Global Warming in Last 15 Years Insignificant, U.K.'s Top Climate Scientist Admits

[WriteDown]

Source: Fox News

The embattled ex-head of the research center at the heart of the Climate-gate scandal dropped a bombshell over the weekend, admitting in an interview with the BBC that there has been no global warming over the past 15 years.

Phil Jones, former head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, made a number of eye-popping statements to the BBC's climate reporter on Sunday. Data from CRU, where Jones was the chief scientist, is key evidence behind the claim that the growth of cities (which are warmer than countryside) isn't a factor in global warming and was cited by the U.N.'s climate science body to bolster statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

Jones's latest statements seemed to contradict the CRU's data.

In response to the question, "do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically significant global warming?", Jones said yes, adding that the average increase of 0.12C per year over that time period "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."

Jones is nevertheless 100% confident that the climate has warmed, he stated, admitting that the Climate-gate scandal has undermined public confidence in science. The scandal has worn down Jones as well: Since the e-mails emerged -- and were subsequently posted online at www.EastAngliaEmails.com -- Jones has stepped down from his position, been forced to admit that he “misjudged” the handling of requests for information, and even acknowledged contemplating suicide...

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/15/global-warming-insignificant-years-admits-uks-climate-scientist/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fscitech+%2528Text+-+SciTech%2529

---

Yikes.

[xultar]

1. I don't think anyone expected it to go from normal to fucking HOTTER THAN HELL in 15 years

DUH.

This is saving the planet for the future, not even these the next two generations.

WTF is wrong with these idiots.

[naaman fletcher]

9. Actually...

The model that the IPCC uses says that the earth should have been increasing significantly during that time period, yet in fact no statistically significant warming has occurred. This suggests that the model is flawed.

The IPCC has also said that there has been significant warming, yet now we know there has not been.

This does not mean I am a climate-denier, but nothing will ever happen if politicians and the IPCC go around spouting off things that are not true.

[WriteDown]

12. Heretic!!!!!

Burn the witch!

[HeresyLives]

2. The Daily Mail writes it up that way, Fox grabs the ball

and runs with it, and in the ensuing melee no one notices he didn't say that, and that scientists are complaining about the Daily Mail misquoting them to bolster denial.

[Schema Thing]

3. This headline is a lie

and this statement is a baldfaced lie: "...admitting in an interview with the BBC that there has been no global warming over the past 15 years."

[ohiodemocratic]

4. Mr. Fox News fan: It's not supposed to be significant in such a relatively short period of time

If you had chosen to quote a real news source (The BBC), which actually interviewed Phil Jones instead of spreading disinformation, you would have read his actual comment:

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.

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

[WriteDown]

8. So we've got a few centuries to work it out....

Cool.

I mean hot.

[grantcart]

18. No we don't

First point only FOX, Republicans and the science challenged use "global warming".

It is 'climate change'. The average can stay the same while extremes increase and, even more importantly, percipitation patterns change radically, all while the average temperature of the planet does not change.

One of the reasons that there isn't as much carbon in the atmosphere is that the Ocean is absorbing it at high rates, changing the acidity of the Ocean. It is entirely possible that by the time that we realize what we are doing to the Oceans it will be too late to reverse the damage. It is going to be difficult to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere but impossible to reduce it in the Oceans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Although the natural absorption of CO2 by the world's oceans helps mitigate the climatic effects of anthropogenic emissions of CO2, it is believed that the resulting decrease in pH will have negative consequences, primarily for oceanic calcifying organisms. These span the food chain from autotrophs to heterotrophs and include organisms such as coccolithophores, corals, foraminifera, echinoderms, crustaceans and molluscs. As described above, under normal conditions, calcite and aragonite are stable in surface waters since the carbonate ion is at supersaturating concentrations. However, as ocean pH falls, so does the concentration of this ion, and when carbonate becomes undersaturated, structures made of calcium carbonate are vulnerable to dissolution.

Research has already found that corals,<18><19><20> coccolithophore algae,<21><22><23><24> coralline algae,<25> foraminifera,<26> shellfish<27> and pteropods<2> experience reduced calcification or enhanced dissolution when exposed to elevated CO2. The Royal Society of London published a comprehensive overview of ocean acidification, and its potential consequences, in June 2005.[9

[WriteDown]

22. Simple questions....

What temperature should the Earth be at?

What caused the last ice age to melt?

And it was global warming for a very long time before it became climate change.

[grantcart]

28. lol

No Scientists always called it climate change, global warming was simply one of the symptoms.


Your basic bias is ridiculous so let me make it real simple.

For the last 100 million years the earth has had a basic climate stasis that was optimum for the development of homo sapiens, after all we evolved in that dish during that time.

Now ever human on earth has become part of a network of producing carbon, many of us have our own cars that combined is throwing millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere.

It is not the scientists responsibility to prove what the changes will be or how harmful or how quickly that harm will occur.

The burden of proof is on those that think that throwing hundreds of millions of tons is not going to have any ill effect to PROVE IT TO A LEVEL OF SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY.

Its not the scientists that are the change agents its the production of carbon emissions thats changing the home of homo sapiens.

So where is the proof that an unlimited amount of carbon emissions will not seriously change climate patterns? BTW everytime that they have a 'record' snowfall or the highest level of hurricaine activity they are proving the scientific projections right.

[WriteDown]

30. So basically, you have no answers. I'll try one more....

During the time of the dinosaurs, the Earth was a balmy 85 degrees and the ice caps were non-existent. Now things are different. Has the Earth experienced global cooling and why?

[wtmusic]

34. At that time the average equatorial temperature was a balmy 135°

so again, I'm not sure what your point is. Most signs point to geologic forces causing global cooling over millions of years.

Now we have global warming occurring over centuries and wiping most of the planet's species out in short order. Curious why this is of no concern to you. Do you own a timeshare in Alaska?

[WriteDown]

35. Geologic forces?

Do you mean a meteor? Please link to the other geologic forces that causes global cooling and where most of the planets species are being wiped out. I think humans, dogs, cats, and cows, and cockroaches are all that is left.

[wtmusic]

36. That's very cute in a stupid kind of way.

"The long-term changes in isotope ratios have been interpreted as a ~140 Myr quasi-periodicty in global climate (Veizer et al. 2000) and some authors (Shaviv and Veizer 2003) have interpreted this periodicity as being driven by the solar system's motions about the galaxy. Encounters with galactic spiral arms can plausibly lead to a factor of 3 increase in cosmic ray flux. Since cosmic rays are the primary source of ionization in the troposphere, these events can plausibly impact global climate. A major limitation of this theory is that existing measurements can only poorly constrain the timing of encounters with the spiral arms.

The more traditional view is that long-term changes in global climate are controlled by geologic forces, and in particular, changes in the configuration of continents as a result of plate tectonics."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record


"According to a 1998 survey of 400 biologists conducted by New York's American Museum of Natural History, nearly 70 percent believed that they were currently in the early stages of a human-caused extinction,<26> known as the Holocene extinction. In that survey, the same proportion of respondents agreed with the prediction that up to 20 percent of all living populations could become extinct within 30 years (by 2028)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction#Mass_extinctions

[WriteDown]

37. Sooooo...

"some authors" say global cooling is caused by geologic forces (not sure where the meteor strike falls into that), but global warming is not caused by these forces? Now that's a thinker :rofl:

And a "survey" says 20 percent of all living populations "could" become extinct within 30 years. Well that settles it. :rofl:

[wtmusic]

38. Though you really don't need any help making an ass out of yourself

the K-T extinction was the result of sudden climate change. Kind of like what's happening now, no? Nothing like what's been happening slooowly over the past 65M years, is it?

Fast climate change = bad. Get it?

Now, are you denying the Holocene Extinction, or do you want to creep out of the room now with your paleocene tail between your legs?

[WriteDown]

39. So you attribute the holocene extinction to global warming?

Once man discovered fire it was all over. :rofl: You're killing me.

[wtmusic]

40. No, many people who are much more knowledgeable than me

"In broad usage, Holocene extinction includes the notable disappearance of large mammals, known as megafauna, starting 10,000 years ago as humans developed and spread. Such disappearances have been considered as either a response to climate change, a result of the proliferation of modern humans, or both."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

You are a real portrait of a denier - all attitude, all preconceptions, no facts, no research, ignorant. A waste of time, and so very deserving of my ignore list.

