Live from Hartford, CT
Craig Shields, reporting from Hartford, CT, the home of Trinity College, where the class of 1977 is celebrating its 40th reunion. Thrilled to be here. The attendance at events like this is self-selecting; those who aren’t able to have a good time with their classmates (for whatever reason) don’t show up. That leaves us more convivial sorts.
Before I left, I happened to mention to my doctor that there is a fair chance that alcohol could be served this weekend. “A “fair chance,” he asked, puzzled. “To be honest,” I confessed, “It’s the same probability that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.”
In any case, I’m very much hoping that George Will (Class of ’62) is here, and that he’ll give a talk like he’s done in past years. I used to say that there wasn’t a single thing in politics on which he and I agreed, but that’s no longer true, since he quit the Republican party when the GOP endorsed Donald Trump. George doesn’t suffer fools gladly.
It will be interesting to see if he’s gotten off his climate denier position. Since I saw him last, 2014 set the record as the hottest year since measurements began in the late 19th Century. That record was beaten by 2015, which itself was eclipsed by 2016. Climate denial really isn’t very becoming of an intellectual, and I really don’t know why he weighed in on the subject in the first place. He majored in religion when he was here. What’s the matter with leaving matters of science to the scientists?
Craig,
” What’s the matter with leaving matters of science to the scientists?”
That seems such a harmless observation, except in the real world, accepting the predictions of scientists unchallenged, can( and does) often lead to catastrophic consequences !
Advocates of all kinds of persuasion distort scientific information to suit ideological or political agenda in an effort to influence public policy, that’s when it becomes a matter for everyone.
Why do you persist in damaging your own cause by repeating highly questionable propositions ?
Citing “record ” temperatures as evidence is neither persuasive, nor scientific.
The problem with your assertion is obvious. Global temperature records over the last 100 years have been gathered by wildly different technology, different standards, repeatedly adjusted, corrected, interpolated, extrapolated, confused with selected raw temperature data etc.
At the best it’s mostly conjecture and even then were talking about tiny fractions of differences, easily explained in a myriad of ways.
Hardly scientific !
This sort of silly popular science fantasy has as much connection to actual science, as astrology has to astronomy. Worse, it provide excellent grounds for anti-environmentalists to undermine genuine environmental issues.
Oh, and before you accuse me of not being a scientist, I’m happy to acknowledge my conclusion are purely from my own research.
However, while I may not be a physicist, I am a reasonably highly qualified analyst specializing in methodology. this training and experience is of great assistance when examining the means and process by which scientists draw conclusions.
There’s no point in yelling “denier” until you think you silenced unbelievers. That method just created President Trump.
Instead, I would beseech you to restrict your environmental zeal to environmental aspects capable of attracting the widest support and easily understood.
To be effective we must include everyone, not just a handful of self-righteous “believers’. All the energy and passion expended on political warfare and conducting “crusades’ with religious style fanaticism, would be more effectively spent on campaigning for practical environmental programs that win admiration and credibility with the general public.
Marcopolo,
You claim “not to be a scientist”, but rather to be an analyst.
Here’s your chance to prove that you are not a buffoon who happens to be called an analyst:
🙂
In a completely stable climate, what is the chance that any given year will have more “higher than average days” than “lower than average days”… What is the chance that more record high max temperatures will be recorded than record low max temperatures? Record high min temps vs record low min temps?
You should have an answer. This isn’t hard.
Now.
What would be the chances – again in a stable climate – that you would see considerably more record highs than record lows for two consecutive years? Three consecutive years? Four? Ten? Twenty?
At what point do the chances of such a consistent anomaly become great enough that you pull yourself free of the nonsense propaganda you’ve been consuming?
(For reference, the U.S. data that would be meaningful for you to “analyze” is here:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/records
The last 365 days have seen 53,378 high max records and 67,460 high min records, while seeing only 18,382 and 14,648 respectively for low max and low min records. That is global. For any given country it would less, and it might become more difficult to dig up the information.
If you’d like to peruse U.S. information, you can find it here:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/records.
There are occasionally a month or two of cold fronts, along with months of warm fronts. But you won’t find a year in which there were not significantly more high record temps compared to low record temps within the instrumental record.
