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.
sharper00 says: “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?”
Only if you are talking about the same day. Jones has done an about face in the space of one year while talking about essentially the same dataset that spans 16 years; ie., he’s suddenly changed his mind about the SAME data. So what happened to the 30-year-average rule I thought they were supposed to work, too? The alarmists dismiss any non-positive trend if it is shorter than 30 years so how the hell can Jones be so confident with half the amount?
Need longer time frames, no problem:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1870/to:2010
.005/year or .5/Century.
140 year trendline is .7C
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1870/to:2010/trend
Detrend the warming out of the Little Ice Age gets this:http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1870/to:2010/detrend:0.7
The 60+ year climate signal oscillation.
What is that signal? Why, I dare say it’s one of those upshots in the variance seen in the Vostok Ice Cores.
Downslope could come tomorrow, last year, in a hundread years. One of those zigzags will head down lower and not come back up nearly as high.
Nice data, Phil.
“Phil Jones does an about face on “statistically significant” warming”
No he doesn’t. He says that the 1995-2010 global temperature trend is slightly more statistically significant than the 1995-2009 trend. Looks like you didn’t even understand that he was talking about a different time period to the last statement.
Actually I don’t care whether the warming is statistically significant or not, that still doesn’t confirm it has anything to do with man made CO2. The earth has always gone thru statistically significant warming and cooling cycles… all without any help from man.
Phil’s not looking too good there – Climategate & aftermath, and all those FOIA requests must be taking their toll.
david gould. i would suggest they read this
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/06/11/experts/#comment-51263
you got it wrong
“jcrabb says:
June 11, 2011 at 10:26 pm
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.”
The question that I can’t get an answer to is “How much of the significant warming since 1995 is due to anthropogenic CO2 increase and how much is due to the rebound from the Little Ice Age, changes in cosmic rays, changes in the sun, chaotic confluence of heat release due to various ocean cycles/atmospheric interactions, aerosol distribution changes, Pinatubo bounce back, carbon black, albedo changes etc? The confidence quoted only relates to warming not being random. Well we know that it’s not random because it’s all controlled by an unsolved and as of yet unwritten, non-linear, feedback rich, partial differential equation.
As you seem to have split out the anthropogenic CO2 part I’d be interested in your methods and data and whether it indicates that we should sub-optimise world development on that basis.
And as for the Japanese on those pacific islands they didn’t know the war was over, unlike you but I bet they were amazed by the world’s societal and technological advances when they returned.
Timing is everything… Snowdon summer snow!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-13731216
Alcheson says:
“Actually I don’t care whether the warming is statistically significant or not, that still doesn’t confirm it has anything to do with man made CO2. The earth has always gone thru statistically significant warming and cooling cycles… all without any help from man.”
My point exactly!!!
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
Anybody has some results from the USA ?
Smokey says:
June 11, 2011 at 8:51 pm
My personal apologies to our Brit cousins for our back-stabbing president.
Smokey,
As someone who served in that conflict, I appreciate your support. However I must say I found the linked website to be particularly unpleasant. Politicians do what they do. I do not expect (and I hardly ever witness) integrity from those who represent us in the global arena but I also understand they may have a necessarily different agenda to our personal issues. What I have found, in several ‘theatres’ across the globe, is a reciprocated feeling of trust, pride and professional respect between personnel of the US and UK military serving at the battlefront.
Tim Folkerts says:
“I’m not Jones , but Its a graph of the global temperature that shows a varying but upwardly sloping trend.”
The trend from the LIA has not accelerated, therefore the added CO2 does not cause global warming. QED
And:
“A graph showing a short-term (1 1/4 year) downward trend in global temperatures. I agree there is a clear downward trend…”
Good. You’re beginning to see.
And:
“A graph of the HADCRut3 temperature graph that is misleadingly labeled. 1860-1880 has a regression fit of…” & etc.
To quote a commentator above: “WHAT ??? .Who makes up these things?”
Answer: Phil Jones ‘made up’ that thing. The upward slopes of the various times were 0.16, 0.15, 0.16, 0.16. All pretty much identical — and completely independent of rising CO2.
The climate is doing what it has always done regardless of the amout of that harmless, beneficial airborne fertilizer in the atmosphere. Therefore, reasonable folks will concluded that CO2 has no effect. If it did, the global temperature would have a geometrically accelerating rise due to the 40% more CO2 in the atmosphere. As anyone can see from the charts I posted, that is not happening. Therefore, CO2 is not the cause of the mild warming trend since the 1600’s. “Anything else you need explained”?☺
It’s time to throw in the towel on the falsified CO2=CAGW conjecture, for all but the most cognitive dissonance-afflicted true believers. Science is based on observed facts, not on Harold Camping-style belief systems. Accept the truth, it will set you free of the debunked belief in the evil “carbon”demon. Witchcraft is so 17th century.
