Fake temperatures?

The widely reported global average surface temperatures, which are the basis for the global warming scare, are not true. Contrary to popular belief these are not measurements. They are the output of complex statistical models. These statistical models are every bit as questionable as the climate models they feed into, actually more so.

The global warming scare is based on the supposed rapid surface warming that occurred in the two decades between roughly 1978 and 1997. The climate models are tuned to this warming, using speculative human causes to explain it. They then project this surface warming to dangerous future levels and that is the scare.

But the satellites show no such warming in the atmosphere over this period, where it should be if it were caused by greenhouse gases. The satellites show no warming at all over this crucial time. This zero warming strongly suggests that the surface statistical models are wrong.

Keep in mind that these global temperature statistics are no different than a voter poll prior to an election and we know how wrong they can be. An incredibly tiny subset of the overall population is being sampled. In this case the overall population is the temperature every place on earth at every moment over an entire year.

The pollsters know that a lot can go wrong. Apparently the alarmists that cite these crude temperature estimates as precise facts do not, or they choose to ignore the problems, in which case they are faking it.

There are at least ten things wrong with these statistical models. These flaws support the view that these crude temperature estimates are simply wrong. Some flaws are well known, like arbitrary adjustments and the urban heat island effect. Other weaknesses are less well known, like local heat contamination, the use of area averaging and interpolation, or the use of sea water proxies, as well as taking the mean value to be true when we know it is not. These will be topics of later analyses.

But here I present the deepest flaw, which is not widely discussed. This is that the surface statistical models are operating on what is called in statistics an “availability” or “convenience” sample.

To begin with, note that the alarmists claim to know the global surface temperature to a hundredth of a degree. Here is an example from NOAA’s recent “Global Climate Report” for 2016:

“The average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2016 was 0.94°C (1.69°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), surpassing the previous record warmth of 2015 by 0.04°C (0.07°F).”

A hundredth of a degree is incredible accuracy given that temperatures around the globe on many days can differ by a hundred degrees or more F. In fact it is not credible. The truth is that these surface statistical models are not merely inaccurate, they are worthless. Here is why.

The math of statistics is based on probability theory. Thus one of the absolute requirements is that the sample be random. If the sample is not random then the math is not applicable.

In fact the samples used in the surface statistical models are nothing like a random sample of the Earth’s surface. They are heavily clustered near urban areas and airports in developed countries. The locations were not chosen to be a global temperature sampling system and they certainly are not. The oceans are even worse because there are no fixed stations. Most of the Earth had no fixed temperature recording stations during the period in question, and still have none. There is no random sample of the Earth’s surface temperature.

In short the surface statistical models use the data that is available, not a random sample of the population. Statistical sampling theory makes clear that convenience samples like this cannot be used to estimate the statistics for the whole population. Yet this is exactly what is being done for global average temperature, to a hundredth of a degree. This is simply wrong.

Statistical science is very clear that a convenience sample does not provide an accurate estimate. Here are some examples from several statistical science websites:

A. “Research Methodology” says this:

Disadvantages of Convenience Sampling:
Highly vulnerable to selection bias and influences beyond the control of the researcher
High level of sampling error
Studies that use convenience sampling have little credibility due to reasons above

B. “ThoughtCo.com” says this:

Problems with Convenience Samples:
As indicated by their name, convenience samples are definitely easy to obtain. There is virtually no difficulty in selecting members of the population for a convenience sample.
However, there is a price to pay for this lack of effort: convenience samples are virtually worthless in statistics
.”

C. “Conveniencesampling.net” says this:

Because of the flaws found in this form of sampling, scientists cannot draw concrete conclusions from their data.”

So the global warming scare is based on global statistics that have little credibility, are virtually worthless and cannot be used to draw concrete conclusions. What a mess!

Alarmist climate science is falling all over itself trying to explain a two decade period of rapid warming that the satellites say does not exist. They are faking it. There is nothing to explain.

Categories

About the Author: David Wojick, Ph.D.

