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 ‘fudging and other adjustments’ Category

Claims 2019 warmest Australian year inconsistent with satellite record

without comments

The UAH global average  temperature anomaly relative to the 1981 to 2010 average was 0.56°C in December, up from 0.55°C the previous month. The 2019 average was the second warmest year in the 12 years of The Bet so far, as is shown by the blue stepped line in the “Whole-Earth Thermometer” chart on the top-right of this page.

While the global anomaly for 2019 was closer to the IPCC-Gore 3°C-per-century warming extrapolation line than to the Green-Armstrong-Soon no-trend forecast, it was below the warming line, as it has remained for all but two of the Bet’s 12 years to date.

The Climate Bet is concerned with the global average temperature anomaly, but local and regional anomalies do not follow in lock step, and sometimes differ markedly. The claim by Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) that “2019 was … the warmest … year on record for Australia … since consistent national temperature records began in 1910” is therefore not inconsistent with what was a relatively unremarkable year in the global record.

But how does the BOM’s warmest-on-record claim—based on smattering of “homogenized” land-based readings—stack up against the UAH satellite (lower troposphere) data for Australia?

Not very well, it turns out.

According the UAH data, 2019 was only the fourth warmest year in Australia in the 41 years of the UAH satellite temperature anomaly record. The warmest year in the UAH data was 2017, with an average anomaly of 0.71°C. The figure for 2019 was 0.58°C. The years 2016 and 1998 were also warmer for Australia.

Roy Spencer—one of the researchers behind the UAH data—has provided an analysis of the relationship between claims of anthropogenic global warming and measured temperature, precipitation, and Australian bush fires.

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]

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.

Why theclimatebet.com 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.

April data after improved procedures: Chilling news for Mr Gore

without comments

The benchmark global temperature data from the researchers at UAH-Huntsville have been adjusted to compensate for drifting in the positions of the satellites that take the readings and other improvements in the measurements and calculations. The improvements in the data series must be disconcerting for warming alarmists such as Mr Gore and the IPCC: dangerous warming and a “turning point” are nowhere to be seen. We hope they are relieved that there is (even less) reason to believe the Earth is in danger and that governments will realise the folly of policies to reduce carbon dioxide levels.

Our chart of The Bet to April 2015 is shown to the right of the page, as usual, using UAH’s revised series. The picture is clear, but for this who prefer numbers, here is a very small one: 0.000000000005. That number (which is roughly equal to 1-divided-by 214 billion) is the probability that temperatures would have equaled-or-exceeded Mr Gore and the IPCC’s 0.03°C per annum warming projection as few or fewer times as the 13-out-of-88 months of The Bet so far that they have done so… if their projection were unbiased.

For more information on the UAH data revisions, see the description by Spencer, Christy and Braswell, here.

Written by admin

May 24th, 2015 at 3:18 am

Why is the Arctic ice still there, Mr Gore? Another failed prediction

without comments

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.

Written by admin

May 21st, 2015 at 4:47 am

Climate consensus? What climate consensus?

without comments

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“.

Written by admin

May 17th, 2015 at 4:34 am

Inquiry into global temperature data integrity announced

without comments

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.

Written by admin

April 27th, 2015 at 1:42 am

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 theclimatebet.com: 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.

Why we don’t use IPCC temperatures for The Bet: An update

without comments

In case you, and we, needed reminding, Christopher Booker describes the latest stories to break on the dubious adjustments and revisions that government agencies make to the sparse measured terrestrial temperature record in his The Telegraph article titled “The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever.”  The adjusted data are used to derive the global average temperature series used by the IPCC and others who promote warming alarmism.

Reading Booker’s article leaves the reader with the impression that the use of the term “fiddling” in the title amounts to a classic case of British understatement. The term “rewriting history” is perhaps closer to summarising the violence that is still being done to the official temperature records.

A picture is sometimes worth a thousand words. Steven Goddard’s changing temperature history charts on this page of his blog very effectively illustrate some of the adjustments that have been made to the official series. It is possible, one might suppose, that better data might become available decades or even centuries after the event, or that better methods for analysing data might be developed. But such developments would not explain why every round of adjustments to the older data has resulted in a stronger warming trend.

Written by admin

February 9th, 2015 at 6:04 am