I know, I’ve posted and reposted this more than once recently — but there’s a news hook now, so if you haven’t watched it before, do so now.
I’ll wait.
Ok, the hook is that the oft misquoted interview with Phil Jones that is treated in the video can now no longer be distorted and mangled as easily.
Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the “ClimateGate” affair.
Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not significant – a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change.
But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are “real”.
Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis.
By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance.
If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20.
Last year’s analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line.
“The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn’t significant at the standard 95% level that people use,” Professor Jones told BBC News.
“Basically what’s changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years – and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years.
“It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that’s why longer series – 20 or 30 years – would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis.”
Professor Jones’ previous comment, from a BBC interview in Febuary 2010, is routinely quoted – erroneously – as demonstration that the Earth’s surface temperature is not rising.
Here an interesting documentary how the Koch brothers et al are founding and undermining so called ‘grassroot’ movements and spreading their lies there. On the one hand it’s quite hilarious, but on the other hand it’s shocking.
=> YouTube – The Billionaires’ Tea Party (Proof Tea Party Is Nothing But Astro Turf)
Anybody’s seen the actual computations? What will 2011 bring? Why is anybody discussing about 16 years of data? Who mentioned 1995 in the first place?
It’s just a cherry picked year that was chosen by deniers in 2010 because the trend for the period 1995-2009 was not statistically significant but 1994-2009 was significant. In the words of Lubos Motl:
“1995 is the earliest year when the statistical significance of the trend from that year to 2009 safely fails. Since 1994, you could get a technically significant trend”
(source: http://pages.citebite.com/r7g5d8u7hugk)
Before today you had to explain complicated stuff like statistical significance and cherry picking to anyone that spouted the myth “the planet stopped warming in 1995”. It’s nice to now have a one liner to refute that: “no it didn’t”.
if you look at the video, you’ll see how jone’s interview with the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm) has been cherry picked, actually, he was set up, because the BBC interviewer took his questions from “a skeptic”, probably Monckton, who knew what the answer to the question was if posed ‘..from 1995″, as opposed to “..from 1994”.
Jones of course, answered like a scientist, and then the denialist orcs took it and ran with it.
I am usually such an optimist, but on this occasion I have to say that it’s too late. The damage is done. Climategate fire-bombed the climate change movement. If the opposition didn’t really hear the truth through the data the first time around, why would we think that this or any other number crunching is going to have an effect this time?
Truth or not, it falls on deaf ears. The MSM isn’t going to carry such a rebuttal. It doesn’t have the shock factor of a good scandal. The pen may be mightier than the sword but people like to see blood and guts. I consider myself a rational person and a science-minded guy. But this is the classic jocks vs nerds battle, and the cool kids control the airwaves.
I appreciate the subtlety of such fine distinctions and differences of degree which scientists use. But the average Joe or Jane could care less. They want a talking point, a quick quip or a put-down. What’s wrong with being secure in our self-awareness of the situation, fully aware of the details, while delivering the goods? Forget debating the points. It’s time for scientists to get mean and loud, meaner and louder than the blow-hards who relish the scandal.
Anyway, Peter – I enjoy and look forward to your rebuttals of the climate deniers. Please keep doing what you do, and maybe ramp it up a notch. This issue is too important to get mired down in the details and semantics. Maybe somebody needs to punch the bully in the nose.
Galen
am working on taking it up a knotch. I’ve been somewhat slowed lately due to having taken on some extremely demanding projects, and also am in the process of getting familiar with new software.
But my take has always been that the scientists were bringing, not knives, but marshmallows, to a gunfight. They don’t know how to manipulate the media like the other side does.
My idea is to show up with some brass knuckles, nunchucks, and maybe tongs and a blowtorch. That’s why they scream so loud.
Tongs and a blowtorch? Wow, the truth really hurts. 😛