WaPo Cherry Blossom Claims Refuted: “Nothing But Lies And Statistical Manipulations”!

Reader David Reich left a comment  in response to Kenneth Richard’s post on grape harvests and climate.

I’ve decided to upgrade it as a post below. Both stories show that today’s climate is well within the range of our climate’s natural variability over the past 100 and 1000 years, and that today’s weather events aren’t unusual.

By USDA photo by Scott Bauer, United States Department of Agriculture, Public Domain

================================================
Washington DC Cherry Blossoms, By David Reich

This [Grape Harvest Date Evidence: No Significant Modern Warmth] reminds me of the Washington Post (WaPo) story that ran a story a few days ago about the earlier than normal Washington DC cherry blossoms hitting their “peak day”. It was stated by the National Park Service that the blossoms are now blooming “on average about 5 days earlier than normal” since records have been kept by NPS.

So, I went back and checked the data. Turns out that the data have been kept for 96 years going back to 1921. The average day of hitting “peak” during the decade of the 1920’s was day 93 into the year – April 3 in a non-leap year, April 2 in a leap year. The average in this decade so far is………92 days. So, how does the Park Service come up with “about 5 days”?

If you average all 96 days, you do get close to 94 days largely because during the 1950’s and 1960’s, the peak date in those 2 decades was over 97 days. So, the recent data is only 2 days earlier than the average. BUT, since the 50’s and 60’s decades which many people remember, the average has in fact gone down about 5 days. Of course no mention that the average went up from 93 days in the 1920’s to 97 in the 1950’s and 1960’s.

Equally egregious with both the WaPo article and also the NPS claim is the complete ignoring of the fact that the standard deviation of all 96 data points is well over 7 days (1990 was the earliest peak at day 74 while 1958 was the latest at day 108) so the data varies wildly. So, even if a 5 day trend were valid, such a trend is well within the normally expected variation in the “peak” day and is thus no trend. No change.

Nothing but lies and statistical manipulation by the WaPo and the NPS.”

 

113 responses to “WaPo Cherry Blossom Claims Refuted: “Nothing But Lies And Statistical Manipulations”!”

  1. SebastianH

    Is it really the skeptics way to declare everything that has happened naturally before to be impossible to be caused by humans? Shouldn’t you also be skeptic about nature (or period changes) being the root cause of everything?

    1. AndyG55

      But nothing untoward is happening.

      The tiny changes that have happened have been strongly linked to natural cycles and well within any natural boundary. Climate is remarkably stable and benign at the moment.

      We don’t need the hallucinogens that you seem to be on.

    2. Sunsettommy

      Translation:

      I,Sebastian, have no counterpoint to the blog post,because I realize there is no cogent no argument against it.

      1. SebastianH

        What is it with you and the word counterpoint? If you like it so much, offer one yourself …

        1. Sunsettommy

          I don’t have to Sebastian,since it is a good post.David effectively showed what a LIAR wapo and nps are.

          Their lies didn’t bother you……?

          You on the other hand stated this in response to the blog post:

          “Is it really the skeptics way to declare everything that has happened naturally before to be impossible to be caused by humans? Shouldn’t you also be skeptic about nature (or period changes) being the root cause of everything?”

          Why did you post this,when it doesn’t address the blog entry main point about blooming dates,were you posting just to let people know you are unhappy about something?

    3. Henning Nielsen

      Well, it is in the nature (sic) of things, Seb, that things that have happened naturally are not caused by humans. Just as things that are caused by humans have not happened naturally.

    4. clipe

      “Is it really the skeptics way to declare everything that has happened naturally before to be impossible to be caused by humans?”

      Thanks for admitting nature changes without human help.

    5. richard verney

      Shouldn’t you also be skeptic about nature (or period changes) being the root cause of everything?

      No, because that is the null hypothesis.

      The null hypothesis is the scientific method.

      1. SebastianH

        The null hypothesis is tool in statistics. In this case it would be “CO2 emitted from humans has no effect on temperatures” which has already been rejected. Not in the magical physics world of skeptics who come up with creative explanations how the average surface temperature is as high as it is in order to make the greenhouse effect disappear …

        Maybe they should apply a null hypothesis test to their theories too.

        1. Kenneth Richard

          “In this case it would be ‘CO2 emitted from humans has no effect on temperatures’ which has already been rejected.”

          No, you’re making up your own version of a null hypothesis that suits your purposes. In other words, you’ve created a straw man argument. Again.

          Try this…

          “CO2 emitted from humans has an effect on temperatures, but this effect may be overwhelmed by the effects of other influences on temperature.” This has not been rejected. In fact, here are about 60 scientific papers indicating that the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 is very, very low.

          http://notrickszone.com/50-papers-low-sensitivity/

    6. Denis Ables

      Actually, it is the alarmist mode of making every trivial change into a terrible climate catastrophe (if not now, perhaps next year).

  2. Kurt in Switzerland

    There’s nothing quite like cherry-picking cherry blossoms.

    1. David Reich

      Exactly. That was the primary point of my post. The NPS and WaPo have millions of readers/visitors to their webpages and articles and thus by “cherry-picking” a trend from the late 60’s or late 70’s until the present and simultaneously ignoring any statistical noise in the data as represented by the 7 plus day standard deviation they can communicate their presupposed “narrative”. By doing so, they render the pre-60’s/70’s data to irrelevancy (the 1920’s and 1940’s decades both had 93 day averages) because it undermines the narrative.

      1. SebastianH

        http://imgur.com/a/Ex7Qs

        Moving average over 30 days shows a clear trend, doesn’t it?

        1. David Reich

          Yes, it does from the late 80’s (95 days) until the present (92 days), it is slightly downward, but from the 20’s to the late 80’s it was rising from 93 to 95 days while CO2 was increasing undermining any cause and effect relationship between CO2 and peak bloom day. Also, one has to consider the high volatility of the data ranging from 108 in 1958 to 74 in 1990 creating a current std deviation of 7+ days.

