John L. Casey and climate denial

An anonymous commentator on my post about Tom Luongo raised the issue of John Casey and his views on climate change.  This is a valid challenge, since Luongo apparently got much of his misinformation from Casey.


Casey is a retired engineer, having worked on the space shuttle at NASA for most of his career.  Post-retirement, he now describes himself as a climatologist, claiming on his website that he is "one of America's most successful climate change researchers and climate prediction experts" without providing any evidence that he has any coursework or research experience in climate science.  Luongo parroted Casey's line, word-for-word, without attribution, in his "newsletter."

So, what is Casey's claim to fame in the realm of climatology?  That the sun exhibits cycles of activity.  No.  Really.  That is Casey's main thesis from his 2008 paper "The existence of relational cycles of solar activity on a multidecadal to centennial scale as significant models of climate change on Earth."  Casey makes the claim that his paper was peer-reviewed but a quick search for the paper title and author on Google Scholar shows that it has never been published anywhere other than his own website.  A quick review of his website shows that this is the only formal paper Casey has written on the subject beyond various "Global Climate Status Reports" available for $8.95.  Looking at the free summaries of his status reports shows that they're largely a continuation of claims made in his 2008 paper.

Casey used a C14 calibration curve from Reimer et al. (2004) as a proxy for solar activity, analyzed it for cycles in an unspecified way, then eyeballed the graph to find the local minima that matched the cycles he found.  He then eyeballed graphs of HadCRUT3 (AD 1860-2000, his Figure 5), continental US temperatures from NOAA (AD 1895-2006, Figure 6), and mainland Chinese temperatures from 1 BC to AD 2000 (Casey's Figure 7, Yang et al. 2002) for local minima.  He then presented the results of that "analysis" in Table 2 on page 5.  Here is his table:

Taking just the data in Table 2, Casey computed the correlation between temperature lows and solar activity, finding that there was a high correlation between the two.  On the basis of the computed correlation and the cycles he found in solar activity, Casey then predicted that a) solar activity is entering a new low starting with cycle 24 which will b) cause global temperatures to plummet by 1 to 1.5ºC by AD 2031.

Unfortunately for his "theory," Casey ignores multiple problems with his analysis.  First, continental China, which he used for temperatures back to 1 BC, does not represent the entire planet anymore than the continental US or central England represents the entire planet.  The only global temperature data set he used started in 1850—meaning that he doesn't have global temperatures before then.  So really, his global analysis covered only the last 150 years of his time period.  Before that his analysis just covered a single country.  That makes me question his 4A point in his Table 2, as it occurred decades before either of the two data sets (HadCRUT3, USA) he used began.

Second, his own Table 2 reveals that there are multiple instances when temperatures bottomed out before solar activity did (e.g. 3, 4B, 6, 7, 8, 13) or that temperatures rose before the solar minimum ended (e.g. the Maunder Minimum (5) and the Wolf Minimum (8)).  That means his supposed cause came after its supposed effect.

Third, his correlation calculation on page 5 is a joke.  He totaled the number of solar minima (N), then counted the number of temperature minima which (approximately) coincided with those minima (R), then calculated the correlation as R/N = 0.93.  That calculation in itself is problematic.  When we're calculating correlations, we normally calculate either Pearson's r or Spearman's rho, then compute the p-value to decide on statistical significance.  Casey used neither, preferring his own non-standard formula of R/N.  Beyond his "technique," however, there are 6 instances where the effect (temperature) came first, which is impossible.  Using N = 13 (removing 4A due to the fact it comes before his data sets began), that means R = 7, which means that R/N would be 0.54, far below his calculated value.  To get a value of 0.93 given N = 14, R must equal 13, so Casey must have included most of the instances where his proposed effect came before his proposed cause.  Completely bogus.  Last, if you want to calculate the correlation between two variables, you calculate the correlation between all of the data, not just timing of the local minima.

