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.
As Prof Freeman Dyson correctly points out, climate models are not very good. Here is a record of model predictions, in which 27 out of 32 model runs turned out to be flat wrong. Much worse than flipping a coin.
I’m awful late to the party, but I couldn’t help notice a conversation still taking place here.
Has anyone shown our friend moderate how using Phils own data, that it doesn’t reach the 95% level? In other words, it doesn’t reach the level of significance. Or that using RSS’ data, going from part of 1997 to mid2009 there is a more pronounced sloop in the opposite direction? Or that going from a La Nina to El Nino to show warming is superfluous sophistry, and that if any skeptic tried to present such blathering that the warmista camp would be all over it? As a most delicious cherry pick?
Or is it that you guys are keeping him around to make sport of? It is fun to have a pet like that from time to time, but they require humoring or they’ll just leave.
Moderate Republican says:
June 15, 2011 at 10:54 am
From your policy “… personal attacks…name-calling…and other detritus that add nothing to further the discussion may get deleted”
Does not the use of “alarmist” violate that policy?
=========================================================
Moderate, usually, alarmist isn’t meant nor taken as a pejorative. Like Anthony, I take exception to the use of the word “denier” because of the connotations attached to it, and, “denier” isn’t descriptive of most skeptical perspectives. Alarmist, OTOH, seems fitting to me, in that most that hold your position seem “alarmed” by current climate conditions. That said, if you have a preference of descriptive term for people that hold views close to you in the climate concern, let us know how you’d like to be identified.
I’m used to playful jabs, (“denier” isn’t what I consider playful) but, in the interest of civility, just let people know…..
Smokey says June 15, 2011 at 11:04 am ‘ Here is a record of model predictions, in which 27 out of 32 model runs turned out to be flat wrong. Much worse than flipping a coin.”
A quick look at the link provide suggest that this is strawman argument since no actual studies and links to those studies are provided, making it a meaningless citation.
James Sexton says June 15, 2011 at 11:15 am “Moderate, usually, alarmist isn’t meant nor taken as a pejorative.”
Are you seriously saying that “alarmist” as used here isn’t pejorative by the vast majority of the posts? Really?
Moderate Republican says:
June 15, 2011 at 10:43 am
DCA – said “lol, significant warming….hahahahahaha”
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. Last year’s analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line.
Are you arguing against math as well as physics and chemistry now?
==========================================================
Sorry for the confusion Moderate, but that was me, not DCA. I understand the 95% threshold. Now, show how or where the good doctor pulled that from. Because his numbers don’t seem to be adding up. Here’s the math’s that don’t quite get there. It’s replicable. http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/statistical-significance-since-1995-not-with-hadcrut/
Moderate Republican says:
June 15, 2011 at 11:25 am
Are you seriously saying that “alarmist” as used here isn’t pejorative by the vast majority of the posts? Really?
============================================================
Yes, I use it all the time when in normal conversations with people that hold seemingly hold similar views as yourself. (Admittedly, I haven’t read all of your comments on this thread, but in your last few, I’ve judged that your views and the many I converse with are similar.) It isn’t meant as a pejorative, but rather an appropriately descriptive term. But, again, if you’ve a term you prefer that would describe people alarmed by our climate conditions, by all means, let us know. While I can’t vouch for the others here, I’ll be happy to oblige. Though I’d be confused as to why you’d take exception to the word “alarmist”.
Thx James, for your earlier comments,
but again,
I want to stress here that it does not really matter whether the observed warming is significant on a
1%, 2.5%, 5% or even a 10-% confidence level
namely, I found that the warming of he past 3 or 4 decades is due to natural causes.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
So you can all stand on your heads now (or not) but changing the confidence interval or changing the start- or end dates is not going to change the fact that there is nothing anyone can do – or could have done – about the global warming,
it happened – whether we like ot or not.
BTW, I like(d) it, but that is just personal.
I do have a plan though, when global cooling sets in.
I think with our current technology we can beat global cooling, if it does not get too bad. We must just take care for earth not to become “too white”. That must sound strange coming from somebody living in South Africa (no racist pun intended)
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
is there enough material by now to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Richard Black doesn’t understand anything about statistics, and that Phil Jones has either misused it or simply doesn’t get it either?
See also this.
omnologos says at June 15, 2011 at 1:00 pm “and that Phil Jones has either misused it or simply doesn’t get it either?”
No.
BTW – arguing that Phil Jones doesn’t get it now, but did get it a year ago, when all that changed is one additional years worth of data, makes utterly no sense.
BTW BTW – arguing against 2010 in Jones conclusion that we’ve now hit the 95% statistically significant threshold is suggesting that new fact not be included in monitoring what is happening to the climate, which is also to say the whole Hill article on solar activity should be disregarded for the same reason.
