69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research
- Thread starter petros
- Start date
I have my moments. lol No-one knows everything. I'm not well-versed in the goofy suppositions of "Electric Universe" but anything I can find that states a hypothesis of it's proponents is full of holes. And they aren't particularly small holes either.
Typical dumbass comment coming from someone who was asked to list the postulations of "Electric Universe" and can't.It's obvious that you are completely ignorant of Les? that was easy
Post the Electric Universe postulations then.Les is no dummy, but the electrical basis of the universe and life is proven fact by the very same scientific method advocated right here in these threads by the well known protectors of error and revenue streams.
Actually the equation is quite simple and if you view it as Pythagoras would see it, you'd come up with a simple right-angle triangle with the vertical vector being momentum at c (velocity of light) squared, the horizontal vector being mass times c cubed, and the hypotenuse being energy times c. It's a picture of the mass-energy-momentum relation.
Einstein's equation is basically one of the mass-energy-momentum relation for diminishing momentum. He knew this and repeatedly explained that it is restricted to audiences moving in relation with the viewed objects that are also moving. Either people don't get this or else they ignore it.
The basis of Einstein's relativity theory is that in 4 dimensional space-time, momentum and energy blend into a descriptive vector. The horizontal and vertical components of the triangle are dependent upon the viewpoint of the viewer, but the hypotenuse is a fixed quantity (the descriptive vector), and that is mass.
People can argue all they want but that won't change the fact that this theory holds true for exactly what Einstein said it did.
here: http://www.physorg.com/news146415074.html
Crap.
Well, Les on that subject I certainly have to defer to you as your knowledge of the matter is much superior to mine. Things like trigonometry and logarithms are areas where I USED to think I was fairly sharp, now it's more like adding, subtracting and citing the ABCs. :lol:
Below is Dr Latour’s original essay:
GHG Theory 33C Effect Whatchamacallit
Pierre R Latour, PhD, Houston, January 15, 2012
GHG Theory was invented to explain a so-called 33C atmospheric greenhouse gas global warming effect. In 1981 James Hanson1, 2 stated the average thermal T at Earth’s surface is 15C (ok) and Earth radiates to space at -18C (ok). Then he declared the difference 15 - (-18) = 33C (arithmetic ok) is the famous greenhouse gas effect. This is not ok because there is no physics to connect these two dissimilar numbers. The 33C are whatchamacallits. This greenhouse gas effect does not exist.
Here is the science for what is happening. Thermal T is a point property of matter, a scalar measure of its kinetic energy of atomic and molecular motion. It is measured by thermometers. It decreases with altitude. The rate of thermal energy transfer by conduction or convection between hot Th and cold Tc is proportional to (Th - Tc).
Radiation t is a point property of massless radiation, EMR, a directional vector measure of its energy transmission rate per area or intensity, w/m2, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It is measured by pyrometers and spectrometers. Solar radiation t increases with altitude. Black bodies are defined to be those that absorb and radiate with the same intensity and corresponding t. Real, colorful bodies reflect, scatter, absorb, convert and emit radiant energy according to the nature of the incident radiation direction, spectrum and body matter reflectivity, absorptivity, emissivity and view factors. The rate of EMR energy transfer from a hot body, th, is Q, w = 5.67Ae(th + 273)4, where A is radiating area and e is emissivity fraction. But it may not be absorbed by all bodies that intercept it, as GHG theory assumes. In particular, hotter radiating bodies do not absorb colder incident radiation and reemit it more intensely, as GHG back-radiation theory assumes.
Above Earth’s stratosphere, thin air T is rather cold, about -80C. Yet solar radiation t is rather hot, about 120C. So spacesuits have thermal insulation and radiant reflection. The difference, 200C, is meaningless. On a cold, clear, winter day on snowcapped mountains, dry air T = -10C and radiation t = 50C. I can feel them both.
