RealClimate

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. How does it feel now that the media shoe is on the other foot?

    Comment by Jim Watson — 15 Feb 2010 @ 3:59 PM

  2. Of course “not statistically significant” is not the same as “not warming.”

    Here’s a post about how long it takes to establish of a statistically significant trend.

    If you remove the influence of volcanic eruptions and el Nino, it doesn’t take as long.

    Comment by tamino — 15 Feb 2010 @ 4:02 PM

  3. Can someone link to that really cool web page that has an interactive graph that shows global temperature trend lines along with a sliding scale that allows you to change the period of record. That was most instructive for me but I’ve gone and lost it.

    Comment by Andy — 15 Feb 2010 @ 4:17 PM

  4. good work, this really needed a reply.

    part of the media seems to be pretty desperate these days…

    Comment by sod — 15 Feb 2010 @ 4:18 PM

  5. Eh,

    Just keep a list of these stupid articles and reference them to the appropriate page in your wiki.

    Comment by Walt Bennett — 15 Feb 2010 @ 4:25 PM

  6. “What Jones actually said is that, while the globe has nominally warmed since 1995, it is difficult to establish the statistical significance of that warming” – yes, but WHY say it? You would think Phil Jones would be a bit more media savvy than this by now, wouldn’t you? If asked about “warming since 1995″ say “there is no point in talking about that because it is a meaningless figure, the record since 1980 shows …”. As politicians know to their cost, the media asks questions in such a way that they get answers from scientists, struggling to be honest and precise, that they know will provide phrases for sensational headlines that fit their agenda. Don’t fall for it. Re-phrase the question in a way that makes sense, then answer that question. You would think Phil “hide the decline” Jones would know this better than anyone by now.

    Comment by David Horton — 15 Feb 2010 @ 4:31 PM

  7. Sadly, this is just par for the course with how sections of the media have treated science in general for quite a while now. Of course, it will become gospel truth for deniers that Jones *admitted* there was no warming, that CO2 isn’t responsible for the earlier warming, and that *for the first time* a climate scientist has admitted that the MWP might have been a global event. It’s so much nonsense, but the distortions will survive the truth, even when the truth is so easily checked.
    Scary times.

    [Response: They’re not the least bit interested in finding the truth. They don’t even have any concept of it–which is why they prefer to buy into lies and conspiracy ideas. The inmates seek the keys to the asylum—Jim]

    Comment by RobM — 15 Feb 2010 @ 4:35 PM

  8. Boy, this Daily Mail piece has some legs in the blogosphere.

    Comment by Nick — 15 Feb 2010 @ 4:35 PM

  9. Andy@2 was it this one?

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 15 Feb 2010 @ 4:39 PM

  10. Andy@2. Look at the Global Climate Dashboard at http://www.climate.gov/

    The new flash graphs are nifty.

    Comment by AndyB — 15 Feb 2010 @ 4:40 PM

  11. Andy:

    This?

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/

    Comment by Molnar — 15 Feb 2010 @ 4:55 PM

  12. You have discussed Question B. However, you have conveniently overlooked Question C. It is reproduced below.
    ===============
    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.
    ===============
    PLAIN TALK TRANSLATION FOR B & C:
    From 1995 to the present there has been slight warming period followed, in 2002, by slight cooling period. The rate of change in both cases was 0.12°C plus or minus. Neither of which were statistically significant.

    Comment by TheSagaciousOne — 15 Feb 2010 @ 4:57 PM

  13. That should be 0.12°C/decade

    Comment by TheSagaciousOne — 15 Feb 2010 @ 5:05 PM

  14. The Daily Mail is a mini version of the Daily Telegraph and hence moves along the right handside of politics. This information war (its not a science one as no skeptic has released and peer review paper of merit as far as I am aware on the subject) is allowing some individuals and institutions to put out what disinformation about the science of AGW and its practitioners. Scientists do not need to do this, fight a media war on this subject. We are the idiots if we are not listening.

    This is going to carry on until we have either taken the hard energy infrastructure decisions required and committed the trillions of dollars its going ot require. Some such as Tony Blair dont believe that cultural changer is required just large scale technological ones coupled to energy efficiency changes. We shoud have started 30 years ago.

    Comment by pete best — 15 Feb 2010 @ 5:10 PM

  15. Robert Grumbine summarizes why we need 30 years of annual data: Results on deciding trends.

    o You need 20-30 years of data to define a climate trend in global mean temperature.
    o Forward and backward trends are markedly different.
    o Therefore, to discuss climate trends in global mean temperature, you need to use 20-30 years of data centered on the date of interest.

    I keep his post handy for just this purpose.

    Comment by Jim Galasyn — 15 Feb 2010 @ 5:17 PM

  16. I suppose “unprecedented warming” is one of those phrases that are great for headlines, but not very useful for statistical declarations.

    Statistically significant anomalies are like pregnancies, so “The warming trend consequently doesn’t quite achieve statistical significance.” is like being a little bit pregnant.

    Jones called a spade a spade.

    Comment by HemmD — 15 Feb 2010 @ 5:18 PM

  17. Andy @ #2, I bookmarked that very cool slider tool here: http://sciblogs.co.nz/hot-topic/2009/10/20/%E2%80%A6keep-out-of-the-kitchen/

    Every new instructional tool helps–I’ve taught statistics and I’m painfully aware that plenty of smart people don’t perceive the difference between “was not statistically significant” and “didn’t happen”.

    Comment by Eric Edlund — 15 Feb 2010 @ 5:21 PM

  18. Embarrased about the spelling mistakes and typos above.

    Comment by GSW — 15 Feb 2010 @ 5:28 PM

  19. I think Jones has a good case for suing the Daily Mail. Their lie has done substantial damage to his reputation.

    And the number of people who have trundled out the lie on this very site is just depressing. Some of my fellow countrymen are very stupid people indeed. I cling to the belief that Daily mail readers are not representative of anyone except anti-science bigots…..

    Comment by Didactylos — 15 Feb 2010 @ 5:30 PM

  20. “Unfortunately, these kinds of distortions are all too common in the press nowadays.” True. But they simplify and exaggerate everything having to do with climate science. If anything there have been too many scare headlines, which does just as much damage.

    Comment by Luke Lea — 15 Feb 2010 @ 5:31 PM

  21. The Daily Fail has to be one of the worst examples of British journalism, and that’s saying something. It’s just unfortunate that scientists in general don’t tend to be well practised at dealing with these hacks. Now that they seem to regard climate scientists as ‘fair game’ alongside the politicians and celebrities, people should really start taking a stand. I’d have to say that the one covered here should warrant a PCC complaint as a bare minimum, but given that we currently have these really daft libel laws in the UK, I think the affected scientists should consider making best use of them before they get seen as a soft target.

    Comment by James Allan — 15 Feb 2010 @ 5:33 PM

  22. The disinformation & denial about climate science in the news media these days is astounding for a free society. Walter Cronkite, roll over.


    “Like so many of our problems today,” he says, “it all starts with education. We need to teach [children] how to read a newspaper, how to listen to radio, how to watch television, how to understand a film, so that they become properly skeptical. If a public understands the limitations of television, the limitations of print, deadline pressures, all the rest of the things that go into the making of a newspaper or broadcast, then that public will be far less likely to fall into a demagogue’s trap when the demagogue attacks the press for its unfairness.” And That’s the Way It Is

    Comment by The Devil's Chaplain — 15 Feb 2010 @ 5:34 PM

  23. Thank you very much, Dr. Jones, please continue and cograts to you amd your team.

    Good article, shows how the public is fooled.

    Comment by petek — 15 Feb 2010 @ 5:36 PM

  24. Personally, I’m getting a little annoyed, and trying to work out how we can get the media to be more careful/ truthful/ whatever. I did read that HAughton, the victim of the lying quote smear about making up catastrophes, was thinking of suing whomever necessary. In the case of Jones being misqoted and mangled, I’d like something done, the problem is what. The press complaints commission would bin all complaints by anyone except Jones, and it is a cast iron certainty that they would find a weasel way of avoiding doing anything about the Mail and Express lies.

    Comment by guthrie — 15 Feb 2010 @ 5:37 PM

  25. I’m not sure why my comments aren’t posted. You seem content to publish content-free comments when they’re complimentary (e.g., “Great article!”), but you won’t allow my critical comments to pass through. Thus, I’ll try again:

    I think it’s absurd that you are so harsh on the Daily Mail when there was no such outrage for the errors in the IPCC report published in the las RealClimate post. Commoners–like myself–are wary when we see you all pushing “likelihoods” as facts… For example, you say that you all agree that evidence for a MWP in North America, the North Atlantic, Europe, and Asia has been produced. You then draw the unlikely conclusion that this doesn’t mean the MWP was global in extent…despite saying it affected 3 continents and an ocean, and the only reason we don’t know what happened in the Southern Hemisphere is because there are too few records.

    Essentially, I find it hard to swallow when you all are as certain-as-heck that we must do something about potentialities and likelihoods.

    Comment by AnnoyedReader — 15 Feb 2010 @ 5:38 PM

  26. The Jones Q&A session is being spun out of all recognition. Roger Harrabin started it off by poorly inaccurately reporting what Jones said.

    “But he agreed that two periods in recent times had experienced similar warming. And he agreed that the debate had not been settled over whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period.”

    Jones was clear to point out that the causes of past warming could not explain present warming (indeed they should have caused cooling) and he said “There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not.”

    Harrabin’s sentences were spun to imply that Jones said current warming could be natural- which he explicitly rejected in the Q&A session.

    When talking about the MWP, Jones said we don’t have enough evidence from the southern hemisphere to say if the MWP was global, nor should we infer from northern hemisphere data that the southern hemisphere was as warm. I’m pretty certain he was supporting the present view that the MWP was probably not global and that present temperatures are very likely warmer, but a hypothetical remark he made is being taken to mean he believes the opposite.

    Several of the questions in the Q&A session were submitted by “sceptics”, so it looks like Jones fell victim to a straw man argument to some extent (that scientists don’t accept that natural warming has occurred previously). The story can be spun to suggest Jones has shifted his position because he is answering questions that imply that scientists never considered the fact that the world has warmed before.

    He also stated that he didn’t think most scientists agreed that the debate on AGW was over. Roger Harrabin seems to have fallen into the trap of thinking that because Jones doesn’t think the debate on the science is over, and the “sceptics” don’t think the debate on the science is over, Jones is legitimising the “sceptics”. (He has a further story under the link “Can two sides of climate debate be reconciled?”)

    The science that Jones knows is still debated is very different from the science that the “sceptics” would like to debate. Jones is talking about the uncertainties in predictions of future temperatures and measurement and estimates of past temperature and temperature changes. The sceptics would like to debate the very validity of temperature records and reconstructions, argue that the WMP was warmer than the present (on the very same data), that CO2 can’t cause significant warming, that present warming is due to natural changes or the urban heat island effect, that temperatures have not really risen at all, that extra CO2 will actually be good for plants, and any other number of contradictory arguments.

    It’s a trap that “sceptics” have long set for reporters- that there are two sides to the story, where in fact there’s good science (albeit with uncertainty) and crap science that says AGW is nothing to worry about (brought to you by X think tank or Y industry funded scientist or Z crackpot peer or geology professor).

    Deniers on web forums are crowing that Jones has given them legitimacy. I’m not surprised that the mail is spinning Jones like a Frisbee, but I’m more concerned that the BBC is starting to portray a new debate between scientists and legitimate AGW sceptics who have manufactured a phoney legitimacy themselves through a series of leaked emails and spin and misrepresentation.

    The Guardian seems to have fallen for the same thing in its latest series of reports on the CRU hack as well. I noticed Gavin Schmidt taking issue in the annotations.

    It’s my impression that the debate on AGW science from the “sceptics” that Harrabin and Pearce in the Guardian are referring to involved finding fault in temperature reconstructions even where non existed, filing vexatious FOI requests, twisting the methodology in a scientific paper to show the result they wanted to see, and getting this paper past peer review via a politically friendly editor.

    I’m dismayed that the BBC and the Guardian now seem to think that these sceptics have been wronged and need to be invited in from the cold. If they are, the hacked emails will have paid off, which would be terribly, terribly wrong.

    Comment by Donald — 15 Feb 2010 @ 5:41 PM

  27. Walter,

    Did you ever expect within (or shortly thereafter) your lifetime that the demagogues would control so much of the news media in America & Britain & other free nations?

    Comment by The Devil's Chaplain — 15 Feb 2010 @ 5:46 PM

  28. Alas, no. The graph allowed you to actually view trend lines for 5 years, 10 years, 50 years, 100 years etc. with the number of years to be used to determine the trend as a sliding scale that you could move with your mouse. At few years the trends were up and down, as you moved to 15 and then say 30 years the trends became all positive.

    Comment by Andy — 15 Feb 2010 @ 5:49 PM

  29. It is a free and open debate. If the debate helps to get rid of these stupid conspiracy theories, it will be good for science.
    Whilst I generally share the general opinion of the IPCC report, I have an issue. In my understanding of scientific work, minority opinions always need to be quoted. Am I missing a point?

    Comment by petek — 15 Feb 2010 @ 6:06 PM

  30. It’s nice to see RC weighing in quickly on this particular mess. As a correspondent on my blog noted, it would have been best to have heard from UEA by now.

    I got a fair amount of attention for my early notice of this item. I was brief and didn’t say much that hasn’t been covered here, except to ask what the redress the public has when a journalistic enterprise screws up so very badly.

    At least we can vote politicians out of office if they misrepresent the facts so severely. What redress do we have with newspapers that pander to a delusional minority? There really needs to be some sort of consequence for this level of irresponsibility in the press.

    Comment by Michael Tobis — 15 Feb 2010 @ 6:08 PM

  31. The key quote from the Jones interview is:

    E – How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

    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.

    What more needs to be said, except that a huge disservice has been done by the media in covering this and other climate-related stories.

    Comment by Randy — 15 Feb 2010 @ 6:17 PM

  32. Andy, go to this page, then page down:
    http://hot-topic.co.nz/keep-out-of-the-kitchen/

    It’s a window, can’t link directly to it. The text right above it says:

    —-
    Now for the nifty gadget. Hot Topic reader Colin Sharples (aka CTG) is a whizz with Java™ programming. Prompted by a discussion on climate trends at ReaClimate, he took NASA’s GISS global temperature dataset (to be precise, it’s the GISTEMP series for the climatological year (Dec-Nov) and he’s estimated a figure for 2009 by “completing” the year by calculating the average anomalies for the last few months of the year over the last five years) and the Hadley Centre’s HadCRUTv3 series and produced an interactive graphic that shows how changing the length of the period you select for trend calculations affects the trends you see. Here it is:……”

    Likely it’s been or will be updated, or may have a new home; that’s from my clipping file.

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 15 Feb 2010 @ 6:18 PM

  33. Apologies to everyone #18 referred to an earlier post that didn’t make it thru moderation. Oh well, C’est la vie.

    Comment by GSW — 15 Feb 2010 @ 6:29 PM

  34. This is silly but typical. The misrepresentation of science by the global warming denialist movement is equivalent to the misrepresentation of science by the creationists.

    There are too many ignorant greedy buffoons on this planet for humankind to avoid a catastrophe. When that catastrophe finally occurs these greedy ignorant buffoons are going to be saying, “Why didn’t anyone warn us?”

    Humankind is a lost cause. Here is an allegedly intelligent animal driving itself extinct.

    Comment by David Mathews — 15 Feb 2010 @ 6:29 PM

  35. Chad Meyers on CNN a few minutes ago downplayed ACC and urged viewers to go read this story:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7028362.ece

    except that he attributed it to John Christy. I guess someone will have to tell the glaciers to stop melting. We’re losing the information battle, and I am growing disheartened.

    [Response: That’s their goal. It’s psychological warfare–which is all they have. Don’t gaze into the abyss.–Jim]

    Comment by Shirley — 15 Feb 2010 @ 6:30 PM

  36. Re: “They’re not the least bit interested in finding the truth. They don’t even have any concept of it–which is why they prefer to buy into lies and conspiracy ideas. The inmates seek the keys to the asylum—Jim”

    You are quite wrong about [They’re]. We are absolutely interested in the truth, to whatever conclusion the true data leads.

    To date, your conclusions have been hidden in obscured and obfuscated data and methods, and thus found wanting in transparent data and methodology.

    When that blessed day comes that a “skeptic” is given your actual data and methodology and reproduces your results and conclusions, then, sir, we will believe you.

    Until then, your tantrums and pounding on the table do not make your arguments or opinion any more persuasive. Instead, you appear more and more to be the boy who cried wolf.

    [Response:This is your argument in support of the truthfulness of these recent stories and their authors is it?–Jim]

    Comment by Dane Skold — 15 Feb 2010 @ 6:30 PM

  37. Glad to see RC weigh in on this. Sad that they have to do the medias job. Wouldnt it be nice if the media would just do their job and let the climate scientists worry about climate. I cant speak for the media but the impression is that just a little integrity would fix a lot of their problems.

    Comment by Ani — 15 Feb 2010 @ 6:35 PM

  38. Petek@29,
    Nobody has quoted Velikovsky or Lysenko in years.

    Actually, I’m sure the IPCC would be happy to include minority opinion if they’d just frigging publish!

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 15 Feb 2010 @ 6:38 PM

  39. While I agree 100% with the analysis in this post, I think it would help if Jones himself commented on the DailyMail article, although I’m sure deniers would claim another “U-turn” or what not.

    Comment by MarkB — 15 Feb 2010 @ 6:43 PM

  40. LOL,

    When there was no warming for 5 years, the warmists would say that it takes at least 15 years to make a trend. Now, 15 years is not enough.

    Jones himself asserted many times this 15 years. I don`t think it coincidence that he chose to say 15 years.

    Pro-AGW scientists are all throwing each other under the bus. It`s a circular firing squad. It seems to me that the “deniers” are the people who believe without any proof that man can influence climate.

    Being a data store of the climate world, CRU can`t even organise their data with millions of dollars provided to them.

    Comment by Syl — 15 Feb 2010 @ 6:47 PM

  41. AnnoyedReader@25 – The moderated comment threads here don’t always work quite as one might expect, there is little liklihood any “content free” comments are being blocked, but some do regularly appear “out of order”, and some sem to disappear into the ether, even non-critical ones.

    You need to start at the Index link up top [or the Start Here] and investigate things a bit more, your take on the “MWP” is somewhat simplistic, and exemplifies the regular “critical” but “content free” comments

    Comment by flxible — 15 Feb 2010 @ 6:47 PM

  42. 29 petek sed: “In my understanding of scientific work, minority opinions always need to be quoted.”

    huh? why on earth? If I look long enough and hard enough I can find minority opinions that hold any position you want. Spherical earth is BS, it’s turtles all the way down, godluvsusandwontletNEthingbadhappen, etc etc etc.
    You are suggesting if I write a paper I’m supposed to seek out all the nutball dissenters in order to ensure that minority opinions were given a fair shake? Jeez. I already waste enough time arguing with idiots on the internet. Now you’re telling me I’m supposed to be arguing with them in the peer-reviewed literature as well?

    Comment by John E. Pearson — 15 Feb 2010 @ 6:51 PM

  43. I think it was good that Jones agreed to do this. I think it was good that he was asked difficult questions. And, I think it was good that he gave thoughtful and reasonable answers. As one who has more doubts about AGW than your typical reader, I can honestly say that I didn’t see any GOTCHA’s! in his answers. It would be helpful if both sides would agree to more open and tough Q&A’s like this one.

    Comment by TomD — 15 Feb 2010 @ 7:01 PM

  44. RC (Gavin, et al:

    Thanks for the article. You have no idea how badly needed this is out here in denialdom. Every talking head with a soapbox and no integrity in their spine is talking this up now.

    Case in point, Republican Bulldog Glenn Beck’s latest rant:
    http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/36336/

    Bad enough I have to deal with this crap when it comes from the conservative leadership of my faith, but Beck has a longer arm in the media and is no less influential in mainstream America, where our way of life is prized above science and logic by the unwashed masses.

    Back to fighting denialists in the trenches. Sigh. Seriously, it’s like in that movie Zombieland, they just keep coming…

    Regards,

    Daniel the Yooper

    Comment by Daniel Bailey — 15 Feb 2010 @ 7:04 PM

  45. “Those conclusions are that recent Northern Hemisphere warming is likely unprecedented in at least a millennium.”

    Why focus on the magnitude of warming instead of the rate of warming? The magnitude of past warming is subject to large variations, but I don’t know that there’s any evidence that the planet warmed 0.8C in less than a century at any point in the past, let alone at the post-1960 2C/century rate.

    Comment by Zach — 15 Feb 2010 @ 7:13 PM

  46. 25. AnnoyedReader says:
    15 February 2010 at 5:38 PM

    I’m not sure why my comments aren’t posted. You seem content to publish content-free comments when they’re complimentary (e.g., “Great article!”), but you won’t allow my critical comments to pass through.

    Because obviously technology is never a problem, so it must be a conspiracy? Are we to presume from your comment that you are a lifetime subscriber to the Daily Mail?

    Comment by Gary Herstein — 15 Feb 2010 @ 7:15 PM

  47. I have a dumb question (my specialty). Is the “Jim” of recent responses Jim Bouldin? And, if so, does that mean he’s now more than just a guest contributor?

    [Response: Not dumb. Anyway yes, and yes.–Jim]

    Comment by S. Molnar — 15 Feb 2010 @ 7:17 PM

  48. Oh good grief! Now Faux News has picked this up and put there own spin on it.

    Comment by Wes — 15 Feb 2010 @ 7:25 PM

  49. AnnoyedReader: who found the error in the IPCC report? Who corrected it?

    Errors are inevitable. How you respond to errors is what defines the scientist and the anti-scientist.

    One error in a report as large as the IPCC report is impressive. Most governmental reports are riddled with errors, but the IPCC reports were authored mainly by scientists, and reviewed by many, many people, and consequently it reaches a much higher standard. Why should we be “outraged” about one error?

    Get a sense of proportion.

    The Jones incident is *personal*. Amoral journalists are lying quite consciously, and deliberately trying to destroy the reputation of a man who has devoted his life to understanding the world better.

    The IPCC error was made in good faith. This clearly doesn’t apply to the lies the media are disseminating.

    About the MWP: you say “You then draw the unlikely conclusion”, but is it unlikely? My understanding is that regional climate patterns often do result in warmer areas and cooler areas. Also, you conveniently overlook the areas for which we do have data and that don’t show any significant MWP.

    Comment by Didactylos — 15 Feb 2010 @ 7:39 PM

  50. petek: the point you are missing is that science isn’t about opinions. Just because someone holds an opinion, it may not be true. We can sometimes reject that opinion as being false.

    So, there is a small but substantial fringe of pseudo-science that the IPCC can ignore out of hand. They don’t need to address silly claims like some of the nonsense you hear from bloggers (naming no names, here).

    However, there is also a small minority of published science that hasn’t been rejected as being completely wrong, but where the IPCC authors disagree with the conclusions. Such science *is* discussed in the report.

    Do you have a particular example in mind?

    Comment by Didactylos — 15 Feb 2010 @ 7:48 PM

  51. Dane Skold (15 February 2010 @ 6:30 PM) said:

    When that blessed day comes that a “skeptic” is given your actual data and methodology and reproduces your results and conclusions, then, sir, we will believe you.

    All I can say is, the skeptics are halfway there! They have access to all of NASA/GISS’ data and methodology. All they now need to do is roll up their sleeves and reproduce the results.

    It’s not like that’s an impossible task or anything. After all, “JohnV” did it. The clearclimatecode folks did it (and they did it less time than many “skeptics” have spent demanding data already available to them).

    Comment by caerbannog — 15 Feb 2010 @ 8:09 PM

  52. Dane Skold: sceptics have had gigabytes of data for years. When they do anything with it, we will (after we have picked ourselves off the floor having collapsed from shock) be happy to discuss their results.

    We’re waiting.

    And waiting.

    I suppose it’s a lot easier to demand data that you have already than it is to actually do anything with what you have.

    Is science too complicated for you to understand? Then you have to deal with the layman’s dilemma. Trust the conclusions, or not? Trust scientists who made one mistake in a thousand page report, or trust fringe scientists who make huge numbers of schoolboy errors in everything they write….. your choice.

    Comment by Didactylos — 15 Feb 2010 @ 8:13 PM

  53. There seems a fair amount of angst in the comments regarding the recent press coverage that is more critical of the AGW cause than has previously been the case. As AnnoyedReader accurately points out, there is little comment here of the IPCC blunders and apparent (note the use of apparent) carelessness in reporting. I read the transcript of the BBC interview and in fact posted on this on RealClimate several days ago. Professor Jones does quite clearly say that the warming seen from 1860-1880 (21 years) and 1910-1940 (31 years) is statistically indistinguishabe from that seen from 1975-1998 (24 years). He then qualifies this with comments on volcanoes and a quiet sun but doesn’t discuss these in relation to the other periods he mentions. Neither does he comment on the role of the oceans. He is correct in saying that it is not possible to determine if the MWP was global but it is equally impossible to state that it was not. Overall Prof Jones gave a balanced view which is a lot more than can be said for Al Gore. For years MSM has unquestioningly accepted that AGW is proven and has spun stories that reinforce that view. Now that MSM is a little less certain of the “science is settled” arguments of the proponents of AGW it is querulous of the posters at RealClimate to complain so vehemently. Convince the sceptics with incontrovertible facts and real life observations not based on the output from computer models which are, however you like to slice it, dependent on the data fed in. Explain why the increase in CO2 since 1975 to 2009 has not lead to a statistically significant warming of >than 0.12 degrees C per decade from 1995-2009. This is about 40% less than that seen from 1975-1998 and the volcanoes and sun are probably a constant In view of this how can you state so categorically that lowering CO2 emissions will reduce global temperatures?

    [Response:
    These questions have all been covered many times, in many places. Start reading.–Jim]

    Comment by Ian — 15 Feb 2010 @ 8:18 PM

  54. Syl: climatologists have preferred 30 year trends since the very first IPCC report, so far as I am aware. They sometimes use 20 years, but never less as far as I know.

    Further, if you read Tamino’s post linked at #1, you will see that there is a statistical basis for choosing 15 years as the absolute minimum to say whether it is warming or not.

    CRU isn’t the data store of the climate world. That’s just what you want to believe.

    Comment by Didactylos — 15 Feb 2010 @ 8:21 PM

  55. Hang on Ray, the TAR certainly included reference to M&M, and AR4 has mention of Lindzen and his iris hypothesis and of Svensmark and his cosmic rays. I’d call that minority opinion being published in the literature and in WGI.

    Comment by P. Lewis — 15 Feb 2010 @ 8:32 PM

  56. Under the Wikipedia entry for Daily Mail they list at least 15 libel lawsuits where the Mail admitted lying when paying libel damages.

    Evidently lying is part of their business plan.

    They should be ashamed, mocked and marginalized – not only by the Beatles in paperback writer, but by Elton John, Hugh Grant, Rowan Atkison, Kate Winslet, Nicole Kidman and Keiri Knightly who won libel suits against them.

    “Abortion Hope After Gay Gene Finding” is an infamous Daily Mail headline that illustrates the level of their caring for humanity.

    I don’t think any reputable scientist should agree to speak with them, nor with others who use the same tactics. “When you stop lying and misrepresenting facts and science, then the scientific community will speak with you again” would be a good response, and I can see that happening about the same time pigs fly
    F-16s.

    Comment by Richard Brenne — 15 Feb 2010 @ 8:35 PM

  57. > Finally, the article intentionally distorts comments that Jones made about the so-called “Medieval Warm Period”.

    This assertion is made but not explained. How have they distorted? What was written? It would be nice if it were detailed here to save us having to visit the Daily Fail!

    Comment by DavidCOG — 15 Feb 2010 @ 8:39 PM

  58. Perhaps you should begin to engage the layman rather than, from what I can see, talking down to them. Get real – the press including the BBC use doom and gloom headlines for one reason TO SELL MORE ADVERTISING, TO GET MORE CLICKS. Why does the nature of their reporting surprise you? I’ve followed RC for a while and it seems that if laypeople have a dissenting view they are shouted down. Just a personal perspective from a layman, I’m sure you’ll all correct me in your usual manner.

    Comment by Undecided — 15 Feb 2010 @ 8:48 PM

  59. Just curious–y’all are saying that a lack of statistically significant warming doesn’t prove it’s not happening. Well that’s cute and all, but any idiot knows that you can’t prove an “It doesn’t exist/it’s not happening” statement. So my question is, have any scientists actually made explicit predictions (e.g., global temp. as measured by such-and-such a network will rise by 5 degrees by year XXXX) that, if they fail to occur, will offer strong evidence against a global warming trend? Basically, I want to know what y’all could learn that would cause you to change your minds, since the lack of a statistically significant warming trend hasn’t managed to.

    [Response: That there is some better explanation for the reason that the earth sits at 288 K instead of 255 or so, and that there is some better explanation than rising GHGs for the observed statistically very significant temperature rise over the last century would probably do it. Do you have that?–Jim]

    Comment by AnnoyedReader — 15 Feb 2010 @ 8:50 PM

  60. 54:Didactylos

    Personally, 15,30 or even 100 years is no enough to even call anything a trend. 100 years is the equivalent of 22 msec of a 24 hour day in earth time. I have serious doubts of any claims that AGW is a proven fact. There is just not enough knowledge yet to make any claims from either side of the argument.

    [Response: That is incorrect. The balance of all available evidence is clearly in favor of human causes.–Jim]

    Comment by Syl — 15 Feb 2010 @ 9:02 PM

  61. re 36 Dane Skold says

    “You are quite wrong about [They’re]. We are absolutely interested in the truth, to whatever conclusion the true data leads.

    To date, your conclusions have been hidden in obscured and obfuscated data and methods, and thus found wanting in transparent data and methodology.

    When that blessed day comes that a “skeptic” is given your actual data and methodology and reproduces your results and conclusions, then, sir, we will believe you.

    Until then, your tantrums and pounding on the table do not make your arguments or opinion any more persuasive. Instead, you appear more and more to be the boy who cried wolf.”

    What is it with your delusional “arguments or opinion?” Only an uneducated person would say this. Science is not done with arguments or opinion…It is done with evidence that does or does not hold up over time in the mainstream, peer reviewed literature. Are you even a journalist? Who would pay you a cent for the total lack of research and total lack of understanding of one of the most basic functions of our society? This is extremely disturbing for the United States’s future that reporters have dropped to your level of incompetance.

    It doesn’t matter what scientists say, and never has, never is and never will be…it is only their opinion if they talk…what matters is what holds up in the peer reviewed literature over time.

    Did you even bother to notice that the Himalayan error was picked up by an *****IPCC scientist****** just like it should have been…it did not stand up over time. This is how science is done and has been since the 1600s.

    What matters is what is in the world-wide peer reviewed literature that stands up over time. I do not believe that you are are a real journalist. READ THE LITERATURE FROM 1824 that stands up over time that is in the world-wide peer reviewed journals!!!!!! THAT IS WHERE SCIENCE IS DONE AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN done since the 1600s. Don’t you even know this???? Your actions are deeply disturbing if this is the level to which reporting has sunk.

    Read this before you dare claim to be a reporter: Your ignorance is dangerous and appalling.

    Fourier, 1824
    Arrhenius, 1896

    Then brush up by reading the following. This is a tiny part of the body of peer reviewed evidence built up since 1824 that you need to read.

    Abbot, C.G., 1910: The solar constant of radiation. Smithsonian Institution
    Annual Report, p. 319.
    Ackerman, T., and G. Stokes, 2003: The Atmospheric Radiation
    Measurement Program. Phys. Today, 56, 38–44.
    Adkins, J.F., et al., 1998: Deep-sea coral evidence for rapid change in
    ventilation of the deep North Atlantic 15,400 years ago. Science, 280,
    725–728.
    Agassiz, L., 1837: Discours d’ouverture sur l’ancienne extension des
    glaciers. Société Helvétique des Sciences Naturelles, Neufchâtel.
    Albrecht, B.A., et al., 1995: The Atlantic Stratocumulus Transition
    Experiment – ASTEX. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 76, 889–904.
    Alley, R.B., et al., 1993: Abrupt increase in Greenland snow accumulation
    at the end of the Younger Dryas event. Nature, 362, 527–529.
    Arrhenius, S., 1896: On the infl uence of carbonic acid in the air upon the
    temperature on the ground, Philos. Mag., 41, 237–276.
    Aßmann, R., 1902: Über die Existenz eines wärmeren Luftstromes in der
    Höhe von 10 bis 15 km. Sitzungsbericht der Königlich-Preußischen
    Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Sitzung der physikalischmathematischen
    Klasse vom 1. Mai 1902, XXIV, 1–10.
    Balachandran, N.K., and D. Rind, 1995: Modeling the effects of UVvariability
    and the QBO on the troposphere-stratosphere system. Part I:
    The middle atmosphere. J. Clim., 8, 2058–2079.
    Barnett, T.P., 1995: Monte Carlo climate forecasting. J. Clim., 8, 1005–
    1022.
    Barnett, T.P., et al., 1999: Detection and attribution of recent climate
    change: A status report. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 80, 2631–2660.
    Barnola, J.-M., D. Raynaud, Y.S. Korotkevich, and C. Lorius, 1987: Vostok
    ice core provides 160,000-year record of atmospheric CO2. Nature, 329,
    408–414.
    Battle, M., et al., 1996: Atmospheric gas concentrations over the past
    century measured in air from fi rn at South Pole. Nature, 383, 231–235.
    Bender, M., et al., 1996: Variability in the O-2/N-2 ratio of southern
    hemisphere air, 1991-1994: Implications for the carbon cycle. Global
    Biogeochem. Cycles, 1, 9–21.
    Berger, A., M.F. Loutre, and H. Gallée, 1998: Sensitivity of the LLN
    climate model to the astronomical and CO2 forcings over the last 200
    kyr. Clim. Dyn., 14, 615–629.
    Berner, W., H. Oeschger, and B. Stauffer, 1980: Information on the CO2
    cycle from ice core studies. Radiocarbon, 22, 227–235.
    Berson, A., and R. Süring, 1901: Ein ballonaufstieg bis 10 500m. Illustrierte
    Aeronautische Mitteilungen, Heft 4, 117–119.
    Birchfi eld, G.E., H. Wang, and M. Wyant, 1990: A bimodal climate response
    controlled by water vapor transport in a coupled ocean-atmosphere box
    model. Paleoceanography, 5, 383–395.
    Bjerknes, J., 1964: Atlantic air-sea interaction. Adv. Geophys., 10, 1–82.
    Bjerknes, J., 1969: Atmospheric teleconnections from the equatorial
    Pacifi c. Mon. Weather Rev., 97, 163–172.
    Blake, D.R., et al., 1982: Global increase in atmospheric methane
    concentrations between 1978 and 1980. Geophys. Res. Lett., 9, 477–
    480.
    Blunier, T., et al., 1998: Asynchrony of Antarctic and Greenland climate
    change during the last glacial period. Nature, 394, 739–743.
    Bond, G., et al., 1992: Evidence for massive discharges of icebergs into the
    glacial Northern Atlantic. Nature, 360, 245–249.
    Bony, S., K.-M. Lau, and Y.C. Sud, 1997: Sea surface temperature and
    large-scale circulation infl uences on tropical greenhouse effect and
    cloud radiative forcing. J. Clim., 10, 2055–2077.
    Brasseur, G., 1993: The response of the middle atmosphere to long term
    and short term solar variability: A two dimensional model. J. Geophys.
    Res., 28, 23079–23090.
    Brazdil, R., 1992: Reconstructions of past climate from historical sources
    in the Czech lands. In: Climatic Variations and Forcing Mechanisms
    of the Last 2000 Years [Jones, P.D., R.S. Bradley, and J. Jouzel (eds.)].
    Springer Verlag, Berlin and Heidelberg, 649 pp.
    Brewer, P.G., et al., 1983: A climatic freshening of the deep North Atlantic
    (north of 50° N) over the past 20 years. Science, 222, 1237–1239.
    Broecker, W.S., 1997: Thermohaline circulation, the Achilles heel of our
    climate system: will man-made CO2 upset the current balance? Science,
    278, 1582–1588.
    Broecker, W.S., and G.H. Denton, 1989: The role of ocean-atmosphere
    reorganizations in glacial cycles. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 53, 2465–
    2501.
    Brohan P., et al., 2006: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global
    observed temperature changes: A new data set from 1850. J. Geophys.
    Res., 111, D12106, doi:10.1029/2005JD006548.
    Bryan, F., 1986: High-latitude salinity effects and interhemispheric
    thermohaline circulations. Nature, 323, 301–304.
    Bryan, K., 1969: A numerical method for the study of the circulation of the
    world ocean. J. Comput. Phys., 4, 347–376.
    Bryan, K., and M.J. Spelman, 1985: The ocean’s response to a CO2-induced
    warming. J. Geophys. Res., 90, 679–688.
    Bryan, K., S. Manabe, and R.C. Pacanowski, 1975: A global oceanatmosphere
    climate model. Part II. The oceanic circulation. J. Phys.
    Oceanogr., 5, 30–46.
    Bryson, R.A., and G.J. Dittberner, 1976: A non-equilibrium model of
    hemispheric mean surface temperature. J. Atmos. Sci., 33, 2094–2106.
    Bryson, R.A., and G.J. Dittberner, 1977: Reply. J. Atmos. Sci., 34, 1821–
    1824.
    Budyko, M.I., 1969: The effect of solar radiation variations on the climate of
    the Earth. Tellus, 21, 611–619.
    Buys Ballot, C.H.D., 1872: Suggestions on a Uniform System of
    Meteorological Observations. Publication No. 37, Royal Netherlands
    Meteorological Institute, Utrecht, 56 pp.
    Callendar, G.S., 1938: The artifi cial production of carbon dioxide and its
    infl uence on temperature. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 64, 223–237.
    Callendar, G.S., 1961: Temperature fl uctuations and trends over the Earth.
    Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 87, 1–12.
    Cane, M.A., S.C. Dolan, and S.E. Zebiak, 1986: Experimental forecasts of
    the El Niño. Nature, 321, 827–832.
    Cess, R.D., et al., 1989: Interpretation of cloud-climate feedback as
    produced by 14 atmospheric general circulation models. Science, 245,
    513–516.
    Chamberlain, T.C., 1906: On a possible reversal of deep-sea circulation
    and its infl uence on geologic climates. J. Geol., 14, 371–372.
    Charlson, R.J., J. Langner, and H. Rodhe, 1990: Sulfur, aerosol, and
    climate. Nature, 22, 348.
    Charney, J.G., et al., 1979: Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientifi c
    Assessment. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, 22 pp.
    Clayton, H.H., 1927: World Weather Records. Smithsonian Miscellaneous
    Collection, Volume 79, Washington, DC, 1196 pp.
    Cortijo, E., et al., 1999: Changes in meridional temperature and salinity
    gradients in the North Atlantic Ocean (30 degrees-72 degrees N) during
    the last interglacial period. Paleoceanography, 14, 23–33.
    Crease, J., 1962: Velocity measurements in the deep water of the western
    North Atlantic. J. Geophys. Res., 67, 3173–3176.
    Croll, J., 1890: Climate and Time in Their Geological Relations: A Theory
    of Secular Changes of the Earth’s Climate, 2nd ed. Appleton, New York,
    577 pp.
    Cubasch, U., and R. Voss, 2000: The infl uence of total solar irradiance on
    climate. Space Sci. Rev., 94, 185–198.
    Cubasch, U., et al., 1990: Processes and modelling. In: Climate Change:
    The IPCC Scientifi c Assessment [Houghton, J.T., G.J. Jenkins, and J.J.
    Ephraums (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
    Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 69–91.
    Cubasch, U., et al., 1994: Monte Carlo climate change forecasts with a
    global coupled ocean-atmosphere model. Clim. Dyn., 10, 1–19.
    Cubasch, U., et al., 1997: Simulation with an O-AGCM of the infl uence
    of variations of the solar constant on the global climate. Clim. Dyn., 13,
    757–767.
    123
    Chapter 1 Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
    Dansgaard, W., et al., 1984: North Atlantic climatic oscillations revealed by
    deep Greenland ice cores. In: Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity
    [Hansen, J.E., and T. Takahashi (eds.)]. American Geophysical Union,
    Washington, DC, pp. 288–298.
    Dansgaard, W., et al., 1993: Evidence for general instability of past climate
    from a 250-kyr ice-core record. Nature, 364, 218–220.
    Del Genio, A.D., M.-S. Yao, W. Kovari, and K.K.-W. Lo, 1996: A
    prognostic cloud water parameterization for global climate models. J.
    Clim., 9, 270–304, doi:10.1175/1520-0442.
    Delmas, R.J., J.M. Ascencio, and M. Legrand, 1980: Polar ice evidence
    that atmospheric CO2 20,000 yr BP was 50% of present. Nature, 284,
    155–157.
    deMenocal, P.B., 2001: Cultural responses during the late Holocene.
    Science, 292, 667–673.
    Derwent, R., 1990: Trace Gases and Their Relative Contribution to the
    Greenhouse Effect. Report AERE- R13716, Atomic Energy Research
    Establishment, Harwell, Oxon, UK. 95 pp.
    Dlugokencky, E.J., K.A. Masarie, P.M. Lang, and P.P. Tans, 1998:
    Continuing decline in the growth rate of the atmospheric methane
    burden. Nature, 393, 447–450.
    Dove, H.W., 1852: Über die geographische Verbreitung gleichartiger
    Witterungserscheinungen (Über die nichtperiodischen Änderungen der
    Temperaturverteilung auf der Oberfl äche der Erde). Abh. Akad. Wiss.
    Berlin, V Teil, 42, 3–4.
    Dozier, J., S.R. Schneider, and D.F. McGinnis Jr., 1981: Effect of grain size
    and snowpack water equivalence on visible and near-infrared satellite
    observations of snow. Water Resour. Res., 17, 1213–1221.
    Dunbar, R.B., and G.M. Wellington, 1981: Stable isotopes in a branching
    coral monitor seasonal temperature variation. Nature, 298, 453–455.
    Eddy, J.A., 1976: The Maunder Minimum. Science, 192, 1189–1202
    Emiliani, C., 1955: Pleistocene temperatures. J. Geol., 63, 538–578.
    Emiliani, C., 1969: Interglacials, high sea levels and the control of
    Greenland ice by the precession of the equinoxes. Science, 166, 1503–
    1504.
    Etheridge, D.M., et al., 1996: Natural and anthropogenic changes in
    atmospheric CO2 over the last 1000 years from air in Antarctic ice and
    fi rn. J. Geophys. Res., 101, 4115–4128.
    Ewing, M., and W.L. Donn, 1956: A theory of ice ages. Science, 123,
    1061–1065.
    Exner, F.M., 1913: Übermonatliche Witterungsanomalien auf der
    nördlichen Erdhälfte im Winter. Sitzungsberichte d. Kaiserl, Akad. der
    Wissenschaften, 122, 1165–1241.
    Exner, F.M., 1924: Monatliche Luftdruck- und Temperaturanomalien auf
    der Erde. Sitzungsberichte d. Kaiserl, Akad. der Wissenschaften, 133,
    307–408.
    Fleming, J.R., 1998: Historical Perspectives on Climate Change. Oxford
    University Press, New York, 208pp.
    Flückiger, J., et al., 1999: Variations in atmospheric N2O concentration
    during abrupt climatic changes. Science, 285, 227–230.
    Folland, C.K., and D.E. Parker, 1995: Correction of instrumental biases
    in historical sea surface temperature data. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 121,
    319–367.
    Foukal, P.V., P.E. Mack, and J.E. Vernazza, 1977: The effect of sunspots
    and faculae on the solar constant. Astrophys. J., 215, 952-959.
    Francey, R.J., and G.D. Farquhar, 1982: An explanation of C-13/C-12
    variations in tree rings. Nature, 297, 28–31.
    Fraser, P.J., M.A.K. Khalil, R.A. Rasmussen, and A.J. Crawford, 1981:
    Trends of atmospheric methane in the southern hemisphere. Geophys.
    Res. Lett., 8, 1063–1066.
    Fritts, H.C., 1962: An approach to dendroclimatology: screening by means
    of multiple regression techniques. J. Geophys. Res., 67, 1413–1420.
    Gates, W.L., et al., 1996: Climate models – evaluation. In: Climate
    1995: The Science of Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., et al. (eds.)].
    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New
    York, NY, USA, pp. 229–284.
    Gates, W.L., et al., 1999: An overview of the results of the Atmospheric
    Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP I). Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 80,
    29–55.
    Geerts, B., 1999: Trends in atmospheric science journals. Bull. Am.
    Meteorol. Soc., 80, 639–652.
    Grootes, P.M., et al., 1993: Comparison of oxygen isotope records from the
    GISP2 and GRIP Greenland ice cores. Nature, 366, 552–554.
    Ghil, M., 1989: Deceptively-simple models of climatic change. In: Climate
    and Geo-Sciences [Berger, A., J.-C. Duplessy, and S.H. Schneider (eds.)].
    D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Netherlands and Hingham, MA, pp. 211–240.
    Graedel, T.E., and J.E. McRae, 1980: On the possible increase of
    atmospheric methane and carbon monoxide concentrations during the
    last decade. Geophys. Res. Lett., 7, 977–979.
    Gwynne, P., 1975: The cooling world. Newsweek, April 28, 64.
    Haigh, J., 1996: The impact of solar variability on climate. Science, 272,
    981–985.
    Hansen, J., and S. Lebedeff, 1987: Global trends of measured surface air
    temperature. J. Geophys. Res., 92, 13345–13372.
    Hansen, J., A. Lacis, R. Ruedy, and M. Sato, 1992: Potential climate impact
    of Mount-Pinatubo eruption. Geophys. Res. Lett., 19, 215–218.
    Hansen, J., et al., 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon
    dioxide. Science, 213, 957–966.
    Hansen, J., et al., 1984: Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback
    mechanisms. In: Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity [Hansen,
    J.E., and T. Takahashi (eds.)]. Geophysical Monograph 29, American
    Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, pp. 130–163.
    Hansen, J., et al., 2001: A closer look at United States and global surface
    temperature change. J. Geophys. Res., 106, 23947–23963.
    Harriss, R., K. Bartlett, S. Frolking, and P. Crill, 1993: Methane emissions
    from northern high-latitude wetlands. In: Biogeochemistry of Global
    Change [Oremland, R.S. (ed.)]. Chapman & Hall, New York, pp. 449–
    486.
    Hasselmann, K., 1997: Multi-pattern fi ngerprint method for detection and
    attribution of climate change. Clim. Dyn., 13, 601–612.
    Hawking, S., 1988: A Brief History of Time. Bantam Press, New York,
    224 pp.
    Hays, J.D., J. Imbrie, and N.J. Shackleton, 1976: Variations in the Earth’s
    orbit: Pace-maker of the ice ages. Science, 194, 1121–1132.
    Hegerl, G.C., et al., 1996: Detecting greenhouse-gas-induced climate
    change with an optimal fi ngerprint method. J. Clim., 9, 2281–2306.
    Hegerl, G.C., et al., 1997: Multi-fi ngerprint detection and attribution of
    greenhouse-gas and aerosol-forced climate change. Clim. Dyn., 13,
    613–634.
    Hegerl, G.C., et al., 2000: Optimal detection and attribution of climate
    change: Sensitivity of results to climate model differences. Clim. Dyn.,
    16, 737–754.
    Held, I.M., 2005: The gap between simulation and understanding in climate
    modelling. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 86, 1609–1614.
    Herschel, W., 1801: Observations tending to investigate the nature of the
    sun, in order to fi nd the causes or symptoms of its variable emission of
    light and heat. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, 91, 265-318.
    Hickey, J.R., et al., 1980: Initial solar irradiance determinations from
    Nimbus 7 cavity radiometer measurements. Science, 208, 281–283.
    Hildebrandsson, H.H., 1897: Quelques recherches sur les centres d’action
    de l’atmosphère. Svenska Vet. Akad. Handlingar, 36 pp.
    Holton, J.R., 1992: An Introduction to Dynamic Meteorology, 3rd ed.
    Volume 48 of International Geophysics Series. Academic Press, San
    Diego, 511 pp.
    Hoyt, D.V., and K.H. Schatten, 1993: A discussion of plausible solar
    irradiance variations 1700-1992. J. Geophys. Res., 98, 18895–18906
    Hoyt, D.V., and K.H. Schatten, 1997: The Role of the Sun in Climate
    Change. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 279 pp.
    Hoyt, D.V., K.H. Schatten, and E. Nesmes-Ribes, 1994: The hundredth
    year of Rudolf Wolf’s death: Do we have the correct reconstruction of
    solar activity? Geophys. Res. Lett., 21, 2067–2070.
    124
    Historical Overview of Climate Change Science Chapter 1
    Hurrell, J.W., 1995: Decadal trends in the North Atlantic Oscillation:
    Regional temperatures and precipitation. Science, 269, 676–679.
    Imbrie, J., and K.P. Imbrie, 1979: Ice Ages: Solving the Mystery. Harvard
    University Press, Cambridge, 224pp.
    Indermühle, A., et al., 1999: Holocene carbon-cycle dynamics based on
    CO2 trapped in ice at Taylor Dome, Antarctica. Nature, 398, 121–126.
    IPCC, 1990: Climate Change: The IPCC Scientifi c Assessment [Houghton,
    J.T., G.J. Jenkins, and J.J. Ephraums (eds.)]. Cambridge University
    Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 365 pp.
    IPCC, 1992: Climate Change 1992: The Supplementary Report to the IPCC
    Scientifi c Assessment [Houghton, J.T., B.A. Callander, and S.K. Varney
    (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and
    New York, NY, USA, 200 pp.
    IPCC, 1995: Climate Change 1994: Radiative Forcing of Climate Change
    and an Evaluation of the IPCC IS92 Emission Scenarios [Houghton,
    J.T., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
    Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 339 pp.
    IPCC, 1996: Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change
    [Houghton, J.T., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
    United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 572 pp.
    IPCC, 1999: Special Report on Aviation and the Global Atmosphere
    [Penner, J.E., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
    United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 373 pp.
    IPCC, 2001a: Climate Change 2001: The Scientifi c Basis. Contribution of
    Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
    Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge
    University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY,
    USA, 881 pp.
    IPCC, 2001b: Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. A contribution
    of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment Report of
    the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Watson, R.T., et al.
    (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and
    New York, NY, USA, 398 pp.
    Jacob, D.J., et al., 1997: Evaluation and intercomparison of global
    atmospheric transport models using 222Rn and other short-lived tracers.
    J. Geophys. Res., 102, 5953–5970.
    Johnsen, S.J., et al., 1992: Irregular glacial interstadials recorded in a new
    Greenland ice core. Nature, 359, 311–313.
    Jones, P.D., S.C.B. Raper, and T.M.L. Wigley, 1986a: Southern Hemisphere
    surface air temperature variations: 1851-1984. J. Appl. Meteorol., 25,
    1213–1230.
    Jones, P.D., et al., 1986b: Northern Hemisphere surface air temperature
    variations: 1851-1984. J. Clim. Appl. Meteorol., 25, 161–179.
    Jones, P.D., et al., 1990: Assessment of urbanization effects in time series
    of surface air temperature over land. Nature, 347, 169–172.
    Jouzel, J., et al., 1987: Vostok ice core: a continuous isotope temperature
    record over the last climatic cycle (160,000 years). Nature, 329, 402–
    408.
    Jouzel, J., et al., 1993: Extending the Vostok ice-core record of palaeoclimate
    to the penultimate glacial period. Nature, 364, 407–412.
    Karl, T.R., H.F. Diaz, and G. Kukla, 1988: Urbanization: Its detection and
    effect in the United States climate record. J. Clim., 1, 1099–1123.
    Keeling, C.D., 1961: The concentration and isotopic abundances of carbon
    dioxide in rural and marine air. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 24, 277–
    298.
    Keeling, C.D., 1998: Rewards and penalties of monitoring the Earth. Annu.
    Rev. Energy Environ., 23, 25–82.
    Keeling, R.F., and S.R. Shertz, 1992: Seasonal and interannual variations
    in atmospheric oxygen and implications for the global carbon-cycle.
    Nature, 358, 723–727.
    Kessler, E., 1969: On the Distribution and Continuity of Water Substance
    in Atmospheric Circulation. Meteorological Monograph Series, Vol. 10,
    No. 32, American Meteorological Society, Boston, MA, 84 pp.
    Khalil, M.A.K., and R.A. Rasmussen, 1988: Nitrous oxide: Trends and
    global mass balance over the last 3000 years. Ann. Glaciol., 10, 73–79.
    Kiehl, J., and K. Trenberth, 1997: Earth’s annual global mean energy
    budget. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 78, 197–206.
    Kington, J., 1988: The Weather of the 1780s over Europe. Cambridge
    University Press, Cambridge, UK, 164 pp.
    Köppen, W., 1873: Über mehrjährige Perioden der Witterung,
    insbesondere über die 11-jährige Periode der Temperatur. Zeitschrift der
    Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Meteorologie, Bd VIII, 241–248 and
    257–267.
    Köppen, W., 1880: Kleinere Mittheilungen (Conferenz des permanenten
    internationalen Meteorologen-Comitè’s). Zeitschrift der Österreichischen
    Gesellschaft für Meteorologie, Bd XV, 278–283.
    Köppen, W., 1881: Über mehrjährige Perioden der Witterung – III.
    Mehrjährige Änderungen der Temperatur 1841 bis 1875 in den Tropen
    der nördlichen und südlichen gemässigten Zone, an den Jahresmitteln.
    untersucht. Zeitschrift der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für
    Meteorologie, Bd XVI, 141–150.
    Kuhn, T.S., 1996: The Structure of Scientifi c Revolutions, 3rd edition.
    University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 226 pp.
    Kvenvolden, K.A., 1988: Methane hydrate – a major reservoir of carbon in
    the shallow geosphere? Chem. Geol., 71, 41–51.
    Kvenvolden, K.A., 1993: Gas hydrates – geological perspective and global
    change. Rev. Geophys., 31, 173–187.
    Labitzke, K., and H. van Loon, 1997: The signal of the 11-year sunspot
    cycle in the upper troposphere-lower stratosphere. Space Sci. Rev., 80,
    393–410.
    Lacis, A.A., D.J. Wuebbles, and J.A. Logan, 1990: Radiative forcing of
    climate by changes in the vertical distribution of ozone. J. Geophys.
    Res., 95, 9971–9981.
    Lamb, H.H., 1969: The new look of climatology. Nature, 223, 1209–
    1215.
    Landsberg, H.E., and J.M. Mitchell Jr., 1961: Temperature fl uctuations and
    trends over the Earth. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 87, 435–436.
    Langenfelds, R.L., et al., 1996: The Cape Grim Air Archive: The fi rst
    seventeen years. In: Baseline Atmospheric Program Australia, 1994-95
    [Francey, R.J., A.L. Dick, and N. Derek (eds.)]. Bureau of Meteorology
    and CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research, Melbourne, Australia,
    pp. 53–70.
    Langley, S.P., 1876: Measurement of the direct effect of sun-spots on
    terrestrial climates. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 37, 5–11.
    Langley, S.P., 1884: Researches on the Solar Heat and its Absorption by
    the Earth’s Atmosphere. A Report of the Mount Whitney Expedition.
    Signal Service Professional Paper 15, Washington, DC.
    Lazier, J.R.N., 1995: The salinity decrease in the Labrador Sea over the
    past thirty years. In: Natural Climate Variability on Decade-to-Century
    Time Scales [Martinson, D.G., et al. (eds.)]. National Academy Press,
    Washington, DC, pp. 295–302.
    Le Treut, H., and Z.-X. Li, 1988: Using meteosat data to validate a
    prognostic cloud generation scheme. Atmos. Res., 21, 273–292.
    Le Treut, H., and Z.-X. Li, 1991: Sensitivity of an atmospheric general
    circulation model to prescribed SST changes: feedback effects associated
    with the simulation of cloud optical properties. Clim. Dyn., 5, 175–187.
    Lean, J., 1997: The sun’s variable radiation and its relevance to Earth.
    Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 35, 33–67.
    Lean, J., and D. Rind, 1998: Climate forcing by changing solar radiation.
    J. Clim., 11, 3069–3093.
    Lean, J., J. Beer, and R. Bradley, 1995: Reconstruction of solar irradiance
    since 1610: Implications for climate change. Geophys. Res. Lett., 22,
    3195–3198.
    Levitus, S., J. Antonov, and T. Boyer, 1994: Interannual variability of
    temperature at a depth of 125 m in the North Atlantic Ocean. Science,
    266, 96–99.
    Lockyer, N., and W.J.S. Lockyer, 1902: On some phenomena which
    suggest a short period of solar and meteorological changes. Proc. R.
    Soc. London, 70, 500–504.
    London, J., 1957: A Study of Atmospheric Heat Balance. Final Report,
    Contract AF 19(122)-165, AFCRC-TR57-287, College of Engineering,
    New York University, New York, NY. 99 pp.
    125
    Chapter 1 Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
    Lorenz, E.N., 1963: Deterministic nonperiodic fl ow. J. Atmos. Sci., 20,
    130–141.
    Lorenz, E.N., 1967: On the Nature and Theory of the General Circulation
    of the Atmosphere. Publication No. 218, World Meteorological
    Association, Geneva, 161 pp.
    Lorenz, E.N., 1975: The physical bases of climate and climate modelling.
    In: Climate Predictability. GARP Publication Series 16, World
    Meteorological Association, Geneva, pp. 132–136.
    Lovelock, J.E., 1971: Atmospheric fl uorine compounds as indicators of air
    movements. Nature, 230, 379–381.
    Luterbacher, J., et al., 1999: Reconstruction of monthly NAO and EU
    indices back to AD 1675. Geophys. Res. Lett., 26, 2745–2748.
    MacDonald, G.J., 1990: Role of methane clathrates in past and future
    climates. Clim. Change, 16, 247–281.
    Machida, T., et al., 1995: Increase in the atmospheric nitrous oxide
    concentration during the last 250 years. Geophys. Res. Lett., 22, 2921–
    2924.
    Madden, R.A., and V. Ramanathan, 1980: Detecting climate change due to
    increasing carbon dioxide. Science, 209, 763–768.
    Manabe, S., and K. Bryan, 1969: Climate calculations with a combined
    ocean-atmosphere model. J. Atmos. Sci., 26, 786–789.
    Manabe, S., and R.T. Wetherald, 1975: The effects of doubling the CO2
    concentration on the climate of a general circulation model. J. Atmos.
    Sci., 32, 3–15.
    Manabe, S., and R.J. Stouffer, 1988: Two stable equilibria of a coupled
    ocean-atmosphere model. J. Clim., 1, 841–866.
    Manabe, S., K. Bryan, and M.J. Spelman, 1975: A global ocean-atmosphere
    climate model. Part I. The atmospheric circulation. J. Phys. Oceanogr.,
    5, 3–29.
    Mann, M.E., R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes, 1998: Global-scale
    temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries.
    Nature, 392, 779–787.
    McAvaney, B.J., et al., 2001: Model evaluation. In: Climate Change 2001:
    The Scientifi c Basis [Houghton, J.T., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University
    Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 471–
    521.
    McPhaden, M.J., et al., 1998: The Tropical Ocean – Global Atmosphere
    (TOGA) observing system: a decade of progress. J. Geophys. Res.,
    103(C7), 14169–14240.
    Mercer, J.H., 1968: Antarctic ice and Sangamon sea level. Int. Assoc. Sci.
    Hydrol. Symp., 79, 217–225.
    Mercer, J.H., 1978: West Antarctic ice sheet and CO2 greenhouse effect: a
    threat of disaster. Nature, 271, 321–325.
    Milankovitch, M., 1941: Kanon der Erdbestrahlungen und seine
    Anwendung auf das Eiszeitenproblem. Belgrade. English translation by
    Pantic, N., 1998: Canon of Insolation and the Ice Age Problem. Alven
    Global, 636 pp.
    Mitchell, J.M. Jr., 1963: On the world-wide pattern of secular temperature
    change. In: Changes of Climate. Proceedings of the Rome Symposium
    Organized by UNESCO and the World Meteorological Organization,
    1961. Arid Zone Research Series No. 20, UNESCO, Paris, pp. 161–
    181.
    Montzka, S. A., et al., 1999: Present and future trends in the atmospheric
    burden of ozone-depleting halogens. Nature, 398, 690–694.
    Moss, R., and S. Schneider, 2000: Uncertainties. In: Guidance Papers on
    the Cross Cutting Issues of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC
    [Pachauri, R., T. Taniguchi, and K. Tanaka (eds.)]. Intergovernmental
    Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, pp. 33-51.
    National Climatic Data Center, 2002: Data Documentation for Data Set
    9645 World Weather Records – NCAR Surface (World Monthly Surface
    Station Climatology). U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National
    Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC, 17 pp.
    National Climatic Data Center, 2005: World Meteorological Organization,
    World Weather Records, 1991-2000, Volumes I-VI. U.S. Department of
    Commerce, NOAA, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC, CDROM
    format.
    Neftel, A., E. Moor, H. Oeschger, and B. Stauffer, 1985: Evidence from
    polar ice cores for the increase in atmospheric CO2 in the past 2
    centuries. Nature, 315, 45–47.
    Neftel, A., et al., 1982: Ice core sample measurements give atmospheric
    CO2 content during the Past 40,000 Yr. Nature, 295, 220–223.
    Newton, I., 1675: Letter to Robert Hooke, February 5, 1675. In: Andrews,
    R., 1993: The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations. Columbia University
    Press, New York, 1090 pp.
    Oeschger, H., et al., 1984: Late glacial climate history from ice cores.
    In: Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity [Hansen, J.E., and T.
    Takahashi (eds.)]. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, pp.
    299–306.
    Olson, J., et al., 1997: Results from the Intergovernmental Panel on
    Climatic Change Photochemical Model Intercomparison (PhotoComp).
    J. Geophys. Res., 102(D5), 5979–5991.
    Oort, A.H., and T.H. Vonder Haar, 1976: On the observed annual cycle in
    the ocean-atmosphere heat balance over the Northern Hemisphere. J.
    Phys. Oceanogr., 6, 781–800.
    Parkinson, C.L., et al., 1987: Arctic Sea Ice, 1973-1976: Satellite Passive-
    Microwave Observations. NASA SP-489, National Aeronautics and
    Space Administration, Washington, DC, 296 pp.
    Penner, J., R. Dickinson, and C. O’Neill, 1992: Effects of aerosol from
    biomass burning on the global radiation budget. Science, 256, 1432–
    1434.
    Peterson, T.C., et al., 1998: Homogeneity adjustments of in situ atmospheric
    climate data: A review. Int. J. Climatol., 18, 1493–1517.
    Peterson, T.C., et al., 1999: Global rural temperature trends. Geophys. Res.
    Lett., 26, 329–332.
    Petit, J.R., et al., 1999: Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000
    years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature, 399, 429–436.
    Pfi ster, C., 1992: Monthly temperature and precipitation in central Europe
    1525-1979: quantifying documentary evidence on weather and its
    effects. In: Climatic Variations and Forcing Mechanisms of the Last
    2000 Years. [Jones, P.D., R.S. Bradley, and J. Jouzel (eds.)]. Springer
    Verlag, Berlin and Heidelberg, 649 pp.
    Pierrehumbert, R.T., 1995: Thermostats, radiator fi ns, and the local
    runaway greenhouse. J. Atmos. Sci., 52, 1784–1806.
    Popper, K.R., 1934: The Logic of Scientifi c Discovery. English edition:
    Routledge, London (1992), 544 pp.
    Prather, M., 1994: Lifetimes and eigenstates in atmospheric chemistry.
    Geophys. Res. Lett., 21, 801–804.
    Prinn, R.G., et al., 2000: A history of chemically and radiatively important
    gases in air deduced from ALE/GAGE/AGAGE. J. Geophys. Res., 105,
    17751–17792.
    Pyle, J., et al., 1996: Global Tracer Transport Models: Report of a Scientifi c
    Symposium, Bermuda, 10-13 Dec. 1990. WCRP CAS/JSC Report
    No. 24 (World Meteorological Organization, TD-No.770, Geneva,
    Switzerland), 186 pp.
    Quetelet, A., 1854: Rapport de la Conférence, tenue à Bruxelles, sur
    l’invitation du gouvernement des Etats-Unis d’Amérique, à l’effet de
    s’entendre sur un système uniform d’observations météorologiques à la
    mer. Annuaire de l’Observatoire Royal de Belgique, 21, 155–167.
    Ramanathan, V., 1975: Greenhouse effect due to chlorofl uorocarbons:
    Climatic implications. Science, 190, 50–52.
    Ramstein, G., et al., 1998: Cloud processes associated with past and future
    climate changes, Clim. Dyn., 14, 233–247.
    Randall, D.A., K.-M. Xu, R.C.J. Somerville, and S. Iacobellis, 1996:
    Single-column models and cloud ensemble models as links between
    observations and climate models. J. Clim., 9, 1683–1697.
    Rasch, P.J., 2000: A comparison of scavenging and deposition processes in
    global models: results from the WCRP Cambridge Workshop of 1995.
    Tellus, 52B, 1025–1056.
    Reid, G.C., 1991: Solar irradiance variations and the global sea surface
    temperature record. J. Geophys. Res., 96, 2835–2844.
    Revelle, R., and H.E. Suess, 1957: Carbon dioxide exchange between
    atmosphere and ocean and the question of an increase of atmospheric
    CO2 during the past decades. Tellus, 9, 18–27.
    126
    Historical Overview of Climate Change Science Chapter 1
    Reynolds, R.W., and T.M. Smith, 1994: Improved global sea surface
    temperature analyses using optimum interpolation. J. Clim., 7, 929–
    948.
    Robock, A., 1982: The Russian surface temperature data set. J. Appl.
    Meteorol., 21, 1781–1785.
    Roeckner, E., U. Schlese, J. Biercamp, and P. Loewe, 1987: Cloud optical
    depth feedbacks and climate modelling. Nature, 329, 138–140.
    Rossow, W.B., and R.A. Schiffer, 1991: ISCCP cloud data products. Bull.
    Am. Meteorol. Soc., 72, 2–20.
    Rumford, B., Count, 1800: Essay VII. The propagation of heat in fl uids.
    In: Essays, Political, Economical, and Philosophical, A New Edition.
    T. Cadell, Jr., and W. Davies. London, pp. 197–386. Also in: Collected
    Works of Count Rumford, 1, The Nature of Heat [Brown, S.C. (ed.)].
    Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (1968), pp. 117–285.
    Santer, B.D., J.S. Boyle, and D.E. Parker, 1996a: Human effect on global
    climate? Reply. Nature, 384, 524 .
    Santer, B.D., T.M.L. Wigley, T.P. Barnett, and E. Anyamba, 1996b:
    Detection of climate change, and attribution of causes. In: Climate
    Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., et al.
    (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and
    New York, NY, USA, pp. 407–443.
    Santer, B.D., et al., 1995: Towards the detection and attribution of an
    anthropogenic effect on climate. Clim. Dyn., 12, 77–100.
    Santer, B.D., et al., 1996c: A search for human infl uences on the thermal
    structure of the atmosphere. Nature, 382, 39–46.
    Sausen, R., K. Barthel, and K. Hasselman, 1988: Coupled ocean-atmosphere
    models with fl ux correction. Clim. Dyn., 2, 145–163.
    Schellnhuber, H.J., et al. (eds.), 2004: Earth System Analysis for
    Sustainability. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 352 pp.
    Schlesinger, M.E., and J.F.B. Mitchell, 1987: Climate model simulations
    of the equilibrium climatic response to increased carbon-dioxide. Rev.
    Geophys., 25, 760–798.
    Schwabe, S.H., 1844: Sonnen-Beobachtungen im Jahre 1843.
    Astronomische Nachrichten, 21, 233.
    Sellers, W.D., 1969: A climate model based on the energy balance of the
    Earth-atmosphere system. J. Appl. Meteorol., 8, 392–400.
    Senior, C.A., and J.F.B. Mitchell, 1993: Carbon dioxide and climate: the
    impact of cloud parameterization. J. Clim., 6, 393–418.
    Severinghaus, J.P., and E.J. Brook, 1999: Abrupt climate change at the end
    of the last glacial period inferred from trapped air in polar ice. Science,
    286, 930–934.
    Shackleton, N., 1967: Oxygen isotope analyses and Pleistocene
    temperatures reassessed. Nature, 215, 15–17.
    Shackleton, N.J., M.A. Hall, and E. Vincent, 2000: Phase relationships
    between millennial-scale events 64,000–24,000 years ago.
    Paleoceanography, 15, 565–569.
    Slingo, J., 1987: The development and verifi cation of a cloud prediction
    scheme for the ECMWF model. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 113, 899–927.
    Somerville, R.C.J., 2000: Using single-column models to improve
    cloud-radiation parameterizations. In: General Circulation Model
    Development: Past, Present and Future [Randall, D.A. (ed.)]. Academic
    Press, San Diego and London, pp. 641–657.
    Stanhill, G., 2001: The growth of climate change science: A scientometric
    study. Clim. Change, 48, 515–524.
    Steele, L.P., et al., 1996: Atmospheric methane, carbon dioxide, carbon
    monoxide, hydrogen, and nitrous oxide from Cape Grim air samples
    analysed by gas chromatography. In: Baseline Atmospheric Program
    Australia, 1994-95 [Francey, R.J., A.L. Dick, and N. Derek (eds.)].
    Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research,
    Melbourne, Australia, pp. 107–110.
    Stephenson, D.B., H. Wanner, S. Brönnimann, and J. Luterbacher,
    2003: The history of scientifi c research on the North Atlantic
    Oscillation. In: The North Atlantic Oscillation: Climatic Signifi cance
    and Environmental Impact [Hurrell, J.W., et al. (eds.)]. Geophysical
    Monograph 134, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC,
    doi:10.1029/134GM02.
    Stocker, T.F., 1998: The seesaw effect. Science, 282, 61–62.
    Stommel, H., 1961: Thermohaline convection with two stable regimes of
    fl ow. Tellus, 13, 224–230.
    Stott, P.A., et al., 2000: External control of 20th century temperature by
    natural and anthropogenic forcings. Science, 290, 2133–2137.
    Stouffer, R.J., S. Manabe, and K.Y. Vinnikov, 1994: Model assessment of
    the role of natural variability in recent global warming. Nature, 367,
    634–636.
    Stowe, L., et al., 1988: Nimbus-7 global cloud climatology. Part I:
    Algorithms and validation. J. Clim., 1, 445–470.
    Sundqvist, H., 1978: A parametrization scheme for non-convective
    condensation including prediction of cloud water content. Q. J. R.
    Meteorol. Soc., 104, 677–690.
    Susskind, J., D. Reuter, and M.T. Chahine, 1987: Clouds fi elds retrieved
    from HIRS/MSU data. J. Geophys. Res., 92, 4035–4050.
    Sutton, R., and M. Allen, 1997: Decadal predictability of North Atlantic
    sea surface temperature and climate. Nature, 388, 563–567.
    Taylor, K.E., 2001: Summarizing multiple aspects of model performance
    in a single diagram. J. Geophys. Res., 106, 7183–7192.
    Teisserenc de Bort, L.P., 1902: Variations de la température de l’air libre
    dans la zona comprise entre 8km et 13km d’altitude. Comptes Rendus de
    l’Acad. Sci. Paris, 134, 987–989.
    Tett, S.F.B., et al., 1999: Causes of twentieth century temperature change.
    Nature, 399, 569–572.
    Trenberth, K. (ed.), 1993: Climate System Modeling. Cambridge University
    Press, Cambridge, UK, 818 pp.
    Tselioudis, G., and W.B. Rossow, 1994: Global, multiyear variations of
    optical thickness with temperature in low and cirrus clouds. Geophys.
    Res. Lett., 21, 2211–2214, doi:10.1029/94GL02004.
    Twomey, S., 1977: Infl uence of pollution on shortwave albedo of clouds. J.
    Atmos. Sci., 34, 1149–1152.
    Tyndall, J., 1861: On the absorption and radiation of heat by gases and
    vapours, and on the physical connection, Philos. Mag., 22, 277–302.
    Van den Dool, H.M., H.J. Krijnen, and C.J.E. Schuurmans, 1978: Average
    winter temperatures at de Bilt (the Netherlands): 1634-1977. Clim.
    Change, 1, 319–330.
    Van Loon, H., and J. C. Rogers, 1978: The seesaw in winter temperatures
    between Greenland and northern Europe. Part 1: General descriptions.
    Mon. Weather Rev., 106, 296–310.
    Van Loon, H., and K. Labitzke, 2000: The infl uence of the 11-year solar
    cycle on the stratosphere below 30 km: A review. Space Sci. Rev., 94,
    259–278.
    Vonder Haar, T.H., and V.E. Suomi, 1971: Measurements of the Earth’s
    radiation budget from satellites during a fi ve-year period. Part 1:
    Extended time and space means. J. Atmos. Sci., 28, 305–314.
    Walker, G.T., 1924: Correlation in seasonal variation of weather. IX Mem.
    Ind. Met. Dept., 25, 275–332.
    Walker, G.T., 1928: World weather: III. Mem. Roy. Meteorol. Soc., 2, 97–
    106.
    Wallace, J.M., and D.S. Gutzler, 1981: Teleconnections in the geopotential
    height fi eld during the Northern Hemisphere winter. Mon. Weather Rev.,
    109, 784–812.
    Wallis, I., and I. Beale, 1669: Some observations concerning the baroscope
    and thermoscope, made and communicated by Doctor I. Wallis at
    Oxford, and Dr. I Beale at Yeovil in Somerset, deliver’d here according
    to the several dates, when they were imparted. Dr. Beale in those
    letters of his dated Decemb.18. Decemb. 29. 1669. and Januar. 3. 1670.
    Philosophical Transactions (1665-1678), 4, 1113–1120.
    Wang, W. C., et al., 1976: Greenhouse effects due to man-made perturbations
    of trace gases. Science, 194, 685–690.
    Wanner, H., et al., 1995. Wintertime European circulation patterns during
    the late maunder minimum cooling period (1675-1704). Theor. Appl.
    Climatol., 51, 167–175.
    Warren, B.A., 1981: Deep circulation of the World Ocean. In: Evolution
    of Physical Oceanography [Warren, B.A., and C. Wunsch (eds.)]. MIT
    Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 6–41.
    127
    Chapter 1 Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
    Warren, S.G., et al., 1986: Global Distribution of Total Cloud Cover and
    Cloud Type Amounts Over Land. DOE/ER/60085-H1, NCAR/TN-273 +
    STR, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO.
    Warren, S.G., et al., 1988: Global Distribution of Total Cloud Cover and
    Cloud Type Amounts Over the Ocean. DOE/ER-0406, NCAR/FN-317 +
    STR, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO.
    Weart, S., 2003: The Discovery of Global Warming. Harvard University
    Press, Cambridge, MA, 240 pp.
    Weber, J.N., and P.M.J. Woodhead, 1972: Temperature dependence of
    oxygen-18 concentration in reef coral carbonates. J. Geophys. Res., 77,
    463–473.
    Webster, P.J., and R. Lukas, 1992: TOGA-COARE: The coupled oceanatmosphere
    response experiment. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 73, 1377–
    1416.
    Weiss, R.F., 1981: The temporal and spatial distribution of tropospheric
    nitrous oxide. J. Geophys. Res., 86, 7185–7195.
    Wetherald, R.T., and S. Manabe, 1975: The effects of changing solar
    constant on the climate of a general circulation model. J. Atmos. Sci.,
    32, 2044–2059.
    Wigley, T.M.L., and S.C.B. Raper, 1990: Natural variability of the climate
    system and detection of the greenhouse effect. Nature, 344, 324–327.
    Willett, H.C., 1950: Temperature trends of the past century. In: Centenary
    Proceedings of the Royal Meteorological Society. Royal Meteorological
    Society, London. pp. 195–206.
    Willson, R.C., C.H. Duncan, and J. Geist, 1980: Direct measurements of
    solar luminosity variation. Science, 207, 177–179.
    Worley, S.J., et al., 2005: ICOADS release 2.1 data and products. Int. J.
    Climatol., 25, 823–842.
    Woronko, S.F., 1977: Comments on “a non-equilibrium model of
    hemispheric mean surface temperature”. J. Atmos. Sci., 34, 1820–1821.
    Wunsch, C., 1978: The North Atlantic general circulation west of 50°W
    determined by inverse methods. Rev. Geophys. Space Phys., 16, 583–
    620.
    Wyrtki, K., 1975: El Niño – the dynamic response of the equatorial Pacifi c
    Ocean to atmospheric forcing. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 5, 572–584.
    Zebiak, S.E., and M.A. Cane, 1987: A model El Nino-Southern Oscillation.
    Mon. Weather Rev., 115, 2262–2278.
    Zhu, K., 1973: A preliminary study on the climate changes since the last
    5000 years in China. Science in China, 2, 168–189.

    Comment by Richard Ordway — 15 Feb 2010 @ 9:13 PM

  62. 36: Dane Skold says:

    “When that blessed day comes that a “skeptic” is given your actual data and methodology and reproduces your results and conclusions, then, sir, we will believe you.”

    Horse puckey. Then you will claim that the “skeptic” is just a normal working scientist rather than a blessed “skeptic”.

    Comment by John E. Pearson — 15 Feb 2010 @ 9:14 PM

  63. To whomever posted this article: You have officially gone off the reservation. Interview (why were you afraid to post this?):

    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 yes to the question! Yes he had some caveats or excuses thrown in after that, but he said yes! I realize this must be a huge bombshell and it will be quoted over and over…. but trying to deny what was actually said is absurd. You have no credibility left. You are living in denial.

    When one of the heads of your movement straight out comes out and says that the warming catastrophe you guys have been blaming everything from shrinking sheep in Scotland, more shark and cougar attacks, and genetic changes in squirrels (per Dana Milbank) is not even STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT….. I don’t know how you can go on.

    [Response: Then maybe you should ponder on that question for a while.]

    I am amazed and extremely pleased by the speed of which the whole AGW scam is imploding. The shabby way you “scientists” and activists have conducted yourself during this whole affair will not be forgotten. If you are not already ashamed you really should be. History will not judge you kindly at all.

    [Response: Thanks for telling us how we should feel Nostradamus. The extent to which you people can twist and misinterpret things is truly amazing. Come back when you actually have an argument.–Jim]

    Comment by sam — 15 Feb 2010 @ 9:22 PM

  64. P. Lewis, As I said–if they publish, they get included. Problem is when it comes to advancing understanding of climate, they have precious little to say.

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 15 Feb 2010 @ 9:23 PM

  65. 19.I think Jones has a good case for suing the Daily Mail. Their lie has done substantial damage to his reputation.” – whomever

    Excellent idea.
    Someone pass it along.

    Comment by Vendicar Decarian — 15 Feb 2010 @ 9:30 PM

  66. DavidCOG, you can rely on the echo chamber to find the distortions:
    Google finds: Results … about 35,300 for
    comments that Jones made about the so-called Medieval Warm Period

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 15 Feb 2010 @ 9:39 PM

  67. DavidCOG #57: Jones made the point that the MWP is well documented at isolated locations, and there is no evidence that it was a worldwide phenomenon because of patchy temperature reconstructions of that era. There’s a site out there (CO2science I think they call themselves) that has helpfully collected together a trove of MWP publications, purporting to demonstrate that the MWP was worldwide. I took a look at the papers they claimed represented the best data, and the peaks varied by as much as 600 years. If you take temperature records from any subset of worldwide locations, you are very likely to find some at extreme variance with worldwide trends.

    Support climate scientists against abuse by signing my petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/clim4tr/petition.html

    Comment by Philip Machanick — 15 Feb 2010 @ 9:42 PM

  68. “When there was no warming for 5 years, the warmists would say that it takes at least 15 years to make a trend. Now, 15 years is not enough. ” – JimboWimbo

    If you want a trend… Here it is…

    1992 14.12 *************************============o
    1993 14.14 ****************************===========o
    1994 14.24 **********************************=====o
    1995 14.38 ****************************************o***
    1997 14.40 ******************************************o**
    1998 14.56 *******************************************o************
    1999 14.33 ****************************************===o
    2000 14.33 ****************************************====o
    2001 14.48 *********************************************o*****
    2002 14.56 **********************************************o*********
    2003 14.55 ***********************************************o*******
    2004 14.49 ************************************************o**
    2005 14.62 *************************************************o**********
    2006 14.54 **************************************************o****
    2007 14.56 ***************************************************o*****
    2008 14.44 ************************************************====o
    2009 14.57 *****************************************************o***
    —————————> Temperature

    “*” = Data
    “=” = Left space

    Comment by Vendicar Decarian — 15 Feb 2010 @ 9:42 PM

  69. I keep seeing your comments on skeptics as not wanting or understanding truth, etc. I have followed both sides of the discussion for quite awhile and state that you have it exactly backwards. I would appreciate it if you could supply real supporting claims on evidence that are both necessary and falsifiable for CAGW to be true. Don’t use the modest and unremarkable heating rate of the last 150 years or the fact of the CO2 increase. Those are facts, but in no way make the argument.

    [Response: Start reading–It’s all out there. Choice is yours as to whether you want to find what you claim to want or not.–Jim]

    Comment by Leonard Weinstein — 15 Feb 2010 @ 9:53 PM

  70. Thanks. This is a good example what low-quality media wants and reprocesses the scientific comments. But it is also sad that some “scietists” without correct knowledge often join the above.

    Comment by MR SH — 15 Feb 2010 @ 9:56 PM

  71. <>

    Whoaaa dude. Not so fast. There are already two major RealClimate posts dealing with the IPCC errors and RealClimate did not have to post them if they did not want to.

    RealClimate has a history of going for days without posting a new post and has already done two posts for the IPCC errors. For RC to post two posts is unusual for covering an event twice.

    It would have been just as easy to just ignore it.

    This is also a *****nonevent**** being promoted by people with political motives that does not in the slightest undermine the evidence of human caused climate change.

    You could, (arguably) take away fully *** one half*** of the studies done on human caused climate change and it is so robust and has stood up for so long under such massive scrutiny (probably millions of dollars payed out to any scientist to produce contrary evidence from the energy industry), it is not going to threaten the conclusion that humcan-caused climate change is going on and will continue and that we are going to be screwed royally eventually unless we stop burning oil, coal and gas, drastically increase energy conservaion, stop deforestation and move to clean energy technologies.

    A body of evidence has been built up up by thousands of multiple studies supporting each bit of evidence or shooting pieces of them down over decades, for God’s sake.

    One study means nothing (unless you have political motives)…it has to stand up over time and have multiple challenging studies challenging it over tens to hundreds of years.

    The IPCC error was discovered by an IPCC scientist.

    Just show me what evidence that human caused global warming is going on is undermined? You would have to (arguably) take away 1/2 or more of the published peer-reviewed studies to show this. The human caused global warming evidence is based on a body of thousands or more of world-wide confirming studies (and many contradictory studies-which don’t undermine the basic evidence) dating back to 1824. So where is the beef?????

    Only people whose work does not hold up over time in the peer review have problems with this.

    As a peer review publishing author whose work holds up over time – Andy Pitman, said the mistake did not affect the veracity of the UN body’s conclusions.”

    “He said the criticism of the panel report related to the section that assessed impacts of climate change, not the section responsible for reviewing the observations and theory underpinning global warming, which have to be peer-reviewed science.”

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-ipcc-is-not-infallible-shock/

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/

    Read a Publitzer prize winning author’s book on the politics involved in deceiving the public on the global warming science: (The Heat is On) Gelbspan-probably available at Amazon.com.

    Comment by Richard Ordway — 15 Feb 2010 @ 10:05 PM

  72. Re #17 Mr. Edlund: Very cool slider. Thanks much. Thanks also for the climate dashboard link AndyB.

    And Mr. Sagacious: you are arguing that one trend which encloses the years of another one is somehow offset by that within it? Think Man!! There must be a few good synapses left up there.

    For what it’s worth, this year will be the one that makes Mr. Jones’ almost significant become significant. Or if you prefer the more global GISS data set, the trend from 1995 to present is already significant.

    Comment by Andy — 15 Feb 2010 @ 10:12 PM

  73. I love the title of this thread. As an alumnus of The Daily Mail I’m sure Evelyn Waugh would approve.

    Comment by Doug Bostrom — 15 Feb 2010 @ 10:23 PM

  74. When that blessed day comes that a “skeptic” gets up off their couch and heads down to the library to investigate the data and methodology…

    …well, hell will have frozen over by then…

    …so much easier to complain on the internet about how the science of global warming is shrouded in errors and secrecy, than to do any actual work to learn about it…

    Comment by Lamont — 15 Feb 2010 @ 10:30 PM

  75. Well! Rather than read all that, try instead “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart:
    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
    where a physicist turned historian has condensed it for you.

    Comment by David B. Benson — 15 Feb 2010 @ 10:33 PM

  76. [Response: They’re not the least bit interested in finding the truth. They don’t even have any concept of it–which is why they prefer to buy into lies and conspiracy ideas. The inmates seek the keys to the asylum—Jim]

    Jim — Were you saying that about the media when they weren’t questioning the theory of man-made global warming before this whole “climate-gate” stuff started? I really doubt it…

    [Response: It doesn’t just apply to the media, nor does it apply to all the media. And when were some in the media ever not questioning global warming?–Jim]

    Comment by ADR — 15 Feb 2010 @ 10:47 PM

  77. For what it’s worth, I did a quick test and generated 1,000 15-year time traces with a slope of 2 degrees per century and normally distributed random error with the same standard deviation as the actual temperature record (0.11C). 20% of the time, a linear fit doesn’t provide 95% confidence that warming is occurring.

    The only thing about this that’s difficult to figure out is whether it’s more ridiculous than the “hide the decline” nonsense.

    Comment by Zach — 15 Feb 2010 @ 10:51 PM

  78. AnnoyedReader: Tamino explained what would be needed to determine whether warming had stopped. This isn’t the only way to do it, but as you can see, scientists are well aware of what significance the word “significance” has.

    Do you want to take Tamino’s bet? He wrote this at the beginning of 2008, and 2008 and 2009 both fell into the “still warming” zone, but didn’t fall in the “warming wins” zone.

    AnnoyedReader: the fact that you are still talking about a “lack of statistically significant warming” means that you have failed to understand everything you have been told today. It isn’t significant because the period is too short, not because the warming magnitude is too small. If you take a statistically significant period (say 20 years) then calculate the 20 trends ending with every year in the last 10, you will see that all the trends are warming trends. And that is the best we can do without the ability to see into the future.

    Just look at Tamino’s graph, and it’s trivially easy to see that all the data since 1995 falls neatly into the “still warming” zone. This is why scientists are confident that the planet is still warming. The underlying physics is certain, and there is no data that is inconsistent with the planet still warming.

    Comment by Didactylos — 15 Feb 2010 @ 10:55 PM

  79. If Phil Jones contends that the recent warming is similar to warmings in the past, why doesn’t he (or others) explain the reasons for the warmings of those other periods. I’ve yet to hear a reasonable explanation.

    As a side note: Why do both sides of the debate get so worked up over the change in global temperature over the last 10 years or so. Of course it has not warmed any additional degrees of consequence, but at the same time it is too short a period to jump to any conclusions.

    [Response: Don’t know–ask the ones who keep bringing it up as hoped for proof of something. –Jim]

    [Response: This this paper of ours and numerous others cited therein. -mike]

    Comment by K-Bob — 15 Feb 2010 @ 11:03 PM

  80. The layman, even one who regularly reads RC, still sees no “statistically significant” evidence that Global Warming is a crisis – and “crisis” is the operative word. Despite all of the spin, to him, Jones’ statements simply admit that the data since 1995 (if not 2002) is not significant enough to put a check in the empty box next to the word “fact”. The data is clearly not definitive enough for that layman to write a gigantic check in your name. Sorry. Keep up the good work. Maybe, next year.

    Comment by Edward Barkley — 15 Feb 2010 @ 11:09 PM

  81. Jim answer at comment 59
    “[Response: That there is some better explanation for the reason that the earth sits at 288 K instead of 255 or so, and that there is some better explanation than rising GHGs for the observed statistically very significant temperature rise over the last century would probably do it. Do you have that?–Jim]”

    Come on… this sounds like the answer of a creationist (argumentum ad ignorantiam). The automatic answer to your question is “natural variability”. The question was a fair one. What falsifiability criteria are there? You can do better!

    [Response: I guess you can explain that to us then.–Jim]

    Comment by mircea — 15 Feb 2010 @ 11:12 PM

  82. I read Mr Jones BBC interview with dismay, he was giving details like a Uni professor, which he is, without elaborating on details supporting his conviction about AGW causation. RC has been at the forefront of warning scientists to present themselves more clearly without giving tabloids a chance to distort. I am disappointed with presentations which are not resonating
    thoughts (not just facts) with the common reader. If the scientist leaves room to speculate, contrarian journalists will fill this thought void vacuum in no time. I wish Mr Jones well though, and I believe he has been severely misrepresented once again. BBC is cool, they will probably allow him to elaborate and kill the propaganda mongers, at least I hope its the case.

