No Warming Since 1995 - Jones?

[jmcc]

While the link below is from the Daily Mail, there are some rather explosive claims made in it. Apparently Jones has admitted that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. It also appears that some of the data supporting the 'research' and in particularly the Hockey Stick graph has been lost.

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online

Regards...jmcc


<Mod> This thread has been merged with "Is this a good justification? Let's get statistical!" </Mod>

[PAD1OH]

so you read the Daily Mail before actually reading what Phil Jones said?

do you always let tabloids do your thinking for you?

read the actual interview on teh BBC and then come back.

[Tombo]

so you read the Daily Mail before actually reading what Phil Jones said?

do you always let tabloids do your thinking for you?

read the actual interview on teh BBC and then come back.

Why did you make some baseless pithy (and stupid) comment insteatd of providing what you seem to just believe (like any good warmer) that the story must be wrong. Straight form the BBC:

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

He does indeed admit (grudgingly by claiming a brand new approach to statistics that places emphasis on something being "nearly statistically significant") that there has been no evidence of warming since 1995 - a decade and a half.

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

Yes

Oops for you idiot.

Here is the best bit in my opinion:

H - If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?

The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing

That is the nub of it. CO2 just fills a hole of ignorance. The history of mankind is littered with theories based not of solid empircal evidence, but simply on the basis that "we can't explain it without X". Maybe, just maybe - OK I'm joking, more likely we don't yet fully understand the climate system sufficiently to be able to explain the changes we putatively measure.

Phlogistan
Ether
now add CO2.

[sharper]

That is the nub of it. CO2 just fills a hole of ignorance. The history of mankind is littered with theories based not of solid empircal evidence, but simply on the basis that "we can't explain it without X". Maybe, just maybe - OK I'm joking, more likely we don't yet fully understand the climate system sufficiently to be able to explain the changes we putatively measure.

Phlogistan
Ether
now add CO2.

We cannot explain the orbit of the Earth around the Sun without gravity ergo gravity merely fills a hole of ignorance.

Without relativity we cannot explain the orbit of Mercury ergo gravity merely fills a hole of ignorance.

I think it's funny that you present "fills a hole of ignorance" as some sort of weakness since of course that's exactly the purpose of an explanation. Any explanation obviously by definition leaves the phenomenon it explains unexplained if you remove it.

Climate change skeptics assert (simultaneously) that there is no phenomenon for C02 to actually explain and that the non-existent phenomenon can be explained by solar forcing, cosmic rays or "other".

You're going to have to provide a much better explanation for why there is anything wrong with what Jones said in that statement.

[Tombo]

We cannot explain the orbit of the Earth around the Sun without gravity ergo gravity merely fills a hole of ignorance.

Without relativity we cannot explain the orbit of Mercury ergo gravity merely fills a hole of ignorance.

I think it's funny that you present "fills a hole of ignorance" as some sort of weakness since of course that's exactly the purpose of an explanation. Any explanation obviously by definition leaves the phenomenon it explains unexplained if you remove it.

Climate change skeptics assert (simultaneously) that there is no phenomenon for C02 to actually explain and that the non-existent phenomenon can be explained by solar forcing, cosmic rays or "other".

You're going to have to provide a much better explanation for why there is anything wrong with what Jones said in that statement.

We measure gravity empirically. We do NOT measure climate response to CO2 empirically. Simple fact.

It is a weakness to fill a hole of ignorance with somtheing if you cannot show empirically that it does. CO2 is in that class of "looking for a suitable culprit" without ever offering any proof.

Show us the empricial evidence for climate response to CO2 concetrations. Stop bleating and do it. Or shut your ignorant cake hole.

[Clanrickard]

While the link below is from the Daily Mail, there are some rather explosive claims made in it. Apparently Jones has admitted that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. It also appears that some of the data supporting the 'research' and in particularly the Hockey Stick graph has been lost.

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online

Regards...jmcc

. There are no explosive claims. The long term trend is warming.

[sharper]

Show us the empricial evidence for climate response to CO2 concetrations. Stop bleating and do it. Or shut your ignorant cake hole.

The last time I gave you a paper showing an empirically measured positive climate feedback you pretended it didn't because it had the word "model" in it (it compared said measurements to expected model outputs). Then you pretended the paper was shoddy and had been refuted by a webpage Dr Roy Spender wrote 6 months before the paper's publication that didn't reference the paper, it's authors or anything relating to the topic of the paper.

In other words you have an abysmal track record at dealing with actual data.

You still haven't stated why Jones is wrong. He says that climate data is unexplainable without C02 so which is it - is the data explainable without C02 or is there a better explanation than C02? In order for him to be wrong one of those statements must be true.

[PAD1OH]

Oops for you idiot.
.

ooops this is what was said

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.

he said the positive trend is quite close to the significance level of 95%.

this is not saying that there has been no warming.

far from it.

end of story.

[feargach]

So, even though most of the deniers accept that 1998 was the hottest year in the 130-year history of instrumental records, it is alleged to be not statistically significant.

So what, I wonder, would be a statistically significant amount of warming? Would the oceans boiling be enough to meet that standard?

So, Phil Jones has said something. It was in an interview rather than a paper, so I know it hasn't gone through a peer-review process. So I will calmly wait until the peers give their corroboration or refutation of the allegation that 1998 lacked statistical significance.

[SAT]

So, even though most of the deniers accept that 1998 was the hottest year in the 130-year history of instrumental records, it is alleged to be not statistically significant.

So what, I wonder, would be a statistically significant amount of warming? Would the oceans boiling be enough to meet that standard?

So, Phil Jones has said something. It was in an interview rather than a paper, so I know it hasn't gone through a peer-review process. So I will calmly wait until the peers give their corroboration or refutation of the allegation that 1998 lacked statistical significance.

Feargach, you really need to get over your fetish with peer reviewed papers. I know it is the standard fallback position of AGW alarmists when cornered but you are abusing the tactic to the point where you are sounding moronic. Soon you will be asking for a peer reviewed paper to tell the time of day