Joe Romm would call this a “head exploding moment“. If this were a skeptic, Tamino aka Grant Foster, would sharpen his invective ginsu knives and launch a fusillade of cutlery in a blog post claiming how stupid and inept skeptics are for not being able to work a simple program like Excel.
But this is professional climate science, so none of that will happen.
Over at Climate Audit, Steve McIntyre writes:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Phil Jones spends much of his time looking down his nose at the heathen, but then confesses to Bob Ward that he is unable to calculate a trend on his own, as in this hilarious exchange at Bishop Hill:
I’m not adept enough (totally inept) with excel to do this now as no-one who knows how to is here.
Nor it seems in Matlab, R, ODL, Fortran or any other language. No wonder that he regarded someone who could calculate principal components (like Mann) as a sort of computational prodigy.
Last year, Phil was ranked one of England’s top 100 scientists. Just imagine the ranking that he could have achieved if he knew how to calculate a trend by himself.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is from FOIA2011 email 1885.txt
Don’t worry Dr. Phil, help is on the way!
I’d like to suggest to our readers that they purchase copies of this book and send them to Phil as a Christmas gift. Click image to order a copy. For UK residents, use the Amazon UK Link.
Here’s Dr. Phil’s address below. Amazon allows Christmas gift giving, and you can send a nice note along too. I suggest we fill his messy office (From Climategate1) with these books.
Maybe if gets so many he’ll give them to students, and he’ll actually be doing something useful. As for Romm and Foster, send them coal.
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich
NR4 7TJ
UK
Here’s the full email, note what Bob Ward concludes at the end (my bold):
From: Phil Jones
Sent: 20 December 2007 13:58
To: Bob Ward
Subject: Re: More nonsense on climate change
Bob,
Quickly re-reading this it sounds as though I’m getting at you. I’m not – just at the idiots who continue to spout this nonsense. It isn’t an issue with climatologists. All understand. If I tried to publish this I would be told by my peers it was obvious and banal. I will try and hide it in a paper at some point. I could put it on the CRU web site. I’ll see how I feel after the Christmas Pud.
I would have thought that this writer would have know better! I keep on seeing people saying this same stupid thing. I’m not adept enough (totally inept) with excel to do this now as no-one who knows how to is here.
What you have to do is to take the numbers in column C (the years) and then those in D (the anomalies for each year), plot them and then work out the linear trend. The slope is upwards. I had someone do this in early 2006, and the trend was upwards then. It will be now. Trend won’t be statistically significant, but the trend is up.
This is a linear trend – least squares. This is how statisticians work out trends. They don’t just look at the series. The simpler way is to just look at the data. The warmest year is 1998 with 0.526. All years since 2001 have been above 0.4. The only year before 2001 that was above this level was 1998. So 2cnd to 8th warmest years are 2001-2007
The reason 1998 was the warmest year was that it resulted from the largest El Nino event of the 20th century in 1997/8. We’ve not had anything resembling a major El Nino event since – they have all been minor.
Using regression, it is possible to take the El Nino event into account (with a regression based on the Southern Oscillation Index). This accounts for about 0.15 deg C of 1998’s warmth. Without that 1998 would have been at about 0.38.
There is a lot of variability from year-to-year in global temperatures – even more in ones like CET. No-one should expect each year to be warmer than the previous. The 2000s will be warmer than the 1990s though. This is another way of pointing out what’s wrong with their poor argument. The last comment about CET is wrong. 2007 will be among the top 10 warmest CET years – it will likely be 2cnd or 3rd.
Cheers
Phil
Ward responds:
Dear Phil,
Thanks for responding so comprehensively. I have plotted the data before, and as you observe, the trend is up but the result isn’t statistically significant, which I think makes it open to attack. I think the problem is that NOAA made the following statement in its report on the 2006 data:
“However, uncertainties in the global calculations due largely to gaps in data coverage make 2006 statistically indistinguishable from 2005 and several other recent warm years as shown by the error bars on the [1]global time series.”
I’m not sure how to argue against this point – it appears to imply that there is no statistically significant trend in the global temperature record over the past few years.
Best wishes,
Bob
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Bloke down the pub says:
November 24, 2011 at 11:17 am
Most of what I’ve learnt about climate change has come from the web. After reading a number of FOIA2011 emails the thought occured to me that, if I was a youngster looking to study climate at a reputable university, where in the world could I go where I wouldn’t be taught by numptys like Phil Jones?