    Comment by wayne davidson — 15 Feb 2010 @ 11:15 PM

  83. Sam @63.

    I think you left out the sheep albedo feedback there.

    Just had to make sure that you had all the jokes cited in your post.

    Comment by Rattus Norvegicus — 15 Feb 2010 @ 11:18 PM

  84. It has been a bad—make that dreadful—few weeks for what used to be called the “settled science” of global warming, and especially for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that is supposed to be its gold standard.
    [edit]

    [Response: If you want to read the relevant post on that topic and come back and actually contribute something other than regurgitated nonsense that you haven’t even thought about, you are welcome to do that.–Jim]

    Comment by Anton — 15 Feb 2010 @ 11:19 PM

  85. #78, I would add Arctic Ocean ice sheet basically thinning out of existence as a much more vibrant example
    than simple statistics. The concept of a one Pole with ice planet Earth will eventually sink in well before the stat mangling stops.

    Comment by wayne davidson — 15 Feb 2010 @ 11:21 PM

  86. Donald @ 15 February 2010 at 5:41 PM
    “Jones was clear to point out that the causes of past warming could not explain present warming (indeed they should have caused cooling) and he said ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not.'”
    What were the causes of the Medieval Warm Period? Now that we’re allowed to admit there was one.

    [Response: Ummm. Nobody was ever contesting that there is a Medieval Climate Anomaly (the scientific term with which paleoclimatologists now refer to this period). The question is, what is its pattern? Where was it warm? Where was it cold? (hint: it appears very much now that the MCA was characterized by prominent “La Nina” conditions–cold over large parts of the tropical Pacific). There has been decades of work on the problem of establishing the pattern of the MCA–you might want to acquaint yourself with what the actual scientific literature says before making silly statements. Start with this paper of ours and then look at the numerous others cited therein. -mike]

    Comment by Annabelle — 15 Feb 2010 @ 11:22 PM

  87. Philip Machanick #67

    You state that “Jones made the point that the MWP is well documented at isolated locations, and there is no evidence that it was a worldwide phenomenon because of patchy temperature reconstructions of that era”.

    Equally of course, the lack of data provides no evidence that it wasn’t a worldwide phenomenon.

    Comment by Ian — 15 Feb 2010 @ 11:59 PM

  88. So the Medieval Warm Period was over 1000 years ago, but you all are saying that more than 15 years makes a trend?

    How does that work? Obviously, if you have over 1000 years of data to work with, why would you choose such a small sample to determine the trend?

    Where is all the data published that goes back 1000 years?

    Comment by Colour me confused — 15 Feb 2010 @ 11:59 PM

  89. It is so choice that you are all in a tizzy arguing about the significance of parameters that do not even have large sample consistency. Heck half the the RC team has gone to ridge regression and other biased estimators. Hence giving up on the unbiased estimation of the confidence intervals in both proxy and instrumental measurement. There is a big black box that spits out a global average based on models that have “ill conditioned hessians”. You all could start with Hoerl and Kennard. It isn’t Gaussian, it isn’t linear. It isn’t homoskedastic. The errors are not iid.
    It is y+e=b*(x+e) + e where y and x suffer from massive selection bias. x’oxx’oy=b where o is estimable, but edgy and cannot be done without arbitrarily specifying a lag structure. Then you allow o to have time varying coefficients–mostly because you don’t like the results the fixed ones give you. I cannot even fathom the the error prorogation problems at this point. Help me out here Ray L. and Jim B. Explain how significance works when you have arbitrary zero restriction on parameters known NOT to be zero in models with negative degrees of freedom.

    Comment by OSC13_4_xmas — 16 Feb 2010 @ 12:21 AM

  90. What were the causes of the Medieval Warm Period? Now that we’re allowed to admit there was one.

    Jones didn’t say that, as evidenced by your own post, which simply states Jones as saying “there is much debate”.

    And Jones, of course, doesn’t specialize in that sort of research. He’s famous for his work building a surface temperature product that is likely less accurate than GISTEMP. Not Paleoclimatology.

    Jones was clear to point out that the causes of past warming could not explain present warming (indeed they should have caused cooling

    This is actually mined from his comment regarding the 1910-1940 period, during which we do have data regarding volcano eruptions and solar output. Annabelle’s paraphrasing it as though it has anything to do with the MWP which might not actually exist is … vile.

    Comment by dhogaza — 16 Feb 2010 @ 12:26 AM

  91. Annabelle says:

    What were the causes of the Medieval Warm Period? Now that we’re allowed to admit there was one.

    The following page is from 2008, so it’s not Jones who’s allowed that a MWP exists.

    “The reconstructed amplitude of change over past centuries is greater than hitherto reported, with somewhat greater Medieval warmth in the Northern Hemisphere, albeit still not reaching recent levels.”

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html

    As to the causes: solar and volcanic activity, atmospheric pressure systems and ocean circulation patterns.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16892

    Comment by Donald — 16 Feb 2010 @ 12:30 AM

  92. I read Mr Jones BBC interview with dismay, he was giving details like a Uni professor, which he is, without elaborating on details supporting his conviction about AGW causation.

    You’d think that being the subject of such intense attacks he’d be more careful in his interview, but apparently the man can’t learn.

    Good scientist. Abysmal public figure. If so-called “ClimateGate” were to ever reach trial, a defense lawyer would shoot him dead rather than put him on the stand in his own defense.

    Come on… this sounds like the answer of a creationist (argumentum ad ignorantiam). The automatic answer to your question is “natural variability

    Natural variability accounts for why the planet is something like 70F warmer than we’d expect it to be without our atmosphere?

    Good luck with that.

    Comment by dhogaza — 16 Feb 2010 @ 12:30 AM

  93. Comment 81 [Response: I guess you can explain that to us then.–Jim]
    No need. Didactylos gave a good answer in comment 78. There should be experimental data which if not matched means the theory is refuted without the need of another theory to explain the respective data.

    Comment by mircea — 16 Feb 2010 @ 12:34 AM

  94. “Unfortunately, these kinds of distortions are all too common in the press nowadays and so we must all be prepared to respond to those journalists and editors who confuse the public with such inaccuracies.”

    Couldn’t agree more that the press should make a concerted effort to report the truth. I trust I shall see you out there waving the flag for media honesty when all the pro-AGW garbage gets printed too? I have seen everything from earthquakes, bush fires, sinking Maldives and weekend weather reported as being signs and portents of AGW doom. I trust you find this equally distasteful Jim…

    Comment by Bulldust — 16 Feb 2010 @ 12:49 AM

  95. AnnoyedReader: “who found the error in the IPCC report? Who corrected it?”

    It is openly published/corrected in the peer reviewed, juried open Science Journal (like its been done since the 1600s) and you don’t need a subscription: Dude, your paranoid, delusional attitude should disturb people.

    The published correction shows:

    1) The IPCC glacier problem is revealed by actual publishing scientists whose work holds up over time using the “scientific method” in a major scientific journal in an open (no matter how embarrassingly scientifically way to the public[they didn’t have to, but were scientifically obligated to]): Science Journal the same way it has been done since the 1600s. Cogley, Kaser, Kargel, van der Veen.

    2) The real publishing scientists whose work holds up over time who find the IPCC error state in the same letter that:

    “The IPCC Fourth Assessment, particularly of the physical science basis for the changes, is mostly accurate.” Read it yourself.

    Science, Cogley, Kaser, Kargel, van der Veen, 20 January 2010(link below).

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/326/5955/924

    Comment by Richard Ordway — 16 Feb 2010 @ 12:58 AM

  96. >>>>Jones stated in his BBC interview that “There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia” and that “For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.”

    These are statements with which we entirely agree, and they are moreover fully consistent with the conclusions of the most recent IPCC report, and the numerous peer-reviewed publications on this issue since. Those conclusions are that recent Northern Hemisphere warming is likely unprecedented in at least a millennium (at least 1300 years, in fact), and that evidence in the Southern Hemisphere is currently too sparse for confident conclusions. Mann et al in fact drew those same conclusions in their most recent work on this problem (PNAS, 2008)

    [edit–take your nonsense elsewhere]

    Comment by Jerry — 16 Feb 2010 @ 1:04 AM

  97. (a comment previously made at initforthegold.blogspot.com:)

    BBC’s question B and the answer by Jones:

    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.

    To prevent this sort of manipulation, it might be better to answer such a question in a slightly different way. The rigid application of ‘statistical significance’ is not something the general public is familiar with. An attempt:

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

    Well, the trend for the period 1995 to 2009 was rising temperatures. The trend (0.12C per decade) is quite in line with expectations. However, over such a period, there is always a chance that the increase would be due to given natural variability. To be really sure that it’s not, statisticians often demand that this probability be below 5%. In this case that chance is just over 5%, leaving almost 95% chance that it is significant.

    Comment by Kees van der Leun — 16 Feb 2010 @ 1:04 AM

  98. Just curious, but how close is close? For instance, if 2010 is slightly warmer than 2009, will the trend reach statistical significance?

    Comment by JCH — 16 Feb 2010 @ 1:37 AM

  99. I thought the Q&A of Dr. Jones was brilliant. I really liked the way that he did not spin his answers. He just stated the truth as he knows it. Kudos to Dr. Jones!

    Comment by Leo G — 16 Feb 2010 @ 1:52 AM

  100. I think the burden of proof being asked by the deniers is so high that they’d be underwater before they believed the water was rising. I’m not just being sarcastic here, you have to consider what we are talking about – this isn’t just obscure academic minutia – we’re not arguing whether Pluto is a planet (sorry planetologists). The debate is whether our own planet will become inhospitable while the climate readjusts. So do we wait for 100 years of stat. significant warming? What’s the line here, skeptics? I know the science will simply go where it goes. If the global temperature has dropped in twenty years, then scientists will continue on with their jobs, collecting and reporting. If the temperature is warmer, will the rest of us do our jobs?

    Comment by jb — 16 Feb 2010 @ 1:57 AM

  101. You’d think that being the subject of such intense attacks he’d be more careful in his interview, but apparently the man can’t learn.

    Good scientist. Abysmal public figure. If so-called “ClimateGate” were to ever reach trial, a defense lawyer would shoot him dead rather than put him on the stand in his own defense.

    In my opinion it’s very refreshing to see clear, factual and honest answers without any additional ‘communication’ as to how we shold understand the answers.

    If journalists and readers aren’t able to ‘get’ the virtue of that, if all they want is some kind of simplified, less real version of reality, then I think the journalists and readers should change, not the Phil Joneses of the world :)

    P.S. Thanks for your comments here and on other blogs, dhogaza, I like reading them.

    Comment by Mikael Lönnroth — 16 Feb 2010 @ 2:08 AM

  102. Way, way, way off topic, but my God, first Jones, now Watts…

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/15/paleo-tagging-past-climate-sensitivity/#more-16448

    Has hell really frozen over?

    :)

    Comment by Leo G — 16 Feb 2010 @ 2:20 AM

  103. Color me confused #88,

    “you all are saying that more than 15 years makes a trend?” – People are saying that for global temperature, *less* than 15 years doesn’t.

    “if you have over 1000 years of data to work with, why would you choose such a small sample [15 years] to determine the trend?” – Well, 1,000 years is beside the point, since we’re interested in the trend over the much shorter period (essentially the past century or so) when the warming from man-made emissions should begin to show up.

    Otherwise, you have a good question that you should address to the BBC and the “sceptics” they’ve consulted when drawing up the list of questions for Dr Jones. To be sure, there are valid reasons to be interested in recent developments over as short time scales as possible. But in the context, it looks like a loaded trick question: focus on a period calculated to be just short enough, and the recent warming will just fail a significance test, even though it is in fact part of a longer warming period that is unequivocally significant. The scientist’s answer can then be spun into a spurious “U-turn”.

    “Where is all the data published that goes back 1000 years?” – for a quick glance at reconstructions from those data, try Fig. 6.10 from the IPCC AR4 WG1 report. For more paleo-climate data than you can shake a stick at, try the links under “Data sources” at the top of this page.

    Comment by CM — 16 Feb 2010 @ 2:43 AM

  104. Amazing how Phil Jones was a liar, fraud and cheat according to the Daily Mail, until he said something they could twist to suit their own line.

    Comment by Toby — 16 Feb 2010 @ 3:52 AM

  105. It is absolute bullshit to ask a question of a scientist, get an answer in terms of science, then ambush him by reinterpreting it in non-science terms. This is not a mistake, it’s a lie.

    Comment by Marion Delgado — 16 Feb 2010 @ 3:59 AM

  106. You shouldn’t expect a good journalist to understand the term “statistical significance.” It is a mathematical term. Mathematics is not taught in journalism school. The branch of mathematics called statistics is certainly not taught in journalism school. Do not use mathematical terms when talking to journalists. If you are asked a question that you know a journalist or the general public can’t understand the correct answer to, it might be better to say nothing. As for bad or malicious journalists, just try to stay away from them.

    So what should you do? First, wait a few million years for some more evolution to take place. Then, make sure all college students get B.S. degrees in physics before specializing in anything else. It is going to be really sad, depressing, etc. etc. for quite a while.

    In the old days, we hid out in our labs and just avoided the outside world. That doesn’t work any more either. There is no good answer to the dilemma on whose horns we currently reside. We might try to create a new specialty called science spokesperson. And we might just accept that a whole lot of very bad things are going to happen in spite of the fact that we are going to do everything we can to mitigate and reduce the, dare I say it? Nope, I don’t. There is just too much room for disinterpretation. In fact, I’m reducing this comment for that very reason.

    Comment by Edward Greisch — 16 Feb 2010 @ 4:03 AM

  107. Donald: “The following page is from 2008, so it’s not Jones who’s allowed that a MWP exists.”

    Nobody is saying the MWP doesn’t exist.

    But it wasn’t a global phenomenon.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 16 Feb 2010 @ 4:25 AM

  108. “He’s famous for his work building a surface temperature product that is likely less accurate than GISTEMP”

    Less ***complete*** not less accurate.

    If the concerns about the paucity of polar stations are correct, then the GISS dataset could be the less accurate one, with the truth somewhere in the middle (since they agree well enough where they coexist).

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 16 Feb 2010 @ 4:27 AM

  109. “Equally of course, the lack of data provides no evidence that it wasn’t a worldwide phenomenon.”

    More exactly, there’s no data providing evidence that there is a global phenomenon of MWP.

    If you find some, put it up for review.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 16 Feb 2010 @ 4:28 AM

  110. “88
    Colour me stupid says:
    15 February 2010 at 11:59 PM

    So the Medieval Warm Period was over 1000 years ago, but you all are saying that more than 15 years makes a trend?

    How does that work?”

    It works because we’re not in the medieval period.

    Hence there’s no reason why 1000 years ago has any bearing.

    We also didn’t have a WMO in the medieval period. This makes a difference to the temperature records.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 16 Feb 2010 @ 4:30 AM

  111. I think Anton shows one reason why the IPCC and this teacup of a problem is being blown into a “perfect storm”: there are lots of people out there who hate science.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 16 Feb 2010 @ 4:32 AM

  112. mircea: “Come on… this sounds like the answer of a creationist (argumentum ad ignorantiam).”

    Except it isn’t ignorance being used. You even quoted it (without reading, now THERE’s ingorantiam for you):

    “rising GHGs for the observed statistically very significant temperature rise over the last century would”

    If you have an idea, saying it’s that doing it is not ignorantiam.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 16 Feb 2010 @ 4:35 AM

  113. “80
    Edward Barkley says:
    15 February 2010 at 11:09 PM

    The layman, even one who regularly reads RC, still sees no “statistically significant” evidence that Global Warming is a crisis – and “crisis” is the operative word”

    Yes, because you only get significant statistical numbers about a crisis when you’re already well into it.

    You have ZERO statistical significant data saying that truck bearing down on you is going to run into you, because most trucks have avoided you before.

    So do you wait..?

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 16 Feb 2010 @ 4:36 AM

  114. Pete@14 said:
    “The Daily Mail is a mini version of the Daily Telegraph and hence moves along the right handside of politics.”

    You are being far to generous!

    Comment by The Ville — 16 Feb 2010 @ 4:47 AM

  115. Tamino : “Of course “not statistically significant” is not the same as “not warming.”
    Here’s a post about how long it takes to establish of a statistically significant trend.
    If you remove the influence of volcanic eruptions and el Nino, it doesn’t take as long.”

    I think you should distinguish “warming”, “statistically significant warming” , “and statistically significant unprecedented warming”.

    The warming from january to june of any year IS statistically significant. It is not statistically significantly unprecedented. Why? because “unprecedented” means with respect to some larger time interval, and you have first to assess the “normal” variability on this interval, that is basically the amplitude of the Fourier component at this frequency. Which requires a calibration period much longer than the time interval itself to which you compare your data.

    To my knowledge, there is NO time interval on which the warming can be shown as “statistically unprecedented”, compared to the variance estimated at this frequency (again, that must be estimated on a much larger period). which can be mainly explained by the fact that if the CO2 has an effect, it is not much larger than the other causes of variability.

    Comment by Gilles — 16 Feb 2010 @ 4:49 AM

  116. As far as I can tell from all this, the relationship between CO2 levels and temperature has not been found wanting. Doubling CO2 still gives the expected temperature increase; no leaked emails or messing by the Monktons of this earth have changed that.

    To help us preserve some perspective on all these mostly extraneous diversions about scientists, the fact that scientists are human, emails etc; could RealClimate please post a say weekly update of one simple figure, viz.; the level of CO2 in the atmosphere as say a running yearly average (to get over the diurnal and seasonal variability) .

    That ever-increasing figure is what tells us (regardless of the rights and wrongs of the rest of the blogisphere) where we are headed and how fast. ON a daily basis I guess CO2 is increasing by about one hundredth of a ppm per day – say 3ppm per year. So this week say its 385.01ppm, then next week its probably about 385.07ppm.

    If its higher next week (as it surely will be) then we are loosing the battle. If its lower (by some miracle) then we are blessed indeed.

    That simple bit of data constantly before us (it should be on the top of every newspaper’s front page, every day too) is the only measure we need of our success or failure in addressing The Climate Issue.

    Please. Just a number. Just THE NUMBER. 385.07ppm, and counting…

    Thanks

    Nigel

    Comment by NigelW — 16 Feb 2010 @ 4:58 AM

  117. Much as I’ve admired Jim’s posts in the past, I think that as a moderator, Jim, you make a damn fine poster.

    What this site does NOT need right now is a snarly aggressive moderating style.

    As a relative newbie here, I can only say again that this aggressive (perhaps even ‘holier than thou’) approach will (and deserves to) lose the battle, even if we can confidently rely on the climate being the winner in the long run.

    Comment by mct — 16 Feb 2010 @ 4:59 AM

  118. I am also so very tired of the talking down crap. If I build a wall, and someone from the Daily Mail says I ought to have built it 100x larger, and made it a corkscrew pattern, when I tell them it’s a lot of work and that you can’t do it that way, am I talking down to them?

    Here are some rules you can take to the bank:

    1. These things are a lot of work, by more than one person or team or facility. And the people doing it are not just educated, but practiced.

    2. If you ask a question, get an answer, see a superficially shrewd objection, get another answer, and so repeat, at no point are you being talked down to. If you ask what 2+2 is, a scientist won’t try to guess whether you prefer 3, 4 or 5 as an answer.

    3. There’s an 80/20 rule – you’re going to get 80% of the point from 20% of the science. If you insist on dragging each question and objection out to fundamental physics and chemistry, every degree to which you do that represents years of education for people who are educationally and scientifically inclined. Scientists face this kind of problem, too, for instance now in physics. Most of our model of the cosmos came very cheaply and quickly. Getting that last bit done is overwhelmingly expensive, unbelievably complex, and takes forever.

    4. If you have an objection or alternative hypothesis, the odds are outrageously high that in the 100 or so years scientists have been analyzing effects of Man on climate, it’s already been brought up, considered, accounted for, or rejected. To expect otherwise is almost always Dunning-Kruger or base-rate neglect. Moreover, very often that objection, counter-theory, etc. is very old, and has been recycled and debunked repeatedly over the decades.

    5. Neither blogs nor mainstream journalism nor the verdict of the market are as good at correcting errors as the scientific process is. Science has both cultural, built-in error correction and conscious structured governance and policing. Its strength rests mainly on its ability to filter out claims, not adopt them. Conversely, that’s why scientists won’t waste inordinate amounts of time on highly unlikely, unpromising, debunked, poorly formulated or crank community ideas. Your personal model of what science is spozed to do doesn’t put obligations on scientists they did not sign up for.

    Comment by Marion Delgado — 16 Feb 2010 @ 5:02 AM

  119. Thank you for your blog. I can see that some journalists and deniers are lying because they distort and mischaracterize what the scientists say, but you explain it so much better.

    I think the BBC and Guardian writers are trying to be fair, but that Delingpole is a horrible person.

    Comment by Zinaida Zalyotchik — 16 Feb 2010 @ 5:34 AM

  120. Yes Ray … the initial comment was not really directed to you, but to whom you were responding and any others of that person’s ilk.

    In the IPCC Assessment Reports, there are lots of citations (well, certainly more than I’ve listed) to publications that are removed from the “consensus” position (both near and far). It’s a lie that there isn’t that has to be nailed.

    Comment by P. Lewis — 16 Feb 2010 @ 5:57 AM

  121. I made this point earlier, but this is a more relevant thread:

    Although Jones’ responses in the BBC Q and A are on the whole quite reasonable:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm

    However, II can’t see how he identifies a statistically significant warming period from 1860 to 1880 comparable to twentieth-century and recent trends. The HadCRUT adjusted global mean trend is 0.109 C/decade for that period, and is not statistically significant:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1860/to:1880/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1860/to:1880/trend

    I can’t get an exact match to any of the other trends Jones’ states in the BBC piece, though the errors are quite small. Can anyone offer any insight here?

    Comment by Tom P — 16 Feb 2010 @ 6:14 AM

  122. The remarks attributed to ICO official GRAHAM SMITH–that the CRU breached the FoI regulations–are not posted on the ICO website, so we only have the media’s account/interpretation of what Graham Smith reportedly said.

    That denialist Telegraph writer Christopher Brooker wrote about this IOC official and called him GORDON SMITH.His name is GRAHAM Smith.

    If you read the ICO rules, there are also a lot of regulations about what is protected Environmental information and does NOT have to be shared. The CRU doesn’t have to tell everything. Here is a document about the exceptions. I think CRU would contend that the hackers broke some ICO rules.

    http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/environmental_info_reg/introductory/eip076_guidance_for_pub_doc_version3.pdf

    I can’t remember how I got this link. Hopefully it is the most recent regulation.

    The Telegraph said that the IOC could not prosecute the “people involved” because it was too late. This sounds wrong to me, because I think that the University would be fined–a person wouldn’t be prosecuted.
    British organizations often get these fines.

    If you write the ICO and ask them what Graham SMITH actually said, they don’t respond. For a bit they just posted a newspaper article on their scrolling newsfeed about the ICO and CRU, but that didn’t seem to be an official press release. That just seemed to be showing recent media coverage. They have another place for official press releases.

    The news article about what Smith allegedly said was in the “scrolling newsfeed,” not the press releases.

    Now the scrolling newsfeed has been disappeared and is “undergoing maintainance.” Sort of what used to happen to churches in the USSR.

    The CRU also posted a press release that said they only heard of what the ICO said about them breaching the regulations through the media.

    England has a fair legal system. They would not just declare someone had breached the regulations in the newspapers. This would not give the accused the right to defend themselves in the legal arena.

    Here is the ICO site.

    http://www.ico.gov.uk/

    Someone’s in trouble, but it may not be the CRU.

    Comment by Zinaida Zalyotchik — 16 Feb 2010 @ 6:43 AM

  123. Dane Skold,

    Precisely what data and methods do you think are being withheld, and why do you think so? All the data you need is already in the public domain–are you, personally, going to duplicate the analyses? I’ll be waiting. Let me know if you want URLs to the publicly posted data.

    Comment by Barton Paul Levenson — 16 Feb 2010 @ 6:45 AM

  124. Dane@36 said:
    “To date, your conclusions have been hidden in obscured and obfuscated data and methods, and thus found wanting in transparent data and methodology.”

    Welcome to science.
    It tends to be complicated to understand.
    Maybe Dane can point to another field of science where methods and data are more transparent?

    I think the reason why Dane doesn’t have the same discussions about commercial research, is because big corporate companies are not transparent. I don’t know any other field of science where someone can pick up the data, draw graphs and then start a blog about it!

    Comment by The Ville — 16 Feb 2010 @ 6:46 AM

  125. Syl: When there was no warming for 5 years, the warmists would say that it takes at least 15 years to make a trend. Now, 15 years is not enough.

    BPL: You need 30 years to establish a climate trend, pal. That standard was decided on in the year 1935, long before AGW was an issue. If you want to know why, and how they did it–that is, if you’re genuinely interested in learning, and not just sniping at people for political reasons–try here:

    http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/30Years.html

    Comment by Barton Paul Levenson — 16 Feb 2010 @ 6:48 AM

  126. This is the same ‘Daily Mail’ that has, in the past, produced ‘Armageddon’ warming headlines with photos to match. Dont spend time refuting on here, there are better scientific topics to discuss.They go with such headlines to sell papers and there is a sceptical view from the general public along the lines of ‘ if the Mail says it , it must be true…..NOT!, whatever side of the fence thet take to sell their papers.(PS. sceptical of the Mail, not in the sense of deniers or warmists…)

    Comment by Bill — 16 Feb 2010 @ 6:53 AM

  127. East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) had posted this update:

    http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/vcstatement

    Statement from Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor, University of East Anglia

    Thu, 28 Jan 2010

    The University of East Anglia has released the following statement from the Vice-Chancellor Professor Edward Acton.

    “The University learnt yesterday that the Information Commissioner’s Office (the ICO) had made a statement to the media regarding the University’s handling of requests under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). We have not received any further information from the ICO although we are urgently trying to contact them. The ICO’s opinion that we had breached the terms of Section 77 is a source of grave concern to the University as we would always seek to comply with the terms of the Act. During this case we have sought the advice of the ICO and responded fully to any requests for information.

    “Sir Muir Russell is currently conducting an Independent Review of the issues surrounding what has become known as ‘Climategate’ and we very deliberately made our handling of FOI requests part of the terms of reference. I look forward to receiving his report and as I have said before it will be published and I will act accordingly if he finds there is indeed substance in these allegations.”

    Comment by Zinaida Zalyotchik — 16 Feb 2010 @ 6:58 AM

  128. Its not just misrepresentation ; its bullying. Bullying is a growing behaviour pattern of the press and is not restricted to GW. The idea is not so much to produce new insights into recent trends, but to portray Phil Jones as an inconsistent authority who can’t be trusted.

    Jones has also been deserted by some people whom he might have thought of as allies. This reminds me of the McCarthy witch hunt which revealed that your friends could sometimes desert you.

    Re #91

    “If so-called “ClimateGate” were to ever reach trial, a defense lawyer would shoot him dead rather than put him on the stand in his own defense.”

    Not good taste, considering that he is receiving death threats (so is an environmentalist whom I know). Perhaps you should change your target to someone who is not the focus of bullying? Perhaps a journalist or two? or another well meaning scientist who is bad at PR ; they are not hard to come by. There was another one on BBC Radio 4 yesterday Would you prefer it if researchers were selected and promoted mainly for their skills at PR ?

    What I find frustrating is that so many people including scientists have no idea about the intensity and sheer power of the misinformation campaign. They confuse deliberate misinformers with nice anti-authoritarian ‘skeptics’ who deserve to be heard (of course a few such people do exist) . This is a welcome article by RC because it fulfils a need.

    By the way, the press rarely gets it right on climate; I used to think that this might be because of its technical nature . But the inability to correctly report a few simple remarks takes this to another level. When Solanki did some work on solar forcing , the Daily Telegraph reversed his conclusions with a headline “Global Warming , its the Sun thats to blame.” What are reporters for?

    Comment by Geoff Wexler — 16 Feb 2010 @ 7:09 AM

  129. The article formerly linked on the ICO site about the alleged CRU breach of regulations was from from the Telegraph (1-28-10).

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7088055/University-scientists-in-climategate-row-hid-data.html

    As I say, the scrolling newsfeed is now “under renovation,” so you have to trust me on this.

    This was on an official site:

    “While this is not strictly a domestic extremism matter, as a national police unit, we had the expertise and resource to assist with this investigation, as well as good background knowledge of climate change issues, in relation to criminal investigations.”–NETCU

    http://www.netcu.org.uk/media/article.jsp?id=561&chkx=9780a3ca51cb136b9a337a5375654c33

    This is case is not about someone who breached a regulation.

    Comment by Zinaida Zalyotchik — 16 Feb 2010 @ 7:14 AM

  130. Ian in #87 says,

    “Equally of course, the lack of data provides no evidence that it [the MWP] wasn’t a worldwide phenomenon.”

    Which is exactly what has been said all along about the period by paleoclimatologists. It’s why Jones said there was a lot of uncertainty about the extent of the MWP, which nobody had been denying existed; what was and is at issue is how extensive it was. That’s why Jones said if better data is found for the SH that also shows the same kind of warming as in the NH (it doesn’t as of yet, btw), this would indicate that the MWP was as warm or possibly slightly warmer than at present. It’s all hypothetical, but now the so called *skeptics* are using his carefully worded answer and twisting it to mean he thinks the MWP was warmer than now. As if it was his field of study to begin with.

    I find it amusing to see *skeptics* pushing proxy data that has not been collected and may not even exist while on the other hand rejecting proxy data that does actually exist and that has been shown to be consistent with each other despite the independence of the methodologies used.

    Comment by RobM — 16 Feb 2010 @ 7:16 AM

  131. Thanks a lot for your work. Unfortunately you need to spend time answering these journalists and skeptics, despite their dishonest methods and arguments. Thanks again. Now Jones suing this tabloid would be a very good thing to fight back in the real world and not only on the web ;)

    Comment by Julien — 16 Feb 2010 @ 7:25 AM

  132. I want to clarify that the Telegraph article disappeared from the ICO scrolling newsfeed was NOT the one by Christopher Booker, that called the ICO official Gordon Smith when his name is actually Graham Smith.

    Here is the Telegraph article that was formerly posted on the ICO scrolling newsfeed:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7088055/University-scientists-in-climategate-row-hid-data.html

    Here is the article Booker wrote:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7113552/Climategate-confusion-over-the-law-in-email-case.html

    Booker senses that something is not adding up, but I don’t agree with his legal analysis. That he is unfamiliar with the name of the official he is allegedly citing, he probably doesn’t have a clue.

    Comment by Zinaida Zalyotchik — 16 Feb 2010 @ 7:36 AM

  133. ITs not just the Daily Mail – its WUWT, Cristy etc and the Times casting possibly valid doubts on the term global temperature.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece

    Comment by pete best — 16 Feb 2010 @ 8:39 AM

  134. mct: “As a relative newbie here, I can only say again that this aggressive (perhaps even ‘holier than thou’) approach will (and deserves to) lose the battle,”

    As a holier-than-thou newbie, you mean.

    Were you here earlier when Pielke slated others for conflicts of interests in a “i’m holier than they” way?

    Funny, he doesn’t seem to be losing his faithful.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 16 Feb 2010 @ 8:51 AM

  135. “Completely Fed Up says:
    16 February 2010 at 4:25 AM

    Donald: “The following page is from 2008, so it’s not Jones who’s allowed that a MWP exists.”

    Nobody is saying the MWP doesn’t exist.

    But it wasn’t a global phenomenon.”

    The first line was a quote from another poster. Sorry- I forgot to put in quotation marks.

    Comment by Donald — 16 Feb 2010 @ 8:57 AM

  136. Jerry@96,
    OK, let me get this straight. You are saying that because there is no evidence that the MWP was global, this invalidates any analysis that suggests it was not global?
    I mean after all, it is not as if there are no proxies from the Southern Hemisphere–and those we have show no concurrent warming during the European MWP. The best illustration of this is actually the snowjob that the Idsos created that purported to show a global MWP. Although there were warm periods in all the graphs, and the graphs were small, if you blew them up enough to read the dates, you could tell that many of the other MWPs were several hundred years too late or too early! It was a rather precious own goal.

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 16 Feb 2010 @ 8:57 AM

  137. Gilles: “To my knowledge,..”

    We know how well that’s worked for you in the past, Gilles.

    Argument by personal ignorance.

    Have you looked?

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 16 Feb 2010 @ 9:01 AM

  138. BullDust says, “I trust I shall see you out there waving the flag for media honesty when all the pro-AGW garbage gets printed too? ”

    You mean like this:
    “The correct answer–the one we have indeed provided in previous posts (Storms & Global Warming II, Some recent updates and Storms and Climate Change) –is that there is no way to prove that Katrina either was, or was not, affected by global warming. For a single event, regardless of how extreme, such attribution is fundamentally impossible. ”

    from this RC post:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/09/hurricanes-and-global-warming/langswitch_lang/en/

    Amazing what you can find when you actually look around this site, isn’t it?

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 16 Feb 2010 @ 9:02 AM

  139. #89 OSC13_4_xmas
    Well stated. There is way too much certainty being expressed by all sides. It is also interesting that your comment did not receive a response.

    Comment by Bernie — 16 Feb 2010 @ 9:05 AM

  140. “98
    JCH says:
    16 February 2010 at 1:37 AM

    Just curious, but how close is close? For instance, if 2010 is slightly warmer than 2009, will the trend reach statistical significance?”

    Only if a massive difference were seen.

    If the year-to-year variability is +/-0.5C to 95% confidence, then you need a 3C difference (sig sigma) to show that the change is outside the bounds of natural variability.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 16 Feb 2010 @ 9:05 AM

  141. Jerry: “So, it appears that there is not sufficient confidence in the data record to support a large portion of the handle on the hockey stick”

    Uh, where are you reading that?

    There is no record that the southern hemisphere had a warming extent as far as the northern hemisphere.

    Just because you haven’t measured my height doesn’t mean I must be taller than you.

    There is sufficient confidence in the data collected to support a large portion of the handle of the hockey stick and that handle has within its reach (in other words “contains”) the MWP seen in Europe. Averaging over the entire globe rather than Europe with all the data shows little MWP because it would seem from the extensive record that this warming was regional not global.

    However, it is not IMPOSSIBLE that someone can find a temperature record in southern hemisphere proxies that when added to the rest of the data heightens the MWP into significance compared with the current modern temperature record.

    However, just because it’s not impossible, doesn’t mean it’s certain.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 16 Feb 2010 @ 9:11 AM

  142. Bulldust: ” trust I shall see you out there waving the flag for media honesty when all the pro-AGW garbage gets printed too?”

    Care to point it out?

    There’s piles of the denialist “dust” out the back.

    Got more than a handful of pro-side stuff?

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 16 Feb 2010 @ 9:12 AM

  143. “Help me out here Ray L. and Jim B. Explain how significance works when you have arbitrary zero restriction on parameters known NOT to be zero in models with negative degrees of freedom.”

    When you have measurements of how the entire system worked in the past.

    Annan, J.D., and Hargreaves, J.C. (2009) On the generation and interpretation of probabilistic estimates of climate sensitivity, to appear in Climatic Change. (pdf preprint (http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/probrevised.pdf)

    Just like Einstein didn’t need to know what general relativity looked like to know that it couldn’t create a change into an r-cubed law for gravity.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 16 Feb 2010 @ 9:15 AM

  144. Fox News commenters are further mischaracterizing Jones based on the tabloid’s distortions.

    The tactics being used by some global warming skeptics remind me of the dirty tricks of Russian political operatives. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (2-5-10) describe the tactics of political consultants for the ruling United Russia party in Saratov, Russia.

    President Medvedev is the former Chairman of the Board of Gazprom. A lot of former KGB have important roles in Gazprom. Russia is now like a “company town.” Gazprom also owns a lot of media.

    The hackers could be anyone who represents powerful energy interests, but the propaganda tactics remind me of the Russians; and after they reportedly couldn’t post on your site they went right to the computer in Tomsk. Why did they know that would work? Were they comfortable there? Tomsk hackers have a history of going after people who antagonize the Kremlin.

    RFE/RL wrote:

    “The United Russia party machine uses a noxious slurry of dirty tricks, illegal activities, and domination of the media to discredit and destroy any politician, businessperson, or anyone else deemed an enemy of the Saratov Oblast United Russia party boss and Duma deputy speaker Vyacheslav Volodin.”

    The authors of “The Black PR Practitioners Of The White Bear,” a forthcoming book on the tactics of political consultants for the ruling United Russia party explain:

    “At first when a person is identified as a personal enemy of Volodin they initiate a series of negative articles in the mass media. Next those representatives of the public who only imitate the feverish activity of building civil society are activated. These pseudo-activists create paid-for articles in the media that create the necessary public outcry. Or their activities become the excuse for new paid-for articles and television reports. When the number of publications reaches a critical mass, local deputies begin flooding the state organs of the Russian Federation with official inquiries and letters from residents of Saratov Oblast demanding decisive action be taken against the target of Volodin’s attacks, although they produce no real facts that the person has violated the law, because there are no such facts. They merely cite the numerous publications in the media.”

    http://www.rferl.org/content/The_Way_The_Game_Is_Played/1950067.html

    Comment by Zinaida Zalyotchik — 16 Feb 2010 @ 9:16 AM

  145. Reply to #3 you can find lots of graphs here
    http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/full-report

    Comment by Richard Rosas — 16 Feb 2010 @ 9:23 AM

  146. “139
    Bernie says:
    16 February 2010 at 9:05 AM

    #89 OSC13_4_xmas
    Well stated. There is way too much certainty being expressed by all sides. It is also interesting that your comment did not receive a response.”

    What is amusing is that Bernie expressed that “no response” with such great certainty.

    And was wrong.

    Isn’t it ironic, don’t you think?

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 16 Feb 2010 @ 9:51 AM

  147. Bulldust, my experience with RC is that if you bring a link or quote from something you think is questionable, they will give you an honest answer. The RC people are full time scientists and run this site as volunteers on their free time. They do not have the time to chase down every possible misguided article. But an article like this one, which is a gross misrepresentation and undermining of the science in an influential publication has to be challenged.

    Comment by Ron Taylor — 16 Feb 2010 @ 9:53 AM

  148. Marion Delgado@118 – most excellent points, well stated – the blogosphere really is excellent evidence of Dunning-Kruger re metacognition, or the lack of.

    Comment by flxible — 16 Feb 2010 @ 10:01 AM

  149. BPL,

    1995 to 2010 is not enough time to determine “statistiically significant” warming. You say it takes 30 years…fine.

    On Taminos site you stated the following:

    “Human civilization will collapse complete some time in the next 40 years if we don’t make a massive switch to renewable sources of energy some time in the next ten years. Remember, you heard it here first”

    Are these positons in conflict?

    Comment by joe — 16 Feb 2010 @ 10:04 AM

  150. “Gilles: “To my knowledge,..”
    We know how well that’s worked for you in the past, Gilles.
    Argument by personal ignorance.
    Have you looked?”
    As you repeatedly showed that you simply misunderstood what I was saying or questioning, I think wiser to simply ignore your judgements.

    I think that the burden of proof is for those who claim that the warming is unprecedented. I never saw any evidence that it was statistically significantly unprecedented. I precise that this doesn’t mean that CO2 is not anthropogenic, is not increasing, or is not producing greenhouse effect. It only means that its effect are not significantly higher – yet – than the natural variability on any timescale on which you can have a reasonable estimate. Show me the opposite if you think it’s wrong.

    Comment by Gilles — 16 Feb 2010 @ 10:11 AM

  151. I don’t think that the scientists and scientifically-inclined laypersons who frequent this site can fully appreciate the cocaine-like thrill that Ditto-Heads achieve when they regurgitate the latest drivel that Rush Limbaugh, Fox News or some other “right wing” propaganda outfit has spoon-fed them.

    Ask yourself this: if the entirety of the so-called “conservative” mass media were literally a wholly-owned subsidiary of ExxonMobil, how would its behavior be different from what we are seeing today?

    Comment by SecularAnimist — 16 Feb 2010 @ 10:30 AM

  152. Bulldust: here, we make a distinction between being “pro-AGW” (sticking to the science) and being rabidly pro, to the point of distorting the facts and making up improbable doom-laden fantasies. Those people are not helping.

    And yes, when we see exaggerations that overstate the magnitude or effects of warming, then we speak out. Not that anyone notices – the media has no interest in reporting how they played fast and loose with the truth, and the deniers prefer to believe that all AGW is an exaggeration. So, such corrections are usually sermons purely for the benefit of the choir.

    But still, we correct, and we correct. And by “we”, I don’t just mean myself. RC has done a few pieces reigning in media distortions of climate science and correcting errors large and small.

    * A few minor corrections for An Inconvenient Truth
    * Explaining the link between Katrina and global warming
    * Dispelling the common myths about sea-level rise.

    And those are just a few examples that I recalled from the top of my head. If you read the archives you will find many more.

    Comment by Didactylos — 16 Feb 2010 @ 10:38 AM

  153. Your update Update 2/16/10 link is wrong – this refers to the allegations made by the Guardian. Not the Daily Mail.

    [Response: Thanks. Fixed now.]

    Comment by GSW — 16 Feb 2010 @ 10:57 AM

  154. Another popular version of the interview over at American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/climategates_phil_jones_confes.html

    Comment by Nick — 16 Feb 2010 @ 11:05 AM

  155. Folks, the update link is wrong. That link goes to the Keenan story in the Guardian… well, it did when I just followed it.

    Comment by P. Lewis — 16 Feb 2010 @ 11:07 AM

  156. how are you reconciling the “sloppy record keeping” and “lost data?”

    Comment by scott — 16 Feb 2010 @ 11:13 AM

  157. Re. Update 2/16/10. Phil Jones has confirmed to us that our interpretations of his comments in the BBC interview are indeed the correct ones, and that he agrees with the statements in our piece above. He and his CRU colleagues have also put up an initial response to some of the false allegations in the Daily Mail piece.
    This link (currently) goes to comments about a Guardian piece…:
    http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/guardianstatement

    Comment by ZT — 16 Feb 2010 @ 11:24 AM

  158. #87, Ian says [claims no data]
    Ian, your mistaken claim was refuted in the inline answer to #86.

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 16 Feb 2010 @ 11:45 AM

  159. Isn’t it becoming obvious that the media will deliberately distort the facts, despite the evidence? It’s very clear to me. And the public itself hates the evidence. Read the comments from the unwashed, they are largely ignorant of the data and clearly prefer to remain that way. This has some rather strong implications.

    The groundswell of support that the climate change ‘lobby’ would like to see will not happen, the opposition and the lies are too well funded and being supported by a rather large dedicated group of denialists. Anytime an article comes out, it is instantly attacked. You could stick a thermometer up their ass and they’d deny it was 98.6 degrees.

    I think what this means is they will have to be forced to experience the effects of climate change before they will ever come around to the truth. And that will most certainly happen now, as we are well past the point where this can be prevented.

    In the end, the global warming crowd will be proven right (and already is, as the East is being buried under snow, more ‘proof’, they just don’t want to admit it). But by the time they evidence is in, it will be hell on Earth.

    Comment by Reader — 16 Feb 2010 @ 11:46 AM

  160. Bernie says, “It is also interesting that your comment did not receive a response.”

    Pray, why should I respond to technobabble. Next thing we know, this dude will start posting in Klingon!

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 16 Feb 2010 @ 11:58 AM

  161. Marion Delgado(118), very good points. While not rebutting any of them, I offer clarifications on a couple. In #4 you sound just a little like Physics at the end of the 19th century when it was common knowledge that there was nothing more to learn.

    In #3, the 80/20 rule is well known and well accepted, but accurate only in some context’s – like a business trying to assess the marketability of a less than business busting new product. When you are considering implementing stuff that potentially grossly affects for the worse and for a long time a majority of the societies and countries (or maybe not), 80% accuracy is not near good enough.

    Comment by Rod B — 16 Feb 2010 @ 12:22 PM

  162. Crying that AGW is the victim of bad media story is a bit rich. AGW has been a media darling for a decade. I can’t stand media group think, whether it be the recent UK anti-AGW spectacle, or the US pro AGW bias.

