Is the Earth Becoming Dangerously Warmer?

Guest essay by J. Scott Armstrong

In his 2007 book, Assault on Reason, former U.S. Vice President Albert Gore claimed that “many scientists are now warning that we are moving closer to several ‘tipping points’ that could, within as little as 10 years, make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet’s habitability for human civilization.” Ten years later, the results are now in, or so UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Patricia Espinosa would have us believe. In the first week of May 2018, the UN released its annual report with the conclusion that “Climate Change is the single biggest threat to life, security and prosperity on Earth.” And, on May 23 this year, an editorial in Nature published projections of severe economic damage from dangerous global warming. So is the Earth really becoming dangerously warmer?

In 2007, Kesten Green, from the University of South Australia, and I published “Global Warming: Forecasting by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasting.” In it, we evaluated the forecasting methods the 2001 U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) used to derive their forecasts of dangerous warming. We concluded that their methods violated 72 of the 89 relevant forecasting principles in the Principles of Forecasting handbook. Even a single violation could render a forecast useless. The IPCC report included nothing to suggest that the authors were aware of the enormous improvements in forecasting methods and principles over the past century. (See here for the most recent description of methods, principles, and evidence).

The IPCC used selected expert opinions about the effects of carbon dioxide levels and other variables to create computer models that provide the numerical and graphical basis for their “scenarios”—detailed stories of “possible” futures. Scenarios have no validity for forecasting, as they are based only on experts’ ideas about what might happen. In practice, the use of scenarios encourages extreme forecasts and gives decision-makers unwarranted confidence in the forecasts. (See a review of the evidence.) Other experts consider the IPCC’s scenarios to be implausible; see, for example the Global Warming Petition Project, which was signed publicly by more than 30,000 [scientists and engineers].

In 1980, I published a review of research on expert forecasts. The review led to the conclusion that experts’ forecasts about complex uncertain situations are no more accurate than those of non-experts. Most people resisted the conclusion, resulting in the Seer-Sucker Theory: “No matter how much evidence exists that seers do not exist, suckers will continue to pay for the existence of seers.”

This general conclusion about experts applies to environmental issues. For example, at the first Earth Day in 1970—when global cooling was a major concern—a widely quoted expert, Paul Ehrlich, predicted that between 1980 and 1989, four billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish due to lack of food and other resources.

The above failings prompted me to challenge Mr. Gore to a ten-year $10,000 bet on the most accurate way to forecast global temperatures. The bet was proposed as an objective effort to focus attention on assessing the accuracy of alternative forecasting methods. I forecasted that there would be no long-term trend. Interestingly, this is consistent with the IPCC report’s conclusion in their technical section on forecasting, which stated that due to the complexity of the problem: “the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” (That observation was ignored in the IPCC’s administrative summary.) My forecast is also consistent with the Golden Rule of Forecasting, which is to be conservative when forecasting in an uncertain situation. Nevertheless, I was not highly confident that I would win the bet due to the common range of natural variation over a ten-year period.

Mr. Gore declined my challenge. So, I used the 2001 U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projection of 3°C-per-century warming as a relatively conservative forecast to stand for his undefined but rather alarming sounding “tipping point.”

Kesten Green monitored the bet from 2008 through 2017 by using monthly satellite data from the University of Alabama at Huntsville. Satellite data are more reliable than land-based stations, which are often contaminated by poor maintenance, elimination of stations, urban areas, and unexplained adjustments to historical data. Furthermore, in line with the IPCC report’s concern—“reverse the decline of observational networks in many parts of the world. Unless networks are significantly improved, it may be difficult or impossible to detect climate change over large parts of the globe”—the satellite data cover the whole Earth. Thus, we refer to the satellite data graph as the “Whole Earth Thermometer.”

Which method provided forecasts with the smallest errors? Over the 120 months of the original “bet,” ending on December 31, 2017, the absolute errors of the no-trend forecast were 12% smaller than those of the IPCC’s “dangerous warming” projection.

I am extending the bet by ten years. My bet is that the no-change model will be more accurate over the 20-year period beginning in 2008 and running through 2027, retaining 2007 as the base year.

I am confident about winning the extended, 20-year bet. Why? In 2009, Kesten Green, Willie Soon and I published a paper in the International Journal of Forecasting in which we compared the accuracy of forecasts based on the IPCC projection with the accuracy of no-trend forecasts. The IPCC authors had explained that, “global atmospheric concentrations [of carbon dioxide, etc.]…have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750.” So, we used the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre’s complete land-temperature data from 1850—when the industrial revolution was in full swing—through 2007. We made forecasts every year from 1850 through 2007 (the complete series) to forecast one-year-ahead, two-ahead, and so on, up to 100-years-ahead. As the forecast horizon increased, the IPCC forecast errors increased consistently and rapidly versus the no-trend forecast. For horizons 91to100 years, the errors were, on average, 12.6 times larger than those from the no-trend forecast. To our knowledge, that paper is the only peer-reviewed article published in a scientific journal that provides long-range forecast of global mean temperatures that complies with scientific forecasting methods and principles.

