Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Climategate VI: Dr. Jones (more lies from the propaganda machine)

Expand Messages
  • pjw2000
    ... Nonsense, I explicitly stated I accept everything Jones said in that interview. You treat 95% significance as though it were some binary true false test.
    Message 1 of 65 , Feb 28, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "jtr_iv" <jtr_iv@...> wrote:


      >
      > Haven't we been here already? Jones was very specific in what he said. You want to arbitrarily ignore the statistical significance aspect of the question.
      >

      Nonsense, I explicitly stated I accept everything Jones said in that interview. You treat 95% significance as though it were some binary true false test. It doesn't work that way. For about the 10th time, no statistically significant trend at the 95% significance level doesn't mean no trend. Jones himself made that clarification. Jones' statements are fully consistent with the latest IPCC report.

      >
      > Yes, I've already told you I'm not defending a newspaper article.
      >

      Well, you are the one who twisted what Tim Lambert wrote about the Daily Mail article.

      >
      > >
      > > Absolutely it does. The 95% significance level is a rather
      > > arbitrary standard in academic papers. The HadCRU data since 1995
      > > is probably significant at the 93 or 94% level.
      >
      > It probably is, huh? Peter you are overreaching Phil Jones comments here.

      Perhaps, I don't have time to find the data and do the statistics. Jones said that the 15 year trend misses 95% significance just barely. Then of course there is the fact that the other global data sets are significant at the 95% level and they are all very similar. But all that is beside the point that a 15 year trend is more significant than an 8 year one.

      > >
      > > > Since the start of the warming trend in the late 1970's there has not been an 8 year cooling period until now and that includes the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo which briefly cooled Earth's climate.
      > > > Your claim this is simply noise is baseless.
      > > >
      > >
      > > Wrong, see the first figure here:
      > >
      > > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/
      > >
      >
      > Ahh... back to the GISS dataset. It would be better to compare apples to apples wouldn't it?
      >

      I had a feeling you were going to "say" that so here are the 8 year trends in the HadCRU data:

      http://www.realclimate.org/images/hadcru-8yr.jpg

      Note that there are several 8 year cooling trends. So you can step up to the plate now and admit you were wrong about no 8 year cooling periods since the late 70's. Do you make this stuff up as you go along?

      >Particularly since GISS doesn't agree with CRU on the very topic we are discussing.
      >

      Anyone interested in how closely the data sets agree can go here:

      http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/giss-ncdc-hadcru/

      It really is a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics to infer that 95% confidence is some sort of golden truth test.

      >
      It's too bad the BBC didn't ask Phil Jones about the cooling trend from 1998 to present instead of 2002 to present.
      >

      Cherry picking is fun! It's too bad the BBC didn't choose 1975 to the present, then we wouldn't be wasting our time on this right now.

      >
      > >
      > > Eight year trends are noise not climate.
      > >
      >
      > The same would apply to 15 year trends. That is the point, both the 15 year warming trend and the 8 year cooling trend that Phil Jones discussed in the article in question are on such short time scales that it is difficult to reach statistical significance. Both the 15 year warming and eight year cooling are so small that they don't reach statistical significance.
      >

      Congratulations you've finally got it! You now know why the 15 year warming trend is more significant than the 8 year "cooling" trend. Significance increases with the length of the data set. It was a bit of a clumsy redirection. Jones qualified his statement about the 15 year trend as "just barely" missing 95% significance. He didn't make that qualification about the 8 year trend.

      >
      > Don't you ever wonder why the climate warming is so small even though CO2 is rapidly increasing?
      >

      Another redirection! It takes a long time for those very big oceans to warm. Did you know that the specific heat capacity of water is 4.184 J/g deg C? That's about 10 times the specific heat of most metals. It takes a lot of energy to warm water and there's a lot of water to warm.

      The IPCC models have the warming rates increasing substantially around mid-century depending on the emission scenario of course, which is why it is so important that we get our emissions under control now.

      My own models predict that when you respond to this you'll again falsely accuse me of "having a problem" with Phil Jones statement that the 15 year trend in HadCRU data isn't statistically significant at the 95% level but you'll leave off the part about 95% significance.

      Peter
    • jtr_iv
      ~~~~~~~~~EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~ And so, with the following, an maybe a couple of follow-up messages, we once again shut down discussion of
      Message 65 of 65 , Mar 3, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        ~~~~~~~~~EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

        And so, with the following, an maybe a couple of follow-up messages, we once again shut down discussion of Climate Change and let other groups and places deal with the subject.

        Lets hear more stuff about energy efficiency and its role in our lives and future.

        ~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~


        Hi Joe,



        --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "joedoves" <joedoves@...> wrote:
        >
        > > > Jimbo is using a liar, Fred Pearce as a reference.
        > > >
        >
        > > Ahh... back to the attack again. It's funny, Fred Pearce is a long-time environmental writer and someone who I've called an alarmist on number occasions. His tone has changed recently and that of course has drawn the venom of the true believers.--Jimbo
        >


        (snip realclimate piece)



        So you post another realclimate article. Does this even relate to the conversation you jumped into with your insults? Gavin at realclimate is doing his best to defend Phil Jones and smear Fred Pearce over an article from last month. Gavin talks about "now-20 year old paper was an early attempt" as if Phil Jones 1990 paper is out of date when in fact it was quoted in the most recent IPCC AR4.

        Notice in Gavin's claims on UHI he says "Even the more recent analyses of the Chinese stations themselves and even in an environment where urbanisation is happening faster than ever, UHI effects are still small (Jones et al, 2008)."

        What Gavin at realclimate doesn't say is that while Jones 1990 paper found negligible UHI Jones 2008 found 40% UHI effect in the temperature record in China. The 1990 paper showing negligible UHI can't be supported.

        Cutting and pasting things you don't understand just because the author attacks someone you don't like isn't very helpful Joe. It really adds little to the conversation.


        > > Have you ever considered discussing facts instead of just
        > > slinging mud?
        > >
        >
        > The fact is you are citing a repeated liar which is completely
        > debunked in Realclimate.
        > Are you doing so innocently, Jimbo?
        > Were you deceived by Fred Pearce?
        > Then admit you are a denier dupe.
        > Some might believe you if you now did condemn Pearce by that act but since you always side with deniers against the climate scientists
        > I don't think that will happen.
        >
        > If I'm wrong please reference the many times where you have sided with the IPCC.
        >

        My you are a vile little person. You don't even understand what we are discussing, do you? LOL Can you even grasp that Phil Jones was interviewed by Nature and admitted that the 1990 paper may need correction due to station moves? Or that Jones 2008 paper found significantly larger UHI?

        What do you think of Gavin from realclimate claiming Jones 2008 UHI paper found "UHI effects are still small" when the actual paper showed 40%?

        Personally I don't expect you to condemn Gavin for this misrepresentation because there is no value in condemning people. We should be discussing facts. The constant attacking and smearing by fringe people like yourself is totally counterproductive.



        > > You are out to lunch as usual Joe. That realclimate piece is one where Ben Santer disagrees with Fred Pearce from an article a month ago, but it doesn't even relate to the subject we are discussing. Nothing on UHI at all.
        >
        > More Fred Pearce lies re:UHI--see above
        >
        > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/the-guardian-disappoints/#more-2808
        >


        So in your vile hatred you just posted a realclimate article attacking author Fred Pearce which had nothing to do with what we were discussing? LOL


        > > Now Joe, you are the one who has been caught making stuff up. And you are the one who responds with venom and yet little clue of the topic under discussion. Was your intention to simply sling mud at me and an environmental author with a realclimate link and hope everyone is as clueless as you and wouldn't notice?
        >
        > You caught me?

        Yes, you know I did.


        > I caught YOU quoting a liar as backup.

        I realize the blogs you follow have been attacking Fred Pearce, but try to focus on the issues and not just the vitriol hurled by the blogs. They count on small minded people like you who don't understand the issues but will spread their attacks.


        > And now you say I am making 'stuff up'.

        Yup.


        > What about your 'source' being a debunked liar---am I making that
        > up?

        You rely on smears instead of facts to determine truth. This is a strategy that many of the blogs have been employing, and the weak minded fall for it. Author Fred Pearce was only one source on what Phil Jones said before a UK Parliamentary committee on Monday and what Phil Jones said is recorded elsewhere. It's foolish to jump in a conversation with smears of the source being a liar based on the blogs when you don't/can't even address the topic.


        >
        > > Why don't you leave the discussion to the big boys Joe?
        >
        > You're not an expert on anything, Jimbo. Just an annoying jerk.
        > You don't contribute anything except lies from denier sites.
        >

        You are vile person Joe without a clue on any of this. I'm no expert which is why I post facts with references. You jump in with your smears and name calling but add nothing to the discussion.

        Jim
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.