Warmer update thread

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.

And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.
Click to expand...

Interesting...
 
de1kr4.jpg
 
You can tell who the people are that don't really understand science by their support of the IPCC and anthropogenic CO2 forcing theory of climate changes. The warming of the last decade was not at an unpredented rate and, as Phil Jones has come to admit, the MWP may have well been as warm if not warmer. The divergence of recent treering proxy correlations with current (non-infered...actual temps!!) CO2 levels show that it's possible our understanding of the relationship of treerings to CO2 and thus temps could be totally inaccurate. How much so? SO MUCH THEY DIDN'T USE THEM!!! They just subsituted the real temps and led the warmers to believe the pre-1960 sections of the graph were plotting the same thing as the post-1960 sections of the graph.
 
HUGO STIGLITZ said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/earth/22warming.html

Last decade was the warmest decade on record and there's been no warming the past 15 years. One of these claims is wrong. I'm going to say that the Daily Mail is just throwing out their usually poorly researched sensationalist claims.
Click to expand...

Neither have to be wrong water....

If the globe warmed to above average/high levels from 1970-1995 and then stayed at 1995 levels, then it would produce both a stagnation in temperatures over the past 15 years AND the warmest decade 1999-2009.
 
Here’s the problem. Flat earthers never, ever present anything except links to rightwing blogs, or links to rightwing rags – most often, some rightwing british tabloid.

It’s easy enough, to go to the actual BBC interview, and read what Dr. Jones actually said…..rather than relying on what a message board teabagger, or rely on what the Tabloid “Daily Mail” reports……..and in doing so, it’s easy enough to find out just how duped and misinformed flat earthers are. Case in point:


TINFOIL, College Dropout: You can tell who the people are that don't really understand science by their support of the IPCC and anthropogenic CO2 forcing theory of climate changes. The warming of the last decade was not at an unpredented rate...LOLZ!!!!
Click to expand...

Good Work Einstein! So your contention is that there are three periods within the industrial age that have similar rates of global temperature increase. Uhhh, I think that’s the point, bro', of human-induced climate change: that the industrial period; i.e., the last 150 years, has been associated with extended periods of global temperature increase.

Dr. Phil Jones, PhD: An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

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.
Click to expand...

....more teabag buffoonery....

TINFOIL, College Dropout:And, as Phil Jones has come to admit, the MWP may have well been as warm if not warmer! LOLZ!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Wrong again Einstein. A complete teabagging mischaracterization of what was actually said. Dr. Jones say there’s not enough data to assert with confidence with the MWP was warmer that today on a global basis. Dr. Jones notes three temporal periods of relatively rapid increase; although the periodof 1860-1880 is data-limited and quite uncertain in comparison to the other two. So, in effect, the level of statistical confidence is high that 1910-1940, and 1975-1998 have had statistically similar rates of temperature increase….these two periods being in the heart of the industrial revolution of the last century and a half

DR..PHIL JONES, PhD: :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.

Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

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.
Click to expand...

TINFOIL, College Dropout: The divergence of recent treering proxy correlations with current (non-infered...actual temps!!) CO2 levels show that it's possible our understanding of the relationship of treerings to CO2 and thus temps could be totally inaccurate. How much so? SO MUCH THEY DIDN'T USE THEM!!!! LOLZ!!!!!
Click to expand...

For the scientifically literate, Dr. Jones explains the use of the tree ring data.

BBC: You also mentioned "hiding the decline" (in temperatures). Why did you say these things?

DR PHIL JONES, PhD: 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 - but rather "a convenient way of achieving something", 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 - an issue which was later directly discussed in the 2007 IPCC AR4 Report.
The misinterpretation of the remark stems from its being quoted out of context. The 1999 WMO report wanted just the three curves, without the split between the proxy part of the reconstruction and the last few years of instrumental data that brought the series up to the end of 1999. Only one of the three curves was based solely on tree-ring data.

The e-mail was sent to a few colleagues pointing out their data was being used in the WMO Annual Statement in 1999. I was pointing out to them how the lines were physically drawn. This e-mail was not written for a general audience. If it had been I would have explained what I had done in much more detail.

My colleague Keith Briffa has responded to suggestions that there is something amiss with the Yamal tree-ring data. Here is his response:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/
Click to expand...

For your amusement, I present the final conclusions of an anonymous message board poster, having zero scientific qualifications and who never presents anything other than rightwing blogs and rightwing rag articles…..juxtaposed with the final conclusions a prominent Climate Scientist, who’s been involved in decades of peer-reviewed climate research:

TINFOIL College Dropout:You can tell who the people are that don't really understand science…..LOLZ!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

-How do you come to conclude that global warming of the last century hasn’t been natural?

DR. PHIL JONES, PhD:The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing
Click to expand...


My work here is done. Teabaggers, enjoy your rightwing blogs and rightwing tabloids….ignorance is bliss!





http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
Here’s the problem. Flat earthers never, ever present anything except links to rightwing blogs, or links to rightwing rags – most often, some rightwing british tabloid.

It’s easy enough, to go to the actual BBC interview, and read what Dr. Jones actually said…..rather than relying on what a message board teabagger, or rely on what the Tabloid “Daily Mail” reports……..and in doing so, it’s easy enough to find out just how duped and misinformed flat earthers are. Case in point:




Good Work Einstein! So your contention is that there are three periods within the industrial age that have similar rates of global temperature increase. Uhhh, I think that’s the point, bro', of human-induced climate change: that the industrial period; i.e., the last 150 years, has been associated with extended periods of global temperature increase.





Wrong again Einstein. A complete teabagging mischaracterization of what was actually said. Dr. Jones say there’s not enough data to assert with confidence with the MWP was warmer that today on a global basis. Dr. Jones notes three temporal periods of relatively rapid increase; although the periodof 1860-1880 is data-limited and quite uncertain in comparison to the other two. So, in effect, the level of statistical confidence is high that 1910-1940, and 1975-1998 have had statistically similar rates of temperature increase….these two periods being in the heart of the industrial revolution of the last century and a half





For the scientifically literate, Dr. Jones explains the use of the tree ring data.



For your amusement, I present the final conclusions of an anonymous message board poster, having zero scientific qualifications and who never presents anything other than rightwing blogs and rightwing rag articles…..juxtaposed with the final conclusions a prominent Climate Scientist, who’s been involved in decades of peer-reviewed climate research:






My work here is done. Teabaggers, enjoy your rightwing blogs and rightwing tabloids….ignorance is bliss!





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

You keep referring to people as teabaggers; but does that make you a teabaggee?? :palm:
 
-How do you come to conclude that global warming of the last century hasn’t been natural?

DR. PHIL JONES, PhD:The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing
Click to expand...

So the above is what a great and noble climate 'scientist' states?

That because he cannot explain it, it must be man-made?

THAT is excellent 'scientific' data there gumby. He cannot explain it, thus it must be man made.
 
Phil Jones is also a fucking fraud!
Suck on it crypiss. You never link any science. You just link appeals to authority. We've shown how the authority is nothing but false claims that the real science does not support.

LOL fucking idiots like you can't understand the science. I've shown I understand it despite not finishing college to start a business. BTW, dickhead, I never got less than an A in any science course I ever took. So fuck off you douchebag. You can discuss science whatsoever. All you do it appeal to authority. LOL loser
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top