HenryP says:
June 15, 2011 at 12:31 pm
Thx James, for your earlier comments,
but again,
I want to stress here that it does not really matter whether the observed warming is significant on a
1%, 2.5%, 5% or even a 10-% confidence level
namely, I found that the warming of he past 3 or 4 decades is due to natural causes.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
==================================================================
NP Henry, and as an avid pool player, I really liked your analogy. Yes, this is much ado about nothing. Statistically significant or not, it says nothing about causation. Nearly all of us accept that the earth warmed in the 90s. So, this would be a giant yawn. The fact is, our good Dr. Phil jumped the gun a bit. But,the
alarmistswarmists(?) have been beaten about the head with HadCrut showing a cooling this decade, they’ll try to find anything to latch onto. (lol, I’m going to RSS next! :D)As to your barometric pressure, look to the Ideal Gas Law. (PV = nRT, there are other variants, depending upon the field of study.) However, I caution you that the posit seems a bit controversial. Steve Goddard applies it towards the differences between Mars, Earth, and Venus. Mars and Venus have nearly the same percentage of atmospheric CO2….95% And, yet proximity to the sun can’t account for the temp differential. Further, when at the height of Venus atmosphere is equivalent to Earth’s pressure at the ground,(bars) the temps are roughly the same. Mars’ density is much less than Venus’. For Steve’s take, just go here, http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/?s=ideal+gas+law and you’ll find 3 articles about it…. there are others that preceded it.
I’d have more to say, but I’ve a horrible tooth ache and took a pain pill and now I’m a bit “fuzzy”……strange, I usually enjoy this stuff when I’m full of beer, but this is getting laborious. Please take this into account for grammar and spelling errors.
omnologos says:
June 15, 2011 at 1:00 pm
is there enough material by now to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Richard Black doesn’t understand anything about statistics, and that Phil Jones has either misused it or simply doesn’t get it either?
=======================================================================
lol, about the same level of Eric “I am not a statistician” Steig.
Psuedoscience is frquently used by those who do not – or wish not – to believe the actual science
HenryP says: June 15, 2011 at 12:31 pm I found that the warming of he past 3 or 4 decades is due to natural causes.”
If you go to that reference you see that that this claim is based on “Understand that it is alleged that due to increased green house gases in the atmosphere, heat is trapped that cannot escape from earth. So if an increase in green house gases is to blame for the warming, it should be minimum temperatures (that occur during the night) that must show the increase (of modern warming). ”
Huh? Please prove that this is a valid approach and has been confirmed by science through the peer review process.
What happened to our friend “Moderate”?
REPLY: Dunno, he’s not banned, just admonished for using the D word four times – Anthony
Moderate Republican says:
June 15, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Psuedoscience is frquently used by those who do not – or wish not – to believe the actual science
HenryP says: June 15, 2011 at 12:31 pm I found that the warming of he past 3 or 4 decades is due to natural causes.”
If you go to that reference you see that that this claim is based on “Understand that it is alleged that due to increased green house gases in the atmosphere, heat is trapped that cannot escape from earth. So if an increase in green house gases is to blame for the warming, it should be minimum temperatures (that occur during the night) that must show the increase (of modern warming). ”
Huh? Please prove that this is a valid approach and has been confirmed by science through the peer review process.
=====================================================
Oh, my, I nodded off just before they posted your request. Sorry for not getting back to you in a timely manner. I tried to stay up to see if you had additional offerings and/or questions.
Moderate, please try to stay informed on the “science” you advocate. My goodness, I’m hopped on painkillers and am familiar with the posit. If I could concentrate just a bit better, I’d be able to articulate it for you, but using ask.com one can easily see where this is a familiar talking point. Now, it is true, that many “studies” have used that as a given, but I know of no proof of the assertion. But, it should be pointed out that HenryP wasn’t the first to articulate this posit.
I’m a bit saddened that there are people that still cling to the notion that “peer review” is a proxy for valid science. Its really a laughable notion. Many “peer-reviewed” studies have been thoroughly debunked, and all one has to do is run through the archives here for many examples. Now, I know that will not satisfy you as an argument against “peer-review”, so I’ll apply some logic.
If you posit “peer-review” is a proxy for valid science, then you must also hold that the nearly 1000 peer reviewed skeptical papers are also valid. You must also acknowledge that scientists such as Christy, Spencer, Lindzen and several others have presented valid works of science towards being skeptical of climate change. Further, you must also hold that the likes McIntyre, O’Donnall et al, and our highly esteemed host, Anthony Watts’ offerings are also valid. This dichotomy is seemingly impossible to logically hold. Can they all be correct and all the studies they’ve countered be correct, too? Perhaps……. the Steig/O’Donnall dust up can be viewed in a somewhat humorous light towards that regard.
