Place your bets! Another hotted-up Mann-tastic modeling claim

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.

prinn-roulette-4
MIT’s “wheel of climate” – image courtesy Donna Coveney/MIT

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.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
166 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Nigel S
January 26, 2016 9:10 am

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.

January 26, 2016 9:23 am

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?

January 26, 2016 9:34 am

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!

Aphan
January 26, 2016 10:14 am

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!

Reply to  Aphan
January 26, 2016 10:20 am

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.

Aphan
Reply to  dbstealey
January 26, 2016 12:21 pm

ROFL! You made my day db! 🙂

Neo
January 26, 2016 10:22 am

I’m still shoveling that 2 feet of Global Warming outside.
NO MORE … Please

January 26, 2016 10:24 am

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.

January 26, 2016 10:25 am

{bold emphasis mine – John Whitman}
‘Odds are overwhelming that record heat due to climate change’
by A’ndrea Elyse Messer of the Penn State News on January 25, 2016
“. . .
[PR paragraph 4 of 16] The reason that Mann’s team [Steinman, Tingley & Miller] found the probability of naturally occurring global warming more likely than previously reported, 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.
. . .
[PR paragraph 11 of 16] The researchers note in today’s (Jan. 25) 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.
. . .
[PR paragraph 14 of 16] “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.
[PR paragraph 15 of 16] 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.”

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

Aphan
Reply to  John Whitman
January 26, 2016 12:37 pm

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?

Aphan
Reply to  John Whitman
January 26, 2016 1:04 pm

“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.

RWturner
January 26, 2016 11:32 am

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?

Mary Brown
January 26, 2016 12:18 pm

I quit supporting my beloved alma mater when they hired Mike Mann and named the weather center after Joel Myers. Money talks…ethics walked

Aphan
Reply to  Mary Brown
January 26, 2016 12:39 pm

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?”

Lewis P Buckingham
January 26, 2016 12:46 pm

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?

Bruce Cobb
January 26, 2016 1:10 pm

I put the odds of Mikey being full of crapola at between 27 million and 650 million to one. Give or take.

January 26, 2016 1:33 pm

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

1saveenergy
Reply to  AndyJ
January 26, 2016 1:52 pm

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 !!

Brian H
January 26, 2016 3:18 pm

They obviously got the sign of a critical variable wrong. The odds are reversed.

Bruce of Newcastle
January 26, 2016 4:04 pm

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. 🙂

January 26, 2016 4:23 pm

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.”

Aphan
Reply to  Bruce Atwood
January 26, 2016 8:52 pm

Bruce, and what exactly does that quote mean to YOU?

TA
January 26, 2016 4:30 pm

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

January 26, 2016 5:29 pm

“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.

Tim Hammond
January 27, 2016 12:48 am

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.

MikeN
January 28, 2016 9:56 am

In your first post with that MIT wheel of climate, the picture link is broken.

johann wundersamer
February 6, 2016 7:16 am

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!