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:
- 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
- “climate models are not fit for the purpose of detection and attribution of climate change on decadal to multidecadal timescales.” -Judith Curry
- Statistically significant global warming of the surface stopped 19 years ago and in the troposphere [which climate models claim should warm faster than the surface] global warming stopped 16-26 years ago
- Over 40 excuses for the 18-19 year “pause” in surface warming indicate that natural climate variability is far greater than climate models simulate, and is capable of overwhelming any climate influence of CO2
- Much of the warming of the past 25 years may be artificial due to urban heat island effects and extensive up-justing of temperature records long after the fact
- The paper uses climate models falsified at confidence levels exceeding 98%, thus the assumptions and conclusions derived from models are invalid
- The models also did not predict the 18-19 year “pause” in global warming, thus are not valid to determine attribution to natural vs. anthropogenic causes
- Climate models are also unable to simulate natural warming during prior interglacials, which were warmer than the present, another reason why they cannot be used to rule out that the past 25 years of warming is unnatural or man-made
- Additionally, climate models do not properly simulate solar amplification mechanisms, ocean oscillations, convection, clouds, atmospheric circulations, gravity waves, etc. and thus cannot be used to exclude these natural factors as potential causes of warming
- The model used by the paper assumes only solar total irradiance adequately describes solar forcing of climate, ignoring large changes in the solar spectrum and solar amplification mechanisms. In addition, a simple integral of solar activity does explain most of the known climate change over the past 400 years.
“Why is the period 1940-1970 significantly warmer than say 1880-1910? Is it the sun? Is it a longer period ocean oscillation? Could the same processes causing the early 20th century warming be contributing to the late 20th century warming? Not only don’t we know the answer to these questions, but no one even seems to be asking them!” -Judith Curry
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,
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”
or
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.
How long before Cook et al announce a certainty rating of 150% ?
It’s Worse Than We Thought!™
To mimic an athlete, they’re giving it their 200%!
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?
Cook = lies
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?
Climate (everything)
risk (fear)
management (to take control).
Opportunity: to take control of fear and everything. Wonderful 99.999%.
I am 99.999% certain that there is more money than what I earn involved in this study.
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.
Pointman
Even the civilian warmists are letting this one go…
99999999999999999999% they are wrong
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.
Or they desparately seek to distract scientists from perceiving that the failure of their models is unrelated to the goals of policymakers.
Is Peter G a concern troll?
Yes
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”.
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.
There’s no science left in this debate any more, it’s all politics. And half-witted nincompoops pushing propaganda.
Nocanpoop or shurcanpoop. ;^D
Abstract:
“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.
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
http://21stcenturysocialcritic.blogspot.com.es/2014/09/forecasting-future.html
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).
“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?
http://anticorruptionsociety.com/anatomy-of-a-con-job/con-2-oil-is-not-a-fossil-fuel-it-is-renewable/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104×3276506
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.
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.
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.
Maybe they are actually talking about Ivory Soap, and made a typo.
http://youtu.be/t5FJfmOy4Ro
Definition of Insanity – no one believed the 97%, so they are trying a new tactic.
More coin-operated science.
Paper done and published – Ka Ching
Next paper in the works…get the quarter ready.
Jim
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)?
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.
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.
I am 100.00000% certain that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming might turn out to be a load of hot air.
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.”
Lamby
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?
Richard
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8nhAlfIk3QIUUthSzJqUnRPbDg/edit
Not sure if links get published?
Lamby
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
Richard
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?
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.
Lamby,
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.
Lamby
You incorrectly assert
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.
Richard
Lamby….. I doubt that people are skeptical of climate models. They are skeptical of the Alarmist’s gigo climate models.
“I know you guys don’t really do science or maths…”
Yawn…
Of course, that’s as far as I got, and I’m damn sure I’m not the only one.
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.
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.
What about 2012?
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.
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.
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.
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.
How does this $#! T get published?