Short term update: Through October 2016, global temperatures have persistently set monthly "record-high temperatures" in 11 of the past 12 months. A Trump Administration questions this flawed science at the hands of comics.
The mainstream headline is this: SEVEN straight months of record-high global temperatures. Roads are now melting in Mumbai. My iced-tea is melting here in New York. Regulatory super-powers save us. This world must quickly be coming to an apocalyptic end, by year-end! Not so fast. Sure it appears that global temperatures have followed this sort of pattern: 21st century > 20th century > 19th century. No one here, in this century, is arguing that temperatures are lower now versus in the 20th century. Though for nearly a decade in the 20th century, temperatures did appear to be reversing course. And still in some parts of the globe, including parts of northern Canada, there continues to be record cooling. What is being argued however, is whether we are making too much beyond that especially with only a couple hundred years of records. Reading something more into this streak of record hot temperatures is false, for example suggesting it is representative of a natural change perpetually occurring in the Earth's actual temperature. What we see here is that only because of ongoing and quiet statistical modifications of the modeled data by NASA, NOAA, and others, that we now have these quirky predictions of an unusual hot streak. This would have been a non-event in a sea of fear-mongering, until NASA's chief climate "scientist" tried to dump on my twitter account about using "fake" information (not true since I used his organization's awful tax-payer funded data). This level of behavioral malfunction from a zany scientist/administrator causes me to call-out some of the other issues wrong with their aspirational climate math, which previously I was silent about. Let the debates begin, assuming I am eligible for debate. With more than a 1/2 dozen considerations below, enjoy this wild trip into some foolish climate change reporting, and re-thinking, and re-reporting.
What is temperature?
If we are going to advise people that the temperature is peaking, month after month, then one would think we know how to accurately measure it. And to the same small fraction of a degree by which these "records" are being made and which we think an inexpensive thermometer has. Turns out our own earth is too complicated for our scientists and we don't have any idea. That's the official word for those interested in the buried government discussion here.
"Finding absolute regional means encounters significant difficulties that create large uncertainties ... The reason to work with anomalies, rather than absolute temperature is that absolute temperature varies markedly in short distances, while monthly or annual temperature anomalies are representative of a much larger region."
In other words, the more information they have in a small amount of dimensions, the less they know what to do. When the media are induced by NASA and others to fascinate each month on manufactured "records" therefore, it's all a mess. And the less information they have for a large amount of dimensions, the more they need a larger budget to buy awesome supercomputers to spit out random "insights". This an example of your hard-working taxpayer money (not) at work.
You mean you also don't measure your raw data?
Yes for these government scientists, so not only is the measurement of temperature itself something that is a challenge for them, but so is a way to model it into something useful and stable. Let's start with the raw temperature, which is not even something the government collects!
"GISS has neither the personnel nor the funding to visit weather stations or deal directly with data observations from weather stations ... (hence) the raw data always stays the same, except for occasional reported corrections or replacements of preliminary data from one source by reports obtained later from a more trusted source."
Funding for personnel to visit and deal with data observations? Seriously, what century are these staff-level climatologists in?
Issues modeling, then revising, then outright lying.
Nature magazine issued a report last year, which proves the model was changed to create new record warming. Yet it's a problem that mainstream media repeatedly hides from our attention the fact that the "models" that originally showed the climate was cooling, were then "corrected" in order to now show the explosive record temperatures! What are some of the reasons officially given for model changes? Too many, and we can't make this stuff up:
"... the estimate of the global mean change varies as we discover and correct for contaminating influences, as well as increasing the amount of raw data used"
"All computations were first made replacing the observed data by complete model data."
"... tracking what was happening to Earth temperatures was at a relatively primitive state. Much of the relevant weather station data had not been digitized and what had been, was not widely available."
"Some temperature series from ... sources turned out to be identical, but we treated them as separate stations, giving too much weight to such a series compared to neighboring stations ..."
"Due to an oversight several Antarctic stations were excluded from the analysis..."
