It’s not the climate, but the tide of opinion that’s changing in Europe and around the globe
Guest post by Dr. Hans Labohm
The upcoming climate change (and wealth redistribution) summit in Cancun – coupled with Bjorn Lomborg’s ongoing publicity campaign for his new film – makes one thing painfully obvious. The fight against the delusion of dangerous man-made global warming remains an uphill struggle.
For decades the climate debate has been obfuscated by cherry-picking, spin-doctoring and scare-mongering by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate alarmists, including the environmental movement and mainstream media. Their massive effort to overstate the threat of man-made warming has left its imprint on public opinion.
But the tide seems to be turning. The Climate Conference fiasco in Copenhagen, Climategate scandal and stabilization of worldwide temperatures since 1995 have given rise to growing doubts about the putative threat of “dangerous global warming” or “global climate disruption.” Indeed, even Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and one of the main players in Climategate, now acknowledges that there has been no measurable warming since 1995, despite steadily rising atmospheric carbon dioxide.
People are paying attention, and opinion polls in many countries show a dramatic fall in the ranking of climate change among people’s major concerns. They are also beginning to understand that major rain and snow storms, hurricanes and other weather extremes are caused by solar-driven changes in global jet streams and warm-cold fronts, not by CO2, and that claims about recent years being the “warmest ever” are based on false or falsified temperature data.
In various parts of the world, the climate debate displays different features. The US and other parts of the non-European Anglo-Saxon world feature highly polarized and politicized debates along the left/right divide. In Europe, all major political parties are still toeing the “official” IPCC line. In both arenas, with a few notable exceptions, skeptical views – even from well-known scientists with impeccable credentials – tend to be ignored and/or actively suppressed by governments, academia and the media.
However, skepticism about manmade climate disasters is gradually gaining ground nevertheless.
In my own country, The Netherlands, for instance, it has even received some official recognition, thus dissolving the information monopoly of climate alarmists. The Standing Committee on Environment of the Lower House even organized a one-day hearing, where both climate chaos adherents and disaster skeptics could freely discuss their different views before key parliamentarians who decide climate policy.
This hearing was followed by a special seminar organized by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences, using the same format but focusing on scientific topics. The Academy will soon publish a report about this seminar.
Europe often brags about its emission trading scheme (ETS), regarding itself as the vanguard of an international climate policy. In the European view, the Copenhagen climate summit should have produced a worldwide extension and sharpening of its ETS. But the vast majority of countries in the world refused to follow Europe’s example, so the meeting turned into a fiasco. Its follow-up in Cancun at year’s end will surely produce a similar result. And for good reason.
Contrary to official claims, Europe’s experience with ETS is dismally bad. The system is expensive and prone to massive fraud. More importantly, it serves no useful purpose.
The European Environmental Agency tracks Europe’s performance regarding the reduction of CO2 emissions. Its latest report states: “The European Union’s greenhouse gas inventory report … shows that emissions have not only continued their downward trend in 2008, but have also picked up pace. The EU-27’s emissions stood 11.3% below their 1990 levels, while EU-15 achieved a reduction of 6.9% compared to Kyoto base-year levels.”
On the face of it, the scheme seems to be pretty successful. However, much of the downward trend was due to the global economic recession, not to the ETS. Moreover, both climate chaos proponents and climate disaster skeptics agree that the scheme will have no detectable impact whatsoever on worldwide temperatures – perhaps 0.1 degrees – though this crucial piece of information has been carefully and deliberately shielded from the public eye.
What about renewable energy as an alternative? Consider these EU costs for various sources of electricity in cents per kilowatt-hour: nuclear 4, coal 4, natural gas 5, onshore wind 13, biomass 16 … solar 56!
Obviously, the price tag for renewables is extremely high, compared to hydrocarbons. The additional costs can be justified either by imminent fossil fuel scarcity (the “oil peak”), which would send petroleum and coal prices through the roof, or by the threat of man-made global warming. But on closer inspection neither argument is tenable.
The authoritative International Energy Agency does not foresee any substantial scarcity of oil and gas in the near to medium future, and coal reserves remain sufficient for centuries to come. As to global warming, the absence of a statistically significant increase in average worldwide temperatures since 1995 obliterates that assertion.
Meanwhile, recent peer-reviewed studies indicate that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere (natural or man-made) have minimal effects on climate change – while others demonstrate that, on balance, this plant-fertilizing gas is beneficial, rather than harmful, for mankind and the biosphere.
