Skeptic wins global warming bet

[Quantum Windbag]

Life is just full of surprises, isn't it?

Back in 2007 many commentators, activists and scientists, such as Lynas, said the halt in global temperatures wasn’t real. It is interesting that the Climategate emails showed that the certainty some scientists expressed about this issue in public was not mirrored in private. Indeed, one intemperate activist, determined to shoot my New Statesman article down but unable to muster the simple statistics required to tackle the statistical properties of only 30 data points, asked the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and the Met Office, to provide reasons why I was wrong, which they couldn’t.

What was true in 2007 is even more so in 2012. Since 2007 the reality of the temperature standstill has been accepted and many explanations offered for it, more than can possibly be true! We have seen predictions that half of the years between 2009 and 2014 would be HadCrut3 records (a prediction that now can’t possibly come to pass) which was later modified to half of the years between 2010 and 2015 (likewise.) The Met Office predict that 2012 -16 will be on average 0.54 deg C above the HadCrut3 baseline level, and 2017 -2021 some 0.76 deg C higher. Temperatures must go up, and quickly.

So how long must this standstill go on until bigger questions are asked about the rate of global warming? When asked if he would be worried if there was no increase in the next five years James Annan would only say it would only indicate a lower rate of warming! Some say that 15 years is the period for serious questions.

In a now famous (though even at the time obvious) interview in 2010 Prof Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia confirmed that there was no statistically significant warming since 1995. There was an upward trend, but it was statistically insignificant, which in scientific parlance equates to no trend at all. In 2011 Prof Jones told the BBC that due to the inclusion of the warmish 2010 there was now a statistically significant increase between 1995 and 2010. Since 2011 was cool it doesn’t take complicated statistics to show that the post 1995 trend by that method of calculation is now back to insignificant, though I don’t expect the BBC to update its story.

The lesson is that for the recent warming spell, the one that begins about 1980, the years of standstill now exceed those with a year-on-year increase. It is the standstill, not the increase, that is now this warm period’s defining characteristic.

Winning A Climate Bet

 

[skookerasbil]

more loosing for the nutters

 

[rightwinger]

Statistically insignificant does not mean there was no rise. It means that there is not enough increase to statistically support a conclusion with high confidence

 

[Baruch Menachem]

While most of my heat has been directed at what I consider bogus statistics and hysteria, we do need to remember that continually dumping more dirt into the air year after year does not constitute a good plan.

If we can chill about the global warming goofiness and concentrate on the reality that this is not good because we have to breathe this stuff, we can get further forward.

 

[skookerasbil]

Statistically insignificant does not mean there was no rise. It means that there is not enough increase to statistically support a conclusion with high confidence

"significantly insignificant" has everything to do with it = nobody cares.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Statistically insignificant does not mean there was no rise. It means that there is not enough increase to statistically support a conclusion with high confidence

The bet was that there would be a record temperature. To put that in simple terms, all that was necessary to win the bet was a single temperature that rose above the highest temperature ever recorded. There was not a single record temp during the 4 year span of the bet that rose above highest temp recorded in 1998. That is not a statistical anything, it is a factual data point.

 

[rightwinger]

Statistically insignificant does not mean there was no rise. It means that there is not enough increase to statistically support a conclusion with high confidence

The bet was that there would be a record temperature. To put that in simple terms, all that was necessary to win the bet was a single temperature that rose above the highest temperature ever recorded. There was not a single record temp during the 4 year span of the bet that rose above highest temp recorded in 1998. That is not a statistical anything, it is a factual data point.

Which proves nothing

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Statistically insignificant does not mean there was no rise. It means that there is not enough increase to statistically support a conclusion with high confidence

The bet was that there would be a record temperature. To put that in simple terms, all that was necessary to win the bet was a single temperature that rose above the highest temperature ever recorded. There was not a single record temp during the 4 year span of the bet that rose above highest temp recorded in 1998. That is not a statistical anything, it is a factual data point.

Which proves nothing

It proves he won the bet.

 

[Zander]

Globull Warming believers unite!! Kill yourselves!! Do it for the planet!

 

[westwall]

Statistically insignificant does not mean there was no rise. It means that there is not enough increase to statistically support a conclusion with high confidence

It means that there could also be a statistically insignificant DROP in temps. Either way the run away warming that the alarmists have been harping on is proveably NOT occuring.

 

[westwall]

While most of my heat has been directed at what I consider bogus statistics and hysteria, we do need to remember that continually dumping more dirt into the air year after year does not constitute a good plan.

If we can chill about the global warming goofiness and concentrate on the reality that this is not good because we have to breathe this stuff, we can get further forward.

CO2 is not a pollutant. that is what they are focusing on. I agree that particulates are a bad thing that need to be controlled but, CO2 is an essential gas. The attempt to control that is wasteful beyond belief and harmful on all levels.

