Debunking the Climate Scam
Billions of Dollars -
Greedy Green Corporations -
No Warming For Two decades -
Bought and Paid For Organizations
5000 Years Of Climate Change From Greenland Ice Cores
An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.
Temperature data for the period 1860-
I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar
trend to the period 1975-
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
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.
No. This period is even shorter than 1995-
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 (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-
We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.
The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing
It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.
Read the whole Q & A set here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-
Also see this analysis: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/phil-
Sustainable Oregon Comment about this interview:
This is the best case that the warmers have from a leading climate researcher.
It can be stated as :
We know the warming, that statistically stopped in 1995, and slightly reversed since 2005, was caused by man’s CO2 because we cannot figure out anything else!
Phil Jones answered some questions put by the BBC
Here are some questions & answers that we found interesting
|Past Was Warmer|
|NASA: 30's Hotter|
|CRU Emails - html formatted|
|CRU Emails Simple Format|
|CRU Emails UnFormatted|
|Hockey Stick Links|