Phil Jones of Climategate fame made some extraordinary remarks that seem to have been overlooked until now. This was a presentation for Help Rescue The Planet’s St George’s House Consultations in Windsor, 2012.
Jones remarks of interest start at 5:30. He says average sea and land temperatures “can’t really differ that much as a global average”.
If he didn’t adjust sea surface temperatures, you’d “have great differences in sea and air temperatures that just couldn’t happen naturally”. I’d agree, UHI and land use change can make such differences and those aren’t natural occurrences, but why adjust SST data up to match? Watch:
h/t to Marc Morano
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Got a specific moment in time to watch? Not really interested in listening to Jones for 53 minutes.
Ah…crickety…[editable comments!, just ignore me.]
TI
I agree
cn
Didn’t see any charts or graphs.
Just Phil talking.
Difficult to understand.
cn
Two questions;
1) has anyone actually measured the cooling over the time that the water is collected to when it is measured? I suspect it is negligible. In any case cooling or warming (as the case may be) will be dependent on air temperature which, in turn will be close to that of the sea.I don’t think they even know whether the collected water cools or warms prior to measurement.
2) Why are the “adjustments” always upwards (unless they are before 1960, when they are down?
I smell Bulls****
No scientific basis, just to “hide the decline”.
Agreed, the land temperatures should rather have been adjusted down where there is an UHI effect! If you are going to make adjustments.
Hands off the thermostat!!
“hide the decline” seems to be deeply imbedded in the culture of the climate obssesed community.
ah yes, adjust the air temps down by .3C to .5C and youll get an even bigger trend since 1950 to present.. you know when AGW has had its effect. in short you INCREASE the rate of warming by cooling the past
you might if you try really hard find a UHI effect of less than .1C. not much more
Phil is looking bad. Climate gate has really taken it’s toll on him. ha cl
“Phil is looking bad.”
Called aging. If you’re lucky, it will happen to you too.
“Biggest surprise in a man’s life is old age”
Sorry, forgot attribution…Tolstoy I believe
He goes on to talk about how you can take every 5th station, look at urban and rural stations separately, or even remove large countries from the dataset, and get the same trend lines. This, he says, proves the reliability of the data as well as the absence of any significant UHI effect.
That kind of dishonesty really gets on my nerves. This is not raw station data. It’s adjusted data. It’s been homogenized to the point where it is no longer useful for such comparisons. That’s about as fair of a test as an infomercial demonstration.
This from a 2005 paper by Jones and Briffa about the very warm period noted in old records and especially CET;
” The year 1740 is all the more remarkable given the anomalous warmth of the 1730s. This decade was the warmest in three of the long temperature series (CET, De Bilt and Uppsala) until the 1990s occurred. The mildness of the decade is confirmed by the early ice break-up dates for Lake M¨alaren and Tallinn Harbour. The rapid warming in the CET record from the 1690s to the 1730s and then the extreme cold year of 1740 are examples of the magnitude of natural changes which can potentially be recorded in long series. Consideration of variability in these records from the early 19th century, therefore, may underestimate the range that is possible.”
Phil Jones has written several good books on historic climate and is somewhat more sceptical than some might think. In recent years the Met Office has also moved away from their notion of a steady climate until mans influence from 1900, to one in which natural variability is somewhat more centre stage. The biggest Hockey Stick in the CET series from 1659 (and there are several) is the period noted in the article and not the modern period.
tonyb
I see he begins with ….. “didn’t get people harassing us” with FOI’s” !!!!!
He seems to think his previous behaviour was OK and other people were harassing. Strange I was under the impression that Phil Jones had broken the law but was lucky with the Satute of Limitations – but I must be wrong
What else would you expect, adjusting the sea surface temperatures to fit the CAGW excuse.
I think these are the slides for this:
http://helprescuetheplanet.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/phil-jones-effects-of-climate-change-slides.pdf
Actually, this is a pretty clear discontinuity, although he does a poor job describing it and the basis for the size of the adjustment is not really well documented-as you might expect.
A good reference for the history of this issue, which was actually discovered by Steve McIntyre, and then plagiarized by the Team:
http://climateaudit.org/2011/07/12/hadsst3/
I shan’t be wasting my bandwidth on Dr. Jones. Don’t trust Jones because he is apparently worried, worried by climate funding cuts if he fails.
Phil Jones say ,,, is as far as you need to get really
For this member of ‘the Team’ as more than proved that what ever he says it likely will be BS, and for that his only himself to blame .
The devil, is in the details…;-)
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
Worried?? I thought they were worried because of the “catastrophic” warming!
Effects of climate change Prof Phil Jones
Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia
St George’s House Consultant, 2012
© Help Rescue The Planet
helprescuetheplanet.com
Criminals, all of them.
The entire bunch belongs behind bars.
Damn. So THAT’S why the USHCN data diverges from GHCN.
I knew it. I just knew it. (Chalk one up for prejudice.)
It wasn’t the US “hump” that was out of synch with the rest of the world, it was the RoW hump that was being “adjusted” away.
And I’ll bet that microsite/equipment issues (i.e., CRS) are part of the picture, too.
They’re doing the same shenanigans with SST as they did with homogenization vis-a-vis microsite: They are adjusting the GOOD to match the BAD rather than the other way ’round. With all too predictable results.
R. de Haan January 17, 2014 at 9:18 am
I believe the word you are looking for is not criminals by Crimatologists.