Phil Jones, the famous Climategate denier, reports no change in global temperatures for sixteen years.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Recent Comments
Climate Denier Phil Jones Reports No Temperature Change For Sixteen Years
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
Why use variance adjusted data?
Non-variance adjusted has a very small negative slope of -0.017C / decade
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/hadcrut3-global-last-15-years/
No real difference.
I only ask because as far as I know, it isn’t the version normally quoted by the UKMO or CRU.
I believe Mr Jones to have been shaken pretty badly over climategate (as well, he had a debilitating illness, unfortunately). He’s no denier, but he is no longer a Ben Santer or Michael Mann any more, either.
I saw this coming ten years ago, I just knew it. I still think the 1998 spike had something to do with asymmetrical North Hemisphere volcanism, but have never been able to prove it. The rest of it is just El Nino variance etc.
No warming for 15 years. Hence the alarmists’ decision to shift the panic from “global warming” to “climate change.” Climate change is a great all-inclusive bogeyman. As we’ve seen, virtually any severe weather anomaly or event can be blamed on “climate change.” The Warmists, of course, fail to mention that the earth’s climate has been changing for more than 4 billion years.
As the AGW theory collapses, the alarmists have become a very desperate bunch. The public views them and their scare stories with increasing suspicion. They’ve become the used-car salesmen of climate science.
We seem to have reached the point, where it is no longer necessary for the alarmists to prove that any weather events are caused by “climate change” or “climate chaos”, but it is for the sceptics to disprove that claim.
The term “climate change” is in such common usage that I think that the populace has been brainwashed into assuming it is real. I am sick of hearing people advocating a particular cause and adding the phrase “and with climate change, this is all going to be much worse”, or words to that effect, even on topics which have very little to do with the climate. Most of the time I think they really mean “bad weather”, but “climate change” has become the preferred term. Of course, they have never bothered to check the facts themselves. Most of them probably genuinely believe that global temperatures are much higher now than they were 10 years ago, and that all bad weather is caused by “climate change”, because that is what they have been told.
When I personally told some Friends of the Earth campaigners that temperatures hadn’t risen since 1998, (based on HadCRUT3), they refused to believe me.
So I guess if a simple chart showing temperature anomalies is too much for their sensibilities, getting them to consider that Plank’s Law has just been found to be violated by tiny aerosols is totally out of the question? 🙂
Sorry S/B Planck’s Law when referring to radiation physics.
Plank’s Law is a law I learned while working construction as a teen and involves falling planks during the removal of forms after pouring concrete decks. I’ve seen construction workers nearly killed and sent to the emergency room for violating Plank’s Law.
Here are the RSS satellite lower troposphere, Met Office Hadley Centre sea surface and Met Office Hadcrut3 temperature trends from 1997 and 2001 to the present day.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/mean:12/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2001/trend
Flat as a kipper from 1997, clearly negative since 2001.
Even the much-vaunted BEST dataset beloved of the Warmists shows no significant warming trend from 2001 to 2010, and meanwhile, atmospheric CO2 continues to increase unabated.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:2001/plot/best/from:2001/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/trend/normalise
This is Gaia’s test of the faithful.
Well, other data shows cooling. So warmers still have reason to rejoice.
What do you call one of the faithful beginning to seriously question the AGW principle when unadjusted data doesn’t support it? Warmer.
Sorry. Couldn’t help it. Will try harder.
So the countdown begins to the magic number of 17, determined by Trenberth or Santer I believe. Someone correct me if I am wrong
What is the trend if you use the least absolute deviation, instead of least squares?
And what is the trend’s statistical uncertainty, including autocorrelations?
Dear Mr Appell, not much.
When I calculate the least squares linear trend of the last 16 years of HadCRUT3, ending in July 2012, I find a linear trend of 0.033 C/decade, with a 1-sigma uncertainty of 0.018 C/decade. That’s says it’s warmed with a statistical significance of 93.4%.
The lag-1 autocorrelation is likely to at least double the uncertainty above, which means it’s difficult to say *anything* that is statistically significant over a short time period like 16 years.
Does that mean that you can’t say there has been no statistically significant warming over the last 16 years?
It means, without considering autocorrelation, there has been warming over the last 16 years at a confidence level of 93.4%.
You are a mindless drone
I’m just trying to think carefully about what the data says. Naturally, you find that annoying.
All of the IPCC climate models missed the mark, but feel free to count angels for as long as you can.
How so? I’m not aware of any 16-yr projections of IPCC models.
