Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Quickfire Bob | Main | For whom the bell Tols »
Sunday
Sep122010

Jones in El Pais

This is my adaptation of a part of a machine translation of an interview Phil Jones gave to the Spanish newspaper El Pais.

Q. How do you think Climategate will be seen in 20 or 30 years? Do you think it will be important or considered a story?

R. I hope people will be back to believing in science, but I think it will take some years. There are two different cases. Many people believe that the planet is warming. It is ridiculous to question the warming, which is clear and no scientist disputes it.  Then there are people who say that even so is not due to human activity.

Q. The debate about the influence of man is relevant?

A. There are scientists who still doubt it, but they are few. And when asked how to explain the warming that has occurred they have much difficulty because it is very difficult to find a rational explanation other than greenhouse gases.

Q. They say that there was a similar warm period in the Middle Ages.

A. We need more evidence on that period, about which information is very limited, and only for the northern hemisphere.

Q. But there were periods as warm as the present.

A. Yes, but we know why there were warm and cold periods in the past. The amount of solar radiation was different and so we will have ice ages in the future.  These processes are still happening and will continue, but they have a completely different timescale to humans.  Here we are talking about climate change in a century that is very fast compared to the past.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (77)

O/T but "The Climategate Inquirires" by Andrew Montford with foreword by Lord Turnbull is available at:

http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Climategate-Inquiries.pdf

Sep 14, 2010 at 11:00 AM | Unregistered Commenterhro001

Sep 14, 2010 at 7:28 AM | Peter Wilson

Peter - I'll try and put this gently, but I don't think you know very much about this particular subject.

You've again referred to that Phil Jones quote which is so widely abused by deniers. That you think Phil Jones is saying that warming has ceased, simply shows you fail to understand statistical significance. The time period selected was a deliberately provocative one. Nonetheless, PJ states that there has been warming over that period.

However, the time period chosen was so (relatively) short, that it is hard to eliminate natural variation and noise from the trend. Thus, the certainty with which CRU are able to ascribe an upward trend, comes in just under 95%. Thus, there is a less than 10% chance that temperature is doing anything other than going up.

Nothing you have posted displays an understanding of this on your part, in any way.

As for your referral to other key temperature datasets. They all show, err, a clear upwards trend over the last decade or so. In fact the only possible way to manipulate the data to do otherwise, would be to start on the exceptionally hot year of 1998 - and even that doesn't work for all the datasets.

Or why not look at what the providers of all of these datasets say about their own data, namely, that it shows a clear upward trend.

Sep 14, 2010 at 11:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

ZBD

Given your recent obtuse displays on this and other threads here, it might be wise not to be condescending about other peoples understanding of the issues. Of course most of us here understand statistical significance, which is why we also understand why the 16 year timespan is chosen - any longer, and it does become significant.

Nonetheless, you have yet to respond to my earlier invitation to explain why 15 years is too short, but 25 years is ample, to determine a trend. After all, if you had any understanding of statistics, you would realise that the concept of a trend only has meaning over a specified interval

I suggest you read Roy Spencer on the trends in the UAH dataset if you really believe Phil Jones is going to admit the data shows a lack of warming (note I did not say cooling) when he doesn't have to. Your assertion regarding the datasets is flatly incorrect.

Sep 14, 2010 at 11:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterPeter Wilson

Sir Humphrey is getting restless?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/14/lord_turnbull_interview/

Sep 14, 2010 at 12:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterChuckles

Peter, the reason I didn't respond to your earlier question is, like all deniers, you've learned to start doing distraction techniques when you're cornered, and I try not to get dragged into it.

You state that we ceased warming over a decade ago. The only actual evidence you have come up with is a widely abused PJ quote, where he says we are warming. And you have come back to this time and time again.

This quote provides no evidence at all for your claim that we are not warming. He specifically claims in in that we are warming.

The only other evidence you've even tried to provide, is to flatly contradict me about the datasets.

I'll come back to this in a moment. But our initial interaction went thus:

You - we ceased warming over a decade ago.
Me - that's wrong - provide evidence.

If this place has any of the kind of rigour it likes to think it has, then you will answer this initial question, and stop trying to use distraction techniques to wriggle out of it.

So, back to data. I'm claiming they all show warming, you say this is plain and simple wrong.

I'm most comfortable with HADCRUT3 and GISTEMP so I'll look at those rather than try and be exhaustive.

