Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Randy]

You have evidence for that do you?

 

Yes!

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8299079.stm

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8299079.stm

[Wildcat]

In that case then the 2 sides do differ in the existence of such a thing ...even Phil Jones said there's been no warming for 10 years and he's very much on the "Yes" side...there is no consensus....(and so begins another circular argument )

 

A) He didn't say that

 

B) What he said related specifically to the CRU dataset, data that underestimates the impact of global warming:

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091218b.html

 

c) also look at Murphy's paper on global heat content which shows that simply looking at the increasing surface temperatures misses out on where global warming is really occring which is in the oceans.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

[truman]

A) He didn't say that

 

B) What he said related specifically to the CRU dataset, data that underestimates the impact of global warming:

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091218b.html

 

c) also look at Murphy's paper on global heat content which shows that simply looking at the increasing surface temperatures misses out on where global warming is really occring which is in the oceans.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

 

 

A bit of his (Phil Jones) interview with the beeb

 

"B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

 

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

 

C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

 

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant."

 

even have a cooling trend from January 2002...

[Wildcat]

A bit of his (Phil Jones) interview with the beeb

 

"B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

 

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

 

C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

 

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant."

 

even have a cooling trend from January 2002...

 

He is talking about the CRU data set, you know the one that underestimates climate change and that he is responsible for...

 

Same interview he said:

 

BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

 

Phil Jones: I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Did-Phil-Jones-really-say-global-warming-ended-in-1995.html

[Wildcat]

You have 100% proof/evidence for man-made warming?

 

[truman]

He is talking about the CRU data set, you know the one that underestimates climate change and that he is responsible for...

 

Same interview he said:

 

 

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Did-Phil-Jones-really-say-global-warming-ended-in-1995.html

 

So which bit is correct and which is wrong..the first part is data I presume the second is just his opinion...that'll be the data set that's got misplaced is it so that no one else can verify it....

 

another report on Phil Jones " He claimed it was not 'standard practice' to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research."

 

Open and above board then?

[truman]

 

Oh yeah...very informative.....

[truman]

Lower rate of change now than between 1860 and 1880

 

Period Length Trend

(Degrees C per decade) Significance

1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes

1910-1940 31 0.150 Yes

1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes

1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes

 

 

why is that?

[Wildcat]

Lower rate of change now than between 1860 and 1880

 

Period Length Trend

(Degrees C per decade) Significance

1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes

1910-1940 31 0.150 Yes

1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes

1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes

 

 

why is that?

 

The rate of change after 1860 was due to solar variation, specifically the end of the Dalton Minimum.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_minimum

 

Solar radiation at the moment is constant or if anything reducing slightly, so it can't account for global warming.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Wildcat

[Wildcat]

So which bit is correct and which is wrong..the first part is data I presume the second is just his opinion...that'll be the data set that's got misplaced is it so that no one else can verify it....

 

another report on Phil Jones " He claimed it was not 'standard practice' to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research."

 

Open and above board then?

 

The CRU dataset is here:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

 

Phil Jones is right, it is not standard practice to release every single source of information used when you are dealing with the sort of analysis on protected information, in fact it would be illegal of him to do so.