Monday, February 15, 2010

"Warming rates are not statistically significantly different"—Phil Jones, CRU

Posted by Devil's Kitchen at 2/15/2010 11:03:00 am

There is a very interesting BBC Q&A between Roger "the Dodger" Harrabin and Phil "deceitful bastard" Jones. It's worth reading the whole thing, but the most significant section is the first answer. [Emphasis mine (other than on the question).]
A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

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.

Here are the trends and significances for each period:

This is pretty significant because Jones is admitting that—over the timescale for which we have actual measurements (rather than proxies)—the current warming trend is not unprecedented—an aspect that the whole alarmist argument depends on.

Watt's Up With That summarises the relevant points from the interview in this way.
  • Neither the rate nor magnitude of recent warming is exceptional.

  • There was no significant warming from 1998-2009. According to the IPCC we should have seen a global temperature increase of at least 0.2°C per decade.

  • The IPCC models may have overestimated the climate sensitivity for greenhouse gases, underestimated natural variability, or both.

  • This also suggests that there is a systematic upward bias in the impacts estimates based on these models just from this factor alone.

  • The logic behind attribution of current warming to well-mixed man-made greenhouse gases is faulty.

  • The science is not settled, however unsettling that might be.

  • There is a tendency in the IPCC reports to leave out inconvenient findings, especially in the part(s) most likely to be read by policy makers.

Now, some of these conclusions might be slight leaps, as Climate Skeptic opines.
I think some of these conclusions are a bit of a reach from the Q&A. I don’t get the sense that Jones is abandoning the basic hypothesis that climate sensitivity to manmade CO2 is high (e.g. 3+ degrees per doubling, rather than <=1 degrees as many skeptics would hypothesize). In particular, I think the writing has been on the wall for a while that alarmists were bailing on the hockey stick / MWP-related arguments as indicative of high sensitivities.

The new news for me was the admission that the warming rate from 1979-present is in no way unprecedented. This is important as the lead argument (beyond black box “the models say so” justifications) for blaming anthropogenic factors for recent warming is that the rate of warming was somehow unprecedented. However, Jones admits (as all rational skeptics have said for some time) that the warming rate from 1979 to today is really no different than we have measured in other periods decidedly unaffected by CO2.

However, there was one of Phil Jones's answers that left me absolutely gob-smacked, and it is this one:
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 [where he referenced Chapter 9 of the IPCC AR4].

You what? So, since you are unable to account for the warming in terms of volcanos or solar warming, then it must be human induced? What the hell?

What about this mysterious decadal Pacific oscillation that is now, apparently, "masking the warming"? What about cloud formation, or albedo or... or... so many other bloody things, many of which we may not be aware of? The climate is a pretty Chaotic system and we have, really, very little idea of all of the factors involved. Yes, it may be man-made forcings but, ultimately, it could be something else entirely. Or a mixture of both natural and human, of course.

Still, we are constantly told that the debate is over, aren't we, Phil?
It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.

Ah. So the debate isn't over? And the "vast majority of climate scientists think this"? Right.

Well, thank you for indulging us poor climate "deniers"—or, in the words of the Prime Minister of Great Britain, we "anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics"—and admitting that there is a debate to be had: that's tremendously kind of you, Phil.

This is very far from being a smoking gun interview and Jones is obviously still of the opinion that man is the cause of the world's warming but, nonetheless, this climate scientist obviously feels that there is still a debate to be had.

So, after many long years of vilifying sceptics and shutting down any comment, perhaps we can have a grown-up debate.

Could someone tell that renowned climate scientist, Sunny Hundal?

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Posted by Devil's Kitchen at 2/15/2010 11:03:00 am

17 Blogger Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The climate is a pretty Chaotic system

Especially if you're a butterfly.

2/15/2010 12:54:00 pm  
Blogger T England said...

"The climate is a pretty Chaotic system"

I was amazed to learn the other day that the earths climate can change more than a few degrees in a humans life time & this has happened many times in the past, as the ice studies show.

It just seems the more we learn about our climate the more we see the "experts" don't really seem to have clue what's going on.

2/15/2010 01:30:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Computer models are not up to the job of predicting such a chaotic system as the worlds weather.
Far too many variables.
Even for massive proccesing power.
It was suggested that the flap of a butterflies wings in South America could theoretically set up a chain of events leading to tornados in the American mid west.
The games up you've been cuaght on the fiddle.
Time to pay the piper.