David Wojick is a journalist and policy analyst. He holds a doctorate in epistemology, specializing in the field of Mathematical Logic and Conceptual Analysis.

  • Li D

    Hahahahaha.
    Call yourself a journalist.

    • Hahahahaha, climate models too warm. Oh, forgot, expensive, not funny.

      • Immortal600

        Don’t bother with him. He is a true believer and can’t accept that the AGW folks manipulate their data to fit the narrative.

        • David Wojick

          Actually it is far worse than manipulating the data. The data is no good to begin with, because it is a convenience sample. As my quotes make clear, a convenience sample is worthless.

          • Immortal600

            Thanks for pointing that out. Keep up the good work!

          • Li D

            What you call a convenience sample is just
            what there is to work with.
            By your reasoning, working
            out river volumes is some sort of scam because theres only say, 5 guages along a
            river, not having them spaced a metre apart all along the river.
            So the observations are crap and its not worthwhile
            telling people downstream about impending floods.

            By your reasoning, dinosour bones are only found in selected places so the whole study of dinosours is put in jeopardy.

            You are approaching science with an agenda, not a journalistic openness.

            Li D
            Australia

            • Immortal600

              Interesting. You, someone not educated in the field, is arguing with the PHD who is specializing in the field of Mathematical Logic and Conceptual Analysis. What are YOUR credentials? Hmm?

            • David Wojick

              Actually I am a cognitive scientist, as well as a journalist. My field is the logic of complex issues. See http://www.stemed.info/reports/Wojick_Issue_Analysis_txt.pdf

              In this case I am studying the misuse of math.

              Your stream gage analogy does not work. No one is estimating the average streamflow for an entire river basin by averaging all the gages. That would be a nutty number. But if they wanted to do that, they would have to use a random sample of locations, not the convenience sample they now have, with stream gages located where roads cross the river.

              Nor is the study of dinosaurs in jeopardy. What would be in jeopardy is if someone claimed to know what the population was at a specific time, based on the fossil record. That would be nuts, just as these surface temperature claims are.

      • Li D

        Oh rubbish. If anything the models are too conservative.
        But thats a seperate issue from what the article ( and i use that term loosely ) is about.
        Off topic. I do wanna give
        both CFACT Ed and Mr Wojik
        a big thumbs up for engaging
        with commenters. A very rare
        thing at CFACT normally.
        Most writers dont seem to give a rats arse.
        The lady who left recently being a notable exception.

        • David Wojick

          The models are all based on warming that the satellites say did not happen.

    • Immortal600

      Tell us where he is wrong.

  • Sam Gilman

    This article misrepresents what NOAA says in other places.

    The uncertainties are acknowledged in how the ranking of years is actually expressed in probabilities. So 2016 is not stated as the hottest year with 100% certainty, but most likely the hottest year (in this case 62% probability the hottest). Such as page 4 on this PP presentation here:

    https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/noaa-nasa_global_analysis-2016.pdf

    One needs to remember that flaws in an area of science that gains this much attention from the global science community are going to be rather more sophisticated and hard to spot. When someone presents a flaw that’s absolutely easy enough for a layperson to understand, then it’s probably not true, and instead a political attempt to discredit including inconvenient science.

    • Immortal600

      Yet AGW proponents latch onto the hottest year hype and conveniently leave out the 62% probability. Also, given that they have “adjusted” temperature records upwards, how are we to believe anything that comes from either NASA or NOAA?

      • Li D

        Yes yes. How are we to believe Neil and Buzz went to the moon eh?
        American conspiratists undermining their own ( never mind the worlds ) institutions are just so funny.

        • Immortal600

          Straw-man. Do you deny that temperature data has been readjusted? All you seem to be able to do is disparage someone’s opinion then you wonder why you get attacked.

      • Sam Gilman

        Are you saying that no data should be adjusted? You’re disagreeing with David Wojick as well as NASA.

