[ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled

[Max More]

Emlyn:

>I haven't read the whole thing in detail, but 
>one early piece stuck out like a sore thumb, 
>which is the old saw that there is no 
>significant warming since 1998. That's just flat 
>out wrong, and it's wrong because 1998 itself 
>stuck out like a sore thumb; it was a 
>statistical anomaly, which anyone who wasn't 
>being entirely disingenuous would agree with.
>
>Here's a discussion of that issue, along with 
>graphs showing the 1998 sore thumb:
>
>http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998.php

The source you cite (which is almost four years 
old now), seems to rely for the recent period 
exclusively on NASA GISS analysis. (References to 
CRU data are for other periods. I didn't see any comparison with UAH or RSS.)

In contrast, the following piece..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/08/3-of-4-global-metrics-show-nearly-flat-temperature-anomaly-in-the-last-decade/

...compares that analysis to three other sources 
and notes "NASA GISS land-ocean anomaly data 
showing a ten year trend of 0.151°C, which is 
about 5 times larger than the largest of the 
three metrics above, which is UAH at 0.028°C /ten years. "

Is there a good reason to rely completely on the 
source that seems out of alignment with the 
others? (I'm going to look at the two contrasting 
sources more closely when I have more time.)

I'm not clear whether any or all of the four 
sources count as showing "statistically 
significant warming" (though RSS obviously does 
not, since it shows a very slight decline), but 
they do at least show warming greatly below IPCC trend.

To be clear: Whether or not warming since 1995 or 
1998 has stopped or considerably slowed down is 
of little importance. The orthodoxy and the 
skeptics can agree that one decade is too short 
to show anything significant about long-term 
trends. It does, however, raise additional doubts 
about AGW models. I haven't seen a good 
explanation of why the models completely fail to 
account for this -- and previous multi-decade, 
industrial-age pauses in warming, if CO2 really is the main driver.

Not only is the one-decade/12-year record of 
little importance, I still have not seen adequate 
reason to maintain my doubts about the claim that 
century-long warming is definitely and entirely 
due to human activity rather than to a natural 
cyclical recovery from a cold period.

But, obviously, that must be because I'm either 
stupid, evil, or probably both. ;-)

Max



-------------------------------------
Max More, Ph.D.
Strategic Philosopher
The Proactionary Project
Extropy Institute Founder
www.maxmore.com
max at maxmore.com
-------------------------------------