Statisticians reject global cooling

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It's been a while since the super-hot years of 1998 and 2005. So is this a longer climate trend or just weather's normal ups and downs?

In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.

"If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect," said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.

...

Global warming skeptics base their claims on an unusually hot year in 1998. Since then, they say, temperatures have dropped — thus, a cooling trend. But it's not that simple.

Since 1998, temperatures have dipped, soared, fallen again and are now rising once more. Records kept by the British meteorological office and satellite data used by climate skeptics still show 1998 as the hottest year. However, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998. Published peer-reviewed scientific research generally cites temperatures measured by ground sensors, which are from NOAA, NASA and the British, more than the satellite data.

The recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA's climate data center to re-examine its temperature data. It found no cooling trend.

"The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. "Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming."

The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA's year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.

Saying there's a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.

Identifying a downward trend is a case of "people coming at the data with preconceived notions," said Peterson, author of the book "Why Did They Do That? An Introduction to Forensic Decision Analysis."

One prominent skeptic said that to find the cooling trend, the 30 years of satellite temperatures must be used. The satellite data tends to be cooler than the ground data. And key is making sure 1998 is part of the trend, he added.

It's what happens within the past 10 years or so, not the overall average, that counts, contends Don Easterbrook, a Western Washington University geology professor and global warming skeptic.

"I don't argue with you that the 10-year average for the past 10 years is higher than the previous 10 years," said Easterbrook, who has self-published some of his research. "We started the cooling trend after 1998. You're going to get a different line depending on which year you choose.

"Should not the actual temperature be higher now than it was in 1998?" Easterbrook asked. "We can play the numbers games."

That's the problem, some of the statisticians said.

Grego produced three charts to show how choosing a starting date can alter perceptions. Using the skeptics' satellite data beginning in 1998, there is a "mild downward trend," he said. But doing that is "deceptive."

The trend disappears if the analysis starts in 1997. And it trends upward if you begin in 1999, he said.

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ap-im...ect-174088.html

[Joseph & Ana 0]

The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It's been a while since the super-hot years of 1998 and 2005. So is this a longer climate trend or just weather's normal ups and downs?

In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.

"If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect," said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.

...

Global warming skeptics base their claims on an unusually hot year in 1998. Since then, they say, temperatures have dropped — thus, a cooling trend. But it's not that simple.

Since 1998, temperatures have dipped, soared, fallen again and are now rising once more. Records kept by the British meteorological office and satellite data used by climate skeptics still show 1998 as the hottest year. However, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998. Published peer-reviewed scientific research generally cites temperatures measured by ground sensors, which are from NOAA, NASA and the British, more than the satellite data.

The recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA's climate data center to re-examine its temperature data. It found no cooling trend.

"The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. "Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming."

The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA's year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.

Saying there's a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.

Identifying a downward trend is a case of "people coming at the data with preconceived notions," said Peterson, author of the book "Why Did They Do That? An Introduction to Forensic Decision Analysis."

One prominent skeptic said that to find the cooling trend, the 30 years of satellite temperatures must be used. The satellite data tends to be cooler than the ground data. And key is making sure 1998 is part of the trend, he added.

It's what happens within the past 10 years or so, not the overall average, that counts, contends Don Easterbrook, a Western Washington University geology professor and global warming skeptic.

"I don't argue with you that the 10-year average for the past 10 years is higher than the previous 10 years," said Easterbrook, who has self-published some of his research. "We started the cooling trend after 1998. You're going to get a different line depending on which year you choose.

"Should not the actual temperature be higher now than it was in 1998?" Easterbrook asked. "We can play the numbers games."

That's the problem, some of the statisticians said.

Grego produced three charts to show how choosing a starting date can alter perceptions. Using the skeptics' satellite data beginning in 1998, there is a "mild downward trend," he said. But doing that is "deceptive."

The trend disappears if the analysis starts in 1997. And it trends upward if you begin in 1999, he said.

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ap-im...ect-174088.html

It hasn't warmed in the last 11 years. So if this makes you feel good, then be happy.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Who needs climate scientists when you can just gather the data and give it to statisticians to give an expert analysis.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Who needs climate scientists when you can just gather the data and give it to statisticians to give an expert analysis.

As long as what they say fits your agenda, then you're good to go.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Who needs climate scientists when you can just gather the data and give it to statisticians to give an expert analysis.

As long as what they say fits your agenda, then you're good to go.

Unlike many Right Wingers, I have great respect for bodies of experts in their field of study. So when scientific bodies like the National Academy of Sciences, the World Meteorological Organization, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science all are in consensus on Climate Change, I sit up and take notice. How about you? Who do you look to for scientific expertise on climate?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Who do you look to for scientific expertise on climate?