        • Immortal600

          No, I’m not saying that. I am saying that the temperature data has been adjusted and it has been adjusted to fit a failing AGW narrative.

          • Sam Gilman

            What data independent of all this are you basing your claim on?

            • Immortal600

              The data that NASA and NOAA are using. The temperature “pause” had to be explained away. Therefore temperatures were adjusted to show that there had not been a pause after all. THAT DATA

              • Sam Gilman

                Can you give me a source that shows that they adjusted data on this to make the pause go away?

                I think you may have misunderstood what has happened.

                • Immortal600
                  • Sam Gilman

                    That’s basically addition of data, not adjustment. What adjustment there was, was for what had been mislabelling of data (ship measurements).

                    Are you arguing that mislabelled data is better? That seems a very strange argument.

                    • Immortal600

                      Whether it was added or adjusted is irrelevant. The fact is data was changed to make it appear that no pause ever existed. From Dr. Curry’s link the pertinent paragraph:

                      The greatest changes in the new NOAA surface temperature analysis is
                      to the ocean temperatures since 1998. This seems rather ironic, since
                      this is the period where there is the greatest coverage of data with the
                      highest quality of measurements – ARGO buoys and satellites don’t show a
                      warming trend. Nevertheless, the NOAA team finds a substantial
                      increase in the ocean surface temperature anomaly trend since 1998.

                      Yet people take what Karl, etal did as Gospel. What a joke.

                    • Sam Gilman

                      Your complaint seems to be not that there is a technical problem with the adjustment, but that the adjustment ruins the story you want to tell.

                      I’m sorry that greater accuracy and better data are a problem for your politics, but at the end of the day, if your politics can be upset by temperature readings, there’s probably something wrong with your politics.

                    • Immortal600

                      Look in the mirror, Sam. Same thing could be said of you true believers, which you are one. You can’t show that CO2 is the boogeyman you all claim. Nobody can. Latch onto bogus studies the the Karl etal study, if it brings you comfort.

                      PS My complaint is that the adjustment is smoke and mirrors by AGW proponents and it is amazing that people like you just accept it as pure truth.

                    • Sam Gilman

                      No, you’re just trying to project back but with nothing behind the attempt. The reasons for the addition of data and the correction of the misidentification of data were given to you. You have not addressed those reasons at all.

                    • Immortal600

                      You need it boiled down to one word? FRAUD. How about that? Now come back with the usual lame AGW response. Conspiracy theories? The bottom line is that YOU have no proof that the Karl study is legit. I say it isn’t. I’m not the only one to feel that way. You aren’t achieving anything with this exchange. Maybe you think you are. I could not care less. To me, you and your other AGW supporters are nothing more than hot air.

                      Now, you can have the last word as I’m not inclined to interact with someone who can’t even grasp what my complaint is.

                    • Sam Gilman

                      You haven’t shown fraud.

                      All you have shown is that the improved dataset weakens your claims, and that you don’t like this.

                      Physics doesn’t obey politics.

                    • Immortal600

                      “Physics doesn’t obey politics.”

                      It sure doesn’t! That is why you can’t show AGW as real using atmospheric physics PERIOD

                    • Sam Gilman

                      Yes, you can, and scientists do. The basic physics is actually so basic it was worked out in the 19th century.

                      What’s your explanation for all of the industrialised world’s peak science academies publicly stating their support for the science of AGW? Seven foot lizards exerting mind control?

                    • Immortal600

                      “The basic physics is actually so basic it was worked out in the

                      19th century.”

                      Do you really believe that? Is that the limit of your understanding of the subject? The basic physics, as you put it, hasn’t shown anything but one physical property of a CO2 molecule. YET! You want to make a leap and say that it drives climate change! On what basis?

                      Check this guy out and tell him how he is wrong:

                      http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/why-our-co2-emissions-do-not-increase-atmosphere-co2/

                      Your last sentence shows your shallowness.

                    • jmac

                      It’s just physics.
                      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/

                      And Dr. Ed doesn’t know about isotopes of carbon either.