[ Bolding mine ]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I asked a Scientist on Dr Curry’s blog this basic [ Bolded above ] question – phrased differently – of course.
The reply I got went something like this : If you like natural science – study it. There are unappealing people everywhere.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
People should not use Excel trendlines without knowing what happens to trendlines at the beginning and end of the graph, where Excel gets it wrong for some kinds of cyclic curves.
Stonyground says:
November 24, 2011 at 11:38 am
“What kind of mindset wants to refute an article that they privately admit is correct?”
Stonyground-
I assume that your question is a rhetorical one. If not JC’s recent post http://judithcurry.com/2011/11/22/research-ethics-training on ethics comes to mind as a location to have a dialogue on the subject. The only thing I can come up with to explain the mindset leading to the lack of integrity (as I interpret the word) noted in your question would be covered in the slippery slope topic of situational ethics.
“TomT says:
November 24, 2011 at 10:35 am
Gee wasn’t it Phil who after Climategate 1 admit that there was no statistically significant warming since 1998.”
It was actually since 1995.
“The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn’t significant at the standard 95% level that people use,” Professor Jones told BBC News.
To update: The anomaly for 2009 was 0.443. The anomaly for 2010 was 0.477. However the anomaly for the first 9 months of 2011 so far is only 0.358. So it is simple to do the math for the average for the last 21 months, namely 12(0.477) + 9(0.358) all divided by 21 gives 0.426. This is LESS than the 2009 value of 0.443. So in other words, the warming for the last 16 years and 9 months is NOT significant at the 95% level. And when the figures are in for all of 2011, we will have 17 years of warming that is NOT significant at the 95% level.
Also see the graphics at:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
Focus on the top 95% error bar for 1995 and note that it is way above the bottom error bar for the presently green 2011 line. It is so much higher that the green line cannot catch up any more for the remainder of the year.
P.S. The October value is about 0.35 according to the following so that will make anything written above even more certain.
http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#HadCRUT3%20TempDiagram
The best Phil could come up with is that there was no significant trend since 1998 about a year ago, but just barely.
Now, after a year had passed, Phil sez that there has been a significant warming trend since 1998, but just barely.
What does that mean? If 2011 pulls up a tad cooler than the average since 1998, then the significant warming trend since 1998 disappears into thin air, but just barely.
It’s nice to know that the playing field has been leveled by 2 sprinklings of Climategate Email droppings, but just barely.
slowdecline says:
November 24, 2011 at 11:24 am
I really don’t get the point of all of this badgering the man has his doctorate collects data and has support staff create spiffy looking graphs for those that are not able to conceptualize mans impact on the planet earth. To not believe that the human race has had a negative impact on this planet is ludicrious. Those that close their minds to, Maybe, What if and possiblities to name a few, perhaps have an overinflated view of their signifigance and possibly they might rethink their priorities.
____________________
My priorities are the people that have DIED as a direct result of this SCAM and the millions more that will DIE.
To start with Friday Mukamperezida an ill young boy who was burned alive thanks to a company run by Al Gore, your HERO. Thousands more indigenous people have been tossed off their land to endure a slow starvation so the World Bank, Al Gore, George Soros, Goldman Sachs and UNIVERSITY endowment funds can grow rich from “Carbon credits”
Then there were 26156 excess winter deaths during 2009-10. One reports says that 2700 people are died in fuel poverty. It is estimated an additional 3,000 people in England and Wales will die this winter because they cannot afford to heat their homes. Inefficient heating are factors driving the high level of winter deaths in Britain. There are 30,000-40,000 more deaths in winter than summer months, and old people make up the vast majority.
That is just the people and does not include introducing a nasty very invasive monoculture tree that poisons the very soil and sucks up water. Even a goat will not eat it so it kills off the local wildlife and the oil “mist” supresses native seed from sprouting. On top of that it is the worst tree for fire hazard thanks to the oil. In dry weather it literally explodes. Now they are making a GMO version that can survive freezing. ( eucalyptus )
…. Now what were you saying about closed minds????
kim2ooo says:
November 24, 2011 at 11:16 am
[ ” An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument” ]
If the purpose is to prove that he doesn’t know some computer basics, then it’s not a fallacy. If the purpose is to expose questionable behaviour related to science, FOIA requests, peer review or political activities, which I believe “Climategate” is mostly about, then not knowing Excel doesn’t necessarily prove anything, though jumping conclusions is tempting. People did science etc even before Excel came along.