Glenn Beck. When the earth truly warms up, his tears will evaporate. That is the true test.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Who needs climate scientists when you can just gather the data and give it to statisticians to give an expert analysis.

That is how you analyze data. Measure it, plot it, and extrapolate it. That's what you need the math types for: Remove the preconceptions, and the prejudices, you get some meaningful results. There is lots of bias built into a french curve.

That is one of the reasons you do peer reviews, to see if your data holds up to scrutiny. Of course, as shown in the OP, if you narrow the data (or throw out inconsistences), you can also bias the analysis. The farther you move away from known data points, the less confident you can become in your predictions. Statistics and Probabilty Theory do not necessarily coincide, but they should, if the math is right.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Who needs climate scientists when you can just gather the data and give it to statisticians to give an expert analysis.

That is how you analyze data. Measure it, plot it, and extrapolate it. That's what you need the math types for: Remove the preconceptions, and the prejudices, you get some meaningful results. There is lots of bias built into a french curve.

That is one of the reasons you do peer reviews, to see if your data holds up to scrutiny. Of course, as shown in the OP, if you narrow the data (or throw out inconsistences), you can also bias the analysis. The farther you move away from known data points, the less confident you can become in your predictions. Statistics and Probabilty Theory do not necessarily coincide, but they should, if the math is right.

Well, damn. Somebody call all those bodies of scientists and tell 'em they've got it all wrong.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Who needs climate scientists when you can just gather the data and give it to statisticians to give an expert analysis.

That is how you analyze data. Measure it, plot it, and extrapolate it. That's what you need the math types for: Remove the preconceptions, and the prejudices, you get some meaningful results. There is lots of bias built into a french curve.

That is one of the reasons you do peer reviews, to see if your data holds up to scrutiny. Of course, as shown in the OP, if you narrow the data (or throw out inconsistences), you can also bias the analysis. The farther you move away from known data points, the less confident you can become in your predictions. Statistics and Probabilty Theory do not necessarily coincide, but they should, if the math is right.

Well, damn. Somebody call all those bodies of scientists and tell 'em they've got it all wrong.

It's less about science, and more about politics. Stay tuned. There will be several defections from "mainstream scientists" over the next few months.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Who needs climate scientists when you can just gather the data and give it to statisticians to give an expert analysis.

That is how you analyze data. Measure it, plot it, and extrapolate it. That's what you need the math types for: Remove the preconceptions, and the prejudices, you get some meaningful results. There is lots of bias built into a french curve.

That is one of the reasons you do peer reviews, to see if your data holds up to scrutiny. Of course, as shown in the OP, if you narrow the data (or throw out inconsistences), you can also bias the analysis. The farther you move away from known data points, the less confident you can become in your predictions. Statistics and Probabilty Theory do not necessarily coincide, but they should, if the math is right.

Well, damn. Somebody call all those bodies of scientists and tell 'em they've got it all wrong.

It's less about science, and more about politics. Stay tuned. There will be several defections from "mainstream scientists" over the next few months.

Oh sh!t. The very bodies of sciences we've come to rely on for expertise are going to be discredited and laid out to ruin, once the conspiracy theory that they were politically motivated comes true. I hope you'll forgive my blind allegiance to whom I thought were the real experts.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Who needs climate scientists when you can just gather the data and give it to statisticians to give an expert analysis.

That is how you analyze data. Measure it, plot it, and extrapolate it. That's what you need the math types for: Remove the preconceptions, and the prejudices, you get some meaningful results. There is lots of bias built into a french curve.

That is one of the reasons you do peer reviews, to see if your data holds up to scrutiny. Of course, as shown in the OP, if you narrow the data (or throw out inconsistences), you can also bias the analysis. The farther you move away from known data points, the less confident you can become in your predictions. Statistics and Probabilty Theory do not necessarily coincide, but they should, if the math is right.

Well, damn. Somebody call all those bodies of scientists and tell 'em they've got it all wrong.

It's less about science, and more about politics. Stay tuned. There will be several defections from "mainstream scientists" over the next few months.

Oh sh!t. The very bodies of sciences we've come to rely on for expertise are going to be discredited and laid out to ruin, once the conspiracy theory that they were politically motivated comes true. I hope you'll forgive my blind allegiance to whom I thought were the real experts.

We'll see. Supposedly, there are some new data sets that are being analyzed, and some well known names in Climate Prediction are no longer confident in the Global Warming scenario. I haven't run that story down yet, but evidently, the current cooling trend will continue for a while. What happens after that is still being "discussed".

[dalegg 143]

Who needs climate scientists when you can just gather the data and give it to statisticians to give an expert analysis.