2/15/2010 02:10:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see that the 1930/40 figure was lower than the rest. Born in 1933 in an industrial area I can say that the pollution levels were on todays standards horrendous. Then add in the wartime period 39/45, bombs, shell and gun explosions to say nothing of the fires so caused, that should have raised the temperature a bit. Most people talking about pollution have never seen it in the real world, before the "clean air act", in the, what 50s I think.


2/15/2010 02:39:00 pm  
Anonymous microdave said...

I saw in some comments that the Beeb recorded a face to face interview as well, but decided not to screen it as Phil "didn't come across very well"

2/15/2010 04:18:00 pm  
Blogger John A said...

Note to earlier commenters

About those butterflies: thank one Professor Lorenz, a meteorologist, who concluded that computer models could not replicate climate.

2/15/2010 06:02:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There we go Derek! Global warming was caused by World War 2. So we need the EU to stop wars in Europe...

2/15/2010 06:13:00 pm  
Anonymous gfs said...

OK but now we have global cooling!!

2/15/2010 07:06:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

a) Derek - you need to distinguish between pollutants and CO2 emissions. The Clean Air Act and its equivalents elsewhere took huge strides in reducing pollution from smokestacks. However, they did bugger-all to reduce CO2 emissions, which they were not concerned with. CO2 emissions have risen throughout the industrial age. Only recessions have had any limited effect on reducing their rate of growth.

b) Sunni is is a complete cretin isn't he? He avers that "IPCC head Dr Rajendra Pachauri [is] rightly refusing to apologise for a mistake that wasn't made under his watch". However, he believes the monarchy should apologise for slavery, because the institution was around when slavery abounded. Consistency not his strong point.


2/15/2010 08:57:00 pm  
Anonymous Chuckles said...

@T England,

"I was amazed to learn the other day that the earths climate can change more than a few degrees in a humans life time & this has happened many times in the past, as the ice studies show."

I heard that if things get really bad, we could even see it every day.

2/15/2010 09:11:00 pm  
Blogger Pete said...

According to Monty Python, UEA has a history of idiocy, see about 2:44 mins into this clip

2/16/2010 03:52:00 am  
Blogger Letters From A Tory said...

Anybody else notice that Sunny didn't really feel like commenting on this particular story, seeing as it didn't really fit his view of the world?

2/16/2010 09:22:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Warming rates are not statistically significantly different"—Phil Jones, CRU.

No, but how many of us now believe the shite is !

2/16/2010 12:58:00 pm  
Anonymous David Davis (Libertarian Alliance) said...

When we finally come to power, we could put these climatology-wallahs in a place where there is no climate.


I would not put them on the moon, for you can't trust them further than you can see them.

2/16/2010 02:26:00 pm  
Blogger T England said...


I did chuckle!
I see how that came out :O)

2/16/2010 03:47:00 pm  
Anonymous Gareth said...

The excerpt from Climate Skeptic is important:

Jones is not going to abandon the hypothesised forcings and feedbacks that get the alarmist figures because they exist in the computer models.

Kevin Trenberth has stated those models have no predictive value.

Given what comes out of them tends to be things like deserts drying, rainy areas getting heavier rains, snowy areas getting more snow, variable regions becoming more variable I guess they do nothing more complicated than take recent weather trends and extrapolate them for 100 years into the future, being totally reliant on those recent weather trends being caused by increased CO2.

2/16/2010 06:26:00 pm  
Anonymous caesars wife said...

I can claim to having an interest in this subject , namely that i never thought for a moment that the IPCC would make up stories or for that matter the CRP would put out mis leading information.

I have long held the position that digging up carbon sequestered from millions of years of eco system , and then converting it into oxides and heat , would have an effect.

We know that certain gaseous oxides are harmfull to life , but the question about warming is spurious , as all along pollution/toxin was the problem .

The oxide sequestering systems of the planet , may still be in trouble from pollution , the nordic forest acidification was proven , the oxides mixed with the water vapour to produce weak acids , the acid rain in turn changed nutirent levels and damaged tree cell/leaf structures .

The oceans abosrb a lot of oxides and many questions still remain about what systems are absorbinng what , in other words where are all the by products going ??

There is also the more difficult idea of how much nature and perhaps , how much of the high solar tropical rainforests (equator to tropics) which are the most energetic sequestering areas .

