Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 Next
Comments 82851 to 82900:
-
dhogaza at 11:27 AM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
"On rare occassions, those on the edges of the scientific spectrum are proven correct". Someone had better hope that Hansen's not ... -
Bibliovermis at 11:23 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Here are the decade numbers from my previous comment; #19. 1970s: -0.074 1980s: 0.098 (+0.172) 1990s: 0.242 (+0.143) 2000s: 0.430 (+0.189) CW, your claim that there is a cooling trend since 2001 is a sham based on selective data extraction in order to affirm a preconceived notion, aka "cherry picking". Rational Wiki: cherry picking Cooling trend to 2010: 2001, 2005 Warming trend to 2010: 1850-2000, 2002-2004, 2006-2009 -
Norman at 11:11 AM on 14 June 2011Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
Albatross, Here is the Accuweather article about the jet stream. The claim is they predicted the severe weather in February. Accuweather article. Quote from article: "AccuWeather.com meteorologists knew by February of this year that the upcoming spring was going to be a wild one in terms of severe weather and flooding, and it was not because climate change was ongoing. The combination of a weakening La Nina and the anticipated sharp temperature anomaly gradient between the northern U.S. and the southern U.S. told us that the jet stream running across the U.S. would be abnormally strong this spring. A strong jet stream leads to more powerful storms and thunderstorms, which increases the chances of large tornadoes and widespread flooding." -
David Horton at 11:08 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
"way too much attention is placed on the single metric of average annual global mean temperature of the troposphere" - yes, why oh why is no attention being paid to increased frequency of catastrophic events; changes in species distribution and breeding seasons; ocean acidity; more and more record high temps; melting glaciers and ice caps - how silly those old climate scientists are. -
ClimateWatcher at 11:06 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
48. if a 0.12 trend over 15 years is not statistically significant, then a -0.0281 trend over 10 years certainly isn't. For the record, I didn't question whether or not the trend was significant ( Though Lucia has concluded it is not and offers up the source code of her analysis ). My point was that the rate is fairly low. We shall know in the fullness of time ( hence my nonsensical moniker ).Response:[DB] "For the record, I didn't question whether or not the trend was significant"
On the contrary, yes you did.
-
scaddenp at 10:59 AM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
"On rare occassions, those on the edges of the scientific spectrum are proven correct". Rare enough, that it would be extremely unwise for policy not be based on scientific consensus. You apparently think Christy could be right, but then how do you feel about the Christy Crocks? -
ClimateWatcher at 10:55 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
46. The "null hypothesis" for the significance tests is taken as "there is no trend". For AGW, as postulated by the IPCC, this is not the case. The IPCC predicts a range of possibilities for both a 'Low' and 'High' scenario. The "likely" range of 1.1C to 6.4C warming this century defines the null hypothesis. Anything lower ( or higher ) falsifies the theory as embodied by the models. The trends since 1979 in various data sets are from 1.3 to 1.7 C per century, which do lie within the range, though at the low end. The chorus here is the modeled trends are not linear, and they're not, but they're pretty close. And anyway, the IPCC gave us another prediction to measure things by when they predicted the 0.2C per decade rate for the next two decades regardless of scenario.Response:[dana1981] No. The IPCC projected temperature trends are not even remotely close to linear, unless we dramatically cut GHG emissions.
As for your 0.2°C per decade claim, if it was made in the 2007 IPCC report, we're 15% of the way there. Please, stop obsessing over short-term cherrypicked data, and please stop misrepresenting the IPCC report.
