www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~rjsw/papers/Jonesetal-1998.pdf
HadCrut also shows no warming after 1998.
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
I believe that all reported net global warming since 1940 is due to data tampering and UHI.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Mission Accomplished
- Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- “pushing nature past its limits”
- Compassion For Terrorists
- Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Woke Grok
- Grok Explains Gender
- Humans Like Warmer Climates
- Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- Grok Explains The Effects Of CO2
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Red Hot Australia
- EPA : 17.5 Degrees Warming By 2050
- “Winter temperatures colder than last ice age
- Big Oil Saved The Whales
- Guardian 100% Inheritance Tax
- Kerry, Blinken, Hillary And Jefferson
- “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves”
- Combating Bad Weather With Green Energy
- Flooding Mar-a-Lago
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2020
- Colorless, Odorless CO2
Recent Comments
- Francis Barnett on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Disillusioned on Mission Accomplished
- conrad ziefle on Mission Accomplished
- conrad ziefle on Mission Accomplished
- Billyjack on Mission Accomplished
- conrad ziefle on Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- conrad ziefle on “pushing nature past its limits”
- conrad ziefle on Mission Accomplished
- John Francis on Mission Accomplished
- Mike on Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
The tampering keeps the money flowing, but plays havoc on the usefulness of their models.
Agreed.
Alarmists are brainless pawns in the global carbon tax push.
That was before Phil et al discovered how to read thermometers.
He sounds quite sane and almost sensible in this paper.
that just makes what followed all the inexplicable. How could a group of apparently rational people become so deluded?
Or perhaps I have already answered that when I talked about the internet revolution. Could the internet itself have changed their perception of this subject so that they started “seeing demons”?
The fundamental activists like Hansen were deluded by their false science and their individual success much earlier. The insanity must have slowly spread, through soft-headed and mis-educated academics being sucked into the deluded mindset one by one or in small groups, over the last two generations of scientists, until the political tyrants’ plans matured to the point of proclaiming the “consensus”, and the “end of debate”. Ultimately, the most responsibility falls on those “expert” scientists who were most sure about their false science for the longest time (that is, had the strongest consensus): the radiation transfer theorists (and all who simply threw away the Standard Atmosphere as a good model of the troposphere, even though there was Venus data from as early as 1979 that confirmed that stable atmosphere model very well, just as the 1991 data I used in my Venus/Earth comparison did).
“How could a group of apparently rational people become so deluded?”
Money is the usual reason – or rather, the threat of a lack of it.
Money is the reason that people always give, but I don’t think it’s the ultimate cause in this case.
And according to that graph, they are as certain of hemispheric mean temperature in 1000 AD as they are in the modern “measurements”. The cleanness of that graph–the closely-cropped variations from year to year (like a well-tended lawn), for over a thousand years (predating the very foundation of modern science, not to mention the technological inventions allowing accurate physical measurements, by about 600 years)–literally shouts out to me that it is a convenient fiction, calling for a belief in the tree-ring fairies, and other proxies they used. The best that any honest and competent scientist could make of that graph is that the global temperature (as indicated by these northern hemisphere temperatures) must be very stable, varying by no more than about 0.5 degree from the long-term mean, over the last 1,000 years. How you get from that to runaway global warming is just a matter of hysterical delusion and political tyranny–and there is only one way known, in the history of Man, to burn away such a mass delusion, at least for a time (before it starts to grow back, in a century or two, or three, under the right conditions of scientific neglect, economic class division, and human prejudice): war (leading to unification behind new religions/philosophies of “the shared human condition”).
There is no valid climate science and no competent climate scientists (TM).
No statistically significant warming for 1,000 years! I would say that is a pretty darn stable climate.
1998?!? – But that was before Phil suggested climate scientists; “….redefine what the peer-review literature is!” Post Phil’s redefinition era, all published temp graphs must appear like a hockey stick if one wants to make the team.
The Phil Jones graph ended in 1990, didn’t it? Seems dishonest to show a graph ending in 1990 and then showing one starting with the 1998 El Nino peak just below that. You should start the modern graph pre-1990, not 1998. This one from 1979:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:1979
Seems just as dishonest to show a graph starting in 1979, since that only shows the warming side of a cycle and might mislead the gullible. Since HadCrut — warts and all — has many more years of data, why not show it?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4nh
That’s a whole different story, isn’t it? And it’s not particularly scary, either.
Bob likely will not reply or acknowledge the clear point you made.
Thanks for the
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4nh
It is more honest than showing a graph up to 1990, and then a graph just below it starting at the 1998 El Nino peak. With your latest link above, we see all the warming, not just the “…Northern Hemisphere Warming [that] Occurred Before 1940.”
Earth to Bob. The 1998 date starts after “Jones 1998”.
Bob,
You must be thinking of Jones’ older anomaly data set that covers 1851-1990!!
Steven is using a later paleo paper.
Steven, do you have Jones’ data from his “An Updated Global Grid Point Surface Air Temperature Set: 1851-1990”???
If not we can get you a page by page scan.
The 1998 “peak” no longer exists in HadCrut 4 thanks in large part to adoption of Hansen’s Arctic data manipulation. Bob, you’re just spewing AGW talking points.
Back when he was honest.