Super-Heated Air from Climate Science on NOAA’s “Hottest” Year

Guest Post by Roman Mureika

It was bound to happen eventually. We could see it coming – a feeding frenzy from “really, it is still getting warmer” to “we told you so: this is proof positive that the science is settled and we will all boil or fry!” The latest numbers are in and they show the “hottest” year since temperature data has become available depending on which data you look at.

The cheerleader this time around seems to have been AP science correspondent Seth Borenstein. Various versions of his essay on the topic have permeated most of America’s newspapers including my own hometown Canadian paper. In his articles, e.g. here and here, he throws enormous numbers at us involving probabilities actually calculated (and checked!) by real statisticians which purport to show that the temperatures are still rising and spiraling out of control:

Nine of the 10 hottest years in NOAA global records have occurred since 2000. The odds of this happening at random are about 650 million to 1, according to University of South Carolina statistician John Grego. Two other statisticians confirmed his calculations.

I was duly impressed by this and other numbers in Seth’s article and asked myself what else of this extremely unlikely nature might one find in the NOAA data. With a little bit of searching I was able to locate an interesting tidbit that they clearly missed. If we wind the clock back to 1945 and look back at the previous temperatures, we notice that they also rose somewhat rapidly and new “hot” records were created. In fact, the graphic below shows that the highest 8 temperatures of the 65 year series to that point in time all belonged to the years 1937 to 1944 Furthermore, in that span of eight years, five of these were each a new record! How unlikely is that?

Using the techniques of the AP statisticians, a simple calculation indicates that the chance of all eight years being the highest is 1 in 5047381560 – almost 9 times as unlikely as what occurred in the most recent years! Not to mention the five records…

By now, most of the readers will be mumbling “Nonsense, all these probabilities are meaningless and irrelevant to real-world temperature series” … and they would be absolutely correct! The above calculations were done under the assumption that the temperatures from any one year are all independent of the temperature for any other year. If that were genuinely the case in the real world, a plot of the NOAA series would look like the gray curve in the plot shown below which was done by randomly re-ordering the actual temperatures (in red) from the NOAA data.

For a variety of physical reasons, measured real-world global temperatures have a strong statistical persistence. They do not jump up and down erratically by large amounts and they are strongly auto-correlated over a considerable period of time due to this property. Annual changes are relatively small and when the series has reached a particular level, it may tend to stay around that level for a period of years. If the initial level is a record high then subsequent levels will also be similarly high even if the cause for the initial warming is reduced or disappears. For that reason, making the assumption that yearly temperatures are “independent” leads to probability calculation results which can bear absolutely no relationship to reality. Mr. Borenstein (along with some of the climate scientists he quoted) was unable to understand this and touted them as having enormous importance. The statisticians would probably have indicated what assumptions they had made to him, but he would very likely not have recognized the impact of those assumptions.

How would I have considered the problem of modelling the behaviour of the temperature series? My starting point would be to first look at the behaviour of the changes from year to year rather than the original temperatures themselves to see what information that might provide.

Plot the annual difference series:

change-time-series[1]

Make a histogram:

Calculate some statistics:

Mean = 0.006 = (Temp_2014 – Temp_1880)/134
Median = 0.015
SD = 0.098
# Positive = 71, # Negative = 59, # Equal to 0 = 4
Autocorrelations: Lag1 = -0.225, Lag2 = -0.196, Lag3 = -0.114, Lag4 = 0.217

The autocorrelations could use some further looking into, however, the plots indicate that it might not be unreasonable to assume that the annual changes are independent of each other and of the initial temperature. Now, one can examine the structure of the waiting time from one record year to the next. This can be done with a Monte Carlo procedure using the observed set of 134 changes as a “population” of values to estimate the probability distribution of that waiting time. In that procedure, we randomly sample the change population (with replacement) and continue until the cumulative total of the selected values is greater than zero for the first time. The number of values selected is the number of years it has taken to set a new record and the total can also tell us the amount by which the record would be broken. This is repeated a very large number of times (in this case, 10000) to complete the estimation process.

The results are interesting. The probability of a new record in the year following a record temperature will obviously be the probability that the change between the two years is positive (71 / 134 = 0.530). A run of three or more consecutive record years would then occur about 28% of the time and a run of four or more about 15% of the time given an initial record year.
The first ten values of the probability distribution of the waiting time for a return to a new record as estimated by the Monte Carlo procedure look like this:

Years Probability
1 …….. 0.520
2 …….. 0.140
3 …….. 0.064
4 …….. 0.039
5 …….. 0.027
6 …….. 0.022
7 …….. 0.016
8 …….. 0.012
9 …….. 0.012
10…….. 0.009

Note the rapid drop in the probabilities. After the occurrence of a global record, the next annual temperature is also reasonably likely to be a record, however when the temperature series drops down, it can often take a very long time for it to return to the record level. The probability that it will take at least 5 years is 0.24, at least 18 years is 0.10 and for 45 years or more it is 0.05. The longest return time in the 10000 trial MC procedure was 1661 years! This is due to the persistence characteristics inherent in the model similar to those of a simple random walk or to a Wiener process. However, unlike these stochastic processes, the temperature changes contain a positive “drift” of about 0.6 degrees per century due to the fact that the mean change is not zero thus guaranteeing a somewhat shorter return time to a new record. A duplication of the same MC analysis using changes taken from a normal distribution with mean equal to zero (i.e. no “warming drift”) and standard deviation equal to that of the observed changes produce results very similar to the one above.

The following graph shows the probabilities that the wait for a new record will be a given number of years or longer.

This shows the distribution of the amount by which the old record would be exceeded:

For a more complete analysis of the situation, one would need to take into account the relationships within the change sequence as well as the possible correlation between the current temperature and the subsequent change to the next year (correlation = -0.116). The latter could be a partial result of the autocorrelation in the changes or an indication of negative feedbacks in the earth system itself.
Despite these caveats, it should be very clear that the probabilities calculated for the propaganda campaign to hype the latest record warming are pure nonsense with no relationship to reality. The behaviour of the global temperature series from NOAA in the 21st century is probabilistically unremarkable and consistent with the persistence characteristics of the temperature record as observed in the previous century. Assertions such as “the warmest x of y years were in the recent past” or “there were z records set” when the temperatures had already reached their pre-2000s starting level as providing evidence of the continuation of previous warming are false and show a lack of understanding of the character of the underlying situation. Any claims of an end to the “hiatus” based on a posited 0.04 C increase (which is smaller than the statistical uncertainty of the measurement process) are merely unscientifically motivated assertions with no substantive support. That these claims also come from some noted climate scientists indicates that their science takes a back seat to their activism and reduces their credibility on other matters as a result.

I might add that this time around I was pleased to see some climate scientists who were willing to publicly question the validity of the propaganda probabilities in social media such as Twitter. As well, the (sometimes reluctant) admissions that the 2014 records of other temperature agencies are in a “statistical tie” with their earlier records seems to be a positive step towards a more honest future discussion of the world of climate science.

The NOAA annual data and monthly data can be downloaded from the linked locations.

Note: AP has added a  “clarification” of various issues in the Seth Borenstein article:

In a story Jan. 16, The Associated Press reported that the odds that nine of the 10 hottest years have occurred since 2000 are about 650 million to one. These calculations, as the story noted, treated as equal the possibility of any given year in the records being one of the hottest. The story should have included the fact that substantial warming in the years just prior to this century could make it more likely that the years since were warmer, because high temperatures tend to persist.

Advertisements

237 thoughts on “Super-Heated Air from Climate Science on NOAA’s “Hottest” Year

    • What raw data? For one site?
      For all sites and then… amalgamate them somehow?

      It isn’t clear that there is any raw data for global Temperature. There are only the datasets (HadCRUT GISS, etc.) that we have adopted as out measure of global warming.

      • I acquired the raw station data used in GISS up to 2013 and am building a new global land station dataset.

        It will be some time in the coming, I just barely got the coarse equal-area grid system worked out for the thousands of stations. I am now working out the algorithms to determine the average recorded temperature for each cell while not excluding the influence from nearby stations in other cells and taking altitude and other terrain concerns into account.

      • “It isn’t clear that there is any raw data for global Temperature. “

        I keep an index (TempLS) based on ERSST and unadjusted GHCN. Adjustment doesn’t make much difference. I’ve plotted the progress of the record hot year since 1880 here for various indices, including TempLS. Again, little difference. Here is the plot for the NOAA index:

      • “”””…..Nine of the 10 hottest years in NOAA global records have occurred since 2000. The odds of this happening at random are about 650 million to 1,…..”””

        And nine out of ten of the highest places on planet earth can be found on Mt Everest.

        And nine out of ten of the lowest places on planet earth can be found in the Challenger Deep, off the Marianas.

        The missing spots haven’t been identified yet.

        Highs tend to congregate near peaks, and lows tend to congregate near troughs.

        We dunno whether we are at a peak; Lord Monckton hasn’t told us yet.

      • wrong.

        One of the key datasets is GHCN-D

        daily data

        unadjusted.

        its a superset of the ones you cite

    • Didn’t Jones/HadCRUT say that all the raw data was gone and the world had to use their adjusted data instead?

      • the climategate emails provide the answer:

        from: Phil Jones
        subject: Re: For your eyes only
        to: “Michael E. Mann”
        Mike,
        … The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there
        is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than
        send to anyone. …

      • Yes, all conversations about past temperatures is screwed up due to NOAA/NASA/IPCC tampering with the data. If one still takes this wretched mess and makes it into graphs, yes, it STILL doesn’t show hockey stick global warming.

        But the fact is, it is cooling, not warming. Ice is growing, it is colder.

      • No,

        over 95% of CRU data came from GHCN.
        Willis’ first FOIA sought to determine which stations they used.
        all that data is still there
        the remaining 5% of CRU data came from NWS.
        they claimed confidentiality on this data, when we sought it.
        We FOIA for the agreements.
        with some of the NWS data Jones had raw files which were then adjusted.

        The “lost” raw data was never lost. The originators (NWS) still produce it.

        Now CRU does not take raw data from NWS they only take adjusted data.

        Here is a hint.

        CRU uses about 5K stations.
        you can drop those 5K stations from your database and calculate the answer without this data.

        the answer doesnt change.

        you can take GHCN-D which is all daily data un adjusted. you can randomly pick 1000 stations.

        the answer doesnt change.

        you can use those 1000 stations to predict the other 20K stations in GHCN-D. you’ll have a good
        prediction.

        The LIA was real

    • Dunno what Roman’s association with statistical analysis is; doesn’t really matter. But His study here is quite intriguing.

      The idea of “re-ordering” the data, timewise , is very interesting. One thing that you learn about the statistical analysis of ANY DATA SET, is that the result you get, is quite exact. You are simply applying algorithms that are specifically described in Text books, and there is NO uncertainty in the calculated results.

      The next thing you learn is that the result of such computations, tells you exactly nothing about ANY number that is not in that data set. If there is to be a NEXT NUMBER to be learned at some future time, your analysis cannot tell you whether that NEXT number, will be Higher, or Lower, or Same as the latest number in your set, or ANY other number in your set.

      Consider the first draft lottery back in the 1960-70 Viet Nam era.

      A SINGLE drawing relating to the set of integers from 1 to 366, representing the calendar days of a leap year, was made. One “ball” at a time drawn until all had been drawn.

      The odds against that drawing resulting in the calendar sequence; Jan 1, Jan 2, Jan3, ….
      Dec 29, Dec 30, Dec 31 are 366 ! :1

      That is 366 x 365 x 364 x ….. x 3 x 2 x 1 That’s a huge number; close enough to infinity for any practical purpose.

      If you feel like it, you can calculate it from the approximation formula :

      n ! = n^n.e^-n.sqrt(2pi.n) where n in this case is 366

      My calculator gives me 4.405 x 10^782 .

      Izzat a big enough number for you ??

      Well fortunately, that was NOT the result that happened in that first draft lottery.

      A completely different sequence of numbers came out of the drawing.

      ……””””” BUT “””””…… The actual result of that first draft lottery drawing, was itself a totally remarkable and unprecedented result.

      Absolutely nobody could have predicted what that result would be; it was quite unprecedented.

      The odds against that actual result having occurred are 366 ! just the same as the strict calendar sequence would be.

      So don’t kid yourselves.

      No matter how astronomical the odds against any event happening (assuming it is physically possible), that “improbable” event can happen tomorrow.

      Statistics tells you NOTHING about any single event.

      And wouldn’t you know it. Back then in the VN days, those mathematical statistical experts declared on the basis of I in 4.4 x 10^782 possibilities, that the result was non random, and was biased .

      Talk about poppycock garbage.

      Bozos like Seth Borenstein should be tarred and feathered. for propagating such patent nonsense. Well maybe pelting with rotting tomatoes would do.

      Thanks Roman, for exposing this foolishness, by a total ignoramus.