-
Norman at 10:47 AM on 14 June 2011Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
Albatross, I did wander over to Desmogblog and read your exchange with NicholasV. NicholasV does hold a similar position to mine concerning the Bill McKibben video. I did get that jet stream info from a Accuweather piece but rather than talk through my "hat" I am interested in updating my knowledge. I did take one course in college on meteorology but that was long ago. Here is a resource that I found that may help update my knowledge base. Online weather learning site. Reading your posts, you do seem a very intelligent person. Thanks for taking the time to share your views and resources. -
scaddenp at 10:28 AM on 14 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
Another point, continental distribution (and especially mountain range distribution) also has profound influence on THC - and one that is somewhat difficult to model. -
scaddenp at 10:24 AM on 14 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
Truckmonkey, are you looking for a coherent model for a reality or looking for excuses to ignore climate science? As I interpret your remarks, you are claiming that past climates cannot be explained by known climate physics. Well, the best model we have (practically uncontested unless you count the "iron sun" crowd) gives us faint young sun and with it an explanation for cold episodes despite high GHGs. The fact that you get season and response to Milankovich is evidence that climate is not a random chaotic process but controlled strongly by the forcings present at the time. Continent position modulates albedo effect as land at high altitude assists in maintaining summer ice - but it is ONE parameter in the whole equation. There are two important notes on deep paleoclimate. 1/ Uncertainty with forcings. If you were asked to set up model for some early period, then finding values for fundamental variables, like land albedo, continental position, solar constant, atmospheric composition and rate of volcanism, is fairly challenging and so gives you a range of climates. What you are looking for and wont find is a configuration that cant be explained in terms of the likely range of forcings. 2/ Multiple hypotheses does not challenge climate physics. Having more than one way to create a past event (eg the mid Pleistocene transition) is not the same as having no hypothesis. It means that at present there is insufficient data to constrain the possibilities. It would only be relevant if any the hypotheses had an implication for present day physics. -
John Hartz at 09:56 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
@Phillipe Chantreau #47: In the US, the political process has morphed into a mass marketing process. In other words, the masses are being manipulated like puppets on a string. -
Tom Curtis at 09:51 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
The main thrust of the 39 comments on this thread while I slept, that cherry picking is cherry picking no matter which short term trend you pick cannot be improved upon, and should have been learnt by now by the deniers. A couple of points: DB inline comments @7: I believe the peer reviewed article by Tamino based on the analysis from which your charts @2 comes from is not yet published. (I am unsure whether it has been accepted yet, or is still in review.) Dana @5 does not "fail to acknowledge the data", he just does not restrict his analysis to just one data set. In fact of the four major data sets, just one shows a negative trend over that period. RSS is almost exactly flat, but very slightly positive. GISStemp and UAH are strongly positive over that interval. Climatewatcher @2, if a 0.12 trend over 15 years is not statistically significant, then a -0.0281 trend over 10 years certainly isn't. (But see following comment.) -
Philippe Chantreau at 09:28 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
John Russell, I think, makes some good points. The problem is, as was demonstrated by the trap set for Phil Jones, that the "skeptics" are so deeply dishonest and devious, one can never come out clean of any exchange with them, especially in their representation of the exchange. The methods CW attempted to use here are telling. This can be seen in politics also, where anything (really anything, it's appalling) goes, as long as one side can be represented as "bad" in the resulting rethorics. It is a profound failure of critical thinking in the masses that makes this possible. All objective reality can be dismissed, everything becomes a matter of opinion and all opinions are equally valid by virtue of being just opinions. Sad. -
Bern at 09:26 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Here's a question I'd like answered. The "null hypothesis" for the significance tests is taken as "there is no trend". Is that really an appropriate test to make, when you've got decades of data which provide a trend with a high degree of confidence? I.e. surely, when adding to a pre-existing data set, the test should be "is this indicative that the trend has changed from the previously established and highly significant trend?" I'm sure there's a detailed statistical answer as to why this isn't done, but it's not one I'm aware of. Then again, it might just be custom, to test against a "no-trend" hypothesis. -
Tom Curtis at 09:19 AM on 14 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
trunkmonkey, the faint young sun is also directly predicted by the physical theory of stellar evolution. Consequently any evidence for that theory is evidence for a faint young sun. As I understand it the physical theory of the faint young sun is very well confirmed. Further, the direct evidence is not just the apparent evolution within the Hertzprung-Russel diagram, but also the correlation between helium concentrations and luminosity for stars of similar mass. Admitedly mass is normally determined by position on the Hertzprung-Russel diagram (although it can be determined independently for binaries), so that may be what you are referring to. Further, the luminosity of various stars which are just forming, and hence not yet in the main sequence also provide evidence for the faint young sun. -
