Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
About a week ago, the World Meteorological Organization put out a statement to correct the erroneous claims in the media that global warming had stopped (emphasis theirs):
GENEVA, 4 April 2008 (WMO) - The long-term upward trend of global warming, mostly driven by greenhouse gas emissions, is continuing. Global temperatures in 2008 are expected to be above the long-term average. The decade from 1998 to 2007 has been the warmest on record, and the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C since the beginning of the 20th Century.
The current La Niña event, characterized by a cooling of the sea surface in the central and eastern Equatorial Pacific, is a "climate anomaly" part of natural climate variability. This La Niña started in the third quarter of 2007 and is likely to persist through to the middle of 2008. It has influenced climate patterns during the last six months across many parts of the globe, including in the Equatorial Pacific, across the Indian Ocean, Asia, Africa and the Americas.
"For detecting climate change you should not look at any particular year, but instead examine the trends over a sufficiently long period of time. The current trend of temperature globally is very much indicative of warming," World Meteorological Organization Secretary-General, Mr Michel Jarraud said in response to media inquiries on current temperature "anomalies".
"La Niña modulates climate variability. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change in the present context is that the trend is still upwards; the global climate on an average is warming despite the temporary cooling brought about by La Niña."
Roger Harrabin at the BBC wrote a news story about the WMO statement that managed to turn the WMO's statement that global warming had not stopped into a statement that it had stopped in 1998.
Global temperatures 'to decrease'
Global temperatures this year will be lower than in 2007 due to the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.
The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.
This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.
Of course this erroneous story was picked up by Drudge and was linked by Glenn Reynolds and the rest of AGW denialists.
Fortunately the WMO (and others) contacted Harrabin about the misleading article and it was corrected to read:
The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.
But this year's temperatures would still be way above the average - and we would soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases.
And of course Glenn Reynolds and the rest of the gang corrected their posts.
Ha ha! Just kidding. No, instead of making corrections Reynolds and co accused the BBC of bias:
Under Fire: "The BBC is under fire after altering a news story about global warming as a result of activist pressure."
Following the links we come to a post by Tim Worstall at the Adam Smith Institute:
I must say, I think this is an absolutely marvellous advance. We pay for the BBC, after all, so we really shouldn't have any of that elitist nonsense about a factual reality or anything. No, news should be presented to show the world as "you" believe it to be, not as some impartial reporter of the facts would have it.
That, at least, was the view of one Jo Abbess, a climate activist (and a remarkably confused one at that, a little googling reveals that she worries about both global warming and Peak Oil: mutually exclusive concerns one might think. Bless.) who, as this correspondence shows, did indeed manage to have a BBC news report changed to reflect her views. We mustn't actually talk of static temperatures, or even worse, of 1998 being the hottest so far (and thus since then we've had cooling) because that might make people think that the world has, umm, not been warming and might even have been cooling since 1998. Can't let the proles know the truth now, can we?
The truth is that global warming didn't stop in 1998 and that's what the WMO said and that's what the article should have said and that's why the article needed to be corrected. Of course, the Adam Smith Institute isn't big on corrections.
Page van der Linden has more:
Predictably, Rush Limbaugh got on the bandwagon, linking to a piece by yet another denier, and incorporated the story into his April 8th show. He adds a little more spin with the classic "there's no consensus on global warming!" argument.
Update: Harrabin comments:
I subsequently received suggestions that the article should offer more background. The WMO wanted to emphasise M. Jarraud's view that a slight temperature decrease in 2008 compared with 2007 should not be misinterpreted as evidence of a general cooling. Some of the feedback seemed helpful so we altered and expanded the report - improving it substantially for the general reader, in my view.
Among my e-mail exchanges was one with an environmental campaigner who published our e-mails implying that we had changed our article as a result of her threat to publicly criticise our report. We didn't change it for that reason. We changed it to improve the piece.
The denialists have been rushing to correct their posts.
Ha ha! Just kidding. No, they accuse Harrabin of lying:
So we are asked to believe that between 10:57 am, when Roger was still arguing that the article should be left in its orginal form, and 11:28 am when he wrote to ask whether his changes were acceptable, he had suddenly changed his mind on the basis of new correspondence he had received from, among others, the WMO.