      G

  1. The problem with all of these “Hottest Year” studies is that they fail to explain why the change is taking place. If CO2 were the culprit, the changes, according to their models, would be much larger. The observed changes, even if you assume that they are correct, are too small, even if you attribute the entire increase to CO2. According to the satellite records, there has been no significant warming since October 1996 – over 200 months. The CAGW alarmists have moved the goal posts from catastrophic temperature rise to any rise at all, however small. If you look at their forecasts versus actual data, they have been wrong for 200 months in a row. What is the chance of tossing a coin 200 times in a row and getting 200 heads/

    • I lost a fun friend once by calculating that he would be better off to flip a coin than to choose courses of action deliberately – his life was indeed a woeful shambles but he was good guitartist to play bluegrass banjo with.

      • Reminds me of the Seinfeld in which George decides to do the exact opposite of what his judgment tells him he should do. The hapless George says by way of explanatio that if every decision he’s made in life has been wrong so far, then it stands to reason that his instincts are not to be trusted. The joke of course is that as cockamamie as it sounds, his life quick turns around as he gets his dream job with the New York Yankees and starts picking up beautiful women.

      • The big problem is that most of the public, including journalists, are completely ignorant of probability and statistics, they can barely managed arithmetic. I had an acquaintance who, in a discussion about probability, claimed that if you tossed a coin 5 times and it came up heads every time meant you should bet on tails next time as the “law of averages” meant it had to come up tails. I told him Vegas gets rich off of people like him.

      • If anything, you should consider betting on heads because one could question the fairness of the coin.

      • “If anything, you should consider betting on heads because one could question the fairness of the coin.”

        That what Talib said in The Black Swan.

      • Severian

        I was interviewed numerous times by journalists about our budget. Their ignorance about financial and accounting matters explained why they were in the profession they were in.

    • “The problem with all of these “Hottest Year” studies is that they fail to explain why the change is taking place.”

      I see it as a much larger and more scientific problem. Even using the GISS or NCDC data analysis, there is a very obvious problem with the type of warming/change we see represented by the anomalies represented by the graph of monthly mean temperatures each year. Especially with the difference in the surface/lower troposphere data, compared to the ocean data. And the seasonal changes.

      Global warming theory, which is the basis of claiming current warming fits with an increase in the greenhouse effect, predicts the “most warming” or largest change will be in NH winters, greater over land than oceans, and cold nights will warm faster than warm days.

      Even the GISS data shows this is not happening. In fact, quite the reverse is being observed, it’s obvious in all the data analysis, even when the different “temperature analysis” don’t agree on the amounts of change, they all show the “kind” of change occurring. And it does not fit at all with the consensus enhanced greenhouse effect theory.

      • Indeed, it is cooling off which is why land is cooler than oceans which cool slower and heat slower. So if the oceans are ‘warm’ compared to continents, then this indicates cooling is happening.

    • “The problem with all of these “Hottest Year” studies is that they fail to explain why the change is taking place. …”

      The problem is that the preferred theories of how climate works all have assumed that it must be predictable. Even most dissenters preferred theories presume “cycles” are the culprits. That leads to some real problems since Edward Lorenz’s work in the 1960s shows that weather is a mathematically chaotic phenomenon that follows a strange attractor. Attempting to define “climate” in some way that subsumes weather as a dependent variable caused by “climate” means that the SA has to be a property of climate rather than weather, which puts a leaden ball through the middle of the “its just weather” litany. Self-similarity is not going to vanish merely because of a scale change.

      • Would you have any thoughts on what strange attractor(s) might be causing an apparent periodicity in glaciation?

    • You are absolutely right, Walt, they don’t tell you because they are incompetent. Let’s take the “nine out of ten warmest years” claim. Hansen was first to make that exact claim in 2010 when the first decade of this century ended. The only hot year that was not part of the twenty-first century then was the super El Nino year 1998. (It still is, by the way). For Hansen that was proof that carbon dioxide did it, period. Utter nonsense of course but that is impressed into his skull. He and others making similar claims were and are simply ignorant of recent global temperature history. The only way to learn about it is by using satellite data because GISS, NCDC, and Hadcrut all lie about it. Their specific claim is that the eighties and the nineties were a warming period when in fact there was no warming. Global mean temperature stayed constant from 1979 till the beginning of the super El Nino in 1997. I determinrd that when I wrote my book and you will find it as figure 15 in it. That is an 18 year stretch, equivalent to the hiatus we are living through now. ENSO was active and created a row of five El Ninos there. Their amplitude was about half a degree Celsius. The super El Nino that followed was higher – a full Celsius degree – and is obviously not part of ENSO. On each side of that super El Nino sits a La Nina valley. 1999, the La Nina year that followed it, gave rise to a step warming that raised global temperature by a third of a degree Celsius in only three years and then stopped. That is measured from the mean of the eighties and nineties. It peaked in 2002. This makes that step warming the only warming we have experienced since 1979. What is even more interesting is that global temperature stayed at that level and thereby created the hiatus we are experiencing now. Again, we know that from satellite data. The above-mentined three ground-based data sources have continued to keep raising temperatures to the point where the 2010 El Nino is now higher than the super El Nino is, which is impossible. Because of this step warming every year of the 21st century stands above every year of the 20th or 19th century. Those temperature geniuses know that and have rigged their comparisons to make use of this fact. You might as well use the ice age as a temperature baseline and and get the same rankings. Their phony warming in the eighties and nineties makes it impossible to tell that a step warming even took place from 1999-2002. the correct way to compare the twenty-first century temperatures is to create a baseline temperature going back no more than the year 2002. This will show what minuscule temperature changes have actually happened in recent years. You will note that there was a La Nina in 2009 and an El Nino in 2010 but their effects on temperature neutralize one another as you would expect the ENSO oscillation to behave. And what about 2014? It looks to me like a borderline case of an El Nino that did not quite make it. It could be like the first seven years of the 21st century. If so, I suspect that it may be followed by a La Nina-like temperature drop.

  2. It’s really hard to believe that there’s a group of folks who are seemingly rejoicing when they see such results. It’s even harder to believe that many of these folks are scientists.

    • Really, the truth is that they are no longer scientists. In reality the name “scientist” has very little to do with degrees or current occupation, and much more to do with how one approaches a problem. If you do not use the proper scientific method you are not a scientist. You give them too much credit and stature.

      • That would be a sad story: To many powerful entities with liberal doses of tax payer money to lure the uninitiated Gruberesc so called Scientists? Just consider what does a quorum of Gruberesc true believers mean. By default, everyone else is DD&S?

  3. “The probability of a new record in the year following a record temperature will obviously be the probability that the change between the two years is positive (71 / 134 = 0.530).”

    … which is consistent with the fact that the best uninformed estimate of a value x(t) in a time series X is x(t-1)

  4. Anyway: The temperatures are staying within their long-time boundaries. Not too high, not too low. No sharper acceleration or deceleration. Always the same as for thousands of year ago. Even it it was a bit hotter.. nothing to worry.

    • The above graph got rid of the Medieval Warm Period so it is bogus. There are so many things being tampered with now.

      • Look before you leap into accusations. The MWP is right there around 1000CE, followed by the LIA around 1650CE. The plot is from a well-known paper which used 32 proxies to reconstruct extra-tropical NH temperatures going back to 1CE:
        Christiansen, B. and Ljungqvist, F. C.: Reconstruction of the extra-tropical NH mean temperature over the last millennium with a method that preserves low-frequency variability, J. Climate, 24,6013–6034, 2011.
        http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf

      • Most of the coolest years are clustered around 1600-1620! That’s statistically unlikely! That’s proof that steam power actually cools the Earth! /s

    • calibration as per the above graph is nonsense statistics. it is better known as “selecting on the dependent variable”. Google it if you have any doubts.

      https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#q=selecting+on+the+dependent+variable

      The underlying premise of statistics is that your sample is random. A soon as you “calibrate” your sample is no longer random, which violates the assumption on which your statistics relies.

      You cannot “calibrate” proxies based on temperature, because it is temperature you are trying to determine. You introduce a circular dependeny into the data that is not allowed for in statistics, so any statistics you get out the back end are screwed up garbage.

      The social sciences and medical sciences are filled with nonsense statistical results from “selecting on the dependent variable”. Not wishing to miss a trick, CLimate Science climbed on the bandwagon with “calibration”, ignoring the effect on stattics.

  5. The alarmists were playing Roulette whilst reality was playing Black Jack. The odds change and have to be recalculated with every card, they don’t just reset to 36/1 when the ball spins again!

    • The “scientific” alarmists know that very well, which is why their public statements are so reprehensible.

  6. Interesting analysis Roman. You were kind enough to use the much-meddled-with temperature trace ‘as is’ of the “Agencies” without comment on it to make your excellent statistical point. Since there was so much talk about chaotic behaviour of climate (which I have criticized to some degree) I once speculated on ‘records’ such as snowfall and floods as random to see what I would get. Treating the first measurement as the first record, I found a rough fit to Ln N(yrs elapsed). Ln 10yrs yields 2 records, Ln 50, 4 records, Ln 100 4 to 5 records, Ln 200, 5 records in that time. To get 6 records, N=400-500 yrs – beyond any interest to us in terms of worrying about it.

    I wonder if,we were to get rid of autocorrelation by binning 5 year averages, plus subtracting the long term 0.6C slope, we might find that Ln N(bins) would give us a gross idea of what may lie ahead. Of course, there are apparent cycles from ice age-interglacial and smaller, but the idea might have some validity in stretches of short enough duration. Or, if we wanted to leave the “cycles”, we could switch to cold records from the peak! If climate science weren’t already such a fanciful enterprise, I would never have thought of such an absurd idea!!

  7. Aside from the stupid assumption regarding independence, there is also the underlying assumption that the “9 of the 10 hottest years” occurred since 2000 is true. That’s only true if all of NASA’s adjustments to the historical record are correct and if you ignore error margins – both of which invalidate the statistical calculation as well.

  8. What we see here is a common occurrence in climate science – assuming a population is random and not auto correlated and proceeding to use the “valid statistical methods” for those narrow conditions without first checking the population to make sure the assumptions apply

    • After standing at 17 minutes to midnight in 1991 — the furthest it’s ever been from the end of the world — it’s gotten closer each time it’s been changed since, with the exception of 2010, when it was pushed back by one minute to 11:54 p.m.

      Considering the number of times the world has actually ended during the lifetime of this clock… don’t you think they may need to reset it a bit?
      Or maybe they just need better clockmakers.

      • M Courtney is right: the doomsday clock has been wrong more often than runaway global warming predictions.

        Those ‘concerned scientists’ are a bunch of pessimists. If I were setting the clock, it would be at about 11:00 am. The developing world is rising, people are getting healthier and wealthier, the global population is peaking and will begin to decline, and governments are so self-serving that they are not about to pull the trigger on a nuclear war.

        What would that get them? They have it *very* good now; they are growing like Topsy, their bureaucrats are smug and self-satisfied, and their rules only apply to the little people. Why ruin such a good thing with a nuclear war?

    • The Union of Concerned Scientists is a clown union. They just don’t wear the wigs, rubber nose and floppy shoes.

  9. It is interesting to note that the reviewers of the Technical Support Document for EPA’s Endangerment Finding, included Tom Karl, Director of NCDC and Gavin Schmidt, Director of GISS. The other reviewer was Susan Solomon, at that time Senior Scientist at NOAA, and co-chair, IPCC Working Group 1, 2002-2008. She is now at MIT: Ellen Swallow Richards Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry & Climate Science, MIT, 2012-present.

  10. The interannual correlation does make a string of records (or X highest out of Y years) more likely, but the comparison of the 2000s with the 1940s is not fair because there were far few years in the record back then. Nonetheless, the probability of 0.009 is still very small — why do so many people like to bet on that? Oh yeah, because they’re betting with other people’s money.

    • Barney, who is betting with other people’s money? Do you ever question your fearless leaders with their massive personal carbon footprints? Or are they not betting with other people’s money?

    • … comparison of the 2000s with the 1940s is not fair because there were far few years in the record back then….blah,blah,blah… betting with other people’s money.

      So it seems that Barry might advocate “redistribution” of temperatures from other epochs “just to make it fair”. Just as Socialists are so compassionate about spending other folks’ money in support of other advocacies.
      /s

  11. What I don’t understand about the CACA perspective is, they are only using the GISS (surface) measurements and not the satellite measurements, as if the troposphere has no connection with the surface. If CO2 is the well mixed gas that it is why would you not measure the whole atmosphere?
    They then turn around and talk about total heat content of the oceans. How does CO2 heat the deep oceans but not the troposphere?

    • Hi Ann. You may see this reply as condescending – but I don’t mean it to be. You ask “If CO2 is the well mixed gas that it is, why would you not measure the whole atmosphere?” As you probably know, CO2 is heavier per square metre than most of its atmospheric cousins. Contrary to the ‘well mixed’ science (based on entropy, diffusion & turbulence), and due to its density, CO2 is actually less evenly distributed and more concentrated in the lower 70% of air below 13 kilometres (8 miles) down to the surface). Saying this, some CO2 molecules do exist as high up as in the Exosphere and Thermosphere.

      Figures in pounds per square metre.
      Light Gas: Hydrogen 0.09, Helium 0.17 and Methane 0.72
      Medium Gas: Neon 0.90, Oxygen 1.43, Nitrogen 1.25, Argon 1.78 and Carbon Dioxide 1.97
      Heavy Gas: Krypton 3.73 & Xenon 5.89

      Despite all of this, one of the important things to remember is that CO2 is not as ‘evil’ as the climate sophists (proponents) want us to believe and, in total, it represents an insignificant 0.04% of Earth’s entire atmosphere – whilst all the other gases make up 99.96%. Quite a contrast – and therefore cannot be held solely accountable for fluctuations in temperature, be it naturally occurring CO2 or anthropogenic CO2.

      PS: I guess, also, welcome to the climate rationalist (opponents) community. (can’t recall seeing you post on WUWT before).

  12. I’m glad to see non-atmospheric scientists step into the field and make themselves look silly. I’m not even going to argue global warming. I just ask, did the statisticians even consider the high specific heat content of oceans, which happen to cover 71% of Earth? It’s like computing the odds of +40F anomalies in July using winter average as a baseline, but not taking that into account.

  13. We are living in truly unusual times. All of the record stock market highs, through Dec 31, 2014 in the US occurred in 2014. Many dozens of them. What is the chance of that? Nil, according to Seth and his statistician’s logic. (And that’s without “adjustments”)

    • To paraphrase Maynard Keynes: Stock markets can remain irrational longer than the average punter can remain solvent.

      Just like climate ‘science’.

  14. the highest 8 temperatures of the 65 year series to that point in time all belonged to the years 1937 to 1944

    Brilliant piece of work. Carolina statistician John Grego needs to go back to school, along with the 2 other statisticians that confirmed his work.

    Quite obviously if 8 out of the last 9 years in 1946 were the hottest on record, the odds of 9 out of the last 10 years in 2015 being the hottest are pretty damn close to 1-1.

    If you fall down drunk 8 out of 9 times, it is a pretty good bet you will sooner of later fall down drunk 9 out of 10 times.

  15. If one looks at most any multi-year Annual Average Temperature graph it will show an increase in the Average Temperatures for the specified time frame, …… but how does one know if said increase is due to an increase in the Average Winter Temperatures or an increase in the Average Summer Temperatures?

    If the Average Winter Temperatures were steadily getting less cold (warmer) over the past 60 years …. which we know is an observational fact …… and the Average Summer Temperatures remained about the same, ……. then wouldn’t that produce an increase in Average Temperatures over said 60 year time frame? ABSOLUTELY IT WOULD.

    And if so, wouldn’t that rule out the presumed “greenhouse” effect of atmospheric CO2? ABSOLUTELY IT WOULD.

    If the atmospheric CO2 is increasing but the Summer temperatures are not getting hotter then atmospheric CO2 is not affecting near-surface temperatures.

    If the Average Summer Temperatures had been increasing at the same rate as the Average Winter Temperatures, which they should have been if atmospheric CO2 is the culprit, then 100+ degree F days would now be commonplace throughout the United States during the Summer months. But they are not commonplace and still only rarely happen except in the desert Southwest where they have always been commonplace.

    Now, instead of saying that “the Earth is warming” it is more technically correct to say “the earth has not been cooling off as much during its cold/cool periods or seasons”.

    One example of said “short term” non-cooling occcurs quite frequently and is commonly referred to as “Indian Summer”. Read more @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_summer

    Given the above, anytime the earth’s average calculated temperature fails to decrease to the temperature recorded for the previous year(s), it will cause an INCREASE or spike in the Average Temperature Calculation results for that period ….. which is cause for many people to falsely believe “the earth is getting hotter”.

    The “fuzzy math” calculations and reporting of increases or decreases in/of percentages and percent change …… can make “true believers” out of the naive, gullible and/or miseducated.

    Public Educators have expanded,… to a new art form, …. their “fuzzy math” calculations of student “test” grades to include and report “percentiles” …… simply to impress the ell out of the parents, the school boards and the general populace. ….

    “Little Johnnie/Janie is in the 80th percentile of his/her Class”

    So what, ….. he/she could still be dumb as a box of rocks.

  16. I don’t think anyone disagrees that the global temperature has risen about a degree in the last one hundred years. But I also think most people would agree that if the scientists hadn’t calculated it no one would have known.

    • 100% correct. Nothing has changed, Winters went from -15 degrees to -14 degrees in Ohio, and there is still plenty of snow. Crops continue to grow in the Summer. Tornadoes continue to hit in the Spring and Summer. Listening to the CAGW crew and you’d think Ohio would look like Florida in 50 years. In 50 years it will be -13.6 degrees in the Winter.

    • I wouldn’t disagree about temperature possibly having increased about a degree over the last hundred years, BUT given the amount of fiddling that has been done with the records, I would no longer agree either. The activism has poisoned that well too many times.

      • I have to agree. Those idiots have screwed up the ‘science’ so badly it’s going to take years to straighten out. I just hope that, when the public finally figures out how much they have been lied to, the activists haven’t totally poisoned the well of public funding for science in general. If that is the case, we may never get it corrected, at least not within the next couple of generations.

    • Ralph, quite profound . . . .

      ” . . . . most people would agree that if the scientists hadn’t calculated [one degree rise in the last century], no one would have known.”

      Your comment should be elevated to ‘quote of the week’.

  17. Here’s the thought experiment I will introduce at the SC Piedmont Humanists discussion of climate science this Sunday. Yes, something like 12 of the last 15 years have been the hottest global temperatures of the last 150+ year instrumental record.
    What if, for the next 1000 years, the global temperature remained exactly the same as 2014? We could then, one thousand years from now, correctly say that 1012 of the past 1015 years were the hottest on record AND that there had been no global warming in over 1000 years!

  18. I see this increasing temperature trend as a positive result of CO2 emissions. As long as it doesn’t get too hot and sea level doesn’t rise too much, it’s much better than another ice age. If CO2 isn’t causing it we need to research how to keep warm in the future. And if it’s CO2 then we need to learn how to use it to set the thermostat to keep comfortable.

    So, the statistics games the government and the media use don’t really worry me. I think we should all expect politicians to lie from a little bit to a whole lot. And the media sure seems to play ball with the government. In some cases we see media like Fox going one way and MSNBC going hard in the other direction. But sonetimes all of them pull hard and row together. And they can be wrong as heck.

    Take that 97 % line we hear from the USA president…that’s BS. It’s what people use when they don’t have a solid argument…”97 of 100 gurus prefer incense from Bombay”. Big deal. If they have it so right then they need to explain why do we see so much baloney about giant hurricanes and mega droughts.

    And I’m not falling for that Phillipines’ trick blaming CO2 for hurricane damage, when they need to stop building on low ground right next to the coast. What do they think? That everybody can afford doing something as stupid as building New Orleans under sea level and expect it to stay dry forever?

  19. So, what is up with Mitt Romney going all in on the Climate Change fraud.

    Did John Holdren hypnotize him total back when Mitt had him on his payroll.

    It seems impossible that Romney and his smarts would know better.

    Did the IRS catch him in a huge illegal tax deal and they have something on him?

    Or is there that much gold in this fraud?

    • “So, what is up with Mitt Romney going all in on the Climate Change fraud.”

      I think sophisticated warmist strategists realized that getting prominent Republicans on board would be their highest-payoff move. They’ve accordingly set up Risky Business and they’ve held intense tete-a-tetes between big-name climatologists and prominent Republicans who’ve joined it in which they’ve provided SkS-style refutations of contrarian points. These one-sided presentations have apparently been effective.

      Contrarians should organize “red teams” and offer alarmed Republican politicians the opportunity to hear them out, or to read their online replies to the statements these Republicans have assented to. (This could take several back-and-forths.) Also, red teams could offer to engage in live in-person debates with alarmists’ teams.

  20. Borenstein is recycling the same turd that was published by German “scientists”/kiddies in 2008. My first or second post on WUWT at the time was the one word “Infantile”. I’d never heard of Tamino at the time but, when I saw that he was supposedly a statistician but supporting the paper, I knew within 5 seconds of being on his site (for the first and last time) that he was a fr*ud. This cannot be ascribed to scientific incompetence. It’s way too far below the threshold, and so has to be willful attempted deception ….

    …. or could Borenstein really be that fkn stupid ??

    Nice to see it disemboweled again. Thanks Roman.

  21. Very nice to see a guest post from Roman here, I hope we can look forward to more in the future. One of my favourite regular contributors to Climate Audit. Excellent stuff.

  22. The media does not understand the structure and meaning of statistical tests.

    The statistical results do NOT say there is a 650,000,000:1 likelihood the planet is warming – which is what most people read.

    Rather the results say there is a 650,000,000:1 likelihood that temperatures are not willy-nilly random (a white noise process) – which we already knew anyway.

    Consider for a minute that the stated test would have given the exact same probability to a sequence of record lows, or to a sequence of nearly identical temperatures.

    Any systematic behavior (such as ENSO cycles or global warming) will generate these “impossible” statistical probabilities.

    • At Arctic amplification region, hotter, like no more -17°C but -15 °C. Hot indeed. Kills people. Drowns Santa and deers. /s

      But.

      it should be very clear that the probabilities calculated for the propaganda campaign to hype the latest record warming are pure nonsense with no relationship to reality

      Kinda they are supposed to be nonsense, they say the probability is one to zillion, yet it happened, so their naive model is wrong, which in their mind proves another model true.

      This is a mind boggling jump – a jump to ‘proving’ CAGW based on average temperatures rising 0.3°C couple of decades, which is not unprecedented or dangerous.

  23. I might add that this time around I was pleased to see some climate scientists who were willing to publicly question the validity of the propaganda probabilities in social media such as Twitter. As well, the (sometimes reluctant) admissions that the 2014 records of other temperature agencies are in a “statistical tie” with their earlier records seems to be a positive step towards a more honest future discussion of the world of climate science.

    I agree. It is a step in the right direction.

    The odds of this happening at random are about 650 million to 1, according to University of South Carolina statistician John Grego. Two other statisticians confirmed his calculations.

    That was a foolish claim. I am glad you wrote this essay highlighting the problems.

  24. How is the zero point determined for temperature deviations in the NOAA graphs? Does it not change with each new year of temperature recordings? It seems to me NOAA could have set a zero point arbitrarily low which would make each years data set to be seemingly high.

  25. This is a very, very important and well written defenestration of the propaganda-lies from Borenstein and NOAA/GISS claims.
    This should be a top, sticky post for a few days to week, IMO. Other bloggers should repost or link to this Roman Mureika analysis as well.

    Joel

  26. RomanM,
    The statisticians contacted by Borenstein were specifically asked by him to calculate probabilities as though the years were independent. See WSJ article by Holman Jenkinks – he contacted one of them.

    • Shub, I knew that. As I wrote in the post:

      For that reason, making the assumption that yearly temperatures are “independent” leads to probability calculation results which can bear absolutely no relationship to reality. Mr. Borenstein (along with some of the climate scientists he quoted) was unable to understand this and touted them as having enormous importance. The statisticians would probably have indicated what assumptions they had made to him, but he would very likely not have recognized the impact of those assumptions.

      Had they been aware of the statistical properties of the annual temperature series, they should have indicated to Mr.Borenstein that such a calculation is really meaningless in this context and perhaps have suggested a different approach such as the one that I took. This probably would not have been satisfactory to Seth since the obvious intent was to produce a scenario which would convince people who didn’t know any better that the global temperatures were behaving in an extremely erratic fashion.

      I have done these types of calculations for newspapers and radio over the years and I always made sure that I did the calculations correctly and that what I did was relevant and appropriate for the problem I was addressing.

    • Thanks RomanM. I did miss that part in your post. With Jenkins contacting the statisticians it becomes clear that it was Borenstein who pushed for this meaningless calculation. When I read the initial claims, I was flabbergasted that any statistician would independently make such nonsensical assertions.

      The stack of lies is growing impressively towards Paris.

  27. Holman Jenkins of WSJ wrote to the statistician “used” by Seth Borenstein:

    Mr. Grego tells me AP specifically instructed him to assume “all years had the same probability of being ‘selected’ as one of the 10 hottest years on record.” This is akin to assuming that, because you weighed 195 pounds at some point in your life, there should be an equal chance of you weighing 195 pounds at any point in your life, even when you were a baby.