    2. John F. Hultquist

      Kurt comes up with a witty zinger — well said.

      Interestingly, people plan vacations based on the “peak” of the Cherry blossoms, and lots of money flows to those serving tourists.
      Needed is a “control knob” on each tree so the National Park Service can always get the date right and extend the season for several months. With more research funding they might be able to turn the blossoms off during the night hours and bring them back about 9 A. M.
      Weather is naturally not stable enough to maximize income.
      [Unrelated: The Cherry tree I was told was a good cross-pollinator for sweet Cherries blooms about a week after the others have peaked. Can I get a grant?]

  3. AndyG55

    And there’s that NATURAL cycle yet again

    … about the same now as it was in the 1920-40’s

    That darn inconvenient NATURAL cycle, and a good reason to start all AGW scams in the late 1970’s. 😉

    I wonder when they will start referencing all temperatures relative to period on the top of cycle…

    … say 1990-2020… then we can all have another global cooling scare 🙂

    1. AndyG55

      ps.. and it will be much easier to prove CO2 causes global cooling than to prove it causes warming, right seb! 🙂

      1. SebastianH

        And how would CO2 cause net cooling? There is zero evidence for that. And don’t even think about posting that link to the image with CO2 cooling above 11 km again without understanding what information is displayed.

        Natural cycles and human influence together still look like cycles, except they are now half influenced by human actions:

        http://imgur.com/a/IkdQh

        1. AndyG55

          Poor seb, still no luck finding any paper that shows CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

          So sad..

          SO PATHETIC !!

          1. The Indomitable Snowman, Ph.D.

            Actually, Andy, it’s even funnier.

            He’s at it again. Did you look at that link he provided?

            He doesn’t have a clue what natural fluctuations are (they are *not* “cycles”).

            And as Richard Verney pointed out, he doesn’t have a clue about the “null hypothesis,” which is a bedrock of real science.

            I could give another one of those Ph.D.-grade lectures on statistical systems and statistical behavior. Probably wasted on that particular one though.

          2. SebastianH

            Mr. Ph.D., shouldn’t you be able to do abstract thinking then? You could as well render a random walk and add an increasing “human” component to it. I am using the sum of some sine waves to demonstrate how patterns are still very visible and detectable in a scenario where some increasing influence is adding to the pattern values.

          3. The Indomitable Snowman, Ph.D.

            No, Sebastian, the problem is that both David Reich and I know what we’re talking about, while you’re just blowing smoke with irrelevant nonsense.

            There are no sine waves involved in what Mr. Reich is noting. It has nothing to do with that.

            It has to do with statistical systems and statistical behavior, and you clearly know nothing about such things.

            Maybe it would be a better use of your time to go actually learn something, rather than making a public fool of yourself in here all the time.

          4. Kenneth Richard

            “Maybe it would be a better use of your time to go actually learn something, rather than making a public fool of yourself in here all the time.”

            SebastianH has previously explained that he is here to teach us about the truth. Or something to that effect.

          5. AndyG55

            “shouldn’t you be able to do abstract thinking then?”

            What seb thinks of as abstract thinking, is actually hallucinogenic based fairy-tale madness.

            By his constant make-believe yabbering, I’m guessing he is failed arts/lit major.

            Very little science or engineering in his background…. that is FOR SURE. !!

          6. sod

            “There are no sine waves involved in what Mr. Reich is noting. It has nothing to do with that.”

            That is simply false. Sebastian is right and you are wrong.

            His picture clearly demonstrates that noise will hide the trend.

            http://imgur.com/a/IkdQh

            I want that Ph.D.-grade lecture on “statistical systems”. Go ahead please!

            Please start by pointing out what a “statistical system” is!

          7. AndyG55

            So sob, YOU are WRONG

            You are ALWAYS Wrong !!!

            Before you attend a PhD lecture, you need to pass maths in junior high school.

            It is VERY OBVIOUS that you never did.

          8. SebastianH

            There are no sine waves involved in what Mr. Reich is noting. It has nothing to do with that.

            It has to do with statistical systems and statistical behavior, and you clearly know nothing about such things.

            So you are the guy who takes everything literally, ok.

            Here is a graph over the cherry blossom dates. The window (moving average and std) is 30 years. http://imgur.com/a/Ex7Qs

            What do you see as a trained statistician? Did the moving average decrease in the last decades or not?

        2. AndyG55

          “There is zero evidence for that.”

          Zero evidence for warming either.. as you have continued to prove with you total inability to produce any evidence.

          CO2 COOLS the top of the atmosphere.

          It is part of the cooling system.

          1. SebastianH

            You sound like someone who thinks an AC unit is a machine that cools …

          2. sod

            “Zero evidence for warming either.. as you have continued to prove with you total inability to produce any evidence.”

            please stop repeating this false claims over and over again. It is “alternative facts”.

            there are literally thousands of scientific papers on this subject.

            Where is the scientific paper that will show that the apple that i hold in my hand will fall to the ground if i open my hand?

            Where is the scientific paper that shows, that not every word you wrote on this blog is total garbage?

          3. AndyG55

            Please provide evidence for warming other than from NATURAL events..

            Seb has been totally unable to produce any evidence that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

            And you won’t have any luck either.

            Believe it or not, you are even dumber than seb !!!

          4. SebastianH

            The evidence are measurements of radiation taken on the ground looking up. You should know that by now. You would measure close to 0 Radiance (W/m² per steradian) in the bands where CO2 emits if it wouldn’t cause warming of the surface. It’s not too difficult to comprehend …

          5. AndyG55

            Poor seb, still flapping about like a stunned mullet.

            “STILL totally unable to produce any evidence that CO2 causes warming in a CONVECTIVE atmosphere.”

            Not one paper, NADA… EMPTY !!!

            No CO2 warming in either satellite record.

            Oh dear, pitiful seb.

            What is the poor little AGW chump.. or is that CHIMP, going to yap about next. !!

            So hilarious watching his ineptitude to support the very basis of his ugly, anti-life religion.

        3. Kenneth Richard

          “And how would CO2 cause net cooling? There is zero evidence for that.”

          Choudhury and Kukla, 1979
          http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v280/n5724/abs/280668a0.html
          Impact of CO2 on cooling of snow and water surfaces
          The levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are being increased by the burning of fossil fuels and reduction of biomass. It has been calculated that the increase in CO2 levels should lead to global warming because of increased absorption by the atmosphere of terrestrial longwave radiation in the far IR (>5 μm). From model computations, CO2 is expected to produce the largest climatic effect in high latitudes by reducing the size of ice and snow fields. We present here computations of spectral radiative transfer and scattering within a snow pack and water. The results suggest that CO2 significantly reduces the shortwave energy absorbed by the surface of snow and water. The energy deficit, when not compensated by downward atmospheric radiation, may delay the recrystallisation of snow and dissipation of pack-ice and result in a cooling rather than a warming effect.

          Idso, 1984
          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.3370040405/abstract
          An analysis of northern, low and southern latitude temperature trends of the past century, along with available atmospheric CO2 concentration and industrial carbon production data, suggests that the true climatic effect of increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere may be to cool the Earth and not warm it, contrary to most past analyses of this phenomenon.

          Ellsaesser, 1984
          http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0004698184901185
          https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222622330_The_climatic_effect_of_CO2_A_different_view
          On the other hand, the IR flux from the CO2 band centered near 15-microns, is both a small fraction of the total and is coming from an emitter with a temperature near 220 K (-50 to -55°C). Returning to Fig. 2, this temperature range is found in the altitude range 12 to 20 km. If the top of this CO2 greenhouse blanket were to be raised by the addition of CO2 and maintained at constant temperature, this would have little or no effect on the temperature at the surface and, if anything, might cause the surface to cool (i.e., if this radiating layer were pushed above 20 km without changing its temperature).

          Smithusen et al., 2015
          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066749/full
          Abstract: For this region [central Antarctica], the emission to space is higher than the surface emission; and the greenhouse effect of CO2 is around zero or even negative, which has not been discussed so far. We investigated this in detail and show that for central Antarctica an increase in CO2 concentration leads to an increased long-wave energy loss to space, which cools the Earth-atmosphere system.

          For most of the Antarctic Plateau, GHE-TES [greenhouse effect as measured by the Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer] is close to zero or even slightly negative; i.e., the presence of CO2 increases radiative cooling. Over Greenland, the greenhouse effect of CO2 is also comparatively weak but invariably positive. An evaluation of monthly averages of GHE-TES shows that the increased cooling due to CO2 of Antarctica is strongest during austral spring and autumn. … Central Antarctica is the only place on the planet where increased CO2 concentrations lead to an increased LW energy loss to space [cooling]. In the Northern Hemisphere the lowest, but invariably positive, [CO2] forcing values are seen over Greenland and Eastern Siberia.

          1. SebastianH

            Really? Some obscure papers from 1979 and 1984 and again that Smithusen 2015 paper with the negative greenhouse effect the cause of which is clearly explained in the actual paper.

            P.S.: Don’t tell AndyG55 that you support what is written in this last paper. He might freak out, about the very good explanation of radiative transfers 😉

          2. Kenneth Richard

            These papers (and there are many others) were cited just to demonstrate that your “there is no evidence” claim may not be supportable.

            And the last paper certainly doesn’t help your cause, SebastianH. It strongly contradicts the assumption you have that CO2 is a predominant cause of polar warming, sea ice melt, glacier recession, etc. The radiative forcing for CO2 is “weak” to non-existent for both the Arctic and Antarctica.

          3. AndyG55

            “We investigated this in detail and show that for central Antarctica an increase in CO2 concentration leads to an increased long-wave energy loss to space, which COOLS the Earth-atmosphere system.”

            Oh dear, poor seb..

            oh dear what a pity !! 🙂

          4. AndyG55

            poor seb misses out… FAILS yet again

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4uivPpzCGo

          5. SebastianH

            AndyG55, have you actually read the whole paper? It strongly disagrees with your worldview of there being no greenhouse effect. It has a very detailed explanation of why the effect is negative in some months over the poles.

            Kenneth, it doesn’t contradict. If you really think that, then you haven’t read the whole paper.

          6. Kenneth Richard

            “Kenneth, it doesn’t contradict.”

            Great. So you agree with the authors that the greenhouse effect for CO2 is “weak” (their word) for the Arctic (~5 to 10 W m-2) and essentially 0 W m-2 for Antarctica, as shown here:

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/2015GL066749/asset/image_n/grl53769-fig-0004.png?v=1&s=e020fff98b6acf78d73242ddc49a2603806b7158

            In contrast to the tiny forcing for CO2, you do understand that the cloud radiative effect at the poles is about 500% or more greater, right?

            http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160112/ncomms10266/pdf/ncomms10266.pdf
            The annual mean CRE [Cloud Radiative Effect] of 29.5 (±5.2) W m 2 provides enough energy to melt 90 Gt of ice in the GrIS [Greenland Ice Sheet] ablation area during July and August. … The snow model simulations, which capture the evolution of the GrIS SMB [Surface Mass Balance] from 2007 to 2010, indicate that clouds warm the GrIS [Greenland Ice Sheet] surface by 1.2 (±0.1) C on average over the entire period [2007-2010]. … These results further indicate that not only liquid-bearing clouds but also clouds composed exclusively of ice significantly increase radiative fluxes into the surface and decrease GrIS SMB [Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Balance]

          7. SebastianH

            I do agree that the greenhouse effect over the poles is weak. But why is the effect of clouds suddenly positive? Weren’t you telling me last week that it’s negative?