 Fourth, Casey ignored all the research published by 2008 that showed that the current global warming is not due to the sun (e.g. Meehl et al. 2004, Solanki et al. 2004, Usoskin et al. 2005, Scafetta and West 2006, Ammann et al. 2007, Lockwood and Fröhlich 2007, Lean and Rind 2008).  He didn't even acknowledge any of those papers which makes me wonder if he bothered to read of any of those papers.

Last, he gives no indication how he concluded that a drop in solar activity starting in cycle 24 would cause global temperatures to drop by 1 to 1.5ºC by AD 2031.  No calculations, no models, nothing.  No way to double check his conclusion.  Not only are his conclusions uncheckable, his conclusion was debunked by Fuelner and Rahmstorf (2010), who found that a new Maunder Minimum over the next century would have little effect on global temperatures, cutting only 0.3ºC of an expected increase of 4ºC.  Given that I've already published my own analysis of where temperatures are headed by 2030, we'll get to see who is correct.

Predicted 2030 temperatures based on an extrapolation of the warming trend since 1970 versus John Casey's predicted range for 2031.
 In short, Casey's main "analysis" is a joke, much as the rest of the "science" Tom Luongo claimed to learn from him.

Comments

  1. Although the specific figures about correlations between temperatures and solar cycles are determined, are greek to me. I see no reason not to believe that Mr. Casey's calculations and unexplained predictions are flawed. Unfortunately I lack most of the scientific know-how and experience to really comprehend such parts of global warming research, but after reading your observations, and those made by others proficient in the field of Climate science, I have faith that there has been no stone left unturned in the effort to find other ways to explain our rising temperatures and erratic weather patterns. Most people don't realize that almost invariably, any contradictory theories and explanations for global warming, have long since been examined and rejected but, man's primary role remains virtually indisputable.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Met the guy in a bookstore today, where he turned the single copy of his book there face-out. I engaged him in polite conversation, backed by a healthy skepticism. He could not back his conclusions with clear arguments, insisting only that "those in control of our government" were deliberately perpetuating the myth of global warming in order to profit from taxation of carbon emissions--and that "all of us," meaning all climate scientists, agree that global warming is a myth, and that the earth is not warming at all. When asked about his credentials, he clearly waffled. The guy is a crackpot. I buried the book (which seems to be 40 pages of personal opinions and anecdotes "supported" by text-only quotations from real climatologists, isolated and taken out of context--which comprises over half of the book. He seems a nice, intelligent, and reasonable man, which makes him all the more dangerous. Fortunately, the only people who seem to be listening to him are the ultraconservative (and dwindling) Tea Party nut jobs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You lost me when you use terms like Tea Party nut jobs, makes me think you have drank to much Al Gore cool aid.

      Delete
    2. Exactly.... Read like there was some intelligence there until last comment.

      Delete
    3. Haha. Progressives belief system has nothing to do with science but how they think the world shoild look through thier eyes. You point to the tea party. Humm? Who's political? The earth is now cooling. C02 levels are going down. Sometimes you just need to open your eyes. It's that simple

      Delete
    4. Do you have proof that what he said is false?I see events he said would happen are starting to happen,besides when you call names "Tea Party nut jobs" makes you look liks a trool.

      Delete
    5. The Tea Parties are from dying in fact nationwide and locally we are growing in large numbers. By the way; many of us are retired Scientist, engineers, Lawyers, & Doctors so I do not think like you spout from your bottle beer that we are "Nut Jobs" But then again I assume you are a well rounded progressive Socialist from your comment.

      We listen to John Casey and many other Climatologist, have also reviewed many University reports on the climate from around the world. ( Yes I am a Retired Engineer). YOu on the other hand believe the 5 scientist of the IPCC a United Nations' Socialist run organization, who do all their research on Computer simulation, not real field work, computer simulation can be programmed to give you want ever results Mr. Obama and the U.N want to see to sell their Carbon Tax. They will do or say whatever the Obama Administration wants. How many times have they already been caught lying and doctoring data since 2008? Answer "Many" How many of Al Gores predictions have come true? Answer: Absolutely ZERO!
      And Yes the Carbon tax is coming and you will pay for it just like the rest of us.

