Just for Cypress, since apparently he can't remember people posting the BBC interview with Phil Jones before.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
The following 'quotes' are the questions asked of Jones. The responses are HIS responses, not mine.... and remember... Jones and the CRU are unimpeachable. Note, I am not going to post every question in the article, so there IS more at the link.
An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.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?
Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).
I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
Here are the trends and significances for each period:
Period Length Trend
(Degrees C per decade) Significance
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes
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.B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
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.C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
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.G - There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?
Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.
We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.
It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.N - When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?
Quote from Cypress:
"Scientists don't use "averages". Maybe armchair supertools on message boards ascribe some meaning to "averages" between two random data points. And maybe clueless amatuers "draw a straight line" through two random end data points to define a "trend". Experts don't.
They use mean annual and five year means in trend analysis. Don't tell me I have to explain the difference to you. "
Yes, I'm glad you are so vigilant at reading all my posts and committing them to memory.
With regard to the BBC interview, I addressed this at length in another post. Clearly, you must have committed that post to memory, and my answers, and I refer you back to that post. I'm not going to post the same answers twice.
You still didn't give me a link to a credible scientific source for the rest of your assertions. Just yelling out questions, while providing no scientific link is not a reason for me to accept the premise of your questions. You were wrong on Iraq, and you were wrong on Climate Gate. You have a history of being dead wrong. Your assertions on these topics can't be trusted, unless you provide independent verification from reputable sources.
Now with regard to the topic of my thread, do you admit you were wrong about Climate Gate? That there was no fraud, conspiracy, or attempt to mislead the public?
You are so unbelievably full of shit. So now that you have your link provided to you on what Jones said, your answer is.... 'I am not going to answer because I think I answered these before, even though I don't remember you ever posting the BBC link before'???
As to the fraud... yes, I admit you are an idiot. The very fact that you refuse to address Jones comments about the FACT that there has been no significant warming in the past 15 years, shows that you are a complete hack.
No matter what source I provide, you will simply proclaim it not 'suitable'. I give you one of the LEAD SCIENTISTS on the issue and you ignore him. Suddenly Jones is not good enough for you?
I show you that there are three other periods that saw similar warming trends and yet you still want us to believe that this is something new and man made?
You proclaim the debate closed and that anyone disagreeing must be a climate 'deniar'... yet one of the lead Scientists states just the opposite.
It is your credibility that is shot on the topic Cypress.
No... there is fraud... by the IPCC. Including data that was unsubstantiated and non-scientific in the report is fraudulent.
Quote from Cypress:
"Scientists don't use "averages". Maybe armchair supertools on message boards ascribe some meaning to "averages" between two random data points. And maybe clueless amatuers "draw a straight line" through two random end data points to define a "trend". Experts don't.
They use mean annual and five year means in trend analysis. Don't tell me I have to explain the difference to you. "
http://climateaudit.org/2008/02/10/h...-distribution/
Shows the number of stations... data taken directly from GHCN
Due note the number of stations in Canada in particular.... from 1985 to 2005.
Quote from Cypress:
"Scientists don't use "averages". Maybe armchair supertools on message boards ascribe some meaning to "averages" between two random data points. And maybe clueless amatuers "draw a straight line" through two random end data points to define a "trend". Experts don't.
They use mean annual and five year means in trend analysis. Don't tell me I have to explain the difference to you. "
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sho...nes#post602042
Hmm... here is the last time I posted the BBC interview with Jones... and just like this time, Cypress 'answers' it with bullshit rather than addressing the comments of Jones. Imagine that.
Quote from Cypress:
"Scientists don't use "averages". Maybe armchair supertools on message boards ascribe some meaning to "averages" between two random data points. And maybe clueless amatuers "draw a straight line" through two random end data points to define a "trend". Experts don't.
They use mean annual and five year means in trend analysis. Don't tell me I have to explain the difference to you. "
Wow, eights after the Iraq War you still can admit you were mistaken to support it, and after two credible investigations into "climate gate" you still can't admit you were duped into believing a fantastical conspiracy theory.
you're totally irrational, man. But, no worries. Science doesn't depend on the message board opinions of Dixie and Superfreak.
