Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Admiral Danger

Climategate U-turn as scientist admit

43 posts in this topic

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’.

arrow3.gifRead more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dailyfail with misrepresentation.

It is neither a u-turn nor is it saying there has been no warming since 1995, the trend is still a rising one but not a significantly rising one hence the last decade was warmer than the one prior to it.

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.

Is the actual statement. It should also be pointed out that between 1975 and 2009 there is a significant rise. Significant results are always much less likely in a smaller data set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jones seems to want to change his public view to that a moderate semi-AGW-proponent. Definitely a good choice if he wants to continue with his career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

arrow3.gifRead more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the questionable dailymail, I have to wonder what kind of evidence would it take for people to believe that the IPCC has discarded evidence, that was contrary to their goal, that it seems politics have played in their findings.

According to some people, they are the end all, be all, authority on climate change and no one else can possibly understand it, no matter what their credentials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, did any of you people read the actual quote, it is enough to show how bad and inaccurate the headline is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

From the same link as the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor Al Gore - Global warming - debunked by the very Internet you created! Oh - the irony! :D

Seriously, Jones' move is a calculated one for sure. During the whole Climategate affair he self quarantined himself in his home. Obviously he feels it's safe now to double back and avoid any short term repercussions - or at least try to.

So I guess it's a given that Cap and Trade won't go through - especially with most of the northeastern coast being under a foot of snow. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I guess it's a given that Cap and Trade won't go through - especially with most of the northeastern coast being under a foot of snow. ;)

Although I support neither side of this debate I can say with certainty that a warmer winter will produce more snow. As long as the temp sits between 20 F and 32 F you will get snow more readily than if the temp were sitting in the teens or single digits. So GW would result in more snow for awhile at least. Once the winters get mild enough to hover above freezing you will get rain instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the same link as the OP.

Actually what he actually said was (question in bold)

DDo 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.

This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). 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.

Please read the interview not some rags quote mining of it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt is that the same BBC whose impartiality went out the window when the head of the BBC met with these east Anglia "experts" and once the meeting was finished they (the BBC) announced, global warming was proven beyond doubt and that BBC coverage no longer had to give equal amounts of air time to the debate when it comes to global warming.

less than 24 hours after this announcement Newsnight devoted 20 minutes to the proponents of global warming and just 5 minutes to the Opponents of Global warming.

why should we take any notice of the QandA session you have posted the BBC's colours are firmly nailed to the mast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and here comes the next climate-gate...

UN global warming data skewed by heat from planes and buildings

Weather stations which produced data pointing towards man-made global warming may have been compromised by local conditions, a new report suggests.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7236011/UN-global-warming-data-skewed-by-heat-from-planes-and-buildings.html

matt, do you remember, maybe 2-3 weeks ago, i told you that the can of worms had just been opened, and that there were far more than the IPCC fiddling facts and statistics? do you remember what i told you about weather stations?

goodbye climate change, here's the next global panic tool...

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/water-scarcity-now-bigger-threat-than-financial-crisis-1645358.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt is that the same BBC whose impartiality went out the window when the head of the BBC met with these east Anglia "experts" and once the meeting was finished they (the BBC) announced, global warming was proven beyond doubt and that BBC coverage no longer had to give equal amounts of air time to the debate when it comes to global warming.

less than 24 hours after this announcement Newsnight devoted 20 minutes to the proponents of global warming and just 5 minutes to the Opponents of Global warming.

why should we take any notice of the QandA session you have posted the BBC's colours are firmly nailed to the mast.

I think you have misunderstood a little here Steve, it is the transcript of the meeting that is being used to quote mine for bad journalism, that is why, the BBC QandA is the original source material. They are deliberately misquoting that interview. It makes no difference whether you argee with what was said. It is patently obvious though that the Mail has been academically fraudulent.

and here comes the next climate-gate...

UN global warming data skewed by heat from planes and buildings

Weather stations which produced data pointing towards man-made global warming may have been compromised by local conditions, a new report suggests.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7236011/UN-global-warming-data-skewed-by-heat-from-planes-and-buildings.html

matt, do you remember, maybe 2-3 weeks ago, i told you that the can of worms had just been opened, and that there were far more than the IPCC fiddling facts and statistics? do you remember what i told you about weather stations?

goodbye climate change, here's the next global panic tool...

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/water-scarcity-now-bigger-threat-than-financial-crisis-1645358.html

Not really, you are just looking at the politics and not the science. Sat readings show warming trend too.

As do Anthony Watts weather stations that he thinks are good (as shown by NASA) which Mr Watts likes not to advertise.

Sorry, expand, but in science, there is still consensus.

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt. I have one question regarding the satalite temperature readings.

Surely as the cities and urban areas around the world expand this will increase the localized warming in that area. And when working out the average global temperature you have to include these areas. Hence the average global temperature will increase gradually (when measured from space) and local temperatures will have dramatic increases.

