Monday, February 15, 2010

Phil Jones Proves ALL IPCC Computer Models are WRONG!

Quoting the U.K. Mail Online:
“[Phil Jones, of ClimateGate infamy] said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming”
Click the image & read the rest:
Click the image & read the rest
Click here for the BBC Q&A.

The most overwhelming significance of this admission has been overlooked by EVERYBODY!

The alarmists at NOAA are on record admitting that:
“The [computer model] simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends [in global temperatures] for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
That’s it! Game OVER! The AGW Hysteria cult is officially DEAD and BURIED!

According to the very core of the alarmist cabal, the IPCC computer models -- the SOLE SOURCE of all the hysterical predictions of climate catastrophe -- have been invalidated!
Additionally, the alarmists at NOAA admit there has been no global warming since 1998:
“The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C decade, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the "ENSO-adjusted" trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade.”
Click here for a single factor explanation as to why.

Click here for some basic climate change science.
Click here to debunk the hysteria topic by topic.


John said...


I doubt you spend much time sifting through RealClimate. I found a tidbit - URL to TrackBack this entry is:

Sorry, but you chaps still aren’t getting “it”. I am on your side and I see that you still aren’t getting “it”. The problem is the defensiveness and obfuscation of the Team (as they call you). I see it and I am on your side. Let the “deniers” have what they want – data; code; public debate. Surely you all will “win” in that process with the facts. Only then will they relent.

[Response: Maybe on a different planet. There is more data than you can poke a stick at, millions of lines of code in the public domain, and climate scientists tripping over themselves to do outreach at schools, churches, clubs, museums, TV, radio and music hall. I'm collecting 'we surrender' emails from the sceptics as we speak.... - gavin]


Funny, yes?

SBVOR said...


I found the comment exchange you referenced.

Click here and know why I don’t waste any of my time at My own experience at that site confirms the assertions.

If the alarmists had the facts on their side they would openly engage in debate and readily share the data.

Gavin Schmidt lives in a fantasy world where “surrender” e-mails are delivered by winged fairies. Only 34% of the public believe his claptrap (and, all of them are hardcore so-called “Progressives”). Only 24% of meteorologists believe his claptrap. And the overwhelming majority of scientists all around the world reject his claptrap.

Thanks for dropping by!

SBVOR said...


In your link, I was particularly amused to see the RealClimate “group” whining about what they characterize as media manipulation.

Outside of the RealClimate fantasy world, the facts on the role of the media in selling their claptrap are revealed here and here.

Stu said...

But SBVOR, NOAA said:

"The [computer model] simulations rule out (at the 95% confidence level) zero trends [in global temperatures] for intervals of 15yr or more"

And Jones said:

"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% confidence level".

Can you see the difference? NOAA say that if the observed trend is zero (nada, nothing, flat, not 0.12C/decade) for 15 years, then you can reject AGW as currently formulated at the 95% confidence level.

Since the observed trend is actually 0.12C/decade... well, you can't reject the hypothesis with 95% confidence.

Do you retract your, arrogant, plain wrong, emboldened and overly capitalised conclusion?

SBVOR said...


Nope, no retraction required or forthcoming.

By Phil’s own admission, the observed warming is NOT “statistically significant”. In other words, the observed warming (from datasets PROVEN to contain “an estimated warm bias of about 30%”) falls within the margin of error and cannot be said -- with any confidence -- to exist.

Ergo, by NOAA’s own proclamation, the IPCC models have been invalidated.

End of story -- time for you to find a new cult!

Stu said...

I don't know how to explain it any clearer - zero trend does not mean 0.12C/decade. Jones means that there's a small chance, probably between 5-10%, that the observed change is by chance and there's actually no underlying trend.

Having quoted it, you're clearly aware that the 'margin of error'* is two standard deviations, i.e. 95%. Jones says, in the Q&A you link to, that 'the positive trend is quite close to the significance level', which means it's nearly 95% certain that the trend isn't there by chance.

Or, to put it another way, it's only slightly more than 5% likely that the warming trend has occurred by chance. So you can reject the notion of a warming trend for the last 15 years at the 6% or 8% or 10% level (whatever it is; Jones doesn't specify) but you sure can't reject it at the 95% confidence level. For that you'd need the measured trend to be flat (according to NOAA). 6% or 8% or 10%, whatever, they're all low aren't they?

*the 'margin of error' is really better described as the point at which you're statistically confident the trend isn't by chance, given the signal to noise ratio and the number of data points.

SBVOR said...


Repeating the same propaganda over and over again will never make it so.

The BBC asked Jones point blank:

“Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”

Jones responded:


As they say:
“Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.”

And, in this case, “close” is a fantasy derived from datasets PROVEN to contain “an estimated warm bias of about 30%”.

Get over it! Find a new cult! We KNOW you need one in order to give meaning to your life.

SBVOR said...

Sorry Stu, I rejected your most recent comment because you did nothing but repeat (again) your earlier demonstrably false assertions. If you have something new to add, be my guest.

Otherwise, go back to your fantasy land.

Stu N said...

Will you at least take my advice and ask for the opinion of a friend/colleague who is competent with statistics?

Also, have you considered this informative post on the statistics of trends by Tamino?