Colour me unconvinced.
I mean, Harrabin could not have received an email from the WMO during that time. It's just impossible because all the email servers are having their morning tea at that time.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Alexandra | April 12, 2008 3:01 PM
Reynolds scripsit:
Hahahahaha... this is hilarious! It would be much more accurate and informative to say, "We are launching fire at the BBC for altering a news story without our consent." And "we" of course refers to only Samizdata and the Adam Smith Institute and the small band of denialist socks.
It's funny that Reynolds tried to make himself sound so detached and objective, and make the "fire" look so big.
Posted by: bi | April 12, 2008 3:01 PM
business as usual.
denialists claim that an environmentalists (or the communicts, or the media or the scientific conspiracy) are changing media repors.
then it turns out, that a well establishe organisdation (or, quite often, the authors themselfs, because feeling misrepresented) asked for a change.
no correction follows, as it is just declared the next level of conspiracy kicking in.....
Posted by: sod | April 12, 2008 3:02 PM
Whew! That was a close one. For a second there I thought the AGW trend was turning, thank God it was corrected.Could you imagine how foolish we would look if we were wrong? Let's do everything in our power to make sure this doesn't happen again.Spread the word......I'll go turn on the lights and start my car.
Posted by: Betula | April 12, 2008 3:49 PM
Because the BBC doesn't make corrections to reflect the facts more accurately, they change stories because they are frightened of the big bad environmentalists.
And Goliath was really a midget bullied by David.
Posted by: Holly Stick | April 12, 2008 3:50 PM
Hmn, I mark down any post containing the word "denialist" as not being worth my time to read. Thankfully you put it in the topic, so I didn't have to bother reading your post, but what I really need is a firefox extension or the like to strip out all posts mentioning "denialist" before I see them. It can be disappointing when you expect to read a fair and balanced article to find out half way through that the author is stooping to insult the other site and label them in such a way that their arguments should not be heard or considered. It is quite a denialist term in itself, really.
Posted by: vavatch | April 12, 2008 4:39 PM
The role of the victim was portrayed by vavatch.
Posted by: Boris | April 12, 2008 5:11 PM
Denialist.
OK, now that vavatch isn't reading ...
I say we make it a movement!
Posted by: dhogaza | April 12, 2008 5:31 PM
"The truth is that global warming didn't stop in 1998 and that's what the WMO said and that's what the article should have said and that's why the article needed to be corrected. Of course, the Adam Smith Institute isn't big on corrections."
Umm, no.
"We mustn't actually talk of static temperatures, or even worse, of 1998 being the hottest so far (and thus since then we've had cooling) because that might make people think that the world has, umm, not been warming and might even have been cooling since 1998."
That is, as far as I'm aware, the truth. The El Nino, followed by La Nina, make it so, as the WMO said.
"The truth is that global warming didn't stop in 1998"
You'll have to define your terms. GW as measured by observed temperatures? Well, at least as far as I know, it seems that it did.
Posted by: Tim Worstall | April 12, 2008 6:11 PM
Starting from the end of the Little ICE AGE of course there is warming. OMFG we're all gonna die!!!! The earth is warming up after an ICE AGE OMFG!!!!!
Posted by: Mick | April 12, 2008 7:11 PM
Mick reminds me of the protagonist of "Flowers for Algernon" ... and the END of the story.
Posted by: dhogaza | April 12, 2008 7:33 PM
Tim Worstall,
By your measure global warming has "stopped" about half a dozen times in the past twenty five years. Yet, each time it has miraculously continued yet again. Dontcha think your measure is pretty much worthless?
Posted by: Boris | April 12, 2008 7:37 PM
Mick, it could have been worse....you could have reminded dhogaza of the lead in "one flew over the cuckoo's nest"...also at the END of the story.
Posted by: Betula | April 12, 2008 8:13 PM
It seems that all the talk about global warming/cooling etc, etc, is about to be overtaken by the next big story....food riots caused by increasing food prices. Even the UN is starting to question the food to fuel concept.
