Global Warming backdown

[Keepitsimple]

Are you referring to Dr. Jones' comment ? Wasn't that for less than a 15 year timespan ?

No - it was for 15 years. Here's some of his answers to BBC's questions - word for word with a link to the interview. Tell me if you think there might be some room for valid scepticism - I've bolded some important points. He specifically says that he thinks the vast majority of scientists do not think that the "the debate is over" - and that's also his own personal opinion.

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

D - Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.

This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period.

E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

G - There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?

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.

Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.

H - If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?

The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing - see my answer to your question D.

N - When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?

It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.

Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

Edited March 12, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

Perhaps if the models can predict the next 15 years.......they didn't do so well for the last 15 - no statistically significant warming.

standard Simple desperation, standard Simple misunderstanding, standard Simple misinformation

you're presuming to equate a comment related to temperature trending to... model prediction? Huh! Why don't you elaborate on this. Notwithstanding your utter complete confusion over modeling vs trending, you, once again, collectively group models together without distinguishing the myriad of different model types and purpose. You never, never go beyond your most generic collective grouping and state which model(s) you're referring to.

you're targeting the single temperature dataset, HadCRUT... where a statement was offered about statistical significance:

- you purposely ignore that other temperature datasets have shown statistically significant warming over that same 15 year period.

- you purposely ignore that 15 years is a cherry-picked short-term interval for climate analysis (typically 20-30 years are used).

- you purposely ignore that the HadCRUT dataset does not include station data representation from the polar regions... the areas showing the most warming; accordingly, the HadCRUT dataset has traditionally been the dataset (of all others) to show the least warming of all temperature record datasets.

- you purposely ignore that the HadCRUT dataset shows statistical significance for anything greater than 15 years...again, it was a crafted question by "skeptics" submitted to the BBC for the Jones interview... since the HadCRUT results are published monthly (are in the public domain) the "skeptics" were intending to either catch Jones "in a lie" saying there was statistical significance, or to have him acknowledge it over their purposely cherry-picked period of time. Desperation... that you simply parrot, Simple ton.

- and... as I challenged you Simple ton, the first 2 months of 2010 are showing record and near record temperatures (January and February, respectively)... what will you say at the end of 2010, when we roll over your purposely designed short-term 15 year interval period and move the 15 year interval from 1995-2009 to 1996-2010. What will you say at the end of this new 15 year interval period... when even the HadCRUT dataset will now show statistical warming. Or... do you still presume to say 2010 temperatures will show the "cooling" you keep beaking off about... but never cite anything to support your cooling meme?

[waldo]

.....but this time, it HAS to be the hand of humans because we can't explain it any other way. Yep, forget about those cosmic rays and sunspots - or anything to do with the sun - they've been ruled out. Those pesky PDO's? - very minor influence. CO2 residence time - forget it - we know exactly how long CO2 stays in the atmosphere. And don't pay any attention to all those missing thermometers in Northern Canada and Russia. It's all covered - and there's a consensus you know. There simply is no reason to be sceptical anymore. It's settled.

cosmic rays? Sunspots? Solar variance? PDO's? CO2 residence time? You would presume that legitimate scientific challenge on these levels has not been met by legitimate scientific response to the challenges? Why can't you accept that legitimate skeptical challenges can actually be countered by the prevailing science? More pointedly - why must you dig into any and every skeptical nuance to presume to counter the overwhelming consensus? The simple fact that you don't have a single favoured skeptical point... maybe even limited to a couple of skeptical points... clearly shows that you, on some bizarre "principled" level, won't/can't accept that mankind is causing climate change to the levels shown. Your grab bag of skeptical go-to's is so diverse, so all encompassing, you truly don't differentiate... it's simply a grab-bag for you - one to deny the overwhelming consensus.

however, one of your grab-bag items is worthy of special attention. 'Missing thermometers'! Ya see - you truly can't separate yourself from Anthony Watts. Really, Simple... spend a few minutes and it won't take you long to realize that the 'missing thermometers' issue is one of the most hotly debated topics at the moment - no less than 5 different groups have completely demolished the foundations of Watts' claims concerning the reliability of the temperature record and so-called "lost" station number/data.

simply no reason to be sceptical anymore? Of course not - why do keep trotting this out... the real problem you have is that none of the skeptical challenges to the overwhelming prevailing scientific consensus, can shake that consensus... can break that consensus.

