Global Warming Denialists: We Suck at Math Also!
"Not only do we misunderstand Science, we're bad at math, too!"
>
So say the innumerates.
Every now and then, I venture over to other fields to see what the debates look like. The most recent laugher was amongst the global warming denialist crowd.
Why? In 2007, the average global temperatures dropped by 0.595 degrees
centigrade. This is a fact. The response from this group was to say (verbatim) "Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming."
Um, no. As the charts below reveal, it does nothing of the sort.
As we say all the time with the Non-Farm Payroll (NFP), you look at the overall trend, not any single data point. A monthly NFP of 10,000 does not guarantee a recession, nor does a single month of 200k job gains guarantee an expansion. And neither monthly release eliminates the trend of the prior 100 data points.
All data series have anomalies -- large magnitude points that may be curious, or unusual. To claim that a "Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out
a century of warming" simply reveals a disturbing
statistical/mathematical incompetency that is rather embarrassing.
The 20 year and 130 year charts clearly explain what this quite clearly.
The shorter term chart shows a volatile series, with high magnitude aberrations to the upside (1998) as well as the downside (2008):
>>
Yeah! Global warming has been defeated! (1987-2008)
>
The longer term chart unequivocally reveal a long term trend, as the data points move from the lower left to the upper right
Boo! Global Warming Remains an Ongoing Trend (1880-2010)
Sources: Watts Up With That?
>
If the above long term chart was a stock, would you short it?
Now, my own views on Global Warming are spectacularly conventional: Take 6 billion people, give them an industrial revolution; then for the next 2 centuries, have them burn all manner of carbon products. Its not too hard to imagine this activity might impact the system in which it takes place.
These aren't the ravings of an enviro-nut. I am a big time energy consumer. I don't lecture anyone about their energy consumption. Anytime someone offers me a ride on a private jet, I jump at it. Yes, I dislike SUVs -- but that's because they are ungainly, unsafe, handle poorly, and go-too-slow. I personally have way too many motorized vehicles, all but one of which skew towards high-horsepower, go-fast, poor-fuel economy end of the scale. Trust me when I tell you a 6 speed manual transmissions in a V12 is not about saving gasoline.
Another disclosure: I have been long oil for 5 years, and quite a few oil companies for much longer. I am not a shrinking violet when it comes to recognizing the ongoing demand for energy, and the role that carbon based products are likely to play over the next decade or longer. I have personally profited hugely from these oil positions.
But I am at heart someone who loves math and statistics, and who finds the abuse of the truth to be offensive. Anyone who claims that a high magnitude outlier within a volatile data series conclusively proves this or that -- someone who chooses to ignore the broader data trend -- is simply putting their own mathematical ignorance and innumeracy on display.
Your mileage may vary . . .
UPDATE: March 1, 2008: 1:45PM
Do not misunderstand my position: I am not advocating pro or con for any specific policy, nor am I arguing against nuclear power.
What I said above is the person who made the statement that the past 12 months average temperature decline has wiped out a century of global warming is a clueless innumerate.
I appreciate the many intelligent statements in comments. My beef is with the chart and the math, not the policy discussion.
>
Source:
4 sources say “globally cooler” in the past 12 months
Anthony Watts
Watts Up With That? 19 February 2008
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/
The Innumerate (mathematically illiterate):
Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
Michael Asher
Daily Tech February 26, 2008 12:55 PM
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
Evidence of Global Cooling
Brit Hume
Fox News, Thursday, February 28, 2008
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,333328,00.html
Drudge
Saturday, March 01, 2008 | 08:26 AM | Permalink
| Comments (130)
| TrackBack (1)
add to de.li.cious | 
digg this! | 
add to technorati | 
email this post
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c52a953ef00e550a299678834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Global Warming Denialists: We Suck at Math Also!:
» Reconciling Cold Weather and a Warming Climate from The Big Picture
Yesterday, I criticized those who made the claim that Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming in my usual understated and charming way. I have to admit that the responses surprised me. First, I had no idea so many pe... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 2, 2008 4:01:36 PM
Comments
What 6 speed V-12 do you have?
Posted by: jZ | Mar 1, 2008 9:04:11 AM
Barry, you're always talking in riddles. Are you presenting your bad gas mileage and your recognition of this decade's most bullet-proof investing theme as bona fides in the global warming debate? I love math and statistics too (and I think they love me back a little: you're welcome to MY bona fides), my carbon footprint is smaller than John Edwards' squash court, and I have an exceptional window into new developments in alternative energy. Does this give me special privilege to ridicule the countless silly anecdotes in favor of global warming hysteria, to point out the obvious gaping hole in the strong anthropogenic hypothesis, or to ridicule the (math and statistics-challenged) platitudes that masquerade as "solutions?"
