From PENN STATE and the department of overheated, tired, rhetoric in an El Niño year, comes this ZOMG! press release from Michael Mann and company. It’s just modeling sophistry, driven by the usual agenda, because not only is he saying that much of the last century was from AGW, he’s saying all the previous research is wrong by simply making a bet that the climate he thinks is happening aligns with odds calculated on a computer, and natural variation, El Nino, solar variance, aerosols, and a whole host of other climate factors just don’t matter. It’s basically just another headline grabber.
Of course, this sort of circular climate betting has all been done before, such as the ridiculous “wheel of climate” from MIT in 2009 that nobody paid attention to.
Oh, wait, maybe Mike did.
Odds are overwhelming that record heat due to climate change
Record-setting temperatures over the past century and a half are extremely unlikely to have occurred without human-caused climate change, but the odds of that happening are not quite as low as previously reported, according to an international team of meteorologists.
“The press reports last year about the unlikely nature of recent global temperature records raised some very interesting questions, but the scientists quoted hadn’t done a rigorous calculation,” said Michael Mann, distinguished professor of meteorology and director, Earth System Science Center, Penn State. “As a result, the probabilities reported for observing the recent runs of record temperature by chance alone were far lower than what we suspected the true probabilities are. ”
Although the new odds of chance producing recent runs of record temperatures are greater than the odds previously reported in the news — between 1 in 27 million and 1 in 650 million — they are still incredibly slim at between 1 in 5 thousand and 1 in 170 thousand. Including the data for 2015, which came in after the study was completed, makes the odds even slimmer.
The reason for the inaccuracy of the previous probability calculations is that the individual yearly temperatures analyzed are not independent of each other.
“Natural climate variability causes temperatures to wax and wane over a period of several years, rather than varying erratically from one year to the next,” said Mann.
In calculating the odds, the previous reports did not take into account that the data did not end simply because December 31 occurred, but that trends overlap into previous and subsequent years. This needs to be taken into account to determine the real probabilities of chance causing the warming events.
“We provided a method for doing this based on combining information from state-of-the-art climate model simulations with the observational temperature record, and we used this method to estimate the probabilities correctly,” said Mann.
Using a combination of observations and climate model simulations, the researchers examined temperatures from both the Northern Hemisphere and the entire globe for specific groups of years. They examined scenarios for record warm years of 1998, 2005, 2010 and 2014; for nine of the 10 warmest years occurring since 2000; and for 13 of the warmest 15 years occurring since 2000. They chose the last two scenarios because these are the ones previously reported in news accounts.
The reason that Mann’s team found the probability of naturally occurring global warming more likely than previously reported in the news, is that the effective size of their statistical sample was considerably smaller than estimates based simply on the number of years available. This “serial correlation” means that the chance likelihood of runs of warm temperature — nine very warm years over the course of a decade — is much greater than if temperatures were uncorrelated from one year to the next.
The researchers tried a variety of different data sources and statistical approaches and found that in all cases, the odds of the patterns of warming occurring with no human intervention were similarly low.
The researchers note in today’s (Jan. XX) issue of Nature Scientific Reports, that “while considerably greater than cited in some recent media reports, these odds are low enough to suggest that recent observed runs of record temperatures are extremely unlikely to have occurred in the absence of human-caused global warming.
“2015 is again the warmest year on record, which adds even more weight to our findings,” said Stefan Rahmstorf, professor of physics of the oceans, Potsdam University, Germany. “What is more, the anomalous warmth has led to unprecedented local heat waves across the world — sadly resulting in loss of life and aggravating droughts and wildfires. The risk of heat extremes has been multiplied due to human greenhouse-gas emissions, as our data analysis shows.”
By contrast, they found that the odds that human activity caused the warming are relatively high. Considering human-caused warming, they find the probabilities of nine of the 10 warmest years and 13 of the warmest 15 years occurring since the beginning of the 21st century, to be 88 percent and 83 percent, respectively, for the Northern Hemisphere.
“It just seemed like it was important to do this right, and address, in a defensible way, the interesting and worthwhile question of how unlikely it is that the recent run of record temperatures might have arisen by chance alone,” said Mann.
The recent record temperature years are roughly 600 to 130,000 times more likely to have occurred under human-caused conditions than in their absence, according to the researchers. These findings underscore the impact that human forcing has already had on temperature extremes.
###
Also working on this project were Byron A. Steinman, assistant professor, University of Minnesota, Duluth; Martin Tingley, senior research analyst, Insurance Australia Group; and Sonya K. Miller, programmer/analyst in meteorology, Penn State.
show me the bodies
No numbers were harmed in the fudging of this paper.
MM
Depends on your definition of “harmed”. They were certainly molested.
No real numbers were actually used, it was all done with CGI.
“No real numbers were actually used, it was all done with CGI.”
Climate Generated Idiocy?
I think they did employ some serious circular reasoning using their betting wheel!
The bodies exist in computer models. But they’re there. Trust me.
My lovely lady wife teaches , among other things, advanced courses in statistics for college students.
I would suspect that she would take one look at this, and suggest that the student handing in work of this calibre should consider a less demanding discipline.
Probably in the waste collection field.
Or Climate ‘Science’
Wouldn’t that be Waste Production???
You want chips with that?
Sorry – there is something needed to actually run [if not simply be a front of house, chip-asker] a good burger joint . . . .
Auto
Auto….no one would trust this “Mann” with their food! Are you kidding? It would either be raw or burned because he can’t adjust consistently! And bland? Nothing is as dull and lifeless as something he’s handled.
So the question is: If Mann and Co. are so good at modelling the future, how come they are not rolling in dough from the Wall Street and the Stock Market? Predicting whether the market will go up or down tomorrow is child’s play as compared to predicting the climate years in the future.
So with all the computer power, modelling skills and math smarts they posses, why have they not cornered the market and brought in billions for Penn State? You would think that all the big investment houses would be lining up outside Penn State for a chance to gleam some knowledge from the Great Oracle.