I do believe you have a few questions you're purposely ignoring:

That's the position of the IPCC - they can't account for it so it

HAS

to be anthropogenic in nature. There's no real proof - just a lack of knowledfge of anything else at this time. But I give you a tiny bit of credit - at least you are

starting

to take a position. What if, as Phil Jones says, the MWP could have been as warm as today (or even warmer)? Doesn't that put a serious fly in the ointment because CO2 was at pre-industrial levels?

ah yes... the ole "by default" denier canard! If only for consistency, let's continue to point out for you that science doesn't deal in proofs.

as for your junkyard-dog act over my stated position, what you might now presume to tag as 'a start'... would seem to suggest you've not given proper consideration to anything I previously written - and I am seriously perturbed that you've been ignoring me up to now

about that IPCC position you proclaim as 'default'... the one that is by no means default:

- would you care to state whether or not you accept that the current CO2 level is ~388 ppm?

- would you also state whether or not you accept that radioactive and chemical composition analysis of today's CO2 level has attributed it to the burning of fossil fuels (with relatively minor considerations toward cement production and deforestation)?

- would you also state whether or not you accept the scientific principles that tell us the increase in global temperature is consistent with what we should expect when the levels of CO2 (and other GHG's in the atmosphere) increase in the way that they have?

- would you also state whether or not you accept that polar ice gas extractions show that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere today, are 35% greater than they have been for at least the last 650,000 years?

- with particular reference to a 1979 start period, care to comment on the following visual depicting the atmospheric CO2 level rise; a depiction that ends with expansion near the video end to include ice core measurements back to the 19th Century:

[waldo]

Well, to be fair, it was written as a white paper abstract for like minded folk. But my point in posting it meets yours....these guys need to hire a PR firm, not Al Gore. Admitting that their models have many limitations for integrations, feedback, resolution, time, etc. would only hurt their case.

there are no shortages of information tailored for the 'layperson'... for the varying degrees of layperson. Pulling out an abstract has nothing to do with the real issue of controlling the message - controlling the medium. Your targeting Gore is simply a standard hackneyed response that doesn't say anything other than you're prone to hackneyed response... but we knew that anyways - didn't we?

the way to speak to the layperson about climate models isn't to, obviously, deal with the underlying principles - some of which were highlighted in the abstract you somehow thought was relevant(?). The real value of models... translated to the layperson... is to inform on the empirical evidence that supports the models, regardless of your purposeful backhanded slap against them.

[Keepitsimple]

Waldo - I'll grant you one attribute - you are persistent. While for some reason you will not state your position, it's plainly obvious that you feel there is no room for scepticism or debate - that every meaningful component of Climate Change has been identified and there is absolutely no doubt that humans are the major driver behind what is projected to be catastrophic Global Warming. Here's what Phil Jones stated - and contrary to what you claim, the questions in the BBC interview were quite clear and Dr. Jones was free to answer them in any way he thought appropriate:

N - When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?

It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.

[waldo]

Waldo - I'll grant you one attribute - you are persistent. While for some reason you will not state your position, it's plainly obvious that you feel there is no room for scepticism or debate - that every meaningful component of Climate Change has been identified and there is absolutely no doubt that humans are the major driver behind what is projected to be catastrophic Global Warming.

you have very selective recall on what's been stated in the past. Science is predicated upon skepticism... how many times does one need to highlight that point. As I said, "Why can't you accept that legitimate skeptical challenges can actually be countered by the prevailing science?"

no one states the "science is settled"; however, at this point in time the theory of AGW climate change is accepted... that part is settled... by the overwhelming scientific consensus. Your denying self simply can't/won't accept it. As I stated, it really makes no difference to you on what basis you don't accept it - you'll simply pull out your nuanced catch-all grab bag of denier talking points that are so diverse and scattered... diverse and scattered to the point drawing from them as a totality of denier rationale simply highlights the underlying desperation of your rationale - of your agenda.