    There is, as even I understand it, inertia governing the fluctuations in the Earth’s climate, which make it highly likely that a 13 degree centigrade year will be followed by average temperatures in the same neighborhood the following year. Whether Borenstein was selectively overlooking or – or just obfuscating – this concept, he might want to simply climb on his bathroom scale and meditate on the following: if his resolution to lose 30 pounds is governed by a completely random result, he has at least a 50% chance of ending 2015 as the “worlds’ biggest loser”.

    • Thank you for this comment (and Shub Niggurath above). It was hard to believe any university statistics professor would not know the difference between a temperature series and what amounts to ‘white noise’. But agenda-driven journalists can be devious in their questions. As Nancy Oreskes (New York Times) put it, “playing dumb with climate..”.

  28. Samuel C Cogar January 23, 2015 at 7:25 am

    Isn’t LESS COLD what we would expect as a consequence of increased CO2? I don’t know the physics other than what I have read here but I have downloaded a pile of temperature records. What I see is mostly flat trends in the maximum and mean maximums (and often a down trend, [temperature moderation?]). But the minimum and mean minimums frequently show an upward trend (less cold) resulting in an increase in the “average” temperature.

    I can’t help but think that for most life forms that less cold makes life a little easier, especially in the winter. The trend in the minimum does not appear to be seasonal. Now, having said that, it looks like we might have a record high in Calgary, Alberta this weekend … But given the number of years of records, and the frequency of “Chinooks” in this part of the world, it may or may not reflect long term climate.

    • @ Wayne Delbeke: January 23, 2015 at 11:43 am

      Only the proponents of CAGW would expect “less cold” as a consequence of increased CO2. But there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that even remotely confirms their expectations.

  29. Thanks RomanM, I always enjoyed watching you and SteveMac take down the team statistics. I guess that’s getting harder to do now since they’ve had their hands slapped so many times. Now if y’all can just straighten out the media idiots like Seth.

  30. Every time I read a Borenstein article I ask myself, “is this guy really that dumb or does he purposely mislead?” I will give him the benefit of doubt and assume he is misleading for the cause.

    • Noble Cause Corruption is rampant in the media and Climate Science today. It is as Roman mentioned above, “That these claims also come from some noted climate scientists indicates that their science takes a back seat to their activism and reduces their credibility on other matters as a result.”

      I would say it doesn’t reduce their credibility on other matters. Their activism under the guise of climate science completely destroys any credibility they think they have. Since they likely associate and communicate with others in their beliefs on climate change and activism, they do not see how others see them as liars.

  31. Thanks! I love statistics and am further underwhelmed by contemporary university statisticians – glad I retired. Can’t imagine discussions at faculty meetings.

  32. Canada 2014 was the coldest since 1996, now how does that correlate with the the northern hemisphere is the most effected by AGW. Canadians reading the warmest year ever are simply astounded at the porkies coming out of the White-house.

  33. Despite all the comments above, it gives me great comfort that Al Gore and his fellow IPCC Climate Science Nobel prize winners have arrived at exactly this point in human civilisations history, so that they can save us from our own inevitable self destruction. It does appear to be an improbable piece of luck, so perhaps probability is the key to all of this.

    I did once think that perhaps the changes humans have already made to the planet, during earlier parts of human history may have sealed our doom, its just we didn’t have anyone to warn us, or tell us what they were or are.

  34. Freaking Gore at the Davos World Economic Formum and Ban Kee Moon of the UN receive unsuspected support for a Global Co2 Tax from businesses like DSM’s CEO Siebersma, an incredible hack and hypocrite, in an attempt to keep Global temps under 2 degree Celsius of warming.

    The time has come to boycott companies like DSM but also Google, Apple and other big money grabbing freedom destroying zealous and moronic businesses that have lost track of their core business serving their customers with good products and services instead of destroying the very basis of their existence.

    Screw those eco fascist bastards.
    Never do any business with them for the rest of your life and let them know why you boycott them.

    Next we have Dutch minister inviting people to do a check using their postal code to see how high the wter level will be when the dykes break due to the rise of seal levels.

    The primary responsibiity of any Government is to take care of the security of their populations.

    Instead they scare the helle out of people with their climate lies and doom scenario’s.

    The time has come to mobilize some serious legal guns to sew officials like Hennes for failing their primary obligations.

    What a bunch of morons.

  35. The tendency to look at (or perhaps just portray) anything from a perspective that’s too “up-close” leads to these kind of errors in thinking. “Tomorrow” means something on a gut level. “A decade hence” means little. A generation hence?? (only to the science fiction writers). I think everybody is like that. It’s been the success of the anthropogenic climateers that they have been able to get a certain contingent thinking incredibly short-term… End of the world Thursday at 8 pm.

    Roman’s essay helps blow that misconception apart.

    The present dismal failure being suffered by the movement (in spite of presidents, pundits and politician / scientists) is the visual information (much of it graph-based) continues to reach the public.

  36. Its obvious whoever contracted the statisticians , University of South Carolina statistician John Grego to do this work failed to inform him of the fact that global temperatures for anyone year can be heavily influenced by the conditions of the previous year.

    The Global Climate is a bit like a roller coaster Ride . If the track is marked off evenly with year markers instead of meters, as the car travels and passes a marker it may be on a high section of the track or a low section or half way up or halfway down , each mark is totally dependent on the former level it transitioned from , the track cannot be divided up into sections that can be ridden independently . Its all or nothing and not reliant on the passengers funding.
    The only difference of course is the climate is not predetermined .The models have proved this beyond doubt.

  37. Yes, and in 1918 you could *truly* (unlike in the case of our friend John Grego) say that 10 of the 10 coldest years on record had occurred since 1900 (based on the NOAA data shown in the first figure above). So I guess the odds of that must be something like 1 in 650 billion?

    How did we survive?

    • Maybe the Earth Natural Forces acted as it should when humans couldn’t take in all premisses and variables needed?

      When will they ever learn?
      Btw. one of the so called scholars must have gone old – forgotten he sent me a copy of some raw data long ago with notes of every correction after….. no statistic significance can be found that explain correction, neither between nor within any reasonable explination….

  38. …wondering why it is still snowing….just wondering…yep…. Forecast: -41 F in Fairbanks 01-25-2015 …scorching….

  39. Roman – you have done good analytical work but unfortunately the data input you are using is simply false. First, your NOAA temperature anomalies 1880 – 1944 are saddled with that absurd warming in the early forties. NOAA and other temperature sources show the early forties as a heat wave when in fact it was World War II cooling. Global temperature had been rising since 1910 and they added on to that and created an imaginary warming in the early forties. What actually happened is that global temperature crashed in the winter of 1939/40, creating the WWII cool spell. What followed was the Finnish Winter War, Hitler’s campaigns in Russia, and the Battle of the Bulge, all of them fought in bitter cold. In January 1940 Stalin sent two divisions and a tank column into Finland to cut it in half. The battle of Suomissalmi that followed was fought at minus 40 Celsius and in one meter of snow. The Finns wiped out the invaders who lost ninety thousand dead and all their tanks. The Finns had no anti-tank weapons so they improvised and used gasoline bottles with a fuse attached that were thrown at Russian tanks. They nicknamed them “Molotov cocktails.” Having lost all their tanks, the Russians were duly impressed. Next year, when Hitler and Stalin had a falling out the Russians started using the same weapon on German tanks and that is where the press first heard about it. The cold was bitter and when the Germans were not given any winter uniforms many of them froze to death.All that happened during the imaginary heat wave on our temperature charts. Another fake warming is found in your second temperature chart. No way can the “actual temps” in red be actual temps. All temperatures from from 1980 on are a complete fakery. You can determine that easily by comparing it to satellite temperature measurements. And it is bold. By my estimation they show a fake temperature rise in the eighties and nineties of almost half a degree. I am tired of repeating details of it so I suggest you get my book and look a figure 15 to see what that temperature region should look like. If you go beyond the eighties and nineties you see more fakery. The easiest distinguishing mark is that in their graph the 2010 El Nino is higher than the 1998 super El Nino which is impossible. I first spotted this when I wrote my book and even put a warming into its preface but it made no difference. More has come to light since then and it should be investigated but nothing is being done.

    • Following that logic we aren’t warming now, either, because N. America has seen unusually bitterly cold winters with normal to cool summers.

      Just as valid.

      • From your earlier comment “I acquired the raw station data used in GISS up to 2013 and am building a new global land station dataset”

        I don’t have the time myself, but as long as you are creating a new data set please consider calculating the trend for each station and then averaging trends to see what the climate is doing. You would need to compute an average each year including only those stations that were in their active period. This has two big advantages. One is that you would not be averaging temperatures of dry and wet climates with different heat capacities. The second is there would be no need to infill missing data.

      • To Gary Palmgren:

        I am doing that almost first thing ;-)

        I will also be working in absolute temperatures and displaying my results as such.

        Each station will have a calculated average temperature for every month, will have its proximity to urban environment calculated, will have the soil (type & moisture content), terrain (plant life, elevation(s), etc.), and moisture amounts/type (snow, rain, lakes, rivers, oceans) included, and more as time moves on.

        I hope, eventually, to be able to move to higher resolutions of time using daily datasets, such that I can even see the movement of cold/warm fronts and determine likely cloudiness.

        The computational and storage requirements are immense already, but I have quite a bit of power and SSD storage, so we’ll see how far I can get without unwanted and expensive upgrades.

        Also, all source code and data will be open sourced (I’m building a collaborative application on HaikuOS with embedded R or Python… or both for scripting and analysis).

  40. We go on discussing the warmest year even though the global average temperature pattern shows a linear increase followed by a plateau, then followed a linear increase followed by plateau. Yet,in all these segments temperature shows ups and downs.

    To minimize this controversy there is a need to estimate first the global temperature rise in realistic terms.

    That means, we must have urban area temperature change and rural area temperature change components estimated based on satellite data series for at least 20 years at least.

    Once this is achieved, the global temperature trend could be corrected to represent the rural real trend.

    After this is carried out the corrected global temperature trend minus the urban temperature trend gives the contribution of global warming trend component.

    This job must be put in to the hands of people from outside the agencies talking of the highest by 0.02 or 0.04 oC.
    Once this is achieved, then one can correlate the global warming with CO2 and this will help the modellers to fix their model predictions with CO2 increase.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

    • If the modellers tried to tune their models to the real warming of the last 16 years, the coefficients would be near zero, as the cross correlation coefficients with CO2 rise would be near zero.

      Natural variability is resulting in any CO2 signal to be down in the noise of natural variations. Many more decades of observations will be needed to find any real CO2 signal.

    • The climate modeling programmers don’t have a problem with their climate modeling program’s “predictions” that needs “a fixin” simply because the programs are working just fine and in the way they were intended to work ….. with estimated quantities of increases in atmospheric CO2 in future years as the input data that generates “future predictions” of average increases in near-surface air temperatures ….. and/or …. with estimated and/or measured increases in atmospheric CO2 quantities of bygone years as the input data that “verifies and attests to” their “fuzzy math” calculated increases in average surface temperatures during the same said bygone years.

      When there is a “win-win” situation then the managers of that “situation” don’t want you messin with the good thing they got going.

  41. Excellent post from Roman Mureika! Kudos.

    Re: NOAA temps 1880-1944. Include 1945, which according to the NOAA annual temperature data (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2014.csv) was the 6th hottest year ever (“ever” being 1880-1945). Including 1945 extends the streak to 9 for 9 hottest years (1937-1945). The new “odds of that happening by chance” should be recalculated.

    Looking at the period 1930 – 1949, I see that only 3 of 20 years were not in the top 13 hottest ever years (there are some ties). I can’t say what the odds against that are, but it must be impressive.

    Maybe starting with http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/figure-figuring-odds-earths-global-hot-streak-28281359 and replacing similar data points for appropriate periods ending at 1945 would be illustrative. It could even lead to a new post like “The Extraordinarily Warming 1930s and ‘40s Were Even More Improbable Than 2000 – 2015”, or whatever.

    The 1910 – 1945 warming was essentially equal to the 1975 – 2000 (maybe 2005) warming. The statistics cited by Mr. Borenstein are convenient alarmist nonsense (lies, damn lies, and all that). Replaying the Grego, et al. methodology for 1930-1949 will (I’m guessing) show that we’ve had a 1-in-a-trillion (years, presumably) event occurring at least twice in 135 years! What are the odds of that?? Eyeballing the paleotemperature records, it appears that there have been scores, even hundreds of similar “extraordinary” warming periods. In a 4.5 billion year period (the age of our planet), a 1-in-a-trillion event occurred dozens, perhaps 100’s of times; what are the odds of that??

    It’s worse than they thought ;-) Just sayin’

    P.S. Anthony, you have a most interesting and informative web site. Thank you.

  42. george e. smith nailed it perfectly at comment #6. If temperature trends look, over a time scale of about of a thousand years, like a sine wave, this is exactly what we should expect. Probability? 1:1.