In 2014, we used the same procedures to analyze temperatures covering the 1,820 years from 116 through 1935, (the complete time series) again finding no evidence of warming. Instead, the forecast errors of the global warming hypothesis were twice those of the global cooling hypothesis, which, in turn, were twice as large as the forecast errors from the no-trend model.

Finally, Kesten Green and I contacted experts for examples of situations analogous to global warming, and also consulted the literature. Out of 71 analogous situations, 26 met our criteria that the alarm was: (1) based on forecasts of human catastrophe arising from effects of human activity on the physical environment, (2) endorsed by experts, politicians and the media, and (3) accompanied by calls for government action. The government acted in 23 of these 26 situations (e.g., DDT, acid rain, global cooling, and mercury in fish.) All of those alarming forecasts were based on experts’ opinions, rather than valid forecasting methods. None of the forecasts came true. The government policies were found to be harmful in 20 of the situations, and beneficial in none. (Green and Armstrong, 2011.)

Failing scientific evidence to support their case, advocates of the dangerous manmade global warming hypothesis have turned to the “Precautionary Principle,” which argues that uncertainty—ignorance about the situation—requires immediate action. That is a political principle, not a scientific principle, and the appropriate citation for it is George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.

In contrast, I suggest that you ignore expert opinions about climate change. Instead, follow the Golden Rule of Forecasting to be conservative. In addition, monitor temperatures using the objective Whole Earth Thermometer along with a predetermined benchmark year, whether Gore’s revelation or the first use of satellite data, to determine whether there is indeed a very long-term warming (or cooling) trend that goes dangerously beyond normal variations before considering actions.


Dr. J. Scott Armstrong is a Professor at the University of Pennsylvania. In the interest of full-disclosure, he states that he is biased toward more warming because, in his opinion, the Earth is below its optimum temperature level.

Advertisements

96 thoughts on “Is the Earth Becoming Dangerously Warmer?

  1. In general, the effect of an increase or decrease in temperature can be estimated by examination of a growing / hardiness zone chart, like this one for the United States:

    http://sealevel.info/zones-2015_129pct.png

    If you compare the scale-of-miles to the zone sizes you can see that a 1°F change in temperature is equivalent to a shift in latitude of about 30-40 miles — barely noticeable.

    From the rule-of-thumb in Hansen 1988 (“A warning of 0.5°C… implies typically a poleward shift of isotherms by 50 to 75 km…”) we get 34.5–51.8 miles per 1°F change in temperature, which seems a bit high.

    (But the zone shift might be a little more than that, since hardiness zones are mostly determined by low temperature extremes and freeze timing, and global warming is predicted to mostly increase nighttime lows in winter, with little effect on summer highs.)

    Now compare that 30-40 mile shift to the range of climate zones where most crops are grown…

    E.g., potatoes:

    http://potatoesusa.com/us-potato-industry/us-growing-regions

    or wheat:

    http://media.barchart.com/cm/articles/cache/a4e1560a45cce5761e34586e2d100248.jpg

    or corn:

    http://www.robinsonlibrary.com/agriculture/plant/field/graphics/corn-usmap.gif

    The claims that a degree or two of warming will devastate agriculture do not pass the laugh test.

    • Heat makes the rate at which wheat grains fill faster. This is known to create individual grains that weigh less if temperature above varietal optimum.

      In certain kinds of tested wheat temperature 1°C above optimum accelerated grain filling by 3.1 days quicker resulted in 2.8mg lighter end product. Other researchers estimate that for every 1°C above optimum wheat kernels obtained were 1.5mg lighter.

      When look at studies demonstrating higher CO2 boosts wheat yields we need to know the temperature trialed. One early (1998) researcher using 660 ppm CO2 found that at only 1°C extra that CO2 gave a 25% higher yield & 5 shorter days of growth. Giving 2°C extra gave a 16% higher yield & 10 shorter days of growth at 660ppm CO2. Yet once giving 3°C extra gave only 2% higher yield & 13 days of shorter growth at 660ppm CO2. And once wheat strain grown 5°C above optimum yield declined by 32% despite grown at 660ppm CO2.

      My personal assumption is that advances in crop science will meet climate challenges.

      • I don´t know if it can be qualified as ironic but the fact is that the infamous Mann´s temperature versus time hockey stick graph is actually a plant growth versus time graph where tree ring width is used as a proxy for temperature. So even the Mann himself acknowledges that plants grow more as temperature increases.

      • You have wheat growing in southern Texas and wheat growing in northern Alberta. What is the temperature difference between the two locations.

        • Hi Bill Illis,
          Am writing on small tablet & see my reply posted 2 June 6:59am way under other comments below, if interested. I also added the following detail there, which may or not have come through.

          Individual wheat grains develop from the meri-stem (stem cell niche) on a spikelette. Spikelettes develop on a spike during what is called the “double ridge stage”.