                    • Immortal600

                      Sure, castigate the man yet you can’t refute his logic. Figures.

                      Dr. Ed has probably forgotten more than you will ever know.

                    • Sam Gilman

                      No, not knowing about the issue of isotopes of atmospheric carbon is really ignorant.

                    • Immortal600

                      He knows about it more than you do. To say he doesn’t is really something.

                      Tell me something, why are you arguing with me? I’m no expert and don’t pretend to be. You aren’t going to convince me of anything other than you are a blowhard who doesn’t really understand climate dynamics. Go argue with Dr. Berry. Show HIM how he is wrong. Can you do that?

                    • jmac

                      I only use you as a demonstration for others. Of course, no one will convince you. You don’t do science and evidence, just conspiracy.

                    • Immortal600

                      Not true. I gave you an expert, who is one of many, to go argue with. He can explain your errors to you but you are obviously afraid to do that. Why? Afraid of getting exposed? Must be.

                    • jmac

                      Your so called expert crashed and burned.

                      Confirmation that rising carbon dioxide levels are due to human activity comes from analyzing the types of carbon found in the air. The carbon atom has several different isotopes (eg – different number of neutrons). Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occuring (Ghosh 2003) and the trend correlates with the trend in global emissions.

                    • Immortal600

                      You are afraid to go there. It is obvious. Stop trying to impress me with your limited knowledge. You get no affirmation here.

                    • jmac

                      LOL. Just LOL.

                    • Immortal600

                      Same here, jmac. LOL just LOL. Really! Go tell Dr. Berry how he he is wrong in that human CO2 emissions don’t add to the increase of CO2. REALLY go there. This should be fun.

                    • jmac

                      Feel free to waste your own time and copy any of my comments over there. 🙂

                    • Immortal600

                      Still scared I see. If you had a real understanding of the topic you wouldn’t waste any time setting him straight. But no, you troll these sites arguing with other non-experts thinking you are achieving something of value while exposing your own limited understanding of the topic. Sad.

                    • jmac

                      Feel free to waste your own time and copy any of my comments over there. 🙂

                    • Immortal600

                      Why would I bother? You haven’t said anything of value.

                    • Sam Gilman

                      Yes, I can. We know the increase in CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels because of the changing ratio of isotopes in atmospheric carbon.

                      You keep telling me I’m stupid but now you’re confessing you don’t understand the topic well enough to defend your beliefs. Do you see anything wrong with that?

                    • Immortal600

                      I didn’t call you stupid. Typical of you true believers, see something that isn’t there. I see that I have to be careful and spell it out for you. I said “he knows more about it than you” and I called you a “blowhard who doesn’t really understand climate dynamics”. That doesn’t make you stupid. Ignorant and misguided maybe, but not stupid. CLEAR NOW?

                      I admit that I don’t have the expertise to understand climate dynamics completely but I’m smart enough to see that no one else has a real handle on climate dynamics either.

                      You keep bringing up all the science academies. Why? What experts are they on atmospheric physics?

                    • Sam Gilman

                      But if he misses out something as basic as the fact we’re able to assess how much CO2 has come from burning fossil fuels, is he really an expert? If he’s publishing a blog rather than a paper, how eminent is he?

                      If you don’t recognise a fundamental oversight for what it is (and jmac and I both spotted it immediately) are you actually able to judge?

                      The world’s science academies are full of people who better understand the physics, and who understand who the experts actually are. In surveys, the more someone knows specifically about atmospheric physics, the more likely they are to endorse AGW.

                      If you want to talk about money, why tell me that scientists around the world in their tens of thousands have been paid off but get angry when asked for evidence of this? Surely you have evidence or you wouldn’t believe it.

                      Why ignore the documented pattern of payments and associations involving a much smaller number of scientists in a much smaller number of countries, and the fossil fuel industry?

                    • Sam Gilman

                      You didn’t know that the greenhouse effect was worked out in the 19th century? And here you are trying to tell the world that mainstream climate science is wrong. Do you see anything wrong with that picture?

