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
And comments like this remind me of people who never learned the rudiments of fifth-grade English grammar and spelling—not to mention science.
/Mr Lynn
John Brookes says:
“What a disgraceful site.”
Sorry it makes you so unhappy, John. In order to avoid more unhappiness, I suggest you MoveOn to one of the censoring alarmist blogs, where you won’t be quite so unhappy. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Arfur Bryant says:
June 12, 2011 at 2:01 am
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…
=======================================================================================
Arfur, the trend was a whole lot faster from 1700 – 1800……….
and the trend has been dropping/slowing ever since
@ur momisugly John Brookes
” What a disgraceful site”
Sir,
Any one who reads the Climategate emails and comes away saying nothing is wrong are one of the following:-
A Stupid
B Very stupid
C Clinically insane
D A pathological liar
G On the green gravy train
This site is not disgraceful, the disgrace lies with the IPCC, MSM (not all), UnRealClimate and the Fiddlestick Team. This site`constantly questioned the so called settled junk science a long time before the emails were released. It may not always be right but it is not always wrong as are the alarmists and their fellow travellers.
Try the Gardener, where comment is free`if you agree?
John Brookes:
At June 12, 2011 at 4:41 am you demonstrate your usual standard of erudtion when you write:
“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.”
You could not be more wrong. I deal with each of your points in turn.
You say, “This post is silly.”
No. This post is factual. Monty Python’s Flying Circus is silly. And Phil Jones’ comments reported in this post could be thought to be silly.
You say, “It shows no interest in what is happening.”
No. It shows an interest in “what is happening” and how warmists – in this case, Phil Jones – spin “what is happening”.
Section 10.7.1 titled ‘Climate Change Commitment to Year 2300 Based on AOGCMs’
in the Report from WG1 (i.e. the “science” Working Group) of the most recent IPCC Report (AR4) can be read at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html
It says:
“The multi-model average warming for all radiative forcing agents held constant at year 2000 (reported earlier for several of the models by Meehl et al., 2005c), is about 0.6°C for the period 2090 to 2099 relative to the 1980 to 1999 reference period. This is roughly the magnitude of warming simulated in the 20th century. Applying the same uncertainty assessment as for the SRES scenarios in Fig. 10.29 (–40 to +60%), the likely uncertainty range is 0.3°C to 0.9°C. Hansen et al. (2005a) calculate the current energy imbalance of the Earth to be 0.85 W m–2, implying that the unrealised global warming is about 0.6°C without any further increase in radiative forcing. The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios.”
So, the IPCC says,
“The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade”.
n.b. That is “committed warming” that will occur because of effects in the past.
And the effect of increase to atmospheric CO2 since 2000 is expected to double that rate of warming to “About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade)”.
But there has NOT been a rise in global temperature of “0.2°C per decade” or of “0.1°C per decade” for the first of half of “the first two decades of the 21st century”. Indeed, there has been no discernible rise and probably a slight fall.
So, for the IPCC prediction to be true then the global temperature must rise by a staggering 0.4°C now and stay at that level for the next 10 years. This would be more than half the total rise over the previous century, and only a member of the cult of AGW could think this is a reasonable expectation.
Indeed, if one accepts the lower limit of the “uncertainty assessment” of “-40%” then the required immediate rise rise needed to be sustained over the next 10 years is at least an incredible 0.24°C.
And to meet the IPCC prediction at a linear rate then the required rise over the next ten years is 0.8°C (or 0.48°C at very minimum)
Nobody believes such rises are remotely likely over the next decade and Phil Jones does not discuss them but, instead, he makes dubious claims about whether it is possible to detect any rise over the last 15 years.
A RISE OF 0.2°C OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS FROM THE DATA.
You say “It is simply ignorant point scoring, and preaching to the converted.”
No. The above post is reportiung the dubious assertions of a AGW propogandist and his spin to deflect attention from the failure of the globe to warm as was predicted by him and others involved in IPCC WG1.
You say, “What a disgraceful site.”
I think you made a mistake here. Your post was to WUWT and nor RealClimate.org to which Phil Jones contributes.