          Higher than optimum temperatures at this double ridge stage speeds up that shoot apex phase. Consequently there is less time for spikelettes to develop on a spike before flowering.

          • Here’s my misplaced comment:
            Texas sows “winter” wheat for harvest on average from May 25th to July 7th.
            Alberta harvests it’s wintering over wheat around mid-August.

            High protein Durham wheat, favored for pasta manufacture, is sown in spring. Alberta can grow Durham & most for U.S.A. is grown in the Dakotas (ie: not a Texas crop)

        • But with different kinds of wheat, planted and harvested at different times.

          Of the five classes of wheat, ie hard red winter, hard red spring, soft red winter, white and durum, HRW predominates on the Great Plains, but the farther north you get, barley and rye become more common.

          In the inland Pacific Northwest, soft white wheat is the most common class. Even among HRW, different varieties and planting regimes occur.

    • Reposting the links with https instead of http, so that the images will embed:

      U.S. growing / hardiness zone chart:
      https://sealevel.info/zones-2015_129pct.png

      Potatoes:
      https://sealevel.info/potatoesusa_growing-regions-us-map.png

      Wheat:
      https://media.barchart.com/cm/articles/cache/a4e1560a45cce5761e34586e2d100248.jpg

      Corn:
      https://sealevel.info/robinsonlibrary_corn-usmap.gif

      Sorghum:
      https://oregonstate.edu/instruct/css/330/six/images/ashar.gif

      Sorghum is an important crop from South Dakota to the southern tip of Texas. That range runs from the southern edge of zone 4 to the southern edge of zone 9, a span of 50°F = 28°C in average temperature. Potatoes, wheat & corn have even wider distributions.

      Obviously, claims that one or two degrees of warming will devastate crops do not pass the laugh test.

      In the real world, farmers are adept at adjusting strain selection and planting dates, to optimize yields for their locales. Studies which ignore that, and plant the wrong varieties, at the wrong times, can create the appearance of deleterious effects which will never happen in the real world. The technical term for that is “junk science.”

      A lot of junk science gets published in high-profile, peer-reviewed journals:
      Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, by John P. A. Ioannidis, 2005. PLoS Med 2(8): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.

  2. ManBearPig will never take the bet. I agree, the Holocene Climatic Optimum seemed to be aptly named, and it was rather warmer than the present.

  3. Upon further reflection, Gore was the greatest threat to the planet. It was a near miss comparable to a mile- wide meteor passage inside the moon’s orbit. He is only a fading menace today, but orbital return is possible with Bernie cycles.

    • An impact would result in the devastation of 100 Manhattens.

      Seriously, look for more warming warnings as Summer is arriving in the regions of the world where most people lve.

      • Devastation of 100 Manhattans – is that a good thing or a bad thing? Assuming most of us don’t live anywhere near Manhattan. Or are we talking about drinks at a bar?

  4. “The IPCC used selected expert opinions about the effects of carbon dioxide levels and other variables to create computer models”

    I was not aware that the IPCC did any models.

    • The IPCC models are called the RCPs, the Relative Concentration Pathways, from which they generate their “projections”. Remember how often we have been reminded that they do not make predictions, only projections.

      • I think you will find they are Representative Concentration Pathways.

  5. I think the full quote from the IPCC is actually worse than you suggest:7

    “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.”

    How exactly does one go about accurately predicting a probability distribution? When the future comes around, all you get is a single occurrence. How can you ever measure the accuracy of your predicted distribution at a given point in time with only a single state at any given point in time? It’s all just a pointless mathematical exercise that cannot be scientifically tested.

    • Kurt,

      Bingo. You can neither prove nor disprove the validity of such hazy speculations. There’s one reason for that, which I can think of. It keeps fear-mongers employed for decades or more.

      • Wow – no sooner do I post on a theory that represents a single unique event using a probability distribution, than I seemingly appear to be in two distance places, mere minutes apart. Maybe Schroedinger had it right after all.

      • ‘We don’t know where, we don’t know when… but something terrible is going to happen.’
        Robin Williams

      • Kurt in Switzerland,
        I’m reminded of the section in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy where the computer, Deep Thought, tells the philosophers that while it is compute-bound calculating the meaning of life, the universe, and everything, they will have millions of years of guaranteed employment speculating on what the answer will be.

      • It wouldn’t matter how many lifetimes we live, when the thing they are predicting is a time-variant “probability distribution” where the only check on the accuracy of the distribution at any future point in time is a single sample. And remember that the individual samples themselves are multi-decade (e.g. 30 year) averages.

        You can never test the accuracy of the probability distribution (the ensemble output of the models), ergo the purpose of the model simulations can’t be as a learning exercise to discover the behavior of the actual climate system. Instead, the whole exercise is premised on the unfounded assumption that the models are accurate, and the model output is presented in such a way as to minimize the risk that the models will be invalidated; so long as the actual future climate falls anywhere within the probability distribution, they get to say that the climate is consistent with the models.

