Global warming believers what do you make of this?

Question

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/15/global-warming-insignificant-years-admits-uks-climate-scientist/

Answer 1

I know. can you believe it. i know i shouldn't answer this question because i am definitely not a global warming believer but still. Okay, you say that fox is wrong. if fox said global warming was real, would you say it was twisted too? if you don't believe this article, turn on the news. besides from Haiti and Toyota what do you see? if you are on most channels, you will hear interviews with these people saying that they did cover the facts. global warming is fake. what more do you want, it is in the news!

Answer 2

Simple. Fox News lied to you. And it's not just Fox News; this story has been making it's way around denial outlets for a few days now. I'm not surprised that Fox News picked up on this story as well.



Phil Jones never said that global warming over the past 15 years was "insignificant", which is what the Fox News headline claims. What he actually says was that the climate has been warming an average of 0.12°C per year over the past 15 years.



Such warming is exceptional and falls within the 93 percentile. However, in statistics, it's the 95 percentile that is "significant." Therefore, according to Phil Jones, from 1995 to the present, there has been no "statistically significant" global warming.



Jones also stated, "Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."



"Significant" and "statistically significant" are two different things. Phil Jones should have been more careful explaining this and should have assumed that (A) most people don't understand statistics; and (B) the denial machine would try to spin what he said and present a misunderstanding to those who don't really understand science or math.

Answer 3

This is just one guy talking about his tiny piece of the work. And being misquoted. Read the actual interview, not the denier "spin".



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



Here's what he did say.



"E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?



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."



Note that the reason he says it like this is simple. HIS research involved only the temperature record, not the cause. So he's (appropriately) not going to make personal statements about the cause.



This is only spun this way in denier sources.



Basically I think a very bruised man is bending over backwards to try to be solid about only what HE personally can vouch for.



"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."

Answer 4

Perhaps Fox doesn't understand long words like "statistically". More likely, they do understand it very well but hope YOU don't.



Jones said of that one selected short period that he could not, at the 95% statistical significance level, exclude the possibility that, for just those years, the warming was a chance fluctuation.



And THAT is what the Fox and Daily Mail stories are REALLY about. "Stories" is the right word.



Here it all is:



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



That’s



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

/sci/tech/8511670.stm



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



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.

Answer 5

I see two things:



1) FoxNews twists anything into its own agenda.

2) You swallow anything that biased media shoves at you.



There have been about 100 posts about this story, each refering to the take from some twisted downscale media source. The interview was done by the BBC and the transcript is available on the BBC site. Not one person who read the actual interview has come here to post stupid drivel the way that a FoxNews viewer might.



What Jones said is that you cannot get statistical significance over a short period but you can over longer periods.



Some of the statements in the FoxNews story are beyond twisting, they are absolute lies. I'm tired of linking the BBC here, I've done that many times over the past couple days. Anybody who wants to see the actual interview can do so and will see clearly that FoxNews has lied here.



If you care to test whether your source is trustworth, go read the actual transcript. You will never again believe what FoxNews tells you.

Answer 6

Typical right-wing media who can't even get the facts right in the headline. Jones didn't say the warming is insignificant, he said it's (barely) *statistically* insignificant, meaning it's not quite outside the margin of error. That's not remotely the same as "insignificant", which basically means too small to matter. Essentially it means that based on his data, you can be about 90% sure the planet has warmed over the past 15 years, but not 95% sure.



Fox News as usual is relying on the ignorance of its audience, hoping they don't know the difference. And most probably won't.

Answer 7

I make it as Fox news doesn't understand science speak, or they do and are willing to twist it for their agenda. Nowhere in the interview did Jones state there has been no warming.



EDIT: Here's the entire interview without Fox's non-scientific interpretation.



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



D - Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.



"This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period."



G - There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?



"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."



H - If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?



"The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing - see my answer to your question D."

Answer 8

I'll add, that 0.12C rise PER year over 15 years is a 1.8C rise during those 15 years, in case there are people that missed that in the article, and in what the guy actually said.

Answer 9

Fox News: Owned by Rupert Murdoch, Australian.

Answer 10

I'll match ya, and raise ya one.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Climate101-Complete-Jan09.pdf

Answer 11

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



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



He said it right there Richard, try again.



What I fail to understand is how 150 years is considered long term. Geologically speaking, 150 years is barely a blip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

When you look at the past 12,000 years, the global temperature has done nothing but fluctuate.



EDIT: Benjamin, Baccheus, you reveal yourselves when you attack the news source.

Answer 12

well he sure did not say the last 15 years were as hot as they have been telling everyone did he!

with the stuff coming to light on how they selectively picked weather stations to kick up the temperatures, i may well have been cooling the last 15 years.

you sure can not depend on anything he published.

If I was in Europe i would demand my carbon tax money back!!!!