                      As for the blog: I’m not really going to take someone seriously who doesn’t understand how we know that increases in atmospheric CO2 are very much down to burning fossil fuels.

                    • Immortal600

                      Sure. You wouldn’t understand it.

                    • Sam Gilman

                      That’s not a coherent response.

                      Could you address my question about the industrialised world’s science academies’ support for the science of AGW?

                    • Immortal600

                      MONEY. Simple enough. POLITICS for second. Is that “coherent” enough for you to understand? Before you respond with some conspiracy garbage, spare me.

                    • Sam Gilman

                      Evidence, please, of these payments.

                    • jmac

                      Conspiracy stories are great aren’t they, they can say any stupid thing they want without having to provide one bit of evidence. 🙂

                    • Immortal600

                      Conspiracy? Who said it was a conspiracy? I didn’t. You see what you want to see. jmac, you need to do better at reading comprehension and stop seeing things that aren’t there.

                    • jmac

                      No evidence = pretty darn good sign it’s a conspiracy story.

                    • Immortal600

                      Really? Is that how you see it? I guess when you can’t think of anything else that fits. LOL

                    • jmac

                      Yep, that’s the difference between science and religion. Evidence.

                    • Immortal600

                      RIGHT! How ironic! You have no “evidence” just a conviction that AGW is real. I’d say it is your religion. I don’t need to show anything contrary to AGW the burden of proof lies with your side and you have yet to provide it. Whenever I hear some AGW proponent talk about 19th century physics I know then and there they are no expert. Are YOU an EXPERT on climate dynamics?

                    • jmac

                      More derp from you.

                      Meanwhile the effects and evidence of climate change are simply an obvious everyday reality all over the world. There are multiple lines of evidence of man made climate change. You can start learning here.
                      http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
                      http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

                      An overview from the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences
                      Climate Change Evidence & Causes

                      CLIMATE CHANGE IS ONE OF THE DEFINING ISSUES OF OUR TIME. It is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate. The atmosphere and oceans have warmed, accompanied by sea-level rise, a strong decline in Arctic sea ice, and other climate-related changes.

                      http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf
                      Followed by 36 pages of basic points and evidence.

                    • Immortal600

                      I asked if YOU were an EXPERT on climate dynamics. A simple yes or no will suffice. A link from NASA doesn’t answer the basic question.

                    • jmac

                      You asked for evidence, I gave it.
                      No, I am not an expert.

                    • Immortal600

                      Thank you for the honest answer. Then tell me, why should I pay any attention to what you say? I know you don’t pay any attention to my writings and don’t blame you. After all, I don’t pretend to be an expert either. I have my opinions as you have yours. We will have to agree to disagree here.

                    • jmac

                      Those were not links to me. Those were links to climate experts.

                    • Immortal600

                      I don’t know why you think I wouldn’t already know that. LOL

                    • jmac

                      Yeah, big wonder.

                    • Immortal600

                      hehehehe. yeah, I have to worry that you see things that aren’t there. I have seen all the links you could possibly provide. I have been following this topic for over 20 years and have yet to see that AGW proponents are correct in their assessment. AGW proponents, that is the scientists themselves, know that CO2 alone couldn’t possibly cause the rise in temperatures that are claimed. They have to rely on a feedback effect on water vapor and, as you must know, water vapor is a much stronger GHG. There is a disagreement to how much effect there is. I have seen anywhere from a high factor down to zero. There is not agreement on how much. If it is truly zero then AGW fails. We will see.

                    • jmac

                      I gave you links to evidence, about 3 posts above.

                      Water vapor is indeed a feedback. As the climate warms from the burning of fossil fuels, the concentrations of water vapor will also increase in response to that warming.

                    • Immortal600

                      That is not agreed upon in the scientific community and you know that.

                      Let me tell you again, I HAVE SEEN all the links you could possibly provide.