    I agree the article was a bit sensationalized. It is still rare for a climate scientist to “admit” temperature trends recently are bending the wrong direction for reasons that are not yet known. It may also be the case that the media are now asking harder questions.

    It would be nice if this board spoke up when the ridiculous alarmism/misleading/overstating articles on AGW are put out. AGW is winning by about 100:1 margin here I think, but this has changed in the last 3 months.

    Comment by Tom Scharf — 16 Feb 2010 @ 12:31 PM

  163. If you give interviews to the media the answers you supply, and the interpretation put upon them, move immediately beyond your control as soon as you utter them. Methinks that Prof. Jones should have been more explicit in what he said and should probably get some media training before attempting to “clear the decks” next time.

    Comment by David Harrington — 16 Feb 2010 @ 12:34 PM

  164. “In #4 you sound just a little like Physics at the end of the 19th century when it was common knowledge that there was nothing more to learn.”

    So did we learn anything new about pendulums?

    And did the 20th Century start with people saying “well, Newton could be wrong. Dunno what to replace it with, but he’s wrong.”?

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 16 Feb 2010 @ 12:39 PM

  165. I cover this latest nonsense from the Daily Mail, as well as the Times, here.

    http://deepclimate.org/2010/02/16/morano-sends-lies-from-uk-times-and-daily-mail-around-the-world/


    Get ready. Lies originating in the U.K. over the weekend in newspaper stories by Jonathan Leake of the Times and Jonathan Petre of the Mail on Sunday, are about to hit the contrarian echo chamber. As usual, Marc Morano is on the case, with his Climate Depot science fabrication clearinghouse claiming that “World may not be warming, say scientists” and “Phil Jones admits: There has been no global warming since 1995″.

    But a cursory examination of the actual articles shows that not only are both claims false, but the articles themselves are chock full of other misleading statements. And reborn skeptic evangelist Jonathan Leake of the Times has not only selected highly dubious research, but has glossed over the fossil fuel industry ties of the researchers, especially those of economist Ross McKitrick. So, for the benefit of Leake and other journalists, I’ll also go over a few unsavoury facts about McKitrick that I didn’t get to last time.

    Not that any of that matters to the contrarian blogosphere and the right-wing U.S. press who will no doubt embrace these latest supposedly fatal blows to climate science in the days to come.

    Comment by Deep Climate — 16 Feb 2010 @ 12:40 PM

  166. “I think that the burden of proof is for those who claim that the warming is unprecedented.”

    This has been proven.

    Did you miss the 1998 MBH and the NAS study afterward that agreed?

    NOTE: that data was done before 1998 and so doesn’t include the hottest decade yet.

    Now, where’s your proof it’s wrong?

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 16 Feb 2010 @ 12:46 PM

  167. Why are some of the most hysterical denial fanatics English? Lord Monkton, The Times, The Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, etc. Are they on the payroll of BP, decline of Empire, mass emigration to Australia, absence of good scientists, or what. What strange psychological tick is causing this unusual abnormality?

    Comment by Lord Big-Wig — 16 Feb 2010 @ 1:11 PM

  168. Richard Ordway,

    Wow! What a beautiful bibliography! I’ve just spent most of the morning copying and pasting into my own source list, which is divided into subject areas. Thank you for posting this! I’m familiar with fewer than half of these articles and there are a lot I want to look up now!

    Comment by Barton Paul Levenson — 16 Feb 2010 @ 1:12 PM

  169. mircea @81

    “[Come on… this sounds like the answer of a creationist (argumentum ad ignorantiam). The automatic answer to your question is “natural variability”. The question was a fair one. What falsifiability criteria are there? You can do better!”

    “Natural variability” is the correct response to “why the Earth sits at 288K instead of 255K or so”? How does that work?

    If someone was to ask “why is the average human height 5.5ft plus, rather than 2.5 ft?” would you answer a)natural variability or b) legs?

    Comment by Bud — 16 Feb 2010 @ 1:12 PM

  170. “Dane Skold says:
    15 February 2010 at 6:30 PM

    Re: “They’re not the least bit interested in finding the truth. They don’t even have any concept of it–which is why they prefer to buy into lies and conspiracy ideas. The inmates seek the keys to the asylum—Jim”

    You are quite wrong about [They’re]. We are absolutely interested in the truth, to whatever conclusion the true data leads.”

    Yet, you state:

    To date, your conclusions have been hidden

    which is a flat lie, and:

    in obscured and obfuscated data and methods

    which is a flat lie, and:

    and thus found wanting in transparent data and methodology.

    an utterly biased opinion given the basis is lies. Then you add another:

    When that blessed day comes that a “skeptic” is given your actual data and methodology and reproduces your results and conclusions, then, sir, we will believe you.

    as vast reaches of data, methodologies, etc., are very, very available. What IS true is that you don’t know how to use them and don’t understand them – worse, have no desire to. You knew back in the 90’s your stance was a lie, yet, here you are.

    “Until then, your tantrums and pounding on the table do not make your arguments or opinion any more persuasive. Instead, you appear more and more to be the boy who cried wolf.”

    80+% of Arctic Sea Ice mass gone. Really, that’s all you need to know. While it doesn’t “prove” global warming in and of itself, with all the other data, it’s like a fire burning through the door in front of you, and that door is your only escape.

    Quit pretending you are a serious person with serious concerns. All you and the other “skeptics” do is focus on personalities and essentially irrelevant “errors”. Why don’t you address the preponderance of evidence, even once?

    Rhetorical question to the bought-and-paid-for and the brainwashed.

    Comment by ccpo — 16 Feb 2010 @ 1:14 PM

  171. I must say, events of the past three months have served well in cementing once and for all our knowledge of just who is most eager and quick to politicize science. At least that’s been settled.

    Dr. Jones serves as an A-1 example that even if scientists were by and large inclined to make this a political matter, they’d lose as their skills and instincts do not lie in that direction. On the other hand, the alacrity and skill with which any opening for polemic and demagoguery is exploited by the PR flacks and ATM politicians running the oppo camp illustrates their natural proclivities beyond any doubt.

    Good to have that cleared up.

    Comment by Doug Bostrom — 16 Feb 2010 @ 1:15 PM

  172. Ray Ladbury has twice stated “if they publish, they get included”

    This is particularly laughable given the extent of manipulation of the journals and suppression of dissent shown in Climategate.

    I don’t have to prove you wrong for you to not take my hard earned taxes. You have to provide clear and convincing evidence that you are right.

    IMO the climate models / predictions are not solid enough yet to declare imminent disaster and make large lifestyle changes over.

    Comment by Tom Scharf — 16 Feb 2010 @ 1:19 PM

  173. Another thought: information comes to us in strange ways. It’s remarkable how quickly energy is being poured into this thread by folks claiming to be skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. It was true of the previous thread as well.

    From the perspective of rate of work– horsepower so to speak– these more politically oriented postings tend to surpass the input power levels devoted by skeptics to purely scientific posts.

    I’m sure this means something.

    Comment by Doug Bostrom — 16 Feb 2010 @ 1:21 PM

  174. jb: So do we wait for 100 years of stat. significant warming?

    BPL: We have 160 years of statistically significant warming.

    Comment by Barton Paul Levenson — 16 Feb 2010 @ 1:22 PM

  175. > stuff that potentially grossly affects for the worse and for a long
    > time a majority of the societies and countries

    That’s why people are worried about climate change, for sure.

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 16 Feb 2010 @ 1:23 PM

  176. #99, Professor Jones was accurate in his statements to climatologists, perfectly all right! But he was adressing the general public not inclined to understand the language and numbers of Climatologists. It is exactly there where contrarians mine their words, somehow looking confusing language is perfect for their propaganda.

    Comment by wayne davidson — 16 Feb 2010 @ 1:23 PM

  177. This is the update linked response:
    http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/guardianstatement

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 16 Feb 2010 @ 1:27 PM

  178. Still Phil Jones admits to large uncertanties and does not support the statement: “The debate is over.” Much like RC has also stated in agreement with his desire to gather more data and do more analysis. I will say again AGW while a real phenomenon with “much of the warming from the 1950’s is man made” it is hardly translating into leftist doomsaying either. Planting more trees, growing more algae and reducing benzene being dumped into the waters will certainly help in addition to modest emissions lowering; when I say modest I do not mean planting a 5 watt windmill, but I also know we can never do away with all fossil fuels or all GHG emissions for that matter… this is scientifically and technologically impossible even if we relied upon dangerous nuclear power for 100% of our energy needs.

    Comment by Jacob Mack — 16 Feb 2010 @ 1:31 PM

  179. We should note, with regard to the Solanki solar article, that the reporter almost certainly did not write the stupid headline–editors usually do that.

    Comment by Barton Paul Levenson — 16 Feb 2010 @ 1:33 PM

  180. joe,

    No, they are not in conflict. Two different subjects.

    Comment by Barton Paul Levenson — 16 Feb 2010 @ 1:36 PM

  181. Gilles: I think that the burden of proof is for those who claim that the warming is unprecedented.

    BPL: What part of “It’s warmer now than at any time in the last 2,000 years, and possibly a couple of orders of magnitude longer than that” did you not understand?

    Comment by Barton Paul Levenson — 16 Feb 2010 @ 1:38 PM

  182. Rod B. says, ” In #4 you sound just a little like Physics at the end of the 19th century when it was common knowledge that there was nothing more to learn.”

    Rod, you are being disingenuous. Marion is not saying there is nothing left to learn. Rather he is saying its exceedingly unlikely that someone who has devoted all of about 30 minutes to mastering the nuances of climate science is very unlikely to come up with anything really novel that a century’s worth of highly trained and motivated scientists haven’t already considered. Do you see the difference? Do you dispute it? Do you have a counter example?

    As to #3, First, I would say we probably know about 90-95% of the important stuff. Second, all of that stuff we know says that if we keep burning fossil fuels, we will severely impact the globes ability to support the 9-10 billion souls it must support until the end of this century. The level of confidence on this is probably at least 95%. The question Rod is whether we go with the odds as calculated by the best science we have, or whether we bet the future of human civilization on a 20:1 longshot. Feel Lucky,Cowboy?

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 16 Feb 2010 @ 1:42 PM

  183. KBob and others are confused regarding Dr. Jones’ answer that verified the earth has warmed in the past such as in the late 1800’s. The fact that the press and many citizens are treating this as some revelation shows just how poorly they understand climate science.

    Go to the “Start Here” button of this web site and you will find the explanation which is basically:

    Global warming didn’t start in the 1980’s when the man-made signal first became apparent to many scientists and the press. Humans have been changing climate prior to this by clearing forest, burning coal, etc. which put a lot of carbon dioxide in the air. Also, warming periods have been caused by natural factors as well. It is all a matter of attributing the forcings and feedbacks responsible for increases (or decreases) in global temps.

    If my car stops, which it has done maybe a 10,000 times before, I’d want to know what caused it to stop before proclaiming that I’ve hit a brick wall. Maybe I just used my brakes, maybe a wheel fell off.

    Bottomline: your going to have to trust the science to know whether or not this warming period is man-made just as most people must trust scientists when they say that the earth revolves around the sun. If you’re not a trusting person then you’re going to have to dedicate quite a bit of time reading studies for yourself. I believe this web site has all the resources necessary in terms of published science to satisfy most people.

    Comment by Andy — 16 Feb 2010 @ 1:42 PM

  184. Re: #159

    Please note,

    “Reader” is not a sock puppet for yours truly.

    :-)

    I don’t play that way.

    Reader, please take a gander at my blog, http://realskeptic.blogspot.com for an opinion that starts where you are but does not assume armageddon.

    Also, we went on for several pages at the end of the “2009” thread.

    All is not lost, although “Round One” surely is.

    Comment by Walt Bennett — 16 Feb 2010 @ 1:48 PM

  185. This episode is a reminder that the Miranda warning has broader applicability than is normally credited. It does appear that “While you may have the right to remain silent and consult and attorney, anything that you do say, or don’t say, not only can, but most certainly will, be used against you by all those who are ignorant of the facts, and especially by all those who could care less what the facts are.”

    Comment by Andy Lacis — 16 Feb 2010 @ 1:53 PM

  186. Ian (53) wrote:
    “For years MSM has unquestioningly accepted that AGW is proven and has spun stories that reinforce that view”

    Hogwash! For years the MSM has gone out of it’s way to appear balanced. They frequently find a single skeptical scientist and give he/she as much column space as the 500 climate scientists that disagree with the skeptic. That’s what they’re taught in journalism school, try to appear balanced by presenting opinions from all sides of the issue.

    Comment by Ken W — 16 Feb 2010 @ 2:04 PM

  187. Reader (159), if they did deny it they would probably be correct, as 98.6 is not the average anal temperature. Though picayune accuracy is probably not important to your strongly felt ideas.

    Comment by Rod B — 16 Feb 2010 @ 2:19 PM

  188. Is it possible for Jones and his colleagues to sue the Guardian and other media sources for libel? I thought that British law currently allowed plaintiff’s much greater latitudee in such suits than in the US. Defendants can lose even if they can prove their statements were true. In this case, it would be possible to show they were in fact false, and they certainly affected the reputations of the CRU group.

    Comment by Leonard Evens — 16 Feb 2010 @ 2:23 PM

  189. It looks as if we’re going to start building nuclear power plants again.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/16/AR2010021601302.html?hpid=topnews

    The article says these two power plants will come on line 5-7 years.

    I personally think this is good news because I believe doing so will allow us to quit coal by mid-century thus leaving a future for my grandchildren other than nomad raiders. Over the past 2 decades I’ve gone from being strongly anti-nuke to grudging acceptance. I’ve been convinced of this by reading stuff by people like Hans Bethe, Richard Rhodes, Stewart Brand, James Lovelock, James Hansen. I’m still not a huge fan of nukes, but for me, it comes down to the uncertain danger of nuclear power versus the certain danger of coal. Brand remarked that we should worry only about storing waste a century at a time because technology will improve (provided we get control of CO2 emissions) rather than trying to decide now how to store the waste for thousands of years which is sort of impossible to do with certainty. If we start producing large quantities of photovoltaic/ocean wave/etc power I’m all for it but as of right now the only non-hydro renewable energy source that is actually producing a significant amount of energy is wind. Here’s a snippet of Brand on technology. http://www.longnow.org/seminars/02009/oct/09/rethinking-green/

    Comment by John E. Pearson — 16 Feb 2010 @ 2:26 PM

  190. ZT (#157),

    Just out of curiosity, who’s “us”? Any idea when the response will be released?

    My personal impression of Dr. Phil Jones is that he’s a hard-working intelligent scientist who does good research but is not necessarily very media-savvy. The BBC interview mentioned that many of the questions were provided to them by “skeptics”. This is actually quite obvious. The “statistically significant” question regarding trends from 1995 were cleverly asked as a way to illicit a response that could be easily spun. Kees van der Leun in #97 points this out (I’d add that Jones could have mentioned the equivalent upper bound trend). It’s like someone asking “how much of the atmosphere is composed of CO2″ and if a scientist simply states the correct answer concisely, the media spin would be “U-Turn: Jones admits CO2 is insignificant”. Certainly, one cannot blame Jones for people misrepresenting him, but scientists can probably go further in making such things more difficult. If a loaded question is put forth – the relevancy of the question should first be detailed.

    Comment by MarkB — 16 Feb 2010 @ 2:30 PM

  191. #1, & “How does it feel now that the media shoe is on the other foot?”

    Not sure what you mean. Except that in the late 80s and early 90s the media seemed to be reporting fairly accurately about AGW. Then from the early 90s to about 2005 there was virtually nothing about AGW, at least here in the U.S. I call it “the silent treatment” and it was so effective that when I mentioned global warming to a person in 2004, she said she thought it has been disproved, since she had seen nothing about on TV or newspapers.

    Oh yes, there was a NIGHTLINE program in 1995 (the year science reached the golden .05 on AGW), “Is Science For Sale?” re whether some climate denialists where being bought off by oil/coal. It was in the typical “pro-con” format reserved for opinions (that’s how the media do their “science”), with one bona fide climate scientist and 2 denialists bought out by big money (their names on http://www.exxonsecrets.org as Exxon funds recipients).

    The upshot was that Koppel figured science was not for sale, and that AGW was uncertain (he and his oily friends require .0000000001 on it). The sponsor was Texaco. I wrote to Koppel that even if science were not for sale, the media sure were. And why didn’t they at least try to find some other sponsor for the program — it was an open disgrace to the media.

    Aside from that program, the Chicago Tribune in 1995 (the summer of the massive Chicago heat deaths) did mention global warming a couple of times: One was in the travel section — seems some Swiss villages were being flooded out by glacier melt, so don’t visit there. Then buried on a back page was mention of how VP Al Gore was saving the gov over a $billion through energy efficiency; I think they mentioned GW in that 1 col inch piece.

    But the only reason I found those references was because our library had the electronic version and I did a search specifically for global warming/climate change/greenhouse effect.

    After 2005 the news coverage on GW did pick up a bit — but let’s face it, that’s way to little way too late. The media crime of silence during a very important period when we could have gotten onto the right track of mitigating AGW and helping our economic to boot had already been committed. And now the media are kicking a soon-to-be-dead horse (our planet) to speed up its demise with all their AGW disinformation. That amounts to genocide and ecocide.

    So, what shoe and on what other foot??? Or you must be from “not-the-USA” and actually have read some straight and accurate newstories about AGW over the years as the science slowly developed.

    Comment by Lynn Vincentnathan — 16 Feb 2010 @ 2:33 PM

  192. I am confused, can anyone state what weather/climate denotes global warming and what weather/climate would denote no global warming?

    Comment by Peter Whale — 16 Feb 2010 @ 2:38 PM

  193. More ad hominem attacks. That will keep the feelings running high.

    The Daily Mail quotes Jones saying,
    ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

    ‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.’

    So, where is the distortion?

    Also, Jones continued,
    ‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’

    Did you not print it because it runs counter to the slant you wanted to put on the interview? Looks like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

    Comment by D Talling — 16 Feb 2010 @ 2:47 PM

  194. One of the problems here is the focus on surface temperatures. The bigger picture is an upward trend in the energy budget of the planet.

    That means some of that increasing energy is going to warm the atmosphere, but a whole lot of it is also going to warming the oceans and melting ice caps.

    It might be useful for someone to develop a database of empirical data on the global energy budget and to publish monthly data in the way that it is for surface temperatures.

    In the very least mention the concept of global energy budget, the information about ocean heat content, and the energy needed to melt ice caps every time you are asked a question about surface temperatures.

    Comment by Peter Houlihan — 16 Feb 2010 @ 2:48 PM

  195. Now onto the IPCC issue — as I mentioned in an earlier post, when I was writing a paper on FOOD RIGHTS & CLIMATE CHANGE I read p. 493 of the Asia Chapter of AR4 WG2, and decided not to use the 2035 claim bec it seemed much sooner re glacier retreat than I had read before, and also the source — WWF. This is not to say NGOs don’t do good, science-backed work; they do. In fact, I figured there must be some sci study to back this, so I got the WWF source, but then seeing that they quoted The New Scientist, I thought that was just too weak for me to include such a new and quite startling claim. Besides there are so many other AGW threats to Asia, that the glacier thing is almost redundant (like having enough nukes to destroy the world 8 times over). Not to downplay the fact that glacier and snowpack retreat will be very very desvastating for large segments of the world’s population; it’s a serious problem — but one among many many other negative GW effects.

    So, see, NO HARM DONE by that mistake.

    And it seems that only I and the lone scientist who discovered & exposed the mistake 1 year or so after the IPCC was published were the ONLY ONES WHO ACTUALLY READ THAT PAGE on Asia. At least not many would have read it.

    So the real story from this is that the world seems to have written off Asia, and Africa, and Oceania, and Latin American, and….the rest of the world.

    That’s the real story.

    Comment by Lynn Vincentnathan — 16 Feb 2010 @ 2:58 PM

  196. This seems pertinent:

    http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-change/stories/scientist-to-the-daily-mail-i-didnt-say-the-earth-was-cooling

    Comment by Martin Vermeer — 16 Feb 2010 @ 3:07 PM

  197. The lack of warming or cooling should be easy to define. Just look at the temperatures, if it is higher, it is warmer, and if it is lower, it is cooler, within the error margins of the thermometers. The statistical significance refers to the global warming trend only. In this case, there has been warming since 1995, and not since 1998.

    Comment by Journeyman — 16 Feb 2010 @ 3:10 PM

  198. RE #151 & “Ask yourself this: if the entirety of the so-called ‘conservative’ mass media were literally a wholly-owned subsidiary of ExxonMobil, how would its behavior be different from what we are seeing today?”

    I’m just now beginning to think that Exxon may be rethinking its AGW disinformation campaign expenditures. Here’s what I wrote on another blog yesterday.

    [Re another problem thought caused by a single-source harm…] It’s the big guys out to harm the little guys. That makes sense to people.

    Well, with AGW, the shoe’s on the other foot — it’s all of us who are guilty. We can now feel the pinch and we don’t like it, so if the shoe is pinching, say, Exxon & co more than others, and they do their usual — try to cover it up, create anti-science matter, and sow doubt as their most important product, etc (see http://www.exxonsecrets.org to see if your favorite org is receiving Exxon money), that’s just BAU for them.

    I’m even thinking that Exxon may be quite surprised that people have fallen for their anti-science so extremely well, that they’re even regretting giving money to so many disinformation campaigns. But the reason the public falls for it so readily is that we are also wearing that pinching shoe that tells us we are to blame, and we’ve got to do something about it.

    Ego is such a big factor — we’d even kill off our own progeny to salve our ego and our goody-two-shoes image. We’d even forgo all sorts of economic benefits. Like I’m saving $100s per year $1000s per decade since I started mitigating AGW in 1990, without lowering living standards. But the people I’ve spoken to over the past 20 years are not really interested if it means they have to accept that there is a problem, and they are the cause.

    So someone forgot to dot an i in the IPCC report — “Throw the whole thing out,” the people clamor, “We’d rather die and kill our children than admit we are responsible for such a terrible problem.”

    Comment by Lynn Vincentnathan — 16 Feb 2010 @ 3:16 PM

  199. Once again, several of the commenters on this thread today would do well to actually study the instrumental temperature record. So here are the decadal averages from the GISTEMP global temperature anomalies product:
    1880s -0.25
    1890s -0.26
    1900s -0.27
    1910s -0.28
    1920s -0.16
    1930s -0.03
    1940s +0.04
    1950s -0.02
    1960s -0.01
    1970s +0.00
    1980s +0.18
    1990s +0.32
    2000s +0.51
    Take note of the dramatic change of trend in the last 30 years in comparison to the first 100.

    Comment by David B. Benson — 16 Feb 2010 @ 3:16 PM

  200. What about the argument that the planet has continued to gain heat energy since 1998. What about the many greenhouse signatures. Several papers on all of this that are hard to refute.

    The so called “global warming lobby” better get in the mainstream media and start pushing these points better, and refuting the sceptics. Or you will all be destroyed.

    Comment by nigel jones — 16 Feb 2010 @ 3:17 PM

  201. “162
    Tom Scharf says:
    16 February 2010 at 12:31 PM
    AGW has been a media darling for a decade.”

    You know, it’s really sad when the dittos feel they can’t manage a new idea themselves.

    Didn’t we just have a half-hour session with another doofus saying the exact same thing?

    I wonder if this one here is the american branch.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 16 Feb 2010 @ 3:42 PM

  202. “Equally of course, the lack of data provides no evidence that it wasn’t a worldwide phenomenon.”

    Similarly, South America could have been inhabited entirely by squirrels. Lack of data.

    Can’t argue with that.

    Comment by Jeffrey Davis — 16 Feb 2010 @ 3:49 PM

  203. Jacob Mack says:

    Still Phil Jones admits to large uncertanties and does not support the statement: “The debate is over.”

    What Jones says:

    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

    I – Would it be reasonable looking at the same scientific evidence to take the view that recent warming is not predominantly manmade?

    No

    Comment by dhogaza — 16 Feb 2010 @ 3:59 PM

  204. Apparently Phil Jones has just done an interview with Nature where he clarifies further.

    http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100215/full/news.2010.71.html

    Comment by GSW — 16 Feb 2010 @ 4:10 PM

  205. Jones is a very sloppy scientist. So much “lost” data, then the email where he says he would delete it rather than send it to the Canadians. You can argue every last point but why stand by a scientist who is so sloppy/lazy/incompetant whatever he is? I feel sorry for him but why is somebody so disorganized getting such a defense here? Skeptics, deniers, liberal, conservative, commies who cares, you guys have gone round the bend and this blog seems delusional. If I were a scientist on this blog I would begin fresh and rebuild what has been broken down and not deny that anything has been broken down. If you are right then a revamp that is transparent without “lost” data and a sloppy desk will show that you are right. Gavin you are smarter than this, stop wasting your energy defending things that obviously went wrong, no matter how smart you all are nor how much you polish this terd, its still a big floater.

    Comment by grzejnik — 16 Feb 2010 @ 4:12 PM

  206. “Similarly, South America could have been inhabited entirely by squirrels. Lack of data.”

    Who will enslave us to work in their nut mines.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 16 Feb 2010 @ 4:13 PM

  207. “197
    Journeyman says:
    16 February 2010 at 3:10 PM

    The lack of warming or cooling should be easy to define… In this case, there has been warming since 1995, and not since 1998.”

    And for some, so easy to get wrong.

    WRONG.

    2005 warmest. Warmest January on record. Warmest decade is the decade AFTER 1998, if you think a month is too short.

    Unless you’re agreeing that the CRU data is not fiddled and is the true record, despite the calumnies piled on the CRU by the purveyors of climategate?

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 16 Feb 2010 @ 4:16 PM

  208. RE @79 K-Bob says:
    15 February 2010 at 11:03 PM

    If Phil Jones contends that the recent warming is similar to warmings in the past, why doesn’t he (or others) explain the reasons for the warmings of those other periods. I’ve yet to hear a reasonable explanation.

    As a side note: Why do both sides of the debate get so worked up over the change in global temperature over the last 10 years or so. Of course it has not warmed any additional degrees of consequence, but at the same time it is too short a period to jump to any conclusions.

    [Response: Don’t know–ask the ones who keep bringing it up as hoped for proof of something. –Jim]

    [Response: This this paper of ours and numerous others cited therein. -mike]

    Reply to Mike’s Response – The referenced Mann document provides data to support a historical record of temperatures, which further makes a correlation with the PDO, AMO and El Nino. It does not provide any arguments for what caused these temperature anomolies in the past. I don’t think anyone would disagree that there is some degree of correlation between the global temperatures (especially regional temperatures) and PDO, AMO, El Nino, etc. Rather, as pointed out by Phil Jones in his interview, that the rate and duration of the recent warming is not unprecedented. My question remains: What caused past warmings or coolings, or better yet, what caused past El Nino’s or La Nina’s?

    [Response: Volcanoes, solar, and maybe nothing. That is to say, there are clear correlations of coolings with volcanic eruptions – or groups of them, and there is some evidence of a solar signal, and there is plenty of evidence for just the internal variability of the climate system playing a role. Specific El Nino’s are not generally thought of as being caused by something specific and external (though there is some evidence that you get an El Nino slightly more often after a big volcano). However, attribution of the changes in the last 50 years have nothing to do with whether they are ‘unprecedented’ or not. With just the changes in solar and volcanic and with really very generous contributions from internal variability, you cannot explain the recent trends. However, including anthropogenic effects does provide a good explanation. And you are misreading Jones’ statements – the recent century is exceptional in the rate of change of global temperature (as far as we can tell) over the last 1000 years or two. That in itself is not an argument of attribution, but it is interesting, don’t you think? – gavin]

    [Response: Read the paper more closely. We compare the observed patterns with results from forced (volcanic and solar) coupled model simulations. This is what allows us to draw conclusions regarding the role of solar and volcanic forcing of both El Nino and the North Atlantic Oscillation/Arctic Oscillation. It is those comparisons that allow us to interpret the dynamical changes in the context of forcing mechanisms. – mike]

    Comment by K-Bob — 16 Feb 2010 @ 4:17 PM

  209. “193
    D Talling says:
    16 February 2010 at 2:47 PM
    So, where is the distortion?”

    The distortion is in quote mining.

    There are plenty of other cases where they didn’t even bother with that level of sophistication, relying on the converted to lap it up:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khikoh3sJg8

    And did you ever lap it up…

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 16 Feb 2010 @ 4:19 PM

  210. grzejnik: the data isn’t lost. It is where it should be: with the data curators.

    And as for Jones’ suspicion of the motives of self-proclaimed “sceptics” – he seems to be totally vindicated on that point. They have been thoroughly exposed as mounting a nuisance campaign of FOI requests, and clearly they are not acting in good faith, nor do they want the data for academic purposes.

    As for the data handling: I think everyone agrees that it didn’t reach “best practice” levels, but so far there is no credible claim that normal data handling practices weren’t applied. Who knew, back then, that ridiculously paranoid data retention and tracking was needed, to answer all the spurious claims from unqualified nobodies?

    Comment by Didactylos — 16 Feb 2010 @ 4:27 PM

  211. >why stand by a scientist who is so … whatever he is?

    Weight of the evidence, careful reading, and attention to detail.

    > if the entirety of the so-called ‘conservative’ mass media
    > were literally a wholly-owned subsidiary of ExxonMobil,
    > how would its behavior be different …?

    Regular use of spellcheck.

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 16 Feb 2010 @ 4:29 PM

  212. “192
    Peter Whale says:
    16 February 2010 at 2:38 PM

    I am confused, can anyone state what weather/climate denotes global warming and what weather/climate would denote no global warming?”

    When it’s warmer, it’s warmer, when it’s colder, it’s not warmer.

    Do you want to retry that question?

    Trend? Or difference?

    Climate? Or weather?

    Global warming is a climate product. Weather is not climate.

    So let’s remove “weather”.

    Climate is about trends, so let’s put that in specifically.

    Lastly the second half isn’t an “and”. So let’s change that and remove it, replacing it with “shows no global trend”.

    Your question is now:

    “can anyone state what climate trend denotes global warming and what denote no global warming trend”.

    30 years is about the minimum you can expect the natural variations around the mean of climate to be less than the expected rise in temperature from warming given the AGW theory over that same period by a margin great enough to ensure there is minimum confusion between the two.

    Random variations cancel out over long enough timescales. Long term trends do not, they accumulate over long enough timescales.

    Therefore we can see, a priori, that 10 or 15 years of data is not long enough for any determination of a trend.

    Neither are two years 30 years apart, because, although there has been 30 years of accumulation of trend, there has been no concomitant removal of variation by the well understood mechanism of random errors canceling out (as epitomised by the random walk model any schoolchild should be familiar with once graduated from school).

    Such trends have a variation that allows an assessment as to whether the model and the measurement agrees.

    If the model results remain within 3 standard deviations of the running mean of a 30 year data set around the same period average of that dataset, then the models and measurements are not proven incorrect.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 16 Feb 2010 @ 4:30 PM

  213. “185
    Andy Lacis says:
    16 February 2010 at 1:53 PM

    This episode is a reminder that the Miranda warning has broader applicability than is normally credited. ”

    Didn’t the US change the miranda rights? They’re no longer read to you, but restated very similar to how the police here in the UK do it:

    Anything you don’t say now but rely upon in your defense is not admissible.

    Or something very like that.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 16 Feb 2010 @ 4:35 PM

  214. “186
    Ken W says:
    16 February 2010 at 2:04 PM

    Hogwash! For years the MSM has gone out of it’s way to appear balanced.”

    Actually, they’ve gone out of their way to be imbalanced, but still give the appearance of balance.

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

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 16 Feb 2010 @ 4:37 PM

  215. “178
    Jacob Mack says:
    16 February 2010 at 1:31 PM

    Still Phil Jones admits to large uncertanties and does not support the statement: “The debate is over.” ”

    A statement that only you have made, so you can knock it down.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 16 Feb 2010 @ 4:40 PM

  216. “172
    Tom Scharf says:
    16 February 2010 at 1:19 PM

    Ray Ladbury has twice stated “if they publish, they get included”

    This is particularly laughable given the extent of manipulation of the journals and suppression of dissent shown in Climategate.”

    You mean where

    1) someone asked about a paper and whether it should be included said “it’s a load of cack”?

    It still got printed.

    2) someone says that a journal has failed the standards of publishing in the scientific areas therefore they should be shunned

    cf Pielke’s and others’ here proclaiming that Pachuri should leave merely because, as a man with money, he’s invested it.

    And isn’t this merely the same as consumer reports? Where some people report that “Product X keeps failing and needs to be returned to supplier. DO NOT BUY” and this is accepted as WANTED?

    How else do you keep the highest levels of objectivity and rigour if you don’t allow punishment of those who profess no objectivity (E&E has stated categorically they have a non-objective role) and exhibit no rigour?

    Shout “Stop! Or I shall say ‘Stop!’ again!”

    ?

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 16 Feb 2010 @ 4:45 PM

  217. Jones stated that there are very few palaeoclimatic records of the Southern hemisphere yet somehow he and Mann are able to reconstuct the temp record for the SH with an incredible accuracy of .1 Deg C going back almost 2000 years. Where did he and Mann get the data come from?

    [Response: You could try reading the paper and downloading the data, or even just looking at the figures. Then you could apologise. – gavin

    Comment by David Glas — 16 Feb 2010 @ 4:54 PM

  218. “205
    grzejnik says:
    16 February 2010 at 4:12 PM

    Jones is a very sloppy scientist.”

    Really? Then how do you know what his emails contained, if he’s so sloppy?

    “So much “lost” data, ”

    I’m glad you used quotes.

    I expect you mean that they weren’t really lost by Jones. However, the truth is they were never lost. It just wasn’t Jones to give.

    “then the email where he says he would delete it rather than send it to the Canadians. ”

    No, ONE canadian who conspired to lie in a FOIA request to a foreign government.

    If you’re a UK taxpayer, why do you want YOUR taxes spent by a DoS by canadians?

    If you’re not a UK taxpayer, then you have no right to ***OUR*** data. Get your own.

    And I would rather sit at home and type up a few astronomy CCD drivers for my machine.

    This doesn’t mean this is what I do.

    Got any proof of your accusations?

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 16 Feb 2010 @ 4:54 PM

  219. Ray Ladbury (182), I’ll quote from the comment: “…the odds are outrageously high that in the 100 or so years scientists have been analyzing effects of Man on climate, it’s already been brought up, considered, accounted for, or rejected. To expect otherwise is almost always Dunning-Kruger or base-rate neglect. Moreover, very often that objection, counter-theory, etc. is very old, and has been recycled and debunked repeatedly over the decades.”

    That sounds damn close to ‘we now know it all’ ala Physics, circa 1900. Closer than your 95%.

    I was simply commenting on the posters “80/20” rule comment. He did not mention the 95/5 rule, which would have maybe caused a different response.

    Comment by Rod B — 16 Feb 2010 @ 5:00 PM

  220. Following on from #205 grzejnik’s post and hopefully not OT:

    He’s right, its not worth fighting and defending every point and alleged wrong doing – pick your battles. After a while these defences do start to look desparate and delusional (beyond reason). I read Dale Carnegies book years ago, summary here.

    http://www.westegg.com/unmaintained/carnegie/win-friends.html

    See Part Three. Win people to your way of thinking

    3. If you are wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically.

    (and move on ) – I appended this.

    Comment by GSW — 16 Feb 2010 @ 5:11 PM

  221. @ grzejnik #205. “Jones is a very sloppy scientist. So much “lost” data..”
    You are comparing Jones to whom exactly? What over scientists have had their emails hacked and have been bombarded by FOI requests from self-appointed ‘auditors’ (most of them time-wasting). What is happening to Jones and a few of his colleagues is without precedent. Would the practices of other scientists stand up to this kind of scrutiny? These are scientists, not a librarians or archivists. His records might not be well organised, but his results do stand up to scrutiny and compare well with results of other independently working scientists.

    Comment by Paul A — 16 Feb 2010 @ 5:22 PM

  222. Minutiae aside, can we build public policy on the quality of science we presently have ?

    [Response: Of course. First off, public policy needs to be made with whatever information is at hand, and secondly, the body of work on the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions is vastly higher quality than the basis of most social or economic policies. – gavin]

    Comment by eric — 16 Feb 2010 @ 5:33 PM

  223. #193
    It is possible to quote someone’s words accurately and still completely misrepresent their meaning. Jones is saying that IF there was evidence that the MWP was global AND that overall it was hotter than it is now then that would indicate that it was, er, hotter than it is now. It is an entirely hypothetical argument as we don’t have the any such evidence. So the distortion is the Mail’s claim that “Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.”

    In fact there is double distortion because even if the MWP was warmer that still would in no way suggest that global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. This is typical of the whole article – a mishmash of factual innacuracy, wilful misrepresentation and logical fallacy.

    [Response: Well said. – gavin]

    Comment by Andrew Adams — 16 Feb 2010 @ 6:02 PM

  224. Undecided @ 58

    Just a personal perspective from a layman, I’m sure you’ll all correct me in your usual manner.

    Let me, a layperson, attempt to try an analogy that might help make it a bit clearer.

    General practitioner tells you, you have a brain tumor. You need to go to an expert in the field.

    Choice A: Neurologist

    Choice B: Proctologist

    Side show: Your bartender at the local pub has heard that the gardener at the Proctologist’s golf club is not sure that the Neurologists really know all that much about neurology.

    So you go and ask the bartender (another layman) for advice on how to extract your cephalic protrusion from your arse?!

    If you wish to debate science with any scientist then go get your advanced degree, then do some research, get your data and then publish your findings in the appropriate peer reviewed journals.

    Otherwise you esteemed opinion is worth about as much as a steaming cow pile, Now why is that such a difficult concept for most laypeople to grasp?

    Comment by Fred Magyar — 16 Feb 2010 @ 6:06 PM

  225. Rod B “That sounds damn close to ‘we now know it all’ ala Physics, circa 1900. Closer than your 95%.”

    And so what have we learned about pendulums that we didn’t know before 1900?

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 16 Feb 2010 @ 6:12 PM

  226. David Glass (217) hasn’t replied so I’ll post the last sentence of the Abstract from the paper cited. The Abstract is the first paragraph of the paper.

    “Conclusions for the Southern Hemisphere and global mean temperature are limited by the sparseness of available proxy data in the Southern Hemisphere at present.”

    Comment by Jeffrey Davis — 16 Feb 2010 @ 6:29 PM

  227. Completely Fed Up (224) — Keeping inverted double pendulums aloft:
    http://www.mecheng.adelaide.edu.au/robotics/robotics_projects.php?browsebyauthor=115&title=24&wpage_id=44
    Now we just need to control the cilmate. :-)

    Comment by David B. Benson — 16 Feb 2010 @ 6:38 PM

  228. Peter whale asks:”I am confused, can anyone state what weather/climate denotes global warming and what weather/climate would denote no global warming?”

    Wrong question, if you are confused about the recent manufactroversy. It should be “Can anyone state what is statistically significant and what is not statistically significant?”

    Dr. Jones’ answer for 1995-present warming is 0.12 degrees per decade (important part coming next!) plus or minus 0.12 degrees per decade. In other words the short term data could be consistent with a rate of 0 (neither warming nor cooling) or a rate of 0.24 (pretty darn rapid warming). The proper approach is to take a longer set of data, to reduce the plus or minus part. Did you ask yourself why the number 1995 was asked as the start point? Why not 1990? 1985?

    Comment by t_p_hamilton — 16 Feb 2010 @ 6:39 PM

  229. Completely fed up, to your points:

    1. Yes really, he said so, and did not/could not provide the data. I don’t care if he doesn’t wash or how he has the data but if he’s putting it in papers…

    2. I say “lost” in quotes to imply he “lost” it on purpose, or like he said its unorganized.

    3. If this data used in published papers were available online for any and everyone there would be no issue and no cost to the UK taxpayers. His witholding it for whatever reason appears to be (and is) bogus.

    4. Proof of my accusations? Jones said he didn’t release data because it was sloppy or lost, I’m paraphrasing look up the interview if you need to. Lost data? This is in the realm of common knowledge which is part of my point: climate science is in trouble and its not because of skeptics or the media. My appeal is to Gavin who I think is one of the smartest people on this blog but misguided into being a PR person when he should be doing science, of this I have no proof only opinion. Do climate science a favor and take this blog offline and get back to work is my other opinion. The internet is great but is a big waste of Gavin’s talent.

    TO GSW – you get it, but I’m saying all of this catastrophic shocking activist stuff. These guys need to get out of activism and back to science.

    TO Paul A – I’m comparing Jones to Jones and what is needed of a leader in his position. Maybe he is unqualified for that position, maybe he is. I don’t know. I agree that having your thought of as private emails be public is a tough one that few would come out unscathed, but remember first of all the taxpayer money and while it was the case the expectation of privacy is wrong and many or most public scientists and other public employees have no expectation of private emails on their work account. Plus you just can’t ignore what is said. Or maybe you can. I can’t. Thats also what I’m saying, move on. Hire some librarians and archivists if that is whats needed, get that information lined up in a row. Make your temperature graph. Show exactly what went into it. Make it true and make it verifiable. This is so easy, so much has been damaged here and this blog is defending it. I’m sorry but its true. I want whats best for humans and my kids and grandkids. This global warming movement I’m afraid is not whats best. As GSW says, admit what is wrong, and not as a whitewash. Correct it. If Steve McIntyre is right then he’s right. If he’s wrong but you can’t produce the data that shows it, then shame on you. This is a barking mad blog, everyone is so righteious and indignant about skeptics yet there are gaping holes in this science. Open your eyes, its time to wake up.

    Comment by grzejnik — 16 Feb 2010 @ 6:43 PM

  230. Nice one fred Maygar – you completely underline my point with your holier than tho attitude. And your analogy doesn’t quite fit if you really think about it. Firstly the neurologist has many years of actual data that can and has been proved over and over again. Secondly, we don’t have public debate on his expertise, he’s trusted & proven.

    Comment by Undecided — 16 Feb 2010 @ 7:00 PM

  231. There have been various references to the ‘interview’ between Roger Harrabin and Phil Jones. However, here is an extract from the BBC website; my bold:

    “…The BBC’s environment analyst Roger Harrabin put questions to Professor Jones, including several gathered from climate sceptics. The questions were put to Professor Jones with the co-operation of UEA’s press office…“

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
    It is interesting to read this carefully in full, and to note who is asking the questions.
    Elsewhere it is clear that these were written exchanges over a period including updates.

    In the update in the lead-n to this thread, the following link is given to a CRU statement:
    http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/guardianstatement
    It is interesting to compare in full, a news item in Nature and what else has also been commented:
    http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100215/full/news.2010.71.html

    Comment by BobFJ — 16 Feb 2010 @ 7:02 PM

  232. I would think good evidence regarding the temp of the MWP is the glacier above La Paz which recently vanished completely after haveing obviously survived the MWP intact. It was 18,000 years old.

    Comment by Jim Shewan — 16 Feb 2010 @ 7:21 PM

  233. Is there stuff available anywhere that discusses ideas around the (as yet?) unexplained divergence between temperatures and tree ring density that has caused Phil Jones’ problem?

    Comment by Theo Hopkins — 16 Feb 2010 @ 7:26 PM

  234. I know this is not science, but looking at the mug shots of Phil Jones on the net I somehow feel he is an honest man. :-)

    Comment by Theo Hopkins — 16 Feb 2010 @ 7:28 PM

  235. “Dr. Jones’ answer for 1995-present warming is 0.12 degrees per decade (important part coming next!) plus or minus 0.12 degrees per decade. In other words the short term data could be consistent with a rate of 0 (neither warming nor cooling) or a rate of 0.24 (pretty darn rapid warming). The proper approach is to take a longer set of data, to reduce the plus or minus part. Did you ask yourself why the number 1995 was asked as the start point? Why not 1990? 1985?”

    Essentially by cherry picking a start point recent enough in data with any amount of variance you can always force a scientist to say “we aren’t sure”. Essentially it is similar to instead of asking what the result of a fair dice roll would be over thousands of iterations (i.e. ~3.5), you ask what the single next dice roll will be, and then complain that the statistics isn’t up to the job of predicting dice rolls, so it must be useless.

    Comment by Stuart — 16 Feb 2010 @ 7:46 PM

  236. Re #179 BPL

    We should note, with regard to the Solanki solar article, that the reporter almost certainly did not write the stupid headline–editors usually do that.

    In that case the editors forgot to stop when they got to the end of the headline. Otherwise how did Krivova and Solanki’s :

    “We show that at least in the most recent past (since about 1970) the solar influence on climate cannot have been significant”

    Advances in Space Research,2004 vol.34 (2004) p.361.

    get reported as

    “The truth about global warming – it’s the Sun that’s to blame.
    Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

    A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes. [my bold]

    “The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently – in the last 100 to 150 years.” ?

    Daily Telegraph 18th July 2004

    It is true that this was followed by a fairer account. i.e. the DT has “balanced” complete misrepresentation which was quite prominent, with a better version which is less prominent. What is worse is that both versions are run together making for complete confusion. Which will the rapid reader remember , the headline and the first four paragraphs or the remainder of the article which may never be reached?

    Ref.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3325679/The-truth-about-global-warming-its-the-Sun-thats-to-blame.html

    Comment by Geoff Wexler — 16 Feb 2010 @ 7:52 PM

  237. > is there

    Google; you know how to do a site search? Google finds:
    about 371 from realclimate.org for “tree ring density” divergence

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 16 Feb 2010 @ 8:36 PM

  238. Gavin: Questions: Jones suggests (more or less) that there likely was a MWP in parts of the world, but it is not seen in areas where there are few palaeoclimatic records…

    The obvious question is, if the MWP is clearly expressed in NA, North Atlantic and Eurpoe adn parts of Asia, why does the reconstruction of MBH98 and afterwords not have a MWP in the data?

    Part 2, have you done a subset of the reconstruction that overlaps (NA, parts of asia, europe, atlantic) to see if the MWP si present in the data?

    Final, If the reconstruction (of all or a relevant subset) cannot show a MWP, doesn’t that suggest the conclusions of MBP98 et al become significantly less certain?

    Thanks so much
    Leonard

    Comment by Leonard Herchen — 16 Feb 2010 @ 8:42 PM

  239. Re “176
    A little OT but here goes: Having spent time on both sides of the campus and a lot of time off it, I feel that the fundamental problem isn’t just that there’s a misunderstanding of the science, there’s a lack of understanding of the scientific method. I challenge those of higher academia to go across to their brethren in non science disciplines and ask them what it is. I predict 50 percent will give the correct answer. And these are the smart ones. In the real world there’s probably a lot fewer. So what’s the answer? Educate. But don’t assume they know the basics. KISS apllies. Give them the choice. The blue pill or the red pill(why did I take the red pill?)
    Here’s a link. Feel free to substitute Phil for Morpheus and Climate for the Matrix

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te6qG4yn-Ps&feature=PlayList&p=DA359D8DD143AE7D&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=18

    Comment by Riesz — 16 Feb 2010 @ 9:01 PM

  240. Seems that a lot of people are having problems understanding Dr. Jones’ remarks about the Medieval Climate Anomaly, and are unaware of a paper published last year in Science. Maybe an update on millennial temperature reconstructions is in order. Be nice to have a good science discussion.

    Comment by Deech56 — 16 Feb 2010 @ 9:08 PM

  241. K-Bob@208,
    I was looking at records recently. The period from Tambora (1815) to Krakataua (1882) was remarkably free of large volcanic eruptions. Moreover, the end of the period looks to have a very large spike in the data, perhaps indicative of an El Nino. I think the trend is largely explainable in terms of these two factors.

    The period 1910-1940 was also largely eruption free, and solar irradiation was increasing. Moreover, greenhouse gasses were increasing with some rapidity in this period. I think these are plausible explanations.

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 16 Feb 2010 @ 9:30 PM

  242. Mr. Bradbury:
    You wrote that it’s not as if there are no proxies for southern climate but the ones you have don’t indicate that it experienced the same warming.

    Therein lies a problem. It seems that there is legitimate debate as to the confidence in those proxies to state with certainty that there either was or was not a concomitant southern warming for the Medievel Climate Optimum.

    Whom to believe? What degree of reasonable certainty do you have? Compared with professor Jones? Compared with me?

    We all hold different standards for everything. My problem is that the same lack of data (or presence of sufficient data to you) leaves me scratching my head. The MCE (or MWP) isn’t shown on the hockey stick. Why not? because the data isn’t there to suggest it was global – and was not there to suggest it was not.

    Think of it this way. It’s like a criminal court. If presumed innocent then the prosecutor would have to produce enough evidence to overcome that presumption. If presumed guilty, then the defendant would have to produce evidence to refute it.

    Thus, any global paleoclimate history would operate from a base presumption. Scientists presume, too.

    Frankly, I’m fascinated by the differing subjective requirements for proof on all sides – because reasonable minds can differ. Even Bohr and Einstein – both unquestioned geniuses – differed.

    But I appreciate the response, sir.

    Comment by Jerry — 16 Feb 2010 @ 9:40 PM

  243. Re #153
    Your update Update 2/16/10 link is wrong – this refers to the allegations made by the Guardian. Not the Daily Mail.

    [Response: Thanks. Fixed now.]

    It still goes to the Guardian story message.

    There doesn’t appear to be a CRU message regarding the Mail story.
    See CRU statements.

    Comment by jonesy — 16 Feb 2010 @ 9:44 PM

  244. Bernie thanks for speaking Klingon. Fed, Thanks for the Anand and Hargreaves reference. Great point there about belief systems with priors so rigid that the prior and posterior are the same. Also their finding that thinner-tailed priors having thinner tailed posteriors across the board is probably earth shattering among the Gibbs sampler crowd. I have posted a set of pretty pictures that show modest MWP, recent AGW, and several DCD’s* using 20 year scaled averages of Mann 2008 compiled proxies.
    http://neilpelkey.net/allproxy.gif
    But back to my point. They also show the need for time varying and most likely spatially varying parameter estimates. Even oblations to the Right Reverend Bayes do not buy you the degrees of freedom necessary to accomplish that task.
    Ray L you can just look at the pictures you will get the point.

    *(darn cold decades)

    Comment by OSC13_4_xmas — 16 Feb 2010 @ 9:46 PM

  245. How about this response from Dr. Svalgaard to a question I asked him on another blog regarding solar output –

    Leo G (14:52:37) :
    Could you please let me know which, if any version is correct?
    {The sun’s output varies very little. Solar activity seems to have an ~100 year ‘cycle’ [the past 300 years], so what little variation there has been has gone up and down a little bit:
    My best guess of the output looks like this [red curve]:
    http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.png
    The ups and downs are on the order of 1/1000 of the whole.}

    Comment by Leo G — 16 Feb 2010 @ 10:11 PM

  246. Re: grzejnik @229
    Stop feeding this troll. He really doesnt want the right answers, he only wants the answers that map to his world view.
    Let him post all he wansts, it’s just a waste of time to respond to him.

    Comment by harvey — 16 Feb 2010 @ 10:31 PM

  247. jonesy: the link description was wrong, not the link. Read the update again….

    Comment by Didactylos — 16 Feb 2010 @ 10:34 PM

  248. Any thoughts on this paper? Apologies in advance if it has already been covered here.

    http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf

    [Response: Nonsense. -gavin]

    Comment by Colour me confused — 16 Feb 2010 @ 10:50 PM

  249. grzejnik@229
    “2. I say “lost” in quotes to imply he “lost” it on purpose, or like he said its unorganized”
    “4. Proof of my accusations? Jones said he didn’t release data because it was sloppy or lost, I’m paraphrasing look up the interview if you need to. Lost data?” [bold mine]

    So I did look up the interview [the Nature version linked here]. Apparently it’s your reading comprehension and interpretation that’s “sloppy or lost”, what he actually said was more like “the record of where the Chinese data stations were located was lost” [the stations, not the data, because they came via a 3rd party, and yes], “allowing that to happen was sloppy and shouldn’t have happened.” But also “The science still holds up though. A follow-up study verified the original conclusions for the Chinese data for the period 1954–1983, showing that the precise location of weather stations was unimportant.”
    Yet you purposely imply he purposely did someting wrong. And make your take on the person trump the science.
    “Open your eyes, its time to wake up.”

    Also “My appeal is to Gavin who I think is one of the smartest people on this blog but misguided into being a PR person when he should be doing science, of this I have no proof only opinion. Do climate science a favor and take this blog offline and get back to work is my other opinion”

    My appeal to Gavin, who I believe is the most well spoken among the group of exceptionally intelligent bloggers here [commenters aside] would be: please carry on with the most excellent public face you’re putting on science and scientific integrity. Your choice to keep the public up to speed on the leading edge of the science is appreciated and valuable. Sorry your being so knowledgeable on this important topic results in being a crank magnet!

    Comment by flxible — 16 Feb 2010 @ 11:05 PM

  250. mircea@81
    “The automatic answer to your question is “natural variability”. The question was a fair one. What falsifiability criteria are there? You can do better!”

    Had the warming predicted decades ago not actually occurred, AGW would have been falsified. But it did happen, and AGW stands as the only coherent scientific theory that can explain all of the observed changes in earths climate. “natural variability” does not meet your own “falsifiability” criterion for a valid scientific theory – it predicts nothing and explains nothing. Its just wishful thinking.

    Comment by jimt — 16 Feb 2010 @ 11:23 PM

  251. eric @ 222

    “Minutiae aside, can we build public policy on the quality of science we presently have ?”

    Yes. It’s called adaptive management in the policy trade.

    ===

    undecided @ 230
    I’ll just chip in my 2 cents on this part:

    “Secondly, we don’t have public debate on his expertise, he’s trusted & proven.”

    There are all kinds of alt med cranks peddling woo out there. Michael Savage even manages a twofer, pushing woo and denialism (lest you think woo is entirely a lefty enterprise). The “debate” isn’t legitimized by the mere fact that it exists.

    If you poke around long enough, you will find that climate scientists have developed an impressive body of expert knowledge over the years and that they will gladly discuss, quantify where they can, its strengths and weaknesses. There is no perfect knowledge in medicine or any of the sciences… anywhere… anywhen. Life’s a bitch that way.

    Comment by Radge Havers — 16 Feb 2010 @ 11:33 PM

  252. Completely fed up try reading the Jones interview first available in a link in the blog entry. Second of all I never stated he denied that he states that the data shows mostly man made means increasing warming since the 1950’s. I am not sure what you stand to gain from denying Jones’ own words.

    Comment by Jacob Mack — 16 Feb 2010 @ 11:38 PM

  253. Dhogoza I know you actually read the interview and I respect most of your posts, but he still does respond to the debate is over with some admission of large uncertanties, mainly paleoclimate in nature. I see a warming trend an the past decade is the hottest on instrumental record, but there is also a switch to cooler global temperatures the past couple of years, while certainly not a trend, it is something to investigate further. I am as always supportive of lowering GHG emissions, lowering pollution in general which is even a bigger concern than GHG themselves and planting more trees–lowering the rate of deforestation. AGW is not the main concern of pollution, but as the science improves further we will learn more about the potential dangers.

    Comment by Jacob Mack — 16 Feb 2010 @ 11:43 PM

  254. Question:

    If there is no statistically significant trend since 1995 how come we keep getting told the planet is warming at a ever increasing rate? It is a win for the skeptics to get Jones to agree there has been no discernable trend for these shorter periods meaning no claims can be made about acceleration in warming. Further AGW predicts acceleration reinforced by positive feedback. No observed acceleration no evidence to support the theory.

    [Response: Signal vs. noise. It’s not hard. – gavin]

    Comment by Elliot — 16 Feb 2010 @ 11:56 PM

  255. To quote Comment by flxible — 16 February 2010 @ 11:05 PM

    “My appeal to Gavin, who I believe is the most well spoken among the group of exceptionally intelligent bloggers here [commenters aside] would be: please carry on with the most excellent public face you’re putting on science and scientific integrity. Your choice to keep the public up to speed on the leading edge of the science is appreciated and valuable. Sorry your being so knowledgeable on this important topic results in being a crank magnet!”

    I agree.. Keep up the great work guys.. There are many of us who greatly appreciate your work and keeping us up to speed!

    Comment by Luke — 17 Feb 2010 @ 2:00 AM

  256. BPL: What part of “It’s warmer now than at any time in the last 2,000 years, and possibly a couple of orders of magnitude longer than that” did you not understand?

    So BPL if you are able to know for sure that current temperatures are “warmer now than at any time in the last 2000 years”, I assume you have a good estimate of the PREVIOUS record. When was the second warmest period in the last 2000 years, and with which anomaly with respect to the current one? (you’re allowed to give a confidence interval of course).

    Comment by Gilles — 17 Feb 2010 @ 2:09 AM

  257. “K-Bob@208,
    I was looking at records recently. The period from Tambora (1815) to Krakataua (1882) was remarkably free of large volcanic eruptions. Moreover, the end of the period looks to have a very large spike in the data, perhaps indicative of an El Nino. I think the trend is largely explainable in terms of these two factors.

    The period 1910-1940 was also largely eruption free, and solar irradiation was increasing. Moreover, greenhouse gasses were increasing with some rapidity in this period. I think these are plausible explanations.”

    I see no correlation between trends and volcanic eruptions. The positive trend of the beginning of XXth century stopped abruptly in 1940, just in the middle of a very calm period, although there has been no major eruption before Agung in 1963. Then it started again to rise in 1970 shortly after Agung. A figure like http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/faq-8-1-fig-1.jpg is very deceiving : the agreement between data and models is largely superficial. First data have been compared to a set of models, not the best one (which is quite unusual). With a range of models and parameters, you can cover evrything !. Then although the average VALUES of anomalies are approximately reproduced, the details in TRENDS are not. As I said, the breaks occured in 1940 ans 1970, with no correlation with volcanic eruptions. Volcanic eruptions are visible as sharp steps, but nothing like this is seen in the instrumental curves. Volcanic eruptions “shifts” model curves to compensate trend differences , the instrumental trend before 1940 being fairly larger than what models give. All this look more like “tricks” to fit data, than a real physical description.

    (The disagreement between effects of volcanoes and measurements is also visible on the figure relative to the pressure increase on the top of troposphere… http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/fig-9-14.jpg )

    Comment by Gilles — 17 Feb 2010 @ 2:26 AM

  258. I love these discussions. Real Climate tells it like it is, amplification and more information is presented by informed posters. Then the denialist assault begins: illogicalities, tired old rehashed furphies and the sheer will to believe are pitted against information and science and denialism shambles away licking its wounds.

    Comment by calyptorhynchus — 17 Feb 2010 @ 2:29 AM

  259. 54:Didactylos

    Personally, 15,30 or even 100 years is no enough to even call anything a trend. 100 years is the equivalent of 22 msec of a 24 hour day in earth time. I have serious doubts of any claims that AGW is a proven fact. There is just not enough knowledge yet to make any claims from either side of the argument.

    Comment by Syl — 15 February 2010 @ 9:02 PM

    Helpful translation:

    “Scientists claim the planet was inhabited by perhaps millions of dinosaurs, but because we have found only some thousands of fossils purported to be “dinosaurs,” I conclude those very few fossils that do exist cannot be proven to be dinosaurs.

    Or, if they are dinosaurs, they obviously spontaneously generated or were sent here by aliens as an experiment, then died in very convenient places knowing only then would their existence ever be known to their posterity. (This is not evidence of intelligence; they “just knew” where to die.)

    Further, since scientists are imperfect, and make errors, we must conclude that it is unlikely that dinosaurs existed at all since I cannot recreate a dinosaur in my garage. Even more enlightening, the scientists refuse to release the supposed DNA of any supposed dinosaurs to me, nor how to regenerate it, so they are obviously hiding something.”

    Comment by ccpo — 17 Feb 2010 @ 2:55 AM

  260. Just wrote to the Press Complaints Commission: this clearly breaches –

    i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.

    “The headline and article grossly misrepresent Professor Jones’ views. He was asked by the BBC whether the trend from 1995 was statistically significant – it isn’t, only just, and that’s the nature of drawing statistical conclusions from short timespans. The Daily Mail used the BBC interview to support a false headline.

    I’ll quote the blog Realclimate, who say this better than I could, since they’re climate scientists:

    “The title itself is a distortion of what Jones actually said in an interview with the BBC. What Jones actually said is that, while the globe has nominally warmed since 1995, it is difficult to establish the statistical significance of that warming given the short nature of the time interval (1995-present) involved. The warming trend consequently doesn’t quite achieve statistical significance. But it is extremely difficult to establish a statistically significant trend over a time interval as short as 15 years–a point we have made countless times at RealClimate. It is also worth noting that the CRU record indicates slightly less warming than other global temperature estimates such as the GISS record.”

    (From http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/daily-mangle/)

    There is no possible way to unintentionally misinterpret what Jones meant, to the extent of claiming he has made a “u turn” and now believes there has been no global warming since 1995. Well – it could be that a science writer might not understand the most basic statistical knowledge required to know what ‘statistical significance’ means. Either way, the article, and the headline in particular, is a clear misrepresentation of Professor Jones’ view on the matter.

    It is extremely dangerous if scientists start to believe they can’t openly talk about these most basic of points without distorting headlines like this being the consequence.”

    Comment by Dan Olner — 17 Feb 2010 @ 3:38 AM

  261. “They also show the need for time varying and most likely spatially varying parameter estimates.”

    Why?

    Are you speaking klingon too?

    “Even oblations to the Right Reverend Bayes do not buy you the degrees of freedom necessary to accomplish that task.”

    No, we can watch the rolling pin roll down the slope. ALL errors are contained within the historical record. Any deviation from outside the sensitivity of temperature to CO2 must remain within the parameters it has occupied in the past (around 3C per doubling).

    whatever you’re talking about cannot change that fact. The only thing that can is an event that is not natural and yet of sufficient magnitude to create a visible global change.

    Are you saying that humans are big enough to do that?

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 17 Feb 2010 @ 4:11 AM

  262. “Therein lies a problem. It seems that there is legitimate debate as to the confidence in those proxies”

    You would then be able to delineate these problems and ascertain what proxies would be useful and prove their utility.

    Can you?

    Oh, no, it appears not.

    No proxies show even less evidence of southern warming in the MWP.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 17 Feb 2010 @ 4:13 AM

  263. “The obvious question is, if the MWP is clearly expressed in NA, North Atlantic and Eurpoe adn parts of Asia, why does the reconstruction of MBH98 and afterwords not have a MWP in the data? ”

    Because if the MWP was a warming of 1C in the north and 0C in the south (Extreme values for clarity of example), and the current warming is about 1C globally, then when you take the global picture, the MWP is half the size. 0.5C.

    Given the interannual error is +/- 0.5C, the MWP disappears into the noise.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 17 Feb 2010 @ 4:17 AM

  264. “Firstly the neurologist has many years of actual data that can and has been proved over and over again.”

    Really?

    Ever seen a neuron fire?

    How can that be proof?

    (see how you can just shift those goalposts)

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 17 Feb 2010 @ 4:19 AM

  265. “Frankly, I’m fascinated by the differing subjective requirements for proof on all sides – because reasonable minds can differ. Even Bohr and Einstein – both unquestioned geniuses – differed.”

    You’re no Einstein.

    Subjective is what proof isn’t.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 17 Feb 2010 @ 4:25 AM

  266. “229
    grzejnik says:
    16 February 2010 at 6:43 PM

    Completely fed up, to your points:

    1. Yes really, he said so, and did not/could not provide the data. ”

    Which? Surely if he cannot provide the data, then it is certain he did not. This does not mean the data is gone.

    “2. I say “lost” in quotes to imply he “lost” it on purpose, or like he said its unorganized”

    Then I say you lie. I don’t put quotes around it because I know you’re lying.

    You know he didn’t lose (no quotes), so implying it by putting quotes around it is cowardly so that you can’t have come-back on it (cf the Beckian gambit: I’m not saying anything…”).

    And it’s not his data.

    “3. If this data used in published papers were available online for any and everyone there would be no issue and no cost to the UK taxpayers.”

    They weren’t.

    Since this is past perfect, stating “if they were” doesn’t make the expense go away.

    Since they cannot give away someone else’s data, they could not put it on a website for anyone.

    So your point 3 is insanity itself:

    1) “If” doesn’t make it true
    2) Being not true, there IS an expense. Go get your own bloody data and stop scrounging off us UK taxpayers, you leech
    3) You’ve already said they couldn’t give the data away, so why is giving it away on the enternet allowed? Does this mean P2P sharing is not copyright infringement because grz says it’s not?

    Buffoon.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 17 Feb 2010 @ 4:35 AM

  267. Bud,

    Okay, let me make the question more explicit.

    There is only enough sunlight to heat the world to a mean global annual surface temperature of 255 K, well below freezing. This is a point first made by Fourier in 1824. But the world’s M-GAST is actually 288 K. Why? Where is the extra heat coming from?

    “Natural variation” doesn’t cut it. What’s the explanation?

    Comment by Barton Paul Levenson — 17 Feb 2010 @ 4:47 AM

  268. TS: This is particularly laughable given the extent of manipulation of the journals and suppression of dissent shown in Climategate.

    BPL: The manipulation of the journals was happening with the Baliunas article being rushed through peer review by a friend. The climatologists were trying to correct that bit of interference.

    TS: I don’t have to prove you wrong for you to not take my hard earned taxes. You have to provide clear and convincing evidence that you are right.

    BPL: The evidence is overwhelming, jack.

    TS: IMO the climate models / predictions are not solid enough yet to declare imminent disaster and make large lifestyle changes over.

    BPL: And you’re an expert on the subject, I take it?

    Comment by Barton Paul Levenson — 17 Feb 2010 @ 4:50 AM

  269. The complexities of the climate system together with large uncertainties in our knowledge of cloud microphysics and radiation budgets means that any conclusion about the magnitude of human influence on climate has to be somewhat equivocal, given the current datasets. This is fully reflected in the details of the IPCC reports.

    If AGW is as important as many models suggest then in the next ~10 years the equivocations will become weaker and the case stronger, until it is utterly irrefutable.

    While AGW advocates would like to see faster policy changes everywhere in the western world there is a strong push for reducing carbon emissions. The message has been received by policy makers that something is potentially very wrong with the way we live. A lot has therefore already been achieved.

    Personally I see a great danger when scientists feel that in order to make their case to policy makers that it has to be so simple as to not allow any ambiguity even when some ambiguity, or at least uncertainty, exists. The science can be wrong. Hypotheses change.

    We are steadily increasing our ability to measure the climate system and at the same time the AGW signal should also be increasing. Time is on the side of the AGW advocates, if they are right of course. Policy is already moving in the right direction. I think there is a little too much hysterical reaction to the media reports here, as if anyone who doesn’t follow the AGW orthodoxy is an existential threat. There is no need for this, and while there is even a small room for doubt, doubters will exist. Let them. As long as the evidence continues to grow in favour of AGW such voices will be steadily sidelined from the debate.

    Comment by Mike Burton — 17 Feb 2010 @ 5:01 AM

  270. grz 229: I say “lost” in quotes to imply he “lost” it on purpose

    BPL: In other words, you’re accusing a man you never met of lying on the basis of how some political blogs interpreted an email he sent.

    You might want to watch that. Accusing someone of lying when they’re not is itself lying.

    Comment by Barton Paul Levenson — 17 Feb 2010 @ 5:02 AM

  271. The amount of money at stake here is massive. Sloppiness denotes poor stewardship and poor science. A changing of the guard is in order. I see no substantive evidence of crisis when statistical machinations are so sensitive to carelessness. I don’t have to question your motives to question your conclusions. I only need to watch for your short and long term predictions to be proven accurate in statistically significant measures. If the work is sloppy and the data not statistically significant, then I can’t support the conclusions.

    Comment by E A Barkley — 17 Feb 2010 @ 5:03 AM

  272. Color me Confused@848:
    Think of Energy & Environment as being like The Onion without the humor.

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 17 Feb 2010 @ 5:07 AM

  273. grzejnik #229

    “This is a barking mad blog, everyone is so righteious and indignant about skeptics yet there are gaping holes in this science. Open your eyes, its time to wake up.”

    I have my eyes open and am wide awake. You inhabit a strange world if you think misrepresenting Phil Jones (that is the topic here) in a UK newspaper is perfectly OK and us getting indignant about it makes us “barking mad”. On the evidence I have seen to date your earlier accusation that Jones is a “sloppy scientist” is baseless. Either you present your evidence for this or you go away.

    Comment by Paul A — 17 Feb 2010 @ 5:12 AM

  274. As to the “statistical significance” issue, I have three questions.
    1) How is “statistical significance” defined in this context?
    2) How much warming would there have to be in a 15 year period to call it ss?
    3) At 0.12C per decade warming, how many years would it take to be ss?

    Thanks in advance.

    Comment by jonesy — 17 Feb 2010 @ 5:13 AM

  275. Thank you realclimate staff for being able to drag yourselves out of bed in the morning and face the maelstrom of distortions and put-downs. It must feel pointless at times but you must never stop because you are a part of the only group who can stand up to it. If I didn’t have places like realclimate to visit, that I knew to be written by scientists (and not journalists and lobbyists and ‘useful idiot’ cranks) in the end I would have to start believing all of their distortions.
    You are at the centre of one of the most historically significant events of our time. Future generations will look back at places like realclimate when they try to make sense of our inaction. So don’t ever give up.

    Comment by lucy meadows — 17 Feb 2010 @ 5:21 AM

  276. Re: #246

    Stop feeding this troll. He really doesnt want the right answers,

    You have raised a problem, but I am not sure that “starve the troll” is the right solution. The biggest trolls are the Telegraphs,Mail and half (or more) of the climate books in one of the biggest local bookshops. They seem to thrive on any kind of diet.

    Comment by Geoff Wexler — 17 Feb 2010 @ 5:24 AM

  277. Lack of statistical power

    It seems to me that the discussion we see here between believers and skeptics revolves around statistical power. There are insufficient temperature reconstructions and therefore there is a lack of statistical power to conclude that there was a Medieval Warm Period in the southern hemisphere.

    The believers use this lack of statistical power to conclude that there was most likely no global medieval warm period. The skeptics use this lack of statistical power to conclude that the Medieval warm period was indeed real and most likely global.

    The global temperature increase we have seen since the 1970’s appears to have levelled off during the last decade. But the time period is too short to statistically demonstrate that warming has stopped. The believers use this lack of statistical power as an argument that warming most likely continues. The skeptics use this lack of statistical power as an argument that warming most likely has levelled of.

    What strikes me here as that the believers use lack of data demonstrating warming to dismiss warming during the MWP while they use lack of data demonstrating warming to support warming in recent times.

    In any case, can believers and skeptics agree that warming has not accelerated during the last decade? To me, that is a comforting thought, because this may give us some extra time to adapt to the catastrophies that await us in a warm future.

    Comment by KM — 17 Feb 2010 @ 5:34 AM

  278. Neil@244,
    Throwing around a bunch of technical jargon on a blog intended to educate the public is just a transparent and pathetic attempt to make yourself feel smart. Those of us who actually do modelling are not underwhelmed.

    If you have a technical comment on the paleoclimate models, the appropriate place is the peer-reviewed journals climate , where I notice your name is conspicuously absent.

    We all know it’s possible to come up with a model that is too complicated to be workable. Congrats, you’ve done that.

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 17 Feb 2010 @ 6:01 AM

  279. Jerry,
    Ah, would that my name were Ray Bradbury (it’s close, Ladbury). I am sure you will agree that as scientists we have to go with the evidence that exists, right? It is a shame that we don’t have as many proxies for the Southern Hemisphere as we do for the North, but that is life.

    The thing is that what data we do have do not indicate a warm period contemporaneous with that around the N. Atlantic. They aren’t even close. The fact that the attempts by the Idsos, who believe in a MWP, to gather all the data together fail to make their point I think speaks volumes. The fact is that nobody has managed to come up with a global termperature reconstruction with MWP temperatures anywhere close to those we are experiencing today.

    It might be an interesting exercise to try to reconstruct what temperatures would have been needed in the SH to bring the global average up to today’s levels. I suspect the result would be pretty unlikely.

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 17 Feb 2010 @ 6:10 AM

  280. Reisz, Really understanding the scientific method is rare even among scientists. I’ve known some scientists who were very good at doing science without ever really understanding how it all fit together. The thing is that doing science is somewhat intuitive for humans. However, fitting together all the evidence into a comprehensive theory is not. People get pieces–e.g. empirical study, hypothesis generation, testing and falsification (ala Popper), etc. But comprehending the role of consensus–or even what scientific consensus is, eludes even most scientists.

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 17 Feb 2010 @ 6:15 AM

  281. @Global Sceptic (#25):
    Let me get this straight: A BBC reporter asks Prof. Jones a question (one of “several gathered from climate sceptics”), which he could answer in two ways, truthfully (like he did) and in any other way. The Daily Mail then reported by “simplifying” the answer to a simple talking point (had he given the alternative answer it would have been “Climategate II: Prof. Jones caught lying again”.)

    Then someone tells you to look at the actual answer and you start to repeat one of Monckton’s distortions of truth that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand?

    As if we actually needed more proof this was a set-up, and the deniers HQ has its staff astro-turfing in the various comment sections to this new Blahblah-Gate.

    Comment by Lars Träger — 17 Feb 2010 @ 7:18 AM

  282. Re : #254.

    Acceleration is very hard to observe for the reason that Gavin gave. But in addition I don’t agree with Elliot over this:

    ” Further AGW predicts acceleration reinforced by positive feedback”

    Unfortunately projections of accelerated global warming might turn out to be correct

    if (a) new forms of positive feedback kick in or
    if (b) greenhouse gas emissions increase at a super-exponential rate

    but if neither of these happens, and there is no acceleration, we shall still be stuck with the existing positive feedbacks and trend which will corroborate AGW and may not be very nice at all.

    Comment by Geoff Wexler — 17 Feb 2010 @ 7:43 AM

  283. #224 Fred Magyar:

    I use a medical analogy similar to yours titled A Conversation at a P oker Game to illustrate why information needs to come from expert consensus.

    The spam filter doesn’t like the “p” word. It is a game of skill, you know. :)

    Comment by Scott A Mandia — 17 Feb 2010 @ 8:00 AM

  284. Re: my last comment

    Condition (b) needs to be rephrased (weakened) to allow for the predicted decreasing relative importance of aerosols

    Comment by Geoff Wexler — 17 Feb 2010 @ 8:01 AM

  285. Dear Fed. Please read Mann 2008 and the supplemental material–I think you will find the ridge regression used has a fairly explicit error structure that has absolutely nothing to do with fact. It is the analyst’s choice of specification and the results can vary rather substantially by changing that–which was exactly the point of Anand and Hargreaves (and Hoerl and Kennard mentioned earlier). Error specification matters. You might try actually reading the Anand and Hargreaves paper you cited. Or you could take the data and code from Mann and change the specifications. Octave (http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/) is free if you haven’t saved enough money sleeping on you parent’s couch to buy Matlab.
    Gavin and RC teams I am out of here. Thanks for all the great data and examples that lend themselves well to multiple interpretations. Thoroughly enjoyable, but there is the text book that sits unfinished. Cheers.

    Comment by OSC13_4_xmas — 17 Feb 2010 @ 8:01 AM

  286. #242 The MCE (or MWP) isn’t shown on the hockey stick. Why not?

    Thgis one drives me crazy! LOOK at the g-d graph! There are three clear, distinct, pronounced periods of warming shown in the late 12th, late 13th and late 14th C. The LIA is also clearly depicted.

    It is a sure sign of brainwashing when someone sees a graph or reads a statement and concludes the polar opposite of what is shown or stated.

    Comment by Jiminmpls — 17 Feb 2010 @ 8:06 AM

  287. calyptorhynchus @ 258

    “denialism shambles away licking its wounds.”

    Then there are the Pythonesque Black Knights among them, hopping about on bloody stumps proclaiming “‘Tis but a scratch; I’ve had worse” or “It’s just a flesh wound” and “I’m invincible!”

    On another topic, because this is a moderated list, trolls that get through the net are fair game IMHO.

    Comment by Radge Havers — 17 Feb 2010 @ 9:12 AM

  288. It seems to me that there is no room for variations in the intrpretation of “no statistical significance” statement. To us, scientists it sounds like “no effect” -> “no warming”. How does it sound to you, climatologists?

    [Response: Signal vs. noise on short time periods combined with a cherry pick of the metric. Hardly a difficult concept for a physicist to deal with. 2000-2009 warmest decade? Statistically significant, decrease in Arctic summer sea ice over last 10 years? Statistically significant. 20, 30, 40 years trends in temperature? Statistically significant. Combination of data, theory and simulation implying that the globe is still warming? Statistically significant. People getting confused by noisy timeseries? Insignificant. – gavin]

    Comment by Walt The Physicist — 17 Feb 2010 @ 9:32 AM

  289. Question on the MWP. it seems to me that this warming occured where the population density was higher. Could it have been the land use/urbanization of these areas caused this upward trend? And if so, would not the earths’ system then try to reach equilibrium? And if the southern areas were still at a lesser warmth, then as the system approached equilibrium in the north, may it not overshoot that target and cool past equilibrium in the north? You know the LIA?

    It just seems to me that with the higher land mass of the northern hemisphere climate events are going to be more pronounced.

    Comment by Leo G — 17 Feb 2010 @ 11:10 AM

  290. “252
    Jacob Mack says:
    16 February 2010 at 11:38 PM
    I am not sure what you stand to gain from denying Jones’ own words.”

    I’m not sure (though I’m certain I’m not alone) why you think the words are being denied?

    The misstatements?

    Yes.

    The implied spin?

    Yes.

    The words?

    No, don’t see it.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 17 Feb 2010 @ 11:23 AM

  291. “276
    Geoff Wexler says:
    17 February 2010 at 5:24 AM
    You have raised a problem, but I am not sure that “starve the troll” is the right solution.”

    Indeed not.

    “Important” trolls complain that they are being silenced.

    Others repeat their questions again, possibly using ALL CAPITALS to make sure that people who are hard of hearing catch it.

    Neither help the signal-to-noise ratio.

    So ridicule them.

    They are ridiculous.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 17 Feb 2010 @ 11:27 AM

  292. “289
    Leo G says:
    17 February 2010 at 11:10 AM

    Question on the MWP. it seems to me that this warming occured where the population density was higher. Could it have been the land use/urbanization of these areas caused this upward trend?”

    Alternatively, could it be that we have people noticing a MWP where they live and, in an age where international travel didn’t exist, not knowing about its lack where they didn’t live.

    The mechanics for a regional MWP and even regional LIA are available for assessment.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 17 Feb 2010 @ 11:31 AM

  293. “274
    jonesy says:
    17 February 2010 at 5:13 AM

    As to the “statistical significance” issue, I have three questions.
    1) How is “statistical significance” defined in this context?”

    In the same way as any noisy record is treated in statistics.

    “2) How much warming would there have to be in a 15 year period to call it ss?”

    It depends on the noise level. Signal has to be distinct from the noise.

    “3) At 0.12C per decade warming, how many years would it take to be ss?”

    An irrelevant question, because it’s still thinking the wrong way.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 17 Feb 2010 @ 11:36 AM

  294. There seems a lot accusations back and forth, but as an outsider when I read Dr. Jones’s statements they seem to raise a great many simple questions that I and many others would like to have answered in a direct and understandable manner.
    Dr Jones states,“For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.” How then were studies done showing earth temps to what seems an incredibly high degree of accuracy when records for over half of the earth are so sparse for that time period? There appears to be a direct contradiction that could use an explanation.

    If the AGW crowd is to move their cause forward they need to present their case openly and freely admit what is fact from what is theory or speculation. When Real Climate mounts an all out defense of Dr. Jones when, to a layperson, it looks like he is claiming that the dog ate my homework, it looks like RC is more concerned about saving face than science.

    [Response: What is the logic here? Jones says that to demonstrate a global MWP you’d need a lot more data from the tropics and southern hemisphere that supported it (for the same time period as seen in the NH records). This is perfectly correct. However, that data doesn’t exist, and what data there is does not support the global MWP. That too is correct. Why is pointing out the logic of his statement ‘saving face’? Really, I’m puzzled at what you are thinking here. – gavin]

    Comment by David Glas — 17 Feb 2010 @ 12:30 PM

  295. ….the believers use lack of data demonstrating warming to dismiss warming during the MWP while they use lack of data demonstrating warming to support warming in recent times

    But there is no such lack of data in recent times. Furthermore this is comparing apples with oranges.

    State it more carefully:
    Proposition A. “maximum mean global temperature in say the interval 1100 years before present to 700 years BP years was greater than global mean temperature in 2010″. The problem for the skeptics is lack of values for the global mean temperature.

    Proposition B: Be careful ! No argument here about global temperatures so nothing comparable with proposition A. What is being discussed is something utterly different i.e extracting something useful from the temperature data i.e a stable estimate of the trend and ignoring something which is less useful at present which just goes up and down which is often called noise. Noise has always existed even before large emissions of greenhouse gases.

    The problem for ‘believers’ is that short intervals give you unstable estimates which vary from year to year. That is the implication of Phil Jones answers to B and C. But that does not mean he or anyone else is stuck with no idea of what is happening. Just one method is to draw a straight line through the last 30 years data and look at its slope. The resulting trend line will be sloping upwards throughout the last 15 years. There are also a variety of smoothing methods for achieving roughly the same objective.

    Your comment refers to “global warming in recent years”. There is more data on that from the troposphere and the heat energy in the upper layer of the ocean. See e.g.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

    (Apologies for plagiarism and lack of references but there would be so many now)

    Comment by Geoff Wexler — 17 Feb 2010 @ 12:36 PM

  296. My point is that the statistical significance applies to analyzing a noisy trend.
    It is definitely warmer now than 1995, assuming the thermometers have a low error range. Looking at annual CRU numbers, we see 1998 is the warmest to date. Sure the last decade was the warmest, but 2007 being warmer than 1997 doesn’t mean very much, when you are claiming no warming since 1998. If on the other hand you are claiming the previous global warming trend stopped in 1998, then that is a different matter, and the statistical significance is important. However, just a straight comparison of 1998 to now, or 1995 to now, you only have to klook at the thermometers for those time periods, and their error ranges.

    Comment by Journeyman — 17 Feb 2010 @ 12:45 PM

  297. CFU: No spin here, I just do not like people (not the majority of scientists of course) who make catastrophic predictions. As solar power become cheaper and those high altitiude turbines become more efficient we will be able to supply more near zero energy, but for now all we can do is put a few more windmills up, do some carbon capture, plant more trees, sell more solar panels to the wealthy in Germany and New Jersey, and drive some hybrids/new generation electric cars. Of course hybrids or vehicles are not the main GHG emitters; it is those factories. With the long atmospheric life of CO2 we are not experience an enormous warming,and with past warming not so well understood there is reason for Jones’ admission of there not being a statistically significant warming period from 1995 to 2010. Again, however, with such a warm decade there is certainly cause for concern and further research, and you cannot spin that statement. I think or atleast I hope your heart is the right place, but perhaps you should spend mpre time with the science and the math. Global warming and climate systems are complex, and even with a 30 year or 50 year trend those are just a drop in the bucket for trends for thousands of years or a planetary scale climate system for millions of years. As always I applaud RC as an en excellent source of information, but none of the climatoligists here are making dooms day claims either.

    Comment by Jacob Mack — 17 Feb 2010 @ 1:42 PM

  298. “near zero emission.”

    Comment by Jacob Mack — 17 Feb 2010 @ 1:43 PM

  299. To Completely Fed Up. Re #293. No thanks for the useless and wrong answers. I’ll wait for someone who knows what they are talking about to answer.

    Comment by jonesy — 17 Feb 2010 @ 2:14 PM

  300. KM:

    It seems to me that the discussion we see here between believers and skeptics revolves around statistical power. There are insufficient temperature reconstructions and therefore there is a lack of statistical power to conclude that there was a Medieval Warm Period in the southern hemisphere.

    The believers use this lack of statistical power to conclude that there was most likely no global medieval warm period.

    No, the so-called believers do so because those reconstructions that *do* exist don’t support the hypothesis that there was a synchronous, global MWP. In Jones’ view, there is insufficient evidence to settle the question. But insufficient evidence doesn’t mean *no* evidence.

    Those who hypothesize that there was a synchronous, global MWP ignore the fact that the available evidence pointing the other way.

    You paint the situation as being ying and yang, of being symmetrical. It’s not. One view is consistent with the available evidence, the other flies in the face of it (screaming “science fraud! science fraud!” when the fact is pointed out to them).

    Comment by dhogaza — 17 Feb 2010 @ 2:14 PM

  301. Better population control by ethical means would be of great help too. If we educated people in developing and third world countries now to reduce how many offspring they have and continue to increase the amount of educated people here in the US we can effectively lower the increase in energy needs (concave down incline atleast) and begin to lower GHG emissions.

    Comment by Jacob Mack — 17 Feb 2010 @ 3:01 PM

  302. 288: Walt The Physicist says:
    “It seems to me that there is no room for variations in the intrpretation of “no statistical significance” statement. To us, scientists it sounds like “no effect” -> “no warming”. ”

    I’m a physicist too and I sure as hell don’t hear the sounds you hear. Here’s a simple exercise that ought to clarify this a bit for any semi-conscious physicist. Consider the position, as a function of time, of a one dimensional random walker who starts at the origin at time zero and moves with a constant positive drift velocity v and variance 2 D t. The distribution function for the position of the walker is Gaussian with mean vt with variance 2Dt. In terms of the walker’s position we have: = v t and variance: var(t)=< [x(t)-]^2 > = 2 D t.
    At what time does the mean equal the standard deviation?

    Comment by John E. Pearson — 17 Feb 2010 @ 4:13 PM

  303. “Better population control by ethical means would be of great help too.”

    Except that would prove to the Utah politicians that AGW really IS a conspiracy to neuter the american public.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 17 Feb 2010 @ 4:16 PM

  304. “CFU: No spin here, I just do not like people (not the majority of scientists of course) who make catastrophic predictions.”

    But if someone says “if you don’t get that appendix removed, it will burst!”, do you hurl them from you in disgust, or hope like heck the doctor gets there in time to stop you dying from the pain?

    Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

    And you’re dealing in them here.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 17 Feb 2010 @ 4:19 PM

  305. “However, just a straight comparison of 1998 to now, or 1995 to now, you only have to klook at the thermometers for those time periods, and their error ranges.”

    No, that doesn’t give you a trend if you just take two years.

    To get a trend you need to take ALL the years.

    This generally means that your start point and end point do not coincide with the first and last datapoint. And why should it? They are as likely to be off the mean trend as any year inbetween, and THEY don’t fall on the trend line.

    And, after doing that, if you get a trend of 0.12C per decade and 15 years of yearly data where the average year-to-year variation is 0.5C +/- then your error bar on that estimation from that natural annual variation is

    +/-0.5/sqrt(15) C

    +/- 0.13 C

    Given that the prediction is 0.17C per decade, you cannot ascribe that 15 year period trend of 0.12C/decade as proof that the prediction of 0.17C/decade is wrong.

    This is the very minimum statistics and as close as possible to man-in-the-street without being so simple that it’s wrong.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 17 Feb 2010 @ 4:25 PM

  306. We see one reason for *seemingly* police OC to ask questions, especially vague ones that don’t really have an impact on whether we need to mitigate AGW by reducing CO2 output from human activities:

    “Gavin and RC teams I am out of here. Thanks for all the great data and examples that lend themselves well to multiple interpretations.”

    Reads to me like he’s looking for stuff (and thankful he’s walking off with a crop full) of things that can be (mis) interpreted in many ways.

    Spin?

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 17 Feb 2010 @ 4:38 PM

  307. In 2007, under the banner of “Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century”; (link below); the BBC published in part:

    “…The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus…”

    However, following repeated requests over the years, the BBC has steadfastly refused to identify the seminar participants. To say the least, this seems to be rather odd behaviour. Whatever, the BBC has until recently been extremely one-sided in the climate debate in favour of catastrophic climate change

    It is thus surprising, that in the written Q & A exchanges between Harrabin and Jones via the UEA Press Office, that Harrabin has deviated from his previous reporting style. (See also my 231/p5) The puzzle is; why the change?
    I hypothesise that he must have studied the CRU Emails and the recently revealed IPPC-Pachauri “errors”, and has concluded that something odd is going on somewhere!
    Shortly before that Q & A, he Emailed Anthony Watts (WUWT) asking for assistance to identify certain sceptical scientists, and it seems from his questions to Jones that he has indeed consulted such people by virtue of the nature of those questions. Whatever, those bold U-turn Q & A’s are now out there in B & W, and I’m sure that Harrabin can understand their significance.

    Harrabin is also on record; quote:

    “…government ministers may have to reconsider their description of sceptics as “deniers” and “flat earthers”…”

    BBC policy: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/impartiality_21century
    The Q & A:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

    Comment by BobFJ — 17 Feb 2010 @ 5:09 PM

  308. Walt The Physicist @ 288
    “It seems to me that there is no room for variations in the intrpretation of “no statistical significance” statement. To us, scientists it sounds like “no effect” -> “no warming”. How does it sound to you, climatologists?”

