BBC News Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Evidence for Multiverses
Next: The mafia
From: Mike Jr on 14 Feb 2010 07:03 On Feb 13, 9:12 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/13/10 7:35 PM, Mike Jr wrote: > > > > > On Feb 13, 5:08 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 2/13/10 11:53 AM, Mike Jr wrote: > > >>> On Feb 13, 11:54 am, Unum<non...(a)yourbusiness.com> wrote: > >>>> On 2/13/2010 9:13 AM, Mike Jr wrote: > > >>>>>http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/sur... > > >>>>> --Mike Jr. > > >>>> A couple of bloggers post a paper full of lies. > > >>>> Thoroughly refuted here;http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfSci... > > >>> Laughing Out Loud. You have got to be kidding . > > >> What about Hansen do you object to scientifically, Mike? What do > >> you know about his publications? His work? and in particular the > >> work cited in the paper: > > >>http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfSci.... > > > [snip] > > > Sam, > > The cited Hansen referenced doesn't address a *single* issue raised > > against GHCN. You haven't bothered to read the link that I sent you > > or you would know that. I did read your link. > > > "Global databases all compile data into latitude/longitude-based grid > > boxes and calculate temperatures inside the boxes using data from the > > stations within them or use the closest stations (weighted by > > distance) in nearby boxes. > > > This exhaustive studyhttp://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/ > > by E.M. Smith has documented that (indeed) the station changes were > > increasingly biased towards lower latitudes, lower elevations and > > urban locations." > > > Hansen and company deleted the cooler weather stations from the > > monthly reporting mix but keep them in the baseline. Thus each grid > > has warmer stations determining the reported grid value. This is a > > clear cut case of selection bias. > > What was the criteria cited by the authors? > > > > > On top of that, raw data has been tampered with to add warming. > > Tampered by whom? What are the differences of the original > data and "tampered" data. What is your reference. > > > > > Case in point is Darwin zero. > > > Here is the graph using all the raw GHCN data for 222 weather stations > > in Northern Australia and it shows virtually no trend in temperatures > > in Northern Australia in 125 years. > >http://icecap.us/images/uploads/darwin_zero4.JPG > > > "However, the IPCC uses the adjusted data. > > Why was the data adjusted? Adjusted for what reason? What was the > criteria cited by the researchers? > > GHCN adjusts the data to > > > remove what it calls inhomogeneities. > > What are the details of these inhomogeneities? Do these > inhomogeneities reduce errors? Or do they change results > in a direction you have a subjective opinion about. What > are the details. > > If you actually know -- then you should be able to articulate > here without your personal bias. > > So, on a whim I thought Id > > > take a look at the first station on the list, Darwin Airport, so I > > could see what an inhomogeneity might look like when it was at home. > > > Then I went to look at what happens when the GHCN adjusts the data > > to remove the inhomogeneities. Of the five raw datasets, the GHCN > > discards two, probably because they are short and duplicate existing > > longer records. > > But you don't really know the reasoning why they were discarded! > > The three remaining records are first homogenized > > > and then averaged to give the GHCN Adjusted temperature record for > > Darwin. > > Does this give a truer picture of reality? If not, why? > > > To my great surprise, heres what I found. To explain the full effect, > > I am showing this with both datasets starting at the same point > > (rather than ending at the same point as they are often shown)." > > >http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/fig_7-ghcn-average... > > I only see the one data set. > > > > > "Before the adjustment by NOAA, temperatures in Darwin were falling > > at 0.7 Celsius per century, but after the homogenization they were > > rising at 1.2 Celsius per century. The gross upward adjustment was 2 > > Celsius per century. > > So this is "statistical tinkering"? > > Is not the data set an accurate reflection of reality? > > > Intrigued by the curious shape of the average of the homogenized > > Darwin records, I then went to see how NOAA had homogenized each of > > the individual station records, starting with the earliest record. > > Here is Station Zero at Darwin, showing the raw and the homogenized > > versions " > > >http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/fig_9_darwin-adjus... > > > "It is difficult to justify adjustment on so very large a scale. We > > have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all > > agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? NOAA added a huge, > > artificial, imaginary trend to the most recent half of the raw data. > > Now it looks like the IPCC diagram. Note how the magnitude of the > > adjustment climbs in discrete steps like a ziggurat." > > So do climatologist agree with you Mike? If not Why? > > > > > Sam, > > I am calling you out. You ignore every piece of evidence that I > > post. You don't appear to read the references and you don't respond > > to specific pieces of evidence that are placed before you. Care to > > respond to E.M. Smith and Darwin zero? > > > --Mike Jr. > > Mike, what I see is an overwhelming body of data that suggests the > earth is warming, that the warming in the last 150 years is being > driven by CO2 production and diminished CO2 sinks, and ice is > melting as rate that cannot be explained by natural (not human) > causes, that sea level is rising and that real impact is showing > up in agriculture, ecosystems, weather patterns, shifting seasons. > > That's what I see. Sam, You have got to learn to read. You ask questions that show that you haven't read a single thing that I wrote. Look at the graphs. BTW, you can practice reading on this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html?ITO=1490 " * Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing * There has been no global warming since 1995 * Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes" --Mike Jr.
