0.00 Warming With A Signal To Noise Ratio of 0.00 Increases Scientists’ Confidence In Warming

There has been no warming for 17 years. The world’s top scientists have used this data with a S/N ratio of 0.00 and a high standard deviation, to gain increasing confidence that their catastrophic warming models are correct.

ScreenHunter_12 Oct. 06 07.30

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

In the private sector, they would be laughed out of the room, humiliated and  prosecuted.

Advertisements

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

71 Responses to 0.00 Warming With A Signal To Noise Ratio of 0.00 Increases Scientists’ Confidence In Warming

  1. They were paid to reach a certain conclusion and they reached it. They didn’t need evidence because they knew the required result when they started writing their report. It is nothing but an exercise of “let’s pretend”.

    • Jimbo says:

      Most sensible people dropped their jaws when the IPCC said they were soooooooo much more confident than in 2007. Yet, temps have been flat for 17 years! In which other science would you see this? Ooooops! IPCC stands for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

  2. Sunsettommy says:

    Lionell,

    we have a lot of lemming warmist morons who follow the “pretend” seriously and stupidly.I have tried to deal with one who kept insisting on airborne Carbon as the cause for worry when I tried to tell him is CO2 a molecule that can absorb some IR NOT Carbon a Atom which does not.But he goes right on even in back peddaling fashion continue his stupid babblings anyway:

    http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-2207-post-12589.html#pid12589

    • TeaPartyGeezer says:

      Oh dear. Factoral. Yes, indeed. I went a couple rounds with him about a month ago. He made the exact same posts back then … verbatim. Including the thing about pikas. When I proved to him that pikas were not an endangered species, he tried to back pedal … but I see he is now using pikas, again, to prove his climate change theory. Carbon indeed.

      I have concluded that most AGW proponents are some of the most ignorant humans on the planet. And some, like this one, are most likely certifiably insane.

  3. tom0mason says:

    What your graph conveys is a very settled view of the ‘science’.

  4. I keep thinking warmists are missing the forest for the trees. There is a bigger picture – convection currents created by days and nights, seasons, tilt of the planet, etc. We really can’t control feedback or fine tune the weather, let alone the climate. Can we convince them to look at this from a common sense viewpoint? How much fuel we use/CO2 we create depends much on what the climate/weather does to us. Wyoming and South Dakota are going to be burning a lot of fuel to clear that 48″ of snow…

  5. Tom Ryan says:

    Perhaps there is no warming, but there’s certainly been massive industrial contamination of the air and water throughout the world for many decades. Why don’t Global Warming debunkers crusade against that? This would be something constructive and health-promoting.

  6. Larry Fields says:

    Steven,
    I’m more cautious about those 17 years. In public, I go with 15. Here’s why: If we use 1998 as the base year, a robust cooling trend (assuming that it’s in the cards) would show statistical significance sooner.

    Pachi is nobody’s fool. That’s why he publicly went with 17 years, several months ago (in some Australian newspaper), rather than 15. He was NOT showing generosity toward Climate Realists. It was a medium-term CYA maneuver.

  7. Phil Jones says:

    Another account removed at Huffington Post … For links to this site…

    They just don’t want to hear, just don’t care about any facts nor data contrary to 100% Apocalyptic Global Warming hysteria…. That’s what we’re up against… Mind made up drones…

  8. tom0mason says:

    Steve
    Here’s one to cheer you all up.

  9. Andy Oz says:

    More faux science from the “International Program on the State of the Oceans”.
    I love how a pH of 8.3 is now deemed acidic. Neutral must be pH 9. I’d like to see some of these dopes drink some liquid with pH 9!! It will clean the crap out of them.

    http://m.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/risks-grow-for-antarctic-life-20131006-2v2d3.html

  10. winrob says:

    Is there any mention of Beer-Lambert in the report? Doubtful.

  11. Geoff Wales says:

    Starting at a record high and continuing with record highs? We just had a record high September in Australia, following the second warmest Winter ever. Shouldn’t temperatures be moving back to the ‘average’ by now, if it was all ‘natural variation’?

    • I am not in the business of curing stupidity.

    • Andy Oz says:

      What are you talking about Geoff? Repeating propaganda from the recently sacked Climate Commission? You are talking about weather, not climate.
      In 2010 and 2011 we had massive La Nina years with cool temperatures and high rainfall across Australia. 2012 pretty much average and 2013 is a bit warmer. So what?
      WA has had average rainfall this winter – so what? It’s the weather and it changes year to year – get used to it. We had a massive drought in the 1980’s caused by El Nino.
      Notice Australia’s weather has a close relationship with ENSO?????
      ENSO in the Southern Hemisphere are currently normal.
      http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

      • shez says:

        Hang on. Is there a disagreement on the facts here? Are we all saying that the atmospheric temperature this September wasn’t the highest on record? Was last winter the second warmest ever recorded? I just want to get to the facts.