  43. Roman
    Correct me if I’m wrong but I understand the error in NOAA temperature anomaly data is +/- 0.09 C
    From 2001 to 2014, the coolest year is 0.51 C (2008) and the warmest year is 0.69 (2014). The difference between the coolest and warmest is 0.18 C. Therefore, all the years from 2001 to 2014 are statistically equal. They are all within the error range. Just a little fact the warmists forget to mention.

  44. The probability calculation of these statisticians is seriously flawed. They assumed all temperatures within the range of coolest and warmest between 1880 to 2014 is equally probable. Foolish assumption. The probability curve would look like a box. Random variables follow the normal curve which is bell-shaped.

    The standard deviation (o) in 1880-2104 data is 0.285. The mean value (u) is the most probable value in the normal probability distribution. This is equivalent to the latest value 0.69 in 2014 because of thermal inertia, the resistant to temperature change. Hence, no change is more probable than small change, and big change is less probable than small change. To qualify as top 10 highest temperature, it must be at least x = 0.58

    From the above, we can calculate the z value
    z = (x – u) / o

    the probability of getting a top ten temperature
    P = 0.65

    This is the area in the normal curve greater than or equal to 0.58. Hence, it is almost twice more likely to get a top ten temperature than not.

    • Probability (P) of getting n years in top ten temperatures in last 14 years (2001-2014):

      n = 8; P = 8/14 = 0.57
      n = 9; P = 9/14 = 0.64
      n = 10; P = 10/14 = 0.71

      Note that we computed earlier the probability of getting a top ten temperature based on normal distribution of random variables at P = 0.65
      This hypothesis predicts in last 14 years, we will get n = 9 since P = 0.64 is the closest to 0.65
      Yes indeed the NOAA data have 9 years in top ten from 2001-2014
      Therefore, the data are exactly as predicted by the hypothesis.

      On the other hand, the hypothesis that temperature is determined by CO2 will not produce the NOAA data. Since CO2 is at record high every year from 2001-2014, this hypothesis predicts each succeeding year must be a record high temperature. Unlike statistical models that have continuous probability function, deterministic models have discrete probabilities. Events are predicted to occur or not. The probability is either 1 or 0. Therefore, under this hypothesis, the probability of no warming trend in last 14 years is zero.

  45. Awsome article.

    I love this kind and intelligent Steve McIntyre. More of them and the worl would be a wonderful place.

    The 7 hottest years in the 1940-wamr period also “hottest evah”. “Hoe likely is that” ??
    So amusing and spot on.

    Obviously we have oceans around us the delays changes in temperatures and temperatures will thus follow a trend to some degree. So viewing several warm years in a row as some kind of miracle or proof of something is intensely stupid or misleading.

  46. Science should have nothing to do with records. The only thing that matters is the trend.

    These “records” can easily be explained by an analogy. Suppose you climb up to the top of a plateau, and then walk along the flat top. Of course, in reality the top is covered by small random bumps and depressions, although it is on average flat. As you walk across the top and carefully measure [your] altitude, you will continually reach points which are record highs. The longer you walk the more records you set.

    But the plateau is flat and there is no trend. The “records” are merely random ups and downs that have no significance – just like these temperature “records”, which are of a few hundredths of a degree.

    You can put the whole sorry mess into perspective by asking a simple, direct question: “How much global warming has occurred since 2000?”

    Of course, we all know the answer to that one. Trouble is, it’s just too inconvenient, so all they can do is stick to this nonsense about records. Trouble is, many people will be taken in by it.
    Chris

    • The “records” are merely random ups and downs that have no significance – just like these temperature “records”, which are of a few hundredths of a degree.

      Great post …. and right you are.

      Temperature “records” or “record temperature” have no value whatsoever …… other than what they have been used for in the past and are still being used for in the present, … and that is, ….. their use by local (and national) Weather Reporting persons for the pleasure and/or appeasement of their listening/viewing audience.

      Iffen my remember’er is correct, in the summer of 1966 there was a “record breaking temperature” of 106+ F degrees in eastern Pennsylvania that caused a “buckling” of the concrete in a short section of the Northeast Extension of the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

      And as far as I know, that “event” was nothing more than a prime example of Willis Eschenbach’s stated “emergent phenomenon” which has never repeated itself.

      And it matters little whether they are “minor” examples or ”major” examples of said “emergent phenomenon” simply because the measured temperatures and/or thermal “heat” energy is NOT cumulative from one (1) year to the next.

  47. Please don’t call Seth Borenstein a science correspondent.

    I can call myself King of France, but it ain’t so.

    Just seeing the byline of set B. makes me avoid reading the article

  48. This might interest some of you.
    The source is here.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

    The current “Combined Land-Surface Air and Sea-Surface Water Temperature Anomalies (Land-Ocean Temperature Index, LOTI)” is here.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

    An archived version via TheWayBackMachine of the same is here. (January 4, 2012)

    http://web.archive.org/web/20120104220939/http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

    What happened in the last 2-3 years that could have effected the temperatures going all the way back to the January 1880?
    Does NASA have a time machine?

  49. I wonder if they would like to calculate the probability of me getting up from the left side of the bed 14 straight times in the next two weeks. It is predetermined. My wife hates the left side of the bed.

  50. Perhaps, the increase of temperatures during the late 1930s through
    mid 1940s were artificial due to relocating temperature sensors on
    roof tops due to the classifying of weather data before and during the
    war. This was to increase security in the United States during the
    German invasions and prior to our actively entering the war, as we
    supported the United Kingdom’s activities and tried to limit
    information to the Nazi groups, both in the U. S. and as they
    deployed their U-Boats in the Atlantic.

    Again, something to consider, the relocation of the measurement
    sites, and classifying of weather information prior to WW 2.

  51. AP has added a “clarification” of various issues in the Seth Borenstein article:

    In a story Jan. 16, The Associated Press reported that the odds that nine of the 10 hottest years have occurred since 2000 are about 650 million to one. These calculations, as the story noted, treated as equal the possibility of any given year in the records being one of the hottest. The story should have included the fact that substantial warming in the years just prior to this century could make it more likely that the years since were warmer, because high temperatures tend to persist.

    I wonder whether it will be printed in the news papers where the original article appeared?

    [Perhaps the mods could add this as an update to the head post. Thanks]

  52. Well, a wealth of statistical machinations on this thread — akin to sitting 6 inches from the TV and proclaiming “No football game here –all I see are pixels”. Or posts explaining away the warming in the early 20th century, and then in the latter part of the century –allowing them to focus, unencumbered by the total data picture from 1880 to present — on the slower rate of warming in the 21st century driven by 3% of the planet’s heat absorption by the atmosphere, while ignoring the 90% absorbed by the high specific heat waters of the oceans (it’s ‘hidden”– we can ignore it). Scientific analysis? Or amateurism run amok? The problem is left to the reader.

    [Reply: You are free to submit your own article if you wish. ~ mod.]

    • Please enlighten us with your scientific analysis so we can clearly see where this (using your derisive term) ‘amateurism’ has run amok??!!

      Remember: Reference your data, state your assumptions, and show your work!
      Also, state your credentials and work experience, lest we yet again be entertained by a ‘run amok amateur’.

  53. Analysis? You didn’t understand my post? Credentials? Where are yours..or any others on this thread for that matter? I thought WUWT idolized amateurs, rather than peer-reviewed science. But in the event you’re interested in my peer-reviewed sources, they would include any of the world’s 200 National Science Academies and Scientific Professional Societies, major Universities, the IPCC, NASA, or NOAA…ALL of which conclude AGW. No exceptions.

    • I don’t understand how your post relates to the topics covered in this thread either. What we are discussing here is the legitimate interpretation of the properties of a time series such as the measured mean global temperatures. Your comment does not address this in any way whatsoever.

      You ask for credentials but they should not be necessary in a scientifically-based discussion. However, there are many discussants on WUWT who have substantial backgrounds in areas of study which are relevant to climate science. I have a PhD in Probability and Statistics and almost 47 years of experience in academia teaching, doing research and consulting with researchers in numerous other faculties of our university. Presumably you will now also disclose your own credentials which justify your characterization of the post as “statistical machinations” without pointing out any specific errors in the material.

      If you wish to discuss other topics, please find a relevant thread elsewhere and do so. Trolling this one because you are incapable of providing a cogent comment makes you unwelcome.

  54. warrenlb
    January 24, 2015 at 4:31 pm (challenging Mac the Knife)

    Analysis? You didn’t understand my post? Credentials? Where are yours..or any others on this thread for that matter?

    No, I don’t understand your post. Show your math, not your conclusions and your similes with TV pixels and your assumptions and your un-justified wide-ranging amateurish statements.

  55. warrenlb says:

    You didn’t understand my post?

    Funny, I couldn’t see anything except your assertions.

    You posted no verifiable measurements. Why not? Don’t have any?

    To be credible you need to provide a quantified measurement showing what the fraction of AGW is, out of total global warming. Otherwise, you are just emitting baseless conjectures.

    Without empirical, testable measurements quantifying AGW, the default conclusion per Occam’s Razor and the climate Null Hypothesis, is that what we are observing is natural climate variability.

  56. @Mac: What don’t you understand in my post? That all the World’s Institutions of Science conclude AGW? You might read the IPCC 5th Assessment representing 10,000 peer-reviewed research papers. Or, if what you ‘re after is a debate, the rules of engagement require each participant declare his position before beginning. I already have — the same conclusion as all the world’s institutions of science: “Earth is Warming, Man is the Cause, and the net effects are very likely to be strongly negative”.
    Now we need your position, please….

  57. warrenlb says:

    …That all the World’s Institutions of Science conclude AGW?

    Wrong.

    Not that it matters. Science is not settled via ‘consenssus’.

    (And as proven beyond any doubt: the ‘consensus’ is heavily on the side of climate skeptics.)

    [db – Please reserve the use of square brackets [] for the moderating team. .mod]

  58. After I say “..All the World’s Institutions of Science conclude AGW” …. DBStealey says “Wrong”.
    No, DBStealey is 100% Wrong. Let’s be more specific: ALL 200 of The World’s National Science Academies and Scientific Professional Societies, NASA, NOAA, and the IPCC conclude AGW. As well as major Universities. My claim meets DBStealey’s favorite test –it’s falsifiable. All he has to do is look — and he will find no Scientific Institution of any standing that rejects AGW — and all maintain a formal position concluding AGW — ‘Earth is Warming, Man is the Cause, and the net Effects are likely to be strongly negative’, or similar.

    Then DBStealey says: “Science is not settled by Consensus” — If it’s not a consensus, why is he worried?And then he says” “Consensus is heavily on the side of climate skeptics” — contradicting himself by using it as an argument against AGW!

    Then in answer to David Socrates request for a citation on the point about skeptics answers “Yes”.

    • Don’t hold your breath waiting for dbstealey to post a link to the evidence for his assertion

  59. @RomanM: It’s your post that seems a non-sequiter:
    1. I’m not interested in anyone’s credentials. Instead, I said this in response to Mac’s request for MY credentials: “Where are yours..or any others on this thread for that matter? I thought WUWT idolized amateurs, rather than peer-reviewed science.” Amateurs can offer interesting views, but authoritative? No. Capable of serving up an intellectually valid, reliable critique of a body of Scientific Research outside their field? No. If I were a PhD in quantum mechanics, my views on quarks should carry significant weight, Your credentlals as a PhD statistician carry great weight in assessing probability statements about time series, but for assessing the broader field of AGW, I would go to a PhD Climate Scientist, or more accurately, to the body of peer-reviewed scientific research.

    2. You say “I don’t understand how your post relates to the topics covered in this thread either. What we are discussing here is the legitimate interpretation of the properties of a time series such as the measured mean global temperatures. Your comment does not address this in any way whatsoever.”
    I believe my post about ‘statistical machinations’ and ‘TV viewing at 6 inches’ addresses the fundamental question ‘Is Earth Warming, considering the time period 1880 to present?’ Which some of the posts on this thread seem to argue against, either directly or inferentially. Hence my comment.

    • My post is a “non-sequiter [sic]”? I explained to you the focus of the head post after you trashed it by referring to it as “statistical machination” and asked you what undisclosed knowledge you had on the topic since you had not given any reason to believe that there were any major faults with it. Stretching it to “Is Earth Warming…” is the and all of the king’s horses and all of the king’s men have professed their faith in AGW is the non-sequitur.

      I didn’t really think that you had the courage to tell anyone what background you bring to the table, but one can surmise some things from your comments.

      Your credentlals [sic] as a PhD statistician carry great weight in assessing probability statements about time series, but for assessing the broader field of AGW, I would go to a PhD Climate Scientist, or more accurately, to the body of peer-reviewed scientific research.