None of this is needed to understand climate change… you just need to understand the Repeatability fundamental of science itself, and know the spectrum absorption properties of GHG’s and blackbody radiation curves of bodies between 250 and 320 K… But you “aren’t a physicist, you’re an analyst”.
Tell me what you see.
Exactly. I’ve written about this a lot. The probability of 2016, 15, and 14 being the hottest three years (in that order) in the last 130 is 1 in (130*129*128) = 2.146,560. Anyone who thinks that’s a coincidence, especially when it’s layered on top of all the other supporting evidence, must be trying very, very hard to disbelieve the truth here.
Glenn,
Your supposition of a”completely stable climate “is an insight into your reasoning.
Since no such state exists, or ever existed, why begin with a fantasy ?
Like Craig, because you want to believe something, you gather only selective evidence to support your premise. In doing so, you never seem to question the veracity of that evidence or examine the methodology by which it was obtained.
Nor do you appear to objectively examine evidence that may cast doubt upon your beliefs.
Craig writes, “The probability of 2016, 15, and 14 being the hottest three years (in that order) in the last 130 is 1 in (130*129*128) = 2.146,560. “.
His proposition is questionable because it relies upon the veracity of 2016, 15, and 14 actually being the hottest three years, and the significance of such a phenomenon having never occurred before.
Like you, Craig’s proposition also requires the invented premise a “normal” or “stable” climate exists.
More importantly, he also assumes methods of data collection, analysis, coverage and technology have been consistent over the last 130 years.
Since this is obviously not true, “adjustments” have to be created in an attempt to compensate.
“you just need to understand the Repeatability fundamental of science itself, and know the spectrum absorption properties of GHG’s and blackbody radiation curves of bodies between 250 and 320 K ”
Again, while such data is important and certainly valuable, it’s not in itself conclusive.
For many years volumes of studies and many earnest documentaries extolled the effect of global warming, sea level rises etc (with a bit of man made pollution thrown in) on coral reefs.
Laboratory experiments, repeatable and well documented were conducted and the findings all supported this conclusion.
However, climate scientists and advocates overlooked the possibility of more simple explanations. By ignoring the rapid evolutionary nature of coral, which can survive changes in ocean temperatures, although devastation of reefs looks spectacular to humans, it’s just part of the coral’s natural cycle.
They also ignored other more important factors, such as the impact of seemingly unrelated diverse fish population percentages.
Once these previously unknown factors were realized, it seems difficult to understand why no one thought of it earlier. For many years scientists and advocates sneered at anyone who cast aspersions of doubt on their conclusions. Even today, many are still claiming it’s all due to climate change.
Nor is the compilation of records free from controversy and chicanery. An example of this can be found in every country, and my use of the Bourke reading incident as an example, is simply because it’s from Australia.
For many years the small town of Bourke in outback Australia proudly laid claim to a 3rd January 1909 recording of temperature 125.3 Fahrenheit..
Recordings from the 1880’s even higher temperatures.
In 2012, Global Warming advocate Timothy Flannery persuaded the Science minister to instruct the Bureau of Meteorology to remove the reading from it’s records, and notify international organizations.
The justification for this was since the Post Office wasn’t open on a Sunday, the record wasn’t taken by human observation and should be removed.
This explanation was accepted by the authorities and the data removed from official records.
That is until an historian pouring through old records released by the new government, discovered the original records and a newspaper article confirming the official Post Office temperature recorder had indeed got up on Sunday and recorded the temperature.
This information was always available to Tim Fannery, yet the decision has not been reversed.
the accuracy of historical records is quite rightly open to question. However, it does seem that high temperature readings return in cycles with several years at the peak of the cycle recording unusually high readings.
Historically, these “record highs” seem to have occurred in:
1860 to 1880
1910 to 1940
1975 to 1998
2014 to
Records from the periods are by no means precise, but do show an interesting pattern offering a different explanation for Craig’s “what are the odd’s” proposal.
That’s the problem with seizing upon individual weather events, to prove radical and permanent climate change. The fact the climate is constantly changing is an additional problem, since it precludes a ‘stable’ norm.