~~~
BR: No, as proof I am not the typical greenie anti-automobile activist.
Posted by: John F. | Mar 1, 2008 9:10:46 AM
I think you could argue both sides use funny math. I am much like you and have had a large footprint. I don't argue that America would benfit from decreaing it. I just argue that the Global Warming scare tactic is bullshit.
I did some research on it some months back and can look up some of it when I have more time. There were over 100 different scare tactics used in the last century from running out of coal to the ice age in the 70's. What's funny is that some of the ice age scientists have done a 180 in much of their research to now global warming. This stuff shuts up a global warming alamist in a second.
The methane from cows farting has a much more adverse effect on the atmosphere than your 6 speed or all the 6 speed V12's put together.
Don't get me wrong. I believe this direction is good for our country but don't insult my intelligence. My family and I are involved in several projects in use of alternative energy and conervation. It's an awsome field and we enjoy it.
Posted by: ken h | Mar 1, 2008 9:13:20 AM
Barry - given your love of math and statistics, and your sense of humor, you really ought to see Tim Haab's review and analysis of the same data over at Env-Econ.net. Warning: he uses the word "heteroskedasticity," as if he actually knows what it means!...
Also, here's other weekend reading - at least until you get around to posting the weekend linkfest here, anyway! Scroll down to get to the really worthwhile stuff.
Posted by: Ironman | Mar 1, 2008 9:16:48 AM
I don't know . . . the earth has been spinning around for a long time and so has the sun. Based upon ice cores from Antarctica the earth has gone through multiple periods of hot and cold over 1000s of years. You had the little "ice age" in the 1600s where the Tims River froze over.
I'm not saying that the earth isn't rising in temperature, it probably is, but as all good financial advisers and traders know.
Correlation is not causation.
As an engineer I think about at all the variables that could be at work that are difficult to model. The output of the sun being #1 on the list.
Shoot sunspots have a HUGE effect on radio activity (especially ham radio) and all we can really do is determine the sunspot cycle . . . we have no clue how many, of the power of them.
The earth itself has its own cycle, its own temperature mechanisms. How much of an effect humans have on this, or if they have any effect at all should be the debate.
Just rising temperatures tell us absolutely nothing except rising temperatures. It tells us nothing about the reasons why. And you can not correlate the industrial revolution, considering that temperatures really began to rise after the 1960s.
Compare that to past extremely warm periods in the earth's history (warmer than now) and we have no clue as to what is happening.
Posted by: Shane | Mar 1, 2008 9:17:32 AM
Note: both charts are from the same source . . .
Posted by: Barry Ritholtz | Mar 1, 2008 9:19:03 AM
Barry,
I am normally with you on the poor analysis and interpretation of statistical data. I am a graduate level trained statistician with over 25 years industry experience. And while I don't agree with all of your conclusions, I think that your approach is normally right: look at the data, look at the trend, look at the source of the data and biases that it might represent, and look at our knowledge about what might be causing the data to do what it is.
I think a data point shouldn't have too much sway, unless the other three can be dismissed. The measurement errors identified could impact the trend, but not as much as would fully validate the deniers. However, what about the beginning of the next Schwabe cycle that the Danes and Canadians have been talking about? That could do it. The German Max Plank Institute and many other academics from 'green' countries have studied this carefully. While correlation does not represent causation, the history is compelling.
As with everything, don't rely solely on a single data point, but don't fully ignore it either.
~~~
BR: Thanks for commenting -- I appreciate the insights of trained professionals.
To me, the 2008 data point spike down is about as significant as much as the 1987 spike up.
What I know of periodicity and the Schwabe cycle: The sunspot activity Schwabe discovered fell into an 11 year solar cycle -- and while that has had major impacts on shorter term trends (Solar activity and El-Niño signals, droughts, etc.) it fails to explain the long term chart's trend.
Posted by: JMP | Mar 1, 2008 9:19:58 AM
"someone who chooses to ignore the broader data trend -- is simply putting their own mathematical ignorance and innumeracy on display."
Trends are made up of individual data points, and we've all seen bad ticks in intraday charts. Here's an example of bad ticks in temperature data that is not getting fixed.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/14/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-51/
Urbanization and poor location give bad data. Bad data can get you a Nobel Prize if you hype it enough though!
Posted by: JBA | Mar 1, 2008 9:27:43 AM
Shane nailed it.
I lump global warming caused by evil people nut cases in the same arena as Kudlow, the Fed, and both political parties.
Global warming is caused by.........go outside at noon. See that BIG YELLOW THING in the sky?
Yes dears, BYT causes global warming.