In other words, the sample was crummy and incomplete for much of history. To make matters worse, today data continues to be regularly revised for any number of reasons.
"... changes in the situation or usage policies of data providers, progress in the scientific understanding of data and related analysis (such as the relationship between buoy and ship-borne data), improved quality control techniques, and evolving computational and storage technologies."
"These updated files incorporate reports for the previous month and also late reports and corrections for earlier months."
And when temperature data is not being later revised, after being criticized by climate scientists as "a more difficult variable" to measure, we have the scandalous issue of academic scientists plainly lying to quickly get further ahead in this space.
Why only recently are we see a bursting streak of "record" temperatures?
Here on the left chart below is the past 52 months of 12-month temperature data, since the start of 2012. This is how the government scientists would like you to focus your attention concerning temperature data. Consistently rising over time as one model, and no change in month-to-month gyrations, through the past few years.
Instead the reality is what the Nature article above noted, and what this Science article now shows to be an issue. The model output can be changed by the government to show unusually large aberrations for a short-time, but it can not escape its own truth. And in fast in early 2014, as seen on the right chart above, there has been a visible break where the government's models were changed. The trends before and after are different in a way that now produces record highs for a short while, as opposed to a single trend on the data (on the left chart) where we can carefully analyze each monthly data.
Why wait until mid-year to 99% "predict" what you modeled?
If I invented the new trend on the right chart above (shown in red), then it's horrible that I would have to wait until mid-year (as we have seen this month), to make a "99% prediction" that this recent set of red temperatures will be superior to any before it by year-end. This is exactly what NASA's chief climate scientist -who has attacked my work- has done through the media. Sort of like a house arsonist waiting until he or she hears the fire trucks approach before predicting with 99% certainty that house may be on fire. No one needs this such cowardly mediocrity. I've since blocked this NASA scientist -who shall remain anonymous (Gavin Schmidt... oops)- from following my account. More on this devil of a character still, in a moment.
Do record anomalies imply all storms are the result of record temperatures everywhere?
No on every front. First let's discuss that a global trend higher does not imply the entire globe is trending higher. This was our blog article here that caused such discomfort when NASA saw it. It shows what is obvious even in many government's own charts (see NOAA below). That one can have near record cold temperatures at the same time that we see record highs elsewhere. Both extremes on the chart below are roughly the same record-setting 3 standard deviation event (in both directions)!
So it's all about composition. Is Canada all deep red for example? What about the region near the Antarctic, which the government we saw above forgot to include? Of course not to both questions.
Another matter is that there is seasonality in play. Being above average temperature in a recent winter is not the same as having a record high absolute temperature for any given time. The media should be careful with such interpretations. Just as being below average temperature in a current summer is not the same as having a record low absolute temperature for any given time.
Even when there are temperature aberrations, we don't have further statistical tools to know the connection between that and any storms that happen. As shown above, the government doesn't' have the richness of quality data over time, to then slice and dice for causality down to a regional level.
How do we debate these topics?
There needs to be a forum for civil discourse given the large amount of issues with climate change data. This occurs in many fields and the debate should not be in the hands of a couple "scientists" and the media. When President Barack Obama (whose administration I worked for in two separate departments) himself wants to chime in on the topic, perhaps official sources are better for everyone to see and appreciate, rather than this same Guardian newspaper article that is making the rounds despite being a secondary source.
And what about NASA's scientist Schmidt? How do competing scientists debate him on his erratic data, and continuously-revised "models"? You can't. This public service player is only available to debate professional clowns with the same talents as he has. A few days ago, he accepted his first debate (versus comedians Jon Glaser, and Eugene Mirman). Nice. He's the pudgy fellow on left. The climate science, beyond a long-term trend, is also more pudgy than most lay people and aficionados presume it to be during each month's news announcements.