So, I find the lag-1 autocorrelation coefficient for 16 years is r1 = 0.743. That means the effective number of degrees of freedom is N_eff=28.3 — in effect, there are only 28 points in the time series, not 192 (=16*12). That increases the uncertainty by a factor of 2.68, making it 0.048 C/decade. Thus, to say something statistically significant at the canonical 95% confidence level requires a change of at least 1.95996 times this, or 0.095 C/decade. And this does not consider autocorrelation lags beyond 1.
You just can’t say much and be sure about it statistically over a short time period like 16 years.
Has there been statistically significant warming over the last 16 years or not?
It depends what you mean by “statistically significant.”
It seems to me that if there had been significantly significant warming over the last 16 years, you would be able to say so.
The fact that you can’t say so, must mean that there hasn’t been any.
Oops, I meant to say:
It seems to me that if there had been statistically significant warming over the last 16 years, you would be able to say so.
The fact that you can’t say so, must mean that there hasn’t been any.
Again, what do you mean by “statistically significant?” It’s not even clear that you know what you’re asking.
That’s strange, because the term is always being used to indicate that sceptics are wrong when they say it isn’t getting warmer or getting cooler.
Can you define the terms you are using or not?
There is absolutely no evidence which could be presented to you which would afflict your religious devotion.
Maybe you can ask Mr. Jones if you can’t figure it out!
This is such evidence, but not junk evidence. If you look at the statistics, 16-years is simply too short a time period to make statistically significant (95%) conclusions about an autocorrelated time series. That’s what the math says.
David, I hate to tell you that your “arguments” remind me very much of the rhetoric from the tobacco lobby about forty years ago.
Hadley is pulling a fast one on you, David, they’re trying to dupe you. But you’re too smart to fall for their shit
How exactly is Hadley manipulating the spreadsheet on my computer?
Brian, apparently he isn’t that smart.
That’s got to be the dumbest comment from David since at least his last one. 😉
Come to think of it, David, it isn’t impossible for you to dupe Hadley. But it isn’t working here.
Try throwing some multivariate statistics at them. If it fails, try condescension. This route doesn’t usually produce the desired results, but if it all you have left, then try it.
It isn’t that (some of them) don’t want to show “global warming” over the past 16 years, they just can’t.
Here in the US, we have NOAA emphasizing (perceived) changes in the continental US as implicit evidence of “global warming” – while failing to remind their readers that this applies to the US continent only.
This kind of manipulative reporting was carried out in Australia for some years. Carbon tax was instituted, now they are having the worst winter in some decades – and a very angry populace over being taken by their own Government.
AGW is just horse shit. All the yelling I have done over a dozen years probably has not influenced anyone with a per-conceived belief about it
So you think CO2 doesn’t absorb infrared radiation? That the PETM was a fictional event? That the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist? That the 0.8 C warming since the Industrial Revolution is due to a magic wand?
Scarecrow – Straw man with no brains.
David wants to fight imaginary demons — or at least demons that are dumb enough for his mind to cope with. The issue among thoughtful sceptics is that the basic physics is OK. E.g., greenhouse effect. But the speculative physics of the “enhanced greenhouse effect” are probably largely nonsense. The entire scare that David has bought into is based on the claims surrounding the ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’. If he was not so disingenuous, he would address the issues of contention, not keep switching the pea under the thimble.
Of course CO2 absorbs in the IR, and I can calculate the increase of temperature in a furnace due to the radiant component contribution of CO2 in the gas, for example.
The problem is, the Earth and its atmosphere, are not a closed system.
The PETM was (undoubtedly) an astronomical event, as are all climactic changes that persist over a century.
The 0.8 degree “increase” is the “result” of biased data availability over the two and some odd centuries, it is a fiction, of which about half of that is truly the result of astronomical event
So there is a greenhouse effect at CO2=280 ppm, but no additional greenhouse effect at CO2=395 ppm?
Welcome to Appell kindergarten
What astronomical event caused the PETM?
And if surface warming is only an artifact of biased data, why are glaciers melting all over the world, sea ice volume decreasing sharply, and the ocean rising?
What a maroon.
There is no “greenhouse” effect at all, it is a fiction, it is something that you believe in because other people do, and it is fiction because there is no consistent way to define it, and I can prove this to you no matter how hard you try.
Wives tales die hard when there are some “equations” apparently backing it up, and without people demonstrating the fallacy behind it.
glaciers melting all over the world, sea ice volume decreasing sharply, and the ocean rising?
DAVID THIS IS GREENPEACE GLOBAL WARMING NOT GLOBAL WARMING
“And if surface warming is only an artifact of biased data, why are glaciers melting all over the world, sea ice volume decreasing sharply, and the ocean rising?”
Yeah……. it’s pretty dumb stuff isn’t it? Ocean been rising for thousands of years. Glaciers have been growing and melting, but mainly melting for thousands of years, sea ice volume has been going up and down… According to IPCC AR4, CO2 “explains” these changes, at best, since 1950…
Hmmm…. I think Brian and David were mean’t for each other… 😉
Ha- that sounds like my wife, Will!
