cc: Bob Ward <Bob.Ward@rms.com>, "Kennedy, John" <john.kennedy@metoffice.gov.uk>,  chris.folland@metoffcie.gov.uk
date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 14:04:44 +0000
from: David Parker <david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk>
subject: Re: FW: Misleading, inaccurate, little or no evidence?
to: "Jones, Phil" <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>

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