John Hartz at 09:02 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
This entire discussion thread confirms my conviction that way too much attention is placed on the single metric of average annual global mean temperature of the tropophere and not enough attention is paid to the distribution of heat throughout the entire climate system. I also find the critiquing of Jones' interview on a public comment thread to be unseemly and unwise. -
KR at 08:56 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Eric the Red - "What I find rather ironic, is that of all the temperature databases, only UAH has a 5-year moving average in record territory. Go figure." You might find this analysis enlightening: Tamino - Five Years And yet some people insist that short term data sets represent "trends"... -
Eric the Red at 08:21 AM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Tom, I do not think that you understood that I was comparing them to a political argument. However, I will end here before the moderator chastises me further from being OT. -
Eric the Red at 08:16 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
The four datasets are not that far off, especially over the longer term. Over the past decade, the temperatures have not changed as significantly as the preceding two, so that there appears to be a divergence among them. If you start with 1999, the trends are all increasing, but if you go back one more year to 1998, they all show a decrease. Choosing the start or end points can influence the results significantly. What I find rather ironic, is that of all the temperature databases, only UAH has a 5-year moving average in record territory. Go figure. -
michael sweet at 08:14 AM on 14 June 2011Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
Robert, It is currently accepted in the climate literature that any concequences that last more than 200 years can be considered permanent. They are permanent for people currently living, and our children and grandchildren. Everyone knows that in 500,000 years the Earth will be able to heal itself- except for those things that go extinct. Constantly bringing that up is catering to the deniers. They play on "not permanent" to make people think it will change in a few years. Changes that cannot be unwound in the lifetimes of those currently living are permanent. -
oslo at 08:01 AM on 14 June 2011Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
Tamino has an excellent comment on the paper: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/regime-change/ -
Robert Murphy at 07:30 AM on 14 June 2011Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
While not disputing the thesis that summers toward the end of century could be warmer in the coldest years than the warmest summers in recent times, I cringe when I see phrases like "Permanently Hotter Summers" or "an irreversible rise in summer temperatures". Nothing in climate is permanent. Such language is sloppy and opens climate scientists up to unnecessary attacks by deniers. How about "persistent" instead? "Persistently hotter summers for centuries or longer", for instance. Just my two cents. -
Rob Honeycutt at 07:26 AM on 14 June 2011The Critical Decade - Part 3: Implications for Emissions Reductions
sout and dana... The most encouraging news that I hear is always in relation to the cost of solar. If projections hold true and they can get the cost of solar below the cost of coal... we have a fighting chance. That could easily tip the scales in a very significant way. If the solar industry can prove they can bring cost down like this, with the possibility of driving costs even below that... it's literally a game changer. Investment dollars are not going to go into new coal, gas or any other fossil fuel related energy. Who wants to put money into the old technology that is likely to not be anywhere close to competitive once the plants are built? The same could easily play out for nuclear as well. Once we get the two cost curves to cross (rising FF, falling solar) that will be the tipping point where big changes start taking place. Just hoping it happens soon! -
Bruce A. at 07:25 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
The interactive graphing tool mentioned in #17 really is interesting to a non-scientist (that would be me). Using the GISTEMP dataset (1880-present), if you create averages your intervals in the upper 50's of years or greater, you will find no cooling trends, and the same for the HadCRU dataset (1850-present) for intervals in the lower 80's or greater. This gives visual to support to the points made about the desirability of using longer intervals. (Unless there is something hidden in the graphing tool, I realize I'm ignoring statistical significance. And I would want to understand those data before using it where I was an author. But the picture certainly is interesting.) Also--in my mind at least--shortening the interval to show times when the trend is decreasing over various intervals certainly gives one pause in "calling" a peak, because the ones in the past haven't persisted. I would think you'd want some driver to have changed to increase confidence that something really was different. -
dana1981 at 06:19 AM on 14 June 2011The Critical Decade - Part 3: Implications for Emissions Reductions
"I remain hopeful but not optimistic. And I'm generally an optimist. I see very difficult times ahead for the world as a whole."