    • It sounds like they think they will get a better guess by averaging a bunch of guesses. An average of several guesses is no better than any one guess on its own.

      Averaging wrongness does not equal less wrongness.

      • The only correct mathematical interpretation of an average of a series of guesses (or predictions) is as a measure of an expected value of a next sequential guess (or prediction). No statistical measurement of a series of guesses (predictions) is relevant to the behavior of the system you are guessing about (predicting) because the data you are collecting relates to the hypothesis of how the system behaves, and is not data about how the system actually behaves.

        When scientists treat the output of computer models as if it were actual data of the modeled system, they are literally fabricating data. In what other scientific discipline is it acceptable to fabricate data?

        • Your last sentence is a good description of the problem with models not just in climate science (where models predominate) but other disciplines as well. As Prof Hajek said abut an epidemiology study:

          “The model only reflects whatever spurious assumptions are put into it. Starting with the opposite assumptions would generate the opposite result. This is no route to a scientific finding.”

          Recently a bunch of serious climate scientists were arguing with Matt Ridley on Twitter that their models were producing “emergent data” that “proved” what ECS is. Either you are using known, accepted data to calculate ECS, in which case there is no doubt about it whatsoever and it can probably be calculated on a hand calculator, or you are using assumptions that are just assumptions to calculate it within the model and therefore it is just another assumption.

    • I think they got confused with weather forecasting with the typical “80% chance of rain”. I don;t mind that – because there will be many, many days with similar conditions when I can check if it rains 80 days out of 100.

      But as you say, there will only ever be one June 2nd 2018, and having a range of probabilities of what that might look like is pretty pointless.

    • I will predict that in 10,000 years we will be well on the way to another ice age.

  6. I’m going to make a long-standing bet that in ten years, we’ll still be hearing scare stories about ‘tipping points’, still another ten years out.
    And it’ll be worse than they thought.
    Just like we got ten years ago. And ten years before that.

    • I experience tipping points several times a week. Sometimes I tip distilled amber colored liquids. Sometimes I tip fermented fluids of varying colors. Other times I tip waitresses well. I have even been known to tip a green stick with a sausage… or a marshmallow…. and toast them to perfection over a toasty fire, before consuming them with the aforementioned fermented fluids.

      None of these tipping points have had an adverse effect on the global climate…. but they do seem to improve the local ambiance and cordiality of all involved participants.

      Don’t worry, tip and be a happy!

    • A fine example of the no-trend method of forecasting. I would not bet against you, Joel.

  7. In the first week of May 2018, the UN released its annual report with the conclusion that “Climate Change is the single biggest threat to life, security and prosperity on Earth.” And, on May 23 this year, an editorial in Nature published projections of severe economic damage from dangerous global warming

    Which is absolutely true…

    Climate Change is the biggest threat…because it is utilized by Big Green as a hammer to pull government funds away from places that the $$$ are really necessary.

    Severe economic damages from dangerous global warming is also true because $$$ that could be put to good economic use are instead being squandered on Big Green Schemes like unreliable low density “renewable” energy like (Solar and Wind) or (Biomass that involves tearing up the Carbon Sink)

    • Bryan! Your observation is absolutely Brilliant!!! Just add the word “Story” to “Climate Change” and you hit the Bullseye!!!

  8. In 1980, I published a review of research on expert forecasts. The review led to the conclusion that experts’ forecasts about complex uncertain situations are no more accurate than those of non-experts. Most people resisted the conclusion, resulting in the Seer-Sucker Theory: “No matter how much evidence exists that seers do not exist, suckers will continue to pay for the existence of seers.”

    Philip Tetlock researched that for a couple of decades. It’s true. A dart-throwing monkey is generally better at predicting the outcome of uncertain events than are experts.

  9. I would like to see a calculation of the cost (total including construction and property purchase) for an electrical storage system (Battery, Pumped storage, Gravity driven rail cars, etc,) for just each of the 100 largest/most populous cities in the USA providing a capacity equivalent to one week electrical usage.
    Now how many nuclear power plants can be built for that same price?

  10. “The review led to the conclusion that experts’ forecasts about complex uncertain situations are no more accurate than those of non-experts.”

    Experts fall back on what they have been trained in. Specifically in most cases this is training in a Gaussian distribution and uncertainty of an event termed in a sigma level. Nassim Taleb in his seminal Black Swan argues Mandlebrot’s fractals are the better way to judge uncertainty in the occurrence of rare events in the world around us.
    Fractals are scale invariant. Fractal is the word Benoit Mandlebrot coined to described the broken and rough repetition of geometric patterns at different scales. The smallest parts resemble the whole.
    Nassim Taleb also quotes in his BlackSwan book Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan talking about market volatility blurted out, “I’d rather have the opinion of a trader than a mathematician.”