      I would guess from this that you are not personally familiar with academic scientists and their training. From my experiences doing statistical consulting in that environment, it was considerably easier for a decent statistician to learn enough of the science to competently approach an unfamiliar problem in another discipline than it was for the scientist to acquire sufficient understanding of the appropriate statistics to properly analyze it themselves. Yes, there are climate (and other types of) scientists who are capable to doing good statistical work, but that has not been the norm. Some disciplines become incestuous and develop isolated methodolgy which has not been properly vetted to determine their efficacy or their hidden pitfalls. Michael Mann and his de-centered principal components is a prime example. In such cases, the results are unreliable and should be rejected even if only to ensure that no other researcher falls into the trap of using those methods themselves – which is how these invalid techniques can spread within that localized scientific establishment.

      A second piece of evidence to your non-academic background seems to be your penchant for touting the fact that many of the societies and universities have released statements which support the concept of AGW and all of its insidious side-effects. Did you know that the American Psychological Association did exactly that? Do you believe that they personally evaluated the science of AGW? Or maybe, the entire CO2 movement has become politicized and what they were doing was expressing collegiality with their academic neighbours… just like most of the other organizational statements where no practical examination of the topic was carried out before the release of the statement by the administrative board .

      And , peer review? Well, never mind…

  60. warrenlb says:

    @RomanM:

    1. I’m not interested in anyone’s credentials.

    That is because you have none.

    Next, yes. I say “WRONG” when you falsely claim that all the world’s academies and professional societies are in agreement [that, from someone who claims that he isn’t interested in credentials]. warrenlb has lost it if he believes that nonsense. I think he does, but I also know some folks believe the moon landing was a hoax — and warrenlb belongs right there with them.

    Next:

    My claim meets DBStealey’s favorite test –it’s falsifiable.

    Wrong again. My favoirite test is whether a conjecture is confirmed by solid empirical evidence. As everyone except warrenlb seems to know, there are no measurements of AGW. Despite my repeated challenges, he still has posted no verifiable measurements of AGW, only endless opinions. That is another big FAIL.

    And:

    …he will find no Scientific Institution of any standing that rejects AGW…

    Wrong again. Scientific institutions representing more than a billion people would strongly disagree — except for the fact that warrenlb is a mere nobody — and they don’t waste their time on nobodies.

    The rest of warrenlb’s point #1 is so full of carp that I just roll my eyes and laugh at his ignorance. Obviously warrenlb has zero knowledge of human nature: take away the $billions per year propping up the climate scare, and it would fizzle out in a New York minute. Our clueless pal doesn’t understand that.

    Next:

    …‘Earth is Warming, Man is the Cause, and the net Effects are likely to be strongly negative’…

    One out of three is a failing grade, therefore warrenlb flunks. The reason is simple: Yes, the planet is warming, as it has been steadily since the LIA. But to conclude, based on mere conjectures, that “man is the cause” is scientifically: Prove it. Post a verifiable measurement quantifying the fraction of natural global warming that is presumed to be due to human activity. You know; post measurements quantifying the specific fraction of global warming that is AGW, out of total global warming. I’ll wait — and I think I will be waiting a long time for warrenlb to find any such quantifiable measurements. All he ever seems to be able to find are conjectures: opinions. But his opinions are not nearly good enough. In fact, they are a waste of pixels.

    Next, warrenlb sez:

    If it’s not a consensus, why is he worried?

    Me? Worried? Warrenlb confuses me with the terrified Chicken Little set of climate alarmists like warrenlb. He is just projecting his own insecurities onto others. I am not worried in the least — because there is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening.

    Next, warrenlb says:

    “Consensus is heavily on the side of climate skeptics” — contradicting himself by using it as an argument against AGW!

    Wrong once again, warrenlb [has warrenlb ever been right? Even once?]

    I have never used the so-called ‘consensus’ argument for anything except to ridicule the wild-eyed runaway global warming crowd. They are the ones who made ‘consensus’ an issue, not skeptics. I am merely one skeptic among many others who have completely debunked the ‘consensus’ belief — using irrefutable sources. I note that the ‘consensus’ crowd never accepts my challenge to name their clique of alarmist scientists. They don’t, because they can’t.

    Finally:

    …I would go to a PhD Climate Scientist, or more accurately, to the body of peer-reviewed scientific research…

    Yes, warrenlb would do that, wouldn’t he? No wonder he is so out to lunch. He is the same kind of nobody as the Russian Academy of Sciences co-signers, who told Albert Einstein that he was wrong. We know how that turned out.

    It sure looks like warrenlb is fixated on my comments. Good! I take great pleasure in debunking his pseudo-science nonsense. Nothing warrenlb has written has any credibility. It is simply the discredited old alarmist Narrative. There is no science there, only opinions.

    • “claim that all the world’s academies and professional societies are in agreement ”

      Here’s evidence …. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
      ..
      If you can refute the NASA pate, please try.
      ..
      “Scientific institutions representing more than a billion people would strongly disagree”
      ..
      Please post a citation.

  61. Socks,

    If you believe that is “evidence”, then I have a pig in a poke I can sell you.

    Just because NASA has bought into the “97%” nonsense does not mean anything at all. They also believe in Muslim Outreach. Do you? No doubt, eh?

    Read the WUWT archive, keyword: 97%. Learn something for a change.

    And as I’ve said many times now, I am no longer your gopher. I can cite sources for everything I post — credible sources, unlike yours and warrenlb’s. But you refuse to accept even basic truths, if they do not fit your alarmist narrative.

    Whenever I have posted links to verifiable sources, you either ignore them, or you argue incessantly based on your own personal opinion, or you trot back to SkS or Hotwhopper for some talking points.

    You have your Belief. But no facts can penetrate it, if it does not conform to your True Belief.

    Since nothing you claim is credible, you will understand if I provide links at the request of scientific skeptics; the only honest kind of scientists. But you have been so consistently wrong, so often, that I will no longer waste my time catering to your incessant demands. I will, however, discuss any links you post, such as this.

    I don’t care what alarmist source posted that chart, because it flies in the face of reality. Polar ice is now above its 30-year average [the red line], therefore they feel the need to cherry-pick certain months. Anyone can do that, but the fact is that polar ice is growing. That is an empirical fact, and the evidence is in the chart. So if you refuse to accept it, that is only your religious climate belief controlling you.

    Finally, it is simple to debunk your belief that sea level rise is accelerating. It isn’t. That is just one more false factiod that has colonized your mind. That applies to sea level rises, to ocean pH, to polar ice, to the so-called ‘consensus’, and to everything else you’re flat wrong about.

    Once again I ask: who should we believe? You? Or Planet Earth?

    Because you cannot both be right.

    • NASA has rovers on Mars.
      NASA has a probe heading for Pluto
      NASA has personnel on the ISS.
      NASA has dozens of satellites in orbit
      NASA has much more credibility than you.

      • Socrates:

        And NASA GISS (Maryland, DC) did none of that. (They do link satellite messages inbound into an earth-web, but that’s it. Only maintenance.) NASA-GISS did promote Gavin Schmidt (although he was nearly full-time on the CAGW web site business after Hansen left) .. He who was getting paid to run NASA-GISS while being arrested for promoting the CAGW religion worldwide. So, do I believe a government agency run by fanatics who are CAGW protestors/promoters/agitators?

        No.

      • RACookPE1978

        NASA has a lot more credibility than you have.
        Nobody knows who you are, where you’ve been, nor what you’ve done.

        NASA has a track record.

      • Socks says:

        NASA has a lot more credibility than you have.

        Wrong again, socks. NASA has a lot more crdibility than you have. But not as much as RACook has.

        So far, you really have no credibility at all. Just baseless assertions, like the rest of the climate alarmist clique. And:

        NASA has a track record.

        Yes, a track record of dishonestly “adjusting” the temperature record. The funny thing is, you believe them.

        But any government agency that is the recipient of huge piles of taxpayer loot, shoveled out annually for the purpose of finding a ‘human fingerprint of global warming’, will become corrupt over time. Only gullible fools would take their pronouncements at face value.

        It is just another in the endless stream of the ‘Appeal to Authority’ fallacies. Intelligent folks take what they say with a BIG grain of salt, while credulous True Believers lap up their words.

        Finally:

        Then do it.

        You have a hard time learning, don’t you?

  62. A little upset, DBStealey? I’ll ignore your personal attacks, since they say nothing about those you don’t know, although your language speaks volumes about you.
    1. You: “… you falsely claim that all the world’s academies and professional societies are in agreement [that, from someone who claims that he isn’t interested in credentials]. warrenlb has lost it if he believes that nonsense. I think he does, but I also know some folks believe the moon landing was a hoax — and warrenlb belongs right there with them.”
    My responses:
    a) No, I never said I wasn’t interested in credentials. I said i wasn’t interested in KNOWING the credentials of those posting on this thread. I specifically said I would only go to credentialed PhD scientists active in the field for reliable intellectually valid assessments of a body of Science.
    b) And STILL wrong DBStealey. ALL The World’s Institutions of Science conclude AGW. Since you seem to have trouble absorbing the concept, and refuse to search for falsifying evidence — which you demand from everyone else — I’ll give you a tidbit to make it easier:

    “National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized:
    A. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.
    B. Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.
    C. Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale. Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative. Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.
    D. The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.
    E. The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).

    No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. ”

    2. You say: Wrong again. My favoirite test is whether a conjecture is confirmed by solid empirical evidence. As everyone except warrenlb seems to know, there are no measurements of AGW. Despite my repeated challenges, he still has posted no verifiable measurements of AGW, only endless opinions. That is another big FAIL.
    My response: Tut-tut. You aren’t reading again. My claim was not AGW. It was this: “ALL 200 of The World’s National Science Academies and Scientific Professional Societies, NASA, NOAA, and the IPCC conclude AGW.” One more time: Got any falsifying evidence?

    3. In response to my post ‘he will find no Scientific Institution of any standing that rejects AGW…”
    DBStealy says: “Wrong again. Scientific institutions representing more than a billion people would strongly disagree — except for the fact that warrenlb is a mere nobody — and they don’t waste their time on nobodies.”
    My response: Same as in #1. above.

    4. Now DBStealey says:
    “One out of three is a failing grade, therefore warrenlb flunks. The reason is simple: Yes, the planet is warming, as it has been steadily since the LIA. But to conclude, based on mere conjectures, that “man is the cause” is scientifically: Prove it. Post a verifiable measurement quantifying the fraction of natural global warming that is presumed to be due to human activity. You know; post measurements quantifying the specific fraction of global warming that is AGW, out of total global warming. I’ll wait — and I think I will be waiting a long time for warrenlb to find any such quantifiable measurements. All he ever seems to be able to find are conjectures: opinions. But his opinions are not nearly good enough. In fact, they are a waste of pixels”
    My response: No, my post was that all the institutions of science conclude those three points. And actually 5 points, as I’ve now laid out in #1, above. Please stay alert, DBS.

    5. DBStealey says: “I have never used the so-called ‘consensus’ argument for anything except to ridicule the wild-eyed runaway global warming crowd. They are the ones who made ‘consensus’ an issue, not skeptics. I am merely one skeptic among many others who have completely debunked the ‘consensus’ belief — using irrefutable sources. I note that the ‘consensus’ crowd never accepts my challenge to name their clique of alarmist scientists. They don’t, because they can’t.”
    My answer: Here is DBStealey’s quote, again, so he may remember it now: “And as proven beyond any doubt: the ‘consensus’ is heavily on the side of climate skeptics.”

    6. In response to my post that “I would go to a PhD Climate Scientist, or more accurately, to the body of peer-reviewed scientific research…”
    DSBStealy says: “Yes, warrenlb would do that, wouldn’t he?”
    His final crushing criticism. Delineating the difference between DBStealey and me.

    Don’t forget — You have yet to falsify the proposition that ALL the World’s Institutions of Science conclude AGW. Of course If you believe Scientific consensus is immaterial, then shouldn’t you reject other standard established bodies of Scientific understanding —- DNA, Evolution, Plate Tectonics, and a thousand others. But maybe you do.

    • @ warrenlb: January 25, 2015 at 5:21 pm

      3. In response to my post ‘he will find no Scientific Institution of any standing that rejects AGW…”
      DBStealy says: “Wrong again. Scientific institutions representing more than a billion people would strongly disagree — except for the fact that warrenlb is a mere nobody — and they don’t waste their time on nobodies.”
      My response: Same as in #1. above.

      Now warrenlb, you should heed that ole saying that goes something to the effect of …. “Be sure to put your brain in gear before you put your mouth in motion”.

      warrenlb, China rejects the claims of AGW and/or CAGW. So does India.

      And iffen the nation of China rejects the claims of AGW, then so do the Chinese Scientific Institutions.

      And given the undisputable fact that in 2012, the total population in China amounted to about 1.35 billion people. And ps, in 2012, the total population in India amounted to about 1.26 billion people

      Thus, as usual, DBStealy was correct, …… the Scientific institutions in China represent more than a billion people. And iffen you add in India’s population you get 2.61 billion people being represented by anti-AGW Scientific Institutions.