    If you interpret “no statistical significance” as “no effect” you are not a very good scientist, and should probably read a good introductory statistics book immediately. “No statistical significance” means insufficient evidence in the data to reject a null hypothesis – given some pre-determined (usually completely arbitrarily) level of “acceptable” false-rejection rate (0.05 by convention). Very real, important effects can be “not significant” statistically if there are too few, or too noisy data. Thats (just one reason) why looking at short term trends is a waste of time.

    Comment by jimt — 17 Feb 2010 @ 5:38 PM

  309. jonesy (274) — Tamino has several fairly recent threads on his Open Mind blog (linked on sidebar) which will answer your questions.

    Comment by David B. Benson — 17 Feb 2010 @ 5:48 PM

  310. To David B. Benson re #309. Thanks. I now see this was addressed in #2 above already. The How Long? post does answer my question about how long a period is needed (more than 14 years, which is consistent with Jones saying it is close). I guess I can infer also that 0.12C per decade is the lower limit for establishing a significant trend over that time.

    It’s correct though that establishing significance is dependent on both the trend rate and the time period? That is, the larger the rate for a given time, the more the significance; and the longer the time for a given rate, the more the significance?

    [Response: Yes, trend rate and sample size are the critical elements. Autocorrelation also plays a role.–Jim]

    Comment by jonesy — 17 Feb 2010 @ 8:10 PM

  311. BobFJ says: 17 February 2010 at 5:09 PM

    Watts? Isn’t he the guy who apparently squandered thousands of hours spent by hundreds of volunteers, sending them scurrying all over the country as lab partners on a poorly designed experiment, gathering the wrong information to prove his own point only to see somebody else use what little information his volunteers managed to gather to disprove his fallacy? The same misconception he could have settle using no volunteers, his own kitchen oven and a lightbulb?

    The laughing stock of the climate science community? Why would Harrabin seek out Watts’ advice, of all people?

    Comment by Doug Bostrom — 17 Feb 2010 @ 8:29 PM

  312. jonesy (310) — Tamino used GISTEMP which for the most recent years gives substantially faster warming that HadCRUv3 (which presumably Professor Jones was referring to). The reason for the difference has to do with the estimation of temperatures in the Arctic; I am now under the impression that more than 15 years is the minimum required using HadCRUv3.

    I want to emphasize Jim Bouldin’s second ssentence. Temperature and temperture proxy time series are first of all
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_noise
    (approximately) on decadal scales and thus exhibit enough autocorrelation that using longer times to establish trends is most wise. However, the current trend of fast warming has continued for over 30 years now, which is enough to have a good grip on the (stupendous) rate.

    Comment by David B. Benson — 17 Feb 2010 @ 8:29 PM

  313. CFU #304: If we are headed into a true catastrophe then we had better figure out on how to adapt as we strive to lower GHG in the meantime. The appendix analogy does not follow for that is a certain and immediate threat to the patient where AGW is not. No one can predict what the actual results of AGW will be or to what extreme, but with high confidence in the IPCC report we are relatively confident we should lower GHG emissions even in the wake of 2-3 errors or so… what I am disputing is: the degree of warming to be expected since most of the passed predictions were off the mark, Hanson’s predictions, Gavin’s boss or not, were a bit extreme, and if there is a lag of warming on the horizon at the approximately 380-395 ppm in our future with such a long atmospheric life then adaptation is far more important then just lowering GHG. Now, how do we adapt? Build more energy efficient green factories, get some carbon capture that does not place all of the GHG under the ground, plant more trees, grow more algae, stop pouring Benzene in the water and get solar power costs down. I am not with Obama or the GOP on the premise the mass nuclear power plants is a good idea for the US; leave that to France who thus far handles it well. I am all for more windmills and aerial turbines and more natural gas usage.

    Comment by Jacob Mack — 17 Feb 2010 @ 9:46 PM

  314. Sane Ny Times oped: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/opinion/17friedman.html

    Comment by Jacob Mack — 17 Feb 2010 @ 9:51 PM

  315. Doug Bostrom, Reur 311 (17 February 2010 at 8:29 PM )
    In response to my 307 (17 February 2010 at 5:09 PM ), it is highly revealing of you that all you can do is lambaste Anthony Watts. Perhaps you should try to read my 307 in full with a little more comprehension, because you don‘t address any of the issues therein. In fact it does not matter if you think Watts has vampire teeth and horns growing out of his head or anything else dastardly. All Harrabin wanted from Watts was a list of sceptical scientists, and BTW, Watts was unable to reply in the timing cut-off asked for by Harrabin. Whatever, he must have somehow found some sceptic’s views by virtue of the questions that he asked Jones.
    At the end of your rant you wrote:

    “…Why would Harrabin seek out Watts’ advice, of all people?”

    Well apparently because he thought that Watts would have a list of sceptical scientists. I fail to see how you cannot comprehend the very simple nature of that ask!

    Comment by BobFJ — 18 Feb 2010 @ 12:36 AM

  316. “Well apparently because he thought that Watts would have a list of sceptical scientists. I fail to see how you cannot comprehend the very simple nature of that ask!”

    Isn’t that a bias?

    There are skeptical scientists in the IPCC, so it can’t be merely “skeptical” he’s looking for.

    They ALL ***disbelieve*** AGW is possible. They don’t know what they *believe*, but they “know” AGW is wrong.

    This is not skepticism.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 18 Feb 2010 @ 6:46 AM

  317. “313
    Jacob Mack says:
    17 February 2010 at 9:46 PM

    CFU #304: If we are headed into a true catastrophe then we had better figure out on how to adapt as we strive to lower GHG in the meantime.”

    And if we start mitigation NOW then we have (even if it’s now inevitable) more time to adapt. Is it cheaper to adapt in a rush or in a planned gradual manner?

    If we don’t change, we ARE up for a catastrope. That is INEVITABLE. In the same way as even though “a watched pot doesn’t boil”, if you leave it on the fire long enough it will boil.

    But the adaption comes AFTER you’ve started mitigation.

    Because the mitigation efforts change the future. Much as when your doctor says “if you don’t cut out the cigarettes, you’ll die of cancer before retirement” is not disproven if you cut out the cigarettes and retire not dead.

    And they are required NO MATTER WHAT adaption.

    In fact, reduction of AGW by changing what you do IS an adaption.

    So why the false dichotomy? The statements that we should adapt? Mitigation IS adaption.

    So mitigate already.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 18 Feb 2010 @ 6:59 AM

  318. I often use this site as an excellent resource when trying to answer the mindless drivel that passes for debate on the Daily Mail threads. I have been on their site for some time, along with a couple of other people, we all try to argue the science and demonstrate the ignorance of the cammon denialist approach. It is, frankly, a thankless task but I feel it is necessary to take the argument into the lions den so that the passing audience do not fall into the anti-science hysteria that the mail threads actively encourage with their rather wierd moderation policy. The denier approach most often used is personalisation and politicisation, both intended to hide the facts and distort the science. It can take a couple of months defending the logical position before you wear down the more loony elements.
    To be honest, it would be nice to have a little more support from the public who appear regularly on the other news paper boards, if we could show a little more strength in numbers, despite the tedium, it could well reduce the Mails current editorial leanings. Any Hoo, keep up the good work and keep feeding us the ammunition neccesary to fight the good fight :-)

    Comment by Cannaman — 18 Feb 2010 @ 7:41 AM

  319. I may have mentioned this before, but my eyebrows rise with the scarcity of SH temperature data is sufficient to rule out the MWP, but such scarcity of data is no problem what-so-ever in extrapolating with high confidence global temperatures for millions of years before and nearly 1000 years since the MWP. I don’t know if this proves anything one way or another, but the scientific dichotomy is at the minimum very curious.

    Comment by Rod B — 18 Feb 2010 @ 1:05 PM

  320. CFU, there is only so much mitigation we can do currently. Even building more green replacememts puts more GHG into the atmosphere at first anyways. Many so called green technologies are in fact not green at all, as a matter of fact and are just marketed that way. Mitigation is important, but there exists no false dichotomy when we see how much we do actually changes nothing about GHG emissions, actually increases them or only lowers them by some extremely small margin. By all means let us continue to use more energy effcient and longer lasting batteries, LED lights, green manufacturing of concrete and steel, drive a hybrid and use less water, etc… all I am saying is with such a lrge global population that is going to increase by leaps and bounds a significant reduction in GHG in the next say, 25-50 years is not very realistic and there are ways to help adapt like: growing genetically modified foods which can stand more extreme climates and weather patterns, taking salt water and purifying it to potable drinking water, (though at the moment this is still energetically and monetarily expensive) building structures not only more green, but more sturdy to extreme weather, earhquakes and climate, & reducing the other major pollutants further so nature can respond more favorably to greenhouse gas emissions.

    Comment by Jacob Mack — 18 Feb 2010 @ 1:44 PM

  321. Rod B., Of course global temperatured become more uncertain as you go back into time. You have nothing like the resolution you do with instrumental data with proxy data, and the delta O^18 data give poorer resolution still. Still, the assumption is that on a timescale of decades, the hemispheres follow each other, and that is born out in the multiple ice cores we have. If you’d learn the science, you wouldn’t have to wonder.

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 18 Feb 2010 @ 1:50 PM

  322. BobFJ@315,
    OK, Bob, why not contact Richard Lindzen or John Christy or even Roy Spencer–you know, actual scientists? As a result of going with Watts’ hand picked lackeys, he got meaningless questions with cherry-picked dates.

    Why not ask the frigging scientists. It’s not like they are hard to find. Oh, wait. It is bloody hard to find scientists who dissent from the consensus, isn’t it? So, instead, I guess you have to go with a moron. Boy, that restores my faith in the credibility of the BBC!

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 18 Feb 2010 @ 1:59 PM

  323. “320
    Jacob Mack says:
    18 February 2010 at 1:44 PM

    CFU, there is only so much mitigation we can do currently.”

    There’s a lot more mitigation we can do than we’re doing.

    So stop fannying about about how much mitigation we can do and the the mitigation.

    All of your population by leaps and bounds will happen or not whether you’re mitigating or not.

    So mitigate already.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 18 Feb 2010 @ 2:20 PM

  324. “319
    Rod B says:
    18 February 2010 at 1:05 PM

    I may have mentioned this before, but my eyebrows rise with the scarcity of SH temperature data is sufficient to rule out the MWP,”

    Well Roger Moore on your own time.

    The temperature data rules out a SH MWP in so far as the data there doesn’t show one.

    The data is sufficient to show a global trend.

    This is because a global trend includes the southern AND northern halves.

    This means you get MORE data than you get if you include only one half.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 18 Feb 2010 @ 2:23 PM

  325. BobFJ says: 18 February 2010 at 12:36 AM

    Judging from his pathetic error regarding surface temperature trends, Watts has as little knowledge of climate science as he does vampire’s teeth.

    The fact Harrabin would turn to Watts as an authority on any matter related to climate science is a testimony to Watts’ skills with self-promotion and a condemnation of Harrabin as a journalist with the skills to guide the public to a better understanding of this topic.

    Comment by Doug Bostrom — 18 Feb 2010 @ 3:09 PM

  326. Doug Bostrom you wrote in part in 325:

    “…a condemnation of Harrabin as a journalist with the skills to guide the public to a better understanding of this topic.”

    I guess you are unaware of, (or forget), the long standing advocacy of Harrabin, (and the BBC in general), with the message of catastrophic AGW. Up until now he has served your cause extremely well, but has suddenly done a U-turn, which was ONE of the issues I raised in my 307

    Ray Ladbury you wrote in part in 322:

    “…why [did Harrabin] not contact Richard Lindzen or John Christy or even Roy Spencer–you know, actual scientists?…”

    Because Watts is an activist on the sceptical side, it is reasonable to suspect that he may have a list of sceptical scientists, regardless of what you think of him. Maybe Harrabin did contact the three scientists you mention. I don’t know; how do you know that he did not? Whatever, Watts apparently did not sight Harrabin’s request until after Harrabin’s cut-off date, so, as I’ve already said he must have got sceptical advice from somewhere else. (all background to his U-turn)

    Completely Fed Up Reur 316::
    Uh? Could you re-phrase that? (non comprendo)
    Is there something you don’t understand in what you quote?
    “Well apparently because he [Harrabin] thought that Watts would have a list of sceptical scientists. I fail to see how you cannot comprehend the very simple nature of that ask!”

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    All three of you; You have not responded to any of the issues in my 307 (17 February 2010 at 5:09 PM). Now why would that be? (Watts should be able to provide a list of sceptics regardless of what you think of him… Not an issue). Trying to change the subjects are you?

    Comment by BobFJ — 18 Feb 2010 @ 4:58 PM

  327. Completely Fed Up (324) — Limnological studies in Patagonia show no sign of warming during the MCA (MWP) intreval. Some hint that Antarctica underwent a polar see-saw, i.e., cooling, during this interval.

    Vaguely recall seeing something about New Zealand having a particularly cool spell as well.

    Comment by David B. Benson — 18 Feb 2010 @ 5:04 PM

  328. Bob, I already used words of mostly one syllable.

    How much simpler do you want? Watts et al are frauds.

    Simple enough?

    “You have not responded to any of the issues”

    We did respond to your query as to what was wrong with asking people who had no interest in the science being improved because they have many times demonstrated that, to them, the science is worth less than their ideology or paycheck.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 18 Feb 2010 @ 5:21 PM

  329. Because Watts is an activist on the sceptical side, it is reasonable to suspect that he may have a list of sceptical scientists, regardless of what you think of him.

    So, every time scientists report on new, exciting birdlike dinosaur fossils, the BBC should ask some creationist with a high school education for a list of skeptical scientists in order to balance the science story with claims that the earth is only 6,000 years old, I imagine …

    Comment by dhogaza — 18 Feb 2010 @ 5:43 PM

  330. Scott @ 283,

    Seems that link is broken and I can’t seem to get it from your website either. I’ll try again later but as for getting around the filters, I know. I tried to post with the word Special_ist only to find out the word (C I A L I S) is a part of that word and therefore banned. I had to use expert…

    Comment by Fred Magyar — 18 Feb 2010 @ 5:52 PM

  331. BobFJ says: 18 February 2010 at 4:58 PM

    Which issue are you referring to? Your mind reading– oops– “hypothesis” regarding Harrabin?

    What you wrote appeared to me as a wriggle of delight, celebrating what you perceive as a public relations victory. Don’t let me spoil your fun, but for some reason you mentioned Watts even though you later disclosed he was irrelevant to your keen enjoyment.

    Thank you for giving me the opportunity to remind readers here that when it comes to climate science, Watts is a post turtle. I can well imagine you’re pleasantly surprised to see he’s not lost his magic touch in spite of being thoroughly humiliated.

    Comment by Doug Bostrom — 18 Feb 2010 @ 5:55 PM

  332. “327
    David B. Benson says:
    18 February 2010 at 5:04 PM

    Completely Fed Up (324) — Limnological studies in Patagonia show no sign of warming during the MCA (MWP) intreval.”

    I did realise that in the climate (pun not intended) currently available where if a statement CAN be construed to mean “AGW is wrong”, this WILL happen, that merely saying that there was no evidence for a southern MWP would be still open to stating “So there’s evidence for warming”.

    But it was a bit late by then.

    Thanks for closing that hole before some ditto poked their head in.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 18 Feb 2010 @ 6:10 PM

  333. Rod B (319) — The ice cores in Greenland only go back to the Eemian interglacial. The long ice cores in Antarctica go back multiple interglacials. The tropical bethnic cores with d18O proxies go back for millions of years, but with only millennial resolution. Where these multiple proxy sources overlap in time the large scale fluctuations in temperatures agree, but the regional details do not.

    The MCA (MWP) is too small for d18O to register and the ice from the two different polar regions disagree, north up, south maybe down or flat. This suggests, but does not fully establish, that MCA was confined to the northern hemisphere. A good way of checking would be through more archaeological digs in the southern hemisphere. What little there is also suggests no MCA warming in the southern hemisphere.

    Comment by David B. Benson — 18 Feb 2010 @ 6:19 PM

  334. 333: David, the wikipedia article on the “MWP” links to a paper which argues for a MWP signal in New Zealand. Is that serious or just BS ? Surely Lonnie Thompson has evidence one way or the other from his observations of the Andean glaciers?

    Comment by John E. Pearson — 18 Feb 2010 @ 9:38 PM

  335. OK. So here’s Thompson

    “The Andean composite, and thus the Tropical composite, shows modest 18O enrichment from A.D. 300 to 500 and A.D. 1100 to 1300 (the so-called Medieval Warm Period) and depletion from A.D. 1400 to 1900 (LIA). Neither the Medieval Warm Period nor the LIA is discernable in the TP composite. However, all three composites (Fig. 6 A–C) clearly reveal that a large and unusual warming (18O enrichment) is underway at high elevations in the tropics. Although the factors driving the current 18O enrichment (warming) may be debated, the tropical ice core δ18O composite (Fig. 6 A) confirms that it is unusual from a 2,000-yr perspective.”

    http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10536.full

    No reconstructions. No proxies. Just raw data. and it is “unusual from a 2,000-yr perspective.”

    Comment by John E. Pearson — 18 Feb 2010 @ 10:22 PM

  336. Completely Fed Up 328 & Doug Bostrom 331:
    Let’s see if we can get back on-topic for this thread which is about media issues.
    Let’s see if you can perhaps comprehend more after me reconstructing my 307 to highlight by number what the 4 main issues are, but with additional hints. (since you seem to want to deny that these issues exist):

    ISSUE 1) In 2007, under the banner of “Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century”; (link below); the BBC published in part:

    “…The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus…”

    However, following repeated requests over the years, the BBC has steadfastly refused to identify the seminar participants. To say the least, this seems to be rather odd behaviour. Whatever, the BBC has until recently been extremely one-sided in the climate debate in favour of catastrophic climate change

    HINT 1) If the “high level seminar” was real and fairly conducted, (unbiased), why has the BBC steadfastly resisted all attempts to provide the identify of the alleged “best scientific experts” involved?
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    ISSUE 2) It is thus surprising, that in the written Q & A exchanges between Harrabin and Jones via the UEA Press Office,…

    HINT 2) Contrary to what has been claimed both in the lead article and by various commenters, the Q & A was not an ‘interview‘, but an extended written exchange, including updates. Thus Jones could carefully compose his responses, possibly with the assistance of the UEA press office. There is no excuse that he may have been caught-out in a face to face verbal.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    ISSUE 3) [It is thus surprising, that in the written Q & A exchanges between Harrabin and Jones via the UEA Press Office], that Harrabin has deviated from his previous reporting style. (See also my 231/p5) The puzzle is; why the change?

    HINT 3) Harrabin and the BBC are iconic in the UK media scene, and as demonstrated in ISSUE 1) have for some years been extremely supportive of the paradigm that AGW is having/will have catastrophic consequences. However, Harrabin has now done a sharp U-turn in his attitudes, and it is appropriate to ponder as to why that might be.
    (I offer an hypothesis on that next)
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    NOT AN ISSUE, but a musing on my part)
    I hypothesise that he must have studied the CRU Emails and the recently revealed IPPC-Pachauri “errors”, and has concluded that something odd is going on somewhere!
    Shortly before that Q & A, he Emailed Anthony Watts (WUWT) asking for assistance to identify certain sceptical scientists, and it seems from his questions to Jones that he has indeed consulted such people by virtue of the nature of those questions. Whatever, those bold U-turn Q & A’s are now out there in B & W, and I’m sure that Harrabin can understand their significance.

    HINT ON THIS MY HYPOTHESIS You do understand the word ‘hypothesis‘? I was just putting forward a possible rational explanation, as to why the Harrabin/BBC U-turn, without claiming any truth in what I proposed. If you can come-up with a better hypothesis, please express it. As stated elsewhere above, Harrabin probably got no advice from Watts in time, but apparently got it from somewhere else. This thread is about media issues, and you should not digress from that by lambasting Watts. (Your dire opinion on Watts himself is irrelevant to the topic of this thread, although Harrabin‘s request to him is sensible background consideration concerning Harrabin‘s U-turn )
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    ISSUE 4) Harrabin is also on record; quote:

    “…government ministers may have to reconsider their description of sceptics as “deniers” and “flat earthers”…”

    HINT 4) Golly gosh! ….Now that really is a big change coming from Harrabin! Need I say more?
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    BBC policy: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/impartiality_21century
    The Q & A: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

    Comment by BobFJ — 18 Feb 2010 @ 10:56 PM

  337. Ray @ 322 –

    Harribin is looking for sceptical AGW scientists in English academia, so far it seems, with not much luck.

    Comment by Leo G — 18 Feb 2010 @ 11:57 PM

  338. BobFJ says: 18 February 2010 at 10:56 PM

    What in the name of FSM was that all about? Whatever is reverberating between your ears, too much of it is leaking out. Stripping away the tea leaves, chicken entrails and other mumbo-jumbo, it sounds as though you’ve got a notion Harrabin has become the victim of some awful cognitive shortcircuit, maybe a ministroke shutting off the blood supply to important parts of his brain and is now a “believer” like you. Does that about sum it up? Harrabin now believes that scientists have joined together in a giant conspiracy to take away our Western Lifestyle?

    Comment by Doug Bostrom — 19 Feb 2010 @ 2:02 AM

  339. Doug Bostrom: Judging from his pathetic error regarding surface temperature trends, Watts has as little knowledge of climate science as he does vampire’s teeth.

    BPL: I hate to disagree, but I have it on good authority that Watts does, in fact, own a set of plastic vampire teeth.

    Comment by Barton Paul Levenson — 19 Feb 2010 @ 5:16 AM

  340. @336 BobFJ
    I very much doubt that the ‘skeptic’ questions put to Professor Jones by the BBC were from a genuine scientist. They were silly questions in the main and designed purely to try to trip up Professor Jones, not inform the public.

    Prof Jones is clearly not adept at handling the media, he’s a scientist not a politician. A more experienced person would have pointed out the questions were meaningless and rephrased them to give people a better understanding of the climate. Prof Jones didn’t do too badly, but he could have handled the questions better (or not participated in the charade at all).

    Comment by Sou — 19 Feb 2010 @ 7:07 AM

  341. In response to-

    333: David, the wikipedia article on the “MWP” links to a paper which argues for a MWP signal in New Zealand. Is that serious or just BS ? Surely Lonnie Thompson has evidence one way or the other from his observations of the Andean glaciers?

    Comment by John E. Pearson — 18 February 2010 @ 9:38 PM

    Positive evidence of the MWP signal in New Zealand and throughout the SH is unequivocal and ignored by the warmist camp for obvious reasons.

    There are plenty of clear signals from the SH.

    Here are but two examples, one from New Zealand and one from Antartica, both peer reviewed-

    Example 1-

    “We describe a new tree-ring reconstruction of Austral summer temperatures from the South Island of New Zealand, covering the past 1,100 years. This record is the longest yet produced for New Zealand and shows clear evidence for persistent above-average temperatures within the interval commonly assigned to the MWP. Comparisons with selected temperature proxies from the Northern and Southern Hemispheres confirm that the MWP was highly variable in time and space. Regardless, the New Zealand temperature reconstruction supports the global occurrence of the MWP.”

    From GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 29, NO. 14, 1667, 10.1029/2001GL014580, 2002

    http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/CookPalmer.pdf

    Example 2-

    “Terra Nova Bay, Victoria Land, Antarctica
    Reference
    Baroni, C. and Orombelli, G. 1994. Holocene glacier variations in the Terra Nova Bay area (Victoria Land, Antarctica). Antarctic Science 6: 497-505.

    Description
    In the words of the authors, they describe and analyze “data obtained during studies carried out by the Italian Antarctic Research Programme (1985-1991) in the Terra Nova Bay area, Victoria Land.” Of most significance to the Medieval Warm Period, in this regard, were data pertaining to the Edmonson Point Glacier (74°20’S, 165°08’E), which abuts a small ice-free area along the eastern coast of Mount Melbourne. Baroni and Orombelli state that a withdrawal phase of the glacier’s cliff front “is documented by a horizontal marine ingression of more than 150 meters and the deposition of coastal marine sediments,” noting that “the dates relative to this withdrawal phase correspond to a calibrated age between the 10th and the 14th centuries, a time interval including the Medieval Warm Period [authors’ italics].” They also say “there is evidence of a more recent period of advance, of at least 150 meters” that “occurred later than the 14th century in a time interval possibly corresponding to the Little Ice Age (16th-19th centuries).” Last of all, they state that “at present, the glacier appears to be in slight regression (as much as several tens of meters), as is documented by the ice-core moraines which locally face its frontal and lateral margins.” From these observations we conclude that the Medieval Warm Period of AD 900-1300 was more substantial than the Current Warm Period to date.”

    More examples here

    http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

    The MWP was real and global.

    Later……………..

    Orkneygal

    [Response: Try looking at all those so-called ‘MWP’ records and note which century the MWP is supposed to be in. You’ll find that they range over a 5 to 600 year period (even for the ones that have good age control – and many of them don’t) and so when you put them together you find that the peaks don’t line up. This has been the basis of the ‘MWP-scepticism’ for over a decade (Hughes and Diaz (1994), Bradley et al (2003), Osborn and Briffa (2006)). – gavin]

    Comment by Orkneygal — 19 Feb 2010 @ 8:11 AM

  342. BobFJ,
    Having worked a bit in science journalism, one of the most important resourced a journalist can have is a list of good sources. It is never possible for a journalist to become an expert on all issues he covers. When said journalist begins to turn to acknowledged wingnuts for help, it does sort of raise questions about his judgment.

    And FWIW, I’ve never found BBC’s science reporting to be any good. They’ve always tended toward the senstional “this changes everything” headline stories rather than the more in-depth narratives tha actually enlighten.

    In my opinion, the best science reporting looks for a significant development and uses that as a “news peg” for exploring the recent history of the field more thoroughly. It is interesting that BBC does do this with their cultural reporting–e.g. a new album being used to explore an artist’s career in perspective. It makes for interesting programming that is also enlightening.

    BBC has always been a wasteland when it comes to science.

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 19 Feb 2010 @ 8:28 AM

  343. I have just been reading the Daily Mail headline from the 14 Feb article. “Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995″

    If anything is a “travesty” it is this headline.

    Oxford Concise Dictionary:
    Travesty. An absurd or grotesque misrepresentation”.

    Comment by Theo Hopkins — 19 Feb 2010 @ 9:28 AM

  344. Orkneygal,
    Thanks for the article. However, I’m afraid it doesn’t support your contention of a MWP in the SH contemporaneous with that in the North. The dates for the MWP in the NH are around 800-1300. Your data show the SH was abnormally cold during that period, only warming back to normal temperatures (as opposed to higher than normal) in the last couple hundred years or so.
    Indeed, this is a general problem I’ve seen. The data the Idso’s cite contradicts their contention that there was a global contemporaneous MWP. When CO2″science” gets this so badly wrong, shouldn’t it make you wonder what else they’re wrong about?

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 19 Feb 2010 @ 9:29 AM

  345. Ray Ladbury , then how does that account for the conclusion that the MWP was “local” and not global?

    Comment by Rod B — 19 Feb 2010 @ 4:59 PM

  346. Rod B (345) — The evidence, such there is of it, suggests that the southern hemisphere did not warm up during MCA (MWP); those who studiy such matters calim to little evidence to be confident. But anthropologist Brain Fagan has a fine book which discusses MCA effects from Peru north to Mesa Verde; twas a hard time for all those civilizations.

    Comment by David B. Benson — 19 Feb 2010 @ 5:53 PM

  347. Rod B (345) — The evidence, such there is of it, suggests that the southern hemisphere did not warm up during MCA (MWP); those who studiy such matters claim too little evidence to be confident. But anthropologist Brian Fagan has a fine book which discusses MCA effects from Peru north to Mesa Verde; t’was a hard time for all those civilizations.

    Comment by David B. Benson — 19 Feb 2010 @ 5:54 PM

  348. Doug Bostrom, Reur colourful 338:
    Well actually, I don’t do tea leaves, and I don’t approve of most chicken farming methods. Maybe I gave you some facts that were too detailed and caused you some confusion? Let’s see if you can better comprehend some brief summaries of the four issues, condensed from my 336:

    1) Some years ago, the BBC claims to have conducted; “…a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts…” to justify a bias towards catastrophic AGW reporting. However, the BBC has repeatedly refused to identify who the scientific experts were, who allegedly gave their recommendation. Is the BBC hiding something….did it not happen….why the secrecy?

    2) Contrary to what is widely claimed, the Q & A exchanges between Harrabin and Jones were written via the UEA Press Office. Thus Jones had plenty of time to compose and seek advice in his replies, and could not have been a typically poor performer in an interview as some have suggested.

    3) Harrabin, (and the BBC) have in recent years been extremely supportive of catastrophic AGW allegations. However, following on from Climategate and IPCC “errors” etc he has done a U-turn and has asked Jones some questions that appear to have been obtained from sceptical scientists. Does this signal a change in policy on AGW at the BBC?

    4) Harrabin has since stated: “…government ministers may have to reconsider their description of sceptics as “deniers” and “flat earthers”…” I guess that also means that he will avoid making such slurs too. What do you think?

    I hope that isn’t too complicated for you Doug….. Go-on give it a try, it‘s not hard!
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    BTW, further to item 4), Harrabin has also written this:

    “…Amid the clamour on the blogosphere, though, there are the seeds of a growing climate peace movement. What a relief it would be if the extremists in the warring factions would lay down the Weapons of Mass Vilification like “denier”, “flat-earther”, “climate scam” and “climate con”.
    We are certainly in the right moment for a great Climate Armistice…

    …So there is space for a debate on the science. If politicians can frame their arguments in terms of uncertainty and risk, they may be better prepared to engage their critics. Shielding their heads behind an IPCC summary report won’t make the debate go away.
    This article is from the BBC News website

    http://www.heralddeparis.com/harrabins-notes-10/74168

    Comment by BobFJ — 19 Feb 2010 @ 6:35 PM

  349. 2) Contrary to what is widely claimed, the Q & A exchanges between Harrabin and Jones were written via the UEA Press Office. Thus Jones had plenty of time to compose and seek advice in his replies, and could not have been a typically poor performer in an interview as some have suggested.

    He was a “poor performer” for assuming his honest words would be taken honestly, and for not attempting spin control when composing his scientifically accurate, non-controversial answers that in no way are out of synch with mainstream scientific thought.

    That when he said “temps have risen +0.12C/decade from 1995 to present, just shy of statistical significance” that it would not be reported that he said that there was no warming 1995 to present.

    Etc.

    Does this signal a change in policy on AGW at the BBC?

    I, for one, could care less. Nor does the planet.

    Comment by dhogaza — 19 Feb 2010 @ 7:05 PM

  350. Ray Ladbury, Reur 342:
    As an Australian resident, I thought your comments on the media, particularly the BBC were interesting and probably generally sound, despite that I seem to remember podcasting some interesting non-AGW BBC science stuff a couple of years ago. (but no more, due time limitations etc). We do have apparently similar problem here in Oz with the ABC TV programme “catalyst” which is science journalism that can sometimes be quite irritating. On the other hand the ABC radio “Science Show” that I sometimes listen to by chance, can be quite good. Oh, and BBC “World Service” sometimes has good stuff, that I listen to sometimes overnight to help me sleep.

    However, I think you (and similarly others) have a misunderstanding when you wrote:
    When said journalist begins to turn to acknowledged wingnuts for help, it does sort of raise questions about his judgment.
    I guess given the tenor here, that by “wing-nut” you mean Anthony Watts. However, be reminded that Watts was not asked for any of his personal advice, but for a list of sceptical scientists, that Harrabin might approach for the information that he rquired. If for instance Watts listed some scientific papers, even say MBH 99, does that mean that they are crap?

    Comment by BobFJ — 19 Feb 2010 @ 10:20 PM

  351. “But it is extremely difficult to establish a statistically significant trend over a time interval as short as 15 years….”

    Only if you assume that 15 years means only 15 data points. However, the data showing no significant global temperature trend since 1995 is monthly data, and the P-value for trend with that data is nearly 0.5, which most definitely is NOT statistically significant.

    Comment by Pete28 — 20 Feb 2010 @ 1:41 AM

  352. Clear evidence that the MWP was a global event:

    Here are a few papers from the ‘Southern hemisphere’:

    (1) South Africa

    The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in South Africa

    P. D. Tyson1, W. Karlén2, K. Holmgren2 and G. A. Heiss3.

    1Climatology Research Group, University of the Witwatersrand
    2Department of Physical Geography, Stockholm University
    3Geomar, Wischhofstr. 1-3, 24148 Kiel, Germany; present address: German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU), P.O. Box 120161, 27515 Bremerhaven, Germany, E-mail: g.heiss@gmx.de

    Abstract

    The Little Ice Age, from around 1300 to 1800, and medieval warming, from before 1000 to around 1300 in South Africa, are shown to be distinctive features of the regional climate of the last millennium. The proxy climate record has been constituted from oxygen and carbon isotope and colour density data obtained from a well-dated stalagmite derived from Cold Air Cave in the Makapansgat Valley.
    The climate of the interior of South Africa was around 1oC cooler in the Little Ice Age and may have been over 3°C higher than at present during the extremes of the medieval warm period. It was variable throughout the millennium, but considerably more so during the warming of the eleventh to thirteenth centuries. Extreme events in the record show distinct teleconnections with similar events in other parts of the world, in both the northern and southern hemispheres. The lowest temperature events recorded during the Little Ice Age in South Africa are shown to be coeval with the Maunder and Sporer Minima in solar irradiance. The medieval warming is shown to have been coincided with the cosmogenic 10Be and 14C isotopic maxima recorded in tree rings elsewhere in the world during the Medieval Maximum in solar radiation.

    (2) New Zealand

    Evidence for a ‘Medieval Warm Period’ in a 1,100 year tree-ring reconstruction of past austral summer temperatures in New Zealand
    Cook, E R | Palmer, J G | D’Arrigo, R
    Geophysical Research Letters. Vol. 29, no. 14, pp. 12-1 to 12-4. 15 July 2002

    The occurrence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) in the Southern Hemisphere is uncertain because of the paucity of well-dated, high-resolution paleo-temperature records covering the past 1000 years. We describe a new tree-ring reconstruction of Austral summer temperatures from the South Island of New Zealand, covering the past 1100 years. This record is the longest yet produced for New Zealand and shows clear evidence for persistent above-average temperatures within the interval commonly assigned to the MWP. Comparisons with selected temperature proxies from the Northern and Southern Hemispheres confirm that the MWP was highly variable in time and space. Regardless, the New Zealand temperature reconstruction supports the global occurrence of the MWP. (Author)

    (3) South America (Patagonia)

    Ricardo Villalba1, 2

    (1) Department of Geography, University of Colorado, 80309-260 Boulder, CO, USA
    (2) Present address: Laboratorio de Dendrocronologia, CRICYT – CONICET, Casilla de Correo 330, 5500 Mendoza, Argentina

    Received: 22 September 1992 Revised: 27 October 1993

    Abstract A tree-ring reconstruction of summer temperatures from northern Patagonia shows distinct episodes of higher and lower temperature during the last 1000 yr. The first cold interval was from A.D. 900 to 1070, which was followed by a warm period A.D. 1080 to 1250 (approximately coincident with theMedieval Warm Epoch). Afterwards a long, cold-moist interval followed from A.D. 1270 to 1660, peaking around 1340 and 1640 (contemporaneously with earlyLittle Ice Age events in the Northern Hemisphere). In central Chile, winter rainfall variations were reconstructed using tree rings back to the year A.D. 1220. From A.D. 1220 to 1280, and from A.D. 1450 to 1550, rainfall was above the long-term mean. Droughts apparently occurred between A.D. 1280 and 1450, from 1570 to 1650, and from 1770 to 1820. In northern Patagonia, radiocarbon dates and tree-ring dates record two major glacial advances in the A.D. 1270–1380 and 1520–1670 intervals. In southern Patagonia, the initiation of theLittle Ice Age appears to have been around A.D. 1300, and the culmination of glacial advances between the late 17th to the early 19th centuries.
    Most of the reconstructed winter-dry periods in central Chile are synchronous with cold summers in northern Patagonia, resembling the present regional patterns associated with the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The years A.D. 1468–69 represent, in both temperature and precipitation reconstructions from treerings, the largest departures during the last 1000 yr. A very strong ENSO event was probably responsible for these extreme deviations. Tree-ring analysis also indicates that the association between a weaker southeastern Pacific subtropical anticyclone and the occurence of El Niño events has been stable over the last four centuries, although some anomalous cases are recognized.

    [Response: Line up the peaks of these papers with the European ‘MWP’ peaks, and then explain how the same ‘event’ is hundreds of years different in different places. The problem is that people have had a tendency to claim that any warm period prior to the last cold period must be the ‘MWP’ without much in the way of proper comparison of actual timings. This is the same problem that was highlighted by Hughes and Diaz in 1994! – gavin]

    Comment by Ken Lambert — 20 Feb 2010 @ 8:53 AM

  353. Pete (351): Only if you assume that 15 years means only 15 data points. However, the data showing no significant global temperature trend since 1995 is monthly data, and the P-value for trend with that data is nearly 0.5, which most definitely is NOT statistically significant.

    BPL: Since the proper scale for temperature trends is 30 years, using monthly figures artificially inflates your sample size. It’s like saying it’s risen 10 degrees C here from 6 AM to 9 AM. You can break that into 180 one-minute measurements and measure a highly significant trend. Extrapolating, the seas are going to boil in a few days!

    Comment by Barton Paul Levenson — 20 Feb 2010 @ 11:00 AM

  354. Only if you assume that 15 years means only 15 data points. However, the data showing no significant global temperature trend since 1995 is monthly data, and the P-value for trend with that data is nearly 0.5, which most definitely is NOT statistically significant.

    Say what? The number of data points that are required depend on both the magnitude of noise and signal in the dataset.

    P-value for trend with that data is nearly 0.5, which most definitely is NOT statistically significant.

    “nearly” as in 95% confidence level.

    Of course, Jones said it was just shy of the conventional 95% confidence level. The fact that it’s was close to that – 93%? 94%? – is suggestive. And itt’s not as if the 95% convention falls out of any fundamental theoretical theory of statistics, or anything else.

    Don’t believe me? Read this.

    Comment by dhogaza — 20 Feb 2010 @ 12:38 PM

  355. Oops something got deleted …

    P-value for trend with that data is nearly 0.5, which most definitely is NOT statistically significant.

    If it were “nearly 0.5″, i.e. 95%. Not what you meant to say.

    Comment by dhogaza — 20 Feb 2010 @ 12:40 PM

  356. P-value for trend with that data is nearly 0.5, which most definitely is NOT statistically significant.

    Eh, “<” and “>” were getting eaten.

    On least try:

    If it were “nearly 0.5″, i.e. < 0.5, the confidence level would be greater than 95%, not what you meant to say.

    Comment by dhogaza — 20 Feb 2010 @ 12:42 PM

  357. Mr. Ladbury:

    Sorry for getting your name wrong (a Blackberry can sometimes make it difficult).

    And thank you for your comments. Giving me something to think about.

    Comment by Jerry — 20 Feb 2010 @ 1:49 PM

  358. Pete28, You do not in any way increase statistical significance in going from yearly to monthly data, because monthly data are strongly autocorrelated. Take that into account and you will find that you get about the same significance as for yearly data.

    After all, if you are talking about long-term trend, it would be silly to presume that monthly averages contained information that yearly averages did not.

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 20 Feb 2010 @ 2:39 PM

  359. BobFJ,
    The question of credibility can be a subtle one in science. However, in the case of MicroWatts, it’s pretty simple. The question is simply if a person repeatedly demonstrates themselves unable to separate good science from lunacy or to draw the correct interpretation from scientific papers, then how are they going to know who is doing good work and who is not?

    In other cases, the question is more subtle. Would you trust the opinion of a scientist with a strong publication record but who had an agenda over one with solid but not brilliant publication record who was known by all as a solid broker?

    Even presuming one was unfamiliar with Watts’ penchant for publishing absolute crap on his blog, there remains the question of why a journalist would turn to a scientifically illiterate former TV weatherman rather than a dissident scientist for sources. I mean a quick perusal of the Wall Street Urinal editorial pages would have quickly produced the names of Lindzen, Christy or Spencer, all of whom at least have a publication record relevant to the subject. As it was, BBC wasted an opportunity to ask real “tough questions” rather than dwelling on irrelevancies.

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 20 Feb 2010 @ 2:51 PM

  360. BobFJ says: 19 February 2010 at 6:35 PM

    “What do you think?”

    I think that physics and mathematics are oblivious to the BBC. Whatever inconsistencies and errors may lurk in our understanding of climate will inevitably be revealed by researchers plugging away in the field. The more empirical observations swerve from theory, the more curious researchers will become about this topic and the more effort they’ll devote to satisfying their curiosity.

    I also think that for whatever reason you appear to be thoroughly intrigued and even perhaps delighted by what you perceive as a change in the public relations climate between journalists and the subjects of their reporting. I don’t know why you’re relentlessly trying to involve me in your fascination, it should be fairly obvious by now that I’m simply not interested.

    Comment by Doug Bostrom — 20 Feb 2010 @ 4:43 PM

  361. Jerry, Ray works just fine as a handle for me. Shorter to type, too. Always keep thinking.

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 20 Feb 2010 @ 10:06 PM

  362. Gavin —
    Re 352 Ken Lambert: “Line up the peaks of these papers with the European ‘MWP’ peaks, and then explain how the same ‘event’ is hundreds of years different in different places. The problem is that people have had a tendency to claim that any warm period prior to the last cold period must be the ‘MWP’ without much in the way of proper comparison of actual timings. This is the same problem that was highlighted by Hughes and Diaz in 1994! – gavin]”

    Perhaps you can clarify how the examples cited by Ken Lambert support your comment.

    MWP roughly 950 – 1250; i.e., 10th – 13th centuries

    The examples cited:
    Patagonia: warm 1080 – 1250
    New Zealand: “clear evidence for persistent above-average temp within the interval commonly assigned to the MWP”
    South Africa “may have been over 3 degrees C higher than at present during the extremes of the medieval warm period,” specifically 11th – 13th centuries.

    It seems to me that they overlap, and there are not hundreds of years difference.
    Are you disagreeing with their conclusions, their data, or their interpretation of the data?

    [Response: If you define the MWP so widely as to include all the various peaks, you’ll find that the average signal smears out since the peaks in the different records are not two hundred years long in general. For instance, one of the most common ‘MWP’ records brought up – the GRIP borehole record – peaks between 800-1000 AD. The Osborn and Briffa paper has more examples. Thus putting it together you end up with a broad period that is warmer than the later centuries of the Little Ice Age, but that doesn’t stand out as much as you see in any individual record. And for any particular 50 year or 100 year period, you get a lot of structure in the reconstructed temperatures (Mann et al, 2009). Specifically, you can’t find a particular 50 or 100 year period where all records are ‘degrees’ above their baseline. – gavin]

    Comment by Don Shor — 20 Feb 2010 @ 11:24 PM

  363. Sou; You wrote in part in your 340/p7:

    “I very much doubt that the ’skeptic’ questions put to Professor Jones by the BBC were from a genuine scientist. They were silly questions in the main and designed purely to try to trip up Professor Jones, not inform the public. Prof Jones is clearly not adept at handling the media, he’s a scientist not a politician…”

    Well as you should know by now, Jones was not trapped in a verbal face-to-face, but responded over an extended written exchange via the UEA Press Office, and thus he had plenty of time to think and to consult colleagues. Have you actually read all of the Harrabin questions rather than the brief paraphrased extracts in the lead article?
    Here for example is question A
    A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
    Is that a silly question, and if so, why? What about the other 17 questions? Which of them are silly, and why?
    Q & A: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

    Dhogaza; You wrote in part in your 349/p7

    “He was a “poor performer” for assuming his honest words would be taken honestly, and for not attempting spin control when composing his scientifically accurate, non-controversial answers that in no way are out of synch with mainstream scientific thought…”

    Could you run that by me again please? Are you suggesting that he should NOT give an honest reply, in fear of misinterpretation, despite that he had time to consult with colleagues etc. for a written response. But, anyway, see next item:

    You also wrote:

    “…That when he said “temps have risen +0.12C/decade from 1995 to present, just shy of statistical significance” that it would not be reported that he said that there was no warming 1995 to present…

    What you (and Gavin et al) fail to mention is that the Daily Mail gave three headline bullet points, including your exampleThere has been no global warming since 1995 that were then explained in the full text thus:

    He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

    Thus, as you and Gavin et al should know; headlines do not and cannot fully define a story, or otherwise there is no need to insert any text beneath the headlines.

