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

Archive for the ‘forecasting’ Category

Science, and forecasting climate

without comments

Scott Armstrong presented a paper at the International Symposium on Forecasting in Boulder, CO, on 19 June titled “Do Forecasters of Dangerous Manmade Global Warming Follow the Science?”. A pdf copy of the slides is available from ResearchGate, here.

Written by admin

July 5th, 2018 at 12:50 pm

Are we living on a dangerously warming planet?

without comments

The news keeps coming in from the New York Times and other media that there is no longer any doubt that the Earth is getting dangerous warmer. If you believe that to be true, there is nothing that we can say to change your opinion. Only you can do that. And to do so, you first need to address this question: “Could I imagine anything that could possibly change my mind?”

If so, you might be interested in the short article on WUWT titled “Is the Earth becoming dangerously warmer?“. It might provide the information you are seeking.

February 2018 temperatures same as 11 years ago

without comments

The UAH global temperature anomaly for February 2018 was 0.20°C, which is little different from the February 2007 figure of 0.19°C, and lower than January and March 2007 figure of 0.43°C and 0.26°C. The updated chart for the extended (20 year) Climate Bet is at right. Click on the thumbnail chart for a larger image.

Some critics of our recent analysis of the Climate Bet at 10 years argued that  Read the rest of this entry »

Written by admin

March 12th, 2018 at 3:44 pm

Climate Bet starts a second 10 years with cooler month: January 2018

without comments

With Professor Armstrong keen to put his evidence-based no-change forecast to the test for a further ten years, we have updated the Climate Bet chart with the 121st bet month of UAH lower troposphere data. January 2018’s global temperature anomaly was 0.10°C higher than the forecast of no trend in temperatures from the 2007 average, and 0.22°C lower than the “dangerous manmade global warming” Gore/IPCC +3°C per century extrapolation.

Written by admin

February 28th, 2018 at 9:55 am

Tipping point 10 years on: Who won the Armstrong-Gore “bet” on the climate?

without comments

The Challenge

In 2007, University of Pennsylvania Professor J. Scott Armstrong challenged former U.S. Vice President Albert Gore to a bet on what would happen to global average temperatures over the next 10 years. Professor Armstrong’s challenge was in response to Mr. Gore’s warning of a looming dangerous “tipping point” in temperatures. But when even scientists who are expert in a field make predictions about complex situation without using scientific forecasting methods, their forecasts have no value. The proposed $10,000 bet, then, was intended to draw attention to the need to assess the predictive validity of climate forecasts in an objective manner. Read the rest of this entry »

July 2017: Another unremarkable month for the global average temperature

without comments

The  global mean temperature anomaly for the month of July 2017, as estimated by the UAH  climate scientists, was 0.29°C. If it weren’t for the cries of alarm about what Mr Gore and others speculate might happen, there would be little interest in this obscure and unremarkable measurement.

Mr Gore and the IPCC did raise the alarm, however, so here on theclimatebet.com site we will continue to monitor the performance of Mr Gore and the IPCC’s 3°C per century of warming projection relative to Professor Armstrong’s bet on scientific forecasting forecasting and the Green, Armstrong, and Soon (2009) no-change model. With only 5 months of the ten-year notional bet left to run, the cumulative absolute error of the Gore/IPCC projection is 21% larger than the error of the scientific forecast.

On “Alarming Climate: Expert opinions and government funding versus scientific forecasting”

without comments

Kesten Green, Scott Armstrong, and Willie Soon responded to MIT President Reif’s apparently unshaken belief in dangerous manmade global warming in a letter published by WUWT on July 20. The letter starts as follows:

On June 17, we and our co-authors received a response to our letter to MIT President, Professor Reif, raising concerns about his letter to the MIT community in support of the Paris Climate Accord. Professor Reif’s response stated that he was confident in his position on the issue because it is consistent with the beliefs of experts that implementation of the Paris Accord is necessary to save the world from harmful effects of man-made global warming. We are not reassured.

The read the full letter, published on WUWT under the headline “Alarums And Excursions”, here.

Mr Gore’s alarming warming projection too hot for June 2017

without comments

After period of warmer global average temperatures, June 2017 experienced a mean anomaly of 0.21°C. The figure was 0.05°C higher than Professor Armstrong’s forecast, and 0.25°C lower than Mr Gore’s IPCC warming projection. Despite the fall in average temperature and a clear win for the month for Professor Armstrong, 59% of previous months over the course of the bet were cooler.

As always, there were regional variations. For example, the average temperature anomaly over land in the southern hemisphere was (slightly) negative.

For the latest chart and data, click on the chart to the right.

Written by admin

July 13th, 2017 at 10:55 am

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