      And remember, warrenlb, the purchasing of one’s “credentials” from an accredited Institution of Learning …. is akin to …. the purchasing of one’s “box-of-tools” from an accredited Sears, Lowe’s or Home Depot retail store. But, the “certificate of ownership” that is flaunted as a “proof-of-purchase” of the aforesaid “credentials” or “box-of-tools” …. DOES NOT automatically bestow competence, expertise or superior abilities upon the “purchaser” of said items.

  63. @RomanM: You really believe a PhD Statistician is more competent to assess the behavior of the planet’s atmosphere and AGW, vs a PhD Climate Scientist working in the field?? I find that ludicrous. Dunning-Kreuger effect, in full bloom.

    • That’s quite a jump from what I wrote:

      From my experiences doing statistical consulting in that environment, it was considerably easier for a decent statistician to learn enough of the science to competently approach an unfamiliar problem in another discipline than it was for the scientist to acquire sufficient understanding of the appropriate statistics to properly analyze it themselves.

      “Approaching an unfamiliar problem in another discipline” gets translated to “assessing the behavior of the planet’s atmosphere and AGW” (whatever that may mean exactly). That’s what consulting statisticians do every day. The methodology of the “assessment” invariably falls squarely within the area of expertise of the statistician. After a statistician has sufficiently understood the characteristics of the physical situation (it’s usually not rocket science), who do you think has the better tools to recognize which type of analysis is most appropriate?

      According to Wikipedia, the definition of the Dunnning-Kruger effect is

      The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude. Conversely, highly skilled individuals tend to underestimate their relative competence, erroneously assuming that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others.

      So you would have us believe that any topic which may have even the slightest connection to climate science is too difficult for a mere “unskilled” statistician untrained in the arcane arts of climate science to understand. It is strange that researchers from other areas of study have actually consulted with statisticians for assistance with their work not realizing how “inept” these statisticians were. If you think that statisticians do not have the “skills” to do original climate science research and to evaluate the work done by others, you are sadly misinformed.

      Dunning-Kruger, my (fill in the appropriate body part)!

  64. warrenlb says:

    A little upset, DBStealey?

    Is that what you think? As I said, I’m laughing at you. I am hardly “upset”.

    So, to deconstruct your usual illogical nonsense:

    A. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal…

    That’s the only one you got right, as I said. The planet is warming, and has been ever since the LIA. But everything else you wrote is wrong. That’s why you failed.

    Next, your baseless assertion:

    B. Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.

    Define “most”, and “likely”. What fraction of the warming, exactly, is AGW? If you cannot provide a specific measurement quantifying that fraction, then all you are doing is asserting. You’re good at that. But you still flunk.

    C. Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.

    That says nothing.

    D. The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.

    Define: “evidence”, and “net damage costs”, and “climate change”, and “likely”, and “significant”, and “increase”, in a manner acceptable to all sides of the debate.

    E. The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).

    Many more vague terms there: “resilience”, “many ecosystems”, “likely”, “exceeded” [by how much], “unprecedented climate change”, “associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects…)”, “acidification”, “other”, “fragmentation”, etc.

    See the problem? Every one of those is an unquantified, vague assertion. That’s fine in astrology, but this is science. Not one thing you mentioned has a number attached.

    Next:

    “No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points.”

    They don’t take a formal position on lots of things. Thus, that statement is just more meaningless pablum. They probably eat it up at Hotwhopper, but this is the internet’s Best Science site. You need to do MUCH better than that.

    Next:

    My claim was not AGW.

    Aside from contradicting yourself in the same sentence, why don’t we just conclude that there is no measurable evidence quantifying AGW. Oh, wait… then there is no debate, is there?

    And:

    Got any falsifying evidence?

    The onus is on you, remember? Your belief is that a rise in CO2 will cause runaway global warming. Skeptics simply respond: “Show us. Support your conjecture with measurable, testable evidence.” But so far, all you have posted are your assertions, plus your endless appeals to corrupt authorities.

    Next:

    Same as in #1 above.

    I did, and noticed:

    I specifically said I would only go to credentialed PhD scientists active in the field for reliable intellectually valid assessments of a body of Science.

    I could easily rake you over the coals with that one, but I’ll save it for later.

    Next:

    … all the institutions of science conclude…

    Your mind has been colonized with the ‘Appeal to Authority’ logical fallacy, to the point that you cling to it like a drowning man clings to a stick. That makes it no less of a fallacy. You are desperate to get validation from corrupt authorities, but you have no measurements, thus your whole argument consists of vague assertions. That has always been the case.

    Next, thank you for re-affirming my statement that “the ‘consensus’ is heavily on the side of climate skeptics.” In fact, it is. When one side of a debate hangs their hat on something so silly, it is just plain fun to deconstruct it for them. In science, ‘consensus’ means nothing — but you believe it means something, so I have fun showing that the consensus’ — which is so very important to you — is yet another thing you are wrong about: you don’t even have a consensus, as you imagine.

    Finally, if you actually believe that all the “World’s Institutions of Science conclude AGW”, then your world must be the West. What you are trying to do is paint me into a corner, but you are not nearly smart enough to do that.

    All of your arguments seem to be either appeals to corrupt authorities, or logical fallacies, or arguing that everyone agrees that AGW is happening.

    But if so, where are the measurements? That is the one essential — and the one thing that you don’t have.

    It comes down to this: if AGW exists [and I happen to think it does, although it is so tiny it can’t be quantified], then where are the measurements of AGW? Without verifiable measurements showing the fraction of AGW out of total global warming, all you are left with are your vague assertions. Thus, you lose the debate. Simple as that.

  65. Mr Dbstealey posted this link
    ..

    to refute the fact that sea levels are rising.

    Not from this link that the data ends in 1999. 15 year old data.

  66. “Old” data? Let’s fix that, then.

    Socrates, the more you past, the more of a nitpicking fool you are.

    ‘Socrates’ is incapable of learning. All the misinformation he believes, he got from other know-nothings. But for reeaders who sincerely want to learn, here are links to lots of different sources:

    click1

    click2

    click3

    click4

    click5

    click6

    click7

    click8

    click9

    click10

    click11

    click12

    click13

    click14

    click15

    click16 [1880’s vs current, gif]

    click17

    click18

    click19

    click20

    click21

    click22

    click23

    click24

    click25

    Every one of those links debunks the nonsense that sea levels are accelerating. More here, and I have more available upon request.

    It gets tedious dealing with unteachable fools. I don’t do it to try and educate the hard-headed, but rather to debunk their globaloney.

    “Accelerating sea level rise” is just one of the really stupid claims of the ignorant alarmists. They will refuse to accept verifiable data, but instead, they argue incessantly. That’s what the incurably ignorant do. But for those who truly want to learn, there is a wealth of knowledge posted here. It will take a couple of days to read and understand it all, so take your time. This isn’t something learned overnight. And good luck, to those who really want to learn about sea levels.

    • Link 1 sure does look like it’s accelerating
      Link 2 is only three years long
      Link 3 shows 2.76 mm/yr which is higher than the 20th century average
      Link 4 “based on nine select stations”…….not even global
      Link 5 doesn’t show an average
      Link 6 clearly shows acceleration
      Link 7 shows a drop?????…..bogus
      Link 8 shows an acceleration
      Link 9 doesn’t have the y-axis labeled
      Link 10 Is a paper showing acceleration……thanks for shooting yourself in your own foot
      Link 11 x-axis is overlapping, and meaningless

      …Enough half ( 11 out of 23) are junk

      Posting bogus links proves nothing

    • You post 25 links to try to prove your point, yet you cannot post one single link to the evidence that CO2 was 20x higher in the past than today.

      Too funny

      • @ David Socrates

        …. post one single link to the evidence that CO2 was 20x higher in the past than today.

        David, would a citation for “17.5X higher CO2 ppm” ….. tickle your fancy?

        If so, here are two (2) such links with included graphs, to wit:

        Paleo historic graph of atmospheric CO2 and temperatures
        source – http://www.biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_geological_timescale.html

        Climate and the Carboniferous Period

        Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya — 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).
        source – http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

        David S, it really doesn’t surprise me any that there are so MANY recently educated individuals, especially School Teachers, …. that are experiencing a dire mental quandary and/or state of abject frustration simply because of their formal educational nurturing which has made them passionate religious believers in/of the Political Correct “junk science” that has been being taught in the Public Schools and colleges since the mid 1970’s. (the same time that liberals & Wacky Tobacca use permeated the public schools)

        I mean like, think of the mental quandary that a Teacher of Science is experiencing when he/she is “reading n’ learning” the actual, factual Science that is presented hereon WUWT ….. and knowing full well that he/she must continue their teaching of the aforesaid “Political Correct “junk science” to all of their assigned students …. or suffer reprimand, if not loss of employment, from School Administrators for violating the “teaching of the SB specified curriculum”.

        Cheers

      • Soxie,

        Keep trying, you can probably find something to nitpick about in every one of them. Anyone on either side can find something to nitpick about in anything, if they want to.

        But when you find something to whine about in every citation — all 25 of them! — that makes it clear that you have an agenda. Don’t deny it, or you will be an even bigger fool. And yes, skeptics have an agenda: scientific veracity. You should try it.

        Of course, you are deliberately missing the central message: the natural rise in sea level is nothing unusual. As some of the links prove, it is decelerating. I know that tends to make your head explode, but that’s your problem, not ours.

        You are just being your usual irrational self. I larfed out loud when I started reading your list [“Doesn’t show an average!! X-axis overlapping!!”]. I made you go crazy, didn’t I? [well, I didn’t make you nuts, but still… ☺]

        I posted 25 citations, from numerous different sources. You hate every one of them, because they deconstruct your True Belief. I can post another 25 — and I may, just for my own amusement. It’s fun spinning you up like that.

        You are becoming increasingly bizarre, arguing about everything. Being emotionally disturbed by this subject affects everything you write. But your criticisms are total nonsense, as anyone can see. Sea level rise is not accelerating, no matter how much you want to believe it is. Not even your own side agrees with you on that.

        I post facts, but you sure don’t like facts! Facts are killing you. Skeptics have a mountain of facts that debunk your MMGW nonsense. The biggest fact of all — the fact that destroys your argument completely — is the fact that Planet Earth is larfing at you, too.

        When I see you go off the deep end like that, I feel that my mission is complete. I feel a glow of satisfaction. But please, give me more! I love playing Whack-A-Mole — and you’re the mole.☺

        [PS: you say #16 Doesn’t show anything. Well, no kidding, boy! There has been zero visible change in sea level for more than a century. That was the point — which whizzed right over your head, just like everything else.]

      • I have a link showing that CO2 was ≈20X higher in the past. But socrates won’t get it unless he meets my condition.

        He can take it or leave it. The choice is his. In the mean time, I am having a fun time watching him squirm.

  67. @DBStealey: Still no effort by you to falsify my proposition that all Institutions of Science conclude the 5 points re: AGW. I call your lack of effort to the attention of those from whom you demand falsifying evidence.
    And also call attention to your repeated denial, and then dismissal, of the scientific consensus on AGW, while repeatedly citing the consensus of ‘skeptics’ as support for your position – while not defining your position!
    So which is it:
    A: The Earth is not Warming
    B: The Earth is warming, but Man is not the Cause
    C: The Earth is warming, Man is the Cause, but the Effects will not be strongly negative, OR
    D: Earth is Warming, Man is the Cause, the Effects will be strongly negative, but I don’t care.

    We have no idea which position you hold. Do you?

    • Warrenlb

      C: The Earth is warming, Man is the Cause, but the Effects will not be strongly negative

      Well, YOUR answers are all wrong. So I will have to add another one.

      E: The Earth is warming, Man might be the cause of a small part of that warming (1/6 – 1/10 of the measured natural increase that began 450 years ago), but the Effects of that warming will be strongly POSITIVE in all regards, and the useless and futile anti-energy efforts to control CO2 in a useless and futile effort to control the earth’s temperature changes will continue to be IMMEDIATELY DEADLY to millions, and STRONGLY NEGATIVE to billions over the next 85 years.

      • RACookPE1978
        .

        Science does not make a value judgement as to whether the warming will be good or bad.

        .
        Please try and stick to the science.

  68. warrenlb says:

    Still no effort by you to falsify my proposition…

    You don’t get it. It would be a waste of time falsifying your logical fallacy. It is self-falsifying, because it is a logical fallacy.

    You are just wasting everyone’s time here. I have answered all your points in detail, but you just keep repeating them.

    If you believe “Man is the Cause” [which you obviously do], then post measurements proving that. Show us the specific fraction of global warming attributable to humans.