Posted by: kent | April 12, 2008 10:01 PM
Mike and kent respond by throwing out unrelated talking points.
dhogaza:
Actually, I'm proposing a new word: "inactivist". One advantage of the word is that, like "delayer", it also includes those who ostensibly admit AGW is happening but still want to Do Nothing. Another -- possibly bigger -- advantage of "inactivist" is that it's based on the word "activist" which these wackos like to use as an insult? If "activism" is such a dirty word, then "inactivism" must be pretty good, no?
Posted by: bi | April 12, 2008 11:41 PM
A while back I wrote instructions on how to cook Tim Blair, Andrew Bolt, and Patrick Michaels, and maybe we should add Tim Worstall:
http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2006/12/how-to-cook-tim-blair-andrew-bolt-and.html
Posted by: Brian Schmidt | April 13, 2008 12:43 AM
WMO: "the global climate on an average is warming despite the temporary cooling brought about by La Niña."
But if La Nina is put on one side, why not El Nino? The WMO is absurd to argue for the former but not the latter. The "hottest" ever years of 1998 and 2005 were El Ninos, were they not? why are they not equally discarded? Delete known El Nino and La Nina years and you get a basically flat series with a barely perceptible upward trend. The GISS data for actual temps from 1880 to 2007 show a less than 1oC increase, and that mainly because before 1900 there were no tropical stations in Africa at all and not many in most of SE Asia and the Pacific (check their station coverage maps for 1885, 1900, etc).
Posted by: Reality check | April 13, 2008 1:59 AM
Yeah, I did a double-take at that too. The only thing I could come up with was: if you're concerned about Peak Oil, you think all the oil will run out, and so you can't be worried about all that oil continuing to cause global warming.
Which, if that's what was meant, well, uh . . . crikey.
Posted by: Jennie | April 13, 2008 2:21 AM
"The "hottest" ever years of 1998 and 2005 were El Ninos, were they not? why are they not equally discarded?"
Nothing is being "discarded". If you pay attention to the refutations of "global warming stopped in 1998" claim, the real problem is that certain outliers are being emphasized at the expense of the global trend. Missing the forest for the trees, in other words.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | April 13, 2008 2:58 AM
Tim Lambert:
Haha. Tim Worstall should write a new post titled, "Journalists criticize BBC mail servers for fabricating WMO messages". Followed by: "Concerned citizen exposes BBC lies". And then: "UNSW blogger under investigation for slander".
The inactivists are a bunch of pathological liars.
Posted by: bi | April 13, 2008 3:20 AM
bi the way: have you or anyone ever done regression analysis of changes in GISS temperatures 1958-2007 against any or all of the following: changes in emissions, Mauna Loa concentrations, airborne fractions, the price of oil? Try it, if you can do better than R2<0.01, I'd love to know how.
Posted by: Reality check | April 13, 2008 4:12 AM
/me ignores unrelated inactivist talking points
This thread is about the BBC's reporting of the WMO position. The WMO said -- and even bothered to emphasize that --
These are the words the WMO said, and these are the words you inactivists are trying to suppress. It's that simple.
Posted by: bi | April 13, 2008 5:21 AM
"Haha. Tim Worstall should write a new post titled, "Journalists criticize BBC mail servers for fabricating WMO messages". "
Why me? I didn't make the comment above that Tim L extracts about emails and servers. That was, erm, someone else, as the link Tim L provides shows.
Posted by: Tim Worstall | April 13, 2008 6:23 AM
At the risk of filling the thread up with silliness, I'd like to know why reality check thinks that any of the things mentioned in post # 21 are directly related to global temperature.
Posted by: guthrie | April 13, 2008 6:24 AM
I asked at #21 if any "of changes in emissions, Mauna Loa concentrations, airborne fractions, the price of oil" have anything to do with temperature change. guthrie, all you have to do is show what other more important causative factors than those do "cause" temperature change. The data are readily available from CDIAC. Where are your correlations? Please remember, this is a "science" blog so they had better stand up.
Posted by: Reality check | April 13, 2008 6:42 AM
21: "bi the way: have you or anyone ever done regression analysis of changes in GISS temperatures 1958-2007 against any or all of the following: changes in emissions, Mauna Loa concentrations, airborne fractions, the price of oil?"
