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 ‘scientific approach’ Category

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.

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

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

May 2016 sees temperatures climb down from El Niño peak

without comments

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.

Written by admin

June 14th, 2016 at 11:08 am

Five warmer months give bet hope for warmers

without comments

We’ve had to adjust the Climate Bet chart to make room for the February 2016 UAH global average temperature anomaly of +0.83°C above the 1981-2010 average. For five months in a row now, Mr Gore and IPCC’s warming projection was more accurate than Professor Armstrong’s no-change-from-2007 forecast. The last time Mr Gore got such a run was in 2010, when the IPCC warming projection was more accurate for the first 10 months of the year.

Overall, however, the errors of IPPC projection are still as much as 40% larger than the errors from the evidence-based forecast of no change.

Mr Gore’s chances of winning the bet must, nevertheless, have improved with the latest figure. To put the data into perspective, if the temperature anomaly remained at or above .437°C for the last 22 months of The Bet—to the end of 2017—Mr Gore would win.

Perhaps Mr Gore will he change his mind and decide that he would like to put some of his own money at stake. He should be aware that the .437°C figure has only been equaled or beaten 7 times over the 98 months of The Global Warming Challenge to date, but that statistic will presumably carry little weight for those who, like Mr Gore, believe in the coming of a “tipping point”.

See the updated Climate Bet chart to the right.

Written by admin

March 12th, 2016 at 10:12 am

September 2015 sees continuation of temperature up-and-down

without comments

The 93 months of the 120 month (10-year) Climate Bet so far has witnessed 45 months in which the global average temperature anomaly increased from the previous month, and 46 months in which the global temperature fell. This pattern, or lack of it, is of course consistent with the Green, Armstrong, and Soon (2009) evidence-based no-change forecast that is the basis of Professor Armstrong’s notional bet with Al Gore. For the latest data, click on the chart to the right.

June 2015 temperatures edge up; remain below Gore line

without comments

An up-tick in temperature anomalies in June saw Mr Gore and the warming scenario score the first win against the no-change forecast since January of 2013, nearly two-and-a-half years ago. The outlook for the dangerous warming scenario remains bleak, however. Over the 7.5 years of the Armstrong-Gore Bet so far—we have now past the ¾ mark—the errors that have arisen from projecting temperature to increase at a rate of 3°C per century are more than 50% larger than the errors from the no-change forecast.

Is it really possible that the simple no-change forecast of 21st Century temperatures is better than the IPCC projections from expensive and complex computer models? Yes, it is. That conclusion is consistent with the evidence presented by Kesten Green and Scott Armstrong in their recently published review of evidence on the effect of complexity on forecasting. They found that using complex methods increases forecast errors relative to the forecasts from simple methods that decision makers could understand by 27% on average. We expect that the results of The Climate Bet will increase that average.

For the latest data from UAH and the progress of the bet, see the new chart to the right.

Tenth International Conference on Climate Change

without comments

The Heartland Institute’s Tenth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC 10) took place in Washington D.C. on the 11th and 12th of June. Scott Armstrong presented a talk based on research with Kesten Green. Slides of their talk can be downloaded by clicking here. A flyer, summarising their evidence on climate forecasting, with links to relevant papers is available, here.

For this who missed the conference or would like to catch talks that they missed, videos of the ICCC 10 talks are now available online here. Scott gave his talk in a session with Anthony Watts and Roy Spencer. Video of their excellent session is here.