Richard
Smokey says:
June 12, 2011 at 1:26 am
I’d like to know what data is used which shows a 0.16 deg per decade rise between 1860 and 1880.
I agree with the trend calcualted by Tim Folkerts.
The trend from the LIA has not accelerated, therefore the added CO2 does not cause global warming.
The trend from the LIA clearly has accelerated. The CET 19th century trend (1800-1900) is as flat as a pancake. You can’t just fit a regression line to the entire dataset and then claim it as a continuous constant trend when it obviously isn’t. To illustrate the point consider these CET trends.
1800-1900 +0.03 deg per century
1900-2000 +0.65 deg per century
Temperatures in the 20th century rose at 20 times the rate of temperatures in the 19th century.
John Brookes says:
“What a disgraceful site.”
John, how did you even find this site? None of the main warmist sites have links to this place. They don’t want anyone to know it exists, let alone come here to visit and educate themselves on why skeptics do not believe that AGW is in the process of destroying all intelligent forms of life on the planet.
I find it revealing that WUWT has prominent links to all the major warmist sites for people to go visit and study up on but the warmists sites have no links to the credible skeptical sites, If you are spreading propaganda and half-truths, the last thing you want to do is send people somewhere to educate themselves.
John Finn,
You’re frightening yourself. The very *mild* warming cycle over the past century and a half is entirely consistent with natural variability. When you have evidence of global damage due to CO2, wake me. Until then, you’re operating under the Black Cat fallacy: you’re convinced there’s a black cat under your bed. But when you turn on the light and look… there’s no cat. And there never was.
If CO2 is harmful, then show us the global harm. Otherwise, quit trying to pass off natural climate cycles as human-caused, because you have zero evidence to support that failed conjecture.
John Finn says:
June 12, 2011 at 10:40 am
1800-1900 +0.03 deg per century
1900-2000 +0.65 deg per century
Temperatures in the 20th century rose at 20 times the rate of temperatures in the 19th century.
===========================================================
Well John, if you want to be that way about it……..;)
Temperatures increased +0.08 deg per century from 1750 – 1800
http://www.plusaf.com/pix/2000-years-of-global-temperatures.jpg
Smokey says:
June 12, 2011 at 11:44 am
John Finn,
You’re frightening yourself.
I’m not I’m just questioning some of the statements in your post.
Latitude says:
June 12, 2011 at 11:57 am
===========================================================
Well John, if you want to be that way about it……..;)
Temperatures increased +0.08 deg per century from 1750 – 1800
I’m not sure if you intended to write this. Whatever – the statement is questionable from several angles.
After evaluating the data from 12 weather stations, from all over the world, randomly chosen,
my finding is that the mean (average) temp. of earth has gone up by 0.02 degrees C per annum since 1974
Maximum temps have risen by 0.04 degrees C per annum and minima went up by 0.01 degrees C per annum (since 1974).
I still have to update my latest results on my pool table,
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
the interesting fact to notice is that you can clearly see that it is the increasing maxima that have pushed up the mean (average) temperature on earth. THAT CLEARLY POINTS TO NATURAL CAUSES.
If it had been the other way around,
i.e.
minima rising at a faster rate than the mean temperature and the maxima,
we should agree that the cause was an increase in green house gases on earth.
As it stands at the moment,
MORE CARBON DIOXIDE IS OK, ok?
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
Yes, but not too unexpected really. The period ending 2009 was on a knife edge between significant and non significant. The warmer 2010 has tipped it over to statistically sigificant. A cooler 2011 will tip it back to not statistically significant.
What’s the betting that Jones will be testifying in one years time, that the recent trend is no longer statistically signficant, if that is the case? A lie by omission is still a lie. Watch this space 2012.
“I’m not sure if you intended to write this”
Sorry my eyes are shot and the kids are here…..
eyeballing it…..1725 – 1750, temps went up 1/2 a degree, in 25 years….
I stand corrected, that would be 2 degrees a century…………………….
Vince Causey says:
June 12, 2011 at 1:05 pm
“A cooler 2011 will tip it back to not statistically significant.”
