Green World Trust

[MykTaylor]

Earlier this year, Professor Jones of the CRU stated in an interview on the BBC radio 4 programe Today, that ther had been no statisictally significant warming since 1995

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

Can anyone tell me what the changes in total global carbon emissions have been during this period (1995 - 2009)
_________________
Your degree of certainty is a measure of your ignorance

[perseus]

What the science says...

When you read Phil Jones' actual words, you see he's saying there is a warming trend but it's not statistically significant. He's not talking about whether warming is actually happening. He's discussing our ability to detect that warming trend in a noisy signal over a short period.....

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: 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.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Phil-Jones-says-no-global-warming-since-1995.htm

There are of course many short periods last century when the warming has been statistically insignicant at the 95% level!

[/img]

2009 was the second warmest year on record, by some measures and 2010 will probably be warmer, possibly the warmest.
_________________
change the opinions of a selected population regarding the validity of global warming. “Target 1: Older, less educated males”..... The Western Fuels Association, National Coal Association and Edison Electric Institute (ICE) 1991

[perseus]

Strangely enough I have been plotting some of these relationships between carbon dioxide emissions and temperature. See



and




Why do you keep this nonsense up, you can't change physics. Think about the consequences of spreading disinformation.
_________________
change the opinions of a selected population regarding the validity of global warming. “Target 1: Older, less educated males”..... The Western Fuels Association, National Coal Association and Edison Electric Institute (ICE) 1991

[perseus]

I think the climate scum is onto you as well!


Over at WUWT, guest blogger David Whitehouse from the Global Warming Policy Foundation research institute has a very insightful post about the recent lack of global warming. However, it is not only the last decade or two that has seen no warming. As a matter of fact, there has been no warming for the last 160 years. On the contrary, there has been a number of cooling episodes. Consider the following graph showing the global temperature according to the unadjusted HadCRUT3 series (from Wood for Trees). You can click on the graph to enlarge it.



This graph shows the global temperaure as a red curve, and a number of trends as straight lines of different lengths. These different trends are for various periods: 1850-1865, 1865-1875, 1875-1915, 1915-1920, 1920-1925, 1925-1930, 1930-1935, 1935-1980, 1980-1988, 1988-1995, 1995-june 1997, july 1997-2003, and 2003-2010. And every single one of them is negative. These trends together cover the entire period from 1850 to 2010, that is 160 years, and each of the trends shows a cooling. In many cases, it is a matter of the very strong cooling, and in a few cases a more modest cooling. This means that this entire period of 160 years it has been cooling

http://theclimatescum.blogspot.com/2010/11/160-years-of-cooling.html
_________________
change the opinions of a selected population regarding the validity of global warming. “Target 1: Older, less educated males”..... The Western Fuels Association, National Coal Association and Edison Electric Institute (ICE) 1991

[MykTaylor]

Perseus - You haven't answered my question
_________________
Your degree of certainty is a measure of your ignorance

[perseus]

If you are trying to get me to say carbon emissions in the atmosphere have increased, they certainly have, as indicated in the concentration graph I posted. What is the point is in saying x billion tonnes. However don't misrepresent this by comparing this with short term, cherry picked periods, with downward temperature trends.



Also don't take advantage of the honesty and PR naivety of scientists by misrepresenting ther work! As we both know temperatures INCREASED over the time Jones stated, there was simply merely too much scatter to be more certain than 90% that the temperature trend was UP over this short period. This is because most scientists use the 95% criterion.

Your question is worded in a fashion to deliberately deliberately confuse people who don't understand statistics or the irrelevence of short term trends.
_________________
change the opinions of a selected population regarding the validity of global warming. “Target 1: Older, less educated males”..... The Western Fuels Association, National Coal Association and Edison Electric Institute (ICE) 1991

[MykTaylor]

You still haven't answered my question. I am trying to relate global temperatures specifically to human carbon emissions, as seen in the media.

My suspicion is that human carbon emissions have increased substantially over the last 15 years, maybe by more than 50%, and this has produced no warming at the 95% level of significance.

The 95% level is the lowest standard of significance used in all branches of science( 95% is *, 99% is ** and 99.9% is ***) every thing below the one star level is not considered acceptable, and it is interesting that you suggest a lowering the standard of significance for climate science may be necessary to make the AGW hypothesis credible.

This dumbing down attitude is all too prevalent in the education system today. If not enough people pass an exam, lower the pass mark.
_________________
Your degree of certainty is a measure of your ignorance

[perseus]

[Michael Cejnar]

perseus,
Nice graphs - you demonstrate well that CO2 is correlated with temperature rises in modern times....and indeed, the flat temperature in past decade does not destroy significance of this correlation.
This is not controversial. What is controversial is that this indicates that the sky is falling.
The most obvious impediments to this conclusion are:

1. Correlation is not causation. Similar correlation can be constructed between temperature and almost any increasing modern activity, including US postage charges http://joannenova.com.au/2009/05/shock-global-temperatures-driven-by-us-postal-charges. To be fair, CO2 is the probably the only of these man-made factors with a plausible physical basis for causing temperature rises, so only CO2 can be reasonably hypothesized as a causal factor, but the correlation offers no greater proof than for postage charges. Equally, however, there is a physical basis for CO2 rise to be caused by rising temperature, and indeed there is some evidence from the CO2 lagging temperature rises in Vostok Ice cores, so this correlation can be argued to support temperature casing the CO2 rise. (Yes, I know that the magnitude is inadequate, but so it is for CO2 causing AGW without speculative feedbacks).

2. Your time scale is equally conveniently selective. Try the correlation 2000 years back - you hit multiple warm periods without CO2 rise and correlation breaks. The Medieval Warming Period (MWP) is the main one. MWP, established by hundred's of studies for decades and present in IPCC's first report, was removed by climatologist Michael Mann with his infamous Hockey stick graph. It is unreasonable to believe in one team of scientists' (Mann's) hockey stick from tree proxies in preference to hundred's of studies from all over the world http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/

3. The 10 year flat to cooling trend does weaken the CAGW thesis because it goes against the (widely publicised dire) projections of the climate models. We were told CO2 is THE main controlling factor of climate and will cause accelerating or even runaway warming over the next decades. Apparently no natural phenomena could explain the recent warming. But then we get this 10 year 'cooling period'. So there are stronger natural factors - at least in the decadal range. If included in models, could these partly explain the modern warming instead of assuming CO2 caused it all - possibly - after all, the modern warming did occur in several bouts of multiple decades, on a background of long term warming from the little ice age.
Does this 'cooling' disprove the models - no. Their error bars (bizarrely almost never shown in climatology) are apparently large enough to encompass some cooling. Bearing in mind that if you have wide enough error bars your model can never be disproved, every year of temperature divergence reduces the statistical power of the models. If IPCC was >90 certain 3 years ago, it should be less so today on the basis of goodness of fit. Of course if they keep changing the model to fit the data, then any progress in validation against observed temperatures has to be reset and they will never get validated.

4. Your illustration of graphical cherry picking is very good - it is indeed an elementary error. However what do you say about this graph from the most authoritative source on CAGW, the IPCC AR4 WG1 Technical Summary report, on P37. This graphical abomination of showing increasing slope from arbitrary sections of the graph appears to be the state of the art of CAGW theory and alarm:
[img]http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-ts-6.html[/img]

[Michael Cejnar]

Blast - no image, try this:

[perseus]

[MykTaylor]

Again - I have to say that my question is not being answered.

I asked for the global human carbon emissions figures for the 15 years mentioned by Professor Jones.

My suspicion is that, while the emissions totals have increased at a substantial rate, temperature increases have at least slowed down, or even stopped. I'm am trying to relate emissions changes with temperature changes for these 15 years. I suspect that the correlation is weak, and I want to check this out.
Using Hanson's disputed data set to claim the hottest year on record is simply a polemic, as he has been exposed for nudging the figures in the warm direction on a number of occasions.

Several years ago I was working in the Arctic. The meteorologist in our team stated that in his opinion, the contribution of human carbon emissions to global temperature lies in the second place of decimals of a degree centigrade, they may reinforce natural warming, or mitigate natural cooling by some small fraction of a degree, but they are not a principal driving force.

The more I read on this subject, the more I consider him to be correct
So that even stopping all fossil fuel use would only make a difference of a few hundredths of a degree to average global temperatures

http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/28/global-cooling-consensus-is-heating-up-cooling-over-the-next-1-to-3-decades/
_________________
Your degree of certainty is a measure of your ignorance

[perseus]

[perseus]

[perseus]