Phil Jones No Global Warming Since 1995

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Standard Temperature and Pressure.

Nothing changing except the composition of the gas mixture.

Carry on - - -

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What happened to Mr. Buffalo Roam? Did he answer your request for a debate?

 

This thread should be closed based on the fact that the last decade was the warmest on record.

 

:d.

 

Seems Mr. Buffalo Roam was given a vacation so He couldn't respond, typical of those who back the Orthodoxy of Global Warming.

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=670&filename=1142108839.txt

Friends in the IPCC WG1 AR4--

My impression is that, for good reasons, the US NRC panel looking at
the record of temperatures over the last millennium or two is not going
to strongly endorse the ability of proxies to detect warming above the level
of a millennium ago, and that a careful re-examination of the
Chapter 6 wording and its representation in the TS and SPM would
be wise. Some of you have seen some of the discussion that follows,
in some of the rapid-fire emails over the last day or two, but I'd like
to clarify a little.
................................
..........

My guess is that the NRC committee will put these things together, find some
papers on ozone damage and CO2 fertilization, consider Rosanne's statement
that the preferred temperature-sensitive trees are rare and in restricted places
(and thus that a prolonged warming could easily move those trees out of the
sensitive band), and conclude that tree-ring reconstructions include larger
errors than are returned by any of the formal statistics from calibration
or aggregation of records, and thus that there is less confidence than
previously believed in the relative warmth of recent versus Medieval times.
I also consider it possible that they will point out the difficulty of using
a composite temperature history consisting of proxy and instrumental data if
some of the proxy data do not track the more-recent part of the instrumental
data.
.........................
........

--> There are many hypotheses for non-temperature influences on tree-ring
records, including: (i) recent damage (as by ozone); (ii) recent fertilization
(as by CO2); and (iii) decreasing sensitivity of tree-ring growth to
temperature with increasing temperature (once it's warm enough, the trees areprimarily responsive to other things). The nature of these and their timing
relative to the interval in which tree-ring data were calibrated to
instrumental records would control the effects on climate reconstructions.
In general: (i) would mean that recent warmth is underestimated but warmth
from a millennium ago is not;

(Is this not talking out of both sides of your mouth?)

...................
.....

--> These considerations do somewhat affect the confidence that can be attached
to the best estimate of recent warmth versus that of a millennium ago. If the
paleoclimatic data could be confidently be interpreted as paleotemperatures,
then joining the paleoclimatic and instrumental records would be appropriate,
and the recent warmth would clearly be anomalous over the last millennium and
beyond. By demonstrating that some tree-ring series chosen for temperature
sensitivity are not fully reflecting temperature changes, the divergence issue
widens the error bars and so reduces confidence in the comparison between
recent and earlier warmth.

Yes, they raise the noise in the data by adding in the "Nature Trick" and other neet tricks as done in the Hockey Stick, and then want to claim a
" Reduction in the Confidence " between earlier warming periods and the current warming, which has come to a end in accordance with the normal 30 to 50 year cycle.

I find it funny that the Global Warming Orthodoxy is now claiming that there will be a cooling period of 30 to 50 years before warming will increase again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm

[B]

What happened to global warming? ​

[/B]

By Paul Hudson
Climate correspondent, BBC News

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. ..................


..................................Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers.

But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.

Yes, a 30 year cycle PDO not Anthroprogenic.


The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).

For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.

But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.

So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.

Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."

 

Then why couldn't I post between 03-05-10, 09:46 AM and 03-18-10, 09:46 AM, and received a ban message that accused me of lying and being disingenuous?

I have never went 14 days with out posting.....

I have just run my infractions and guess what?

The Ban from (03-05-10, 09:46 AM and 03-18-10, 09:46 AM) isn't listed courious isn't it?

Now who can do such things???? ........MOD's....

And how about this?

superstring01
Moderator (9,130 posts)
03-20-10, 11:40 PM #7

Mod Notes: Agreed, James. Buffalo, you've had your chance at this debate. Either accept the invitation or stop creating new threads on the environment. No more "Global Warming" threads will be permitted until you participate in good faith in the debate.

String I have been participating in good faith in the debate.


Trippy, I have engaged you in open debate, just not in the way you insist on, you are doing the exact same thing as Jones etal, trying to control to debate and the acceptable information according to your orthodoxy.

I have cited multiple source in support of my posts and threads.

Now how about this from Jones?

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=485&filename=1106338806.txt

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: FOIA
Date: Fri Jan 21 15:20:06 2005
Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Tom,
I'll look at what you've said over the weekend re CCSP.
I don't know the other panel members. I've not heard any
more about it since agreeing a week ago.
As for FOIA Sarah isn't technically employed by UEA and she
will likely be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University.
I wouldn't worry about the code. If FOIA does ever get
used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well.
Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people,
so I will be hiding behind them.

I'll be passing any
requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to
deal with them.
Cheers
Phil

Yes "control, delay, deny, obfuscate ", Jones and You, simpatico, argue the process rather than the debate.

Yes, Trippy, argue the process rather than the debate, and cherry pick the peer review....