    Non-experts are like the experienced sailor who knows and can read the winds and the sea far better than an expert in oceanography and wave-mathematics. They are the 70-year old farmer whose been on the land for his entire life and knows when he’s being sold snake oil by charlatans like Catherine Hayhoe on her climate change droughts.

    Weathermen and climate projectionists like to push the ideas of 100-year events, 500-year events, or 1000-year events. In a Gaussian world this makes sense. But in a fractal world, it is nonsense.

    So it is Ellicott City MD getting hit by what Gaussian thinking Forecasters called a 500-year flood event in 2016, only to have it happen again in last week (two years later, 2018).

    In short, the climateers exploit the fractal patterns of nature to claim increasing extreme events tat defy the Gaussian sigma.

    • Agree. Climate isn’t becoming more extreme. What is changing is the length of time we have been observing.

      And what we are observing is not a coin toss. Rather it is a toss of the dice in which the number of dice is changing with each toss.

      Predict the value of the next toss.

    • “So it is Ellicott City MD getting hit by what Gaussian thinking Forecasters called a 500-year flood event in 2016, only to have it happen again in last week (two years later, 2018).”

      The Ellicott flood has probably been covered in other posts but I’ve read and heard media reports several times over the past week that this year’s flood was a once in 500 year event.

      Granted, the source is Wikipedia but …

      “Ellicott City has had major devastating floods in 1817, 1837, 1868, 1901, 1917, 1923, 1938, 1942, 1952, 1956, 1972 (Hurricane Agnes), 1975 (Hurricane Eloise), 1989, 2011, 2016, and 2018. The 1868 flood washed away 14 houses, killing 39 to 43 (accounts vary) in and around Ellicott City.”

      Based on 10 floods during the 1900s, this year’s flooding was a 50 times in 500 year event. I wouldn’t recommend Ellicott City for real estate investment.

  11. From Al, it might have been better stated, “in as few as ten years or as many as ten million years we’ll have some quantity of change”.

  12. All you can say for sure is “weather happens”. Excessive heat, excessive cold, excessive rainfall and drought, with varying mixtures and degrees. This whole media circus over it is only a cover for the underlying global political coup intended by the progressive socialist activists like Gore.

    Since we’re mentioning Gore here…

    Pinwheels and Mirrors

    A long time ago (in the 80’s or so),
    Al Gore warned that warming would soon be alarming;
    “Our children won’t know what it’s like to see snow!
    Our atmosphere we must stop harming!”

    He’d studied in college, Revelle and Strong’s knowledge.
    Then, over years of political careers,
    He pondered this notion: The atmosphere and oceans
    Are useful to raise public fears.

    He made presentations to all the world’s nations.
    His film (sci-fi trash) was a box office smash!
    Academy sensation! Oscars, nominations
    And copious currents of cash!

    Then unto him fell the Peace Prize, Nobel…
    Authority, on him was now vested.
    (Debates he must quell, for he knows quite well:
    Models failed when reality tested.)

    So, grew the meme of anthropogenic extreme.
    While insiders profited highly,
    Those who objected were quickly subjected
    To ridicule (and regarded vilely).

    Pinwheels and mirrors now litter the lands…
    Power lines, mile after mile.
    On high plains, sea cliffs and desert sands
    Our vistas, they now beguile.

    But, collectors of government subsidies
    Find them a beautiful sight,
    These mechanical menaces… begging a breeze
    Or a sunbeam to make their cost right.

    Decades upcoming threaten cold’s icy numbing-
    Nature’s cycles, in concert, are waning.
    The slowness to warm should have cancelled alarm,
    But Al never ceases campaigning:

    “We humans are bad, with our fossil fuel fad,
    It’s a fast-building carbon disaster!
    And now it’s two-fold! It’s causing the cold
    And the hotness to come so much faster!”

    Yet, while he’s pleading that all should be heeding
    His carbon reduction ambitions,
    He hopes you’re not seeing his own footprint being
    Hundreds of families’ emissions.

    Let’s hope he’s thought out, while jetting about,
    The messages of his actions.
    By far they outweigh any words he might say,
    In the minds of the wiser factions.

  13. Is the Earth Becoming Dangerously Warmer?

    No.

    I’ll tell you what is becoming more dangerous though.:After a cold late spring, local government here is not keeping up to speed with clearing the vegetation from the sides of local roads and cycle paths.

    Increased CO2 and warmer temperatures can certainly be expected to make green things grow more vigorously, and I have anecdotal evidence that it may be happening. Would I want to forego the ensuing increase in all life-forms, fueled from the base up? No. Never. What I want is for them to employ more lawnmowers, not more people who claim that life is going to hell in a handcart. They are not scientists.

    Satan, I will give you my soul for all eternity if you rid us of these idiots.

