in these terms. The problem is you can build
many models of temperature that dont include these variables.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 4, 2014 10:03 am

GCMs are not first principle physical models.

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  Typhoon
September 4, 2014 10:09 am

That’s what they want to be when they grow up, though.

Reply to  Typhoon
September 4, 2014 11:57 am

1. you seem to have assumed that I claimed they were. WRONG.
2. Depending on the module some of the GCMs are first principles. In some modules they are not.
So, first you attribute an argument to me that I didnt make, and second you attribute an argument I wouldnt make. read the model source code, comment less.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 4, 2014 10:33 am

“Then, they set GHG to zero and ran a bootstrap”
Maybe you right to state the above, but from my point of view is a little different than as simply as you put it.
They set a GHG to zero and run a bootstrap, so they estimate the GHG influence or its impact.
They do not seem to only set GHG to zero, they seem to “then set the anthropogenic GHG to zero and set GHG only to natural amount”.
From all this seems they have estimated a low influence of the whole GHG on climate, and a part of that dedicated to the Anthropogenic GHG.
From what they done, the GHG stands outside the possibility of being the cause of the warming, and the anthropogenic part only adds very little on top of the average warming and allows for less cooling periods to be observed.
So, no much difference there between natural and the so much claimed anthropogenic warming, in other words difference not significant enough to be considered other then null, close to a 99.999% of no any sign of AGW.
Again I maybe wrong, but that how it seems to me.

Reply to  whiten
September 4, 2014 11:57 am

you agree then that the post is wrong when it asserts that they use GCM models.

September 4, 2014 10:06 am

Even for a journal called “Climate Risk Management”, this level of nonsense is amazing.

Robert W Turner
September 4, 2014 10:48 am

Do these quacks not know that the CAGW ship is sinking fast or do they not care? They must be close to retirement.

September 4, 2014 11:58 am

The famous UAH graph starting off in 1979 graph shows the lowest temperature since 1985 in 1992 during the so called “Mt. Pinatubo cooling” with – 0,48 C. (Basis-years are 1981 to 2010)
Can someone please calculate the average temperature of 20th century on this basis. I postulate their claim is falsified in 1992 already ?
By the way, shortly before they start off their analysis with year 1985 the lowest temperature showed -0,61 C.

September 4, 2014 12:16 pm

It’s called begging the question.

September 4, 2014 12:37 pm

Well, the authors’ affiliations are Spain and France. Mine is Iowa.
I want global warming and if man is making it, I’d like man to make more of it.
Lots more of it.
The earth is too damned cold.

Reply to  AmishDude (@TheAmishDude)
September 4, 2014 5:50 pm

The irony of anthropogenic climate change might be that the cold regions warm-up, thereby requiring less burning of fossil fuel for heating, thereby ‘saving the planet’. (My comment, like AGW itself, is a joke)

September 4, 2014 1:13 pm

99.999% – so they are saying there’s a chance they could be wrong, right?

September 4, 2014 5:25 pm

A high level of certainty that we found the AMO:

September 4, 2014 6:19 pm

As the name says, Anthropogenic climate change, if it were real, would be 100% attributable to humans.
The majority of “other” climate change is caused by humans too …mainly by manipulating, cherry-picking and homogenizing historical weather data to prop up simplistic propaganda.

Franko K.
September 4, 2014 8:21 pm

Minor if any warming for 15-17 years. Wonderful MAMA Nature and her cycles with the sun, water vapor, oceans and volcanoes when she blows her top, and opens methane holes when she has gas – as her home the Earth tilts on its axis. Search:

Kevin Regnault
September 5, 2014 6:39 am

You use arguments thoroughly debunked by thousands of scientists over decades of research to try to debunk this new paper…if any of what you say is true, why is nobody publishing? There’s a fortune to be made by disproving anthropogenic climate change, but nobody can do it.
It’s pathetic how desperate you people are to shirk responsibility.

Reply to  Kevin Regnault
September 5, 2014 9:23 am

Kevin Regnault
September 5, 2014 at 6:39 am
You use arguments thoroughly debunked by thousands of scientists over decades of research to try to debunk this new paper…if any of what you say is true, why is nobody publishing? There’s a fortune to be made by disproving anthropogenic climate change, but nobody can do it.
It’s pathetic how desperate you people are to shirk responsibility.

– – – – – – – – –
Kevin Regnault,
The essential question is why would anyone interested in the use of applied reasoning, which is the natural capacity of all people, want restriction in the open public debate / dialog on the subject of the our Earth Atmosphere System (EAS)? No rational person would want a restriction in applied reasoning by anyone. When we see some in the science community suggesting there should not be public debate / dialog with applied reasoning then a big red flag is raised that those scientists are not rational. It is irrational behavior when we see often some CAGW hypothesis supporting scientists claiming there should be no dialog / debate or saying that there cannot be a dialog / debate with critics.
You say in your above comment that there is a silence of those critical of the observationally challenged CAGW hypothesis. Your position does not withstand the existence of a body of work that shows the most significant observations of nature do not substantiate the CAGW hypothesis and in some cases even invalidate the CAGW hypothesis.