Thanks to Lucia for taking a look and publishing the email I sent to the Blackboard..
The problem is, the intent of this headline is to be used to prove the ‘sceptics’/’lukewarmers’ wrong somehow. It HAS BEEN sent around the world’s media, and Jeff’Id’s, Keenans, and the Blackboards fact checking will be never be communicated to the masses.
What also gets lost, is not whether the world is warming, plateauing, cooling, etc, or the rate of which over what timescale, but none of this Proves the actual cause of temperature changes
The cause AGW or natural or realisticall what % of both (and nobody knows what % of either) which is of course the whole point. The argument has descended to a media propaganda soundbite, it’s warming again, proof of AGW?!?!?
(what happened to nature, has every warming, cooing process stopped, or all cancelled each other out in a bizarre equilibrium, where only AGW makes a difference?)
The very simplistic message that the ‘sceptics’ are wrong, because the world is warming, is what this Phil Jones’ statement and BBC article was intended to convey, not least repeated by the Carbon Brief, who twittered and spun this article to the world’s media (ie their twitter followeres is a who’s who of the AGW media,NGO extablishment, including the Committee on Climate Change and UEA, Climate progress, Guardian environment, washington POst, Time, Independent, BBC, etc)
Carbon Brief:
“The claim that global warming has stopped – one of the most overused and deeply flawed climate sceptic arguments – can finally be laid to rest today, following the publication of new data analysis by one of the country’s leading climatologists”
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/06/global-warming-since-1995-statistically-significant
Comments are open (may slow moderation at the weekend – ie paid staff, go home at the weekend, KEEP it POLITE, they have published ALL my comments) but no one that it will have been distributed to will ever read the comments…
Carbon Brief Background (sceptical scientists, LIndzen, Mckitrick, etc) smeared by the CB.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/14/smear-job-by-the-carbon-brief/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/18/the-carbon-brief-the-european-rapid-response-team/
Thank goodness for people like Roy and Bob Tisdale and a few others on here. Seems that 2010’s data made the temp rise significant since 1995 . . . so? It’s no surprise, given that 2010’s data was el nino spiked, and speaking 12 months from now the rise may again become insignificant. What’s wrong with him saying that if it’s reflected in the data? Forget the person, and consider the data. And remember that on its own the data says nothing about the causes of the change in temperature – nothing at all. So, what is it that’s controversial here?
If Jones’s data is wrong, the sensible response is to show that this is the case. If it’s not . . . . then, again, what is it that’s controversial here?
Seems to me that despite everything, it was actually Jones that came out in 2010 and said that the data so far indicated there had been no significant rise since 1995. That doesn’t make him a hero, but it must have been seriously disturbing for the warmistas who’re addicted to data, arguments, and inventions that bolster their case.
The drivel that litters the comments sections on this site does the sceptical position more harm than good imv . . . . many genuine sceptics who come here looking for accurate information and soundly reasoned argument are surely turned off by it. I certainly am. Some days I leave this site wondering why I bother looking through the comments . . . then I remember the value of happening across the occasional brilliant piece of analysis in the midst of acres of dross. Thank you to the sharp and balanced minds who continue to post here.
Smokey says:
June 11, 2011 at 1:26 am
It’s time to throw in the towel on CO2=CAGW conjecture, for all but the cognitive dissonance-afflicted true believers. Science is based on facts…
.
I couldn’t agree more, Smokey. This discussion about whether or not a fifteen-year trend shows significant warming or not disguises the real question:
What caused the warming and, specifically, does it have anything to do with anthropogenic GHG emissions?
.
Since 1850 (the IPCC chose that year, not me…) there have been several short-term periods of warming and cooling. Short term trends are meaningless except for esoteric debates about what particular forcings/causes existed during those periods. The only important trend is the overall trend – the one that started in 1850.
.
Looking at that (using the HADCrut data), the steepest observed trend is between 1850 and 1878: 0.169C per decade. The next steepest trend is in 1998, an overall trend of 0.067C per decade. The trend to 2010 is 0.057C per decade.
.
Ref: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
.