I apologise for trying to spoil the fun. I just think the jokes and schadenfreude, nothing wrong with that, are more approperiate in private conversation (such as in e-mails, hopefully not to be stolen…). I wouldn’t hesitate to make such fun myself if it isn’t too public. I don’t mean to criticise Anthony either. This is his blog. But too many of these posts might not (excuse the expression) “help the cause”.
Suggestion for Urban Dictionary:
Jones – (v)
To sit in front of an excel spreadsheet coveting the ability to plot. Usage example: Jonesing for a hockey stick.
Can’t get a positive slope Phil?
Having trouble with the HTD Excel add-in?
Gail Combs says:
November 24, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Spot on. Lets not forget the true cost of what these crooks have done and will happily keep doing until they are stopped. These people make my blood boil. Not only have they tarnished the credibility of climate science but the public will assume this behaviour is rife in all science. There is enough mumbo-jumbo trying to attack science from the outside, the last thing we need is an ‘inside job’.
Gail Combs says:
November 24, 2011 at 12:54 pm
To start with Friday Mukamperezida an ill young boy who was burned alive thanks to a company run by Al Gore, your HERO. Thousands more indigenous people have been tossed off their land to endure a slow starvation so the World Bank, Al Gore, George Soros, Goldman Sachs and UNIVERSITY endowment funds can grow rich from “Carbon credits”
How were you able to jump to these conclusions as my posting did not infer any allegiance to any of the parties mentioned for which I have none. Al Gore has never been my hero nor have I ever seen any of his productions or other materials that I believe you might be referring to, you do seem rather angry.
I only question berating a scientist for not being able to use excel as it is immaterial to the discussion. Also that I do believe that mankind has impacted this planet which was once in balance with nature before our arrival to an Extremely negative state which will lead to the demise of the human race in my opinion. Also I only suggested that the people of this planet should try to keep an open mind and not viscerally react to another point of view and possibly re-evaluate themselves if they do and attempt to adjust their thought processes.
Even Google’s automatic ad-placer is trying to solve the problem, and seems to understand the point better than Phil did. As I’m viewing WUWT, Google has an ad for ELISA Automatic Curve-fitting software under this post.
More seriously, anyone who deals with science, whether as a producer or a consumer, knows how to do a least-squares curve fit. Anyone who wants to be considered a scientist would be ashamed to admit to a colleague that he doesn’t know such a basic method. Instead of admitting it, he’d find a book or look it up on Google.
Phil doesn’t even know enough to know that he should be ashamed!!!!! That’s the really scary part.
Henry the third says
They’ve always said that the entire amount of warming was directly attributed to man – IIRC, Gavin said that man was responsible for up to 110 percent of the current warming. If I’m wrong, then someone can correct me.
——————-
No. They have always said that a large proportion of the long term trend is due to AGW. The long term trend does not include short term changes like el nino events.
The IPCC actually puts a percentage figure on what proportion of the long trerm trend is due likely due to AGW. I forget the figure but it’s something like 60%. So the remainder of the increase must be due to natural causes.
Wrong again, my lazy friend.
The long term trend from the LIA shows no AGW. The long term trend is actually declining.
Apparently it is not just Excel that has been troubling Phil Jones, he has had problems with his laptop also.
http://search.dilbert.com/comic/Etch-a-sketch
Gail Coombs says.
____________________
My priorities are the people that have DIED as a direct result of this SCAM and the millions more that will DIE.
—————
So let’s use more coal and oil because they have none of these problems. Totally clean and no one ever dies because people use these fuels. The Koch brothers are my heros, they can do no wrong. /parody
Seems to be a strange lack of proportion and objectivity here.
And the rant about Eucalyptus trees is 75% bad story telling. Exploding trees. Sheesh! Nothing grows near them. Sheesh! And a whole bunch of other sheesh. To much crazy greenie alarmism around here.
Lazy,
Maybe in Oz there are plants that have evolved to grow under eucalyptus trees. But not here. I live in California, and I can assure you that nothing grows under the eucalyptus trees introduced here.
Hahah. This was great. I spent the $33 to have it shipped, expedited and gift wrapped, to Phil Jones. The card is titled “To a True Idiot,”.
