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 ‘kesten green’ Category

Global temp warmer than 3°C/century trend for 4th month

without comments

Global mean  temperatures have been warmer than the IPCC/Gore 3°C per century extrapolation for the four months to February 2020. All but one month (May 2019) in the last 14 months has been closer to the IPCC extrapolation than to the Green, Armstrong and Soon (2009) no-trend forecast.

Does that mean that the global warming extrapolation is now ahead in the extended, 20-year, Climate Bet?

No, it does not. The cumulative monthly error from betting on a 3°C-per-century extrapolation from the 2007 annual average temperature anomaly is more than 5% greater than the error from betting on no change.

The relative error of the warming extrapolation is the lowest it has been for 109 months, but it has only been less than 1.0—warming more accurate than no-change—for two months of the 146 months of the extended Bet so far, back in 2010.

Written by admin

March 12th, 2020 at 3:27 pm

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.

November 2019 sees global temperature above Bet warming line

without comments

With the release of the UAH November 2019 global temperature anomaly, there have been 28 months in which the anomaly equaled or exceeded the 3°C-per-century warming trend line projected from the 2007 Bet base year average. That compares with the 57 months in which the anomaly has been less than or equal to the scientific no-change forecast proposed by Green, Armstrong, and Soon (2009) and the basis of Scott Armstrong’s challenge to Al Gore to bet on forecasts of global temperatures.

Those figures give a sense of how modest the IPCC’s 3°C-per-century warming trend is compared to month-to-month variations over the 143 months (nearly 12 years) of the extended Bet so far. The 28 months of temperature anomalies greater than or equal to the warming trend account for nearly 20% of months, while close to 40% of months have been cooler than the 2007 base year average.

For the latest data, click on the “Whole Earth Thermometer” toward the top right of this page.

Written by admin

December 13th, 2019 at 9:27 am

“Do we face dangerous global warming?”

without comments

Was the title of a talk that Scott Armstrong gave to his fellow Lehigh University Graduating Class of 1959 at their 60th Reunion on June 7. The invited talk addressed the question of whether the alarm over dangerous manmade global warming is a valid scientific claim, and presents findings from Scott’s research with Kesten Green. A copy of the slides for the talk is available from ResearchGate, here.

Written by admin

June 11th, 2019 at 1:44 pm

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

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.