        Playing the middle man, what changes would you require to occur for you to be convinced that the warming trend was in fact real?

  12. Geoff Wales says:

    I expect rude replies. That’s OK. If you have an intelligent answer, that would be better. When do you expect this unusual ‘weather’ to return to the longer term average?

    • What unusual weather? Are you referring to the 1900 hurricane which killed 10,000 people in Galveston, or perhaps the 1931 flood which killed two million people in China?

      Superstitious people will be humiliated here.

  13. Geoff Wales says:

    Records have always been broken, yes, Record high temperatures have been more frequent than record low temperatures for well over a decade. This cannot be explained simply by referring to natural variation. I don’t have an amusing quip, sorry.

    • Record low temperatures are less frequent because of urbanization – which keeps nighttime temperatures up. In Phoenix, Arizona the National Weather Service has documented eight degrees of nighttime warming due to urbanization.

  14. Geoff Wales says:

    How does urbanization account for the trends observed here?

  15. Geoff Wales says:

    So, I think you’ll agree that it is better to avoid:

    1. Generalising from short term trends.

    2. Using arbitrary start and end points for data.

    3. Using local data to generalise about global climate.

    • It is better to avoid failed theories which continue to exist only because they suit the needs of politicians.

    • TeaPartyGeezer says:

      Geoff … you started out by saying this …

      “Starting at a record high and continuing with record highs? We just had a record high September in Australia, following the second warmest Winter ever. Shouldn’t temperatures be moving back to the ‘average’ by now, if it was all ‘natural variation’?”

      Then you proceeded to advise Goddard against ‘generalizing from short term trends, using arbitrary state/end dates, and using local data to generalize about global climate.’

      Maybe you should follow your own advice. Unless, of course, you were attempting to use satire to make a point … in which case, I apologize.

      • Geoff Wales says:

        No, my statement stands. Records are a bit like ‘heads’ on a coin, the more you get in a row get the more surprising it is.

        • Only problem is that the records you are referring to don’t actually exist.

        • TeaPartyGeezer says:

          You’ll have to excuse my ignorance … my degree was in Accounting, not Climate.

          Let me see if I understand this …

          1. It’s scientifically/statistically correct to generalize from one year. Goddard’s 17 years is only a short term trend.

          2. Using 1997-2013 is an arbitrary use of start and end dates. Using 2013-2013 is not an arbitrary use of start and end dates.

          3. Using temps from part of Australia illustrates global temps. Using ‘RSS MSU lower trop. global mean’ is using local data to generalize about global climate.

          Apparently, my Accounting classes didn’t prepare me for understanding climate science. However, I think my Critical Thinking class did. Your arguments are self-contradictory and hypocritical. You are illogical.

  16. Geoff Wales says:

    Very true. You began this article using a graph that begins in 1996 and shows a period of 17 years. Why did you choose 1996? As you explained, data needs to be seen over longer time periods to see whether trends exist. What if you start in 1895, as you did in the graph just above? Is there a trend? Have there been other ‘pauses’? Were they higher or lower than the most recent one? Is a sustained high pause over 17 years significant?

    • Geoff, I am starting to realize that you aren’t particularly bright,

      • Alan says:

        I dont know if that would make him bright or not but they were the kinds of questions I was taught were relevant to ask about an unbiased statistical analysis at University.
        Steven: When I tried to reproduce (aka:do science) your graph at Wood for Trees I needed to use 1996.9 as my start year. ??
        Also if I used other data sets (UAH) derived from the same satellite data I got a warming trend Warming trend on UAH data for same period I tend to always use UAH as it is computed by some guys that say Climate change is not Anthropogenic so that UAH data ought be if anything biased against finding a trend yet it does have trend for your zero period.
        I am suspecting the IPCC guys did their science/stats little more rigorously than you just did and consulted multiple data sets and multiple time periods. They may also have used other better statistical techniques that for instance allowed for the sun cooling down as part of its 11 year cycle in that period. trend in suns output over the same period should have caused some cooling

        Also to answer Geoffs question.
        Yes taking short trends is certainly and demonstrably a problem. Here is one for an overlapping time period. Note how while the worlds temp has been “no warming” for 17 (or so) years according to how Steve _chose_ to analyse the data in an overlapping period analysed the same way the world was simultaneously warming faster than the IPCC said.
        contradictory results using just linear interpolation This shows you cant just use linear interpolation on a data set to show what is happening in a time period.
        There are other graphs that show that too. My guess is the IPCC looked at lots of data to reach their conclusions.