            Anyway, do you agree that energy is transported by ocean currents and wind from the equator to the poles?

            Do you know why the greenhouse effect at the poles can be negative? Does AndyG55 realize what he is supporting when he quotes papers like the one you linked to? 😉

          8. Kenneth Richard

            SebastianH: “I do agree that the greenhouse effect over the poles is weak.”

            No, it’s not “the greenhouse effect” that’s assumed to be weak. It’s specifically the greenhouse effect attributed to CO2 that is weak over the poles. The LW forcing attributed to CO2 is radiatively “weak” to non-existent for both the Arctic and Antarctica according to that paper. Regardless of region, water vapor and cloud dominate the greenhouse effect, accounting for anywhere between 75% and 98% of the total greenhouse effect according to scientists. So, from the start, CO2 is assumed to make an only modest contribution to the greenhouse effect relative to the other greenhouse agents. When considering how reduced/weak it is for the polar regions in particular, the belief that you have that CO2 nonetheless dominates as the cause of Actic and Antarctic glacier and ice sheet and sea ice melt is all the more incomprehensible.

            SebastianH: “But why is the effect of clouds suddenly positive? Weren’t you telling me last week that it’s negative?”

            As explained to you multiple times before, cloud forcing contributes to both shortwave AND longwave forcing. In the case of clouds melting glaciers, that is the LW forcing effect.

            The forcing effects for clouds are different at the poles than they are in the tropics. There is also still a great deal of uncertainty associated with cloud forcing. Regardless, relative contribution of clouds to radiative forcing is much larger than that for CO2.

          9. AndyG55

            “I do agree that the greenhouse effect over the poles is weak.”

            Extra CO2 cools the poles.

            Not just weak greenhouse effect.. it actually COOLS,

            ….just like the atmosphere acts to cool the surface everywhere else in the world.

          10. SebastianH

            Kenneth, we had this conversation over and over. I accept that you think that natural cycles somehow dominate and CO2 induced changes in temperature, etc gets somehow almost completely cancelled out. You demonstrated the same way of thinking in the comments about the CO2 concentration increase that must be entirely caused by humans because we emit more than the increase (nature being a net sink since we started measuring CO2 levels in the 50s).

            It’s like you think interest doesn’t matter since income is increasing the bank balance steadily.

            I wont go back and forth with you about this again. It’s probably more like this: http://imgur.com/a/IkdQh

            AndyG55, so you finally accept that there is a greenhouse effect and radiative energy transfer. I am proud of you! (you should really read the paper and think about supporting its claim if you want to be consistent).

          11. AndyG55

            Poor seb can’t even red what is written..

            Uses his brain-addled imagination of what he wants other people to have said.

            Pitiful little troll, you really are , seb

            “Extra CO2 cools the poles.

            Not just weak greenhouse effect.. it actually COOLS …

            just like the atmosphere acts to cool the surface everywhere else in the world.

            Looks like seb has agreed with me that the atmosphere COOLS the surface, and that cooling is controlled by the pressure gradient., not by any CO2 effects.

            Tiny steps, little troll.. I still give you 5, maybe 10 years before you actually comprehend the reality.

            So, so many anti-facts you have to unlearn first, though.

        4. AndyG55

          Just like H2O is.

        5. richard verney

          And how would CO2 cause net cooling? There is zero evidence for that.

          As soon as CO2 levels began to rise significantly, there was cooling. NAS estimated that the Northern hemisphere cooled by about 0.8degC between 1940 and early 1970s. Hansen in his 1981 paper (Science 213) assessed the cooling to be about 0.5degC and suggested that as at the time of his paper the Northern Hemisphere (ie., about 1980/81) was still about 0.3degC cooler than the 1940s.

          Hansen in his paper suggested that globally 1980/81 was about the same temperature (may be still some 0.1 degC coolr) than 1940, and Hansen accepted the point made by Jones that Southern Hemisphere data is suspect because of sparsity of measurements and poor spatial coverage.

          Since Southern Hemisphere data is suspect, we have no useful data on global temperatures. Only data on the Northern Hemisphere and this cooled by up to 0.6deg C as soon as CO2 emissions started to become significant.

          Since you frequently point to correlation as proof of causation, I would suggest that the 1940 cooling which lasted some 30 years is some evidence such that your statement that there is zero evidence is mistaken.

          1. SebastianH

            You are trying to say that CO2 is the only thing influencing climate and temperatures are proportional to CO2 levels. Why? Natural cycles do exist and even random changes occur. They all add up to what we perceive as climate changes. In a way it looks like this chart: http://imgur.com/a/IkdQh

          2. AndyG55

            “You are trying to say that CO2 is the only thing influencing climate”

            Nope, we will leave that sort of moronic statement up to the AGW cultists. !

            CO2 has no effect on temperatures, it is just another channel for energy transfer, which is regulated by the pressure/temperature gradients.

        6. AndyG55

          “CO2 cooling above 11 km again without understanding what information is displayed”

          Your hilarious attempts at pretending that you know anything are getting funnier all the time

          STILL WAITING for you to prove the very basis of your baseless, UGLY, anti-human AGW religion.

          So far Nada, Nothing, ZIP !!!

  4. David Reich

    Thanks Pete for highlighting the statistical analysis I did. Very much appreciated.

    1. The Indomitable Snowman, Ph.D.

      Thanks, David, for doing the statistical analysis and sharing it. When I first saw your original comment, it was great to see that you grasped the importance of the standard deviation in evaluating such a system.

      Citing a 5-day shift sounds impressive, but when *one* standard deviation is 7+, then that shift is nothing but statistical noise.