Much of GHG theory fails to make clear distinctions between these two different kinds of temperature, T and t. One temperature, t, is analogous to velocity, 34 km/hour north; the other, T, is analogous to density, 1 kg/liter. So 34 km/hour - 1 kg/liter is indeed 33 whatchamacallits by
By Jeremy Dunning-Davies, Senior Lecturer in Physics at the University of Hull and member of the Royal Astronomical Society and Natural Philosophy Alliance. Gravity Probe B and Related Matters
indeed twist space-time, causing frame dragging’. The uninitiated are probably impressed immediately but anyone with a modicum of
appropriate knowledge might well ask ‘But what is space-time and what frame is being dragged?’ This seems a good, relevant question, particularly in view of earlier comments made here. In truth, space-time is a purely mathematical construct. It is a four-dimensional mathematical space in which three of the axes represent our familiar spatial coordinates and fourth axis represents time. The four axes are mutually perpendicular to one another and this, in itself, indicates the entity to be a mathematical concept rather something genuinely physical. Hence, any point in such a space does tell the observer where a body is at a particular time and the name ‘space-time’ does seem eminently appropriate - but the space is mathematical; it is not reality as we know it in our everyday lives. Once this question concerning the meaning of the word ‘space-time’ is answered, the follow-up question must be ‘What is the metric (where by metric is meant the square of the distance between two neighbouring points in the space) considered here?’
Synopsis of The Electric Universe
GHG Theory 33C Effect Whatchamacallit
Pierre R Latour, PhD, Houston, January 15, 2012
GHG Theory was invented to explain a so-called 33C atmospheric greenhouse gas global warming effect. In 1981 James Hanson1, 2 stated the average thermal T at Earth’s surface is 15C (ok) and Earth radiates to space at -18C (ok). Then he declared the difference 15 - (-18) = 33C (arithmetic ok) is the famous greenhouse gas effect. This is not ok because there is no physics to connect these two dissimilar numbers. The 33C are whatchamacallits. This greenhouse gas effect does not exist.
Here is the science for what is happening. Thermal T is a point property of matter, a scalar measure of its kinetic energy of atomic and molecular motion. It is measured by thermometers. It decreases with altitude. The rate of thermal energy transfer by conduction or convection between hot Th and cold Tc is proportional to (Th - Tc).
Radiation t is a point property of massless radiation, EMR, a directional vector measure of its energy transmission rate per area or intensity, w/m2, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It is measured by pyrometers and spectrometers. Solar radiation t increases with altitude. Black bodies are defined to be those that absorb and radiate with the same intensity and corresponding t. Real, colorful bodies reflect, scatter, absorb, convert and emit radiant energy according to the nature of the incident radiation direction, spectrum and body matter reflectivity, absorptivity, emissivity and view factors. The rate of EMR energy transfer from a hot body, th, is Q, w = 5.67Ae(th + 273)4, where A is radiating area and e is emissivity fraction. But it may not be absorbed by all bodies that intercept it, as GHG theory assumes. In particular, hotter radiating bodies do not absorb colder incident radiation and reemit it more intensely, as GHG back-radiation theory assumes.
Above Earth’s stratosphere, thin air T is rather cold, about -80C. Yet solar radiation t is rather hot, about 120C. So spacesuits have thermal insulation and radiant reflection. The difference, 200C, is meaningless. On a cold, clear, winter day on snowcapped mountains, dry air T = -10C and radiation t = 50C. I can feel them both.