_________
Don’t expect the remainder of 2011 to comply with this expectation. The 2010-2011 La Nina is over and Solar Max 24 (regardless of how weak) is ahead in the next few years. About the only thing that could keep the 2nd half of 2011 from warming up would be some nice volcanic activity, and given recent events in Chile and Iceland, that’s not too far from possible, but both of those events, even combined are still far less than the kind of cooling we saw from Pinatubo.
Again, don’t expect the second half of 2011 to tip things back to statistically no significant cooling. The longer-term trend would seem to ride against this expectation.
For anyone who calls 95% significant after checking many data-sets, I have exactly one comment. More appropriately, Randall Munroe has one comment:
http://xkcd.com/882/
Fear the Green Jelly Bean!!!!
Latitude says:
June 12, 2011 at 8:04 am
Arfur, the trend was a whole lot faster from 1700 – 1800………. and the trend has been dropping/slowing ever since
……………
Latitude,
.
Yes, I appreciate that. The reason I started at 1850 is that is the ‘start’ date the IPCC has chosen for an anthropogenic effect, so I didn’t want to be accused of moving the goalposts. The observed data simply does not show the CO2 effect claimed by the pro-cAGW camp. There are so many illogical holes…
.
Thanks very much for linking the data reference in a later post! 🙂
“R. Gates says:
June 12, 2011 at 1:31 pm
Vince Causey says:
June 12, 2011 at 1:05 pm
“A cooler 2011 will tip it back to not statistically significant.”
Don’t expect the remainder of 2011 to comply with this expectation.”
I fully expect 2011 to comply with this expectation. My analysis is taken from the following:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
In 2009, the anomaly was 0.443. In 2010, it was 0.476. So if the 2011 average is 0.443 or lower, things are not significant again. For the first 4 months of 2011, the anomaly was 0.298 on the average. So it is very easy to calculate what it would have to be for the rest of the year to even make it to 0.443. The calculations are as follows: 0.298(4) + 8x = 0.443(12). Then x turns out to be 0.52. Only 1998 had a year long anomaly greater than that. So if the month of May does not reach 0.52, then each succeeding month must be higher to make up for things. Dr. Spencer’s site certainly gave no hint of a huge breakthrough in May.
We just have to be sure the following happens in February 13, 2012 as was the case in February 13, 2010:
“The BBC’s environment analyst Roger Harrabin put questions to Professor Jones, including several gathered from climate sceptics.”
Latitude – my “disinforming” comment was (obviously??) sarcastic. Still it is dangerous for anybody to copy anything published on the Guardian verbatim 😎
The title of this post is absurdly dishonest. You wouldn’t have the courage to change it though.
– – – – – – – –
stevo,
Your courage could be shown by being more honest in your ‘absurdly dishonest’ statement.
John
John Finn says:
June 12, 2011 at 10:40 am
“The trend from the LIA clearly has accelerated. The CET 19th century trend (1800-1900) is as flat as a pancake. You can’t just fit a regression line to the entire dataset and then claim it as a continuous constant trend when it obviously isn’t. To illustrate the point consider these CET trends.
1800-1900 +0.03 deg per century
1900-2000 +0.65 deg per century
Temperatures in the 20th century rose at 20 times the rate of temperatures in the 19th century.”
This is an R Gates style fact. 20 times the rate in the 19th century is technically correct. 20 times a teeny tiny amount is still a teeny tiny amount.
And remember it’s always coldest just before it begins to get warmer, it’s always darkest just before it begins to get lighter and one is always dumber just before one begins to get smarter.
Some great work here.
If the heating from CO2 is a delayed effect, ie what we release today wont be felt until 30 years down the road, then that means the heating we saw in the 80s was from CO2 in the 50s, the heating in the 90s was the from the 60s and the heating in the first decade of 2000 was from the 70s. Didn’t we emit vastly more CO2 in the 70s than we did in the 50s? Why is the warming during the first decade of 2000s essentially non-existant while the warming rate in the 80s and 90s much higher than now? I know, you are going to tell me one volcanic eruption (Pinatubu) was so vast that it cooled off the earth for over a decade far more than the hideously potent gas CO2
could warm it. So.. why is it Pinatubo effects are essentially instantaneous while CO2 is delayed?
If you torture the data enough it will confess to anything.