date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:07:00 -0000
from: "Bob Ward" <Bob.Ward@rms.com>
subject: RE: More nonsense on climate change
to: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>

   Dear Phil,



   Thanks for responding so comprehensively. I have plotted the data before, and as you
   observe, the trend is up but the result isn't statistically significant, which I think
   makes it open to attack. I think the problem is that NOAA made the following statement in
   its report on the 2006 data:



   "However, uncertainties in the global calculations due largely to gaps in data coverage
   make 2006 statistically indistinguishable from 2005 and several other recent warm years as
   shown by the error bars on the [1]global time series."



   I'm not sure how to argue against this point - it appears to imply that there is no
   statistically significant trend in the global temperature record over the past few years.



   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






     ______________________________________________________________________________________

   From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
   Sent: 20 December 2007 13:58
   To: Bob Ward
   Subject: Re: More nonsense on climate change

    Bob,
      Quickly re-reading this it sounds as though I'm getting at you.
    I'm not - just at the idiots who continue to spout this nonsense.
    It isn't an issue with climatologists. All understand. If I tried to
    publish this I would be told by my peers it was obvious and banal.
    I will try and hide it in a paper at some point. I could put it on the
    CRU web site.  I'll see how I feel after the Christmas Pud.
       I would have thought that this writer would have know better!
    I keep on seeing people saying this same stupid thing. I'm not
    adept enough (totally inept) with excel to do this now as no-one
    who knows how to is here.
      What you have to do is to take the numbers in column C (the years)
    and then those in D (the anomalies for each year), plot them
    and then work out the linear trend. The slope is upwards. I had someone
    do this in early 2006, and the trend was upwards then. It will be
    now. Trend won't be statistically significant, but the trend is up.
      This is a linear trend - least squares. This is how statisticians
    work out trends. They don't just look at the series.
       The simpler way is to just look at the data.  The warmest year is 1998
    with 0.526. All years since 2001 have been above 0.4. The only year before
    2001 that was above this level was 1998.
       So 2cnd to 8th warmest years are 2001-2007
    The reason 1998 was the warmest year was that it resulted from the
    largest El Nino event of the 20th century in 1997/8. We've not had anything
    resembling a major El Nino event since - they have all been minor.

    Using regression, it is possible to take the El Nino event into account
    (with a regression based on the Southern Oscillation Index). This
    accounts for about 0.15 deg C of 1998's warmth. Without that 1998
    would have been at about 0.38.
     There is a lot of variability from year-to-year in global temperatures
    - even more in ones like CET. No-one should expect each year to be
    warmer than the previous.
    The 2000s will be warmer than the 1990s though.  This is another way
    of pointing out what's wrong with their poor argument.
    The last comment about CET is wrong.  2007 will be among the top 10 warmest
    CET years - it will likely be 2cnd or 3rd.

    Cheers
    Phil

   At 12:32 20/12/2007, you wrote:

     Dear Phil,

     I was wondering whether you have seen the article by David Whitehouse in the latest
     edition of 'New Statesman'? [3]http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004

     It would be great if somebody could respond to the article. I would be happy to do so if
     somebody can supply me with the ammunition. Any thoughts?

     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

     [4]www.rms.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
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------



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.