    In response to my 3) in 348/p7:
    3) Harrabin, (and the BBC) have in recent years been extremely supportive of catastrophic AGW allegations. However, following on from Climategate and IPCC “errors” etc he has done a U-turn and has asked Jones some questions that appear to have been obtained from sceptical scientists. Does this signal a change in policy on AGW at the BBC?
    You wrote:

    I, for one, could [sic – not?] care less. Nor does the planet.

    I find that to be a surprising response, particularly because Gavin et al are complaining about such tendency in the lead article, and the BBC does tend to influence the print media in the UK and abroad, and has a “World Service” in radio. Are you suggesting that you can speak for “The Planet” of how many billions of people?

    Comment by BobFJ — 21 Feb 2010 @ 3:14 AM

  364. Nice article. To Private Eye readers in the UK, the paper is known as ‘The Daily Wail’

    Comment by Matt — 21 Feb 2010 @ 6:43 AM

  365. Gavin,

    My Comment #352 and your reply:

    The South African paper quotes the MWP at before 1000AD to 1300AD, the NZ paper says ‘the interval commonly assigned to the MWP’ and the South American paper quotes 1080AD to 1250AD.

    What dates do you ‘commonly assign’ to the MWP?

    Also please explain why the Hughes and Diaz 1994 paper could serve as a rebuttal of the New Zealand paper published in 2002?

    [Response: Where did I claim such a thing? H&D pointed out more than a decade ago that the records claiming an ‘MWP’ didn’t line up in time. New records aren’t going to change that conclusion – and in fact they’ve made it stronger. You can cherry pick one or two records that seem to fit, but if you take the totality of the records (which are sparse in the SH), they don’t all line up at the same time. Even if you take the ‘skeptics‘ picture of the MWP (discarding the records that don’t have good enough age control to be useful – most of the ocean sediment cores for instance), you find that they just don’t line up. Some records are warm in the 9th Century, some in the 10th, some in the 13th! Some records that are warm in th 12th C are cool in the 9th C and vice versa (even assuming these are even temperature related records – which is not always the case). Each of these mismatches reduces the signal at the global scale. – gavin]

    Comment by Ken Lambert — 21 Feb 2010 @ 7:59 AM

  366. “351
    Pete28 says:
    20 February 2010 at 1:41 AM

    “But it is extremely difficult to establish a statistically significant trend over a time interval as short as 15 years….”

    Only if you assume that 15 years means only 15 data points.”

    No, only if you assume that 15 years takes 15 whole years to pass.

    Peter seems to be another one who thinks Achilles cannot catch the tortoise.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 21 Feb 2010 @ 10:18 AM

  367. Ken and Don Schor, Let’s take an example. Let’s say you have several tables playing at dice. We look at a time series of the rolls at one table, and we find that the mean over a certain series of throws is anomalously high. We suspect the dice might not be honest. So we look at the other tables for similar anomalies and find them. The thing is that when we line up all the time series, the anomalies don’t line up. And when we average them, the anomalies go away entirely. We’re left with no evidence of a “global dice cheat”. That doesn’t mean that there were no cheats at any of the tables, but it does mean that there was nothing global at all the tables.

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 21 Feb 2010 @ 10:36 AM

  368. “I guess given the tenor here, that by “wing-nut” you mean Anthony Watts. However, be reminded that Watts was not asked for any of his personal advice,”

    And if someone wants to lead you astray when asking about proof of the evolution of man, would you give Professor Dawkins name or give the name of that dude who started that evolution history museum where T Rex is vegetarian with Adam and Eve?

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 21 Feb 2010 @ 10:37 AM

  369. BobFJ:

    Could you run that by me again please? Are you suggesting that he should NOT give an honest reply, in fear of misinterpretation, despite that he had time to consult with colleagues etc. for a written response.

    No, I’m not suggesting he should’ve been dishonest, I’m suggesting he should’ve said something honest, but simple and short. Like “15 years isn’t a long enough time to determine the trend”. Period.

    That would be much harder to quotemine.

    What you (and Gavin et al) fail to mention is that the Daily Mail gave three headline bullet points, including your exampleThere has been no global warming since 1995 that were then explained in the full text thus

    The headline is false. The denialsphere has been widely quoting it, and that’s the take-home message people are being fed.

    Don’t defend dishonesty. It won’t earn you much respect around here.

    Comment by dhogaza — 21 Feb 2010 @ 12:59 PM

  370. Thanks to Ray and Gavin for the explanations about the MWP. I see that Mann et al 2009 addresses this in much more detail, at least from what I can see of the abstract (I don’t have a subscription to Science, so I’ll have to see if the full text has been posted out somewhere else on the web).

    So if I’m understanding this correctly:
    — there was a MWP in Europe, North America, etc.
    — data from the southern hemisphere is more sparse
    — there were warm periods around the globe that overlap with the MWP, but data suggests they were regional and not consistent through the time period.

    I assume that, even with all that, the global temperatures during the period known as the MWP were higher than during the LIA. I assume that you are saying global temperatures were lower than the 20th century. This may be a stupid question, but were the global temperatures within a range that would be “expected” by gcm’s? That is, with CO2 out of the equation, is that range of variability natural within the current models? To put it in layman’s terms, could another MWP occur in northern Europe even without CO2, and still be within the range of projected outcomes?

    Comment by Don Shor — 21 Feb 2010 @ 1:06 PM

  371. dhogaza 329/p7:

    So, every time scientists report on new, exciting birdlike dinosaur fossils, the BBC should ask some creationist with a high school education for a list of skeptical scientists in order to balance the science story with claims that the earth is only 6,000 years old, I imagine …

    Completely Fed Up 368:

    And if someone wants to lead you astray when asking about proof of the evolution of man, would you give Professor Dawkins name or give the name of that dude who started that evolution history museum where T Rex is vegetarian with Adam and Eve?

    These are rather silly analogies because Harrabin’s Email to Watts was highly specific and restrictive, this being an extract:
    I am trying to talk to UK scientists in current academic posts who are sceptical about AGW.
    Thus, keeping this short, Harrabin would almost certainly detect any inappropriate ID’s of people that he may have contacted. Furthermore, it seems from his comments that Watts himself was unable to assist. Furthermore, Harrabin realized that those holding current posts may have good reason for not stepping forward. Of course he may have emailed others as well because it would be wrong to assume Watts and his readers as an exclusive source.

    BTW, what is the topic of this thread again? Repeatedly lambasting Watts is becoming boring and childish and is irrelevant.

    Comment by BobFJ — 21 Feb 2010 @ 3:23 PM

  372. These are rather silly analogies because Harrabin’s Email to Watts was highly specific and restrictive, this being an extract:

    I am trying to talk to UK scientists in current academic posts who are sceptical about AGW.

    Harrabin e-mailed a guy with a high school education and a background reading news on TV who is convinced that photography disproves science, looking for a list skeptical scientists.

    How is my suggestion having the BBC ask some creationist with a high school education for a list of skeptical scientists “silly” anything but identical, other than in particular field of science in question?

    Comment by dhogaza — 21 Feb 2010 @ 3:58 PM

  373. Don Shor (370) — My amateur take on the situation is that minor ups and downs for the last 2000 years are consistent with previous times, to the extent we have proxies. On decadal to centennial scales the various temperature and proxy records all show approximately
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_noise
    with the exception of the last century, for known reasons.

    I should point out that the last, say, 6000 years may be rather exceptional; please read W.F. Ruddiman’s popular “Plows, Plagues and Petroluem”.

    Comment by David B. Benson — 21 Feb 2010 @ 3:59 PM

  374. BobFJ,
    OK, let’s make this less personal. The individual that Harrabin contacted:
    a)has no relevant degree, training or experience
    b)has no publication record in a relevant field
    c)has repeatedly demonstrated an almost perverse glee in getting the science wrong
    d)allows working scientists to be slandered on his blog
    e)has no understanding of how science works, as evidenced by his Surface Stations debacle

    I would contend that using such a person as a “source” even on background is sufficient grounds for questioning the understanding or competence of a journalist.

    This feeling is further aggravated by the questions that Harrabin wound up asking, which were over trivial points that shed no real light on where ther real uncertainties lie wrt climate science and anthropogenic climate change. To me, it looks like a journalist’s attempt to “be tough” at the expense of being enlightening or informative. In other words, it had BBC Science reporting written all over it.

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 21 Feb 2010 @ 4:03 PM

  375. Don Schor, Temperatures in the North Atlantic are particularly susceptible to influence by the strength of the Gulf Stream. Remember, Rome is at the same latitude as Indianapolis! Add to that, responses to large volcanic eruptions, changes in insolation, ENSO, NAO, PDO, etc., and not surprisingly you find quite a bit of variability.

    However, as Ray Pierrehumbert says, these changes go up and down, up and down. They do not explain a sustained rise like we’ve seen over the past 35 years.

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 21 Feb 2010 @ 4:07 PM

  376. The Daily Mail is not debating what Dr. Jones actually said; instead, the reporter Jonathan Petre is making a shameful straw man argument that is being recycled in Pravda by way of FOX News. http://english.pravda.ru/news/science/earth/16-02-2010/112242-phil_jones_global_warming_fuss-0

    Dr. Phil Jones was asked a loaded question: “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?”

    Let me make an analogy that the readers of this women’s tabloid may be able to grasp: If you weigh yourself every hour for a twenty-four hour period, it will be difficult to know if you are gaining or losing weight. Various factors such as how much water you have been drinking, when you ate your last meal, or when you last visited the toilet will obscure the trend in your weight. But if you weigh yourself every day for a year, any upward or downward trend will be evident.

    So it is with global warming: Scientists often acknowledge that factors other than greenhouse gasses can affect the earth’s temperature in the short term.

    Comment by Zinaida Zalyotchik — 21 Feb 2010 @ 4:42 PM

  377. Ray Ladbury 359:
    You wrote in part concerning Harrabin’s search for a list of: UK scientists in current academic posts who are sceptical about AGW: (and willing to ‘out-themselves”…. that’s a tough ask!)

    “…I mean a quick perusal of the Wall Street Urinal editorial pages would have quickly produced the names of Lindzen, Christy or Spencer, all of whom at least have a publication record relevant to the subject…”

    So you assume that Harrabin only sought advice from Watts? Is it typical of you that you jump to baseless conclusions like that?…. See also my 371.
    There have been some fifteen comments so-far to me that allege and rant about the incompetence of Watts, and an implication that Harrabin must therefore also be incompetent. In his Email to Watts, (and maybe to others?), as background to his enquiry he linked to his recent article:

    Harrabin’s Notes: Raising the error bar (1/Feb/2010)
    In his regular column, BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin says that one certainty in the climate debate is the existence of uncertainty – and that it must be addressed.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8491154.stm
    Try reading it, it’s not hard. It seems to me that Harrabin is very perceptive and lucid in his comments, and can hardly be given the “low-life” status that has been implied by you and others.

    Doug Bostrom 360:
    In response to my item 4) in 348/p7; Harrabin has since stated: “…government ministers may have to reconsider their description of sceptics as “deniers” and “flat earthers”…” I guess that also means that he will avoid making such slurs too. What do you think?

    “…I think that physics and mathematics are oblivious to the BBC…
    [then about 6 more lines of waffle unrelated to my question]
    …it should be fairly obvious by now that I’m simply not interested.”

    Well it does not matter how dumb you think the BBC (staff) is, but what IS relevant, and IS the concern of this thread is; increased media reporting that is alleged to be inaccurate and biased against catastrophic AGW.
    If you are simply not interested, then perhaps you should go somewhere else?

    Comment by BobFJ — 21 Feb 2010 @ 7:56 PM

  378. Personally, I wouldn’t engage with BobFJ.

    (cue theme by Grieg)

    Comment by Kevin McKinney — 22 Feb 2010 @ 12:00 AM

  379. BobFJ says: 21 February 2010 at 7:56 PM

    To be more specific, I’m not interested in what you think, BobFJ.

    Let me clarify further. I’m not arguing with you. You mentioned Watts and thus provided me an opportunity to mention his fallibility, something I like to do for the benefit of the general audience here when given the chance. The rest of your hypothesis is deadly dull. Carry on with your preoccupation concerning the BBC, just don’t bother trying to elicit an opinion about it from me.

    Comment by Doug Bostrom — 22 Feb 2010 @ 2:26 AM

  380. Zinaida Zalyotchik Reur 376:
    Here follows Harrabin’s question B, and Jones’ answer in full, my bold added:

    “B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
    [Jones:] 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.”

    Here follows what Pravda On-Line correctly reported:

    “The scientist behind the so-called “climate-gate” e-mail scandal now admits there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995.

    Here follows what the Daily Mail correctly reported, below the headlines:

    And he [Jones] said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

    And again further down in the same text:

    He [Jones] further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

    Here is some advice:
    You should always read beyond the headlines which cannot, by definition, give the full story, and are intended purely to grab attention, from where it is essential to read the full text. Furthermore, if you believe that there has not been a recognisable cooling plateau, somewhat like that of around 1940*, then check-out the following Email exchange. Note that Wigley was director of CRU before retiring in 2004, and that Trenberth has been very powerful in the IPCC. Also note the highly significant circulation:

    From: Tom Wigley
    To: Kevin Trenberth
    Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
    Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:09:35 -0600
    Cc: Michael Mann , Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer
    Kevin,
    I didn’t mean to offend you. But what you said was “we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment”. Now you say “we are no where close to knowing where energy is going“. In my eyes these are two different things — the second relates to our level of understanding, and I agree that this is still lacking.
    Tom.
    ++++++++++++++++++
    Kevin Trenberth wrote:
    > Hi Tom
    > How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
    > Kevin

    Also, Trenberth’s more recent on-line elaboration discusses possible mechanisms for the current “bad news” cooling plateau, and laments inability to define it. Here is an extract which is not contradicted elsewhere:
    “…Perhaps all of these things are going on? But surely we have an adequate system to track whether this is the case or not, do we not? Well, it seems that the answer is no, we do not…”

    Note* see graph: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/_nhshgl.gif Compare the current HADCRUT temperature plateau with that of around 1940. (and maybe 1877) Also, from this, see the relevance to question A.

    Comment by BobFJ — 22 Feb 2010 @ 2:41 AM

  381. Don Shor #362 and Gavin #365

    Here is another paper from China re the MWP.

    Quote:
    The Medieval Warm Period in the Daihai Area
    Jin, Z | Shen, J | Wang, S | Zhang, E
    Journal of Lake Sciences [J. Lake Sci.]. Vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 209-216. Sep 2002.

    Based on the rubidium to strontium (Rb/Sr) ratio, carbonate (CaCO sub(3)) content and organic carbon concentration (C sub(org)) record in lake sediments from the Daihai Lake, Inner Mongolia, dated by AMS- super(14)C and super(210)Pb, the climatic and environmental change process was reconstructed since the last 2,200 years, including two important climate events, i. e. the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. An increase Rb/Sr ratio but a decrease both CaCO sub(3) and C sub(org) correspond to a cold period, and vice versa. In this paper, we first suggest that there existed the Medieval Warm Period in the northern China during 900-1200a B. P. by a high-resolution lake record characterized according to lower Rb/Sr ratios and higher CaCO sub(3) and C sub(org) concentrations in the sediments from a single watershed, which a warm and humid environment was demonstrated by significant increase of chemical weathering and by a progressive increase of biologic productivity, and by a high lake level. The Medieval Warm Period has not only an inner climatic fluctuant, but also the strongest chemical weathering during the last 2,200 years, which are indicated by a higher-resolution natural record in northern China. Furthermore, the Medieval Warm Period in northern China is contemporaneous with the worldwide event identified in the lakes, oceans, land mollusk sequences, polar ice cores, pollens and historical documents. endquote

    Lining up of ‘peaks’ supposes a close match of the timelines – something which would seem very unlikely from proxy reconstructions 1000 years ago and might not account for ‘noise’ in the system anyway.

    As the only feasible external forcing is Solar for this pre-industrial period, heat added to the oceans from an imbalance would be expected to behave similarly to that of the current warming – get involved in complex circulations and hide in places (below 700m?) and possibly pop up to warm different regions at different times. Difficult to explain the physical process – but is that not what Dr Trenberth is suggesting is happening right now Gavin?

    Comment by Ken Lambert — 22 Feb 2010 @ 9:11 AM

  382. Ken, if that is the supposition, then where is the layer where all this heat is stored?

    Has there been enough over-supply of insolation to give us this level?

    And why is it getting warmer in just the right way to make it look like CO2 which has also been climbing and has a model that recreates the current and past climate changes.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 22 Feb 2010 @ 2:06 PM

  383. “These are rather silly analogies because Harrabin’s Email to Watts was highly specific and restrictive, this being an extract:
    I am trying to talk to UK scientists in current academic posts who are sceptical about AGW.”

    Why ask Watts then?

    There’s Nature. They keep a publication list.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 22 Feb 2010 @ 3:53 PM

  384. If we are to accept conclusions on the basis of statistically insignificant evidence, does that go for the rest of science too?

    If 95% confidence is the test in medical trials, why is climate science somehow different?

    Comment by David Bailey — 22 Feb 2010 @ 4:52 PM

  385. David Bailey – Medical researchers don’t throw out half their data before doing a statistical test – and they certainly don’t do a test with all their data, get a significant result, then throw out half the data, get a (marginally) non-significant result, and conclude that there is no evidence of an effect!

    Comment by jimt — 22 Feb 2010 @ 5:34 PM

  386. Ken Lambert (381) — Read W#.F. Ruddiman’s “Plows, Plagues and Petroleum” for the argument from land use change. But also note that there is enough reddish
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_noise
    on those time scales to account for multicentennial ups and downs of regional temperatures.

    David Bailey (384) — The notion of accepting conclusions based on statistical significane is really a question of risk management. It just depnds on how certain you need to be before taking some action. Do note the conservative care with which the IPCC AR4 WG1 report is written.

    Comment by David B. Benson — 22 Feb 2010 @ 5:37 PM

  387. David 384: “If 95% confidence is the test in medical trials, why is climate science somehow different?”

    Because have decided that medicine must “first do no harm”, so we’d rather lose 10 to heart disease than 1 to side effects. We have 6 billion individuals, so we can afford to play the numbers and lose some.

    However, we have only ONE planet. So what you’re suggesting is that mere 90% certainty that we’re screwing up the planet isn’t enough to change.

    So let’s boil it down to a more parallel scenario: You have only one life. If a doctor tells you he’s 90% sure that behavior X will kill you, do you stop? Or attack his science, and hold out for 95% certainty?

    Comment by Bruce the Canuck — 22 Feb 2010 @ 5:56 PM

  388. dhogaza 369:

    No, I’m not suggesting he [Jones] should’ve been dishonest, I’m suggesting he should’ve said something honest, but simple and short. Like “15 years isn’t a long enough time to determine the trend”. Period. That would be much harder to quotemine.

    Ah, but what you and Jones don’t admit is that there is more to it than a nominally supposed statistical trend, and that other notable climate scientists have treated the “recent lack of warming”, as a significant issue, and have broadcast it not only to Phil Jones but also to others. For example:

    [Email] From: Tom Wigley To: Kevin Trenberth
    Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
    Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:09:35 -0600
    Cc: Michael Mann , Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer
    Kevin,
    I didn’t mean to offend you. But what you said was “we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment”. Now you say “we are no where close to knowing where energy is going“. In my eyes these are two different things — the second relates to our level of understanding, and I agree that this is still lacking.
    Tom.
    ++++++++++++++++++
    Kevin Trenberth wrote:
    > Hi Tom
    > How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
    > Kevin
    Also, Trenberth’s more recent on-line elaboration discusses possible mechanisms for the current “bad news” cooling plateau, and laments inability to define it. Here is an extract which is not contradicted elsewhere:
    “…Perhaps all of these things are going on? But surely we have an adequate system to track whether this is the case or not, do we not? Well, it seems that the answer is no, we do not…”

    Note; see graph: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/_nhshgl.gif Compare the current HADCRUT temperature plateau with that of around 1940. (and maybe 1877) Also, from this, see the relevance to question A.

    The headline is false. The denialsphere has been widely quoting it, and that’s the take-home message people are being fed. Don’t defend dishonesty. It won’t earn you much respect around here.

    Yes, the headline is false. Jones did not say that and the headline has spread around. This sort of thing has been a problem for years in the media…. For instance; silly headlines about alleged unprecedented droughts in Australia, and fruitbats dropping dead from the trees due to AGW etc. I don‘t know why you think I‘m being dishonest, but it‘s good to see you orienting more towards media problems here, as per the thread topic. See also my 380 below.

    Comment by BobFJ — 22 Feb 2010 @ 6:26 PM

  389. Completely Fed Up #382

    A recent paper by Von Schukmann et al suggests that 0.77 W/sq.m of ocean area equivalent forcing of heat over recent times is stored down to 2000m using Argo data. There is no clear description of mechanism or how it passes through the top 700m without showing up in other Argo analyses.

    Comment by Ken Lambert — 22 Feb 2010 @ 7:15 PM

  390. BobFJ,
    Actually, Trenbreth’s statement is regarding our inability to fully comprehend the short-term to mid-term variability. It has nothing to do with long-term trends in climate.

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 22 Feb 2010 @ 7:37 PM

  391. jimt, nor do climate scientists, or do you have specific allegation? Naah, you seem more the vague inuendo and quiet slander type of guy.

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 22 Feb 2010 @ 7:41 PM

  392. BobFJ – how come you declare what you quote (“we can’t account for the lack of warming [at the moment]”) as the “[recent] lack of warming”?

    the “lack of warming” needs a ‘when’ and ‘where’ attached, and I think you’re attaching the wrong ‘when’ – also note they appear to be discussing the certainties needed for geo-engineering, not about certainties sufficient to prescribe CO2 reductions [along the lines of “social engineering”], which would have a much different risk avoidance assessment

    Comment by flxible — 22 Feb 2010 @ 8:39 PM

  393. Ray Ladbury 390:

    Actually, Trenbreth’s statement is regarding our inability to fully comprehend the short-term to mid-term variability. It has nothing to do with long-term trends in climate.

    Yes, that is true, and it is fundamentally what I said in 388, quote:
    “Ah, but what you [dhogaza] and Jones don’t admit is that there is more to it than a nominally supposed statistical trend, and that other notable climate scientists have treated the “recent lack of warming”, as a significant issue, and have broadcast it not only to Phil Jones but also to others.”
    Furthermore, where dhogaza suggested [369] that Jones should not have given so much information, restricting it to only: “15 years isn’t a long enough time to determine the trend”, then that is avoiding the truth, whereas a better more complete answer might have been:
    15 years isn’t a long enough time to determine the long-term trend, although there has clearly been a distinct plateau in warming that is similar to that seen around 1940. We do not know the reason for these plateaus, and it is interesting to note that after the 1940 one, there was a pronounced cooling period, especially in the NH.

    See: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/_nhshgl.gif
    See also Harrabin’s question A

    Comment by BobFJ — 22 Feb 2010 @ 8:58 PM

  394. Ray Ladbury@391 – You missed my point completely – my “allegation” (fairly well proven I think you’ll agree) was that climate deniers cherry pick the data to get non-significant results – and then claim there is no evidence warming. I was responding directly to David Bailey @385.

    Comment by jimt — 22 Feb 2010 @ 9:57 PM

  395. David Bailey (384): If we are to accept conclusions on the basis of statistically insignificant evidence, does that go for the rest of science too?

    If 95% confidence is the test in medical trials, why is climate science somehow different?

    BPL: It isn’t. The point is that the sample size of 15 years is too small to show a significant effect. But we have 160 years of direct measurements and proxies going back orders of magnitude further. That data DOES show a significant trend. Please read:

    http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/30Years.html

    Comment by Barton Paul Levenson — 23 Feb 2010 @ 7:27 AM

  396. flxible 392:

    BobFJ – how come you declare what you quote (“we can’t account for the lack of warming [at the moment]“) as the “[recent] lack of warming”? the “lack of warming” needs a ‘when’ and ‘where’ attached, and I think you’re attaching the wrong ‘when’

    I’m not sure what you mean, but I think that 1995 as a start-point is a bit of a stretch, even in the original Harrabin question. I would prefer to use 1998 as the start point, but then others argue that this is unfair because 1998 is the so-called super El Nino year. I counter that by arguing that 1999 and 2000 were sharp down “corrections”, such that hypothetically, it seems fair to average 1998 through 2000. Furthermore, if you look around the earlier up-spikes, although there is obviously a lot of noise, there does seem to be a tendency for a down correction after such spikes. Additionally, it seems logical that when there is a big release of heat from an ocean turn-over, then this could sensibly be followed by an opposite effect. However, if you are not happy with this hypothesis, then I’m content to consider the recent lack of warming to have started in 2001. Whatever, there is no disputing that such a period certainly exists from 2001, (and arguably earlier), per the HADCRUT record. As to when Trenberth and others consider it to have started; I don’t know.

    I don’t agree with the rest of your comments, but perhaps my 393 may help?

    Comment by BobFJ — 23 Feb 2010 @ 6:03 PM

  397. Interesting article in the Globe and Mail.

    Cherrypick:

    “The key objection to the work of bloggers such as Mr. McIntyre is that they are engaged in an epic game of nitpicking: zeroing in on minor technical issues while ignoring the massive and converging lines of evidence that are coming in from many disciplines. To read their online work is to enter a dank, claustrophobic universe where obsessive personalities talk endlessly about small building blocks – Yamal Peninsula trees, bristlecones, weather stations – the removal of which will somehow topple the entire edifice of climate science. Lost in the blogging world is any sense of proportion, or the idea that science is built on cumulative work in many fields, the scientists say.”

    More:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/climategates-guerrilla-warriors-pesky-foes-or-careful-watchdogs/article1474924/

    Comment by Doug Bostrom — 24 Feb 2010 @ 12:58 AM

  398. BobFJ (396): However, if you are not happy with this hypothesis, then I’m content to consider the recent lack of warming to have started in 2001. Whatever, there is no disputing that such a period certainly exists from 2001, (and arguably earlier), per the HADCRUT record.

    BPL: It exists, but it has no meaningful implications because it’s too short to accurately determine the trend. Please read:

    http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/30Years.html

    Comment by Barton Paul Levenson — 24 Feb 2010 @ 7:12 AM

  399. Barton Paul Levenson 398

    BPL: It [The warming plateau] exists, but it has no meaningful implications because it’s too short to accurately determine the trend.

    It is blindingly obvious that a 15-year trend (or less) on such noisy, and arguably naturally cyclic data as in HADCRUT, cannot be used for longer term prediction. Furthermore, let’s also consider the widely favoured 30 year nominal, by looking at the HADCRUT graph:
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/_nhshgl.gif.
    1) The 30-year 21 point smoothed trend from 1910 to 1940 is remarkably similar to the rapid warming from ~1970 to ~2000*
    2) The 30-year 21 point smoothed trend from 1940 to 1970 shows moderate cooling
    3) The 30-year 21 point smoothed trend from 1925 to 1955 is flat.
    Thus, in that time-series from 1910 to 1970, no individual 30-year period has any meaningful implications as shown in the record outside any such period.
    As described in my 380, two acclaimed scientists; Tom Wigley and Kevin Trenberth have agreed, with wide compliant circulation, that the current warming plateau is of unknown cause. Thus, since it is unknown, it is conjecture to assume that it is totally different to that of around 1940. (and maybe 1877, suggestive of a ~60-year cycle, although the T records may be a bit sus‘ in the 1800‘s?). Whatever, these are unknowns, and so temperatures may shortly start to ascend again, OR they may fall similarly to what happened after 1940. We simply do not know.

    *note, for correctly applied 21-point (CMA simplified Gaussian) smoothing, the black line should end at mid 1998, not 2009!

    Comment by BobFJ — 24 Feb 2010 @ 11:12 PM

  400. I hope you have noticed this interview with Monckton where he tells that he is behind the question about “15 years” addressed to Phil Jones.

    (Perfectly aware about the confusion of the meaning of “significant” that it caused, is my qualified guess)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUxxEDvkuLM

    Comment by Eva Berglund — 25 Feb 2010 @ 6:01 AM

  401. “It is blindingly obvious that a 15-year trend (or less) on such noisy, and arguably naturally cyclic data as in HADCRUT, cannot be used for longer term prediction”

    Incorrect.

    It’s far too short a period of time to draw a conclusion about the past that can be relied upon to remain in the future.

    Different.

    “1) The 30-year 21 point smoothed trend from 1910 to 1940 is remarkably similar to the rapid warming from ~1970 to ~2000*”

    How is this proving anything wrong?

    “2) The 30-year 21 point smoothed trend from 1940 to 1970 shows moderate cooling”

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

    Dog bites man.

    “3) The 30-year 21 point smoothed trend from 1925 to 1955 is flat.”

    So we have two warming, one cooling and one flat.

    +,+,-,0.

    I would call that overall “+”.

    You’re doing well at proving global warming.

    “Thus, in that time-series from 1910 to 1970, no individual 30-year period has any meaningful implications”

    Yes it has. The early warming has shown that it’s generally warmed since too.

    Or didn’t you read the graph:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

    ‘cos it looks like those warming periods were indicative of a warming period overall too.

    “As described in my 380, two acclaimed scientists; Tom Wigley and Kevin Trenberth have agreed, with wide compliant circulation, that the current warming plateau is of unknown cause.”

    This is false. In two ways:

    1) there’s no plateau. The period is too short. There have been record breaking years since the plateau was “discovered”, therefore it wasn’t discovered. If you keep finding a new peak, you were never at the peak before.

    2) They maintain that they can’t be CERTAIN why but that they know where the heat is going: into the deep oceans. This is why Tenenberth decries the poor sensor station for the deep ocean.

    If they didn’t know where the heat was going, they wouldn’t know how to prove it, would they.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 25 Feb 2010 @ 10:58 AM

  402. Completely Fed Up #401

    Dr Trenberth’s Aug09 paper mentioned in the famous emails has a starting point. He starts with a warming imbalance of 0.9W/sq.m which equates to 145E20 Joules/year applied to the whole planet’s surface.

    The O.9W/sq.m is made up from radiative forcing elements quoted in IPCC AR4 Fig 2.4 plus various feedbacks. Dr Trenberth makes the point that this number is not derived from direct measurement because the devices for such are not accurate enough. ie. an imbalance of 0.9 W/sq.m is not possible to directly measure in the roughly 240 W/sq.m of energy flux passing through the atmosphere. So the 0.9 number is composed from climate model corrections and indirect measurements, feedbacks etc (difficult to describe all the components).

    Dr Trenberth then goes on to account for a range of 45-115 E20 Joules/year (av 80) by best estimates of ice melt, land warming and ocean warming etc leaving a residual of 30-100 E20 Joules/year (av 65).

    So of the 145 he accounts for roughly 80 and a residual of 65. That is the current state of play. The 80 accounted for represents an imbalance of about 0.55W/sq.m of his assumed starting point of 0.9W/sq.m.

    In the Aug09 paper and a particular email he suggests that brightening of clouds could be an unmeasured factor. Cloud albedo has a low LOSU and wide error bars in the IPCC AR4 Fig2.4 forcing numbers requoted in Dr Trenberth’s paper.

    The Clean Air Act reductions in SO2 are quoted as explaining the cooling of 1940-70 but there were few if any direct measurements, and the Clean Air Act does not apply to current India & China (the world’s most reliable witnesses to these emissions).

    I would suggest that the places to look hard at the discrepancy between the proposed 0.9 W/sq.m warming imbalance and the roughly accounted 0.55 W/sq.m are:

    1) Cloud Albedo increase from unaccounted emissions,
    2) Much more accurate measurement of ocean heat content.

    Comment by Ken Lambert — 25 Feb 2010 @ 8:08 PM

  403. Completely Fed Up 401:

    [1] Incorrect. It’s far too short a period of time to draw a conclusion about the past that can be relied upon to remain in the future.

    Uh? Let me repeat what I wrote in part: “It is blindingly obvious that a 15-year trend (or less) on such noisy, and arguably naturally cyclic data as in HADCRUT, cannot be used for longer term prediction.”
    Where was it that you were confused?

    [2] Different. “1) The 30-year 21 point smoothed trend from 1910 to 1940 is remarkably similar to the rapid warming from ~1970 to ~2000*” How is this proving anything wrong?

    I did not say that it proves anything wrong, and neither do I think so. What is your point?

    [3] “2) The 30-year 21 point smoothed trend from 1940 to 1970 shows moderate cooling”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act Dog bites man.

    Actually, I don’t trust Wikipedia on AGW issues that were likely given a “personal touch” by William Connelly. My reading is that the sulphur aerosol argument has been discredited, partly because of regionality comparisons, and, for instance, you may find that Wild (ICAS Zurich) et al (NOAA & Russian Geophysical Observatory) 2005, to be interesting. Apart from that, you need to look more carefully at the HADCRUT graph, and explain why the cooling trend between ~1880 through 1910 was greater than that between ~1940 through 1970, which in the latter case you apparently assert to have been caused by increasing pollution, together with increasing CO2, after WW2.

    [4] “3) The 30-year 21 point smoothed trend from 1925 to 1955 is flat.” So we have two warming, one cooling and one flat. +,+,-,0. I would call that overall “+”. You’re doing well at proving global warming.

    Uh? We have one strong warming period, one moderate cooling period, and one flat period.

    [5] “Thus, in that time-series from 1910 to 1970, no individual 30-year period has any meaningful implications” Yes it has. The early warming has shown that it’s generally warmed since too.
    Or didn’t you read the graph: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
    ‘cos it looks like those warming periods were indicative of a warming period overall too.

    If you are going to quote me, please be so kind as to not show just half of a sentence with consequent loss of context. I referred you to HADCRUT because that is what the IPCC prefers to use.

    [6] “As described in my [Bob_FJ] 380, two acclaimed scientists; Tom Wigley and Kevin Trenberth have agreed, with wide compliant circulation, that the current warming plateau is of unknown cause.”
    This is false. In two ways:
    1) there’s no plateau. The period is too short. There have been record breaking years since the plateau was “discovered”, therefore it wasn’t discovered. If you keep finding a new peak, you were never at the peak before.
    2) They maintain that they can’t be CERTAIN why but that they know where the heat is going: into the deep oceans. This is why Tenenberth decries the poor sensor station for the deep ocean.
    If they didn’t know where the heat was going, they wouldn’t know how to prove it, would they.

    Uh? Reur 1): Not to mention other sources, check-out Barton Paul Levenson’s 398/p7, where he wrote:
    It [the plateau] exists, but it has no meaningful implications because it’s too short to accurately determine the trend. (to which I have agreed, WRT the longer term)
    Uh? Reur 2): How about you read my 380 & 388 and their responses more carefully? For instance, briefly; Trenberth has said this: “…We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!…” (But there is more if you are not yet convinced!)

    Comment by BobFJ — 26 Feb 2010 @ 12:30 AM

  404. “The Clean Air Act reductions in SO2 are quoted as explaining the cooling of 1940-70 but there were few if any direct measurements”

    And anything not measured doesn’t exist, right?

    So, since the vikings didn’t measure the temperature of greenland, it wasn’t warm, yes?

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 26 Feb 2010 @ 6:13 AM

  405. “Uh? Let me repeat what I wrote in part: “It is …””

    a) In part.

    b) Your statement doesn’t lead to your conclusion without more explicit steps. Do so.

    “I did not say that it proves anything wrong, and neither do I think so. What is your point?”

    The point is that your conclusion doesn’t follow from your precis.

    Was there some ambiguity in that?

    “Actually, I don’t trust Wikipedia on AGW issues ”

    But you WILL trust WUWT and CA?

    You also won’t trust the IPCC, Nature, NAS, The Royal Society, or Realclimate.

    There does seem to be a trend of what you WILL trust.

    You will trust any source that says AGW is wrong.

    Do I need to point out your display of bias any more clearly?

    “If you are going to quote me, please be so kind as to not show just half of a sentence with consequent loss of context.”

    Isn’t it ironic that this complaint turns up in a thread about the Daily Mail showing half a sentence with consequent loss of context, yet not once has Bob bobbed up and agreed that should not have been done

    “Reur 1): Not to mention other sources, check-out Barton Paul Levenson’s 398/p7, where he wrote:
    It [the plateau] exists, ”

    IF

    Funny how you quoted it and ignored it. Quoting something doesn’t mean you haven’t riven all context and mischaracterised anothers’ statement. You have to characterise a person’s statement correctly.

    Fail.

    “Uh? Reur 2): How about you read my 380 & 388 and their responses more carefully? For instance, briefly; Trenberth has said this: “…We are not close to balancing the energy budget.”

    We are not close to balancing the energy budget doesn’t mean what you want it to mean.

    They haven’t MEASURED it. See my post above re: measuring doesn’t make something exist.

    And again, that quote doesn’t deny my point #2.

    Double fail.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 26 Feb 2010 @ 6:47 AM

  406. Completely Fed Up (CFU)#404 and KL #402

    Why don’t you give us your data on Aerosols back to 1940 CFU? My point in #402 was that even IPCC AR4 Fig 2.4 shows aerosol cooling forcing with the widest error bars – indicating greatest uncertainty of measurement.

    The Viking analogy would be; “Yes it was warmer in Greenland in the MWP – but how much?”

    ‘How much’ is vital to this whole AGW debate. If we have half the warming forcing then we have half the problem.

    Comment by Ken Lambert — 28 Feb 2010 @ 8:36 AM

  407. I am quite curious about the Jones comment on no statistical warming since 1995. Every time I download the latest HadCRUT or HadCRUT3v data set (Global,monthly) and plot it I get a statistically significant linear least squares regression for the (admittedly) short interval 1995-2009.

    What data set is Jones referring to that fails to show a statistically significant warming since 1995?

    Comment by Chris — 28 Feb 2010 @ 8:40 AM

  408. Chris, please show your workings, intermediate calculations and your method of ascertaining statistical significance.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 28 Feb 2010 @ 11:42 AM

  409. “406
    Ken Lambert says:
    28 February 2010 at 8:36 AM

    Completely Fed Up (CFU)#404 and KL #402

    Why don’t you give us your data on Aerosols back to 1940 CFU? ”

    What makes you think I have data on Aerosols back to 1940? What makes you think I have to give you any if I do have some?

    I won’t do your homework. The datasets are available. Get them yourself.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 28 Feb 2010 @ 11:48 AM

  410. Ken Lambert says:
    28 February 2010 at 8:36 AM

    “The Viking analogy would be; “Yes it was warmer in Greenland in the MWP – but how much?””

    How can you have a RC thread without Greenland being mentioned? Tradition is a wonderful thing, though I am getting a bit fed up with this one.

    Greenland’s surface is about 80% ice now. It was about 80% ice when the Norse (not Vikings) settled there about 1,000 years ago. If it was warmer during the MWP, it wasn’t by much.

    It must be time for you to mention something about English vineyards now.

    Comment by Dave G — 28 Feb 2010 @ 3:05 PM

  411. Ken Lambert says: 25 February 2010 at 8:08 PM (incorrectly) that there weren’t measurements of sulfates. Sulfate control was one of the early cap-and-trade successes. Ken, what’s your source for this misinformation, why did you believe it, and can you do better?

    Google Scholar finds them easily.

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 28 Feb 2010 @ 3:42 PM

  412. Barton Paul Levenson
    I’ve had a look at your website and see that you are very active in the field of climate change and also computer programming. (Does that include climate modelling?)

    I found the following post (No.399) that was addressed to you to be very interesting, but it was only answered by Completely Fed Up, and I thought he/she was unhelpful. (And contradicted some things you wrote earlier)
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/daily-mangle/comment-page-8/#comment-162849

    You seem to be better qualified to make a more helpful response.
    Could you please? I’m very interested

    Comment by Jedda — 28 Feb 2010 @ 5:02 PM

  413. Hank Roberts Reur 411

    “…Sulfate control was one of the early cap-and-trade successes. Ken, what’s your source for this misinformation, why did you believe it, and can you do better?…“

    Pardon me Ken for intruding on your exchange with Hank, but there has not been a response to a relevant point I raised earlier with others in my 403, item [3]

    “…Apart from that, you need to look more carefully at the HADCRUT graph, and explain why the cooling trend between ~1880 through 1910 was greater than that between ~1940 through 1970, which in the latter case you apparently assert to have been [otherwise] caused by increasing pollution…”
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/_nhshgl.gif.

    Please clarify Hank….! What reduced the sulphates prior to 1940?

    Comment by BobFJ — 28 Feb 2010 @ 11:12 PM

  414. “Please clarify Hank….! What reduced the sulphates prior to 1940?”

    Please prove that the pre-1940 episodes were produced by sulphate aerosol reduction.

    There’s more than just one factor. Read up on the source code for a model to find out how many factors are included in a GCM:

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 1 Mar 2010 @ 3:13 AM

  415. Jedda,

    Try here:

    http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/30Years.html

    Comment by Barton Paul Levenson — 1 Mar 2010 @ 5:56 AM

  416. BobFJ,
    Sulfates were lower in the 1910-1940 period due to abnormally low volcanic activity:

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/10/19/volcanic-lull/

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 1 Mar 2010 @ 6:17 AM

  417. Comment #413 by Hank Roberts — 28 February 2010

    Hank, direct measurement of the cloud albedo effects of aerosols has only been available since 1980. The IPCC AR4 Fig 2.4 and extensive data in WG1 still show total aerosol cooling ranges of -0.3 to -1.8 W/sq.m (cloud albedo) and -0.1 to -0.9 W/sq.m (direct effect). The averages of these cooling effects are included in Dr Trenberth’s +0.9 W/sq.m proposed warming imbalance. The LOSU (level of scientific understanding) of these Aerosol cooling effects are rated by the IPCC AR4 as Low and Med-Low.

    So Hank and CFU, is it reasonable to look for Dr Trenberth’s 0.45 W/sq.m missing heat in Radiative Forcing Components which have the largest combined cooling forcing (-1.2 W/sq.m) and the widest error bars roughly (+/-1.15 W/sq.m) and the lowest level of scientific understanding??

    Comment by Ken Lambert — 1 Mar 2010 @ 8:10 AM

  418. @FedUp:
    I have since found out that I was failing to take into account autocorrelation of the time series data, and since I am not that stats savvy I’m still trying to work through it.

    But here’s what I did:
    I downloaded the GL data set from Hadley (HadCRUT3v) then I merely fit a least squares regression to the monthly temp anomaly vs date for the short time frame of 1995 to 2009 and ran a t-test on the fit which came out significant at 95% confidence.

    But since the data is really pretty autocorrelated I was likely underestimating the possibilty of Type I error.

    So right now I’m trying to teach myself more time-series stats and figure out how to pull out a slope with appropriate t-test.

    Comment by Chris — 1 Mar 2010 @ 10:24 AM

  419. > Ken Lambert says: 1 March 2010 at 8:10 AM ….
    Trust me on this — asking questions specifically of other ordinary readers here to tell you what’s reasonable isn’t likely to get you much information. Try looking it up or asking one of the climate scientists if you actually want to learn something. If you want my opinion — that’s it.

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 1 Mar 2010 @ 11:10 AM

  420. Sulfate data over long time spans published:
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=sulfate+ice+core

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 1 Mar 2010 @ 11:13 AM

  421. “418
    Chris says:
    1 March 2010 at 10:24 AM

    @FedUp:
    I have since found out that I was failing to take into account autocorrelation of the time series data, and since I am not that stats savvy I’m still trying to work through it. ”

    Aye, I’ve nothing beyond “RMS errors == error in graph slope” either.

    That’s why, though, I asked (OK, it looks more like a demand) for the workings. It’s also why you don’t need his workings: just his method.

    It was his method, not his data you were lacking.

    Compare and Contrast with McIntyre’s insistence on data and ignorance on method.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 1 Mar 2010 @ 11:35 AM

  422. Ken : “So Hank and CFU, is it reasonable to look for Dr Trenberth’s 0.45 W/sq.m missing heat in Radiative Forcing Components ”

    It’s more reasonable to look for it going down into the ocean. Or coming out.