And why end there? With all their skill at calculating the odds, they should own Atlantic City by now, and be on their way to owning a large share of Los Vegas, Monte Carlo and Macau. Something doesn’t add up.
fred
Won’t V£ad the Pre$ident leave his trillion to Penn State?
The ‘Science’ is settled. No?
Or am I conflating the ascetic Ex-PM Vladimir Putin with a jolly similar guy with super-Midas wealth, who happens to share a name, and perhaps some buddies in the KGB [or what it’s called now]?
Auto
A genuine expert can always foretell a thing that is 500 years away easier than he can a thing that’s only 500 seconds off.
– Mark Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court
+infallibly
+ Lots!!
Well, here is a candidate shown:
http://wmbriggs.com/post/17849/
“Record-setting temperatures over the past century and a half” is where I stopped reading Mikey’s latest fantasy.
Michael Mann has been thoroughly discredited for outright fraud, and more than once. Why does anyone still pay the slightest attention to anything he says or writes?
From what I have read, even the other warmunists consider him to be an embarrassment.
He one of the fools that keeps opening his mouth! A fool does not know he a fool especially when he associates himself with only fools.
Mann speaks the warmunist language. They bow down and put ashes on their heads when he speaks.
“Mann speaks the warmunist language. They bow down and put ashes on their heads when he speaks.”
I know it looks like that from a certain angle, but I assure you, most of them have just collapsed in hysterical laughter or are trying to hide their faces so no one can put them and Mann in the same place at the same time. 🙂
In general, I stop reading at “model”, unless there are photos and its in the Entertainment section.
Simply pathetic.
Start with the answer you want then track back, adjusting the models and data time and again until you get the desired result. Bingo!
Given that climate cycles can take hundreds of years (eg WMP and back, LIA and forward to the present etc), it should be completely beleedin’ obvious to anyone that we do not have satisfactory data (especially on a global basis) to draw the conclusions that these warmunists have arrived at. To elucidate, you cannot be certain to the degree that these fools postulate, that what they are seeing is man-made beyond any reasonable, statistical doubt.
And despite this, their models still found that:
“By contrast, they found that the odds that human activity caused the warming are relatively high. Considering human-caused warming, they find the probabilities of nine of the 10 warmest years and 13 of the warmest 15 years occurring since the beginning of the 21st century, to be 88 percent and 83 percent, respectively, for the Northern Hemisphere.”
What does this say of the models they use? They only achieved up to 88 percent probability of the recent decade being the warmest on record when starting at a cool point and adding both natural and man made positive forces. This is like saying, there is a 12% chance that your child will be taller at the age of 5 than at the age of 18.
Even though the warmest decade on record for the part of Pennsylvania where Penn State’s main campus, and probably Mann’s office, is located was the 1950’s.
Any wonder he used 1998 as the bottom end of his study.
Ian
Wash your mouth out – the ‘Science’ is settled.
We hear this every time a new advance is made, so I guess it must be right. Every time.
Auto
PS, as a Euro-peasant when WE won a Nobel, I think I may be a co-joint-fraternal-demi-semi-hemi-conjunctive winner of a Nobel [for something or other. Economic? Ahhh. Maybe not . . . .]
…of course, I meant MWP. I’m sure WMP means something to someone but perhaps not Medieval etc
WMP=Windows Media Player.
LOL
WMP. Bloatware. Like Mann.
WMP – Weapons of Mass Patheticness
“WMP” = Weapons of Math Pollution
Weirdness Multiplied Prolificly
White Male Pumpkin
Whimsical Meaningless Predictions
What Mann Pronounces
What Madness, Professor!
What Makes Profit
What Models Projected
Where’s My Parka?
WMP – Worthless Mann Prediction
When I read this piece was about the latest Michael Mann study, my eyes just glazed over and my brain switched off. There is nothing, I repeat, NOTHING to respect about the writings from the scam artist of the 21st century.
What I find disturbing is that Byron Steinman also has his name on this work. I just dunno…
Unprecedented … they keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.
‘Unprecedented’ in climate séance & MSM, means it’s hasn’t happened since I last used the word….. (usually last week ).
They should start working “IIIINConcEEEIVable” in their papers. Then I’d actually take time to read it.
INCONCEIVABLE!!
I’d vote for INCREDIBLE. That would have the advantage of being true, but not in the way they mean.
Quoting one of my favorite movies. +1. Even better if you can include ROUSs
Climate change doesn’t mean what they think it means.
Quite right, “state-of-the-art climate model simulations” , it’s art not science, with some apologies to those with an arts degree.
And surely “The risk of heat extremes has been multiplied due to human greenhouse-gas emissions, as our data analysis shows.” should have been “temperature extremes” or didn’t their modelling suggest there might have been some snow coming.
You know I have recently discovered that modern art societies are almost akin to climate science:
Excellent! Same mindset exactly! GK
Considering that the “temperature” is only a delta on the temperature of the previous year, the chance of 2015 is hotter than 2014 is 50%. Of course, if you’re adjusting the measured temperature, the chance will be much higher than 50%.
BTW, where are all these wildfires and droughts?
2015 was the worst year for wildfires since at least 1960: http://phys.org/news/2015-10-worst-wildfire-year.html
Washington state had the largest wildfire in their history – even given much better firefighting equipment and resources available now: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/08/24/washington-wildfires-largest/32302927/
Chris,
You don’t think that forest management practices has anything to do with that statistic? That is inconceivable.
When you stop every tiny fire that would normally clear out the underbrush, when you prevent the clear cutting of firebreaks, when you stop all human intervention into the forests for years, YOU GET HUGE F*$&ING FIRES when the inevitable dry year or two come along.
“Washington state had the largest wildfire in their history”
Maybe in the recorded history of the state of Washington, but I seriously doubt that it was the largest wildfire ever. By the way, how much of that wildfire was due to the mismanagement of the Bureau of Land Management, the U. S. Forestry Service and all the other federal, state and local agencies that have for years failed to manage the land under their control in as natural way as possible. Wildfires happen naturally. They get rid of the deadwood, and pests such as borer beetles, and provide space for rejuvenation. When man does his best to stop wildfires, and prevents responsible logging that takes the place of those wildfires, then eventually things build up to a point where nature again takes over.
