This headline in the Sunday Daily Mail is quite something:
People often note strange ad placement from the Google adwords at WUWT. Seems it’s a global problem.
WUWT readers may recall another prominent climate scientist who mentions “no statistically significant warming since 1995”. See this previous WUWT story:
A note from Richard Lindzen on statistically significant warming
It is quite interesting that Jones says the same thing.
The last paragraph on the Times Online article:
‘Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “This new set of data confirms the trend towards rising global temperatures and suggest that, if anything, the world is warming even more quickly than we had thought.”’
The stake still has to be drivin through the heart.
So embarrassing – my comment should read “The stake still has to be driven (not drivin) through the heart.”
Despite this admission and all the other blows that their religion has taken in recent weeks the believers in the Green God (e.g the BBC’s Haribo) are still saying there’s no problem with the science, MMGW’s still happening etc etc.
You have to wonder what it will take for them to really look at the eveidence.
The warmers want us to believe that the Medieval Warm Period was limited to the Northern Hemisphere.
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
“The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American continents.”
[Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, with co-authors ]
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/archive/pr0310.html
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University
“He argues that it is the last in a long series of climate fluctuations in the North Atlantic, that it was likely global,…”
[Wallace S. Broecker]
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/291/5508/1497
Von Rudolf Kipp – Guest Post at WUWT
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/the-medieval-warm-period-a-global-phenonmena-unprecedented-warming-or-unprecedented-data-manipulation/
So from Hansen (1981), we have the following prediction:
CO2 warming will overwhelm other causes of climate variability by the year 2000. This prediction is made with a 95% confidence interval (2 standard deviations). After 2000, the influence of CO2 on warming will increase year on year exponentially, and the effect of other drivers of climate will diminish.
What this means is that any warming up until the year 2000, according to Hansen, cannot be attributed with any degree of confidence to CO2 warming! This is straight from Hansen’s paper:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf
And now, for that all important period after 2000 when, according to Hansen, CO2 will overwhelm all other drivers of climate, we have this from Jones – that there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995. And that from 2002 onwards, by which time statistically significant CO2-warming should be appearing according to Hansen, there has been cooling instead
Call me stupid, but have they not just falsified their own hypothesis?
I just saw this over at Real Climate.
Can anybody here please explain the answer given?
————————————————————-
During an interview at the BBC on February 12 2010, Professor Jones from the CRU at the University of East Anglia was asked:
“Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?”
In answer he gave the following figures for trends in global temperatures:
Period Length Trend (oC per decade) Significant
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes
The differences in these trends were not statistically significantly different.
He also noted that from 1995-2009 the trend was 0.12C /decade although this was not quite significant at the 95% level
From these figures it seems that there have been warming trends pre the industrial revolution no different from that seen in the latter part of the 20th century and that since 1995 there has been a decrease of about 25% in global temperature despite an increasse of about 8% in C02 concentration.
[Response: None of these data are “preindustrial”–Jim]
These data don’t seem to unequivocally support the claims that anthropogenic CO2 is the major driver of post industrial revolution increases in global temperature and that unless CO2 levels are reduced the global temperature will increase with catastrophic consequences.
Are the denialists correct to be sceptical?
[Response: Skepticism itself is never the problem. Everyone should be skeptical to some degree. Denying evidence because of preconceptions or bias is the problem. The interview with Jones is being passed around among denialists as some sort of “proof” that he’s admitted defeat, or AGW is wrong, or something or other. The very question itself reveals a kind of ignorance of the significance of historical data.
There have been many times in the past, far far earlier than these, when temperature rose at the rate we have seen over the past few decades. This is not evidence that AGW is somehow falsified. Please re-read that statement. The relevant question here is one of proper attribution of the cause(s) of the observed global warming over the last century+. And on that, the evidence is clear that greenhouse gases are, far and away, the most likely cause of this warming. The rationale for that is beyond what can be explained here in a few sentences, but the main point is: the fact that temperatures have changed rapidly in the past, for whatever reason, has little relevance to the physical attribution of recent changes, which is based on a very solid knowledge of the physics of the planetary system. Go the “start here” link of this site and start reading. Then read some more. Then some more. Then you will begin to understand that this is a topic that has a great deal of sophisticated evidence behind it, contrary to the simplistic explanations you will find in the media and on the internet. Hope that helps.–Jim
Cold Englishman – I agree. For years the BEEB have lead news articles time and again with unprecedented chaos and calamity articles at peak time on all media fronts.
Yet this story which says all the above is effectively bunkum is buried in the back of their website and gets intermittent mention tagged onto R4 news. The biggest story ever, that global catastrophe is cancelled or postponed or never was, is being lead by the blogs who in turn are followed by some of the printed media.
Thank you, thank you for keeping the spotlight of public attention focused on climategate.
Decades of filth and deception in our most respected institutions, journals, news media and supposedly democratic forms of government lie just beneath the surface of the climategate iceberg.
Keep up the good work!
Oliver K. Manuel
B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
“Yes, but only just.”
What kind of answer is that?
Yes he agrees or no he doesn’t, but “only just” is a nonsense caveat.
If there has been no significant warming then that’s it.
Notice how precise he can be in question C:
C – Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
No. …….this trend is not statistically significant.
No “only just” caveat here.
This sort of answer gives a clue to his thinking.
The world that might have been warming may not have been maybe warming after all.
Translation: Whatever chance to really peg the last 100 years down solidly was forfeited when the Station List was subjected to massive deforestation.
Thermometer Chainsaw Massacre.
Yes, the Stations could be restored, but what does that leave us with?
An instrumental record with battle damage.
It gets worse: With each passing year that the Stations are in a gutted state, the uncertainty simply grows.
Kaboom (01:27:58) :
“Beautiful! (snip) Congratulations Anthony, and all the other voices of reason. It was a long and closely-fought battle, but victory is sweet….)
I don’t believe it. Victory is a long way away – if it ever happens.
I’ll believe it when I can walk into B&Q and buy a 150W tungsten lamp bulb and the last wind farm has been dismantled.
I guess the only question is what would happen if he HADN’T agreed to publish such admissions??
Author, author?
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3735
“Thus extra energy in the air from extra GHGs increases the evaporation rate which increases the speed of the hydrological cycle which prevents the extra energy in the air from warming the oceans whether via the ocean skin theory or otherwise.
AGW is thus falsified because the air cannot warm the oceans and the air circulation systems always adjust to bring surface air temperatures back towards sea surface temperatures.
Climate models do not reflect this obvious truth and the ideas of Tyndall et al whilst correct if taking the air in isolation cannot affect the global equilibrium temperature set by the constantly varying interplay of sun and oceans.”
Dr. Miskolczi would appear to have provided mathematical proof of my assertions.
Folks, it’s time to be magnanimous. We need to show everyone who has hitched themselves to AGW that there will be no “I told you so”, there will be no gloating or bravado. We do not need those folks to dig in their heels out of self pride. Let’s make it easy for those to switch sides so that we can once and for all put a stake in the heart of this AGW vampire and be done with it. With the exception of the biggest vampire of them all, Al Gore (and I do mean biggest!)
@Julian in Wales (03:13:12) :
“Why choose C02 as the explanation when there are so many others to choose from?”
$$$
What an amazing defence! “I am poorly suited for the work that I do, bordering on incompetent, and I tend to stretch the truth except when I am denying the truth, but I do good work.”
I guess it beats getting slapped into jail for violating the Freedom of Information laws. We’ve done away with looney bins.
So let me get this straight
“He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not. He further admitted that in the last 15 years there there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.
From 1910 to 1940 …warming was natural
From 1975 to 1998 …warming was natural
From 1998 to 2010 …there has been no warming
So the the only AGW warming in the last 110 years was from 1940 to 1975? What kind of “trend” is that?
What is amazing is the utter silence in US “mainstream media” on this.
Senator Inhofe has been emailed a summary and links to the BBC interview and Daily Mail articles. Sure hope Jones’ admissions make it into the Senate record soon, and before the EPA does anything foolish again.
anyone see today’s nyt science page?
http://imgur.com/VmwUr.jpg
>> Graeme from Melbourne (02:44:04) :
>>>Watch the alarmists now distance themselves from Mr Jones.
They are already on R.C.. One comment says of Jones’ accounting practices: “”This is unacceptable and preposterous. There needs to be a professional running the show.””
But he is being defended, thus far.
.
Where does Jones say there is “no warming?” I want to read as a direct quote before I start quoting it.
“… including several gathered from climate sceptics.”
It’ll take another dozen arrows to kill this elephant. (If only reporter David Rose had taped Dr. Lal’s confession!) Thank goodness they’re still raining down.
I think the failure of Copenhagen, the election of Senator Brown, the pending defeat of PM Brown, the current poll results expressing growing disbelief in CAGW, the failure of renewable power sources to demonstrate their practicality, the collapse of the carbon-trading market price (and the evidence of massive fraud therein), the recent harsh winter in the UK and the NH, Glacier-gate, IPCC-gate, etc., etc. have lessened the pressure on members of the Team not to “let down their side” and to never say anything that might sabotage the momentum of the political crusade for a new climate treaty.
That movement has not only stalled, it’s gone into reverse. So what he’s saying now is quite possibly what he would have said earlier, if he hadn’t been “in the arena.”
I think in the past that he, like others, was caught up in a fad, or a collective psychological frenzy. (About 2/3 through a previous thread here I posted long extracts from Joel Best’s book, Flavor of the month: Why smart people fall for fads, that relate to this. Go here and search (Ctrl + F) for “flavor”):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/05/pielke-senior-arctic-temperature-reporting-in-the-news-needs-a-reality-check/
I can believe that he didn’t consciously do any deliberate data fudging, and that his office is a rat’s nest, which was why he didn’t want to share the data. It’s so human! (And so English! He’s like a dotty disorganized professor out of a classic English comedy.)
“John Carter (05:27:53) :
I just saw this over at Real Climate.
Can anybody here please explain the answer given?
————————————————————-
[…]
There have been many times in the past, far far earlier than these, when temperature rose at the rate we have seen over the past few decades.”
I will not go into the usual longwinded sentences with “it’s complicated, read some more (of our pal-reviewed papers) and then read even more (of our conjecture)”, that’s what they always say, but i find the snippet above striking. They will from now on have to omit the “unprecedented warming” assertion. Also, “far far earlier” is a strikingly scientific-sounding attribute, don’t ya think? Like “in the past”.