...and pirates!
Posted by: MH | April 13, 2008 6:43 AM
I asked at #21 if any "of changes in emissions, Mauna Loa concentrations, airborne fractions, the price of oil" have anything to do with temperature change. guthrie, all you have to do is show what other more important causative factors than those do "cause" temperature change. The data are readily available from CDIAC. Where are your correlations? Please remember, this is a "science" blog so they had better stand up.
hint: even on a science blog, we don t have to fullfill random demands of trolls!
but correlations have been done. start checking here:
http://www.worldpassports.org/australia_legal/229798
Residual standard error: 0.101321 on 48 degrees of freedom Multiple R-Squared: 0.783817, Adjusted R-squared: 0.779313 F-statistic: 174.034 on 1 and 48 DF, p-value: < 2.220e-16
Posted by: sod | April 13, 2008 7:47 AM
sod: ever heard of auto-correlation? It is late here, but an elementary first step to avoid that is to take first differences (as I did). Your link did not do that, although its data did come up with higher R2s when sunspots were included, and with the coeff. on sunspots also significant (the results you reported actually EXCLUDED the sunspots; in Lambert-speak, you are thereby a LIAR, but I don't use that terminology, no doubt your link just made an honest reporting mistake). Keep trying (Hint: check Durbin-Watson).
Posted by: Reality check | April 13, 2008 8:45 AM
Reality check:
All you have is nothing but falsehoods. No, obviously a correlation test with sunspots doesn't exclude the sunspots; and no, there was no correlation seen between temperature and sunspots; and yes, you're full of pure junk.
As for the correlation between CO2 and temperature, you don't need any fancy math to see it.
= = =
Tim Worstall:
As the Romans said, excusatio non petita accusatio manifesta.
Anyone still wants to defend their demand for BBC to quote-mine?
Posted by: bi | April 13, 2008 9:33 AM
Tim Worstall says: "Why me? I didn't make the comment above that Tim L extracts about emails and servers."
Yes, instead you've written a post that argues that a text book that misrepresents climate science should not be corrected.
Posted by: Tim Lambert | April 13, 2008 9:34 AM
Tim Worstall writes:
Do yourself a favor. Get the temperature anomalies for the years 1998 to 2007 and run a linear regression on them, then come back and tell us whether the coefficient of the year term is positive or negative.
Do you know what a linear regression is?
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | April 13, 2008 1:28 PM
²vavatch
6
Kudos to "a denialist term in itself".
So what? Mankind are denialists except for the scientists. They are the only ones who not only know the only truth about the biggest issue of mankind in a changing world, about a linear upward trend in global average surface temperature, who caused it, by what they caused it (nonlinear CO2-trend), it's bad, how much this will interact with nature in the coming centuries and how much it will change depending on human politics in the future.
So don't even address (stupid?) questions about the magnitude of human influence - with or without CO2 - with regard to natural noise, other feedback mechanisms and other human induced perturbations which are not entirely accounted for at IPCC (scientific understanding very low to medium). If you do, you will be associated with denialists of homocides, flat earthers (quote Al Gore) and other pathetic creatures.
I am disgusted about such arrogance to call all these people denialists when the only thing that is relatively solid science is the driving force of CO2 = 3.47 W-2/m2 according to AR4(resulting in roughly 1°F - 1°C for 2*CO2). Anything else regarding the AGW theory is still subject to further research at best, or arrogant claims and public slurs at worst.
If you know you are right, just relax, never mind those "denialists", just ignore them. wait until the end of La Niña, the next PDO shift towards more El Niños, the melting of the thin ice in the Arctic, a strong solar cycle 24, whatever. Temperature will continue to rise as predicted by the IPCC.
But deep inside you know: Those "denialists" have a point! You need this kind of challenge to improve your science.
Posted by: climatepatrol | April 13, 2008 3:28 PM
You need this kind of challenge to improve your science.
No, I don't think anyone needs zombie "facts" and "up is down" claims to improve their science. And that's all the denialists have.
Posted by: QrazyQat | April 13, 2008 3:44 PM
Mick writes:
Yes, Mick, it's warmer than the Little Ice Age. But the climate is a physical system. It's not a system like a spring, where if you press it one way, it will automatically bounce back the other way. If you want to heat it up, you have to add energy. Where do you think the extra energy is coming from, Mick?
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | April 13, 2008 4:04 PM
Reality check writes:
1998 was, but 2005 was not.
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | April 13, 2008 4:06 PM
Reality check writes:
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | April 13, 2008 4:10 PM
re: #1, #18, "global warming and Peak Oil: mutually exclusive concerns"
I recommend: Kharecha, P.A., and J.E. Hansen, 2008: Implications of "peak oil" for atmospheric CO2 and climate. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/pkharecha.html
We're going to burn all the oil&gas we can get. We'll stop when the EROI (Energy Return on Investment) gets too low, i.e., we'll certainly stop before 1:1, regardless of high high the prices go.
The worry is that as we come down the Peak Oil & Gas peaks, if we don't rework our infrastructure and vehicle fleets early enough , we get a big depression. The 2005 US DoE's Hirsch Report says 20 years in advance. The second big worry is that if we don't do that, there will be terrific pressure to use even more unsequestered coal to keep the lights on and do synfuels.
Posted by: John Mashey | April 13, 2008 4:23 PM
reality check- you want to check which reality you're using. My point was actually to see if you had any clue at all how or why the things you wanted to graph would have any effect on temperature.
The answer would appear to be, you don't have any idea at all.
How, for example, is the price of oil anything to do with warming? You would first have to convert into constant dollars, then show that emissions were proportional to the oil price, which I don't think is the case off the top of my head, but its your job to do the proving in the first place.
Then, why are changes in emissions important? Surely the relevant one is the Mauna Loa CO2 concentration, which is the only thing you suggested which I can see as having a definite direct link to temperature over a long period.
Posted by: guthrie | April 13, 2008 5:03 PM
sod: ever heard of auto-correlation? It is late here, but an elementary first step to avoid that is to take first differences (as I did). Your link did not do that, although its data did come up with higher R2s when sunspots were included, and with the coeff. on sunspots also significant (the results you reported actually EXCLUDED the sunspots; in Lambert-speak, you are thereby a LIAR, but I don't use that terminology, no doubt your link just made an honest reporting mistake). Keep trying (Hint: check Durbin-Watson).
i don t needany test, to understand the autocorrelation in the warming and in CO2 increase.
the sunspots analysis does NOT exclude the sunspots, nor does it show a significant R².
sunspots have been analysed by Tamino recently:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/04/05/stalking-the-elusive-solar-cycletemperature-connection/
surprise surprise, no correlation.
Posted by: sod | April 13, 2008 5:23 PM
Mankind are denialists except for the scientists.
you mean apart from the (educated) majority, who do AGREE with the scientific consensus?
about a linear upward trend in global average surface temperature, who caused it, by what they caused it (nonlinear CO2-trend)
i linked to an analysis of the correlation. it is high. people are trying to bring up sunspots all the time. did you ever take a comparison of a sunspots curve and the temperature?
Those "denialists" have a point!
the term says is all: a denialist can NOT have a point.
You need this kind of challenge to improve your science.
ahm no. sorry, but basically everything that you ever said on this topic, has been said before. and in a much better way. the thought that you are moving climate science forward is WISHFUL THINKING!
Posted by: sod | April 13, 2008 5:30 PM
Bi: Actually, I'm proposing a new word: "inactivist".
Apologies for the resurrection of that particular point, but there's a similar term you may want to use in other circumstances. I find that one more cutting, since most of the delayers like to categorize themselves as "skeptics". I, for one, will use this term if the delayer's masking his argument as scientific, and "inactivist" if he's honest enough to admit that his argument is political.
Posted by: Brian D | April 13, 2008 8:25 PM
Brian D:
That's an interesting word, but I still have reservations about it as it's being proposed by purveyors of paranormal theories like psi phenomena and all that (and I don't want to go there yet).
