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
Charlie A says:
June 11, 2011 at 12:25 pm
I poked around the CRU website a bit but was not able to figure out when they updated to HadCRUT3v. Can someone more familiar with the datasets tell us when the variance adjusted version was released to the public?
——————————————————————————————————————-
Charlie, this page:-
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
Scroll down to “Data for Downloading” shows that the data for 2011-04 was updated on 2011-05-21. I am not sure if that is their calculation or posting date. I suspect it is not the posting date, I recall sometime back data appearing later than the “updated date”
Hope it helps more than it confuses
Statistical significance can vary with the endpoints you use…..yawn.
The BBC’s Richard Black states:
Does Richard really think that mainstream science, in particular the likes of UEA CRU would retreat from their AGW mantra even if Norwich UK were to be buried under a kilometer glacial ice?
““And a new initiative to construct a global temperature record, based at Stanford University in California
some confusion with Berkeley….”
I had to chuckle at that one.
omnologos says:
June 11, 2011 at 4:17 pm
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!
=======================================================================
om, the picture and the caption are from the Guardian………….
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/mar/01/phil-jones-commons-emails-inquiry
The colder it gets the warmer they claim it to become.
Cirrius Man says:
June 11, 2011 at 3:59 pm
I’m sure it could indicate a warming trend during those 13 years Cirrius provided you accept the questionable data it’s based on. But one thing it will not do is settle any science as to why any warming or cooling occurred.
I would suggest that people claiming that Phil Jones is in error or fudging his figures about this read my comment at Lucia’s:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/statistical-significance-since-1995-not-with-hadcrut/#comment-77062
Jeff L says:
June 11, 2011 at 4:20 pm
“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.”
=========
Maybe, but we’re just having fun with it.
Um, why the concern about this blog, are you feeling a loss of control?
Here’s were journalism dies:
Since then, nothing has emerged through mainstream science to challenge the IPCC’s basic picture of a world warming through greenhouse gas emissions.
Gary says:
June 11, 2011 at 4:41 pm
Statistical significance can vary with the endpoints you use…..yawn.
To steal an obnoxious Sports Center® phrase, “Winner, winner, chicken dinner.”
You really have to set the endpoints at the period of time that has a significance for your study goal. And then you can’t watch temperature as your important metric unless temperature is your concern. If temperature really is your concern, you need to explain the entire temperature record. Which, imho, hasn’t been done at all.
Latitude says:
June 11, 2011 at 12:27 pm
JohnWho says:
June 11, 2011 at 11:39 am
=======================================
John, He’s right, and he’s lying at the same time………
The extra year of temperature data took them through 2010, right before temperatures starting falling fast…
So he can say “Last year’s analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line.”
He won’t be able to say that next year…………….
……….and it implies that he’s too stupid to look at current temperature data
….or he’s lying
=================================================================================
Well, he’s being disingenuous. I missed this because I’ve been playing in the comments section of the story…… Oddly, they’re not posting my comments anymore. Strange, I’ve never had that happen before……..lol
But for anyone confused. No skeptic that I know of has stated that it hasn’t warmed since 1995. That’s horse ….stuff. So, Dr. Phil wants to redeem himself by showing its warmed from the onset of La Nina to a huge El Nino…..big trick. Using his data……..
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1995/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1995/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend
And they accuse us of cherry picking…..lol
..
His pronouncements are of course, statistically insignificant.
And, of course, when 2011 is “added” in (shaping up to be a cold-one), the period from 2005 to 2011 will fall below statistical significance. Phil Jones and the warmists, again, clutching at straws. It is all rather pathetic, actually. Let’s spend trillions changing the planet’s energy economy because some goof in a lab can just manage, with some transperant cherry-picking, to find a hint of a heartbeat in a statisitical proposition. We have all gone quite, completely mad.
Yo, Jones,
Explain this.
And this.
And this.
Stats could really settle all of this, unfortunately. Given daily data, what’s the trend in the mode?
My personal apologies to our Brit cousins for our back-stabbing president.