The mainstream headline is this: SEVEN straight months of record-high global temperatures. Roads are now melting in Mumbai. My iced-tea is melting here in New York. Regulatory super-powers save us. This world must quickly be coming to an apocalyptic end, by year-end! Not so fast. Sure it appears that global temperatures have followed this sort of pattern: 21st century > 20th century > 19th century. No one here, in this century, is arguing that temperatures are lower now versus in the 20th century. Though for nearly a decade in the 20th century, temperatures did appear to be reversing course. And still in some parts of the globe, including parts of northern Canada, there continues to be record cooling. What is being argued however, is whether we are making too much beyond that especially with only a couple hundred years of records. Reading something more into this streak of record hot temperatures is false, for example suggesting it is representative of a natural change perpetually occurring in the Earth's actual temperature. What we see here is that only because of ongoing and quiet statistical modifications of the modeled data by NASA, NOAA, and others, that we now have these quirky predictions of an unusual hot streak. This would have been a non-event in a sea of fear-mongering, until NASA's chief climate "scientist" tried to dump on my twitter account about using "fake" information (not true since I used his organization's awful tax-payer funded data). This level of behavioral malfunction from a zany scientist/administrator causes me to call-out some of the other issues wrong with their aspirational climate math, which previously I was silent about. Let the debates begin, assuming I am eligible for debate. With more than a 1/2 dozen considerations below, enjoy this wild trip into some foolish climate change reporting, and re-thinking, and re-reporting.
What is temperature?
If we are going to advise people that the temperature is peaking, month after month, then one would think we know how to accurately measure it. And to the same small fraction of a degree by which these "records" are being made and which we think an inexpensive thermometer has. Turns out our own earth is too complicated for our scientists and we don't have any idea. That's the official word for those interested in the buried government discussion here.
"Finding absolute regional means encounters significant difficulties that create large uncertainties ... The reason to work with anomalies, rather than absolute temperature is that absolute temperature varies markedly in short distances, while monthly or annual temperature anomalies are representative of a much larger region."
In other words, the more information they have in a small amount of dimensions, the less they know what to do. When the media are induced by NASA and others to fascinate each month on manufactured "records" therefore, it's all a mess. And the less information they have for a large amount of dimensions, the more they need a larger budget to buy awesome supercomputers to spit out random "insights". This an example of your hard-working taxpayer money (not) at work.
You mean you also don't measure your raw data?
Yes for these government scientists, so not only is the measurement of temperature itself something that is a challenge for them, but so is a way to model it into something useful and stable. Let's start with the raw temperature, which is not even something the government collects!
"GISS has neither the personnel nor the funding to visit weather stations or deal directly with data observations from weather stations ... (hence) the raw data always stays the same, except for occasional reported corrections or replacements of preliminary data from one source by reports obtained later from a more trusted source."
Funding for personnel to visit and deal with data observations? Seriously, what century are these staff-level climatologists in?
Issues modeling, then revising, then outright lying.
Nature magazine issued a report last year, which proves the model was changed to create new record warming. Yet it's a problem that mainstream media repeatedly hides from our attention the fact that the "models" that originally showed the climate was cooling, were then "corrected" in order to now show the explosive record temperatures! What are some of the reasons officially given for model changes? Too many, and we can't make this stuff up:
"... the estimate of the global mean change varies as we discover and correct for contaminating influences, as well as increasing the amount of raw data used"
"All computations were first made replacing the observed data by complete model data."
"... tracking what was happening to Earth temperatures was at a relatively primitive state. Much of the relevant weather station data had not been digitized and what had been, was not widely available."
"Some temperature series from ... sources turned out to be identical, but we treated them as separate stations, giving too much weight to such a series compared to neighboring stations ..."
"Due to an oversight several Antarctic stations were excluded from the analysis..."
In other words, the sample was crummy and incomplete for much of history. To make matters worse, today data continues to be regularly revised for any number of reasons.
"... changes in the situation or usage policies of data providers, progress in the scientific understanding of data and related analysis (such as the relationship between buoy and ship-borne data), improved quality control techniques, and evolving computational and storage technologies."