On it’s own the omission of single item of data may not be significant, but an accumulation of “corrections”” adjustments’ and omissions,may produce a very distorted and inaccurate result.
The often controversial Dr Jennifer Marohasy, is a persuasive and interesting speaker on the subject of temperature (not the least because she’s charming and good looking and appeals to my politically incorrect sexist instincts 🙂 ).
I don’t always agree with her conclusions, but she does present an objective balance.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/10/wettest-september-record-murray-darling/
Ah…
So I see you are no analyst at all, just a troll incapable or unwilling to pursue a simple statistical analysis because it shows your position to be stupid.
As far as repeatability and the lab goes. It’s painfully obvious that you are clueless here and are just trying to obfuscate.
Repeatability means that if it happens in one lab it must happen in another. The Earth and its atmosphere is just another lab. Science has understood this inevitability since the the 1890’s. What they didn’t know was how well the Earth’s ecosystem would be at maintaining the CO2 concentrations (whether feedback mechanisms would serve to balance increased emissions with increase algae growth or something).
But there is no doubt and there can be no doubt that we must warm as GHG concentrations increase. That’s scientifically proven beyond doubt. The only questions – and they are very big questions – that remain involve the rate and the nature of that climate change (will 95% of the additional energy go towards warming the deep ocean and allow us a long gradual transition, or will the ice caps absorb 95% of the additional energy and cause massive global flooding… or will the energy be dispersed and we see higher heat and gradual desertification… or whatever).
Backpeddling and flailing about “removing historical temperature data” doesn’t prove anything other than the obvious: there is some doubt in historical temperature data.
I will explain to you what your skills as an analyst failed to grasp:
If you take any given year as year one, you’ll have a record high max, record low max, record high min, and a record low min.
Weather happens within a stable climate. So the next year, it will be a coin flip as to whether or not the record high max or the record low max is broken… likewise it will be a coinflip between record high min or record low min.
The third year, within a stable climate that experiences weather, there’s a 1 in 3 chance of a new high max, a new low max, or nothing (likewise for the other 3 records). The fourth year, there’s a 1 in 4 chance for a high or a low, and a 2 in 4 chance for a temperature to fall within the already seen temperature ranges…
But the idea that there would consistantly be more record highs than record lows, either for the min or the max, is impossible unless the climate is gradually warming. It’s easy to imagine an early weather pattern that is very very warm producing temperatures that are extremely high, so that some hardy high temps remain records for some time. It’s also easy to imagine early technology thermometers being poorly calibrated and resulting in a false recording – especially since there was less understanding of the need for accuracy and less ability for one’s measurements to be checked or seconded.
But there is no scenario in which a non-warming climate would produce 40+ consecutive years in which (significantly) more record high max and min temperatures were recorded than low max and min temperatures.
The chances of that happening without the world itself going through a period of warming are akin to winning the powerball lottery, holding the ticket in the air, and having the ticket destroyed as it is struck by lightning.
I know there are people who struggle with probability and statistics; that’s why I have a job tutoring math at the local high school and city college. But I really don’t think anyone needs help understanding that the likelihood of pulling the blue ball out of a bowl with 129 while balls and one blue one is 1 in 130. When my daughter Valerie was in fifth grade, I coached her “math super bowl” team. The problems I was giving Val and her little friends in this area were FAR tougher than this one.
Not getting this takes real effort.
Craig,
The problem with this is the deniability afforded by the congruence of a record setting El Nino and a weak solar maximum… and whatever other malarky they wish to throw at the wall in a desperate attempt to see what sticks.
But every single year for over 40 years (since the U.S. and Europe started making a significant attempt to clean air), the number of record-setting highs has exceeded the number of record-setting lows by a large margin. The average year for the past 17 years has seen more than twice the number of record highs vs record lows.
Statistically that is beyond bonkers… It’s on the order of ~1/1E50+. And during that time frame we’ve had a prolonged trough of the deepest solar minimum on record, an unusual super-polar dipole which pushed cold air 20 degrees further south than normal for two months, a mega-La Nina event that lasted more than a year, etc…
NOTHING has broken the streak, which is statistically impossible.