I feel exactly the same way, sout. -
scaddenp at 06:10 AM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
KL - read the Gilbert paper and tell me E&E is not a joke. Anything published there will make no contribution to science so the purpose of anyone publishing there is political. -
Michael.M at 06:01 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
In a real lot of discussions the "cooling" since 1995, 1998, 2000, 2001 etc. (depends on how outdated the pseudo-sceptic article is, on which the discussant refers) shines up. I have some links handy with the four main timeseries, suitable fo the most common situations: 1995 until today 1998 until today 2000 until end of 2010 2000 until todayResponse:[DB] Fixed missing equals signs from html url tags
-
Rob Painting at 06:00 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
John Russell @ 38 - Has Roger Harrabin not dealt with Phil Jones before? "Strong answer " doesn't seem to be in Jones' skill set. Regardless, thanks for clarifying the circumstances. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:54 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
36, Dikran, Here's the headline after Dikran Marsupial, a lead figure in the climate change debate, gives an interview to the BBC (and this is an exact quote):"There is no trend and the Earth isn't warming" says lead climate scientist Dikran Marsupial
You can't win at this game. You just can't. -
DSL at 05:51 AM on 14 June 2011CO2 limits will harm the economy
I agree, to an extent, Adelady, but only with the recognition that, in addition to being the best target for bloodless fundamental change, the middle class is also the flywheel of "business as usual." Advocates for social change have been trying to resolve that contradiction for over a century with little success. I'm still mostly of the mind that it's going to take two boots to the head to get anything of significant consequence done. -
P@J at 05:46 AM on 14 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
Funny, I commented this very topic the previous week on my (much lesser than this) blog: http://greennewwest.blogspot.com/2011/06/geology-and-climate-denial.html but I was prompted by this: http://www.gacmacottawa2011.ca/technicalprogram.php -
KR at 05:44 AM on 14 June 2011Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
I posted a link back to this discussion on WUWT. It will be interesting to see if there's any response. -
John Russell at 05:34 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Rob painting writes: "And yes, he probably would not be invited back, because providing context and dictating the narrative would have circumvented the story that was trying to be spun." In this case that's not the situation. Roger Harrabin, the BBC's reporter is straight up -- but I don't think he realised the significance of the question he was asking. And if he did he would probably have been hoping Jones would have given a stronger rebuttal. Remember that most interviewers talking to a single individual have to ask devil's advocate questions because they cause the interviewee to respond with strong answers. I suggest anyone likely to be interviewed analyses interviewing techniques on TV -- you can learn a lot. -
Dikran Marsupial at 05:27 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
John Russell I do not question the value of media training, just that for this particular question there is no safe answer to give and remain honest. I'd rather our scientists remained scrupulously honest and leave the non-denialist journalists to point out the deception. Jones clearly did get his point across in a relaxed and friendly manner, just not perhaps the point that we might have wanted him to get across! sphaerica ;o) ... or just have a time machine, I'm sure that is the way Hansen got his predictions so accurate, we all know climate projection is impossible because climate is chaotic! -
Dikran Marsupial at 05:24 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
FWIW, my answer to the question would have explained that not reaching statistical significance can mean two things: (i) there is no trend and the Earth isn't warming or (ii) there isn't enough data to be sure that the trend is not the result of random fluctuations, and that solely by looking at the data from 1995 to 2009 there is no way to know which is true. What we could do is look at a longer timescale, in which case the warming trend is clear (and indeed statistically significant). That would suggest that we just don't have enough data to be sure that the observed trend is not just the result of chance.I could also point out that if you don't have much data (i.e. you look at trends over a small timescale) it is easy to find cooling trends, even while long term warming is clearly going on, for instance:
Again that suggests that the reason for a lack of significance is that there just isn't enough data between 1995 and 2009 to rule out random chance, as there are three other similar (albeit shorter) cooling periods that are very likely to be random chance. If they wanted additional evidence, I'd point them to the paper by Easterling and Wehner on this topic. I'd also point out that another way of deciding would be physics. CO2 is known to be a greenhouse gas, the greenhouse effect has been well understood since the 1950s, and if there were cooling you'd need an explanation as to why there was cooling. In other words we have prior knowledge and the trend between 1995 and 2009 is not the only evidence we have. However I know there is plenty in there to be misconstrued by the deliberate denialist. It is unavoidable.
