February 23, 2010 1:06:52 PM CET
This Daily Mail article Wanda has linked to above is full of lies and distortions. The title of the article even is a distortion of what Jones actually said in an interview with the BBC.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm
Jones actually says that the globe has
nominally warmed since 1995, but it is difficult to establish the statistical significance of that warming given the short nature of the time-span (15 years.) It is very difficult to establish a statistically significant trend over a time interval as short as 15 years. Note also that the CRU record indicates slightly less warming than other global temperature estimates such as the GISS record.
The Mail article also confuses instrumental surface temperature data that Jones used to estimate the modern surface temperature trends with paleoclimate data used to estimate temperatures in past centuries. The article falsely claims that the former “has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph' ".
Finally, and most despicably, the article intentionally distorts comments that Jones made about the so-called “Medieval Warm Period”. What Jones actually says in the interview is.. “
There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia
For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
These statements are moreover fully consistent with the most recent IPCC report, and numerous peer-reviewed publications on this issue.
Moving on to the Guardian piece. This is a debate about the exact location of 18 of 49 Chinese weather stations were placed back in the 1980's and whether or not their results were influenced by their proximation to big cities. It's important to note that although Wang has a reputation for being sloppy at times, his work was investigated by his employees and found to be sound.
But here's a paragraph from the article that puts the alleged controversy into it's proper perspective.
Now Wanda for all her faults is not a stupid woman, so she will have known enough about this subject to realize she was posting nonsense. These kinds of deliberate distortions are very common in the links and diatribes that Wanda and Lissa post here. So I’m hoping that someone will take up the role of fact-checking their posts after I’m gone. Unless you are all OK with someone posting lies here – then just let her be.
It is important to keep this in perspective, however. This dramatic revision of the estimated impact of urbanisation on temperatures in China does not change the global picture of temperature trends. There is plenty of evidence of global warming, not least from oceans far from urban influences. A review of recent studies published online in December by David Parker of the Met Office concludes that, even allowing for Jones's new data, "global near-surface temperature trends have not been greatly affected by urban warming trends."