My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« STUDY: Antarctic ice collapse linked to newly-discovered wave patterns, not melt | Main | NIWA's David Wratt defends this? »

Comments

CM

Australis:

>>>Nope,Jones says the cooling was only about 3%. But that's certainly not warming is it?<<<

Between what periods? Please provide the direct quote.
If you mean from 1995 to now, Jones said "I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive..."
So that's warming.

>>>In fact, Prof Jones says there's been no detectable warming since the second IPCC report in 1995.<<<

Please provide direct quotes. I think you're confusing 'statistically significant' with 'detectable'. They are in no way the same thing.

>>>The warming contention will lose all credibility if scientists start relying on claimed movements of a few-hundredths of a degree - esp over periods longer than a month.<<<

Hang on a minute. Jones was responding to questions that were obviously carefully worded. Don't try and make out that he's the one cherry-picking set dates.

>>>The alleged warming during 1975-98 was seventeen-hudredths of a degree (Jones figures)!<<<

Don't forget that he's only talking about heating on land. It bears remembering that the HadCRUT record only covers around 80% of the globe. Analysis by European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) and NASA GISS (Hansen 2006) find that the areas omitted by HadCRUT are some of the fastest warming regions in the world. Consequently, the HadCRUT record underestimates the warming trend. The NASA GISS record which covers the whole globe takes warming since 1995 from 0.11C per decade up to 0.15C per decade. And nobody is suggesting that warming is, or will be, linear.

However, even this doesn't give you the full picture. Surface temperature is only a small fraction of our climate with most of the warming going into the oceans. When all the heat accumulating in the oceans, warming the land and atmosphere and melting ice is tallied up, we see that global warming is still happening.

Steve Netwriter

CM,
You post a LOT.

How much do you get paid for it?

Ross

CM -- I certainly do not agree with your analogy to " have you stopped beating up your wife"
You can play with the semantics of statistically significant or significant all you like but it makes no difference to the fact that Jones agreed that there was no warming in the period. He cannot say the time span was too short when he and other warmists are happy to say "it has been the hottest month on record to support their argument like Jones did at the end of the interview referring to Jan 2010. That is, you cannot have it both ways.
I read the transcript on the BBC website and I don't think it was a trick question and Jones's answer reflected that.
So I think Jones's answers are a significant change in stance but I don't expect you to agree with that view.

cj_nza

CM - “Would you agree that agreeing that the warming since 1995 is not 'statistically significant'
(a) is not the same as saying "it's not warming"
(b) simply reflects the fact that in that time frame NOTHING (or close to it) would be statistically significant because it's not long enough to filter out noise.”

An interesting way to phrase a question.

a) not statistically significant means we can’t say it’s warming. Or more specifically it actually means we can’t say it is warming with a reasonable level of confidence.

However in spite of the fact that we can’t say it is warming, you formulate your question “the warming since 1995….”?

b) no, because of the question’s construction ( addressed in a above) and no.

But yes there is a difference between the statistical "level of confidence" and the "absolute" no warming. Ross, as you say, you can't have it both ways.

CM

>>>CM,
You post a LOT.

How much do you get paid for it?<<<

Nothing.

>>>CM -- I certainly do not agree with your analogy to " have you stopped beating up your wife"<<<

It's extremely difficult to establish ANYTHING of statistical significance in only 15 years when it comes to climate. So the analogy stands. It was a trick question. And it's had the predictable response.

>>>You can play with the semantics of statistically significant or significant all you like but it makes no difference to the fact that Jones agreed that there was no warming in the period.<<<

They are not semantics. There is a very real difference in meaning.
He didn't agree with that at all. Why are people so desperate to twist what he has been said? I don't understand. Are you really that desperate? Why?

Would you accept, as an answer, the following?:

"A wealth of scientific observations makes clear that warming in recent decades is unequivocal, climate is the long-term trend, and that, as I’ve said, the trend since 1975 is 0.16°C per decade and is statistically significant. The period since 1995 is really too short for statistical significance, but has seen continued warming.”

>>>He cannot say the time span was too short when he and other warmists are happy to say "it has been the hottest month on record to support their argument like Jones did at the end of the interview referring to Jan 2010.<<<

Where did he say that? Please provide the quote.

He's not responsible for what anyone else says.

>>>That is, you cannot have it both ways.<<<

I don't see that he's trying to.

>>>So I think Jones's answers are a significant change in stance but I don't expect you to agree with that view.<<<

How has his stance changed? What has he said that contradicts anything he's said previously?

CM

>>>a) not statistically significant means we can’t say it’s warming. Or more specifically it actually means we can’t say it is warming with a reasonable level of confidence.<<<

We can still say it's warming. We just can't claim that it has any statistical significance, but that's almost entirely because the length of time is too short. Not because the temperatures have plummeted.

>>>However in spite of the fact that we can’t say it is warming, you formulate your question “the warming since 1995….”?<<<

The temperature doesn't stay exactly the same until we've got a long enough period to be statistically significant. However insignificant it may or may not be, it's warmed since 1995. Not cooled.

Steve Netwriter

So CM, you claim not to be one of the 100,000 paid alarmists ?

100,000 Climate Activists Recruited for Propaganda
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7231466/British-Council-gets-in-on-the-climate-act.html

If true that doesn't sound fair. You should be getting paid for all this alarmist writing you do.

cj_nza

CM - I give a decent answer and now you try and twist it into something else.

I have not said that there is cooling; I have not said that temperatures have plummeted.

Change that is not statistically significant means that you cannot claim change. Now if you cannot claim change how do you deduce “cooling” and “plummeting temperatures” from that?

Measured temperature is a proxy for real temperature. You look at measured temperature and say “I see a difference so I can say it is warming”, but that assertion is not correct. The only thing that you see is a change in your proxy for real temperature.

In other word you cannot say that a change in your proxy is indicative of a change in the real word. For you to be able to say that is has been warming in the real word, the change in measured temperature (your proxy) needs to be statistically significant.

Thus if you claim that is has been warming, you mean to say that you see a change in measured temperature. Fine, but you cannot say that the globe has warmed or is warming based on that.

Claiming lack of elapsed time is like saying “it is warming, you just wait and see!” Actually it is primarily the lack of difference in the measured temperatures that causes statistical analysis to indicate that the difference between them is not statistically significant.

CM

cj_nza, I apologise if I misrepresented you. It was not my intention. I was referring to how deniers twist things around (particularly what Jones says it seems).

>>>Change that is not statistically significant means that you cannot claim change. Now if you cannot claim change how do you deduce “cooling” and “plummeting temperatures” from that?<<<

But it can be seen in a non-binary manner. If the warming detected is right on the cusp of being statistically significant, then that is a relevant consideration. Ian has cut off Jones's explanation and used it to rail against people. As if they're completely wrong for suggesting the world is still warming.

There is also the issue of CRU data being the coolest of the available data sets. As I said he's only talking about temperature on land. It bears remembering that the HadCRUT record only covers around 80% of the globe. Analysis by European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) and NASA GISS (Hansen 2006) find that the areas omitted by HadCRUT are some of the fastest warming regions in the world. Consequently, the HadCRUT record underestimates the warming trend. The NASA GISS record which covers the whole globe takes warming since 1995 from 0.11C per decade up to 0.15C per decade.

Skeptical Science has this graph:

Figure 3: Change in total Earth heat content from 1950 (Murphy 2009).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Total-Heat-Content.gif

Surely it's not treating the situation fairly if you don't also include heating in the ocean, as that is where a significant proportion of the heating has occured. Your thoughts?

CM

>>>So CM, you claim not to be one of the 100,000 paid alarmists ?<<<

That's what I'm claiming yes. Not that it'll make a blind bit of difference to people that 'know the real truth' like your good self.

>>>100,000 Climate Activists Recruited for Propaganda<<<

Gosh look it's all secretly and cunningly hidden away on their public website...

http://www.britishcouncil.org/usa-science-projects-climate-champions.htm

What a scoop! That'll learn them to keep it lying around where anyone could find it!

Great to see Booker admit he doesn't know the difference between weather and climate though. Not surprising in the slightest.
Also unsurprising is his comparison with Marxism. It took a wise commenter to bring up Hitler though, which is slightly disappointing.

CM

>>>If true that doesn't sound fair. You should be getting paid for all this alarmist writing you do.<<<

I realise it might be a difficult concept to grasp that there are also regular people out there that aren't anti-science.

CM

Crap, Booker can't even claim the 'scoop'. He just nicked it from someone else at his own 'paper'.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100025163/why-does-the-british-council-spend-money-on-climate-change-propaganda/

Mack

yeah, CM there are "regular people out there that (who) aren't anti-science"
These regular people, like myself, are just anti-the junk science you and your ilk have been peddling for the last 30 yrs.

CM

>>>These regular people, like myself, are just anti-the junk science you and your ilk have been peddling for the last 30 yrs.<<<

Please point out what "junk science" I have peddled.
Why can't 95% of the people here deal in specifics?

Mack

The junk science you peddle is disproven here...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_agw_smoking_gun.html.

Mack

Have another go...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_agw_smoking_gun.html

The comments to this entry are closed.