Jump to content


Am I still allowed to question climate change?

Recommended Posts

OK. In this interview, Professor Jones is asked questions about very specific short time periods. It's not surprising that in specific short periods there are ups and even downs. The important question is "What is the long term trend?"

 

You quote professor Jones "Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change.

 

Note the qualification. Over the specific period he was asked about.

 

 

 

What time period are we talking about now? Oh, it's the long term trend. The heart of the matter. Not nit-picking, not cherry picking, but talking about the substantive issue. A scientist. 100% confident that "there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity"

 

When asked in this interview Can you tell us about your working life over the past decades in climate science? Professor Jones says, "I am most well known for being involved in the publication of a series of papers (from 1982 to 2006) that have developed a gridded dataset of land-based temperature records. These are only a part of the work I do, as I have been involved in about 270 peer-reviewed publications on many different aspects of climate research."

 

You're not persuaded. You're not a scientist. Who should I believe? Hmmm tough call.

 

 

 

 

You deny "that there is any ACTUAL global warming occurring currently."

 

Oh currently, ah! If you mean this week, this month even, then I agree with you! But, what's the trend over the last 50 years Jibbo?

 

The man who questions opinion is wise;

 

the man who quarrels with facts is a fool.

 

It sounds to me like you're quarrelling with facts Jibbo, and not doing a very good job old chap.

 

 

I'm arguing with your opinion, you state 50 years as a suitable time scale ? Why pick 50 years ? why are temperatures over the last 5-10 years not suitable ?

 

Whats a suitable timespan then ?

 

using Jones OWN statistics he agrees that the world has been cooling recently.

 

Thats a FACT. Not an opinion.

 

Before this recent COOLING there has been no STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT warming also a FACT.

 

You state " It's not surprising that in specific short periods there are ups and even downs."

 

Which is NOT the theory that's behind AGW.

 

That theory states that as CO2 increases in PPM, the global temperatures increase proportionally as a DIRECT causal relationship and result.

 

Using basic scientific hypothesis.

 

Humans emitting Greenhouse Gases in the Form of CO2 are causing the earth's temperatures to rise, if CO2 is stopped being emitted then this rise will cease.

 

Thats the AGW hypothesis.

 

Jones him SELF has stated that there has been cooling over the past decade.

 

In any other field of study when the presented evidence doesn't match the hypothesis, the hypothesis is wrong.

 

It doesn't matter about the short time scale there should be NO COOLING at all in the slightest under AGW.

 

AS CO2 concentrations in parts per million have continued to rise.......

 

I questioning your opinion, whilst dealing with the unconformable fact from your perspective that there is NO AGW Global warming.

 

which has been stated by the scientist himself !

 

Zero.

 

Nil

 

Nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's left the ‘Isotope-gate’ open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm arguing with your opinion, you state 50 years as a suitable time scale ? Why pick 50 years ? why are temperatures over the last 5-10 years not suitable ?

 

Whats a suitable timespan then ?

 

using Jones OWN statistics he agrees that the world has been cooling recently.

 

Thats a FACT. Not an opinion.

 

A suitable timespan is one in which all the other factors affecting global temperatures can be eliminated. Just as temperatures vary with the seasons, temperatures vary on longer timescales as well, including variation with sunspot activity.

 

When you factor in all the short and long term factors, there remains man's influence on the climate from the emission of Carbon Dioxide - a greenhouse gas. Fact.

 

You state " It's not surprising that in specific short periods there are ups and even downs."

 

Which is NOT the theory that's behind AGW.

 

That theory states that as CO2 increases in PPM, the global temperatures increase proportionally as a DIRECT causal relationship and result.

 

Nobody is saying that our CO2 emissions are the only factor affecting temperatures. You simply cannot draw a straight line against atmospheric CO2 levels and average global temperature and no scientist has or will do this. What has been done is to carefully take into account all factors affecting global temperatures. It's afact that our CO2 emissions are a significant and growing factor.

 

As sea levels rise, you won't see a smooth even surface filling up like a bath tub. There will still be tides and waves.

 

Humans emitting Greenhouse Gases in the Form of CO2 are causing the earth's temperatures to rise, if CO2 is stopped being emitted then this rise will cease.

 

Thats the AGW hypothesis.

 

NO NO NO!!! If we stopped emitting ALL CO2 now, what we have already emitted won't disappear. The greenhouse effect will still be there. The balance has been shifted, but the earth's climate is a large complex system. We can't turn the temprature dial up and down like a room thermostat and expect the planet to respond like a small well controlled system.

 

By continuing to increase our emission of CO2 we are in danger of reaching a tipping point where we get a sudden dramatic shift in temperature. It's not a linear relationship.

 

In any other field of study when the presented evidence doesn't match the hypothesis, the hypothesis is wrong.

 

Exactly why the hypothesis hasn't been rejected. The evidence fits the model.

 

It doesn't matter about the short time scale there should be NO COOLING at all in the slightest under AGW.

 

Who said that?

 

I questioning your opinion, whilst dealing with the unconformable fact from your perspective that there is NO AGW Global warming.

 

Gibberish

 

which has been stated by the scientist himself !

 

No he didn't. read the questions put carefully. They had a very specific context. The answers you may like to quote out of context do not refer to the big question of man's effect on global warming over an extended period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You seem to have managed it, care to give us a clue how.

 

You've got the thermometer upside down you silly sod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who wants to see how accurate the Alarmists computer modelling of our climate is, needs to have a look at the following link.

 

 

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a928051726&fulltext=713240928

 

This shows just how poor the models are at hindcasting, when compared to oberved data.

 

It is claimed that GCMs provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. Examining the local performance of the models at 55 points, we found that local projections do not correlate well with observed measurements. Furthermore, we found that the correlation at a large spatial scale, i.e. the contiguous USA, is worse than at the local scale.

 

However, we think that the most important question is not whether GCMs can produce credible estimates of future climate, but whether climate is at all predictable in deterministic terms. Several publications, a typical example being Rial et al. (2004), point out the difficulties that the climate system complexity introduces when we attempt to make predictions. “Complexity” in this context usually refers to the fact that there are many parts comprising the system and many interactions among these parts. This observation is correct, but we take it a step further. We think that it is not merely a matter of high dimensionality, and that it can be misleading to assume that the uncertainty can be reduced if we analyse its “sources” as nonlinearities, feedbacks, thresholds, etc., and attempt to establish causality relationships. Koutsoyiannis (2010) created a toy model with simple, fully-known, deterministic dynamics, and with only two degrees of freedom (i.e. internal state variables or dimensions); but it exhibits extremely uncertain behaviour at all scales, including trends, fluctuations, and other features similar to those displayed by the climate. It does so with a constant external forcing, which means that there is no causality relationship between its state and the forcing. The fact that climate has many orders of magnitude more degrees of freedom certainly perplexes the situation further, but in the end it may be irrelevant; for, in the end, we do not have a predictable system hidden behind many layers of uncertainty which could be removed to some extent, but, rather, we have a system that is uncertain at its heart.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What will the temperature be in Sheffield tomorrow lunchtime? Well it may be in positive territory, but only just. Who knows for sure?

 

When it comes to longer term global forecasts, I don't hear many scientists cliaming that climate change is easily predictable. Usually we hear things like .... by the end of the century global temperatures will have increased by 2.9F to 6.8F. Other predictions will give a shorter time scale and a narrower band.

 

Your quote revealing that there is uncertainty in predictions is not news to anyone. The climate is a very complex system. It doesn't alter the fact that the vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is happening and that a significant part of that is directly attributable to man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news on the energy front.

 

The UK comes a step closer to using a brand new energy source after "substantial" flows of shale gas are found just a few miles inland from Blackpool Pleasure Beach...

 

...The technology being used by has already changed the dynamics of America's gas market, taking the country from growing reliance on imports to a position of near self-sufficiency.

 

 

 

Source http://www.channel4.com/news/shale-gas-striking-gold-in-blackpool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When it comes to longer term global forecasts, I don't hear many scientists cliaming that climate change is easily predictable. Usually we hear things like .... by the end of the century global temperatures will have increased by 2.9F to 6.8F. Other predictions will give a shorter time scale and a narrower band.

 

 

You mean like the fugres given for sea level rises, or Himalayan Glacier melting :rolleyes:

 

The 'scientists' and politicians love to give their worst case scenario predictions, and you know it.

 

 

PS how often do the give the confidence intervals for their scenarios?

 

How big are those confidence levels (margins of error)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

using Jones OWN statistics he agrees that the world has been cooling recently.

 

Thats a FACT. Not an opinion.

 

Before this recent COOLING there has been no STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT warming also a FACT.

 

.......

 

Jones him SELF has stated that there has been cooling over the past decade.

 

In any other field of study when the presented evidence doesn't match the hypothesis, the hypothesis is wrong.

 

It doesn't matter about the short time scale there should be NO COOLING at all in the slightest under AGW.

 

AS CO2 concentrations in parts per million have continued to rise.......

 

I questioning your opinion, whilst dealing with the unconformable fact from your perspective that there is NO AGW Global warming.

 

which has been stated by the scientist himself !

 

Zero.

 

Nil

 

Nothing.

 

Your facts have already been covered umpteen times before :rolleyes:

 

Phil Jones said:

 

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.

 

BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

 

Phil Jones: I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

 

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

 

He didn't say it was cooling.

 

He was talking about statistical significance of the HADCRUT dataset, not all the temperature evidence.

 

You know this you have been told time and time again. Why do you think repeating a lie will make it convincing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do you think repeating a lie will make it convincing?

 

 

Seems to be working for the MMGW mob and the IPCC :D.

 

 

Well on some of the people...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems to be working for the MMGW mob and the IPCC :D.

 

 

Well on some of the people...

 

As you well know the IPCC have corrected any mistakes that have been pointed out to them.

 

I dare say there are some man made global warming advocates that are less honest, but I can't actually think of any.

 

The prepondernce of lies and misleading information all come from the deniers because they have no credible arguments to make to defend their greedy consumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As you well know the IPCC have corrected any mistakes that have been pointed out to them.
Ah, but they had to be pointed out to them, even when they knew that AR4 had them in.

 

I dare say there are some man made global warming advocates that are less honest, but I can't actually think of any.

We could start with Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Fat Albert (Al Gore).

 

The prepondernce of lies and misleading information all come from the deniers because they have no credible arguments to make to defend their greedy consumption.

:rolleyes:

 

As shown above; you're wrong again.

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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.