Have a nice fantasy! :hi:

[WriteDown]

41. Like I said, once man started global warming 10K years ago...

with his fires and candles, then it was all over.

Oh, and I prefer "heretic" to "denier."

[Nederland]

52. Kind of like what's happening now, no?

Errrr, no.

Let's say there are 10 million species on the planet (and that's being generous, some estimates range over 100 million). If 20% of these are going to be extinct over a 30 year period, that works out to be 66,666 extinctions every year. And since that survey was taken in 1998, that means we should have seen 800,000 extinctions in the last 12 years. So I have to ask, what evidence do you have that 800,000 species have gone extinct in the last 12 years? I suppose that if all of the extinctions happened among insects we might not notice, but why would extinctions be limited to insects? Actually, since there are only 950,000 known species of insects, I'm pretty sure we would notice if 800,000 of them had gone extinct over the last 12 years. And what about larger animals, you know, the kind we really couldn't possible miss? For example, the world has 10,234 different species of birds, and if 20% of them are going to be gone by 2028, that works out to be 68 bird extinction every year, or 816 bird extinctions in the last 12 years. Now certainly somebody would have noticed that, right? Now I know you probably loathe the idea of introducing even more actual facts into this discussion, but would you care to guess exactly how many bird extinctions we've actually seen in the last 12 years?

Two. (Corvus hawaiiensis and Melamprosops phaeosoma)

So of the predicted 816 bird extinctions, we've seen two. Therefore, I officially call bullshit on your ridiculous assertion that we are currently undergoing mass extinctions.


FYI, species counts taken from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_biodiversity

[OKIsItJustMe]

55. Have you heard of the "Sixth Extinction"

http://www.google.com/search?q=sixth+extinction

[Nederland]

77. Yes I have

And you missed the point entirely. If, as Leaky claims, between 17,000 and 100,000 species vanish from our planet every year, where is the evidence? That statement of Leakey's was made in 1995--fifteen years ago, meaning we should have seen anywhere from 255,000 to 1.5 million species go extinct since then. If that many species have disappeared, I'd like to know their names. Got a list?

[guardian]

78. excellent point! n/t

[OKIsItJustMe]

81. Not really, no

First, produce me a comprehensive list of all of the species.

[Nederland]

82. Why do you need that?

Are you saying it is impossible to determine that a species is extinct until a comprehensive list of all species exists? Or perhaps you are trying to say that of all the species that exist on the planet, the ones that are going extinct just happen to not be among the 1.2 million species we have identified?

[OKIsItJustMe]

83. Give me that comprehensive list

Then we can make a comprehensive list of the ones which have gone extinct.

[Nederland]

85. Here you go

http://www.eol.org/

[OKIsItJustMe]

87. Hmmm

http://www.eol.org/content/news

IUCN report identifies over 17,000 species at risk of extinction

The IUCN has released its http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/species/red_list/">updated assessment of endangered species in its red list. Of the world’s 5,490 mammals, 79 are extinct or extinct in the wild,and a thousand more endangered or vulnerable. 293 reptiles were added to the list this year. 30% of amphibia are at risk.

[Nederland]

89. Again proving my point?

The prediction calls for 17,000 to 100,000 species to go extinct every year. Do you honestly think a list of 17,000 species that might go extinct in the future supports your position?

[OKIsItJustMe]

96. No, I believe I'll leave it to you to prove your point

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/suppl.1/11466.full
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/45/17436.full
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/29/10827.full

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[guardian]

97. "IUCN report identifies over 17,000 species at risk of extinction"

17,000 species at risk huh? According to http://www.currentresults.com/Environment-Facts/Plants-Animals/number-species.php there are about 1.5 million species on currently alive on earth.

17,000 / 1,589,361 = 0.0106961. So that means 1.069% of species are at risk. Not extinct mind you....just at risk. Put another way that means 98.931% of species are NOT AT RISK.

You think this is evidence of on ongoing MASS EXTINCTION? Give me a break.

[OKIsItJustMe]

80. Start here

http://www.iucnredlist.org/

[Nederland]

84. Thanks

Thanks for the link. After some digging I was able to find this:

http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/summarystatistics/2009RL_Stats_Table_7.pdf

According to this list, the following species went extinct (EX) or extinct in the wild (EW) during 2008:

Nectophrynoides asperginis
Partula labrusca
Partula rosea
Partula varia

Now my math may be bad, but I'm pretty sure that if only four species went extinct in 2008, you are coming up a wee bit short of the predicted 17,000-100,000 species every year.


BTW, you sure do have a knack for providing links to evidence that supports my assertions don't you? :rofl:

[OKIsItJustMe]

86. Disingenuous much?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_animals
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-10/uoc--cme102008.php
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-08/sfsu-nrd080708.php
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-03/aaft-pba031204.php
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=sixth-extinction-wipes-out-animals-08-10-09

[Nederland]

88. Not at all

I provided a list of how many species that went extinct during a single year (2008) according to your own source. As I said, the count is significantly under the predicted number. If you know of a species that went extinct in 2008 and I missed it, I'd be happy to add it to my list.

[OKIsItJustMe]

90. There is no comprehensive list of extant species. They have not all been identified.

Similarly there is no list of extinct species.

[Nederland]

92. Question

Wouldn't you expect the ratio of known species to known extinct species and total species to total extinct species to be the same? If not, why?

[OKIsItJustMe]

93. No, I wouldn't

It seems obvious that extant species are far easier to identify. (Hey! Look at that bird!)

[Nederland]

98. I see

So your argument is that 17,000 to 100,000 species are actually going extinct every year, they just "happen" to be ones that we haven't cataloged. :eyes:

[beardown]

49. More questions.

Do you get full denier credits even when your post was beaten to the board by at least two or three other deniers or is more of a sliding scale like 10 credits for being first, 5 for second, on so on? Or perhaps are you folks more organized and you have a schedule where each of you gets to take turns being first?

I'm actually answering your questions by asking more questions that have just a fleeting connection to the original question which should make you feel right at home.

I'll refer your three questions to the sabre tooth tigers that were debating the very same issue of climate change just a few thousand years ago, however, it may take a while as I'm having a hard time finding any denier sabre tooths to ask.

[WriteDown]

50. Like I said. I prefer "heretic" or "infidel." nt

[Abq_Sarah]

29. It's climate change today

But it was global warming in the late 80's. The theory advanced was that global temperatures would rise because of increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. There was no mention of blizzards or cooler weather. The focus was on a constant increase in warming turning the entire planet into a dustbowl.

[grantcart]

43. link to a peer review article by a scientist that referred to it as global warming

and not climate change in the 1980s please.

[WriteDown]

44. How about a govt website?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/end.html

Or take your pick of books

http://books.barnesandnoble.com/search/results.aspx?WRD=global+warming&box=global%20&pos=0

[grantcart]

46. lol

you are hopeless

global warming is used in the headline, and the author goes on to define the problem as climate change



There is considerable debate centered on the cause of 20th century climate change . Few people contest the idea that some of the recent climate changes are likely due to natural processes, such as volcanic eruptions, changes in solar luminosity, and variations generated by natural interactions between parts of the climate system (for example, oceans and the atmosphere). There were significant climate changes before humans were around and there will be non-human causes of climate change in the future.


It was never argued that the words 'global warming' were never used but that they were discussed as a part of the larger phenomena of climate change.

Your link proves my point as this sentence explains


Nevertheless, with each year, more and more climate scientists are coming to the conclusion that human activity is also causing the climate to change. First on the list of likely human influences is warming due to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere

[WriteDown]

47. So the title is global warming...

but that is not what they're talking about? :eyes:

You may also want to check out that 2nd link I supplied

[dalaigh lllama]

17. Thank you. Reading comprehension evidently isn't a strong suit at Fox

But then, we knew that...

Wonder why this was posted here.

[sui generis]

5. wow how this could get "will get" mischaracterized

He's not denying global warming - he's talking about statistical inference. But when somebody says the opposite of one measure of significance is global warming insignificance then you know they're not a scientist, just another underejimicated reporter.