  14. When?
    Highest Recorded Temperatures:
    Table of the highest recorded temperatures for each continent..
    Place……………………………………………..- Date -……Fahrenheit
    North America- (Death Valley), —- July 10, 1913——– + 134.0 F
    Africa- Kebili, Tunisia——————- July 7, 1931 ——- + 131.0 F
    Asia- Tirat Tsvi, Israel————- June 21, 1942 ———– +129.2 F
    Australia- Oodnadatta, South Aust,–Jan. 2, 1960 ——- + 123.0 F
    Europe- Athens, Greece————- July 10, 1977 ——– + 118.4 F
    South America- Rivadavia, Argentina Dec. 11, 1905—- +120.0 F
    Oceania- Tuguegarao, Philippines— April 20, 1912 -=- + 108.0 F
    Antarctica*- Vanda Station, Scott Coast- Jan. 5, 1974 — + 59.0 F
    http://wmo.asu.edu/
    In the words of physicist Prof Howard “Cork” Hayden:
    “If the science were as certain as climate activists pretend, then there would be precisely one climate model, and it would be in agreement with measured data. As it happens, climate modelers have constructed literally dozens of climate models. What they all have in common is a failure to represent reality, and a failure to agree with the other models. As the models have increasingly diverged from the data, the climate clique have nevertheless grown increasingly confident — from cocky in 2001.
    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/02/climate_consensus_con_game.html

    *Antarctic Record Temperature Con
    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/03/02/antarctic-record-temperature-con/

  15. “the UN released its annual report with the conclusion that “Climate Change is the single biggest threat to life, security and prosperity on Earth.””

    Actually, the biggest threat to life, security and prosperity on the planet would be the UN.

  16. “In his 2007 book, ……….. within as little as 10 years,”

    …and temps flat lined

  17. In his 2007 book, Assault on Reason, former U.S. Vice President Albert Gore claimed …

    Apparently he thinks an assault on reason is a bad thing.

    If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by things that go with good judgment. He is not hampered by a sense of humour or by clarity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing certain sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason. Chesterton

    When I was young, we had a thing called wisdom.

    Wisdom or sapience is the ability to think and act using knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense, and insight, especially in a mature or utilitarian manner. There appears to be consensus that wisdom is associated with attributes such as compassion, experiential self-knowledge, non-attachment and virtues such as ethics and benevolence.

    Folks like Al Gore valorize facts and logic over knowledge and experience. John Ralston Saul makes the point eloquently in his book Voltaire’s Bastards.

    Reason, devoid of wisdom, is highly overrated and, in fact, quite dangerous. What unbridled reason produces is mostly castles in the sky and climate science.

  18. 1) How many positive feedback loops are there in nature?

    2) Still waiting for evidence that current events are unique or even unusual in EARTH’S history (not just the last 100 years or a model of the last 100 years).

    I think one of the biggest little problems we have in science now is that the press releases don’t match the data, but the public consciousness is being pushed by (and pushes against) the press releases, not the data. On top of that you have the community defending the press releases as if they were the data, and you have an awful mess.

    • How many positive feedback loops are there in nature?

      How about avalanches? 🙂

      There are a myriad of cases in engineering where you analyze system responses. I can’t think of any cases where you invoke feedback analysis unless you have actual amplification. It’s just not necessary.

      I am not a mathematician but I suspect that Dr. James Hansen’s invocation of feedback is bogus.

  19. The Precautionary Principle is a crock. The damage done by “doing something” is far worse than that caused by dealing with any reasonable climate changes. Switching to renewables will cause major deaths from power outages when cold snaps happen for example. High winds already have caused problems with wind farms being out of commission in the winter. Oh and how do you restore an infrastructure that is comprised of solar farms and wind turbines destroyed by hurricanes and other storms in some reasonable time? Look at Puerto Rico. Where’s all the power going to come for those electric vehicles? How much ecological damage will have to be caused to field enough solar panels and wind turbines?

    • Money diverted to build and fund renewables is money that could have been spent bettering the lives of people. Which means that people who could have been saved by the devices that weren’t invented will die.

      • Oh please. Trump is slashing foreign aid, that has nothing to do with what the US spends or does not spend on renewable energy. In fact, Trump is cutting what the US spends on renewable, AND still cutting foreign aid.

  20. Fearful global warming has become a nursery rhyme that many people love too much to surrender to reality.

    It, thus, will be around for as long as Santa or the Tooth Fairy.

  21. Just noting that my comments blink out of view and only show up later, so I have no chance to edit them, and I know that there is an editing feature here now, and so I seem to be banned from using it. (^_^). I best damn well get it right the first time. No editing for me. Keeps it interesting, I guess. I’m just glad I was finally directed to the site’s new location. If that message would not have appeared on the old site, I don’t know when I ever would have gotten here, … which might have been a blessing for some, if I didn’t.

  22. A whole .9c change since the Little Ice Age ended which pails in contrast to other temperature changes from earlier periods. I would go so far to say the period of temperature after the Little Ice ended to present is one of the most stable periods the earth has ever had for temperatures.

    So this talk about the earth getting dangerously warm is ridiculous.