Science, with the core pillar of repeatability, the knowledge of spectrum absorption properties of certain gasses, the blackbody radiation curves between ~250-320 K, and THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF MASS AND ENERGY, has known without doubt that the Earth must warm as GHG concentrations in the atmosphere increase.
Instrument data has shown that we are unquestionably warming, regardless of any other non AWG related weather or climate factor. This discussion has been over for decades. Trolls like Marcopolo are just fools that are blathering nonsense.
Glenn,
Spoken like a true believer!
When in confronted by doubt, scream heretic ! unbeliever ! and continue to abuse and mock all who question your arrogant doctrines.
Don’t you realize, the more abusive and louder you yell, the less convincing you become ?
Sorry, MP, but this is asinine. Let’s move on….what do ya say?
Craig,
I agree let’s move on. We seem to be at cross purposes.
My interest is simply examining the reliability and veracity of “records”, and the wisdom of automatically accepting every published “record ” without considering context, accuracy and authenticity.
I agree it’s asinine to expand such a simple discussion into a wild tirade concerning climate science dogma.
But, I did find Glenn’s response,( and yours), an insight into type of response encountered by Joe Public when questioning such issues.
Craig,
I have no problem with probability or statistics.
My problem is with those who blindly preach an agenda based on ‘statistics’ without any idea of the veracity of those statistics.
I’m surprised you reject the simple concept that if in any equation, one or more of the constituents is inaccurate, then any conclusion must also be inaccurate ?
My question is whether inaccuracies in data collection collection are great enough to skew or distort the ultimate conclusion.
I am perfectly aware of other scientific evidence beyond simple compilations of weather and temperature statistics to support GW/CC, and in the end any minor inaccuracies may not be that important.
Glenn’s response is reminiscent of a fanatical zealot, who views all dissent as heresy. Your response is to belittle any divergence of opinion, by demeaning to questioner.
That’s disappointing and certainly unscientific. Science requires constant re-evaluations of any anomalies that may occur. These may or may not be significant, but they must be pursued and resolved.
The issue is not whether or not the world is undergoing a period of warming, but why ?
The proposition our planet enjoys a continuous stable climate, affected solely by the activities of humans is absurd. The extent and consequences of human activity in combination with naturally occurring climate phenomenon, is the real issue.
Although weather statistics and temperature records are only part of a much larger equation, I believe it’s important to ensure an accurate and comprehensive understanding of all elements in any equation.
Now I may indeed be as Glenn so elegantly describes me, “a clueless stupid troll” yet, I see problems with his assertion ” The Earth and its atmosphere is just another lab “.
Nice rhetoric, but unrealistic. Laboratories strive to provide controlled environments to eliminate contamination.
To accept the planet is a controlled environment, would be to accept Glenn (or anyone) possesses a complete and absolute understanding, and be able to control, all aspects of the planets existence. (now why do I doubt that?).
This small debate is a micro version of the larger discussion being held among the general public.
Your original proposition was your friend was wrong to question your views on climate change. You advanced as evidence the significance of:
“2014 set the record as the hottest year since measurements began in the late 19th Century. That record was beaten by 2015, which itself was eclipsed by 2016.”
When I asked how you established the accuracy of your statistical information, you not only failed to supply any evidence, instead claimed but these statistics provided evidence of mathematical certainty.
When asked to explain the relevance, since the phenomenon is neither new nor usual, and why accuracy is unimportant, you are silent, but Glenn assails me with cries of heresy! Unbeliever ! Stupid Troll !
But the question remains unanswered ! Perhaps this behavior may explain why your friend, (like the general public) remains skeptical.
Personally, I don’t believe advancing evidence of ‘record’ temperature statistics (involving tiny fractions0 and open to all kinds of dispute concerning authenticity is particularly helpful.
But, having advanced such a proposition being unable, or unwilling to discuss the veracity of the collection methodology only serves to damage your credibility while shouting Heretic, Troll, Fool, etc only further decreases faith in your message .
Which is a shame, since we are entering an era where it will grow increasingly difficult to expand environmental planning.