I wonder if Phil knows about http://www.woodfortrees.org/ ? It wasn’t available when Phil needed then, but it is now. Perhaps UEA could send all their data to Paul to make available to interested parties and UEA’s in-house crew. 🙂
Phil, note also http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes.php#trends
No, that’s just you employing a thoroughly dishonest attempt to smear with an ignorant strawman accusaton.
Your willful ignorance is simply spectacular. You don’t grow your garden in the same soils as certain plants. Eucalyptus is one of those problem plants. Black walnut trees and Japanese iris pose some problems as well. It’s their adapatation to prevent competition from other plants competing for the same nutrients. Eucalyptus trees do have a bad habit of exploding in wild fires. for example:
Exploding bushfires mystery
You may want to consider an apology to Gail for your inaccurate sarcasm.
So who was he intending to have do the job? – Not Harry surely, I’m still laughing after two years at his code from Climategate 1.0. And he is still there. They must have very low expectations, but then it is Norfolk we’re talking about. Lovely people, but not known for its programming expertise. A few miles to the west of course you’ll hit Cambridge, but that is a different matter, Alan Turing went there, and Isaac Newton. On the other hand Norfolk did produce Oliver Cromwell, and this is what he said to Parliament in 1653:-
“It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.
Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter’d your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?
Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil’d this sacred place, and turn’d the Lord’s temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress’d, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.
In the name of God, go!”
It almost fits the bill for UEA, They might even have a mace (shining bauble)
If that is what you are thinking, you missed the biggest part of the ironic humor. Microsoft Excel is notorious for having some software bugs which result in the naive user not being aware of errors being introduced in its results when using statistical features and charting. This is why experienced users so often advise naive users to use other software with more accurate statistical capabilities. When Jones bemoans his incompetence when using Excel to perform elementary statistical charting implies, he is also strongly implying that he lacks the competence to recognize how his and his collaborators’ choice of MS Excel for statistics can be a potential source of serious errors in his results and conclusions affecting the entire Earth’s population. Then to compound his sheer pompous stupidity, he then bemoans how incompetent his critics are supposed to be for disagreeing with his methods and conclusions. The ironic and tragic humor can hardly be more enormous than this latest revelation.
Yes, “People did science etc even before Excel came along,” and the less capable scientists sometimes did equally boneheaded stunts with published tables and/or slide rules. You would think and expect one of the most prominent self-dscribed climate scientists would be incapable of making such elementary errors with literally worldwide consequences measured in the trillions of dollars and millions of lives. Of course, historical experience shows us the deaths of millions of people in pursuit of a non-existant Utopian objective is all in a year’s work for such self-appointed Masters of the Universe.
” it appears to imply that there is no statistically significant trend in the global temperature record over the past few years.”
The horror.
Red alert! Hide the lack of incline! Hide the lack of incline!!!
LazyTeenager says:
November 24, 2011 at 2:59 pm
Gail Coombs says.
So let’s use more coal and oil because they have none of these problems. Totally clean and no one ever dies because people use these fuels. The Koch brothers are my heros, they can do no wrong. /parody “]
I’m probably younger than you, so maybe you can attempt to answer a question of mine?
Why do you AGW’ers seem to think the Coal / Koch Brothers references …. work as a debate tool?
George Soros [ You know, the buddy of Mr Hanson – http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/26/nasa-s-hansen-mentioned-soros-foundations-annual-report = http://www.soros.org/resources/articles_publications/publications/annual_20070731/a_complete.pdf = pages 123 -and 124 ] Profiteers from Coal and tobacco
http://seekingalpha.com/article/262063-5-favorite-george-soros-stocks
http://nation.foxnews.com/george-soros/2011/11/21/big-government-george-soros-helped-craft-stimulus-then-invested-companies-benefiting
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/02/new-soros-hedge-fun-profiting-obamas-green-energy-push-hires-top-
http://waynebrown.hubpages.com/hub/A-COAL-WORLD
http://firebasefreedom.ning.com/forum/topics/george-soros-proud-new-owner?commentId=5663659%3AComment%3A3285
http://www.bing.com/search?q=soros+coal&form=OPRTSD&pc=OPER
Who’s playin’ who?
There’s a certain lord who has been known to dabble with computer stuff who might be willing to help Dr Jones out 🙂