Remember that little Global Warming Pause? Yeah...

[Tim Steelersfan]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/07/global-warming-pause-extends-to-17-years-11-months/

It's still here. 19 years and counting. No Global Warming. Those that practice the religion of AGW are noticing the offering plates aren't nearly as full these days.

The Great Pause has now persisted for 17 years 11 months. Indeed, to three decimal places on a per-decade basis, there has been no global warming for 18 full years. Professor Ross McKitrick, however, has upped the ante with a new statistical paper to say there has been no global warming for 19 years.

Whichever value one adopts, it is becoming harder and harder to maintain that we face a “climate crisis” caused by our past and present sins of emission.

Taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on Remote Sensing Systems’ satellite-based monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature dataset, there has been no global warming – none at all – for at least 215 months.

 

[DBS1970]

You simply don't understand then complex climate models.

 

[EdReed4Prez]

You simply don't understand then complex climate models.

 

[PoloMalo43]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/07/global-warming-pause-extends-to-17-years-11-months/

It's still here. 19 years and counting. No Global Warming. Those that practice the religion of AGW are noticing the offering plates aren't nearly as full these days.

Sure, I'll bite Tiny.

There is no 'pause' idiot, it's the rate of warming that has slowed. Nice article from 'Lord' Monckton king of English liars.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/...ate-no-global-warming-for-17-years-11-months/

Lol...probaly reminds you of your own inbred genetics huh Tiny Tim?

Let's see how seriously we should take the pathological liar.............This guy cured HIV in the 80's..You guys just don't get it....

 

[PoloMalo43]

 

[PoloMalo43]

Here the Lord tells us of how he cures AIDS and Delingpole(who someone referenced here) is shown by a real scientist to be the jackass I told you guys he is. 'Intellectually raped'? Yes......yes that's the perfect description! I prefer mind ******, but oh well... semantics.

 

[Steeltime]

Post after post after post after post, yet not one word - NOT ONE - that refutes McKitrick's statistical analysis.

Why? Because Poloelfie is too ignorant in statistics and math to analyze or critique McKitrick's analysis.

 

[PoloMalo43]

Post after post after post after post, yet not one word - NOT ONE - that refutes McKitrick's statistical analysis.

Why? Because Poloelfie is too ignorant in statistics and math to analyze or critique McKitrick's analysis.

Lol! that's it then? Because I refuse to spend hours studying some deniers stats I must be ignorant in maths? What about the fact that Monckton is a pathological liar? Care to address that? I may not be the polymath...lol..Monckton is when it comes to climate science,medical science, political science(his only degree) but I'm pretty sure he hasn't cured AIDS either.

Do you believe he has?

 

[Steeltime]

Lol! that's it then? Because I refuse to spend hours studying some deniers stats I must be ignorant in maths?

The theory that you are too stupid in statistical analysis and math explains why you fail to refute McKitrick's findings. If you in fact can analyze the data and have the ability to do so, your FAILURE to do so is evidence that the data are correct and you avoid analyzing the data because doing so would prove McKitrick correct. Every state has a version of this jury instruction for evaluating evidence:

"You may consider the ability of each party to provide evidence. If a party provided weaker evidence when it could have provided stronger evidence, you may distrust the weaker evidence."

That applies to your rants about McKitrick and doctored data and "oil companies."

Just analyze the data, or shut the **** up. On second thought, just follow the latter instruction.

 

[Steeltime]

What about the fact that Monckton is a pathological liar? Care to address that?

What in the name of all that is holy does that have to do with any point I raised in this thread? I wrote:

Post after post after post after post, yet not one word - NOT ONE - that refutes McKitrick's statistical analysis.

Why? Because Poloelfie is too ignorant in statistics and math to analyze or critique McKitrick's analysis.

So what the **** does Monckton have to do with this topic? Answer: Nothing.

You are so in over your head when you debate with me, you sniveling, know-nothing, assclown. Your distractions, rants, failure to address the actual issues, refusal to analyze the data, and habit of simply saying, "Pfffft, oil company" is what I would expect from a C-/D+ high school student.

It does not pass on a forum where adults discuss issues.

 

[PoloMalo43]

The theory that you are too stupid in statistical analysis and math explains why you fail to refute McKitrick's findings. If you in fact can analyze the data and have the ability to do so, your FAILURE to do so is evidence that the data are correct and you avoid analyzing the data because doing so would prove McKitrick correct. Every state has a version of this jury instruction for evaluating evidence:

"You may consider the ability of each party to provide evidence. If a party provided weaker evidence when it could have provided stronger evidence, you may distrust the weaker evidence."

That applies to your rants about McKitrick and doctored data and "oil companies."

Just analyze the data, or shut the **** up. On second thought, just follow the latter instruction.

Calm down, I know that bi-plane crash hurt, but you'll get over it you're..'special'

Seems like the only one bad at math is McKItrick.....it's in the red.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2014/09/04/daily-mail-touts-mckitrick-study-using-biased-methods/

Daily Mail touts McKitrick study using biased methods to question climate change

Posted on September 4, 2014 by Climate Science Watch

The Daily Mail (UK) has reported on a study by Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph in Canada that, yet again, resurrects the tired old “warming pause” meme. Climate Nexus notes that the study uses methods designed to show no trend; ignores a large body of contradictory scientific evidence; and was published in a journal known to be a “predatory publisher.” McKitrick, a well-known antagonist to mainstream climate scientists, is using bad analysis to reach a pre-determined conclusion.