Quickest way to get a HADCRUT3 overview is to look at it via the MetOffice website as it is a department of it. Lovely graph there. It points up. What is their own commentary on it? Are you kidding? They couldn't be any clearer about the upward trend of Global temperature.

Over to GISTEMP - run by NASA. let's keep it to simple overviews again. it does't get any simpler than typing 'gistemp' into google and opening the graphs icon on the landing page. What do you get? Oh look, more nice and easy graphs which point up - more than the Hadley ones in fact. What do they say about it? blah blah blah "10 of the warmest years occurring in the last 12".

So, you say my claim about the datasets is flatly incorrect, well I've just looked at two of them in a quick overview for your benefit and it's clearly you that's flatly incorrect.

Now I suggest you return to my original question before trying to wriggle out of it and ask me more.

Every bit of evidence you've tried to provide has been the work of moments to rebutt. Do you actually have any evidence that we've ceased to warm over a decade ago? Or do you wish to retract your claim?

Sep 14, 2010 at 12:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

Incidentally. Dropstone, I am on hand for the next hour or so to tackle your questions from yesterday, as promised. However, I can't seem to access that thread.

Are you able to repost them on this thread so I can access them?

Thanks.

Sep 14, 2010 at 12:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

Zed

"you've learned to start doing distraction techniques"

Calling Pot - Kettle on line 2...

Sep 14, 2010 at 1:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

"Calling Pot - Kettle on line 2..."
Sep 14, 2010 at 1:01 PM | James P

mmm - God forbid I'd try and keep Peter on message from the original point of contention yesterday and ask if Dropstone was around so I could try and answer his/her questions.

How terribly distracting and evasive of me.

Sep 14, 2010 at 1:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

ZBD

It may have only taken a few moments, but "rebut" is not quite the term I would use. HADCRU and GISTEMP are based on the same dataset, and are both well known for doing everything possible to exaggerate any warming, and for using progressively fewer thermometers, but even they are unable to show a significant trend upward, whatever spin the Met Office tries to put on it. The far more credible satellite measurements from UAH and RSS are even more unambiguous, although I would hesitate to call it cooling. Yet.

More to the point, there has been no increase in ocean heat content since 2003, which is a far more reliable metric of radiative imbalance. If the sea isn't warming, given its dominance in thermal capacity, then the planet isn't warming either. And according to the Argo, the oceans are not warming despite continuously rising co2 levels.

What gives with that?

Sep 14, 2010 at 1:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterPeter Wilson

True believers feel it intheir gut, no science required...

Phil Jones – to Tom Wigley:
“Bottom line – their is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the last 20 years. There is also no way a whole decade in the LIA period was more than 1 deg C
on a global basis cooler than the 1961-90 mean. This is all gut feeling, no science, but years of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility.”

If Professor Jones is in need of "more evidence" about the MWP he might like to try CO2 Science. I append their website address to make life easier for him
http://www.co2science.org/
They have a "Medieval Warm Period Project" and update every Wednesday. The synopsis for last week reads:

from an earlier comment:
Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 873 individual scientists from 518 separate research institutions in 43 different countries ... and counting! This issue's Medieval Warm Period Record comes from Hani Village, Liuhe County, Jilin Province, China. To access the entire Medieval Warm Period Project's database, click here.

That should help the good prof to find a way forward. Not all of the results are from the northern hemisphere either.

Sep 14, 2010 at 1:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Is Andrew on a train back from London, no post on this!!! ? ;)

http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Climategate-Inquiries.pdf

Sep 14, 2010 at 1:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Peter

Your methodology is deeply suspect right the way through this debate. You really do seem very lacking indeed in rigour.
Nonetheless - let's do this again.

- H and G are most certainly not 'based on the same dataset'. They are almost enitrely independent.
- If you're going to make some half arsed attempt to discount the world's 2 major temperature datasets in their entirety, presumably actually because they don't agree with you, but superficially with a claim that the hundreds of people who work on them are all dishonest, corrupt and have agendas, then you need to do it with a single piece of rock solid unshakeable proof that I can go and look at immediately. What do you have. Insinuation with no substantiation at all. You'll have to do much better than that or we're still using H and G which show you to be wrong.

What do you claim is far more credible? The work of some creationist bloke, notable only for being the dataset that deniers always refer to. That's one of the least credible datasets going.

Anything else to support your claim that we stopped warming over a decade ago? oh look - a reference to something starting in 2003 - 7 years ago.

You're clutching at straws because you have nothing except bluster to support your original statement.