[mix]

6. BS, the interview says no such thing.

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

[Don Caballero]

7. Anti climate change propaganda

This stuff must be ignored and placed in a filing cabinet far far away. We cannot let the Reich Wing derail good legislation any longer.

[Kingofalldems]

10. Fox news should not be allowed as a source on DU

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. This is journalism?

They claim he said there was no warming, then in the very next paragraph he specifies an average 0.12 degree C warming each year over 15 years - that being well over a full degree Celsius warming, which he says is 'approaching significant warming'. That amount is, of itself, not statistically significant but it does clearly indicate the trend - a trend which is accelerating, largely due to our greenhouse gasses.

But for those who only read headlines and maybe the first paragraph, this DEBUNKS what it actually says is happening!

[WriteDown]

14. Do you understand what statistical significance is? nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. Yes, but Fox News hopes its viewers and readers don't

That way it can mislead them. Thank you for pointing out the way the right wing is distorting reality for its own ends.

[WriteDown]

16. Please explain it then. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. It mean that, with the noise in the values observed, and the number of values in the set,

there would be a 1 in 20 chance that such a trend would appear by accident (for the 95% level that Jones talks about).

[WriteDown]

21. You have it about 100% wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance

"In statistics, a result is called statistically significant if it is unlikely to have occurred by chance..."

Want to guess what it means if the findings are not statistically significant?

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. '1 in 20' is unlikely

Why do you call that "about 100% wrong"?

[WriteDown]

27. Like I said...

"In statistics, a result is called statistically significant if it is unlikely to have occurred by chance..."

Want to guess what it means if the findings are not statistically significant?

This result is not statistically significant. And this is after the model showed marked increased warming. The model is obviously in error.

Not saying there is no climate change, but the trends and speed predicted are not occurring.

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. And my posts still fits the Wikipedia definition

'unlikely' : 1 in 20 is 'unlikely'

'occurred by chance' = 'would appear by accident'

The models predicted a positive trend; there was a postive trend. What "the findings are not statistically significant" means is that the models haven't been proved to be correct yet. They are, most likely, since the trend is positive, but the temperatures have not yet proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the models are completely accurate. Luckily, we're not just relying on temperatures to see what's happening, of course; we have predicted other effects, such as Arctic ice melting, that is also happening.

[WriteDown]

58. Let's put it this way...

It's either statistically significant or it is not. It may very well be statistically significant over a larger period of time, but that would imply the model is off which seems to be the conclusion.

[OKIsItJustMe]

60. Um... no

Let's try to bring some sanity into this. Look at the difference 1995 and 2009.

Now, surely, you're not going to say there was no warming, right? There is a clear upward trend over time. In fact, the warming was faster during this period, than over the entire duration of the graph.

The primary reason for it failing a statistical test, is that there is too much "noise" in the "signal." Temperatures from year to year vary a great deal. (Look at the difference between 1998, and 1997.) A starting year was "cherry picked," and the average temperature varies a great deal. Had a different year been chosen, say... 1994 or 1996 there would have been statistical significance. The problem is that the "sample size" is too small.

[WriteDown]

61. How do you explain the large amount of warming from...

1900-1940? Or how about the drop after 1940? Did CO2 output drop after 1940? Maybe it was due to particulates in the atmosphere due to the atomic bombs? :eyes:

Here is another graph:

[OKIsItJustMe]

66. The earlier warming period just makes sense. That's from greenhouse gas build-up.

(Just like the current period.)

The question about the "post-war period" is the right one to ask. Check out the "Total Flux" line on the 2nd graph. Now, why would "Total Flux" have gone down?

Here's one reason: When you burn coal, or "dirty diesel" along with the carbon, you release a lot of sulphur. "Sulphur dioxide" in the atmosphere reflects some of the sunlight, and combats the "Greenhouse Effect." (That's why http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-07/ff_geoengineering">some propose injecting it into the stratosphere.) Unfortunately, it also precipitates out as "acid rain" so, a few decades back, we started cutting down on our "sulphur emissions."

Remember the bogus claim that in the 1970's scientists thought we were in for "global cooling?" A few actually did. They attributed it to the build-up of sulphur in the atmosphere.

