scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

[GG]

    * 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


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fZUDcO1I

[GG]

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be'.

The data is crucial to the famous 'hockey stick graph' used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no 'statistically significant' warming.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.

The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fZUT4nyx

[GG]

Well, well, Senator Inhofe might be right after all.

[swake]

Did you even read the article?

[Hoss]

Likely not.  If you look at the timing of posts 1 and 2, you'll notice they're not much more than a minute apart.  Unless you're Mavis Beacon, that's a cut/paste job.

Credibility removed.  Wait, you have had to have had some for it to be removed.  I'm sorry.

[Red Arrow]

Likely not.  If you look at the timing of posts 1 and 2, you'll notice they're not much more than a minute apart.  Unless you're Mavis Beacon, that's a cut/paste job.

Credibility removed.  Wait, you have had to have had some for it to be removed.  I'm sorry.

The article isn't all that long.

I found this regarding the Medieval Warming Period to be interesting:

But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.
Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: '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, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fZoFw3rQ

Jones knows how to tap dance pretty good.

[nathanm]

Given that this is coming from the Daily Mail, which have been happy in the past to run completely unverified stories regarding the supposed falsehood of global warming in general, much less it being caused by man, I'm inclined to dismiss anything coming from that paper on this subject out of hand without corroboration from other sources.

Edited to add:

Oh, look, the Daily Mail are a bunch of liars:

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.

And unreliablesource, your headline sucks. What he said was that the level of warming over the period since 1995 has not been drastic enough to assign it statistical significance to the 95% level of confidence at this point (statistically, you need either a longer observation period or a more drastic change to be certain what you are seeing isn't noise), but that there has certainly been warming both in that period and since the beginning of recordkeeping.

This is yet another example of politics obscuring what climate scientists actually say in an effort to mislead the public about the true nature of the scientific consensus on the matter.

Oh, and even if the set of data this guy worked on is complete trash, there are data sets collected by NOAA/NWS and others that agree quite closely. Nice try, though.

[Red Arrow]

For those interested, perhaps the link below is more credible.

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

Read it, decide for yourself.

[TheArtist]

  There are so many ways for people (the media and politicians included) to get tripped up on this subject.  We are so often influenced by sound bites and overly simplified, one dimensional, explanations or concepts.  We have spoken many times on here as to the difference between weather and climate for instance. I have tried many times to explain how things can be both cooling and warming at the same time lol.  For instance if over the last decade the solar cycle and other cycles (plus volcanoes and carbon sinks etc) were exerting a cooling effect on the earth and man-made CO2 was exerting a warming effect... the former could have been measurably larger (if you were taking the temperature of the earth) than the latter over that time period. This would mask any "signal" in a temperature trend.  But that doesnt mean that the earth wasnt warming......

It could have been cooler during a time period,,, BUT without the man-made warming it SHOULD have been cooler still. Get it? (ice in the arctic should have been getting even thicker and thus have more to thin during the usual warming cycles as one example of how this could matter over an even longer period) It was warmer than it would have been otherwise due to man, even though it may have been cooler lol.  Then when the natural warming trends hit, on top of that you will see the added man-made warming. People "get" that easier than the former for some reason.

All of my explanations are also essentially sound bites and very overly simplified to the effect that they are essentially "less truthful" than they would be otherwise.  But I cant teach people the science on here. If you really want to know the subject, you cant rely on media or politicians, or even the short explanations by reputable scientists... You have to get into it, read a lot, and study it yourself. And a lot of people on here admit they do not want to do that, which is perfectly understandable (and apparent in their wording). But understand, your not likely to understand unless you do.    

[Conan71]

I think there's enough disagreement in the scientific community to allow for doubt of man-made global warming.  Since companies and government have identified the issue as an opportunity for profit, jobs growth, and increasing taxes it's easy for cynics to suspect manipulation of data.  Add to this drama, hysteria, and half-truths which have been thrown into the mix and it starts looking ridiculous.  NYC and Miami under water, dead polar bears anyone? 

Is global warming or climate change possible?  Absolutely.  There have been periods of warming and cooling in the past which bear this out.

How much of what occured in the past was man-made?  How much of any current change is man-made?  Are we audacious enough to believe that man has harnessed nature to the point that we can affect warming or cooling or to mitigate the supposed effects of man-made warming?  Previous warming and cooling cycles happened with much lower population density than we have today and prior to the mass-industrialization of the world. 

If we are in a man-made warming mode, how do we know it's CO2 production for certain and simply not increased waste BTU's being released into the atmosphere by more inhabitants of the planet and the heat generated by the increased transportation, energy generation, and industrialization needs created by an ever-increasing population? 

[Conan71]

But understand, your not likely to understand unless you do.    

I'm not sure I understand 

[Gaspar]

Global Warming/Climate Change has become a religion. 

