doubleplusundead

February 14, 2010

Have you seen this article - Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Sounds like a win right? Read the article carefully, I'm not quite sure that's waht he actually said:

He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.
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.

I don't know who wrote this, but that first paragraph is misleading as hell. What it says is that Jones is now ascribing the 1975 to 1998 warming to natural rather than AGW causes. That is incorrect. 1975 to 1998 is the main period in which AGW is supposed to have occurred. The second paragraph is also misleading as hell. A quick read and it appears he is admitting global warming has stopped, but that isn't what he is actually say. He is actually claiming that the process is continuing we just are seeing an output from it at the moment.

The other major mistake in the article is the claim that he is admitting the medieval warming period could have been global. Read the article carefully. That is not what he says:

Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘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.
‘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.’

What he says is there is no data to show that the MWP was global, but if there was and the temps were less than they are today than AGW would still be the main cause.

I would be very careful in referencing this as an anti-AGW victory.

source added

Posted by: chad98036 at 12:50 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 423 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Go to WUWT. Anthony has bullet points on what he said, and a link to the BBC interview where you can here Jones himself.
The admission that will get the most attention is that there was a MWP--goodbye hockey stick.

Posted by: cbullitt at February 14, 2010 01:09 PM (gwh5D)

2 It's global warmmongering boilerplate.
Don't mention the Sun in any context or downplay it if it comes up.

If you have to talk about recent trends, do so but ensure that everybody knows it's an anomaly and that the warming will start real soon.

You see, the Sun has had almost no sunspots for a long time, people keep expecting it to start up "any day now". We've only been able to study it with any kind of accuracy for like 50 years and it hasn't been acting "normally" for the last two years.

So they kept saying the warming would start because once the Sun starts, the Earth will warm again. *

There have been like 5 sunspots in the last week or two after there having been none or just one at a time for 2 years so maybe their getting their wish.

My prediction stands, Al Gore will finally notice the cooling and so will go on about the "Coming Ice Age" because he's stupid.
Everywhere he goes it will be much warmer than usual because Gaia hates him.

*Sunspots affect solar wind
Botth are way, way down.
Apparently, the solar wind blocks cosmic rays, so the stronger it is the fewer we get and contrariwise.
Cosmic rays affect cloud formation, the more rays the more clouds, the more clouds the colder the Earth.

And that's why global warmmongers downplay the Sun and totally ignor it and cloud formation in their "model"
It blows their whole "Anthropomorphic" bit out of the warming water.

Posted by: Veeshir at February 14, 2010 01:44 PM (9nacF)

3 Where is the interview? He doesn't mention it in the Mail article.
In the Mail article there is this hilarity.

He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.

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.

Get it? He's still claiming WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!! because the recent warming isn't like the other warmings.
But then he says it hasn't been warming recently.

Even when they don't lie, global warmmongers lie.

Posted by: Veeshir at February 14, 2010 02:14 PM (9nacF)

4 I hope that's clear.
He says the warming from1975-1998 was natural.
He then says the recent warming is not natural.
He then says it hasn't warmed in 15 years (going back to 1995).
So what recent warming?
That from 8am to 2pm?
At the rate it's been warming here, it'll be about 45 degrees by around midnight and I don't even want to know how warm it'll be just before dawn, probably around 70 or so.
And tomorrow night? WE'LL ALL BE DEAD!!!!!1!!!!

Posted by: Veeshir at February 14, 2010 02:17 PM (9nacF)

5 Solar influence was about flat over this period.

That's a flat out lie.
The Sun has been acting very weird the last two years, it was more active before 1998 and it went down steadily until 2008 when it shut down. Before that, it had similar cycles, suddenly it stopped it's sin-curve-like graph.
As I wrote about global warmmongers boilerplate
Don't mention the Sun in any context or downplay it if it comes up.

I've been paying a lot of attention to this for probably 5 years. A lot. I started out asking questions and got slapped down for even asking them.
"But that doesn't make sense" I'd say.
"Shut up" They'd explain.

Posted by: Veeshir at February 14, 2010 02:28 PM (9nacF)

6 I was agreeing with that point, I was trying to point out that even as he tried to play scientist, he lied.

Global Warmmongers lie. It's what they do.