Sep 14, 2010 at 1:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

"according to the Argo"

That's the trouble with those damned buoys - you can't park them next to an a/c outlet or on the end of a runway.. :-)

Sep 14, 2010 at 1:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

ZBD

Funny you should accuse someone else of bluster. You are entirely wrong that GISS and HADCRU are independent - see
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/a-myth-about-the-surface-temperature-record-analyses-perpetuated-on-dot-earth-by-andy-revkin/

Given your grievous lack of basic knowledge on this matter, it would be best if you refrained from further displaying your incomprehension of the issues at stake

Sep 14, 2010 at 2:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterPeter Wilson

ZBD

"What do you claim is far more credible? The work of some creationist bloke, notable only for being the dataset that deniers always refer to. That's one of the least credible datasets going."

I have no knowledge of, nor interest in, Roy Spencers religious beliefs, and to raise them is just another typical ad hominem. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the satellite datasets (although they do miss the poles), whereas there is a great deal of reason to doubt that the terrestrial datasets capture much more than runway warming and airconditioning outlets.

http://www.surfacestations.org/

Sep 14, 2010 at 2:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterPeter Wilson

World turned inside out;
Vision of a true belief.
ZedsDeadBed projects.
=========

Sep 14, 2010 at 2:20 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Climategate Inquiries by Andrew Montford
see
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100053569/climategate-whitewashers-squirm-like-maggots-on-bishop-hills-pin/

Sep 14, 2010 at 2:23 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

... and here
http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/the-shoddy-climategate-inquiries/

Sep 14, 2010 at 2:32 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

Heres the rub . . .
- we have a published record of temperature changes over the last ~150 which show a change in temp of ~1C
- many people seem to doubt the accuracy of this data - main points appear to be UHI and cherry picking of data?
- ok so lets go with 3 hypothesis on the actual variation over this period and translate them to 2100.
- We know from elementary (high school) physics that if we do not change the rate at which we are producing greenhouse gases that we will have a climate forcing with will equate to a 2C temp raise if we simple consider first order effects (i.e. ignoring feedback be it positive or negative). (FYI - I believe that when people talk about the "science is settled" this is in fact what they are talking about. Incidently I would like to meet the 2% of scientists that do not believe this - because if they are correct they will fundmentally alter our view of physics and probably be up for a nobel prize! I am all for questioning and being "skepical" but ultimately you have to "ante up" and publish your theories)

So here we go:-
Scenario A - The has been no real change in global temp for the last 150 years all observed increases are due to UHI and cherry picking. That means by 2100 we are 2C hotter and that comes to a change over the last 100 years of 0? My guess is that this would affect our childerns childern quite alot?

Scenario B - There has been a 0.5 increase in temp over the last 150 years due to natural variation and the rest of the observed change is due simply to UHI and cherry picking. In 2100 we are still 2C hotter but at this this is super imposed on a nature variation of about 0.5C. I still think this would be significant to our childrens children but not quite as bad as A.

Scenario C - The temp record is correct and we have seen a 1C change in temp over the last 150 years and this is a measure of nature variation. In 2010 we still get the 2C rise but this is superimposed on a system with at least 1C natural variation. I am sure the effects will still be observable but less that A and B.

The assumption most people seem to be making is that the temperature record showing an increase is bad - I actually think the opposite. I would be much happier if the data is being understated and there is much more natural variation. As whether we like it or not we are going to get a 2C forcing in about 100 years and the larger the natural variation the less impact it is likely to have.

I few points to try and deflect some curve balls:-
- I do not believe any of the 1000 year constructions are worth the paper they are written on. You would be better looking at tea leaves to predict past temperatures.
- I understand that a 2C forcing does not necessarily translate into a 2C rise as it is perfectly possibly that negative feedbacks in the system may reduce this. When we start looking at feedback these are not much better known (IMHO) than the 1000 year temp record - but I do understand these could easily be positive as well as negative (which is where the IPCC come up with there 6C change numbers).

I look forward to hearing your views on these thoughts.

Cheers

Sep 14, 2010 at 3:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterCurious from Cleethropes

Peter Wilson et al

When are you going to finally realize the only solution to ZDB is to ignore him? We can speculate all we want about his mental state, sexual issues or the color of his shirt, but the only thing that matters is he is disrupting this blog because of those who respond to his taunts. That gives him "power" in his mind and given he has already disrupted one thread, we now have a monster who is out to disrupt this thread.

Ignore him and take his "power" away. It comes from you, not him.

Sep 14, 2010 at 4:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

Don Pablo - wise words; but then the devil always pops in when he clergy are away, huh ?