This is not a new religion.  Climate Change represents a revitalization of Humanism.  It places human action at the center of power, giving man's hand the ultimate ability to create and destroy.  Any evidence to the contrary, or fallacy inherent in the GW/CC scriptures is brushed aside as heresy by followers.

GW/CC like other religions has a foundation in fact, and as a religion it serves a basic psychological function.  This function helps us to explain events, actions that are beyond our current understanding, so that we may develop behaviors that protect us from harm.  In the case of GW/CC we are attempting to take responsibility for our own demise by placing blame on the evils of our productivity.  This purpose has been duplicated hundreds of time in hundreds of religions.  The story is the same, the profits and demons have simply been updated.

As with any religion GW/CC also affords political advantage, and here is where the danger lies. Religion removes objectivity from politics and causes decisions to be made on behalf of the people without consent.  When allowed to mix with politics, religion becomes a tool of pillage.  It grants political control over even the most productive of human endeavors.   

As challenges and inconsistencies mount against the science that gave birth to GW/CC, followers resist the opportunity to reconsider research or reinforce their opinions. Clerics of the new religion are fighting to hide the flaws and give false witness to followers.  The religion itself has become more important than the evidence behind it.

Were this simply science, the research would be duplicable and therefore able to withstand the volley of counter information, but it seems that even the most basic of scientific methodology was abandon on the alter of the new religion, and there is no foundation for the new church. 

Now that we see GW/CC faith overshadowing fact, we can recognize it as a religion and are therefore constitutionally obligated to separate the associated philosophy from our government policies.

GW/CC may rise again as a valid science, but until then we cannot allow the priests to make policy.

There is nothing wrong with having faith!  GW/CCers have just as much right to their faith as Christians, Muslims and Hindus.  We are a nation of multiple faiths and as such we should welcome all.  Each faith has something to teach us about our world and how others choose to view it. 

[nathanm]

If we are in a man-made warming mode, how do we know it's CO2 production for certain and simply not increased waste BTU's being released into the atmosphere by more inhabitants of the planet and the heat generated by the increased transportation, energy generation, and industrialization needs created by an ever-increasing population?  

Just to address this specific point, the amount of waste heat dumped into the ecosystem generated by our activities pales in comparison to the amount of energy coming from the sun. I don't have a reference handy, but my recollection is that the energy we get from the sun in a day is something around the amount of energy we produce through all activities in a year.

The Earth receives about 3.8 million exajoules of energy from the Sun each year. We create less than 500 exajoules of energy each year.

Needless to say, increasing the amount of energy from the Sun that remains here on Earth rather than being radiated out into space makes a much larger difference than any amount of energy we can reasonably create at this time. To give an example, if we detonated all of the nuclear weapons in the world arsenal (including the deactivated ones sitting around disassembled in warehouses), that would produce a little over 25 exajoules.

So, heat we produce? Not gonna do much. The only thing our puny civilization can do to increase the heat load of the Earth in any significant way is to engineer it to retain more heat from the Sun.

Edited to add: And suspecting manipulation of data by companies? Don't you think that entrenched interests have more to gain by obfuscating the issue than those in support of the theory of global warming? Several oil companies have already been caught pulling a tobacco, if you will.

[Gaspar]

Just to address this specific point, the amount of waste heat dumped into the ecosystem generated by our activities pales in comparison to the amount of energy coming from the sun. I don't have a reference handy, but my recollection is that the energy we get from the sun in a day is something around the amount of energy we produce through all activities in a year.

The Earth receives about 3.8 million exajoules of energy from the Sun each year. We create less than 500 exajoules of energy each year.

Needless to say, increasing the amount of energy from the Sun that remains here on Earth rather than being radiated out into space makes a much larger difference than any amount of energy we can reasonably create at this time. To give an example, if we detonated all of the nuclear weapons in the world arsenal (including the deactivated ones sitting around disassembled in warehouses), that would produce a little over 25 exajoules.

So, heat we produce? Not gonna do much. The only thing our puny civilization can do to increase the heat load of the Earth in any significant way is to engineer it to retain more heat from the Sun.

Nathan is correct.  The most common statement made is that the earth receives (after atmospheric filtration) more energy from the sun in one hour than mankind uses in a year.  The amount of heat produced through our inefficiencies is minuscule.

[Conan71]

Nathan is correct.  The most common statement made is that the earth receives (after atmospheric filtration) more energy from the sun in one hour than mankind uses in a year.  The amount of heat produced through our inefficiencies is minuscule.

I'm probably not doing a good job of explaining that I'm speaking along the terms of "heat islands" which have most definitely increased in temperature as population has become more dense.  Certainly radiant heat from New York City has no bearing on the South Pole, but if average earth temperatures from rural and urban areas are being used to calculate rates of global warming, heat islands most certainly have an effect.

Some research indicates GISS is not properly accounting for heat islands in it's GW calculations.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/CorrectCorrections.pdf