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.
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 @ur momisugly 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.