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.
Torture the numbers long enough and they will confess.
Bob Tisdale says:
June 11, 2011 at 1:13 pm
…let’s put things in perspective. The … linear trend from Jan 1995 to Dec 2009 was 1.16 deg C per Century. The linear trend from Jan 1995 to Dec 2010 was …1.17 deg C per Century.
=====================================================================
Thanks Bob. It doesn’t seem right to quote a long term trend from a short duration data set (15 year sample to 100 year period), especially given the large variation in temperature relative to the trend value. If you took 2001 to 2010, for example, the slope of the line would possibly turn negative. This tells me there is no real trend in the data over the time period from 1995 – pick a date. Also, from your graph, the positive slope is due mainly to the early cold period 1996-1997. Most of the rest of years add up to no trend.
Henry@ur momisugly Peter Dare
The problem I have is not so much with the mean temps and minima measured at Gibraltar.
http://letterdash.com/HenryP/what-hanky-panky-is-going-on-in-the-uk
I just found the maxima from Gibraltar not in line with the measured results from Granada, Malaga and Tanger. Gibraltar lies exactly somewhere in the middle of a straight line between those 3 places.
The average increase of the maxima at those 3 stations was 0.04 degrees C/ annum (since 1974) whereas at Gibraltar it was barely 0.01 degree C/annum. How can that be?
In addition, the 0.04 degree C average on maxima from Granada, Malaga en Tanger is exactly the same as the global average that I have measured so far….
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
Too much co-incidence for me. It made me to decide to throw the Gibraltar results out.
Therefore, I won’t put too much trust on any results coming from the UK or the USA. I am beginning to doubt the Honulu results as well. There is just too much money riding on the “green ” horse.
Pity.
Show me some of your USA results? Anyone?
Bob Tisdale says:
June 11, 2011 at 1:13 pm
“The Global HADCRUT linear trend from Jan 1995 to Dec 2009 was 1.16 deg C per Century. The linear trend from Jan 1995 to Dec 2010 was 0.01 deg C per CENTURY higher at 1.17 deg C per Century.”
It is always very important to put things in perspective. In perspective, Jones’ announcement is no news. There is a similar headline dominating the American MSM. It reads: Arizona wildfire crosses into New Mexico. Did someone expect the fire to stop at the New Mexico border? The fact that such nonsense appears as a headline should leave all of us ROTFLOL and the headline writers hanging their heads in shame. Instead, we have to put up with this nonsense daily. It began in sports broadcasting with the non-statistic: “Ladies and Gentlemen, for the first and last time ever, tonite’s match-up on Monday Night Football is between the only two teams that are undefeated in appearances on Monday Night Football!” Undefeated on Monday Night Football? That is the basis for a statistical claim? Yet today such claims dominate news reports. I just can’t wait to learn if the Arizona fire takes another turn and invades another state. How about you?
Who care’s what he says. Is it correct? Will it be correct in another 4 months?
Maybe. No.
Bob says:
“The Global HADCRUT linear trend from Jan 1995 to Dec 2009 was 1.16 deg C per Century. The linear trend from Jan 1995 to Dec 2010 was 0.01 deg C per CENTURY higher at 1.17 deg C per Century.”
But of course, you know that is not the whole story.
The regression equation for HADCRUT3v annual average temperature for 1995 – 2009 is
AVG_1 = – 21.57 + 0.01096 YEAR_1
Where the p-value for the slope is 0.070.
The regression equation for HADCRUT3v annual average temperature for 1995 – 2010 is
TEMP = – 21.61 + 0.01099 YEAR
Where the p-value for the slope is 0.04.
The slopes are slightly less than you got — I’m not sure why. I used data straight from http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ for HADCRUT 3v. There is a slightly different HADCRUT 3, which might be what you used.
In any case, even though the slope is essentially the same when 2010 is added, the significance increases precisely because there is more data. (In fact, if you use the monthly data for the regression fit, the upward slope is significant at the 0.001 level.)
Tim,
Phil himeself recommends the HADCRUT3 dataset.