[wyly]

so I read Canada has just come through it's warmest and driest winter ever recorded, how is 2009 looking for average global temp waldo?

[Keepitsimple]

you have very selective recall on what's been stated in the past. Science is predicated upon skepticism... how many times does one need to highlight that point. As I said, "Why can't you accept that legitimate skeptical challenges can actually be countered by the prevailing science?"

no one states the "science is settled"; however, at this point in time the theory of AGW climate change is accepted... that part is settled... by the overwhelming scientific consensus. Your denying self simply can't/won't accept it. As I stated, it really makes no difference to you on what basis you don't accept it - you'll simply pull out your nuanced catch-all grab bag of denier talking points that are so diverse and scattered... diverse and scattered to the point drawing from them as a totality of denier rationale simply highlights the underlying desperation of your rationale - of your agenda.

So...."no one states the "science is settled"......did I hear you right Waldo - or are you having a senior moment? Suzuki, the Sierra Club, the Pembina Institute, Elizabeth May, David McGuinty - none of them has said "the science is settled"? And are you now admitting that the science is not settled? This is precisely why I've been hounding you - asking you to take a position. Is this now your position - that the science is not settled?

Putting your flabbergasting comments to the side, I will say it again. Climate Change is real and humans - through the burning of fossil fuels and the resulting expulsion of CO2 into the atmosphere are contributing to Climate Change. I have no problem with that theory. I have only one problem - I am sceptical that Anthropogenic CO2 affects Climate Change in a major way and therefore, I am sceptical of humans having a major impact on Climate Change one way or the other through the burning of fossil fuels. It's simple - I am not a "denier" - I accept the theory, without reservation. I just do not at this time accept the degree to which this theory affects Global temperatures.

Can you show me a survey of many thousands of scientists where an overwhelming number (your term) clearly state that humans are the principle driver of Climate Change?

[waldo]

so I read Canada has just come through it's warmest and driest winter ever recorded, how is 2009 looking for average global temp waldo?

well - Simple claims it's cooling! ... but that's just Simple, being Simple

- from the NASA 2009 summary:

The past year, 2009, tied as the second warmest year in the 130 years of global instrumental temperature records (Figure 2a), in the GISS surface temperature analysis. The Southern Hemisphere set a record as the warmest year for that half of the world (Figure 2b).

Global mean temperature was 0.57°C (1.0°F) warmer than the climatologic average (the mean for the 1951‐1980 base period). Southern Hemisphere mean temperature was 0.49°C (0.88°F) warmer than the mean for the base period.

- from the NOAA "State of the Climate Global Analysis Annual 2009"

he years 2001 through 2008 each rank among the ten warmest years of the 130-year (1880-2009) record and 2009 was no exception. The global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.56°C (1.01°F) above the 20th century average, tying with 2006 as the fifth warmest since records began in 1880. Globally averaged land temperature was 0.77°C (1.39°F) above average, resulting in a tie with 2003 as the seventh warmest on record. The ocean temperature was 0.48°C (0.86°F) above average—tying with 2002 and 2004 as the fourth warmest since records began in 1880. The 2000s decade (2000-2009) is the warmest on record for the globe, with a surface global temperature of 0.54°C (0.96°F) above the long-term (20th century) average. This shattered the 1990s value of 0.36°C (0.65°F).

- from the NOAA average annual global temperature summary => for 1880-2009

From 1900 through 2009 the globally averaged surface temperature rose by approximately 0.7° C (1.3°F). The rate of temperature increase has risen as well. For the last 50 years, global temperature rose at an average rate of about 0.13°C (around one-quarter degree Fahrenheit) per decade-almost twice as fast as the 0.07°C per decade increase observed over the previous half-century. In the next 20 years, scientists project that global average temperature will rise by around 0.2°C (about one-third of a degree Fahrenheit) per decade.

[waldo]

Climate Change is real and humans - through the burning of fossil fuels and the resulting expulsion of CO2 into the atmosphere are contributing to Climate Change. I have no problem with that theory. I have only one problem - I am sceptical that Anthropogenic CO2 affects Climate Change in a major way and therefore, I am sceptical of humans having a major impact on Climate Change one way or the other through the burning of fossil fuels. It's simple - I am not a "denier" - I accept the theory, without reservation. I just do not at this time accept the degree to which this theory affects Global temperatures.

bullshit! You most certainly do not accept it... the fact you just trotted out your grab-bag of denier talking points showcases your real position. None of those denier talking points in your denier grab-bag are challenging the "degree" of AGW climate change... they're outright challenging the theory itself. When you parrot those denier talking points, you assume their intent, you accept their target.

but let's play - if it's only the impact "degree" you're questioning... why? Is it, uhhh... 20% too impacting for you to accept? Uhhh... 35% too impacting? Uhhh... 75% too impacting? What's your criteria for "degree" acceptance?

[waldo]

you have very selective recall on what's been stated in the past. Science is predicated upon skepticism... how many times does one need to highlight that point. As I said, "Why can't you accept that legitimate skeptical challenges can actually be countered by the prevailing science?"

no one states the "science is settled"; however, at this point in time the theory of AGW climate change is accepted... that part is settled... by the overwhelming scientific consensus. Your denying self simply can't/won't accept it. As I stated, it really makes no difference to you on what basis you don't accept it - you'll simply pull out your nuanced catch-all grab bag of denier talking points that are so diverse and scattered... diverse and scattered to the point drawing from them as a totality of denier rationale simply highlights the underlying desperation of your rationale - of your agenda.

So...."no one states the "science is settled"......did I hear you right Waldo - or are you having a senior moment? Suzuki, the Sierra Club, the Pembina Institute, Elizabeth May, David McGuinty - none of them has said "the science is settled"? And are you now admitting that the science is not settled? This is precisely why I've been hounding you - asking you to take a position. Is this now your position - that the science is not settled?

regarding your designations toward, "Suzuki, the Sierra Club, the Pembina Institute, Elizabeth May, David McGuinty", you'll need to present their statements for evaluation... in proper context.

those intent on playing off "the science is settled" meme, typically, fail to delineate between science always being subject to challenge, and failing to acknowledge aspects of existing scientific debate that are settled - settled, based on the current scientific knowledge. I believe I've been consistent in my statements concerning where skepticism fits within science (essentially it's a cornerstone of science).

[Michael Hardner]

No - it was for 15 years. Here's some of his answers to BBC's questions - word for word with a link to the interview. Tell me if you think there might be some room for valid scepticism - I've bolded some important points. He specifically says that he thinks the vast majority of scientists do not think that the "the debate is over" - and that's also his own personal opinion.

Yes, there's definitely room - always room for it. He himself appears to be open minded about aspects of AGW theory.

The debate is not over, nor will it ever be. The debate may change, but it will continue. Will it ever go from "We think humans are causing warming" to the opposite, though ? Perhaps, but at this point there's enough evidence and consensus for us to start discussing adaptation versus prevention or what have you, assuming that there is political will to move forward.

[Keepitsimple]

bullshit! You most certainly do not accept it... the fact you just trotted out your grab-bag of denier talking points showcases your real position. None of those denier talking points in your denier grab-bag are challenging the "degree" of AGW climate change... they're outright challenging the theory itself. When you parrot those denier talking points, you assume their intent, you accept their target.

but let's play - if it's only the impact "degree" you're questioning... why? Is it, uhhh... 20% too impacting for you to accept? Uhhh... 35% too impacting? Uhhh... 75% too impacting? What's your criteria for "degree" acceptance?

