date: Mon Jan 7 13:40:23 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: Re: FW: Misleading, inaccurate, little or no evidence? to: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk Misspelt Office ! Chris - Bob is OK. Used to be the press person for the Royal Society Works for Risk Management Solutions now - but blogs in his spare time. How anyone can misinterpret what we said is beyond me ! Cheers Phil Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:37:43 +0000 To: "Bob Ward" From: Phil Jones Subject: Re: FW: Misleading, inaccurate, little or no evidence? Cc: David Parker , "Kennedy, John" , chris.folland@metoffcie.gov.uk Bob, I'm cc'ing the reply to David Parker and John Kennedy. The numbers for each year are on this web page. [1]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 [2]www.rms.com -----Original Message----- From: Association of British Science Writers [[3]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 [[4]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 [5]www.rms.com -----Original Message----- From: Association of British Science Writers [[6]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 [[7]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 [8]www.rms.com -----Original Message----- From: Association of British Science Writers [[9]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." [10]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. [11]http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004 __________________________________________________________________ Read the message archive and manage your subscription: [12]http://www.listserv.cclrc.ac.uk/archives/absw-l.html Even more information on how to manage your subscription: [13]http://absw.org.uk/e-list_housekeeping.htm Check the experimental blog: [14]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: [15]http://www.listserv.cclrc.ac.uk/archives/absw-l.html Even more information on how to manage your subscription: [16]http://absw.org.uk/e-list_housekeeping.htm Check the experimental blog: [17]http://absw.blogspot.com/ __________________________________________________________________ Read the message archive and manage your subscription: [18]http://www.listserv.cclrc.ac.uk/archives/absw-l.html Even more information on how to manage your subscription: [19]http://absw.org.uk/e-list_housekeeping.htm Check the experimental blog: [20]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: [21]http://www.listserv.cclrc.ac.uk/archives/absw-l.html Even more information on how to manage your subscription: [22]http://absw.org.uk/e-list_housekeeping.htm Check the experimental blog: [23]http://absw.blogspot.com/ __________________________________________________________________ Read the message archive and manage your subscription: [24]http://www.listserv.cclrc.ac.uk/archives/absw-l.html Even more information on how to manage your subscription: [25]http://absw.org.uk/e-list_housekeeping.htm Check the experimental blog: [26]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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------