From: Chris L Peterson on 14 Feb 2010 10:55 On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 20:28:08 +1100, "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >Tell me, Peterson, do you believe the earth has cooled since 2002 ? I don't think the question can be answered in any statistically meaningful way. > Do you >believe there have been at least three periods in the last 150 years when >temperatures have increased at about the same rate as since 1975, despite >anthropogenic CO2 being miniscule? Sure. What I don't believe is that this has any bearing on the question of AGW. If you look at an interval of one year, there have been times when the temperatures have increased at several times the rate since 1975. There have also been times when it decreased at several times the general rate of increase. As you look at decadal scale trends, most periods over the last 150 years have shown increases. If you look at 50-year averages, there are no decreases at all. Over the last 150 years, the average upwards trend is greater than has been seen for thousands of years. With a gradual increase in global temperature over a couple of centuries, you would always expect that sort of pattern. Close to 50% of the years will be cooler than the previous year. There is a few percent chance that any given decade will by cooler than the previous decade. And if you look at the temperature record, that's what you see. Also unmistakable is the underlying long term trend, which correlates pretty well with the atmospheric CO2 concentration. By asking these last two questions (which have been answered many times- all ignored by you, as I expect these will again be), you demonstrated a serious lack of either intellectual ability or intellectual honesty. >Are you certain that the warming we are >currently experiencing has an anthropogenic component? Certain? I'm certain of nothing. But I consider it extremely likely. I'd say I'm more certain that the modern evolutionary model is correct, but less certain that the CDM Big Bang model is correct. >All simple questions about your beliefs. I just want to compare yours to >those of the head of the CRU. Well there you have it. Obviously, my beliefs are very similar to those of the head of the CRU. Unfortunately, you don't even understand his simple answers (and I doubt you understand mine), so your exercise in asking again was almost certainly futile. Any discussion with you is like trying to teach calculus to a kindergartner. They basically just stare at the wall. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com
From: Sam Wormley on 14 Feb 2010 16:01 On 2/14/10 6:03 AM, Mike Jr wrote: > " * Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing Mike - Read Section A3 The most important argument of IPCC (Mann et al. "Hockey Stick" crurve) has proved to be incorrect. http://www.swissre.com/resources/2225fb0040c36b1fa49cbfb02e99dba1-Factsheet_Climate_sceptic.pdf > * There has been no global warming since 1995 Climatology uses 30 year averages. The last decade was by far warmer that the decade before. Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp-trends.gif > * Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made > changes" > > --Mike Jr. Current warming trends cannot be explained by natural (non-human activity) causes.
From: Peter Webb on 14 Feb 2010 18:33 "Chris L Peterson" <clp(a)alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:md6gn5tpbo4m5b9vt572tl048tms0gifgs(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 20:28:08 +1100, "Peter Webb" > <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > >>Tell me, Peterson, do you believe the earth has cooled since 2002 ? > > I don't think the question can be answered in any statistically > meaningful way. > Nobody asked you about statistics. >> Do you >>believe there have been at least three periods in the last 150 years when >>temperatures have increased at about the same rate as since 1975, despite >>anthropogenic CO2 being miniscule? > > Sure. What I don't believe is that this has any bearing on the question > of AGW. If you look at an interval of one year, there have been times > when the temperatures have increased at several times the rate since > 1975. There have also been times when it decreased at several times the > general rate of increase. As you look at decadal scale trends, most > periods over the last 150 years have shown increases. If you look at > 50-year averages, there are no decreases at all. Over the last 150 > years, the average upwards trend is greater than has been seen for > thousands of years. > > With a gradual increase in global temperature over a couple of > centuries, you would always expect that sort of pattern. Close to 50% of > the years will be cooler than the previous year. There is a few percent > chance that any given decade will by cooler than the previous decade. So the temperature has been increasing for over 150 years, ie since well before AGW was a significant. There have been three previous periods of warming in the last 150 years with rates comparable or greater than 1975, despite anthropogenic CO2 being miniscule. Seems like you, me and your mate Phil all agree on the above. Hard to argue when the head of the CRU provided the actual figures showing the earth warmed faster when anthropogenic CO2 was far smaller ... > And if you look at the temperature record, that's what you see. Also > unmistakable is the underlying long term trend, which correlates pretty > well with the atmospheric CO2 concentration. I might add that CO2 concentrations over the last 100 years also correlate very well with world ice-cream production. However, I did not ask any questions concerning CO2, ice-cream, or dying polar bears; this is just you waffling on about things nobody asked you about. > > By asking these last two questions (which have been answered many times- > all ignored by you, as I expect these will again be), you demonstrated a > serious lack of either intellectual ability or intellectual honesty. > Sorry, they are the same questions as the BBC asked Phil Jones. At least they got straight answers from Phil, and he didn't just launch into an ad-hominem attack. So maybe you want to complain to the BBC instead? >>Are you certain that the warming we are >>currently experiencing has an anthropogenic component? > > Certain? I'm certain of nothing. Phil Jones *is* certain that warming is real, but *is not* certain it has anything to do with man. Peterson *is not* certain that warming is real, and *is not* certain that it has anything to do with man. You seem to agree with Jones in that neither of you are certain man has anything to do with it. However, Jones is certain the warming is occuring, but you are not. Perhaps you should send a letter to Jones telling him that you are not certain that warming is occuring at all, and challenging him to justify his comments that he was certain it is real? > But I consider it extremely likely. I'd > say I'm more certain that the modern evolutionary model is correct, but > less certain that the CDM Big Bang model is correct. > >>All simple questions about your beliefs. I just want to compare yours to >>those of the head of the CRU. > > Well there you have it. Obviously, my beliefs are very similar to those > of the head of the CRU. Dunno: Has the earth warmed since 2002? Jones: No, it has cooled. Petersen: No answer Has the earth warmed as fast or faster on several occassions over the last 150 years as it has since 1975, despite the contribution of AGW being miniscule at those times? Jones: Yes Petersen: Yes Are you certain that the earth is warming? Jones: Yes Peterson: No Are you certain that man has anything to do with it: Jones: No Peterson: No You seem to agree with about 50% of the answers given by Peterson. Which is a bit of a worry, as I assumed that Phil Jones would know something about climate science; now that I know you disagree with much of what he says, it is clear that Phil Jones must be wrong. It is seldom we have an expert such as Peterson available who can set Phil Jones straight on global warming! > Unfortunately, you don't even understand his > simple answers (and I doubt you understand mine), so your exercise in > asking again was almost certainly futile. Any discussion with you is > like trying to teach calculus to a kindergartner. They basically just > stare at the wall. > _________________________________________________ Funny, Jones didn't see the need to launch into an ad-hominem attack when asked the same questions by the BBC. I guess he's not a crank. I was going to say that therefore not all people who believe in AGW are cranks, but I am not sure that Phil Jones believes in AGW. He is certain that the earth is warming, but is not certain man has anything to do with it. The reason he doesn't come across as an AGW crank (like you for example) is that he is not even certain that man has anything to do with the changing climate, so he could hardly be an AGW-crank, now could he? > > Chris L Peterson > Cloudbait Observatory > http://www.cloudbait.com
From: Chris L Peterson on 14 Feb 2010 19:16
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:33:46 +1100, "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >Sorry, they are the same questions as the BBC asked Phil Jones. At least >they got straight answers from Phil, and he didn't just launch into an >ad-hominem attack. There's not necessarily anything wrong with an ad-hominem attack. I call you an idiot because you are clearly an idiot. What we should be concerned with isn't ad hominem attacks themselves, but ad hominem attacks that are used as an alternative to rational arguments. When you pose a question, I answer it. Rationally. I'm not calling you an idiot to dodge answering the question. The fact that you are an idiot is totally separate from the discussion of facts and positions. >Phil Jones *is* certain that warming is real, but *is not* certain it has >anything to do with man. >Peterson *is not* certain that warming is real, and *is not* certain that it >has anything to do with man. > >You seem to agree with Jones in that neither of you are certain man has >anything to do with it. However, Jones is certain the warming is occuring, >but you are not. What do you think "not certain" means? I am not certain that the Earth is warming, and I'm not certain that man is responsible for that uncertain warming. I am more than 99% confident that the Earth is warming, and more than 99% certain that man is causing it. I don't know what numerical confidence Jones would place on his own beliefs, but I expect from the tone of his comments that they are well up there like mine. I'd bet that if you asked him, he's also say that his "100%" confidence that the Earth is warming is really just shorthand for "99%+". You are, in fact, an idiot if you believe that "certain" and "not certain" represent some sort of binary division of beliefs. You treat "not certain" as if it means "doesn't believe", which is nonsense. >Has the earth warmed since 2002? > >Jones: No, it has cooled. >Petersen: No answer Both of your "quotes" are incorrect. Jones did not say the Earth has cooled. He said that the trend from 2002 to the present is -0.12C per decade, but that the time interval is too short for the trend to be statistically significant. That is hugely different from "it has cooled". (Of course, it may actually turn out once enough data is available that there was cooling; that doesn't mean that global warming isn't both real and ongoing.) And I did provide a direct answer to your direct question, "I don't think the question can be answered in any statistically meaningful way." That is a perfectly reasonable answer, and is substantially similar to Jones's answer, just in different words. >I was going to say that therefore not all people who believe in AGW are >cranks, but I am not sure that Phil Jones believes in AGW. He certainly believes in AGW. He says so in the linked interview. He is asked if it is reasonable based on the evidence to believe that global warming isn't predominantly manmade, and explicitly says "no". He is asked if natural influences could have contributed significantly to global warming, and he explicitly says that natural influences alone should have produced cooling over the period where warming was observed. When asked how confident he is that humans are mainly responsible for global warming, he states that he agrees with the IPCC conclusion that the evidence suggests that most warming in the last 50 years is the result of human activity. You are certainly an idiot if you don't recognize that these answers mean he "believes" in AGW in the sense that any intellectually honest person "believes" in anything: considering it likely based on the available evidence. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |