Bishop Hill By applying inappropriate techniques, Bob Ward can prove that right is wrong
Jan 17, 2013 Climate: Surface Climate: Ward Bob Ward, writing at the Greenpeace website (where else?), is getting into the statistics of temperature trends once again:
Dr Whitehouse, a former BBC science correspondent, has been churning out a steady stream of error-filled articles on the Foundation’s website to try to cast doubt on the evidence for climate change. His description of the Met Office’s latest findings was similarly flawed. He claimed, for instance, that there has been “a global temperature standstill (from 1997 to present)”, which is a favourite falsehood disseminated by climate change ‘sceptics’ and their promoters in the media, such as David Rose of ‘The Mail on Sunday’ and Christopher Booker of ‘The Sunday Telegraph’.
In fact, the Met Office’s HadCRUT4 database of monthly global temperature measurements shows very clearly that the linear trend in temperature between January 1997 and November 2012 (the figure for December 2012 has not yet been published) is a warming of about 0.05°C per decade, which is statistically significant at the 95 per cent level when simple linear regression using ordinary least squares is applied to the data (it should be noted that it is very difficult to determine whether temperature trends over such short timescales are really statistically significant because of autocorrelation effects).
So, when David Whitehouse says there has been a global temperature standstill since 1997, Bob says this is "flawed". Why? Because the OLS trend is above zero, and that this trend is "statistically significant". He then notes that in fact OLS is inappropriate for calculating trends in temperature series. In other words, the trend cannot be shown to be statistically significant using this technique.
Which means that David Whitehouse's analysis was correct.
Reader Comments (65)
geronimo
"It is the point, but I'm not sure that Ed gets it."
The reason for my reply to Ed was to agree with the literal meaning of his statement. Though I must admit I assumed that Ed means what he says and also understands the meaning of what he says.
Or you could argue, Alexander, that just as there is no such thing as "The Global Mean Temperature" there is no such thing as "The Climate".
One can argue either that the climate is always changing (though I would prefer it if we said weather is constantly changing) or that climate stays the same.The climate of the Antarctic is not the climate of Australia is not the climate of the Sahara is not the climate of the US Mid-West is not ......
What most of us understood by "climate" until a few years ago is fairly reflected by what is still Chambers definition
The climate in any given zone or region is pretty constant relative to the climate in other zones or regions. There may be extremes of weather within climatic zones but I have not seen any evidence that long-term weather patterns (by which I mean 100 years at least) have made any significant changes to the climate.
The scaremongers have been telling us for 20 years that the UK is heading for a "Mediterranean" climate. I keep being reminded of the chorus in the End of the World sketch (appropriately enough) from Beyond The Fringe:- "Aye, when will it be - when will it be?" The answer is increasingly evident, "it won't be" because it was only ever a "computer projection". X-Box science, as someone described it.
Meanwhile, by the accepted definition, the climates (note the plural) along with their sidekick the weather, keep on doing what they always have done.
Richard Tol
"facts, evidence, and logic" are overrated
-- Bob Ward --
[me: I'm kidding I wish....]
Ed Hawkins
“The world is warming, currently at a slower rate than in the recent past. And, we all want to know why.”
Ed, the world has been warming since that day roughly 20,000 years ago when the 700 metres (plus) of ice covering most of North America and Europe began to melt. I suggest you stop worrying and enjoy this current interglacial period while it lasts. Oh, and if you really need a scapegoat, blame the sun, and the wobble in the earth's axis. It's as simple as that.
@ Ed Hawkins: "The world is warming, currently at a slower rate than in the recent past. And, we all want to know why."
Do we? Surely the question is why we were told it would not?
And if the theory is correct then subtract the projections from the observations and we are being saved from an ice-age!
Phew :-/
One question that I have posed to a few alarmists is: what are you doing to negate your effect upon CO2 emissions? The question has always been studiously avoided; few even dare ridicule it.
When the alarmists, activists, whatever you want to call them, stop driving; stop ALL travelling, if not by walking, cycling or horse; stop heating (or cooling) their homes and offices; stop buying any product that they know results in releasing CO2 during production (this includes electricity), then, and ONLY then, can they expect to be taken seriously.
The curious thing is, all the (in)activities listed above would quite drastically reduce fiscal outgoings, so potentially saving pot-loads of money, yet ALL the solutions proposed that seem to be accepted require vast expenditure, most often of other people’s (i.e. the tax-payers’) money. Does no-one notice this peculiar disparity?
@Radical Rodent. I totally agree. I think the unwillingness of AGW alarmists to make personal sacrifices is a clear indication they don't at heart truly believe what they are saying. When challenged, they'll often sheepishly say 'well, I'm only human'. Monbiot justifies having a car. Gore, we all know about. Prince Charlies? Well he reduced his ski-ing holidays from two to one a year. And includes hybrid cars in his fleet (rather than simply cutting down on the number of cars). They then have the arrogance to claim AGW-sceptics are motivated by not wanting to cut down on their decadent lifestyles!
I think that for the longtime alarming AGW claimants there is an acceleration in the number of indirect pressures against their fundamental argument. By 'longtime alarming AGW claimants' I mean those like Hansen, like Harrabin, like Gore, etc etc. By indirect pressures I mean widely public scientific critiques and debates which are bypassing or outright ignoring the official scientific / media / environmental activist venues of the claimants. The indirect can be subtle enough to deflect direct outright assault by the claimants. The claimants are becoming irrelevant to the evolving climate science focus. I think the claimants know about what I have said and are trying to compensate by various means.
Ward's means look inadequate.
John
not much gets past (evenhanded) Bob or Greenpeace when it comes to spreading a meme -
‘The Guardian’ revealed in March 2012 that billionaire businessman Michael Hintze, a leading donor to the Conservative Party, has given money to the Foundation. However, the Foundation’s website states only that it is “funded overwhelmingly by voluntary donations from a number of private individuals and charitable trusts”.
his point is ???
Honestly.
Who seriously expects to find truth, accuracy, and understanding at a Greenpeace website?
Their pitiful attempts to politically smear people sceptical of cAGW simply won't wash, either. I've never bought The Mail in my life, and The Telegraph far less often than The Observer/Independent. I stopped buying The Grauniad many years ago, not least because of their increasingly foolish take on matters "green."
The fact is that Dr. Trenberth has already answered this question:
While it is all very good to be able to show that the climate isn't warming as fast as predicted, the smart climate 'science' now seems to be moving onto the argument that, of course CO2 doesn't raise the global temperature, it just increases the number of severe weather events.
The reputational damage of having to drop the 'warming' from Global Warming may be enough to finish off Climate Science but I expect not.
According to the data, Bob Ward's IQ is declining by 18 points per decade. He is already so clueless that in ten years time he will need help putting his pants on.
Hadcrut3 shows a cooling trend of -0.01C/decade between January 1997 and November 2012
see: http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4237
He's reduced to writing the usual rubbish as a letter to the Mail on Sunday today...