It is clear that there is somthing true in that nature can only support a certain population , forests/wilderness have a quiet role in maintaing the conditions for respiratory life.

That said I cannot convey how bitter it is to find , false preachers with such weak authority and empty claims/lies , for what looks like a fit to certain ecnomic structures , whilst not adressing the real problems of increasing population and increasing man made pollution and loss of important ecosystems .

2/16/2010 06:34:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Previous Posts



  • "The best British political/libertarian blog on the web. Consistently excellent but not for the squeamish."—Christopher Snowdon
  • "[He] runs the infamous and fantastically sweary Devil’s Kitchen blog, and because he’s one of the naughtiest geeks (second only to the incredibly, incredibly naughty Guido Fawkes) he’s right at the top of the evil dork hierarchy."—Charlotte Gore
  • "I met the Devil's Kitchen the other night. What a charming young man he is, and considerably modest too..."—Peter Briffa
  • "The Devil's Kitchen exposes hypocrisy everywhere, no holds barred."—Wrinkled Weasel
  • "People can still be controversial and influential whilst retaining integrity—Devil's Kitchen springs to mind—and attract frequent but intelligent comment."—Steve Shark, at B&D
  • "Sometimes too much, sometimes wrong, sometimes just too much but always worth a read. Not so much a blog as a force of nature."—The Nameless Libertarian
  • "The Devil's Kitchen—a terrifying blog that covers an astonishing range of subjects with an informed passion and a rage against the machine that leaves me in awe..."—Polaris
  • "He rants like no one else in the blogosphere. But it's ranting in an eloquent, if sweary, kind of way. Eton taught him a lot."—Iain Dale
  • "But for all that, he is a brilliant writer—incisive, fisker- extraordinaire and with an over developed sense of humour... And he can back up his sometimes extraordinary views with some good old fashioned intellectual rigour... I'm promoting him on my blogroll to a daily read."—Iain Dale
  • "... an intelligent guy and a brilliant writer..."—A Very British Dude
  • "... the glorious Devil's Kitchen blog—it's not for the squeamish or easily offended..."—Samizdata
  • "... a very, smart article... takes a pretty firm libertarian line on the matter."—Samizdata
  • "By the way, DK seems to be on fucking good form at the moment."—Brian Mickelthwait
  • "Perhaps the best paragraph ever written in the history of human creation. It's our Devil on fine form."—Vindico
  • "Devil's Kitchen is the big name on the free-market libertarian strand of the British blogosphere... Profane rants are the immediate stand-out feature of DK's blog, but the ranting is backed up by some formidable argument on a wide range of issues particularly relating to British and European parliamentary politics, economics, and civil liberties."—Question That
  • "... an excellent, intelligent UK political blog which includes a great deal of swearing."—Dr Aubrey Blumsohn
  • "I like the Devil's Kitchen. I think it's one of the best written and funniest blogs in the business."—Conservative Party Reptile
  • "The. Top. UK. Blogger."—My Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
  • "For sheer intelligence, erudition and fun, Iain Dale's Diary, Cranmer and Devil's Kitchen are so far ahead of the rest I don't see how they can figure in a top ten. They are the Beatles, Stones and Who of the blog world; the Astair, Bogart and Marlon Brando of the blog world; the Gerswin, Porter and Novello of the blog world; the Dot Cotton, Pat Butcher, Bette Lynch of the blog world..."—Wrinkled Weasel
  • "It's the blogging equivalent of someone eating Ostrich Vindaloo, washed down by ten bottles of Jamaican hot pepper sauce and then proceeding to breathe very close to your face while talking about how lovely our politicians are... But there's much more to his writing than four letter words."—Tom Tyler
  • "God bless the Devil's Kitchen... Colourful as his invective is, I cannot fault his accuracy."—Tom Paine
  • "The Devil's Kitchen is a life-affirming, life-enhancing blog ... This particular post will also lead you to some of the best soldiers in the army of swearbloggers of which he is Field Marshal."—The Last Ditch
  • "... underneath all the ranting and swearing [DK]'s a very intelligent and thoughtful writer whom many people ... take seriously, despite disagreeing with much of what he says."—Not Saussure
  • "... the most foul-mouthed of bloggers, Devils Kitchen, was always likely to provoke (sometimes disgust, but more often admiration)."—The Times Online
  • "The always entertaining Mr Devil's Kitchen..."—The Times's Comment Central
  • "Frankly, this is ranting of the very highest calibre."—The Nameless Libertarian
  • "I don't mean it literally, or even metaphorically. I just find that his atheism aside, I agree with everything the Devil (of Kitchen fame...) says. I particularly enjoy his well crafted and sharp swearing, especially when addressed at self righteous lefties..."—The Tin Drummer
  • "Spot on accurate and delightful in its simplicity, Devil's Kitchen is one of the reasons that we're not ready to write off EUroweenie-land just yet. At least not until we get done evacuating the ones with brains."—Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
  • "This hugely entertaining, articulate, witty Scottish commentator is also one of the most foul-mouthed bloggers around. Gird up your loins and have a look. Essential reading."—Doctor Crippen
  • "The Devil's Kitchen is one of the foremost blogs in the UK. The DK is bawdy, foul-mouthed, tasteless, vulgar, offensive and frequently goes beyond all boundaries of taste and decency. So why on earth does Dr Crippen read the DK? Because he reduces me to a state of quivering, helpless laughter."—Doctor Crippen's Grand Rounds
  • "DK is a take-no-prisoners sort of libertarian. His blog is renowned for its propensity for foul-mouthed invective, which can be both amusing and tiresome by turns. Nevertheless, he is usually lucid, often scintillating and sometimes illuminating."—Dr Syn
  • "If you enjoy a superior anti-Left rant, albeit one with a heavy dash of cursing, you could do worse than visit the Devil's Kitchen. The Devil is an astute observer of the evils of NuLabour, that's for sure. I for one stand converted to the Devil and all his works."—Istanbul Tory
  • "... a sick individual."—Peter Briffa
  • "This fellow is sharp as a tack, funny as hell, and—when something pisses him off—meaner than a badger with a case of the bullhead clap."—Green Hell
  • "Foul-mouthed eloquence of the highest standard. In bad taste, offensive, immoderate and slanderous. F***ing brilliant!—Guest, No2ID Forum
  • "a powerfully written right-of-center blog..."—Mangan's Miscellany
  • "I tend to enjoy Devil's Kitchen not only because I disagree with him quite a lot of the time but because I actually have to use my brain to articulate why."—Rhetorically Speaking
  • "This blog is currently slamming. Politics certainly ain't all my own. But style and prose is tight, fierce, provocative. And funny. OK, I am a child—swear words still crack a laugh."—Qwan
  • "hedonistic, abrasive but usually good-natured..."—The G-Gnome
  • "10,000 words per hour blogging output... prolific or obsessive compulsive I have yet to decide..."—Europhobia
  • "a more favoured blog from the sensible Right..."—Great Britain...
  • "Devils Kitchen, a right thinking man indeed..."—EU Serf
  • "an excellent blog..."—Rottweiler Puppy
  • "Anyone can cuss. But to curse in an imaginative fashion takes work."—Liftport Staff Blog
  • "The Devil's Kitchen: really very funny political blog."—Ink & Incapability
  • "I've been laffing fit to burst at the unashamed sweariness of the Devil's Kitchen ~ certainly my favourite place recently."—SoupDragon
  • "You can't beat the writing and general I-may-not-know-about-being-polite-but-I-know-what-I-like attitude."—SoupDragon
  • "Best. Fisking. Ever. I'm still laughing."—LC Wes, Imperial Mohel
  • "Art."—Bob
  • "It made me laugh out loud, and laugh so hard—and I don't even get all the references... I hope his politics don't offend you, but he is very funny."—Furious, WoT Forum
  • "DK himself is unashamedly right-wing, vitriolic and foul mouthed, liberally scattering his posts with four-letter-words... Not to be read if you're easily offended, but highly entertaining and very much tongue in cheek..."—Everything Is Electric
  • "This blog is absolutely wasted here and should be on the front page of one of the broadsheets..."—Commenter at The Kitchen
  • "[This Labour government] is the most mendacious, dishonest, endemically corrupt, power-hungry, incompetent, illiberal fucking shower of shits that has ruled this country..."—DK


Campaign Links

All: Daily Reads (in no particular order)

Politics (in no particular order)

Climate Change (in no particular order)

General & Humour (in no particular order)

Mac,Design Tech & IT (in no particular order)