        • Alan says:

          Oh yeah mistakes are easy oops, my bad, your wood for trees data starts in 1997.
          But the point still remains that the result of no trend that you got is anomalous, not robust across data sets and gets contradictory results for overlapping periods and does not allow for things such as the sun cooling over the same period.

      • Sunsettommy says:

        I agree since he is showing his profound ignorance on what the IPCC projected for the first two decades of this century.It is .20C for EACH of the first two decades.

        Maybe if I just use the first 10 years would be enough to show how bad the IPCC is:

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2011

        Slight cooling.

    • gofer says:

      The warming trend was less than 15 years when they started the global warming scam.

      • Alan says:

        And the theories about CO2 causing global warming due to it measured physical properties actually started before we raised the worlds Co2 levels significantly. It wasn’t until we actually raised Co2 levels that they had measurements confirming it happened in practice. And now when analysed using robust statistical techniques the measurements do confirm Co2 causes global warming.

  17. Geoff Wales says:

    Insults are easy, Steve. I may not be particularly bright, but I’m never rude. I’m wasting my time hoping to learn anything here.

    • In order to prove a theory, you need to demonstrate that it works all the time.

      The burden of disproof is much easier. You just need to prove that the theory fails once.

      • Alan says:

        Hey Steve I proved your technique of linear interpolating data, over short time spans gives self contradictory results. Trend 1998-2013 disagrees with overlapping trend 1992-2006. Hence as “You just need to prove that the theory fails once.” I take it you now think I proved your analysis technique wrong as I have one case where it fails to make sense at all.
        An actual statistical analysis of the period on short time scales requires that you allow for the confounding natural variation. When you do that, and allow for the cooling effect the sun should have had over your 17 years then you get warming continuing.
        here is what happens when we put your technique in perspective
        3 trends get whatever answer you want technique
        Steve if I go back to what you were saying in say 2006 Will I find you ringing the alarm bells because at that time your technique linear interpolate the last n years could have been claiming ridiculously fast warming.

        Also Steve, if there has been no warming since 1997. And the trend up to 1996 is also shown on the graph above… do you have nay actual explanation why the world suddenly stepped up to the start of your linear trend?

        Your analysis makes no statistical or Physical Science sense as near as I can tell.

        • So the emperor is wearing clothes after all?

          The desperation from alarmists to hide the failure of warming predicted climate models has stepped off into the absurd.

          BTW : Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, cooling the planet for several years. By 1997, temperatures had rebounded back to what they were prior to the eruption. It has actually been 22 years without warming.

        • Alan says:

          Steve when I look at your reply below has No reply option so I put it here.
          You seem to be saying something I said was ‘absurd’ would you please clarify what.

          It is indeed true that Pinatubo (volcano) is a natural forcing that should be taken into account when working out warming trends that is ONE or the reasons using 1992-2006 and a simple linear trend is a faulty technique. Changes in solar intensity is another reason it is bad analysis technique. HOWEVER, changes in solar intensity and el nino frequency also effect the period you used to show no warming. And even then it only has no warming on the RSS data set and not on the UAH one. Your technique of choosing a period and ignoring all these other factors is why you get the result that is different to the long term trend. There is no evdience for a deviation from the long term trend in your data/analysis/observation.

          That seems very reasonable to me and not the least absurd. Please explain what you find absurd with what i have said.

        • Alan says:

          There appears to be a max reply depth of 4. So the above reply is to comment above it.

  18. Geoff Wales says:

    I see a pattern here. When somebody challenges you, you resort to name calling and other schoolyard bully tactics. I expected more from you, Steve – but I am ‘particularly stupid’.

    Did I cause offense that I should be insulted? Is there something about ‘climate change’ that causes normally rational people to turn ugly? Very strange.

    • Well, try saying something intelligent then – for a change.

      Temperatures have not risen for the last 17 years, during a time when models forecast them to rise exponentially. That means the models have failed.

