Hey Dook
It is the people who are led by the nose by claims of X number of years of no statistically significant warming who do not know statistics. But in Monckton's case, it is more of a case of intentional lying than of ignorance. I can kind of understand the claim that 1998 was when global warming supposedly stopped. In the RSS and HadCRUT3 datasets, 1998 stands out like a sore thumb.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
But how far back you have to go for warming to be statistically significant is not obvious at all. 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997 do not jump out of you.
And of course, no statistically significant warming =/= no warming.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
It is not a case of Monckton not knowing about statistics. He clearly knows how to use statistics to mislead people.
If you look at previous time frames, you get statistically significant warming in the same time periods or less.
So why are we not getting such warming now, and why are you insisting that Monckton should use longer time periods now, when his point is that there has been a pause in warming?
It is not reasonable to say that there is no pause in warming, just because temperatures haven't returned to their long term average cooler temperatures from decades prior.
The following time periods are statistically significant.
GISTEMP 1994-2013, 1995-2012,1995-2011,1994-2010,1994-2009, 1996-2008, 1994-2007, 1994-2006, 1993-2005, 1994-2004, 1987-2003, 1986-2002, 1985-2001, 1985-2000, 1985-1999, 1984-1998, 1978-1997, 1978-1996, 1976-1995, 1976-1994
Now it is generally acknowledged that global warming started in the late 70s, which we can see with the longer time frames of close to 20 years back then. Then the time frame drops to as little as 10 years to get warming, but now you need more years again, which suggests around 2008 there was a substantial shift.
By the way, Viscount Monckton has been confirmed by the House of Lords to be a legitimate claim to the title, so if you are looking for fraud, you should look at Michael Mann's claiming to be a Nobel Prize winner.
As has been pointed out Monckton did update his post with more series. All of which did not make his point as strongly as the one he originally picked.
However, the correlation coefficients are interesting. Personally, if something is supposed to be related I prefer it to have an r2 value of well over 0.06!
As to his Lordship being a lord. He is a lord but unfortunately his ego is totally maxed out. This seems to compel him to show himself in what he considers is the best possible light at all times. He has only recently repeated that he is a member of the House of Lords. Technically, there is the faint possibility that he may be right.
There was a time when he would automatically have been a member. His father and grandfather were. It all comes down to whether the government's change of rules was strictly legal and whether they had the necessary jurisdiction because such things were originally presided over by the monarch not the government.
So, on the possibility of a technicality, he could be right but to for all practical purposes he is not a member of the HoL.
As for mathematics, his Eternity puzzles grossed a few million so I do not believe his stats are entirely guesswork. A prize of ￡1 million was offered to anyone who could solve it within 4 years. I think it was solved within one year - but sold 500,000 copies at ￡35 each.
Having said all that, you still do not have to like him, I quite understand!
When your intended purpose is to lie - telling the truth defeats the purpose.
More to the point - Why doesn't he simply test whether the last 17 years of data are (statistically) significantly different from the earlier historic data? (Of course, that is a rhetorical question since it is the more relevant question - and Deniers fear the truth more than vampires fear sunlight.)
====
Mike --
>> It is not reasonable to say that there is no pause in warming, just because temperatures haven't returned to their long term average cooler temperatures from decades prior.<<
Yes, it is reasonable. It is not that “temperatures haven't returned to their long term average” – it is that not a single data value has come anywhere near the long-term mean. Moreover, every one of those years has fallen at or beyond the extreme upper limits of the distribution.
If that limited amount of data suggests anything – at a minimum it suggests that the system has become non-stationary and the climate system has fundamentally changed in some way.
>>The following time periods are statistically significant.
GISTEMP 1994-2013, 1995-2012,1995-2011,1994-2010,1994-2009, 1996-2008, 1994-2007, 1994-2006, 1993-2005, 1994-2004, 1987-2003, 1986-2002, 1985-2001, 1985-2000, 1985-1999, 1984-1998, 1978-1997, 1978-1996, 1976-1995, 1976-1994 <<
Bullshlt. Those are not even sufficient population samples, let alone significant. You’re measuring almost the identically same variance multiple times and pretending that you are measuring multiple things.
Monckton did update his Watts Up With That post using all temperature data sets here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/27/th...
Here are two other analysis of a similar (actually more in depth) nature:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/est...
http://troyca.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/a...
I think we can infer something statistically significant from all that. So what does it mean for the future? I don't know. And guessing doesn't make someone dishonest. There are a wide variety of guesses and we're just going to wait and see to find out who is most accurate.
Mike: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords...
And given he only takes 8 years from a point of a moderate El Nino to an extreme La Nina I'd say he knows he isn't being honest.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
edit:
To those saying he is still a member of the House of Lords: You obviously only pay attention to rag sites. The link I posted above to the UK Parliament states that he is not and has never been a member of the House of Lords. He is a Peer. I really wish you would look at reality instead of paying attention to the sites you pay attention to.
Monckton's knowledge of statistics is even less credible than his claim to being a lord.
Edit:
Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher... ) says: "The House of Lords authorities have said Monckton is not and never has been a member and that there is no such thing as a non-voting or honorary member of the House. In July 2011 the House took the "unprecedented step" of publishing online a cease and desist letter to Monckton from the Clerk of the Parliaments, which concluded, "I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not." "
If Phil Jones couldn't find statistically significant warming how do you think Monckton could?
Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit, the Guru and High Priest of Global Warming himself admitted there has been no statistically significant warming. If anyone on the planet would have been aware of statistically significant warming it would have been Phil Jones and he admitted there has been none.
Phil Jones admits NO statistically significant warming
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/1...
-----------------------
How about this, is this enough data points for you
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.c...
My guess is that he neither wants to have a statistically significant result nor knows how to calculate it.
See the WUWT link in this question.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsTBbwDjxilLfvMPCrVXlnrX_Nw4;_ylv=3?qid=20130828015854AAJQ7T7
Do you think he is being honest intellectually?