      From the archives, you’ll probably understand this:

      http://notrickszone.com/2016/07/01/statistical-analysis-shows-germanys-june-mean-temperatures-completely-stable/

      1. SebastianH

        Here is the actual data of the cherry blossom peak in Washington:

        https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1b_LpwMJE_guzPlWU-fkJ1bNU3iT6OWjLpjWsjoK2kmQ/edit?usp=sharing

        Feel free to play with it. Source is linked to in the master table. For those on mobile devices here is an image of the chart: http://imgur.com/a/Ex7Qs (window for moving average and std is 30 years)

      2. SebastianH

        The moving average (30 years) was pretty stable until the 90s. From then on until now it decreased by 5 days. See link in the comment above (awaiting moderation). Saying this is just noise is an interesting interpretation of the data (also linked above)

        1. AndyG55

          You can see the “cooling ” scare of the 1960-1970s

          Then you can see the effect of the massive urban growth from 1960’s to 1990’s.

          https://landcover.usgs.gov/urban/umap/pubs/asprs_wma/fig5.gif

          Nothing to indicate any mythical CO2 warming, though.

          1. SebastianH

            The comment-gone-article wasn’t about CO2 warming I believe and neither is this comment thread. It’s just about the trend of earlier cherry blossom peaks.

          2. AndyG55

            So you admit there is no CO2 warming signal in the cherry blossom data.

            WELL DONE , seb

            Yet another tiny step for a brainless AGW shill/troll.

  5. The Indomitable Snowman, Ph.D.

    Thanks, David, for doing the statistical analysis and sharing it. When I first saw your original comment, it was great to see that you grasped the importance of the standard deviation in evaluating such a system.

    Citing a 5-day shift sounds impressive, but when *one* standard deviation is 7+, then that shift is nothing but statistical noise.

    From the archives, you’ll probably understand this:

    http://notrickszone.com/2016/07/01/statistical-analysis-shows-germanys-june-mean-temperatures-completely-stable/

    1. sod

      “Citing a 5-day shift sounds impressive, but when *one* standard deviation is 7+, then that shift is nothing but statistical noise.”

      can you please explain this argument to me in more detail?

      can you cite any textbook on this claim?

      1. AndyG55

        Oh dear, seem that sob never did any basic mathematics or statistics either.

        Tell us sob, what were you doing during your formative age 7-18 years, because school was obviously a no-go area for you.

        1. sod

          Basic statistics show that you are wrong!

          “12. Statistical/Trend Analysis

          EPA calculated the long -term trend in PBD for Yoshino cherry trees by ordinary least -squares linear regression to support a statement in the “Key Points” text. The 1921– 2016 trend had a slope of -0.052 days/year, with p = 0.0 497 . Thus, the trend is significant to a 95 -percent level.”

          https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/cherry-blossoms_documentation.pdf

          The trend is highly significant. Fact.

          1. AndyG55

            Gees, I wonder what could have caused that very slight trend.

            https://landcover.usgs.gov/urban/umap/pubs/asprs_wma/fig5.gif

            Must be something, like regional cooling, that is counteracting the UHI effect. Wouldn’t you agree, sob. !!

            Let’s see if I can find a rural site reasonably close to DC.
            https://s19.postimg.org/5r6tkv84z/LINCOLN_1921_2016.png

          2. David Reich

            Yes, it is indisputable that the b1 factor of slope of the time-series over the entire set of data is -0.052. I calculated the same figure.

            However, please explain why the b1 factor between 1921 and 1973, was a positive slope or b1 factor of 0.099, nearly twice the absolute value of the slope over the entire data set and during a period of time in which CO2 was increasing steadily?

            Even from 1921 until 1985, the b1 factor is a positive 0.017. It is only in the last 30 years or so, that there is a reversal. Further, can any of this be explained as significant when the std deviation of the data is over 7 days?

          3. sod

            “Even from 1921 until 1985, the b1 factor is a positive 0.017. It is only in the last 30 years or so, that there is a reversal. Further, can any of this be explained as significant when the std deviation of the data is over 7 days?”

            yes.

            Again, the test for significance is a typical statistical approach.

            it is easy to generate a sequence with an obvious trend and a high std deviation.

          4. AndyG55

            Gees, I wonder what could have caused that very slight trend.
            https://landcover.usgs.gov/urban/umap/pubs/asprs_wma/fig5.gif

            Their must be something, like regional cooling, that is counteracting the UHI effect. Wouldn’t you agree, sob. !!

            Let’s see if I can find a rural site reasonably close to DC.
            https://s19.postimg.org/5r6tkv84z/LINCOLN_1921_2016

            WOW look at that cooling !!!!!!

          5. sod

            “Gees, I wonder what could have caused that very slight trend.”

            your arguments do not make any sense.

            We need more CO2, to make the world warmer. Co2 might cool the world. Co2 has no effect. the cherry blossom is not earlier. It is only earlier, because of UHI effect. Temperature records are all wrong. This rural station is right.

            You are contradicting yourself all the time. A discussion with you is utterly useless.

          6. AndyG55

            poor sob , still suffering from his lack of comprehension skills.

            Back to kindy, little child-mind.

          7. AndyG55

            “We need more CO2, to make the world warmer. ”

            Please point out where I have ever said that.

            You are either LYING or partaking of seb’s magic mushrooms, yet again.

          8. AndyG55

            “This rural station is right. ”

            It is raw, NOT adjusted.. so yes.

            Where did I disagree that there was a very slight trend in day of budding?

            Are you LYING yet again… or are you just permanently CONFUSED.

          9. David Reich

            Sod:

            Okay. Let’s pursue some sophisticated statistical analysis then. I used Excel’s LINEST function. It not only provides trend line coefficients, but also how well a regression line fits data, how significant the individual coefficients are, as well as the significance of the regression as a whole. I based my analysis of the data of explanations of the LINEST function in this helpful article:

            http://www.tushar-mehta.com/publish_train/data_analysis/16.htm#_ftn1

            The results I get using LINEST as an array {=LINEST (F8:F103, E8:E103, True, True) where E8:E103 are the days of peak bloom for each year, and F8:F103 are the years 1 through 96. The LINEST array result is:
            LINEST Result (5 rows)
            a1 -0.05463 96.70175 a0
            S.E. a1 0.026293 1.468697 SE a0
            R2 0.043912 7.138976 SE reg
            F 4.317317 94 d.f.
            SSregression 220.032 4790.708 SS residual

            a1 is the same as the b1 or slope I used in my prior post.