    • Andy Oz says:

      Dear Geoff,
      I never speak or write on Steven’s behalf, but can I offer the following. If you have just found Steven’s site, please take some time to read some of the thousands of entries on the basic CAGW theories along with comments and cross references submitted by regular climate scientist commentators. Steven’s been writing this blog for quite a few years (I’ve read it for over 3) and has had regular troll attacks by the “rapid response” alarmist wackos. I notice he and quite a few others have little patience when answers to a commentors questions are already on the blog or are on government websites, and people want to be spoon fed rather than go find the answer to their question. If you haven’t discovered how this scam is all about money and political control and you don’t want to find the evidence on this site, then start by reading Michael Crichton State of Fear and then there is a BBC YouTube doco from 2007 that details the scam. If you don’t believe it’s about money, look up Point Carbon and discover how big the fraudulent carbon credit market is. If you are a true believer in climate alarmism then you can expect to be challenged robustly on Steven’s site who doesn’t censor comments like all the Alarmist sites do. At least not until they show how utterly clueless they are like Reggie the blowtorch and a few others. It’s entirely your choice. If your theories can’t handle the blowtorch of the very knowledgable regulars here, then they are obviously flawed. And claiming the UNIPCC is the font of all climate science just lights the fuse here. Challenge the data presented if you dare. Steven hasn’t spammed you yet.

      • Glacierman says:

        Well said. It is always difficult to believe when a newbie shows up and acts like they just started looking into this – Oh I just want you to educate me….., but post at rapid fire rate, just like all the other climatechatterbots that try and try and try.

      • Geoff Wales says:

        “blowtorch”? You mean calling me stupid, clueless or wacko? Climatechatterbots? How childish is that? How does it achieve anything? It just drives people away, leaving a group who all agree with each other. That’s not how you grow and learn. I haven’t advance any theories or referred to the IPCC. I have asked reasonable questions which have not been answered. Perhaps you need to be a little more careful.

        People will always disagree – they can either be rude or courteous. Which one is likely to achieve anything?

        I’m not interested in your political spin, sorry. I’d rather understand the science. Are you suggesting that some papers are falsified or wrong? The IPCC does not produce the science, as you probably know. So lets leave them out of it.

  19. Geoff Wales says:

    “Simply including an ad hominem attack in a reader comment was enough to make study participants think the downside of the reported technology was greater than they’d previously thought,” the study authors wrote.

  20. Geoff Wales says:

    More ad hominem attacks, no answers. I didn’t come here to find out about things I already know. I came here to find out more about alternative or contrary POV so that I can better understand weaknesses in my own understanding. That seems like an impossible task.

    • Gamecock says:

      Whah.

    • TeaPartyGeezer says:

      Please don’t be so condescending and/or disingenuous. You do not want to ‘better understand weaknesses in you own understanding’ … you came here to demonstrate to us that your understanding of climate was superior to ours. If you truly wanted to “find out more about alternative or contrary POV”, you could have simply and quietly visited the website a few times and read Goddard’s posts and our comments.

      But no. You had to start right out by complaining about the recent weather in your small part of the world and implying that it was proof of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming … and dared us to prove you wrong. Gee, I can’t imagine why Goddard and his readers here would take offense at such a display of simple ignorance … and arrogance. And you’ve not said much since then to disabuse us of our original opinion of you. In fact, you’ve spent most of the rest of your time here whining about how you’ve been treated.

      You’re hardly an original thinker. Trolls like you are a dime a dozen. They pop in and out of skeptical websites on a daily basis. I, for one, am not going to apologize for being impatient with you and your kind. We grow weary of dealing with people who parrot nonsense with little to no understanding of science, history, logic, or common sense.

  21. Sunsettommy says:

    Well Geoff Wales,

    you started off with a stupid comment because you whine about a few months period:

    “Starting at a record high and continuing with record highs? We just had a record high September in Australia, following the second warmest Winter ever. Shouldn’t temperatures be moving back to the ‘average’ by now, if it was all ‘natural variation’?”

    While Steve was talking about a 17 year time frame:

    “There has been no warming for 17 years. The world’s top scientists have used this data with a S/N ratio of 0.00 and a high standard deviation, to gain increasing confidence that their catastrophic warming models are correct.”

    Within that 17 year time frame is the gigantic 1998 El-Nino,a large 2010 El-Nino,and three deep La-Nina drops as well.There was some considerable variation that averaged about 0.00 over all.

  22. Sunsettommy says:

    Geoff continues to be dumb or is he playing dumb?

    He writes this still indicating that he has forgotten the title of the comment thread:

    “I expect rude replies. That’s OK. If you have an intelligent answer, that would be better. When do you expect this unusual ‘weather’ to return to the longer term average?”

    Here is the headline of this blog post:

    0.00 Warming With A Signal To Noise Ratio of 0.00 Increases Scientists’ Confidence In Warming

    You whine over and over about a few months of hot weather while the RSS temperature database show NO WARMING TREND FOR 17 YEARS!

    Of course there will be some hot weather somewhere,but there will also be some COLD weather someplace else at the same time.You are being a nutbag for ignoring the point Steve is making is that there is NO WARMING TREND going on for the last 17 years.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s