“David Gould says:
June 11, 2011 at 6:35 pm
I would suggest that people claiming that Phil Jones is in error or fudging his figures about this read my comment at Lucia’s:”
There is a much simpler way to show Phil Jones is telling the truth here. See the graph I alluded to earlier at: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
Enlarge as desired. Then align a ruler from the top of the 95% error bar for 1995 to the bottom of the error bar for 2009 and 2010. You will find the ruler slopes down to the right for 2009 but up and to the right for 2010. So he is telling the truth here. However that green line at the end for the first four months of 2011 does NOT look good for Phil Jones if it continues this way for the rest of the year.
Cirrius Man says: June 11, 2011 at 3:59 pm
WHAT ??? .Who makes up these things?
For all the years (1850-2011) are regression for the HADCrut 3 temperature anomaly gives :
So that is certainly significant if you use all the years.
Now what did you want to do? Drop 1850-1869 — OK. Then drop 1985-1998. Dropping 1985-1998 inclusive would be 14 years. We will keep 1985 since it was a cold year and drop 1985 since it was a warm year. A regression of the rest of the years shows
Still highly significant ….
Wait, maybe “stitch together” means “lower 1998 (t = +0.55) to match 1985 (-0.04) and then lower all the years from 1998 forward by the same amount. Well, I guess we could pretend 15 years of warming never existed and then pretend 1998 – 2010 was 0.59 C colder than it really was. And drop 20 years from the beginning …
The slope is about 1/2 as big as before, STILL highly significant!
Dan Zee says:
June 11, 2011 at 11:34 am
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.
Dan.
I always learn as much from the great comments as the article, I often find it helps my comprehension of the subject. and you comments add to that.
Thanks for a fact fill jaunt through history, I’m sure most readers enjoyed it as much as I did.
Dave.
Smokey says: June 11, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Yo, Jones,
“Explain this.”
I’m not Jones , but Its a graph of the global temperature that shows a varying but upwardly sloping trend. Seems pretty simple.
“And this.”
A graph showing a short-term (1 1/4 year) downward trend in global temperatures. I agree there is a clear downward trend, although the most recent two months of data seems to show an uptick again right at the end of that graph.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/07/uah-global-temperature-anomaly-up-a-bit-in-may/
It will be interesting to see which way it decides to go now
“And this”
A graph of the HADCRut3 temperature graph that is misleadingly labeled.
* 1860-1880 has a regression fit of 0.104 C/decade, not 0.16. The line on the graph looks like wishful thinking .
* 1910 – 1940 is about right @ur momisugly 0.15 C/decade
* 1975 – 2009 is 0.17, not 0.16.
At least if my fits are correct. So the fist slope is badly over-estimated, while the final slope is slightly underestimated.
“The Trend Repeats” — well sort of.
* The upward trends are getting longer (20 yr, 30, yr, 35 yr)
* The upward trends are getting steeper
* The downward trends in between are getting smaller.
* The current upswing has yet to show clear signs of stopping.
Any thing else you need explained?
.
Smokey says:
June 11, 2011 at 8:51 pm
“My personal apologies to our Brit cousins for our back-stabbing president.”
Our own regime is more than happy to stab their own people in the back and giggle and laugh while they do it. Handing over our Royal Navy to form an EU force without our permission, handing vast amounts of money in foreign aid while claiming there is no money left for defence, destroying whats left of our industry in the insane jihad against a harmless trace gas and plant food.
If our own government is so keen to destroy the UK as a viable sovereign nation we can hardly blame a socialist activist for sticking the boot in can we? Its not he enemies from without that are the danger, it is the enemies from within, the Quislings and traitors who are the real danger.
What do all scientists, education, UN Members, etc all have in common in discussing whether there is global warming contributing to climate change? 100% of them are effectively blind to the temperatures discussed. We uses calculators, thermometers but when it comes to building development we are effectively blind to temperature. All the laws are in place including the important meteorology contribution to building codes. Urban Heat Islands are each and every building getting radiated because of the exterior finish or lack of shade.
Here is an infrared time-lapsed video showing solar radiation impact with buildings pluse shade effect.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVST5dPkkHg&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3%5D
Phil who?
Oops..there go’s another point in the argument against Anthropogenic Global warming, people who don’t accept AGW remind me of the last Japanese holdouts of WW2, thirty years on those Pacific Islands must of been nice but coming back to reality must have sucked.