Much of GHG theory fails to make clear distinctions between these two different kinds of temperature, T and t. One temperature, t, is analogous to velocity, 34 km/hour north; the other, T, is analogous to density, 1 kg/liter. So 34 km/hour - 1 kg/liter is indeed 33 whatchamacallits by
By Jeremy Dunning-Davies, Senior Lecturer in Physics at the University of Hull and member of the Royal Astronomical Society and Natural Philosophy Alliance. Gravity Probe B and Related Matters
indeed twist space-time, causing frame dragging’. The uninitiated are probably impressed immediately but anyone with a modicum of
appropriate knowledge might well ask ‘But what is space-time and what frame is being dragged?’ This seems a good, relevant question, particularly in view of earlier comments made here. In truth, space-time is a purely mathematical construct. It is a four-dimensional mathematical space in which three of the axes represent our familiar spatial coordinates and fourth axis represents time. The four axes are mutually perpendicular to one another and this, in itself, indicates the entity to be a mathematical concept rather something genuinely physical. Hence, any point in such a space does tell the observer where a body is at a particular time and the name ‘space-time’ does seem eminently appropriate - but the space is mathematical; it is not reality as we know it in our everyday lives. Once this question concerning the meaning of the word ‘space-time’ is answered, the follow-up question must be ‘What is the metric (where by metric is meant the square of the distance between two neighbouring points in the space) considered here?’
Synopsis of The Electric Universe
I think you may have broken your own record. Can't even get the first sentence, let alone the first paragraph out without being completely and utterly wrong. What a horrid bit of writing.
James Hansen did not invent greenhouse gas theory.
Educate yourself:
I'll let Ton handle the first part of that and I can ditch the assumptions in this last bit.
It is only represented as a mathematical construct. The model is space and time themselves. This dope is expecting people to believe that space and time and the correlation between them are not real but simple figures on foolscap. Freakin funny shyte! For instance, parallax is real stuff. It is measured and then it becomes a mathematical construct.
NEXT ......
The theory was invented to explain a difference that the article claims Hansen declared.
The claim is implicit. And the physics most definitely are there, it goes far back to the links I supplied to you.
Space is volume represented by cubic units. Time is distance between events measured in degrees. They are not physical objects and therefore cannot be punched or bored. Incidentally Les, I would like to buy a jar of real parallax .Do you accept money knitted out of space time, if so name your price.
Sooner or later you will be forced to pay me the ten thousand dollars you bet on an invented problem. Hansen is a no good con artist.
So it took you no time to type that out? And you took up no volume while you wrote that? And the joke your "Electric Universe" hypothesis is, is in the jar with your parallax. I sent it with much humor and love. Yeah, we all know anything intangible can't be real.
It's all magic dim rodent...even you could perform this experiment, though you're so far into conspiracy non-reality that you will likely call shenanigans on yourself for this voodoo:
Pico Technology Experiment: Global Warming
:lol:
This is the person Lester calls a dope.
Jeremy Dunning-Davies, Senior Lecturer in Physics at the University of Hull and member of the Royal Astronomical Society and Natural Philosophy Alliance.
Jeremy Dunning-Davies, Senior Lecturer in Physics at the University of Hull and member of the Royal Astronomical Society and Natural Philosophy Alliance.
But what has that have to do with what we were talking about?This is the person Lester calls a dope.
Jeremy Dunning-Davies, Senior Lecturer in Physics at the University of Hull and member of the Royal Astronomical Society and Natural Philosophy Alliance.
I don't care if he looks like Ronald McDonald or Richard Nixon. Nor do I care if he has 1400 certificates on his office wall. He's an educated moron. BTW, it took time for his photo to develop and he occupied space while he was being photoed, but they are just numbers and don't really exist right?.
This is the person Lester calls a dope.
Jeremy Dunning-Davies, Senior Lecturer in Physics at the University of Hull and member of the Royal Astronomical Society and Natural Philosophy Alliance.
Nice appeal to authority, logical fail.
Definite climate change around here, last Monday it got up to +10 C here today it got up to -10C here! :smile:
Well then its the first time I walked around most of the afternoon in my shirtsleeves at Minus 10C :lol:
NCDC data shows that the contiguous USA has not warmed in the past decade, summers are cooler, winters are getting colder | Watts Up With That?