-
John Russell at 05:23 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
People need to understand the importance and value of media training for anyone who will present climate science to the public -- especially if they're hostile! Media training is about having the confidence to get your point across in a friendly and helpful manner, no matter what you're asked. Most scientists are touchingly naive about this (I've interviewed enough of them to know!). The truth will win in the end but at this point it needs a bit of help. The 'sceptics' are way ahead of you on this. -
KR at 05:15 AM on 14 June 2011Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
Sadly, this skeptic meme has resurfaced at WUWT. The poster in the June 13th item, Dr. Andy Edwards (not a climate scientist, mind you - his background is in AI and chaotic systems) claims climate is unpredictable based on the chaotic behavior of weather. Sigh. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:15 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
The only way Jones could have crafted a perfect answer would have been to him to have seen everything coming (maybe by running an ensemble of interview-reaction models using OUTFOX-E, a popular Global Confusion Model) and then saying something along the lines of: "Well, there is a statistically significant warming trend since X, but the period from 1995 to the present is simply to short to properly use statistical methods to answer your question." That answer, too, would have been a bit of a white lie (if the upward trend were strong and steady enough, it would have been possible, so saying it's not possible is not strictly true, it's just not true as things turned out), but... really, I think it's the only thing he could have said to avoid all that came after. My advice to everyone is to get a supercomputer, and run several thousand iterations of OUTFOX-E before you post a even a simple comment here! -
Rob Painting at 05:14 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Dikran - I think Jones could have done a far better job, rather than let the "skeptics" frame the narrative, he should have done exactly as John Russell suggests. Sure it still would have been distorted, but at least in order to clarify things, one would only need to link to Jones' original response. And yes, he probably would not be invited back, because providing context and dictating the narrative would have circumvented the story that was trying to be spun. -
John Russell at 05:13 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Dikran writes: "Jones answer was fine." It was fine if you're a scientist who understands the language. But while it was scientifically correct it could have been worded to make it clearer to the layperson. For instance I think if Phil Jones had been media trained he would have answered the question, "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?" with the answer... "I've calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive at the 93% significance level. Which means there's only a 7% chance of error." (-- or whatever is scientifically correct). There was no reason to say, 'Yes'. The interviewer is not a judge and they're not in court. Saying 'yes' meant that from that point on he was on the back foot. -
Dikran Marsupial at 05:02 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
CBDunkerson An agressive attitude like that would have gone down rather badly and given the denialists more to work with rather than less. It would almost certainly give the impression that this was an awkward question that he did not want to answer (and would be reported that way by the denialists even if it didn't). -
Robert Murphy at 04:55 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Warming stopped in 2001? Never fear; it started up again in 2006. From 2006 to the present GISS, Hadcrut, UAH, and RSS have a positive trend. If you're going to cherry pick a small sample, so can I. Want something farther back instead? How about 1999 and 2000? From those years to the present we also have a positive trend for those four. How can that be? A cooling trend imbedded in a warming trend and a warming trend imbedded in a cooling trend? Basically, all such small samples show too much noise to make claims about long term trends. That's why longer sample ranges are necessary. Anything else is just mathturbation. -
dana1981 at 04:54 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
From a statistical and scientific standpoint, Jones' answer was fine. But the problem is that most people don't have a very strong grasp of statistics, and his answer was easy to misinterpret. In that sense I agree with John Russell - it would behoove climate scientists to take some media training before being interviewed. It's unfortunate, but they really have to anticipate that there are a lot of people just waiting to pounce on any opportunity to misrepresent their comments. Rather than beginning his answer with the word "yes", Jones probably should have begun it with an explanation about why the question was loaded. -
