The Global Warming Challenge

Evidence-based forecasting for climate change

longines,tissot,fake rolex for sale,rolex day date,zenith,rolex datejust,cartier,omega,replica watches,u boat,rolex milgauss,patek philippe,rolex masterpiece,montblanc,rolex replica,a lange sohne,panerai,tag heuer

Letter to MIT President Reif in effort to dispel dangerous warming delusions

without comments

In a letter dated June 2 sent to the MIT Community entitled, “Letter regarding US withdrawal from Paris climate agreement,” MIT President, Professor L. Rafael Reif criticized the decision taken by President Donald Trump to exit the Paris Agreement. In the following rebuttal of Professor Reif’s letter, we seek to clarify the state of scientific understanding of climate. We do so in order to dispel the popular delusions that we are faced with a problem of dangerous manmade global warming, and that the Paris Agreement would be beneficial.

Istvan Marko, J. Scott Armstrong, William M. Briggs, Kesten Green, Hermann Harde, David R. Legates, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie Soon

1. “Yesterday, the White House took the position that the Paris climate agreement – a landmark effort to combat global warming by reducing greenhouse gas emissions – was a bad deal for America.” [Emphasis added to correspond to our comment.] Reif (2017).

To the best of our knowledge, there is no scientific basis unambiguously establishing that CO2 is the main driver of the modest temperature increase observed since the end of the Little Ice Age… [More]

May 2017: Global temperature ticks up for 2 months running

without comments

A good month for Mr Gore with UAH’s global average temperature figure almost on the Gore/IPCC red warming line after two months in a row of increasing temperatures. This is an uncommon event: during the 113 months of the bet, so far, temperatures have increased for two months running only 20% of the time.

Runs of temperature increases or decreases are the exception. Three months of increasing temperatures has only occurred for 6% of the bet months, so an increase again in June would be even more unusual. By contrast, three months running of falling temperatures has occurred for 9% of the 113 bet month.

Despite the warmer month, Mr Gore’s cumulative absolute forecast error remains nearly 22% greater than the error from Professor Armstrong’s Green-Armstrong-Soon no change forecast.

Written by admin

June 7th, 2017 at 12:43 pm

Month 112 of 120 month Climate Bet (April 2017) sees temps near average, again

without comments

April’s UAH temperature anomaly came in at 0.27°C, up from March (0.19°C), but well down on the 2016 average of 0.5°C. With 8 months of The Climate Bet left to run, we ask again, “how high would temperatures need to be over the remainder of 2017 for Mr Gore to win The Bet?”

If the temperature anomaly equalled the high for the period of The Bet so far (0.83°C) for the rest of this year, Professor Armstrong would still win The Bet backing the Green-Armstrong-Soon no-trend forecast. In fact, any plausibly extreme warm temperatures over the remainder of 2017 would still leave Professor Armstrong as the clear winner.

For the latest anomaly and updated Bet chart, click on the small chart image in the right column.

Written by admin

May 23rd, 2017 at 9:01 am

Lindzen on climate alarmism

without comments

MIT professor of atmospheric science Richard Lindzen wrote in his April 25 “Thoughts on the public discourse over climate change”:

Although I have presented evidence as to why the issue is not a catastrophe and may likely be beneficial, the response is puzzlement. I am typically asked how this is possible. After all, 97% of scientists agree, several of the hottest years on record have occurred during the past 18 years, all sorts of extremes have become more common, polar bears are disappearing, as is arctic ice, etc. In brief, there is overwhelming evidence of warming, etc. I tended to be surprised that anyone could get away with such sophistry or even downright dishonesty, but it is, unfortunately, the case that this was not evident to many of my listeners. I will try in this brief article to explain why such claims are, in fact, evidence of the dishonesty of the alarmist position.

To read the rest of his op-ed, see here.

Armstrong interview on Earth Day: “Give us your money and we will save you…”

without comments

“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.”

More…

Written by admin

April 25th, 2017 at 9:49 am

March 2017 cooler than same month 10 years ago

without comments

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.

Written by admin

April 17th, 2017 at 7:40 pm

Global warming forecasts scientific? “People vs. alarmist regulation”

without comments

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…

“No, because:

  1. the only 2 papers with scientific forecasts found no long-term trends
  2. IPCC methods violate 81% of the 89 relevant scientific principles
  3. IPCC long-term forecasts errors for 90-100 years ahead were 12 times larger than the no-trend forecasts
  4. tests on three other data sets, one going back to 112 AD, found similarly poor accuracy
  5. the “long-term global cooling” hypothesis was twice as accurate as the dangerous global warming hypothesis
    Also “no” because the warming alarm…
  6. ignores all 20 of the relevant Golden Rule of Forecasting guidelines; the AGS scientific forecasts violated only one
  7. violates Occam’s razor
  8. fails to comply with any of the 8 criteria for scientific research
  9. fails to provide scientific forecasts of harm to people
  10. fails to provide scientific forecasts that “solutions” will work
  11. fails to meet any of the 10 necessary conditions for successful regulation
  12. 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.

Written by admin

April 6th, 2017 at 2:37 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

February 2017 global average temperature gives Mr Gore’s chances a lift

without comments

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.

Written by admin

March 6th, 2017 at 11:53 am

Politico-Scientific establishment rushes to climate alarm

without comments

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.

alicefeb17.png

Written by admin

February 8th, 2017 at 12:34 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

2017 ends on a cooler note: Gore remains less accurate than no-change after 9 years

without comments

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.

Written by admin

January 8th, 2017 at 10:50 am

Posted in Uncategorized