  23. “Which method provided forecasts with the smallest errors? Over the 120 months of the original “bet,” ending on December 31, 2017, the absolute errors of the no-trend forecast were 12% smaller than those of the IPCC’s “dangerous warming” projection.”
    But which forecast got it right? You forecast no change; the IPCC forecast warming. And it warmed. A lot.

    “Kesten Green monitored the bet from 2008 through 2017 by using monthly satellite data from the University of Alabama at Huntsville. Satellite data are more reliable than land-based stations, which are often contaminated by poor maintenance, elimination of stations, urban areas, and unexplained adjustments to historical data.”
    They aren’t more reliable. UAH V5.6 gives a much different answer than V6.0. But they also don’t measure what the IPCC was predicting. I’m sure you can find a “forecasting principle” to explain why that little detail doesn’t matter, but they don’t.

    • How much warming would have been measured if there had not been a super-nino? Atmospheric warming reflects ocean oscillations, not the reverse.

  24. 70s in Utah. The 80s were hot, and lively, and hot. 80s a couples of weeks ago. 40s a couple of days ago.

    • Dry air in reality doesn’t hold heat a whole lot better at .04% CO2 than it does at .035%, does it?

  25. > —“reverse the decline of observational networks in many parts of the world. Unless networks are significantly improved, it may be difficult or impossible to detect climate change over large parts of the globe”—

    Send moar money!

    This needs to be saved for future derision.

  26. J.Scott Armstrong
    You will win your bet.
    The UAH record is a very good barometer, but when anomalies are used in a dynamic enviournment and there is no historical detail or follow up analysis both in location and time of year to determine why the temperature changed it can be misleading.

    An example was a comment with a UAH report early 2016 that a certain place in Russia warmed by 7 degrees from -27 to -20. My own research identified the only thing that occurred was that wind direction changed bringing in warm air. Yes it was warmer, had a significant influence on the anomalies but was simple to identify.

    The satellite era has coincided with increased ocean heat release that heads poleward altering the 2 meter anomaly, and the example in the above paragraph.

    Ocean heat release volume also affects various downstream phenomenon within the atmosphere via displacement, that has been an interest of mine. When looking at the trends on down stream effects over the satellite era, you are safe in doubling your bet.
    Regards

    • The UAH measurement while full of integrity and accuracy is only one dimension of recording heat release and relocation in a multidimensional dynamic system.

  27. “…we evaluated the forecasting methods the 2001 U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) used to derive their forecasts of dangerous warming. We concluded that their methods violated 72 of the 89 relevant forecasting principles in the Principles of Forecasting handbook.”

    But at least they got 17 of 89 principles right. That’s good enough for government work. Besides, they have the “good intentions” of saving the planet from an infestation of human parasites. So such noble ends justify the means. /Sarc

  28. How can a temperature that the Earth has exceeded 5 times in the last 10K years, be dangerous?

    • Err … maybe because 10K years ago there weren’t 7.6 billion people on the planet with their attendant infrastructure.
      But just guessing there (sarc).
      Question: why is the above not obvious to you?

  29. Scott believes “…the Earth is below its optimum temperature level.” This is an important point that I don’t think gets enough attention. What is the probability that during the 4.5 billion year history of Earth it just happened to be at the optimum average global temperature at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution? Having just come out of an ice age, which isn’t friendly to vegetation, it is unlikely that the average temperature was too high. Obviously, there was a need to be warmer. Would two or three degrees suddenly bring the world to a Tipping Point, or a catastrophe? Considering that it has been warmer in the past, it is unlikely. The bottom line is that it is important to ask the question, “What is the optimal average global temperature?” Until that question is answered, it is premature to be running around predicting catastrophe. Attempting to prevent further warming might actually be the wrong thing to do. The point is, as with so many things related to climate, we really don’t know what we should do. Certainly, it shouldn’t be the analogue of “Ready, fire, aim.”

  30. OK, is the clock ticking on my window of opportunity to edit my submission while my comment is in moderation?

  31. “Satellite data are more reliable than land-based stations, which are often contaminated by poor maintenance, elimination of stations, urban areas, and unexplained adjustments to historical data”

    nope. the best proof is the very changes the uha team have had to make to their record. the structural uncertainty is very high.

    further.

    1. despite some stations being dropped, more have been added. over 45000 now.
    2.you can eliminate all urban stations and get the same answer. in our database there are 12000 stations with no urban area within 50km
    3. adjustments are explained and independently verified.

    pro tip..look at the satellite code before you talk outside your area of competence.

    • Mosher,
      Adding new stations doesn’t help the problem of historical continuity and guarantee that the new stations are measuring the same thing as the old stations. GCMs predict that temperatures and precipitation in the future will change different amounts in different areas. So, unless the new stations are added to the same climatological regions in the same proportion as those that have been dropped, there will be a bias introduced. Even so, there is no assurance that the new stations are representative of what the old stations were measuring because of the possibility that the microclimates are different.

