cc: Bob Ward , "Kennedy, John" , chris.folland@metoffcie.gov.uk date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 14:04:44 +0000 from: David Parker subject: Re: FW: Misleading, inaccurate, little or no evidence? to: "Jones, Phil" Bob John may be able to provide November and, soon, December 2007 to make 2007 complete David On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 13:37 +0000, Phil Jones wrote: > Bob, > I'm cc'ing the reply to David Parker and > John Kennedy. The numbers for each > year are on this web page. > > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt > > The final number on every other line is what > you want. 1998 is 0.526 for example. > > I don't have the error ranges for each year, > but I think David or John can easily send you these. > Use their values if they disagree slightly with those on the CRU web site. > > When you get them you will see the errors are > larger the further back in time you go. > > Some years stand out from others (El Nino years). > > > I spent about 15 minutes working on that one > sentence quote. As you know it doesn't > mean that global warming has stopped. The whole > point of it was to show that 2001-2007 > is 0.21 warmer than 1991-2000. The rate of > warming should be about 0.2 per decade > and it is bang on. > > If the world were warming faster than this - then I'd be worried! > > What you could do is to take all 7 years > averages and compare with the previous > 10 year average., so start in 1861. Then build > up a distribution of these values. You > need to allow for the overlapping years, as all > the values you get aren't independent. > This aspect will be lost on Whitehouse, though ! > > David, John and Chris might also be able to advise. > > Cheers > Phil > > > > At 12:54 07/01/2008, you wrote: > >Dear Phil, > > > >Happy New Year! > > > >I am forwarding an exchange of e-mails I had > >with David Whitehouse last week about the Met > >Office's press release on 2008 global > >temperatures. You will see that he is persisting > >with his stupid argument that global warming > >ended in 2001 - he is still managing to sway > >people with his argument, and it is the same as > >Christopher Booker is using virtually every week in 'The Sunday Telegraph'. > > > >So I am planning to go public over my argument > >with Whitehouse and to take Booker to the Press > >Complaints Commission. To do this, I need to be > >able to scotch their argument. I think the best > >way in which I might be able to do this is by > >showing that if you take virtually any > >consecutive seven-year period since 1850 you > >find that the uncertainties overlap, making them > >"statistically indistinguishable", but this does > >not mean that temperatures haven't changed since > >1850. So, do you know how I might be able to > >obtain a version of the attached graph, but with > >the years in chronological order? > > > >Best wishes, > > > >Bob > > > > > >Bob Ward > >Director, Global Science Networks > > > >Risk Management Solutions Ltd > >Peninsular House > >30 Monument Street > >London > >EC3R 8NB > > > >Tel. +44 (0) 20 7444 7741 > >Blackberry +44 (0) 7710 333687 > > > >www.rms.com > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Association of British Science Writers > >[mailto:ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK] On Behalf Of David Whitehouse > >Sent: 04 January 2008 12:30 > >To: ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK > >Subject: Re: Misleading, inaccurate, little or no evidence? > > > >You are missing the point as usual and don't > >address criticisms, we are going round in > >circles. The Met Office Press release could just > >as easily be titled "UK scientists predict > >global temperature standstill to continue for > >8th year." Didn't you read it and see that the > >Met Office has admitted that global warming > >ended in 2001? Statistically indistinguishable > >they said. It is an observational fact. Whether > >it will pick up again remains to be seen. > >It's not an unimportant question and it's not > >diminished by talking about longer term trends. > >Dismiss the 2001-7 standstill and you must have > >less faith in the significance of the 1980-1998 warming period. > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Association of British Science Writers > >[mailto:ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Bob Ward > >Sent: 04 January 2008 11:17 > >To: ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK > >Subject: Re: [ABSW-L] Misleading, inaccurate, little or no evidence? > > > >You are right that Profs Folland and Jones, who > >are quoted in the media release, are well known > >for spin! If only they would admit that global warming ended in 2001! > > > >But congratulations on moving the end of global > >warming three years forward from 1998 - I guess > >that represents some sort of progress. > > > > > >Bob Ward > >Director, Global Science Networks > > > >Risk Management Solutions Ltd > >Peninsular House > >30 Monument Street > >London > >EC3R 8NB > > > >Tel. +44 (0) 20 7444 7741 > >Blackberry +44 (0) 7710 333687 > > > >www.rms.com > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Association of British Science Writers > >[mailto:ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK] On Behalf Of David Whitehouse > >Sent: 04 January 2008 10:35 > >To: ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK > >Subject: Re: Misleading, inaccurate, little or no evidence? > > > >Short time series! The latest current global warming period began in 1980. > >It was the early 1990's when we realised it was > >a definite warming trend and for half of the > >period since then the global average temperature > >has been at a standstill - it's ALL short time > >series but there is detail in it and curiously > >the static last few years are the least noisy > >section of this particular data series. You are > >seeing what you want to see in the figures, like > >the spin from Met Office Press dept. Of course > >2001-7 is warmer than previous years, by how > >much depends upon over what timescale you > >calculate the average but, as the Met office > >says, it's the underlying rate of warming that > >is important and they say that since 2001 it is > >ZERO. That's what they say which you said was > >inaccurate and misleading. Confused yes. > > > >If you go by facts and data and not hearsay you > >will see that the Met Office, NASA, NOAA and the > >NCDC all agree that the global average > >temperature has been static since 2001. They > >just don't say so in headlines but in the data > >or in 'notes to editors' like the latest Met Office Press release. > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Association of British Science Writers > >[mailto:ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Bob Ward > >Sent: 04 January 2008 10:13 > >To: ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK > >Subject: Re: [ABSW-L] Misleading, inaccurate, little or no evidence? > > > >Happy New Year to David Whitehouse and other ABSW list subscribers! > > > >I thought that there was a sentiment before New > >Year that debates about