Waltky:
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.
Me wonders if you understand the significance of "significant".
Firstly, it does not mean that the earth is warming "significantly".
I don't have to "
wonder" about your understanding 'cause you make it obvious that you have no idea what they're talking about. There is a huge difference, which you are clearly clueless about, between the term Dr. Jones is talking about - "
statistically significantt" - and the word you're throwing around - "
significant". If something is 'significant', that means it has importance or consequence. 'Statistically significant' is something else entirely. Temperature records are what informs scientists that the Earth is significantly warming.
Prof. Jones was hit with a trick question during an interview and you denier cult dingbats have been distorting and misinterpreting his words ever since. But now it is coming back to bite you. Statistical significance is much more meaningful over longer time frames than just 15 years, as Dr. Jones tried to explain. The warming trend is quite positive and very statistically significant over the last century and a half with a confidence level of over 99.99%. Even over only the too short 15 year period used in that question, the confidence level was about 93%, and now it seems it only took one more year of global warming for the temperature trend from 1995 to achieve the arbitrary 95% confidence level that is considered "
statistically significant".
From the
BBC interview:
B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
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.
What is Statistical Significance?
(short excerpt)
In normal English, "significant" means important, while in Statistics "significant" means probably true (not due to chance)... People sometimes think that the 95% level is sacred when looking at significance levels. If a test shows a .06 probability, it means that it has a 94% chance of being true. You can't be quite as sure about it as if it had a 95% chance of being be true, but the odds still are that it is true. The 95% level comes from academic publications, where a theory usually has to have at least a 95% chance of being true to be considered worth telling people about. In the business world if something has a 90% chance of being true (probability =.1), it can't be considered proven, but it is probably better to act as if it were true rather than false.
Copyright © 2007-2010 Creative Research Systems, All Rights Reserved
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
Wrong again, moron. The warming trend is very statistically significant and strongly detectable in the instrumental and proxy records. 2010 was tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record. Each of the last 10 years (2001–2010) wound up as one of the 11 warmest on record. This last decade was the warmest decade on record, as was, in turn, each of the three preceding decades. In the past three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.36 degrees F (0.2 degrees C) per decade. In total, average global temperatures have increased by about 1.5 degrees F (0.8 degrees C) since 1880.
What is wrong is your comprehension of the science and the data. The climate models don't predict that range of possible temperature increases per decade so I assume you just make up your "facts".
I suspect that you can barely tell what time it is, let alone anything about other debaters on this forum. That's just your idiotic arrogance speaking.
I spoke plainly so that even cretins like you could understand it. No "decoding" necessary except in your twisted little pea-brain.
I usually call it the fossil fuel industry, which includes all of the oil, gas and coal exploration and extraction corporations, all of the refineries and processing plants, all of the sea and land shipping that moves the oil, gas and coal, all of the oil and gas pipeline builders, ocean drilling platform builders and all of the other support industries, all of the corporations buying and burning fossil fuels to generate electricity, plus some major economic and political aspects of all of the oil producing nations. Total profit flow to all parts of the fossil fuel industry amounts to a couple of trillion dollars a year. Exxon alone, which is just one oil corporation out of the many oil, coal and natural gas corporations and oil-producing national governments, etc., in the world, regularly makes around $40 billion a year in profit. This mutlt-trillion dollar a year profit flow is what this propaganda campaign to fool the public about the reality and dangers of anthropogenic global warming is really all about. If people understood the seriousness of the situation and the grave dangers we are creating for ourselves and particularly for our children and grandchildren, they would demand that governments do something about the crisis and restrict carbon emissions. Since that would also curtail corporate and national profits from selling fossil fuels, those with a vested interest in the current energy systems are fighting to delay any effective action on carbon emissions. You appear to be one of their deluded dupes or possibly one of their paid, misinformation spreading stooges.
Actually, fecalten, there are a number of contributing sources of this climate change crisis. Burning fossil fuels is a major one. Cement manufacture is another. Deforestation is a big part of it. Even farm animal flatulence has been found to contribute. Those are all factors we have some ability to control by doing things differently. There are also a number of "natural" sources of increasing greenhouse gases that mankind has triggered with our carbon emission driven global warming. Sources like the methane and CO2 that has been locked under the Arctic permafrost but is now being released in increasing amounts as the permafrost melts due to the AGW driven skyrocketing temperatures in the Arctic, or the methane that is locked up on the seafloor in methane hydrate crystal formations that are now, as the oceans warm, starting to break down and release rising columns of methane gas up through the ocean and into the atmosphere. We have no control over these sources other than reducing the warming we're causing with our carbon emissions and hoping that these sources of GHG's don't initiate a snowball effect and drive the climate into runaway catastrophic global warming.
Sure, dude. If the Earth doesn't keep warming more and more and the climate doesn't keep changing faster and faster and the consequences of that don't include droughts, floods, mass starvation and clean water scarcity, huge numbers of climate change refugees, massive death tolls, wars over resources, and various ecological disasters...
...and instead it turns out that foolish, deluded environmentalists were able to crash the economy and impoverish America and Europe with unnecessary energy system imperatives and regulations that caused more harm than good...
...then feel free to hunt us down and string us up...
...as long as you don't mind being called to account for your part in furthering the fossil fuel industry's campaign of misinformation, pseudo-science, lies and propaganda when the consequences become clear to everyone.
You're just VOID between the ears, fecalturd (like all denier cultists).
Shutting the coal fired power plants would be a great step to curbing carbon emissions.
Tearing down dams would not be such a great idea, in most cases. We need the hydro-electric energy even more now since it is non carbon emitting.
More nuke plants are a very bad idea and would cause more harm than good.
3)"to prevent any effective action to deal with this climate change crisis mankind has created" Oh you mean like wealth transfer mechanism which are the HIGHEST priority of the UN driven FIX for this "problem"? How much cooling will a $1Trill to Vanuatu buy? How about I get 1st option to buy that sinking island for $1M?
No, I don't "mean" whatever greed and fear driven distorted depictions of possible steps to deal with crisis that you've been sold by your puppet masters. The best proposed solutions include a direct tax on carbon emissions worldwide with the money collected going directly to the transitioning of energy sources away from carbon emitting ones by subsidizing the costs to the people and nations most affected by climate changes and rising fossil fuel prices. Working together for the common good in the face of a planetary crisis is probably beyond the conception of sociopathically greedy and paranoid rightwingnuts like yourself.
4)" EXXON ... on trial for crimes against humanity". Again Bunky, wrong criminal. Let's at least get the indictments right.. EXXON is not burning that fossil fuel.
Exxon has been and still is one of the main players and key financial backers in the propaganda campaign of misinformation and pseudo-science that seeks to confuse the public about the reality and dangers of anthropogenic global warming/climate change and delay effective carbon emission restrictions. We know this for a fact because a 1998 internal Exxon memo titled "
Global Climate Science Communications: Action Plan" (pdf) was leaked to the press. The stated goal of the plan, whose authors include Randy Randol of Exxon Corp, Sharon Kneiss of Chevron Corp, and Joseph Walker of the American Petroleum Institute, was to change the American public's view that global warming was a threat so that policies to curb greenhouse gas emissions could be stopped. The memo laid out a wide range of strategies and tactics to achieve this goal, budgeting nearly $6 million plus the cost of advertising. Six million is, of course, only a drop in the bucket compared to the amounts of money that eventually went into the disinformation campaign over the years, funded not only by Exxon but also by a host of other vested interests, including the Western Petroleum Association, the American Petroleum Institute, and the Koch brothers.
Climate change denial
***