  32. “The forecasts in the Report (IPCC AR4) were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing. Research on forecasting has shown that experts’ predictions are not useful in situations involving uncertainly and complexity.” (Armstrong and Green, 2007)

    Experts’ opinion is called the Delphi method of forecasting. Named after the ancient Oracle of Delphi. According to legends, the priestess inhales hallucinating fumes before speaking her prophesies. When high on drugs, the young beautiful priestess was often raped by the men who purport to seek “her wisdom.” The Delphi method seems to be a fitting name for a forecasting method as scandalous as the ancient Oracle of Delphi.

  33. Author: “see, for example the Global Warming Petition Project, which was signed publicly by more than 30,000 climate scientists.”

    Not 30,000 climate scientists.

  34. Models (forecasting) all have inherent limitations – faulty representation of phenomenon lacking full understanding. I spent most of career and all of retirement fixed on statistical models. I’ve become more of a “proof in the pudding” guy.

    Instead of quibbling over the modeling of highly erratic and extremely complex systems I prefer to focus on whatever detrimental results we’re really concerned about. “Climate change”, “global warming”, “CO2 levels”, etc are all dubious labels used to advance hidden agendas from every latitude on the planet. None have easily definable noticeable direct effects on any individual.

    The primary concern (my opinion) WITH a noticeable direct effect on almost 70% of the world population is SEA LEVEL. All, seek for yourself, don’t let me guide you, look at the sea level trends for the past century and the current trend 21st century across the globe from many sources.

    It is alarming to say the least for whatever reason; some say climate change (possible) others say undefinable (problematic). Blaming is the tools of fools; instead self actualization (find for oneself) sees through the BS because the individual triumphs regardless of your orientation or persuasion. Tc, jim.

  35. Which method provided forecasts with the smallest errors? Over the 120 months of the original “bet,” ending on December 31, 2017, the absolute errors of the no-trend forecast were 12% smaller than those of the IPCC’s “dangerous warming” projection.

    Except that Armstrong conclusively lost his own bet. He bet “no-trend”, while the IPCC predicted in 2007:

    For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.

    And what actually happened? Using UAH or GISS, a trend well above 0.4°C per decade:
    https://i.imgur.com/pBiA5rO.png

  36. Texas sows “winter” wheat for harvest on average from May 25th to July 7th.
    Alberta harvests it’s wintering over wheat around mid-August.

    High protein Durham wheat, favored for pasta manufacture, is sown in spring. Alberta can grow Durham & most for U.S.A. is grown in the Dakotas (ie: not a Texas crop).

  37. Q: Is Earth becoming dangerously warm?

    A: No. The only side effect of any kind is the hot air generated and emitted by those who worship at the Table of False Prophets (Profits). for their (greed) opinions are sought and feed an emotional need for hysterics.

    This entire thing has become a false religion followed by people who eschewed real religion. The empty spot that requires an amorphous cloud-being to look up to is satisfied by cloud images of Algorbull and his ilk, and other such amorphous entittes. When seasonal changes take place, they will declare these to be manifestations of their prophesies and demand sacrifices of their followers in the form of more bicycles, EV autos, and the use of non-carbon origin heat and light sources. When these things fail, they will blame the failure on those who drink highballs at golf clubs and attend baseball games as a collective of false worship.

    If only we could stave off the return of the ice sheets with these believers!

    – This message brought to you buy chocolate chip cookies, hot tea and a good book like ‘Call of the Wild’ or ‘Moby Dick’.

  38. The latest figure from UAH satellite gives 0.18 C anomaly for May 2018. Based on long term trend from 1979 the increase is 0.13C per decade. Don’t forget that that was calculated from 1979 which was a period that had been cooling for almost 40 years. So the start date of satellite measurements started from a global low. No wonder the long term trend is positive. Even so 1.3C in a century is not alarming at all. I sure would welcome an increase of 1.3C for the next century. A billion others in northern climates would too. The increase would be more at higher latitudes than at the equator so the billions at the equator would not feel the change and the plants would love it too. They will also welcome an increase in CO2 levels.

    THIS GLOBAL WARMING HOAX IS A FARCE ON SO MANY LEVELS. We need more CO2 NOT less.

  39. I believe that this is the real ‘money’ quote from the above article:

    “The government policies were found to be harmful in 20 of the situations, and beneficial in none.”

    There is a profound truth in this statement that appears to apply across the entire entire spectrum of human endeavour: ‘The effectiveness of human problem solving is inversely proportional to the number of people the problem solvers claim to represent.’

    This law is not just rooted in observation, but in fundamental philosophical issues involving free-will, the freedom of choice and the illusion of control. The most dangerous person to everyone in the ‘room’, is the one who believes that he knows best for everyone in the ‘room’, and is willing to use force to implement what he believes.These are the ones who leave the most dead people in their wakes.

    Consequently, we are in much more danger from those who want to ‘save’ us from climate change, than we are from climate change.

Comments are closed.