trivia, like climate > >change science, should be relegated to a web > >forum so that e-mail exchanges could focus on > >more weighty issues, like best broadband deals, etc. > > > >Anyway, I am grateful to David for demonstrating > >how it is still possible to confuse people about > >basic climate change science, like global > >temperature records, by using a short time > >series and large uncertainties to ensure that > >noisy data obscures any possible signal. > > > >David could perhaps have quoted this from the same media release: > > > >"What matters is the underlying rate of warming > >- the period 2001-2007 with an average of 0.44 > >°C above the 1961-90 average was 0.21 °C warmer > >than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000." > > > >It is a scandal that the Met Office, the > >Climatic Research Unit, NOAA, NASA, WMO etc > >aren't willing to tell us that global warming > >has stopped! Thank heavens there are still a few > >science writers around to expose this global > >conspiracy within the research community! > > > > > >Bob Ward > >Director, Global Science Networks > > > >Risk Management Solutions Ltd > >Peninsular House > >30 Monument Street > >London > >EC3R 8NB > > > >Tel. +44 (0) 20 7444 7741 > >Blackberry +44 (0) 7710 333687 > > > >www.rms.com > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Association of British Science Writers > >[mailto:ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK] On Behalf Of David Whitehouse > >Sent: 04 January 2008 01:10 > >To: ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK > >Subject: Misleading, inaccurate, little or no evidence? > > > >Greetings folks, > > > >I hesitate to enter the fray on this topic but > >last week it was said on this list; > > > >"It is a sad reflection on the state of science > >journalism in the UK in 2007 that we are still > >seeing misleading and inaccurate articles in the > >media that, for instance, claim global average > >temperatures stopped rising in 1998, or that > >changes in solar activity explain the recent > >change in temperature. It would be good if 2008 > >saw some of the so-called scepticism that has > >been expressed about climate change science > >applied to some of these alternative claims > >which, frankly, have little or no evidence supporting them." > > > >Misleading, inaccurate, little or no evidence? > > > >This week the Met Office said; > > > >"The forecast value for 2008 mean temperature is > >considered indistinguishable from any of the > >years 2001-7, given the uncertainties in the data." > > > >http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080103.html > > > >They say 2008 will have a strong la Nina > >cooling. The Met Office has commented before on > >the 2001-7 data set being statistically indistinguishable. > > > >The same thing has also been said many times by > >the US National Climatic Data Center. > > > >Note that 1998 was a record warm year (El Nino) > >followed by two relatively cool years. Whatever > >your 'sceptical' viewpoint, if you have one, or > >whatever the reason or the eventual duration, this is what the data says. > >Both the US and the UK's guardians of annual > >global average temperature data say that the > >data for 2001-2007 are statistically > >indistinguishable - it's warmer than it used to > >be but the annual average global temperatures have, er frankly, stopped rising. > > > >Regards, > > > >David. > > > >http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004 > > > >__________________________________________________________________ > >Read the message archive and manage your subscription: > > http://www.listserv.cclrc.ac.uk/archives/absw-l.html > >Even more information on how to manage your subscription: > > http://absw.org.uk/e-list_housekeeping.htm > >Check the experimental blog: > > http://absw.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > >This message and any attachments contain information that may be RMS Inc. > >confidential and/or privileged. If you are not > >the intended recipient (or authorized to receive > >for the intended recipient), and have received > >this message in error, any use, disclosure or distribution is strictly > >prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify > >the sender immediately by replying to the e-mail > >and permanently deleting the message from your computer and/or storage system. > > > >__________________________________________________________________ > >Read the message archive and manage your subscription: > > http://www.listserv.cclrc.ac.uk/archives/absw-l.html > >Even more information on how to manage your subscription: > > http://absw.org.uk/e-list_housekeeping.htm > >Check the experimental blog: > > http://absw.blogspot.com/ > > > >__________________________________________________________________ > >Read the message archive and manage your subscription: > > http://www.listserv.cclrc.ac.uk/archives/absw-l.html > >Even more information on how to manage your subscription: > > http://absw.org.uk/e-list_housekeeping.htm > >Check the experimental blog: > > http://absw.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > >This message and any attachments contain information that may be RMS Inc. > >confidential and/or privileged. If you are not > >the intended recipient (or authorized to receive > >for the intended recipient), and have received > >this message in error, any use, disclosure or distribution is strictly > >prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify > >the sender immediately by replying to the e-mail > >and permanently deleting the message from your computer and/or storage system. > > > >__________________________________________________________________ > >Read the message archive and manage your subscription: > > http://www.listserv.cclrc.ac.uk/archives/absw-l.html > >Even more information on how to manage your subscription: > > http://absw.org.uk/e-list_housekeeping.htm > >Check the experimental blog: > > http://absw.blogspot.com/ > > > >__________________________________________________________________ > >Read the message archive and manage your subscription: > > http://www.listserv.cclrc.ac.uk/archives/absw-l.html > >Even more information on how to manage your subscription: > > http://absw.org.uk/e-list_housekeeping.htm > >Check the experimental blog: > > http://absw.blogspot.com/ > > > > > >This message and any attachments contain information that may be RMS Inc. > >confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient > >(or authorized to receive for the intended recipient), and have received > >this message in error, any use, disclosure or distribution is strictly > >prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify > >the sender immediately by replying to the e-mail and permanently deleting > >the message from your computer and/or storage system. > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- David Parker Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road EXETER EX1 3PB UK E-mail: david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk Tel: +44-1392-886649 Fax: +44-1392-885681 http:www.metoffice.gov.uk