            SSregression is a measure of how well the regression fits the data, and SSresidual is a totalized measure (sum of the squared values of the difference between the individual data points and the regression line) or how much remains unexplained. You can see a lot more is unexplained than the value of how well the regression fits the data.

            The excel F.INV.RT function provides the critical F-value which is 3.09 which is less than the observed F-value of 4.32 making the regression as a whole “significant”, but not by a lot and certainly not “highly significant”.

            The R2 value of 0.044 is a measure of how well the regression fits the observed data. The range is 0-1 where the best fit is 1 and the worst is 0. As you can see, the regression fits the observed data extremely poorly.

            In response to your specific comments. I did NOT cherry pick any data. I simply calculated the a1 figure as various points along the continuum of the data. In fact, if one were sitting back in year 54 (1974), the trend predictor (also an excel function) would have suggested a future delay in the cherry blossom peak by 1 day over each of the next 10 year periods. Clearly that did not happen. By year 65, the trend predictor would have predicted a delay in the peak by 1 day in each of the subsequent 58 year periods. Now the trend predictor forecasts a reduction in the peak by 1 day in each of the future 20 year periods. All this is to say, that the trend predictor has changed over time rendering the trend predictor not resulting in being a very good predictor.

            So, even though the LINEST statistics show that the regression as a whole is somewhat significant, the fact that the regression fits that observed data extremely poorly (based on the R2 calculation by itself, and the fact that the SSresidual exceeds the SSregression by over a factor of 20) makes drawing any conclusions from the trend line as having statistical significance, particularly “highly significant” rather highly dubious.

          10. AndyG55

            An even simpler analysis shows that the whole trend is obtained during the 1960-1997 period when the greatest urban expansion occurred.

            Before 1960, the trend is to earlier dates, as is the trend after 1997.

            https://s19.postimg.org/3mosw6voz/Cherry.png

  6. Ed Bo

    The Washington DC area has grown vastly in the last century, and with it, the urban heat island effect. Try disentagling that from any (much smaller) global warming signature, of whatever cause.

    1. sod

      “The Washington DC area has grown vastly in the last century, and with it, the urban heat island effect. ”

      sorry, but the UHI effect has been completely destroyed by this post. It would be smaller than one standard deviation. So it does not exist!

      1. AndyG55

        “but the UHI effect has been completely destroyed by this post.”

        Actually, no, it doesn’t. Have you been sharing magic mushrooms with seb ???

        But it does completely destroys the AGW warming scam.

        What it does show is that there has been NO WARMING even with the UHI effect and fake AGW. Other data, such as unadjusted temperatures, shows Washington DC region outside the urban area has been cooling.

        How many feet can you put in your mouth at one time, little child .. !!

        https://s19.postimg.org/lktp0x7n7/sob.jpg

  7. sod

    Look, somebody did a real statistical test:

    “EPA calculated the long -term trend in PBD for Yoshino cherry trees by ordinary least -squares linear regression to support a statement in the “Key Points” text. The 1921– 2016 trend had a slope of -0.052 days/year, with p = 0.0 497 . Thus, the trend is significant to a 95 -percent level”.

    https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/cherry-blossoms_documentation.pdf

    The trend is highly significant.

    I think this simple fact should be added to the main article above, until we have seen some other statistical analysis.

    1. David Reich

      Since you repeated this post, I am repeating my reply:

      Yes, it is indisputable that the b1 factor of slope of the time-series over the entire set of data is -0.052. I calculated the same figure.

      However, please explain why the b1 factor between 1921 and 1973, was a positive slope or b1 factor of 0.099, nearly twice the absolute value of the slope over the entire data set and during a period of time in which CO2 was increasing steadily?

      Even from 1921 until 1985, the b1 factor is a positive 0.017. It is only in the last 30 years or so, that there is a reversal. Further, can any of this be explained as significant when the std deviation of the data is over 7 days?

      How is the trend of any of these b1 factors be considered “significant” when the std deviation of the data greatly exceeds and change in averages however one may calculate them? And as an aside, if CO2 is the cause and effect of all this, how can one claim it the cause and effect of only the last 30 years and not the first 65 years?

      1. sod

        “However, please explain why the b1 factor between 1921 and 1973, was a positive slope or b1 factor of 0.099, nearly twice the absolute value of the slope over the entire data set and during a period of time in which CO2 was increasing steadily? ”

        this is, because you cherrypick your start and end. Your approach is simply wrong. Science does not work like that.

        “How is the trend of any of these b1 factors be considered “significant” when the std deviation of the data greatly exceeds and change in averages however one may calculate them?”

        they have made a standard, totally normal test for significance. The result is very strong. This is, how science works.

        1. AndyG55

          No sob, you are WRONG yet again

          It is investigating what is actually happening….

          …. you know, the elusive thing for you.. REALITY.

          Most of the date forwarding occurred from 1970- 1999, that is just when the final major expansion of DC occurred

          DENY the facts, Deny UHI.

          DENIAL is all you have, little child.

          And seriously.. every time you say “that is how science works” everybody bursts out in laughter.

          You wouldn’t have the SLIGHTEST CLUE how science works. !!

  8. Oswald Thake

    This is all very well, chaps, and we’re having a lot of fun. But we really shouldn’t feed the trolls.

    1. The Indomitable Snowman, Ph.D.

      Yeah, you’re right of course. It’s fun, but it can turn into a time-sink – and while those clowns have no meaningful skills to offer the world and therefore have too much time on their hands, it can turn into the aforementioned time-sink for those us of with real skills and real responsibilities.