NCDC data shows that the contiguous USA has not warmed in the past decade, summers are cooler, winters are getting colder
NCDC data shows that the contiguous USA has not warmed in the past decade, summers are cooler, winters are getting colder
Hmm, the contiguous US, and the last decade. So the claims actually say nothing about global warming, and nothing about global climate change. But fake skeptics probably won't notice the difference. Here's a good examination of Curry's claims, read it and weep fake skeptical beaver:
Judith Curry Opens Mouth, Inserts Foot
Posted on October 30, 2011 | 184 Comments
NOTE: See the UPDATE at the end of this post.
I didn’t expect Judith Curry to embarrass herself more than she did with her fawning over Murry Salby’s folly. But she’s topped (perhaps I should say “bottomed”) herself by a huge margin.
Anthony Watts was so excited he actually suspended his blog hiatus to report the story. He quotes the GWPF that “BEST Confirms Global Temperature Standstill,” and cites a story in the Daily Mail reporting that Judith Curry (a member of the Berkeley team) has roundly criticized Richard Muller (leader of the Berkeley team), on much the same basis. He quotes Curry herself, from the article:
As for the graph disseminated to the media, she said: ‘This is “hide the decline” stuff. Our data show the pause, just as the other sets of data do. Muller is hiding the decline.
With this statement, Curry reveals how little she understands the data created by the team of which she is a member, let alone the “other sets of data.” Which we might have anticipated, given that from what we’ve seen, she made little or no contribution to the actual Berkeley analysis.
Judging by her comments, it’s a good thing for the Berkeley team that she didn’t. The Daily Mail quotes her thus:
‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’
That’s a pretty strong statement, Judith. Do you have a scientific basis to back it up? Have you actually analyzed the data from your own team? Do you even know?
Now that the Daily Mail and Anthony Watts have not only let the cat out of the bag but put it on display to make a “scandal” out of it, Curry seems to want to distance herself from her criticism. On her own blog she says:
I told Rose that I was puzzled my Muller’s statements, particularly about “end of skepticism” and also “We see no evidence of global warming slowing down.”
When asked specifically about the graph that apparently uses a 10 year running mean and ends in 2006, we discussed “hide the decline,” but I honestly can’t recall if Rose or I said it first. I agree that the way the data is presented in the graph “hides the decline.” There is NO comparison of this situation to Climategate. Muller et al. have been very transparent in their methods and in making their data publicly available, which is highly commendable.
My most important statement IMO is this: ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’ My main point was that this is a very good data set, the best we currently have available for land surface temperatures. To me, this should have been the big story: a new comprehensive data set, put together by a team of physicists and statisticians with private funds. Showing preliminary results is of course fine, but overselling them at this point was a mistake IMO.
It seems to me that there are only two possibilities. Either Judith Curry hasn’t bothered to analyze the data from her own team — or she’s not competent to.
Just looking at the data isn’t enough. It’s all too easy to view some graph and get the wrong impression — in fact that what groups like GWPF exploit. Here, for instance, is the graph featured by GWPF:
The impression it gives, that global warming has stopped, is wrong. It’s the kind of easy misinterpretation based on the absence of both context and analysis which is constantly exploited by fake skeptics. I expect GWPF to disdain both context and analysis. But Judith Curry is supposed to be an actual scientist. I’m skeptical.
Since Judith Curry seems unwilling or unable to do the analysis, we’ll just have to do it for her. Let’s start with the data used by GWPF. Here it is with a trend line:
Please note that it starts in January 2001 and ends in May 2010, so it covers a tiny bit less than a decade! That’s a great big “red flag.”
The slope of the trend line (from ordinary least squares) is only 0.03 deg.C/decade. It’s fair to call that “flat.” But the standard error from that calculation — even if we use a white-noise model — is 0.13 deg.C/decade. So the real value could be as high as 0.29 deg.C/decade — which, curiously enough, is a tiny bit higher than the trend rate in the Berkeley data from 1975 to the present — a period for which you can only deny warming if you’re both blind and insane. And yes, it could easily be an even higher slope since we’ve used a white-noise model, which underestimates the uncertainty. Hey Judith: there’s a scientific basis for you.
