“A lot of these people that were marching weren’t familiar with the first Earth Day in 1970. The first Earth Day said, ‘The science is settled: the Earth is getting colder.’ And the government said, ‘Give us your money, and we’ll save you,’” Armstrong told SiriusXM host Alex Marlow.
“The earth did not get colder. In fact, it got a bit warmer,” he noted. “So money was wasted, people forgot. But then last Saturday, we’re told once again that this time it’s really settled, and it’s getting warmer this time. So give us your money, and we’ll save you.”
According to the UAH satellite measure of global temperatures the March anomaly, at 0.19°C, was down from the same month in 2007 (0.26°C), the base year of the Armstrong-Gore “Bet” on whether dangerous manmade global warming was a good forecast. Temperatures cooled during 2007, so the March anomaly, while down strongly from the previous month, is still slightly warmer than the average for the 2007 year, which was a little under 0.16°C.
On the basis of the Green, Armstrong, and Soon (2009) no change (no trend) forecast, Professor Armstrong bet that global mean temperatures during the ten years from 2008 to 2017 would be closer to the 2007 average than to the 0.3°C warming trend projected by the U.N. IPCC and Mr Gore’s alarming “tipping point” rapid rise in global temperatures.
To date, the average monthly signed error of Professor Armstrong’s forecast is -0.01°C. In other words, the no-trend forecast has been on the high-side as much as it has been on the low side of the actual global average anomaly. By contrast, Mr Gore’s IPCC stand-in projection has had an average monthly signed error of +0.15°C, which suggests a strong bias toward warming.
Professor Scott Armstrong presented a talk on this topic by him and Kesten Green at Heartland’s Twelfth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC12) on March 23 in Chicago.
The talk asks the question, “Are long-term forecasts of dangerous global warming scientific?”, and concludes…
- the only 2 papers with scientific forecasts found no long-term trends
- IPCC methods violate 81% of the 89 relevant scientific principles
- IPCC long-term forecasts errors for 90-100 years ahead were 12 times larger than the no-trend forecasts
- tests on three other data sets, one going back to 112 AD, found similarly poor accuracy
- the “long-term global cooling” hypothesis was twice as accurate as the dangerous global warming hypothesis
Also “no” because the warming alarm…
- ignores all 20 of the relevant Golden Rule of Forecasting guidelines; the AGS scientific forecasts violated only one
- violates Occam’s razor
- fails to comply with any of the 8 criteria for scientific research
- fails to provide scientific forecasts of harm to people
- fails to provide scientific forecasts that “solutions” will work
- fails to meet any of the 10 necessary conditions for successful regulation
- is similar to 23 earlier environmental alarms supported by the government: all lacked scientific forecasts and all were wrong.”
A video of his presentation and a copy of a more complete set of slides with links to evidence, is available from here.
After 2 months that saw wins for Professor Armstrong’s bet on no long term change in global mean temperatures, the UAH estimate for February came in at 0.35°C. That was 0.1°C cooler than Mr Gore’s “bet” on the IPCC 3°C per century warming scenario, but 0.2°C warmer than Professor Armstrong’s forecast.
While Mr Gore’s bet had a run of wins recently—from October 2015 to November 2016—Professor Armstrong’s scientific no-change forecast has won 80 of the 110 months of the bet so far. So, while Mr Gore’s favoured dangerous manmade global warming scenario is looking more credible than it has done for almost five years, the scenario’s cumulative absolute forecast error to date is still more than 22% larger than that of the no-change forecast.
The Climate Bet now has only 10 months of its 10 year term to run.
David Rose’s 5 February, 2017, article in the Mail on Sunday has been receiving a lot of attention with its reporting of the rushed publication of a NOAA-authored article in the high-status journal Science in order to “influence the Paris agreement on climate change”. The article’s claim that there had been no “pause” in global warming was not only at odds with other published data, we now know that it was based on “misleading, ‘unverified’ data.”
The Rose article’s headline, “Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data”, hints at how much is at stake over the climate change issue. The article is available, here. Professor Judith Curry provides commentary on the commentary in her blog post titled “Response to critiques: Climate scientists versus climate data”, here. Anthony Watts has also posted commentary at his Watts Up With That? site that includes a chart, which will be of particular interest to Australian readers, that shows raw and adjusted Alice Springs temperature data since about 1880, here. The chart is reproduced, below.
We have updated the Climate Bet chart with the December 2016 global temperature anomaly data from UAH. (Click on the small chart to the right for a more detailed image.) 2016 was a warm El Niño year, but ended with a sharply cooler month at 0.24°C; somewhat closer to Professor Armstrong’s no-change forecast of 0.159°C than to Mr Gore’s IPCC dangerous warming trend figure for December 2016 of 0.443°C.
With the data in for 9 of the Climate Bet’s 10 years, the cumulative absolute error of the dangerous warming trend that the IPCC and Mr Gore warned that we should expect is nearly 23% greater than the error of the scientific no-change forecast that is the basis of Professor Armstrong’s bet. The no-change forecast has been more accurate in 78 of the 108 months of The Bet to-date.
Despite 30 months of The Bet in which the warming trend was more accurate, the cumulative error of the Gore/IPPC dangerous warming projection has been larger than Armstrong/no-trend forecast for all but two months of the bet so far.
November 2016: After 14 months of global average temperatures closer to Mr Gore’s warming scenario than to Professor Armstrong’s bet on no-trend, the Climate Bet is more in contention than it has been for the past four years. Some commentators expectations of a rapid cooling after the recent warm El Niño months have not so far been realised in global average temperature anomaly.
So, with only 13 months of The Bet remaining, what would need to happen to temperatures over that time for Mr Gore to win the bet—had he been willing to take it. After November’s 0.45°C outturn, and a total of 107 months of the bet, Mr Gore’s cumulative absolute error is nearly 21% greater than Professor Armstrong’s. As a consequence, global temperatures would need to average higher than they were in November for the remainder of the bet period. Temperature anomalies have exceeded that level in 9 months of the bet period to date.
Followers of the site may have noticed that we have not posted news items over the past few months. Please accept our apologies. Having overcome some software and administrative problems, we expect to be posting updates regularly for the remainder of the bet period.
From a global average anomaly of 0.71°C for April, temperatures dropped to 0.34°C for June 2016, two months later. The fall in average temperatures of 0.37°C is the largest two-month decline in the history of the Armstrong-Gore Climate Bet, and closely matches the record two-month increase of 0.38°C that occurred between December 2015 and February of this year.
Despite the rapid cooling, June was still relatively warm, and so the month counts as a win for Mr Gore. He needs temperatures to pick up again rapidly, and stay well up, if he is to have a chance of winning the bet, which ends at the end of next year. For the latest data and chart, click on the small chart to the top right of the page.
Advocates of the dangerous manmade global warming hypothesis call for regulations in response to their alarm. Assume for a moment that the alarmists’ feverish scenarios really were going to come to pass… would regulations make the situation better?
The Iron Law of Regulation suggests otherwise. For a new site from Kesten Green and Scott Armstrong that is devoted to experimental evidence on the effects of regulations, see IronLawofRegulation.com.
The May global average temperature was down by 0.16ºC from the previous month as the El Niño weather system weakened. The 0.55ºC May figure was nevertheless still warmer than the earlier, 2010, peak in temperatures. In other words, we have been experiencing the kinds of temperatures that the dangerous manmade warming alarmists have been warning would be harmful. We wonder how much additional net harm (i.e., after allowing for additional benefits) was caused by the warmer average temperatures over the last six or eight months?
For a larger view of the updated Climate Bet chart, click on the small chart to the top right of this page.