    It always comes back to verifiable measurements, doesn’t it? But you’ve got none. You don’t have a single measurement of AGW. Do you? So you just keep repeating the same old nonsense over and over, ad nauseum.

    You lost, bud. Deal with it.

  69. @DBStealey.
    So in conclusion, you
    a) Cannot falsify the proposition that all the Planet’s Institutions of Science conclude AGW. That’s understandable, since it’s true.
    b) Continue to cite the consensus of skeptics as supportive of your undefined position, but deny that consensus in peer-reviewed science (which has a defined position on AGW) is meaningful.

    I leave it to the reader to judge this outcome.

  70. warrenlb sez:

    “So…”

    ‘So’ nothing. Without any measurments, you lost the debate.

    That’s why you harp on your stupid ‘consensus’ nonsense, and your stupid appeals to corrupt authorities. You’ve got nothing else.

    I leave it to the readers to laugh at these alarmist fools. They haven’t got a clue.

  71. @warrenlb

    Here is an example of a statistical statement from NOAA (bold mine):

    The plus/minus numbers, which are presented in the data tables of the monthly and annual Global State of the Climate reports, indicate the range of uncertainty (or “range”) of the reported global temperature anomaly. For example, a reported global value of +0.69°C ±0.09°C indicates that the most likely value is 0.69°C warmer than the long-term average, but, conservatively, one can be confident that it falls somewhere between 0.60°C and 0.78°C above the long-term average. More technically, it is 95% likely that the value falls within this range. The chance of the actual value being at or beyond the range on the warm side is 2.5% (one in forty chance). Likewise, the chance of the actual value being at or beyond the cool end of the range is 2.5% (one in forty chance).

    Is this statement scientifically and statistically correct?

    If you look at the Wikipedia page on confidence intervals, you find the following:

    A 95% confidence interval does not mean that for a given realised interval calculated from sample data there is a 95% probability the population parameter lies within the interval, nor that there is a 95% probability that the interval covers the population parameter. Once an experiment is done and an interval calculated, this interval either covers the parameter value or it does not, it is no longer a matter of probability. The 95% probability relates to the reliability of the estimation procedure, not to a specific calculated interval.[11] Neyman himself made this point in his original paper:[3]

    The climate scientist who wrote NOAA statement is making a rookie error. The latter statement is what is taught in the most basic initial course in statistics. Once the data has been collected and the specific interval calculated, the result is no longer random – the actual mean global temperature is either in the interval or it is not. Given that the assumptions inherent to the situation are reasonably satisfied, we do know that the calculated interval is the result of a procedure that contains the unknown parameter about 95% of the time. Whether it has done so on this occasion is uncertain. That is why it is called a “confidence” interval and not a “probability” interval. Similarly, we do not know that “the most likely value is 0.69°C warmer than the long-term average”. It may be considered to be the “best estimate” of the actual value under the assumptions of the procedure, but “most likely” again assumes a post-experiment probability distribution.

    But you knew that already, didn’t you?

    • Which is a more severe rookie error, your statistical nit-pick, or this claim:
      “…… Man might be the cause of a small part of that warming (1/6 – 1/10 of the measured natural increase that began 450 years ago), but the Effects of that warming will be strongly POSITIVE in all regards, and the useless and futile anti-energy efforts to control CO2 in a useless and futile effort to control the earth’s temperature changes will continue to be IMMEDIATELY DEADLY to millions, and STRONGLY NEGATIVE to billions over the next 85 years.”

      How does a statistician arrive at this grand conclusion, disagreeing with all peer-reviewed science, with no explanation, substantiation, or publishing trail to support it?

  72. Which is the more severe rookie error, your statistical nit-pick, or this claim:
    “…..Man might be the cause of a small part of that warming (1/6 – 1/10 of the measured natural increase that began 450 years ago), but the Effects of that warming will be strongly POSITIVE in all regards, and the useless and futile anti-energy efforts to control CO2 in a useless and futile effort to control the earth’s temperature changes will continue to be IMMEDIATELY DEADLY to millions, and STRONGLY NEGATIVE to billions over the next 85 years. ”

    You are a statistician, not a Climate Scientist, offering this grand conciusion disagreeing with all peer-reviewed science, without explanation, substantiation, or peer-reviewed publishing trail.
    As DBStealey, says “Thanks for the chuckle”

    • You still don’t get it. How can you put your faith into the statistical abilities of people who don’t even have a good grasp of the basics? Your strong reaction in posting this comment twice is an indication that you find it very unsettling when someone points out a flaw in some of your heroes.

      Funny, I don’t remember saying anything even faintly resembling your invented quote that you ascribe to me nor is it even something that I could come up with in my wildest dreams. As David Socrates observes, it is indeed “a product of the methodical application of intense wing-nuttery”.

    • warrenlb (quoting RACook )

      “…..Man might be the cause of a small part of that warming (1/6 – 1/10 of the measured natural increase that began 450 years ago), but the Effects of that warming will be strongly POSITIVE in all regards, and the useless and futile anti-energy efforts to control CO2 in a useless and futile effort to control the earth’s temperature changes will continue to be IMMEDIATELY DEADLY to millions, and STRONGLY NEGATIVE to billions over the next 85 years. ”

      And what part of that statement is incorrect?
      Please show the demonstrable benefits of today’s futile efforts to limit temperature change by restricting energy availability?

      Deliberately, artificially high energy prices in the UK killed 23,000 two years, and 13,000 last winter.
      Deliberate energy policies intended to fight golbal warming led to the 7 year-long energy recession Oboma is trying to return us into, but 6 months of cheaper oil (intended paradoxically to economically destroy Obama’s enemies in Texas, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and the midwest) provide the first improvement in his economy since Pelosi drove oil prices up to 145.00per barrel in mid-2007.

      • RACookPE1978

        “the 7 year-long energy recession Oboma is trying to return us into, but 6 months of cheaper oil ”

        Sorry buddy, but the president of the USA has very little control over energy prices.

      • RACookPE1978

        ” Pelosi drove oil prices up to 145.00per barrel in mid-2007.”

        Are you kidding? Please tell all of us how the Speaker of the House influences the global price of crude oil. While you are at it, please tell us why Pelosi get the blame instead of the president.

      • RACookPE1978

        ” Pelosi drove oil prices up to 145.00per barrel in mid-2007.”

        Are you kidding???

        Please tell all of us how the Speaker of the House influences the global price of crude oil. While you are at it, please tell us why Pelosi get the blame instead of the president.

      • RACookPE1978

        PS, for your information, the highest price for a barrel of crude occurred mid July 2008 not 2007

      • True.

        Pelosi took over the House in January 2007, and immediately began restricting oil and energy development funding and laws, and implementing energy restriction laws and further empowering the EPA/FW/DOE/NOAA/NASA/etc in the name of global warming. Oil prices began rising, peaking summer 2008 – as you noted – when Oboma took a clear lead in the democratic primaries (and election news coverage) that led to his presidency.

        http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/crude-oil.aspx?timeframe=10y

        Thank you.

      • “immediately began restraicting oil and energy development, and implementing energy restriction laws ”
        ..
        Obviously you have no clue how our government works.

        1) the Speaker cannot pass a law.
        2) the Senate must pass what the House passes
        3) the President must sign what both the House and the Senate pass.
        ..

        Please tell us how the Speaker of the House restricted development.
        Please tell us how the Speaker of the House affected the implementation of laws, which is done by the president.

      • Please tell us how the Speaker of the House restricted development.
        Please tell us how the Speaker of the House affected the implementation of laws, which is done by the president.

        First, you are assuming the liberal eco-freaks in the democrat power points of the democrat-dictatorship in the House, and the continuing democrat-dictatorship of the Senate under Reid were following the laws and rules of the Constitution as they were bringing already broken and set by the CAGW democrat-zealots in the DOE, EPA, FWA, NOAA, NASA-GISS, etc.

        Second, Bush as president, was NOT leading nor controlling domestic policies and concerns. He was (good or bad, well or ineffectually) looking outside under extreme daily criticism at the war on terror and international relations affecting that. Internal laws sent through the democrat House and democrat Senate were signed. Not controlled. Never veto’ed. Pelosi and Reid never passed ANY Bush-sponsored or Bush-demanded legislation improving energy or contradicting the assumed global warming policies those two demanded.

        This was stupid of Bush, but I cannot change that stupidity now.

        Also, in 2007 – 2008, the “pause” was 3-5 years old. It was NOT apparent, as it is now, that the CAGW religion was failing.

      • “Bush as president, was NOT leading nor controlling domestic policies ”

        So, from what you are telling me, Bush was not in control and Pelosi was.

        Please tell all of us what specific actions Pelosi took to “restricting oil and energy development ”
        Please tell all of us what specific actions Pelosi took to ” implementing energy restriction laws ”
        Please tell all of us how the democrats were not “following the laws and rules of the Constitution”

        You really are clueless about how government works

      • Please tell all of us how the democrats were not “following the laws and rules of the Constitution”

        Someone actually believes the dems follow the Constitution??

        If so, he is really clueless about how government works.

      • Good thing you showed up.
        RACookPE1978 posted ….” Pelosi drove oil prices up to 145.00per barrel in mid-2007.”

        Help him out
        He’s struggling with that one

        Maybe you know how she did it.

      • socks says:

        Help him out

        You are the one who needs help.

        Hey, where are all those AGW measurements? And I still have that “≈20X CO2” source.

        Pay up, and I’ll post it.

      • Some compatriot you turned out to be. Poor Mr RACookPE1978 gets hung out to dry and you diss him.

      • The only one I’m dissing is ‘socrates’, but he’s too stupid to see that.

        Robert Cook is a credentialed engineer. And you …?

        Didn’t think so.

      • He may be an engineer, but he sure doesn’t know much about how government works.

        “” Pelosi drove oil prices up to 145.00per barrel in mid-2007.”

        How about you explain how Pelosi did that?

  73. Oops, I should read all the text in a comment more carefully before I post. I now see that you did not make this up and ascribe it to me.

    Mr. Cook has some excess hyperbole in expressing his opinion that the efforts of the anti-CO2 movement and I skimmed the comment rather than reading it fully. He is very probably correct that if they are successful in their quest, the result would be pretty severe damage to all world economies. And yes, many people would be harmed unnecessarily in the process by the waste of resources and the fact that people living in third world countries would not be able to improve their lives because of the lack of energy to do so.

    But that is another issue…

  74. @RomanM. And my oops was not ascribing the comment to anybody. Thanks for the correction.
    On the subject of damage to world economies, there’s been work done on this point. I recommend “The Climate Casino” by Yale Economist William Nordhaus, or work by Brookings Economist Adele Morris. A specific citation on policy that returns more to the Treasury and to the Economy thru avoidance of adaption costs than the incurred cost of mitigation: https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend

  75. Extremely lonely people are the truly persistent type, ……. are they not?

    They will say or do most anything for the sole purpose of being included in the conversation or activity in progress.

    Being utterly wrong or dishonestly critical …… is still far, far better than being extremely lonely.

  76. @Samuel C Cogar
    cc: DBStealey

    In reply to my post that ALL the World’s Science Academies conclude AGW. You replied:

    “And iffen (sic) the nation of China rejects the claims of AGW, then so do the Chinese Scientific Institutions.”

    Your unsupported response is 100% wrong:

    In December 2009, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a joint statement declaring, “Climate change and sustainable energy supply are crucial challenges for the future of humanity. It is essential that world leaders agree on the emission reductions needed to combat negative consequences of anthropogenic climate change”. The statement references the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment of 2007, and asserts that “climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid.”

    And: The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 and 2008 joint statements.

    In case you didn’t know, the G8+5 includes China. And 12 other nations.

    Neither you nor DBStealey have yet falsified the proposition that all the World’s Science Academies conclude AGW. ALL. Without exception.

    • warrenlb

      97% of government-paid “scientists” paid by their governments to create the CAGW propaganda agree that government-paid research to create CAGW information wrote the joint statements in 2007 and 2008 for their government owners. (Er, funding sources.)

      And, in 2007 and 2008, there was not yet an 18+ year history of NO global warming.
      today? yes, there is additional information falsifying the governments’ CGAW religion, and much, much more visible harm and deaths caused BY the governments’ artificial restrictions on energy use, development, and transmission. 92 billion dollars will buy as many government scientists as they can hire. And, if any government scientist does happen to disagree with the CAGW religion, he or she is fired and ostracized by the remaining government-paid scientists. All who support the governments’ CAGW religion are promoted, published, praised, and propped up for adulation and popularity.

      • It is truly amazing how government funding is melting the Greenland ice cap, warming the oceans and made 2014 one of the warmest years on record. Truly amazing.

      • And even more amazing that EVERY ONE of the World’s National Science Academies are in on it! Remarkable cooperation among the Chinese, Europeans, Americans ,and Japanese. I wonder if they beat their scientists to keep them in line?

Comments are closed.