But that’s not all! The Berkeley data also include uncertainty levels for each monthly value. Let’s graph the uncertainties:
Whoa!!! What’s that huge spike at the end? It rises faster than a “hockey stick”!
The huge spike is the huge uncertainty level of the final two data points — April and May 2010. While the other data have uncertainty levels around 0.1 deg.C, those two months have uncertainty levels of 2.8 and 2.9 deg.C. Which makes them, plainly, unreliable.
And notice that one of those too-uncertain-to-be-useful data points is the deep “dip” at the end, the April 2010 value which is about 2 deg.C below the trend line. It’s called an “outlier,” in fact it’s an outlier of the first magnitude, a really big super-giant “this ain’t right” staring you in the face. And since it’s a super-giant dip it’s gonna skew the trend estimate low. The simplest correct thing to do is to omit those two data points.
So let’s do it again, but end at March 2010 rather than include the uber-fuzzy April and May 2010 data. Here’s the trend line from 2001:
Now it’s noticeably upward. The estimated slope is 0.14 deg.C/decade — more than four times as large, just from removing two errant data points. Its standard error is 0.11 degC/decade, so the real trend rate could be as high as 0.36 deg.C/decade, quite a bit larger than the average rate since 1975. And yes, it could easily be an even higher slope since we’ve used a white-noise model, which underestimates the uncertainty. Hey Judith: there’s another scientific basis for you.
To show just how sensitive the results are to such a short time span — and how misleading it can be to make pronouncements on that basis — let’s consider a time span just one year longer, starting in 2000 rather than 2001. That gives this:
Now the trend rate is up to 0.27 deg.C/decade. That’s just about the same as the trend rate from 1975! Hey Judith: there’s another scientific basis for you.
As a last bit of analysis, let’s omit the outlier data, then compute the trend for each starting year to the present, for all start years from 1975 to 2005. Let’s also estimate the confidence intervals using a more realistic error model. What would that show? This:
The red dashed line shows the trend rate from 1975. Note that not one single start year gives an estimate which contradicts that rate. That is evidence — damn strong evidence in fact — that the underlying trend rate has not changed since 1975. Hey Judith: there’s a REAL scientific basis for you.
Here’s the kicker: the uncertainty in those trend rates is probably higher, perhaps by a substantial amount, because that graph is based on an AR(1) model for the noise. Using an ARMA(1,1) model instead gives this:
That shows just how mistaken, how foolish, how downright boneheaded it is to say that “There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped.”
Judith Curry’s statement is exactly the kind of ill-thought-out or not-at-all-thought-out rambling which is an embarrassment to her, and an embarrassment to science itself. To spew this kind of absolute nonsense is shameful. Judith Curry, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Richard Muller, the target of Curry’s ire, also managed to embarrass himself:
However, he admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’, although, he added, it was equally possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified.
Of course we’re mystified. Didn’t you do the analysis? Don’t you know? Honestly, what kind of insane world do we live in when we get this level of discussion about one of the most crucial issues of our time, from people who are supposed to be scientists?
In my opinion, the WORST aspect of this is that Judith Curry states unequivocally that “Our data show the pause,” which utterly ignores the extreme level of uncertainty in temperature trends over periods as short as 10 years or less, after she has so often indulged in self-righteous posturing on her own blog about the “uncertainty monster.” It looks like the “uncertainty monster” decided to turn around and bite her on the ass.
Regarding Curry’s involvement with the press release, and the submission of papers, the Daily Mail reports that “Prof. Muller failed to consult her before deciding to put them on the internet earlier this month, when the peer review process had barely started, and to issue a detailed press release at the same time.” She stated, “It would have been smart to consult me.” On her blog she says:
My continued collaboration on this project will be discussed this week with Muller and Rohde.
It seems to me that what would really be smart is to find someone else to be on the Berkeley team.
UPDATE:
Judith Curry protests that she was misrepresented by the article in the Daily Mail, and several readers have mentioned that David Rose, the author of the article, is just the man to do such a thing. It’s easy to believe that she was indeed the victim of his malfeasance.
