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]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/change-time-series1.jpeg?quality=83)
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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).
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.
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.
I looked up climate scientists in my thesaurus and found Carney Barkers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
AP has added a “clarification” of various issues in the Seth Borenstein article:
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]
I’d say that qualifies as a retraction. For whatever part you played in that, well done!
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’.
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.
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.
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.
You asking for verification Mr 20x?
@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….
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]
On the side of climate skeptics? Got a citation for that ?
Yes.
Great, post it
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
@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.
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…
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.
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.
And we both have far more credibility than you.
Thank you
..
Since NASA according to you has credibility….
Enjoy what NASA says.
..
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
….
PS, please post a link to the scientific organizations that dispute human caused AGW.
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.
” I can cite sources for everything I post”
…
Then do it
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?
Still waiting on your citation for 20x CO2 levels
Please Mr dbstealey
…
You post this chart.
..
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/images-essays/fig4.2-perovich.gif
Can you tell us what the y-axis shows?
Socks states:
“You post this chart.”
Wrong once again. YOU posted that chart.
Go away, until you can get your head straight.
You posted that chart in your post http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/23/super-heated-air-from-climate-science-on-noaas-hottest-year/#comment-1843848
@socrates,
As you can see if you read the original, I copied that chart from someone else. I supposed it was you, but if not, so what? Are you repudiating it? If so, we are on the same page with that.
” I copied that chart from someone else ”
…
OK, so what that means is you don’t even know where you got it, nor what it means.
..
Par for the course.
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.
@ur momisugly warrenlb: January 25, 2015 at 5:21 pm
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.