                    • jmac

                      Water vapor is indeed a feedback. As the climate warms from the burning of fossil fuels, the concentrations of water vapor will also increase in response to that warming and cause more warming.

                    • Immortal600

                      Why are you repeating what you just wrote? I saw it and responded “That is not agreed upon in the scientific community and you know that”. Maybe you don’t agree and think that some higher feedback figure is correct? On what basis?

                    • jmac

                      I was waiting for you to deny it with some evidence and scientific citation.

                    • Immortal600
                    • jmac

                      Judy published no peer reviewed study disputing what I said.

                    • Immortal600

                      Does that make her wrong? Be careful how you analyze the knowledge you receive and don’t simply filter it with your biases.

                      I don’t know if she is right or wrong. I do not pretend to have that expertise. All I did was show you one scientists take on CO2 feedback. You have to know that she is not alone in her assessment. I find it curious though that there is a movement to silence all those who disagree with AGW. Why? The proponents are that scared? Of what? Catastrophic consequences? THAT is worse than any conspiracy theory.

                      Gotta go. Have a good day.

                    • jmac

                      Judy did not even dispute what I said in that article.

                      Yet you stated “is not agreed upon in the scientific community”.

                      Is water vapor a greenhouse gas?

                      Water vapor is indeed a feedback. As the climate warms from the burning of fossil fuels, the concentrations of water vapor will also increase in response to that warming and cause more warming.

                    • Immortal600

                      Let me spell it out slowly for you because you seem to have reading comprehension issues. I said the rise in CO2 has a FEEDBACK that supposedly causes more water vapor which IS a much MORE potent GHG. The amount of CO2’S feedback is in dispute. I provided a link where Dr. Curry (not Judy) says CO2’s feedback amount is not agreed upon.

                      WHAT PART OF THAT DIDN’T YOU GET???????

                      The FACT that AGW proponents want to silence the opposition is NOT a conspiracy theory! It is a FACT. Newspapers such as the LA Times will not publish comments from people that dispute AGW. Dr. Roger Pielke was threatened by a member of the House of Representatives for expressing contrary views to AGW. NOW IS THAT A CONSPIRACY THEORY?????

                      I am beginning to wonder just how bright you may be. Not very it seems.

                    • jmac

                      Are you trying to talk about climate sensitivity?

                      People are always free to speak, but that does not mean the LA Times nor anybody else is required to publish their BS. And most of your BS sounds like conspiracy theories because you never provide evidence.

                    • Immortal600

                      Oh cut it out. Go argue with someone else.

                    • jmac

                      No evdence, yet again. = conspiracy bs

                    • Immortal600

                      See reply below.

                    • Sam Gilman

                      No. I will argue with you. You made a claim, you need to provide evidence.

                      If you don’t have evidence, isn’t that a problem?

                    • jmac

                      The adjustments Karl proposed were very minor. http://s30.postimg.org/gu23oylhd/Screen_Shot_2015_06_04_at_11_19_59_PM.png
                      The real reason there is no longer a hiatus in global atmospheric surface temperature is that there has been global warming. This decade is warmer than the last, 2016 the warmest on record.

                      As Gavin Schmidt said (paraphrase) ‘if the minute adjustments made by Karl et al. to the SST data were all that was required to break the ‘pause’ then it wasn’t really much of a ‘pause’, was it’?

                      The NOAA study was one of several peer-reviewed studies published in recent years that found the so-called global warming “slowdown” did not occur. No Data Manipulation at NOAA
                      http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/

                    • Immortal600

                      Only if you accept what Karl did. As a true believer, you do. I don’t. AND! That says NOTHING about what those data mean. How are they caused? You and others want to attribute it to AGW when there is ZERO evidence of that despite whatever sources you wish to provide. Yours is a matter of faith without much substantiation.

                    • jmac

                      How is what caused? And you are the one asserting conspiracy without a whit of evidence.