Yes, I accept it - and my position is crystal clear - unlike yours which is now quite muddy. Just because I have scepticism with regards to "Urban Heat Island adjustments" and "missing thermometers" and "CO2 residency time" and PDO influences does not mean that I refuse to accept the theory that CO2 is a heat-trapping GHG that can have an impact on Climate Change. It just means that I've seen too many Climate System variables that are not yet fully understood and I believe that as we learn more, the idea that CO2 is a major driver of catastrophic Climate Change will steadily lose support. Oh.....and I have no criteria for a "degree" of acceptance.....if I did, I would be claiming to understand all the elements of Climate Change that I know are lacking a fullness of knowledge. But if you asked me to guess, I'd say humans are impacting Climate Change by maybe 10%.....but heck, I'm just a Simple guy.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[bloodyminded]

But if you asked me to guess, I'd say humans are impacting Climate Change by maybe 10%.....but heck, I'm just a Simple guy.

Oh, good lord. After all your criticism, all your scattershot attacks...this is what you come up with?

Wholly concocted, out of thin air, a sheer, uneducated guess?

[waldo]

Yes, I accept it - and my position is crystal clear - unlike yours which is now quite muddy. Just because I have scepticism with regards to "missing thermometers" and "CO2 residency time" and PDO influences does not mean that I refuse to accept the theory that CO2 is a heat-trapping GHG that can have an impact on Climate Change. It just means that I've seen too many Climate System variables that are not yet fully understood and I believe that as we learn more, the idea that CO2 as a major driver of catastrophic Climate Change will steadily lose support.

but you're ignoring the salient point asked of you... if you proclaim to accept the theory of AGW, qualified to your stated questioning of the "degree" of impact, what's that "degree qualification" predicated upon? Are you accepting it to a 20% level, a 35% level, a 75% level... or what? How do presume to measure your qualified so-called skepticism (which is really denial, nudge, nudge, wink, wink) against the existing AGW theory? Thanks for highlighting CO2 - perhaps you could measure your "degree qualification" of, as you state, "the idea that CO2 as a major driver of catastrophic Climate Change", against the following questions you continue to ignore?

about that IPCC position you proclaim as 'default'... the one that is by no means default:

- would you care to state whether or not you accept that the current CO2 level is ~388 ppm?

- would you also state whether or not you accept that radioactive and chemical composition analysis of today's CO2 level has attributed it to the burning of fossil fuels (with relatively minor considerations toward cement production and deforestation)?

- would you also state whether or not you accept the scientific principles that tell us the increase in global temperature is consistent with what we should expect when the levels of CO2 (and other GHG's in the atmosphere) increase in the way that they have?

- would you also state whether or not you accept that polar ice gas extractions show that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere today, are 35% greater than they have been for at least the last 650,000 years?

- with particular reference to a 1979 start period, care to comment on the following visual depicting the atmospheric CO2 level rise; a depiction that ends with expansion near the video end to include ice core measurements back to the 19th Century:

on edit: missed your edit that qualifies your acceptance of the theory of AGW climate change to a 10% level. However, it is noted no supporting details were provided to substantiate the qualified degree acceptance

Edited March 12, 2010 by waldo

[bloodyminded]

How come the "sceptics" don't feel drawn to people whose primary interest is scientific scepticism, and who aren't affiliated with EITHER side of this debate?

Like, for example, Sceptic Magazine?

http://www.skeptic.com/

Oh wait...I read a little bit of it...and now I see why it would be avoided.

Wrong narrative. Debunking the cc sceptics, and whatnot.

[Moonlight Graham]

To answer your question directly: Yes, understanding of how these things work can always get better, and the general population can and probably will buy into the models more as time goes on.

I doubt they will even be able to get accurate models this century, let alone right now. There are just too many variables. It's similar as to why meteorologist can only get the weather accurate to within 2-3 days at best. Once you get to a certain point the models all just start the break down because of the insanely complex variables.

[Bonam]

I doubt they will even be able to get accurate models this century, let alone right now. There are just too many variables. It's similar as to why meteorologist can only get the weather accurate to within 2-3 days at best. Once you get to a certain point the models all just start the break down because of the insanely complex variables.