      CO2 has absolutely noting to do with Climate warming/Change and most scientist will stand behind that. These fluctuations is climate were happening long before man even entered this realm.

      Spread your wings do some research on your own.

      Don't have much respect for some who is afraid to put their name on their comments.

      Delete
    6. There is just no way that the conservatives will win in 2016. They are a spent firce. The LGBTIQZP are now in the ascendant. Hillary Clinton will win big and then we will all be carbon neutral.

      Delete
  3. There is, however, a 2003 NOAA study, "Are we on the brink of a new little ice age?" co-authored by two NOAA scientists that, although not concluding that global warming is not occurring, does say that IPCC global warming theory and the models it is based on are flawed because the conclusions are based on too short a period of time, only about 250 years. The 2003 NOAA study, by comparison, studied ice cores from glaciers formed during ice ages that occurred over several hundred thousand years in our past. While the study concurred that global warming would not preclude some areas of the planet experiencing extremely long, cold winters such as we have been experiencing recently, the writers' conclusion was that 1. there are simply too many variables and 2. climate science is simply not sophisticated enough to be able to analyze them all and arrive at the solid conclusions the IPCC and other climate study organizations have. Based on the timber of your post, while I am sure you will dismiss me as one more "crackpot," I would suggest you Google and read, "Are we on the brink of a new little ice age?"

    ReplyDelete
  4. I suggest you actually make sure that you understand what you read. First off, Joyce and Keigwin's article (http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=83339&tid=3622&cid=10046) was a blog post, not a published study. Second, you completely misunderstood what they wrote.

    Their main point was that global warming had increased the chances of an abrupt climate change event similar to the Younger Dryas at the end of the last ice age. During the Younger Dryas, a massive amount of meltwater from the continental glacier covering North America flooded into the North Atlantic. That pulse of freshwater shut down the Gulf Stream, rapidly (within 10 years) plunging the region around the North Atlantic into ice age conditions for 1,000 years.

    Joyce and Keigwin's points about climate models was that none of the models were sophisticated enough to predict REGIONAL climate change because there were too many unknown variables, NOT that the models couldn't predict GLOBAL change. There is a huge difference between regional and global, a point which you seem to have missed.

    Third, their main conclusion was that abrupt regional change, not just relatively gradual warming, was the main threat to civilization—especially if melting Greenland glaciers created another Younger Dryas event.

    Next time, please read for comprehension, not just to cherry-pick out-of-context pieces.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr Milks, it would behoove us all if you would state your credentials and from whom you receive funding for climate research. Your political party would also be of interest.

      Delete
    2. I'm sure Mr. Milks agrees with Margaret Sanger too.

      Delete
  5. Liberals will only ever believe the current climate change fallacy because it's the only explanation that leads to bigger, more powerful government. This is not about saving the planet for liberals, it's about empowering the government to rule our lives even more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see you have presented a well thought out view backed by extensive research and peer reviewed data. Or perhaps you have simply spouted a piece of baseless political propaganda which flies in the face of all the evidence from scientists worldwide - most of whom have no connection to the USA at all and have absolutely no axe to grind in support of its Liberal or Conservative factions.

      Delete
    2. If you are citing "political propaganda", you should include the "Inconvenient Truth" claims by a notorious politician that our sea levels would have swamped our coastal areas and hurricanes would have increased dramatically by 2015. Follow the money, and you find tenured professors and global politicians profiting from the continued push against human activities related to climate. As for Casey, selling a 9 dollar book pales when the funding for climate research is examined. What university or professor would give that up? East Angola's climate fabrications are never mentioned by pro warming propagandists in this blog. Follow the big money and ask, "Where will the carbon credit profits be applied? Who will receive those tax dollars levied against business, industry and citizens, and how will they be used to improve the living standards of mankind? The simple fact that dirt poor and suffering African nations are prohibited from developing a gas and oil industry in the name of preserving a natural environment, causing the starvation of millions while the climate change professors and their universities turn a blind eye, is the single most negative aspect of global warming science. How long will you look away from that fact, HOW LONG?????

      Delete
    3. African nations are prohibited from developing their oil industry?? Have you looked a Nigeria lately? The environmental devastation is all around from oil development. A corrupt gov't takes the money and leaves the people to siphon off fuel from the pipelines to survive. Corrupt gov'ts in Africa are the reason people are starving. The money goes into politician pockets and never gets back to the people.

      Delete
  6. I don't know if the world is getting hotter or colder or staying about like it has for a while. I do know that our weather is caused by the sun, not by my Dodge diesel Ram. Whatever the sun sends us in weather we will have to accommodate ourselves too. We should aim to spend less than earthly total GDP on trying to stop the sun, even if it effects the incomes the Al Gore Jrs, the grants of "climate scientists", and the graft green lobby political kickbacks. I also know the science is not about voting, and tell disagreeers to shut up., but about unrelenting inquiry and testing. When anyone says a percent less than 100 of "scientists" say a thing is so or not, they are talking about politics, not science. Real Scientists never are settled about anything. Its politicians who want you to shut up and pay up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. a voice of reason - the point of science is to investigate and learn; practically speaking, science is as unsettled as the earth.

      Delete
    2. Actually, Bill, you're confusing "weather" and "climate." As for what is affecting climate, the evidence is very plain that it is indeed your Ram truck, along with all the other vehicles on the road in every country around the planet plus every coal-fired or natural gas fired power plant, and any other of the myriad ways we as a global civilization burn fossil fuels, that is affecting climate. I've already gone over that evidence here:

      http://environmentalforest.blogspot.com/2013/06/how-we-know-global-warming-is-because_4.html

      http://environmentalforest.blogspot.com/2013/06/how-we-know-extra-co2-comes-from.html

      Happy reading.

      Delete
    3. After all the CO2 humanity has added to the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, CO2 only makes up .04% of the atmosphere. That seems like an extremely small amount to cause such major changes.

      Delete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Gore's law
    Gore's Law states, as coined by Laanta in March 2008:
    “”As an online climate change debate grows longer, the probability that denier arguments will descend into attacks on Al Gore approaches
    Immediately after making the post, commenters proceeded to nitpick at Gore — thus proving his point.

    In Laanta's words: "Al Gore could be short, evil and fond of child sacrifice. He could emit more CO2 snoring at night than Christopher Monckton does all year. And his movie could be even more inaccurate than The Great Global Warming Swindle. But this wouldn't change a thing."

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gore's_Law

    ReplyDelete
  9. As an online climate change debate grows longer, the probability that denier arguments will descend into attacks on Al Gore approaches 1

    ReplyDelete
  10. http://laanta.blogspot.ca/2008/03/gores-law.html

    ReplyDelete
  11. The main problem is that it is not just one cause of climate change, everything is causing it: Man and Nature. What is going to happen is that first, we will face what I call "Crimson Summer" which will be caused by Man-made CO2, the Deforestation of the world's forests, less volcanic activity and overpopulation . The Sea levels will rise and many of the world's Coasts will be flooded. Drought and Flooding will happen where they have not happen before.

    Then comes "Azure Winter", the warm ocean currents will start slowing down, causing a rapid cooling of the climate, the ice caps return and soon, record cold in the North lasting well into spring, followed by the Start of a new Ice Age.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is the timeline for your prediction?

      Delete
  12. All ocean currents do is shift heat from the tropics/subtropics to the poles. Your "Azure Winter" would be largely confined to the polar latitudes whereas excess heat would build up in the tropics and subtropics, hardly a conducive situation for an ice age.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

  14. Can anyone accuratly predict the weather in the short or long term? Even if they could, it's still just a guess. A single solar massive flare, Super Nova, Comet, Super Volcano, Necular War, Alien Invasion, Pandemic, etc could render "Climate Change" a laughable topic in an instant. I wouldn't want to be "that guy" who diverted funds and mindshare away from important activities that could have really saved the planet.

    I contend that Climate Change fanitics, (I'm not saying you are one), and all fanatics are blinded by their fanaticism. Where there's a boiling over of passion, there's little room for reason. Real science doesnt require emmotions to sell their wares... real scientists are sceptical by nature.

    I fear science has become the latest casuality in a long line of sellouts following in the footsteps of our political leaders. I'm much more concerned with the destruction of our country, currency, education system, infrastructure, freedom, jobs, future, values, honesty than our weather. Maybe we really need a good storm to clean this place up.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Scientists prove facts based on available information, the history of information and much more. They meet as groups to come to the most factual theory of the truth and in most cases are spot on. Income the politics that cover only their interests in the scientific findings. The two don't mix. Let scientists prove the facts with their expertise and deliver the message from them be it proven factual between all or the disputes between all but the information from the scientific community should come from the scientific community in their words. Leave politics out of it. That's a self serving entity out for their own interests and gains.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Interesting discussion, except for the political commentaries (on either side) -- they just muddy the waters. If you all would like to read another interesting paper on a counterweight to global climate change, I would recommend this one:

    http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/6/1237/2015/esdd-6-1237-2015.pdf

    The author, Jorge Sanchez-Sesma, comes to the conclusion that we are entering a period of minimum solar activity, which will reduce the earth's temperature by half a degree Celsius by the end of this century, and he has further predictions after that. If this turns out to be true, it would offset to an extent the rise in global temperatures predicted because of greenhouse gases, and maybe give us some more time to react to the disruptions that may occur on local and regional levels.

    Better heads than mine can evaluate Sanchez-Sesma's methods and math, but the article does look interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Skeptics like Tom Nelson of Junkscience and Leif Svaalgard consider Casey to be a scam artist.

    Tom Nelson:

    "We think he's a scam artist trying to get his hands in your pockets but couldn't see how he expected to do so -- now he's told us. He's looking for 'meaningful funding' and he thinks the skeptic community might be eager enough to slay the catastrophic warming myth to fork over some cash.

    We'd like to think skeptics are not a good target for scammers hunting the gullible but with Al raking in cash with his fear campaign it was inevitable some crook would try to siphon some off with another 'angle'. If you must give your hard-earned away bear in mind that JunkScience is always chronically short of funds."

    Leif Svalgaard:

    "The 'Space and Science Research Center' and John Casey should not be relied on for valid research. I know of Mr. Casey and have checked his credentials and they are not legitimate. He has tried to recruit even me into his band of 'experts'. I would not place any value on the ramblings of the press release."

    ReplyDelete
  18. John Casey appears to be a flimflam artist who believes his own line of BS, at least enough to scam anyone who is inclined to agree with him. Are those suckers RWNJs? Yeah, probably.

    ReplyDelete
  19. John Casey appears to be a flimflam artist who believes his own line of BS, at least enough to scam anyone who is inclined to agree with him. Are those suckers RWNJs? Yeah, probably.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I have highlighted John Casey's book on my blog here: http://tinyurl.com/p6ra4f3 and came to some conclusions here:
    http://tinyurl.com/qjxakew -- could be of interest

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A recent Google count of readership showed surprising interest from Russia in my ColdSun blogsite: 395 Russian reads in the last 30 days alone, overall count Russian total reads is given as 5,019.

      Delete
  21. The biggest problem haunting all climate models is the extent to which clouds confound. The IPCC is said to have neglected not only the sun but cloud cover. They did it in order to simplify things. Evidently they neglected too much. That does not mean the glaciers are not really melting, it means any policy intended on controlling global warming is likely to fail one way or the other. That's why politics is no substitute for the marketplace of ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Fuelner and Rahmstorf (2010), .. found that a new Maunder Minimum over the next century would have little effect on global temperatures, cutting only 0.3ºC of an expected increase of 4ºC. Given that I've already published my own analysis of where temperatures are headed by 2030, we'll get to see who is correct."
    We have already got to see that despite CO2 being released faster than ever, the temperature trends have been way below those predicted by the "science is settled" IPCC models.
    The Global Warming Hypothesis is being touted as a theory at par with the Theory of Relativity or Evolution which is absurd. All that can be said is that CO2 is Greenhouse gas which will cause some extra heat to be retained from the Sun. Natural variations are not very well understood and we move through space with the Earth wobbling a bit and passing through equator of the solar system of the sun every now and then and the solar system itself passing though galactic equator every now and then. These equators have their own dust clouds which likely influence our climate as does our variable sun and bombardment of cosmic rays from outer space.
    Money and politics have polluted climate science in ways that they never did with Evolution or other scientific theories.

    ReplyDelete
  23. there is an awful lot of weird coverup lately on the HEIJST Lights.seen in the ocean Aug 2014. It was a gigantic ufo ET fleet. the info was only allowed online for one month,then total shutdown of any info on the images ...no science orgs follow up...nothing...15 miles long...10 miles wide...it is why the USA and EU both no longer cared about their national borders at the same time...unheard of...and a million organized illegals were waiting to rush in...all a set up...its an alien controlled world now...it is their agenda to make chaos in all the main powerful nations to weaken those military orgs...check for yerself. abovetopsecret dot com or youtube have info on the mystery glow in ocean...before the news blackout went big time. you can thank google for what you can see...and you can thank google for what has been blocked from you seeing. (DERRUFO)

    ReplyDelete
  24. Bla, bla bla. I'll bet you don't say the same things when Bill Bye the so called "Science guy" offers his blather. His credentials are weaker than Casey's, but the Left places him on the educational pedestal. Both of these guys have issues, but only one is getting hammered by the media and bloggers like you. Obviously, you prefer to believe a clown.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I see that the tea baggers are really pushing there brand of pure bull shit.when the world Scientific Community Proves that climate change is
    Real and it is caused by human activity .futher more it is the oil and gas and coal Industries That fund The Tea Party After all It's called the Billionaire's Tea Party And they got all you dumb saps To believe What they want you to believe As long as they raise the American flag And say they believe in God You jack off takeit and run with it and why people would vote against your own best interest.Well in the end you will get what you deserve Your children will not be able to fly in Planes And you assholes will be walking barefoot Good luck.see if carl rowe or the koch brothers are going to help u !!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  26. It's amazing how many things there are about climate science of which people are ignorant, and the appalling logic applied to the discussion.

    The confusion between climate and weather.

    The ignorance of what climate models include (they include clouds, convection, sun, oceans etc etc etc).

    Climate has changed in the past therefore humans cannot be contributing to climate change now..?? Right, so because there were forest fires before humans existed humans cannot cause forest fires.

    That Al Gore is important in a discussion of the science..? Good grief. There are plenty of places on the web where you can talk politics.

    That this is all about US politics..? The conspiracy apparently includes the national science academies of scores of countries. The mainstream science view has been consistent no matter what the preferences of the government of the day, and no matter which country you look at.

    CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. But the gases causing the greenhouse effect are only 2% of the atmosphere, and they keep the surface 33C warmer than with no greenhouse gases. CO2 makes up 2% of the greenhouse gases that regulate the surface temperature. If you think this small amount cannot have much impact, imagine what 2% of the volume of your blood's worth of arsenic would do to you. Or if you like, 0.04% of your body's weight in arsenic injected into your bloodstream. That might cure you of waving away small sounding amounts if you survive the experiment.

    CO2 contributes 9%-26% of the greenhouse effect depending on cloudiness.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Effects of astronomical cycles on earths climate:

    http://www.slideshare.net/DRVINAYKUMARPANDEY/global-climate-change-facts

    ReplyDelete
  28. Somehow nearly all the scientist that take funds for climate change, and the author of this article isn't an ecception, completly forget to take a look at the sun...... Ops would that mean all the interest & money would evaporate llike snow under the sun? :D

    ReplyDelete
  29. This blog is very good,thank for sharing the link.

    ดูหนัง

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

James Taylor gets polar ice wrong—as usual

Tom Luongo's multiple lies about climate change