"These updated files incorporate reports for the previous month and also late reports and corrections for earlier months."
And when temperature data is not being later revised, after being criticized by climate scientists as "a more difficult variable" to measure, we have the scandalous issue of academic scientists plainly lying to quickly get further ahead in this space.
Why only recently are we see a bursting streak of "record" temperatures?
Here on the left chart below is the past 52 months of 12-month temperature data, since the start of 2012. This is how the government scientists would like you to focus your attention concerning temperature data. Consistently rising over time as one model, and no change in month-to-month gyrations, through the past few years.
Instead the reality is what the Nature article above noted, and what this Science article now shows to be an issue. The model output can be changed by the government to show unusually large aberrations for a short-time, but it can not escape its own truth. And in fast in early 2014, as seen on the right chart above, there has been a visible break where the government's models were changed. The trends before and after are different in a way that now produces record highs for a short while, as opposed to a single trend on the data (on the left chart) where we can carefully analyze each monthly data.
Why wait until mid-year to 99% "predict" what you modeled?
If I invented the new trend on the right chart above (shown in red), then it's horrible that I would have to wait until mid-year (as we have seen this month), to make a "99% prediction" that this recent set of red temperatures will be superior to any before it by year-end. This is exactly what NASA's chief climate scientist -who has attacked my work- has done through the media. Sort of like a house arsonist waiting until he or she hears the fire trucks approach before predicting with 99% certainty that house may be on fire. No one needs this such cowardly mediocrity. I've since blocked this NASA scientist -who shall remain anonymous (Gavin Schmidt... oops)- from following my account. More on this devil of a character still, in a moment.
Do record anomalies imply all storms are the result of record temperatures everywhere?
No on every front. First let's discuss that a global trend higher does not imply the entire globe is trending higher. This was our blog article here that caused such discomfort when NASA saw it. It shows what is obvious even in many government's own charts (see NOAA below). That one can have near record cold temperatures at the same time that we see record highs elsewhere. Both extremes on the chart below are roughly the same record-setting 3 standard deviation event (in both directions)!
So it's all about composition. Is Canada all deep red for example? What about the region near the Antarctic, which the government we saw above forgot to include? Of course not to both questions.
Another matter is that there is seasonality in play. Being above average temperature in a recent winter is not the same as having a record high absolute temperature for any given time. The media should be careful with such interpretations. Just as being below average temperature in a current summer is not the same as having a record low absolute temperature for any given time.
Even when there are temperature aberrations, we don't have further statistical tools to know the connection between that and any storms that happen. As shown above, the government doesn't' have the richness of quality data over time, to then slice and dice for causality down to a regional level.
How do we debate these topics?
There needs to be a forum for civil discourse given the large amount of issues with climate change data. This occurs in many fields and the debate should not be in the hands of a couple "scientists" and the media. When President Barack Obama (whose administration I worked for in two separate departments) himself wants to chime in on the topic, perhaps official sources are better for everyone to see and appreciate, rather than this same Guardian newspaper article that is making the rounds despite being a secondary source.
April was the seventh consecutive month of record-high temperatures. We need to #ActOnClimate. https://t.co/C4ca2VOA0a— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) May 16, 2016
And what about NASA's scientist Schmidt? How do competing scientists debate him on his erratic data, and continuously-revised "models"? You can't. This public service player is only available to debate professional clowns with the same talents as he has. A few days ago, he accepted his first debate (versus comedians Jon Glaser, and Eugene Mirman). Nice. He's the pudgy fellow on left. The climate science, beyond a long-term trend, is also more pudgy than most lay people and aficionados presume it to be during each month's news announcements.
the changes in climat are awful! I can't survive this summer! http://bigessaywriter.com/blog/climate-changing-or-main-problem-of-the-21st-century will show you that the climat question is the most important in the 21st century!
ReplyDeleteThanks Paul. Also your attached essay puerile. Who wrote it?
Delete