Jones: No Warming For 15 Years

[MSimon]

*

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... g-off.html

*

[Jccarlton]

More of the same:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/ ... onfes.html

[TDPerk]

Durn, I was hoping to be first with this when I saw it ;^)

From Althouse, a commenter says:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/02/ad ... 9759588221

"What the article really doesn't focus on is that all the "unprecedented irreversable rock solid computer models" said there was a clear link beteen rising CO2 levels and global temps.

Well CO2 is still rising, but Temps have not. so those models are so much BS. Go back and try again."

And very well said.

There is no truth to the "proof" that there is AGW. It is at best a "may be so, we can't tell".

Also, the DailyMail is for some reason held by some in ill repute, I offer it is also in the TimesOnline.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 026317.ece

[Josh Cryer]

So, is that what Phil actually said, or not?

Put it this way, do you back the allegation that, having read Phil's actual statements, that he said there has been no warming for 15 years?

Or did Phil in fact say something completely different from that?

Hint: anyone who responds is going to have their integrity and honesty tested.

[Scupperer]

So, is that what Phil actually said, or not?

Put it this way, do you back the allegation that, having read Phil's actual statements, that he said there has been no warming for 15 years?

Or did Phil in fact say something completely different from that?

Hint: anyone who responds is going to have their integrity and honesty tested.

Not that I'd stake my integrity or honesty on a piece of journalism, but the quote I found from Jones wasn't exactly a full quote.

"Professor Phil Jones, who is at the centre of the “Climategate” affair, conceded that there has been no “statistically significant” rise in temperatures since 1995." - http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/158214

I presume you know exactly what he said? Or are you just trying to challenge people's integrity and honesty with a bait and switch challenge?

[MSimon]

So, is that what Phil actually said, or not?

Put it this way, do you back the allegation that, having read Phil's actual statements, that he said there has been no warming for 15 years?

Or did Phil in fact say something completely different from that?

Hint: anyone who responds is going to have their integrity and honesty tested.

Ah - Mr. "The Ocean will rise 3 ft or 1 ft depending on which point will best support my argument" Cryer would impugn the integrity of some around here.

Jones agrees with Lindzen. In so far as we can trust Brit papers.

Funny thing is: American papers aren't even covering it.

Leave it to the BBC:

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

But OK. The warming is slight. 1.2C per century. Things are going to have to get significantly above that trend line if we are going to get the rise the Josh and the Catastrophics are singing about. (3.5 to 4 C) .376 deg C per decade just to reach 3.5 C rise. .431 deg C per decade to reach 4.0 C. And of course given the usual variation some decades will actually need a steeper rise than that.

And if the insignificant statistically cooling continues the rates of rise will need to be even steeper yet.

To be sure if Jones can ever find his missing data we can actually verify his numbers in so far as thermometers at jet airports can be relied on to provide 100 year long accurate records.

[Josh Cryer]

MSimon, answer the question. Yes or no. So, is (the original topic heading) what Phil actually said, or not?

[ladajo]

I don't get it,
113 years of data/ four blocks with one overlap show for over 100 years, the avg rise more or less .16per decade, and he says that .12per decade is borderline significant when it is clearly below the 100yrish track?

This whole thing smacks of "Measure with a Micrometer, Mark it with Chalk, Then cut it with a Chainsaw." Call me in another 250 years when we have some real and reliable trend data. (If I haven't drowned in the next 5 years due to oceans rising and flooding the coastals...).

Period Length Trend
(Degrees C per decade) Significance
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes

(BBC to Dr. Phil) Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

(DR. Phil to BBC) "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."

For Josh - the above is a DIRECT QUOTE from Dr. Phil.

[MSimon]

MSimon, answer the question. Yes or no. So, is (the original topic heading) what Phil actually said, or not?

Jones said roughly: "No statistically significant warming for 15 years." But it could get significant if the recent cooling trend doesn't continue because it is almost significant.

But even allowing that the trend is significant it isn't much WRT a projected 3.5 to 4C rise per century. Or a 10 deg C rise per century.

Unfortunately Dr. Jones has no credibility because he has no data.

[Josh Cryer]

Dishonest weaseling and attempting to obscure the original claim. Unsurprising.

ladajo, short term trends have very high error bars, you can't trust them to represent a long term trend: http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com ... rends.html

Until our sampling frequency is very high we won't be able to conclusively say what a given trend is.

You flip a coin 5 times and 4 out of those 5 times it's tails, that does not mean there's an 80% chance that the coin is tails, though it may be a weighted coin, and it may indeed be 80% chance that it is tails, you need a much higher frequency to tell that.

"No statistically significant warming in the last 15 years" is completely and utterly different from "no warming in last 15 years."

Now I don't know about you, but I read the topic before I clicked on it.

[ladajo]

"This whole thing smacks of "Measure with a Micrometer, Mark it with Chalk, Then cut it with a Chainsaw." Call me in another 250 years when we have some real and reliable trend data. (If I haven't drowned in the next 5 years due to oceans rising and flooding the coastals...). "

[Betruger]

What weaseling is there in saying that "No statistically significant warming in the last 15 years" is effectively "no warming in last 15 years"? Do you notice if temperature wiggles +-.001 C when you're idling in bed before falling asleep? That's because it's not significant. Pretty crucial qualifier there.

You wanna know the biggest problem with GW? Way too much talk for so little reliable science. So who cares? Unless you're directly involved, you can't do anything about it (no certainty what does what to climate) and can't even follow news or "professionals" advice. It's a complete crap shoot. And it's had a monopoly on the news for way longer than it deserves.

Wake us (not you specifically but climatologists in general) up when you can make reliable predictions and are over the partisan, political cloak and dagger games. In the mean time we can just stick to secular common sense like "don't poop where you eat", and keeping our pollution balance as positive as possible. Replanting trees, etc.

[bcglorf]

Dishonest weaseling and attempting to obscure the original claim.
You mean like the IPCC lead authors did with the Himalayan glacier and Al Gore with ice shelf collapse and sea level rise? And yet those instances and sources are broadly defended by those wrapping themselves in the flag of scientific consensus.

adajo, short term trends have very high error bars, you can't trust them to represent a long term trend

That's exactly what many of us have been saying all along. I'm glad you agree for the time being. A 10 year trend shouldn't trump a 100 year trend, just like a 100 year trend shouldn't trump a 1000 year one.
Until our sampling frequency is very high we won't be able to conclusively say what a given trend is Great, sounds like we finally agree that we should take the time to get a better sample set before claiming the science is finished and demanding global CO2 reductions to prevent catastrophe.

"No statistically significant warming in the last 15 years" is completely and utterly different from "no warming in last 15 years."

Yes, but less blatant than the difference between "Statistically significant warming in the last 100 years" and "historically unprecedented warming in the last 100 years".

[seedload]

Until our sampling frequency is very high we won't be able to conclusively say what a given trend is.

Your killing me, Josh. Sampling frequency? Do you even know what that means? Do you just mean sampling period? I am going to assume the latter. Increasing the sampling frequency doesn't do much to help identify the trend. Anyway...

Wasn't it you who said that the trend in sea level rise is going up based on a short period of observation in satellite data tacked on to longer periods of observation by tide gauges etc.? Isn't it you that used this supposed upward trend as justification for sea level rise well above even the IPCC claims. Now you are telling someone else not to use short trends.

Apparently, skeptics can't use short trends but supporters can.
Apparently, skeptics can't use high side estimates, but supporters can.
Apparently, short periods of cooling don't mean anything but short periods of extra warming are significant.

You are confused, Josh. You confuse me.

[Josh Cryer]

Wasn't it you who said that the trend in sea level rise is going up based on a short period of observation in satellite data tacked on to longer periods of observation by tide gauges etc.?

I said that? Where did I say that? I stated that sea level rise is going to probably go up, based on personal opinion, because no one predicted the west antarctic ice sheet would lose mass, therefore the models were lowballing or not even considering it.

Isn't it you that used this supposed upward trend as justification for sea level rise well above even the IPCC claims. Now you are telling someone else not to use short trends.

That is personal opinion, not scientific observation, since the numbers were very low I am inclined to believe it's worse, since the data we did have did not predict it at the level it occurred.

When the IPCC comes out with estimates they will be low end at the 95% confidence level. Don't believe me? Wait until AR5. You believe the Climate Skeptic over scientists.

Apparently, skeptics can't use short trends but supporters can.

Lies.

Apparently, skeptics can't use high side estimates, but supporters can.

Lies.

Apparently, short periods of cooling don't mean anything but short periods of extra warming are significant.

Lies. Significant is too strong here. I post the warming trends as an amusing practice since that is tactic used by denialists.

You are confused, Josh. You confuse me.

You're a liar, your lies are obvious.