Humans causing Global warming - solid evidence

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

02/12/2010 03:47:25 PM · #427

Originally posted by RayEthier:

... and some people are vegetarians and vegans...
Ray

I like vegetables. I just like mine with meat.

02/14/2010 08:44:26 PM · #428

Checkmate

Phil Jones says there has been no warming in the past 15 years.

//www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

citymars

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

02/16/2010 05:00:27 PM · #429

Originally posted by cloudsme:

~~Checkmate~~
Phil Jones says there has been no warming in the past 15 years.
//www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

This weekend, Phil Jones said in a BBC interview:

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

Answer: "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."

He also said "I stand 100 per cent behind the science. I did not manipulate or fabricate any data."

A predictably falsified article.

02/16/2010 07:21:05 PM · #430

Originally posted by cloudsme:

Checkmate
Phil Jones says there has been no warming in the past 15 years.

02/16/2010 09:33:01 PM · #431

Who cares what he says? He's a hack with an agenda and gives real scientists a bad name.

If a scientists in pretty much any other field did what he did, they'd be unemployed, possibly sued or even in jail. The global warming alarmists give him awards...

02/16/2010 10:13:53 PM · #432

Dr. Jones said that there has been no statistical warming in the past 15 years. If the temperature boxes all around the world were placed properly (not near to furnices for example) and not moved around as they are in China, it would be shown that the world is cooling. But lets just assume he is correct, and the world has not been warming for 15 years. How then can it be that the polar ice caps are melting at extreme rates, glaciers are dissapearing at extreme rates, animals are dying at extreme rates? It simply can't be if Dr. Jones speaks the truth. So that means all that other stuff was made up as well (as we knew it was). And how about that hockey stick? Where does no temperature rise fit in there? You old global warmists are the new deniers. You are denying that global warming has been discreted.

02/16/2010 10:32:19 PM · #433

Originally posted by cloudsme:

Dr. Jones said that there has been no statistical warming in the past 15 years... And how about that hockey stick?

Jones did NOT say there hasn't been warming. He said it's not statistically significant because 15 years is too short to establish a trend. The "hockey stick" graph didn't even come from the surface temperature data they refer to. You've been duped by tabloid con artists.

MelonMusketeer

Nikon D7000

Nikon MF 50mm f/1.4

02/16/2010 10:32:29 PM · #434

It's a band wagon. Not that it makes any difference now.
Another link about it

02/16/2010 10:53:41 PM · #435

Originally posted by cloudsme:

You old global warmists are the new deniers. You are denying that global warming has been discreted [sic].

To those familiar with the science and the IPCCâ��s work, the current media discussion is in large part simply absurd and surreal. Journalists who have never even peeked into the IPCC report are now outraged that one wrong number appears on page 493 of Volume 2. Weâ��ve met TV teams coming to film a report on the IPCC reportsâ�� errors, who were astonished when they held one of the heavy volumes in hand, having never even seen it. They told us frankly that they had no way to make their own judgment; they could only report what they were being told about it. And there are well-organized lobby forces with proper PR skills that make sure these journalists are being told the â��rightâ�� story. That explains why some media stories about what is supposedly said in the IPCC reports can easily be falsified simply by opening the report and reading. Unfortunately, as a broad-based volunteer effort with only minimal organizational structure the IPCC is not in a good position to rapidly counter misinformation.

One near-universal meme of the media stories on the Himalaya mistake was that this was â��one of the most central predictions of the IPCCâ�� â�� apparently in order to make the error look more serious than it was. However, this prediction does not appear in any of the IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers, nor in the Synthesis Report (which at least partly explains why it went unnoticed for years). None of the media reports that we saw properly explained that Volume 1 (which is where projections of physical climate changes belong) has an extensive and entirely valid discussion of glacier loss.

What apparently has happened is that interested quarters, after the Himalyan glacier story broke, have sifted through the IPCC volumes with a fine-toothed comb, hoping to find more embarrassing errors. They have actually found precious little, but the little they did find was promptly hyped into Seagate, Africagate, Amazongate and so on. This has some similarity to the CRU email theft, where precious little was discovered from among thousands of emails, but a few sentences were plucked out of context, deliberately misinterpreted (like â��hide the declineâ��) and then hyped into â��Climategate.â��

citymars

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

02/16/2010 11:08:34 PM · #436

Originally posted by cloudsme:

Dr. Jones said that there has been no statistical warming in the past 15 years.

Now go back and read what he said this weekend in the BBC interview.

02/16/2010 11:27:02 PM · #437

nm

Message edited by author 2010-02-16 23:50:13.

02/16/2010 11:32:07 PM · #438

Originally posted by citymars:

Originally posted by cloudsme:
Dr. Jones said that there has been no statistical warming in the past 15 years.

Now go back and read what he said this weekend in the BBC interview.

Originally posted by BBC and Mr Jones:

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.

citymars

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

02/16/2010 11:47:07 PM · #439

LoudDog, does that contradict the part where he said there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity? I don't think so.

02/16/2010 11:55:18 PM · #440

Originally posted by citymars:

LoudDog, does that contradict the part where he said there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity? I don't think so.

Sure, he said there is evidence global warming is man made since 1950. So what? There is evidence that OJ didn't do it too.

Edit to add:

Just to be clear, even if you believe this hack of a scientist, evidence and the debate is over or the science is settled, are VERY different things.

Message edited by author 2010-02-16 23:57:20.

02/17/2010 12:35:50 PM · #441

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Originally posted by citymars:

Originally posted by cloudsme:
Dr. Jones said that there has been no statistical warming in the past 15 years.

Now go back and read what he said this weekend in the BBC interview.

Originally posted by BBC and Mr Jones:
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.

As a scientist, close to significance is by definition not significant. Anyway it isn't really close to significant, temps are cooling. So scientifically, there is no warming. Dr. Jones thinks it should be, but it isn't. This means there are no great melts going on either. Close to warming will no way cause a great meltoff.

02/17/2010 01:45:10 PM · #442

Originally posted by cloudsme:

Originally posted by BBC and Mr Jones:
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.

As a scientist, close to significance is by definition not significant. Anyway it isn't really close to significant, temps are cooling. So scientifically, there is no warming. Dr. Jones thinks it should be, but it isn't. This means there are no great melts going on either. Close to warming will no way cause a great meltoff.

Geez, you're not even reading your own posts! He's SAYING it's not significant because the timeframe is too short (the 1995 date was intentionally cherry picked). You could also say there's been no statistically significant rise in the unemployment rate since last May. While technically correct, that doesn't mean the rate isn't rising or that unemployment hasn't increased significantly in recent years. It would just seem that way because you picked an illusory starting point that's too short to show a long-term trend (and climate change can only ONLY be gauged in the long term). Jones goes on to state that, "The positive trend is quite close to the significance level." A positive trend is warming, not cooling, and it's nearly enough to achieve significance even WITH the short time frame.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/17/2010 01:49:21 PM · #443

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

02/17/2010 01:53:43 PM · #444

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Maybe if we all switched to LEDs instead of those hot studio lights and magnesium-filled flashbulbs we could reverse the warming trend ...

02/17/2010 02:02:02 PM · #445

Hehe- "excessive CO2 emissions in the forums" Classic!

02/17/2010 06:11:38 PM · #446

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Very Good!!

02/17/2010 06:35:18 PM · #447

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by cloudsme:
Originally posted by BBC and Mr Jones:
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.

As a scientist, close to significance is by definition not significant. Anyway it isn't really close to significant, temps are cooling. So scientifically, there is no warming. Dr. Jones thinks it should be, but it isn't. This means there are no great melts going on either. Close to warming will no way cause a great meltoff.

Geez, you're not even reading your own posts! He's SAYING it's not significant because the timeframe is too short (the 1995 date was intentionally cherry picked). You could also say there's been no statistically significant rise in the unemployment rate since last May. While technically correct, that doesn't mean the rate isn't rising or that unemployment hasn't increased significantly in recent years. It would just seem that way because you picked an illusory starting point that's too short to show a long-term trend (and climate change can only ONLY be gauged in the long term). Jones goes on to state that, "The positive trend is quite close to the significance level." A positive trend is warming, not cooling, and it's nearly enough to achieve significance even WITH the short time frame.

A trend means almost nothing in science, statistical significance is the standard. The trend is bogus anyway, everyone knows its been cooling. Weather stations placed near local heat sources account for your trend. So how long do we have to wait for real evidence of this catastrophic heating?? Are you Waiting for Godot?