Desperate New Ploy by Dr. Jones

Truly a fascinating new development is taking place from the Dr. Jones of the CRU.  The claim is now out there that global warming is statistically significant once 2010 is taken into account.  The claim is based on the fact that with 2009 in the mix, the statistical certainty was only 90%, but now that 2010 is added, the 95% threshold for significance has (finally) been achieved.  I have to be honest, it made me laugh.

The data is based on the HadCRUT3 temperature data from 1995-2010.  That 15 year period is now the basis for the claim that global warming is real and fully upon us.  The basis for this seems to be that the 15 year average is now high enough to be statistically different from the period before it.  I could find a number of ways to torture the data to show that, but really it is amusing considering what the climate has been doing for the past 10 of those 15 years.

Here is the HadCRUT3 compared to the satellite data (average of RSS and UAH) for the period from 1980-2011.

The Inconvenient Skeptic

(Red) HadCRUT3, (Black) Satellite temperature anomaly for the period from 1980-2011

Certainly I can see how the HadCRUT3 could be considered in a statistically out of control situation, but the funny part is even the HadCRUT3 data does not show any warming for 12 (13 when 2011 is done) of those 15 years that make it real.

The Inconveneint Skeptic

(Red) HadCRUT3, (Black) Satellite Average Temperature anomaly for 1998-current.

Both data sets show an identical rate of cooling for the past 12-13 years at -0.02 °C/decade.  That is not the rate of warming that is a real indicator of global warming.

The real problem with this is the out right deception in using this data without accounting for the ENSO impact which was a major factor in several of the key years with include 1998, 2002, 2010.  That I picked 1998 as the starting point to make a cooling trend is because I know it was an incredible El Nino year and that caused the Earth to be much warmer that year.  It is simply another way of making the data provide the results that are desired.

That they waited for the first really hot weather of 2011 to bring out this claim also strikes my funny bone.  They have really had to wait a long time this year to find weather anywhere that is hot enough to get people’s attention.  It would appear that the warmists have really taken to heart the recent study that shows that people are more likely to believe in global warming if the temperature in the room they are in is warm enough to get peoples attention.

All in all it is a very convenient claim at a convenient time.  It is claims like this that make the entire debate about global warming more of a farce than a real scientific discussion.  I will also note that there is no peer reviewed paper in a journal to show the statistical significance of the last 15 year period.

They also need to hurry up and get the claim out there before 2011 makes the warming statistically insignificant again as there is no chance that 2011 will be anything but close to normal for the global temperature.  I will take bets that they will not be retracting this claim once the 16 year data is in.

Posted in Bad Science and Fear and Misinformation by inconvenientskeptic on June 10th, 2011 at 11:19 pm.


This post has 3 comments

  1. It is amazing that a person who is a professor would behave in this way.

    Just wait till next year and his now current position will be out of date.

    The long term warming trend from the 1850’s using HADCRUT shows the warming trend is still falling on the linear slope.Meaning that over all the warming trend for over past 150 years remains about the same.

  2. Lucia analyzed this issue for a recent Blackboard post, Statistical Significance since 1995? Not with HadCrut!.

  3. Wasn’t 2010 an El Nino year too? I know 1998 was an unusual El Nino but if there was one in 2010 then that would explain any temperature increase in 2010.

Web Design & Dev by

Mazal Simantov Digital Creativity