Oh, I forgot to show how the night warming more posit is widely accepted on both sides…… http://www.sou.edu/envirostudies/gjones_docs/Nemani%20etal_ClimateResearch.pdf …<——– As I recall, this one had a response, and http://www.pnas.org/content/101/27/9971.full.pdf . Now, I know you may be leery of quoting PNAS, in that they've been shown to unevenly apply their standards, thus calling into question their validity as a science publishing journal, but maybe you'll allow this one offering as proof the nocturnal temp rising posit is accepted. But, I do like your skepticism of challenging assumptions without empirical evidence to back it up. (Don't worry I won't call you the "D" word.)
Hope that helps to clear things up for you.
James
Moderate Republican says:
June 15, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Christy, Spencer, Lindzen all fail that test BTW..
Not only are you a troll alarmist, you are just like the “truthers”, “birthers” you are a “faither”.
Moderate Republican says:
June 15, 2011 at 5:54 pm
James Sexton says @ur momisugly June 15, 2011 at 5:15 pm “1000 peer reviewed skeptical papers are also valid”
Please list the 1000 peer reviewed papers from mainstream and reputable sources that have withstood further review by the scientific community. Christy, Spencer, Lindzen all fail that test BTW.
Alphabetical order is fine – thanks.
==========================================
lol, that’s it? No acknowledgment of the nocturnal temp rise posit? No apology to Henry for insinuating he was using psuedo-science? Then you obviously selectively misquote me? I said “nearly 1000”. No mention of the McIntyre, O’Donnall, or even our host Anthony?
And, BTW, Christy, Spencer, and Lindzen don’t fail the test if the standard is peer-reviewed. And, all of them have publishings that have satisfactorily withstood the criticisms. I would list them for you but if I’m to jump through hoops for you, you’ll have to jump through hoops for me. List and show all of the studies which Christy, Spencer, and Lindzen have been proven to be in such significant error that the conclusions are invalidated. I would caution, that once you do that you’ll be left to dispute the ones that haven’t been. (I don’t mind challenging a person’s world view, but its is an ugly thing to destroy one and I’ve no desire to do so.)
Further, your use of the words, “mainstream” and “reputable” are obviously subjective and my view of reputable and mainstream may not be the same as yours. For instance, I can show where PNAS doesn’t apply the same standards to skeptical papers as they do to warmist?(you never got back to me on how you wish me to reference this perspective) papers. To me, that would be disreputable. Many would see that as the corruption of science and an example of malfeasance and general bad character with a penchant to be unfamiliar with honesty. Yet, and correct me if I’m wrong, I somehow believe you would accept all PNAS papers that support the CAGW theory.
Moderate, I don’t mind discussing these things with you, but seeking tangential subjects to counter offerings is a bit tedious, and as I’ve stated, I’m a bit fuzzy from painkillers. So, if we’re to continue this conversation, let’s try to limit this to the points of the comments. Please and thank you.
Without further ado……. oddly in alphabetical order as you desired. Be sure to read the definitions and notes before perusing the list. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
And, you’re welcome.
these threads have become predictable and dominated by an all-against-one pattern, with the one being a token True Believer making all sorts of inflammatory remarks and a lot of people thinking it worthwhile to answer those remarks, as if that’d change anything. The noise becomes enormous then and the comments section a garbage dump. For this reason I won’t respond to obviously pointless replies and urge everybody to intervene only when things are serious enough to warrant intervention, exchanging views that is with people who are more open-minded than the average two-year-old.
omnologos says:
June 15, 2011 at 10:12 pm
these threads have become predictable and dominated by an all-against-one pattern, with the one being a token True Believer making all sorts of inflammatory remarks and a lot of people thinking it worthwhile to answer those remarks, as if that’d change anything. The noise becomes enormous then and the comments section a garbage dump. For this reason I won’t respond to obviously pointless replies and urge everybody to intervene only when things are serious enough to warrant intervention, exchanging views that is with people who are more open-minded than the average two-year-old.
=============================================================
Omno, your point is valid, but I was bored. That said, you know that in places like this, there are many readers that don’t comment. Although, this thread is a little dated, so I’m not sure how many readers/not commentators there would be. But, if there were any left, it was for their benefit, as well as some of our skeptical friends that aren’t as well versed in dispatching warmist troll types.
Like you said though, it is tiresome to feed them sometimes. 🙂
Thx James, for clearing that point for me, earlier,
I honestly don’t remember how I had figured out that if man made global warming is for real it must be the minimum temps. that must push up the average temps.
I most certainly would not have known of any paper that referred to minimum temps.
As it stands at the moment (on my pool table),
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
it appears that maxima, means and minima have risen in a ratio of about 4:2:1 over the past 4 decades. For the time being, my conclusion is therefore that the warming is natural because it is the maxima that pushed up the average temps and minima.
