ClimateGate busts things wide open

rick wrote:How anyone can say 'there has been no further global warming at all' this century is talking utter boll**ks. every year is warmer than any year in the past century (bar one).

Phil Jones 13 Feb 2010

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

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.

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.

Phil Jones thinks the temp is neither up nor down - I guess that means "flat line". I also suspect that since 2010 the temp has continued to "flat line".

Then again - maybe Phil Jones does talk b*llocks

“ON the whole, the year 2011 was somewhat cooler than 2010… "

Ole Humlum, Professor of Physical Geography
Department of Physical Geography, Institute of Geosciences
University of Oslo, Norway

http://www.climate4you.com/Text/Climate ... r_2011.pdf

“ON the whole, the year 2011 was somewhat cooler than 2010… "

.

Not surprising, as 2010 is the second hottest year on record. cannot expect it to go up every year - La Nina, weather, etc.

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.

Phil Jones thinks the temp is neither up nor down - I guess that means "flat line". I also suspect that since 2010 the temp has continued to "flat line".

.

Phil jones being cautious. if you take a 10 year period (we now have 2 more years available) it will be higher. Take any 10 year period you like in the 20th century and it will be cooler. Statistically significant is the issue because climate is usually measured on a 40 year or even 100 year average; more years, greater the significance.

rick wrote:How anyone can say 'there has been no further global warming at all' this century is talking utter boll**ks. every year is warmer than any year in the past century (bar one).

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years

By David Rose

Last updated at 5:38 AM on 29th January 2012

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit.

It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z1ktbetvO0

Here's what the Met Office says about the Daily Mail article:

"This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.

Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997."

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/

To add to Rose's deceitful article, the graph of annual average global temperature he includes is wrong. It shows 1998 as the hottest year, while it is actually the 3rd hottest. 2005 and 2010 were higher; the temperatures for these 2 years have been reduced by who ever drew that graph up.. i can only assume it was created using selected data (not that from accepted internationally recognised calculations) or is deliberately wrong to mislead the reader. About the only thing he got right was that, yes, the Met office and the East Anglian Climate research unit released new data - as they do every month. THEY were not claiming it shows no warming.

As for the sunspot cycles - yes, they are statistically associated with cooler winters - (as has been experienced in the last 4 years in europe and elsewhere -but historical evidence suggests the effects are normally small. As to the next minimum causing the Thames to freeze again, that is pure speculation.

In the NasaGiss summary of 2011 James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Makiko Sato and Ken Lo, say

"Thus, although the current global warming graphs are suggestive of a slowdown in global warming, this apparent slowdown may largely disappear as a few more years of data are added…We conclude that the slowdown of warming is likely to prove illusory, with more rapid warming appearing over the next few years.”

The purpose of my quoting this Nasa press release is the use of words. The slowdown is ‘apparent’ and will prove ‘illusory’ if warming resumes.

The slowdown/standstill is not ‘apparent,’ it is real. In addition, if warming resumes the standstill will not prove ‘illusory,’ but rather temporary. This is not the way to dispassionately describe scientific data.

http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/ ... still.html

http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/b ... tica-log-2–no-lie-can-live-forever

“As Jim Hansen the scientist said on this ship: ‘We cannot continue to burn all the coal, oil from the tar sands without pushing the planet out of control. It’s time to stop subsidising fossil fuels. The quickest way of solving the problem is to tax all fossil fuels and distribute the taxes back to every man and woman in the country. “”

I wonder if they plan to take this message to China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc? Or only to industrialised western nations?

As for "redistribution of taxes" - I assume this will include working people who buy petrol to earn a living - tax them, then give them back the tax?????

Climate Review: essential links

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed ... tial-links

Body Blow To German Global Warming Movement! Major Media Outlets Unload On “CO2 Lies!”

"This is huge. More than I ever could have possibly imagined. And more is coming in the days ahead! The Bild piece was just the first of a series.

Mark this as the date that Germany’s global warming movement took a massive body blow.

Today, not one, but two of Germany’s most widely read news media published comprehensive skeptical climate science articles in their print and online editions, coinciding with the release of a major climate skeptical book, Die kalte Sonne (The Cold Sun).

Germany has now plunged into raucus discord on the heated topic of climate change

What has set it all off? One of the fathers of Germany’s modern green movement, Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a social democrat and green activist, decided to author a climate science skeptical book together with geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Vahrenholt’s skepticism started when he was asked to review an IPCC report on renewable energy. He found hundreds of errors. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned, he asked himself, “Is this the way they approached the climate assessment reports?”

Vahrenholt decided to do some digging. His colleague Dr. Lüning also gave him a copy of Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion. He was horrified by the sloppiness and deception he found. Persuaded by Hoffmann & Campe, he and Lüning decided to write the book. Die kalte Sonne cites 800 sources and has over 80 charts and figures. It examines and summarizes the latest science."

Conclusion: climate catastrophe is called off

The science was hyped. The book started hitting the bookshops today and has already hit no. 1 on the Amazon.de list for environment books. Indications show that it will climb very high in the overall bestseller charts. It’s published by a renowned publishing house and is now sending shock waves through the German climate science establishment. The first printing will produce 20,000 copies. I expect they will sell out rather quickly."

Read more at: http://notrickszone.com/2012/02/06/body ... -co2-lies/

Well, don't wet your pants over this, I am sure there is a logical explanation.

You are one excited cat!!!

So, calm down take a number of deep breaths and everything will be fine in the universe.

Laan Yaa Mo wrote:Well, don't wet your pants over this, I am sure there is a logical explanation.

You are one excited cat!!!

So, calm down take a number of deep breaths and everything will be fine in the universe.

The logical explanation is science is not settled and the danger of "AGW" is greatly exagerated.

See, that was easy, and your one-sentence summation was far superior to your previous posts with quotes from all over the map, and run-ins with other forum members.

Leave it at that, and you will earn some credit and respect on the forum.

Laan Yaa Mo wrote:See, that was easy, and your one-sentence summation was far superior to your previous posts with quotes from all over the map, and run-ins with other forum members.

Leave it at that, and you will earn some credit and respect on the forum.

Must be that time of the month laan Yaa Mo. Have a bex, a cup of tea and a nice lie down - will do you good.

DENIERGATE

A number of Internal documents of the 'Heartland Institute' have been leaked, revealing who donates money to them and what it was spent on (mainly supporting Climate sceptics, who are being paid up to $11,600 a month and other climate sceptic bodies such as the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)). Between 25% and 58% of their annual funding come from one source (the Anonymous Donor) who appears to specifically fund Global warming related work. The Heartland Institute admit that the level of their support for Climate scepticism is mainly dependant on this one donor. Who this donor is, is not known, but he has contributed millions of dollars each year and would appear to influence policy. This level of support and influence could be breaking US tax exemption laws. One of their projects is to get modules they design on Global Climate into the school curriculum.

In the UK. the Global Warming Policy Foundation is also funded Anonymously. So we do not know who is funding this work, how much influence they have or why.