Posted by: Veeshir at February 14, 2010 02:32 PM (9nacF)

7 What do you mean "smooth"?
Do you mean the "smoothed" trendline? That's the point of smoothing.

That graph shows what I was talking about.
Look at the jagged peaks and valleys. It goes up, it goes down, all in a predictable fashion.
Then, 2 years ago it went flat.
Here's NASA's page tracking sun spots.
In December of 05, they had #837.
In December of 06 they were up to 932.
In December of 07 they were up to 975, trend slowing.
In December of 08 they were up to 1009
In December of 09 they were up to 1039

In 2005-2007 I clicked on late December, the 29th or the 22nd, and there were sunspots, a few on the first one, 2 on 06, 1 in 07.
In 08 and 09 I had to click around to find one with any sunspots.
So it went from nearly a 100/year to 60/year, to 34 the last two years.
Last week there were a bunch.
It went from 1041 to 1047 quick.
But now? They're only showing up to 1046. Sometimes they come and go, I figure it's because they're around the Sun when they take the pic, but they haven't had 1048 in the last week, after having 3 or 4 at once and 5 or 6 in just over a week.
Maybe it just burped.
Which could mean we're screwed. Scientists are really freaking out. The Sun is refusing to act the way they it's acted since they've able able to really study it, that's about 50 years ago.

If the Sun doesn't make with the sunspots, it's going to get colder and colder unless we can figure out to really make the planet warm, not that CO₂ bushwah.
Feeding Gaia plant food ain't gonna stop the glaciers unless we breed a type of super plant that eats glaciers and grows Skittles.

Posted by: Veeshir at February 14, 2010 03:32 PM (E8ejU)

8 I should have said, "The temp warmed and cooled with the peaks and valleys".

Posted by: Veeshir at February 14, 2010 03:32 PM (E8ejU)

Feeding Gaia plant food ain't gonna stop the glaciers unless we breed a type of super plant that eats glaciers and grows Skittles.

Forget feeding Gaia, someone needs to breed a plant that grows Skittles for my garden to feed me.

Posted by: Ember at February 14, 2010 03:39 PM (LdRAG)

10 Actually, I should have said, "The peaks and valleys matched the global temps until recently, then Hansen and East Anglia "smoothed" them."

Posted by: Veeshir at February 14, 2010 03:49 PM (E8ejU)

11 The baseline is very short, so of course it's going to be relatively smooth. If it weren't, well, things would be really interesting. But it went up and down. That tracked with much warmer in the 30s and 90s. We don't know what the temp is today, the people in charge of that are diddling the numbers anymore.

I will say that the temperature was "smooth" as well if you look at it that way. It "warmed" about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the 20th Century, according to the IPCC. (the graph is small, but notice the "Y" axis is "0-1" and it doesn't warm even the whole degree Celcius) That's pretty flat too.

Long-term tracking of sunspots and temp is suspect and useless for any but gross predictions.
Longer ago than 50 years ago, it wasn't what we would call accurate.
Longer ago than we used computers to do it, it was some guy with a telescope with filters (probably horn or wax paper longer than 100 years ago) counting them and putting that in a notebook.
How do you track that?
Did they take all the readings all over the world, average them and that's your number? Or did they decide 'these aren't reliable' so threw them out and discounted Chinese and took European or the other way around? Did they just trust Her Majesty's Royal Institute of Sunspots and discount everybody else?

So when your baseline is 50 years long and you're studying something that's been around billions of years, well, your graph had better be fairly smooth or it's time to repent your sins.
But even in the short, short baseline we have it's been going up and down with the last two years being flat (not smooth, smooth would mean it was going up right now) even on our short baseline.

So in one sense, well duh, of course it's been smooth if you look at billions of years.
But if you look at it in the very short baseline it's been, it's not that smooth.

Posted by: Veeshir at February 14, 2010 04:34 PM (E8ejU)

12 I think we've been "arguing" past each other.
I misread what you wrote to start and basically I've been "argreeing" with you.

"Argreeing": To agree with while appearing to be arguing with.

Posted by: Veeshir at February 14, 2010 05:03 PM (E8ejU)

13 The questions I have never seen warmists asked (and would LOVE to actually have them answer) is that all of their doom and gloom comes from their oh-so-accurate computer models, right? So how many of their flawless computer models predicted the cooling trend of the past few years?

Here's the thing, they can claim that the current trend is due to lower than average sunspot activity, and that we'll all fry just as soon as it gets back on track due to AGW till they're blue in the face. But they cannot explain how their perfect models failed utterly to predict it. If your premise is completely based on modeling which is shown by data to be incorrect, the proper scientific response is NOT to double down on stupid, but to realize that your model is not accurate. There are no two ways about that. Your predictive model failed to take solar activity into account. What else does it not account for? But hey, keep fucking that chicken.

Posted by: MikeD at February 15, 2010 11:05 AM (FkL60)

Hide Comments | Add Comment