This is incorrect. Long term global climate is much easier to model and predict than short term local weather. This is because weather is a chaotic phenomenon, with sensitive dependence on initial conditions. Even the slightest error in the data that you put into a model of the weather will grow exponentially, and after a few days the results will be hopelessly far away from what you can expect in reality. Meanwhile, global average temperature is an equilibrium phenomenon, with slow change over the course of decades or centuries as that equilibrium drifts due to changing parameters in the system. Errors in initial conditions that are fed into these actually get damped out over time, rather than growing. Hence why it is possible to make predictions and models that span centuries or millenia when it comes to the Earth's temperature, whereas weather can only be predicted on very short timescales.

[Keepitsimple]

missed your edit that qualifies your acceptance of the theory of AGW climate change to a 10% level. However, it is noted no supporting details were provided to substantiate the qualified degree acceptance

There are no supporting details - just a hunch - a guess. Maybe when all the variables become clearer I'll take another stab at it. But at least you've admitted that no one things the science is settled and I guess the debate is not over. There are many studies and papers to support those components of Climate Science that is mostly settled. But obviously, there are few studies on those components that are NOT settled....because not enough is known. That's why Phil Jones said what he did:

It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.

I would go much further though - there is much that we do not know - period. We don't even know whay we don't know.

Edited March 13, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

but you're ignoring the salient point asked of you... if you proclaim to accept the theory of AGW, qualified to your stated questioning of the "degree" of impact, what's that "degree qualification" predicated upon? Are you accepting it to a 20% level, a 35% level, a 75% level... or what? How do presume to measure your qualified so-called skepticism (which is really denial, nudge, nudge, wink, wink) against the existing AGW theory?

on edit: missed your edit that qualifies your acceptance of the theory of AGW climate change to a 10% level. However, it is noted no supporting details were provided to substantiate the qualified degree acceptance

There are no supporting details - just a hunch - a guess. Maybe when all the variables become clearer I'll take another stab at it. But at least you've admitted that no one things the science is settled and I guess the debate is not over. There are many studies and papers to support those components of Climate Science that is mostly settled. But obviously, there are few studies on those components that are NOT settled....because not enough is known. That's why Phil Jones said what he did:

It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.

I would go much further though - there is much that we do not know - period. We don't even know whay we don't know.

yes, we truly hit a milestone moment here. After months(?) of your bombastic foot-stomping pronouncements that you have a qualified acceptance that mankind has had an effect on climate change... we finally get you to measure that qualification... to a 10% acceptance level, one based entirely on your "hunch", your "guess" - your swag! Apparently, your personal measuring stick distinguishes your self-assigned skeptic labeling from an outright denier assignment by a 10% factor. Yes, clearly, my assessment has been wrong all along - how could I ever have labeled you as "DD" (denying your denial)

now, since you (and Shady) seem to want to hold up Phil Jones' BBC interview as some grand pronouncement against the IPCC, against the theory of AGW, against the degree of warming, against the certainty, against the consensus... you'll also need to accept this Q/A (that does speak to his answer that you've just quoted - and would presume to improperly assess).

Question - BBC interviewer: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

Answer - Phil Jones: I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

so... let's also 'go along' with Phil Jones' deferment to IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change

It is

extremely unlikely (<5% probability)

that the global pattern of warming during the past half century can be explained without external forcing, and very unlikely that it is due to known natural external causes alone.

Greenhouse gas forcing has

very likely (>90% probability)

caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years. This conclusion takes into account observational and forcing uncertainty, and the possibility that the response to solar forcing could be underestimated by climate models. It is also robust to the use of different climate models, different methods for estimating the responses to external forcing and variations in the analysis technique.

[Keepitsimple]

so I read Canada has just come through it's warmest and driest winter ever recorded, how is 2009 looking for average global temp waldo?

If I'm going to trust any land-based temperatures, I'll trust Environment Canada. I must admit, I was surprised at how mild our winter was when you consider all the snowstroms and cold weather they had in the US. People are having trouble believing these "Global Average Temperatures" when they constantly read of such cold weather all around the world. I've posted this before - much to Waldo's chagrin.....but just to keep things in perspecive for our part of the woods:

Since 1948, ranked in terms of warmest:

2000 - 11th warmest

2001 - 4

2002 - 19

2003 - 8

2004 - 33

2005 - 6

2006 - 2

2007 - 13

2008 - 17

2009 - 14

Link: http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/ccrm/bulletin/annual08/Ntable_e.html?region=n&table=temperature&season=Annual&date=2008&rows=61

Edited March 14, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Michael Hardner]

I doubt they will even be able to get accurate models this century, let alone right now. There are just too many variables. It's similar as to why meteorologist can only get the weather accurate to within 2-3 days at best. Once you get to a certain point the models all just start the break down because of the insanely complex variables.

The models don't have to be as accurate as weather forecasts, though. You're only predicting average temperatures, and even then there's allowed variance.

[Michael Hardner]

Since 1948, ranked in terms of warmest:

2000 - 11th warmest

2001 - 4

2002 - 19

2003 - 8

2004 - 33

2005 - 6

2006 - 2

2007 - 13

2008 - 17

2009 - 14

Link: http://www.msc-smc.e...te=2008&rows=61

Interesting. If I were to pick a year at random from the 62 in the sample, it would be expected to be 31st warmest. There's only 1 year here that's below 31.

But, I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the data, nor where is comes from. (Also, I do hesitate to delve into the science - we all should hesitate.)

[waldo]

I've posted this before - much to Waldo's chagrin.....but just to keep things in perspecive for our part of the woods:

Since 1948, ranked in terms of warmest:

2000 - 11th warmest

2001 - 4

2002 - 19

2003 - 8

2004 - 33

2005 - 6

2006 - 2

2007 - 13

2008 - 17

2009 - 14

Link: http://www.msc-smc.e...te=2008&rows=61

chagrin? Simple, I relish that repeated post of yours... the one you presumed to trot out inferring "global cooling"... the one that, yes, did show you had an affinity for Environment Canada... the one where I reinforced your misunderstandings by presenting you with Environment Canada's own trending data - here:

again, Simple... what was it you wanted to say?

[Keepitsimple]

Interesting. If I were to pick a year at random from the 62 in the sample, it would be expected to be 31st warmest. There's only 1 year here that's below 31.

But, I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the data, nor where is comes from. (Also, I do hesitate to delve into the science - we all should hesitate.)

Firstly, picking at random ignores the fact that the world has been warming by one degree per century since the Little Ice Age ended in the late nineteenth century. So we've gone up and down, up and down....but always upward.....now we've evened out and according to scientists, might encounter slight cooling for a couple of decades. The point being is that recent years SHOULD be among the warmest because of the natural trend of moving ever upwards. Lets not get into the consensus argument that recent warming is accellerated....the fact is that it's been going up for over a century so the warmest years will for the most part, be relatively recent years.

My previous link has been corrected - it's from Environment Canada. Wyly and Waldo have reported that 2010 was Canada's warmest winter and that 2009 was Globally, the warmest year ever in the Southern Hemisphere and the second warmest in the Northerm Hemisphere. Canada's a big country - so is the US. One can't help be sceptical of Global land-based temperatures because of all the issues that have surfaced - the huge "drop out" of weather stations in 1990, urban heat islands, poorly sited stations, and most aof all "adjustments" and "homogenization" - computerized estimates that are plugged into global "cells" to fill in the huge gaps.

The purpose of re-posting Canada's ranking of the last 10 years is to at least give some sanity to what's going on right here in Canada - using a measuring process that I would hope is less encumbered and less potentially biased than these "Global Average Temperatures".

I'll add another decade to Canada's temperature history just to see if it opens some eyes with regards to accellerated warming since 1970:

Canada - since 1948, ranked in terms of warmest:

1990 - 42nd warmest

1991 - 24

1992 - 48

1993 - 23

1994 - 25

1995 - 18

1996 - 39

1995 - 18

1996 - 39

1997 - 21

1998 - 1

1999 - 5

2000 - 11

2001 - 4

2002 - 19

2003 - 8

2004 - 33

2005 - 6

2006 - 2

2007 - 13

2008 - 17

2009 - 14

Link: http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/ccrm/bulletin/annual08/Ntable_e.html?region=n&table=temperature&season=Annual&date=2008&rows=61

Edited March 14, 2010 by Keepitsimple