Owen, since when did I say that? I didn’t. Climate Dissident asked where the wildfires were, I showed him that there was in fact a great deal of wildfire damage in 2015.
I fully agree that forest management policies are a contributing factor. But if that is the only factor, why was there a sudden increase in wildfire intensity starting in the mid 80s, in places that did not have no burn policies? : “… large wildfire activity increased suddenly and markedly in the mid-1980s, with higher large-wildfire frequency, longer wildfire durations, and longer wildfire seasons. The greatest increases occurred in mid-elevation, Northern Rockies forests, where land-use histories have relatively little effect on fire risks and are strongly associated with increased spring and summer temperatures and an earlier spring snowmelt…Changes in spring and summer temperatures associated with an early spring snowmelt come in the context of a marked trend over the period of analysis. Regionally averaged spring and summer temperatures for 1987 to 2003 were 0.87°C higher than those for 1970 to 1986.”
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/313/5789/940.full
Why were the wildfires so bad in 1960? Why even bring up wildfires in this thread? Are you trying to assert that wildfires are due to “climate change”?
Alan, I was responding to Climate Dissident’s post.
That’s rather caused by low precipitation. I don’t think a fire which develops a few hundred degrees cares much + or – 1 degree.
Chris,
From the paper you cited, it appears as though large wildfire frequency and fire season duration have been in a 30 year ‘pause’ as evidenced from the graph. I see a step change, not a trend. It would be very interesting to see this analysis extended further back in time to include the drought periods of the 30’s and 50’s. Could this be cyclic?
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/313/5789/940.full
Here is the graph
?width=800&height=600&carousel=1
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/01/more-spectacular-fraud-from-scientific-american/
Ben Palmer said: “That’s rather caused by low precipitation. I don’t think a fire which develops a few hundred degrees cares much + or – 1 degree.”
Of course it matters, +1 degree is a big deal if it means the snowpack melts faster. The higher elevations don’t get much spring and summertime rainfall, and therefor the snowpack is important in helping to maintain moisture for the trees and underbrush. The article I referenced clearly states that.
Chris,
The issue isn’t one degree. Global warming has stopped. So you should stop deflecting.
Your wild-eyed terror is over a natural rise of one (1) part in 10,000 of harmless, beneficial CO2.
Get a grip.
KTM, I’m not sure what Scientific American has to do with this thread, I didn’t reference them. And of course we have far more resources and advance detection systems now compared to 1937. For example, tanker planes that can drop fire suppressant, and the ability to drop smoke jumpers into remote sites so they can dig fire breaks.
dbstealey, I posted a link to a peer reviewed paper that looked at increased forest fire risk using actual data. You could’ve read it and outlined any issues you have with it. But no, as usual, you hide behind your standard platitudes about so few ppm and beneficial CO2. As Yoda would say, the science is weak in this one.
Actually, considering we have been in a recovery from the Little Ice Age, one would expect nearly a 90% chance that by natural variation alone, this year will be warmer than the previous one which was warmer than the one before (at 90% confidence) going back to the mid 1800s.
The fact the world has been warming is not in dispute. Only the “How much?” and “Why?” questions are disputed. “How much?” is disputed because constant undocumented adjustments are made to the instrument temperature record and that record is way too short for the purpose of documenting climate. “Why” is disputed because unimaginative climate scientists think that “because we can’t think of anything other cause” is a good enough argument to condemn all of humanity to short, brutish, and cold lives.
Not all of humanity.
Just that portion that is of no use to liberals.
Just as chances are that the hottest weeks in any one year will happen in July or August (January -February in the South) so the hottest years will happen in the world’s hottest periods. We live in the hottest period in the last 1000 years – so the chances are overwhelmingly high that the hottest years will occur right now. You need no wizard statistician to work that one out.
Thanks for the tip, Mike. I guess if the previous calcs were wrong then we should be wary of any new ones.
I mean, from 1 in 650 million to one in 5 thousand! That’s a discrepancy wide enough for the whole cast of Aida, performing with live elephants. Plus a couple of Boeings.
Yep,
That level of precision requires extremely advanced computer models.
Else they might predict merely 500 times or 50 times or even no times…
I wonder if he sees the irony of “correcting” someone else’s miscalculations, and criticizing their poor methodology? Not only that, but he’s so obviously biasing his own “research” by only compare time frames in which human influence is possible to each other, instead of…comparing them to past climate changes where human influence was not possible. What a baffoon!
Since you ask Climate Dissident, it was a very dry spring season in Tasmania and we currently have a lot of bush fires but a quick look at recent rainfall data doesn’t show any long term decline despite a lot of people’s perceptions.
So does that mean that a 0.3°C, or whatever is currently being claimed, temperature rise causes bush fires? If that is so then the radiant energy emanating from a wild animal in the forest ought to cause the bush to ignite wherever the creature goes.
Thanks for that ;). I’m willing to introduce you to my hiking buddies who would probably back you up on that thought. From my perspective, I think solo hiking has a lot of attractions.
Piltdown mike.
There are very interesting parallels between the climate scare and the ozone scare which older readers will remember. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291833573_ozonePaperResource
Can we just be clear here – that calculating the odds of the temperature exceeding the average temperature for all of a number of consecutive year, month, week, day or whatever period – on the assumption that the temperature for one such period is independent from the next must be a candidate for the MOST STUPID THING EVER ATTEMPTED USING MATHEMATICS.
When I first encountered this kind of proposed calculation (one in Rolling Stone Magazine) I thought that it must have been originally proposed as a kind of scientific joke.
The Rolling Stone version took consecutive months above average and then appeared to have raised the chance of any one month being above average (assumed to be one in two) to the power of the number of months. So, something like 0.5 raised to the power of 272.