Cutting "sulphur emissions" reduced "acid rain," but, the effects of "greenhouse gases" seem to have become more obvious.

[WriteDown]

69. How much C02 was being produced in 1900?

Considering that China is building 1 coal plant a week, we should be fine at this point.

[OKIsItJustMe]

70. Did you look at the emissions graph?

The answer to your question is right there.

[WriteDown]

71. I did....

But like I said, with China's building of 1 coal plant a week, we should be fine.

[OKIsItJustMe]

73. Right, my mistake (see below)

In short, no, we're not fine.

[OKIsItJustMe]

72. Oh! You mean China's sulphur emissions.

The increasing amount of coal being burned in China may be having some effect on the rate of "global warming." However, it's not a very good strategy.

Sulphur doesn't hang out in the atmosphere as long as carbon does. So, while, in the short term, burning a lot of high-sulphur coal might have a cooling effect, in the long term the carbon will more than make up for it.

[OKIsItJustMe]

74. George W. Bush explains about sulfur emissions and the Greenhouse effect

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html

...

For example, our useful efforts to reduce sulfur emissions may have actually increased warming, because sulfate particles reflect sunlight, bouncing it back into space. ...

[GliderGuider]

62. Statistical significance, sample size and signal to nouise ratio

From the Wikipedia article on statistical significance that has already been discussed in this thread:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance

Statistical significance can be considered to be the confidence one has in a given result. In a comparison study, it is dependent on the relative difference between the groups compared, the amount of measurement and the noise associated with the measurement. In other words, the confidence one has in a given result being non-random (i.e. it is not a consequence of chance) depends on the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and the sample size.

Expressed mathematically, the confidence that a result is not by random chance is given by the following formula by Sackett:

.

The model is fine. The reason a longer series gives higher confidence is that the increased number of samples essentially raises the SNR.

You might need to study some basic stats.

[WriteDown]

63. And if something is NOT statistically significant?

You seem to be operating on the opposite premise.

Here's more on the topic:

http://www.surveysystem.com/signif.htm

[GliderGuider]

64. Then perhaps the sample size is too low for the chosen confidence level.

I'm not sure why you're having such a problem with this. (Well actually I am, but I don't want to run afoul of any board rules yet.)

[WriteDown]

65. And therefore a new study needs to be done....

and the model is not supported. I too wonder why you are having trouble with this. Must be a crisis of "faith."

[GliderGuider]

67. The data is available, and has been crunched interminably.

Do you think we should NOT reduce CO2 emissions?

[WriteDown]

68. Has it?

I disagree with "settled science." I think there are other actual pollutants that are more pressing.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=worlds-top-10-worst-pollution-problems

How often do you hear about these on the news?

[muriel_volestrangler]

75. No, it doesn't imply "the model is off" at all

The model still fits all the readings fine. It's statistically significant over a larger period of time because it takes more readings to reach statistical significance.

Read the blog post referenced in my OP here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x230848

A simplified example: a model says there's a trend of +1 in a series, with a random addition of +1, 0 or -1 on each reading.

Readings so far:
0
2
2
3
4
4
6

If the next reading is '7', then it fits the model. But if you just looked at the readings of '6' and '7', you couldn't say it was statistically significant, even though the difference between the two is precisely what the model says is the trend. The further back you take the readings from, the more confidence you can have in the model.

[wtmusic]

24. Actually m_v is about 95% right

Keep reading your link.

"The significance level is usually denoted by the Greek symbol α (lowercase alpha). Popular levels of significance are 5% (0.05), 1% (0.01) and 0.1% (0.001). If a test of significance gives a p-value lower than the α-level, the null hypothesis is rejected. Such results are informally referred to as 'statistically significant'. For example, if someone argues that "there's only one chance in a thousand this could have happened by coincidence," a 0.001 level of statistical significance is being implied. The lower the significance level, the stronger the evidence required. Choosing level of significance is an arbitrary task, but for many applications, a level of 5% is chosen, for no better reason than that it is conventional."

[WriteDown]

26. Do you know that this level was chosen for that reason?

A poll shows two candidates with 49% for one and 51% for other with a margin for error of 5%. Who is winning?