I think if I could get these results, anyone else should be able to get the same, as long as they play the game according to the rules: i.e.
1) randomly
2) balanced, ::::NH versus SH
Namely the funny thing is that I observed now is that the warming is not at all the same in the SH (where I started playing) and the NH. Why that is I don’t know> perhaps it could be because there is much less landmass in the SH? But why would that make a difference?
Anyway, whatever the reasons, I now have to carefully look at my table again, to balance it,
i.e the same amount of stations NH and SH + approx. same NH latitudes and SH latitudes.
Not an easy task for one and only person….with only a limited amount of hobby time
and that is: yours truthfully
Henry
HenryP says:
June 16, 2011 at 8:43 am
Thx James, for clearing that point for me, earlier,
I honestly don’t remember how I had figured out that if man made global warming is for real it must be the minimum temps. that must push up the average temps
I most certainly would not have known of any paper that referred to minimum temps………..
=========================================================
Henry, just chalk that up to “great minds think alike” or something of that nature. More than once I’ve had a thought that excited me to no end, only to find that someone had already addressed or shown the very same thought…..sigh
But, Henry, now that you’re here, I’ve a related question for you. Lately, I’ve been showing how we’re not losing snow extent. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/06/11/too-much-blathering-about-snow-loss/ and http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/06/01/the-rapidly-melting-snow-extent/
Sadly, I can find no reliable source of information for the S.H. You being from S. Africa, I was wondering if you knew of any such data existing? Any point in any direction would be much appreciated.
Thanks,
James
James,
the only thing what I can do for you is share the excel files of the SH weather station information collected
(only the first 4 stations) which does report in one of the columns incidence of snowfall/ ice pellets
but I am afraid those are places where there never is any -or very little- snowfall. Except maybe the station in LaPaz because it is higher.
To put more balance on my current table, I do plan to visit a station in the antarctic region soon, if I can find one with reliable data going back 30-40 years in time.
John Finn says:
You seem to be making the argument that as there’s only a small concentration of CO2 that it can’t make much difference. Here’s a view by Steve McIntyre (ClimateAudit)
http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/08/sir-john-houghton-on-the-enhanced-greenhouse-effect/
Scroll down to the emission spectrum (observed and theoretical) graph (near end of Steve’s post). Then read this comment immediately beneath the graph.
The large notch or “funnel” in the spectrum is due to “high cold” emissions from tropopause CO2 in the main CO2 band. CO2 emissions (from the perspective of someone in space) are the coldest. ( Sometimes you hear people say that there’s just a “little bit” of CO2 and therefore it can’t make any difference: but, obviously, there’s enough CO2 for it to be very prominent in these highly relevant spectra, so this particular argument is a total non-starter as far as I’m concerned. )
I thought this argument had finally been put to rest – but clearly not.
__________________________________________________
Indeed, there should be no argument on the importance of CO2, because the
absorption is so large in the main band as to make the troposphere essentially opaque, as evidenced theoretically and experimentally in the figures reproduced in Steve Mc Intyre’s post.
Note however that his analysis points to any change in tropopause or stratosphere .
temperatures as consequently capable of modifying the earth radiation in this band.
This is a big starting point for a multiplicity of subtle, and hitherto largely undiscussed, climate effects resulting from CO2 optical absorption, but not from CO2 concentration changes : you might consider for instance climate effects of ozone variation modifying stratospheric temperatures, hence the radiation emitted in the main CO2 band.
CO2 concentration is not the whole story, even when considering CO2 absorption.
Daniel
I have completed a whole set of new tables, but I have not yet had a chance to update this on my
blog: http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
My new tables show that maxima, means (=average temps) and minima on earth have risen at a ratio of 6:2:1
Remember: these are actual measured results from the past 4 decades from a number of weather stations all around the world.. No hypothesis.
if it had been the other way around, i.e. rising minima (that happen during the night) that pushed up average temps. I would agree with you that it was an increase in GHG’s that caused the warming.
As it stands, surely, you must see that it was maximum temps (that occurred during the day) that pushed up the means and the minima?
that means that you have to be an idiot not to comprehend that the observed wearming was natural?
henry P says
if it had been the other way around, i.e. rising minima (that happen during the night) that pushed up average temps. I would agree with you that it was an increase in GHG’s that caused the warming.
As it stands, surely, you must see that it was maximum temps (that occurred during the day) that pushed up the means and the minima?
that means that you have to be an idiot not to comprehend that the observed wearming was natural?
__________________________________________________________
Sorry, Henry you did not understand my argument, (or it was not well stated). I was just pointing to additional possible mechanisms that do not rely on an increase of GHGs, thus giving more weight to the possibility that observed changes are natural.