And happily for the morons performing this meaningless task, the number before their eyes had revealed itself to be equivalent to approximately the reciprocal of the number of atoms in the universe, or suchlike.
In the same way that grains of rice multiply on the squares of a chess-board, in the widely repeated story.
Unfortunately, had they put down their beers and their calculator for a minute and pondered upon how such a number could have emerged from such a simplistic analysis then it may have struck them that something was dramatically wrong with their starting assumptions and therefore also with the functioning of their own brains. Sadly they were too dazzled by the “great significance” of their own conclusions, and so the number made its way into a “news” article without editorial criticism.
And so we have yet further evidence that Kruger and Dunning may have stumbled upon a significant truth.
Of course a child, when introduced to probability and the calculation of combined odds of two events happening is carefully advised that probability can indeed be multiplied – where the events are INDEPENDENT.
But, in our age of advance university level education for all, such trivial details are seemingly left behind in junior grade. And replaced in the later stage of education with pretension, hogwash and muddled thinking.
Just to check that my recollection of this had not been merely an unpleasant dream – I have redicovered the original article referred to in my above post.
In the article it was 327 months and the number created is suggested to be equivalent to stars in the universe, not atoms.
But the method and absurd conclusion appears to be as tedious and meaningless as I have described.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719
The number of atoms and stars in the universe are, for any reasonable purpose, the same.
According to my analysis of GISS v3 anomalies, here’s a record that still stands: All ten of the ten years ending in 1947 were hotter than ANY previous year in the historical temperature record.
Back then, people noticed that glaciers were on balance retreating and thought, “Huh, looks like the climate is in a gradual warming phase,” instead of getting the vapours (aka “Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder” when it involves those involved in climate research).
And so, as others have already noted, the odds are skewed in favour of seeing a string of the warmest years in the most recent past… regardless of what humans have been doing.
“Natural climate variability causes temperatures to wax and wane over a period of several years, rather than varying erratically from one year to the next
What’s the rule for distinguishing between ‘waxing and waning’ and ‘varying erratically’?
This is dire.
To which we can add a small correction to Mann’s limited understanding:
Natural climate variability causes temperatures to wax and wane over periods of MANY MILLENNIA, rather than varying erratically from one year to the next
MILLENNIA, Mike, you foolish boy, not years. It waxes and wanes over vast stretches of time.
We already have quite conclusive evidence of such change.
Stop trying to sweep the truth about climate under the carpet…
They haven’t adjusted/ cooled 1997 yet.. be patient they’ll get round to it.
There will always be rent seekers leeching upon the public purse. What is incredible is that these ones have been allowed to get away with it for so long.
And been so wrong – every prediction they ever made has been wrong. And yet they still dictate public policy that destroys good people.
600 to 130000 times! Wow, that’s what I call an error estimate! But why 600? Why not -10?
“This “serial correlation” means that the chance likelihood of runs of warm temperature — nine very warm years over the course of a decade — is much greater than if temperatures were uncorrelated from one year to the next.”
You mean a similar effect like what could occur if there were a naturally increasing temperature trend? That temperature isn’t wholly random? Color me shocked. That still doesn’t make it AGW simply because it isn’t random.
But you don’t understand! The handle of the hokey stick was flat as a board. According to the great oracle MM, temperature never changed until evil man started burning coal. (/sarc)
What’s the odds of almost half of those ~1 C of warming disappearing in just 10 days? Oh wait, it just happened in the last 10 days (at least according to the NCEP CSFR reanalysis of WeatherBell) 😉
According to my computer model the Edsel was the most successful new car launch in history, the only problem with the Edsel was that they had limited computer resources back in the 50’s, and they just couldn’t see how much consumers really wanted, needed, and loved that car.
Mann et al are working with heavily adjusted data. I wonder if they haven’t just invalidated the adjustments.
Mann is starting to remind me of Obama and Trump–just a bunch of bloviating rhetoric that should be shunned by any thinking person.
Tut-tut yourself, Mann continues to be quite well discredited by his own efforts alone.
‘Record-setting temperatures over the past century and a half are extremely unlikely to have occurred without human-caused climate change, but the odds of that happening are not quite as low as previously reported, according to an international team of meteorologists.’
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
Global temperature varies over time. We know some of the mechanisms that effect change, but the overall process is not known. “We don’t know what all causes it, so it must be humans.” No. That they can’t figure it out is not evidence for a theory.
Calculation of “odds” is bizarre. A stunt, not science.
I wonder what their conclusions would be if they applied the same technique to the 1910-1940 period, exhibiting an increase virtually indistinguishable from the 1970-2000 period.
That’s the first thing that occurred to my mind when I encountered this particular breed of donkey-poop.
The same exercise could be conducted for the 1910-1940 or 1915-1945 period and the result would be the same.
Except that such a result would not be explainable, in terms of one simplistic theory that the global climate temperature is governed by variation in the levels of one gas.
Please Mr Mann, over the course of the next 12 months, get outside and look around.
If you want high temps:
1. You will see millions of acres of dark coloured ground, exposed to the sun at times when the sun is at its peak strength (late May, early June) Much more than 50+ years ago
2. Massive buildings crowded ever closer together reducing convection in ever growing, dry-as-a-bone, cities
3. Ever increasing numbers of jet-engine exhausts being pointed at thermometers
If you want high carbon-dioxide levels:
1. See those 300, 400 and 500 hundred horsepower tractors digging up that low albedo dirt, exposing it to the sun where the same solar energy that built those glucose and cellulose ‘molecules’ from water and CO2, ever more quickly demolishes them. Look at the annual and daily cycle for the CO2 levels. 60+ years ago, a BIG tractor was 30 horsepower yet even Greek slaves (of ?? horsepower) working for the Romans turned S. Europe into a desert
2. look at all the nitrogen fertiliser being used on farms and understand what it does. Again, see the CO2 graph and how it compares to the graph of N usage.
