Climategate

[Americano]

Where is Al Gore... is he waiting on summer to come out and seam global warming...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...organised.html

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
By Jonathan Petre

• Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
• There has been no global warming since 1995
• Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

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.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.
Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.
The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

[Unido]

Blasphemy!

[Cal]

its 50 degrees in vancouver. oh wait climate change is a myth

[Soldier]

and it was fucking hot in Cali yesterday oh wait

[Americano]

I didnt snow in Dallas .....oh wait...

[Unido]

Originally Posted by Americano

I didnt snow in Dallas .....oh wait...

Houston has been cold for several months thanks to Global WARMING!

The rain has exited New Orleans, where Mardi Gras activities will culminate on Fat Tuesday. Daytime highs will be near 50 degrees, while temperatures will drop quickly through the 40s and into the 30s during the evening hours in the Big Easy.

http://www.accuweather.com/regional-...on=southusnews

[miguelito21]

Same mistake, once again. Empty brains don't learn.

As I already tried to explain, before posting an article about what some guy said in another article, it's best to take at least a quick read of the article in question. Just so you don't look like a dumbass - again.


------------------------

has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Nope, he didn't.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

No verifiable source, eh?

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

Nope, he didn't.

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.

Nope, he didn't suggest that.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence

Idiots are not skeptics. They're just idiots.



----------------------------------


Daily Mingle




Yesterday, the Daily Mail of the UK published a predictably inaccurate article entitled “Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995″.

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.

The article also incorrectly equates instrumental surface temperature data that Jones and CRU have assembled to estimate the modern surface temperature trends with paleoclimate data used to estimate temperatures in past centuries, falsely asserting that the former “has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’”.

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

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.


-------------------------------------


Excerpts from the BBC Q&A with 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. [...] Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.




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.




D - Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.

[...] Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period. [note: this means that natural influences were pushing in the opposite direction to what was observed.]





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. [...] There's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity





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?

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.
[...]
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.





Q - Let's talk about the e-mails now: In the e-mails you refer to a "trick" which your critics say suggests you conspired to trick the public? You also mentioned "hiding the decline" (in temperatures). Why did you say these things?


This remark has nothing to do with any "decline" in observed instrumental temperatures. The remark referred to a well-known observation, in a particular set of tree-ring data, that I had used in a figure to represent large-scale summer temperature changes over the last 600 years.

The phrase 'hide the decline' was shorthand for providing a composite representation of long-term temperature changes made up of recent instrumental data and earlier tree-ring based evidence, where it was absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect impression given by the tree rings that temperatures between about 1960 and 1999 (when the email was written) were not rising, as our instrumental data clearly showed they were.

This "divergence" is well known in the tree-ring literature and "trick" did not refer to any intention to deceive, in this case joining the earlier valid part of the tree-ring record with the recent, more reliable instrumental record.

I was justified in curtailing the tree-ring reconstruction in the mid-20th Century because these particular data were not valid after that time.
[...]
The misinterpretation of the remark stems from its being quoted out of context.




---------------------------


Where's the U-turn??

[Unido]

Originally Posted by miguelito21

Where' the U-turn??

Where's the (s)?

[miguelito21]

Fixed.

[Unido]

puro pedo.... I was just joking.

[miguelito21]

It's cool, the letter was indeed missing.

That you would consider this to be the only thing worthy of comment in the whole post is rather telling, although not really surprising.

If you wanna help your buddy answer the question, feel free.


By the way, you still haven't replied in this earlier thread.

[Unido]

Originally Posted by miguelito21

It's cool, the letter was indeed missing.

That you would consider this to be the only thing worthy of comment in the whole post is rather telling, although not really surprising.

If you wanna help your buddy answer the question, feel free.


By the way, you still haven't replied in this earlier thread.

man I didn't even read your long ass post. I am not gonna lie.

[miguelito21]

lmao

ok, ok.

[Unido]

Originally Posted by miguelito21

lmao

ok, ok.

cool.

[miguelito21]

Think he's gonna answer?

[Unido]

Originally Posted by miguelito21

Think he's gonna answer?

huh? Who?

[miguelito21]

The author of the thread, your buddy Americano.

[Unido]

oh ok...

[Americano]

I didnt read it either... too long and im outside reving the suv to cause more global warming......brrrrrrrrrrr

[miguelito21]

lmao Sure, great excuse.


Reading is not your forte, eh? It shows.

Lemme help you out:

Originally Posted by miguelito21

Same mistake, once again. Empty brains don't learn.

As I already tried to explain, before posting an article about what some guy said in another article, it's best to take at least a quick read of the article in question. Just so you don't look like a dumbass - again.


------------------------

Nope, he didn't.

No verifiable source, eh?

Nope, he didn't.

Nope, he didn't suggest that.

Idiots are not skeptics. They're just idiots.

----

Where's the U-turn??

Short enough for your limited capacities?

[Unido]

Originally Posted by Americano

I didnt read it either... too long and im outside reving the suv to cause more global warming......brrrrrrrrrrr

Don't rev it up too much you may melt the snow on the hood.

[Americano]

miguelito..
i call bs..

Yes he did, source is verifiable send request to the author, Yes, he did, Yes he did suggest, idiots are those who believe in global warming.

clear enough for ya

[miguelito21]

i call bs..

on what exactly?

Yes he did, source is verifiable send request to the author, Yes, he did, Yes he did suggest

how can you know, if you didn't read the original interview?

[Unido]