Climate Audit? Hilarious, I knew you were getting your info from a rightwing blog, run by a guy who isn't even a qualified climate scientist who does his own research.
Dude, I can't even respond to "climate audit". But, thanks for the laugh.
As for "no statistically significant warming in the past 15 years", yeah, that's something else you picked up off rightwing blogs.
Because if you paid attention to the actual BBC interview, Dr. Jones explicitly said that it's hard to establish statistical significance at shorter temporal scales. Like ten or 15 years.
The last ten years have been the warmest on record. Given a longer period of time, as climatologists use, rather than starting with a cherry picked interval beginning in 1995 - a random starting point for which Dr. Jone's interviewer gave no reason for choosing.
You've been duped. Again. The following graph will explain it to you. Where you were duped should be easily understood with a simple graph.
No offence man, I can't waste my time with rightwing blog nonsense. Get back to me when you have links to reputable and internationally recognized science experts. Until then have fun with Climate Audit, redstate.org and pajamasmedia/blogspot.com!
Last edited by Cypress; 04-23-2010 at 04:10 PM.
Now we all can see just how desperate you are to believe the idiocy you have been fed. So desperate are you that you attempt to bring the Iraq War into the discussion. It has NO relevance to this topic at all. Thanks for admitting you are still to chickenshit to actually address Jone's comments.
LMAO... I am irrational for asking you to provide your opinion on why one of the leading climate fear mongers has publicly stated that there has been NO significant warming in the past 15 years?you're totally irrational, man. But, no worries. Science doesn't depend on the message board opinions of Dixie and Superfreak.
You asked for a credible link. I gave it to you. You suggested I 'read the BBC interview'. I posted the link to the interview and quoted directly both the questions and the complete answers. Yet no matter what I do, it will never be enough or 'credible' enough for you because you are a complete hack who is intent upon clinging desperately to the flat earth fear mongering tales of woe that idiots like Gore spoon fed other idiots like you.
Once again you show your ignorance. Whether you like him or not, his DATA came from one of your precious government agencies that are unimpeachable (according to you). So instead of addressing the data, not McIntyres opinions or discussion, but the actual DATA... you instead pretend that it is simply a right wing blog.Climate Audit? Hilarious, I knew you were getting your info from a rightwing blog, run by a guy who isn't even a qualified climate scientist who does his own research.
Then you attack him for not being a qualified climate scientist who does his own research?
1) He obviously did his own research into the statistics... which he IS qualifed to do and found errors that your unimpeachable Goddard had published and subsequently had to correct. He has obviously done the research into the number of research stations being used.
2) I can't help but notice you also were a Gore worshipping twit at the time he released his propaganda piece an Inconvenient truth. Yet Gore is also not a scientist and he most certainly did not do his own research. He did blatantly lie.... but not a peep from you on his scientific creditials or his lack of his own research.
Dude, I can't even respond to "climate audit". But, thanks for the laugh.
No dipshit. I pulled the question and the complete answer from the BBC interview. You simply want to pretend it is from some rightwing blog. Because that is your standard answer anytime someone poses a question you can't answer.As for "no statistically significant warming in the past 15 years", yeah, that's something else you picked up off rightwing blogs.
[quote]Because if you paid attention to the actual BBC interview, Dr. Jones explicitly said that it's hard to establish statistical significance at shorter temporal scales. Like ten or 15 years. [/quote
Again moron, I posted the actual interview. I read it and understood what he said. Not surprising that you attempt to cherry pick one portion of his comments and take it for gospel. Why don't you explain to us why it is that 15 years worth of data isn't enough for statistical analysis?
Bottom line, this is a cop out on Jones part. Statistical analysis isn't any harder for a 15 year period than it is for a 30 year period.