Meanwhile, Storm Jonas has reached Cumbria with 6 hours of light drizzly rain (so far)
Despite it being a dry week to date (less than 1″ in the last 7 days), that drizzle is sitting in sheets and lakes on farmland around here. On steep slopes it is running into small rivers and ponds. But only on some fields. Why is that Mr Mann? Why is ALL the ground not saturated like the BBC weather-people tell us is the cause of the floods?
Is it not possible that those sheets, lakes and rivers of water coming off the farmers fields will join together and drown out places like Carlisle, Cockermouth, Appleby, Leeds, York, Ribchester, Keswick, Glenridding and Tewkesbury like they did recently, and not-so-recently?
Why also did the water company, owning a reservoir in the Lake District, attempt to fence off the sheep from the reservoir’s catchment?
Why were they blaming grazing sheep for the reservoir filling with silt…….
“saying that much of the last century was from AGW”
Is there a word or two missing from that sentence?
Or are they claiming that CO2 is now responsible for the creation of time itself?
There’s NOTHING it can’t do!
http://cartoonsbyjosh.com/climate-models.jpg
Consider that if you hit a golf ball, it lands on a particular square inch of ground. What is the probability of it landing on that particular square inch. It is very low. But it did land there so it must be a near miracle if the odds are calculated after the event. However, it had to land on some square inch, so unless you chose the square inch in advance, the probability of landing on some square inch is 1. This is the difference of pre picking and post picking data for odds (the latter case is meaningless). Mikey is post picking a run of variation of temperature. There is no reason to suppose climate, which varies up and down over all time scales, would not have run up to the present. This is especially true when the present temperature level is actually near average for the Holocene, as best as can be determined.
Precisely. This is more or less exactly the same observation as the comment which I posted at the same time. See below. First there were observations and then a theory and conclusion were generated to fit.
There is a probability of one that this theory will fit with the observations upon which it is based.
Funny that I pointed out exactly the same in the comment below which appeared alongside yours as I posted. I didn’t predict that. What are the chances of such an occurrence!!! 🙂
Leonard, the statistics of your golf ball type were used in Britain in connection with bombing in central London in WWII. Using the Poisson Distribution and dividing the map of London into squares, they calculated the chances of bombs landing in given squares. They must have assumed, in a blackout, with the accuracy of navigation, wind and humidity effects on bomb trajectories, etc, that there was at least an approximation to randomness. I suppose the degree of “non-randomness” could be calculated from the results to determine the accuracy of the bombing raids.
The sad part is the willful delusion that exists across once august institutions like AAAS, APU, AGU, The Royal Academy, etc. That delusion of course is that studies like Mann’s is actually science. Richard Feynman would of course call it Cargo Cult Science.
What is “Inconceivable” is that Mann, a proven Fraudster, still not only has a job in Academia, but that his complete Idiocy is often quoted as “Science”!
Just a note to summarize the real situation.
The climate tends to transition to warmer and cooler states. These transitions tend to occur over millennia.
The modern world emerged during an overall warming period. (Possibly/probably because such a warming was conducive to the emergence of civilization.)
Foolish humans upon first encountering knowledge of the climate transitions attempted immediately to discern what trend was currently occurring.
Briefly it was believed by some that the second half of the 20th century was a time of cooling. And such cooling was immediately believed by many to be caused by humans and the emission of sunlight blocking pollutants.
Very shortly after the cooling panic, a revised depiction of the post was trends and warming was discerned.
This warming could, of cause, be explained as having been caused by humans. And the explanation was provided by the theory that carbon dioxide would cause an amplified “greenhouse effect”.
Quickly, concerns about man-made cooling were abandoned and largely forgotten.
BUT – whatever the overall climate trend was finally discerned to be – it was either going to be a warming trend or a cooling trend.
So, it can be surmised that the chance of either may have been about 50/50. Or 1 in 2.
Although – considering that ice covered Northern America only 20,000 years ago – the smart money would have been on a continuation of steady warming.
However – an alarmist fantasy of anthropogenic cause would have attached itself to either result.
Since, if it had been cooling then we were to blame and if it had been warming then ditto.
So the chance that humans would have created anthropogenic climate change scaremongering is…
100%.
Not 1 in 650 million. Actually 1 in 1.
There was no possible way that the climate would be perfectly static over the last century.
Since the climate changes.
And whatever the climate did – people like Michael Moron would have based their career on telling everyone that the cause was us.
Apologies, typo alert. “a revised depiction of the post was trends ” should read, “a revised depiction of the post-war trends”.
The chances of someone in 1985 being able to forecast the climate and therefore the global temperature and trend until 2015 within one standard deviation was very low.
The chance of someone making such an incorrect prediction in 1985 and, having the power and position in 2015 to manipulate the temperature record to hide their incompetence, is and was very, very high.
The rest, as they say, is the sad history of the manipulation of the temperature record.
A Disgrace to the Profession, surely?
Sadly no , he is actually a leading light in his profession , which tells you all you need to know about the ‘quality’ of his profession.
I can’t wait to see Mann in the State Penn !!
Look up Jan Hendrik Schon on Google.
Does anyone else see a parallel to what is going on here?
Once Schon’s misdeeds were known, everyone piled on. No one tried to exonerate him.
A more similar case might be the Baltimore Affair. There were attempts at exoneration. It took a congressional investigation to get people to acknowledge the truth. It appears that evidence was counterfeited. If the cops hadn’t bungled handling the evidence someone might have gone to jail.
Yes, I read it. Your are correct. The comparison fits well.
“By contrast, they found that the odds that human activity caused the warming are relatively high. Considering human-caused warming, they find the probabilities of nine of the 10 warmest years and 13 of the warmest 15 years occurring since the beginning of the 21st century, to be 88 percent and 83 percent, respectively, for the Northern Hemisphere.”
But, but…
in (around) 1936 one could have said “we are having 9 of the 10 warmest years since records began” and yet it would be extremely doubtful that humans were causing it then.
Just noticed thallstd @ January 26, 2016 at 5:39 am
making the same point.