It's directly related to this issue, although its primary aim according to the into paragraph is to show that very short periods <10 years are very poor for establishing trends. It does go on to discuss how long you need for a statistically significant trend, and for the GISS dataset that turns out to be 14 years. This post is fully two months before Phil Jones' BBC Q&A, so some of us already knew that the trend since the mid 90s was only just significant. Since Hadley shows less warming than GISS, turns out you need two extra years to get significance with the Hadley dataset.

One more quick question... you're clearly ready to rubbish everything the 'scientific authorities' have to say on AGW. Yet when Phil Jones says 'the trend isn't quite statistically significant' and NOAA say 'Zero trend for 15 years would disprove the models', you take it as gospel. Do you trust what they say or not? Or only when it allows you to piece them together and claim that 'AGW hysteria is dead and buried' (even then you've had to twist NOAA's words - zero trend does not equal 0.12C/decade!)

If you object to parts of my post, cut them if you want. At least consider my first two points - ask someone who has been taught statistics, and consider Tamino's post from two months before Phil Jones brought this issue to your attention.

SBVOR said...


1) Click here and let PhD physicist Dr. Lubos Motl school you in the math (which he presented last December).

2) Are you telling me Phil Jones is not qualified to evaluate the statistical significance? If so, then I assume you will be calling for his resignation. Yes?

3) If it’s longer term trends you’re interested in, please note that the Antarctic, just like the Arctic is experiencing an on-going, unbroken 10,000 year cooling trend wherein there is nothing even REMOTELY unusual about current temperatures!

The citation links and more details are found here and here.

4) For the record, I have a very strong academic background in statistics.

5) Seriously, go back to your fantasy land where BBC reported direct quotes are purported to be fabricated lies. You bore me.

Stu N said...

Why ask me questions if I bore you?

1) Lubos says much the same as Tamino - you need quite a long time to get a trend with any confidence. Both of them also make the point that you can pretty much arbitrarily increase the confidence by extending the time period and/or using monthly data. I was aware from the start that this is a statistical issue, with the underlying physics really being only tangentially related.

Lubos is also sensibly cautious with his conclusions!

2) I never disputed that the trend isn't statistically significant. Phil Jones says it doesn't miss by much though, of course he's referring to HadCRUT3. UAH has a bit more noise and a bit less trend, so is further from statistical significance.

3) You made that point before. I didn't dispute it.

4) Good for you.

5) Whatever. BTW, I asked Brett Anderson his opinion in the relevent thread, whether he will reply I don't know. I basically asked which of us, if either, had interpreted this correctly. I hope when the comment is posted you will not find dispute with it, I tried to represent your argument faithfully.


Papa Zu said...

@ NOAA says, "The [computer model] simulations rule out (at the 95% confidence level) zero trends [in global temperatures] for intervals of 15yr or more"

Here is the most recent 15 year trend from HadCRUT3V and there is zero trend. Based on the above criteria, the IPCC models are falsified at the 95% level.

SBVOR said...

Papa Zu,


Clicking on "Raw data" from your link reveals (at the bottom of the ensuing page) that the trend line is actually very slightly negative:

"Least squares trend line; slope = -6.32729e-05 per year"

SBVOR said...

Papa Zu,

A purist might note your data sample is 1 month shy of 15 years.

But, the following data sample shows 182 months with a negative trend line:

Hot Topics:

BEST Data - No Warming Over Last Decade
The AMO as a Driver of Climate Change
Fact check - The wealthy already pay more taxes
Rare Earth Elements Spell Doom for Green Fantasies
Wikipedia’s Climate Doctor
ClimateGate - The latest updates
Dr. Tim Ball on ClimateGate - The end of AGW hysteria?
ClimateGate: The Musical - Hide The Decline!
Lindzen and Choi SHATTER the IPCC Computer models!
It’s OFFICIAL! We HAVE elected our own Hugo Chavez!
Health Care “Reform”
Cap & Trade - It’s just a giant tax (on EVERYBODY)
The Radicals in the White House
ACORN - The truth
Transparency - Obama promised it. So, where is it?
The Cause of the Housing Debacle
Fiscal Responsibility - In Obama’s Fantasy World
Atlas Shrugged: From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years
Iraq War Media Deceptions 101 - Why the Iraq invasion was justified and necessary
Climate Change 101 - Learn what the SCIENCE says about the biggest hoax EVER!
Obama - on Climate Change
Obama’s Climate Czar - The most dangerous politician in the United States
Obama’s Climate Czar - Her Socialist revolution has begun
Compare the current recession to previous recessions
Obama - Historic & Catastrophic!
Is Obama a Socialist? You BETCHA!
Makers & Takers - Spread the wealth
Obama = International Crisis
The economic case against Obama
The comprehensive case against Obama
The deficit case against the Dems
A Liberal Supermajority? Watch Out!
Examine the series you should have read before voting!
Maggie’s Totalitarian Political Religion
“Kill him!” - Just another media lie?
Journalistic Integrity? - WHERE?
The post about the TED Spread
Save the nation from the Entitlement binge!
Market Reaction to $700 Billion Bailout Vote
Drill Here, Drill Now - Quantitative Facts
ANWR - Drill There, Drill Now
ANWR Matters - Here’s why
Coal Liquefaction (Liquid Fuels From Coal)
The Ethanol Debacle
Pickens Plan - Don’t Fall For it!
Energy Tomorrow Radio - GOOD Stuff!
Economic Forecast


Blog Archive