 

[wirebender]

Statistically insignificant does not mean there was no rise. It means that there is not enough increase to statistically support a conclusion with high confidence

It means that the percieved rise is so much smaller than the margin of error in the analytical process that no rational statement can be made regarding the claimed rise.

True, it doesn't mean that there is no rise, but it doesn't also mean that there is no decrease, or no standstill. When the margin of error is considerably larger than the change being claimed, the claim means nothing.

 

[Old Rocks]

While most of my heat has been directed at what I consider bogus statistics and hysteria, we do need to remember that continually dumping more dirt into the air year after year does not constitute a good plan.

If we can chill about the global warming goofiness and concentrate on the reality that this is not good because we have to breathe this stuff, we can get further forward.

LOL. Baruch, you really need to read something real concerning global warming. The aerosols reflect energy back into space. In fact, the present 'dirty air' is the one negative forcing that is holding the heating of the atmosphere and surface in check. When we clean that up, as we, humanity, must, there will be a very rapid increase in atmospheric heating.

 

[Old Rocks]

While most of my heat has been directed at what I consider bogus statistics and hysteria, we do need to remember that continually dumping more dirt into the air year after year does not constitute a good plan.

If we can chill about the global warming goofiness and concentrate on the reality that this is not good because we have to breathe this stuff, we can get further forward.

CO2 is not a pollutant. that is what they are focusing on. I agree that particulates are a bad thing that need to be controlled but, CO2 is an essential gas. The attempt to control that is wasteful beyond belief and harmful on all levels.

Here we go again. What a dumb ass arguement. Salt is an absolutely essential part of our diet. So here, just consume a quart of it all at once, it will be good for you. Same arguement as you are making concerning CO2.

 

[Old Rocks]

From 1998 to present, the running average has been, 75% of the time, above any high point prior to 1998. Yet you dingbats are claiming a cooling.

UAH global Temperature for December – no change | Watts Up With That?

 

[daveman]

Hey, Roxy, did you know Tyndall's experiment, the basis for the AGW movement, does not prove what you claim it proves?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/201975-co2-forcings-and-feedbacks-2.html#post4633010

 

[westwall]

While most of my heat has been directed at what I consider bogus statistics and hysteria, we do need to remember that continually dumping more dirt into the air year after year does not constitute a good plan.

If we can chill about the global warming goofiness and concentrate on the reality that this is not good because we have to breathe this stuff, we can get further forward.

CO2 is not a pollutant. that is what they are focusing on. I agree that particulates are a bad thing that need to be controlled but, CO2 is an essential gas. The attempt to control that is wasteful beyond belief and harmful on all levels.

Here we go again. What a dumb ass arguement. Salt is an absolutely essential part of our diet. So here, just consume a quart of it all at once, it will be good for you. Same arguement as you are making concerning CO2.

Only a dumb argument to a cultist like yourself olfraud. For your analog to make any sort of sense you would have to replace the O2 in the atmosphere with CO2. Not the trace amount of gas it is now but you would have to increase it's percentage in the atmosphere to where it was around 70% of the total amount of gas in the atmosphere. Last time I checked that is not what I was advocating.

Nice attempt trying to re-direct the course of my statement but as usual you are so far off the mark as to make a fool of yourself.

 

[westwall]

From 1998 to present, the running average has been, 75% of the time, above any high point prior to 1998. Yet you dingbats are claiming a cooling.

UAH global Temperature for December – no change | Watts Up With That?

No, we're not. There you go lying again!, We mainatain that the temps have leveled off for the last few years, not gotten colder. You, on the other hand keep telling us it is getting hotter, so hot it will melt lead! (OK, I put that last bit in!) but that is simply not true.

For all the magical properties that CO2 is supposed to have it can't seem to overpower the NATURAL drivers such as the solar output, the PDO, the AO, and a whole host of other NATURAL controls to the extraordinarily complex engine that is the climate of this planet.

 

[code1211]

From 1998 to present, the running average has been, 75% of the time, above any high point prior to 1998. Yet you dingbats are claiming a cooling.

UAH global Temperature for December – no change | Watts Up With That?

If the climate heated to a point higher and has now cooled to point lower, there has been cooling.

If you would like to set the parameters so that you reach back to a time when things were cooler, that is just fine. It allows delusion to reign and if that is your goal, then so be it.

The climate warmed and it has stopped warming.

Say it any way you want to say it, but it still comes out the same. The only way to support your case is to omit facts and data.

 

[daveman]

Hey, Roxy, did you know Tyndall's experiment, the basis for the AGW movement, does not prove what you claim it proves?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/201975-co2-forcings-and-feedbacks-2.html#post4633010

Funny -- he ran away from that thread, too.