Phil Jones wrote:

Tom,
I hope the VTT panel doesn't prove a meeting too many
at this time. It is currently scheduled for Feb 23-25 and
I only get back from an 8 day workshop in Pune on
Feb 20.
The IPCC Chapter with Kevin is now with WGI in
Boulder. We did put you down as one of our
potential reviewers. Don't know whether you'll
have time or whether WGI will select you -
regional balance etc.
Next week I'll be in Reading and Exeter, so
won'be be in CRU. Have to be at an RMS Awards
meeting then something on Reanalysis, then I
have to collect some data from the archives
in Exeter for a small project we have. It is
easier for me to get this than explain to
someone how to do it. So I'll miss you -
not back till Thursday night.
On the FOI Act there is a little leaflet we
have all been sent. It doesn't really clarify
what we might have to do re programs or
data. Like all things in Britain we will only
find out when the first person or organization
asks. I wouldn't tell anybody about the FOI
Act in Britain. I don't think UEA really knows
what's involved.
As you're no longer an employee I would
use this argument if anything comes along.
I think it is supposed to mainly apply to
issues of personal information - references for
jobs etc.
Sorry I'll miss you next week. If you're in
on Sunday perhaps you could come round to
our new house in Wicklewood. Phone number
is still the same as 01953 605643. Keith and
Sarah know where it is even if they did get lost the
first time they came.
Cheers
Phil

 

Yes "control, delay, deny, obfuscate ", Jones, Wigley, etal...argue the process rather than the debate, and cherry pick the peer review....and limit the reply time for those who question AGW.

At 14:35 21/01/2005, Tom Wigley wrote:

Phil,
Thanks for the quick reply.
The leaflet appeared so general, but it was prepared by UEA so
they may have simplified things. From their wording, computer code
would be covered by the FOIA. My concern was if Sarah is/was still
employed by UEA. I guess she could claim that she had only written
one tenth of the code and release every tenth line.
Sorry I won't see you, but I will not come up to Norwich until
Monday.
Let me fill you in a bit (confidentially). You probably know the panel
members. We were concerned that the chair would be a strong person.
It is Jerry Mahlman -- about the best possible choice. Richard Smith
is the statistician -- also excellent. Dave Randall, too -- very good.
As token skeptic there is Dick Lindzen -- but at least he is a smart
guy and he does listen. He may raise his paper with Gianitsis that
purports to show low climate sensitivity from volcanoes. I will
attach our paper that proves otherwise, in press in JGR.
Preparing the report has been a good and bad experience. I think
I had the worst task with the Exec. Summ. -- it tied up most of
my time for the past 3 months. The good has been the positive
interactions between most of the people -- a really excellent bunch.
I have been very impressed by Carl Mears and John Lanzante.
At meetings, John Christy has been quite good -- and there were
good and positive interactions between John and Roy and the RSS
gang that helped clarify a lot. Outside the meeting, in the email world,
he has been more of a pain. He has made a lot of useful suggestions
for the ExSumm -- but he keeps accusing the AOGCMers of
faking their models (not quite as bluntly as this). In the emails there
are some very useful exchanges from Jerry Meehl, Ramaswamy and
Ben detailing the AOGCM development process. We will be
writing a BAMS article on this in the summer -- much of what happens
in model development is unknown to the rest of the community. The
'faking' idea prompted me to write a tongue in cheek note -- also
attached. As far as I know, John will not raise this particular issue
in his dissentin views.
To accommodate dissenting views, the report will have a "dissenters'
appendix", with responses. You will get this at some stage -- the
deadline for dissenters to produce is Jan 31, and we will not finish
our rebuttals until mid Feb. The dissenters are John C, and (far worse)
Roger Pielke Sr. All of the rest of us disagree with these persons'
dissenting views. Roger has been extremely difficult -- but the details
are too complex to put in an email. On the other hand he has made
a number of useful contributions to the ExSumm and other chapters.
Suffice to say that he has some strange ideas (often to do with the
effects of landuse change) that are interesting but still, in my view,
speculative -- but testable.
We have yet to see the dissents -- and it would not be ethical for
me to say any more than I have already.
Best wishes,
Tom.

 

The worthy gentlemen who first stole and then misrepresented some people's email have not been cleared of malicious intent, and their actions have been widely described as deliberately dishonest.

They should have their day in court, as well, and be given the opportunity to clear their names with a full recounting of their efforts and actions.

 

So Trippy, have we caught you in a Phil Jones?

Under a decision by the MOD's to implement a new infraction system it seems JamesR has:

and I can not now show the ban that I received, (03-05-10, 09:46 AM and 03-18-10, 09:46 AM) and prove that didn't have the ability because of actions by the MOD's to respond to your posts, also a MOD.

 

Really?

It would seem that the decission is that Jones didn't manipulate His data, and that;

It also points out that theses are common practices in the;

"climate science community",​

and that these practices need to be changed;

"that those practices need to change"​

So the release in worded in CYA, and white wash, as it confirms that data was deliberately hidden, and access manipulipated to hide massive inconsistencies in the data collection, development, and application.

All in all I see this as a full CYA move, and White Washing, and a how dare the common unwashed masses question the High Priests of the Global Warming Orthodoxy.

Especially the politically corrected reinterperation of Jones's e-mail that admits that there is a decline in Temperatures and some Trick was used to hide that fact, and that seems to be the focus of their decision;

Yes a full CYA and get back for screwing up the United Nations Climate Summit in December which struck a major blow to the Orthodoxy of Global Warming, and Government control of the daily lives of the individual.