The fact that the overall trend is lower today than it was in 1878 means that the much-hyped effect of CO2 and other GHGs has not, and is not, causing an accelerated change in the global temperature. Ergo, the cAGW theory is dead in the water…
Did anyone notice Paul Dennis’ comment at Bishop Hill about the BBC article(a UEA colleague of Jones)
http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/people/facstaff/dennisp
“I’m rather bemused by the[BBC] article. 1995-2009, no significant warming, 1995-2010 significant warming and perhaps 1995-2011 no significant warming depending on this years temperature. Who knows! Adding a year to the trend and suddenly claiming significance as the headline asserts (‘Global warming since 1995 ‘now significant’) really shows a complete lack of understanding of linear regression, let alone the nature of the data.
Jun 10, 2011 at 6:32 PM | Paul Dennis ”
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/6/10/jones-post-1995-warming-significant.html#comments
The arch-alarmists who run the BBC jumped on this very quickly. It is the Jones attempt at raising his salary and getting extra grant monies from our stupid government. He will succeed and we, the taxpayer, will reap the benefits of overinflated fuel costs to pay for the useless wind turbines.
jim hogg says:
June 12, 2011 at 2:01 am
You throwing insults at people who comment in good faith on this site might also be considered inappropriate and unwarranted. You could also choose to make a worthwhile comment which explains the fundamental errors of the climate ‘science’ community rather than insulting you fellow travellers.
This post is silly. It shows no interest in what is happening. It is simply ignorant point scoring, and preaching to the converted. What a disgraceful site.
Fhilip Flop Jones should never be referred to as a climate scientist. He and his mates on the Fiddlestick Team should be called ‘Climate Change Campaigners’
Richard Black is just a green parrot?
Arfur Bryant says:
June 12, 2011 at 2:01 am
This isn’t the most important question. The most important question is what are the consequences of rising CO2 and milder winters in the high latitudes. Regardless of the cause we know both of those things are happening. I believe the unequivocal answer is that these are both beneficial and will remain beneficial long past the point where there are no more economically recoverable fossil fuels left to burn.
It would be nice to know how much, if any, regional warming is caused by anthropogenic CO2 because, as anyone as smart as a fifth grader knows, the earth has been in an ice age for the past 3 million years and the current interglaicial period has already lasted longer than average. The global ocean is a bucket of icewater at 3C with shallow warm layer (10% of its volume) floating on top. The average temperature of the global ocean is 4C and this must also be the average temperature of the ocean’s surface over the course of one complete glacial/interglacial period. That’s [snip] cold and will be quite disastrous for humanity if it happens before the next quantum leap in technology takes place.
So what I want to know from the climate boffins is how much atmospheric CO2 is enough to prevent the
modern (Holocene) interglacial from ending.
Just a question – this business about statistically significant warming – is it warming per se, or just the anthropogenic signal that Jones is trying to refer to?
As far as I can tell it’s the global warming per se value.
If so, then obviously, the greater the time period, the greater the likelihood of statistical warming because we are still recovering from an ice age!!
Take a linear line on a graph representing with rising temps due to ive age recovery, add a little random squiggle – and obviously, in the end, due to the underlying natural trend, virtually ANY period extracted from said graph will show ‘warming’ (but obviously if the measurement period is during a downward wiggle, the time period requried to show that underlying warming will be greater).
So, exactly what is it that these muppets are trying show?
LOL,
yet people complain of cherrypicking data points.
So just add one more year and it is really important!
This from the man who is director of a climate data collection agency!
Pathetic.
These guys are as bad as the wriggle and trend watching Sun worshippers. Apparently mechanism is not a cool thing to study these days.
– – – – – – – –
John Brookes,
I agree that Jones does look silly in the BBC article posted here at WUWT. Our comments here do not contribute very much to his silliness, but we try to contribute in the given spirit of the BBC’s and Jones’s portrayal of climate science silliness.
John
“John Brookes says:
June 12, 2011 at 4:41 am
This post is silly. It shows no interest in what is happening. It is simply ignorant point scoring, and preaching to the converted. What a disgraceful site.”
John, see my post at June 12, 2011 at 12:41 am. No one seems to answer my not unreasonable question about what is happening. If I am guilty of ignorant point scoring to which you refer then please confirm so and why. If somene is claiming an understanding of what is happening then I’d like some justifying detail to back up their view not just some first order reference to the radiative behaviour of CO2 isolated in laboratory conditions which is what is usually presented.
I’m also keen for guidance on what may be wrong or unreasonable with my question. I have met lots of people who believe in dangerous AGW but they can never answer my question. I assume that is because they don’t know enough about climate.
As for this post being silly, it is not as silly as the Jones comments it is reporting.