Godfrey Bloom

I'm afraid you are one of these people who confuses weather with climate. Ten years is not a sufficiently large sample to reflect climatic trends. These occur over hundreds if not thousands of years. As a species we have been lucky that most of our recorded existence has been during a time of comparative climatic calm. The climate will change - maybe not in our lifetime but it will occur. Currently we are in a cool climatic period - normality for the planet is considerably higher - 30c+ for mid latitudes. Please don't consider me a climate 'nut' - as a geologist I have spent a great deal of time studying the historic record of climate change. I see no point for example in seeking to save evolutionary dead-end such as the Giant Panda - an unfortunate choice of symbol for the WWF I feel.

John, whether or not 10 years is sufficient to determine what "climate" is, the claim that the world hasn't warmed up over the last N years is demonstrated by the graphs above.

Climate is arbitrarily defined. It doesn't 'exist' as a single point's temperature exists.

This isn't a problem until the concept of "climate" escapes the university Geography department, and makes its way to Brussels or Westminster, and into the hands of Ed Miliband or Peter Mandelson.

I do not confuse weather with climate. I doubt whether there is a very clear definition of climate that functions adequately outside of its research context. Meanwhile what people living in my part of the world worry about is what they experience: the weather.

Climate is abstract. We can deal with weather, as long as we're prepared and have funds. Expensive schemes to prevent climate change will stop us doing both.

So Godfrey, can you tell me why you picked 1998 as your baseline?
Could this be because if you chose any other year in the 1990's your hypothesis would be shot?
Oh and while you are explaining that, maybe you could also tell me why you are using the CRU graphs if you think they are so unreliable?

Phil Burrows asks, "Could this be because if you chose any other year in the 1990's your hypothesis would be shot?"

Nope. And Phil Jones - he of the Climategate - agrees with me.

Roger Harrabin of the BBC asked him,

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

Jones replies,

"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."

Phil Burrows then asks, "maybe you could also tell me why you are using the CRU graphs if you think they are so unreliable?"

Mr Burrows, please look at the post above. I use four graphs, one for each of the four organisations that produce the data in question. You obviously hadn't read the post properly.

Phil Jones looks like he might be breaking ranks with the scam. This is of paramount importance because he is undoubtedly the world’s most famous climate ‘scientist’. I think it has all passed the point of credibility and we might see more jump ship as time goes on.

Personally I think he is one of those that just got used and now has regrets about it. There are many others in the system who also know it is a scam but can’t say publicly that it is or they will lose their jobs. Piers Corbyn works amongst these people and they tell him this privately saying, “We know you are right but we have mouths to feed”.

We must consider this factor because it is the one thing that is blocking more people coming forward. The difference between Phil Jones now and Phil Jones then is that he had a job then but not now. I guess he has reasoned that he has nothing to lose anymore and is probably thinking about retirement. What we do not want is an inquiry that just piles all the blame onto him. He was just a front man; we need the ones behind him, as in those who shun the publicity.

Quote from GISS -
Gavin Schmidt - 21st Jan 2010 - 'GISS reports that with 2009 data this week...the last decade was the warmest on record.'

Seems to seriously contradict your argument, Jonathan, sorry Godfrey, or is it really Jonathan Arnott?

Can you clarify the RSS graph?

RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) from satellites is system.
They don't actually measure temp - they measure radiances in various wavebands and the interpretation of such depends the type of mathematical analysis being employed...and these will deplay a wide range of values and variables will include altitude and geographical location.

You show one example of an RSS graph, but then surprisingly use it to support your argument.

How anyone can extrapulate any sensible debate from a very selected single graph is totally beyond me.

It is very interesting that you have taken 1998 as your starting point.

1998 was the warmer year on record - strongly believed to caused by an extremely El Nino affect with rising temps from Global Warming.

Any subsequent year would obviously cooler than 1998 - however, the warming trend continues upwards with many of the last years breaking records.

Stop cheating and put the 'best fit' line where it should really go. You[re using the anomaly high temp of 1998 to slant your presentation.

Oh dear, Phred. Lots of schoolboy mistakes there.

".the last decade was the warmest on record.'", according to Phred, according to Gavin Scmhidt.

There is a difference between "warming" and "warmest". The last decade may well have been the warmest, but it shows no warming. When you reach the top of the stairs in your house, you are the highest you have been (for however many minutes since you were last there), but you're not getting any higher.

They don't actually measure temp - they measure radiances in various wavebands and the interpretation of such depends the type of mathematical analysis being employed...and these will deplay a wide range of values and variables will include altitude and geographical location.

Well, the surface record (GISS and CRU) doesn't actually measure temperature. It measures the expansion of mercury in glass tubes, or the electrical resistance across a thermistor. The results from these are then compiled, averaged and tabled, including all the human error, urban heat island effect, and the personal preferences, prejudices and political biases of the researchers.

"You show one example of an RSS graph, but then surprisingly use it to support your argument."

I show graphs from GISS, CRU, UAH and RSS so that they can be compared. Three of these records demonstrate that there has been no warming. The other may therefore be regarded as the outlier, or at least as contaminated. And we know what it has been contaminated with, thanks to Anthony Watts' excellent efforts.

"It is very interesting that you have taken 1998 as your starting point."

No doubt you would prefer to start the recording of any trend at the lowest minimal point. Well, of course you would.

You can see for yourself, by looking at the graphs, that there has been no warming. You don't need a trend line to do this.

Either way, Phil Jones agrees with me, as I was explaining to Phil Burrows above.

Roger Harrabin of the BBC asked him,

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

Jones replies,

"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."


"Any subsequent year would obviously cooler than 1998 - however, the warming trend continues upwards with many of the last years breaking records."

A visual inspection of the graphs above is all that is need to show that what you've said is nonsense. We can see for ourselves that the RSS graph demonstrates no warming post-2002, leading to cooling in more recent years. UAH is similar, with more of a recovery in recent times. CRU demonstrates - again, with visual inspection - that no warming took place, and that things got very cold throughout 2007-9. And GISS too, shows no increase in recent years.

I suggest a visit to the opticians.

Hello Geoffry

The data your present is a fraud to pursuade me that AGW is a lie. You are a liar.

You have lost more than my vote.

Stephen

One of the more blatant pieces of sophistry I have come across. Godfrey's claims completely ignore the historicity of warming.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif