Berkley Earth Project - urgent rebuttal needed from resident climate science experts

[BlasterBates]

New paper published in a reputable journal (International journal of modern Physics). Conclusions are that temperature increases are natural:

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/upl...ow_natural.pdf

This paper examines the UHI effect,and they conclude it's real, i.e. urbanisation exaggerates the warming trend. The global warming and it's rate of increase is within the natural variation of global temps.

[EternalOptimist]

It's not YOUR planet

[BlasterBates]

It's being picked apart on Judith Curry's website, if you're really interested.

Anyone can post a comment on Judith Curry's website.

You could post any old garbage on her blog as a comment, and then come on here and say it's being picked apart on her website.


and presumably this scientific paper is what you would classify as

latest piece of tabloid/blog denier BS

I think those following the debate will come to their own conclusions as to whether this was just propoganda.

[ThomasSoerensen]

It's not YOUR planet

And it will be fine. Even if a few destrucive species are eliminated.

[BlasterBates]

Fair point. However Professor Richard Tol is now not so much picking the paper apart as demolishing it in an invited guest post.

Interesting, still a blog post, he's not published that has he?

Are you aware of the problems on data quality in the BEST project:

BEST Data “Quality” « Climate Audit

Those values are way off, goes to show that there is still a hell of a lot of work to be done before we can really trust the accuracy of the land temps.

[EternalOptimist]

Interesting, still a blog post, he's not published that has he?

Are you aware of the problems on data quality in the BEST project:

BEST Data “Quality” « Climate Audit

Those values are way off, goes to show that there is still a hell of a lot of work to be done before we can really trust the accuracy of the land temps.

why the interest in the land temps anyway ?
Most of the air is over water, and we should be measuring the water instead anyway.

If you want to know how much heat is in your bathroom, you measure the water temp in the bath

[BlasterBates]

Fair point. However Professor Richard Tol is now not so much picking the paper apart as demolishing it in an invited guest post.

Oh dear good ol' Richard gets a right drubbing on Judith Curry's website

Ludecke et al. respond | Climate Etc.

Looks like he made some absurd allegations, and that he didn't really understand what they'd done.

Rather pathetic rebuttal all in all.

[pjclarke]

Did you miss Tol's response to the response Whatever. I love a good fight, me. My prediction is that Tol or a.n. other will submit a comment to the journal laying out the flaws in the work. Meanwhile I liked this pithy comment:-

The rise since 1975 is more clear, but no so much stronger that such trends would be rare in random time series. This superficial observation alone can tell that it’s impossible to conclude from that data alone, whether there’s any real linear or nonlinear trend in that temperature history. It’s absolutely non-surprising that a purely statistical model gives the result that the whole change can be due to some internal variability that hasn’t changed during that period ... The LL paper presents a statistical analysis that gives basically the result that I stated as obvious at the beginning of this comment, but it formulates the conclusion in a seriously misleading way. They find no proof on the role of the natural variability in the overall warming. The natural variability might equally well have gone in the opposite direction meaning that the AGW should be much stronger that generally thought. The paper is just a complex way of obtaining an intuitively obvious result combined with a seriously misleading way of drawing conclusions of these well known facts.

[Cliphead]

Is any of the solar science and data being taken into consideration by any party?

Am I correct in thinking that all previous global temperature changes throughout the planet's existence have been heavily influenced by changes in solar output and by secondary effect climate?

[EternalOptimist]

Is any of the solar science and data being taken into consideration by any party?

Am I correct in thinking that all previous global temperature changes throughout the planet's existence have been heavily influenced by changes in solar output and by secondary effect climate?

Yes. The sun has several intensity cycles, plus sunspots which can be erratic. In addition certain frequencies have differing effects on different particles or aerosols or layers.

There is even a strong theory that cosmic radiation has an effect

So, yes. It is definately being considered.