    If you’ve looked for your keys in your coats, in the drawers and on the tabletops, but you know you haven’t looked behind the sofa, you don’t decide to look in the hedges for your keys…

    PS isn’t that forcing the maximum delta? It’s a bit alarmist to call it on the maximum and leave “how long” out.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 1 Mar 2010 @ 11:37 AM

  423. 418: Chris says: “I downloaded the GL data set from Hadley ”

    You can do that but you also ought to download the other data sets and you also ought to understand how the Hadley mean is computed. Gavin has written on this. GISS takes the land-based stations around the Arctic Ocean and interpolates between them which, in essence, gives estimates of the Arctic temperatures. Hadley computes averages and leaves the Arctic out of it. As Gavin has written, what Hadley does is equivalent to assuming that the change in the Arctic mean is identical to the rest of the planet.

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121b/

    Comment by John E. Pearson — 1 Mar 2010 @ 12:41 PM

  424. Comment #419 by Hank Roberts — 1 March 2010 @ 11:10 AM

    “Try looking it up or asking one of the climate scientists if you actually want to learn something. If you want my opinion — that’s it.”

    Quite right Hank. Why don’t we ask Gavin to chime-in on this point.

    Over to you Gavin.

    CFU #422 – “It’s more reasonable to look for it going down into the ocean. Or coming out.”

    Read #389 again CFU:

    “A recent paper by Von Schukmann et al suggests that 0.77 W/sq.m of ocean area equivalent forcing of heat over recent times is stored down to 2000m using Argo data. There is no clear description of mechanism or how it passes through the top 700m without showing up in other Argo analyses.”

    AND

    Read #403 again CFU:

    I would suggest that the places to look hard at the discrepancy between the proposed 0.9 W/sq.m warming imbalance and the roughly accounted 0.55 W/sq.m are:

    1) Cloud Albedo increase from unaccounted emissions,
    2) Much more accurate measurement of ocean heat content

    Yes??

    Comment by Ken Lambert — 1 Mar 2010 @ 10:05 PM

  425. > Ken Lambert
    > missing heat
    Are you familiar with the Wattsup discussion raising this question already?
    http://www.google.com/search?q=Dr+Trenberth%E2%80%99s+0.45+W%2Fsq.m+missing+heat
    I wasn’t able to find any science papers about “missing heat” and it looks more like someone’s trying to make a fixed number out of an uncertainty range.
    Do you know of any publication on the subject?

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 1 Mar 2010 @ 10:41 PM

  426. I found one paper by Trenberth using Scholar mentioning that number:

    “About 0.45°C of the SST anomaly is common to global SST and is thus linked to global warming …”. Citation: Trenberth, K. E., and D. J. Shea (2006), Atlantic hurricanes and natural variability in 2005, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L12704, doi:10.1029/2006GL026894

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 1 Mar 2010 @ 10:47 PM

  427. Uh, oh. 1,700 comments:
    http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2009/04/08/climate-change-cage-match-a-fight-to-the-death/

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 1 Mar 2010 @ 10:49 PM

  428. Ray Ladbury, Reur 416:

    Sulfates were lower in the 1910-1940 period due to abnormally low volcanic activity:

    Thankyou for the link to a Tamino article on this wherein he describes a 30-year lag in the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions. However, I some difficulties with that assertion. A good example for consideration of it is the Mauna Loa record of reduced solar transmission through the atmosphere attributed to the famous El Chichon and Pinatubo events @:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Mauna_Loa_atmospheric_transmission.png (See footnote $)
    From this you can see that the dimming is a sharp spike initially but then tails off exponentially over maybe 4-years.
    Now let us consider an analogy with a pot of hot water on a stove at an equilibrium temperature of say 90C and a thermostat setting of say 7. Now let us turn down the thermostat to say 6 for a short period. There would be a consequent cooling of the water and the pot that would be quite pronounced initially, trailing off exponentially. Now let us return the thermostat to the original 7 heat input setting. The pot and the water would return to their original equilibria after a period. However, Tamino asserts that AFTER any such cooling effect, such as the analogous thermostat reverting back from 6 to 7, the system will continue to cool despite increased heat input. As a retired engineer familiar with thermodynamics, I’m somewhat puzzled by this assertion. Any chance that you could clarify it please Ray?

    $ Note: if you have older Quicktime software, it may be anoyingly slow to open or remain inactive as a tab above unless you click.

    Comment by BobFJ — 2 Mar 2010 @ 12:36 AM

  429. “I would suggest that the places to look hard at the discrepancy between the proposed 0.9 W/sq.m warming imbalance and the roughly accounted 0.55 W/sq.m are:”

    As Hank said: error bars.

    When I measure the length of a piece of rope to 12.3m+/-0.09m that doesn’t mean there’s 9cm of rope missing.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 2 Mar 2010 @ 4:04 AM

  430. I have been following this anomaly map all winter, ever since someone posted the link to RC.

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/rnl/sfctmpmer_07a.rnl.html

    Now the main cold anomaly seems to be shifting back up north, but the map has shown all winter that eastern Canada and Greenland have been much warmer than the mean, and pretty much the entire Arctic Circle has been warmer than its mean all winter. Yet I haven’t seen this map used anywhere to shoot down the “It’s snowing in the eastern US so climate warming is false” argument. Why not? Am I misreading the anomaly map?

    Comment by Martin Smith — 2 Mar 2010 @ 4:51 AM

  431. CFU #429

    And what do you say about a rope which is 12.3m+/- 12.0m CFU? What are the chances of it being about 3.6m shorter or longer??

    Comment by Ken Lambert — 2 Mar 2010 @ 8:26 AM

  432. “431
    Ken Lambert says:
    2 March 2010 at 8:26 AM

    CFU #429

    And what do you say about a rope which is 12.3m+/- 12.0m CFU?”

    Noting.

    what I say is “I think I need a better way to measure rope”.

    I still don’t say that there’s 12m of rope missing.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 2 Mar 2010 @ 12:19 PM

  433. Sorry, Ken, but after reading this
    http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2009/04/08/climate-change-cage-match-a-fight-to-the-death/
    error bars seems the right answer

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 2 Mar 2010 @ 1:06 PM

  434. John cook, http://www.skepticalscience.com/ has just posted what must be the longest list of sceptical arguments {242}on one site. with links.
    John has been a tireless worker in getting the science of AGW out there, time for some support?

    Comment by john byatt — 2 Mar 2010 @ 4:36 PM

  435. CFU #432

    I did not say that 12m of rope was missing either CFU. I said: “What are the chances of it being about 3.6m shorter or longer??”

    These are the proportions we are talking about with finding 0.35 in -1.2 +/-1.15

    Comment by Ken Lambert — 2 Mar 2010 @ 9:08 PM

  436. Ray Ladbury, in your 416, you cited an article by Tamino:
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/10/19/volcanic-lull/
    I commented in my 428 that the thermodynamics hypothesis made by Tamino was false, and I’m surprised that you have not responded, or, for that matter, neither has Hank or CFU, that have freely commented on other aspects of that issue.
    There is an additional problem with the Tamino article. Is anyone interested in an elaboration, given that you have cited the article?

    Comment by BobFJ — 4 Mar 2010 @ 6:30 PM

  437. BobFJ (436) — The characteristic response time for ModelE is, I take it, about 30 years. A volcano erruption is approximately an impulse function and so the linear system response is of the form exp(-t/30) for t the time in years. That’s irrespective of the sign of the impulse.

    If there is an actual problem with
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/10/19/volcanic-lull/
    of course we want to know, but please do not waste time and keying as you have so far.

    Comment by David B. Benson — 4 Mar 2010 @ 7:07 PM

  438. BobFJ, Tamino is not positing a 30 year lag. Rather he is saying that the atmosphere responds quickly, but that the oceans respond to the perturbation with a much longer time constant. There’s nothing controversial about this.

    Tamino has used the 2-layer model to good effect on several occasions. I would recommend that you read the piece more closely. It’s quite instructive, as is this one.

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/not-computer-models/

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 4 Mar 2010 @ 7:59 PM

  439. BobFJ needs to wake up and smell the coffee:”Now let us consider an analogy with a pot of hot water on a stove at an equilibrium temperature of say 90C and a thermostat setting of say 7. Now let us turn down the thermostat to say 6 for a short period. There would be a consequent cooling of the water and the pot that would be quite pronounced initially, trailing off exponentially. Now let us return the thermostat to the original 7 heat input setting. The pot and the water would return to their original equilibria after a period. However, Tamino asserts that AFTER any such cooling effect, such as the analogous thermostat reverting back from 6 to 7, the system will continue to cool despite increased heat input.”

    Your situation is the reverse, let us map it to the example as closely as possible (your idea, not taminos). Using the volcanic forcing graph on his volcanic lull post:

    1) The pot and coffee are in equilibrium in 1880.
    2) The burner gets cranked down dramatically in 1883, rapid cooling at surface. Heat starts to slowly leave the bulk coffee away from the surface.
    3) The burner is turned back up, heating at surface resumes. Heat starts to slowly enter the bulk coffee from the surface.
    4) The burner is turned back down.
    5) repeat ad nauseum, there is a fluctuation, but some characteristic average temperature in the bulk coffee.
    6) after one of the returns of the burner to up (1910) – stop fiddling with the knob, leave the burner on.
    7) There is an eventual new equilibrium, higher than the original undulating one
    8) this is the heating that tamino is describing by smoothing the effect of fast knob twiddling on a system with a fast component and a slow component response time.

    now to your critique – turn the burner down, arguing that continuing to heat is fallacious. The temperature would go down in tamino’s model, if not for the IR heater that has been cranked up in the 20th century. Not immediately, because it is not a physical model. You’re missing the point.

    However, a physical model shows the same thing that tamino concuded: http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08jgr.pdf

    Comment by t_p_hamilton — 4 Mar 2010 @ 8:25 PM

  440. BobFJ, why ask _me_? Tamino’s over there, and the topic’s available.

    I suspect you’re confusing air temperature change with ocean lag time, but you should address the math, not just claim your stovetop analogy falsifies it.

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 4 Mar 2010 @ 11:08 PM

  441. “commented in my 428 that the thermodynamics hypothesis made by Tamino was false, and I’m surprised that you have not responded, or, for that matter, neither has Hank or CFU, that have freely commented on other aspects of that issue.”

    OK, I’ll respond: Please show your proofs.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 5 Mar 2010 @ 3:59 AM

  442. “435
    Ken Lambert says:
    2 March 2010 at 9:08 PM

    CFU #432

    I did not say that 12m of rope was missing either CFU.”

    You are in the system to which we are analogising to a rope measuring experiment: the 0.45W you blather on about.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 5 Mar 2010 @ 4:00 AM

  443. Hank Roberts Reur 440:

    BobFJ, why ask _me_? Tamino’s over there, and the topic’s available.

    Well, I did ask him on March 4, 2010 at 4:03 am, his blog time, but my post was deleted without comment.

    Comment by BobFJ — 5 Mar 2010 @ 5:55 PM

  444. Ray Ladbury Reur 438:
    Thanks your citation of yet another article by Tamino!
    However, the very first word he uses is ‘denialist‘, and skipping through it, ‘denier’ is liberally sprinkled throughout.
    Thus, since I am not in that category, but merely sceptical of some claims in the AGW debate, I don’t find it to be suitable reading.

    Comment by BobFJ — 5 Mar 2010 @ 11:31 PM

  445. 444 BobFJ, I’ve long switched to the “Ain’t True-ist” reference. Would that make it better reading? If you’re skeptical of some “claims” as you put it, there’s loads of research, peer reviewed and all that can confirm or reject, or at least when taken together build an outline view of where the truth is. If you’ve gone out to find that, then you’re a skeptic, but a skeptic has no issue judging the evidence on it’s merits. “Ain’t True-ists” don’t and can’t. They summarily dismiss, because they’re told so, by whatever, whoever [and often paid for]… many in the BAU department, who can’t care about what comes after them, no I don’t think a superior being will fix it for us. We’re on our own in that.

    Comment by Sekerob — 6 Mar 2010 @ 6:11 AM

  446. Re: 437*, 438, 439, 440, 441 & 442:
    Thanks all of you for your varied responses.
    But….. repeating part of my 428:

    “…[see for example] the Mauna Loa record of reduced solar transmission through the atmosphere attributed to the famous El Chichon and Pinatubo events @:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Mauna_Loa_atmospheric_transmission.png
    From this you can see that the [volcanic] dimming is a sharp spike initially but then tails off exponentially over maybe 4-years…”

    If you examine this closely, you should see that most of the time the insolation transmission is about 93%, but then there are the two big down-blips which I eye-ball to be at about 88-89% average over only about 4 years each.
    The fundamental slow response heating mechanism of the oceans is via insolation, (EMR), but with minor secondary effects of rapid response from (conductive/advective) air temperature and radiative GHG effects. However, the heat loss from the oceans overall is arguably roughly equal to the heat gain, but it is rather more complicated in detail;
    For a start, roughly 40% of the insolation is in the near IR, which is mostly absorbed in the surface “skin“, where it is rapidly able to re-emit as long-wave EMR. The other ~60% is absorbed progressively at much greater depths down to a maximum towards blue. (by some six orders of magnitude I think from memory?). Thus, if there is any heat loss from the greater depths, that must fundamentally rely on conduction and convection/advection, which will be at its maximum when there is lower SST and/or Air T, and less EMR from above. It is further complicated by evaporative cooling, and by oceanic circulation, but whatever, most of the heat input remains most of the time at a roughly constant level in a slow response regime. (as does evaporative cooling, and slow response ocean heat content)

    The fundamental consideration, per thermodynamics law 2, is that heat transfer between any point 1 and point 2 is in the fundamental calculation element of:
    a) Conductive/convective/advective, (ignoring fluid advective velocity variations)…. T1 – T2
    b) Radiative…. T1^4 – T2^4
    Thus per law 2, replacement of a momentarily reduced heating regime by a return to a normal higher heating regime will NOT result in continued cooling after application of the increased heating.

    *David B Benson, Reur 437: Peace be with you, and I may comment more later to you.

    Comment by BobFJ — 6 Mar 2010 @ 7:28 AM

  447. BobFJ,
    First, when someone refuses to consider the evidence, and even denies that the evidence exists, what term other than denialist or denier is approproate.

    Second do you at least appreciate the irony of your saying:

    “Thus, since I am not in that category, but merely sceptical of some claims in the AGW debate, I don’t find it to be suitable reading.”

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 6 Mar 2010 @ 9:09 AM

  448. BobFJ – , let us keep things simple. What year of tamino’s analysis do you think violates thermodynamics in his volcanic lull post?

    Comment by t_p_hamilton — 6 Mar 2010 @ 10:41 AM

  449. Ray Ladbury Reur 447:
    Everyone to their own perceptions of irony, but I find it amusing that you have emphatically contradicted, (denied?), the data such as in the following:

    Australia

    South Australia

    New South Wales

    Comment by BobFJ — 7 Mar 2010 @ 4:14 PM

  450. David B Benson, Reur 437:
    Putting aside Hank Roberts’ 411, where he seems more interested in the success of aerosol reduction measures than in Tamino‘s “volcanic forcings“, it would nevertheless seem that Mauna Loa observations should be free from any NH regional wind-blown concentrations of ANY aerosols that effect insolation transmissivity.
    Thus it is interesting to compare Tamino’s Fig 1 (“volcanic forcing”) with ML transmissivity, where it is available. Also, Tamino only considers volcanos and CO2, and not industrials and ENSO etc. Any comments?

    Comment by BobFJ — 8 Mar 2010 @ 1:04 AM

  451. t_p_Hamilton, Reur 448
    Sorry if my 446 was too complicated for you, but you are really asking the wrong question. (an indirect or obscure question)

    Comment by BobFJ — 8 Mar 2010 @ 1:09 AM

  452. Reur 451, it wasn’t complicated, it was vague.

    Comment by Completely Fed Up — 8 Mar 2010 @ 4:47 PM

  453. BobFJ (450) — See
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/not-computer-models/
    and
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/whatevergate/comment-page-23/#comment-164509
    which simplifies even further. These conceeptual models are based on the physics but certainly do no attempt to include everything.

    Comment by David B. Benson — 8 Mar 2010 @ 5:30 PM

  454. BobFJ says “Everyone to their own perceptions of irony, but I find it amusing that you have emphatically contradicted, (denied?), the data such as in the following:”

    My, but what a creative interpretation. How are dem cherries?

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 8 Mar 2010 @ 5:32 PM

  455. David B Benson Reur 453:
    The Tamino article “Volcanic lull”, is the one under discussion, and there is no value in you adding distractions by citing two other Tamino articles. “Volcanic Lull” that you said you were interested in discussing in your 437/p9 does not fit your new “conceptual model” descriptions in 453 because amongst other things it attempts to make a fit with GISS temperature data. This is irrational at least because:

    1) Fig 1 is strongly contradicted by Mauna Loa data. (where it is available from 1958)
    2) There is no indication of where Tamino obtained his data in Fig 1
    3) Tamino only considers “volcanic forcing” plus CO2, yet attempts to show a fit with GISS temperatures with bad data.
    4) Some sources have attributed sulphate emissions reductions in Europe and USA to have had a significant effect.
    5) Some sources have attributed ENSO etc to have had a significant effect.
    6) Tamino’s exclusion of 4) & 5) invalidates any claim to have found a fit with GISS temperatures

    Will you respond to these problems? (See also my 450/p9)

    Comment by BobFJ — 9 Mar 2010 @ 1:57 AM

  456. BobFJ,
    The Mauna Loa data are not relevant to volcanic forcing–the altitude is not high enough. The volcanic forcing Tamino uses is standard. If you don’t like it, perhaps you could propose another time series?

    Tamino has looked at ENSO (and volcanism) elsewhere (in December).

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/exogenous-factors/

    Oh, look, exactly what you’d expect.

    OK, Bob, repeat after me: It’s a model. You use it to look at whether a particular forcing is important. Tamino’s goal was to show volcanism was part of the answer for 1910-1940 (and did so long before Jones was asked the question).

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 9 Mar 2010 @ 5:59 AM

  457. Ray Ladbury Reur 454:

    BobFJ says “Everyone to their own perceptions of irony, but I find it amusing that you have emphatically contradicted, (denied?), the data such as in the following: [three charts]”
    [1] My, but what a creative interpretation. [2] How are dem cherries?

    [1] You have also advised me that I should not rely on historical records, (incl photos etc), but should check out the statistics. The only relevant data I can think of that goes back a good way is the Oz BOM rainfall record which I would have thought is a good indicator. It clearly shows regional variations but with mostly much drier conditions for the whole ~45 years following 1900. (the start of records).
    Where there some other statistics that you had in mind that I should check?

    [2] I believe the cherry harvest in Victoria was good again this year. What was your point?

    Comment by BobFJ — 9 Mar 2010 @ 3:47 PM

  458. BobFJ (455) — Obviously you didn’t bother to look at the links I provided. I know this because the second is to a comment of mine, not Tamino’s. I suggest studying both rather closely; the latter uses decadal averages, in effect removing ENSO and solar cycles. Now just using CO2 forcing, R^2=0.96. With AMO added, R^2=0.99. By definition, essentially, whatever secular trens in various forcings do not contribute to the linear trend in North Atlantic SSTs then show up in AMO; volcano emissions, inductrial emissions, etc.

    The general idea is to use conceptual and consitutive models to obtain some understanding of the importance of various forcings; CO2 is the vast majority of the net forcing:
    http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Correlation.html

    Comment by David B. Benson — 9 Mar 2010 @ 5:03 PM

  459. Ray Ladbury Reur 456:

    BobFJ,
    [1] The Mauna Loa data are not relevant to volcanic forcing–the altitude is not high enough.
    [2] The volcanic forcing Tamino uses is standard. If you don’t like it, perhaps you could propose another time series?
    [3] Tamino has looked at ENSO (and volcanism) elsewhere (in December).
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/exogenous-factors/ Oh, look, exactly what you’d expect.
    [4] OK, Bob, repeat after me: It’s a model. You use it to look at whether a particular forcing is important.
    [5] Tamino’s goal was to show volcanism was part of the answer for 1910-1940 (and did so long before Jones was asked the question).

    [1] Now that IS a surprise! I was actually wondering if DBB might respond with “it is too high at over 3,000m”, given that quite a lot of the Earth’s surface is at or near sea level. The response to volcanic emissions, no matter what their altitude, is instantaneous at the surface in terms of reduced insolation. (This effect can be compared with shadow, seen whenever any object passes in front of the sun). My understanding is that the heavier particulates, (e.g. dusts, depending on type of eruption), may descend to the surface relatively rapidly, grading off to towards the aerosols that may be suspended for up to about 3 or 4 years. Thus, it would be better to have observations near the surface. Another difficulty is that rapid descent of dusts may not result in their global mixing or proper local detection.

    [2] Out of curiosity, I Googled ‘standard volcanic forcing’, but couldn’t find anything. Do you know where Tamino gets his standard forcing from? Whatever, I don’t like it because Mauna Loa shows only two large down-spikes after 1960, whereas Tamino gives three of a different shape/distribution. BTW, Tamino does not label the events, whereas ML does. I cannot “propose another time series”, can you?

    [3] This is not the article that you cited, and that we are discussing. I had a quick look to see if your new distraction carried the usual Tamino invective, and it does, so I didn’t read it.

    [4] OK Ray, repeat after me: It is very naughty to make a conceptual model with apparently wrong data and significant missing parameters and then use it to show a fit with surface temperature data.

    [5] So, when you wrote in 416: “Sulfates were lower in the 1910-1940 period due to abnormally low volcanic activity…”, did you mean to say something like:
    Tamino’s model consequences for two large eruptions ~1885 & ~1905 were part of the answer for the 1910-1940 warming?

    Comment by BobFJ — 9 Mar 2010 @ 9:17 PM

  460. Ray Labury, further my 459
    I forgot to ask, but since you assert that Mauna Loa has insufficient altitude to determine “volcanic forcing” effects, and you say that Tamino uses “standard volcanic forcing” way back to 1880, at what altitude was it determined; how; and by whom?

    Comment by BobFJ — 10 Mar 2010 @ 2:22 AM

  461. BobFJ,
    Most aerosols in the troposphere are going to rain out pretty rapidly. It’s the stratospheric aerosols that have the dimming effect.

    Bob, you clearly haven’t done much modeling. You model a phenomenon to elucidate what the contribution of its factors might be. In most physical models, you don’t have so much interaction between parameters that simplification invalidates the results. In ecology, this is, of course, not always the case.

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 10 Mar 2010 @ 5:07 AM

  462. David B. Benson Reur 458:
    Sorry, but the reason I did not open yours was that the Tamino article starts with the word ‘Denialists’ and so on, and I rapidly lose patience with such stuff. I should have been more patient and looked at yours! Sorry.
    Nevertheless, the issue that set this exchange off is about a Tamino article that Ray cited, which I submit, has substantial problems which are NOT just about modelling.

    I guess it’s reasonable that other and more recent modelling is better than the modelling aspects in the original Tamino citation, but discussing such improvements would be a distraction.
    You expressed an interest in seeing what the issues are in your 437, but I‘ve not yet fully covered them. This is one reason for avoiding such distractions.

    Comment by BobFJ — 10 Mar 2010 @ 4:14 PM

  463. BobFJ — Tamino used volcano forcings available from GISS. It is the case that IPCC AR4 seems to indicate substantial uncertainty with regard to such forcings. In any case, I now think that Tamino might have done even better to consider AMO,
    http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/d2m_shift/amo_fig.php
    which includes volcano forcings along with other factors.

    What I will defend as based on the physics is his two box model and despite the off-putting wording therein, the link I provided for you is worthy of attention.

    Comment by David B. Benson — 10 Mar 2010 @ 4:54 PM

  464. BobFJ:

    It appears that the graphs you are trying to compare measure entirely different things. One is net solar intensity, the other is global mean effective forcing (from stratospheric aerosols alone).

    It disturbs me that you were unable to find the source for Tamino’s data, given that he provided the link to the actual GISS data right in the text, right above the graph. You had time to make a graph comparing apples to oranges, but you didn’t have time to read what Tamino wrote?

    That’s a dangerous trap. Graphs alone don’t tell you everything. Read the discussion! And don’t make accusations when they are clearly baseless! If you are unsure why there is a difference, or you can’t find a source, ask politely instead of making wild and extravagant claims.

    Comment by Didactylos — 10 Mar 2010 @ 5:27 PM

  465. David B. Benson Reur 463:
    Thanks for that David. I did actually look at the first GISS tabulation and noticed that the numbers were different to what was on Tamino’s graph, without realizing that the table was actually totally irrelevant. (thought it was another problem to look into!)
    Perhaps after a glass of Cabernet-Merlot I’ll have a go with your recommendation, but to repeat, There are other apparent problems that I’ve not come to yet.

    Comment by BobFJ — 10 Mar 2010 @ 9:21 PM

  466. Ray Ladbury Reur 461:

    Most aerosols in the troposphere are going to rain out pretty rapidly. It’s the stratospheric aerosols that have the dimming effect.

    Yes but; the Mauna Loa empirical data suggests that the lower level and some heavier stuff hangs around for a year or more and the upper aerosols up to about 4 years (per El Chichon & Pinatubo)

    Bob, you clearly haven’t done much modeling. You model a phenomenon to elucidate what the contribution of its factors might be. In most physical models, you don’t have so much interaction between parameters that simplification invalidates the results. In ecology, this is, of course, not always the case.

    Yes, but I do understand what models are about, and my point is that the Tamino article that we are discussing cannot, amongst other things be properly applied to showing a fit to GISS temperatures. (e.g. missing inputs to the model)

    Comment by BobFJ — 10 Mar 2010 @ 9:23 PM

  467. Didactylos Reur 464 in part:

    BobFJ: It appears that the graphs you are trying to compare measure entirely different things. One is net solar intensity, the other is global mean effective forcing (from stratospheric aerosols alone).

    This is a quickie: I’m mystified why you qualify volcanic forcing: from stratospheric aerosols alone. For a start, how and why would tropospheric dimming be excluded, when the substantial down-spike of typically around a year is suggestive of the lower levels and can be measured from the surface?

    The Tamino graph of volcanic forcing is in Watts/m^2. To get the same units on the ML graph, just take the percentage scale and multiply by the solar constant. Then subtract the down-blips from the background level. Of course the datums are different, but not a problem. A reduction in transmissivity is another way of expressing dimming either as a percentage or in w/m^2
    End of my lunchbreak….. May return this evening

    Comment by BobFJ — 10 Mar 2010 @ 9:28 PM

  468. BobFJ,
    Aerosol forcing is predominantly due to sulfate aerosols. These are reactive and precipitate out on a timescale of weeks to months.

    As to Tamino’s analysis, you seem to have utterly misunderstood it. The GISS volcanic forcings are INPUT to the model. What Tamino shows is that you get a reasonable match to the temperature data if you take into account both the prompt (atmospheric) response and the slower (oceanic) response of the climate.

    Methinks you would do well to spend more time trying to understand before you jump to conclusions.

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 11 Mar 2010 @ 5:59 AM

  469. Didactylos Reur little rant in the second part of your 464:

    I’m sorry that I misunderstood the first GISS reference, which was irrelevant, and maybe as a result of that I skipped or missed the second GISS item. (See also my 465). BTW, I’ve noticed a few strange things in the latter tabulation, which I’ll study a bit more yet.

    Meanwhile, comparing the Tamino graph with Mauna Loa:
    The former is presumably based on estimated information and shows that the Agung eruption is of about the same forcing (dimming) magnitude as El Chichon, whereas Pinatubo is much greater in magnitude. However, the Mauna Loa empirical data shows the relative magnitudes of El Chichon and Pinatubo to be reversed. Also the ML empirical data for Agung is slight, whereas it is huge per GISS/Tamino. BTW, have you heard of Agung before? Not me, but the other two certainly yes!

    Comment by BobFJ — 11 Mar 2010 @ 8:54 PM

  470. http://www.iges.org/c20c/c20c_forcing/volc.html

    “How to include volcanic forcing in C20C runs
    The Hadley Centre has used an updated version of the time series of Sato et al. (1993), including the effects of Pinatubo …. The data are derived largely from optical depth measurements but also other data, obviously of varying quality & coverage but generally getting better with time.”

    Not “estimated” data.
    And not point source data.
    You get results that depend on the location of the volcano _and_ the measuring stations.
    This goes into it in considerable detail:
    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1203&tstamp=

    Look at the distribution of Pinatubo’s aerosols.
    http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/6100/pinatubo4web3ht.jpg

    See why picking only Mauna Loa will give you a different chart than taking measurements globally? See why using just Mauna Loa gives you wrong numbers to _apply_ globally?

    > BobFJ
    > presumably

    Incorrect presumption. You can look this stuff up for yourself.

    Mauna Loa is often used as an illustration, e.g. here
    http://www.climate.noaa.gov/images/about_climate/greenhouse_graph.jpg
    illustrating this page:
    http://www.climate.noaa.gov/index.jsp?pg=/about_climate/about_index.jsp&about=greenhouse

    But as several people have pointed out, you don’t get information about the effect on global climate from just one source, not even that one. You might as well be picking just one thermometer location and be claiming you’re getting good information about the effect on climate.

    That NOAA page, illustrated with the Mauna Loa graph, describes the actual monitoring instrument _network_ this way:

    “Instruments and Measurements – In situ measurements of a variety of aerosol optical properties are made at GMD’s aerosol monitoring sites. The measurement suite enables calculation of direct aerosol climate forcing. The measured values relevant for climate forcing calculations are: light absorption, total scattering and backscattering. These measurements are used to derive parameters required in the forcing calculation.”

    Here’s another example of the chart:

    http://www.ec.gc.ca/scitech/2A953C90-CC12-42B2-BD0A-B51FECC2AEC3/C.8_e.jpg

    And another:
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/forcing.jpg

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 12 Mar 2010 @ 12:54 AM

  471. Here’s the Pinatubo aerosol distribution in more detail, with caption:

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SAGEIII/Images/SAGEII_Pinatubo.jpg

    and some additional explanation:
    “… For example, the SAGE II satellite instrument, the predecessor to SAGE III launched in 1984, observed dispersal of volcanic aerosols following the massive eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991. These measurements were crucial in linking a decline in the globally averaged surface temperature in mid-1992 of about 1 degree Fahrenheit to the large aerosol concentrations from the volcanic eruption. Aerosols from Mt. Pinatubo also strongly influenced the observed ozone trend—an effect that would not have been detected without measurements like those from SAGE II. The data provided unique insight into the complex flow of air in the stratosphere ….”

    Key words: globally averaged.

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 12 Mar 2010 @ 12:58 AM

  472. Data, again, is taken from multiple stations, e.g.
    http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=px672146l711w161&size=largest
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/px672146l711w161/

    “… Figure 1 gives a map showing the location of 53 actinometric stations of the Russian network … over Russia and to compare this pattern with that of the global aerosol distribution …”

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 12 Mar 2010 @ 1:07 AM

  473. Ray Ladbury Reur 468:

    Aerosol forcing is predominantly due to sulfate aerosols. These are reactive and precipitate out on a timescale of weeks to months.

    I’m not sure what your point is, but I come back to the observations made at Mauna Loa that show major dimming for a year or two, and then a tailing off of up to about 4 years

    As to Tamino’s analysis, you seem to have utterly misunderstood it. The GISS volcanic forcings are INPUT to the model.

    Obviously Tamino has input some global forcing numbers, which I’m trying to show, are a bit sus’.

    [Response: Huh? The stratospheric aerosol history that we have developed is not ‘ a bit sus ‘ – what are you talking about? Please read the basic papers (i.e. Sato et al, 1993) to understand what this data is. – gavin]

    He also inputs CO2, but he fails to include other parameters.

    What Tamino shows is that you get a reasonable match to the temperature data if you take into account both the prompt (atmospheric) response and the slower (oceanic) response of the climate.

    However obtaining a fit by using suspect data, (arguably more so back to 1880, and see below), and incomplete inputs, is hardly convincing. One might also get a fit with sales profits with McDonalds hamburgers. (more so with GISS; less so with HADCRUT)

    Oh, and: Yes, I follow the argument of his “two-box” model but have some problems with it; some of which are given more background in Hanks comments, and, when I have time, my responses thereto. Incidentally, why not a three-box model? Surface air Temperature; land surface T, & SST

    Comment by BobFJ — 12 Mar 2010 @ 5:24 PM

  474. Hank Roberts, thanks for your series of comments. Good work! but I’m about to start my weekend, and I doubt if I‘ll have much time. At a quick flick through, I was impressed by this graphic of Pinatubo’s emissions, although it is not given if it was a snapshot in time or some average over a period.
    http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/6100/pinatubo4web3ht.jpg

    Last time I was in Hawaii, it was located in the tropical North Pacific, which places it in ideal location for observation of the recent three big eruptions. The graphic suggests that the greatest impact is in the tropics, which, as you know is “the heat engine of the world”
    The big latitudinal variations in concentrations etc, suggest that it would be necessary to use time-series data in grids around the planet, with some very complex integrations to get a complete picture of global dimming and mixing by region. Thus the use of an alleged global average by Tamino puts his modelling into further questionability.

    Comment by BobFJ — 12 Mar 2010 @ 5:29 PM

  475. BobJF: I have to agree with Ray Ladbury – “Methinks you would do well to spend more time trying to understand before you jump to conclusions.”

    Comment by Didactylos — 12 Mar 2010 @ 5:56 PM

  476. BobFJ (473) — A more interesting three box model would be (1) air + top few meters of the ocean (2) shallow ocean (3) deep ocean. Tamino does the first two and the relaxation time for the third is so long that we can ignore it for such conceptual studies.

    Comment by David B. Benson — 12 Mar 2010 @ 7:23 PM

  477. > BobFJ
    > … presumably based on estimated information
    > … suspect … alleged …

    You’ve backpedaled from wrong presumption directly to insinuation.

    You don’t even know whose work you’re calling ‘suspect’ — even though it’s been cited twice in the last few days and you’ve been given pointers and pictures.

    > snapshot

    I gave you a better source. You didn’t read even the caption on it, eh?
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SAGEIII/Images/SAGEII_Pinatubo.jpg

    > my weekend, and I doubt if I’ll have much time

    “What a piece of work ….” — Hamlet

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 12 Mar 2010 @ 7:59 PM

  478. BobFJ,
    The volcanic forcings are standard. And as I say, Tamino has looked at volcanic + ENSO elsewhere. You would do well to peruse some of his analyses.

    Re your 3 layer model: I don’t think land surface temperatures would add all that much. Heat flows pretty slowly in the solid Earth. However, if you were interested in pursuing this, you could look at borehole measurements.

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 12 Mar 2010 @ 8:33 PM

  479. Gavin, Reur response in my 473:

    [Response: Huh? The stratospheric aerosol history that we have developed is not ‘ a bit sus ‘ – what are you talking about? Please read the basic papers (i.e. Sato et al, 1993) to understand what this data is. – gavin]

    Whoops, sorry, you’re right, I should not have used such sloppy language, but rather the more scientifically correct substantial uncertainty.

    [Response: Still not sure what you are talking about. Especially, compared to most of the forcings the stratospheric aerosols are pretty well characterised. I see no reason for any of your descriptions. – gavin]

    Comment by BobFJ — 13 Mar 2010 @ 2:59 PM

  480. Hank Roberts Reur Rant in 477:
    Do you find it difficult to understand what I wrote as follows?
    “… but I’m about to start my weekend, and I doubt if I‘ll have much time…”
    Your stream of comments is beginning to look like that dialogue on the “close Encounters…” thread about the ability of your hand to identify infrared radiation. (as distinct from other heat sources)

    Comment by BobFJ — 13 Mar 2010 @ 3:15 PM

  481. Ray Ladbury, Reur 478:

    BobFJ, The volcanic forcings are standard. And as I say, Tamino has looked at volcanic + ENSO elsewhere. You would do well to peruse some of his analyses.

    Ray, we are discussing the Tamino article that you cited and supported. He and others may well have some improved models but they are distractions to the original. I think you would do well to peruse the uncertainties in volcanic forcings that have been expressed elsewhere, such as in the links given by Gavin above.

    Comment by BobFJ — 13 Mar 2010 @ 3:28 PM

  482. Here, Bob, another way to separate visible from infrared:
    http://www.kruschwitz.com/Cold/hot.htm

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 13 Mar 2010 @ 3:35 PM

  483. BobFJ,
    You seem to be afraid of uncertainty–as if having uncertainty in a forcing estimate invalidated it. The forcing Tamino used is a standard. The results he get show that the low number of volcanic eruptions in the 1900-1940 period likely contributed significantly to thewarming observed in that period. Now you can reject that analysis if you please, but no one is going to take you seriously unless a)you present an analysis showing deficiencies in what Tamino presented, or b)you present an analysis of your own showing the contrary. Until that time, as I said, you would do well to look at some of the analyses I and others have cited, because it is clear that you are arguing mainly against straw men of your own construction–and astoundingly, still losing.

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 13 Mar 2010 @ 6:05 PM

  484. Gavin, Reur response within my 479:

    [Response: Still not sure what you are talking about. Especially, compared to most of the forcings the stratospheric aerosols are pretty well characterised. I see no reason for any of your descriptions. – gavin]

    Well, I mean it in the context NOT of very recent times but of this Tamino graph , which he uses to create a model for the full period from 1880. Sure, obviously, the capabilities have been improving in recent satellite times, but uncertainties remain, according to your two links appended in my 473:

    The first from NASA opens with:

    “The dataset is updated when additional data or improvements become available. (Last Modified: on 2002′ 04′ 18) We welcome comments or suggestions regarding these data…”

    And, within Sato et al, some brief extracts:

    “…We describe the sources of our data and the reasons for choices among alternative sources. We would welcome information on any observations with potential for improving this data set…”

    “…Although these uncertainties are large, [subjectively 50%, reducing to 25%], we believe that the estimated history of aerosol optical depth provides a useful measure of volcanic aerosol climate forcing for the past century..”

    “…Therefore it is important to improve the accuracy with which the volcanic climate forcing is specified, to the extent that is practical…”

    [Response: Sure. But the standard statements about how we should always strive to do better (which we should) and that accuracy degrades as you go back to the 19th C, doesn’t mean that there is ‘substantial uncertainty’ over the whole thing. If you want to discuss the impact of Krakatoa in 1883, sure – but the temperature data to check the response against is just as bad. – gavin]

    Comment by BobFJ — 14 Mar 2010 @ 2:27 AM

  485. Ray Ladbury Reur 483:

    BobFJ, You seem to be afraid of uncertainty–as if having uncertainty in a forcing estimate invalidated it. The forcing Tamino used is a standard.

    It may be the best estimate available, but Sato et al opine that the uncertainty is large, prior to 1990. Thus for Tamino to use this data and to exclude other relevant parameters, (without explanation or caveat), and then claim a fit with GISSTEMP, is an academic exercise with zero merit, and is likely to create misunderstanding.

    The results he get show that the low number of volcanic eruptions in the 1900-1940 period likely contributed significantly to the warming observed in that period.

    Well, amongst other things, and keeping it simple, please study this composite graph , and explain why in the period 1940 to 1960 there was rapid cooling whilst low volcanic activity continued, as it did from ~1910 to 1940.

    Comment by BobFJ — 14 Mar 2010 @ 5:21 PM

  486. Hank Roberts Reur 482
    This belongs over at the “Close Encounters…..” thread, if you would like to get people to shake their heads wondering why you keep citing stuff that is irrelevant to the debate.
    Whilst you are there, perhaps check-out Doug Bostrom’s 972, and a gem from Jedda; 978.

    Comment by BobFJ — 14 Mar 2010 @ 9:21 PM

  487. BobFJ:

    You seem to be trying to attribute all climate to volcanoes today. I thought we got past this idea that climate only has one driver? More than two drivers, as well.

    Yes, that particular Tamino post only looked at volcanoes and greenhouse gases, but Tamino has hundreds of other posts, you know.

    And your “without explanation or caveat” jibe is just low – and wrong. Tamino said explicitly: “This is of course a simplified model, which can’t be expected to be as realisitic as general circulation models.” As for explanation – the whole post is explanation!

    Take your snark elsewhere, please.

    Comment by Didactylos — 15 Mar 2010 @ 9:40 AM

  488. > BobFJ
    > irrelevant to the debate

    You keep trying to make these conversations into debate — ‘debate’ about Tamino’s topics.

    Education is furthered by asking open questions, doubting one’s own ideas, looking for more information. You can’t do those and win a debate.

    You’re using your debating tactics to dismiss anyone who’s trying to learn. Debate isn’t learning. It’s arguing just one side instead of learning.

    In your own mind perhaps you “win” — you’ve found a place you can keep posting your confusion about what’s explained at Tamino’s.

    You’re making your confusion everyone else’s problem. Are you learning anything?

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 15 Mar 2010 @ 10:37 AM

  489. I think it is time to move-on to some issues with Tamino’s Fig 3. With reference to Fig 2, he then goes on to say:

    “We note that there’s a large decrease early in the data. This is not necessarily reflective of an actual decrease, it’s because for the earliest few decades we’re estimating a 30-yr smooth based on considerably less than 30 yrs. of data. To approximate the 30-yr smooth with any accuracy, we should only use the data from about 1900 on, giving us 30-yr smoothed values based on at least 20 years of data. …”

    So, why start the smoothed line at 1920? Should it not be 1895, enabling 15 years of data each side of that target year? (or, if he’s doing a PMA smoothing, (?!), should it not be 1930?
    See this composite graph for more detail on this, and on several other questions that can be asked. For instance, between 1915 & 1960, the volcanic forcing is approximately zero, yet Tamino computes a continuous temperature rise well beyond his 30-year lull hypothesis.

    Comment by BobFJ — 15 Mar 2010 @ 5:18 PM

  490. BobFJ:

    Are you posting all these criticisms of Tamino here because you have failed Tamino’s “stupid threshold”, and he no longer allows you to post at his site?

    If not, why not address these questions to him directly? Although personally, I still believe all your questions are answered by actually reading what he wrote. Failure to understand something is no crime. Your accusatory tone, however, is just rude.

    Comment by Didactylos — 15 Mar 2010 @ 6:16 PM

  491. CORRECTION Re 489,
    Sorry, 1920 should read 1900, 1895 should read 1885 and 1930 should read 1910, Thus in the last para:

    So, why start the smoothed line at 1900? Should it not be 1885, enabling 15 years of data each side of that target year? (or, if he’s doing a PMA smoothing, (?!), should it not be 1910?
    See this composite graph
    for more detail on this, and on several other questions that can be asked. For instance, between 1915 & 1960, the volcanic forcing is approximately zero, yet Tamino computes a continuous temperature rise well beyond his 30-year lull hypothesis.

    Comment by BobFJ — 15 Mar 2010 @ 8:41 PM

  492. You’re eager to “move-on” — you were wrong to tell people that the data Tamino used–that he cited, with a link, in his original post– was

    > … presumably based on estimated information
    > … suspect … alleged …

    You’ve been making up strawmen, pinning Tamino’s name to them, and attacking those, asking questions as though they hadn’t been answered in the thread:

    were the forcings estimated/suspect/alleged? (No; links were provided)
    “why start … at 1920″ (explained right above the chart; to get 20 years);
    warming continues past 30 years (due to other forcings; links provided).

    If you managed to ask an interesting question, you’d get some response from the scientists. So far you don’t seem to be getting it.

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 15 Mar 2010 @ 8:46 PM

  493. Didactylos Reur 487:
    Please note that my comment that you dislike was specific to stated facts, and I quote it with the original emphasis:

    It [the GISS volcanic forcing] may be the best estimate available, but Sato et al opine that the uncertainty is large, prior to 1990. Thus for Tamino to use this data and to exclude other relevant parameters, (without explanation or caveat), and then claim a fit with GISSTEMP, is an academic exercise with zero merit, and is likely to create misunderstanding.

    Didactylos Reur 490:
    Well actually I did ask tamino as you and Hank have suggested, but it was deleted without comment. It was the only time I’ve commented there.

    Hank Roberts Reur 492
    1) I presumed volcanic forcing back to 1880 was estimated because it is obvious that good empirical observation would not have been possible.
    2) What you may not realize is that time-series smoothing should use CMA or centred Moving Average methodology, so that in the case of a 30-year smoothing, for any target year, 15 years of data are needed before and after that point; not 20 years. On the other hand, if PMA was used, apart from the fact that it is unsuitable for time-series, 30 years Prior to the target point is required; not 20.
    3) According to the text, Fig.3 is a 30-year smooth of volcanic forcings only, so you have not explained why the temperature continues to rise beyond the hypothetical 30-year lag of the only forcing portrayed.

    Comment by BobFJ — 16 Mar 2010 @ 3:42 PM

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Close this window.

1.024 Powered by WordPress