Posted by: Ross | Mar 1, 2008 9:33:43 AM
If the temp chart was a stock chart I WOULD try to short the next time it retraced the giant down candle which is just completing.
You can tell that the man-made global warming premise is false because of the solutions being recommended-- more taxes, more controls, less liberty... all these solutions, the burdens of which are unequally aimed at the West and the US.
If global warming were a scientific fact, you'd think that the solutions proposed would be more technological rather than mostly social and propagandistic.
For example, why isn't nuclear power being embraced if CO2 emissions were a problem? Instead we get these bogus carbon offset schemes being promoted by people with financial interests in the programs.
Posted by: Aaron | Mar 1, 2008 9:41:35 AM
What's funny is that some of the ice age scientists have done a 180 in much of their research to now global warming. This stuff shuts up a global warming alamist in a second.
Because science succeeded there. There were some theories, people did research, and they were shown to be false. Scientists are not magicians who get it right the first time. But contrary to the extreme skepticism being peddled by certain political groups, this does not mean that you should never believe anything a scientist says. All of scientific knowledge is a matter of likelihoods, not certainties.
Global warming had the exact opposite path of the "ice age" research. In the 80s very few scientists believed in it. There was much uphill research on trying to get this accepted. Evolution is the only scientific theory that has gone through more rigorous scrutiny than this field. Yes, it is a theory, but so is gravity. The issue is how strong our belief is in that theory from years of battle-tested research.
Now, that does not mean that the policies that some of these scientists suggest are the right one. I think this is where many scientists hurt their case. They mix policy recommendations (which are not scientific) with their scientific research. This is a problem, and the two clearly need to be separated. However, this does not excuse scientific illiterates from (falsely) attacking the science instead of the policies.
See www.realclimate.org why the argument above as well as just about everything else coming out of the denialist camp does nothing to dispute decades of research on this topic.
Posted by: Walker | Mar 1, 2008 9:43:51 AM
Global warming denialists? That's not the language of science but of propaganda.
That phrase attemmpts to evoke the idea of Holocaust denial and use that emotion to buttress what is supposed to be a scientific fact.
If man made global warming were merely a scientific fact why do its supporters try to use the emotions of the Holocaust to shut up people who don't agree with them?
Posted by: Aaron | Mar 1, 2008 10:01:01 AM
Barry:
Kudos for taking a contrary position to your readers.
There are a number of good resources. The best one recently is Joe Romm's Salon article.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/27/global_warming_deniers/
& underlying blog post.
http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/11/how-do-we-really-know-humans-are-causing-global-warming/
Lastly, a catalog of the dubious techniques deniers use to create FUD.
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
All exhaustively sourced...
Posted by: sunsetbeachguy | Mar 1, 2008 10:12:17 AM
"If global warming were a scientific fact,"
Wow, way to not read Barry's post at all. The information that we have regarding the increase in global temperatures establishes that global warming *is* a fact. You may wish to argue the cause, but it certainly does exist, and you putting an "if" at the beginning of your sentence does not change that.
"you'd think that the solutions proposed would be more technological rather than mostly social and propagandistic."
Just spend some time watching the History Channel or the Discovery Science Channel and you'd learn enough to stop making ignorant blanket statements like that. For example, why would a big oil company spend tons of money in Canada in order to use geo-sequestration with one of their oil fields ? That sounds like a technical solution to me, and that's one of thousands of major projects that are aimed at reducing carbon output. The beauty of many of these such projects is that they end up having financial benefits that end up recouping the initial investments many times over.
"For example, why isn't nuclear power being embraced if CO2 emissions were a problem?"
Because nuclear power plants are God-awful expensive, take forever to bring on-line, and we end up trading one problem for another. Solutions to the issues that we face will not involve a single magic bullet, and the costs associated with the transition from carbon-based energy sources are so massive that it will be an up-front requirement that we don't put ourselves in the same position again in a short period of time.
"Instead we get these bogus carbon offset schemes being promoted by people with financial interests in the programs."
So, how would you propose that we limit the amount of carbon and other pollutants that we're spewing into the atmosphere ? Or is it our God-given right to force our citizens to eat tainted fish and suffer horrible environmental disasters, all so that we don't hurt the feelings of the poor, widdle stockholders ?
The posts on this subject at economic-related blogs like this really depress the hell out of me. Seems like a bunch of folks would rather leave their kids and grandkids in a world of hurt than make a couple of dollars less. It's this type of short-sighted thinking that will cause this country to devolve significantly during a very painful couple of decades or more. Luckily for us, we hopefully will see some changes for the better in the next few years as this type of thinking is shown the door.