      But it’s fun to drop in some real science and watch them freak out, stomp their feet, whine, and demand a complete explanation – when they could just as easily pipe down and go read some books (and learn something).

      Really, though, I don’t which is the most astonishing thing about them – their glaring scientific and technical illiteracy, the total cluelessness about those deficiencies, or their startling lack of even the most basic social skills.

      1. SebastianH

        You are talking about AndyG55, right? I wish you could “drop some science” on him. It really is a time-sink to argue against trolls like him …

        On the off chance you ment me, I am here to learn how the deniosphere works. As of yet there was almost no real science “dropped in” here. It’s always following the pattern “because [temperature|CO2 levels|sea levels|etc] were as high before, it’s most likely all natural” and in the comments it is always about denying the greenhouse effect by some commenters and others actually accept the reality of physics in some cases, but deny the effects in certain circumstances. It’s really weird …

        1. AndyG55

          Only troll here is you seb. That is you ONLY reason be being here. You LIE even to yourself if you think otherwise.

          Still trying in vain to sell you worthless anti-science, anti-humanity AGW religion.

          Just such a pathetic worm that you can’t take a bit back

          “As of yet there was almost no real science “dropped in” here.”

          From you, so true.

          Everyone is STILL WAITING for you produce one single paper showing that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

          So far you are Mr. ZERO-SCIENCE.. Empty and breft.

      2. SebastianH

        You are talking about AndyG55, right? I wish you could “drop some science” on him. It really is a time-sink to argue against trolls like him …

        On the off chance you ment me, I am here to learn how the deniosphere works. As of yet there was almost no real science “dropped in” here. It’s always following the pattern “because [temperature|CO2 levels|sea levels|etc] were as high before, it’s most likely all natural” and in the comments it is always about denying the greenhouse effect by some commenters and others actually accept the reality of physics in some cases, but deny the effects in certain circumstances. It’s really weird …

        1. AndyG55

          You have yet to PROVE that the tiny amount of warming since the LIA is anything but highly beneficial NATURAL variability.

          You have yet to PROVE that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

          You have yet to DISPROVE that natural gravity/thermal/pressure gradients CONTROL the atmosphere.

          You have yet to PROVE any CO2 warming in the whole satellite temperature data era, despite highly beneficial rises in atmospheric CO2.

          All in all, you are a pretty SAD and PATHETIC shill for your evil, anti-human AGW cult religion.

      3. SebastianH

        You are talking about AndyG55, right? I wish you could “drop some science” on him. It really is a time-sink to argue against trolls like him …

        1. AndyG55

          Poor seb.. trying the “oh he’s a troll” victimology again.

          PATHETIC!!… You want to see a troll.. look in the mirror, little seb….

          It is you soul reason for being here, as a paid shill for your worthless, disproven, anti-humanity AGW religion.

        2. AndyG55

          As for dropping some science.. seems you have yet to get your hands on any to actually drop .. even though it would most certainly slip straight through your fingers if you ever did find some, because your grasp on science is tenuous to say the least.!

          STILL WAITING for that paper…. any luck yet, sleb ???

          CO2 DOES NOT cause warming in a convective atmosphere. And you have shown time and time again that you CANNOT prove that it does.

          1. SebastianH

            CO2 causes warming of the surface since the radiation is measureable. Do you deny the fact that there is radiation if you can measure it?

          2. AndyG55

            CO2 does not cause warming in a convective atmosphere.

            You are basing your anti-science BELIEF on your brain-washed AGW miasma. You have nothing.

            Why do you DENY that you are unable to provide even one paper showing CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

            There is No CO2 warming signature in nearly 490 years of satellite data.

            And as you have just agreed, no CO2 warming signal anywhere else either.

            Rampant, cult-like belief is all you have.

      4. SebastianH

        Comment is lost again … WordPress is acting up again here.

        1. ClimateOtter

          Maybe it knows you have nothing substantive to say.

          1. SebastianH

            Na, the comments seem to have appeared … strange bug.

          2. Kenneth Richard

            It’s not a “bug” SebastianH. This has been explained to you several times now, and yet you continue to write the same things again and again. Comments that use certain tip-off words go straight to the filter to be viewed by a human so as to make sure the comment is not spam. About 80% of the “comments” we receive are actually spam/ads. If your comment “disappears” after you post, all that means is that it is being held. It will be posted once it’s approved. Please stop posting your “my comments are disappearing” worries. Thank you.

          3. SebastianH

            But isn’t that what the moderation queue in WordPress is about? Was the “tip-off word” de nio sphere?

  9. Roberto

    The particular tool that is usually used to show when a thing (like the temperature) has or has not changed is Process Control Charts. If one reading wanders 3 sigma from the mean we are 98% sure that something has changed; or if it’s 6 readings in a row outside 1 sigma, and so on. The “Westinghouse rules.”

    But it’s crucial to do your homework first. Does 1 sigma mean what you think it means, in this case?

    1 sigma means the usual thing IF the entire population is randomly developed from a Gaussian (bell-shaped) distribution. But if your 6 readings came from the same sub-population, that math doesn’t apply. Or if the overall population wasn’t Gaussian in the first place, then 1 sigma may be much more or much less significant than the usual figures.

    Here the fact that trends always last for years means that you have to use a modified version of the math.

    These alarmists clearly have no idea how.

    1. sod

      2The particular tool that is usually used to show when a thing (like the temperature) has or has not changed is Process Control Charts. If one reading wanders 3 sigma from the mean we are 98% sure that something has changed; or if it’s 6 readings in a row outside 1 sigma, and so on. The “Westinghouse rules.””

      No. This is a rule of thumb, and it can be applied to detect whether your nuclear reactor is about to blow up.

      if you wait for 6 consecutive readings outside of 1 sigma you might spot the trend change after people who do NOT apply any statistics (but just wonder, why the festival has been moved forward one week again).

      the real way to find a trend is to look at a trendline and calculate r² numbers or something along that line.