                      The NOAA study was but one of several peer-reviewed studies published in recent years that found the so-called global warming “slowdown” did not occur.
                      https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-015-1495-y
                      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00106.1

                    • Immortal600

                      Ah yes! The conspiracy canard. You people are predictable in your responses. YOU are no expert on the topic, just a true believer. Peer review in regard to climate change is nothing more than a poor joke. It is like foxes saying the other fox didn’t raid the hen house.

                      You want evidence? I’m not an atmospheric physicist but this guy is and he can enlighten you on why you believe a fantasy:

                      http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/why-our-co2-emissions-do-not-increase-atmosphere-co2/

                      Now, go argue with HIM and tell him how he is wrong. Others, probably with a much higher academic background, have tried and all have failed to prove his logic wrong. Can you show him he is wrong, hmm?

                    • jmac

                      Derp. Ask your Dr. Ed about isotopes of carbon and how we know the difference between co2 as a result of burning fossil fuels.

                    • Immortal600

                      Sure. Figures. That is all an uneducated dummy like you can do, castigate the man who is undoubtedly 10 times smarter than you. DERP

                      BTW, he addresses that issue as well. You probably can’t think deep enough to understand it.

                    • jmac

                      What did he say about it?

                    • Immortal600

                      Go look for yourself. He’s the expert not me. OR! Are you afraid of engaging someone clearly your intellectual superior?

                    • jmac

                      Looks like the comments of those that did engage him, pretty well dusted him off. Isotopes of carbon are how we know burning of fossil fuels are adding to the atmospheric co2.

                      Confirmation that rising carbon dioxide levels are due to human activity comes from analyzing the types of carbon found in the air. The carbon atom has several different isotopes (eg – different number of neutrons). Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003) and the trend correlates with the trend in global emissions.

                    • Immortal600

                      Seeing things that aren’t there, again? No they didn’t “dust him off” as you say. Maybe you couldn’t understand what he was saying? probably it.

              • Grumnut1

                Why bother producing a data set that needed to be explained away?
                That sounds like a lot of work to me.
                Why not just produce a data set that fits the narrative, if that’s what you’re saying they’re doing?

    • David Wojick

      Caveating in the fine print is irrelevant. Their “hottest year” number is front page.

      More importantly, their 62% has no scientific basis. You cannot derive a global probability from a convenience sample. That is the point of my piece. The probability that this number is correct is basically zero.

      • Sam Gilman

        Whatever is on the front page is a communication issue. It does not impact on the phenomenon they are trying to communicate. If someone msicommunicates the value of pi, that doesn’t change the value of pi.

        It means that complaining about the difference being a few hundredths of a degree is not valid: they give a probability, not an absolute claim that the “real” figure is higher.

        In general, the piece reads as if the author thinks absolutely temperatures are what is input into the system. Actually it’s anomalies (changes in temperature in any one place). Anomalies are generally consistent across large areas even as temperatures may vary locally. That’s important because it means that problems of bias that would ordinarily come from convenience sampling are fewer. Also, with straightforward convenience sampling, you can’t see the people you haven’t sampled. With monitoring surface temperatures, you can. Because anomalies are geographically consistent over a wide area, there aren’t going to be curious pockets of places suddenly a lot colder. Not unless you have evidence about what would be a strange phenomenon.

        Of course, it’s still a complex calculation full of adjustments, but the central flaw does not seem that central.

        All models are always wrong. The 62% may not be perfectly accurate, but does it describe our situation well enough for practical purposes? That’s the more important question.

        What I find interesting is how when these measurements produced a slowdown in temperature rises, people of a certain political persuasion accepted them and declared that global warming had stopped. Now they are on the rise again, the number s are suddenly all corrupt again. That doesn’t seem like a consistent position.

        • David Wojick

          Anomalies are not generally consistent across broad areas. Many stations show cooling with others warming, often close by. No two stations show the same pattern. Moreover, there are no fixed stations at all over most of the earth — oceans + remote areas. The vast majority are near urban areas, in developed countries, probably 90% or more.

          Just to repeat, statistical science is clear that no valid inference can be drawn, regarding the population as a whole, from this sort of convenience sample.

          • Sam Gilman

            Do you have a link for your claim that anomalies in weather stations nearby each other are not correlated?

          • jmac

            To avoid the better sampled northern hemisphere from dominating the temperature record, scientists take the average of the two hemispheric values.

            By combining the grid boxes, scientists work out average temperatures for the northern and southern hemispheres. How much each box contributes to the global temperature is adjusted to account for the fact that the degree of longitude is bigger at the equator than at the poles. Together, the hemispheric values provide an estimate of global average temperature.

  • tellthetruth

    Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures warmed roughly 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit (0.85 degrees Celsius) from 1880 to 2012, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

    https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

    So for nearly 90 years from 1880 to 1970 the temperature reading stations depended on these three elements.

    1) The human eyeball can discern the difference on a mercury bulb thermometer of 2°F right.

    2) That the humans recording the temperatures and humans re-recording and humans re-re-recording could read the handwriting.

    3) That standing outside in -30° or 120° degrees was uncomfortable.

    Plus this known fact:

    When “The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century. IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…

    The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

    http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/21/climategatekeeping-siberia/

    Adding all these factors is it possible the world temperature increase of 1.5°F maybe off?

  • 4kx3

    Dr. Wojick:

    Thank you for the post. I agree that the statistics of “temperature anomaly” are inappropriate, but the data being used, local temperature anomalies, cannot be used as any sort of temperature whatever statistical method one might employ.

    For those who have never take a course in thermo, the argument that temperature is not an intensive property may not prevail. If I take your grocery bags and divide the bill by the total number of articles to produce an “item average cost” (IAC), can I then draw any useful information from comparing your IAC to someone else’s? Of course not. IAC is not an intensive property even though it is true that the summed cost of all items is a total grocery bill. IAC is a statistic, but it is not a cost. Similarly, temperature anomaly is not a temperature.

    An intensive thermodynamic entity that could demonstrate a change in atmospheric heat content is called “enthalpy”. Enthalpy should be defined to include various reference frame matters like altitude and wind speed.

    In https://aea26.wordpress.com/2017/02/23/atmospheric-energy/ I have plotted a a sampling of thermodynamically valid “effective temperatures” as calculated from enthalpy versus actual temperatures.

    One can see that effective temperature will differ greatly from, and be highly variable with respect to, observed temperature. If CO2 induced global warming were to exist, “effective temperature” is the variable one should employ to demonstrate it.

    Many published papers seen quite aware of the need to consider total energy, but such studies to not lend themselves to pithy press releases or homogenization to eliminate stations that report political incorrect data.

  • jmac

    CFACT and Heartland have been lying about science ever since epidemiology blew the whistle on the cancer causing effects of tobacco.

    Wojick has been described as a journalist and policy analyst. According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Wojick has not published any research in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change.

    If you want to know how the scientists determine the average global temperature, you can read here.
    What are temp anomolies? Why do scientists use them?
    What do scientist mean when they talk about the “uncertainty” in their measurements. (The high and low range) How do they determine that?
    How do scientist determine the accuracy in their global surface temp estimates? How do scientists know if they have enough weather stations to global surface temperature? How many weather station records do we have?
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/FAQ.html
    http://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-do-scientists-measure-global-temperature
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm
    http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2010/05/just-60-stations.html

    And the satellites do show warming: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/to:1997/plot/uah6/trend/to:1997/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/offset:-360/scale:0.007/mean:12/to:1997/plot/rss/offset:-0.1/plot/rss/trend/offset:-0.1/to:1997

  • Best

    David Wojick, Ph.D. in what?

  • Best

    “But the satellites show no such warming in the atmosphere over this period, where it should be if it were caused by greenhouse gases. The satellites show no warming at all over this crucial time. This zero warming strongly suggests that the surface statistical models are wrong.”

    In what part of the atmosphere?