Bob Kutz
Reply to  Kevin Regnault
September 5, 2014 9:57 am

1) That is not how science works.
2) If you look at what is being claimed in this paper, this is fools using statistics to prove that the sun is only half as bright as it use to be. There is simply no way to ‘prove’ what they claim from the data they used. In all reality, what they’ve really done is prove to the 99.999% confidence interval that the GCM’s used in their study are failed.
3) Where, exactly, do you think this ‘fortune’ in disproving CAGW will come from? You think the feds continue to pump money into climate science if there’s no imminent danger? Do you think “Big Oil” has some continued interest in the climate, once it’s realized that CO2 plays a fairly limited role in average global surface temp? Let me guess, you are of the opinion that Big Oil is funding all the skeptics, in spite of the fact no one can show any significant funding on the skeptic side at all.
Here’s a thought; If we understood the climate, their study, instead of proving to 99.999% certainty that warming in the last 25 years (sic) is entirely “man made”, would have instead proven that their models are right on track with current surface temp data. They aren’t. They have at least 39 reasons why, but until their models become skillful they are not science.
Here’s the final hint; for CAGW to be science, it has to be proven. One needs to falsify the null hypothesis, which has not yet been done for the CAGW theory. If they can do that, they’ve got my attention. Not one of these scientists predicted the current hiatus in warming, none of them can fully explain it now, to the exclusion of natural variability. No matter how shrill they become, the science does not currently support any alarm. And never did.

September 6, 2014 5:55 am

Climate scientists are the experts in their field. 97% of any group of experts says something, I believe them. Does any climate denier honestly believe they know more than people who have spent their whole careers on the topic? Climate deniers are also perfectly happy to accept the science that gives them the quality of life they know now, e.g. modern medicine, electricity, transport, technology, communication – but they don’t accept climate science? Why do you accept that science of everything else but not the climate scientists? Makes no sense.

Reply to  robertkoz
September 6, 2014 7:47 am

And you accept it “Hook, line, and sinker” disregarding evidence to the contrary.

Reply to  robertkoz
September 8, 2014 10:15 am

“97% of any group of experts says something, I believe them”
1) Its not 97%, more like 2%. Look under the hood – they polled 10,257 scientists, of which 3,146 responded. Of those 3,146 only 77 agreed. So they “redefined” their definition of scientist to weed out the 3,067 scientists who were skeptical and presto! they had 77 of 79 (97%) agreeing with their theory. So thats where this 97% number you’ve put so much blind faith in has come from. The actual number should be either 77 of 10,257 (0.7%) or 77 of 3,146 (2.4%). So your statement should be:
“if 2% of any group of experts says something, I believe them”
2) even if your 97% were true, its still not science. Science is not consensus, we don’t adopt theories based on which ones are the most popular. And you should be embarassed that you were so easily manipulated by the “consensus” claim. At the very least, you could be less arrogant in your ignorance.

September 6, 2014 10:27 am

100.0% of Scientologists also ‘say someething’, and they are experts in their field. Do you believe them, too?
Fred Haynie is right. You blindly accept whatever feeds your confirmation bias. The fact is that there are no empirical measurements of the fraction of a degree of global warming supposedly caused by human emissions. There are none, Robert. Do you want to take a guess why there are no such measurements? Do you think maybe the runaway global warming scare might be nonsense? That is what Planet Earth is telling us.
Kevin Regnault,
Here is an argument that has never been ‘debunked’: global warming has stopped. It hasn’t stopped for a few months, or for a couple of years. Global warming has been stopped since around 1997 — almost twenty years.
When you say “debunked”, keep that in mind. That applies in spades to your catastrophic AGW scare. It is real world evidence, and it trumps every paper to the contrary ever written.

September 7, 2014 9:58 am

Looking at the global CO2 and temperature records over geologic time it is obvious to a casual observer that increasing temperature causes increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, not the other way around. If increasing CO2 causes increasing temperature as the IPCC postulates, the system would have spun out of control, which it didn’t, so that is not the case. Which also explains why temperature is relatively stable while CO2 is rapidly rising due to human activity.

Lars Tuff
September 8, 2014 3:45 pm

Ever more fantastically unrealistic and out of tune with reality and observed facts, the IPCC steamroller of lies and deception just keeps on going, powered by the UN and billions of taxpayer’s money. World is warming, yes, has been so since 10 000 b.C. But that is not news.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights