I expect any significance is due to the cherry picking of start and stop dates,methods used to crunch the numbers, and so on. From WUWT:
Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the “ClimateGate” affair.
Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not significant – a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change.
To be fair, when Prof. Jones last commented on the subject he did say that the temp rise was just barely not significant. The warm 2010 bumped it up just enough to become significant. If 2011 is cold enough to bump it back down again, will he make another remark on the subject?
I expect he was the subject of a few choice remarks by people from the warm side of things, due to his making that previous statement. If things do down again then he might decide to just clam up. Probably a wise decision for a man in his position.
Links to the O’Rly? remarks by the commenters on the WUWT post:
- Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science – takes issue with the meaning of the analysis
- Statistical Significance since 1995? Not with HadCrut! Lucia, at the Blackboard, says, “I don’t know what Phil Jones did nor do I know what data he used or what method he used. But if I claimed statistical significance for tests I do without accounting for serial autocorrelation or using a one sided test, people would scream bloody murder or patiently explain that I am daft.”
- Bishop Hill remarks: Jones: post 1995 warming “significant”
- Does a Global Temperature even exist?
- The Air Vent comments: Experts or little white lies?