That is how you analyze data. Measure it, plot it, and extrapolate it. That's what you need the math types for: Remove the preconceptions, and the prejudices, you get some meaningful results. There is lots of bias built into a french curve.

That is one of the reasons you do peer reviews, to see if your data holds up to scrutiny. Of course, as shown in the OP, if you narrow the data (or throw out inconsistences), you can also bias the analysis. The farther you move away from known data points, the less confident you can become in your predictions. Statistics and Probabilty Theory do not necessarily coincide, but they should, if the math is right.

Well, damn. Somebody call all those bodies of scientists and tell 'em they've got it all wrong.

Wait a minute...don't the statisticians conclusions support what the round-earthers are saying or am I reading the OP wrong?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Who needs climate scientists when you can just gather the data and give it to statisticians to give an expert analysis.

That is how you analyze data. Measure it, plot it, and extrapolate it. That's what you need the math types for: Remove the preconceptions, and the prejudices, you get some meaningful results. There is lots of bias built into a french curve.

That is one of the reasons you do peer reviews, to see if your data holds up to scrutiny. Of course, as shown in the OP, if you narrow the data (or throw out inconsistences), you can also bias the analysis. The farther you move away from known data points, the less confident you can become in your predictions. Statistics and Probabilty Theory do not necessarily coincide, but they should, if the math is right.

Well, damn. Somebody call all those bodies of scientists and tell 'em they've got it all wrong.

It's less about science, and more about politics. Stay tuned. There will be several defections from "mainstream scientists" over the next few months.

Oh sh!t. The very bodies of sciences we've come to rely on for expertise are going to be discredited and laid out to ruin, once the conspiracy theory that they were politically motivated comes true. I hope you'll forgive my blind allegiance to whom I thought were the real experts.

We'll see. Supposedly, there are some new data sets that are being analyzed, and some well known names in Climate Prediction are no longer confident in the Global Warming scenario. I haven't run that story down yet, but evidently, the current cooling trend will continue for a while. What happens after that is still being "discussed".

Wow. I'm glad I have you as a source to keep me abreast on this. I'm writing off all those bodies of scientists for peddling their political agenda...which I'm assuming that they all want us to ride bikes because they of course are all nerds who ride bikes.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Who needs climate scientists when you can just gather the data and give it to statisticians to give an expert analysis.

That is how you analyze data. Measure it, plot it, and extrapolate it. That's what you need the math types for: Remove the preconceptions, and the prejudices, you get some meaningful results. There is lots of bias built into a french curve.

That is one of the reasons you do peer reviews, to see if your data holds up to scrutiny. Of course, as shown in the OP, if you narrow the data (or throw out inconsistences), you can also bias the analysis. The farther you move away from known data points, the less confident you can become in your predictions. Statistics and Probabilty Theory do not necessarily coincide, but they should, if the math is right.

Well, damn. Somebody call all those bodies of scientists and tell 'em they've got it all wrong.

Wait a minute...don't the statisticians conclusions support what the round-earthers are saying or am I reading the OP wrong?

Steve is falling off the deep end, because he doesn't want science to "evolve". When the scientific analysis deviates from his ideology, he dismisses the deviates as heretics.

Edited October 27, 2009 by Lone Ranger

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Who needs climate scientists when you can just gather the data and give it to statisticians to give an expert analysis.

That is how you analyze data. Measure it, plot it, and extrapolate it. That's what you need the math types for: Remove the preconceptions, and the prejudices, you get some meaningful results. There is lots of bias built into a french curve.

That is one of the reasons you do peer reviews, to see if your data holds up to scrutiny. Of course, as shown in the OP, if you narrow the data (or throw out inconsistences), you can also bias the analysis. The farther you move away from known data points, the less confident you can become in your predictions. Statistics and Probabilty Theory do not necessarily coincide, but they should, if the math is right.

Well, damn. Somebody call all those bodies of scientists and tell 'em they've got it all wrong.

It's less about science, and more about politics. Stay tuned. There will be several defections from "mainstream scientists" over the next few months.

Oh sh!t. The very bodies of sciences we've come to rely on for expertise are going to be discredited and laid out to ruin, once the conspiracy theory that they were politically motivated comes true. I hope you'll forgive my blind allegiance to whom I thought were the real experts.

We'll see. Supposedly, there are some new data sets that are being analyzed, and some well known names in Climate Prediction are no longer confident in the Global Warming scenario. I haven't run that story down yet, but evidently, the current cooling trend will continue for a while. What happens after that is still being "discussed".

Wow. I'm glad I have you as a source to keep me abreast on this. I'm writing off all those bodies of scientists for peddling their political agenda...which I'm assuming that they all want us to ride bikes because they of course are all nerds who ride bikes.

It's all true!