But even after reading this post, she still hasn’t disavowed the statement “There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped.” In fact she commented on her own blog saying, “There has been a lag/slowdown/whatever you want to call it in the rate of temperature increase since 1998.” Question for Curry: What’s your scientific basis for this claim?
The statistical accumen shown by Currie is pretty shakey. I anticipate the same old comments about lies, damned lies, and statistics, but that is a refuge of those who refuse to accept analysis that contradicts their favoured position on this topic. Tamino has used standard statistical analysis, and anyone who wants to make claims about the trend will require statistics.Posted on October 30, 2011 | 184 Comments
NOTE: See the UPDATE at the end of this post.
I didn’t expect Judith Curry to embarrass herself more than she did with her fawning over Murry Salby’s folly. But she’s topped (perhaps I should say “bottomed”) herself by a huge margin.
Anthony Watts was so excited he actually suspended his blog hiatus to report the story. He quotes the GWPF that “BEST Confirms Global Temperature Standstill,” and cites a story in the Daily Mail reporting that Judith Curry (a member of the Berkeley team) has roundly criticized Richard Muller (leader of the Berkeley team), on much the same basis. He quotes Curry herself, from the article:
As for the graph disseminated to the media, she said: ‘This is “hide the decline” stuff. Our data show the pause, just as the other sets of data do. Muller is hiding the decline.
Judging by her comments, it’s a good thing for the Berkeley team that she didn’t. The Daily Mail quotes her thus:
‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’
Now that the Daily Mail and Anthony Watts have not only let the cat out of the bag but put it on display to make a “scandal” out of it, Curry seems to want to distance herself from her criticism. On her own blog she says:
I told Rose that I was puzzled my Muller’s statements, particularly about “end of skepticism” and also “We see no evidence of global warming slowing down.”
When asked specifically about the graph that apparently uses a 10 year running mean and ends in 2006, we discussed “hide the decline,” but I honestly can’t recall if Rose or I said it first. I agree that the way the data is presented in the graph “hides the decline.” There is NO comparison of this situation to Climategate. Muller et al. have been very transparent in their methods and in making their data publicly available, which is highly commendable.
My most important statement IMO is this: ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’ My main point was that this is a very good data set, the best we currently have available for land surface temperatures. To me, this should have been the big story: a new comprehensive data set, put together by a team of physicists and statisticians with private funds. Showing preliminary results is of course fine, but overselling them at this point was a mistake IMO.
Just looking at the data isn’t enough. It’s all too easy to view some graph and get the wrong impression — in fact that what groups like GWPF exploit. Here, for instance, is the graph featured by GWPF:
The impression it gives, that global warming has stopped, is wrong. It’s the kind of easy misinterpretation based on the absence of both context and analysis which is constantly exploited by fake skeptics. I expect GWPF to disdain both context and analysis. But Judith Curry is supposed to be an actual scientist. I’m skeptical.
Since Judith Curry seems unwilling or unable to do the analysis, we’ll just have to do it for her. Let’s start with the data used by GWPF. Here it is with a trend line:
Please note that it starts in January 2001 and ends in May 2010, so it covers a tiny bit less than a decade! That’s a great big “red flag.”
The slope of the trend line (from ordinary least squares) is only 0.03 deg.C/decade. It’s fair to call that “flat.” But the standard error from that calculation — even if we use a white-noise model — is 0.13 deg.C/decade. So the real value could be as high as 0.29 deg.C/decade — which, curiously enough, is a tiny bit higher than the trend rate in the Berkeley data from 1975 to the present — a period for which you can only deny warming if you’re both blind and insane. And yes, it could easily be an even higher slope since we’ve used a white-noise model, which underestimates the uncertainty. Hey Judith: there’s a scientific basis for you.