It is the main fly in the ointment of this logical fallacy. The problem is they are playing to a non-scientifically literate audience for whom this is a compelling idea and total proof. It is propaganda not science, because it is a political rather than scientific battle they are fighting.
Owen; The question remains, how did this get published in the scientific literature?
“The recent record temperature years are roughly 600 to 130,000 times more likely to have occurred under human-caused conditions than in their absence, according to the researchers.”
LIke the ‘roughly’…
I read Steyne’s book on Mann a couple of weeks ago. Toward the end Steyn said that each new paper from Mann has diminished his reputation among his peers.
So his efforts are having some effect, then.
I think Mikey needed some attention. After all, Nobel prize recipients have feelings too.
according to an international team of meteorologists.
I get it, now meteorologists are the good guys
hmmmm. What are the odds of increasing surface warming over land over the course of a series of El Nino’s (which spreads piled up warm ocean water over the entire equatorial surface much like an oil slick then spreads it even more riding on currents near and far and interspersed with recharging events)? Nah. Couldn’t happen. The fraction of a fraction of atmospheric ppm identified as fuel sourced CO2 increase attributed to humans is the cause, not the elephant in the room.
Mikey is standing in Elephant poop knee deep, and is pointing to the tiny fraction of a human skin cell to tell us the increasing poop in the room is human caused.
Uh, which models, of the dozens, did they actually select or did they simply mash spaghetti together and average again. Which model are they claiming has verified skill? It might be easier to simply verify Mann’s psychological pathology. GK
From Mark Steyn Today : In 2013 I bust up with National Review, for various reasons, some of which I’m not at liberty to disclose but all of which fall broadly under the banner of free speech. I’m very big on that. It’s my core issue. So in the dispute between National Review and me I’m cheering for me. Go, Steyn!
On the other hand, fraudulent climate mullah Michael E Mann is suing National Review for defamation. So in Mann vs National Review I’m cheering for National Review. Because we happen to be co-defendants in that case. Given that it was filed four years ago, I had hoped that even the sclerotic, dysfunctional craphole of District of Columbia “justice” might have got on with it and held the trial by now, but not so. Two years ago I filed a motion asking to be “severed” from National Review and have my own trial, but Judge Weisberg, the second trial judge (don’t ask), gave me the bum’s rush. So we remain yoked together. So, as I said, in Mann vs National Review I’m cheering for National Review, faute de mieux
Info Up Date: Jonas now in the UKhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3416948/Storm-Jonas-killed-41-brings-UK-4-inches-rain-70mph-gales.html
I always find fantastic explanations of Mann’s fraud here. How come nobody has posted any comments here – http://www.nature.com/articles/srep19831 ?
Do the comments just get deleted or never posted? I’m pretty sure their are really smart folks here who can couch their language in such a way as to be considered a valid response to the article. That’s really where we need the comments, even if they get deleted. Around here it’s just preachin’ to the choir.
“Their” should have been “there”. Grrrrrr.
press release from Michael Mann’ it is a mark of the man that once you seen those words you know you will never run short of BS , for hear comes another delivery.
I do wonder how this court cases are going, it cannot be good for his health or that ducking and weaving he keeps having to do.
Isn’t it ~1:7500 chance for 0 of 26 major Atlantic hurricanes to miss U.S. this past decade? It’s akin to not understanding the seasonal cycle and wondering why all the hot days cluster together in July & August. But hubris will never allow one to admit we don’t understand all the variables.
“.. inaccuracy of the previous probability calculations is that the individual yearly temperatures analyzed are not independent of each other.”
A distinguished meteorologist and his colleagues have just discovered this?
“In calculating the odds, the previous reports did not take into account that the data did not end simply because December 31 occurred, but that trends overlap into previous and subsequent years.”
So where is CO2 in all this if the self-correlation of temperatures are causing these things? Look here is the problem with this hottest ever year, correlations between years, the shape of the temperature plot since the LIA and the dreaded “Pause”. (Oh, and what is Mike’s probability of such a thing as the LIA happening). Imagine you are walking towards Eagle Mesa
http://www.wunderground.com/wximage/LoreeJohnson/12
You climb up a steepening slope to the top and then you walk along the top. Yes, the elevation (temperature) went up, but when it reached the top, it paused. Now, as you walk along the top, occasionally you rise up over a small mound in the topo and back down again. This mound represents a ‘record’ elevation you have encountered. You continue your walk and after a time you rise up over a slightly higher mound – gadzooks, you have just broken the old elevation record. What if after all this record excitement, you then started walking down the other side! The ‘records’ are much ado about nothing when you realize you are on a mesa (pause).
Sometimes the things that I read from Climate Inc. are so stupid that they simply make my head hurt for hours. You’d think that whoever came up with those previous odds would be ridiculed and effectively laughed out of the scientific community, but nope. Those fine folks that have the scientific literacy of a 5th grader are still working for NOAA. I wouldn’t trust these people to bag my groceries. This guy has more credibility…
Gary, how about looking at it this way: if CO2 from all sources is such a powerful driver of temperature, what are the odds that the global temperature will drop almost every year from 1945-1976? Again, why is the temperature not rising at anything like the CO2 concentration? If the AG CO2 contribution is rising at a logarithmic rate, why is the temperature not even maintaining a linear increase?
Starting with Mann’s certainties, the odds against the CO2 ‘not working’ are astronomical. The Pause is a truly dreadful thing for it may ultimately lead to the invention of terrible weapons of the most unlikely kind, or an Improbability Drive. The mind boggles.
the probability that a certain year’s temperature is connected with the previous year or more previous years can be established by means of a Markov Chain analysis. Of course that requires a high number of available historical data and I am not sure we have enough of these.
Sorry Guys I just had to post this’; Justin Trudeau says government won’t act as pipeline projects ‘cheerleader’ as Tories did. do you believe this but he will hand out Billions to Bombardier.
So, seeing how much misery was caused by a blizzard and how much money and manpower was required to clean it up, how is it that colder is better? How can anyone with half a brain intentionally want to yearn for an Earth that is colder? The only logical reason is that the advocates of cold are making millions off the warm is bad scam.
Croupier (in French): “Twenty-two, black” [again!]
Rick: “Cash it in and don’t come back”
Customer: “Say, are you sure this place is honest?”
Carl: “Honest! As honest as the day is long!”
If only his motives were as noble. Still, we can’t all be Rick much as we might want to be.
I would love for Mann to calculate the likelihood of Earth’s average global temperature staying the same for 150 years. That is the goal of the alarmist crowd isn’t it? First though, we would have to be able to predict years in advance the natural temperature variations so that we would know what to do to counteract those ups and downs. What is the likelihood of that?
It’s said that when you’re dead, you don’t know you’re dead. I’ve heard it’s the same way when you’re STUPID! After East Anglia and other circle jerks, like at Va Tech you would think this guy would still be in a hole somewhere? Jeez, what an IDIOT!
It’s truly astonishing!
Og live cave of many fathers. Fathers write record on walls. Og read many many colds in past. Much ice. Brrrrr. Og read ice melt, and warm happen. Warm good! Many, many warms! Warms get warmer over time. Many much warms happen. Then ICE! Ice return little bit! Cold come. Brrrrr Then planet shake off little cold. Warm come back! Earth grows! Og’s people thrive.
Og notice pattern on wall. Ice come. Ice stay. Ice melt. Warm come. Og notice more pattern. Warm lead to more warms. More warms lead to much warms. Most much warms after long time no ice. Og make predict. Write on wall. Og track warms. Og make notes. Og dies.
Og’s son now watch. Og son see pattern! Og good! Og smart! Og knew many warms would lead to more warms, and more warms would lead to much warms. Most warms happen after long time no ice!
But today, after spending thousands of tax payer dollars, wasting hours/weeks on a super computer, and forming a “team” to help him, the “distinguished” Dr. Mann announces the same thing only he calls it unnatural and unprecedented and declares such a thing could NOT happen without human influence!
Dr. Mann, you DEFINE the current “state of the art” of climate science in the United States for all the world to see! I’m sure your fellow climate scientists will agree with these “new” findings just as soon as Cook and Company can produce a paper declaring that they do!
Aphan,
Why, that sounds like this esteemed climatologist:
“Here come de heap big warmy. Bigtime warmy warmy. Is big big hot. Plenty big warm burny hot. Hot! Hot hot! But now not hot. Not hot now. De hot come go, come go. Now Is Coldy Coldy. Is ice. Hot den cold. Frreeeezy ice til hot again. Den de rain. It faaaalllll. Make pasty…”
[source]
An oldie but goodie, well worth re-reading.
ROFL! You made my day db! 🙂
I’m still shoveling that 2 feet of Global Warming outside.
NO MORE … Please
The assumption no one seems to have asked has nothing to do with their treatment of statistics.
The assumption they operate on for both versions of the probability calculation is that the models themselves are accurate. This is, of course, nonsense. Even the IPCC in AR5 admitted that the models run hot. So the models collectively are getting things wrong, and nobody knows why (if they did, they could fix them). So you now have models known to be wrong being used to predict the probability of something based on the models being right.
If the error range of the models were taken into account, they’d get numbers so wild they’d not publish for fear of ridicule.
That said, it has been warming since the LIA. A 400 year trend doesn’t just go away. Is there some warming from CO2 on top of that? Most certainly. So if the natural trend since the LIA was (for sake of argument) 4 degrees, and the CO2 contribution was 0.1 degrees, then they wold in fact be telling the truth. Which is that the sum total would be 4.1 degrees and without CO2, it would not have reached 4.1
The real point is that it DOESN’T MATTER if we reached a new high due to CO2! What MATTERS is how much MORE CO2 added to the high? The models don’t know. And increasingly it is obvious that the number is a much smaller contributor to the high than is natural variability. So they’ve gotten the public to take their eye off the pee. The issue is sensitivity which is increasingly low, and only adds to the high as a technicality, not an actual impact that we have to gut the world economy over.
From the sketchy PR about Mann et al (2016 Nature Scientific Reports), it seems they have reduced the statistical sample size to, in effect, include relatively more periods of auto-correlated temps instances. And they found less probability that any warming was man-made as compared what was publicized in some media reports in 2015. But, they claim it is still overwhelming evidence “that the recent [I am guessing since 1998] run of record temperatures might have arisen by chance [naturally] alone”.
Their conclusion “[t]hese findings underscore the impact that human forcing has already had on temperature extremes” relies on the backcasting GCMs endorsed by the IPCC which have be demonstrated by multiple lines of research to contain higher than observed TCS (TCR) and ECS, thus they are giving highly exaggerated attribution of warming to burning fossil fuels during the period of their study.
Contributing to the lack of feasibility of their study is the problematic nature of the arbitrary processes that the makers of the GASTA datasets have devised to yield the so-called “recent run of record temperatures”.
My assessment of the study is it is just a useful vehicle to keep temperature alarm in the news during a low period after the COP 21 Paris hoohah. It looks like nothing more than reprocessing questionable practices of the past misrepresentations of reality using another biased set of statistically convenient tools.
NOTE On Another Related Thought – The WUWT post title calls for “Place your bets!”. OK, I bet the frantic Naomi Oreskes screams at Mann et al (2016 Nature Scientific Reports) that he/they are wrong by being too conservative in finding less of a problem that we thought and she will rant on about how Mann must show it is worse than we thought not less than we (2015 media reports) thought!!!!!!
John
My bet is that within days someone will run the odds of a 9 year warming period occurring naturally in one decade over the course of the past 2000 years or so (or more) and find MANY examples where it has and declare that the odds of it happening now, as well as over and over again in the future, to be extremely HIGH.
I mean seriously. This man has NO IDEA how many times in the recent past that rapid climate change has occurred prior to the industrial age? Does he not understand the glacial, interglacial cycle? Does he believe that the average temperature of the Earth has ALWAYS BEEN what it was prior to 1880? Who was stupid enough to make this man “head” of any department in a university…much less a science related one? My word Penn State…when are you going to get a clue?
“Odds are overwhelming that record heat due to climate change’
by A’ndrea Elyse Messer of the Penn State News on January 25, 2016”
Really A’ndrea Apostrophe? Isn’t that statement OVERWHELMINGLY obvious to anyone? What are the odds that record heat could be due to SOMETHING OTHER THAN CLIMATE CHANGE? Fire breathing dragons? KRAKENS! Elephant farts? Alien space heaters? Gigantic atmosphere sized sweater given to earth as a Christmas gift? COME ON people! The odds are 100%. And no one should have to actually say it outloud, much less conduct a study to determine in it the first place.
But then again, poor girl was raised by parents who put an apostrophe in her first name to make it appear to be “special/different than other” forms of Andrea. She probably views this kind of climate change as special/different from other” forms of it.
We need to convince Climate Inc., to start a climate casino. They can calculate odds on the global average temperature and us deniers can take their bets.
I’ll gladly take a 10:1 payout on 2016-2026 being cooler than 2005-2015. I’ll put up $1,000. If they have high confidence in their state-of-the-art models then there should be no reason for them not to take these types of bets, right?
I quit supporting my beloved alma mater when they hired Mike Mann and named the weather center after Joel Myers. Money talks…ethics walked
Mary, money may talk, but this money is babbling in tongues that no one can even understand, much less take seriously. It’s like I can almost SEE the dollar bills forming lips and foaming…and muttering…and yelling…once in a while a phrase can be understood…”Stupid!”……”Idiots!…….”where’s my tree ring? WHERE IS IT?”
I note that an IAG statistician was involved in this.
As a shareholder I would like to have a look at the methadology.
And ask a few questions.
What are the different metrics and components of each of the ‘human induced’ changes.
What is the CO2 component.
Does a warming world lead to fewer claims, having corrected for population density and shifts as well as value of assets insured?
I put the odds of Mikey being full of crapola at between 27 million and 650 million to one. Give or take.
Let’s look at the raw data for State College, PA, the town where Mann works.
2015 – 1 day 90F or over
2014 – 0 days 90F or over
2013 – 6 days 90F or over
2012 – 10 days 90F or over
2011 – 7 days 90F or over
2010 – 11 days 90F or over
2009 – 0 days 90F or over
2008 – 5 days 90F or over
2007 – 9 days 90F or over
2006 – 7 days 90F or over
2005 – 15 days 90F or over
2004 – 0 days 90F or over
2003 – 4 days 90F and over
2002 – 15 days 90F and over
2001 – 6 days 90F or over
2000 – 0 days 90F and over
1999 – 14 days 90F or over
1998 – 2 days 90F or over
Before Mann’s “study”
1997 – 8 days 90F or over
1996 – 2 days 90F or over
1995 – 11 days 90F or over
1994 – 3 days 90F or over
1993 – 6 days 90F or over
1992 – 0 days 90F or over
1991 – 9 days 90F or over
1990 – 1 day 90F or over
1989 – 3 days 90F or over
1988 – 25 days 90F and over, 1 day at 100F
1987 – 6 days 90F and over
1986 – 0 days 90F and over
Data incomplete 1985 and before. Unlike Hansen, I do not “add numbers” to make up for incomplete data.
Other relevant data: No record highs recorded in State College after 1998.
Observations: 1988 town’s hottest year in last 30 years. 2015 not their hottest year. Not even close. Due to incomplete data cannot make comparison with years before 1986.
Conclusion: Mann’s a first rate idiot and a fifth rate liar.
http://climate.psu.edu/data/city_information/index.php?city=unv&page=dwa&type=big7
Data incomplete 1985 and before. Unlike Hansen, I do not “add numbers” to make up for incomplete data.”
No wonder you cant get the figures you want !!
They obviously got the sign of a critical variable wrong. The odds are reversed.
I think this is hilarious since Dr Mann himself published Knight et al 2005 in GRL showing the AMO was real, pseudoperiodic, persistent in the paleodata for over a millenium and linked to the thermohaline cycle.
And that is a feature of the ~60 year cycle. Which is evident in:
HadCRUT global temperature
AMO
PDO
And yep…ENSO too, although we only have one cycle of data.
The detrended graph of HadCRUT shows the trough to peak rise in temperature is about 0.3 C. And yes it was right at the bottom in 1905 which the IPCC likes to start their century from, and it was right at the top in 2006 when they like to end their century. So, as soon as you spot the obvious cycle, you drop the real amount of warming last century by 0.3 C, therefore showing CO2 is harmless.
After that there’s always the Sun. 🙂
Before automatically dumping on Mann, did anyone read this part;?
“The reason that Mann’s team found the probability of naturally occurring global warming more likely than previously reported in the news, is that the effective size of their statistical sample was considerably smaller than estimates based simply on the number of years available.”
Bruce, and what exactly does that quote mean to YOU?
Yes, and Michael Mann, at one time, said 1934 was hotter than 1997, which makes both years hotter than any year in the 21st Century.
The 21st Century only encompasses 16 years. I’m not surprised that ten of those years might be records for the 21st Century. But they are not records if the 20th Century is considered.
TA
“The recent record temperature years are roughly 600 to 130,000 times more likely to have occurred under human-caused conditions than in their absence, according to the researchers.”
That is correct, if one is only considering UHI.
The climate is not a roulette wheel, we do not know what the “unbiased” outcomes “should” be, and if you dont know that, you absolutely cannot work out the odds of them not being that.
Its just utterly illogical.
In your first post with that MIT wheel of climate, the picture link is broken.
nobody told prof.Mann, how much probably bullshit his models are to predict – thankfully he read the news:
reported in the news — between 1 in 27 million and 1 in 650 million — they are still incredibly slim at between 1 in 5 thousand and 1 in 170 thousand.
Including the data for 2015, which came in after the study was completed, makes the odds even slimmer.
Great!