Tim,
“(In fact, if you use the monthly data for the regression fit, the upward slope is significant at the 0.001 level.)”
You might want to rework that calc.
I don’t give a damn what Phil Jones thinks and I can say that with 100% certainty…
The warming is going to become significant if I have to redefine what statistical significance means damnit!
Last year he was in genuine fear of real legal retribution. This year he figures he has got away with it and has reverted to form.
A bit like Paris Hilton really, her new-found devotion to religon only lasted as long as it took her to get out of jail.
Jeff Id says
“Phil himeself recommends the HADCRUT3 dataset.’
The other data set may well be better — I just happened to d/l 3v. I don’t think there is much difference between hte two
“You might want to rework that calc.”
OK:
Regression Analysis:MONTHLY_TEMP versus DATE
The regression equation is
MONTHLY_TEMP = – 0.592 + 0.000026 DATE
Predictor Coef SE Coef T P
Constant -0.5916 0.1845 -3.21 0.002
DATE 0.00002592 0.00000489 5.30 0.000
A translation for laymen would be welcome, even here amongst so many statistics whizzes. I think I get the gist, and even made a similar, if quite unsophisticated, argument a while ago,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/05/are-huge-northeast-snow-storms-due-to-global-warming/#comment-566701
referring to this quote about Philadelphia: “. . . note that over 126 years, Philadelphia’s winters are not getting warmer or colder, and there’s not much change in snowfall” I said,
/Mr Lynn
HenryP>
“The average increase of the maxima at those 3 stations was 0.04 degrees C/ annum (since 1974) whereas at Gibraltar it was barely 0.01 degree C/annum. How can that be?”
I’m no expert, but it doesn’t seem impossible if CO2 is not the cause of measured warming. That is, local environmental factors could be blocking whatever has actually caused the warming. In the case of Gibraltar, with its cloud-cap shielding it from the sun…
I’m guessing this is a good sign that we’ll see a significant negative signal before the end of the year.
Let me make it clear: Phil Jones is washed up. If it wasn’t statistically significant last year, it is now.
Tim Folkerts says: “The slopes are slightly less than you got — I’m not sure why.”
One possible reason: You used annual data and I used monthly data, dowloaded through the KNMI Climate Explorer, using 1995-2010 as the base years. That’ll tweek the trends a little.
“Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones.” And next year, stupid? We are talking about climat, body. Make up your mind, indeed.
Henry P – you say the other stations are at airports, you don’t say where Gibraltar’s is situated. It could be if Gibraltar not at an airport, that the others are artificially high.
This has nothing to do with the figures. This is politics. The Kyoto agreement expires next year, and it looks like the end of the scam. Jones has been roped in to do his bit. Expect colossal quantities of this sort of rubbish. After all, they aren’t getting their message across. (In my view, this phrase is just about the most arrogant piece of political drivel possible. They certainly know how to insult us!)
If you remove 13 years, 1985–>1998 from the HADCRUT series and re-join the 1985 and 1998 points, the the HADCRUT data will show no warming from 1870 till present date.
My Q to Dr Phil – Does 13 sequential years of warming out of over 140 years of records constitute “Settled Science” ?
The BBC are so biased it makes me physically sick to be forced under threat of imprisonment to have to pay for it.
Can you WUWT guys please stop disinforming. There is no evidence that Phil Jones has given any actual “evidence” to the Commons committee or to any of the esteemed Panels charges with exonerating him.
Do correct the caption of the picture used at the beginning of the post!
“By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance.
If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20.”
The above in the source article is wrong. Even when it does reach statistical significance, which it likely will, this will still tell us nothing about the cause. It simply tells us that it actually has probably warmed some amount and it is not simply “noise” in the data.
@ur momisugly Roy
You make 2 good points.
1) with an increase in data , your stats on the data will change. It is possible that with more data, a stats threshold was reached. It is presumptuous to say it wasn’t without actually reviewing the work.
2) to everyone making a snarky anti-agw comment, it really doesn’t add to the quality of this blog. We all know you dont buy into it & thats fine, but those comments just drag this blog down to the level of AGW blogs who do little other than name call.