But that’s not all! The Berkeley data also include uncertainty levels for each monthly value. Let’s graph the uncertainties:
Whoa!!! What’s that huge spike at the end? It rises faster than a “hockey stick”!
The huge spike is the huge uncertainty level of the final two data points — April and May 2010. While the other data have uncertainty levels around 0.1 deg.C, those two months have uncertainty levels of 2.8 and 2.9 deg.C. Which makes them, plainly, unreliable.
And notice that one of those too-uncertain-to-be-useful data points is the deep “dip” at the end, the April 2010 value which is about 2 deg.C below the trend line. It’s called an “outlier,” in fact it’s an outlier of the first magnitude, a really big super-giant “this ain’t right” staring you in the face. And since it’s a super-giant dip it’s gonna skew the trend estimate low. The simplest correct thing to do is to omit those two data points.
So let’s do it again, but end at March 2010 rather than include the uber-fuzzy April and May 2010 data. Here’s the trend line from 2001:
Now it’s noticeably upward. The estimated slope is 0.14 deg.C/decade — more than four times as large, just from removing two errant data points. Its standard error is 0.11 degC/decade, so the real trend rate could be as high as 0.36 deg.C/decade, quite a bit larger than the average rate since 1975. And yes, it could easily be an even higher slope since we’ve used a white-noise model, which underestimates the uncertainty. Hey Judith: there’s another scientific basis for you.
To show just how sensitive the results are to such a short time span — and how misleading it can be to make pronouncements on that basis — let’s consider a time span just one year longer, starting in 2000 rather than 2001. That gives this:
Now the trend rate is up to 0.27 deg.C/decade. That’s just about the same as the trend rate from 1975! Hey Judith: there’s another scientific basis for you.
As a last bit of analysis, let’s omit the outlier data, then compute the trend for each starting year to the present, for all start years from 1975 to 2005. Let’s also estimate the confidence intervals using a more realistic error model. What would that show? This:
The red dashed line shows the trend rate from 1975. Note that not one single start year gives an estimate which contradicts that rate. That is evidence — damn strong evidence in fact — that the underlying trend rate has not changed since 1975. Hey Judith: there’s a REAL scientific basis for you.
Here’s the kicker: the uncertainty in those trend rates is probably higher, perhaps by a substantial amount, because that graph is based on an AR(1) model for the noise. Using an ARMA(1,1) model instead gives this:
That shows just how mistaken, how foolish, how downright boneheaded it is to say that “There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped.”
Judith Curry’s statement is exactly the kind of ill-thought-out or not-at-all-thought-out rambling which is an embarrassment to her, and an embarrassment to science itself. To spew this kind of absolute nonsense is shameful. Judith Curry, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Richard Muller, the target of Curry’s ire, also managed to embarrass himself:
However, he admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’, although, he added, it was equally possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified.
In my opinion, the WORST aspect of this is that Judith Curry states unequivocally that “Our data show the pause,” which utterly ignores the extreme level of uncertainty in temperature trends over periods as short as 10 years or less, after she has so often indulged in self-righteous posturing on her own blog about the “uncertainty monster.” It looks like the “uncertainty monster” decided to turn around and bite her on the ass.
Regarding Curry’s involvement with the press release, and the submission of papers, the Daily Mail reports that “Prof. Muller failed to consult her before deciding to put them on the internet earlier this month, when the peer review process had barely started, and to issue a detailed press release at the same time.” She stated, “It would have been smart to consult me.” On her blog she says:
My continued collaboration on this project will be discussed this week with Muller and Rohde.
UPDATE:
Judith Curry protests that she was misrepresented by the article in the Daily Mail, and several readers have mentioned that David Rose, the author of the article, is just the man to do such a thing. It’s easy to believe that she was indeed the victim of his malfeasance.
But even after reading this post, she still hasn’t disavowed the statement “There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped.” In fact she commented on her own blog saying, “There has been a lag/slowdown/whatever you want to call it in the rate of temperature increase since 1998.” Question for Curry: What’s your scientific basis for this claim?