Greenies and I have to share the same planet at the same time – maybe as some Cosmic punishment to both, I don’t know.
“Maybe there is some common ground with you and greenies,” say my wife when I am in a tirade.
There isn’t. Give them an inch, and they’ll take over.
Brian, I despise ideologies in general because they can make the smartest people switch their brains off… However, I’m not one to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
If there is a Hell and David gets sent to it for his zealotry, I imagine a place similar to Jean-Paul Sartre’ In Camera. He is locked in a room forever arguing that the world is doomed any day now, but squared off again three Brians who keep insisting the greenhouse effect is not real. 🙂
Satre was too optimistic for such a fate for anybody.
I view greenies as a bunch of little Hitlers who want to take over the world with their shit “science” and I view myself as a Patriot trying to stop it as best as I can.
I don’t know how they view me I don’t want to.
At least no one can accuse you of not having an ego, saving the world from the Nazis and all…. Thank God you’re on the front lines of your easy chair.
Don’t worry, Will: there is no hell, or heaven, or any of those childish fantasies. But your belief in it is very revealing….
Glaciers aren’t melting? Polar ice isn’t melting?
Is this really how you deal with facts, Brian: just blame it all on Greenpeace?
> There is no “greenhouse” effect at all, it is a fiction
Now I know you are a fool.
This knowledge will save a lot of replies in the future.
>> The entire SAT record shows expected warming of around 1.3C by the end of the century if the trend was linear, which would turn into a net benefit to the planet. <<
Really? Who does it benefit? And who loses? And who pays the losers? Or is it just your dumb luck if you're one of the losers?
You are very cavalier about playing with people's lives.
Brian: Keep up the good fight against universal evil — there may be a medal in this for you.
Don’t forget to floss before you go nighty-night.
So what God was it you were thanking earlier Toshinmack? Gaia errr something?
“You are very cavalier about playing with people’s lives.”
I have to go with the academic literature here. I.e., the cost/benefit analysis done by economists combined with empirical data on what’s happened to the world over the last 150 years which has already warmed by over 1C. All good so far.. 😉
Nobody can seriously waste time because you are fretting over a non-evidence based neurosis… It would be more helpful to worry about real and actual problems in the world, not ones largely a product of your imagination or some idealogical position.
Brian,
“I view greenies as a bunch of little Hitlers…”
Maybe, but they mean well…
David,
“there is no hell, or heaven, or any of those childish fantasies. But your belief in it is very revealing….”
I am agnostic on claims for which there is no evidence positive or negative. Although I have mixed feelings over someone who swaps religion for ideology and thinks he is a superior type because of it. 😉
>> the cost/benefit analysis done by economists combined with empirical data on what’s happened to the world over the last 150 years which has already warmed by over 1C. All good so far.. 😉 <<
Really, "ALL" good?? Let's see the citations of the papers and reports that show this…. None of your usual evasive dancing — real citations to real papers. Let's have it.
I don't think you can do it. I think you're all just all talk.
“Really, “ALL” good?? Let’s see the citations of the papers and reports that show this…. ”
You sound totally ignorant of the literature–as if you get all your info from blogs or something. 😉
Tell you what, name for me two or three academics who specialise in this field. If you don’t know anyone… ask or google around. Once you know *something* about the topic, then you can cite your ‘experts’ (maybe the Stern Review?) and I’ll cite ‘my’ experts and we can have a little citation war. 😉
Yes Will, I know you think you have me all pegged as a Marxist or worse, but that’s just a convenient crutch for you. You don’t have the slightest fucking idea what my political views are, or how I view the world based on my experiences, versus my views of the science.
Next time, try analyzing the science instead of trying to peg people’s ideology as if you’re still a college student.
It’s not a stupid question. Do you have a better method, or don’t you?
You like to pretend like you understand some science, but quickly revert to childish little evasions when the questions get tough.
So what are your projections?
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!
> Flipping a coin would be more accurate.
Have you noticed I’m ignoring you?
Steve, let’s face it — you are not a deep thinker. You know it and I know it. Your strength is throwing up two dozen half-baked graphs and newspaper clippings a day, and snap judgements based on black-and-white thinking. This is what gets you your traffic.
Stick to where you excel, and leave the math and deep thinking to others.
David, I am going you an assignment which you have to complete before commenting here again. You have to justify NOAA’s numbers from this post.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/lying-about-their-lies/
That’s even funnier BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
“Yes Will, I know you think you have me all pegged as a Marxist or worse, but that’s just a convenient crutch for you.”
I don’t make any judgements on your political or religious convictions, nor do I particularly care. I can only comment on the quality of your writing and the reasoning you use within. Your logic is abysmal and I speculate it’s due to idealogical conviction. Note, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not actually a stupid person based on your qualifications, etc.
> Yeah……. it’s pretty dumb stuff isn’t it?
Glaciers melt for a reason, not on a whim, nor due to magical spells and potions. Same for sea-level rise at these rates, and for polar ice…. And the reason is??
David, the same thing you feel toward me, as evidenced by your repetitive spamming, is the same way I feel about you and your ilk, and you can stamp your feet and yell and that won’t make your “science” one bit less shitty than it is.
Still completely misses the argument with a nonsense reply. If you don’t reply maybe people assume you are too busy or can’t be bothered… But if your reply is an obvious misdirection… what does that achieve other than make you look foolish?
Climate scientists dispute the warming has stopped meme on the grounds that other than 1998 the other years of the 1990s into 2000 were all substantially colder. So the 2000s ended up warmer because while the high temperature is about the same, this temperature was reached more often, while the 1990s had one big year. So 2001 as warmer than 1991, 2002 was warmer than 1992, etc. In Gistemp, even the 1998 record has been broken a few times.
Only an idiot could write the above surely? The issue is not whether there has or has not been a trivial amount of measurable heat gain over the last 10-15 years. The central issue is what the climate models have predicted should have happened and what didn’t happen. Climate “forcings” are at “record” levels and there have been no major volcanic eruptions to suppress temperatures as they did in previous decades. This requires explanation, not excuses that make no sense and completely miss the point.
“Differences between model and observations should be considered insignificant if they are within:
1. unpredictable internal variability (e.g., the observational period contained an unusual number of El Niño events);”
— IPCC 4AR WG1 ch8.1.2.3
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-1-2-3.html
“Global temperature evolution 1979–2010,” Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf 2011 Environ. Res. Lett. 6 044022
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022
IPCC 4AR WG1 FAQ 8.1:
“Nevertheless, models still show significant errors. Although these are generally greater at smaller scales, important large-scale problems also remain. For example, deficiencies remain in the simulation of tropical precipitation, the El Niño- Southern Oscillation and the Madden-Julian Oscillation (an observed variation in tropical winds and rainfall with a time scale of 30 to 90 days). The ultimate source of most such errors is that many important small-scale processes cannot be represented explicitly in models, and so must be included in approximate form as they interact with larger-scale features. This is partly due to limitations in computing power, but also results from limitations in scientific understanding or in the availability of detailed observations of some physical processes.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-8-1.html
David, that’s not how science works. You make predictions. You test them. They succeed or fail. In your case, what you believe in has largely failed. You can think up explanations for your failures after the fact, by creating additional speculative assumptions, such as what Foster Rahmstorf have done. (Well known speculative ‘catastrophists’ that are hard to take seriously.)
You can even try to blame it on ENSO, but there is no long term ENSO trend, and if you look at 30 years of data your predictions still fail. The entire SAT record shows expected warming of around 1.3C by the end of the century if the trend was linear, which would turn into a net benefit to the planet. And the later third of that record shows deceleration of warming, the exact opposite of what you believed was going to happen.
For more on learning how to properly look at trends start here:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/hadcrut-trends-flat-for-15-years/
Yes David, we know the GCM’s are crap. Isn’t that the point?
> Yes David, we know the GCM’s are crap. Isn’t that the point?
They give projections, with lots of uncertainties.
Got a better method?
I didn’t think so.
Flipping a coin would be more accurate
“They give projections, with lots of uncertainties. Got a better method?”
Said the Roman physician to his client as he applied another leech… 😉
There is your standard dumb reply and then sometimes, rarely, there is your reply that is so dumb it sort of takes your breath away in the sheer purity of its dumbness… 🙂
The model errors are within the range of internal variablility. So has not any temperature change during the last 80 years, looking at raw (unfudged) data.
Deniers of Gaia are not bestowed visions of the Anthropogenic Signal that emanates from the climate data sets…
Sounds like the plot of a Greek tragedy. Mockery, liberal media manipulation and hand wringing, NOAA deceit – none of it seems to be able to bestow the power to perceive things that aren’t there.
I think the AGW craze reached its peak a few years ago, 2007, maybe. At that point we had “experts” saying things like “there is no such thing as natural climate variability any more.”
Reminds me of internet gurus around the year 1999, selling wisdom such as “there won’t be any retail stores anymore”
Obama is an empty suit following the same historical trend.
You could change a few words around and your complaint would apply to just about any topic where politics is involved…
Maybe you’re right, although this seems to have reached a new level (or depth) of “emptiness”
“variability”
There’s no shortage of Democratic propaganda when David Appell is around.