As we know, the rate of temperature increase is approximately 0.12oC per decade. Would the increase in urbanization, especially in third world countries, account for this very slight temperature increase? I would assume that this is the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt. I have one question regarding the satalite temperature readings.

Surely as the cities and urban areas around the world expand this will increase the localized warming in that area. And when working out the average global temperature you have to include these areas. Hence the average global temperature will increase gradually (when measured from space) and local temperatures will have dramatic increases.

As we know, the rate of temperature increase is approximately 0.12oC per decade. Would the increase in urbanization, especially in third world countries, account for this very slight temperature increase? I would assume that this is the case.

I don't personally think it would, the temperatures in those regions tend not to vary as much. But I will have a look around and see if I can find anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the info in that interview came from East Anglia, not Dr. Jones. Not sure how to take that, and I was rather p***ed at some of the questions he declined to answer. BBC is biased in the matter to begin with, anyway, so how can we even be sure they recorded the interview accurately?

And on a further note, there's a three year overlap in that time span from the 70s to 1998, with the last fifteen years. So shouldn't he have said that there was no significant warming for the last 12 years?

Edited by J.B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Global warming or not, I'd bet money on there being a ****-ton of natural and man made disasters over the next few years regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Global warming or not, I'd bet money on there being a ****-ton of natural and man made disasters over the next few years regardless.

Yep, that is pretty much a certainty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should we think his faulty record keeping started after he collected and analyzed the data?

How can he make these new press statements about the data he can not find?

How many grants has this lost data gotten him?

Would you lose your meal ticket?

If in almost any other profession would he not be unemployed?

Just asking Questions, like I think we all should!

I don't have the answers, but I remember another prediction. pollution will cause an impending ice age ... global warming ... climate change ... insert next scary catch phrase here the next time they want a grant. So this way to the grand egress! there is one born every second. was it you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should we think his faulty record keeping started after he collected and analyzed the data?

What faulty record keeping? CRU has all its data, just that most of it belongs to the MET office. CRU hasn't held a lot of the raw data since 1986, before Jones was in charge, it is all at the MET office though.

How can he make these new press statements about the data he can not find?

What press statements? Fine to ask questions but at least be relevant.

How many grants has this lost data gotten him?

Again, there is no lost data.

Would you lose your meal ticket?

Irrelevant.

If in almost any other profession would he not be unemployed?

No, because you are basing all your questions off incorrect supposition.

Just asking Questions, like I think we all should!

I don't have the answers, but I remember another prediction. pollution will cause an impending ice age ... global warming ... climate change ... insert next scary catch phrase here the next time they want a grant. So this way to the grand egress! there is one born every second. was it you?

That impending ice age was never a scientifically held consensus, just something the media latched onto, climate change was establish science before it hit the media, it has over 40 years of work behind it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually what he actually said was (question in bold)

Please read the interview not some rags quote mining of it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

First of all, the article in the OP and the link you provided are different authors. It is called Journalism. They take what is collected and reprint it in a way to avoid problems such as plagerism.

Anyway. From the link in the quote:

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

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. 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.

So it is clear that the "rag" actually had the basic facts correct and actually only omitted information to make it seem more drastic. Would you say that is correct?

H - If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?

The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing - see my answer to your question D.

I do agree there is man-made elements to warming in the last decade. The debate should be about how much and how fast. I'm inclined to believe it is not a crisis, but is definately a worry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we alone aren't responsible for climate change but the planet is getting warmer and warmer plain and simple and i think we are factoring into that in a small or big way i don't know but we would have to be one of the factors IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, the article in the OP and the link you provided are different authors. It is called Journalism. They take what is collected and reprint it in a way to avoid problems such as plagerism.

The article was based on the Q and A by the BBC yes, didn't expect them to do word for word, but they did quote mine and that I am opposed to, especially with science.

Anyway. From the link in the quote:

So it is clear that the "rag" actually had the basic facts correct and actually only omitted information to make it seem more drastic. Would you say that is correct?

Yes, but that information is vital to understanding data an can make a massive difference in perception and can make it appear , that is why it is quote mining. That is my issue with it, it making out that something has been said when it hasn't.

I do agree there is man-made elements to warming in the last decade. The debate should be about how much and how fast. I'm inclined to believe it is not a crisis, but is definately a worry.

The media most definitely does blow exaggerate the case sadly, I have seen strong comments made about dire predictions in papers and reading the paper, no such thing is said!

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor Al Gore - Global warming - debunked by the very Internet you created! Oh - the irony! :D

You see this people? That is a WIN that's so spectacular, I nearly fell off my chair and went into convulsions from it's sheer awesomeness. :D

Edited by SpiderCyde

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You see this people? That is a WIN that's so spectacular, I nearly fell off my chair and went into convulsions from it's sheer awesomeness. :D

Nah, it shows DS knows about as much on climatology as he does on Egyptology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.