All this argues for a closer look at the cost/benefit relationship of investing in renewable energy projects, to prevent a massive waste of financial and natural resources on unreliable and thus uncompetitive forms of energy. Since every cloud has a silver lining, the ongoing economic crisis might give extra impetus toward that end.
______________
Hans Labohm is a former professor at the Dutch Institute of International Relations and guest teacher at the Netherlands Institute for Defense Studies. He has been an IPCC reviewer and has written extensively on global warming, petroleum economics and other topics.
Climate change no longer scary in Europe
It’s not the climate, but the tide of opinion that’s changing in Europe and around the globe
Dr. Hans Labohm
The upcoming climate change (and wealth redistribution) summit in Cancun – coupled with Bjorn Lomborg’s ongoing publicity campaign for his new film – makes one thing painfully obvious. The fight against the delusion of dangerous man-made global warming remains an uphill struggle.
For decades the climate debate has been obfuscated by cherry-picking, spin-doctoring and scare-mongering by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate alarmists, including the environmental movement and mainstream media. Their massive effort to overstate the threat of man-made warming has left its imprint on public opinion.
But the tide seems to be turning. The Climate Conference fiasco in Copenhagen, Climategate scandal and stabilization of worldwide temperatures since 1995 have given rise to growing doubts about the putative threat of “dangerous global warming” or “global climate disruption.” Indeed, even Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and one of the main players in Climategate, now acknowledges that there has been no measurable warming since 1995, despite steadily rising atmospheric carbon dioxide.
People are paying attention, and opinion polls in many countries show a dramatic fall in the ranking of climate change among people’s major concerns. They are also beginning to understand that major rain and snow storms, hurricanes and other weather extremes are caused by solar-driven changes in global jet streams and warm-cold fronts, not by CO2, and that claims about recent years being the “warmest ever” are based on false or falsified temperature data.
In various parts of the world, the climate debate displays different features. The US and other parts of the non-European Anglo-Saxon world feature highly polarized and politicized debates along the left/right divide. In Europe, all major political parties are still toeing the “official” IPCC line. In both arenas, with a few notable exceptions, skeptical views – even from well-known scientists with impeccable credentials – tend to be ignored and/or actively suppressed by governments, academia and the media.
However, skepticism about manmade climate disasters is gradually gaining ground nevertheless.
In my own country, The Netherlands, for instance, it has even received some official recognition, thus dissolving the information monopoly of climate alarmists. The Standing Committee on Environment of the Lower House even organized a one-day hearing, where both climate chaos adherents and disaster skeptics could freely discuss their different views before key parliamentarians who decide climate policy.
This hearing was followed by a special seminar organized by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences, using the same format but focusing on scientific topics. The Academy will soon publish a report about this seminar.
Europe often brags about its emission trading scheme (ETS), regarding itself as the vanguard of an international climate policy. In the European view, the Copenhagen climate summit should have produced a worldwide extension and sharpening of its ETS. But the vast majority of countries in the world refused to follow Europe’s example, so the meeting turned into a fiasco. Its follow-up in Cancun at year’s end will surely produce a similar result. And for good reason.
Contrary to official claims, Europe’s experience with ETS is dismally bad. The system is expensive and prone to massive fraud. More importantly, it serves no useful purpose.
The European Environmental Agency tracks Europe’s performance regarding the reduction of CO2 emissions. Its latest report states: “The European Union’s greenhouse gas inventory report … shows that emissions have not only continued their downward trend in 2008, but have also picked up pace. The EU-27’s emissions stood 11.3% below their 1990 levels, while EU-15 achieved a reduction of 6.9% compared to Kyoto base-year levels.”
On the face of it, the scheme seems to be pretty successful. However, much of the downward trend was due to the global economic recession, not to the ETS. Moreover, both climate chaos proponents and climate disaster skeptics agree that the scheme will have no detectable impact whatsoever on worldwide temperatures – perhaps 0.1 degrees – though this crucial piece of information has been carefully and deliberately shielded from the public eye.
What about renewable energy as an alternative? Consider these EU costs for various sources of electricity in cents per kilowatt-hour: nuclear 4, coal 4, natural gas 5, onshore wind 13, biomass 16 … solar 56!
Obviously, the price tag for renewables is extremely high, compared to hydrocarbons. The additional costs can be justified either by imminent fossil fuel scarcity (the “oil peak”), which would send petroleum and coal prices through the roof, or by the threat of man-made global warming. But on closer inspection neither argument is tenable.
The authoritative International Energy Agency does not foresee any substantial scarcity of oil and gas in the near to medium future, and coal reserves remain sufficient for centuries to come. As to global warming, the absence of a statistically significant increase in average worldwide temperatures since 1995 obliterates that assertion.
Meanwhile, recent peer-reviewed studies indicate that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere (natural or man-made) have minimal effects on climate change – while others demonstrate that, on balance, this plant-fertilizing gas is beneficial, rather than harmful, for mankind and the biosphere.
All this argues for a closer look at the cost/benefit relationship of investing in renewable energy projects, to prevent a massive waste of financial and natural resources on unreliable and thus uncompetitive forms of energy. Since every cloud has a silver lining, the ongoing economic crisis might give extra impetus toward that end.
______________
Hans Labohm is a former professor at the Dutch Institute of International Relations and guest teacher at the Netherlands Institute for Defense Studies. He has been an IPCC reviewer and has written extensively on global warming, petroleum economics and other topics.
Climate change no longer scary in Europe
It’s not the climate, but the tide of opinion that’s changing in Europe and around the globe
Dr. Hans Labohm
The upcoming climate change (and wealth redistribution) summit in Cancun – coupled with Bjorn Lomborg’s ongoing publicity campaign for his new film – makes one thing painfully obvious. The fight against the delusion of dangerous man-made global warming remains an uphill struggle.
For decades the climate debate has been obfuscated by cherry-picking, spin-doctoring and scare-mongering by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate alarmists, including the environmental movement and mainstream media. Their massive effort to overstate the threat of man-made warming has left its imprint on public opinion.
But the tide seems to be turning. The Climate Conference fiasco in Copenhagen, Climategate scandal and stabilization of worldwide temperatures since 1995 have given rise to growing doubts about the putative threat of “dangerous global warming” or “global climate disruption.” Indeed, even Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and one of the main players in Climategate, now acknowledges that there has been no measurable warming since 1995, despite steadily rising atmospheric carbon dioxide.
People are paying attention, and opinion polls in many countries show a dramatic fall in the ranking of climate change among people’s major concerns. They are also beginning to understand that major rain and snow storms, hurricanes and other weather extremes are caused by solar-driven changes in global jet streams and warm-cold fronts, not by CO2, and that claims about recent years being the “warmest ever” are based on false or falsified temperature data.
In various parts of the world, the climate debate displays different features. The US and other parts of the non-European Anglo-Saxon world feature highly polarized and politicized debates along the left/right divide. In Europe, all major political parties are still toeing the “official” IPCC line. In both arenas, with a few notable exceptions, skeptical views – even from well-known scientists with impeccable credentials – tend to be ignored and/or actively suppressed by governments, academia and the media.
However, skepticism about manmade climate disasters is gradually gaining ground nevertheless.
In my own country, The Netherlands, for instance, it has even received some official recognition, thus dissolving the information monopoly of climate alarmists. The Standing Committee on Environment of the Lower House even organized a one-day hearing, where both climate chaos adherents and disaster skeptics could freely discuss their different views before key parliamentarians who decide climate policy.
This hearing was followed by a special seminar organized by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences, using the same format but focusing on scientific topics. The Academy will soon publish a report about this seminar.
Europe often brags about its emission trading scheme (ETS), regarding itself as the vanguard of an international climate policy. In the European view, the Copenhagen climate summit should have produced a worldwide extension and sharpening of its ETS. But the vast majority of countries in the world refused to follow Europe’s example, so the meeting turned into a fiasco. Its follow-up in Cancun at year’s end will surely produce a similar result. And for good reason.
Contrary to official claims, Europe’s experience with ETS is dismally bad. The system is expensive and prone to massive fraud. More importantly, it serves no useful purpose.
The European Environmental Agency tracks Europe’s performance regarding the reduction of CO2 emissions. Its latest report states: “The European Union’s greenhouse gas inventory report … shows that emissions have not only continued their downward trend in 2008, but have also picked up pace. The EU-27’s emissions stood 11.3% below their 1990 levels, while EU-15 achieved a reduction of 6.9% compared to Kyoto base-year levels.”
On the face of it, the scheme seems to be pretty successful. However, much of the downward trend was due to the global economic recession, not to the ETS. Moreover, both climate chaos proponents and climate disaster skeptics agree that the scheme will have no detectable impact whatsoever on worldwide temperatures – perhaps 0.1 degrees – though this crucial piece of information has been carefully and deliberately shielded from the public eye.
What about renewable energy as an alternative? Consider these EU costs for various sources of electricity in cents per kilowatt-hour: nuclear 4, coal 4, natural gas 5, onshore wind 13, biomass 16 … solar 56!
Obviously, the price tag for renewables is extremely high, compared to hydrocarbons. The additional costs can be justified either by imminent fossil fuel scarcity (the “oil peak”), which would send petroleum and coal prices through the roof, or by the threat of man-made global warming. But on closer inspection neither argument is tenable.
The authoritative International Energy Agency does not foresee any substantial scarcity of oil and gas in the near to medium future, and coal reserves remain sufficient for centuries to come. As to global warming, the absence of a statistically significant increase in average worldwide temperatures since 1995 obliterates that assertion.
Meanwhile, recent peer-reviewed studies indicate that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere (natural or man-made) have minimal effects on climate change – while others demonstrate that, on balance, this plant-fertilizing gas is beneficial, rather than harmful, for mankind and the biosphere.
All this argues for a closer look at the cost/benefit relationship of investing in renewable energy projects, to prevent a massive waste of financial and natural resources on unreliable and thus uncompetitive forms of energy. Since every cloud has a silver lining, the ongoing economic crisis might give extra impetus toward that end.
______________
Hans Labohm is a former professor at the Dutch Institute of International Relations and guest teacher at the Netherlands Institute for Defense Studies. He has been an IPCC reviewer and has written extensively on global warming, petroleum economics and other topics.
Bob from the UK says: November 23, 2010 at 1:45 am
The temperature hasn’t risen for around 15 years, and you say that is a meaningless small period.
Take a ten year average of any of the major temperature data sets starting in 1980 (say) and move it along one year at a time until it encompasses 2009. The ten year average represents an attempt to smooth out random variations and quasi-periodic phenomena like ENSO, solar cycles etc. Feel free to increase the averaging period and change the start date to avoid cherry-picking. The resulting plots rise consistently and do not support the statement that “temperature hasn’t risen for 15 years”. Nor does a statement that a temperature rise is not statistically significant at a given confidence level mean that temperature has not risen either.
Richard S Courtney says:
November 23, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Yes, I might have realised that it is pointless trying to explain anything to you.
Slioch:
Thanks for your post at November 23, 2010 at 2:28 pm . Please, please keep doing it.
As I said,
“The sillyness of your posts does more to inform unbiased onlookers of the nature of AGW arguments than anything I could say.”
Richard
Here are several other victims of climate change, according to WWF: http://www.davidjschow.com/theouterlimits/images/painting.jpg
Amonite:
You correctly say:
“Nor does a statement that a temperature rise is not statistically significant at a given confidence level mean that temperature has not risen either.”
But you do not add that the lack of 95% confidence does not indicate that temperature has risen.
Simply, the data is so lacking in statistical significance that it cannot be known if the temperature rose or fell over the last 15 years.
And the discussion was as to whether Hans Labohm was right when he wrote;
“Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and one of the main players in Climategate, now acknowledges that there has been no measurable warming since 1995.”
He was right. And the fact that there may have been (n.b. may have been and NOT was) warming over the last 15 years is not relevant.
Please note that I am responding to your post to draw attention to it and to the similar posts from warmers. I do this because those posts clearly demonstrate to unbiased onlookers
(a) the desperation of AGW-supporters to find something wrong in the article by Labohm,
and
(b) the difficulty that AGW-supporters are having in trying to find something wrong in the article.
Richard
It is not accurate to claim that people are now unconcerned about the effects of climate change. The well-organized and well-financed efforts of “skeptics” has worked to obfuscate the issue and hence there has been a weakening of “alarm” and coincident concern. But the problem remains as clearly outlined by the vast majority of scientists who base their assertions on real evidence. What point is served by forestalling remedial actions?
Hugh Pepper:
You ask:
“What point is served by forestalling remedial actions?”
I answer, saving lives.
All the suggested “remedial actions” (i.e. adoption of biofuels, constraining fossil fuel usage, etc.) kill people.
Unless and until there is some evidence that AGW exists to a discernible degree then any suggestion to adopt these “remedial actions” should be opposed. And they will be opposed by all people with any degree of humanity.
Richard
Richard S Courtney says: November 23, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Simply, the data is so lacking in statistical significance that it cannot be known if the temperature rose or fell over the last 15 years… He was right. And the fact that there may have been (n.b. may have been and NOT was) warming over the last 15 years is not relevant.
Hi Richard. Lack of statistical significance does not mean it cannot be known if temperature rose or fell. In this case it means the slope of the rise could be caused by random factors (ie. noise) more than one time in twenty. Thankfully enough references now exist in this thread to allow readers to make a reasonable judgment about what Phil Jones said and what it might mean. Such context is largely missing from the Labohm article and it is hardly an act of desperation to point this out.
I do not know if this analogy will help or hinder the discussion about what the 95% really means. Polls are taken and it will be announced that by polling 1000 people at random, the results are within 3%, 19 times out of 20. So if the result was republicans with 50.0% and democrats with 47.0% what can you say? It would appear that you could conclude that the republicans are ahead 95% of the time, but 5% of the time the democrats are ahead with those numbers.
In terms of the present discussion, if the result was republicans with 50.0% and democrats with 47.3% you may be able to say that you can only be 92% certain the republicans are ahead.
So one could say that Phil Jones implied there may be an 8% chance (or some other small number above 5%) that the global temperatures actually cooled between 1995 and 2009. Does this sound about right?
Werner Brozek says:
November 23, 2010 at 8:33 pm
polling 1000 people at random, the results are within 3%, 19 times out of 20.
I think more like 13 times out of 20…
Forget about the 95% confidence interval. The main question is whether the warming has been significant compared to the past.
Most here will agree that it is in the region of about 0,7 degrees Celsius over the last 100 years. Now, can you feel it? Can you bring me a calibration certificate of a thermometer that is 100 years old? More importantly, how does this warming compare to the past? Compared to the Medeviel Warm Period (MWP) for example, – 1000 years ago, when Greenland was really green – it is not so bigl!!. See here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/
Take some time to absorb the information given in those graphs. From this point onwards, after studying those graphs, I became skeptical of global warming as such being a problem….namely, compared to what happened in the past (before the industrial revolution) modern warming is just,…dinky. That’s what it is.
I actually hope that modern warming lasts as I think global warming is good for greenery. Have you ever seen a forrest grow in the cold?
But I hear you people are currently having the cooler weather and snow in the USA.
I fear global cooling will be the future, not the past.
Dear Leif
Thanks, I understand that it would be in Dr. Jim’s interest to parallel the post 1979 satellite temperature data. However, to alter temperature data pre 1979 and as far back as 1880 is to my mind, rather risky business.
Werner Brozek says:
November 23, 2010 at 8:33 pm
“So one could say that Phil Jones implied there may be an 8% chance (or some other small number above 5%) that the global temperatures actually cooled between 1995 and 2009. Does this sound about right?”
No. That is not what it means.
There is no doubt that the temperature/time series show that warming has occurred since 1995. I gave the data to show that above, using the five year average temperatures anomalies to smooth annual variations, here:
November 22, 2010 at 11:09 am, and repeat it:
Five year period……UAH………RSS………..HADCRUT…..NASA GISS
1993-1997………….+0.004C…+0.044C……..0.208C………..0.282C
2005-2009………..+0.238C…+0.263C………0.414C…………0.546C
Together this data shows that the average increase over that twelve year period from the four series is about 0.23C. Jones was referring to the data from the HADCRUT series, with which he is concerned.
The question of 95% statistical significance is concerned with the reason for the rise: can it be attributed to the long-term trend on the one hand, or just to annual variation of the sort that would be occurring even if there was no long-term warming trend (see
Slioch says: November 23, 2010 at 12:10 pm above).
So, in your words that would mean, “Phil Jones implied there may be an 8% chance (or some other small number above 5%) that the warming between 1995 and 2009 was caused by annual variations and not the long-term trend of global warming.”
Werner Brozek says:
November 23, 2010 at 8:33 pm
The following might (or might not!) make the above clearer.
Here is the graph from HADCRUT (the temperature series with which Jones is concerned) showing i) annual temperature anomalies from 1995 to 2009 inclusive (red) ii) the best fit linear trend for those 15 years (green) and iii) the best fit linear trend from 1975, when the present period of global warming got under way (blue) to 2009:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1995/every:12/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1995/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1975/to:2010/trend
that graph puts the information Jones was concerned with in the context of global temperature changes over the last few decades. The data that Jones was asked about was simply this:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1995/to:2010/every:12
Note the large amount of annual variation. It is that variation that means that there is a chance of slightly more than 5% that this graph could have been generated, even if the long-term temperature trend was zero. That is not a surprising conclusion. With a relatively large amount of annual variation, even if the overall long-term trend WAS actually zero (ie no increase or decrease in temperature) then periods of fifteen years with the characteristics of the above graph would still occur occasionally. Thus, when they do so appear, there is that small chance (c.5%) that it could have been generated with a zero long-term trend, and it was that which Jones acknowledged.
Slioch:
Posting idiocy more than once does not change it into sense.
Anybody can calculate a trend from a series of random numbers. But the computed trend indicates nothing because it can be shown to have no statistical significance.
You have calculated trends from a series of mean global temperature estimates. But those trends have no statistical significance: even Phil Jones admits that. So your calculated trends indicate nothing.
You may begin to understand the matter if you try repeatedly saying this to yourself out loud;
“The calculated trends are meaningless because they have no statistical significance”.
Richard
Richard S Courtney says:
November 24, 2010 at 5:24 am
“those trends have no statistical significance”
If you had said “those trends do not have statistical significance at the 95% level” you would have been correct for the 1995-2010 data and incorrect for the 1975-2010 data. That is why, from the former, it is concluded that there is a small chance (slightly more than 5%) that the 1995-2010 could have been generated even if the long-term trend was zero (and virtually no chance that 1975-2010 data could be so construed).
If you wish to put forward some reasoned objection to that, then by all means do so. Writing insults and silly comments is no substitute for that.
slioch
There is a message here for you.
http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork09/PowerPoint/Don_Easterbrook.ppt#498,35,Slide 35
matt v. says:
November 24, 2010 at 7:43 am
There is a message here for you.
http://www.heartland.org/bin/%5B…]
The message is muddled and has problems with the solar stuff. Solar activity is now where it was 100 years ago, but temps are not. See, e.g. slide 17.
Leif
The message is slide #35.
With carbon tax dollars and those “Department of Climate Control” jobs at stake, there is no way that GISS will display a downturn in temperatures. Imagine the consequences if it was shown that there is a dowturn in temperatures whilst coal fired power stations are coming on line in China like Big Macs
Slioch:
I have posted no insults and silly comments: you are projecting.
If you think less than 95% confidence indicates something meaningful then please
(1) explain what degree of low confidence you think would indicate meaninglessness
and
(2) explain why you think that.
As for myself, I can only support the generally accepted scientific convention that an indication which does not have at least 95% confidence has such great uncertainty that it is meaningless.
Richard
“Slioch says:
November 24, 2010 at 1:45 am
2005 to 2009 from Hadcrut was 0.414 C!”
How does this 5 year number jibe with Jone’s quote about the 8 years from 2002 to 2009?:
“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. “
Even 95% confidence is garbage. Given the large number of possible sampling patterns and the universal effects of confirmation bias in selection, 3 or 4 9s should be the standard. 1 chance in 20 of error is grotesquely high, except in psychology or other pretend sciences.
Werner Brozek says:
November 24, 2010 at 5:12 pm
asked, “2005 to 2009 from Hadcrut was 0.414 C!”
How does this 5 year number jibe with Jone’s quote about the 8 years from 2002 to 2009?:”
I’m not sure what you mean.
The five year 2005-2009 average I gave is just that: the average temperature anomaly over those five years (ie it is the average temperature recorded every day (max and min) at every recording station in the HADCRUT ensemble for five years from 2005 to 2009 compared with the similar temperature obtained from the average from 1961 to 1990. The 0.414C figure tells you that the 2005-2009 average was 0.414C warmer than the 1961-1990 figure, that is all. It has no relevance to Jone’s statement.
BTW the five year average centred on 2002 is 0.413C – ie no change in the five year averages between 2002 and 2007.
You can check the figures yourself here:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
and click on “comma separated values” to get:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc.csv
the first column gives the annual averages.
Incidentally, I’ve noticed I gave the wrong wordfortrees urls earlier. They should have been:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1995/to:2010/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1995/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1975/to:2010/trend
and
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1995/to:2010/mean:12
sorry about that.
Brian H:
To be perfectly clear, I write to say that I agree with you when you write;
“Even 95% confidence is garbage. Given the large number of possible sampling patterns and the universal effects of confirmation bias in selection, 3 or 4 9s should be the standard. 1 chance in 20 of error is grotesquely high, except in psychology or other pretend sciences.”
The discussion has been about 95% confidence (i.e. ~2 S.D. confidence) because that is what Jones was asked about.
Richard