Archive for the ‘scientific approach’ Category
“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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
While Mr Gore with his expectation of a “tipping point” and the IPCC with their dangerous warming projection will no doubt be surprised at how low global temperatures have been running, Professor Armstrong with his scientific forecast of no long-term trend in temperatures will not.
The Armstrong-Gore bet has now been running for 7 years and 5 months (89 months) now, and the average global temperature anomaly as calculated from satellite measurement by the UAH team has been 0.12°C. That figure compares with the 0.17°C average for the base year of the bet, 2007. That’s right, the average global temperature over the nearly 90 months since the beginning of the bet has been lower than the average for year the bet is based on.
The non-tipping point that we have been experiencing for more than seven years leaves Mr Gore’s bet out in the cold. His average absolute error to date is 0.22°C. That figure is 55% greater than the error of Professor Armstrong’s scientific forecasts. Yes, the scientific method does work, and can be relied upon ahead of the opinions of experts (even those of scientists) every time!
For the latest temperature data, click on the chart to the right of the screen.
Al Gore predicted the Arctic ice cap would be gone by 2014 due to dangerous manmade global warming. The evidence is in: ice extent is up somewhat compared to the extent when satellite monitoring began in 1979. Professor Armstrong reminds readers of a May 20 article in The New American that there are no scientific forecasts that give credence to claims that dangerous global warming will occur. The article, titled “NASA’s own data discredits its predictions of Antarctic Doom”, is available here.
If Mr Gore really wants to make forecasts that are more accurate, he should learn the Golden Rule of Forecasting. By following the guidelines in the Golden Rule Checklist, he can avoid biased forecasting procedures that can cause forecasts to be less accurate than guessing. For more information on the Golden Rule, and to get a copy of the checklist of guidelines, see GoldenRuleofForecasting.com.
An oft repeated climate forecasting claim is that 97% of scientists agree that there is a problem of dangerous manmade global warming and that human emissions of carbon dioxide must be drastically curtailed in order to avoid disastrous consequences. If that claim sounds unlikely to you, as well as being irrelevant, you are right. Professor Ross McKitrick—a scientific Toto to the climate-alarmist Wizard of Oz—dissects the claim and exposes its lack of substance in his May 11 article in the Financial Post titled, “The con in consensus“.
The London-based think-tank the Global Warming Policy Foundation announced on 26 April 2015 a major inquiry into the integrity of the official global surface temperature records. Questions have been raised about the reliability of the surface temperature data and the extent to which apparent warming trends may be artefacts of adjustments made after the data are collected.
The inquiry will review the technical challenges in accurately measuring surface temperature, and will assess whether the adjustments to the data are biased and, if so, to what effect. For more information, or to make a submission, see here.