-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism
Posted by: bi | April 13, 2008 11:03 PM
@Sod Sorry but there is no cohesion in your argueing at all.
Sure! No problem. Yet you still ask:
...and...
Exactly, but many of those "denialists" who do not agree with verything YOU regard as a scientific consensus (the 3.47W consensus, the Oreskes consensus, the good news practice consensus, the ... ... ...) - they do have a point.
Posted by: climatepatrol | April 14, 2008 12:02 AM
Hahahahaha.
climatepatrol, are you seriously proposing that the BBC should lie about what their sources say?
The WMO said -- and specifically emphasized -- that there is still a warming trend. What kind of "good news practice" is it to deliberately leave this out? Tell us.
-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism
Posted by: bi | April 14, 2008 12:20 AM
Sod: "the sunspots analysis does NOT exclude the sunspots, nor does it show a significant R²." That is simply not true, if you are referring to the data and results in your link. I did the regression using the data supplied and the R2 etc were identical to those cited in the link (a non-peer reviewed and very superficial source) for just the regression between Temp and CO2, whereas when both CO2 and sunspots were included the R2 went up to 0.8 and the Sunspot coefficient was significant t=2.2 with 47 degrees of freedom (your source cited 48 because he had only one parameter, and his R2 was .78). Check your source's methods mate!
Posted by: Reality check | April 14, 2008 12:29 AM
Inactivists are hilarious.
Why didn't you simply try to correlate temperatures with sunspots alone? Maybe it's because there's no correlation at all?
-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism
Posted by: bi | April 14, 2008 12:45 AM
From the same link, what happens when one tries to correlate temperatures with sunspots alone:
Hmm. R2 = 0.000134823. Does Mr. "Reality check" have Hansen-induced apopletic dyslexia?
-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism
Posted by: bi | April 14, 2008 12:49 AM
bi: two can play our game. Do just your regression but with year on year changes instead of the absolutes, and we then have R2 .19 (adj .18) and a significant sunspots coefficient of .09 with a high t at 3.36 for 48 df. Nobody ever said sunspots were the only determinant. The main culprit according to the IPCC and my uncle Tom Cobleigh 'n all is emissions from fossil fuel burning and land use change. Using the CDIAC data for those, taking year on year changes again, and doing the regression on both sunsposts and emissions, the R2s are barely affected, but the coefficient on emissions is NEGATIVE and,lucky for you, insignificant, with t at -0.3. Thus it is time to score our litle game 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 to me. Emissions are NOT the main culprit of whatever minimal warming there has been since 1910 or (on this data) 1958. Time also to close the IPCC. Meantime I would look forward to your conceding defeat but I was taught not to crow or expect an opponent to grovel. So I let you off on that.
Posted by: Reality check | April 14, 2008 3:01 AM
Okay. If the headline:
This sentence after a WMO quote is indeed misleading because it was not the emphasis of WMO at all, to the contrary. But hey, the statement "this would mean that global temperatures have not risen since 1998" is correct. The linear trend 1998-2007 has not been proven to be statistically significant and 2008 is very likeley to be another year of not warming. Period. The interpretation of WMO that "The current trend of temperature globally is very much indicative of warming" is also misleading because it makes believe that there is still proof enough that global warming will continue no matter what. Whereas the question: Has global warming stopped? 1)"YES", 2)"NO", 3)"we don't know". The scientifically correct answer should be: 3) with the current scientific understanding of all climate drivers and feedbacks: WE DON'T KNOW.Is CO2 equally distributed globally? YES. Is warming distributed equally over the globe? Definitely not. Polar haze? Where does it come from? A culprit much better to tackle down than CO2, and so on.
But the expression GLOBAL WARMING is widely understood as CAGW, thus often misleading whatsoever.
Posted by: climatepatrol | April 14, 2008 3:55 AM
climate patrol: well said! Back to bi: ever helpful, I have rerun my regressions with a lag, i.e. this year's change in temp as a function of LAST year's changes in Sunspots and anthro Emissions of CO2. The outcome is a LOWER R2, hardly surprising because the sun PRIMARILY affects this year's temps, not next year's. Interestingly, the coefficient on Sunspots remains significant but turns negative, while that on changes in Emissions turns positive but remains insignificant. My results here and in my previous post provide a complete explanation of why the IPCC NEVER does regression analysis. The same applies to Hansen, the greatest apostate of our time, apart from St John Houghton.