The Daily Mail (UK) has reported on a study by Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph in Canada that, yet again, resurrects the tired old “warming pause” meme. The study looks at the change in average global temperatures over a narrow timeframe. This is problematic in that short-term variability can affect the trend. For example, studies confirm that the oceans are absorbing an increased amount of heat, allowing surface temperatures to level off temporarily. Scientists agree that over the past 50 years, global temperatures have been rising due to human activity, and this rise is projected to continue.

The study uses methods designed to show no trend.
The study ignores a large body of contradictory scientific evidence.
The study was published in a journal known to be a “predatory publisher.”

The study methodology generates trend observations that are not meaningful.

The study is not statistically rigorous, in that it simply uses a single starting point near the present, and works backwards in time to test if the sample period shows a trend. This doesn’t make a lot of sense as a way to test the accuracy of climate models, which are built to function on far longer timescales. It also isn’t even an effective way to prove a lack of trend. For example, the trend for the period McKitrick highlights is not quite statistically significant, but the confidence interval shows it is equally likely to be 0.19ºC of warming per decade, as it is to be 0ºC. That’s not the same as proving no trend.

One blogger even tried the same technique using simulated data that DID have a constant trend, and found that in 10% of cases McKitrick’s methods would have still showed a pause starting in 1995 or before.

The study ignores previous evidence showing that the pause may be exaggerated.



McKitrick doesn’t have a pristine scientific record either. One of his most blatant mistakes was to measure angles in degrees instead of radians, a basic and extremely important distinction in units of measurement. He is also a well-known antagonist to mainstream climate scientists, inserting himself into the “Climategate” controversy in 2010 by alleging that scientists were “faking the match” between proxy and temperature data.

McKitrick’s study seeks to perpetuate a meme that has been refuted over and over. It uses poorly developed statistical techniques to prop up a pre-determined goal.

 

[PoloMalo43]

I know that one post won't be good enough for you so let's get the opinion of a statistician and professor of ecology.

Richard Telford

I’m an ecologist with interests in quantitative methods and palaeoenvironments. I work as an Associate Professor at the University of Bergen, Norway, in the Ecological and Environmental Change Research Group, and am affiliated to the Bjerknes Centre for Climate Change.

My publication list available from Google Scholar, researcherid.com and ORCID.

https://quantpalaeo.wordpress.com/2014/09/03/recipe-for-a-hiatus/


Recipe for a hiatus
Posted on 03/09/2014 by richard telford

Fake climate sceptics love the hiatus, the period since the strong El Niño in 1998 where global mean temperature has not increased according to their simplistic notions of global warming. The longer the “hiatus”, the more they can deny that climate change will be a problem this century. This gives an incentive for developing methods that report the longest possible hiatus, ideally without obviously cherry-picking the start date.

Professor Ross McKitrick has a new paper in the ever so prestigious Open Journal of Statistics where he reports that the hiatus started in the HadCRUT4 global temperature record in 1995 to the delight of several climate sceptic blogs.

McKitrick uses a regression technique that is supposed to be robust to heteroscedasticity (unequal variance) and autocorrelation to find the trend in the temperature time series. He starts with the last five years of data and tests if the trend is statistically different from zero, i.e. does the 95% confidence interval around the mean include zero. He then repeats this analysis with six years of data and so on until the 95% confidence interval does not include zero. This is declared the start of the hiatus.

But McKitrick has missed an obvious trick. If he had used the 99% confidence interval, he would have obtained a much longer hiatus and impressed the credulous even more. And if he had used the 99.9% confidence interval … This is beginning to to show the problems with the method.

Typically, when testing hypotheses we are interested in rejecting the null hypothesis that there is no effect. McKitrick is interested in the converse, in accepting the null hypothesis as much as he can to make the hiatus as long as possible. So whereas normally we need to be certain that the statistical methods we are using don’t report false positives (Type I errors) more often than they are supposed to (i.e. 5% of the time at p=0.05), McKitrick needs to be certain that his test has sufficient power to reject the null hypothesis when the null hypothesis is false. He doesn’t report a power test. Instead he assumes that because his method is robust to heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation it will give good answers.

The easiest way to run a power test is to provide some simulated data with realistic properties where we know that there is an effect, in this case, that there is a constant trend in the data. McKitrick has provided code on his website. The code is written strangely, as if he is not familiar with the language (hint: matplot), but it is well commented and easy to run.

I’ve simulated data that has the same trend, autocorrelation (an AR(2) model) and residual variance as the HadCRUT4 data since 1970 and applied McKitrick’s method to them. I did this 100 times. Ninety-five percent of these trials show an apparent hiatus lasting at least five years even though the trend is constant. In over 70% of trials, the hiatus lasts over 10 years. In 10% of trials the apparent hiatus started in or before 1995 – the year McKitrick reports. With this method, a hiatus lasting since 1995 is not exceptional even if the true trend in the data is constant. McKitrick’s method is not a tool for measuring the length of a hiatus, it is a recipe for making one.

Start year of apparent hiatus of 100 trials of simulated data with same trend, autocorrelation and variance as the observed global temperature record since 1970. Trials with a hiatus <5 years are allocated to 2014.


Note my simulations do not include hetroscedasticity, as I’m not sure how to estimate or simulate it in an autocorrelated variable. I think hetroscedasticity would tend to make the apparent hiatus seem longer.