CBDunkerson at 04:53 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
I do think Jones could have done more to defuse the inevitable distortions by confronting them head on. That is, ask where the interviewer got the questions and note that they appeared to be worded very carefully to be as misleading as possible. His explanation was very detailed and covered all the areas of possible confusion... but that didn't stop them from turning his detailed explanation into just 'no warming'. Calling them on the deception upfront would have made it that much more difficult for them to 'accidentally' misrepresent him. -
Dikran Marsupial at 04:46 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
John Russell I disagree, Jones answer was fine. More or less anything he could have said, whilst still remaining valid, would have been deliberately misrepresented by those that chose to do so. There pretty much isn't a way a layman can understand frequentist statistical hypothesis tests; many scientists who use them every day don't understand them either. I am a statistician and while I understand them, I can't really explain why they are useful in the form they are generally used in science. The point I was really making was that Jones gave a straight answer to a loaded question, unlike some (naming no names) that give loaded answers to straight questions! ;o) -
pbjamm at 04:42 AM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Chris@5 It would be a fun exercise to stoke the anti-science blogs with a carefully crafted story about climate "scientists" ignoring their fundamental errors for decades all the while proclaiming their falsehoods to the compliant MSM (did i hit all the buttons?). The names would only be revealed to those who bothered to read the actual linked papers. It would spread like wildfire before anyone checked up on who the actual scientists are. If only I were a better creative writer. -
John Russell at 04:28 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
[Dikran Marsupial] writes: "Jones gave a completely straight answer to a highly loaded question, an example to which we should all aspire." Hmm. There's a lesson to be learned here. Scientists being interviewed by the media should take some media training. No politician would have fallen for an ambush like that. Climate Scientists need to start thinking more like politicians. It's not being dishonest; it's just thinking through how your responses can be misrepresented by those with intent to deny. Remember, if you pause and think, nine times out of ten the editor will have to cut out the pause. By all means fill the gap by saying something like, "let me explain this in ways the layman can understand..." pause... (as long as you like)... then answer. Don't be rushed! Of course if you're live on air you might not get asked again: but what's worse -- that, or being haunted for a year by something you said too hurriedly? And that's free advice from someone who has been interviewing people for doccos for 35 years. -
Albatross at 04:28 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Dana @24, "I find it a bit silly, in comments on an article about cherrypicking data since 1995, that we're now cherrypicking data since 2001." It is how they manufacture debate and confuse Dana. But I'm sure you know that and are being too polite about it :) -
dana1981 at 04:24 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
To clarify the new 2001 cherrypick issue, HadCRUT is the only dataset which shows a (miniscule) cooling trend over that period. As noted in the post above, HadCRUT is also not a complete global dataset, as it excludes much of the Arctic. The global surface temperature datasets, and even the satellites, show a warming trend since 2001, though none are statistically significant as it's too short of a timeframe (also discussed in the post). I find it a bit silly, in comments on an article about cherrypicking data since 1995, that we're now cherrypicking data since 2001. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:17 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
CW... You're also engaging in cherry picking of data sets to claim any cooling from 2001 to the present. Only CRU shows any cooling. GISS and UAH both show clear warming, and RSS shows essentially flat.Response:[DB] Indeed. When one considers the warming of the Arctic excluded by CRU, the cherry-pick becomes even more obvious:
Especially when viewed latitudinally:
[Source]
Prev 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 Next