Posted by: OhNoNotAgain | Mar 1, 2008 10:12:42 AM
Mr. R better you should stick with jazz recommendations on Friday nights. How could you have visited "Watts Up With That?" and seen any of the 52 and counting "How Not to Measure Temperature" series?
In the interests of full disclosure you need to change your post. The second graph which you title: "Boo! Global Warming Remains an Ongoing Trend (1880-2010)" is actually credited: "NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Dr. James Hansen:" and is merely reproduced by Watts. Hansen has been caught lying (yes, lying not merely being wrong) several times recently we regular readers of Watts know how to treat Hansen generated graphitti.
BTW, the issue wasn't January but the last decade of falling temperatures with JJan merely confirming. Oh and 1998 was not an "anomaly." 1934 was warmer still so you can at best call it a retest of a three quarter century trading range that failed to break out. I can think of anywhere between 6800 and 13,000 reasons why you might be wrong about global warming.
Posted by: Rob Dawg | Mar 1, 2008 10:16:56 AM
Why do the climate deniers fail to have any citations from any peer reviewed science journals?
Hmm...
Cote citation please.
Posted by: sunsetbeachguy | Mar 1, 2008 10:29:56 AM
A couple relevant stories
In The Know: How Can We Make The War In Iraq More Eco-Friendly?
Children, Children's Children: 'Stop Worrying About Us'
Posted by: DavidB | Mar 1, 2008 10:41:52 AM
35 years ago it was global cooling that was going to get us. Now the brainiacs think it will be warming although they can't tell me what my weather will be in 2 weeks. I believe CARBON CREDITS are the ruse they are using to screw the average joe once again.
There are prominent scientists that agree that we do see global warming, but who disagree with the conclusions of the Warmanistas as to why it is occuring. The Sun itself plays a major role, and the Earth itself cycles between warm and cold. This BS is a money maker for someone so follow the frigging money.
Posted by: SPECTRE of Deflation | Mar 1, 2008 10:42:50 AM
It's contained.
Posted by: Marcus Aurelius | Mar 1, 2008 10:43:31 AM
I just burn trees. They are carbon neutral.
CO2 in, oxygen out. Oxygen in, CO2 out.
Warmmmmmmm.
Posted by: Ross | Mar 1, 2008 10:48:50 AM
Global Warming or Global Climate Change? GCC opens the debate abit for discussion. Thats what its all about. Talk of a better life tomorrow .. Or .. money in my pocket today?
Have ya heard of the HoneyBee's plight?
The graph shows what we experienced here in Illinois. This last year was a extreme case for temperature fluctuations - tough on underground water systems, road surfaces and vegitation getting a fake out.
New Energy Plays make sence on many levels except guaranteed instant money return.
I'm not favoring a Wall Street scheme of carbon offsets - the financial industry has made a mess playing us against us.
Its Time to Evolve this Money for Efforts Game.
Posted by: Greg0658 | Mar 1, 2008 10:58:13 AM
just shut the stack scrubbers off and remove the trap oxidizers and catalytic convertors, the air bourne particulates reflect sun light, problem solved.
Good luck though getting your Sharper Image Ionic Breeze purifiers.
Posted by: stormrunner | Mar 1, 2008 10:58:32 AM
The Governmental Chain of Facts and Actions.
independent scientist: average temperatures are rising > lobbyist: a warmer climate needs money to solve the problem > governmental agency: our policies and procedures manual doesn't mention global warming. Try Congress. > Congressional committee: the lobbyists are correct that this needs more money > House of Reprsentatives: more money for study bill is passed > Senate: the problem cannot be solved without the help of the oil companies - oil companies investment tax relief rider attached. > President: With the help of the oil industry, we will uncover the truth about global warming. Signs bill. > Government agency: contract signed with idependenpt scientist > independent scientist: average temperatures are rising.
Posted by: Winston Munn | Mar 1, 2008 11:00:10 AM
Wow, I thought that only a few Limbaugh acolytes still don't accept Global Climate Change (it's not just warming folks, that's why a big swings like the Jan. temps is predicted by the theory).
Hey Barry, wait until you endorse evolution and call intelligent design pseudoscience.
~~~
BR: Done: George Gilder: So THAT explains it
Posted by: edhopper | Mar 1, 2008 11:01:32 AM
Two new bubbles: Alt. energy and commodities (food we grow) are PERHAPS climate related???? Also, we can argue as much as we want about carbon footprints but as long as China and India are hell bent on giving up bikes for cars and motorcycles and adopting our dreamy consumptive lifestyle we can't stop shopping and driving fast enough. Or can we? Maybe $125 oil will do the trick for us? Telecommuting everyone? That's my story and I am sticking with it....for now.
Posted by: lurker | Mar 1, 2008 11:19:09 AM