[wtmusic]

33. Well, I know that "margin of error" is not directly related to "statistical significance"

so I'm not sure what your point is.

[WriteDown]

59. See post 58. nt

[OKIsItJustMe]

45. Have you considered why the year 1995 was chosen?

Look at the graph:

Find the year 2000, and count back to 1995. Do you see any increase between 1995 and 2009?

OK, now check out 1994, 1993, 1992...

Look back to 1985...

[Nederland]

51. Interesting graph

I wonder what caused the increase in temperature between 1910 and 1945? Care to offer an explanation?

[OKIsItJustMe]

53. I think you're asking the wrong question

In my opinion, the question you should be asking is why the temperature appears to level off, or even go down following WW II. (Between 1910 and 1945 there was a building-up of "greenhouse gases," just as now.)

[Nederland]

54. Let me get this straight

You are claiming that the temperature increase from 1910-1945 was due to increased greenhouse gases? Do you have data on greenhouse gas levels for that period? This is as far back as I could find on CO2:

[OKIsItJustMe]

56. Check back

I added a graph after my initial post. You may have read my post before I added the graph.

[OKIsItJustMe]

57. You may find this graph to be more helpful

[Nederland]

76. Those graphs support my argument, not yours

Those graphs show that CO2 level changes and the amount of greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere every year was a lot lower during the 1910-1945 period than during the 1975-2010, and yet the temperature rises were similar (+0.6 versus +0.7). This begs the question then, what caused the temperature rise from 1910 to 1945?

[OKIsItJustMe]

79. No

I believe we've been through this before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

...

Greenhouse effect

Arrhenius developed a theory to explain the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age">ice ages, and first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect">greenhouse effect.^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#cite_note-2">3} He was influenced by the work of others, including http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier">Joseph Fourier. Arrhenius used the infrared observations of the moon by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Washington_Very">Frank Washington Very and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Pierpont_Langley">Samuel Pierpont Langley at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegheny_Observatory">Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh to calculate the absorption of CO₂ and water vapour. Using 'Stefan's law' (better known as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann_law">Stefan Boltzmann law), he formulated his greenhouse law. In its original form, Arrhenius' greenhouse law reads as follows:

if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.

This simplified expression is still used today:

ΔF = α ln(C/C₀)

...

Levels of "greenhouse gases" were increasing during that period, and, the atmosphere was warming.

Remember, the temperature increases arithmetically, as CO₂ increases geometrically. So, to produce the same amount of warming today actually requires a larger increase of CO₂.

[Nederland]

91. Fair enough

Let's look at that formula:

ΔF = α ln(C/C0)

Care to plug in the CO2 numbers from 1910 and 1945 and see what you get? Your graph is difficult to read precisely, but my best eyeball guess for those numbers is 300ppm for 1910 and 310ppm for 1945.

[OKIsItJustMe]

95. There are other factors of course

For example, there are the sulfur emissions President Bush described. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=230690&mesg_id=231072

Then there's a lag. Turning up the concentration of greenhouse gases is like turning up a thermostat in your home. Your home will take some time to warm up. Similarly, the atmosphere will warm over a period of years. (You may have heard warnings that even if we cut all carbon emissions today, the planet will continue to warm for a while, due to the carbon already in the atmosphere... ?)

Then, there are other "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_list_of_greenhouse_gases">greenhouse gases" some of which didn't even exist in the past.

Then, (of course) there's that pesky "ozone hole;" and (as any skeptic can tell you) there are solar cycles.

(The list goes on.)


So, plugging numbers into the formula will give you a good idea of the contribution of CO₂ to the warming, but it probably won't give you a precise indication of today's temperature.

[Nederland]

99. At last

...something we can agree upon.

Yes, there are other factors that are causing the earth to warm up. Lots of other factors in fact.

[theHandpuppet]

13. Sorry, but Fox News is not a credible news source

And I'm surprised to see such a source cited on DU.

:thumbsdown:

[Birthmark]

19. Ah, Fox!

Is there anything it can't get wrong? LOL

I was going to address the nonsense in detail, but my time is limited. Let's just say that if you flip everything Fox claimed by 180-degrees, you'd be far better informed.