Ah... now you go back to your previous idiocy from years past. Taking a look back at intervals of the past ten years is not cherry picking. Neither is a 15 year period.The last ten years have been the warmest on record. Given a longer period of time, as climatologists prefer to use, rather than starting with a cherry picked interval beginning in 1995 - a random starting point for which Dr. Jone's interviewer gave no reason for choosing.
No one is questioning that temperatures rose from 1975-1998. No one is questioning that we have had the warmest decade on record. But while it has been the warmest on record.... it HAS NOT CONTINUED TO GET WARMER. We have not seen any significant warming since 1998.
No offense taken Cypress. Everyone who reads this thread understands why you are running away from this issue. Everyone here understands that the data was presented to you as you asked.You've been duped. Again. The following graph will explain it to you. Where you were duped should be easily understood with a simple graph.
No offence man, I can't waste my time with rightwing blog nonsense. Get back to me when you have links to reputable and internationally recognized science experts. Until then have fun with Climate Audit, redstate.org and pajamasmedia/blogspot.com!
First from one of your unimpeachable people... Jones... then data from a government agency. Yet you continue to pretend everything is simply from a rightwing blog. Because that is your pathetic excuse for everything your masters haven't explained to you.
You are a hack.
Have fun being a flat earth fear mongering brain dead lemming... because that is all you are and ever shall be.
Quote from Cypress:
"Scientists don't use "averages". Maybe armchair supertools on message boards ascribe some meaning to "averages" between two random data points. And maybe clueless amatuers "draw a straight line" through two random end data points to define a "trend". Experts don't.
They use mean annual and five year means in trend analysis. Don't tell me I have to explain the difference to you. "
I just want to know why the graph is reliable when Jones himself says the data are unreproduceable...
Excellence is an art won by training and habituation. We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but rather we have those because we have acted rightly. We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
- -- Aristotle
Believe nothing on the faith of traditions, even though they have been held in honor for many generations and in diverse places. Do not believe a thing because many people speak of it. Do not believe on the faith of the sages of the past. Do not believe what you yourself have imagined, persuading yourself that a God inspires you. Believe nothing on the sole authority of your masters and priests. After examination, believe what you yourself have tested and found to be reasonable, and conform your conduct thereto.
- -- The Buddha
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
- -- Aristotle
Side note Cypress.... thanks for the graph. It also shows there has been no warming since 1998. I appreciate that you have finally accepted that FACT and are now quoting charts that prove it.
Quote from Cypress:
"Scientists don't use "averages". Maybe armchair supertools on message boards ascribe some meaning to "averages" between two random data points. And maybe clueless amatuers "draw a straight line" through two random end data points to define a "trend". Experts don't.
They use mean annual and five year means in trend analysis. Don't tell me I have to explain the difference to you. "
Because people like Jones told Cypress it is.... and we all know Jones is unimpeachable... well except for times when he says something Cypress doesn't like. Then Jones' words in a direct quote are nothing more than something we pull from right wing blog sites... like the BBC.
Quote from Cypress:
"Scientists don't use "averages". Maybe armchair supertools on message boards ascribe some meaning to "averages" between two random data points. And maybe clueless amatuers "draw a straight line" through two random end data points to define a "trend". Experts don't.
They use mean annual and five year means in trend analysis. Don't tell me I have to explain the difference to you. "
I was being sarcastic. Cypress claims anything that disputes his global warming fear mongering is a right wing blog. Since I posted the BBC interview with Jones stating the he doesn't believe the 'debate is over' AND he admits there is no significant global warming over the past 15 years.... well, since the BBC posted it, they are now a right wing site according to Cypress's standards.
Quote from Cypress:
"Scientists don't use "averages". Maybe armchair supertools on message boards ascribe some meaning to "averages" between two random data points. And maybe clueless amatuers "draw a straight line" through two random end data points to define a "trend". Experts don't.
They use mean annual and five year means in trend analysis. Don't tell me I have to explain the difference to you. "
I love how Crypiss laughs at Climate Audit. Steve was an IPCC reviewer until he began uncovering their lies. And he's been proven correct! Proven!
The statistics are where the fraud lies and it took a statistician to uncover it.
Bookmarks