Posted by: Reality check | April 14, 2008 4:17 AM
Reality check:
Oh, R2 = 0.000134823, and somehow that means I'm wrong.
= = =
climatepatrol:
Oh, so according to the WMO global warming might have stopped, because that's what they ought to have said, even if they specifically said the exact opposite. Brilliant.
Posted by: bi | April 14, 2008 5:15 AM
b: wht pthtc rspns. D g ff t bd wth sd, tht's ll r ft fr. [please do not feed the troll]
Posted by: Reality check | April 14, 2008 6:01 AM
And from The Register, yet more pig-headedness by Tim Worstall.
-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism
Posted by: bi | April 14, 2008 6:12 AM
Reality check uses statistics to dump the work of thousands of scientists down the drain...
Truly, they are epically stupid.
Posted by: guthrie | April 14, 2008 7:14 AM
@ ALL Some commenters are getting bored. How about this one: Kerry Emmanuel, hurricane expert, featured under the title "Hurricane expert reconsiders global warming's impact", Houston Chronicle, April 12, 2008, 12:00AM. Is AMO now against WMO regarding a major pillar of the "indisputable" global warming "consensus"? USA Today, Canada Free Press, Houston Chronicle, etc. ... Washington Post (just kidding, of course not). And where is the press release in Europe?
Posted by: climatepatrol | April 14, 2008 7:22 AM
Does the AGW theory proposed equally distributed warmiing? No. Do GCMs project evenly distributed warming? No. Do you even understand the theory that you think is so wrong? Not even close, pal.
Posted by: Boris | April 14, 2008 7:31 AM
Ah yes. Prepare for denialists to show how much bullshit they can spew over the Emmanuel paper. Will they notice that the results are based on a computer model? Will they notice that the issue of hurricanes is separate from warming?
climatepatrol is staring us off quite well, pretending there was a consensus on hurricanes. It's about to get more stupid in here.
Posted by: Boris | April 14, 2008 7:46 AM
Actually, they are not. They just follow orders what to research for and what questions should be answered. For example, if hardly anybody is seriously interested in investigations such as this one:
from an editorial essay by Roger Pielcke, Sr.. If hardly anybody is seriously interested in investigations such as the above, nobody will publish it in renown scientific magazines. The multi billion Dollar deal was clear: Prove CAGW, prove CAGW!
But maybe I am wrong and reality check will soon be a standard for all climate models. Your name suits you very well, Reality check.:-). I shut up now.
Posted by: climatepatrol | April 14, 2008 7:59 AM
climatepatrol:
The role of the cash-strapped maverick scientist was played by ExxonMobil.
Posted by: bi | April 14, 2008 8:10 AM
Reality check writes:
Did you perform ADF tests to see what level each time series was integrated at, and did you check for cointegration? All you've said is that you differenced each series -- a meaningless procedure if the time series is integrated I(0) or I(2) or more.
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | April 14, 2008 8:20 AM
climatepatrol writes:
That's because the sample size of N = 10 is too small. Try 1978-2007 and tell me what you get.
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | April 14, 2008 8:22 AM
Reality check writes:
Why are you using anthropogenic emissions and not total CO2? A molecule of CO2 in the air doesn't know if it's anthropogenic or not. Greenhouse heating depends on the total amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a given time.
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | April 14, 2008 8:24 AM
so let us check some reality:
here s what started this discussion: (#21)
bi the way: have you or anyone ever done regression analysis of changes in GISS temperatures 1958-2007 against any or all of the following: changes in emissions, Mauna Loa concentrations, airborne fractions, the price of oil? Try it, if you can do better than R2<0.01, I'd love to know how.
i did exactly that in post #28. and found a pretty good correlation (R²=0.78) between GISS and the Mauna Loa concentration.
please consider this FACT, when reading all the nonsense that "reality check" wrote after that exchange...
Posted by: