From the “make up your mind” department:
Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not significant – a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change.
But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are “real”. Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis. Short summary: Post 1995 warming now “significant” according to Jones Story title: Global warming since 1995 ‘now significant’
Full story here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510
Story submitted by WUWT reader Chris Phillips
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
He must have sensed a change in his funding!
How Jones has the gall to call himself a “Professor” is beyond me.
He is a Common Purpose stooge taking orders from Brandon Gough, the UEA chancellor.
Using conventional (frequentist) statistical theory this is wrong, you need to specify the “stopping rule”, e.g. test now and then again in 10 years and use p value of .025 (for 5% significance using Bonferroni) – see also http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2011/06/hey_good_news_t.html
Phil Jones?
Oh, right! The guy that since “Climate Gate” is statistically INsignificant.
See Lucia’s analysis of trend significance (or not!) at
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/statistical-significance-since-1995-not-with-hadcrut
How is it an “about face” and an indicator he needs to “make up [his] mind” by saying what was true in 2010 and what was true in 2011?
If I say “It’s hot today” on one day and “It’s cold today” on a different day, is that an about face too?
Typical political behavior
interesting – I just finished my report on Gibraltar (UK)……
http://letterdash.com/HenryP/what-hanky-panky-is-going-on-in-the-uk
Makes you wonder, does it not?
Heh, but nobody has a reason to believe him now. I don’t.
Douglas Keenan (who pointed out Jones’ Wang problem) and Lucia say Jones is wrong according to the IPCC’s own methods.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/6/10/jones-post-1995-warming-significant.html?currentPage=2#comments
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/statistical-significance-since-1995-not-with-hadcrut/
Debunked by Lucia blackboard climate
This from a man the is becoming less significant. Phil is going to need more drama. I also see the end of gubment funding and research money is in jeopardy.
Nothing to see here -Just more lies, manipulation and twisting in wind by one of the most discredited bought and paid for scientist in the world today.
Yea!!
He just said that the drop in temperatures is ‘now significant’……………….
What nonsense, really!
Phil Jones last year:
BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant
global warming
Phil Jones: 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.
—
We all knew that if 2010 would be a warm year the positive trend would change from over 90% to
over 95% level significance. There is no change of mind and you know it.
“And a new initiative to construct a global temperature record, based at Stanford University in California
some confusion with Berkeley….
Well, hopefully, people who have done their own research on the global warming issue are laughing at Phil Jones. I’ll just run down the list of reasons why Jones and his folks are so totally wrong.
First of all, the Earth has been in an ice age for the last 3 million years with ice ages occurring every 100,000 years or so. In the last 1 billion years, the Earth has been totally free of ice for at least 600 million of those years!
Also, historically, our planet is CO2 starved. Levels have been much higher in the past, all without the intervention of man. There was just a report the other day that some of our forests are starting to show signs of recovering because CO2 levels are coming up.
The Earth’s climate is probably more tied to the Sun’s activity than CO2 levels. Mars is in danger of losing one of its ice caps because of the Sun, and even Pluto has been warming up. When the Sun’s activity diminishes, such as the two years when there were no sunspots on it, temperatures plunged.
The climate goes through cycles. The Roman Empire grew when temperatures warmed up, and it could feed extensive armies throughout Europe. Rome fell when temperatures fell in 600 AD and the Empire could no longer feed itself. The cold actually triggered the Dark Ages throughout Europe. When the climate warmed up in the Middle Ages, life became easier and civilization started to make a comeback. The Vikings discovered Iceland, Greenland and Vinland (North America) when the sea ice receded during this time. Temperatures plunged again in 1450 triggering the Little Ice Age that lasted until 1890. By some accounts, the planet is still recovering from that cool down and temperatures are nowhere near where they were during the Middle Ages.
Within the greater temperature swings there are smaller cycles. The Earth’s climate was cooling down in the 1970s, triggering the famous Newsweek cover predicting an Ice Age. Most fair-minded climatologists believe the climate cooled again from 1998-2008 despite people like Phil Jones who furiously threw out the cooler temperature data (particularly from Siberia) because it didn’t fit their agenda.
The bottom line is you can’t trust anything Phil Jones says. He’s in it for the money. There have been 0 grants in the last 20 years to people who are trying to research global cooler. Phil Jones and his buddies have been living high on the hog with 6-figure grant salaries from their phony research results.
“An about face” ? Really?
It is an about-face to turn from east to west. It is not an about-face to turn from 1 degree east of north to 1 degree west of north!
Similarly, it would have been an about-face to say we went from a statically significant cooling trend for 1995 -2010 to a significantly significant warming trend from 1995-2010. But saying we went from p = 0.055 to p = 0.045 for the statistical significance of the warming trend is hardly an about-face!
(PS I made up the p values, but presumably the actual numbers are similar to what I guesstimated. I’ll do a public about-face and apology here if the numbers went from p= 0.2 or higher to 0.02 or lower.)
Latitude says:
June 11, 2011 at 11:26 am
Yea!!
He just said that the drop in temperatures is ‘now significant’……………….
Yeah, that’s got me confused, too.
Since he made his first statement, the global temps have dropped a bit, haven’t they?
So now, with the recent decline, the change is significant?
Oh, left out my source in the previous response:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1979/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:12/plot/rss/mean:12
It’s too bad that Phil is calculating something meaningless.
Because climate is not some term weather event, as we’ve been told. If you have 6,000,000 data points, 1 is not going to drastically alter the average no matter how much of an outlier it is. The global climate average has not changed significantly between last year and this year. Consider the history of earth, it cannot go from insignificant warming to significant warming in 100 years, much less 1 year. Furthermore, if you look at the satellite data, the global temperatures have not gone up, but slightly down in the past year. So, how is it possible for significant warming to occur when global temperatures have cooled? It is a logical contradiction.
Significance of a trend could increase with time as more data comes in. So what he is saying is not impossible. The problem is that it is also wrong, as Lucia has shown.
Could we see a plot, please? All this Jones verbiage is hard to make sense of. I think he knows that.
How does the new-found warming compare with the last 100 years of warming? Were these temperatures taken by hand or by satellite? Come on, Phil, try to act like a scientist, not a press agent.
(face palm) Jones is the Homer Simpson of the climate world