[Emillereid]

25. It's a full time job keeping up with these deniers!!

Anytime these deniers sew another piece of confusion, first check in with www.realclimate.org -- it's a website run by real climate scientists. Also go to Peter Sinclair's you tube series to get the skinny on the fallaciousness of the deniers' arguments.
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=greenman3610&annotation_id=annotation_737612&feature=iv

http://www.realclimate.org/

Filed under: Climate Science Instrumental Record Paleoclimate Reporting on climate — group @ 15 February 2010
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.

Update 2/16/10. Phil Jones has confirmed to us that our interpretations of his comments in the BBC interview are indeed the correct ones, and that he agrees with the statements in our piece above. He and his CRU colleagues have also put up an initial response to some of the false allegations in the Daily Mail piece.

[guardian]

42. "real climate scientists"

Yes. Peter Sinclair, the graphic artist, illustrator, cartoonist, and animator. I'm glad to see you consistently rely upon "real climate scientists" for your information.

I mean it would be embarrassing to rely upon a doomer cultist that draws cartoons for a living for your scientific analysis.

But, MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen has no credentials or credibility. So you wouldn't want to listen to his ilk.

[Emillereid]

48. Note the order of the sentences:

"Anytime these deniers sew another piece of confusion, first check in with www.realclimate.org -- it's a website run by real climate scientists."

When I refer to 'real climate scientists' I am sending people to the website www.realclimate.org -- a website run by scientists actually doing climate research.

Then I advise people to check out Peter Sinclair - I know he doesn't do climate research, but his videos do a damn good job of explaining the science and debunking the deniers.

Also go to Peter Sinclair's you tube series to get the skinny on the fallaciousness of the deniers' arguments.
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=greenman3610&annota...

Read more carefully next time.

As for Lindzen of 'tobacco doesn't cause cancer fame' - he is far outweighed by legions of other scientists. Here's an excellent critique of his latest work.: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-choi-unraveled/

Moreover - observations from the earth itself is revealing the story of climate change -- far faster in fact than the IPCC expected.

[Jim__]

31. Temperature increase projections from the 3rd IPCC Report: 0.1 to 0.2 C per decade.

According to the Fox report, we’re exceeding the projections: from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically significant global warming?", Jones said yes, adding that the average increase of 0.12C per year over that time period.

From the 3rd IPCC Report:

Temperature

· The globally averaged surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8°C (Figure 5d) over the period 1990 to 2100. These results are for the full range of 35 SRES scenarios, based on a number of climate models10, 11.

· Temperature increases are projected to be greater than those in the SAR, which were about 1.0 to 3.5°C based on the six IS92 scenarios. The higher projected temperatures and the wider range are due primarily to the lower projected sulphur dioxide emissions in the SRES scenarios relative to the IS92 scenarios.

· The projected rate of warming is much larger than the observed changes during the 20th century and is very likely7 to be without precedent during at least the last 10,000 years, based on palaeoclimate data.

· By 2100, the range in the surface temperature response across the group of climate models run with a given scenario is comparable to the range obtained from a single model run with the different SRES scenarios.

· On timescales of a few decades, the current observed rate of warming can be used to constrain the projected response to a given emissions scenario despite uncertainty in climate sensitivity. This approach suggests that anthropogenic warming is likely7 to lie in the range of 0.1 to 0.2°C per decade over the next few decadesder the IS92a scenario, similar to the corresponding range of projections of the simple model used in Figure 5d.

· Based on recent global model simulations, it is very likely7 that nearly all land areas will warm more rapidly than the global average, particularly those at northern high latitudes in the cold season. Most notable of these is the warming in the northern regions of North America, and northern and central Asia, which exceeds global mean warming in each model by more than 40%. In contrast, the warming is less than the global mean change in south and southeast Asia in summer and in southern South America in winter.

· Recent trends for surface temperature to become more El Niño-like in the tropical Pacific, with the eastern tropical Pacific warming more than the western tropical Pacific, with a corresponding eastward shift of precipitation, are projected to continue in many models.

This is taken from the Summary to the Scientific Basis Report.