No “Gold Standard” Climate Science

Posted: February 27, 2019 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, Critique, propaganda

The latest effort from the climate alarm crew’s propaganda machine gets a mauling.

Science Matters

Claims this week that climate scientists have “5-sigma” certainty for their findings are pure hype and extremely false adverrtising.  Lubos Motl explains at his website Reference Frame “Five-sigma proof” of man-made climate change is complete nonsense  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Notorious climate fearmonger Gavin Schmidt tweeted the following:

40 years since:
– the Charney report
– Hasselmann’s paper on detection & attribution
– the satellite era @NatureClimate

Put it together and what have you got?
Greater than 5σ detection of anthropogenic climate change.

Lubos Motl:

He picks about 3 scientific teams and praises them for reaching the “gold standard” of science (which is how the journalists hype it) – a five-sigma proof of man-made global warming. The signal-to-noise ratio has reached some critical threshold, it’s those five sigma, so the man-made climate change is proven at the same level at which we needed e.g. the Higgs boson…

View original post 735 more words

  1. oldbrew says:

    As Lubos Motl points out in the blog post, it boils down to the attribution problem:
    In effect, the task to “attribute” is an underdetermined set of equations: the number of unknowns is larger than the number of known conditions or constraints that they obey (i.e. than the number of observed relevant data).

    The climate models are always out of step with reality, almost always with excessive unobserved warming, so there are obviously difficulties in understanding how the ‘natural’ climate works and varies.
    – – –
    Judith Curry writes:
    [This is] A careful look at the early 20th century global warming, which is almost as large as the warming since 1950. Until we can explain the early 20th century warming, I have little confidence in IPCC and NCA4 attribution statements regarding the cause of the recent warming.

  2. JB says:

    Pretty much my thoughts when I read the headline this morning.
    As far as Higgs-Boson like proof, well from what i last read that assertion just maybeso…

  3. stpaulchuck says:

    [from the article]
    In the case of the man-made climate change discussion, there is clearly no such “well-defined null hypothesis”. In particular, when Schmidt and others discuss the “signal-to-noise ratio”, they don’t really know what part of the observed data is “noise” and how strong it should be. The assumption must be that the “noise” is some natural variability of the climate. But we don’t really have any precise enough and canonical enough model of the natural variability.
    once again the “Charlie Brown” media fall for the Lucy Brown AGW football trick all the while claiming it’s sciency, or something. The idiot computer models are something like 95% totally wrong and the other 5% “near” the empirical data of the real world but also diverge regularly.

    With that in mind, just how do you filter out the natural effects and obtain the so-called human effects? Well here’s a big secret that journalists can’t grasp – YOU DON’T. Add to that, the error bars are still wider than the supposed future rise in temperature (unless you have too much adult beverage and inflate the numbers past all reality). Journalists NEED this to be true so they can hawk newspapers and TV time scaring the moron class with tales of future doom and discussions of “what can we do?!!?” followed by, “We’re from the government and we’re here to help you (after we take your money).”

    This will go down in history as the biggest, widest scam ever since the Piltdown Man IMAO.

  4. gallopingcamel says:

    Lubos Motl is right! The hard sciences usually expect at least a 3 sigma level. The Higgs boson announcement was delayed several weeks to achieve that standard. According to Wikipedia the mass of the Higgs is 125.09 ±0.21 GeV/c^2. That is 0.167% whereas 3 sigma is 0.270%.

    In the behavioral sciences a two sigma level is acceptable which means that there is a roughly 5% that the null hypothesis is correct.

    I seriously doubt that more than a handful of “Climate Science” papers will meet even the two sigma level:

  5. tom0mason says:

    “Five-sigma proof” of man-made climate change is complete nonsense …

    What Schmidt, Mann, Hansen, Gore and all the cAGW scaremongers should keep in mind is that just because you know of some aspects of the climate conundrum, that does not mean you understand enough about how the climate functions or how it interacts with the biosphere.
    These unvalidated and unverified climate models favored by the UN-IPCC, are to date, very poor at predicting (or projecting) meaningful information about the most basic parameters (regional temperatures, regional rainfall, sea surface temperatures, etc.), for even a very few years hence.
    Given such inaccuracy, imprecision, and unreliability I doubt these models reach a two sigma level reliably.

  6. oldbrew says:

    The climate models can’t even ‘predict’ the present and there’s no sign they will ever do so, as long as they insist on programming in their CO2-based warming theories.

    Roy Spencer: Importantly, we don’t understand natural climate variations, and the models don’t produce it, so CO2 is the only source of warming in today’s state-of-the-art models.

    Presumably he means it’s the only source of additional warming? As far as the models are concerned, that is.

  7. ivan says:

    It is good to see that the Gav has proved something at last. With this statement he has proved that he doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about and everything else he has said should be seen in the same light.

    In engineering circles he would be called out as a charlatan but what he does can hardly be called a science so he, and the other so called scientists, can get away with it.

  8. Gamecock says:

    It is always an argument from ignorance by the experts. They don’t know what causes the warming, therefore, it must be Man.

    Really, it’s that stupid.

  9. ferdberple says:

    Gavin ignores the Bonferroni Correction and the issue of false positives..

    Basically, the more climate studies you perform, the less significant each becomes. Especially if you fail to publish negative results.

    Because climate science does not publish negative results it is impossible to calculate the number of false positives. In point of fact, 100% of climate science results could be false positives. There is no way to know.

    Bonferroni tells up we must divide the p value by the number of climate studies to find the true p values.

    Given the thousands of climate studies performed, this tells us each study is potentially thousands of times less significant that it appears when considered on its own.

    Climate science itself operates at 2 sigma, not 5 sigma as Gavin pretends. No business would remain in business at 2 sigma. Given the large number of climate studies, combined with selective publishing, it is quite possible the true significance of climate science is zero sigma.

  10. oldbrew says:

    It is always an argument from ignorance by the experts.

    Not experts after all then 😎

  11. oldbrew says:

    Critique of the new Santer et al. (2019) paper
    Posted on March 1, 2019 by curryja
    by Ross McKitrick

    They haven’t shown what they say they showed. In particular they have not identified a unique anthropogenic fingerprint, or provided a credible control for natural variability over the sample period. Nor have they justified the use of Gaussian p-values. Their claims to have attained a “gold standard” of proof are unwarranted, in part because statistical modeling can never do that, and in part because of the specific problems in their model.