Sunday, July 15, 2018

On Records

A distinguishing mark of a new record in a time series is that it exceeds all previous values another is that the first value in a time series is always a record. 

Given a stationary situation with nothing except chance, aka natural variation, the number of new records should decline to zero, or pretty close, as the series extends in time.

If governed by natural variation the rate at which it declines should be a marker of the nature of the wings, e.g. the distribution characterizing the climate from which the weather is sampled.

It’s pretty hot out there, with all sorts of new record highs being recorded. They are not declining to zero. This is strong and convincing evidence of increasing global temperatures.

That, and it being pretty hot out everywhere

ADDED:  Two interesting items, the first a 2017 paper by Andrew King on Attributing Changing Rates of Temperature Record Breaking to Anthropogenic Influences pointed out by Doug McNeil, the second a blog post by Andrew Gelman “A Headline That Will Make Global-Warming Activists Apoplectic”  on new temperature records.


Andy Mitchell said...

Yes, but Willard Watts tells us that these extreme weather events are being caused by inadequately sited weather stations. It's God's punishment on humanity for dodgy thermometers.

Bob Loblaw said...

Minor addendum: the first value sets two records - a record high, and a record low. The second value will do one of three things: set a record high, set a record low, or tie the high and low records.

You have to wait until you get a spread between the record high and record low before you can have a new value that doesn't set a new record or tie an existing record. The earliest that can happen is with value #3.

Thomas said...

But Dr. Roy says ( paying attention to all the record highs is climate hysteria caused by summer, even though it has been well documented over the past several decades that the earth is seeing far more record high temperatures than record low temperatures.

EliRabett said...

Dr. Roy has a bad case of looking for a reason to help his unbelief. Accounts for the multiple changes to UAH.

Jan Galkowski said...

My comments are here.


When it gets hot enough to see things unseen in 5,000 years , you may be looking at the anthropocene

Unknown said...

Eli: Dr. Roy has a bad case of looking for a reason to help his unbelief.
It's worse than that. He has publicly declared that his evangelical Christian belief won't allow him to accept the lopsided consensus of his peers for AGW. In 2009 Spencer, along with a dozen other folks described as 'Climate Scientists' by one "Cornwall Alliance For the Stewardship of Creation", signed An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming:

We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.
We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.

That is, "Screw the evidence, my deity won't allow AGW to threaten human security and prosperity!" Roy Spencer and the other signatories with scientific credentials have, IOW, explicitly repudiated any commitment to justified knowledge of 'reality' ("that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away" -PK Dick), thus forfeiting all claims to scientific credibility individually and collectively. My ellipses represent nothing more than the superfluous, self-refuting yet undead AGW-deniers' argument from consequences: namely, mitigation will harm poor people dontcha know (not necessarily, and not nearly as much as BAU will). While perhaps sincere, their ostensible concern for the world's poor is misguided, and will result in vastly greater harm.

This is not simply the argumentum ad hominem. If science is a way of trying not to fool yourself, then Roy Spencer's religion is a way of fooling himself. Whatever he gets right is accidental.

Jan Galkowski said...

Not exactly on topic, but U.S. Supreme Court says Juliana v United States can proceed.

Woo hoo!