  10. sod

    I have tried to post this a couple of times now. The downward trend is statistically significant (95% level).

    https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/pdfs/cherry-blossoms_documentation.pdf

    the paper has a nice plot of the data:

    https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/print_cherry-blossoms-2016.pdf

    1. AndyG55

      If this year is after day 94, that trend significance disappears.

      Its a tiny trend, that is for sure.

    2. AndyG55

      and I wonder what could have caused that very slight trend

      https://landcover.usgs.gov/urban/umap/pubs/asprs_wma/fig5.gif

      Must be something, like regional cooling, that is counteracting the UHI effect. Would you agree, sob. !!

      Let’s see if I can find a rural site reasonably close to DC. 😉

      https://s19.postimg.org/5r6tkv84z/LINCOLN_1921_2016.png

      1. sod

        you are combining a ton of false informations and believes into a totally false picture.

        the globe is not cooling, even when you found a weather station that supports your absurd believes.

        1. AndyG55

          But the cooling sure is in the Washington DC area..
          wouldn’t you agree, sob..

          That is what the data tells you, isn’t it

          See that massive urban expansion in Washington DC region.. just as the flowering time advanced by a day or so.

          Or is that way too difficult for you to comprehend ???

          Are you now saying that Landcover.usgs is “false information”. Are you saying there has been no urban expansion, despite the FACT that there has ???

          Is that really the best you can do ?????

          Are you saying that the Lincoln temperature measurements are “false information”, even though it is GHCN real data ???

          Oh dear, poor sob.. The only way you can even remotely support the AGW scam , even in your own feeble little mind, is by total DENIAL of the facts.

  11. Fromdownunder

    Whilst there does appear to be a trend using a 30 year average.

    Using a proxy such as cherry blossom in the middle of the city, to measure temperature changes is not going to be accurate considering these factors:

    + Changes in park mantaince procedures on foliage collection, park access to animals such as dogs.
    + Changes in the use of park lighting; and light pollution, IE more and brighter lights at night. This might trick plants to think the days are longer hence blossom early.
    + Changes to rain and watering.
    + Changes to soil density and airation via the usage of motorised lawn mowers that will compact soil more than other mowing methods.
    + Changes in the use of direct or indirect fertilizers (such as the changes in CO2 concentration or use of long lasting fertilizers that will persist over multiple applications and increase in consertration over time)

  12. AndyG55

    This will help the cherry blossoms along nicely… NOT !!

    https://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=washington+dc

    1. sod

      “This will help the cherry blossoms along nicely… NOT !!”

      you are celebrating the cold spell without the slightest understanding of the effect.

      “Should the blossoms fall victim to this March cold snap, it will reveal the devastating consequences of what scientists call “false spring.”

      It was the warmest February on record in Washington, and temperatures were warmer than they are in a typical March. Spring arrived three weeks early in the region, according to the U.S.A. National Phenology Network, which tracks the timing of the season through the monitoring of leafing plants and flowering blossoms.”

      http://www.mcall.com/features/family/mc-cherry-blossoms-washington-damage-travel-20170309-story.html

      “warmer” does not make the world “greener” the way you think it does. Plenty of species have adopted to certain climate rules and will struggle with an earlier spring, that occasionally is hit by a late cold spell.

      This is not a problem for cherry trees, but a rare species could be pushed to its limit by such a change of conditions. But hey, that is just facts again. Keep celebrating that by chance we did not get the most early season on record this year. And if we hit it next year, you can still blame it on UHI or what ever…

      1. AndyG55

        DENYING UHI effects when towns around are cooling , make you look even more like a brain-washed fool.

        You have no facts, you never do have any facts, just blah . blah.

        Hurting so much to be proven WRONG yet again, hey little worm. 🙂

      2. AndyG55

        See that huge COLD anomaly heading toward Washington DC. Its to do with WEATHER, just like the February warmth was WEATHER.

        https://s19.postimg.org/51c4wbboz/freeezing_DC.png

        Read up on “Jet Streams” bozo… they wobble, so you get waves of hot and cold.

        Northern Russia is now getting some normal WEATHER rather than the extra dose of freezing cold they had all winter.

        I know exactly the effect of a fake early spring, certainly more than you would from inside you inner city ghetto basement.

        https://s19.postimg.org/muk5tzier/liberal_trolls.jpg

      3. AndyG55

        because sob has no idea about “WEATHER”.. let’s help him along a bit

        A cold pool of water in the northern Pacific reinforces a dip to the south in the jet stream over the Pacific Northwest – which helps reinforce a high-pressure ridge over the eastern United States.

        That high-pressure ridge, in turn, has forced the jet stream over this region to retreat to the north.
        As a result, cold air from Canada didn’t move into DC area.

        But it is now. So a cold snap is on the way.. or already started.

        This is actually a blessing from fruit growers, because it take March back to its normal temperatures, and slows the bud growth down, That should mean that the fruit will no be as susceptible to late season frosts.

        But hey, that is just facts again…. right sob 😉

        1. AndyG55

          typo fix… a blessing FOR fruit growers.

  13. HL

    Sebastian is a modern day manifestation of Forrest Gump. He appears everywhere and involved in everything but does not understand why.

    1. SebastianH

      Do you know “why”?

      1. AndyG55

        Here we go with some of seb’s self-wrongness yet again.!

        Yes you are here as a shill for the ugly AGW religion.

  14. sod

    There might not be a peak cherry blossom time this year….

    http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/DCs-Cherry-Blossoms-Will-Be-in-Most-Danger-Overnight-416136423.html

    That would be a first in history (as the date set before would have been an earliest date).

    “This is actually a blessing from fruit growers, because it take March back to its normal temperatures, and slows the bud growth down, That should mean that the fruit will no be as susceptible to late season frosts.”

    i have rarely heard such garbage ever. THIS IS THE COLD SPELL. It is not protecting stuff, it is damaging it.

Leave a Reply