[ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
max at maxmore.com
Wed Feb 17 21:35:26 UTC 2010
>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:
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..
...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 More, Ph.D.
The Proactionary Project
Extropy Institute Founder
max at maxmore.com
More information about the extropy-chat