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 ‘willie soon’ Category

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

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

Why uses satellite data – revisit

without comments

In a recent (12 February 2016) article, Willie Soon, David Legates, and Christopher Monckton revisited the topic of measuring global temperatures and explained why satellite measurements are superior to terrestrial thermometer measures. For readers who would like a refresher on why it is that The Global Warming challenge adopted satellite temperature data as the criterion for judging the outcome of the Armstrong-Gore climate bet, see the Soon, Legates, and Monckton article “What do we know about CO2 and global atmospheric temperatures”, here.

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.

La Stampa interviews Armstrong on Gore bet

without comments

The Italian newspaper La Stampa published an Alain Elkann Interview of Scott Armstrong on Sunday April 12 titled “J. Scott Armstrong: “Vi spiego perché le previsioni sul clima sono sbagliate”” here. Alain was particularly interested to know about the subject of Professor Armstrong’s challenge to Al Gore to bet that temperatures will increase dangerously, as Mr Gore has threatened will happen.

Regular readers of this blog will be familiar with the Challenge, but for those of you who are not, or who are interested to read a fresh summary of what scientific forecasting tells us about 21st Century temperatures, you can find the full interview in English on Alain Elkann’s own site here. For those of you who have friends who are struggling to make sense of the dangerous manmade global warming alarm, the interview is a good place to start.

Can’t fault the science? Attack the scientist

without comments

March 2015 saw a new low in public discourse about what changes, if any, to expect in climate over the 21st Century with The New York Times running a high-profile article attacking a scientist who is skeptical about the dangerous manmade global warming alarm. The article suggested that the scientist, Dr Willie Soon, should have provided information about his employing institution’s funding arrangements. Say what?

Was the article part of a larger investigation by NYTimes reporters that found that all scientists routinely report the details of their institutions’ funding, and any other arrangements or relationships that readers of their papers might find interesting… except Willie Soon? If they did, they must have forgotten to mention that in their article.

Is there any reason that Dr Soon was singled out for this “special” treatment, other than the unpopularity of his conclusions about the global warming alarm with the NYTimes reporters and their friends in alarm? We can’t think of any.

It appears that the alarmists are alarmed that the wider public are no longer alarmed. They have no response in science, and so resort to personal attacks.

In his recent article in The Washington Times, Professor Scott Armstrong challenges those who still fear global warming to test whether their fears are justified by following good scientific practice, and replicate the research that they find so unsettling. Perhaps their findings would be different. Now that would be a story!

Scott Armstrong’s Washington Times article, titled “Missing the mark on climate change skepticism: It’s not about the money, it’s about the science”, is available here.

Written by admin

March 28th, 2015 at 12:52 pm

Global temperatures: Seven years of Sideways

without comments

It may be hard to believe with the rhetorical bombardment of the warming alarmists and their supporters in the media that we are exposed to, but global average temperatures over the last seven years averaged less than the 2007 base year of the Armstrong-Gore bet. Yes, you did just read that!

The average of the monthly temperature anomalies in 2007—as calculated by the University of Alabama at Huntsville scientists from satellite observations—was 0.21°C. The average for the seven years since then was 0.20°C.

That doesn’t seem like a tipping point, Mr Gore!

The updated graph, to the right, shows not a tipping point, but lots of turning points. The net result? You guessed it, a sideways drift that is just what followers of this site and the evidence-based Green, Armstrong, and Soon no-trend forecast would expect.

New Book “Climate Change: The Facts 2014”

without comments

The Institute of Public Affairs have published a collection of works on the physics, economics, and the politics of climate change (a.k.a. the alarm that dangerous manmade global warming is and will continue to occur.) The 21 chapters by leading researchers and commentators include Willie Soon’s “Sun shunned”, and Kesten Green and Scott Armstrong’s “Forecasting global climate change”. The book is available, here. We suggest sending Mr Gore a copy.

Update: Kindle versions of Climate Change: The Facts 2014 are now available on Amazon. Either search for the title or click the link to the book on your country’s Amazon site from the following list: US, UK, CA, AU, DE, FR, ES, IT, NL, JP, BR, MX, IN.