So, to dispel the bad vibes the following may amuse. Its mainly about Wkipedia, but also concerns His Grace, Dr Jones and someone else we all know of. Its called "Mostly Harmless"

http://princehorus.wordpress.com/2010/09/13/mostly-harmless/

Sep 14, 2010 at 4:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark M

See also climate audit where there is a new post up with a link to the Bish Report and an equally substantial report by Ross McKitrick.

Curious,
I am not quite sure what point you are making so it is hard to give a view. But you do seem to have remarkably good high schools in Cleethropes.

Sep 14, 2010 at 4:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterPaulM

Fred Pearce: Montford lands some solid blows in review of 'climategate' inquiries


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/sep/14/montford-climategate-gwpf-review

Sep 14, 2010 at 5:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger

Don Pablo - wise words; but then the devil always pops in when he clergy are away, huh ?

As Sister Maria told the girls, "hold a dime between your knees." In short, grin and ignore it no matter how tempting.

BH is without a doubt the best blog on Climate and it is that way because the way the Bishop runs it. However, we have to do our part too. And if that means ignoring taunts, do it. I really enjoy seeing the very wide diversity of opinion, most of it well thought out. I would advice BH not to change a thing. We, however, can do better.

Now back to my spider that eats souls. Perhaps I will name it Zed after all.

Sep 14, 2010 at 7:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

"Funny you should accuse someone else of bluster. You are entirely wrong that GISS and HADCRU are independent - see
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/a-myth-about-the-surface-temperature-record-analyses-perpetuated-on-dot-earth-by-andy-revkin/"
Sep 14, 2010 at 2:10 PM | Peter Wilson

Peter, for someone who claims to be critical of Phil Jones, you're coming accross as an absolute alocolyte of his.

It's also very strange that the evidence with which you try to criticise him, always depends upon other parts of his work being correct. I would again put it to you, that your analysis of his work essentially comes down to "if it works for me, he's right. If it works against me, he's wrong"

I've waded through this paper 3 times now to see if I'm missing anything more than a passing reference to PJs personal communication as your basis for completely writing off the world's two major surface temperature datasets. Unless I'm wearing my idiot hat (which I suppose I can't rule out), I'm not.

It's quite an interesting paper, so thanks for bringing it to my attention. However, it's largely a take on UHI arguments, and we're all aware of how debunked that is.

The crucial section amounts to this:
"The best estimate that has
been reported is that 90–95% of the raw data in each of the
analyses is the same (P. Jones, personal communication,
2003)."

It doesn't expand beyond that. In fact you seem to be basing your entire view of climate science around :
a) a quote fro a PJ BBC interview which you don't really seem to understand and
b) a 7 year old PJ quote from his personal communication.

Now - I will concede that this does imply that there is a much greater sharing of source data than I had thought, so sorry about coming on a little strong over that.

However, Pielke doesn't actually view this as much of a problem. Which is why he doesn't go into any real depth about it, and in fact just asks for greater acknowledgement of this in published papers where it is relevant.

So - back to the orignal matter in hand. I'm not going to accept a quote from a BBC interview in which PJ says the world is warming as evidence that the world stopped warming. I'm also not going to discount HADCRUT and GISTEMP results on the basis of 7 year old sentence quoted in a paper which doesn't seem to bother the authors of the paper.

Which leaves you in a position that you will have to concede that we have not ceased warming over a decade ago, as the two datasets mentioned show very clearly that we have.

Sep 15, 2010 at 10:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

ZBD

Quote:
The work of some creationist bloke, notable only for being the dataset that deniers always refer to.

Rather than using ad-hom attacks on the man perhaps you can tell us scientifically what you object too in his work.

Perhaps you could also read up on the story of Oliver Wendell Holmes who's theories on the prevention of Puerperal fever was rejected because he was Jewish, just because Dr Spencer believes in Intelligent Design does not mean his work is wrong.

I also suggest you stop using the 'D' word - very bad manners and totally unnecessary. If you cannot debate in a polite manner perhaps you need to go somewhere else. Some football forums would probably suit your ad-hoc ad-hom mentality.

Sep 15, 2010 at 8:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterJack Cowper

You have some comments on Phil Joneś conference in Madrid, yesterday. The reporting is in spanish. Here:

http://plazamoyua.wordpress.com/2010/09/16/las-reporteras-de-pm-en-lo-del-pobrecito-jones/

Sep 16, 2010 at 8:26 PM | Unregistered Commenterplazaeme

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>